168 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia Nox]

@Fast Jimmy: Just want to be clear I didn't say they don't exist, nor that bad endings are inherently negative.

How is forcing you to play the game multiple times to get a particular ending "amazing storytelling?"

In my many years of gaming - I've only ever played one game from start to finish more than once. That was Dragon Age: Origins.

I would never play a game a second time for a particular ending.

[Dave of Canada]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

I just want the option A and B to exist without a C.

I wouldn't consider it a bad thing if option C was available as well. Mainly because, for various reasons, I wouldn't always be striving for option C. If someone else might always choose option C, first of all, that's hardly my business, nor is it my loss. Too bad for them.

I feel C should have it's own consequences.

Say you're going to have a choice between D, E and F immediately afterwards... picking C should result in F not being an option, leaving people to pick choices and lead to their own goals, rather than choose what ultimately ends up being best for everyone.

For example, foregoing strengthing your army to save villages should result in large casualties when your army is weak and spread out. Meanwhile, a strengthened army means losing less people during the same conflict but you've let countless others die before that point. Stuff like that.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 15 novembre 2013 - 08:16 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Olivier_dehFanboy wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

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 can't see why the problem with some people reloading the game time and again to get t he best outcome, it is their game play-through and if they want to spend the time getting their happy ever after then why not let them.

If you want to play through once taking the breaks the game gives you good and bad then that is your choice.  I do think that there should be an achievement for playing a game through once on nightmare with no reloads though.

could not have said it better myself. Totally agree.

To get a little more back on track here... the problem is not me, the grognard, saying people are playing "wrong." That is not the case. At all. 

The problem is the Casual. Who will say "I've dropped the game down to Super Easy and still fail... I hate having to keep reloading my game to get the best outcomes. You are punishing me, Bioware, when I just want to see the happy outcome!"

I have this same argument come across dozens, if not hundreds, of times in discussing topics such as a Narrative adifficulty, limited save slots, permadeath and regenrating health - tying anything directly to the gameplay will upset people. Because even though they CAN drop the difficulty, save spam and even unlock cheats... they will complain because they have to. 

[Thomas Andresen]

How is forcing you to play the game multiple times to get a particular ending "amazing storytelling?"

To be honest, this is what gets me as well.

[HiroVoid]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

How is forcing you to play the game multiple times to get a particular ending "amazing storytelling?"

To be honest, this is what gets me as well.

I remember Nier being praised a lot for it actually though I haven't played it myself.

999 and Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward kind of has this as part of the narrative.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 15 novembre 2013 - 08:18 .

[Dave of Canada]

HiroVoid wrote...

I remember Nier being praised a lot for it actually though I haven't played it myself.

Nier has one of the greatest sacrifice endings ever made. It's hilarious.

999 and Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward kind of has this as part of the narrative.

Which is amazing.

[Medhia Nox]

@HiroVoid: Those might be amazing games, I don't know.

And I never will - because I'd probably never play them more than once.

I do play RTS games and Tactical games like X-com more than once I suppose - but, I almost never play RTS single player.

But for it to be "amazing storytelling" - are they about time travel, or Groundhog's Day events or something? How is replaying it... storytelling at all? 

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 15 novembre 2013 - 08:21 .

[Angrywolves]

There will be times when you can't save everyone or please everyone .
That village in the pax trailer verses the wounded verses the keep.
Pick one.
shrugs.

[Fast Jimmy]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Fast Jimmy: Just want to be clear I didn't say they don't exist, nor that bad endings are inherently negative.

How is forcing you to play the game multiple times to get a particular ending "amazing storytelling?"

In my many years of gaming - I've only ever played one game from start to finish more than once. That was Dragon Age: Origins. * I would never play a game a second time for a particular ending.

Because it is personal preference. I find divergent content and replayability huge values to my own personal tastes. And a game that makes you experience the bad outcomes, then let's you work to make things better gives me an immeasurably more level of story fulfillment than swinging in, saving the day, and ealking off into the sunset. Seeing, feeling and experiencing the worst, you see the real consequences of your failure beyond a mere "Game Over" screen ever would. In addition, these "failure" endings in some cases give you the "story pieces" that make the good option make sense. 

Ending 1 has you side with the Templars, which go crazy and slaughter eveyone, showing Meredith was being corrupted by the red lyrium. Ending 2 has you side with the Mages, who go crazy because Orsino has been secretly helping Blood Mages. Ending 3 becomes available when you beat the game twice with each of these different options, gives you a third option that let's you warn Elthina that Meredith has become crazy and talk to Anders about Orsino's blood magic, giving you the resources you need to prevent the BOOM and have Elthina lead the Templars to take down the two leaders, making Aveline head of the Templars and Anders First Enchanter. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 15 novembre 2013 - 08:27 .

[Thomas Andresen]

I feel C should have it's own consequences.

That is where I'm torn, actually. Every choice should have consequences. But what kind of consequences can you get for saving everyone?

Maybe saving both the village and the keep might lead to losing two villages later in the game, due to, say, logistical problems. But then you might as well have restricted the initial choice to "A or B."

[Medhia Nox]

@Angrywolves: There's an option to save them both, they said as much - and I'm very glad - I suppose the question is... how difficult is it to achieve that, and what did you have to sacrifice before or after to achieve it?

My hope - is that it is difficult, and comes with a personal cost to your character. 

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 15 novembre 2013 - 08:27 .

[Thomas Andresen]

There's an option to save them both, they said as much - and I'm very glad - I suppose the question is... how difficult is it to achieve that, and what did you have to sacrifice before or after to achieve it?

We are talking about the scenario from the demo now, aren't we?

[HiroVoid]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

I feel C should have it's own consequences.

That is where I'm torn, actually. Every choice should have consequences. But what kind of consequences can you get for saving everyone?

Maybe saving both the village and the keep might lead to losing two villages later in the game, due to, say, logistical problems. But then you might as well have restricted the initial choice to "A or B."

What if you have to choose pragmatic decisions earlier on where you had an earlier choice to save something that could help you militarilly compared to a Dalish camp?  Or any variation of this where a previous difficult decision decides if you can save both here?

[Xilizhra]

giving you the resources you need to prevent the BOOM and have Elthina lead the Templars to take down the two leaders, making Aveline head of the Templars and Anders First Enchanter.

You know that expression Isabela makes when that bad poet is talking to her? I'm making it now.

[Medhia Nox]

@HiroVoid: I would love that.

Not having every event be a microcosm would be much preferred.

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

giving you the resources you need to prevent the BOOM and have Elthina lead the Templars to take down the two leaders, making Aveline head of the Templars and Anders First Enchanter.

You know that expression Isabela makes when that bad poet is talking to her? I'm making it now.

I'm not saying that's how DA2 should have ended, by any stretch. But by seeing the shirt hit the fan, and having seen the story hit the low points, no matter what, it makes the happy ending that would seem corny and cheesy seem earned and fit. 

I'm no writer. 

[Thomas Andresen]

Because it is personal preference. I find divergent content and replayability huge values to my own personal tastes.

I agree. To a point.

I believe, however, that any of the possible endings should be attainable on the first play-through, so long as you have to do multiple play-throughs to get the all of the endings.

[Plaintiff]

How on Earth is the 'bad' ending the fault of the player for 'failing' when the game didn't give them the tools they needed?"

"Try and escape from this hedge maze. We'll put an exit in after you reach all the dead ends."

[Dave of Canada]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

I feel C should have it's own consequences.

That is where I'm torn, actually. Every choice should have consequences. But what kind of consequences can you get for saving everyone?

Maybe saving both the village and the keep might lead to losing two villages later in the game, due to, say, logistical problems. But then you might as well have restricted the initial choice to "A or B."

Mmm... I don't know the particular context of the scene in question aside from "Red Templar are attacking!" but let's go with a hypothetical.

Prior to this decision, you were presented to a village assumed to be filled with mage cultists. You're given three choices:
A. Leave the village be, you don't have time to go through each and every one of them to filter cultists.
B. Slaughter the village, you don't have time to go through and find who's innocent and who's not.
C. Spend time investigating who's a cultist, who isn't and dealing with them.

A and B results in less time being "wasted", you arrive to the keep and village which are under attack and you've got time to save both if you rush through and do it. C on the other hand took too long, you've arrived and both are on the verge of falling and you've only got time to save one.

Saving the village results in public sympathy for the deceased Inquisitors, the gratitude of the village but the nation's stability collapses and is left vulnerable. A new issue which you now have to deal with.

Saving the keep results in public chagrin for the Inquisition, why support the Inquisition if you can't protect the innocent? The region is stable and fortified but you've lost public support and the village was a source of supplies for the keep. A new issue which you now have to deal with. 

Saving both leads to a "happier" alternative which you don't have to deal with the consequences of either. Thing is, you're forced to deal with the consequences of the choice prior to your arrival at the other village. What good is saving both if the Inquisition's famed for slaughtering innocents in a witch hunt? Etc.

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

I feel C should have it's own consequences.

That is where I'm torn, actually. Every choice should have consequences. But what kind of consequences can you get for saving everyone?

Maybe saving both the village and the keep might lead to losing two villages later in the game, due to, say, logistical problems. But then you might as well have restricted the initial choice to "A or B."

Mmm... I don't know the particular context of the scene in question aside from "Red Templar are attacking!" but let's go with a hypothetical.

Prior to this decision, you were presented to a village assumed to be filled with mage cultists. You're given three choices:
A. Leave the village be, you don't have time to go through each and every one of them to filter cultists.
B. Slaughter the village, you don't have time to go through and find who's innocent and who's not.
C. Spend time investigating who's a cultist, who isn't and dealing with them.

A and B results in less time being "wasted", you arrive to the keep and village which are under attack and you've got time to save both if you rush through and do it. C on the other hand took too long, you've arrived and both are on the verge of falling and you've only got time to save one.

Saving the village results in public sympathy for the deceased Inquisitors, the gratitude of the village but the nation's stability collapses and is left vulnerable. A new issue which you now have to deal with.

Saving the keep results in public chagrin for the Inquisition, why support the Inquisition if you can't protect the innocent? The region is stable and fortified but you've lost public support and the village was a source of supplies for the keep. A new issue which you now have to deal with. 

Saving both leads to a "happier" alternative which you don't have to deal with the consequences of either. Thing is, you're forced to deal with the consequences of the choice prior to your arrival at the other village. What good is saving both if the Inquisition's famed for slaughtering innocents in a witch hunt? Etc.

Noted, but I personally prefer options to save everyone. Even if getting them is harder.

[HiroVoid]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

I feel C should have it's own consequences.

That is where I'm torn, actually. Every choice should have consequences. But what kind of consequences can you get for saving everyone?

Maybe saving both the village and the keep might lead to losing two villages later in the game, due to, say, logistical problems. But then you might as well have restricted the initial choice to "A or B."

Mmm... I don't know the particular context of the scene in question aside from "Red Templar are attacking!" but let's go with a hypothetical.

Prior to this decision, you were presented to a village assumed to be filled with mage cultists. You're given three choices:
A. Leave the village be, you don't have time to go through each and every one of them to filter cultists.
B. Slaughter the village, you don't have time to go through and find who's innocent and who's not.
C. Spend time investigating who's a cultist, who isn't and dealing with them.

A and B results in less time being "wasted", you arrive to the keep and village which are under attack and you've got time to save both if you rush through and do it. C on the other hand took too long, you've arrived and both are on the verge of falling and you've only got time to save one.

Saving the village results in public sympathy for the deceased Inquisitors, the gratitude of the village but the nation's stability collapses and is left vulnerable. A new issue which you now have to deal with.

Saving the keep results in public chagrin for the Inquisition, why support the Inquisition if you can't protect the innocent? The region is stable and fortified but you've lost public support and the village was a source of supplies for the keep. A new issue which you now have to deal with. 

Saving both leads to a "happier" alternative which you don't have to deal with the consequences of either. Thing is, you're forced to deal with the consequences of the choice prior to your arrival at the other village. What good is saving both if the Inquisition's famed for slaughtering innocents in a witch hunt? Etc.

Noted, but I personally prefer options to save everyone. Even if getting them is harder.

I think that's what Dave is getting at though.  Gameplay-wise, nothing is usually hard in the Dragon Age series.  With Dragon Age: Awakening, I had more than double or triple the amount of money on my person than the actual amount you needed to fortify the keep.  All of the resources you needed were just in the same places you had to visit.  Nothing really needed to be sacrificed by you because it was pretty easy to do what was needed to save both the keep and the town.

[Xilizhra]

I think that's what Dave is getting at though. Gameplay-wise, nothing is usually hard in the Dragon Age series. With Dragon Age: Awakening, I had more than double or triple the amount of money on my person than the actual amount you needed to fortify the keep. All of the resources you needed were just in the same places you had to visit. Nothing really needed to be sacrificed by you because it was pretty easy to do what was needed to save both the keep and the town.

Which I'm totally fine with, because I enjoy stories with better outcomes.

[Inprea]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

I feel C should have it's own consequences.

That is where I'm torn, actually. Every choice should have consequences. But what kind of consequences can you get for saving everyone?

Maybe saving both the village and the keep might lead to losing two villages later in the game, due to, say, logistical problems. But then you might as well have restricted the initial choice to "A or B."

That's where I tend to want difficulty to come into play. I paid for C by making the battle far more difficult for me. If there is always going to be an equal penalty why not always take the easiest option?

A counter to the statement. You can't always save everyone. If you try hard enough some times you can.

Modifié par Inprea, 15 novembre 2013 - 09:08 .

[Inprea]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Angrywolves: There's an option to save them both, they said as much - and I'm very glad - I suppose the question is... how difficult is it to achieve that, and what did you have to sacrifice before or after to achieve it?

My hope - is that it is difficult, and comes with a personal cost to your character. 

Hm by personal cost what do you have in mind? Are we talking about a loss in gold or a permenant reduction to stats?

I'm reminded of Jade Empire where if you lack a high enough persuasion skill you can still save a girl and her father but it brings about a permenant reduction to your spirit stat. I believe it was the happiest I've ever been to see my character gain a permenant debuff. I believe the wording was.

Each time you feel this hole in your spirit you know there is a little girl living happily and healthy because of you.

Or something like that.

[HiroVoid]

Inprea wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

I feel C should have it's own consequences.

That is where I'm torn, actually. Every choice should have consequences. But what kind of consequences can you get for saving everyone?

Maybe saving both the village and the keep might lead to losing two villages later in the game, due to, say, logistical problems. But then you might as well have restricted the initial choice to "A or B."

That's where I tend to want difficulty to come into play. I paid for C by making the battle far more difficult for me. If there is always going to be an equal penalty why not always take the easiest option?

A counter to the statement. You can't always save everyone. If you try hard enough some times you can.

So what you're saying is that sometimes we should be able to save everyone in DA:I and sometimes we shouldn't.