338 réponses à ce sujet

[Tinxa]

Er, just how exactly is Bioware supposed to stop people from using the internet???

[David7204]

This is a video game.

Not a chore. Not an exam. Not work.

A game. A mass produced product specifically designed to be beatable by a very ride range of people, including fairly unintelligent people and people who aren't that good at video games.

The idea that a better story can be 'earned' in a game is a fallacy.

Modifié par David7204, 31 août 2013 - 11:43 .

[TeamLexana]

Late I know, but I agree that worrying someone might look up a "how to" guide is not only a bad way to approach how a game should end but is also, frankly, a bit creepy and weird that you feel the need to dictate how they play their game, because honestly, it's none of your business.

[Cimeas]

I'm not trying to dictate how people play the game, simply saying that choices in the relatively harsh, supposedly cruel world of Dragon Age should be between the lesser of two evils, not between a) people die people live.

[Medhia Nox]

What will enrage me to no end - is if they decide to REMOVE choices - because people will look online and "write" their character.

Let people do that! If they want to dictate an outcome instead of roleplaying it - let them!

But please Bioware - give me a lot of outcomes and choices - and let me roleplay and don't railroad events to produce specific outcomes because someone will decide to read up on it and pick the "Best" choice.

[Fast Jimmy]

My feelings? They should be able to get a happy ending situation if they work really hard.

However... IT SHOULD COST SOMETHING. May you use an agent to perform a task, meaning they can't perform another task to save the day for another choice. Or maybe it requires you investing in ballista for one keep, which wins the day today, but tomorrow causes losses because you didn't invest in fortified walls in another keep. Or bringing a companion along for this quest saves the day, but requires you also do something that lowers their approval - think of bringing Allistair along during the Redcliffe mission lets you save Isolde and Connor, but by doing something that Allistair disagrees with, costing you Approval.

Getting rainbows and sunshine in every possible outcome with no cost at all - to either the player, the group or the Inquisition - is, to me, a real gap in Bioware quest designs. I don't think forced failure and loss in every instance is good... but I think you should have to CHOOSE which areas you want to make that decision. Happiness for some, failure for others.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 août 2013 - 11:48 .

[Rawgrim]

simfamSP wrote...

Guides are for losers! Real l33t roleplayers live with their ****-ups.

Quite right.

[Maria Caliban]

Cimeas wrote...

I'm not trying to dictate how people play the game, simply saying that choices in the relatively harsh, supposedly cruel world of Dragon Age should be between the lesser of two evils, not between a) people die people live.

Thedas is a dark heroic setting. Sometimes heroes win and they win big.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

However... IT SHOULD COST SOMETHING.

It costs you the time, effort, and intelligence needed to get the gold metal.

The game is not going to say 'You saved them both! ...but we're now going to kill your dog because this game is dark and edgy.'

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 31 août 2013 - 11:52 .

[crimzontearz]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

I'm not trying to dictate how people play the game, simply saying that choices in the relatively harsh, supposedly cruel world of Dragon Age should be between the lesser of two evils, not between a) people die people live.

Thedas is a dark heroic setting. Sometimes heroes win and they win big.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

However... IT SHOULD COST SOMETHING.

It costs you the time, effort, and intelligence needed to get the gold metal.

The game is not going to say 'You saved them both! ...but we're now going to kill your dog because this game is dark and edgy.'

how I missed you maria

[Wulfram]

I don't really like having one perfect ending that requires completionism/following some obscure path that requires a guide. Particularly since often completionism makes rather little sense in the context of the story - the bad guy apparently just waits for you to stop dilly-dallying.

Happy endings are very fine and good, but if there is one I'd like there to be multiple ones.

Modifié par Wulfram, 01 septembre 2013 - 12:05 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Fast Jimmy: Did your DM "tell" you the outcomes of the choices you were making?

[crimzontearz]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't really like having one perfect ending that requires completionism/following some obscure path that requires a guide. Particularly since often completionism makes rather little sense in the context of the story - the bad guy apparently just waits for you to stop dilly-dallying.

Happy endings are very fine and good, but if there is one I'd like there to be multiple ones.

there is a trope about it....

[Jonathan Seagull]

Cimeas, I can somewhat agree with the more general idea of not presenting one solution that is obviously better than all others. But the key to that is presentation. In the DAI example (protect the village or the keep?), we have no idea whether saving both is explicitly presented as an option or if it's just something that is potentially doable under certain circumstances. If the choices were presented as "Save the village?/Save the keep?/->SAVE BOTH<-" then I would agree. But I don't think the writers should simply always avoid the ability to be totally successful, just because people might use a guide to figure out how to do so.

Which brings me to my second point. I object to your (paraphrased) stance that "if you care about the characters, you'll use Google to save them." Garrus was one of my original Shepard's best buds, but I let his collector base death stand. There are a couple of times in DA where I've metagamed to avoid undesirable results that I was aware of, and I honestly feel like I did a bit of a disservice to my character. I know not everyone plays like that, but please don't suggest that using guides somehow means a player cares more.

Modifié par Jonathan Seagull, 01 septembre 2013 - 02:43 .

[Medhia Nox]

@crimzontearz: There's a trope about everything.. the entire concept of tropes is so inane.

[crimzontearz]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@crimzontearz: There's a trope about everything.. the entire concept of tropes is so inane.

yeah but this one is a commonly recurring one

[In Exile]

Maria Caliban wrote...
The game is not going to say 'You saved them both! ...but we're now going to kill your dog because this game is dark and edgy.'

Silly Maria. They're not going to tell you the game is dark and edgy. You'll just know when your protagonist gets to sit down with a pancake and it turns out to be made from the sweet blood of innocent children. With syrup! 

[In Exile]

scyphozoa wrote...
By removing objectively optimal scenarios, the player is forced to think harder, to dig really deep into the character they are roleplaying and define that character's morality and identity. This provides both emotional and thought provoking roleplaying opportunities, of which I hope to see many in DAI.

But by only having binary, equally crap choices, the whole setting loses credibility. Not every choice ends optimally, but you're not always choosing between freeing a serial killer and a serial rapist. 

[Zack_Nero]

While I do see the problem with that, I do think that it is a really good goal to have. Maybe during my first playthrough I would make a mistake that would cause someone their lives. But I really do want to work at saving everyone, and if BioWare makes it really challenging to do that, then am okay with it.

[OdanUrr]

In Exile wrote...

With syrup! 

Hint: It's not syrup.

[DooomCookie]

I'm not a fan of the 'third option' either. Amaranthine or Vigil's Keep. The best you can get is that Vigil's Keep is still standing thanks to the upgrades you get, if you choose to save Amaranthine. Likewise, kill a child or blood magic-ify the mother (and get to negotiate with a desire demon, if you're a mage. I really liked that touch.) The lyrium option really really annoyed me. Particularly since the mage's tower was the one you wanted to do first anyway.

[Wulfram]

In Exile wrote...

But by only having binary, equally crap choices, the whole setting loses credibility. Not every choice ends optimally, but you're not always choosing between freeing a serial killer and a serial rapist. 

Just because choices are fairly balanced, doesn't mean they have to be bad.  They could both be positive but in better ways.

Though I do think we could do with having some occasions where the "bad guy" choice is motivated by simple self interest or malice.  Rather than feeling the need to stick in some excuse of how it's for the greater good so it's "renegade" rather than evil.

[Zack_Nero]

DooomCookie wrote...

I'm not a fan of the 'third option' either. Amaranthine or Vigil's Keep. The best you can get is that Vigil's Keep is still standing thanks to the upgrades you get, if you choose to save Amaranthine. Likewise, kill a child or blood magic-ify the mother (and get to negotiate with a desire demon, if you're a mage. I really liked that touch.) The lyrium option really really annoyed me. Particularly since the mage's tower was the one you wanted to do first anyway.

Yea, if you ask me the way that the Redcliff mission should of been handled was if you choose to get the lyrium and the circle's help, the demon should of regainned control and possibly killed somebody else, like teagan or some of the villagers.  Just to feel a bigger weight if possible.

[Jamie9]

Wulfram wrote...
Just because choices are fairly balanced, doesn't mean they have to be bad.  They could both be positive but in better ways.

Though I do think we could do with having some occasions where the "bad guy" choice is motivated by simple self interest or malice.  Rather than feeling the need to stick in some excuse of how it's for the greater good so it's "renegade" rather than evil.

Yep, variation is key.

Some dilemmas should have a third, harder to pull off, but better option. Other times, choose between two bad situations, a rock and a hard place. Then have situations where you're choosing between two boons for your character/Inquisition.

What OP is getting at is that there are too many of the first type. Too many "third option is best option" scenarios. Though I'd say Origins actually had more of those than DA2.

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...
Just because choices are fairly balanced, doesn't mean they have to be bad.  They could both be positive but in better ways.

Oh, I agree. But the context of the conversation seemed to be cracksack worlds and choices. And I think you need sweet to balance the bitter.

TW1, IMO, has one of the most powerful moments in gaming as a result with the questline to cure the werewolf, which gives you one of the few (if not the only) purely heroic and sweet moment in the game, and it's just such a powerful pay off because of how dark and dready the world often is for Geralt.