338 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

^

The real world usually just has Option A and Option B. They don't have to either one be "****ty" or not.

Helping Dagna or not in DA:O means you can either get her to the Circle, where she studies with the Mages and becomes an established scholar, or have her stay in Orzammar, where she lives with her family and keeps her family name.

Is one choice "****ty" in this case? No. In a decade, when she is raising her children in Orzammar, she may be very happy that they aren't being raised topside as casteless. Or she may be incredibly satisfied living as a scholar in the Circle.

There isn't dead bodies or people suffering the plague... it's just a choice. With two outcomes. They don't have to be inherently dark or depressing for them to have roughly equal outcomes.

[wright1978]

On paper how it sounds i agree with the OP's criticism. If there's one choice without consequence and 3 other choices(Sacrifice Town/Keep/wounded) with varied consequences that doesn't feel balanced.

[Patchwork]

Mata gaming is inevitable after the first run anyway so if people want to look up how to get the outcome they want why does that bother you?

Personally I'd rather have a mixture of solutions depending on the quest and the situation.
-A straightforward A/B choice, both of which have positive and negative benefits.
-A/B but if you investigate and have been paying attention you can discover option C.
-No choice at all, to move the quest along you have to do X and do it exactly how the quest giver wants it to be done.
-Option C is offered and it accomplishes the immediate goal but in the long run it might really screw things up.

Bioware's tendency for optimal or rocks fall every dies outcomes aren't really choices.

[MWImexico]

GodWood wrote...
...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.

This ^

Also, precedently someone talked about Zathrian and the reaction of the Dalish clan when they learned his dead. For me, if globally the clan reacts "positively" it's logical, that reaction shows somehow who the Dalish are, how they think and where they puts their values. Their culture has an impact on how they react, that's fine, isn't it ?

Ser Bard wrote...
...
-A/B but if you investigate and have been paying attention you can discover option C.
-Option C is offered and it accomplishes the immediate goal but in the long run it might really screw things up.

I like particulary those two

Modifié par MWImexico, 01 septembre 2013 - 12:35 .

[AlexJK]

Cimeas wrote...

Remember Mass Effect 2? ... 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.

Maybe you did. I guess you're just not very good at games?

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.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Parmida]

I LOVE IT! I WANT TO SAVE EVERYONE IN MY GAME! I WANT PONIES AND RAINBOWS IN MY GAME!

Sorry, I'm just super hyped.

But yes let those that want a super happy ending to their choices, have them. It's a roleplaying game and should have options.

[Cimeas]

The point is that it just completely and absolutely invalidates any kind of challenging decisions, if as well as "save A, let B die", and "save B, let A die" there's "Do 10 minutes of side-missions, then save A and B".

Doing side missions should IMPROVE your chances, sure. Obviously if I've invested the full 30 hours into the game rather than just 15 for the critical path, I deserve at least a slightly improved/less bad ending.

But I feel like Bioware has to understand that they cannot claim to have a game full of 'difficult moral choices', and then offer you "Option C", which is basically sunshine, rainbows, everyone lives, everyone wins, nothing bad happens, thus completely invalidating the first two choices unless you are playing a psychopath/mass murderer.

Modifié par Cimeas, 01 septembre 2013 - 01:12 .

[AlexJK]

Cimeas wrote...

The point is that it just completely and absolutely invalidates any kind of challenging decisions, if as well as "save A, let B die", and "save B, let A die" there's "Do 10 minutes of side-missions, then save A and B".

You're thinking from a metagaming perspective, not a role-playing one. If you're the kind of person who googles every permutation of consequences before approaching the next section of the game (which is a perfectly valid way to play, even though suggesting that 95% of people do this is complete nonsense), then go right ahead and enjoy the game your way. On the other hand, if you're role-playing an impulsive character who always makes quick decisions with the best information they have at the time, then running off to do "10 minutes of side missions" won't be an option.

Stop being so arrogant as to think that your opinion is right at the exclusion of all others.

[MWImexico]

Cimeas wrote...

The point is that it just completely and absolutely invalidates any kind of challenging decisions, if as well as "save A, let B die", and "save B, let A die" there's "Do 10 minutes of side-missions, then save A and B".

Doing side missions should IMPROVE your chances, sure. Obviously if I've invested the full 30 hours into the game rather than just 15 for the critical path, I deserve at least a slightly improved/less bad ending.

But I feel like Bioware has to understand that they cannot claim to have a game full of 'difficult moral choices', and then offer you "Option C", which is basically sunshine, rainbows, everyone lives, everyone wins, nothing bad happens, thus completely invalidating the first two choices unless you are playing a psychopath/mass murderer.

But suppose :
A = save the village and B = save the strategic spot
In the end, most Inquisitors may tend to choose systematically to save B if they realise that, obviously, to save the strategic spot = to save more people in the big picture. From a moral point of vue, what's the advantage in saving the village if a larger number of (other) peoples have to pay the price?

Modifié par MWImexico, 01 septembre 2013 - 01:48 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Also, precedently someone talked about Zathrian and the reaction of the Dalish clan when they learned his dead. For me, if globally the clan reacts "positively" it's logical, that reaction shows somehow who the Dalish are, how they think and where they puts their values. Their culture has an impact on how they react, that's fine, isn't it ?

Except that's NOT who the Dalish are.

When they greet you in the Brecillian Forest, it is at arrowpoint, telling you to turn around and that they do not welcome outsiders. Yet when you come back a few days later and say "oh, yeah, your Keeper is dead" they are suddenly totally fine with that?

Let's also not forget that when the Dalish clan in DA2's Keeper becomes an abomination that you have to put down, they threaten you and can result on you having to fight and kill the whole clan.

So I don't think them saying "You had something to do with our Keeper dying? Lol no big deal." is in line with the Dalish clan's view of their Keepers or their perception and relations with outsiders. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 septembre 2013 - 01:50 .

[MWImexico]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Also, precedently someone talked about Zathrian and the reaction of the Dalish clan when they learned his dead. For me, if globally the clan reacts "positively" it's logical, that reaction shows somehow who the Dalish are, how they think and where they puts their values. Their culture has an impact on how they react, that's fine, isn't it ?

Except that's NOT who the Dalish are.

When they greet you in the Brecillian Forest, it is at arrowpoint, telling you to turn around and that they do not welcome outsiders. Yet when you come back a few days later and say "oh, yeah, your Keeper is dead" they are suddenly totally fine with that?

Let's also not forget that when the Dalish clan in DA2's Keeper becomes an abomination that you have to put down, they threaten you and can result on you having to fight and kill the whole clan.

So I don't think them saying "You had something to do with our Keeper dying? Lol no big deal." is in line with the Dalish clan's view of their Keepers or their perception and relations with outsiders. 

Yet when you take responsibility for Merrill's actions, they don't attack you, even if Hawke is a humain.

I think they are less stupid than you think XD They just think differently.

[darkmanifest]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

It's interesting that you use Orzammar as an example, because I loathed the ending to that quest.  Instead of making me go "ooh what an intriguing choice between a fool and a murderer" it made me go "I have lost all ability to give a crap, I hope this horrible place burns".  Binary
choices with slightly different but equally dubious consequences make me care less about the
story, not more, and usually result in me just flipping a coin to get it
over with, therefore making the choice far easier than if there was a better third option - not exactly the emotionally-invested agony I suspect those "hard" choices are supposed to invoke.  The end result was that I felt that nothing I did really mattered, and left me frustrated and apathetic.  I felt that way for most of DA2 (when I actually had a choice at all, that is) and I seriously don't want to feel that way for DA:I.

A better solution, I think, instead of cutting out brighter choices to make the DA world nothing but Orzammars (god help us), is to give better practical benefits for the darker choices to encourage people to seriously consider them outside of pure roleplaying.  What was the benefit of letting Redcliffe burn? Of sparing the werewolves? Of killing Connor? What did my PC actually get for being a jerk? There should be some prize, more wealth, more power, a stronger final army, something, but that doesn't mean the prizes for being as decent as possible (saving more people), or for being neutral (giving people the means to make their own decisions), shouldn't be there, too.  The benefits should all be unique, instead of isolated to one ideal choice, or just plain nonexistent across the board.  (I REALLY hated Orzammar.)

Modifié par darkmanifest, 01 septembre 2013 - 02:13 .

[MissOuJ]

Cimeas wrote...

The point is that it just completely and absolutely invalidates any kind of challenging decisions, if as well as "save A, let B die", and "save B, let A die" there's "Do 10 minutes of side-missions, then save A and B".

Doing side missions should IMPROVE your chances, sure. Obviously if I've invested the full 30 hours into the game rather than just 15 for the critical path, I deserve at least a slightly improved/less bad ending.

But I feel like Bioware has to understand that they cannot claim to have a game full of 'difficult moral choices', and then offer you "Option C", which is basically sunshine, rainbows, everyone lives, everyone wins, nothing bad happens, thus completely invalidating the first two choices unless you are playing a psychopath/mass murderer.

Have to agree with you there about pretty much everything except the bolded part, which is assuming intent via metagaming, which not all people do. But otherwise... yeah.

Take Redcliffe: you could A) kill Connor kill Isolde to save Connor (both very difficult choices) or you could take the third option C) call the Circle for help (if you haven't Annulled them) which seems to be the "right" one, and which lessens the dramatic impact of that innitial desicion: do you kill the child who's unintentionally guilty of the situation, or do you kill his mother to protect him. If you can just take a third option the decision becomes mute. Only when there isn't a third option available (like Virmire) can the tragedy truly hit home in my opinion.

Line Hollis has written a couple great posts (here and here) about tragedy as a genre in video games and how hard it is to pull off because "bad endings" are considered "wrong endings" and we're always tempted to go back and fix them. Of course there's the issue of roleplaying versus metagaming as well as the fact that these are only issues if we are informed of the "better" choises and if we play the game again, but then there's also the issue of mechanics: the game mechanics reward you for exploration with loot and xp, and if that exploration / sidequests also equal better ending, then the players who don't do / find a specific sidequest or explore as much might feel like they're being punished or that they're "playing it wrong", because the route that gives you most points / best loot / gives you new partymembers etc. is almost always the "good" option.

I personally think that if a game has to gave a third option which has a better outcome / is "better" than the rest, gamers who want to take it should be punished for choosing it -- less xp / less loot etc. If you want your "good" ending, you better suffer for it, high road shouldn't be the easy road, or the road that gives you the best rewards. I would also like to see "saviour-bating", as in giving us what seems to be the third option, which will eventually turn out to be one of the worst things we could have done in the situation. The way to hell is paved with good intentions etc. This sort of stuff would really delve into deeper questions of morality and the nature of "good".

But then again, I am an unashamed fan of aristotelian tragedy...

[9TailsFox]

Save A or B?
PS Saints row 4 Shaundi loyalty mission spoilers.

Modifié par 9TailsFox, 01 septembre 2013 - 02:40 .

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I hope you are scared to death of combat in DA:I...

That's not going to happen.

BioWare doesn't make that sort of game. Thank goodness.

[ArtemisMoons]

During the demo, they made it a point to say that you would not always have the choice to save both options. The keep/town one might be an exception to the rule and could have consequences to which we are not yet aware.

[BlueMagitek]

David7204 wrote...

First of all, you can always find a few expections to every rule. That doesn't mean the general rule doesn't hold.

Secondly, these examples don't really count. I'm talking about no-win situations concerning the overall conflict, not temporary setbacks which pretty much all stories have. Shepard dies, but she's revived. Reach is overrun, but the Covenent are defeated.

You gave an absolute statement, which was shown to be not absolute.  What is an even greater dagger in your statement's back is that, many times, those defiant struggles against the impossible are glorified moreso than conventional victories.  Look no further than the battle of the Alamo or Thermopylae, they were both losses, but the valor of the doomed defenders is often looked upon with as much, if not more, than successful battles.

Then why are you complaining about no win scenarios in the varying sidepoints of the story in a game?  It doesn't matter if everyone survives Mass Effect; you're still capable of killing Saren.  It doesn't matter if you get half your crew killed in ME 2, your'e still capable of surviving and destroying the base.   In Dragon Age, you're entirely welcome to butcher your way through Dalish, Mages, engage in Drow politics and end up slaughtering two entire villages and its noble family.  Because it helps you defeat the Archdemon.  Goal achieved.

The TC is asking for choices were you can't save everyone.  These choices will most likely have no major effect on yoru end goal (it might be more difficult if the fort falls, but your villagers will certainly survive), and therefore they do not count as no-win situations by your definition.  It doesn't matter in the end if you have to choose who lives and who dies, because either way will serve as a means to further your end goal.  Like you said, Reach is overrun, but the Covenant are defeated.  Eventually.

[PsychoticFox]

...I like happy endings/happy resolutions to conflicts. My life is depressing enough as it is.

[wolfhowwl]

I hope the save everyone options require more effort than the one at Redcliffe.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 01 septembre 2013 - 07:20 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

As I said, I'd rather be able to control who lives and dies rather than simply having the choice of 'save everyone or everyone dies'

[Gethrian]

When playing Bioware games I  think more about what character I'm playing would do than what actual outcome might be. While I make many kinds of characters my personal canon characters tend to be people who stay as neutral as possible and try to solve things peacefully and save as many as possible. So while I think to be able save everyone you should work harder to achieve it (would make you feel like you have accomplished something too) I want there to be option for it.

And what can I say. I like happy endings

Modifié par DarkZexy, 01 septembre 2013 - 07:18 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I hope you are scared to death of combat in DA:I...

That's not going to happen.

BioWare doesn't make that sort of game. Thank goodness.

Bioware never made a game with no level-scaling and resource management before, either. 

Laidlaw said in the demo video last night he didn't want us to see three wolves and think it would be okay to go up and kill them, but to consider if it was worth it. 

If that's what he wants for three random wolves... do we think that wiping out a small army of soliders with our party alone should be a walk in the park as well?

[OhNoJoe]

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.   

This is not true at all.
I would say that the people who really care about the franchise would play the game as intended, at least the first time through.

[AresKeith]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

As I said, I'd rather be able to control who lives and dies rather than simply having the choice of 'save everyone or everyone dies'

You can basically do both from what we saw in the demo