1331 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

Plaintiff wrote...

How does one determine which outcome is the "optimal" one anyway?

Every person determines for themselves. Optimal outcome is the one when you get the most of what you want, as much as the game allows you to. 

[Allan Schumacher]

I'd prefer if we be understanding that people have different things that they want out of gaming, even if those things aren't the same as our own.

Thanks.

[The Heretic of Time]

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 would infuriate players.

Which is good. I'd like to get punished for stupid, bad or dumb decisions. That way I would actually learn something and become better as a gamer and as a person. It's a win-win situation really.

Luckily there are plenty of games who give me exactly this. Games who punish me for my stupid, bad or dumb decisions that I made due to my own ignorance at the time. And we both know, Mass Effect isn't one of those games. Mass Effect is more aimed at the mainstream teenage gamers who quickly and easily want to satisfy their juvenile heroic power fantasies.

Sure, Mass Effect has the 'insanity' difficulty setting, which does make the game slightly challenging sometimes (but most of the time it's still ******-easy), but that's only combat-wise. When it comes to choices and consequences, Mass Effect is still ridiculously easy no matter what difficulty setting you play at.

The Dragon Age developers did this better. They made "the best choice" (the choice with the best consequences) less obvious and less clear-cut, and even the best decisions still have negative repercussions sometimes, or require you to do something amoral. This is good. This makes Dragon Age actually challenging and fun to play.

Dragon Age is far from the perfect RPG series, but it sure is miles ahead of silly Mass Effect in terms of choices & consequences.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 31 octobre 2013 - 08:33 .

[KainD]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

They made "the best choice" (the choice with the best consequences) less obvious and less clear-cut, and even the best decisions still have negative repercussions sometimes, or require you to do something amoral. 

The best choices are different for every person. Every person has different morals. It doesn't work like you describe it. 
What might be negative repercussions for you, might be something positive for this other person. 

[David7204]

Hanar, I think I know the reason why people are so defensive and angry - to the point of fury - when I suggest that heroism and competence don't flow from the player. Why it provokes such a vehement reaction.

Would you like to hear it? Would you like to hear the reason?

Modifié par David7204, 31 octobre 2013 - 08:42 .

[Fredward]

David7204 wrote...
Would you like to hear it? Would you like to hear the reason?

Oh, oh! I would! I would!

[Ieldra]

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.

The Fallout games are extremely good at this, and I don't think I've played other games that did it nearly as well (and that includes PST). It's been 17 years, but still one my most well-remembered roleplaying moments was when I sneaked down into the Mariposa Military Base in FO1 and was rewarded with 1000 extra xp (which is quite a bit at that point) for having done so without being seen.

The Fallout games make character attributes and skills mean something, and my level of disappointment in ME2 knew no bounds when they removed the only two skills that ever meant anything in ME (persuasion skills - we had to wait until Omega to see any other character attribute mean anything).

However, I do not like time limits without the game being extra-blatant about it. FO1 had those, too. The thing is, every single story-based game always tells you to hurry, and most don't follow up on it, which means that if a game tells me to hurry, I usually assume that's just the usual attempt at drama and doesn't mean anything. Even if I was willing to hurry, the fact that they all tell me to means that I have no real information and the time limit comes across as random and wilful.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 octobre 2013 - 08:45 .

[wolfhowwl]

David, I would prefer that you actually address his points but I would like to see this as well.

P.S.

You never did tell me why I post on the BSN. My life has been empty and listless without knowing my purpose here.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 31 octobre 2013 - 08:46 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Hanar, I think I know the reason why people are so defensive and angry - to the point of fury - when I suggest that heroism and competence don't flow from the player. Why it provokes such a vehement reaction.

Would you like to hear it? Would you like to hear the reason?

You assume I actually give a damn about heroism, that's cute.

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...
Video games should have the option of being easy. You are perfectly free to enjoy games on the ultra-hardest difficulty. Nobody is threatening that. However, a game should not be made frustratration, or work, or tedium for someone to enjoy the story. The story exists as the same regardless of what the player is or how good he is.

And that all ties back into the central point. That heroism does not flow from the player.

The two points are unrelated.

I agree with your first point, but only where gameplay is concerned. Story decisions are a different matter. Your decisions can drastically change the story (even if they not always do), and even more can they change how you feel within the story.

The second is incorrect, unless you make no distinction between heroic and non-heroic choices. Take ME's Renegade path. I would argue you can make some choices which are rather non-heroic, no matter that Shepard still gets the accolades in the end, and also, you envision motivations for why your Shepard does things, which can be heroic or not. So yes, heroism does indeed flow from the player, if you are given opportunities to make choices with heroic and non-heroic options. In the end, it doesn't matter if your protagonist gets the accolades. You know the motivations, and you know about decisions hidden from anyone else, like sabotaging the genophage cure. You know whether or not your protagonist can justifiably be called a hero because you made them so.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 octobre 2013 - 09:01 .

[The Heretic of Time]

KainD wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

They made "the best choice" (the choice with the best consequences) less obvious and less clear-cut, and even the best decisions still have negative repercussions sometimes, or require you to do something amoral. 

The best choices are different for every person. Every person has different morals. It doesn't work like you describe it. 
What might be negative repercussions for you, might be something positive for this other person. 

No, I don't think you understand what I mean. I does work the way I describe it.

When I talk about "the best choice", I talk about the choices that bring you the closest to your goals, whether those are the goals the game decided for you (stop the Blight, defeat the Arch Demon) or simply your personal goals (crush the mage opposition, or destroy the templars and free the mages), doesn't matter.

What I want, and what Dragon Age and many other games actually give me, is a flip-side to my decisions. When I have to make a decision between several options, I want ALL options to have their own pros and cons. That's what turns a simple decision-making moment into an actual interesting dilemma.

It's actually one of the few positive things I can say about the Mass Effect 3 endings; as retarted as the ending to ME3 might be, the one thing it did right was giving all the options their own pros and cons (some of the options had more obvious pros and cons than others though).

[David7204]

You see, it's just the funniest thing. I say what I have to say, and I get all these accusations of wanting a 'power fantasy.' From people such as yourself, and including yourself.

And it's so ironic because the simple and obvious truth is that everything I say separates me from heroism. It's other people that argue their character is heroic because they're heroic. It's other people that argue for that connection. It's other people that attempt to piggyback off of their favorite fictional characters. Me? I argue in the opposite direction. I distance myself from it. I make it clear that what occurs in fiction is no reflection of me as a person. Everything I say only makes me look uglier and weaker. To an untrained mind, at least. And for embracing that, I get accused of seeking a 'power fantasy.'

You notice what's even more ironic? The people announcing how much they despise heroism, the ones talking about 'power fantasies,' they're the ones who become enraged when I examine that connection and question it. It's like...desperation, wouldn't you say? Desperation. Like I'm threatening something they need very, very badly. Something they depend on.

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

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

David7204 wrote...

heroism and competence don't flow from the player.

what this even means in the first place is stll pretty fuzzy imo

I make it clear that what occurs in fiction is no reflection of me as a person.

i am pretty sure no one in here has asserted the contrary. its a roleplaying game. choices reflect the character you decide to play.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 31 octobre 2013 - 09:06 .

[Fredward]

Pseudocognition wrote...

David7204 wrote...
heroism and competence don't flow from the player.

what this even means in the first place is stll pretty fuzzy imo

Just that you aren't doing anything remarkable from this side of the screen it's the character being the hero you just get to watch. At least that's what I'm getting. I'm not really paying attention. Is anyone even arguing this? I mean really.

[KainD]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

What I want, and what Dragon Age and many other games actually give me, is a flip-side to my decisions. When I have to make a decision between several options, I want ALL options to have their own pros and cons. That's what turns a simple decision-making moment into an actual interesting dilemma.

You realise how many different pros and cons have to be factored into the game for that? 

Take DA:O descisions about dalish and Werewolves. What brings us closer to the main goal? Werewolves! Those guys reap everybody to shreads in the last battle, WAY stronger than elf archers. What are the cons? Dead elves? But I don't care about elves! Which means I get the best military might without any cons. Cons are there only if you care about the elves. And every person cares about different things. 

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Just that you aren't doing anything remarkable from this side of the screen it's the character being the hero you just get to watch. At least that's what I'm getting. I'm not really paying attention. Is anyone even arguing this? I mean really.

the endless battle of Opinion A vs. Opinion A But Rephrased Incomprehensibly

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 31 octobre 2013 - 09:08 .

[Xewaka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Dragon Age has a lot more choices happening within conversations (although we're trying to be more liberal with that in DAI. You can say one thing, but are free to still make anotehr choice if you decide).

YES. Finally, a way around the always useless, most of the time actively misleading, never helpful paraphrasing. At least even if the paraphrase made me break my character (which is the usual situation), I can still have him/her act in character again.

Modifié par Xewaka, 31 octobre 2013 - 09:16 .

[Reznore57]

I don't care all that much about my pc dying.
The death of companions tends to upset me way more.
Sure , if my hero suddenly died because he broke his/her neck tripping on a banana peel ...I wouldn't like that.

But the hero sacrifice , because you choose to do so , because it seems it's worth it...It works for me.

I'm curious how Bioware is going to deal with the Inquisitor.The Ultimate sacrifice worked great in DA:O but imho with the Import of Awakening , (it's probably going to be solved by the Keep) and the fact that he/she is supposed to disappear later...I do not care about the Orlesian Warden ,I'm sure some people enjoyed playing him/her but I think this pc doesn't really fit.

On the other had , Hawke survived and she/he is now part of an unknown plot.I'm a bit frustrated by this.

Anyway an optimal outcome for me would be no companions death , and no bat**** crazy character giving me an ultimatum(Starbrat/Meredith) ...when the only choice is to ride along the crazy train...It gets hard to see your actions as meaningful.
As long as I can understand why "sacrifice" might be needed , I can deal with most of the collateral damages.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

You see, it's just the funniest thing. I say what I have to say, and I get all these accusations of wanting a 'power fantasy.' From people such as yourself, and including yourself.

And it's so ironic because the simple and obvious truth is that everything I say separates me from heroism. It's other people that argue their character is heroic because they're heroic. It's other people that argue for that connection. It's other people that attempt to piggyback off of their favorite fictional characters. Me? I argue in the opposite direction. I distance myself from it. I make it clear that what occurs in fiction is no reflection of me as a person. Everything I say only makes me look uglier and weaker. To an untrained mind, at least.

You notice what's even more ironic? The people announcing how much they despise heroism, the ones talking about 'power fantasies,' they're the ones who become enraged when I examine that connection and question it. It's like...desperation, wouldn't you say? Desperation. Like I'm threatening something they need very, very badly. Something they depend on.

Maybe you should lay off the meds for now David. You're seeing things that aren't there.

If anything, it's usually the Paragon players who get emotionally invested in their characters and their power-trip, and it's they who start to complain as soon as they no longer have the ultimate perfect solution presented to them on a platter, because it diminishes their, or their character's heroism. This includes you actually. I remember very clearly how you talked negatively about the ME3 endings because it actually saddled you up with an actual moral dilemma that did not have an optimal or perfect way out.

But lets be honest here; can you really blame people for getting invested in their characters in a ROLEPLAYING game? You see, that's the part of roleplaying games that you just don't seem to get; in roleplaying games, player agency plays a huge role, more so than in other games. And it's often the case that in roleplaying games, the player character is an extention of the player himself.

RPGs blur the line between player and player character, Mass Effect (create your own protagonist from a set amount of backgrounds and paths) more so than The Witcher (pre-made protagonist that's already definied by the prequel books), and Dragon Age (create your own black-slate character and fill in the blanks yourself) even more so than Mass Effect.

It is clear to me David, that you really should start playing more RPGs to gain a better understanding of roleplaying games and video-games in general, and the clear difference between video-games and films. Video-games have a lot to offer than films cannot offer, but that seems to go completely over your head and it's something you just won't grasp, due to your lack fo experience with RPGs and video-games in general.

[David7204]

Let me get this straight, Hanar. You accuse me of depending on heroism as a 'power fantasy' and then you condemn me for not being invested enough in my characters, to the point of explaining that 'the player character is an extension of the player.' ( What a perfect summery, by the way. I thank you for that. It's usually a bit more work.)  Is that right?

Modifié par David7204, 31 octobre 2013 - 09:23 .

[Star fury]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

While it's clear many here disagree with David, if I see people attacking him (or even just an over reliance on falling back on the fact that he hasn't played Dragon Age), that type of behaviour is more likely to draw my ire.

I've deleted some posts already.


Although David, I do agree with the general notion that experiencing more RPGs may help illustrate the perspectives other people have (myself included).  I get the impression that you're struggling to understand why many disagree with your perspective, when it could simply be because they have different experiences that motivate their perspectives.

Can you please tell me, is it okay for one poster to consistently post offtopic? Is it okay for that poster to consistently write about Mass Effect in the Dragon Age forum? You always go to great lengths to defend David7204, even when all he does is writing offtopic or thread derailing.

Why mods never punish for that? Stop one poster from violating forum rules, it's much more simple.   

Modifié par Star fury, 31 octobre 2013 - 12:26 .

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...
You see, it's just the funniest thing. I say what I have to say, and I get all these accusations of wanting a 'power fantasy.' From people such as yourself, and including yourself.

And it's so ironic because the simple and obvious truth is that everything I say separates me from heroism. It's other people that argue their character is heroic because they're heroic.

Nobody argues that. We are making our protagonists into heroes or not, if the story gives us the choices to make that distinction. It has nothing to do with the protagonist's heroism reflecting back to, or on, the player. I play different characters, some of them more heroic than others. All that says about me is that I like to explore different paths, but still, it is I who makes those protagonists into heroes or not. Whether or not they become heroes is rooted in actions I take as the player.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 octobre 2013 - 09:23 .

[The Heretic of Time]

KainD wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

What I want, and what Dragon Age and many other games actually give me, is a flip-side to my decisions. When I have to make a decision between several options, I want ALL options to have their own pros and cons. That's what turns a simple decision-making moment into an actual interesting dilemma.

You realise how many different pros and cons have to be factored into the game for that? 

Many, but not too many, as plenty of RPGs so far have managed to pull it off (Dragon Age: Origins is one of them).

KainD wrote...

Take DA:O descisions about dalish and Werewolves. What brings us closer to the main goal? Werewolves! Those guys reap everybody to shreads in the last battle, WAY stronger than elf archers. What are the cons? Dead elves? But I don't care about elves! Which means I get the best military might without any cons. Cons are there only if you care about the elves. And every person cares about different things. 

Euhm I don't think the werewolves are way stronger than the Dalish, and even if they are, then it's still not an easy choice to make, because A) recruiting the werewolves requires you to do something rather amoral (especially if your Warden is a Dalish elf himself) and the Dalish have a treaty and thus their loyalty after helping them out is guaranteed, the werewolves on the otherhand are not bound by a treaty and thus less trust-worthy.

But in terms of gameplay and actual in-game consequences, the Dalish and werewolves are equal. It's a matter of prefference really. 

[David7204]

Iedra, I'm using 'heroism' as a tasteful shorthand for competent. Because that frankly sounds dry and doesn't give the concept the justice it deserves. Can we not get bogged down over word choice?

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

'competence' is only three letters longer than 'heroism' and is a simple concept that doesn't require shorthand
you may have more success if you use the word you mean

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 31 octobre 2013 - 09:29 .