1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

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.

Er, just do the Circle before Redcliffe?

[Estelindis]

Xilizhra wrote...

Er, just do the Circle before Redcliffe?

Firstly, if I recall correctly, you need First Enchanter Irving for this.  Although I've never sided against the mages, is it possible that, if you do, he is killed?  In such a scenario, maybe it could be written that you never get the Circle help that is needed for Connor?

Secondly, I always felt that if you did other missions before Redcliffe that it should be less possible to succeed with Connor.  Maybe this could have been reflected too?

[Jaulen]

HiroVoid wrote...

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.

Probably why I didn't get into adventure video games......sounds like a Chose Your Own Adventure book....and I ALWAYS died in those.

[HiroVoid]

Jaulen wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

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.

Probably why I didn't get into adventure video games......sounds like a Chose Your Own Adventure book....and I ALWAYS died in those.

Quest for Glory isn't too bad about that.  The example Allan gives is also revealed in about maybe a 5 minute period.  I also remember now actually having to reload because I pissed off a griffon I couldn't beat, but again...only about a 5 minute period, so as long as you keep a back-up safe, it's not too bad.  King's Quest series and others can be much worse though.

[Xilizhra]

Estelindis wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Er, just do the Circle before Redcliffe?

Firstly, if I recall correctly, you need First Enchanter Irving for this.  Although I've never sided against the mages, is it possible that, if you do, he is killed?  In such a scenario, maybe it could be written that you never get the Circle help that is needed for Connor?

Secondly, I always felt that if you did other missions before Redcliffe that it should be less possible to succeed with Connor.  Maybe this could have been reflected too?

Connor is indeed screwed if Irving is dead. However, in a game where the timing of everything else is "right when you need it to happen," it seems rather unfair to single out this mission.

[Estelindis]

Xilizhra wrote...

Connor is indeed screwed if Irving is dead. However, in a game where the timing of everything else is "right when you need it to happen," it seems rather unfair to single out this mission.

Maybe you're right.  But are there any other main story arc missions (i.e. not sidequests) where you can get the best possible result without any sacrifice?

Hmm.  Maybe they were right in just letting the one happen, to show that occasionally it will be possible but just not usually...?

I guess it's just hard for me to square that things happened to work out all right with Connor when you'd think there would be negative consequences for leaving him there, still possessed, and coming back later.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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."

No one comes along and tells you that the mess you are in is because of a poor choice you've made?

Man, you have NEVER been around me.  That's not only like every third action I take around people, I sure do get it a lot as well.

*shakes his head*

I get it ALL THE TIME.  People LOVE to use their 20/20 hindsight or play armchair quarterback.  And, in some instances, they might have been there, telling you to make a different choice and predicting your bad outcome, and then they get all the "I told you so's" coupons they need when you go against their advice and end up right where they said you would.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

I'd like the option to split the team and try to save both, even if that means I will always fail at both.

The same is true on Virmire.  Shepard should have been allowed to think he was invincible and try to save both Ashley and Kaidan.  The game could then respond by having one of both of them die.

I don't mind forced casualties.  I mind forced choices.

[Estelindis]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'd like the option to split the team and try to save both, even if that means I will always fail at both.

The same is true on Virmire.  Shepard should have been allowed to think he was invincible and try to save both Ashley and Kaidan.  The game could then respond by having one of both of them die.

I don't mind forced casualties.  I mind forced choices.

Well said.  I agree completely.

[Redbelle]

Estelindis wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'd like the option to split the team and try to save both, even if that means I will always fail at both.

The same is true on Virmire.  Shepard should have been allowed to think he was invincible and try to save both Ashley and Kaidan.  The game could then respond by having one of both of them die.

I don't mind forced casualties.  I mind forced choices.

Well said.  I agree completely.

Ditto. Let the consequence's arise from the choice's we select for our character.

[Xilizhra]

Maybe you're right. But are there any other main story arc missions (i.e. not sidequests) where you can get the best possible result without any sacrifice?

All of them, except maybe the Anvil of the Void.

[nos_astra]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'd like the option to split the team and try to save both, even if that means I will always fail at both.

The same is true on Virmire.  Shepard should have been allowed to think he was invincible and try to save both Ashley and Kaidan.  The game could then respond by having one of both of them die.

I don't mind forced casualties.  I mind forced choices.

Split your already arbitrarily limited team? Who would rationally make such a choice and would everyone still be convinced that Shepard made the right call and did what he had to afterwards?

[Estelindis]

Xilizhra wrote...

All of them, except maybe the Anvil of the Void.

*thinks* Actually, I admit that you may be right there as well.  I just wasn't considering all the possible combinations of Wardens for whom some choices that I wouldn't consider to be optimal would be optimal.

klarabella wrote...

Split your already arbitrarily limited team? Who would rationally make such a choice and would everyone still be convinced that Shepard made the right call and did what he had to afterwards?

Maybe no one would be convinced, and Shepard would just have to live with that.  Though, to be honest, party members are able to live with much worse decisions than this in the actual game and still believe in Shepard as a leader.

Modifié par Estelindis, 30 octobre 2013 - 04:48 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

klarabella wrote...

Split your already arbitrarily limited team? Who would rationally make such a choice

An idealist.

and would everyone still be convinced that Shepard made the right call and did what he had to afterwards?

The game already presupposes that the companions view the PC as a good leader, even if the PC isn't a good leader.  I don't see a problem here.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

Redbelle wrote...

Estelindis wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'd like the option to split the team and try to save both, even if that means I will always fail at both.

The same is true on Virmire.  Shepard should have been allowed to think he was invincible and try to save both Ashley and Kaidan.  The game could then respond by having one of both of them die.

I don't mind forced casualties.  I mind forced choices.

Well said.  I agree completely.

Ditto. Let the consequence's arise from the choice's we select for our character.

I would rather there be an option to save both as well, considering you could still have squadmates on the normandy who could drop and assisst either person. Virmire however has always bothered me for that reason, whoever is guarding the bomb is in a prime location for your other squadmates on the normandy to drop down and help them. But that option never comes up, or is even thought of. They just twiddle their digits and sit back to watch either kaiden or ashley get shot to death.

Not saying it should be the easier option, should require the right combination of companions, how many you've recruited or didn't recruit, who you did or didn't, and finally the choice should leave you as equally hampered as it is by sending your squad to try and help the two anyway.

I know the popular thing to call for right now is that we need more negative consequences, but 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.

[Estelindis]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

I would rather there be an option to save both as well, considering you could still have squadmates on the normandy who could drop and assisst either person. Virmire however has always bothered me for that reason, whoever is guarding the bomb is in a prime location for your other squadmates on the normandy to drop down and help them. But that option never comes up, or is even thought of. They just twiddle their digits and sit back to watch either kaiden or ashley get shot to death.

I think it would work better if, in the case where you tried to save them both, you only saved one or lost them both, and whether you even saved one depended on how you allocated the ship and crew in the rescue effort.

I know that in some ways the situation could have been written better, but to create the possibility to save them both really cheapens the moment and implies that anyone who plays differently is just making a suboptimal choice.

[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.

[Jaulen]

Xilizhra wrote...

Estelindis wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Er, just do the Circle before Redcliffe?

Firstly, if I recall correctly, you need First Enchanter Irving for this.  Although I've never sided against the mages, is it possible that, if you do, he is killed?  In such a scenario, maybe it could be written that you never get the Circle help that is needed for Connor?

Secondly, I always felt that if you did other missions before Redcliffe that it should be less possible to succeed with Connor.  Maybe this could have been reflected too?

Connor is indeed screwed if Irving is dead. However, in a game where the timing of everything else is "right when you need it to happen," it seems rather unfair to single out this mission.

No.....

Connor can be killed outright.
Connor can be saved by having the Circle mages help perform the ritual to send a mage into the fade.
Connor can be saved by allowing Jowan to perform blood magic using Isolde's life as the fuel for the ritual.

Only option where the Circle is required to save Connor is if you kill/don't allow Jowan to do the ritual.

Although I do think that if you went for option #2.....and you hadn't done the circle yet, there should have been some consequences.....like Redcliff being wiped out.

(Like the one Warden I had who went to redcliff, decided they didn't want to deal with the undead yet, and left....only to come back to a populace destroyed.)

Modifié par Jaulen, 30 octobre 2013 - 04:58 .

[ruggly]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

I know the popular thing to call for right now is that we need more negative consequences, but 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.

Pretty much.  There should be a balancing point, but it has to be hard for a writer to come up with one.

[Redbelle]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Estelindis wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'd like the option to split the team and try to save both, even if that means I will always fail at both.

The same is true on Virmire.  Shepard should have been allowed to think he was invincible and try to save both Ashley and Kaidan.  The game could then respond by having one of both of them die.

I don't mind forced casualties.  I mind forced choices.

Well said.  I agree completely.

Ditto. Let the consequence's arise from the choice's we select for our character.

I would rather there be an option to save both as well, considering you could still have squadmates on the normandy who could drop and assisst either person. Virmire however has always bothered me for that reason, whoever is guarding the bomb is in a prime location for your other squadmates on the normandy to drop down and help them. But that option never comes up, or is even thought of. They just twiddle their digits and sit back to watch either kaiden or ashley get shot to death.

Not saying it should be the easier option, should require the right combination of companions, how many you've recruited or didn't recruit, who you did or didn't, and finally the choice should leave you as equally hampered as it is by sending your squad to try and help the two anyway.

I know the popular thing to call for right now is that we need more negative consequences, but 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 prefer a sliding scale of success. From complete defeat to complete victory. With varying degree's of success inbetween that could be described as comprisises and/or sacrifice's and/or costs.

How this could be made manifest is debatable and dependent on narrative circumstances.

[Estelindis]

I think that an important consideration here is how many people will just reload if they don't get an optimal resolution (assuming one is possible if one does reload, without a huge amount of backtracking). Obviously it is not anyone's job to protect such people from a less authentic game experience. However, I believe that, when designing content, Bioware takes into consideration how many people would be likely to actually see the content. If the answer is "not many," they may see it as wise to make the content in the first place.

On the other hand, this is the game company that gives us six classes for Shepard when the vast majority (apparently) play Soldier, who writes dwarven origins in DA:O even those they are played by relatively few people by comparison to the human ones... So maybe it's not as grim as all that.

[Estelindis]

Apologies; I should have said "they may *not* see it as wise to make the content in the first place." I can't edit posts on the phone I'm using right now.

[Redbelle]

Estelindis wrote...

I think that an important consideration here is how many people will just reload if they don't get an optimal resolution (assuming one is possible if one does reload, without a huge amount of backtracking). Obviously it is not anyone's job to protect such people from a less authentic game experience. However, I believe that, when designing content, Bioware takes into consideration how many people would be likely to actually see the content. If the answer is "not many," they may see it as wise to make the content in the first place.

On the other hand, this is the game company that gives us six classes for Shepard when the vast majority (apparently) play Soldier, who writes dwarven origins in DA:O even those they are played by relatively few people by comparison to the human ones... So maybe it's not as grim as all that.

A shame. Dwarven commenor opening is amoung the best opening's to play through.

Think Gladiator crossed with A Knight Tale with a dose of The Godfather

[Mr.House]

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.

Play more games.