1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Redbelle]

One of the things that get's lost in the discussion of choice is the player's character.

Choice leading to consequence is an easy thing to reflect in the game..... It's what the character does.....

But in the video game world of ME, choice also defines who your character is. The character is still being built as you play through the game.

It's this notion of continuous character development that goes right through the series. ME1's character allows you to build ME2's character and so on.

I think the great thing about the ME series is that, unlinke Snake or Dante, the player chooses who their Shep is..... he has predefined aspects of history to inform his role and what he is (i.e. Soldier in an army). But who he is, is determined entirely by the player. He could be kind, cruel, sarcastic, witty etc etc......

And while some would say that the old Rene/Para doesn't allow for much refelction on that, it has to be noted that in the game world...... Is it reasonable to expect Shep to be able to pull all the ranges of human emotion? It all has to be coded in after all. Given that players already say, their Shep is this, their Shepard is that. I'd say that the games did as good a job as could be expected.

When it comes to depicting Shep in game, he will always be limited in his responses.... But that's no bad thing. At least he has more variation than a CoD grunt.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

The idea that the player 'earns' a good ending for their character is a fallacy that only leads to dead ends.

It doesn't matter if you're an Olympian supermodel with sevens Ph.D and breeze through the game on the super-ultra extra hardest difficult, or a basement-dwelling intellectually challenged societal reject who struggles over and over to complete the game on the easiest setting.

You get the exact. same. story.

The player character is just as brave. Just as competent. Just as attractive. Just as intelligent. Just as strong.

The simple truth that so many people on this forum seem vehemently opposed to is that the qualities of the character flow from the character. Never from the player.

With video-games, most specifically ROLEPLAYING-games, this is not at all the case. That's just a simple fact that you vehemently oppose and just don't want to understand.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Redbelle wrote...
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.......

Adn tellign a story is taking advantage of a medium.
The strength of games is in interaction and immersion, and not "picking everything". For that, look into modding.

And it's exactly because the game is interactive that adeath may have more impact - either because it's a direct product of your actions, or because you cannot avoid it no matter what you do.

Let's take for example, that are missions where Sheps entire team deploys. You are makign your way towards the objective, time is ticking.
One of the people will die from a sniper..or friendly fire. It is random. Rolled at the start of the game. Reload can't help you.

Just like in real-life: You don't know who. You don't know when.  And you can't protect them from everything no matter what.

Manye people unfortunately confuse a game with "their story". It is only to an extent. You control your character, not the world and the events.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

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.

You seem to have a very poor understanding of what gameplay is.

David7204 wrote...

What gameplay do you imagine would make the suicide mission challenging enough?

ACTUAL GAMEPLAY that is more than just "pick the right guy for the right job, which is actually very simple, and then automatically win the game". 

For example: "beat this sequence under 3 minutes, for every minute longer you take, 1 squad member will die" would be a great improvement for the Suicide Missio over what we have right now.

[ruggly]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I disagree vehemently. Vehemently.

The choice matters because I made the choice. The choice matters because it reflects my intent for the world. It shows who I am, both to me and to those around me. The choice does not have to ultimately "matter" in the scope of the real world.

Garrus: "So he dies anyway. What was the point of that?"
Shepard: "Sometimes how you respond to something matters as much as the outcome."

Shep's dialog is butchered terribly, but you get the point. It matters, but on a different level.

Yes, but you have to remember that your world does not equal other player's worlds.  I'll keep repeating it, it's not that an US can't be an option in a game, but it shouldn't be the only option.  You're never going to please every single player, that's a given, but I think it's a good idea to at least give a range of ending options and not just "sacrifice yourself for the better of the world."  That's getting to be pretty old fairly quick with me.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Redbelle wrote...
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......

That's kinda how war works tough.

You, bob and Mike are makign your way to the enemy bunker, bullets zipping past. You make a wild dash to the next piece of cover. You are in range of hte bunker and you call Bob to hand you a satchel charge...only for Bob not to respond.
You turn back and there is bob, lying at the middle of the field.

There is power in a sudden, untelegraphed death.

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.

I don't see it as necessary that EVERY thing in the universe happens based on player choice.
It feels too game-y in the end.

So I have to disagree.

[Redbelle]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Redbelle wrote...
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......

That's kinda how war works tough.

You, bob and Mike are makign your way to the enemy bunker, bullets zipping past. You make a wild dash to the next piece of cover. You are in range of hte bunker and you call Bob to hand you a satchel charge...only for Bob not to respond.
You turn back and there is bob, lying at the middle of the field.

There is power in a sudden, untelegraphed death.

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.

I don't see it as necessary that EVERY thing in the universe happens based on player choice.
It feels too game-y in the end.

So I have to disagree.

I agree that a character death, whn done properly, can have a huge impact on the story in a positive manner.

Note the word, properly.

There are some deaths that, handled as they were, make me cringe...... Trinity from Matrix 3? You know a dath scene has overstayed it's welcome when your leaning with elbow and hand supporting your face and wishing she'd just hurry up and croak.

Aeris's death however, was not a strict death. Her influence continued throughout the game.

Tasha Yar's death from ST:TNG..... now that came out of nowehere..... it had impact. And more so when the crew elected carry on with the mission, only morning when the mission was complete and they had her wake.

The latest ST movie however, where Kirk dies from radiation poisoning leading to Spock's..... KHHHHAAAAAANNNNN, moment...... followed by Kirk's ressurection thanks to Mc'Coy's laxness in disposing of dead tribbles around his sick bay....... I don't want to go threre... The whole thing from the death to the resurrection was aweful to behold. It seemed the whole point of killing Kirk was to make Spock lose his temper, then decide to hear the voice of a better angel when he learns the man he's about to kill holds the key to bringing his friend back from the dead.

Roy Focker from the Macross universe.... Instead of going to the hospital to treat his wounds and dying in a hospital bed, he chooses to play the guitar while waiting for his girlfriend to finish her pineapple salad. He later collapses from sudden internal bleeding and passes away few minutes later


The point is, there are alot of ways to kill a character and have a death scene....... But if it is not handled correctly then the death becomes.... less of a passing, and more of a joke.


On the subject of the player being responsible for EVERYTHING that happens.... I agree. The player does not, for example, set the priority for Saren or the Reapers. The player responds to that external stimuli and can do little about it till the power to effect change enter's the hero's circle of infuence.

It's the player's circle of influence that I was getting at. Those he can effect by liu of being the commander. The man who gives orders. Give an order and someone lives. Go back and give another order and someone dies.

The suicide mission capsulates this perfectly as giving roles to those unsuited to the task results in deaths. The player gives those orders, and the choice and consequence are the players. But it goes further..... At the start, when the option to upgrade the ship comes about, there is no mention that ship upgrades will save crewmen from death. Only that upgrading the ship for the fight is a good idea. Thus, if you forgo upgrades for some reason and find that crew are dying, the choice and consequence is again on the player. Not some no name enemy NPC.

I realise of course that deaths can come unexpectedly.... Think of Jenkins from ME1...... But in the medium of video games, unexpected deaths are diffeicult to handle as the player might not be finished with the character in question. Or the death might occur at a point where the character's stroy arc was about to take off.

In a story, a good death is well timed with the right context. And it sticks. No take backsies...... (Ahem, sweeps ME2's Lazurus project under the carpet..... then again..... It was a great scifi resurection and at a point where the player was not ready to take the death of their character...... I leave that to Morinth).

Modifié par Redbelle, 30 octobre 2013 - 11:55 .

[Redbelle]

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.

[DarthLaxian]

khariuade wrote...

mate let me say this. i hate those types of ending.. it always feels "forced" , i dont mind them being in the game but i want an ending where i get the cake and i get to eat it

e.g Survive, defeat villain, rainbows etc ;p

indeed - i mean a "you can die in the end"-option is nice (like in DA:O, when you didn't want to compromise your morals ("dark" ritual - why is it dark anyway?), didn't want a friend (Alistair) to die for you (and didn't want to force him to have sex with Morrigan) and didn't want to take Loghain along (and sacrifice him either))

but needing to die for that "good" ending? - nope, sorry (it felt bad in ME3 - sorry, but that game cured me of the "the hero needs to die"-fantasy...i know dislike those - unless it is really well done (foreshadowed from the beginning like in some movies))

greetings LAX

[Nerevar-as]

Redbelle wrote...

Roy Focker from the Macross universe.... Instead of going to the hospital to treat his wounds and dying in a hospital bed, he chooses to play the guitar while waiting for his girlfriend to finish her pineapple salad. He later collapses from sudden internal bleeding and passes away few minutes later

I always got the idea he knew he was dead anyway, so he chose to spend the little time he had left with the woman he loved. Opposite in Frontier, the guy probably understimated how badly hurt he was.

[Arcian]

I see the BSN's Daviditis is getting worse.

[Vortex13]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

To get more back on topic, I'd like the "negative" outcomes be in the forms of personal choices, rather than the giant play out of events.

For instance, in order to complete the final sequence, you die, your LI dies or another companion does. Or a villain NPC gets spared - you pick who (assuming there are multiple villains). Not "all magic is destroyed or everyone becomes one with the Fade." Those are too large and earth shattering to deal with.

Keep things localized and offer lots of variability based on the choices you made throughout the game in the ending, but don't have it be "you did or the world is Blighted." That's too dichotomous.

I agree, having completly divergent and setting altering endings destroys any semblance of the developer continuing the series, at least without making one ending cannon or releasing a game for each ending. 

The problem with such grand sweeping endings is that one must fundementaly alter the foundation the setting is built apon. If all people become mages, or everyone becomes an organic/synthetic hybrid, then you have completly removed what made Dragon Age Dragon Age, or made Mass Effect Mass Effect.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Redbelle wrote...
On the subject of the player being responsible for EVERYTHING that happens.... I agree. The player does not, for example, set the priority for Saren or the Reapers. The player responds to that external stimuli and can do little about it till the power to effect change enter's the hero's circle of infuence.

It's the player's circle of influence that I was getting at. Those he can effect by liu of being the commander. The man who gives orders. Give an order and someone lives. Go back and give another order and someone dies.

True, true.

But what I was getting at that just because the player is a commander, doesn't mean everything will go according to his plan and that he can control the life expectancy of his subordinates.

The suicide mission capsulates this perfectly as giving roles to those unsuited to the task results in deaths. The player gives those orders, and the choice and consequence are the players. But it goes further..... At the start, when the option to upgrade the ship comes about, there is no mention that ship upgrades will save crewmen from death. Only that upgrading the ship for the fight is a good idea. Thus, if you forgo upgrades for some reason and find that crew are dying, the choice and consequence is again on the player. Not some no name enemy NPC.

the problem is that such system still eaves everyones survival ONLY at the hands of the player. And can be gamed.
Meaning you can easily avoid anyone dying.
Especially since there is no reason NOT to upgrade the ship.

I realise of course that deaths can come unexpectedly.... Think of Jenkins from ME1...... But in the medium of video games, unexpected deaths are diffeicult to handle as the player might not be finished with the character in question. Or the death might occur at a point where the character's stroy arc was about to take off.

Just like in real life.
The very fact that you just go to know/like this character or things were left unsaid, adds all the more impact.

Of course, you will run into people who cannot accept that and will mod the game to have their LI/waifu survive.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 30 octobre 2013 - 02:25 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Redbelle wrote...
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.

There is no such thing as "supposed to be".

[Gwydden]

@Lotion Soronnar

I feel intrigued. What exactly are you suggesting? If it is random deaths of characters at any point in the game, I don't believe it's doable and in my opinion, it is taking it to the extreme. If it is companion characters always dying in a certain situation regardless of what the PC does, unless it is for plot reasons, I don't see the point. Now, if you are endorsing situations with one non-specific character must die (say, Virmire), that's something I can get behind.

Modifié par Gwydden, 30 octobre 2013 - 02:34 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

More like you have several missions in which one character can die in several ways. It is rolled when you start a new game, so no take-backs.
You don't who will die, you dont' know when he will die nor how he will die. But SOMEONE will die.

Think of it as a sort of controlled random.

[ianvillan]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Redbelle wrote...
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......

That's kinda how war works tough.

You, bob and Mike are makign your way to the enemy bunker, bullets zipping past. You make a wild dash to the next piece of cover. You are in range of hte bunker and you call Bob to hand you a satchel charge...only for Bob not to respond.
You turn back and there is bob, lying at the middle of the field.

There is power in a sudden, untelegraphed death.

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.

I don't see it as necessary that EVERY thing in the universe happens based on player choice.
It feels too game-y in the end.

So I have to disagree.

Bioware sort of did the sudden death thing with Bethany/Carver but wasn't able to pull it off properly, I would like what you mentioned where you get deeply engaged in the game and the death is sudden and shocking.

To have a death you decide is good and can be emotional but you expect it to occur, but a death that hits you when you are not expecting it can have a big impact and you. 

[Gwydden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

More like you have several missions in which one character can die in several ways. It is rolled when you start a new game, so no take-backs.
You don't who will die, you dont' know when he will die nor how he will die. But SOMEONE will die.

Think of it as a sort of controlled random.

Sounds interesting, but how would you handle companion characters relevant to the storyline, like Morrigan or Anders? Seems to me no matter what you do some of them would end up with plot armor.

Modifié par Gwydden, 30 octobre 2013 - 02:51 .

[Redbelle]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

The suicide mission capsulates this perfectly as giving roles to those unsuited to the task results in deaths. The player gives those orders, and the choice and consequence are the players. But it goes further..... At the start, when the option to upgrade the ship comes about, there is no mention that ship upgrades will save crewmen from death. Only that upgrading the ship for the fight is a good idea. Thus, if you forgo upgrades for some reason and find that crew are dying, the choice and consequence is again on the player. Not some no name enemy NPC.

the problem is that such system still eaves everyones survival ONLY at the hands of the player. And can be gamed.
Meaning you can easily avoid anyone dying.
Especially since there is no reason NOT to upgrade the ship.

Exactly.... The game can be gamed..... As in, encourage repeat playthroughs to acheive a different result.

When I talk about this I try to remember what it was like playing through the first time, before people put youtube vids and walkthroughs up. When the game was being played blind and only the players experiences guided them as to what seemed like a reasonable course of action.

Because though we talk about RPG's, a repeated video game RPG is different than a table top RPG. Event's will occur within the predefined context of the programming. It's exploring the game content and unlocking the story as progress is made that keeps gamers going. And because it's repeastable, some gamer's will naturally game it.

This is different from googling a walkthrough and taking actions prescribed to acheive a desired effect. ME1, and by a much larger degree, ME2, encouraged repeat playthroughs by throwing you into the game, allowing you to experience what occurs, then, by virtue of variation's in outcomes, encourage the player to sit down and play it from another perspective. I.e. para or renegade.

As for character deaths..... they need to be different. They cannot just be, something shoots/stabs the party member and are brought back by a res spell or bit of Medi-gel

Modifié par Redbelle, 30 octobre 2013 - 02:52 .

[Ieldra]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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 most emphatically agree with this.

Of course we all prefer diverging outcomes. We like the the feeling we made a difference. Of course. But the more important aspect is expressing your character's...well...character in as many different ways as is feasible. For that reason it is important to have more than two options in conversations (as opposed to what ME3 did most of the time) even if they end up converging in the same outcome, and not being able to express an opinion I think needs to be expressed just plain sucks, much worse than a converging outcome.  

[Redbelle]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Redbelle wrote...
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.

There is no such thing as "supposed to be".

I don't know what you are trying to say by this. A video game is a video game. It is a software piece of entertainment that can be repeated on demand. It's supposed to be that way because that is what a video game is. Hence we have a common point of reference from which to draw interpretations of the events that unfold

Although, before diving into that debate, I suppose we hould first define what we mean by gamey.

To me, gamey means adhering to the logic and understanding of what games offer. People often say they do not want boss battles for example. I think this is not the case.

MGS3 had many boss battles and I hear no one complaining about how they were implemented or that they were there.

ME2's baby Reaper on the other hand is often called derp for being a boss battle. Yet LotSB is not when you face off against the Yahg.

I think it is not the boss battle concept itself...... but the context of how you find yourslef in a battle. And the mechanics of the battle (ie, how engaging the battle is), that leads to silent praise, or vocal critisism.

I think that boss battles that fail to live up to their promise are to easily labeled as video gamey, with gamey being a term used to slur the boss fight that then forms a train and see's others take up the call. All of which distracts from the real issue.

The boss fight was not satisifying.

DA2's final battle was not satisfying for me. More my fault than anything because I play stabby stabby theifs that makes overviewing the action difficult. A ranged mage would make the task easier. But that's only half the issue.

I had no relationship with the person I was fighting against. No context for why I ought to take the fight more seriously than others. It was a survival fight. That just so happened to decide the future of Kirkwall.

That said, it was challenging. I had to draw on my understanding of abilities and tactial positioning skills to bring the hurt to the enemy. Compared to ME2's baby Reaper it was challenging. And games should be able to challenge as well as entertain.

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

[Redbelle]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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 most emphatically agree with this.

Of course we all prefer diverging outcomes. We like the the feeling we made a difference. Of course. But the more important aspect is expressing your character's...well...character in as many different ways as is feasible. For that reason it is important to have more than two options in conversations (as opposed to what ME3 did most of the time) even if they end up converging in the same outcome, and not being able to express an opinion I think needs to be expressed just plain sucks, much worse than a converging outcome.  

The end of Bioshock infiinite, and the fact I went back to go through different doors lend support tothe idea that we want to explore the possibility of different outcomes.

DA and ME however do not have BioShocks message of predetermined fates to validate this approach.

Modifié par Redbelle, 30 octobre 2013 - 03:08 .

[Estelindis]

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).

Regarding Connor, I always felt that going to the Circle to get help for him should have some negative consequences unless another sacrifice is made.  I think that a great possible choice would have been to leave some of your party members behind to deal with Connor if he got out of hand.  Different party members would handle the situation differently.  Choosing the right combination of party members to stay behind should have been the only way to obtain the optimal solution - but not just in a Suicide Mission sense, as in picking them for roles (though that would also matter), but also, importantly, leaving enough party to handle the situation (say, perhaps, Alistair, Morrigan and Leliana, leaving you with only Sten and Dog, assuming you go to Redcliffe first and recruit everyone).  "Enough" would be so many that you would leave Redcliffe with an incomplete party.  Admittedly you would be able to recruit Wynne once you get to the Circle, so maybe this could be matagamed too.  However, most people have "favourite" party combinations, so I think that even if you ended up with a full party once you had Wynne, most people would have to give up playing some of the party members they liked to have, thus compromising their play experience in the hope of a better outcome for Redcliffe.  Or maybe you'd have to leave everyone but a single party members so that, even when you get Wynne, you don't have a full party.  It would make the Circle section tougher, but you'd really have earned the optimal Redcliffe solution.

Anyway, regarding your points when it comes to choice and consequence, I tend to agree (if I understand you correctly).  For me, it is really important to be able to choose, even if it makes no difference to the outcome at all.  Of course, it's often good if one's choice does lead to a different outcome.  However, on the whole, I find it a much worse experience if the game does not even let my character choose something she'd want to choose (as a way for the game to avoid a particular consequence), compared with if the game lets my character choose what she'd want to choose but then doesn't give her the consequence she wanted (as the other way of avoiding the consequence).  To use the example from ME3, we should have been able to give the Catalyst all the reasons why we thought it was completely wrong; we should not have been forced to go "Well, uh, okay then..." when the characters we're trying to roleplay would never have just gone along with that.  We should have been able to tell it we didn't believe it and we didn't trust it to the very end, even if it still led to no further final choices (I mean even in the non-Refuse options, to pick one of the colours while telling the Catalyst we didn't believe in it).  

To use a better example from DA:O: at the end of my first playthrough, my city elf could not persuade Alistair not to sacrifice himself to save her life.  But the game did not rob her of the ability to try, only the ability to succeed.  

The ability to try is, in my opinion, much more key to roleplaying than the ability to succeed.  It concerns what you want rather than what you happen to have.  There should be as few limitations as possible on what a player character can show themselves to want.  It even makes sense from the perspective of efficient game design.  If an action has a particularly important consequence way down the line, all subsequent games have to reflect that.  On the other hand, if a character tries to do something and fails, that consequence is just in the moment.  It is real at the time but doesn't have to keep coming up with each subsequent game in order to keep feeling real.  The same is true of letting a character express a particular opinion at the time.  It gives an outlet for the roleplaying of views and feelings, even if it doesn't change the outcome.

Of course, the ability to succeed can't be totally divorced from roleplaying.  The player should be able to have some realistic sense of what their character can do, should be familiar with their abilities, most expert where they're best trained or most talented, etc.  And then, when situations come up where none of those variables can affect the outcome, it needs to be written in such a way that this is coherent and logical, where none of the abilities a player character has would actually, realistically be able to change the outcome.

Modifié par Estelindis, 30 octobre 2013 - 03:41 .

[LPPrince]

Personally for me, whether or not I enjoy a forced PC's death is up to how I receive the game up to that point as well as how much time I invested into the character. Examples-

Red Dead Redemption- Enjoyed. I thought that game was a masterpiece, its story incredible, its world amazing. That game struck me emotionally, and John Marston's end was something I loved hating.

Telltale's The Walking Dead- Enjoyed. Going through all episodes one after the other, it was wonderful protecting Clementine as Lee and teaching her how to survive her apocalyptic world. Lee's end was heartbreaking as hell. "Keep that hair short."

Mass Effect 3- Despised. I spent literally hundreds of dollars on the ME franchise through the games, clothing, lithographs and other stuff, because I loved it so much. I carried the same character, my one Shepard, through 27 playthroughs leading up to ME3(12 in ME1, 15 in ME2). Only to find out his face wouldn't carry over into the final game, so I had to play as some other guy that looked nothing like my Shepard. Off to an atrocious start, little things took away along the path to the finale while the peaks of awesome didn't make up for it. The forced death of Shepard became the final nail in the coffin and I lost all support for what was once my favorite franchise. Had I known from the beginning(Mass 1) that I wouldn't get the happy ending I wanted at the end of the series, I wouldn't of wasted my time.

So it depends. Character investment is a factor worth considering, along with loads of other things that can affect a stance on the matter of forced death.

Its down to each individual person, so I guess you win some, you lose some.

[Estelindis]

LPPrince wrote...

Had I known from the beginning(Mass 1) that I wouldn't get the happy ending I wanted at the end of the series, I wouldn't of wasted my time.

So it depends. Character investment is a factor worth considering, along with loads of other things that can affect a stance on the matter of forced death.

Its down to each individual person, so I guess you win some, you lose some.

I think that genre expectations play a role.  From the start, Dragon Age felt like a darker, grittier universe to me.  As heartbreaking as my bittersweet ending in DA:O was, it made sense in the world where it happened.  By contrast, the upbeat endings of ME1 and ME2 consoled me.  They gave me a sense of a lighter, brighter universe.  Even though the Reapers were a huge danger, the games seemed to say, there is hope to overcome any obstacle if the people of the galaxy work together.  Building up the horrendous destructive power of the Reapers and showing the devastation they caused in ME3, I kept feeling that this just meant we had to dig down deeper, that hope could still survive.  At times, things got so bad that me and my Shepard even started to doubt this.  But then, instead of bringing us to a triumph of hope in spite of these awful moments of despair, the ending said to me that all along I really did have no power, that inter-species cooperation really did offer no hope, that galactic civilization could only survive by the consent of and according to the ancient architect of genocide.  It wouldn't have come as such a slap in the face if the previous games hadn't already engineered me to hope for a happy ending in spite of all the dangers.  Mass Effect 3 gave a darker ending than either DA:O or DA2, which seemed from the start to be presented as darker universes.  I think this is part of why the endings of DA:O and DA2 were more successful than ME3, because they were thematically appropriate.