1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

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

No. It doesn't.

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

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

[Steelcan]

@Allan, I don't know how any playthrough where Isolde lives to continue her banshee-esque vocalizations can be considered optimal

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I'm not sure how "runs screaming from leadership" has anything at all to do with how correct his information is. Additionally, "runs screaming from leadership" is a function of that person's opinion of their leadership, not their leadership.

Because the willigness to be a leader - and even if not to be a leader, to actually provide an articulate reason for choosing a particular path - is a very important feature of inferring competence. 

Alistair can't even commit to the idea that seeing Eamon first is a good idea when you talk to him about it. He's not sure of it. So why should I - someone who has absolutely no knowledge of Fereldan politics, HN excluded - believe him?

Alistair is a Grey Warden. He knew everything that I would go through before I went through it (up to that point, in terms of rituals). When it comes to Grey Warden stuff, I have no reason not to trust him.

This isn't GW stuff. This is tactical strategy about stopping a Blight, and Alistair wants none of the responsibility for it, despite the role technically falling to him. If I had a question about GW lore, I'd ask him. If I had a question about tactics in a Blight, I wouldn't. 

I mentioned it a moment or two ago, but claiming you're "not a Grey Warden," when the plot does in fact define you as a Grey Warden, doesn't work. The plot defines that part of your character whether you want it to or not. 

s

I'm not sure you're following my point. Even if the initiation to the Wardens is drinking tainted blood, there's more to being part of that order than just drinking the blood. The Warden isn't brought up in the order. You don't learn anything about them. If they have a gameplan, you don't learn it. 

[Estelindis]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

For games like Mass Effect 2 and 3, the choices made tend to be more "complete all content" and I'd agree that that is perhaps not the most interesting way to allow a player to do something like that.  

In fairness, though, one wonderful thing about ME2 is that, if you happened not to have nearly all the game up to that point completed by the time the crew is kidnapped, and you subsequently decide to keep swanning around to get maximum completion (metagaming that the urgency isn't real and story developments will occur solely at the speed of plot), you are punished by losing some of the kidnapped crew.  It's like a delightful inversion of the dilemma in BG2 regarding how much content to complete before going to save Imoen.

[Hellion Rex]

Steelcan wrote...

@Allan, I don't know how any playthrough where Isolde lives to continue her banshee-esque vocalizations can be considered optimal

Amen. But I do feel that in the possible scenario where she lays down her life to save Connor, that she acted like a good mother.

[In Exile]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Going to the Circle is liable to have you executed by the Templar for being a traitor to the crown. After all, Loghain is spreading word that Grey Wardens killed the King. The fact that no-one believes them is nice but you don't know how others will react to your presence, the only option you've got that can help is Redcliffe because Alistair knows Eamon.

You have absolutely no reason to think that Eamon - a representative of the Crown - won't have you both strung up and executed for the murder of Cailan. The fact that Alistair - who hasn't seen Eamon since he was a child - thinks Eamon is trustworthy isn't very helpful. 

Not to mention that you can learn in Lothering that Eamon is barely alive, meaning that it wouldn't even be him who decides your fate. 

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

[dragonflight288]

eluvianix wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

@Allan, I don't know how any playthrough where Isolde lives to continue her banshee-esque vocalizations can be considered optimal

Amen. But I do feel that in the possible scenario where she lays down her life to save Connor, that she acted like a good mother.

There's also the time when we decide to kill Connor, and convince Isolde to kill him herself to put Connor out of his pain from the battle.

[David7204]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

I don't.

[Estelindis]

David7204 wrote...

I don't.

Why not?

[Allan Schumacher]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Not targeted only to Allan!

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

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

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

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

[David7204]

Why would I?

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

I don't.

You need to, especially when it comes to RPGs.

[TheBlackBaron]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

David7204 wrote...

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

No. It doesn't.

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

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

I don't think David intentionally antagonizes people, Allan, I think he just inadvertently annoys people by declaring a viewpoint shared by nobody else to be the law. 

He's like a Reaper, impossible to understand or rationalize. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:34 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

David7204 wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

I particularly liked your idea on having something like 4 objectives and you could only accomplish 2 or 3 before the last ones failed due to time constraints on the player or character. To use ME3 as an example, I'd be perfectly fine with an ending that allows me to destroy the Reapers and have Shepard survive at the expense of many of the forces that go with you to Earth (more than would otherwise be destroyed, like say, losing Hackett, Primarch Victus, etc.) plus squadmates that would die. Same with information, like Sanctuary. I'd have liked there to have been a choice to actually agree with Cerberus methods and 'unfettered approach', if not their true intent (which was serving the Reapers due to indoctrination) at the expense of some kind of civilian asset that might increase the ability for the galaxy to rebuild or whatnot. 

I mean, it would suit my idea of the perfect ending, with the Reapers destroyed, Shepard and Miranda reform Cerberus and take advantage of the disorganized nature of the galaxy to bring about a new kind of order that is, to be frank, authoritarian, though also benevolent and focused on science and progress. Much like Bhelen in DA:O (if you make him King of Orzammar) if you understand where I'm coming from. I'm fine sacrificing many of my squadmates and allies and even many parts of galactic civilization being my sacrifice to get my (more or less) positive ending for Shepard where he finishes his fight against the Reapers and uses their tech to rebuild the galaxy in a new manner that's not entirely dissimilar from Cerberus' goals. It's much like Shepard's renegade speeches throughout much of the trilogy. The Renegade speech with Harbinger in Arrival at the end phrases it well: "Even if it takes the death of 90% of the galaxy, I'll stand and find a way to destroy you".

I like to RP that my Shepard and Warden (and many of my RPG characters in general) follow a unfettered mindset, and I was rather frustrated with some of the disability to due this in ME3.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:42 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

I don't.

And there is your problem.  Games are a distinct form of media, seperate from films, no matter how much the video game industry tries to imitate Hollywood.

[Estelindis]

David7204 wrote...

Why would I?

Allow me to refer you to my previous statement.

Estelindis wrote...

A film is not an interactive medium that allows for player choice to lead to different outcomes.  

[Hellion Rex]

dragonflight288 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

@Allan, I don't know how any playthrough where Isolde lives to continue her banshee-esque vocalizations can be considered optimal

Amen. But I do feel that in the possible scenario where she lays down her life to save Connor, that she acted like a good mother.

There's also the time when we decide to kill Connor, and convince Isolde to kill him herself to put Connor out of his pain from the battle.

True, but I never took that path in my games. I only did the Isolde killing herself scenario, until I learned about 5 playthroughs later that I could actually go to the Circle. But I will say that killing a child, even to put him or her out of their misery and pain, is damned hard for me even to think about, much less actually do, even in a video game.

[In Exile]

David7204 wrote...
I don't. 

Do you see a difference between a film and reading a book? 

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

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

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

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

As stated, I agree with this as a gamer.

[The Night Mammoth]

David7204 wrote...

I'm not actually.

If you define 'earning' something as simply examining it with your own perspective, your own mind, that's perfectly okay. But I still win. Because if you define it so, you forfeit the right to complain about gameplay such as the charm and intimidate options. Because those options, despite being derided as 'easy win buttons,' clearly meet that definition of earning. Heroism and success at the press of a button meet that definition, and are thus valid storytelling. They are 'earned.'

I don't give a **** if you think you've won, David. 

I define earned pretty much how everyone else here defines it, I just think you're exaggerating the issue and emphasising the point too much. For some reason you think 'earning' an ending or extra content or whatever, and putting in 'work', or overcoming a challenge in a game, means actual effort is required.

[David7204]

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

Modifié par David7204, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:36 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

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

Oh my god..................