55 réponses à ce sujet

[DragonKingReborn]

 There was a thread dealing with a failed ending, where you lost at the end.  I'm curious as to whether players would accept a choice between an ending that was bad personally for their Inquisitor, but good for Thedas, or one where your character survived, but the world was in worse shape because of it.

The likelihood is, it won't be feasible to produce an ending where all the Veil tears aren't closed, but what about something like this;

We've been given reason to believe that these troubles are 'man-made' and part of a larger plan for mischief.  Would players be ok where, like Origins, there were three (or more) options where you could die, for varying reasons, but all ended up well (the meaningful death) and another where you were able to live, but only by letting the villain responsible slip free, possibly with the world knowing that you did so (the empty life).

I haven't played any mass effect games, so don't know from experience, but there was a lot of drama around the ending of me3, I believe, because all the ending options seemed like a 'loss'.  If the four flavours of ending in Origins were reversed, I.e. Instead of living in three of the possible endings, you died in them, but otherwise all ended well for the Inquisition, would that be something that players could be happy with (and knowing that the plan is to have a new protagonist each game) and not feel they'd been cheated out of content?

tl/dr 

 If you could win, and win well, but your character died,would you accept that as a game well written and made?

[Allan Schumacher]

If I stand before ten doors, and all of them have tigers behind them, that may also be a choice, but is there a point to it?

Many people (fans of the old school especially) argue yes. And I can see the value in their point and in many ways I agree. Even if you're shoe horned down a particular path, and in a video game plot there ARE limits to the options available, that choice is still your choice, even if the consequences end up the same.

Consider another alternative to your example.... would it be preferable to stand in front of only a single door?

This is actually what a lot of people reference to when they discuss why they love the older text style dialogues, and the specifics of the infamous Torment picture that happens all the time.

A lot of the issue people had with the ME3 original ending was that Shepard couldn't question the Catalyst. They felt like the agency over their character was stripped as a result. Even if things still end up the same, the idea of being allowed to express the view that you wanted is still important to defining your character.

I would suggest you be very careful with this attitude.

Remember what this is. It's a game.

Not a chore. Not a headache. Not an exam. Not work. A game. Entertainment. A mass marketed product designed to appeal and be beatable with a minimum of frustration for a wide variety of people and skill levels.

As it should be.

Whatever challenges the game presents are challenges that a reasonable intelligent child should be able to solve the first time through.

So careful what you're defining as 'really difficult.'

Likewise, remember that people want different things out of games. I disagree with the notion that the game's challenges should be solved by a child, especially given that our target audience is decidedly not children.

People get different things out of their games. I, personally, like the idea of mutually exclusive choice where not all things can be solved ideally. If you have 4 things, after I do the third the 4th fails because I spent my time elsewhere.

I also appreciate solutions that require more depth as well.


In order to satisfy your criteria, all we need is for the game to be completable. Nothing says it needs to be completed optimally.

[Allan Schumacher]

Br3ad wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Carver/Bethany gets the blight just for being in the deep roads, so yes it's plot armor.

Eh, illness takes on some people and doesn't on others. Wilhelm, for instance, ventured into the Deep Roads many times and never got sick.

So...plot armor? 

Yeah. I wouldn't overthink things too much for this, as on some level the PC and the party members have their status as being special little snowflakes in large part because strict adherence to the lore would ultimately make the game less enjoyable.

[Allan Schumacher]

You probably already know this, but I think it's more that people are getting tired of games now always ending with a heroic sacrifice, no matter what. It was mentioned above, but it's becoming as cliche as the happily ever after sort of ending.

Well, that's something that is cliche and becomes uninteresting, and I think may be independent of simply "all choices still lead to the same conclusion." If we had 10 doors that all still lead to the same interesting conclusion, are people happier?

At least for me, having my PC die no matter what kills the replayability of a game. While that's not to say it can't be an option, I just don't think it should be the only outcome of the ending(s). Heroic sacrifice lost it's meaning for me in the ME3 ending when Shepard is guaranteed to die with the exception of one ending.

I can understand that. For myself (as we're all unique) it doesn't really play a factor. So in that sense, it's gamers like different things. Which is okay

[Allan Schumacher]

Personally, I would see little to no difference if there is one door or ten, and they all lead to the same place. In particular, in a game that claims to give the player agency and choice. I'd feel in this case that my choices and agency have been rendered irrelevant.

Even if you liked where the door went?

Is it safe of me to assume that, in many cases, you'd prefer if BioWare's games just chose dialogue options for you then? (Especially the earlier games)

Effectively what you're saying is that Deus Ex (2000) is a game that really only grants you three choices in the entire game, because no matter what choices you make the conclusion is the same.

There are limits to what can be done as far as options go, sure. but denying the player's survival is pretty much the most basic form of denying player agency.

And here is where you and I as a gamer come to a bit of an impasse (as gamers).

I love choices to be difficult. I infinitely prefer a game to put me in positions to have to make a difficult choice where what I would ideally want to have happen simply isn't on the cards. It typically brings out an emotional response in me which is what I love so much. These to me come across as "character defining" types of moments for my playthrough, and is pretty much the type of escapism that I'm looking for in entertainment like this.

WALKING DEAD SPOILER---------------------------------

To me, The Walking Dead goes from one of my all time favourite game experiences to something forgettable if I learn that there's some way to avoid Lee's death.

SPOILER OVER----------------------

I am not one of them. I felkt my agency was stripped by being in that situation to begin with.

Here's the thing though, I could grant you dozens of different ways to attempt to do things, complete with hours upon hours of compelling gameplay that is unique to each choice. But for you, if the consequence is the same, it's meaningless. Especially since I am making an assumption that right up until you learn that death is inevitable you actually enjoy the level of choice you have been provided.

How do we reconcile our viewpoints?

Is what you are looking for truly agency (note: we do seem to be using different definitions, since mine focuses on choice while yours focuses on consequence), or simply pleasant conclusions? (Another note: there's nothing wrong with wanting pleasant conclusions, but I think if we provided a game that had dozens of uniquely different endings, but none were really "happy" that you'd prefer if we only had one ending that was happy.

[Allan Schumacher]

How much clearer can it be? No matter what you are, the player character is the same. These qualities do not flow from you. They flow from within the character. The idea of the playing 'earning' good outcomes for the player character is thus ridiculous for the vast majority of games, which includes any AAA game from BioWare.

If this were the case, if you were to watch two different people play the same game, it'd proceed identically. But it doesn't. Even the same combat, with two players playing the exact same party at the exact same level with the exact same skills won't necessarily playthrough in the exact same way, even if every choice they have made in game thus far has appeared to be the same one.

I'm of the opinion that there's an intrinsic connection between the player and the player character, since the player creates the personality of the character, and then elects to make decisions to choices and problems in the game based on what they feel are appropriate for the character.

For example, lets say I want to make a character that is very methodical and logical. But lets say I actually have very poor understanding of logic and frankly incorrectly conclude that illogical decisions are actually logical. Due to my fundamental inability to understand logic, I can only play what I think is a logical character. This logical character will be different from Sylvius who has a much stronger foundation in logical reasoning.

He and I will disagree on whether or not the character choices my character makes are logical, because he and I have a different understanding of what logic is.

It's similar to agency which came up earlier in this thread. When I think of player agency, I think of the ability to express my character in a particular way through gameplay choices. Other people see agency more as how reactive the game is being to the player's choices, enabling them to play through the game in a way that is enjoyable to them.

Why is it at all un-immersive for the narrative to indicate you've done something wrong?

Depends on how the game does it. Quest for Glory makes a humourous aside when you make a decision that will fundamentally block your ability to successfully complete the game. I mean, if you want you can keep playing, but you'll eventually be blocked. It's the adventure game aspect of the game (which is a pretty split RPG/Adventure hybrid) coming forward, and ultimately a shift away from the Quest games which were punitive for not doing the correct sequence of events and the player ultimately sabotaging the game's narrative as a result.

[Allan Schumacher]

I prefer for my efforts to impact on the playthrough. Not forced casualties.

What if your efforts have an impact on who the casualties are?

If a town is on fire and you have cries for help from two different buildings, you can save one but the other is lost. A casualty is forced, but you have had a pretty strong impact on how the narrative plays that particular playthrough.

[Allan Schumacher]

The playthroughs proceed differently because players choose different options. Not because they earned them. I always play games throughly and complete any bonus objectives, any side quests. I always get the best endings.

This, to me, is a problem with the games that you are playing (and the games that we are making). My big dislike of the Suicide Mission is that it's far too easy for it to be successful with no casualties. Especially after a great sequence such as Virmire in the first game.

Further, I think it's also reflective of your gaming exposure. Some games don't allow you to do everything. Other games have knowledge that is hidden that unless a player is particularly astute, the likelihood that they stumble upon the correct sequence of choices usually requires a degree of metagaming (a perspective your assertion also completely overlooks and undermines your assertion that player characters behave independently of the player's influence).

Connor is a frequently cited example as a situation where a player can make a decision based upon imperfect information, and where many players required metaknowledge in order to make the ideal solution. In other words, compared to other players, they lacked the good fortune to recognize the ideal solution (and I am one of those people that didn't recognize the ideal solution in part because of earlier choices I had made).

I will take your post to heart though, in that I think we can do a better job of presenting meaningful challenges and choices to players, rather than simply "completionist = ideal."

I do nothing that 99.9% of people who play video games couldn't easily do. If not by doing what I do, then by using a walkthrough or playing on a lesser difficulty.

Metagaming undermines your perspective entirely. It's the player directly influencing the choices of the player character based on knowledge that the player has that the player character cannot. This literally comes across as a tacit concession of the point....

That distinction makes all the difference in the world, for it provides the justifiction for the existence of the qualities of player characters in the first place. It provides the justifiction for some choices being better than others.

Choices being better is qualitative, and unless the player character explicitly, and without player input, states that it's a better solution (and as such, negating "choice" from being a factor), it's the player's assessment as to whether or not said choice is ideal for the player character, as the player character makes no choices without the player.

[Allan Schumacher]

But yeah, back in the old days, adventure games tended to have many places that would stop you from continuing though I never ran into any so far in the Quest for Glory series. I ran into one when playing the first King's Quest, but it only took about an hour to get near the end of the game again.

I killed the bear, thinking I was all smart and brave. Until I saw him morph into a human. To which the game presented a popup effectively saying "that may not have been the bestest idea in the world."

Very tongue in cheek and quite entertaining.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think making all actions lead to negative consequences, even if we're given the choice of which consequence we choose, can still lead to as bad a reaction as all choices having no negative consequences.

I agree.

[Allan Schumacher]

I picked Redcliffe since it was closest

[Allan Schumacher]

Is this the best argument the BSN can give me?

A simple question. Do you deny that there are ugly, weak, unintelligent, unskilled (in any and every combination) players who play attractive, competent, intelligent strong chracters in role playing games?

Red Herring.

[Allan Schumacher]

Redbelle wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It feels too game-y in the end.

So I have to disagree.

Dude!

It is a VIDEO GAME!

It's supposed to be gamey! Because it's a game! A Mass Effect game!

BW aren't making Pac-Man here. I'm sure they know how to put together an action RPG. They've done it since Baldur's Gate.

Just as a note, since this is apparently a trigger phrase for some people, I can understand and empathize with the "too gamey" angle.

No, I'm never oblivious to the fact that I'm in a video game, but there are things that ostensibly pull me out of the experience.

In some ways I rationalize by simply having a suspension of disbelief (most combat in most games, RPG or otherwise), but sometimes I get invested in the story and characters and something ends up happening in the game that pulls me out and makes it feel as though it was included simply because "it's a video game and a video game must have this identifiable feature."

When someone says something feels "gamey" in a video game, it typically just means it's something that reminded the player that the setting is fake and artificial, and not in a good way.  Ruined ones immersion, so to speak.  When someone responds with "it's a video game" to a comment like this, I get the impression that there's a disconnect between the two perspectives and people are getting caught up on the specifics of the words used rather than the meaning of the words.

I am fine with playing a Mario game and having my character (or the boss character) have a moment of invulnerability after being hit (usually indicated by the character flashing on the screen).  However, when I patiently await to do a stealth shot in the PSX Metal Gear Solid and shoot a guy square in the back, and he goes invulnerable and starts flashing because he's not dead yet, I consider that "gamey" and not in a good way.  I find it inconsistent with the tone I was expecting.

Now whether or not this is the game's fault or my fault (for having differing expectations) is more just an illustration that playing a game is kind of a contract between game designer and game player and how willing they are to meet in the middle.

[Allan Schumacher]

While it's clear many here disagree with David, if I see people attacking him (or even just an over reliance on falling back on the fact that he hasn't played Dragon Age), that type of behaviour is more likely to draw my ire.

I've deleted some posts already.


Although David, I do agree with the general notion that experiencing more RPGs may help illustrate the perspectives other people have (myself included).  I get the impression that you're struggling to understand why many disagree with your perspective, when it could simply be because they have different experiences that motivate their perspectives.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 octobre 2013 - 03:59 .

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Metagaming undermines your perspective entirely. It's the player directly influencing the choices of the player character based on knowledge that the player has that the player character cannot. This literally comes across as a tacit concession of the point....

And how is that?

Suppose all walkthroughs vanished tomorrow. Suppose this changes nothing. Players might have to do a bit more work, take a few less shortcuts, but they still complete games as easily. They still achieve the same percentage of endings and whatnot. If that's true, then that proves my point, or at least supports it. That the success of the player character is not 'earned' by the player. For how can the abilities of the player be a significant issue if tools to boost those abilities have no effect? 

Suppose that it changes everything. Suppose without walkthroughs, players now have significant difficulty completing games. Perfect ending percentages goes way down. That also proves my point, more or less. Why? Because it defies your belief that the suicide mission and analagous content is too easy to achieve and thus unsatisfying.

Bolded emphasis mine.

First instance: Players might have to do more work.  As such, they may have to earn their happy ending.  Conclusion: Your point is incorrect.

Second instance: Given that players have more difficulty completing the game, we have fundamentally shown that player ability and knowledge affects the player character.  As such, your point that the player character behaves independently of the player is incorrect.  We've demonstrated that metaknowledge (i.e. player knowledge) can affect how things play out for the player character.


It's also important to note that it's very risky to assume your own interpretations and understandings are applicable to other people.

As such, I'm quite willing to accept that people may like the Suicide Mission and the level of effort required to ensure a satisfactory playthrough.  When I say I find it too easy, it means that it wasn't sufficiently difficult for Allan.  If optimal playthrough simply means completionist playthrough, then I think we can stand to make the choices in our games more interesting.

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The Lothering gossips mention it.

Alright. I'd maintain the point, however, that Grey Warden business, i.e. fixing the Blight>quelling a demon infestation.

I'd argue that whether or not which is important is greatly dependent upon the player playing the game.

Or in the cases of someone playing like, say, Sylvius, the type of character the player intends to create.

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

Then what? What quality of a person is it that 'earns' the success of the protagonist?

His skill? No. The same endings are earned by the master who plays on the highest difficult and the notice who struggles with easy.

His intelligence? No. The protagonist is no more or less intelligent regardless if played by a genius or fool.

His work? His dedication? Are those things of any substance in playing a video game? If they are, you can no longer claim ME 2's ending is lacks merit for not being earned. Because when the player completes the loyal missions, that's the same dedication, the same work that goes into any game. If such 'work' and 'dedication' has merit, it has merit in ME 2. It either has value, or it doesn't.

What quality, what factor is it then, that 'earns' success for the protagonist? 

The choices that the player makes.  As you've conceded yourself in this post the players do make the choices for the player character.

By making a particular sequence of choices during a particular playthrough, the player can be rewarded for those particular choices by getting a rarer ending (assuming the game is created to be accommodating in such a way).

For games like Mass Effect 2 and 3, the choices made tend to be more "complete all content" and I'd agree that that is perhaps not the most interesting way to allow a player to do something like that.  Mass Effect 2 is an example, it's just not a particular strong one because as you say, it's mostly just playing the game like normal.  That's on the developer, however.


In the case of Dragon Age Origins, however, if the player (such as myself, since this did happen to me) arrives in Redcliffe to save Connor, and has no semblance of the Mage Circle or an inkling of belief that there are other alternatives, then someone must die to conclude that quest line.

However, those that either went to the Circle first, or take a chance and pursue other options, are rewarded for that choice by getting a superior outcome (no one must die).


(It should be noted that I think the Connor sequence can be done better, and I'm not really a fan of leaving a possessed Connor to find other solutions without some sort of consequence occurring).

The players make the choices (as you've mentioned).  "Earn your happy ending" is simply a way of saying "reward the player for a particular type of playthrough.  Usually grounded in some sort of risk analysis and in keeping the circumstances logical.  Few that want "Earn your happy ending" want it to be non-sensical.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:23 .

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

No, it's not earned. Does a film require anything of the audience? Any problem solving, any skill, any merit? No. Anyone can watch a film, and different people can get entirely different things from it. Very meaningful things. Does that meaning need to be 'earned'?

No. It doesn't.

At this point I'm inclined to think you're intentionally trying to antagonize people.  I am not amused with this response unless your point was to convey that you don't see any sort of fundamental difference between a film and a video game.

Which, if that is the case, I think is the source of much confusion here.

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Alright. I'd maintain the point, however, that Grey Warden business, i.e. fixing the Blight>quelling a demon infestation.

I'd argue that whether or not which is important is greatly dependent upon the player playing the game.

Or in the cases of someone playing like, say, Sylvius, the type of character the player intends to create.

I'm not talking about me as a person. I'm talking about the player character as a Grey Warden.

So in this case, you're the second example.  To be honest it's trivially easy for me to come up with a situation where any character goes to any of the locations first.  The argument comes across as silly, unless you're just looking to discuss it for the sake of an interesting discussion (which is fine enough.  It can be hard to tell on the internet and in that case I overstepped my bounds).

[Allan Schumacher]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

When I say I find it too easy, it means that it wasn't sufficiently difficult for Allan.  If optimal playthrough simply means completionist playthrough, then I think we can stand to make the choices in our games more interesting.

Not targeted only to Allan!

I'm curious, how does everyone feel about Fallout's system of limiting "optimal" solutions through your character's statistics? Some solutions can only be handled by a scientist, others can only be handled by someone who's a slaver, etc.

That isn't to say that persuade is often the modifier that leads to most optimal solutions but I remember playing New Vegas, investigating into who the enemy at a base is (and deflecting a lot of red herrings on the way) which led to me hearing about a bomb and rushing over to it. To my horror, I couldn't disable it due to my character not having the skills mandatory for it and being forced to watch it explode.

The fact that the quest didn't instantly fail and I had to deal with the post-bomb scene was fantastic.

In my experience, the Fallout games have been pretty good at providing very challenging circumstances.  And there's definitely an aspect of "earn your happy ending" if you consider the survival of Necropolis part of the happiest ending.  In my experience, unless I heavily exploit meta knowledge, it's very hard to complete the game quickly enough.

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

What I read from this is that completing trivial tasks without a walkthrough is 'work' and that everything that goes into getting a perfect ending for ME 2 is not.

What I get from your statements is that Mass Effect 2 was too easy, since the tasks are deemed trivial.

I think it may not be a good example of "Earn your happy ending" since, as you say, it's simply to trivial to do.

As stated, I agree with this as a gamer.

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

Why would I?

Can you understand why many people do?

In a movie, the person is purely a passive observer.  You can't even make choices (which you concede players do do in a video game).

In a video game, the player has some degree of influence, in the form of making choices.  For example, I made the best choice with the information provided to me to resolve the Connor situation, which was to let his mother sacrifice herself to save her son.

Some people learned that they could go to the Mage Tower and get the help of Irving, but only if they were able to save Irving during the fight against Uldred (Irving can die during the fight against Uldred).

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

What I would like you to get from my statements is that, Mass Effect, along with the overwhelmingly majority of video games, is easy - and that's a good thing. A thing both justified and logical, that does nothing to diminish the success or heroism of the characters and protagonist. That heroism and success is justified to exist in an easy or trivial video game.

Bear with me for a moment, but if you were to wager an estimate of all the people that bought and played Mass Effect 2 and completed at least 1 playthrough to the end, what would that percentage be?

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

Video games should have the option of being easy. You are perfectly free to enjoy games on the ultra-hardest difficulty. Nobody is threatening that. However, a game should not be made frustratration, or work, or tedium for someone to enjoy the story. The story exists as the same regardless of what the player is or how good he is.

Difficulty in terms of being able to complete the game is very different than difficulty in terms of being able to get an ideal solution.

I agree that video games such as ours should have lower difficulty levels for those that seek to engage in the story, but are not good at combat elements.  As this is what our difficulty level represents.

In terms of the content of the story in our RPGs, difficulty has virtually no impact on that at all (minor exceptions, such as Irving being able to survive).

As you say, the story exists regardless of the player's skill.  What people are referring to with "earn your happy ending" isn't about player ability or player skill, but rather the sequence of choices in a game of narrative choices (which are not affected by difficulty).  In this sense, since the difficulty doesn't affect the story, players would like the optimal ending of the story to be as a result of making decisions in a particular way in the game.

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

I've heard numbers of around 20%. But I certainly wouldn't trust them to be indicative of the game being difficult. Why?

Just curious.  And I agree that it's not indicative of the game being difficult.