Because happy=good. Cake=good. Cake=happy. Let me eat it and then spit it in yo face.General Slotts wrote...
dreamgazer wrote...
Br3ad wrote...
Yep, can smell the irony coming from this.dreamgazer wrote...
sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
I swear to god that Bioware has the whiniest and most emo fans of any single game company I've ever seen.
That's an interesting way to encourage a reply.
And I agree, they are. But not in the way you've implied.
Sorry, I had Mexican for lunch. It'll pass.
Too much information! Also, I don't know why people automatically equate tough choices with grimdark.
Do you want an empty life, or a meaningful death? **spoilers**
Débuté par
DragonKingReborn
, oct. 28 2013 07:04
-
Ce sujet est fermé
- Show only BioWare posts
#826
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 07:20
Br3admax
-
- Members
- 12 316 messages
Retour en haut
#827
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 07:21
Mr.House
-
- Members
- 23 338 messages
Burn my bread or get out.Dave of Canada wrote...
Mr.House wrote...
I do because I liked her more then Minato? Better s-links and more fun to play imo.
Still, Minato/Minako scream herosim.
Mass Destruction > Wiping All Out.
#828
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 07:22
MassivelyEffective0730
-
- Members
- 9 230 messages
EntropicAngel wrote...
Br3ad wrote...
Alistair is not a true Warden anymore than anyone else. He's also only been there for a few months. He's the authority on nothing. He's recruited and tainted, that's his only claim to Wardendom.
Are there any other Wardens at Ostagar other than Alistair and Duncan?
My question is whether there are any more claims to Wardendom?
Alistair has been successfully recruited via the Right of Conscription, and he has successfully passed (survived) the Joining.
At that point, he is a full Grey Warden.
That's all it takes to be a Warden. No, he hasn't been a Warden very long. No, he's not the authority on anything, nor will he claim as such (minus cheese and his hair). But he's no less of a Warden than a veteran like Duncan who's starting to succumb to the taint and is preparing for his Calling. Granted, there is a hierarchy to Wardens, but once you're past the Joining, you're a full-fledged member.
Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 31 octobre 2013 - 07:34 .
#829
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 07:23
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
-
- Guests
sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
I skimmed through about 4 posts on about 10 pages of the thread from 20 to 33. Yes I know that's 13 pages, but I left out three pages altogether. I'm having deja vu of the threads abounding in the Mass Effect 2 forum about the "tough choices" we should face going into Mass Effect 3.
Okay? I think maybe you should read the entire thread then before you start posting. Or at least read more than four posts.
I swear to god that Bioware has the whiniest and most emo fans of any single game company I've ever seen.
They do. And you are providing the stereotype right now with your post.
I'm so sick and tired of hearing about tough choices. Why does it always have to be tough choices?
Both Dragon Age and Mass Effect's entire concept has been about "tough choices" which is rarely the case because there is usually a correct choice the majority of the time.
Honestly I don't really care about tough choices.
Cool. Then maybe you can play some other games then.
I have to make enough tough choice in real life.
So do I. But I still enjoy playing these type of games.
I don't want to make them in a game that I play for entertainment. Tough choices to me mean I'm going to be sitting there at the end of the game with a set of choices to make that no matter which one I make I'll be left feeling like **** afterward.
Tough choices immerse you more into the game world and require more thought (and also increase roleplaying since you won't gimp yourself if you choose the "wrong" choice) so I really don't see why this is a problem outside of people wanting all of their games to be hugboxes that exist only to congratulate them on heroism.
Well f*** that. I'd rather play Call of Duty.
Ah, the Call of Duty fallacy.
After Mass Effect 3, screw tough choices. Let's have a good ending.
You can have good endings while still having tough choices.
I could make such a choice in Fallout NV. I could side with the NCR, the Legion, Mr. House, or an Independent Vegas. Since I played the female courier, the it was never the Legion. Is the game perfect? No. Fun? Yes.
I don't recall there being an ending in NV where everything ended happily for every single person. Not without a lot of work anyway, and even then, groups likes the Followers of the Apocolypse tend to get a raw deal.
The thing most people are arguing about isn't that "happy endings" should be removed. They just want some effort put into choices so there isn't an always blatant "correct" choice to every single decision in the games because it undermines the entire point of having to make them.
Modifié par Morocco Mole, 31 octobre 2013 - 07:27 .
#830
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 07:41
Dave of Canada
-
- Members
- 17 484 messages
Rather than arguing specifics, I'll just post what would be optimal to me:
Your keep is being overwhelmed by a fade tear which opened right in the courtyard, everyone is being massacred and you rush inside to stop it while everyone else is dying. As you're exploring the fade tear, a companion/vital NPC is injured and he can't rush to stop it with you but he's too deep to turn back.
Do you abandon him and leave him to die? You'd have the time to stop the fade tear and minimalize casualties.
Do you return back to the keep to make sure he survives? Maximizes casualties, allows him to live and increases the burden on the player's supplies (health potions, mana, etc)
Do you split-up your group? Casualties are major, perhaps he's gravely injured on the way and put out of commision for a while and gameplay difficulty increases drastically.
Down the line, the companion/vital NPC's survival results in their assistance down the line which helps you with another scenario, perhaps their help being limited to which "survival" decision you picked. Players who saved him recieve flak for taking too long and getting more people killed and people who abandon him recieve flak for having abandoned him, prompting you to respond to their concerns and managing.
What if abandoning him means you've got more men to save the village being raided? Is it any less "heroic"? You've traded one variant for another.
Ultimately it would arrive to the point where your decisions start impacting other decisions which impact the ending, leading for you to micro-manage risks and resources to make sure that you remain a worthy threat.
Your keep is being overwhelmed by a fade tear which opened right in the courtyard, everyone is being massacred and you rush inside to stop it while everyone else is dying. As you're exploring the fade tear, a companion/vital NPC is injured and he can't rush to stop it with you but he's too deep to turn back.
Do you abandon him and leave him to die? You'd have the time to stop the fade tear and minimalize casualties.
Do you return back to the keep to make sure he survives? Maximizes casualties, allows him to live and increases the burden on the player's supplies (health potions, mana, etc)
Do you split-up your group? Casualties are major, perhaps he's gravely injured on the way and put out of commision for a while and gameplay difficulty increases drastically.
Down the line, the companion/vital NPC's survival results in their assistance down the line which helps you with another scenario, perhaps their help being limited to which "survival" decision you picked. Players who saved him recieve flak for taking too long and getting more people killed and people who abandon him recieve flak for having abandoned him, prompting you to respond to their concerns and managing.
What if abandoning him means you've got more men to save the village being raided? Is it any less "heroic"? You've traded one variant for another.
Ultimately it would arrive to the point where your decisions start impacting other decisions which impact the ending, leading for you to micro-manage risks and resources to make sure that you remain a worthy threat.
Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 octobre 2013 - 07:42 .
#831
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 07:45
Mr.House
-
- Members
- 23 338 messages
Nice example.Dave of Canada wrote...
Rather than arguing specifics, I'll just post what would be optimal to me:
Your keep is being overwhelmed by a fade tear which opened right in the courtyard, everyone is being massacred and you rush inside to stop it while everyone else is dying. As you're exploring the fade tear, a companion/vital NPC is injured and he can't rush to stop it with you but he's too deep to turn back.
Do you abandon him and leave him to die? You'd have the time to stop the fade tear and minimalize casualties.
Do you return back to the keep to make sure he survives? Maximizes casualties, allows him to live and increases the burden on the player's supplies (health potions, mana, etc)
Do you split-up your group? Casualties are major, perhaps he's gravely injured on the way and put out of commision for a while and gameplay difficulty increases drastically.
Down the line, the companion/vital NPC's survival results in their assistance down the line which helps you with another scenario, perhaps their help being limited to which "survival" decision you picked. Players who saved him recieve flak for taking too long and getting more people killed and people who abandon him recieve flak for having abandoned him, prompting you to respond to their concerns and managing.
What if abandoning him means you've got more men to save the village being raided? Is it any less "heroic"? You've traded one variant for another.
Ultimately it would arrive to the point where your decisions start impacting other decisions which impact the ending, leading for you to micro-manage risks and resources to make sure that you remain a worthy threat.
#832
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 07:53
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 398 messages
General Slotts wrote...
Too much information! Also, I don't know why people automatically equate tough choices with grimdark.
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"
So much concern is made over not having an obviously "right" chocie, that they pile on more and more drawbacks so that every chocie feels wrong.
And people who object to this practice are the "whiners"
In short, the new fad is True Art is Angsty
#833
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 07:53
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
-
- Guests
Please don't link tvtropes, its a terrible source for anything about writing
#835
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:00
wright1978
-
- Members
- 8 116 messages
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Tough choices are the only really meaningful choices in games like these. What's the point of having a choice that has a very clear optimal solution that you can just pick right away, no prerequirements whatsoever? Such a choice isn't even really a choice, it's meaningless.
For example the ME2 suicide mission. Those decisions on which squad member you choose for which task; it's so f***ing obvious who you should choose for which task that it's not really a choice anymore. The game basically spells it out for you who you should pick, and picking anyone else is most certainly gonna lead to a less optimal ending with more dead squaddies and why would anyone choose that? Unless you dislike certain characters and deliberatly want to kill them off, I see no reason to pick anyone else for the Suicide Mission jobs other than the squaddies the game suggests you should choose.
Like I said, simple choices with very clear optimal solutions are meaningless. Tough choices are the only meaninfful choices.
I disagree there can be ocassions where the optimal solution works as long as there are others where going for optimal solutions has non-optimal consequences. I'm really against the idea of constant tough choices(kill 20 puppies or kill 20 kittens etc). Having very ocassional big tough moral quandary decisions to make is fine(such as do i overwite heretics or blow them up)
Personally i loved the suicide mission mechanic. I still believe ME2 core concept of endings ranging from happy through
to utterly bleak dependent on choice is the ideal scenario. It
certainly could be tweaked so that some of the factors that play into survival were tweaked so that the likes of retaining 100% loyalty with everybody wasn't possible, upgrading ship
resulted in set a consequences(in outside universe) in parrallel to the benefits of upgrading ship
& certain tasks such as hold the line had a minimum casualty rate.
Modifié par wright1978, 31 octobre 2013 - 08:01 .
#836
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:01
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
-
- Guests
How so? Because certain choices should have no right resolution and should carry both upsides and downsides?
#837
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:03
Chashan
-
- Members
- 1 654 messages
Dave of Canada wrote...
What if abandoning him means you've got more men to save the village being raided? Is it any less "heroic"? You've traded one variant for another.
Ultimately it would arrive to the point where your decisions start impacting other decisions which impact the ending, leading for you to micro-manage risks and resources to make sure that you remain a worthy threat.
For that to work, careful planning and connecting all these points in the game in a profound manner is required, rather than throwing it on a collective 'EMS'-pile and connecting the finale to just that. One can only hope the 'agents'-bit that was shown in that one gameplay-demonstration doesn't amount to just as little.
Don't get me wrong, the idea is sound, and it's not the team behind ME3 involved with DA:I's development. Still, skepticism that BW is capable of making such a varied and convincing scenario the rule for DA:I is in order.
#838
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:03
crimzontearz
-
- Members
- 16 789 messages
it's ok, there is a solutioniakus wrote...
In this case, it fits like a glove
#839
Guest_Raga_*
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:05
Guest_Raga_*
Guest_Raga_*
-
- Guests
Morocco Mole wrote...
The thing most people are arguing about isn't that "happy endings" should be removed. They just want some effort put into choices so there isn't an always blatant "correct" choice to every single decision in the games because it undermines the entire point of having to make them.
Some of the problem with this is that Bioware is trying to be really postmodern. They are trying to make multiple choices be "correct" both narratively and morally. Unfortunately, their entire narrative style and the game morality mechanice they employ (binary scales) AND the inherent tendency of the human brain to think in terms of dualism means players still equate one choice with being "moral" and the other as being "immoral." Because the games are expressly attempting to make the player avoid playing a character who is evil for evil's sake, then whatever action the player construes as "immoral" becomes the "incorrect" one because it will likely produce bad consequences for the world or their companions. In this sense, chosing to drain the energy of the Water Dragon in JE as an example would be a "wrong" choice because it obviously has terrible consequences for the world. The difference is that in JE it's possible and even encouraged to play an evil character who doesn't give two craps about what their decisions will do to the world. The same is true in KotoR and the old D&D games.
Postmodernism doesn't work in the kind of game Bioware wants to make. DAO is the closest they have gotten thus far. They need to let the player determine if they want to play a character who doesn't care about long term consequences rather than trying to make overtly immoral decisions appear gritty and nuanced and equally as valid as moral ones. They need to focus on making all choices valid and correct narratively, and leave the determination of morality up to the player.
*Edit* A player shouldn't need to feel morally justified in order to make a bad in game decision. It should be as fun to play characters who make bad decisions as it is to play characters who make good ones.
Modifié par Ragabul the Ontarah, 31 octobre 2013 - 08:08 .
#840
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:05
teh DRUMPf!!
-
- Members
- 9 142 messages
Mr.House wrote...
Good endings can also be sad, tragic or tough. The notion that a good ending must be happy is folly.
I'm of this opinion, myself. Up to this point there have been no "optimal" endings in DA, anyway.
#841
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:05
Ravensword
-
- Members
- 6 185 messages
Dave of Canada wrote...
Rather than arguing specifics, I'll just post what would be optimal to me:
Your keep is being overwhelmed by a fade tear which opened right in the courtyard, everyone is being massacred and you rush inside to stop it while everyone else is dying. As you're exploring the fade tear, a companion/vital NPC is injured and he can't rush to stop it with you but he's too deep to turn back.
Do you abandon him and leave him to die? You'd have the time to stop the fade tear and minimalize casualties.
Do you return back to the keep to make sure he survives? Maximizes casualties, allows him to live and increases the burden on the player's supplies (health potions, mana, etc)
Do you split-up your group? Casualties are major, perhaps he's gravely injured on the way and put out of commision for a while and gameplay difficulty increases drastically.
Down the line, the companion/vital NPC's survival results in their assistance down the line which helps you with another scenario, perhaps their help being limited to which "survival" decision you picked. Players who saved him recieve flak for taking too long and getting more people killed and people who abandon him recieve flak for having abandoned him, prompting you to respond to their concerns and managing.
What if abandoning him means you've got more men to save the village being raided? Is it any less "heroic"? You've traded one variant for another.
Ultimately it would arrive to the point where your decisions start impacting other decisions which impact the ending, leading for you to micro-manage risks and resources to make sure that you remain a worthy threat.
Sounds like David's worst nightmare.
Modifié par Ravensword, 31 octobre 2013 - 08:10 .
#842
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:07
Pseudo the Mustachioed
-
- Members
- 3 900 messages
Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...
Some of the problem with this is that Bioware is trying to be really postmodern.
i dont think that word means what you think it does
#843
Guest_Raga_*
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:08
Guest_Raga_*
Guest_Raga_*
-
- Guests
Pseudocognition wrote...
Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...
Some of the problem with this is that Bioware is trying to be really postmodern.
i dont think that word means what you think it does
It means to greatly summarize it that "There is no capitol T truth."
#844
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:09
Welsh Inferno
-
- Members
- 3 295 messages
HYR 2.0 wrote...
I'm of this opinion, myself. Up to this point there have been no "optimal" endings in DA, anyway.
Female Cousland marrying Alistair comes pretty close.
#845
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:10
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
-
- Guests
You can get the same result if you don't make Alistair king.
#846
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:10
Mr.House
-
- Members
- 23 338 messages
Well you do get a happy ending if you marry Anora at least.
#847
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:12
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
-
- Guests
Mr.House wrote...
Well you do get a happy ending if you marry Anora at least.
I want you to read this post very carefully and see what's wrong with it my friend.
#848
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:12
Pseudo the Mustachioed
-
- Members
- 3 900 messages
Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...
Pseudocognition wrote...
Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...
Some of the problem with this is that Bioware is trying to be really postmodern.
i dont think that word means what you think it does
It means to greatly summarize it that "There is no capitol T truth."
it is an artistic/literary/critical/etc movement rooted in the deconstruction of conventional ideas and concepts and challenging the notion of 'art' (or the consensus of what constitutes the height of a particular medium.) If bioware has made a postmodern game it would most likely be DA2, if looked at through the lens of a deconstruction of hero arcs and the nature of choice in video games. I dont think there is a companywide or even franchise-wide interest in subverting the medium. It has little to do with 'truth' and more to do with artistic merit, at least when it comes to commercial entertainment.
The game most often upheld as pomo is MGS2
Modifié par Pseudocognition, 31 octobre 2013 - 08:24 .
#849
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:13
Mr.House
-
- Members
- 23 338 messages
That was the pointMorocco Mole wrote...
Mr.House wrote...
Well you do get a happy ending if you marry Anora at least.
I want you to read this post very carefully and see what's wrong with it my friend.
#850
Guest_Raga_*
Posté 31 octobre 2013 - 08:24
Guest_Raga_*
Guest_Raga_*
-
- Guests
Pseudocognition wrote...
Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...
Pseudocognition wrote...
Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...
Some of the problem with this is that Bioware is trying to be really postmodern.
i dont think that word means what you think it does
It means to greatly summarize it that "There is no capitol T truth."
it is an artistic/literary/critical/etc movement rooted in the deconstruction of conventional ideas and concepts and challenging the notion of 'art' (or the consensus of what constitutes the height of a particular medium.) If bioware has made a postmodern game it would most likely be DA2, if looked at through the lens of a deconstruction of hero arcs and the nature of choice in video games. I dont think there is a companywide or even franchise-wide interest in subverting the medium. It has little to do with 'truth' and more to do with artistic merit.
The game most often upheld as pomo is MGS2
This is not the place to get into a debate about it, but it's got a much larger meaning nowadays than just it's application to the arts. That's just how it started. It's now very mixed up in the social sciences as well. This book among others talks about that. And it is very much concerned with truth because it's concerned with examining how differences in linguistics and culture change people's interpretation of the world, that is how people determine what "truth" and "reality" are. Even your defintion says it is rooted "in the deconstruction of conventional (that is traditional) ideas and concepts." These ideas and concepts include traditional notions of morality. Postmodernism is very much about relativism and Bioware is totally trying to make all decisions seem morally justifiable relative to the character/culture/etc. of the player character.
Modifié par Ragabul the Ontarah, 31 octobre 2013 - 08:25 .
