168 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

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."

Who said anything about "fault?" The player controls which dead ends, so to speak, fhey encoutner first, as they also choose if they continue to play again to see the other dead ends. Whether they know thag will unlock the other ending(s) or not comes into olay a bit, but no one is saying it's the player's fault. Just their direction that they are guiding the narrative. 

[Inprea]

HiroVoid wrote...

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.

I believe so. I love it when I can choose to go the hard path and save everyone but I also understand that at times that hard path just does not exist.

I hope you don't mind if I use an example frok KOTOR but. There are a group of people that have the rackghoul virus, a sickness that turns you into a savage monster and well kills those infected. You can find a cure for them but you don't make it back in time to cure everyone. Your effort is still rewarded of course as you did save some of them.

However, later you can save an entire village from starvation and in theory destruction if you're willing to give up on any form of payment other then experience points and light side points.

Though for me. The fact that I never had a chance to save the people that turn loses some of the drama as well. Then again if I do have a chance to save them and i fail I just reload.

[HiroVoid]

You can't save everyone you see that has the rackghoul virus in KOTOR? I'm pretty sure I remember doing so aside from that one guy I cured who ran right into a horde of them.

[Sir JK]

Well worth considering is that if you, on occasion, can save anyone then it will make the moments you cannot all the more powerful. But if you can never save everyone, then that will start to lose it's edge.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sir JK wrote...

Well worth considering is that if you, on occasion, can save anyone then it will make the moments you cannot all the more powerful. But if you can never save everyone, then that will start to lose it's edge.

Agreed. If you are given the choice of saving the wounded soldiers, the Village or the Keep, but EVERYONE dies, regardless (what we like to call the Thessian special), then that is not good. At all. 

[Inprea]

HiroVoid wrote...

You can't save everyone you see that has the rackghoul virus in KOTOR? I'm pretty sure I remember doing so aside from that one guy I cured who ran right into a horde of them.

I don't believe you can. I"m pretty sure that three of them mutate as soon as you open the door. None of the guides I've looked at have mentioned saving all of them either.

Enter the Undercity, and head to the area containing the infected humans and a
healer at the gate. The healer warns you about the Rakghouls, but enter
anyway. Kill the Rakghouls. On the other side is a group of infected Outcasts
whom you can save.

I'm fine with that quest despite not being able to save everyone though. At least Revan could try to save them all and manages to save a few. Now if someone was laying there bleeding out and I couldn't do anything despite knowing force healing and having several healing packets I'd be complaining. Well actually that did annoy me in front of the sith academy. I wanted to heal the idiots that were starving themselves to death in an attempt to be allowed in so badly.

Modifié par Inprea, 15 novembre 2013 - 10:01 .

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Agreed. If you are given the choice of saving the wounded soldiers, the Village or the Keep, but EVERYONE dies, regardless (what we like to call the Thessian special), then that is not good. At all. 

Of course, that'd be terrible. Very anticlimatic. But that was not what I was talking about.

If you're repeatedly given choices on who to save... but never given the option to be the big damn hero. Eventually you'll stop trying. It's not really a dark choice anymore. It's just a "who do you like best". A stock choice.

But if you spice it up with a "If you try really hard, this time you'll actually pull it off". Then you'll see everyone giving their damndest to pull it off. And the times when you cannot will turn darker. Because now you're not blocking them out anymore.

In other words: If I'm never allowed to save everyone, then I will no longer care when I can just save one.

[Xilizhra]

Sir JK wrote...

Well worth considering is that if you, on occasion, can save anyone then it will make the moments you cannot all the more powerful. But if you can never save everyone, then that will start to lose it's edge.

For me personally, being unable to save people rarely feels powerful for me, at least not in a good way. In All that Remains, my primary emotion was outrage at Bioware when I first played it, as well as the urge to either mod the game so that the quest didn't happen or find a way of recreating Quentin's ritual to fix Leandra again with templar body parts. I don't take well to death, quite often.

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...
For me personally, being unable to save people rarely feels powerful for me, at least not in a good way. In All that Remains, my primary emotion was outrage at Bioware when I first played it, as well as the urge to either mod the game so that the quest didn't happen or find a way of recreating Quentin's ritual to fix Leandra again with templar body parts. I don't take well to death, quite often.

Yeah... my personal reaction the first time I played that one was that I sat there as realisation was dawning and before it was even confirmed it was Leandra I started going: No, no, no, no, no, no. Nope. No.

But both of us reacted emotionally to it. Outrage. Denial. Both emotional responses.

But if the game only presents you with tragedy. Always choices of one over the other. Then the reaction will be apathy. Feeling nothing at all.

Modifié par Sir JK, 15 novembre 2013 - 10:11 .

[Xilizhra]

Sir JK wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
For me personally, being unable to save people rarely feels powerful for me, at least not in a good way. In All that Remains, my primary emotion was outrage at Bioware when I first played it, as well as the urge to either mod the game so that the quest didn't happen or find a way of recreating Quentin's ritual to fix Leandra again with templar body parts. I don't take well to death, quite often.

Yeah... my personal reaction the first time I played that one was that I sat there as realisation was dawning and before it was even confirmed it was Leandra I started going: No, no, no, no, no, no. Nope. No.

But both of us reacted emotionally to it. Outrage. Denial. Grief.

But if the game only presents you with tragedy. Always choices of one over the other. Then the reaction will be apathy. Feeling nothing at all.

I think the rage was in the wrong direction. For some reason, I wasn't angry at Quentin at all; he barely seemed different from any other random crazy mage as a person, and I actually found him sort of sympathetic (if my Hawke actually, genuinely believed that she could bring Bethany back somehow...). I was pissed at Bioware for arbitrarily giving me no way to actually save her, and it damaged my game experience.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think the All That Remains quest is a poor example, though. It is exactly what I was talkeding aboit with the village/keep/wounded where no matter what you choose, everyone dies. Because there is no choice or alternate approach, your mom dies.

This isn't a hard choice, like where one player could say "the Keep is the most important - otherwise our efforts in the Inquisition fails" or "no innocents under my watch will die - I must protect the Village." Different players and characters could have different answers to that question. It isn't "you must fail, so FEEL THE FEELZ!"

[Xilizhra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think the All That Remains quest is a poor example, though. It is exactly what I was talkeding aboit with the village/keep/wounded where no matter what you choose, everyone dies. Because there is no choice or alternate approach, your mom dies.

This isn't a hard choice, like where one player could say "the Keep is the most important - otherwise our efforts in the Inquisition fails" or "no innocents under my watch will die - I must protect the Village." Different players and characters could have different answers to that question. It isn't "you must fail, so FEEL THE FEELZ!"

But in that case, it's kind of like choosing whether to stab yourself in the left or right side of the chest instead of just getting stabbed in the right: it doesn't feel any better.

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think the All That Remains quest is a poor example, though. It is exactly what I was talkeding aboit with the village/keep/wounded where no matter what you choose, everyone dies. Because there is no choice or alternate approach, your mom dies.

This isn't a hard choice, like where one player could say "the Keep is the most important - otherwise our efforts in the Inquisition fails" or "no innocents under my watch will die - I must protect the Village." Different players and characters could have different answers to that question. It isn't "you must fail, so FEEL THE FEELZ!"

But in that case, it's kind of like choosing whether to stab yourself in the left or right side of the chest instead of just getting stabbed in the right: it doesn't feel any better.

How can you say that? Was saving the Krogan not even more rewarding because of Mordin's sacrifice and his death for atonement? Was the Dark Ritual offer not infintely more interesting because the life of the Grey Warden who would land the final blow was on the line?

Having SOME good with SOME bad makes for a truly engaging story in many cases. Often more than an ALL good... and certainly more than an all bad. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 15 novembre 2013 - 11:54 .

[HiroVoid]

Inprea wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

You can't save everyone you see that has the rackghoul virus in KOTOR? I'm pretty sure I remember doing so aside from that one guy I cured who ran right into a horde of them.

I don't believe you can. I"m pretty sure that three of them mutate as soon as you open the door. None of the guides I've looked at have mentioned saving all of them either.

Hmm....I think I remember it IS possible to save them if you don't enter until you get the cure, but it's been years since I've played, so I can't remember exactly.  I'm pretty sure I'm correct on this though since I also remember it not being noted online really since it's not like you gain any real benefit from waiting and saving them later other than saving them.

[Thomas Andresen]

Who said anything about "fault?" The player controls which dead ends, so to speak, fhey encoutner first, as they also choose if they continue to play again to see the other dead ends. Whether they know thag will unlock the other ending(s) or not comes into olay a bit, but no one is saying it's the player's fault. Just their direction that they are guiding the narrative.

I think what he was getting at, and I agree, was that "ultimate victory," however you want to word it or define it, being unattainable on the first play-through, isn't universally good game design.

I think that, especially in story-driven games like these, gating content based on game difficulty or "NG+" is far too arbitrary. To the point that I'd probably view it as an annoyance. "I made the same choices and suddenly the ending is different. Wut?" It seems nonsensical from where I stand.

[Thomas Andresen]

Hmm....I think I remember it IS possible to save them if you don't enter until you get the cure, but it's been years since I've played, so I can't remember exactly. I'm pretty sure I'm correct on this though since I also remember it not being noted online really since it's not like you gain any real benefit from waiting and saving them later other than saving them.

Hate to break it to you, but my twenty-something play-throughs says you're wrong. You can only ever save three of the six rakghoul-infested exiles. The first three does groan and moan and beg first, but you're never given the option to so much as say anything before they've mutated and the fight starts.

Interestingly, if you choose to kill the last three, rather than give them the vaccine, they don't turn immediately, if at all. I don't remember how quickly they'd turn, if at all, but at least at the start of the fight, you're fighting weak exiles.

[Xilizhra]

How can you say that? Was saving the Krogan not even more rewarding because of Mordin's sacrifice and his death for atonement?

No. I could stand it because his arc was over, but it didn't make things better than it would have had he gotten a good scene at the end and survived. Seeing him at the Citadel party would have been nice.

Was the Dark Ritual offer not infintely more interesting because the life of the Grey Warden who would land the final blow was on the line?

Marginally, but I might have taken it anyway.

[Hazegurl]

I think they should mix it up. Have situations where you can save both with a mixture of ultimate victory or partial victory with heavy losses on both sides, and other times you have no choice but to choose one, if you still try to save both then both are lost. The player wouldn't know which choices would give them which end result. I like the idea that sometimes hard choices need to be made. Can't save everyone cause you want to or try super hard to do it. You could jeopardize both and lose them.

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

How can you say that? Was saving the Krogan not even more rewarding because of Mordin's sacrifice and his death for atonement?

No. I could stand it because his arc was over, but it didn't make things better than it would have had he gotten a good scene at the end and survived. Seeing him at the Citadel party would have been nice.

Was the Dark Ritual offer not infintely more interesting because the life of the Grey Warden who would land the final blow was on the line?

Marginally, but I might have taken it anyway.

I didn't ask if it made you FEEL better... I asked if it made the STORY better. There's a large degree of difference there. I'm not an advocate for sad just to be sad... but Mordin, a conflicted scientist who needed to dedicate his life to healing and helping others after reinfecting the Krogan with the genophage, made the heroic sacrifice to knowingly die to correct his mistake. 

It's one of the few instances I've teared up in a video game. And it has earned my undying respect for Patrick Weekes. Personally, I think the Tuchanka section was great, but it would have been a little humdrum if the ending to it all was just "we deployed the cure" or "we tricked the Krogan" and everyone went smiling back to the ship. 

Conversely, standing for your principles and not curing the Krogan and having to put a bullet in Wrex because of it is equally gut-wrenching. And again... it made the story stronger because of it. Shephard had to sacrifice something to stand up for the choice he believed in for both sides of that coin... that makes it a choice of principle, not a "I want the happy ending" choice. 

Can you not see how choices without cost or consequence, ever, would leave to making those choices paler and weaker by comparison? By adding the direct appeal to our emotions instead of just "I'm going for the highest EMS number" or even "here's the choice I was going to make even before I got to this point in the game, because I'm pro or anti-whatever" it makes the choice both personal and deeper. It makes the STORY more personal and deeper. You're character has paid a price to make the decision and still would have made the same one.

That's a sign of great writing - when the game can kill a character (maybe even a favorite character) and the player say "I still would have done things the same way." 

[Dave of Canada]

I'd say shooting Mordin was hands down the best Renegade choice of the series, it conflicts with what the player ultimately wants and what they're trying to achieve and throws an entirely new context on everyone mourning him post-Tuchanka. I wonder if anyone cured the Genophage with Wreav in charge--accepted generally as a bad idea--because they didn't want to shoot their friend.

I don't like that you're able to talk him down if you do everything "right" though.

[Il Divo]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'd say shooting Mordin was hands down the best Renegade choice of the series, it conflicts with what the player ultimately wants and what they're trying to achieve and throws an entirely new context on everyone mourning him post-Tuchanka. I wonder if anyone cured the Genophage with Wreav in charge--accepted generally as a bad idea--because they didn't want to shoot their friend.

I don't like that you're able to talk him down if you do everything "right" though.

Agreed. It's also not something I ever would have seen coming until that little Renegade bar popped up on my screen. I was pissing myself when I realized the game was offering me the chance to kill one of my favorite Bioware characters ever.

[Hazegurl]

I hope we get more choices like the Genophage arc. Having to shoot Mordin was the icing on the cake for me. Not because I hated him, I loved him. It was the first time that a choice hit close to home. It's not a fight after a character tells you not to do something. Like in DA. It was just one explaining their reasons for doing what they are doing and you're trying to talk them down before making the final decision to pull the trigger or not.

How many players didn't shoot Mordin even though they believed strongly in sabotaging the Genophage? How many shot him even though they loved him? I hope DAI give us something like that.

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Can you not see how choices without cost or consequence, ever, would leave to making those choices paler and weaker by comparison? By adding the direct appeal to our emotions instead of just "I'm going for the highest EMS number" or even "here's the choice I was going to make even before I got to this point in the game, because I'm pro or anti-whatever" it makes the choice both personal and deeper. It makes the STORY more personal and deeper. You're character has paid a price to make the decision and still would have made the same one.

It's true that Mordin's sacrefice (or being shot) is part of what makes Tuchanka great. What you say above is definantely an important thing to consider for plots.

However, if you had lost a current or former companion in -every- segment of that game, just to put in choices like this, Mordin's sacrefice would have been immensely cheapened. Part of what makes Mordin's death so powerful, in my humble opinion, is the fact that it's one of the exceptions: In most cases you can come out with your friends alive, but this time the price is extremely steep.

Conversely, one of the better parts of Rannoch's and Miranda's plots is that you actually can save both sides/her if you do everything right (and they're not entirely up front about what that is). In Rannoch's case by having the right reputation and in the latter by doing all of Miranda's optional content and giving her what she needs. It's unquestionable victories, yes... but they're earned ones. Not chosen, earned.

I think that's key... you should not shy away from dark and personal choices if it fits perfectly into the plot, but sometimes giving the player the ability to earn the absolute victory will be equally great.

To use a quote from the new doctor who series, something he says with sheer and utter joy: "Everybody lives Rose. Just this once, everybody lives!". Sometimes, that emotion is just as important as the gut wrenching choices. To remind us why we bother at all.

Modifié par Sir JK, 16 novembre 2013 - 08:53 .

[Thomas Andresen]

I didn't ask if it made you FEEL better... I asked if it made the STORY better. There's a large degree of difference there. I'm not an advocate for sad just to be sad... but Mordin, a conflicted scientist who needed to dedicate his life to healing and helping others after reinfecting the Krogan with the genophage, made the heroic sacrifice to knowingly die to correct his mistake.

It's one of the few instances I've teared up in a video game. And it has earned my undying respect for Patrick Weekes. Personally, I think the Tuchanka section was great, but it would have been a little humdrum if the ending to it all was just "we deployed the cure" or "we tricked the Krogan" and everyone went smiling back to the ship.

I'm of the opinion that if a game's story makes you feel, whatever the feeling, it's because the game makes you care, and that, in my opinion, is the measure of a good story. If a story doesn't provoke emotions, it's because it doesn't make me care, and then I'll put it away and not look at it again.

I want the games I play, and the stories I experience, to provoke as great a variety of emotions as possible, including the negative emotions.

[snackrat]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Fast Jimmy: And they should be allowed to - they paid for an experience.

People who reload for the best "write" their experience, and I find it a totally viable way to play.

I prefer to roleplay the game and face the consequences of my actions - both good and bad.

I think there is room for both, but what should NEVER be done - is to declare the person that "writes" the story an enemy, and remove choices so you can shove some edgy dark emotion down someone's throat.

I really hope there is a way to save both - and I hope that it is VERY difficult, and required forthought (like, you have to have troops with great morale and great equipment - which would have been something you had to do WAY before the event).

You had me agreeing fully until you said "way before the event". I agree with the philosophy of 'Earn Your Happy Ending' style, but that effectively makes it the worst of both worlds:

Those who play, naturally, feel like they have failed taking their 'inferior' choices. They may believe the choice has no weight if a mutually happy ending was within reach. That the game effectively just 'forgot' to give them a Game Over screen. They aren't making a tough decisions for the benefit of their people, they're just committing damage control on their own failure.

Those who reload, however, have to face the choice of redoing HOW many hours exactly? HOW 'way before'? After visiting Goldanna in my latest DAO game and forgetting to harden Alis, I didn't opt to redo the entire Urn of Sacred Ashes just so I could have both Loghain and Alis alive (SCREW. THAT.) I just used the console's debugger. Can we expect DAI to allow the same? Wouldn't that ruin it? I would've preferred to do that all in-character, and in-world (but seriously Haven and that puzzle though).




...as for Leandra, development says we used to be able to save her. (I don't know at what cost though, they didn't say. Probably letting Quentin go.) Problem was that it ultimately wasn't a choice at all because people would always save her, every single time. And we know Bioware staff live of delicious fan tears, they couldn't let that go down.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 16 novembre 2013 - 02:41 .