1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Eludajae]

I would like a meaningful death after a long empty life.

[In Exile]

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.

This is where people would say it feels forced. Why is the companion injured? They're always invincible. It's their role. Why injured now? Why injured in this way, when this kind of injury is impossible but for the script? 

I agree with the idea, but I think it's important (to avoid the exact kind of fight in this thread) to set out what gets people pushing back on the scenario. 

When it's an NPC it's different... but NPCs tend to be around a lot less and therefore a lot less likeable. 

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.

I'm always for the idea, but the problem is that the consequences don't feel like they're tied to how overwhelmingly inhuman the protagonists are in terms of their abilities. For a game to make choices like this work, they have to underpower the player. 

Modifié par In Exile, 01 novembre 2013 - 05:03 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Well, I see the philosophical button being pushed in the thread. I guess my problem is that I have no philosophy. I don't really think about that stuff. I find it boring.

What we end up in any video game is an illusion of choice anyway. The pathway will diverge for a while then it will converge again. It has to. If it doesn't, you'll simply have way too many loose ends to tie up later on, or the game will cost way too much money to produce. The only game I've seen do this choice early on and have two separate stories is The Witcher 2, where one path is far darker than the other. I've played that game without the guide and made the choice to side with Iorveth. I liked the ending of that game, at least given the story path I chose.

A game with all grim dark endings is just too grim. They're really no fun. The journey might be fun, but the ending? They don't have much replay value because there's no chocolate waiting at the end of the game. We want that piece of chocolate: that reward. One has to look no further than Mass Effect 3 beginning on March 6, 2012 - the ending that no matter what you picked you had that empty hollow feeling. There was no chocolate. Or going through DA2 and how grim and dark that story was, your whole family wiped out, you save the city and everyone hates you. In ME3 many people wanted Shepard to live in the end. They did everything right. They got 9000 EMS and it didn't matter. They might have gotten a torso that took a gasp of air, and whether or not it had arms or legs was up to speculation. Was that a positive ending? Chocolate? No.

Of course if there is, everyone who plays the game will work for the positive ending, and no one will work for the bad endings, right? I guess that's the entire problem with putting even a single happy ending among the endings in a game, isn't it? It makes the existence of the others a waste of resources. Seriously, how many people would deliberately screw up to get one of the less positive endings? You would have to give achievements for making the bad choices.

[David7204]

You know what I despise about giving the player the option of which companion to sacrifice at the climax of the game?

Too often, it gives the squadmate in question too much glory.

Suppose the ending of ME 3 made you pick a squadmate to die for some reason. I would pick Javik without hesitation. On top of being my leas favorite out of all 20 or so squadmates, he's resigned to kill himself anyway.

The problem is, giving Javik that moment makes him the ultimate martyr. In fact, you could even say it makes him the second most important character of the series. The crux of the entire conflict comes down to his actions.

That is nothing short of repulsive to me.

Modifié par David7204, 01 novembre 2013 - 06:44 .

[AresKeith]

So you would hate that someone stole your heroic moment?

And what's wrong with that?

[Semi-confirmed Rumor]

David7204 wrote...

You know what I despise about giving the player the option of which companion to sacrifice at the climax of the game?

Too often, it gives the squadmate in question too much glory.

Suppose the ending of ME 3 made you pick a squadmate to die for some reason. I would pick Javik without hesitation. On top of being my leas favorite out of all 20 or so squadmates, he's resigned to kill himself anyway.

The problem is, giving Javik that moment makes him the ultimate martyr. In fact, you could even say it makes him the second most important character of the series. The crux of the entire conflict comes down to his actions.

That is nothing short of repulsive to me.

It isn't surprising at all that you would find the idea of a character that you don't control displaying "heroism" or indeed, outshining the protagonist in any way repulsive. Much less the one that insults your waifu and pummels your world view.

I guess heroism is only good when it personally satisfies you and feeds your power fantasy.

Modifié par Semi-confirmed Rumor, 01 novembre 2013 - 06:48 .

[SgtSteel91]

David7204 wrote...

You know what I despise about giving the player the option of which companion to sacrifice at the climax of the game?

Too often, it gives the squadmate in question too much glory.

Suppose the ending of ME 3 made you pick a squadmate to die for some reason. I would pick Javik without hesitation. On top of being my leas favorite out of all 20 or so squadmates, he's resigned to kill himself anyway.

The problem is, giving Javik that moment makes him the ultimate martyr. In fact, you could even say it makes him the second most important character of the series. The crux of the entire conflict comes down to his actions.

That is nothing short of repulsive to me.

Taking that line of thinking, the Destroy Ending of Mass Effect 3 would make Edi and the Synthetics sacrificed the ultimate martyr. Makes sense as the speech in the Red Ending talks about those who died in the war and how they will be honored without mentioning Shepard while the Green ending mentions Shepard and the Blue ending is all about Shepard's sacrifice.

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 01 novembre 2013 - 06:48 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

David7204 wrote...
That is nothing short of repulsive to me.

Why? If glorehhh is all that matters to you then have the PC sacrifice themselves and suffer the consequences.

Modifié par Inquisitor Recon, 01 novembre 2013 - 06:49 .

[Gravisanimi]

David7204 wrote...
That is nothing short of repulsive to me.

Then why have squadmates?

"They killed that enemy, I wanted that kill."

Your worried about kill stealing

Modifié par Gravisanimi, 01 novembre 2013 - 06:51 .

[TheBlackBaron]

Inquisitor Recon wrote...

David7204 wrote...
That is nothing short of repulsive to me.

Why? If glorehhh is all that matters to you then have the PC sacrifice themselves and suffer the consequences.

David does not believe in the gloreh of the EMPRAH, thus if he dies, he cannot fight for our honor as Bluhd Ravehns and attain more gloreh and heroism. 

Javik, however?

Even in death Javik still serves. 

[David7204]

My, my, such venom. I'm wondering to myself how people would feel if Jacob was given such a moment.

[Allan Schumacher]

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

>.>

[SgtSteel91]

Getting away for the David knee jerk reactionary posts...

Sacrificing myself would depend on what my sacrifice accomplices. And if I chose an empty life then I would still be alive to work for the rest of my life to redeem my honor.

[Semi-confirmed Rumor]

David7204 wrote...

My, my, such venom. I'm wondering to myself how people would feel if Jacob was given such a moment.

This is your problem, David.

You say stupid things, then when you get called out on them, you furiously backpedal while carrying the goalposts on your back and attribute it to petty motives to cover up your own extreme pettiness.

Fact is, such an act, especially if written well, would probably rescue Jacob from the scrappy heap. We don't care if somebody "steals our glory".

[Fredward]

David7204 wrote...
My, my, such venom. I'm wondering to myself how people would feel if Jacob was given such a moment.

I didn't really get a venom vibe there. Maybe a sardonic vibe.

[Inquisitor Recon]

TheBlackBaron wrote...
Javik, however?

Even in death Javik still serves. 

Venerable Javik shall just be awakened every few millenia to obtain more gloreeehhh at the expensive of everybody in the Ultramarines.

David7204 wrote...
My, my, such venom. I'm wondering to myself how people would feel if Jacob was given such a moment.

Then Jacob gives his life in order to allow the mission to be completed? What's the problem?

Modifié par Inquisitor Recon, 01 novembre 2013 - 07:00 .

[wolfhowwl]

David7204 wrote...

My, my, such venom. I'm wondering to myself how people would feel if Jacob was given such a moment.

Jacob is a good soldier.

He would certainly deserve it more than nerd waifu sidekicks like Liara or Tali.

[TheBlackBaron]

Inquisitor Recon wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...
Javik, however?

Even in death Javik still serves. 

Venerable
Javik shall just be awakened every few millenia to obtain more
gloreeehhh at the expensive of everybody in the Ultramarines.

You know, Spess Mehreens usually live for a damn long time if they aren't killed in battle for the EMPRAH's gloreh. 

I wonder if High-EMS-Destroy-Shepard and Javik can be like Spess Mehreen and Dreadnaught bros 38,000 years in the future. 

[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 .

[SgtSteel91]

SgtSteel91 wrote...

Getting away for the David knee jerk reactionary posts...

Sacrificing myself would depend on what my sacrifice accomplices. And if I chose an empty life then I would still be alive to work for the rest of my life to redeem my honor.

I know this doesn't belong in the Dragon Age thread, but oh well...

To go further: in the Mass Effect 3 endings I do not like the idea Shepard turining into a Reaper God in Control or changing everyone and everything in Synthesis even though they are meaninful deaths and arguable create good futures.

I'm alright with the Destroy ending even if it kills all Synthetic Life in the galaxy and may lead to an empty life for Sheprad.

It really depends on what the final choice in DA3 is or if there is one and if it will be anyting like this.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

My, my, such venom. I'm wondering to myself how people would feel if Jacob was given such a moment.

I wouldn't have a problem if Jacob had a moment, it would make him a more relevant character, imho

[TheKomandorShepard]

Heroic sacrifice or get hawke ending even my villain protagonists would take first option.  


On other hand if you want do for thedas i will tell that thedas isn't worth sacrifice because thedas is rotten so only someone naive would take that.

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 01 novembre 2013 - 07:12 .

[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.