55 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

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).

The competence in making the correct choices comes from the player, however.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:55 .

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Allan Schumacher]

Dave of Canada wrote...

David7204 wrote...

And that's good.

I disagree. We're back to square one.

No, it's at least useful to get an understanding where each side is coming from.  You can understand that he considers it value added because it's what makes the game appealing to him.

THat's not to say the perspectives must be reconcilable (I am guessing that they're not), but unless the hope was to get someone to concede their position and agree with the other side (which is typically futile), I know I can at least better understand where David is coming from even if he and I want different things out of our games.

[Allan Schumacher]

Steelcan wrote...

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

Just to note, while someone may come across as being very terse or direct in their delivery, the vast majority of things stated on the internet are opinions.

While I can try to be clear with "in my opinion" inclusions from time to time, I don't think it's really necessary for it to be explicitly stated.


That said, it's important for both sides of the conversation to try to maintain a degree of amicability and if you're finding it necessary to respond in this way, it does send the message that you feel the opinion is being positioned too forcefully.

[Allan Schumacher]

I am asking that people please leave the personal baggage from previous interactions with various posters out of this thread.

i.e. the snippy pot shots some of you are taking because you've come to blows in previous threads.

[Allan Schumacher]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

bit of a tangent but i'm not sure there's an effective degree of 'not obvious' for players who are accustomed to game cues. meaning I'm not sure there's a way to make things less obvious but not to the point of being obtuse.

Perhaps an analysis of the game cues would be in order, so as to better mask/utilize them to bring attention in the ways that maybe are less clear?

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:48 .

[Allan Schumacher]

to the parts where the writers {pardon me Allan} came up with a frankly poorly written and executed concept that simply makes no sense within the realms of biology, logic, or meta-ethics as well as blatantly violating and contradicting not only established lore, but basic scientific laws of physics.

Just as a note, stating that you felt the writing was poor and that you had issues with it in the reasonably respectful way you did is fine. No need to pardon yourself (though the gesture is appreciated)

[Allan Schumacher]

Estelindis wrote...

Quick question.  Do you distinguish here between what you want as a player and what your character wants?  

Presumably, a rational player character will always want the optimal ending - their problems come from not necessarily being able to work out how to get there.  A player may enjoy a suboptimal ending for dramatic reasons, but, again, at least on the initial playthrough, it may not come about on purpose.

Tangential point:  I had never played a game with a divergent narrative before.... Wing Commander!  I was brutal at the game and ultimately had to withdraw from Vega Sector because we lost so much.  I was very much "neat!"  I was okay with the unhappy ending.


Coming back when I was much better at the game, I learned I could push the Kilrathi out.  It made me go "whoa, this game has different endings?  Cool!"

(yes, I acknowledge that one ending is clearly optimal, but I more point out that a player may enjoy a suboptimal ending, even though I was ignorant of a more optimal ending).

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm a spoiler hound and don't make choices like that, because I never enjoy failure. It leads only to anger if I knew that I could have made a better choice.

This is why some people dislike a clear optimal path.

[Allan Schumacher]

That is really interesting. Thanks for sharing! It's nice to see that I'm not alone in enjoying an initial, sub-optimal playthrough, in spite of subsequent playthroughs revealing other ways to play the game.

It does seem, however, that player skill in combat had a much larger role in this case than usually happens in Dragon Age, unless I'm missing something. It seems to me like most consequence in Dragon Age comes about via conversation options rather than failure to overcome a combat obstacle. I wonder if this is something anyone feels should change or if people are happy with it.

For sure. Player skill was specifically what drove the narrative in that game. It was just super novel (and hence, interesting) for me when it happened.

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).

[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.

[Allan Schumacher]

Star fury wrote...

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.   

If the discussion is about general RPG themes and how they can be applied to Dragon Age, I don't care.  I don't consider it off topic within the context of the discussion nor a violation of the forum rules.

When people constantly focus and berate for this particular point, and continue to bring previous baggage from other threads into future threads, I do start to get annoyed.

If a poster is bothering you, don't engage the poster. If you're finding yourself getting angry, there's a good chance your probably going to do something that DOES get you in trouble.


Further, it's best to not speak about whether or not I am favouring a poster.  Everyone is the victim, and I get dozens of appeals about how when I ban someone I'm being unfairly scrutinizing towards that particular person, and clearly never the person that was involved in the altercation.

If people are going to get on MY case because they're annoyed at David or any other poster, you're just going to put me in a sour mood too.

[Allan Schumacher]

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. 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.

Lets not play amateur psychologist either.


A lot of people on thin ice.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well lets see what this thread is up to now....

>.>

[Allan Schumacher]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Forgive me if this sounds flippant, but how is "recruit the guy you hate and then destroy his soul" the most heroic option?

It's heroic for Loghain. He volunteers for it

"I have done...so much wrong.  Allow me to do one last thing right"

I don't say it's the "most heroic" or even teh "best" ending.  Arguments can be made for other endings.  But it's the ending that works best for me.  The price to be paid (strained relationship with Alistair, Morigan abandoning you, Loghain's treason fading into the background of his slaying the archdemon) are worth it.

That's what gets forgotten:  when people say there has to be a price for survival:  the price has to be worth it.

If you offer a number of prices to pay, you stand a better chance of finding one that's palatable to a given player.

Agreed.

I can easily see how someone could feel that allowing Loghain to atone for his prior actions is a positive thing.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 01 novembre 2013 - 07:01 .

[Allan Schumacher]

iakus wrote...

Because some people seem to think that if a choice doesn't require  someone dying, it's not a "tough" choice.  And the more innocent the better

Billions can die an a war, and whole planets go up in flames.  Races get wiped out.,  But if the main character manages to survive without stooping to the enemy's own methods, then the ending was "rainbows and unicorns"

Unfortunately, and speaking from my own personal experience, faceless deaths are not nearly as personal as the deaths of someone close to me.  I can feel empathy that someone in New York lost a child.  But it'll never make me feel like when I lost my brother.


It's a balancing act between allowing choice with a meaningful consequence, and as this thread shows I don't think it's an easy thing for a game developer to explore, since not only do people appreciate different angles of agency (whether by choices or by consequences, or a combination), but some people simply want different things out of their games.

I like escapism, but for me escapism in games is status quo.  Like literature, there's a split between escapism and interpretative narratives.  My favourite book is Heart of Darkness, because I found it fascinating and really made me think and frankly, I think made me mature and become a better person.

Interpretive stories in games are rarer, which innately makes them novel for me and it's the type of thing that gets me excited for a game because it's novel.  I feel oversaturation with escapism, so while I can still enjoy it, I like it when a game can make me think/reflect.  If the majority of game narratives were interpretive, I'd predict a preference for just making a game more escapist.

I may have biases because I'm a pretty prolific gamer and play a lot of games.  If you're someone that ONLY plays BioWare games (or at least games similar), then we're coming at this from different contexts.


As for the "tough choices," I think people gravitate towards death because death is an easy example of something that has a lasting consequence and many understand is painful for people.  It may be becoming cliched though, and you could have examples were a group will face clear financial hardship, deportation/relocation, or even just the loss of a friendship.

I actually think it'd be really interesting if a companion that I really like questions a decision I make at one point, and despite getting along if I make a particular choice (that I think is the best choices to make) it may be an ultimate deal breaker for my friend.  How do I reconcile supporting a friend that has been with me through a lot, yet ultimately wants me to choose something that I think may not be the best decision.

I find those interesting because they also talk to me as a person.  It makes Allan Schumacher pause and go "Hmmmmm" and few games do that for me, and it's an experience that I really enjoy.


NOTE: My thought experiment is a hypothetical, and I'd like to point out that I'm not actually in charge of the narrative direction of the game, AND I -do- feel I understand perspectives such as yours, which is where "Developer Allan" comes in, even if "Gamer Allan" wants different things from games.

[Allan Schumacher]

And I've already said elsewhere that that concerns me. They should be striving to make rich, complex, multifaceted characters and *not* to create talking heads to personalize their favorite morality conundrums.

Can you disassociate the two? Especially if you're in a situation where it IS a hot topic? (i.e. Kirkwall)

What I see as interesting characters are characters that have their perspectives and justifications for why they see the world the way they do in a manner that I think is appropriate.

Try as they might, I'm never going to really care much about the mage/templar issue

That's fine.  I don't see how this position is inconsistent with in game characters that do care about the issue.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 01 novembre 2013 - 07:35 .

[Allan Schumacher]

"Moderator Allan" post. This is tangential and I'd prefer to not have people continue on this discussion. If you want to discuss it further lets do it on comments or somewhere else.

I usually prefer to not discuss "Moderator Allan" tendencies (Developer Allan and Gamer Allan are much more fun), buuuuut someone made an excellent point and I wanted to echo it:

Honestly, some people here do come off just as rigid and staunch as a poster who has already received a lot of flaming in this thread.

I definitely agree with this statement. So I opt to not come down on someone because if I get on someone because they have a different perspective and can be uncompromisingly direct in the way they present it, I feel as though I'd probably have to ban several people in this thread (and in many ways large swaths of the whole board from time to time).

Doubly so because I'm a human being and you'll end up relying on MY impression over whether or not you're being too uncompromising in your perspective, and I do not think that that is fair. I don't feel comfortable coming down on a poster exclusively because he has a perspective that is unpopular (now unpopular opinions often do escalate to violations I think are more clearly violations, which is why I encourage people to disengage if they are getting frustrated).


And again, I think it's important to realize that the vast majority of statements made on the internet are simply opinions. I think it comes across as less aggressive when adding in things like "in my opinion" or "I think" and so forth, but ultimately if I say "This point is wrong" it's still analogous to "I think this point is wrong" in most cases.

And I say this as someone that has a lengthy history of Somebody is wrong on the internet responses.

[Allan Schumacher]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I expect to be able to determine 'right' and 'wrong' for myself, thanks.

My party members will never be 'right' when they criticize me. If I thought their opinion had any merit, I would've done what they wanted to begin with.

What if you're wrong? we all are at some point or another.

Don't be silly, it's Plaintiff you're talking to, he is NEVER wrong! He is always RIGHT! And if you disagree with him, you're just factually wrong! Didn't you know that?

Silly EntropicAngel...

This type of posting isn't acceptable and I'd prefer it to not keep happening.

[Allan Schumacher]

Locking thread temporarily. There's a lot of severely off topic stuff in the last few pages that requires some culling.

[Allan Schumacher]

Thread reopened.

[Allan Schumacher]

Like, say, the Dark Ritual?

I think the Dark Ritual is close to that example. Though in that case Morrigan is leaving regardless.

I was more thinking of a situation where the NPC advocates a particular position and if you choose against that, it's a deal breaker for the NPC. Similar, but a bit different.

Am I the only person who actually likes to play video-games primarily for... well.... you know... the gameplay?

Gameplay can be applied in a nebulous way. In a puzzle game, the gameplay is about the mechanics to solve the puzzles.

I'd argue that making conversation choices and driving the narrative in a game that espouses that level of choice is still gameplay, even if it's not gameplay everyone would find interesting.

EDIT: Ninja'd by the mad one!

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 01 novembre 2013 - 08:52 .