1331 réponses à ce sujet

[TheBlackBaron]

We're coming up on the part here where David insists that it shouldn't be hard or non-obvious to get the superior/ideal ending. You should be able to just take what is clearly the most heroic option and have it turn out the best.

[Dave of Canada]

@David: So in Etrian Odyssey 3, I'm presented with a choice between siding with the Deep Ones (which are alien abominations) or siding with killer tree robots (which are alien abominations). The choice is presented to me in a very clear fashion, pick A and you can't side with B. Vice-versa.

So when I sat there and thought to myself "hey, what about X?" and investigated into it, accidentally discovering a third-route existed which negated the choice of A and B but with it's own consequences... was it the character's competence that made the "optimal" solution exist or was it because the programmers added it in for players with clearer analytical skills to discover another route?

The game doesn't go "oh hey btw here's another option", you discover it on your own. "Heroism" doesn't matter.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:54 .

[In Exile]

David7204 wrote...

The choice flows from the player. But the competence flows from the character. And it's the competence we're talking about.

That's not what you said. You said "That heroism does not flow from the player". I'm assuming you've left something out compared to what you've siad before, so  I've gone over your older posts. 

My guess, based on those posts, is that you're saying that heroism can't be "earned" by the player, because the heroic outcome happens without any kind of substantive effort  by the player? 

I'm having a hard time following what you're saying because I don't understand what you think "earned" means in this context. The original quotes you respondend to seem to be saying "there has to be a morally difficult choice involved to get an outcome that could be defined as 'heroic' or otherwise ideal". The idea of "earned" here is that - in making in-game choices - players have to sacrifice certain things they subjectively value (e.g. the lives of NPCs, the lives of party characters, in-game rewards and accolades) for plot benefits ("heroic or ideal" endings). 

To elaborate, let's say self-sacrifice is "heroic" (a simple proposition, no?). The game has an option - at the end - of sacrificing yourself to save the lives of millions or not doing it and leaving them dead (but surviving). If the player chooses to save the millions - and it is a choice, because the player has the option not to - then the player has "earned" the heroic ending by paying ("giving up") the potential that their character would survive to enjoy the world. 

[David7204]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The choice flows from the player. But the competence flows from the character. And it's the competence we're talking about.

Then you're too fixated on the term "earn."  Which frankly is simply because that's the name of the Trope.

What people are asking for is that making choices in a particular, hopefully not ostensibly obvious way, can result in outcomes that may be considered superior or ideal than the most obvious path.


When people talk about "earn your happy ending" in RPGs, they're talking about being rewarded for the choices that they make, not the game's difficulty (and hence, character competence)

I don't understand what you're trying to advocate here.

If this is true, then there should be no problem with elements of Mass Effect that are derided as 'easy win buttons' The charm and intimidate options seem to be exactly what you described. The player makes a choice - for example, to save both the quarians and the geth instead of killing one - and they're rewarded for that choice. Same with any of the charm and intimidate options.

Modifié par David7204, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:59 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The choice flows from the player. But the competence flows from the character. And it's the competence we're talking about.

Then you're too fixated on the term "earn."  Which frankly is simply because that's the name of the Trope.

What people are asking for is that making choices in a particular, hopefully not ostensibly obvious way, can result in outcomes that may be considered superior or ideal than the most obvious path.


When people talk about "earn your happy ending" in RPGs, they're talking about being rewarded for the choices that they make, not the game's difficulty (and hence, character competence)

I don't understand what you're trying to advocate here.

If this is true, then there should be no problem with elements of Mass Effect that are derided as 'easy win buttons' The charm and intimidate options seem to be exactly what you described. The player makes a choice - for example, to save both the quarians and the geth instead of killing one - and they're rewarded for that choice. Same with any of the charm and intimidate options.

Those options should be harder to earn or impossible is our point.

Modifié par Steelcan, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:00 .

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Amusingly, I was just thinking about something similar a few days ago and came to the opposite conclusion.

When you want something done, you ask the person who's already busy, not the guy who doesn't do anything--because they'll get it done, while the lazy man won't. Often the best person for a job is not necessarily the person who WANTS to do it--because that want to is not predicated on "I'm good at it." It's predicated on "I like doing it."

That's not what's happening here. You ask a person who's busy to do something because you know they're good at doing it. But we have no reason to believe Alistiar is good at anything - that's the point. He even self-describes as an idiot at numerous occassions, and while some of it is self-depricating humour, there's still no basis to trust his judgement. 

You should believe him because getting an Arl behind your cause will give you a lot more clout than simply going to the Circle and saying "Hey! Listen to me, I'm important. I promise." It's the best shot at getting the ball rolling.

That's exactly what your going to go up to Eamon and say. With an added "And totally didn't kill your nephew, either!" 

Fair enough. Though I would argue that it's more of a mix--it isn't simply a tactical strategy of where to put your troops, but rather a method of gaining those troops which is something I suspect the Grey Wardens have experience with, seeing as how Duncan was on such good terms with the king.

It's politics, sure, but there's no reason to think Alistair can handle that either. 

But that doesn't make you not a Warden. No more than a female not knowing the history of woman's lib makes her "not a woman" or a chemist not knowing the intricacies of Gibbs, Helmholtz, etc. makes them "not a chemist."

Not finishing law school makes me "not a lawyer", even if I aced my LSAT and got my acceptance letter. 

We may be speaking at cross purposes here.

 

Yes, because my point is that you're trying to suggest there's something about being a GW that should be influencing how the Warden thinks or feels. But there's nothing like that the Warden's actually experienced to make them do that. 

[Dave of Canada]

Morocco Mole wrote...

You also have to work and make the choices (which is surprisingly difficult for a BW game) to get the peace ending. It is not handed to you on a silver platter

Provided you picked Charm/Intimidate at all times in ME2, it wasn't that hard to get it. I did like how blowing up or rewriting influenced the process but I felt it should've had a larger impact. Charm/Intimidate should be replaced by decision making.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:02 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't understand what you're trying to advocate here.

I'm saying you're not understanding what it is that people are asking for.

If this is true, then there should be no problem with elements of Mass Effect that are derided as 'easy win buttons' The charm and intimidate options seem to be exactly what you described. The player makes a choice - for example, to save both the quarians and the geth instead of killing one - and they're rewarded for that choice.

Some people are saying that meeting the prerequisites to get those choices are too easy. In the sense of Mass Effect 2's suicide mission, satisfying the prerequisites to have everyone survive is, as you have put yourself, essentially just choosing to play the whole game without giving it much thought.

Perhaps it'd be more interesting for them (and for myself) if the choices required something more than "play the entire game and make your companions loyal."


Although situations such as Rannoch and Tuchanka probably don't apply so well. If the player had made different choices earlier (even going back to previous games), they may not be able to get the ideal resolutions in those cases.

I don't frequent the Mass Effect boards too closely, but my general impression is that both Rannoch and Tuchanka's choices are pretty well received. You only have the choice to save both the Quarians and the Geth if you made the correct choices in the past. And there are certainly people that didn't make those correct choices and ultimately they had to choose one or the other. They didn't "earn their happy ending" by making the correct choices.

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...
No, no. I'm arguing that the plot actions that define the player character also fairly strongly define them as someone who would go to Redcliffe first. In most of the origins, your character is pigeon-holed into joining the Wardens, defining them as someone who agrees to be a part of the Wardens--as someone who lays aside personal desires to join the Wardens.

That's not true. You can tell Duncan to fudge himself with a metal rod, even when your choice is potential death. He drags you kicking and screaming under penalty of execution. When it comes time to drink raw poison, Duncan just finishing gutting Jory for trying to back out. 

You're about as far removed from "willing" and "consent" as you can get. It's possible to go along with Duncan's extortion, but you don't have to (edit) willingly give up your personal desire. Your personal desire not to get murdered might be the motivation, with the plan (like Anders in DAA-DA2) to eventually escape.  

I think the big point of disagreement is that people don't agree that the character is defined so strictly in the intro, but that might not be so. 

Not at all. Even if I say that my character dreamed to be a GW from day one, wanted to go with Duncan, etc. there's no reason to think Eamon is the best option. Let's take a CE who wants to be a GW to escape the Alienage. A human noble just finished raping his cousin and rampaging through the alienage. Now Alistiar - a human brought up as basically a noble - wants you to go see a human noble about taking a moral and principled stand against another human noble who betrayed his King for power. 

There's no reason to think it makes sense to see Eamon, versus (for example), just outright tracking down the Dalish so you can have troops you believe you can trust by your side. 

Modifié par In Exile, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:09 .

[Allan Schumacher]

No, no. I'm arguing that the plot actions that define the player character also fairly strongly define them as someone who would go to Redcliffe first.

In this case I disagree. I don't think it's that difficult to come up with characters that would be motivated to go to any of the options available to you immediately.

And in this sense, whether or not you feel my justifications are acceptable comes down to whether you, EntropicAngel, feel I am behaving in a manner that is acceptable based upon your interpretations of the beginning.

[Dave of Canada]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Although situations such as Rannoch and Tuchanka probably don't apply so well. If the player had made different choices earlier (even going back to previous games), they may not be able to get the ideal resolutions in those cases.

Tuchanka was great. I've got some problems with it (namely the Wrex affair and the cure resolution being 100% positive) but you could legitimately have been cut-off a large pile of assets and forced to make grim decisions because of your previous decisions, it's the closest ME3 felt to having your past decisions matter and I'd love to see this applied across more games.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

You also have to work and make the choices (which is surprisingly difficult for a BW game) to get the peace ending. It is not handed to you on a silver platter

Provided you picked Charm/Intimidate at all times in ME2, it wasn't that hard to get it. I did like how blowing up or rewriting influenced the process but I felt it should've had a larger impact. Charm/Intimidate should be replaced by decision making.

Exactly. Not necessarily an approval system, but a system where the player determines for themselves, with the facts and information they have at hand (and their own nature and judgement of course) what the best course of action should be. I think it should boil down to reason, logic, and strategy. I'm not a fan of the morality system, especially since I play characters who are typically neutral and amoral and unconcerned with morality and ethics. That's not to say they don't have their own blue and orange style of morality and ethics (since I believe that morality exists, but that every person's definition of what is moral and immoral, or right and wrong is different and thus entirely subjective.) My charactes have a goal, and the only thing they judge their decisions on is whether or not an action will help progress that goal or impede that goal in the long run. And they do have multiple, and sometimes conflicting goals.

For example, My Shepard knows that he needs the Krogan and the Salarians to fight the Reapers. That said, he does not want the Krogan around post-war. He thinks they're a barbaric and unstable race that is a danger to stability in the galaxy and incompatible with his post-war vision. So he really does internally struggle with the genophage cure. That's where he does let some of his own personal feelings come into play, allowing Wrex and Eve the chance, their one chance to have the Krogan play nice. He believes they will fail, and even wants them to fail to a certain extent since he believes that they will simply be more trouble than they're worth.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:13 .

[jillabender]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The choice flows from the player. But the competence flows from the character. And it's the competence we're talking about.

Then you're too fixated on the term "earn."  Which frankly is simply because that's the name of the Trope.

What people are asking for is that making choices in a particular, hopefully not ostensibly obvious way, can result in outcomes that may be considered superior or ideal than the most obvious path.


When people talk about "earn your happy ending" in RPGs, they're talking about being rewarded for the choices that they make, not the game's difficulty (and hence, character competence)

I don't understand what you're trying to advocate here.

If this is true, then there should be no problem with elements of Mass Effect that are derided as 'easy win buttons' The charm and intimidate options seem to be exactly what you described. The player makes a choice - for example, to save both the quarians and the geth instead of killing one - and they're rewarded for that choice. Same with any of the charm and intimidate options.

Those options should be harder to earn or impossible is our point.

Correct me if I'm off-base here, but I think there may be some confusion going on in this thread because some people may be talking about wanting the story to be affected by how well the player handles things like combat (for example, situations like Redcliffe where NPCs like Lloyd and Murdock could die depending on how the combat played out), while other people may be talking about wanting the game to make them think more carefully about narrative choices in order to deduce which one will lead to the result that they or their character want.

Modifié par jillabender, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:11 .

[David7204]

That depends, very, very precisely on what exactly the 'something more' is.

For Rannoch, the player has to save Legion. Get Tali off without betraying her. Get the two to cooperate. Complete Legion's mission. Do all the geth missions before assault the base in ME 3.

All of those are...pretty obvious. At least I thought. And that's good.

Modifié par David7204, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:09 .

[LPPrince]

Estelindis wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Estelindis wrote...
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.

I'm with you on that one. Good read.

Thank you!

You're welcome. *salute*

[Estelindis]

David7204 wrote...

I don't understand what you're trying to advocate here.

If this is true, then there should be no problem with elements of Mass Effect that are derided as 'easy win buttons' The charm and intimidate options seem to be exactly what you described. The player makes a choice - for example, to save both the quarians and the geth instead of killing one - and they're rewarded for that choice.

This just doesn't apply to the endings of DA:O or DA2.  In DA:O, the only apparent sacrifice-free win button leaves a massive unresolved plot that, depending on the player, can seem very sinister and make it look to some people like they should simply accept the sacrifice rather than having this uncertainty hanging over them.  In DA2, the action of another character removes the possibility of an ideal compromise option; you have to pick one side or another.  Now, ultimately, this DA2 decision sadly comes to little in the end, so I'd like to see consequences more akin to DA:O's, but it still stands as not offering one ideal solution compared to other choices.

When it comes to charm/persuade in DA:O, let me give you an example.  Upon Alistair becoming king, the female Warden who romances him can use her persuasion skills to avoid being dumped, so she can either become queen (if a noble) or remain his mistress (if another origin and if she'd already made the somewhat non-intuitive choice earlier in the game to give him a less idealistic outlook on life).  Those may be seen as improvements on the situation, but I would argue that they still don't offer an "ideal" result, because non-nobles have to put up with the idea that he's going to marry someone else, and even a noble has to accept that they will never have a child together.  Correctly used, persuade options offer some improvements in a situation, but don't give a character everything he or she wants.

Mind you, I think there should be situations where trying to change someone's opinion actually worsens the situation.  I think this would be good for balance and encourage careful reading of NPC personalities.

Dave of Canada wrote...

Estelindis wrote...
"You cannot be bad at watching a movie.  You cannot be bad at listening to an album.  But you can be bad at playing a video game, and the video game will punish you and deny you access to the rest of the video game!"  

That's a pretty great quote.

I'm glad that you like it!  I think Dara is one of the funniest people on the planet.  

Modifié par Estelindis, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:10 .

[Dave of Canada]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm not a fan of the morality system, especially since I play characters who are typically neutral and amoral and unconcerned with morality and ethics.

I'm an avid hater of morality systems because of the way they introduce consequences into the game.

When the choice is between sacrificing someone for the mission and saving them despite the mission, saving them shouldn't result in the mission being unhindered. You spent time saving that individual, time should've passed and the mission should be in danger of failure because you didn't focus.

Bringing Down the Sky made a great point with choosing to save the people or hunting down Balak, it was simple because of the DLC status but it presented a scenario where both sides had their own points. Do I save the people who are about to die or do I hunt down the criminal who could kill more?

I'm just disappointed that killing/arresting Balak results in negative consequences when he turns into a "good" guy and helps you.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

That depends, very, very precisely on what exactly the 'something more' is.

For Rannoch, the player has to save Legion. Get Tali off without betraying her. Get the two to cooperate. Complete Legion's mission. Do all the geth missions before assault the base in ME 3.

All of those are...pretty obvious. At least I thought. And that's good.

And its good IN YOUR OPINION, others disagree

[Dave of Canada]

David7204 wrote...

And that's good.

I disagree. We're back to square one.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:14 .