338 réponses à ce sujet

[d-boy15]

Why I can't save everyone? It's a choice that provided for player, just need some balanced.

For example: In PAX demo, the village and the keep under attack. You either choose between
defend the keep or save the village. Why can't I just send our men to defend the keep while I
bring my party to defend the village?

The consequence: Village saved but some people get killed while the keep suffered from high
casualties and damage.

[Ieldra]

The OP isn't talking about "no win" scenarios, he's talking about "80% win" vs. "100% win scenarios" and claims the latter shouldn't exist because if they exist, they invalidate all other outcomes.

There is some truth to that, but I always think we are writing our own stories with these games. So the choice I make in any given situation is partly influenced by the questions "What kind of story do I want this to be, what kind of character am I playing this time?" Maybe one time I want to be the hero who saves the day for everyone, and then I'm glad the option for 100% win exists. Most of the time I don't, though, and then I may choose less optimal scenarios because it fits my story better.

In the end, I think both kinds of scenarios should exist in the games - those where you can save the day for everyone and those where some sacrifices are necessary. As for the outcome for the whole game, I think there should be no unmitigatedly perfect outcome. If there is no tangible downside, at least there should be some niggling doubt that there could be one hidden in one of the decisions you made. DAO's ending scenario worked on that principle, and it's generally regarded as very good.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 septembre 2013 - 07:06 .

[Thunderfox]

Lets look at the Velainasidequest in Origins ( can't quite remember her name, the Redcliffe blacksmith's daughter). The Warden could save her or not, causing her father to commit suicide, but you got a good bow out of the deal. So if there is some sort of material reward for choosing on outcome over saving both, then some players won't bother to perform the hassle.
Of course as others have said story plays into it as well.

Modifié par ThunderfoxF, 01 septembre 2013 - 07:19 .

[Fredward]

I just watched the gameplay video and I'm wondering what would have happened if whoever-was-playing HAD engaged the red templars? Would the soldiers have gone back to the keep to defend it and help it stand longer and you could go and kill all the bad guys on your own? Combine this with you upgrading the keep as much as possible and for instance choosing to focus on military power you'd get another shiny-happy ending. I... have mixed feelings about solutions like this. They're just so neat, yah know? And easy to get when you know what to look for.

Also where did those templars get all that red lyrium? Did they break Meredith?

[Petiertje]

Cimeas wrote...

... ...

Once again, unless you are roleplaying a moron (which I'd wager most people are not), you are ALWAYS going to want to save everyone and pick the best options.  Even if people die, surely you'd rather they die at your hands than be killed by someone (or something) else.  

In essence, you cannot say "choose between something that sucks, and the good ending", and expect players to settle for the bad one.  It just doesn't work.

No i'm not, i'm one of 'the most people'. And yes, I will try to save everyone most of  the time.
(Although I have had no problem whatsoever to kill anders, i only let him live in my current playthrough to find out what happend with him in DAI). But I am perfectly capable to go for a 'bad' ending, sometimes I like to screw everything and everyone up/over in a playthrough, it shows much more of the game than only the perfect hero side. So it does work IMO.
And about people dying without the players influence, that tend to happen when there is a conflict involving nasty weapons and magic right?

In the end, if a player chooses to go for a bad ending, than it's not a bad ending anymore, it's just what you wanted at the start of your game.

[Malsumis]

Filament wrote...

How dare you besmirch Mask of the Betrayer. I like that you get the best ending by recovering all the fragments of Akachi's soul. Get out of here.

What?

You get the best ending by devouring souls.

www.youtube.com/watch

The best games give satisfying endings. The best RPGs give multiple satisfying endings based on the choices the PC made over the journey.

[KiwiQuiche]

What is wrong with being able to save everyone, anyway? Bioware tried a fail-Hero via Hawke, and not a lot of people liked playing a loser for a champion.

[Vilegrim]

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. 

Example: ME2

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.

And so in the end, Bioware's attempt to add emotional salt to the game failed miserably, since any player who actually cared made damn sure they didn't lose a single person, and as such the ending was the triumph the developers wanted to avoid.

Example II:  NWN2

This isn't actually a Bioware game (it's by Obsidian) but it's got an especially ridiculous version of this problem. The game is about tough choices in a strange and cruel world, and as such has no default good ending, but of course, if you collect all three pieces of a mysterious mask that requires a method so obscure you would almost NEVER come across it without a guide, you get the perfect happy ending.  Once again, any sense of 'tough choices' destroyed.

--------------------

And so when I heard that instead of saving the town or the keep (or whatever it was), you can, "if you try really hard", save everyone, I rolled my eyes.   OF COURSE 95% of players (yes a made up statistic) will just google 'how to save everyone at keep dai" and follow the instructions- ruining your carefully constructed tragedy completely.

Once again, unless you are roleplaying a moron (which I'd wager most people are not), you are ALWAYS going to want to save everyone and pick the best options.  Even if people die, surely you'd rather they die at your hands than be killed by someone (or something) else.  

In essence, you cannot say "choose between something that sucks, and the good ending", and expect players to settle for the bad one.  It just doesn't work.

Erm I went for the 'become the soul consuming god of evil and hunger' option in NWN2..Who says I would want to save everyone?  Also 'earn your happy ending' is a well established trope, doing obscure and difficuly challenges to beat the odds has showed up in fiction since the age of myth, why shouldn't BW put the option for 100% completion (or w/e) to give a 'happy ending'.

[Spectre slayer]

Cameron Lee already said you can save the town of Crestwood and the Keep depending on how well you play and it seems like if choose the regroup and return to the keep option Crestwood gets destroyed according one prominent game site.

Sad Varic scene. He's really upset we weren't able to protect the village. Pro tip - you can save both if you really try.-Cameron Lee.

Modifié par Spectre slayer, 01 septembre 2013 - 08:28 .

[Han Shot First]

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. 

Example: ME2

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.

And so in the end, Bioware's attempt to add emotional salt to the game failed miserably, since any player who actually cared made damn sure they didn't lose a single person, and as such the ending was the triumph the developers wanted to avoid.

Looking up a walkthrough for the Suicide Mission wasn't even necessary. It was ridiculously easy to get everyone through unscathed even going through it completely unspoiled. I did it on my first playthrough. You actually had to work harder to lose someone on the Suicide Mission than you did to save them.

That being said I do support putting the player in scenarios where he or she can't save everyone. The Suicide Mission for example would have had more emotional weight if it came packaged with a Virmire or two.

[Vilegrim]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

What is wrong with being able to save everyone, anyway? Bioware tried a fail-Hero via Hawke, and not a lot of people liked playing a loser for a champion.

for me it wasn't that you couldn't save 'everyone' it was the clinical idiocy that HAwke seemed to have, I as the player saw something horrific incoming, and Hawke blithely continues doing ...erm not much really, with me mentally goin 'on look oncoming train of bombs..that is on fire'  Hawke: 'kill bandits..oh..shiny..loot..haven't I seen this cave before..wonder the shops have for me?'  then: BOOOM SPLAT Mage vs Templar  civil war, people being slaughtered in the streets, huge explosions etc etc Hawke : 'omg Anders wth?! ' Me: 'yea, saw that one coming about 3 hours ago, maybe not the bomb, but the throw down, yup yup'

[Luckywallace]

Challseus wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

...ANYONE who actually gave a **** about the franchise paused the game, opened their internet browser, and googled 'suicide mission guide', and got everyone out. 

I give a **** about the franchise, and I never once went with a walkthrough. I made my decisions, and I lived by them.

*Shrugs*

Agreed - me too. I played the ME suicide missio totally blind and it was awesome.
I only lost Jack which was great acually because I didn't like her at all, but I had friends who played it similarly and lost about 3 squaddies.

[Girtuoklis]

I would like to see Bioware game where you can kill everyone, like in the Witcher.

[Plaintiff]

This "problem" only exists in your own head. Metagaming is a valid way to play, and I'm going to metagame the hell out of DA:I.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Plaintiff wrote...

This "problem" only exists in your own head. Metagaming is a valid way to play, and I'm going to metagame the hell out of DA:I.

Whilst I won't on my first playthrough (as I intend to try and complete it spoiler free), I have several playthroughs planned and so I will definitely be looking to try the different options to see how the story pans out due to those choices. Now whilst some of it could be deemed as meta-gaming, it can also be attributed to characteristics of the Inquisitor.

I can think of one of my planned Inquisitors that will most likely let the city fall, if it meant the Keep was kept safe. Just as I could see another doing the opposite.

[9TailsFox]

iakus wrote...

Not everyone spoils themselves with strategy guides, you know.

Some people, if they screw up, simply not that and go "Next playthrough I'll try something else"

This. Good RPG must wariat from destruction all hope lost evil wins to Hero becomes god emperor world filled with rainbows and unicorns. So far for my most perfect ending is ME2 It's only 1 ending but at the same time is infinite ok it's not but you know what I mean. And I don't care metagamers  neither should you well except maybe if you are one of them then continue crying.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Plaintiff wrote...

This "problem" only exists in your own head. Metagaming is a valid way to play, and I'm going to metagame the hell out of DA:I.

We shouldn't consider geopolitics and social situation of DA:I territories, should we?

[Fast Jimmy]

d-boy15 wrote...

Why I can't save everyone? It's a choice that provided for player, just need some balanced.

For example: In PAX demo, the village and the keep under attack. You either choose between
defend the keep or save the village. Why can't I just send our men to defend the keep while I
bring my party to defend the village?

The consequence: Village saved but some people get killed while the keep suffered from high
casualties and damage.

This would be fine. 

If sending your troops to guard the village and you guard the keep led to not a single soldier or civilian dying at all, then THAT is where the problem lies. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

This "problem" only exists in your own head. Metagaming is a valid way to play, and I'm going to metagame the hell out of DA:I.

And how did you meta-game the Bhelen/Harrowmont choice? The Anvil of the Void choice? The Virmire Survivor choice? 

You made those choices based on what YOU liked. What YOU believed. There is no "right" answer there across the board. This is because here is an equal choice. They are not equally bad choices in all cases - but there is no clear "winner" choice with better outcomes that greatly outweigh the other. 

Contrast that with the Isolde/Connor choice, the Werewolves/Dalish choice or the Urn of Savred Ashes choice. There is clear "happy" alternatives to these and then there's alternatives that anger companions, possibly to the point of killing them, alternatives that give darker endings with no positives (the werewolves to crazy and slaughter innocents, the cult sends their High Dragon to eradicate nearby villages, Eamon becomes depressed and dies if his wife or son is dead in the following years...). All in all, unless you just want to have the dark, worse ending, then the player has little reason to choose them.

Some players want the ability to play an evil character, but that's not how these choices are dressed up, either. They are presented as hard, ethical choices that require the player to make a hard call... but there is no hard call. There is simply the most obvious, altruistic way to save the most people, which gets you the rainbows and sunshine endings. And that's not a hard choice at all. 

[Eterna]

Dark Fantasy.

It isn't really a dark fantasy if at the end everyone comes out of it alive whilst ****ting rainbows of happiness.

I'm looking at you old god baby.

[TheChris92]

The problem lies in how we always perceive choices as either Two-Goody-Shoes or Puppy-Kicking-Bastard. Making choices feel more genuinely complex and less distinguishable of whether or not this or that is the correct thing to do. I think, with Mass Effect's Paragon & Renegade system, all it really allowed us was to be either a bastard or a saint. It's not letting us role-play because we're always Mr./Ms. Protagonist, you're just either Protagonist McNice or Protagonist McDick. It's not letting us impose our own values because the evil options are always so cartoonishly villainous and derived of logic & reason. If they can manage to make the choices feel more blurred, where the player can not tell if this is the morally correct thing to do through common sense, then I say we've come a long way.

[nightcobra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

d-boy15 wrote...

Why I can't save everyone? It's a choice that provided for player, just need some balanced.

For example: In PAX demo, the village and the keep under attack. You either choose between
defend the keep or save the village. Why can't I just send our men to defend the keep while I
bring my party to defend the village?

The consequence: Village saved but some people get killed while the keep suffered from high
casualties and damage.

This would be fine. 

If sending your troops to guard the village and you guard the keep led to not a single soldier or civilian dying at all, then THAT is where the problem lies. 

or rather, you could send a few of your party members to aid the village.

party: inquisitor, vivienne, cassandra, varric

inquisitor: cassandra, varric... help defend the village, gain as much time as you can while vivienne and i protect the keep. i'm counting on you.

you could then have control over 2 big battles at the same time requiring you to have a bit more coordination. 

[Mr.House]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

What is wrong with being able to save everyone, anyway? Bioware tried a fail-Hero via Hawke, and not a lot of people liked playing a loser for a champion.

It hurts the story, or worse. It makes the conflict lose its threat.

[Milan92]

Yay for beign able to save everyone! :happy:

Modifié par Milan92, 01 septembre 2013 - 10:43 .