1331 réponses à ce sujet

[The Sarendoctrinator]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The Sarendoctrinator wrote...
 If the game tries to force that... then the whole thing appears to be made with a different character in mind, not the one I was playing, and a roleplaying game that's based on choice should allow options for different types of characters. Not everyone wants to die to save the world. 

The problem with what you're suggesting is that this is a video game, and as such MUST have a direction that it heads in, which in turn forces your character to be the kind of character who does those things. Whether it be the kind of person who rebels against the Jedi council and turns to the Dark Side, whether it be the kind of person intent on battling the sentient spaceships [though not necessarily in this case one that is willing to die to that end] at the expense of pleasure, whether it be the kind of person willing to leave behind lives that probably could have accomidated them and become a Warden, or whether it be the kind of person who cares for their family enough to run away from the Darkspawn with them.

You're ALREADY suffering from a loss in character agency. I'm not saying that justifies further loss, but simply saying you can't slice it into this nice "roleplaying games give you character agency while other games don't!" Not necessarily.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say here. I'm saying the game shouldn't do those things.

If we've been able to play our character a certain way - and I'm not talking about personal headcanon, but actual in-game dialogue choices where the character is allowed to express their views - then I think the game should respect that, or at least not contradict it. Making the character's self-sacrifice required, when it's possible to play a character who would never do this, is forcing the character to change in order to fit a story path that doesn't fit them at all.

Just because the character knows their death is a possibility during the war doesn't mean that they would accept sacrifice as the only option without trying to find another way. You said it yourself, they're not necessarily willing to die. I've always played them as fighting to survive, and had several opportunities to express that through dialogue.

And I know that there are some things about the character which are set guidelines. One of my problems with ME3 is actually that it contradicts those aspects of Shepard's personality that were established in the previous games (and even again in ME3, just a few minutes before the contradiction).

I never said there aren't other games that don't give character agency either, only that it's a major feature in roleplaying games. BioWare games are advertised as having choice and allowing us to play the character our way, and I love that about their games. I just don't want them to take that away at the end... or before the end.

Mr.House wrote...

Man, I would love you guys to play a certain Atlus game.

Well, now I'm curious. Which game are you talking about?

[Dave of Canada]

David7204 wrote...

So according to you, the very existence of themes of stories is 'un-immersive.'

A theme can be present in a story without shoehorning it. Mass Effect's initial theme was humanity's place in the universe, decisions approached it differently with humanity co-operating or humanity domineering. The writers didn't involve themselves in the game telling you that humanity taking control of the Council was a mistake, that was up to the player's interpretation.

Ultimately, stories present themes and it's up to the player to interpret them. A novel writer wouldn't last long if he went around telling everyone they didn't understand his book because they have a different understanding of what the writer tried to get across.

Hell, look at Loghain and how some of the officials were surprised that some people loved him.

Edit: Never mind, you didn't play Dragon Age: Origins.

Because that's precisely what a theme is - the narrative 'telling' you something.

That's moral values, they're mostly introduced in childhood cartoons/books to teach you that stealing is bad and don't do drugs.

Most (not all) stories don't have such clear-cut themes, they're always about referencing a situation--be it political, philosophical or what say you--and immersing them in the world for commentary, interpretation is key when introducing themes into stories.

For example, most dysoptian fiction don't even go and out-right claiming that dyspotias are bad because they're trying to tell a story, not moral values. The reader might correlate it to the writer's real-world opinions but there's enough distance from them that you might interpret things differently.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 30 octobre 2013 - 06:37 .

[David7204]

Really? Why don't you name me a few reasonably well-known stories you claim have no themes?

Stories don't run into problems with presenting themes because most of them are ideas people inherently agree with. In fact, they agree with them to the extent they hardly notice them. Which is in fact the whole reason why these discussion prop up about video games that offer very radical alternatives and rarely elsewhere.

Allow me to name a few examples. Harry Potter 'tells' the audience that love is important and prejudice is bad. And look. The highest grossing book series in existence. The Shawshank Redemtion 'tells' the audience that hope is a good thing. And would anyone deride the Shawshank Redemption as childish and stupid for doing so? Breaking Bad, consistantly acclaimed to be one of the best television programs in existence, continually portrays its characters as powerful only when they claim self-responsibility, and doesn't hesitate to portray people who diffuse that responsibility as weak. There's no debate. No counterexample. Is that not a theme?

Or perhaps it's a childish moral lesson?

Modifié par David7204, 30 octobre 2013 - 06:59 .

[Dave of Canada]

David7204 wrote...

Really? Why don't you name me a few reasonably well-known stories you claim have no themes?

Woah, I thought I said something completely different than stories having no themes.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 30 octobre 2013 - 06:43 .

[shockky]

David7204 wrote...

Really? Why don't you name me a few reasonably well-known stories you claim have no themes?

Do you know how to read?

[Dave of Canada]

shockky wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Really? Why don't you name me a few reasonably well-known stories you claim have no themes?

Do you know how to read?

He sees the themes behind Miranda nudging you to pick a tech user or the characters saying "darnit, Shepard. You should've picked a tech user instead of MORINTH" (paraphrased) in ME2's Suicide Mission.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 30 octobre 2013 - 07:09 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Cause when you do something in real life, no-one comes along and points out that you should've done something else.

"Dammit, I don't have enough money to buy this candy bar."
"Hey David, we wouldn't be in this tight of spot had you not given money to that homeless man!"

I just did that very thing to my boss last week.

"We wouldn't have this problem if you hadn't unilaterally changed the schedule."

[David7204]

What on Earth does the Suicide Mission have to do with any of this? Unless of course, we're talking about the theme of 'friends and allys are good'? Which naturally must extend to 'Getting your friends and allies killed is not as good as not getting your friends and allies killed?

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

Is the player character charismatic because you're charismatic? No. S/he's just as charismatic regardless of whether you're a cult leader or a mumbling vagrant.

If the player character smart because you're smart? No. She's just as smart whether you're a top scientist or an illiterate fool.

Is the player character attractive because you're attractive? No. S/he's just as attractive regardless of whether you're a two or a ten.

Is the player character strong because you're strong? No. S/he's just as strong whether you're a world-class fighter or a 90 pound weakling.

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.

I agree completely with David on this point.

Once the traits of the character are decided (and I hope they're decided by the player), from an in-game perspective everything that happens as a result of those traits has nothing at all to do with the player.

[David7204]

Is that not the very same thing? The stripping and purging of themes?

Back to my examples. It's unambiguously 'right' that love is a good thing and prejudice is a bad thing in Harry Potter. It's unambiguously 'right' that hope is a good thing in the Shawshank Redemption. It's unambiguously 'right' that self-responsibility is a necessity of power in Breaking Bad.

Would those stories be richer with those themes purged? With that 'rightness' removed?

Modifié par David7204, 30 octobre 2013 - 07:36 .

[Redbelle]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

I kind of like the idea of forced casualties on the Suicide Mission, although I think it would ultimately have little impact for most people as they'd simply use it as a chance to weed out the characters they don't particularly care for (I know I wouldn't have any problems with sending, for example, Jacob or Samara to their deaths).

We do need more choices without unambiguously "right" options either way, though. More Virmire, less Redcliffe.

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

Forced casualities is the domain of novels or movies.

Video games depend on the gamer who plays them. Forcing someone to take something they don't want like the endings isn't taking advantage of the medium.......

Of course, if we're talking Virmire survivor..... then that's an example of a forced casuality done right. It was dramatic. It forced the player to make a choice. To weigh it in it's entirity.

If we have to have a casualty, make it one that suddenly comes out of nowhere..... gathers steam while the player moves forward, then have to watch as they leave someone behind.

[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.

[David7204]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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. Is that because of any great feat on my part? Any great skill or great ability? No. It's simply because that's the way I choose to experience the story. 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.

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. (Or rather, it stands against the demand of the absence of such qualities.) It provides the justifiction for some choices being better than others.

Modifié par David7204, 30 octobre 2013 - 08:44 .

[Redbelle]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

This is exactly what I was getting at in the post. The way the Virmire survivor is chosen. The notion of.... you can save one but not everyone......

I should distinguish though. The example above is a straight up choice...... who do you want to save...... or rather...... why do you choose to save one and not the other?

The Virmire survivor choice, I read that people had to stop playing and spend the rest of the day trying to decide what to do. Someone who said they were ex military heralded that scene and the sequences that came after as being one of the best events that occured in ME1.......

In that context, I'm okay with forced character deaths.......

But I don't think BW should go with a death in the same way that FF7's Aeris died. One minute she's there, the next she isn't......

ME is about choice and consequence...... Death's should come from a choice the player makes. Maybe they make a choice that seems benign, then further down the road it becomes the crux of a character's demise.

The point, is that the player should be responsible and complicit in the event's that occur. As such, a character death doesn't happen for no reason. It happens because the player did something.

[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.

[HiroVoid]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

High five for referencing my current favorite adventure game series! 

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.

Edit: Too tired to go into the subject right now, but I always found Mr. B Tongues' video on this topic to be a very interesting view on the subject.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 30 octobre 2013 - 09:02 .

[Welsh Inferno]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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 wrote...

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."

Just want to add its great to hear someone at BioWare has this point of view. Hopefully this throught process turns into some great content within the game 

[David7204]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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).

The Suicide Mission is a question of gameplay. Gameplay which determines who lives and dies. Gameplay which determines how successful the mission is. Gameplay which decides the outcome.

Virmire is a question of story. How good or lousy the player is or chooses to be is entirely irrelevent. Either Ashley or Kaidan dies no matter what.

What gameplay do you imagine would make the suicide mission challenging enough? Requiring the player solve calculus equations? Deduce information that requires meticulous attention to detail the vast majority of players would miss entirely? Complete combat encounters difficult enough to be incredibly frustrating for a great deal of players? Make the game into an exam? Into work? Into tedium?

Could a developer end the story with a ridiculously difficult and frustrating combat encounter and only award a 'perfect' ending to players who beat it? Absolutely.

Could a developer ask players to solve complex calculus equations and give better outcomes for right answers, on the grounds that smart players (and thus protagonists) deserve better results? Sure they could.

Could a developer give the player an incredibly tedious puzzle or task to complete and reward them for slogging through it? Easily.

And look what's happened. The core of the experience has collapsed. What was supposed to be a game is now a chore. What was supposed to be entertainment is now a headache. Are you going to walk away from that experience with a dropped jaw and a rush of excitement, eager for more? No. You'll walk away glad to have it over and done with. And indeed many games have done such things, and been worse for it.

How much are you going to ask of the people who play on 'easy'? On 'casual'? On 'normal,' such as myself?

What percentage of your customer base would you sacrifice to provide a challenge? Do you have any confidence you could avoid simply going in a loop? You provide a small portion of your customers a challenge they can complete, and you're right back where you started - with complaints that success meant nothing because it wasn't earned, since some players doubtless find calculus very easy. Or detective work easy. Or combat very easy.

So what's the conclusion? If success simoultaniously must be earned by gameplay and cannot be earned in gameplay, the path leads the only one place - Success must be stripped from the story. Heroism must be stripped from the story. And indeed, this is precisely the conclusion reached throughout the BSN.

Modifié par David7204, 30 octobre 2013 - 10:03 .

[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.

[Ravensword]

David7204 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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).

The Suicide Mission is a question of gameplay. Gameplay which determines who lives and dies. Gameplay which determines how successful the mission is. Gameplay which decides the outcome.

Virmire is a question of story. How good or lousy the player is or chooses to be is entirely irrelevent. Either Ashley or Kaidan dies no matter what. 

What gameplay do you imagine would make the suicide mission challenging enough? Requiring the player solve calculus equations? Deduce information that requires meticulous attention to detail the vast majority of players would miss entirely? Complete combat encounters difficult enough to be incredibly frustrating for a great deal of players? Make the game into an exam? Into work? Into tedium?

Could a developer end the story with a ridiculously difficult and frustrating combat encounter and only award a 'perfect' ending to players who beat it? Absolutely.

Could a developer ask players to solve complex calculus equations and give better outcomes for right answers, on the grounds that smart players (and thus protagonists) deserve better results? Sure they could.

Could a developer give the player an incredibly tedious puzzle or task to complete and reward them for slogging through it? Easily. 

And look what's happened. The core of the experience has collapsed. What was supposed to be a game is now a chore. What was supposed to be entertainment is now a headache. Are you going to walk away from that experience with a dropped jaw and a rush of excitement, eager for more? No. You'll walk away glad to have it over and done with. And indeed many games have done such things, and been worse for it. 

How much are you going to ask of the people who play on 'easy'? On 'casual'? On 'normal,' such as myself?

What percentage of your customer base would you sacrifice to provide a challenge? Do you have any confidence you could avoid simply going in a loop? You provide a small portion of your customers a challenge they can complete, and you're right back where you started - with complaints that success meant nothing because it wasn't 'earned,' since some players doubtless find calculus very easy. Or detective work easy. Or combat very easy. 

So what's the conclusion? If success simoultaniously must be earned by gameplay and cannot be earned in gameplay, the path leads the only one place - Success must be stripped from the story. Heroism must be stripped from the story. And indeed, this is precisely the conclusion reached throughout the BSN.

This posts just gave me cancer in just how stupid it is. Obviously players won't be required to solve calculus problems, but what you fail to realize is that you're asinine opinions aren't universally accepted nor are they indicative of some sort of trend. You're just like one of those people who demand that they be pandered to.

Modifié par Ravensword, 30 octobre 2013 - 10:03 .

[David7204]

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.

Modifié par David7204, 30 octobre 2013 - 10:12 .

[Mr. Homebody]

DragonKingReborn wrote...

 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.

I can accept such a choice depending of my actions. But I prefer to have a third possibility, which is this kind of ending good for both Thedas and my party.

DragonKingReborn wrote...

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?

This topic reminds me of a discussion on the unhappy / happy ending.

There is a lot of controversy around ME ending. Personally I do not agree with the allegations that the decisions do not matter. They do matter, but simply the consequences are revealed during the course of the whole game, not during final moments. And they don't have big influence on the story but this is understandable.

The problem is however with depressive nature of the ending. I can easily accept unhappy ending in the movie or book or any kind of short story. But it is diffrent with favourite TV series for example. Long-term contact with favorite characters creates some kind of emotional connection. I think it is natural that in this case I want to have a happy ending for them.

In games such as ME / DA it is even more important because we can influence the course of events. ME is the whole trilogy and hundreds of hours in this fantastic world. In the case of DA the protagonist is not constant but every single playthrough is still 100+ hours of playing for me (at least on nightmare difficulty). In this case, the opportunity to achieve a happy ending is always welcome. I'm not saying that this should be easy. On the contrary. However, it should be at least possible.

Modifié par Mr. Homebody, 30 octobre 2013 - 10:34 .

[nos_astra]

HiroVoid wrote...
Edit: Too tired to go into the subject right now, but I always found Mr. B Tongues' video on this topic to be a very interesting view on the subject.

How did I miss this? This video is spot on!

Something that bugs me about the Bioware games I've played so far is that the consequences are often arbitrary or illogical. To a point were I will ignore my general inclination not to replay (because I don't have time for this) and replay specifically to create a playthrough where I minimize the effect of these arbitrary, illogical or unlikely choices.

The conclusion of the genophage arc in Mass Effect 3 seems pretty popular and is often used as an example of what ME3 did right. Inconsistencies aside (a clutch of up to 1.000 eggs vs. single birth, sterility plague vs. still births) it leads to the very arbitrary consequence of picking your buddy Wrex (and does the game try hard to emphasize this point) and a likeable Eve to change the attitude, way of life, traditions of their whole species. Could anyone point me to the two really awesome people on Earth who can do this for us, too?

On the other hand you have a more logical consequence of not saving relevant data for Project Eve and have Eve be more vulnerable and therefore die. In ME we had way too much of the former and too little of the latter.

Another example in DAO: Arl Eamon treats you the same way no matter what you did. Did you kill his wife or child? He holds no grudge because you totally did what you had to. His ability to shrug this off and treat you respectfully somehow can be translated into  "Eamon is a scheming bastard who is using the Warden". It's really weird. Oh, and killing greedy merchants before everyone's eyes is also totally ok because you claim to be a Warden (your word on this is proof enough) and we do not trust Loghain anyway (oh, well, we sort of do, but then we really don't).
At first I was really reluctant to reveal that I was a Warden ... or a Cousland. After all both had been branded as traitors and surely going around an telling everyone who I am and what I am would be a stupid idea. I soon learned that it didn't really matter. The worst thing that could happen was an instant attack from Loghain's soldiers.

DA2 didn't fare any better: Random refugee from Ferelden goes around killing people in Kirkwall. No one cares.

More of a subtle simulation approach as opposed to ZOMFG PICK FROM 3 CHOICES AND CHANGE DA WORLD FOREVAAAAAH would be appreciated!

Edit:
If the character's death is a natural consequence of a chain of choices I'll accept it. If it is just there and feels tacked on I will roll my eyes. And now you can save the universe by picking A, B or C. You will die but the world will be ok if you completed most of the arbitrary sidequests and went for the developer approved big choices.

Modifié par klarabella, 30 octobre 2013 - 11:07 .