242 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

One tradition that DA:O/ME really kicked off the ground for Bioware was the idea of difficult, grey moral choices. Not necessarily in execution - I would argue that most of their choice are still pretty black/white - but at least in intention. It became a design philosophy to try and have moral quandries.

Given that we've seen that DA:I will feature this type of choice - exemplified in the Keep vs. Village choice in the video (with the sub issue of what to do about the injured troops) - I thought it would be interesting to discuss structurally what makes a choice difficult and how a choice like that should work in the series. 

My favourite choice in DA - as a difficult one - is the Anvil of the Void. It's absolutely a horiffic thing that's done to dwarves to make them golems. That they are volunteers - if they actually know what sacrifice they're making - makes it mildly palpable, but the things they experience are still horrid. Still, extinction is the looming threat. I thought it was a very interesting choice. To me, that's the sort of ends-justifies-the-means type of choice that I think we should see more of, rather than things like the werewolves vs. Dalish choices (which, IMO, was morally wonky in how the Warden could pitch it and had all sorts of holes in terms of how it would even work out with the coalition you were building even *if* werewolves were somehow better than elves as troops). 

Thoughts? 

[Fast Jimmy]

Bioware shouldn't try to make any morally complex situations. Just give us the option to win and save everyone, every time. That's what people want.

[Mr.House]

Stop being black and white, stop giving free tickets and not letting us save everyone would be ideal.

Modifié par Mr.House, 27 novembre 2013 - 02:11 .

[Paul E Dangerously]

The problem is making something with a suitable emotional punch that also doesn't feel like you're kicking the player in the nuts or insulting their stupidity. I actually like it when there's a third option for people that want to do so (like the Circle solution for Connor, even though I know a lot of people hate it).

As flogged as it gets, ME3 did this well a couple of times.

[Lebanese Dude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Bioware shouldn't try to make any morally complex situations. Just give us the option to win and save everyone, every time. That's what people want.

Although these are definitely the optimal outcomes, they're not the most memorable....
They only become memorable when they are won through a lot of investigation and searching. If that's the case then my effort should be rewarded.

[Fast Jimmy]

Lebdood wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Bioware shouldn't try to make any morally complex situations. Just give us the option to win and save everyone, every time. That's what people want.

Although these are definitely the optimal outcomes, they're not the most memorable....
They only become memorable when they are won through a lot of investigation and searching. If that's the case then my effort should be rewarded.

Define investigation?

I don't want to have to do any thinking to get the best outcomes. If I have to do anything other than talk to everyone with an icon over their head and then choose the responses flagged as the most chivalrous, then it is bad design and not what I want. If the game points me in the right direction for every investigation and properly flags the correct responses, then this is fine. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 27 novembre 2013 - 02:18 .

[Fallstar]

I have no idea how. There is one decision from DAO which I still wonder about from my 'main/canon' playthrough.

The only thing I can say is they need to craft a world and characters which the player cares about enough to appreciate these kinds of decisions.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 27 novembre 2013 - 02:17 .

[Mr.House]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

The problem is making something with a suitable emotional punch that also doesn't feel like you're kicking the player in the nuts or insulting their stupidity. I actually like it when there's a third option for people that want to do so (like the Circle solution for Connor, even though I know a lot of people hate it).

As flogged as it gets, ME3 did this well a couple of times.

I don't, third options like the circle for Connor ruins said event and makes the other choices that where grey cleary the worse choices because there's no draw back to going to the circle.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

The problem is making something with a suitable emotional punch that also doesn't feel like you're kicking the player in the nuts or insulting their stupidity. I actually like it when there's a third option for people that want to do so (like the Circle solution for Connor, even though I know a lot of people hate it).

As flogged as it gets, ME3 did this well a couple of times.

I don't, third options like the circle for Connor ruins said event and makes the other choices that where grey cleary the worse choices because there's no draw back to going to the circle.

While I think it should've been limited to someone who's already cleared the Circle, I don't see why it shouldn't be an option. There's no need to force the player into a lose-lose situation.

[Mr.House]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

The problem is making something with a suitable emotional punch that also doesn't feel like you're kicking the player in the nuts or insulting their stupidity. I actually like it when there's a third option for people that want to do so (like the Circle solution for Connor, even though I know a lot of people hate it).

As flogged as it gets, ME3 did this well a couple of times.

I don't, third options like the circle for Connor ruins said event and makes the other choices that where grey cleary the worse choices because there's no draw back to going to the circle.

While I think it should've been limited to someone who's already cleared the Circle, I don't see why it shouldn't be an option. There's no need to force the player into a lose-lose situation.

You have two choices, kill Connor or have Isolde sacerfice herself, how is that a lose-lose? You save Redcliffe, it just comes at a price. Going to the circle, coming back with mages and NOTHING happended is plain stupid and should have never happen. It destroyes the whole event and was there because Biioware was scared gamers would be too afraid to make a really hard choice.

[Ianamus]

I think the key to a good moral decision is to force the player to decide what will the best of two positive outcomes, not to leave them trying to decide what is the least bad of two negative outcomes.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

The problem is making something with a suitable emotional punch that also doesn't feel like you're kicking the player in the nuts or insulting their stupidity. I actually like it when there's a third option for people that want to do so (like the Circle solution for Connor, even though I know a lot of people hate it).

As flogged as it gets, ME3 did this well a couple of times.

I don't, third options like the circle for Connor ruins said event and makes the other choices that where grey cleary the worse choices because there's no draw back to going to the circle.

While I think it should've been limited to someone who's already cleared the Circle, I don't see why it shouldn't be an option. There's no need to force the player into a lose-lose situation.

You have two choices, kill Connor or have Isolde sacerfice herself, how is that a lose-lose? You save Redcliffe, it just comes at a price. Going to the circle, coming back with mages and NOTHING happended is plain stupid and should have never happen. It destroyes the whole event and was there because Biioware was scared gamers would be too afraid to make a really hard choice.

Except you could, you know, have the option to leave some of your other party members to fend off anything. You might have five people just sitting on their ass in camp while you sail across to the tower.

Besides, you've practially wiped out everything in the area, and you can't just pull bodies out of nowhere. Therefore, making more undead isn't that easy for Connor to do.

[Mr.House]

EJ107 wrote...

I think the key to a good moral decision is to force the player to decide what will the best of two positive outcomes, not to leave them trying to decide what is the least bad of two negative outcomes.

Except with Bioware there is always a best option and that's the issue. There's no point making a choice when there is cleary one choice that is all positive andt he other choice is not.

[Muspade]

I'm just irritated that unless you took the ultimately good option for Connor and Isolde, Alistair would burn your butt upon returning to camp.

Modifié par Muspade, 27 novembre 2013 - 02:25 .

[Lebanese Dude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Define investigation?

I don't want to have to do any thinking to get the best outcomes. If I have to do anything other than talk to everyone with an icon over their head and then choose the responses flagged as the most chivalrous, then it is bad design and not what I want. If the game points me in the right direction for every investigation and properly flags the correct responses, then this is fine. 

Investigation doesn't have to be limited to conversation. The environment, related quests, etc... can all offer tidbits of info that could lead you to the optimal outcome.

I'd rather not be always railroaded towards the optimal outcome, only to always have a less optimal outcome present that is only taken by those who are roleplaying a selfish or lazy character.

I'd say that Dragon Age: Inquisiton has already taken steps with this. In the demo, it is shown that burning the templar escape boats increases the time alotted for saving everyone. This is good design. where investigating the environment can lead to an optimal outcome.

Modifié par Lebdood, 27 novembre 2013 - 02:26 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Mr.House wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

I think the key to a good moral decision is to force the player to decide what will the best of two positive outcomes, not to leave them trying to decide what is the least bad of two negative outcomes.

Except with Bioware there is always a best option and that's the issue. There's no point making a choice when there is cleary one choice that is all positive andt he other choice is not.

I agree. They should just get rid of the choices entirely and give us happy outcomes every time. 

[Mr.House]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

The problem is making something with a suitable emotional punch that also doesn't feel like you're kicking the player in the nuts or insulting their stupidity. I actually like it when there's a third option for people that want to do so (like the Circle solution for Connor, even though I know a lot of people hate it).

As flogged as it gets, ME3 did this well a couple of times.

I don't, third options like the circle for Connor ruins said event and makes the other choices that where grey cleary the worse choices because there's no draw back to going to the circle.

While I think it should've been limited to someone who's already cleared the Circle, I don't see why it shouldn't be an option. There's no need to force the player into a lose-lose situation.

You have two choices, kill Connor or have Isolde sacerfice herself, how is that a lose-lose? You save Redcliffe, it just comes at a price. Going to the circle, coming back with mages and NOTHING happended is plain stupid and should have never happen. It destroyes the whole event and was there because Biioware was scared gamers would be too afraid to make a really hard choice.

Except you could, you know, have the option to leave some of your other party members to fend off anything. You might have five people just sitting on their ass in camp while you sail across to the tower.

Besides, you've practially wiped out everything in the area, and you can't just pull bodies out of nowhere. Therefore, making more undead isn't that easy for Connor to do.

You do know a desire demon can charm people yes? Something that demon inside Connor outright did already?

Also there was no option to leave people at Redcliffe, what you are saying is headcanon and headcanon is useless for something like this. Bioware made a choice with a free ticket that ruined the whole event.

[Mr.House]

Muspade wrote...

I'm just irritated that unless you took the ultimately good option for Connor and Isolde, Alistair would burn your butt upon returning to camp.

I just told him to stuff it then gave him dog bones.

[Muspade]

Works real good, if you're attempting to befriend him on that playthrough.

Ohwell.

Muspade disapproves - 25.

Modifié par Muspade, 27 novembre 2013 - 02:28 .

[Paul E Dangerously]

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

The problem is making something with a suitable emotional punch that also doesn't feel like you're kicking the player in the nuts or insulting their stupidity. I actually like it when there's a third option for people that want to do so (like the Circle solution for Connor, even though I know a lot of people hate it).

As flogged as it gets, ME3 did this well a couple of times.

I don't, third options like the circle for Connor ruins said event and makes the other choices that where grey cleary the worse choices because there's no draw back to going to the circle.

While I think it should've been limited to someone who's already cleared the Circle, I don't see why it shouldn't be an option. There's no need to force the player into a lose-lose situation.

You have two choices, kill Connor or have Isolde sacerfice herself, how is that a lose-lose? You save Redcliffe, it just comes at a price. Going to the circle, coming back with mages and NOTHING happended is plain stupid and should have never happen. It destroyes the whole event and was there because Biioware was scared gamers would be too afraid to make a really hard choice.

Except you could, you know, have the option to leave some of your other party members to fend off anything. You might have five people just sitting on their ass in camp while you sail across to the tower.

Besides, you've practially wiped out everything in the area, and you can't just pull bodies out of nowhere. Therefore, making more undead isn't that easy for Connor to do.

You do know a desire demon can charm people yes? Something that demon inside Connor outright did already?

Also there was no option to leave people at Redcliffe, what you are saying is headcanon and headcanon is useless for something like this. Bioware made a choice with a free ticket that ruined the whole event.

Which is why I say "could", it's something that makes sense in that situation that would've eliminated a plothole or two. These later Bioware RPGs where you just have a gaggle of NPCs sitting around waiting for you in whatever base camp/ship/etc gets kind of silly at times.

[Fast Jimmy]

EJ107 wrote...

I think the key to a good moral decision is to force the player to decide what will the best of two positive outcomes, not to leave them trying to decide what is the least bad of two negative outcomes.

Is there any difference? 

An option that doesn't let me be a hero is a game that won't entertain me, in the least. 

[Lebanese Dude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

I think the key to a good moral decision is to force the player to decide what will the best of two positive outcomes, not to leave them trying to decide what is the least bad of two negative outcomes.

Is there any difference? 

An option that doesn't let me be a hero is a game that won't entertain me, in the least. 

From your comments, I gather you always want to be a winner.

I dare assume you didn't enjoy DA2 in the slightest then

[Muspade]

He is being sarcastic, me'thinks.

[Ieldra]

In Exile wrote...
One tradition that DA:O/ME really kicked off the ground for Bioware was the idea of difficult, grey moral choices. Not necessarily in execution - I would argue that most of their choice are still pretty black/white - but at least in intention. It became a design philosophy to try and have moral quandries.

Given that we've seen that DA:I will feature this type of choice - exemplified in the Keep vs. Village choice in the video (with the sub issue of what to do about the injured troops) - I thought it would be interesting to discuss structurally what makes a choice difficult and how a choice like that should work in the series. 

My favourite choice in DA - as a difficult one - is the Anvil of the Void. It's absolutely a horiffic thing that's done to dwarves to make them golems. That they are volunteers - if they actually know what sacrifice they're making - makes it mildly palpable, but the things they experience are still horrid. Still, extinction is the looming threat. I thought it was a very interesting choice. To me, that's the sort of ends-justifies-the-means type of choice that I think we should see more of, rather than things like the werewolves vs. Dalish choices (which, IMO, was morally wonky in how the Warden could pitch it and had all sorts of holes in terms of how it would even work out with the coalition you were building even *if* werewolves were somehow better than elves as troops). 

Thoughts? 

The choice about the Anvil was my most favorite one as well. I don't see any hint that the volunteers experience something horrible though, the possible evil all lies in the possibility of using it on non-volunteers. 

Another good one was Harrowmont vs. Bhelen. A well-meaning and law-abiding traditionalist vs. a tyrannical revolutionary in a society which would profit from that revolution, but perhaps not from the tyranny, especially if you saved the Anvil.

In both cases, the pragmatic decision has its clear benefits but also comes at a clear cost. Both the good and the bad manifests over the good and bad of the principled decision, so there is a balance in the end and no option has more thematic weight as being the clearly better one.

That's the kind of decision I want to see more of. They're also *naturally* two-pronged as opposed to artificially two-pronged. You must make a choice between Bhelen and Harrowmont because you need a king, and you either destroy or save the Anvil. There is either naturally no third option or you couldn't reasonably take it given your goals, as opposed to Meredith/Orsino, where just walking away is the most attractive option for some Hawkes.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 novembre 2013 - 02:31 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

The problem is making something with a suitable emotional punch that also doesn't feel like you're kicking the player in the nuts or insulting their stupidity. I actually like it when there's a third option for people that want to do so (like the Circle solution for Connor, even though I know a lot of people hate it).

As flogged as it gets, ME3 did this well a couple of times.

I don't, third options like the circle for Connor ruins said event and makes the other choices that where grey clearly the worse choices because there's no draw back to going to the circle.

I don't agree the first two choices are easy and the last choice was clearly supposed to be harder because you needed the circle (whether it was hard enough is a different discussion) I think this is best way to resolve issues but the 3rd way should always be the harder and longer way to do it. I hate when you are restricted to two morally grey choices life doesn't work like that. If you are willing to put the time in you should be fit to get an optimal resolution.