338 réponses à ce sujet

[LanceSolous13]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

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?

Exactly. I, for one, felt you had to put in enough effort into getting everyone to live (doing all the loyalty quests, picking the right leaders) that I felt awesome that all the time I put into it paid off. It didn't seem cheap to me at all. If anything, most of the mandatory character deaths don't have the meaning to me the writers were attempting to impart because it feels just like that - mandatory. Whoops, he's dead. Oh well, couldn't have done anything about it anyway.

Ditto. I simply paid attention to what my Squad's strengths were (Though, Mordin happened to be a perfect coincidence; I didn't use him very often and sent him a long randomly to take the crew back) and I didn't have any more missions besides Legion's before going to save the Crew; I like to finish every side-quest I'm given before I follow the rest of the plot.

And, honestly, the issue of "Guides will tell you how to do everything" is a "problem" (I put it in quotes for a reason) that every situation any developer ever comes up with WILL have.

Unless you're asking directly for a "No Happy Ending" decision moment where you get screwed either way... Well, that also defeats the purpose of the choice; if you end up in the same position (f**ked), then why should I care at all about the choice period.

And, I HATE HATE HATE "No Happy Endings" things. ME3 was an incredibly depressing experience all the way through and its not something I'd like to experience again. I'm not saying I want everything to be Sugary or something, but I want some humor to be mixed in with some drama and intrigue; A Serious moment followed by a little light heartedness to ease the tension.

Also, what's wrong with saving everyone? Video Games are fiction and fantasy. Unless its some driving point to either the plot or your Character's story (The Cousland family for Nobles or Riordan in DA:O), then why can't we? It is a power fantasy, in a way, so what's more powerful than becoming the hero who saved everyone and righted wrongs and etc?

[Gibbles]

OP you are complaining about meta gaming, which Bioware cannot fix because some people enjoy using guides to get the best ending and that is completely their perogative.

[nightcobra]

like i said many times over.

i'm okay with sad, i'm okay with bittersweet, i'm also okay with happy go lucky

i want the full spectrum of white through gray through black, not just one or the other.
gimme the whole shabang

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 01 septembre 2013 - 10:02 .

[Renmiri1]

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.

I didn't and Jacob died on my PT. Not one of my save games has ll the squad survive, thouhg I usually send Jacob up the vents since he snubbed my FemShep. 

I try to avoid walktroughs on my first playthroughs.. Feels like cheating to me.

OP your premise is flawed, a lot of gamers DO NOT use walktroughs or get in the web for their 1-10 first playthroughs. Be it because it feels cheating, because it adds spoilers or because it makes their game crash or whatever a sizable portion of the players will not do what you think is universal.

And for the record my second DAO playtrough was my Dalish Warden doing the Ultimate Sacrifice and I loved that playthrough.

Not all player are like you OP. 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 01 septembre 2013 - 10:07 .

[LanceSolous13]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

Agreed. Even if it ends in tragedy, I have a Shepard who romances Thane simply because I think there is a lot of character dynamic potential there; which sadly goes unexplored in the game. And, though the romance sinks terribly in ME3 as there is a lot of writing issues with Thane alone, there is an element to Shepard having to love someone she loves while in the middle of a war is something that I like adding to my personal plot.

[GodWood]

Cimeas wrote...
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.

Don't really agree with the post but I do agree with the general message.

Having a "best ending" simply encourages the player to metagame and disregard any of the potential moral complexity presented by the choices in the game. Ideally the ending should be a logical culmination of all the player's choices made throughout the game which have varying degrees of both positive and negative repercussions.

This way there is no "right ending", instead there's a series of worldstates whose quality depends on the subjective interpretation of the player.

What I do not want is a cheap power fantasy where the player can have there cake and eat it too. It makes the setting shallow, the choices cheap and discourages any real post-game discussion.

David7204 wrote...
Right. That's precisely the point. You don't have no win situations in stories, and rightly so. They ****** people off. They betray a justified expectation.

Even before the story begins, we expect to defeat the Reapers somehow. Even before the story begins, we expect to defeat whatever the Inquisitor is fighting somehow. As soon as Voldemort is introduced, we expect Harry to defeat him, somehow, at sometime. And if that doesn't happen, we get angry. And rightfully so.

That expectation is a result of Narrative Causality.

[Sir JK]

I both agree and disagree with the premise of the original post. Yes, there should definantely be possible to pick a choice and have it work out for the better of everyone. Sometimes doing the ideologically pure thing and act like a hero should be rewarded. The Redcliffe scenario is okay once in a while.

On the other hand, I do feel that the "best" outcome is also the one you should have to work the hardest to get. It's the one that requires you to do the most things, sacrefice the most resources and so on.
Furthermore, the pragmatic choices should probably be vindicated more somehow. To go back to Redcliffe, not only is the choice morally superior but it also is the that gives you the most positive feedback. Just having some companions and npc note that in hindsight it was ridiculously expensive and borderline irresponsible would have been "better". Or having the Dalish clan resent you for letting Zathrian kill himself.
A recognition that the good choice might not always be the most popular one. And vice versa... a "less ideal" choice is taken and lots of people thank you or say that they think you made the correct decision.

Having more choices be less "bad or bad" or "good or bad" and more like Bhelen/Harrowmont in their presentation would also go a long way I feel.

Overall... I feel like the middle road is the best one to take. Sometimes you can save everyone, sometimes you cannot. Sometimes you have to push yourself harder to do so and when you do take the "less good" choice, you should be given some sort of vindication.

[KiwiQuiche]

Mr.House wrote...

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.

That's due to shoddy writing though, not a need for "lets fail at everything" champions or 'save the children' heroes.

[Renmiri1]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

In summary OP says, "This option should not exist because I can't stop myself from metagaming so it spoils my game"

Right, Bioware has to be  your nanny and all of us who have a modicum of self discipline can't have a game done for adults because OP needs kiddie games or he can't handle it.

Perhaps stop shopping on the mature rated games and go back to Pokemon ? And make sure is a non glitchy version, My 6 year old was in tears the other day because she lost a Cleffary 

[crimzontearz]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

In summary OP says, "This option should not exist because I can't stop myself from metagaming so it spoils my game"

Right, Bioware has to be  your nanny and all of us who have a modicum of self discipline can't have a game done for adults because OP needs kiddie games or he can't handle it.

Perhaps stop shopping on the mature rated games and go back to Pokemon ? And make sure is a non glitchy version, My 6 year old was in tears the other day because she lost a Cleffary 

yep, that was exactly why, in my opinion, some people fought against a happy ending for ME3....because if there was such thing they would have chosen it over the others and somehow sullied their grimdark purity

[philippe willaume]

but that is not really a problem is it?

no-one force you to play any given way.
You want the perfect ending and metagame for it. Fine
You are more interested in the RPG experience, then it is likely that you are not going to meta game. and it is just as fine as the case above.

Phil

[Han Shot First]

crimzontearz wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

In summary OP says, "This option should not exist because I can't stop myself from metagaming so it spoils my game"

Right, Bioware has to be  your nanny and all of us who have a modicum of self discipline can't have a game done for adults because OP needs kiddie games or he can't handle it.

Perhaps stop shopping on the mature rated games and go back to Pokemon ? And make sure is a non glitchy version, My 6 year old was in tears the other day because she lost a Cleffary 

yep, that was exactly why, in my opinion, some people fought against a happy ending for ME3....because if there was such thing they would have chosen it over the others and somehow sullied their grimdark purity

Define 'happy ending.'

I'm all for the hero triumphing over the big bad in the end and saving the day, I just don't think it should all be sunshine and rainbows. Was Mass Effect 1's ending 'grimdark' because you lost Kaiden or Ashley in getting there?

[Stiler]

This is what makes The Witcher games so much fun, your choices NEED TO MATTER.

You shouldn't be able to "save everyone" and choices shouldn't always be "black or white."

It would (imo) add a LOT moreo weight to the game if you HAD to make the choice, the town, or the keep, you make the choice to save one or the other, but not both. Then you see the consequences of your actions. Neither way is inherenitly wrong or right, rather you make a choice and things play out and you have to live with the choice you made.

The whole idea of "oh if you play it [I]just[/I[ right you can save everyhting, well that throws the entire POINT of choices out the window, because now everything that loses the town or the keep will feel like they made the "wrong" choice since they didn't save everyone.

Bioware needs to learn to stop trying to keep one foot out and one foot in. Just like with the combat aspect, trying to straddle both the tactical fans and action fans, and usually one or the other loses out.

[Fast Jimmy]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

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.

That's due to shoddy writing though, not a need for "lets fail at everything" champions or 'save the children' heroes.

Despite how much everyone is twisting the OP's first message to say "everyone should die slow, painful, tragic deaths!!!" people should re-read it and stop all this nonsense.

People aren't arguing for dark outcomes for everything. Simply that there not be one ending that is clearly the "best." There can be three good outcomes. There can be NINE good outcomes. But there must also be balance and shades of negative to each, so that there is an actual choice involved. Because if there is an option to win with no loss or consequence to anything, then it devalues all of the other choices, unless the player just WANTS to kill someone. If you hate the mayor of this village and say "screw that guy, I'm not going to save the village, even though I can" that doesn't preclude the fact that having a backdoor way to save the keep and the village isn't a bad one, since it doesn't require you to make any decision at all... unless, of course, choosing to save both requires resources that could harm the success of other endeavors, or there is a "middle ground" where soldiers and civilians are lost on both sides, but both groups do survive. 

[LanceSolous13]

GodWood wrote...

Cimeas wrote...
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.

Don't really agree with the post but I do agree with the general message.

Having a "best ending" simply encourages the player to metagame and disregard any of the potential moral complexity presented by the choices in the game. Ideally the ending should be a logical culmination of all the player's choices made throughout the game which have varying degrees of both positive and negative repercussions.

This way there is no "right ending", instead there's a series of worldstates whose quality depends on the subjective interpretation of the player.

What I do not want is a cheap power fantasy where the player can have there cake and eat it too. It makes the setting shallow, the choices cheap and discourages any real post-game discussion.

Not exactly.

I've had many many many hours worth of discussions on the choices presented through out Mass Effect and Dragon Age and those fit what you just described as making the game shallow, cheap, and lack of replayability.

I really don't like the idea of choices having, say, "2 Positive Effects and 1 Negative Effect" and here's why. When I'm playing a game and I see that Negative effect resulting from my choice, I instantly feel like I missed something and I get that urge to reload.

I had that EXACT issue in DAII where, whenever I was trying to build a relationship with one companion, either one or two of the others would drop 50 pts of approval regardless of whom I took with me, which made trying to maintain Friendship with everyone and romance Fenris unbearably annoying. It actually got to the point where I couldn't romance anyone because everyone relationship bars had gone up and down so much that they were too neutral to romance.

That isn't to say its COMPLETELY impossible to do this and keep things fun and interesting, but you'd have to execute it very carefully and properly which, honestly, I'd rather have the bit simpler version and put more focus on characters, plot, and the likes. Its a corner I don't really mind cutting for the moment.

[filetemo]

What the OP is saying is that the option of "save everybody if you try hard" shouldn't exist because everybody who cares tries hard.

And if by hard we mean "do sidequests to boost morale" or "fight this optional encounter", that's not hard at all, it's what everybody who loves the game does, without even trying.

For example in DA2 I slaughtered Merril's clan. It's not what I wanted, but I didn't care for them or for Merril, I just wanted to see what was behind the mirror. So in a way I got served. I did not reload because I didn't care enough.

[KiwiQuiche]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

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.

That's due to shoddy writing though, not a need for "lets fail at everything" champions or 'save the children' heroes.

Despite how much everyone is twisting the OP's first message to say "everyone should die slow, painful, tragic deaths!!!" people should re-read it and stop all this nonsense.

I was talking to Mr House. Not the Op.

Which is why I quoted Mr House. Not the Op.

[Ailith Tycane]

You know what I hate more than having my tough choices not matter in games like this? Having the writers thrust utter and complete failure on me no matter what I do, thus taking away choice completely (lol star child.)

In the example of the PAX demo video, if I want to send my soldiers to defend the keep and then go and protect the town myself, thus killing two birds with one stone, that sounds fantastic to me, because it is a logical choice. Why do I have to doom the town by sending my soldiers away when I can just go over there and kill those bad guys? I'm a bad ass warrior/mage/rogue/whatever, I slaughter hundreds of people on a daily basis in this game. I should be able to defend one town with my party. It seems like it works fine.

[Pakundo]

caradoc2000 wrote...

And you couldn't save everyone in DA2, even with a guide.

That, and I think the real choice players faced at the end of the game wasn't their allegance to either templars or mages, rather simply choosing to alienate Sebastian, or kill Anders.

[Fast Jimmy]

I was talking to Mr House. Not the Op.

Which is why I quoted Mr House. Not the Op. 

Mr. House is arguing for the exact same thing. The choice of whether to save everyone or a choice of not being able to save everyone isn't a choice at all. Who WOULDN'T choose to save everyone, unless you are like the above poster and just don't care?

That's not a moral choice, it is simply a measure of your apathy level. No one ever received a Pullitzer Prize for writing a story that caused the reader to determine if they are apathetic to the plot or not. Good writing is almost always predicated by having the reader struggle with their own moral sense of what is right and wrong. "Sacrificing some people" or "saving everyone with no bad consequences" is not a realy choice for any player who wants to try and do the right thing.

A good choice is having to make a hard decision, a decision that is right to YOU, not one that is clearly lit up in neon signs saying "Best Outcomes Here."

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 septembre 2013 - 10:58 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Ailith430 wrote...

You know what I hate more than having my tough choices not matter in games like this? Having the writers thrust utter and complete failure on me no matter what I do, thus taking away choice completely (lol star child.)

In the example of the PAX demo video, if I want to send my soldiers to defend the keep and then go and protect the town myself, thus killing two birds with one stone, that sounds fantastic to me, because it is a logical choice. Why do I have to doom the town by sending my soldiers away when I can just go over there and kill those bad guys? I'm a bad ass warrior/mage/rogue/whatever, I slaughter hundreds of people on a daily basis in this game. I should be able to defend one town with my party. It seems like it works fine.

I really hope that level scaling, potion limitations and overall difficulty prevent this. I hope you are scared to death of combat in DA:I, such that you are afraid to do exactly what you just suggested.

That way, if it is an option, it won't be one taken lightly. The player would do that knowing it could wreck their healing supplies, making other quests nearly impossible. Or it could result in your party sustaining injuries that may drop stats or abilities for a long time before you can heal them up. Or, even better, that if you die, it won't be a matter of going to a Reload screen, but rather a scene where you wake up after being defeated, seeing the dead all around you, witnessing Varric giving his sad face.

That would be some great outcomes there. Otherwise, the game is just playing Superman, swooping in and saving the day, above the concerns of mere mortal men. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 septembre 2013 - 11:06 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I was talking to Mr House. Not the Op.

Which is why I quoted Mr House. Not the Op. 

Mr. House is arguing for the exact same thing. The choice of whether to save everyone or a choice of not being able to save everyone isn't a choice at all. Who WOULDN'T choose to save everyone, unless you are like the above poster and just don't care?

That's not a moral choice, it is simply a measure of your apathy level. No one ever received a Pullitzer Prize for writing a story that caused the reader to determine if they are apathetic to the plot or not. Good writing is almost always predicated by having the reader struggle with their own moral sense of what is right and wrong. "Sacrificing some people" or "saving everyone with no bad consequences" is not a realy choice for any player who wants to try and do the right thing.

A good choice is having to make a hard decision, a decision that is right to YOU, not one that is clearly lit up in neon signs saying "Best Outcomes Here."

I was talking how conflict looses its edge because it's been badly written, as Mr House complained about. OP is just mad because they apparently looked at all the guides before they did the game and are whining about how you can save everyone, woooo.

"Do the right thing". That's the problem, everyone plays it differently and as you said, they could have different appeals with that, kill some villages or use them as bait for a dragon to save some other folks. Who wouldn't do that? Or like Redcliff, where loads of people die even if you do kick ass for them to help.

So what, you want Game of Thrones level of "everyone you get vaguely attatched to dies"? We need a good Red Wedding.

[Captain Obvious]

Foshizzlin wrote...

I'm not sure if it's some sort of masochistic wish, but it seems people on BSN are more often than not obsessed with brutal endings; even for Mass Effect 3, people still said they wanted a harsh ending.

Can we not just have something happy?

I think many fans want endings that are subjective in regards to whether they're "good" or not.

[Fast Jimmy]

"Do the right thing". That's the problem, everyone plays it differently and as you said, they could have different appeals with that, kill some villages or use them as bait for a dragon to save some other folks. Who wouldn't do that? Or like Redcliff, where loads of people die even if you do kick ass for them to help.

This would be totally fine with me. Sacrificing a few to save the many.

Problem is, we've hardly ever been offered that type of option before in Bioware games. At least not without also "oh, and you can also use your Paragon interrupt to save everyone" thrown in as well. I'd like a hard choice like you mentioned without the escape clause that seems to always pop up.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 septembre 2013 - 11:33 .