1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I disagree vehemently. Vehemently.

The choice matters because I made the choice. The choice matters because it reflects my intent for the world. It shows who I am, both to me and to those around me. The choice does not have to ultimately "matter" in the scope of the real world.

Garrus: "So he dies anyway. What was the point of that?"
Shepard: "Sometimes how you respond to something matters as much as the outcome."

Shep's dialog is butchered terribly, but you get the point. It matters, but on a different level.

I'm intersted in the level of "You are the Inquisitor" and "This is your story"

[Iakus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Is what you are looking for truly agency (note: we do seem to be using different definitions, since mine focuses on choice while yours focuses on consequence), or simply pleasant conclusions?

I see this a LOT around here and it bugs me. People don't seem to understand that a choice is a choice, irrespective of the conclusion.

I see a lot of accusations of "You just want rainbows and unicorns" as well.  It bugs me a lot, because that's a gross mischaractarization.  People don't seem to understand that pigeonholing a single fate regardless of actions greatly constricts the appeal of a game and tends to kill replayability.

[Mr.House]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Seraph Cross wrote...

How about an "Earn your happy ending"

The problem with this being, "Earn your happy ending" usually ends up being "do the things anyone who's played video games before and actually enjoys playing the game [thus meaning they'll do most of the main or level-1 sidequest content] would do." Like ME2.

And yet gamers would be pleased. Just make it hard to earn it or make it lengthy, don't just put endings on a silver platter or just give one ending ect.

[Br3admax]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Carver/Bethany gets the blight just for being in the deep roads, so yes it's plot armor.

Eh, illness takes on some people and doesn't on others. Wilhelm, for instance, ventured into the Deep Roads many times and never got sick.

So...plot armor? 

Yeah. I wouldn't overthink things too much for this, as on some level the PC and the party members have their status as being special little snowflakes in large part because strict adherence to the lore would ultimately make the game less enjoyable.

Oh I know, I would be rather cross if all of my party caught the taint. I'm just saying, at a certain point there's really no other reason. 

[Mr.House]

iakus wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Is what you are looking for truly agency (note: we do seem to be using different definitions, since mine focuses on choice while yours focuses on consequence), or simply pleasant conclusions?

I see this a LOT around here and it bugs me. People don't seem to understand that a choice is a choice, irrespective of the conclusion.

I see a lot of accusations of "You just want rainbows and unicorns" as well.  It bugs me a lot, because that's a gross mischaractarization.  People don't seem to understand that pigeonholing a single fate regardless of actions greatly constricts the appeal of a game and tends to kill replayability.

I've replayed games where the MC dies many times, some of them being my fav games. So no, it does not kill replatablity.

[Iakus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Because having the hero die in the most painful way possible is currently the fad now.The dark and edgy crowd will settle for nothing less than the protoganist losing everything and dying in a dark hole alone.

You know, I'm willing to accept that some people simply like a happy ending. They don't like it because it's some particular buzzword, they just like it because they like it.

Are you willing to accept that some people like sad and desolate endings, or bittersweet endings, simply because they enjoy it? Or because they feel it adds to the story, provides contemplation? Or must we pretend that the other side is simply a bunch of sheep following the latest fad?

FOr myself, I'm willing to accept that as long as such endings are not forced upon my own characters.  Lots of choices.  Lots of outcomes.  Lots of consequences.  Good and bad.  Happy and sad.

[dreamgazer]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Are you willing to accept that some people like sad and desolate endings, or bittersweet endings, simply because they enjoy it? Or because they feel it adds to the story, provides contemplation? Or must we pretend that the other side is simply a bunch of sheep following the latest fad?

They're also angsty, EA.  Angsty and depressive for appreciating material cut from that cloth.

Ugh.

[Iakus]

Mr.House wrote...

I've replayed games where the MC dies many times, some of them being my fav games. So no, it does not kill replatablity.

I said "tends to"

Modifié par iakus, 30 octobre 2013 - 04:23 .

[Mr.House]

EntropicAngel wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Because having the hero die in the most painful way possible is currently the fad now.The dark and edgy crowd will settle for nothing less than the protoganist losing everything and dying in a dark hole alone.

You know, I'm willing to accept that some people simply like a happy ending. They don't like it because it's some particular buzzword, they just like it because they like it.

Are you willing to accept that some people like sad and desolate endings, or bittersweet endings, simply because they enjoy it? Or because they feel it adds to the story, provides contemplation? Or must we pretend that the other side is simply a bunch of sheep following the latest fad?

If a happy ending fits the story or has to be earned and fits, then I'm fine. If sad ending ect fit the story then I'm fine. As long as the ending fits, that's all that matters.An ending should fit the story.

[Iakus]

Mr.House wrote...
And yet gamers would be pleased. Just make it hard to earn it or make it lengthy, don't just put endings on a silver platter or just give one ending ect.

This

[Dave of Canada]

iakus wrote...

I see a lot of accusations of "You just want rainbows and unicorns" as well.  It bugs me a lot, because that's a gross mischaractarization.  People don't seem to understand that pigeonholing a single fate regardless of actions greatly constricts the appeal of a game and tends to kill replayability.

Mini-rant that isn't targeted towards you, iakus.

When I argue for bittersweet endings, I'm told that they're too dark and I should be miserable quietly and leave them to their good ending because I love to spoil other people's fun.

Now, I'm not saying all people who want a happy ending are these types of people but it's obvious that these people want absolutely no drawback to their happy ending and will probably ignore every possible drawback to a decision to fit it into their little box.

The problem with the "happy ending" is that it invalidates every other, I loved the feeling of the Suicide Mission but felt it died off when absolutely no-one died because I completed side-quests and didn't make weird decisions like send the technician to lead a squad.

When I mention that the Suicide Mission would've been more impactful if there were mandatory deaths and you had to pick and choose who lived, who died and who were abandoned until you ultimately escape the Collector Base? I'm told to kill them off, I'm ruining their fun and that it would be "forced".

I've tried to enjoy the game by being obtuse; it doesn't work, characters reference the mistake as if the writers are nudging me and telling me where I screwed up and there's absolutely no "sweet" in the decision making. 

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 30 octobre 2013 - 04:44 .

[Mr.House]

Other games though have done a better job then ME2. ME2 is not the only game to ever do it.

Also Daves post does a great job explaining the issue with ME2s suicide mission.

Modifié par Mr.House, 30 octobre 2013 - 04:49 .

[Br3admax]

Dave of Canada wrote...

iakus wrote...

I see a lot of accusations of "You just want rainbows and unicorns" as well.  It bugs me a lot, because that's a gross mischaractarization.  People don't seem to understand that pigeonholing a single fate regardless of actions greatly constricts the appeal of a game and tends to kill replayability.

Mini-rant that isn't targeted towards you, iakus.

When I argue for bittersweet endings, I'm told that they're too dark and I should be miserable quietly and leave them to their good ending because I love to spoil other people's fun. 

Now, I'm not saying all people who want a happy ending are these types of people but it's obvious that these people want absolutely no drawback to their happy ending and will probably ignore every possible drawback to a decision to fit it into their little box.

The problem with the "happy ending" is that it invalidates every other, I loved the feeling of the Suicide Mission but felt it died off when absolutely no-one died because I completed side-quests and didn't make weird decisions like send the technician to lead a squad.

When I mention that the Suicide Mission would've been more impactful if there were mandatory deaths and you had to pick and choose who lived, who died and who were abandoned until you ultimately escape the Collector Base? I'm told to kill them off, I'm ruining their fun and that it would be "forced".

I've tried to enjoy the game by being obtuse; it doesn't work, characters reference the mistake as if the writers are nudging me and telling me where I screwed up and there's absolutely no "sweet" in the decision making. 

No, it would still be just as it is now. Sad != impactful anymore than happy = fun. You are being no better than those who think that the ending should be happy by saying that it should be sad. The amount of death and hard choices does not make any piece of media better or worse. Some of us need to stop focusing on getting happy or sad endings, and should instead focus on getting good endings period. If people need to die for that to matter to you, then the ending was never good enough in the first place.

Modifié par Br3ad, 30 octobre 2013 - 04:51 .

[Iakus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

iakus wrote...

I'm intersted in the level of "You are the Inquisitor" and "This is your story"

That'll never completely happen in a non-proceduraly generated, story-focused video game. It's simply not possible for the developers to account for a Dragonborn who wants to use his shout and his necklace of water breathing to become part of a dolphin pod, or a Warden who's a coward who gets killed by Sten, or a Shepard who becomes the king of dance. There HAS to be direction of some sort.

I like games that are all about you doing YOUR thing, like X or Kenshi. But they aren't story-focused, or the story is completely linear.

Yes, you can't provide for all possibilities.  Though your attempt at recuctio ad absurdum does take it to absurdum levels.  

I mean, I thought this thread was about whether the main character being forced to die is a good idea?  Not whether a game should go totally sandbox.

The popularity of the games that pigeon-hole you to a single fate (just about (not all) every non-RPG, story-focused game ever) disagrees with you.

And you know what?  I find games that don't pigeonhole you to a single fate (you know, like Dragon Age: Origins) to be far superior.  Linear, non-rpg games.  Even the ones with heavy story focus, simply don't hold my attention.  It's boring playing someone else's character.  I wanna play my character

Modifié par iakus, 30 octobre 2013 - 04:53 .

[Mr.House]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I don't know where David's post is. Where is it?

And can you give another example? A true "earn your happy ending" that isn't simply "play game content to get your happy ending"?

Persona 4. You have to make key choices, one mistake will land you one of the three other endings instead of the true ending. If you want the true ending, you have to make the proper choice, pick the right dialog to calm everyone down, fight a back to back boss battle then decide to hang out with your friends for one more time which then results in the truth and your final boss. The thing is, most gamers fail because they let their emotion take over and pick the option which results in the bad ending. This has nothing to do with being an idiot(in the case of ME2 you have to make mistakes on purpose), it has to do with falling prey to your emotions like the other characters instead of going wait, something is not right. You then have to then calm everyoen down that takes ALONG time to do then you have to figure out who the real culprit is, which you can fail if you made a mistake. This is earning your happy ending. It does not hold your hand, it does not give you hints, it puts you in a tense moment and you the gamer have to do what you think is best.

Modifié par Mr.House, 30 octobre 2013 - 04:56 .