1331 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Abraham_uk wrote...

Honestly. I don't mind a "Best Possible Ending" where all the main characters live and the antagonists lose, as long as that ending is really difficult to achieve.

Imagine playing the game through 17 times getting all kinds variations of bad endings before achieving the one good ending. You've saved the day! Everyone lives!

Finally you made the right choices and you were rewarded with the happy ending. Victory tastes sweetest when failure was a possibility.

I would suggest you be very careful with this attitude.

Remember what this is. It's a game.

Not a chore. Not a headache. Not an exam. Not work. A game. Entertainment. A mass marketed product designed to appeal and be beatable with a minimum of frustration for a wide variety of people and skill levels.

As it should be.

Whatever challenges the game presents are challenges that a reasonable intelligent child should be able to solve the first time through.

So careful what you're defining as 'really difficult.'

This is a very senseless attitude to take with games. This makes games boring in my opinion. Not fun.

In what ways should a game that is made primarily for adults be simple enough for children? Why are children playing a game for adults?

I want a 'really difficult' game. Not Contra levels of difficult, but one that is legitimately challenging and hard to beat. One that punishes me for failure. I can't help but remember the summary for the Legendary difficulty on Halo.

You're entirely asking for something that is basically no harder than 'Frogger Goes Camping' because it satisfies your quest for heroism and simplicity, and saying that objectively that everyone else does, and should like itbecause you like it.

You're imposing your opinions, your preferences, and your standards on the VG industry (and it's consumer base) because you don't like challenges but want 'heroism' for free. 

[Steelcan]

David, what about people who value additional challenge in their games? I like playing harder games, I feel a bit more accomplished after beating something on its hardest difficulty. So why not have hard to obtain options for players like me in game, but have a short cut like in MP for those who don't want to do so solely in SP?

[Lotion Soronarr]

David7204 wrote...
Things don't happen to people because they're in stories. They're in stories because things happen to them.

Depends on what kind of story you are writing.

You should realise there is no One True Way to make a game or write a story.

And you know what is also boring? Character/plot shields.

[Ieldra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Alas, a lot of poeple are confusing "choice" with "conseuquence I want" or "ending I want".

Control of what you PC choses - how he reacts to news/situation, what command he gives - is expected.
Controling the outcome of the choices is not.

Correct - Bioware controls the outcomes and all we can legitimately do about them is to say we like or hate them and why. An outcome I hate is not necessarily a flaw, though it can be in case of thematic and narrative discontinuities, and an outcome I like can be flawed nonetheless. 

However, it is not satisfying if the outcome makes the choice irrelevant. I would consider that undesirable based on more than a personal preference. Making choices irrelevant because the writing team wants to force a specific theme on the story instead of letting the players find meaning ("application") on their own, this I see as highly inappropriate for a game with significant roleplaying and significant elements of choice. This is ME's primary problem, as I see it, and avoiding this has been one of DA's main attractions for me.

I say let the players decide if their story is about an heroic sacrific. Let the players decide if a life where their characters didn't sacrifice their lives is "empty", and if their life has more meaning because it ended in a heroic sacrifice. If you let Alistair kill the Archdemon, you may have killed a friend by your decision, and this may haunt your Warden for the rest of his life. However, whether this happens or not the player is free to imagine, all the story tells you is that Alistair is dead. He may not have been a friend, your Warden might find the Grey Warden tradition right that the most senior Warden makes the kill, or this decision might not haunt him or make his life empty for any other reason, and the big picture remains the same: the Blight is ended, Ferelden saved. An qualified success in either case. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 octobre 2013 - 12:28 .

[wiccame]

You shouldn't have to die to be a hero.
In a game of choices, there should be an ending where all things are covered, sacrifice for the greater good, survive with a cost and survive (happy ending). Yes I believe there should be a sunshine and butterfly ending, your PC has gone through hell and back, taken flak from every one, been made the sole decider on many situations. There should be an option for them to come out of all that and be happy.

Modifié par wiccame, 29 octobre 2013 - 12:27 .

[Gileadan]

wiccame wrote...

You shouldn't have to die to be a hero.
In a game of choices, there should be an ending where all things are covered, sacrifice for the greater good, survive with a cost and survive (happy ending). Yes I believe there should be a sunshine and butterfly ending, your PC has gone through hell and back, taken flak from every one, been made the sole decider on many situations. There should be an option for them to come out of all that and be happy.

This is something a lot of people seem to forget because it's something the player of a game does not think about when the protagonist's HP bar gets shorter.

For the protagonist of the average western RPG, nearly every day is a crappy day. S/he probably spent the night in a frigging tent, no matter what the outside temperatures, setting up guards to avoid getting their throats cut over night. Every fight means pain and the possibility of death. Food is dried trail rations or some rabbit they managed to put an arrow through last evening. People may be dying left and right (depending on storyline) simply because the protagonist can't be everywhere to save them all.

Just because they didn't lose close friends on top of all that doesn't mean they had a grand old time on their journey. They probably did more than most, and they deserve a good time afterwards more than most.

[Ieldra]

Gileadan wrote...

wiccame wrote...

You shouldn't have to die to be a hero.
In a game of choices, there should be an ending where all things are covered, sacrifice for the greater good, survive with a cost and survive (happy ending). Yes I believe there should be a sunshine and butterfly ending, your PC has gone through hell and back, taken flak from every one, been made the sole decider on many situations. There should be an option for them to come out of all that and be happy.

This is something a lot of people seem to forget because it's something the player of a game does not think about when the protagonist's HP bar gets shorter.

For the protagonist of the average western RPG, nearly every day is a crappy day. S/he probably spent the night in a frigging tent, no matter what the outside temperatures, setting up guards to avoid getting their throats cut over night. Every fight means pain and the possibility of death. Food is dried trail rations or some rabbit they managed to put an arrow through last evening. People may be dying left and right (depending on storyline) simply because the protagonist can't be everywhere to save them all.

Just because they didn't lose close friends on top of all that doesn't mean they had a grand old time on their journey. They probably did more than most, and they deserve a good time afterwards more than most.

From my thread about the emotions invoked by ME3's ending, written March 2013:

"[...]This, too, connects with the countless stories fans have made up in their end of how after all the hell Shepard went through, there finally is some hope for happiness."

Indeed, I strongly feel that our protagonists deserve some happiness after what they had to endure, and that having them die on top of it without a choice is grossly unfair. Yes, life isn't about fairness, and the nature of sacrifice includes giving away what should be yours by any definition of merit, but whether or not such sacrifice is "uplifting" (I hate that term since Casey Hudson used it) or depressing is ultimately not for the writers to decide. Thus, if the writers aren't prepared for leaving a significant part of their player base depressed by their game, then they should make a sacrifice optional and avoid any heavy-handed messaging that it naturally results in the best big-picture outcome or is in any other way objectively preferable. If there is a sacrifice option, some players will like it and make it fit their protagonists. Others will not and make their protagonists fit another option. Creators of games with significant elements of choice and roleplaying should respect such preferences.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 octobre 2013 - 01:31 .

[Iakus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Alas, a lot of poeple are confusing "choice" with "conseuquence I want" or "ending I want".

Control of what you PC choses - how he reacts to news/situation, what command he gives - is expected.
Controling the outcome of the choices is not.

If the game has 10 endings, but you arent' satisfied with them, does that make it a game without choice? No. But some people will react that way. They want to control the entire plot and outcome, not just the character.

If I stand before two doors, one has a lady behind it, and one a hungry tiger, that's a choice

If I stand before ten doors, and all of them have tigers behind them, that may also be a choice, but is there a point to it?

[frankf43]

I have always associated character death in games with failure. In my opinion the whole idea of a game is to get from point A to point Z still in one piece.

What's the point of making the world a better place if you are not there to reap the benefits? it's all too altruistic for my liking.

Besides I hope that we don't put the world to rights by the end of the game. I want to close the rifts yes. But I'm hoping that there is still plenty that needs putting right in the DLC's and the games after this one.

I actually prefer the DLC's to be post game like Witch hunt and Awakening rather than added game content like MoA.

Modifié par frankf43, 29 octobre 2013 - 01:32 .

[maliluka]

What is so meaningful about death once you are dead you are gone, wouldn't it be more beneficial to lead a meaningful life..... No matter your choices whether they are good or bad they should stand for something.

[Jaulen]

I'm fine with my PC dying at the end of the game.....as long as it's 1) my choice or 2) a consequence of my actions....and if it's my choice....that it was a meaningful death (meaningful to me means altruistic sacrifice)

Why I really liked DA:O endings....
before end game you have to make a choice......and you get told the IMMEDIATE consequences of your choice:
1) Happy rainbow endings where everyone lives.....BUT....is there a thread of darkness running through your happy-sunny victory? What deal with the devil did you potentially make to keep everyone in your party alive?
2) Another choice is made and someone dies.....your PC or the companion character......through the sacrifice of someone's life....the world is made whole. The immediate threat to all life as you know it is ended.....in the future the same thing may happen....but that will be for a future generation to deal with. Depending on the motivations for the choice of death you make.....it can be meaningful (altruistic) or not (self-serving). (< In my opinion......when I've let someone else go to their death with the "Well I don't plan on dying." reason.....to me, for my PC it's a meaningless death in the greater scheme of things (although it may be meaningful to the one going to sacrifice themselves)

I also really liked the Suicide mission in ME2....
Based on choices you made with your companions...and who you pick to do tasks.....do people survive or do they die? (applicable to certain real world situations....)

I'm okay with a PC character that always lives at the end....would be hard to keep doing Tomb Raider games with Ms. L.C. if she has the opportunity to die at the end of each game. But personally I think the type of games that Bioware makes are well served by the potential death or either your PC or companions. 

And death of a character can be just as meaningless as living. My thoughs on that:
I was totally expecting for ME3 that Shepard would die....that there MIGHT be a potential for Shepard to live but that it would be very hard, and require a 'perfect' playthrough of the previous games to achieve......I just felt the way Shepards death was done there at the end made it a meaningless death. The way I felt at the end when Shep dies is..."meh."  I was thinking up until the platform lifting...."Did I do something wrong?" and then the platform lifts and "Phew! I still have a chance to hit the 'fire!' button.".....and then the Star-child appears with his wierd logic and pick A B or C way to die.....after the Star-child convo I was like "Walk faster Shepard....let's just get this over with."
Shepards death may have been meaningful in the game universe....but as for the 'feels' that the player gets from the sacrifice of their Avatar? To me it was a fail and made Shepards death meaningless.

While having to make that choice in DAO....and KNOWING that someone was going to die...I was nervous....who was going to do the deed? Would my PC do it? Or would Alistair? Was there a chance I was going to be able to make sure Alistair didn't take that killing blow so I could make sure he was made King? I was almost literally in tears there at the pause before the killing blow of the Archdemon. And then my PC dies....nice funeral scene....touching...and I was in tears. Meaningful death for my PC in the game universe.....she saved Fereldan from the Blight....meaningul death of the PC for me as a player since it was an emotional moment.

Modifié par Jaulen, 29 octobre 2013 - 05:39 .

[Abraham_uk]

David7204 wrote...

I would suggest you be very careful with this attitude.

Remember what this is. It's a game.

Not a chore. Not a headache. Not an exam. Not work. A game. Entertainment. A mass marketed product designed to appeal and be beatable with a minimum of frustration for a wide variety of people and skill levels. 

As it should be.

Whatever challenges the game presents are challenges that a reasonable intelligent child should be able to solve the first time through. 

So careful what you're defining as 'really difficult.'

My post has clearly caused unintentional offense.
I apologise.

You raise a good point here.

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 29 octobre 2013 - 05:47 .

[sylvanaerie]

Empty life, no, not the way OP describes it. I hate unresolved plot lines, and that would be a sucky one. Kind of like the resolution at the end of Legacy (which I still enjoyed despite that irking feeling that Cory got away). If I got a resolution like in Origins, where the PC makes a conscious choice, knowing this mission will save everyone, even if it costs his/her life. THAT I liked. As long as I knew everyone else would be okay. The ending is bittersweet, but resolved. Having Morrigan's ritual gave us an out for that. Sometimes I take it sometimes I don't. But at least I get to choose, and things get resolved, and the death my PC chooses has meaning.

In Star Wars, my favorite storyline is the Imperial Agent, but the end of chapter 1 is exactly like the 'empty life' option, where you can save many lives, but the villain always gets away regardless. The one mar for that story is that 'screwed if you do and screwed if you don't' aspect of it.  You just get to determine how screwed everyone is.

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 29 octobre 2013 - 05:50 .

[David7204]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Things don't happen to people because they're in stories. They're in stories because things happen to them.

Depends on what kind of story you are writing.

You should realise there is no One True Way to make a game or write a story.

And you know what is also boring? Character/plot shields.

That's not plot armor.

[David7204]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Abraham_uk wrote...

Honestly. I don't mind a "Best Possible Ending" where all the main characters live and the antagonists lose, as long as that ending is really difficult to achieve.

Imagine playing the game through 17 times getting all kinds variations of bad endings before achieving the one good ending. You've saved the day! Everyone lives!

Finally you made the right choices and you were rewarded with the happy ending. Victory tastes sweetest when failure was a possibility.

I would suggest you be very careful with this attitude.

Remember what this is. It's a game.

Not a chore. Not a headache. Not an exam. Not work. A game. Entertainment. A mass marketed product designed to appeal and be beatable with a minimum of frustration for a wide variety of people and skill levels.

As it should be.

Whatever challenges the game presents are challenges that a reasonable intelligent child should be able to solve the first time through.

So careful what you're defining as 'really difficult.'

This is a very senseless attitude to take with games. This makes games boring in my opinion. Not fun.

In what ways should a game that is made primarily for adults be simple enough for children? Why are children playing a game for adults?

I want a 'really difficult' game. Not Contra levels of difficult, but one that is legitimately challenging and hard to beat. One that punishes me for failure. I can't help but remember the summary for the Legendary difficulty on Halo.

You're entirely asking for something that is basically no harder than 'Frogger Goes Camping' because it satisfies your quest for heroism and simplicity, and saying that objectively that everyone else does, and should like itbecause you like it.

You're imposing your opinions, your preferences, and your standards on the VG industry (and it's consumer base) because you don't like challenges but want 'heroism' for free. 

If you want the game to be difficult, you're perfectly justified in playing it on the highest difficulty. Nobody is threatening that.

What you're absolutely not justified in doing is demanding that people who have trouble with higher difficulties or simply enjoy easier difficulties (which is most players) not be allowed to enjoy the experience.

Did Legendary difficulty for Halo stop players from enjoying it on an easier level? No. As it should be.

Modifié par David7204, 29 octobre 2013 - 08:14 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

David7204 wrote...
That's not plot armor.

What else do you call characters being immunite to death?

Ya know, like none of your companions contracting the taint? Or being unkillable by anything and everything untill a certain choice?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

David7204 wrote...
That's not plot armor.

What else do you call characters being immunite to death?

Ya know, like none of your companions contracting the taint? Or being unkillable by anything and everything untill a certain choice?

David has problems accepting criticism of his favorite game, and his favorite characters.

Don't mention DA, he's never played it, nor does he intend to since it'll probably destroy his petty delusions of video games.

[Mr.House]

David7204 wrote...

Abraham_uk wrote...

Honestly. I don't mind a "Best Possible Ending" where all the main characters live and the antagonists lose, as long as that ending is really difficult to achieve.

Imagine playing the game through 17 times getting all kinds variations of bad endings before achieving the one good ending. You've saved the day! Everyone lives!

Finally you made the right choices and you were rewarded with the happy ending. Victory tastes sweetest when failure was a possibility.

I would suggest you be very careful with this attitude.

Remember what this is. It's a game.

Not a chore. Not a headache. Not an exam. Not work. A game. Entertainment. A mass marketed product designed to appeal and be beatable with a minimum of frustration for a wide variety of people and skill levels.

As it should be.

Whatever challenges the game presents are challenges that a reasonable intelligent child should be able to solve the first time through.

So careful what you're defining as 'really difficult.'

Not everyone plays games for the same reason you do Davey. Please remember that.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

Abraham_uk wrote...

Honestly. I don't mind a "Best Possible Ending" where all the main characters live and the antagonists lose, as long as that ending is really difficult to achieve.

Imagine playing the game through 17 times getting all kinds variations of bad endings before achieving the one good ending. You've saved the day! Everyone lives!

Finally you made the right choices and you were rewarded with the happy ending. Victory tastes sweetest when failure was a possibility.

I would suggest you be very careful with this attitude.

Remember what this is. It's a game.

Not a chore. Not a headache. Not an exam. Not work. A game. Entertainment. A mass marketed product designed to appeal and be beatable with a minimum of frustration for a wide variety of people and skill levels.

As it should be.

Whatever challenges the game presents are challenges that a reasonable intelligent child should be able to solve the first time through.

So careful what you're defining as 'really difficult.'

You don't play many games do you?

[Mr.House]

I bet you Davey started playing video games this generation. Why? Because in past generations games where a challenge, and somewhere where very very very hard, BUT THEY WHERE STILL FUN AND REWARDING.

[Xilizhra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

David7204 wrote...
That's not plot armor.

What else do you call characters being immunite to death?

Ya know, like none of your companions contracting the taint? Or being unkillable by anything and everything untill a certain choice?

The taint isn't that easy to contract, otherwise no one would ever dare send armies against the darkspawn. You have to get blood in an open wound, which, while not impossible, does require a decent bit of bad luck. Leliana and the mages are ranged attackers, so are unlikely to get hit with blood by accident, and Sten and Oghren wear heavy enough armor that contracting the taint by wound is rather unlikely. Zevran is the most likely candidate to become tainted, and if that bothers you, just don't send him into battle against darkspawn, if possible.
Alistair, Dog and Shale, of course, are immune altogether.

The other thing just happens in about every RPG ever.

[2Pac]

David7204 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Abraham_uk wrote...

Honestly. I don't mind a "Best Possible Ending" where all the main characters live and the antagonists lose, as long as that ending is really difficult to achieve.

Imagine playing the game through 17 times getting all kinds variations of bad endings before achieving the one good ending. You've saved the day! Everyone lives!

Finally you made the right choices and you were rewarded with the happy ending. Victory tastes sweetest when failure was a possibility.

I would suggest you be very careful with this attitude.

Remember what this is. It's a game.

Not a chore. Not a headache. Not an exam. Not work. A game. Entertainment. A mass marketed product designed to appeal and be beatable with a minimum of frustration for a wide variety of people and skill levels.

As it should be.

Whatever challenges the game presents are challenges that a reasonable intelligent child should be able to solve the first time through.

So careful what you're defining as 'really difficult.'

This is a very senseless attitude to take with games. This makes games boring in my opinion. Not fun.

In what ways should a game that is made primarily for adults be simple enough for children? Why are children playing a game for adults?

I want a 'really difficult' game. Not Contra levels of difficult, but one that is legitimately challenging and hard to beat. One that punishes me for failure. I can't help but remember the summary for the Legendary difficulty on Halo.

You're entirely asking for something that is basically no harder than 'Frogger Goes Camping' because it satisfies your quest for heroism and simplicity, and saying that objectively that everyone else does, and should like itbecause you like it.

You're imposing your opinions, your preferences, and your standards on the VG industry (and it's consumer base) because you don't like challenges but want 'heroism' for free. 

If you want the game to be difficult, you're perfectly justified in playing it on the highest difficulty. Nobody is threatening that.

What you're absolutely not justified in doing is demanding that people who have trouble with higher difficulties or simply enjoy easier difficulties (which is most players) not be allowed to enjoy the experience.

Did Legendary difficulty for Halo stop players from enjoying it on an easier level? No. As it should be.

Are you stupid or something?