310 réponses à ce sujet

[Stella-Arc]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Stella-Arc wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes. What's the problem with a hero earning an outcome with no downsides?

Because it, essentially, says other choices were wrong. 

Take Tali's side over Legion's, despite having the persuasion option, because Legion illegally hacked into her files? Well, guess what - you've now doomed either the Geth or the Quarians to extinction. 

I'm sorry, but that's f-ing ridiculous. 

Fast Jimmy, you do know that even if you make both Legion and Tali stand down, you can still fail to get the peace option? And if you didn't, you can still get the peace option? 

To get the Peace option you need to meet certain requirements:

1. You need AT LEAST 5 points by the time you reach the decision. These points depends on whether or not you imported from ME 2. Here are the breakdown for the points in ME 2 that you can get:

-Did you re-wrote the Heretics? If you did, 0 points.
-Did you destroy the Heretics? 2 points.
-Was Tali exiled (or didn't do her mission)? 0 points.
-Was Tali NOT exiled? 2 points.
-Did you broker peace between Tali and Legion? 1 point.

ME 3 you can get up to 2 points but even if you did, you need to have completed Legions Rannoch mission, if not then the option won't even appear. You also need FOUR FULL REPUTATION BARS filled up to even have a chance of getting the Peace option. Oh, and Tali and Legion MUST both be alive. 

So...no. Making Tali and Legion play nice doesn't give you the peace option. 

I did know that, but you could have easily not done Legion's side quest due to the Collector's invading the Normandy and you going after them the first chance you get. Or you could have re-written the heretics, thinking it was better to save them rather than to competely eradicate them. Or you could have not done the side quest to save the Quarian commander. 

Point being, very random, highly unrelated events allow that option to unlock. Granted, many people had made those decisions during the course of ME2 and ME3, but it was less of a choice and more of a "Get Out of Jail Free card" that most anyone who had it available took advantage of. Which was, in my opinion, less of a choice and more of an auto-win situation.

Except you WOULDN'T have known about these requirements. I was so surprised that so many of my friends couldn't broker peace between the Quarians and the Geth while I did. They asked me how I did it and all I could tell them was "I just played how I wanted to play". It wasn't until one of them got the Prima guide that we finally found out. We didn't know there were any requirements such as having 5 points, four full bars of reputation, completeling certain quests or making sure that Tali and Legion are both alive. What you are saying is "metagaming" because now you see these "requirements" as points instead of consequences. Because you have prior knowledge, it is very easy to say that. 

Saving the herectics by rewashing them is actually the bad option while destroying them is the best option. It makes sense that Tali has to be found inncocent to convince the quarian people. After all, she is an admiral and would have more of a pull then say, an exile. Saving Koris gives you another ally that helps you push for peace and having gain Legions full trust by saving the geth prime solidify's your chances. And fnally, you must have Tali and Legion both alive to even get a CHANCE. All these requiremtents makes sense when you take the time to understand the situation. In reality, it is very difficult to achieve peace. But since people already know about the requirements, it makes it easier to get it and declare it a "get of of jail free card". That, in of itself, does NOT mean it is. Blame the Prima guide if you must.

I got the peace becuase I just played the damn game not becuase I had some prior knowledge that allowed me to "cheat". 

Modifié par Stella-Arc, 22 août 2013 - 01:02 .

[David7204]

I have no problems with a challenge. I have no problems with 'third options' being unlocked by a reasonable minigame, although I would much prefer such a minigame not be based on twitchy reflexes. I have no problems with it being earned through skill points or something like that.

What I don't want is people demanding that heroism must be 'earned' through frustration or tedium. That's not good design. Or demanding that heroism cannot exist at all and any outcome without horrible consequences must be stripped. 

Modifié par David7204, 22 août 2013 - 01:05 .

[Blackrising]

Sometimes I think the people here on the BSN simply don't like happiness.

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

You seem to be contradicting yourself, Jimmy. Earlier you were arguing to me extensively that options should have vastly different outcomes, with 'smart' choices leading to the best ones. And now it sounds like you're saying such choices are 'magic.'

I did no such thing. 

Choice should have different worth to different people. 

I don't know how to properly explain this to you with ME examples, which is all you know. The DA:O examples are much better at this.

I suppose, ironically, romance options may be the best demonstrable example. People rage and rant about their prefered LI, even to the point of defending it to others vehmently, how their LI is the BEST LI and that other LI options are not nearly as good. But they are all the same. Sure, some LI's may get preferential treatment in terms of screentime and follow up, but there is no romance that is "the best" character. It is a choice the player can make and there are simply outcomes, none inherently better or worse than the other.

THAT'S how story options should be put forward. Something that has positives and negatives, something that some may like a lot more than others. People still argue to this day when Bhelen/Harrowmont gets brought up. There are still discussions about the Anvil and if it was worth saving or better to destroy. 

No one argues that not going to the Circle is the best way to end Redcliffe. It's undeniable, unless you are looking to ignore metagame knowledge or play a character that just wants to sacrifice someone. If I chose to kill the Rachni because I believed they were a large threat, I find out that they are a large threat - because the Reapers seize them and repurpose them to kill - but then I'm punished by the evil Rachni queen rebeling covertly in the EMS screen, causing damage. Or, of course, just killing her and walking away with nothing but the blood of two Rachni queens on my hands.

THAT'S the difference. A choice with an easy out, or a railroaded situation where the player has no choice, neither of those are good choices. And a choice that goes out of its way to paint a prior choice that was made for the right reasons as undeniably wrong with no benefits is smacking the player's hand and saying "Ha! Fooled ya! You thought you were doing something for the good of everyone."

YOU were the one just talking about how the player shouldn't feel punished or burdened. If someone put a lot of thought into something, made a hard decision and then is given nothing but negative outcomes, how is that fun? 

[David7204]

You claimed earlier on that 'stupid' and 'pointless' choices should be heavily penalized. And now you're telling me that all choices must basically be equal?

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Being evil for the lolz never hurt you in ME. It is only when you were given a choice and renegade was presented as an actual smart decision was the player punished. That's idiotic.

So let me get this straight. It's 'idiotic' to punish certain choices, because they clearly aren't at all equal and some are inherently better. But all choices are basically equal and no choice is inherently better. Is that what you're saying?

And no, I never once claimed that players shouldn't be punished. Quite the exact opposite

Modifié par David7204, 22 août 2013 - 01:14 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

I have no problems with a challenge. I have no problems with 'third options' being unlocked by a reasonable minigame, although I would much prefer such a minigame not be based on twitchy reflexes. I have no problems with it being earned through skill points or something like that.

What I don't want is people demanding that heroism must be 'earned' through frustration or tedium. That's not good design. Or demanding that heroism cannot exist at all and any outcome without horrible consequences must be stripped. 

You seriously need to play DAO

[Fast Jimmy]

Stella-Arc wrote...

Except you WOULDN'T have known about these requirements. I was so surprised that so many of my friends couldn't broker peace between the Quarians and the Geth while I did. They asked me how I did it and all I could tell them was "I just played how I wanted to play". It wasn't until one of them got the Prima guide that we finally found out. We didn't know there were any requirements such as having 5 points, four full bars of reputation, completeling certain quests or making sure that Tali and Legion are both alive. What you are saying is "metagaming" because now you see these "requirements" as points instead of consequences. Because you have prior knowledge, it is very easy to say that. 

Saving the herectics by rewashing them is actually the bad option while destroying them is the best option. It makes sense that Tali has to be found inncocent to convince the quarian people. After all, she is an admiral and would have more of a pull then say, an exile. Saving Koris gives you another ally that helps you push for peace and having gain Legions full trust by saving the geth prime solidify's your chances. And fnally, you must have Tali and Legion both alive to even get a CHANCE. All these requiremtents makes sense when you take the time to understand the situation. In reality, it is very difficult to achieve peace. But since people already know about the requirements, it makes it easier to get it and declare it a "get of of jail free card". That, in of itself, does NOT mean it is. Blame the Prima guide if you must.

I got the peace becuase I just played the damn game not becuase I had some prior knowledge that allowed me to "cheat". 

First off, I did as well. It required very little thought or effort, though. Just do every quest and always select the blue option. THAT'S the stupidity of the Mass Effect series. Once you figure this out, then the game becomes mindless - scan every planet, complete every quest and choose everything that's labeled blue that you can and you'll get the happiest outcomes. Except maybe the end, then you can choose a different color.

But your post here demonstrates the problem - these aren't choices. They are outcomes that come about from playing a certain manner. While that has some value... it's not a choice. Shephard isn't looking at the fate of two races and making a choice... he's got a backstage pass to talk sense into everyone. That's not a choice. That's a "Get Out of Jail Free card."

If you view having genocide commited against one race or another as a form of jail, then it is undeniable that brokering the peace  through some random events in prior and current games is NOT such a card. It's the third option that can be explained in a Prima guide. Once that knowledge is known, how many people agonize about making sure Tali isn't exiled? Who struggles with making sure you solve the Tali/Legion fight with a persuasion check? Who thinks it might not be worth it to engage in all of the Rannoch side quests?

These aren't choices, they are chores. Extra steps that a player can learn to get the magic happy ending. That certain players stumbled into it by virtue of the way they play is irrelevant - the same thing can be said of the Connor choice. If I can look at a walktrhough to give me a happy ending, then it isn't a choice. It's an obstacle course.

I'd prefer the game give me a hard choice and then give me real outcomes, both positive and negative, to either of them. Not give the player a magic win button hidden somewhere in past gameplay, or railroad the player into one decision simply because they don't want me to metagame, or give two valid options and then come through and whitewash or blackball one of them to shake a finger at the player and say "you did it wrong." 

A choice. A hard choice. That's the best kind of story-telling a game can do - something to make you think about what you believe and how you would react.

[lady_v23]

simfamSP wrote...

It's something we've heard before, and it's something we've practised before. BioWare have made some really good moments were we're stuck staring at the screen for twenty minutes thinking "what do I do?" But then, there's always that one example that could have been one of the greyest areas in Dragon Age. Connor.

Some with extraordinary memories will have heard me **** about this before. But I have to stress this since what I'm hearing from DA:I is positive so far (no awesome buttons to be seen or heard from.) Connor's choice was one I was both relieved and frustrated at. On one hand, it gave players that extra choices, but on the other, there were no consequences, it was really just as easy as heading down to the shops to buy a can of Coke. No one died, and everyone lived happily ever after.

I mean, c'mon! It's Dragon Age, something has to go extinct, die or have a very funny exit; but nothing of the sort happened!

So, I apologise for my whining, but it's seriously something BioWare should avoid if one of DA's "things" is C&C. Even if it isn't major, at least something bad has to happen.

shh you!  Why does something bad has to happen?  There should be CHOICES with DIFERENT RESULTS.  So If I go the extra mile, when there was no need to.  I darn well expect something rewarding.  Not something slighly  less worse than the other horrible results. 

[Allan Schumacher]

I'd prefer the game give me a hard choice and then give me real outcomes, both positive and negative, to either of them. Not give the player a magic win button hidden somewhere in past gameplay

Could you disassociate this from consequences for me please. I have a feeling I am misunderstanding your point.

[David7204]

The player character being competent is not a magic win button. It's not a Get out of Jail Free card.

Competence validates the themes that have been promised. It's a very good thing, not a bad thing.

We've been implictly promised a powerful, competent character whose choices and ideals matter. Having a majority of your actions lead to bad outcomes no matter how powerful and competent the PC supposedly is and no matter how much your choices supposedly matter is a betrayal of that.

Modifié par David7204, 22 août 2013 - 01:24 .

[Rorschachinstein]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'd prefer the game give me a hard choice and then give me real outcomes, both positive and negative, to either of them. Not give the player a magic win button hidden somewhere in past gameplay

Could you disassociate this from consequences for me please. I have a feeling I am misunderstanding your point.

Maybe he means that you likely know the outcome or something similar to it beforehand, rather than being sucker punched so to speak.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

The player character being competent is not a magic win button. It's not a Get out of Jail Free card.

Competence validates the themes that have been promises. It's a very good thing, not a bad thing.

Please play DA:O before talking about DA...

[David7204]

For a choice to be meaningful, a player has to have a reasonable good idea of the consequences of that choice when they make it and the story needs to follow through.

Otherwise, it's just a dice roll.

[Zu Long]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

THAT'S how story options should be put forward. Something that has positives and negatives, something that some may like a lot more than others. People still argue to this day when Bhelen/Harrowmont gets brought up. There are still discussions about the Anvil and if it was worth saving or better to destroy.

Bhelen/Harrowmont to me is just another example of a railroaded situation. Bioware has left you with two bad options, and you have no real way of affecting the situation other than your choice between the two sides. Harrowmont is morally superior, not being a murderous thug, but also continues to support an abusive caste system. The non-existant third option is to support Harrowmont, but change his mind. Since Bioware artificially limits your choices, my response was to stop giving a crap about the whole Dwarven scenario. Victory has been stolen, there's no way of winning, so why should I care?

The Anvil is a better example, but doing that every time, as others have pointed out, wears down the impact. The Anvil is a case where it's less that there are no good options than there are two options which can both be morally correct depending on your point of view. My cannon character destroyed the Anvil and I very much felt like I "won" the encounter. A scenario where either of two choices can be considered winning is very different from a scenario where neither do.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

We've been implictly promised a powerful, competent character whose choices and ideals matter. Having a majority of your actions lead to bad outcomes no matter how powerful and competent the PC supposedly is and no matter how much your choices supposedly matter is a betrayal of that.

Please see Spec Ops: The Line as well.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

For a choice to be meaningful, a player has to have a reasonable good idea of the consequences of that choice when they make it and the story needs to follow through.

Otherwise, it's just a dice roll.

That's not true at all

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

You claimed earlier on that 'stupid' and 'pointless' choices should be heavily penalized. And now you're telling me that all choices must basically be equal?

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Being evil for the lolz never hurt you in ME. It is only when you were given a choice and renegade was presented as an actual smart decision was the player punished. That's idiotic.

So let me get this straight. It's 'idiotic' to punish certain choices, because they clearly aren't at all equal and some are inherently better. But all choices are basically equal and no choice is inherently better. Is that what you're saying?

No.

Having two choices and then having only ONE of those choices have anything negative tied to them at all, while the other choice is rainbows and sunshine IS moronic, idiotic, stupid and the simplest form of narrative attempt possible. It makes the request in the OP's thread, where two hard choices are given, but a third one which saves the day at no cost, seem like the Cordian Knot by comparison.

It is all the same issue - having one choice that results in extremely limited bad things/totally positive good things and another choice. It doesn't matter if that other choice is one, two, three, five or ten. The fact that one choice is sterling and grand nullifies the other options to the point of punishing the player for not picking the right one.

And no, I never once claimed that players shouldn't be punished. Quite the exact opposite

Yet the games must also give a message of Heroism, according to you? If being heroic and inspiring is the message of ME, then the other message must be that it is incredibly easy to be a hero, because life is labeled into easily categorized areas of right and wrong. There's no need to think or question your beliefs, because heroes are right and that's what life should be all about.

You aren't saying players can be punished. You are saying players can (and should) be punished for choosing the easiest road possible. 

Save the Council? Sure, saving three important people is no big deal... when you don't have to look into the faces of the soliders who you just sentenced to die, or their families who they will never come back home to.

Spare the Rachni? Sure, a species the galaxy hasn't missed a wink of sleep over in the past few centuries deserves a right to live... except for the fact that Earth, Palaven and Thessia burned to the ground, killing billions with the help of Ravager artilleries.

Cure the genophage? Sure, because a race of space grunts does a heck of a job against giant alien space robots and there's no possible way that with half the galaxy scorched and in ruins, that aliens who live hundreds of years, but can breed at rates ten times of other races will EVER possibly hurt the survival rate of the galaxy should they even survive the Reapers.

It may have been easy for you to just choose the Blue option (and apparently easy for Bioware to write the consequences of them), but life is never that easily cut and dry. Being a hero sometimes means making the hard decision and you never learn that lesson in ME because of its lopsidded attempt at dealing with C&C.

[AppealToReason]

I'd be okay with it as long as it isn't because "because" on why you're locked into 2 crappy options.

[Stella-Arc]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Stella-Arc wrote...

Jayne126 wrote...

Just take the third choice "everyone is happy" away. It nullifies the whole choice part.

No, it does not. It's basically a "reward" for the player if he met the requirements to get it. To get a "good option", there needs to be obstacles. If those obstacles were overcome, then the player earned that option. The only problem I had with the whole Connor quest is the fact the A) Connor is awake and if you didn't do the Circle quest before heading to Redcliffe then the option to "save everyone" should not be available since it would take too long to deal with. Those were the only things I had thought that were ridiculous. I believe that it would have been better if we had:

1. Wynne in the party so that she can probably make Connor go to sleep (for a TIME) and...
2. The Circle quest should have been completed before heading to Redcliffe (sided with the mages)

Redcliffe doesn't seem all that far away and they are located right next to Lake Calenhad. Maybe there could have been a quest to save/help a fishermen during the "Save Redcliffe" quest and if suceeded, he would lend you his boat so that you can get there on time. 

Only having "option a or option b" cheapens the whole experience. If you worked hard to achieve "option c", why should you be penalized for it? That is not to say that ALL quests should have an "option c". 

I don't think those are good choices. They are just reasons for people to complete the main quests in a certain order, giving the best possible outcome through metagaming.

Bhelen and Harrowmont is the best example of a tough choice. As is the Anvil. There's very strong reasons to go one way or the other. And there is no magic third option that makes everything hunky doory.

That's why the Orzammar seciton of DA:O is my favorite of possibly any Bioware game - it is gritty and there aren't too many clear cut answers. 

If you choose Harrowmont, bad things happen to people. Arguably, VERY bad things. If you pick Bhelen, he becomes a tyrant that seizes more and more power and acts with reckless abandon... but, at the same time, he makes life for the very worse off in Orzammar better and he expands dwarven culture to the surface. 

Is Harrowmont's brand of lesser bad, but maintaining a status quo better than Bhelen being a power-hungry maniac who actually winds up doing some good? THAT'S a debate. THAT'S a choice.

Would saving the Anvil, securing one of the only sure-fire ways to keep the dwarves from succumbing to the darkspawn and giving them unfettered access to the Surface, be worth the fact that many dwarven souls could be tied to the Anvil for all eternity? Is the eternal suffering of a few worth saving the lives of an entire race? THAT'S a debate. THAT'S a choice.

Saying "I'll make sure to get Wynne first so she can cast a magic spell to make things safe" or "let's save some fisherman to win the day" is not a choice. It is different venues to a happy ending. Which is fine, but the options of blood magic shouldn't even be offered in that case. Because they offer no value other than "evil for the lolz," because there are totally valid options that are being advertised as the "solution with no costs" alternative. And that devalues the choices themselves to the point where offering darker choices just seems cartoony and schtick.

I gave examples about the Connor quest because that is what most of the people were talking about on this thread. And no, it IS NOT metagaming. I decided, not knowing ANYTHING about the game, to do the Arl Eamon's quest last since it didn't interest me. By the time I got to it, I had already recruited the dalish, the dwarves, and the mages. It was quite simple by the time I reached it since all I had to do was go to the Tower (which I'm sure would only take a few hours since they are literally near the same lake (Redcliffe and the Tower) and ask Irving to help because I saved his ass and everyone else's, including the templars, so he owed me. Then BAM! I helped Connor. I did all this with no prior knowldedge. Are you going to accuse me of "metagaming" now? 

And I do agree that the Harrowmont vs Bhelen is the best example but....did you TRULY knew that Harrowmont was the "worse" option while playing the game for the first time? I didn't know until the end when I saw the slides. With the Anvil, yes, it is pretty damn obvious that saving the anvil could potentially save the race however, the cost is losing your soul (quite literally...poor sods). Is it worth sacrificing those you are trying to save? However, this isn't a good example to choose any way because there is no possibility of an "option c". For Connor's case, there is. The problem with the quest wasn't availability of "option c" but the lack of realistic "consequences". If we went to the tower, maybe more pople died, or the demon becomes more powerful or, you get the idea. Having the option to go to the tower wasn't the problem just that there wasn't some sort of obstacle (such as having done the tower first could save the lives on the town, or having Wynne to subdue the child until you get back, ect).

The fact is, I had to fight an ENTIRE tower full of blood mages, abominations, possessed templars, demons and survive the fade (and side with the mages) to even GET Wynne as a companion. I think I EARNED having her on my team. So having her there and cast a "spell" on Connor is a good way since I worked my ass off for her to BE THERE.

All this, WITHOUT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, is legitimate. You are the one who is "metagaming".

And Jowan isn't a bad person and using blood magic can bring up a DEBATE and is a CHOICE. It is worth sacrificing Isolde to save her son? Is it worth consorting with Demons despite it going against the very principles your character abides by (if she/he has any) or is it better to kill the son to save Redcliffe? Is blood magic even "evil"? While Merrill's whole quest was incredibly broken and made no sense, I understood the theme: Is it woth sacrificing everything you are, including your soul, if there is a chance to get back your history? With Connor, it depends on how you play. You can sacrifice Isolde or kill Connor. However, if there is a third option, wouldn't you take it? Wouldn't you take that RISK? 

[Steelcan]

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

For a choice to be meaningful, a player has to have a reasonable good idea of the consequences of that choice when they make it and the story needs to follow through.

Otherwise, it's just a dice roll.

That's not true at all

Sometimes you don't know what will happen.  A "dice roll" choice can be good or bad, sometimes chances have to be taken.

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

David7204, if you have never even played the DA games, how do you feel qualified to post on a thread about a specific choice within said games?

Boggles the mind.

[Steelcan]

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

David7204, if you have never even played the DA games, how do you feel qualified to post on a thread about a specific choice within said games?

Boggles the mind.

Didn't you know?  He knows everything about all storytelling.

Its all Heroism with healthy doses of characterization on Casual difficulty.

[dreamgazer]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

We've been implictly promised a powerful, competent character whose choices and ideals matter. Having a majority of your actions lead to bad outcomes no matter how powerful and competent the PC supposedly is and no matter how much your choices supposedly matter is a betrayal of that.

Please see Spec Ops: The Line as well.

(laughs)

Trying to fry the circuits of our resident heroism expert?

[AresKeith]

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

David7204, if you have never even played the DA games, how do you feel qualified to post on a thread about a specific choice within said games?

Boggles the mind.

Because he feels that games should be about heroism instead of RPing