338 réponses à ce sujet

[Savber100]

If you're going to meta-game, it's your fault not the developers.

[NUM13ER]

Savber100 wrote...
If you're going to meta-game, it's your fault not the developers.

This. Even when I saved every one of my squad, through doing every single mission and upgrade, I still lost Kelly in my first playthrough because I was unaware there was a limited amount of time to save her. 

I would later create a "perfect" playthrough born of the experience of mistakes. And for that matter bad playthroughs. Meta gaming is for cowards

Modifié par NUM13ER, 01 septembre 2013 - 02:44 .

[David7204]

Whatever challenges are in a game are challenges a reasonably intelligent and through player should be able to beat the first time through.

To that end, let's not go painting the average playing getting screwed over without meta-gaming as a good or desireable thing. 

Modifié par David7204, 01 septembre 2013 - 02:43 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

Whatever challenges are in a game are challenges a reasonably intelligent and through player should be able to beat the first time through.

To that end, let's not go the average playing getting screwed over without meta-gaming as a good or desireable thing. 

What's the point of having a challenge if you must beat it the first time?

[frostajulie]

Blackrising wrote...

And what's wrong with that?
I like happiness.

+1

[Dave of Canada]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

 There is a colossal problem in Bioware games.   It is that the 'choice' between an objectively bad ending, and an objectively good one isn't a choice at all. 

Yes it is. *Sometimes* one choice is better than the others.

At the very least, BioWare has a tendancy of making "good" choices the superior alternatives which is ridiculous considering how the "bad" choices are always done to try and mitigate the damage which good choices could cause.

David7204 wrote...

Whatever challenges are in a game are challenges a reasonably intelligent and through player should be able to beat the first time through. 

To that end, let's not go painting the average playing getting screwed over without meta-gaming as a good or desireable thing.  

Letting the Rachni go and then having them show up and invade, killing a companion you like is something anyone should see as a viable alternative.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 01 septembre 2013 - 02:47 .

[anjitaki]

Blackrising wrote...

And what's wrong with that?
I like happiness.

[TuringPoint]

Cimeas wrote...

 There is a colossal problem in Bioware games.   It is that the 'choice' between an objectively bad ending, and an objectively good one isn't a choice at all. 

I dont think objectively is used appropriately here.  

Objective means without bias.  How do you intend to prove yourself unbiased when you are so obviously very, very opinionated? 

If you want to be validated, proclaiming that your opinion is objective will surely get you what you want.  Right?  And what is that, exactly?

For something to have a bad ending, a subjective, qualitative judgement has to be made.  Many may share your opinion, but your opinion is not itself a fact because of that. Neither is it objective for having other supporters; fact and objectivity are not the same thing anyway.  Fiction and art exist as an expression of validated, but personal, and subjective experience.  Without that, there is no art.

Modifié par Alocormin, 01 septembre 2013 - 03:40 .

[Maria Caliban]

David7204 wrote...

Whatever challenges are in a game are challenges a reasonably intelligent and through player should be able to beat the first time through.

To that end, let's not go painting the average playing getting screwed over without meta-gaming as a good or desireable thing. 

I agree that being intelligent and thorough should be rewarded.

That said, that does not describe the average player. The average player didn't fully upgrade the Normandy, for example. The average player does not finish a game, and for those who do finish it, they leave the majority of side quests undone.

[In Exile]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Letting the Rachni go and then having them show up and invade, killing a companion you like is something anyone should see as a viable alternative.

This is what I mean - it's all about validation when it comes to a choice, generally by punching the other side in the genitals, because of how ridiculous the original choice is. 

[TuringPoint]

Now that I've fixated a bit on an underlying assumption which fundamentally makes no sense, here is my opinion.

To some degree, Bioware has weakened the experience of choice in how they handle consequences. It undermines, at times, the moral ambiguity they strive for.

I believe the Dragon Age world has done a better job in this area. You can be idealistic, but sometimes it really bites you in the rear. Sometimes it pays off. Sometimes you just do what you want or believe in, and it works or doesnt based on external circumstances. You couldnt do much of that as Shepard, honorary star of the universe. Its fascinating that you dig into ME2 first to make a point about a game that isnt released yet, in a very different franchise.

As an example, in Awakening you would have to really work to save all.  In certain key places, you couldnt. You had to make a tradeoff.  DA2 was admittedly more linear.  There is every indication DA:I will be more open-ended, but thats just a reasonable assumption, not objective opinion.

Modifié par Alocormin, 01 septembre 2013 - 03:56 .

[Arppis]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

 There is a colossal problem in Bioware games.   It is that the 'choice' between an objectively bad ending, and an objectively good one isn't a choice at all. 

Yes it is. *Sometimes* one choice is better than the others.

This.

Sometimes it is. Not always ofcourse.

Does this root from Renegade vs Paragon thing or something? Anyhows, speaking of Mass Effect, Kaidan vs Ashley. I thought that choice was pretty good. I  wish there was more like that thou in the Bioware games.

[Nerdage]

Going by the timer it seems that "the good choice" in this case isn't just the dialogue option though, it's being good enough at the game to save one objective in time to also rush over and save the other.

Personally, I hate when there are just two, equally distasteful options - it makes it so that I just don't care about either. That's alright for default options, but I think there should always be "better" alternatives born from either being skillful (like this timer) or shrewd (making preparations beforehand, knowingly or otherwise), otherwise it can feel like the game is just deliberately manufacturing grey (ugh) situations for greyness' sake, rather than making them feel natural and involved.

[In Exile]

Alocormin wrote...

As an example, in Awakening you would have to really work to save all.  In certain key places, you couldnt. You had to make a tradeoff.  DA2 was admittedly more linear.  There is every indication DA:I will be more open-ended, but thats just a reasonable assumption, not objective opinion.

DAI sounds like it makes the protagonist just needs to be really awesome at the game to be a hero. 

[Dabrikishaw]

Ultimashade wrote...

"Nobody should live because guides exist" is what I'm drawing from this. I don't care about the guides, so if the player spoils themselves then that's their problem. Why does it bother you?

/thread

[Zu Long]

nerdage wrote...

Going by the timer it seems that "the good choice" in this case isn't just the dialogue option though, it's being good enough at the game to save one objective in time to also rush over and save the other.

Personally, I hate when there are just two, equally distasteful options - it makes it so that I just don't care about either. That's alright for default options, but I think there should always be "better" alternatives born from either being skillful (like this timer) or shrewd (making preparations beforehand, knowingly or otherwise), otherwise it can feel like the game is just deliberately manufacturing grey (ugh) situations for greyness' sake, rather than making them feel natural and involved.

QFT. With you all the way here.

[mupp3tz]

Savber100 wrote...

If you're going to meta-game, it's your fault not the developers.

Exactly. If there's a game, there's a strategy guide. Hell, if you're curious about how to do anything, all you have to do is open up a few browser tabs. I don't really understand what else the developers can do aside from putting the variables in. There's nothing preventing you from doing a blind run of a game. It also doesn't affect you if someone wants to "ruin" their experience.

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 01 septembre 2013 - 04:32 .

[pdusen]

Cimeas wrote...

Remember Mass Effect 2?  Bioware wanted you to lose someone.  They wanted the ending to be 'bittersweet', rather than triumphant.  Even if you did all the loyalty missions, you might see Kelly die, or send the wrong person down the vents, or pick a wrong leader.   The reality though, was simple:  ANYONE who actually gave a **** about the franchise paused the game, opened their internet browser, and googled 'suicide mission guide', and got everyone out.    Perhaps they even spoiled some of the game in the process.

Actually, on my first playthrough, I managed to save everybody--including Kelly--completely on my own without looking up anything. That's just the way that I played the game. It never even occurred to me to try and look up the "correct" way to play.

Anyway, to quote Captain Kirk, I don't believe in a no-win scenario. The "choices" that we get in games like The Witcher 2 drive me crazy because you're usually choosing between screwing up one thing or screwing up a different thing; you really don't ever end up feeling like much of a hero. If Bioware's solution to that problem is to reward the player for paying extra attention and putting in extra effort by giving them a way to avoid screwing anything up too much, I think I'll take it.

Modifié par pdusen, 01 septembre 2013 - 04:48 .

[Dave of Canada]

In Exile wrote...

This is what I mean - it's all about validation when it comes to a choice, generally by punching the other side in the genitals, because of how ridiculous the original choice is. 

That's why I advocate for both sides to have their own consequences for nearly every "major" decision, they shouldn't be 1:1 all the time and some decisions should end up being better but in the end it should let both players feel satisfied that their decisions feel merited.

Hearing about how Krogan lived happily-ever-after if you cured the Genophage and hearing about them going extinct if you didn't was idiotic considering how much the second game forced Wrex's reforming on you (which was then ignored in ME3).

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 01 septembre 2013 - 05:14 .

[AlanC9]

pdusen wrote...

Actually, on my first playthrough, I managed to save everybody--including Kelly--completely on my own without looking up anything. That's just the way that I played the game. It never even occurred to me to try and look up the "correct" way to play.

Sure. The only non-obvious thing is knowing to wait before doing the IFF mission. Other than that it's pretty brain-dead.

Anyway, to quote Captain Kirk, I don't believe in a no-win scenario.

Doesn't he turn out to have been..... kinda wrong about that?

[AlanC9]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Hearing about how Krogan lived happily-ever-after if you cured the Genophage and hearing about them going extinct if you didn't was idiotic considering how much the second game forced Wrex's reforming on you (which was then ignored in ME3).

What if Wrex is dead?

[lady_v23]

...uh no.

[pdusen]

AlanC9 wrote...

Doesn't he turn out to have been..... kinda wrong about that?

Not at all. Just because he *didn't* win doesn't mean he *couldn't have* won.

[David7204]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Letting the Rachni go and then having them show up and invade, killing a companion you like is something anyone should see as a viable alternative.

No. The Rachni building themselves in two years and invading the galaxy is not a viable alternative at all. That would just be silly.

Not only that, having a companion die would be complete ridiculous since there's no foreshadowing of such consequences whatsoever. Having a character you meet on Noveria die would perhaps be a different matter.

Ideally, saving the Rachni would provide some sort of optional content in ME 3 that would help you if you completed it and hurt you if you ignored it, with completing the content leading to a significant advantage for players who saved the Rachni over players who killed them. Since Mass Effect has a general theme of unity, killing off a potential ally for the sake of killing them is not something that should be rewarded for a through player.

Modifié par David7204, 01 septembre 2013 - 06:00 .

[AppealToReason]

I don't mind it, if you have to work for it.

I liked how in ME3 I was able to save both the Quarians and Geth because of like 5/6 previous decisions.