168 réponses à ce sujet

[Spectre slayer]

You can save both of them according to Camren Lee but it's supposed to be difficult to do so, the choice they did in the demo was leave the wounded and return to the keep which reinforces the keep and then decided to abandon the town and head to the keep through a back road and cave which dooms the town and it gets destroyed.

I'm going to send the soldiers to the keep to reinforce it enough to hold out until we get there, destroy the boats, charge the town kill everything, take out the catapults, then head towards the keep the way they went in the demo to see what happens in the town, if it doesn't work i'll reload and try again.

[Medhia Nox]

@Xilizhra: It's called roleplaying Xilizhra - and this is an roleplaying game. You're roleplaying a leader - leader's should plan ahead.

You can clearly "try" to solve both problems yourself in the scenario - they show you that much. And, while I find that yawn-worthy - I'm sure it'll be possible for some people to achieve that - and that's a good thing.

But I want to know that my preparations as a leader led to my victory that saved both areas - or, that I didn't prepare enough for this situation.

[David7204]

Medhia Nox wrote...

But I want to know that my preparations as a leader led to my victory that saved both areas - or, that I didn't prepare enough for this situation.

They didn't.

[Medhia Nox]

@David7204: Too vague. They didn't, what?

[David7204]

'Your' preparations as a leader didn't earn victory.

[The Elder King]

@thekomandorshepard: the point would be that you save the village before you save the keep (if you chose to save it in the dialogue choice). You have to the opposite (first the keep, than the village) if you chose to save the village in the dialogue. The game gives you a time limit to save either the keep or the village (depending on your choice), and you might try to save both by going first to the location you didn't choice to save.
@Fast Jimmy: what if in the case you manage to save both, the village and the keep suffer more damage that they'd if you save only one?

[Medhia Nox]

@David7204: Are you implying that video games are always an "I win." I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Morale and the timer are two indications that planning "is" involved - I hope there's more.

This might be the first CRPG where I get to play an actual leader of something - I've got rising hopes.

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Many players who don't get that ending feel they are being penalized, making them resentful of their outcome.

So what? They can try again, as many times as they like.

That is, in fact, how most videogames work; if you don't succeed at a task, you have to repeat it indefinitely. Anyone who has even the most basic knowledge of any videogame should be well prepared for that possibility.

Because people often complain about that. Jennifer Hepler, for example, suggested that DA or other games should have ways of skipping the gameplay portion and just do the story. ME added the narrative difficulty for those who didn't like dying all of the time because they did not like FPS's. So I feel Bioware has made steps to make their games not drive story through game difficulty. Not that I wholeheartedly agree with that approach, but I feel that Bioware is making it a priority in their ganes. 

[David7204]

No. I'm merely saying the competence of the player character does not flow from the player. It flows from within the character. And thus, heroism, competence, and success do not require the player to overcome challenging gameplay as justification to exist.

[David7204]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Because people often complain about that. Jennifer Hepler, for example, suggested that DA or other games should have ways of skipping the gameplay portion and just do the story. ME added the narrative difficulty for those who didn't like dying all of the time because they did not like FPS's. So I feel Bioware has made steps to make their games not drive story through game difficulty. Not that I wholeheartedly agree with that approach, but I feel that Bioware is making it a priority in their ganes. 

As have nearly all games.

It's the right path.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: It's called roleplaying Xilizhra - and this is an roleplaying game. You're roleplaying a leader - leader's should plan ahead.

You can clearly "try" to solve both problems yourself in the scenario - they show you that much. And, while I find that yawn-worthy - I'm sure it'll be possible for some people to achieve that - and that's a good thing.

But I want to know that my preparations as a leader led to my victory that saved both areas - or, that I didn't prepare enough for this situation.

You rp your character not story and everything in life lies go bad and not as planed and you can't predict future unless you want play marry sue or god mode sue sure if you want rp character who want save both sure if you want saving both succeed not that game thats why it is darker and cynical setting you have mass effect or if you seek for more rpg games you have plenty idealistic stories where heroes win.  

[David7204]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

You rp your character not story and everything in life lies go bad and not as planed and you can't predict future unless you want play marry sue or god mode sue sure if you want rp character who want save both sure if you want saving both succeed not that game thats why it is darker and cynical setting you have mass effect or if you seek for more rpg games you have plenty idealistic stories where heroes win.  

You're mistaken.

Success is not dependent on 'predicting the future.' It's merely dependent on Narrative Causality. As is anything and everything in stories.

Modifié par David7204, 15 novembre 2013 - 04:27 .

[TheKomandorShepard]

David7204 wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

You rp your character not story and everything in life lies go bad and not as planed and you can't predict future unless you want play marry sue or god mode sue sure if you want rp character who want save both sure if you want saving both succeed not that game thats why it is darker and cynical setting you have mass effect or if you seek for more rpg games you have plenty idealistic stories where heroes win.  

You're mistaken.

Success is not dependent on 'predicting the future.' It's merely dependent on Narrative Causality. As is anything and everything in stories.

I was talking about character and that he can't predict future and we are talking about rp.And da theme is about sacrifices and save everyone is not or at least shouldn't be option that is for idealistic settings not cynical as mass effect.  

[Karlone123]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm torn about this.

On one hand, having story outcomes that vary depending on gameplay is something I really like. But, on the other hand, many players will just reload or drop down to easy to get the "best outcome" evey time. If that's the case, where it becomes just tedium that most players realize the ways to game the system to get the happiest outcomes, what is really gained? It isn't a darker story, it is just a game with a happy path that takes some tedium to get and also story content if you fail to get the happy path instead of a "Game Over" screen.

I'm not sure if that's the best way. Then again, binary choices via dialogue may, also, not be the best way.

I think I would only reload in situations like save the keep ot the village, just to get a feel of what I can do and what happens as an effect of my choice. It helps with making roleplaying in later playthrough to let me tell my own story in a sense.

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

No. I'm merely saying the competence of the player character does not flow from the player. It flows from within the character. And thus, heroism, competence, and success do not require the player to overcome challenging gameplay as justification to exist.

You're saying "does not" as if that is universally true in all games. It is not. You may want revise it to say "should not" and express it as your personal opinion. 

My ability to fly a plane in a flight simulator is directly tied to how well my skill as a player corresponds to my skill as a pilot. That's why they train pilots on video games before putting them in aircraft that costs millions of dollars. Simialrly, my ability to recognize that trading Art for Carpets would net a higher return than trading Salt for Sugar in a trading game is what drives whether or not my character goes broke and fails. 

Player skill has a STRONG effect in whether or not the character is successful in MANY games. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 15 novembre 2013 - 04:46 .

[MerinTB]

Anytime game designers, let alone players, try to dictate to any given player that they are 'playing the game wrong' they are, in fact, wrong.

Game designers can create a game with a certain type of experience in mind, and they can even try to design difficulty or cost/benefit ratios to encourage certain actions or choices, but once they start inserting hard-coded game features to FORCE or RESTRICT how a gamer chooses to play the game, they are wrong.

Someone who makes a movie expects someone to watch the whole thing, from beginning to end, with no distractions and no interruptions. But if a viewer wants to watch it while playing a game at the same time, or while joking around with friends and mocking the film, or by fast-forwarding through parts or the whole film, or watching it over several watching sessions - who is the movie maker to tell the viewer NO, YOU CAN'T, THAT'S WRONG!

If someone wants to set the game on easy, enter god mode codes, use the cheat menu to jump to the last part of the game with maximum stats and equipment, and use a walkthrough to pick the ultimate path through that last part - that's their choice.

Everyone needs to stop trying to impose 'their right way' on others.

Modifié par MerinTB, 15 novembre 2013 - 04:44 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

I like the idea, though I hope there is an option to just tell people to get back and stay out of the way like in the Alieanage. Sort of a "I'm going to open the fight with my biggest area of effect spell, so don't get in its way, okay? Okay." thing.

[TurretSyndrome]

MerinTB wrote...
 but once they start inserting hard-coded game features to FORCE or RESTRICT how a gamer chooses to play the game, they are wrong.

Game features such as?

[Sir JK]

In my humble opinion, trying to save both keep and village should be incredibly more difficult and pretty much require you to make a perfect run. But it should be perfectly doable and if you pull it off: Go you!. That DA2 didn't do that is exactly why Orsino is such a frustrating boss when siding with the mages. "Orsino, the average life expectancy of templars entering this room is a single second. We got this, why are you freaking out?".

Choosing to save both should be the high risk, high reward option. The one most difficult to pull off but the one that yields the greatest reward. Choosing either or shouldn't be the only options, but the safe options. You will absolutely spare your men, you will absolutely save the village, you will absolutely save the keep or you will maybe, if you're extremely skilled, save both (or all three?).

In theory, it ought to be possible to balance the timer so that saving both is challengingto achieve even on the lowest difficulty.

[Medhia Nox]

@TheKomanderShepard: Maybe your life is like that, but mine is not.

@David7204: The character doesn't exist without me. I am the means by which in game information is interpreted. I'm not sure why it cannot be understood that - if I'm roleplaying a leader, and my leader actually has some level of competency, that he would want to prepare for future events.

However - the character doesn't determine what is, or is not, preparation - I do.

What you're talking about is a movie I think - where you just sit there and experience what something else is doing.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Many players who don't get that ending feel they are being penalized, making them resentful of their outcome.

So what? They can try again, as many times as they like.

That is, in fact, how most videogames work; if you don't succeed at a task, you have to repeat it indefinitely. Anyone who has even the most basic knowledge of any videogame should be well prepared for that possibility.

Because people often complain about that. Jennifer Hepler, for example, suggested that DA or other games should have ways of skipping the gameplay portion and just do the story. ME added the narrative difficulty for those who didn't like dying all of the time because they did not like FPS's. So I feel Bioware has made steps to make their games not drive story through game difficulty. Not that I wholeheartedly agree with that approach, but I feel that Bioware is making it a priority in their ganes. 

Has game difficulty ever been the driving force of narrative in any game? No game I've ever played in any genre has ever acknowledged the fact that I died a million times to get to the end of that level. Or offered different cutscenes based on my difficulty level. The only time anything from gameplay does affect the story, it's extremely minor, certainly not enough to call it the 'driving force'.

If people only want to play a game for the story, then I don't see a conflict there. I have no problem whatsoever with Bioware providing a mode that removes the gameplay entirely. It might be difficult to do, and it would be impossible to fold every sidequest neatly into the narrative, so people would have to miss out on a certain amount of non-essential story content, but if they're not interested in gameplay, then they're probably not concerned about missing a few sidequests anyway.

Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that if people realise the existence of a "perfect" outcome, then they will only want that outcome, and will be butthurt if they get anything else.

But there is no such thing as a 'perfect' outcome. That should be plainly apparent from the way that people on this very forum debate heatedly about the moral value of certain choices.

Others eschew moral debate in favour of the choices they feel will lead to more 'interesting' content, and not everyone's idea of a narratively interesting choice is "one where the hero wins everything and only bad guys die". Some people like that, sure. Some people also like the exact opposite, and for evidence look no further than the massive bone this forum has for Game of Thrones. Some people like a mix. Some people like to make choices that they feel suit the personality of the character they've created, rather than in accordance with their own moral views. Some people will just flip a coin. There are a million ways to play, and none of them are wrong.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 15 novembre 2013 - 05:10 .

[Inprea]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I like the idea, though I hope there is an option to just tell people to get back and stay out of the way like in the Alieanage. Sort of a "I'm going to open the fight with my biggest area of effect spell, so don't get in its way, okay? Okay." thing.

Don't run into the burning oil! Oh for goodness sakes don't stand in it and fight the zombie. Come on are you trying to make me fail!

Yeah I got quite  bit of that at Red Cliff.

[rupok93]

I was just about to post something like this. You don't need your whole army to kill some weaklings attacking a town. I hope you can save both, this is not a morality choice. In real life you don't have to choose between saving one or the other if you have the power to save both. Now I do like the choice of sending your men and leaving the wounded or defending the keep. In that situation you shouldn't be able to do both.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@TheKomanderShepard: Maybe your life is like that, but mine is not.

So you want tell me that you achived every your dream and achive everything by messiah run wow i wonder how we don't live in utopia yet if you are soo damn good that everything ends that way you wanted.

[Wulfram]

Redcliffe was annoying because the AI is suicidal. If I'm protecting people, give me control over them. At least to the extent of telling them to stay out of melee or something like that.

It also had the counter-intuitive result that delaying visiting Redcliffe tended to lead to a better outcome, because it was far easier to keep people alive with Wynne's healing, as well as other powers that might get levelling up.

By and large I think I'd prefer story consequences result from story decisions