237 réponses à ce sujet

[Gwydden]

Making choices is a big part of Bioware games, but sometimes I think it could be greatly improved if you actually had to fear the consequences of said choices. Here go some examples of what I mean (all from DAO, though this is common ocurrence in Bioware games):

In The Arl of Redcliff, we had three options to solve the Connor problem. On my first playthrough I sacrificed Isolde, thinking that in the time I went to the Circle and back something horrible would happen. Then, in my second playthrough, I played a ruthless dwarf who deeply disliked magic, so I killed Connor. The third time around I decided to give it a shot to the Circe way. Nothing happened.

My first time with Nature of the Beast I saved both the elves and the weres, believing that the now human wolves wouldn't be any use in battle and that the Dalish would refuse to support me because I killed their keeper, so I would have pretty much gone to the Brecilian Forest for nothing. I was willing to accept that outcome, but it never came to pass.

When it came to the Anvil of the Void it was just as baffling. Something that was supposed to be a huge asset against the Archdemon and the Blight ended up being pretty irrelevant in the final battle. Yes, sure, the steel golems were very helpful, but storywise the consequences of whether you destroyed or preserved the Anvil were never felt.

What I'm talking about is about difficult decissions, about having to question what is the right thing to do: do I do what seems morally right at the moment, even if a lot of people will have to suffer for it later? Do I destroy an artifact that may significantly contribute to victory against the Blight, and be fundamental in preserving the dwarven civilization? Idealism and pragmatism are often set against one another in Bioware games, but which way you go doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

Maybe Bioware just wishes for players to chose the sort of story they prefer, be it the paragon hero who gets rewarded with everything for his virtue or the poor guy who makes terrible sacrifices to make sure the worse doesn't happen, rather than make us consider the consequences of our actions. Or maybe not. I honestly don't know.

What I'd like to know is which one of you would prefer a different system for Inquisition. What I've seen so far seems to suggest such a thing will come to pass, and I'm really looking forward to it. Time will tell.

Modifié par Gwydden, 18 septembre 2013 - 07:26 .

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Using the Anvil basically horrendously mutilates dwarves to turn them into something otherworldly.

The consequences are there. You're just asking for the consequences to be more integrated with the game.

I personally don't care about that very much. The choice is more important than the consequence.

Using the anvil with Bhelen also appears to be the only thing that keeps the dwarves from extinction. 

[thats1evildude]

Although the accuracy of the epilogue screens is now somewhat in question, the Anvil of the Void only seems to hasten the destruction of the dwarves by causing a civil war. There's a saying I like which applies here: "There are some weapons too foul to use, even against Rome." The Anvil of the Void just invites further destruction.

Anyways, there were consequences as a result of your actions in DAO or DA2, but they rarely reflected back on the player. NPCs suffered as a result of your choices, but nothing impeded your ability to finish the game.

It may not be hugely realistic, but it's also practical. Let's say you had indeed been denied the help of the Dalish elves by ending the werewolf curse. What if that actually prevented you from finishing the game? People would scream bloody murder, including myself. I invested 40 hours in your game and now you're telling me I can't finish it because of a choice you gave me? What the hell?

That's like the old King's Quest games where you run into a dead end and can't proceed any further because you didn't pick up that piece of moldy cheese in the first room. Some people may like that, but I don't.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 18 septembre 2013 - 08:04 .

[Vortex13]

Speaking of the Anvil, I hope that any save imports wherein our Warden preserved it will mean that we can see, interact, and even recruit golems into our Inquisition.

A legion of Golems at your command >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty much everything lol.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
Using the Anvil basically horrendously mutilates dwarves to turn them into something otherworldly.

The consequences are there. You're just asking for the consequences to be more integrated with the game.

I personally don't care about that very much. The choice is more important than the consequence.

Using the anvil with Bhelen also appears to be the only thing that keeps the dwarves from extinction. 

I personally believe this, but I don't think the slides ever explicitly said this. 

However, if you preserve the Anvil, support Harrowmont and eliminate all of the opposition to Harrowmont after Bhelen's death, there is the outcome that Harrowmont uses the golems to wipe out all life in Dust Town. Which is pretty cool, in a horrendous, horrible, awful consequences-kinda wa.

[trying_touch]

I think sometimes the consequence of the action could be the action itself, like killing Connor means killing a child, and what good person would do that?

But you're right, I would have appreciated something like a betrayal from the Arl, or the Isolde sending assassins after the Warden.

[Fast Jimmy]

It may not be hugely realistic, but it's also practical. Let's say you had indeed been denied the help of the Dalish elves by ending the werewolf curse. What if that actually prevented you from finishing the game? People would scream bloody murder, including myself. I invested 40 hours in your game and now you're telling me I can't finish it because of a choice you gave me? What the hell?

I wouldn't want the game to be unwinnable, but I would like "good" ending outcomes to be harder, if not impossible, to obtain wih choosing such actions.

Free the werewolves from their curse by killing the Dalish Keeper? That's a really noble thing... except now the werewolves are regular humans and the Dalish hate you, giving you now troops. This means that Denerim is nearly burnt to the ground in your attempt to save the Archdemon, with nearly all civilians brutally killed and slaughtered.

Was curing the dozen or so werewolves worth having thousands die? Would killing the werewolves, or having the Dalish clan wiped out so you can use the werewolves, outcomes that should have been the only ways to guarantee you the forces you needed, be a worthwhile price to pay to save the lives of many, many more innocents?

Now, what if slaughtering the Dalish (and getting the werewolf army) was actually the most effective against the Darkspawn and allowed the most Mages to survive? Otherwise, if you killed the werewolves and brought the Dalish, the Mages (or Templars if you went that route) suffered brutal losses, so much so that there was not enough to rebuild the Circle, leaving it forever abandoned.

Would one Dalish clan be worth the livelihood of Ferelden's only Circle, not to mention many Mage lives? Which one is more valuable to you as a player?


Of course, having better foreshadowing of all of these consequences, such that the player was aware that it would be a much harder fight with the Dalish over the werewolves (and a nearly doomed fight with if they used the cure), then doing the right thing is much harder to spell out.

Questions of morality, points in the game where you really need to pause and ask "what should I/my character do?" are the hallmarks of great moments in story-driven video games. It is the pinnacle of what video games can bring to a narrative - the ability to react to player's choices and present not just one outcome or way of thinking, but many. Putting such a hard question to the player, so that doing any action this big is never easy, but requires serious soul searching, is a form of story-telling that every video game developer should be aspiring to.

[thats1evildude]

I agree to an extent, Jimmy, though the "Nature of the Beast" questline would not have been the right place to implement such consequences. If the Dalish had refused to help the Warden because he ended the werewolf curse, that would have made the Dalish seem incredibly petty and stupid, as the darkspawn pose as much a threat to them as anyone.

A better option might have been, in place of the rather pathetic Reaver specialization, to be able to recruit the dragon cultists to your cause if you despoiled Andraste's ashes. (The Reaver specialization might have been an added booby prize for choosing to slay the high dragon.)

I will also note that stories do need a bit of happiness for the audience to be invested, and that means giving the heroes an unmitigated victory now and then. Even Joss Whedon occasionally throws his characters a bone. (I think the crew from Firefly did once pull off a job successfully.)

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Questions of morality, points in the game where you really need to pause and ask "what should I/my character do?" are the hallmarks of great moments in story-driven video games. It is the pinnacle of what video games can bring to a narrative - the ability to react to player's choices and present not just one outcome or way of thinking, but many. Putting such a hard question to the player, so that doing any action this big is never easy, but requires serious soul searching, is a form of story-telling that every video game developer should be aspiring to.

Well, not all of them, surely. I don't think God of War or Super Mario Kart need any difficult moral choices. ("If you use the Blue Turtle Shell, Princess Peach will die of cancer!")

Modifié par thats1evildude, 18 septembre 2013 - 09:08 .

[Beerfish]

The run to the circle was not done well for redlciffe. The anvil I was okay with the golems were a big big help. I had Shale with me and must not have had enough rep because she rebelled in my last game and I had to kill her, which is not what I wanted to happen.

[Vulpe]

I'd love if DA:I had more choices were the morally good one is actually more taxing for the player and the world. Something like the Bhelen/Harrowmont choice in DA:O. I mean yes, Bhelem is a bastard who destroys his family so that he can become king and later we find out he butchered Harrowmons entire clan , but he is also a very good leader,reformer and a visionary while Harrowmon, despite he seems like a nice,honorable guy ends up being a spineless and merciles (ask the casteless) idiot, basically the worst thing that could happen to Orzammar. I hope we see more moments like this one

Modifié par JulianWellpit, 18 septembre 2013 - 09:28 .

[The_Huntress]

Once upon a time in the land of RPG, if you said the wrong thing to the wrong person … BAM, you’re dead. Choices where obvious and consequences were instant. Over time the choices became illusions of choice where the sides became more nebulous but the consequences are now little more than head-canon.

Compared some of Bioware’s other games, DA:O has more consequences for your actions. You can leave Sten in his cage but you cannot kick Risha off of your Smuggler’s ship. If you perform the coup degras on the assassin sent to kill you there is the whole companion story you will never see. But nothing you can do, no matter how much or how little, will change the fact that you will fight the rachni in ME3. The entire story of DA:2 was about the futility of trying to save a world from itself so I will give it a pass, even though I really wanted to leave Anders in the Deep Roads. When judged alongside Mass Effect, DA:O is leaps and bounds ahead as far as meaningful choices go. At least you can avoid the grande melee at the landsmeet in DA -- saving the rachni or exterminating them has zero effect on the ME game.

Modifié par The_Huntress, 18 septembre 2013 - 09:42 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I agree to an extent, Jimmy, though the "Nature of the Beast" questline would not have been the right place to implement such consequences. If the Dalish had refused to help the Warden because he ended the werewolf curse, that would have made the Dalish seem incredibly petty and stupid, as the darkspawn pose as much a threat to them as anyone.

Well, we don't know that. They could have just gotten the heck out of Dodge and left Ferelden. It's not like they have roots in any one country, those nomadic, gypsy so and so's.

And retroactively trying to repaint a previous game's scenario to best describe an idea is hard, so I realize its possible to poke holes in.

But in terms of "giving the hero a bone" I am not against that. I'm not against happy endings at all. But what is happy? Does that depend on the player? How many people sit around on these boards and argue the merits of killing the werewolves, or of having them slaughter the Dalish? No one. It is a choice, but it is not a REAL choice. Everyone just cures the werewolves and saves the day. It isn't like the Connor solution, where there even is a psych-out risk to the player, but simply the most obvious, logical conclusion, unless you just want to play a character that does something different.

I don't think that was wrong, but I do feel it was a waste.

And the end of DA:O is heroic, regardless. You destroy the Archdemon, you end the Blight, you save the day. Yes, there is the option of the negative implications of the U.S., but it is a successful bittersweet ending, where the player feels validated doing so. I'd say this "happy ending" scenario of taking down the big bad is a good way of doing it, but then having the other consequences addressed as variables down the line.

[Angrywolves]

Looking forward to consequences .
Those evil dude players who want to commit genocide in the game.
I want them to get their comeuppance in this game.
I want them to reap the whirlwind .
Rotfl.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Free the werewolves from their curse by killing the Dalish Keeper? That's a really noble thing... except now the werewolves are regular humans and the Dalish hate you, giving you now troops. This means that Denerim is nearly burnt to the ground in your attempt to save the Archdemon, with nearly all civilians brutally killed and slaughtered.  

That runs into serious problems. Why do the Dalish even know that the werewolves are cured? How would they know they are humans? Why wouldn't they hate Zathrian even more for debasing all of their beliefs by pretending to have uncovered immortality?

Edit: I understand your sentiment and agree with it. The problem is how the choice itself is created. It's not a matter of mass murder first, good result next or heroic action first, death to all creation next. That's no less a silly and contrived choice than the good guys always win option. 

The problem with these choices that have "bad" consequences of the player are that they are all arbitrary in how they are made to be punitive. 

If you look at a game that did consequences right, IMO - like TW2 - the outcomes to quests aren't about trying to punish players the moral choices that they make. 

That game does several things. First, it establishes which players (and most of them are this) are selfish, vile people. It then establishes a clear socially hierarchy - typically, humans on top and non-humans on the bottom. 

Questions of morality, points in the game where you really need to pause and ask "what should I/my character do?" are the hallmarks of great moments in story-driven video games. It is the pinnacle of what video games can bring to a narrative - the ability to react to player's choices and present not just one outcome or way of thinking, but many. Putting such a hard question to the player, so that doing any action this big is never easy, but requires serious soul searching, is a form of story-telling that every video game developer should be aspiring to.

Yes, but the game can't be reduced to some juvenile notion of morality. And "the good choice leads to suffering!" is as naive as "the good choice leads to paradise!". A game should reflect life, and the first step there is that life isn't about ridiculously stark moral choices that repeatedly punish you unless you adhere to one moral notion.

Modifié par In Exile, 18 septembre 2013 - 10:26 .

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
And the end of DA:O is heroic, regardless. You destroy the Archdemon, you end the Blight, you save the day. Yes, there is the option of the negative implications of the U.S., but it is a successful bittersweet ending, where the player feels validated doing so. I'd say this "happy ending" scenario of taking down the big bad is a good way of doing it, but then having the other consequences addressed as variables down the line.

Just to follow up on that last post, there's a big difference between a bittersweet ending because you have to make actual, understandable sacrifices, and a bittersweet ending because the player had to, I don't know, work toghether with Arl House as a Cousland while publically renouncing the entire Cousland line as traitors. 

[Heimdall]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
And the end of DA:O is heroic, regardless. You destroy the Archdemon, you end the Blight, you save the day. Yes, there is the option of the negative implications of the U.S., but it is a successful bittersweet ending, where the player feels validated doing so. I'd say this "happy ending" scenario of taking down the big bad is a good way of doing it, but then having the other consequences addressed as variables down the line.

Just to follow up on that last post, there's a big difference between a bittersweet ending because you have to make actual, understandable sacrifices, and a bittersweet ending because the player had to, I don't know, work toghether with Arl House as a Cousland while publically renouncing the entire Cousland line as traitors. 

I'm not sure that would be any type of sweet 

[In Exile]

Lord Aesir wrote...
I'm not sure that would be any type of sweet 

Well, you'd have saved all of Denerim. A hero that no one knows. 

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
And the end of DA:O is heroic, regardless. You destroy the Archdemon, you end the Blight, you save the day. Yes, there is the option of the negative implications of the U.S., but it is a successful bittersweet ending, where the player feels validated doing so. I'd say this "happy ending" scenario of taking down the big bad is a good way of doing it, but then having the other consequences addressed as variables down the line.

Just to follow up on that last post, there's a big difference between a bittersweet ending because you have to make actual, understandable sacrifices, and a bittersweet ending because the player had to, I don't know, work toghether with Arl House as a Cousland while publically renouncing the entire Cousland line as traitors.
 

I would posit that being "forced" to is relative.

Do you "have" to side with House Howe in order to beat the game? I would not like that. But what if by siding with house Howe, you suddenly can afford the extra forces to prevent the Alienage from being completely obliterated? For a Cousland, that might be a no-brainer... let the knife ears burn, I'll not sully the name of house Cousland. For a City Elf? Again, it could be a choice made without hesitation... who cares for the honor of a human house while my people's lives are at stake? But for other Origins? They might not trust that Howe will hold up his word, or may not feel allying with a traitor is worth the loss of one ghetto.

It becomes a choice without an easy answer, not a "forced" choice.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I would posit that being "forced" to is relative.  

It is. It's why I didn't use the word. 

I would not like that. But what if by siding with house Howe, you suddenly can afford the extra forces to prevent the Alienage from being completely obliterated? For a Cousland, that might be a no-brainer... let the knife ears burn, I'll not sully the name of house Cousland. For a City Elf? Again, it could be a choice made without hesitation... who cares for the honor of a human house while my people's lives are at stake? But for other Origins? They might not trust that Howe will hold up his word, or may not feel allying with a traitor is worth the loss of one ghetto.  

Yes, but you've illustrated the problem: the choice isn't difficult in either case. It's only difficult when it just is an unpalpable option based on the player's own experience thus far with the game. 

Take picking between Bhelen and Harrowmont. No one really complains about the existence of the choice. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Yes, but the game can't be reduced to some juvenile notion of morality. And "the good choice leads to suffering!" is as naive as "the good choice leads to paradise!". A game should reflect life, and the first step there is that life isn't about ridiculously stark moral choices that repeatedly punish you unless you adhere to one moral notion.

Real life is compromise. You have the job that makes tons of money? You have to work tons of hours so you can't fully enjoy it. You go to college to make a better future? You are stuck in debt for up to ten years. You go to the armed forces to help out with said college payments? You get out into harm's way, possibly losing your life to make it better. You get a scholarship that takes care of all of your bills? You sacrificed countless nights studying or preparing for your classes.

And those aren't even anywhere near "big" choices. Invading a country, something more along the lines of what some of these choices would equate to, is a huge decision, involving countless variables such as resources, lives lost, public will and countless other factors. There isn't any real choice that ever results in "all good" in our world.

To say a hero would need to make a choice without having to consider other factors than their own feelings and beliefs is incredibly outside of how our world, or any world, works.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

I would not like that. But what if by siding with house Howe, you suddenly can afford the extra forces to prevent the Alienage from being completely obliterated? For a Cousland, that might be a no-brainer... let the knife ears burn, I'll not sully the name of house Cousland. For a City Elf? Again, it could be a choice made without hesitation... who cares for the honor of a human house while my people's lives are at stake? But for other Origins? They might not trust that Howe will hold up his word, or may not feel allying with a traitor is worth the loss of one ghetto.  

Yes, but you've illustrated the problem: the choice isn't difficult in either case. It's only difficult when it just is an unpalpable option based on the player's own experience thus far with the game.

Take picking between Bhelen and Harrowmont. No one really complains about the existence of the choice.

Many people complain about Harrowmont and Bhelen, mostly because neither character is likeable nor are their endings ever completely "happy." Which is why I love the choice.

And the choice can be a no-brainer for some characters... but not for all PLAYERS. There could be human nobles who sacrifice their name for the elves. There could be a CE who despises Howe's involvement with the slave trade that they don't trust him at all and think their people can stand on their own strength... hubris that costs them their lives.

It's not a brainless decision for every PLAYER, though. Again, not many players would defile the Ashes, or kill the Dalish. Because it winds up being counterproductive to one's own goals... or, at the least, can have the exact same results achieved through a much more "friendly" way, which means the player would only do it just for the evelLOLZ. Which is still a possibility in my system, just that it also would allow for a greater degree of reasons to do so. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 18 septembre 2013 - 11:05 .

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Real life is compromise. You have the job that makes tons of money? You have to work tons of hours so you can't fully enjoy it.

I get what you mean, but I'll quibble with that one. I work in an industry that is very well known for absurd hours and high pay, and I honestly enjoy the work. I found the slow periods less tolerable than the busy period. 

You go to college to make a better future? You are stuck in debt for up to ten years.

Only if you're American. 

To say a hero would need to make a choice without having to consider other factors than their own feelings and beliefs is incredibly outside of how our world, or any world, works.

I didn't say that. What I said was that the "good choice always leads to good" is as naive as the "good choice leads to evil". 

Many people complain about Harrowmont and Bhelen, mostly because neither character is likeable nor are their endings ever completely "happy." Which is why I love the choice.

The complaints that I saw had to do with not being informed clearly enough about Harrowmont being seemingly good but incompetent and, well, insanely classic and Bhelen being an amoral jerk but a reformer and visionary. 

And the choice can be a no-brainer for some characters... but not for all PLAYERS. There could be human nobles who sacrifice their name for the elves. There could be a CE who despises Howe's involvement with the slave trade that they don't trust him at all and think their people can stand on their own strength... hubris that costs them their lives. 

There could be. But that isn't how you portrayed those choices in your post. 

It's not a brainless decision for every PLAYER, though. Again, not many players would defile the Ashes, or kill the Dalish. Because it winds up being counterproductive to one's own goals... or, at the least, can have the exact same results achieved through a much more "friendly" way, which means the player would only do it just for the evelLOLZ. Which is still a possibility in my system, just that it also would allow for a greater degree of reasons to do so. 

The system you're suggesting seems to me to really just be about punishing the player for wanting to make certain choices. 

Modifié par In Exile, 18 septembre 2013 - 11:26 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I'll cut out the rest, if you don't mind, simply because it seems superfluous to THIS:

In Exile wrote...

It's not a brainless decision for every PLAYER, though. Again, not many players would defile the Ashes, or kill the Dalish. Because it winds up being counterproductive to one's own goals... or, at the least, can have the exact same results achieved through a much more "friendly" way, which means the player would only do it just for the evelLOLZ. Which is still a possibility in my system, just that it also would allow for a greater degree of reasons to do so. 

The system you're suggesting seems to me to really just be about punishing the player for wanting to make certain choices. 

Not at all. I'm simply asking for moral clarification.

Are you making this choice to help these innocents/broker a peace/save the village/what have you because you believe it is the right thing, or because you believe it will result in the best outcomes?

If it is because it has the best outcomes, then does it matter as much? Should "best outcomes" even be an objective result? One player in another thread today said they would just pull up a guide online to figure out how to get the "best outcomes." 

What I suggest is a game where that term doesn't even apply. I'm not talking about making things dark and suffering just because, but to offer choices, REAL choices, where people have to say what they want... at the possible expense of other things, which they may also want. 

Do the strength of Bioware's character-crafting lead people to choose the well-being of those NPCs over the general well being of other entire groups? Do the already-established battle lines that can be seen here on the BSN, such as "pro-Mage," "pro-Dalish," "anti-Andrastian" lead people to take the stances mindlessly, without thought, opinions already formed before they even know the context of the choice? Or will players have to consider that they may have to work with people they wouldn't like in order to ensure that the groups they DO care about (Dalish, Apostates, nugs, whatever) all live to see the end of the conflict somewhat intact?

Video games have gotten into a very nasty habit of saying they are offering choices, but really just encouraging pre-made templates to be followed, such that players already know what they are going to do before they even know what doing said choice entails. That, to me, is a real fallacy with people in general in today's world and I would love to see a fictional, interactive setting work to make people question what they really believe and how they really represent their ideals. 

Eleanor Roosevelt said that people are like stained glass windows. They all look nice when the light is shining through... but the truly beauty is revealed when the darkness comes. When a game no longer shines a light on the clearly right choice, but makes the player think about a choice not just as "I don't need to do this - I'm the PC who can slay a thousand armies, so I can take the high ground on this and never have to worry about anything" but rather "I want to do X or support Y... but can I afford to? Will the cost of doing so be worth it?"

Would such a system reveal people to be fanatics about their beliefs, or truly devout? Fair weather fan of an idea, or pragmatist compromiser? Doing what needs to be done to get the job done, or sacrificing lives so that the actual blood won't appear on YOUR hands?

These are what I am striving for. TRUE morality questions. Not just "side with whatever team you want, complete all the side and loyalty quests and run this game on auto-pilot." That's not a riveting experience. That doesn't make the player look at anything with a discerning eye, or walk away with any experience that can't be found in a Mario game.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 septembre 2013 - 12:40 .