244 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

Absolutely. Keep it versatile and balanced, BioWare.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

A story that has very clear heroic themes and imagery, plentiful promises of choices that matter, and a (supposedly) very competent and powerful protagonist.

As much as I want to go the heroism alley, I'm not

Just because you wanna play heroic doesn't excuse you from making a choice that can penalize you or come back to bite you in the butt 

Occansionally, maybe. But it sure as hell shouldn't be the norm throughout the game if choices matter. And the narrative certainly shouldn't mock you for it.

So "choices matter" should always mean it was a good choice? Because that's wrong

And how would the narrative mock you if the choice you made comes back to bite you?

[Wulfram]

I'm not really sure if truly stupid choices such that they are worthy of being mocked for are worth including in the game.  I'd rather they skipped that and focused on having two sensible options, given limited resources. Maybe occasionally you might let the player bring up a non-standard game over if they really heavily commit to something suicidal.

I do think games could be a bit less determined to show both choices as the right one - let both of them be willing to play up the negative consequences or lost opportunities inherent in it, let characters express their disagreement. But that's not to say that the choices should be shown to be bad.

Modifié par Wulfram, 28 août 2013 - 12:59 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Maria Caliban wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

They did that with Hawke. All it did was make me hate her for being such a failure of a champion.

Seriously, who wants to play a loser who sucks at everything?

The majority of time Hawke fails, there is no choice involved. Do you support the mages and want to help their rebellion? You can't, the mages decide you're against them the moment you show up. Do you want to search for the serial killer? You can't, so your mother dies. Do you want to try to find a peaceful solution? No matter what you do, Anders blows up the chantry.

We'd have to actually be given a choice for some of those choices to be less than optimal.

She chooses to do something and fails regardless though, mostly due to plot stupidity. Or she just stands around like a muppet.

[mupp3tz]

I could support it in situation where the player opts for an item/money/etc. (something clearly advantageous vs. the good of the people) or picking the more noble decision when all signs point to a troublemaker getting out of hand again. Basically, when the player decides to be greedy or is too moral.

[David7204]

'Choices mattering' should mean the consequences of the choice generally match the intent of the player when they make them.

The narrative would mock the player likely by having friendly characters mock the player character. Insult the Inquisitor as foolish and whatnot.

Modifié par David7204, 28 août 2013 - 01:00 .

[Taleroth]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Do you remember the quest in DA 2 with the nobleman's son? He thought he was possessed and he went around killing elves. Prior to going in to confront him, a guard tells you that if you let him live, his father will make sure he's freed again. 

But if you let him live, we never hear of the son after that.

Do you think it would be appropriate if Hawke later came upon a guard standing beside the body of the dead elf, and the guard mentioned they were searching for the nobleman's son again?

I think it would be appropriate if you came upon a guard standing beside the body of the dead elf, then were given a quest to find him again and stop him this time. And just so you don't overdesign the quest, this second time, no quarter is allowed.

Similarly, I think for those who killed the son, the nobleman could start spreading false rumors against the player character. Perhaps the player gets framed. Or maybe just some people believe the son was truly innocent and the player is a murderer. This too could lead to a new quest stage.

Both are opportunities for new content. Instead of punishing a player, you should provide opportunities. And I believe that content between choices should be "generally" equal.

Modifié par Taleroth, 28 août 2013 - 01:02 .

[cjones91]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

I could support it in situation where the player opts for an item/money/etc. (something clearly advantageous vs. the good of the people) or picking the more noble decision when all signs point to a troublemaker getting out of hand again. Basically, when the player decides to be greedy or is too moral.

Those are the types of choices I would love to see.

[Volus Warlord]

David7204 wrote...

'Choices mattering' should mean the consequences of the choice generally match the intent of the player when they make them.
 

Does the game read minds now? 

How do you know one's motives?

[David7204]

I don't want choices where 'good' is equated with stupid.

[dreamgazer]

Volus Warlord wrote...

David7204 wrote...

'Choices mattering' should mean the consequences of the choice generally match the intent of the player when they make them.
 

Does the game read minds now? 

How do you know one's motives?

Better with Kinect.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

The narrative would mock the player likely by having friendly characters mock the player character. Insult the Inquisitor as foolish and whatnot.

ok and?

[KiwiQuiche]

David7204 wrote...

I don't want choices where 'good' is equated with stupid.

It's a rare thing when I agree with David.

[David7204]

Volus Warlord wrote...

David7204 wrote...

'Choices mattering' should mean the consequences of the choice generally match the intent of the player when they make them.
 

Does the game read minds now? 

How do you know one's motives?

You can make reasonable guesses.

For example, when a player chooses to try and save a village, it's probably because they don't want the village to be slaughtered or whatever. 'Good' motives are easy. Save as many people as you can. Be compassionate, be honorable, be friendly.

'Evil' motives are more difficult. Often because there is no legitimate motive.

Modifié par David7204, 28 août 2013 - 01:06 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

David7204 wrote...

'Choices mattering' should mean the consequences of the choice generally match the intent of the player when they make them.
 

Does the game read minds now? 

How do you know one's motives?

You can make reasonable guesses.

For example, when a player chooses to try and save a village, it's probably because they don't want the village to be slaughtered or whatever. 'Good' motives are easy. Save as many people as you can. Be compassionate, be honorable, be friendly.

'Evil' motives are more difficult.

But what if that village turned out to be full of demons later after you saved it

[David7204]

Then it wouldn't be a meaningful choice. And in this case, it would probably make the protagonist look incredibly stupid.

[Bionuts]

David7204 wrote...

A competent and successful hero is not 'power fantasy.'

Letting a murderer go is not being a competent hero.

[KiwiQuiche]

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

David7204 wrote...

'Choices mattering' should mean the consequences of the choice generally match the intent of the player when they make them.
 

Does the game read minds now? 

How do you know one's motives?

You can make reasonable guesses.

For example, when a player chooses to try and save a village, it's probably because they don't want the village to be slaughtered or whatever. 'Good' motives are easy. Save as many people as you can. Be compassionate, be honorable, be friendly.

'Evil' motives are more difficult.

But what if that village turned out to be full of demons later after you saved it

Randomly? Or is there foreshadowing?

[Volus Warlord]

David7204 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

David7204 wrote...

'Choices mattering' should mean the consequences of the choice generally match the intent of the player when they make them.
 

Does the game read minds now? 

How do you know one's motives?

You can make reasonable guesses.

For example, when a player chooses to try and save a village, it's probably because they don't want the village to be slaughtered or whatever. 'Good' motives are easy. Save as many people as you can. Be compassionate, be honorable, be friendly.

'Evil' motives are more difficult.

Who says I do good things out of goodwill?

I may do good things to boost my personal reputation.

I may do good things because I fear the consequences the personal consequences of negligence or evil.

I may do good things because of my personal code, and care more for my honor than about those I save.

I may do good things to earn favors from others, and I view the "good" as a means to an end. 

I may do good things because they are the most convenient thing to do.


No one said you had to be "good" to do "good."

Modifié par Volus Warlord, 28 août 2013 - 01:11 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Only "evil" choices should be mocked. Because heroism.

[David7204]

That depends on a lot of circumstances. But in general, yes, that's true. BioWare should avoid setting up such an action as 'good.' Thankfully, I don't know of a circumstance of such a thing happening.

[spirosz]

Volus Warlord wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

David7204 wrote...

'Choices mattering' should mean the consequences of the choice generally match the intent of the player when they make them.
 

Does the game read minds now? 

How do you know one's motives?

You can make reasonable guesses.

For example, when a player chooses to try and save a village, it's probably because they don't want the village to be slaughtered or whatever. 'Good' motives are easy. Save as many people as you can. Be compassionate, be honorable, be friendly.

'Evil' motives are more difficult.

Who says I do good things out of goodwill?

I may do good things to boost my personal reputation.

I may do good things because I fear the consequences the personal consequences of negligence or evil.

I may do good things because of my personal code, and care more for my honor than about those I save.

I may do good things to earn favors from others, and I view the "good" as a means to an end. 

I may do good things because they are the most convenient thing to do.


No one said you had to be "good" to do "good."

What is this?  Choices?  Be reasonable now, doing a good thing is because you're to do good, trolololol. 

[AresKeith]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

David7204 wrote...

'Choices mattering' should mean the consequences of the choice generally match the intent of the player when they make them.
 

Does the game read minds now? 

How do you know one's motives?

You can make reasonable guesses.

For example, when a player chooses to try and save a village, it's probably because they don't want the village to be slaughtered or whatever. 'Good' motives are easy. Save as many people as you can. Be compassionate, be honorable, be friendly.

'Evil' motives are more difficult.

But what if that village turned out to be full of demons later after you saved it

Randomly? Or is there foreshadowing?

Just a random example of not every choice you think is 'good' will be 'good'

Or it could actually be foreshadowing, who knows lol 

[The Don's Hound]

CrustyBot wrote...

Only "evil" choices should be mocked. Because heroism.

Truly the whitest of knights.