1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Estelindis]

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.

I thought they were pretty obvious too.  Then I talked to several of my friends who ended up with severly depleted parties in ME2 and ME3.  Looks like it's not obvious to many people.

[LPPrince]

Damn, this thread has pretty much become Everyone against David.

My little exchange got buried hard. Yikes.

Y'all have fun.

[Allan Schumacher]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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.

While I like the idea of difficult choices and less than ideal solutions, I'm also okay with giving them to the player sometimes.  If the player has the expectation that attempting to put in extra effort will never really work out, then that is analogous to the expectation that attempting to put in extra effort will always work out.

[Xilizhra]

As it stands, I have no problem with happy endings, bittersweet ones, or both being in the same game. The one thing I do have a problem with is people trying to cut me off from having my preferred endings because they want their preferred endings to be the only ones. As such, my preference is for both optimal and suboptimal playthroughs to be available, for the players to choose between.

Also, is it me, or is David talking about something completely different from those arguing with him?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:14 .

[David7204]

Everyone on this thread seems to be so very confident that if choices are based on 'reason,' they won't have any problems. That they're smart enough to tackle whatever challenges the narrative throws at them (and the narrative is good enough to provide honest challenges.') That they'll face down this challenge and come up victorious, because they're smart and mature and reasonable and pragmatic unlike all those other stupid silly people.

The reality is that's not going to happen. The reality is that this would almost certain lead to consequences that would infuriate players.

Modifié par David7204, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:15 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Everyone on this thread seems to be so very confident that if choices are based on 'reason,' they won't have any problems. That they're smart enough to tackle whatever challenges the narrative throws at them (and the narrative is good enough to provide honest challenges.' That they'll face down this challenge and come up victorious, because they're smart and mature and reasonable and pragmatic unlike all those other stupid silly people.

The reality is that's not going to happen. The reality is that this would almost certain lead to consequences that infuriate players.

And thats fine.  Dealing the consequences of choices is important when making choices.  If everything is fine either way its not a very meaningful choice imo

[Dave of Canada]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

While I like the idea of difficult choices and less than ideal solutions, I'm also okay with giving them to the player sometimes.  If the player has the expectation that attempting to put in extra effort will never really work out, then that is analogous to the expectation that attempting to put in extra effort will always work out.

I'm not cynical to the point that I want every positive decision to backfire, I just don't want all of them to succeed. The side which manages risks loses value when none of the risks are... well, risky. Some decisions should backfire for both sides, some should benefit individual sides at the cost of everyone's opinions and some should be like TWD's locker scene which the same thing occurs but there's a severe difference in people's opinions after the decision.

Just my opinion on the subject though.

Edited: Added some stuff.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:18 .

[David7204]

No, Steelcan, I don't think it would be fine at all.

[Estelindis]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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.

Agreed.  This was a brilliant moral choice with no absolutely clear right answer.  The consequences let it down a bit, unfortunately.

I, ah, wrote some fanfic where my Shepard tried to both arrest Balak and save the hostages, resulting in the bomb going off in spite of her efforts.  Only one hostage, horribly wounded, was saved, and half of Shepard's team was left on life support for the next two missions.  As I said earlier, I'd like more situations like these, where the game offers you the chance to try for an optimal, win-win solution but you never know in advance whether it's actually possible... and choosing to try for the win-win might possibly lead to a lose-lose, where you otherwise might have settled for win-lose.

[AresKeith]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

While I like the idea of difficult choices and less than ideal solutions, I'm also okay with giving them to the player sometimes.  If the player has the expectation that attempting to put in extra effort will never really work out, then that is analogous to the expectation that attempting to put in extra effort will always work out.

I'm not cynical to the point that I want every positive decision to backfire, I just don't want all of them to succeed. The side which manages risks loses value when none of the risks turn out to be wrong.

Well you could say that the Cure kinda does backfire depending on who you have leading the Krogan (Wrex or Wreav)

But I get what your saying though, they should've touched on the risks more

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

No, Steelcan, I don't think it would be fine at all.

Are you scared that you might accidentally make a choice that actually backfires despite your noble intentions?

perish the thought of choices having some unforseen consequences.

[Estelindis]

Steelcan wrote...

And thats fine.  Dealing the consequences of choices is important when making choices.  If everything is fine either way its not a very meaningful choice imo

David7204 wrote...

No, Steelcan, I don't think it would be fine at all.

I disagree profoundly.  Choices like these already exist in Dragon Age, and the series is better for it.  I made choices in my first, unspoiled playthrough of DA:O that ended up biting me in the posterior, leading to failures and losses that really stung.  The overall experience has marked me more than any game that just let me succeed at everything.

[jillabender]

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.

If you prefer for it to be fairly obvious which narrative choices will lead to a particular result, that's fine. But for me personally, and for other people as well, it can add something to the game when I need to think carefully about what the consequences of any given narrative choice might be.

One of my favourite moments in DA:O is the Landsmeet, and a large part of the tension of that scene when I played it for the first time came from the fact that it wasn't immediately obvious which dialogue choices would convince the nobles to turn against Loghain.

Recognizing the most effective arguments to sway the Landsmeet requires giving some thought to what's most important to the audience of nobles, and which claims the player character has evidence for. And that makes it a
rewarding challenge, as well as a meaningful opportunity to portray a character who's astute enough to recognize which arguments will best help his or her case, or one who's unable to do that because he or she is too naïve or hot-headed.

Modifié par jillabender, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:26 .

[Xilizhra]

To put it another way, I would like it if David's optimal path of heroism continues to occur in subsequent games. Those who don't like to follow it may find other paths.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Xilizhra wrote...

As it stands, I have no problem with happy endings, bittersweet ones, or both being in the same game. The one thing I do have a problem with is people trying to cut me off from having my preferred endings because they want their preferred endings to be the only ones. As such, my preference is for both optimal and suboptimal playthroughs to be available, for the players to choose between.

Wow, Xil has a decent point here.

I think what it boils down to is player agency in determining what works best for their character. As I said about the genophage, I don't believe the optimum long term future for the galaxy involves the long term future of the Krogan. That's why I'm very hesitant to create the cure, going so far as to put a gun to Mordin's back (and Mordin is one of my Shepard's few real friends who he legitimately likes).

That's why DA:O works so well. The player is the one who chooses what the optimum path for the Warden is.

This can backfire of course for narrative things like the Reapers being sympathetic, especially when it is so suddenly and jarringly heaped on the player after 2.9 games told and showed you how bad, irrational, destructive, and pointless the Reapers are and why, for the good of the galaxy, they need to be destroyed.

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...

We know he's a member of the Wardens. We know he's sharp-witted.

We don't know that at all. In fact, we (as the players), know via WOG Alistair is a bit of an idiot. In-game, depending on when you get the banters and conversations etc., we also learn that Alistair isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. 

We know (or we might infer, rather) that he was the closest thing to Duncan's second-hand-man. I would say that gives weight to his opinion.

There's is no way Alistair is Duncan's second hand man, especially given that he's the most junior member until you show up. 

Based upon the value I'm putting in Alistair's suggestion, based on the above.

Yeah, that stuff's not in-game. 

I'll give you that. However, we DO know he can be manipulative, which is a big part of politics.

Um... where is Alistair actually manipulative? He doesn't tell you things once... but that's about it. 

I don't think it's the same situation. A Warden's more like being a soldier than being a lawyer. It engenders a certain mindset along with it.

That's not right. A Warden is more like (depending on the context) a gang member who signed his enlistment forms, etc. You haven't even completed Warden basic training. 

My examples may have been poorly chosen. I'm trying to say that the things you mention--like being brought up in it--are tertiary and aren't necessary for being a Warden.

And I'll point out that technically, the only prerequisite, that I know of, is to have drank the cup--which the PC did.

I'm not sure how many ways I can try to express this. Yes, being a member of the GWs is not possible unless you survive drinking the cup, and so the PC is a member of the GW order. But that's not the same as being a "Grey Warden", because there's more to being a Grey Warden than drinking darkspawn blood. 

If there's a mindset, for example, the Warden doesn't have it. Because he or she never learned it. And if we're relying on that to say it should influence what the Warden does, that's just not true. 

You may not have seen my comment to Allan--I said as much, claiming the events that cause the PC to join the Wardens do just that. 

I have a response. 

[Dave of Canada]

AresKeith wrote...

Well you could say that the Cure kinda does backfire depending on who you have leading the Krogan (Wrex or Wreav)

But I get what your saying though, they should've touched on the risks more

I felt it odd that ME2 explained in great detail that Wrex was rebuilding Krogan society to manage the Genophage and he'd be assassinated otherwise, it left a sour taste in my mouth that you couldn't let Wrex keep building his new Krogan society and had to either cure it (which led to a happy ending for everyone involved) or not and killing Wrex.

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

It may be obvious.  For some people it may not be (I know some people couldn't save both).

For others, maybe they'd prefer it to be less obvious.

[Xilizhra]

This can backfire of course for narrative things like the Reapers being sympathetic, especially when it is so suddenly and jarringly heaped on the player after 2.9 games told and showed you how bad, irrational, destructive, and pointless the Reapers are and why, for the good of the galaxy, they need to be destroyed.

This is true. They needed to foreshadow the Reapers as having sympathetic qualities, at least in potentia, far earlier.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

To put it another way, I would like it if David's optimal path of heroism continues to occur in subsequent games. Those who don't like to follow it may find other paths.

Why should the "heroic" path be best?  why can't all paths have pros and cons?


wait......why am I trying to ask you anything reasonable?

pls don't huskify me

[Estelindis]

Xilizhra wrote...

As it stands, I have no problem with happy endings, bittersweet ones, or both being in the same game. The one thing I do have a problem with is people trying to cut me off from having my preferred endings because they want their preferred endings to be the only ones. As such, my preference is for both optimal and suboptimal playthroughs to be available, for the players to choose between.

Also, is it me, or is David talking about something completely different from those arguing with him?

I agree about the endings in one sense and disagree in another.  I agree in the sense that I think a game is better for having more ending options than fewer ones.  I disagree in the sense that I feel like having an ending that is optimal for all players in a very clear way implies that this is the ending everyone should be aiming for, which, in a sense, really gives the game only one ending.  I think it's better if there are different endings that appeal to different people as optimal.

I suspect, but can't be sure, that you're right about David arguing on a different wavelength from those disagreeing with him.

Modifié par Estelindis, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:26 .

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

To put it another way, I would like it if David's optimal path of heroism continues to occur in subsequent games. Those who don't like to follow it may find other paths.

Except David and you would be the first ones to come and rage on these forums if the path opposite of yours was optimal and your path was sub-optimal.

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

To put it another way, I would like it if David's optimal path of heroism continues to occur in subsequent games. Those who don't like to follow it may find other paths.

Why should the "heroic" path be best?  why can't all paths have pros and cons?


wait......why am I trying to ask you anything reasonable?

pls don't huskify me

It depends on your opinion and agency. For instance, you might just want the mages dead, Annul the Circle, and call that optimal.

Except David and you would be the first ones to come and rage on these
forums if the path opposite of yours was optimal and your path was
sub-optimal.

Ah, as you and others did for years? It's possible, yes.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:26 .