43 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Almost three years ago, after DA2 came out, I posted a thread about the feeling of increasing constraint I got from Bioware games since Mass Effect 1. It was about the things we lost the ability to do between ME1 and DA2, and in 2012 ME3 added significantly to the trend.

Compared, to ME1....
...with DAO we lost the ability to explore sidequest locations at will after the quest playing out there was done.
...with ME2 we lost the ability to explore any location but the hubs at will, making the world appear small and fragmented. We also lost the ability to change the style of our companions' appearance.
...with DA2 we lost the ability to talk with our companions at any time.
...and lastly, with ME3 we lost the ability to deny our protagonist character traits we didn't like (namely, stupidity and guilt). We also lost the ability to be emotionally detached and neutral about many things.

The significant observation here is that these restrictions piled up on one another as each game took up the restrictions added by its predecessors in the development history and then added its own on top, and that the set of them together has a much greater effect on how the game feels to players than any single one. I think ME3 is the current culmination of a trend that increasingly doesn't let players act, but lets games act upon them instead. Increasingly, developers didn't think about what the player might want to do rather than what they wanted the player to do, which is, in my point of view, anathema to roleplaying.

Meanwhile, Mark Darrah said in one of the first interviews about DAI that they have a new design philosophy and want to give the players more freedom. That sounds very good. It is what I wanted to hear for a number of years. However, the ME team also said that ME3 would be more our story than ever before, and while technically that wasn't all wrong, they forgot to mention that our protagonist wouldn't be ours any more.

So, what do you think? Which kind of restriction would bother you most in DAI, and where do you think the DA team can do most to recreate a feeling that you're free to act in the game within constraints set only by major plot considerations?

For me, it's all of the above:

(1) Not being forced to express certain character traits with my protagonist. That should really be a given, and that ME3 did this comes across as some kind of "developers' original sin" to me.
(2) Talk to my companions at any time. It doesn't really matter if I can exhaust the options currently available fast or not. It only matters that there are some things I can talk about at any time, even if I only get a repeat of options after a while.
(3) Explore the locations of the game world freely after having unlocked them. It doesn't matter if there are events taking place there or not after the main plot has passed them. Unless main plot developments closed them off (as in being destroyed) they should remain accessible. 
(4) Affect the style of my companions' oufits. I hate mage robes, for instance. Nobody with a jot of sense would wear those while traveling the countryside occasionally fighting stuff.

As usual, with things like (2) and (3) the knowledge that you could do those things if you wanted is as important, maybe even more so, as actually doing them. For instance, it doesn't matter that there aren't any events scheduled for an area after a time, it only matters that the world still exists to be explored.

Any others?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 décembre 2013 - 12:34 .

[David7204]

(1) The player character always has defined traits and always will.
(2) I really don't see much point at all in this.
(3) I really don't see much point at all in this. In fact, thinking about it, I even dislike it.
(4) It's pretty much already been made clear this isn't happening. I also dislike this idea.

So no. None of these suggestions sound good at all.

Modifié par David7204, 09 décembre 2013 - 10:33 .

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

 I think ME3 is the current culmination of a trend that increasingly doesn't let players act, but lets games act upon them instead. Increasingly, developers didn't think about what the player might want to do rather than what they wanted the player to do, which is, in my point of view, anathema to roleplaying.

1) Yep above is my prime concern. I want to be able to express my own characterisation not be watching a movie of a defined version of that character they want him/her to be. ME3 was a red rag to my bull in terms of spells of ripping away the character i'd developed and the ability than letting me express who he was, told me instead who they'd decided Shep was.

2) Talking to companions at any time. I'd like to be able to talk to them at any time but i'd like their conversations gated by events to spread them out.

3/4) I'm less bothered by 3 & 4. I like companions having their own distinct appearances.

[The Elder King]

2) is kind of confirmed. You can talk with your companion when you want in safe locations. And no dialogues (outside on romance) will be locked based on approval. Instead, the level of approval will change how the dialogues go.
I think 3) is going to happen, considering the semi-open world nature of the game. You can explore the cave you found in Crestwood when you want.
As for 1), I think they'll not go ME3 route, and DA2 had little of it other than the dominant tone, which isn't going to be present (plus, they created and additional wheel to let the players express feelings); for 4) we know that mages can wear armour, so i think you could build up Vivienne or the other mage companions to have either light armour or heavy armour. And probably there'll some mage equipment that'll be pants instead of robes.
Though I really have no clue how they'll look on them.

Modifié par hhh89, 09 décembre 2013 - 11:09 .

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...
(1) The player character always has defined traits and always will.

Ideally, in a roleplaying game all character traits are created by the player. While that's not always feasible in a video game, any protagonist's predefined traits should be limited to those needed to fulfil their mission. Basically, all you really need is a certain kind of drivenness (the reason why you're driven can be left to our imaginaion) and an unwillingness to give up. Most notably, stupidity and guilt complexes are not on the list.

(2) I really don't see much point at all in this.
(3) I really don't see much point at all in this. In fact, thinking about it, I even dislike it.

There may not be a point to visiting locations of the game world at any time, but there is very much a point to the ability to do so nonetheless, to the knowledge that you could do so if you wanted. It makes the world feel bigger, and the knowledge that you could talk to your companions makes the world feel more alive.

(4) It's pretty much already been made clear this isn't happening. I also dislike this idea.

Actually, they said they're planning for different options for companions' outfits, and those would be more than a retexture - with the caveat that they didn't know how much of it they'd be able to implement, but the concept art they showed some time ago looked very impressive.

So no. None of these suggestions sound good at all.

For people not interested in player agency they wouldn't, of course.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 décembre 2013 - 11:14 .

[Ieldra]

hhh89 wrote...
2) is kind of confirmed. You can talk with your companion when you want in safe locations. And no dialogues (outside on romance) will be locked based on approval. Instead, the level of approval will change how the dialogues go.

I guess "whenever I want in safe locations" is good enough for me. I liked that I could talk anywhere at all outside of combat in DAO. I rarely used that feature though, and if there's nothing situation-dependent the companions could add I wouldn't miss very much.

I think 3) is going to happen, considering the semi-open world nature of the game. You can explore the cave you found in Crestwood when you want.

That the current area will be available is a given. The rather more interesting question is this: after the plot has moved on from the Western Approach (or any other location), will I be able to travel back there and explore some more? Like I always could go back to the Brecilian Ruins in DAO after I was finished with "Nature of the Beast"?

As for 1), I think they'll not go ME3 route, and DA2 had little of it other than the dominant tone, which isn't going to be present (plus, they created and additional wheel to let the players express feelings);

I think so, too. Hawke skirted the "dangerous" area in the scene after Leandra's death - I get the vibe the developers wanted Hawke to feel its their fault - but you could opt out of it, and David Gaider and Allan Schumacher have both shown that they're aware of the pitfalls here, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

for 4) we know that mages can wear armour, so i think you could build up Vivienne or the other mage companions to have either light armour or heavy armour. And probably there'll some mage equipment that'll be pants instead of robes. Though I really have no clue how they'll look on them.

We know that? Do you have a source? Or are you referring to the implicit lore set by DAO's ability-based restrictions, resulting in a mage's ability to wear armor if they fulfilled the DEX/STR requirements? DA2 had gameplay/lore segregation instead.

[TurretSyndrome]

I'll add to this, but these are companion restrictions.

Neutrality was absolutely gone from DA 2, and it also extends to companions. You could have a companion who loves you or hates you, but never one who has spent a long time with you but only slightly tilts in one direction or another. 

You could have a companion who would argue with you only 50% of the time(so 0 bonus to F/R), and one who would argue with you 100% of the time(full rival), but the one that will leave/will be impossible to persuade will be the first one, the result of the restriction caused by the Friendship/Rivalry system in the game.

We lost the the ability to face proper harsher consequences for our actions. After DA:O, gone are the days when your companions would leave you because of the choices you make. "She turns on me because of a stupid urn, and I don't want that to happen ever again" type of thinking landed us with, again, the Friendship/Rivalry system which was a not-so-oblivious leash on the necks of our companions. They can hate you for killing their mothers, but will follow you around doing favors for you for a decade, nevertheless.

Then comes the relationship restriction(on the companion side). No longer the companions can have their own sexual orientations or gender preferences. Just in the other thread I was arguing with someone that Alistair being a heterosexual is in the right. Players DO NOT get to decide the traits of companions, as companions are characters with their own personalities, just as they can't control what classes they belong to, or what backgrounds they are from, where they were born etc. These are all the constraints I have seen in Bioware games so far, and have a problem with.

DA 2 swamped so many things like these that I loved and respected DA:O for. Bioware needs to stop catering to the casual crowd who want to be praised but not yelled at, who want gifts but not curses, who want approval but never a betrayal, and make a real choice ~ consequence game.

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 09 décembre 2013 - 11:57 .

[The Elder King]

It was stated at PAX. LadyInsanity talked about it here (http://ladyinsanity....wn-day-1-friday
Though I don't recall if they stated that companions could too. That why I said 'I think' for companions.
As for exploration. In the demo the Inquisitor returns to Crestwood after having traveled in a different area. While this isn't exact a confirmation, I don't see why they'd locked down areas if main plot is finished in that area (though it should be noted that for all we know the main plot is already finished in Crestwood. The quest looked to me like a side-quest). Plus there's a keep here, and I doubt they'll lock down area when you might have things to do.

[Seagloom]

On the subject of #1, I think that has been an issue for as long as graphics were sophisticated enough to show protagonists conveying emotion. This goes as far back as Jade Empire where the spirit monk showed emotion in cut scenes that may not have been in accordance with player expectations. ME took it a step further by introducing the not always clear dialogue wheel shorthand, and DAO had several moments were the Warden had scripted expressions. Despite all the flak the Warden gets for being an emotionless rock, it happened several times.

This only really worked in older games such as Baldur's Gate because there was no voice or clear visuals of faces. You could imagine how your character reacted, physically and mentally, after picking a line. And given how many of those lines led to the same or similar NPC responses, it rarely came across as jarring.

The further BioWare skips down this cinematic approach to storytelling road, the more likely it is for player agency in that area to diminish.

Do I think that's a bad thing? Not really. But then, it's been a very long time since I've seen any RPG protagonist as truly being mine. For me it's closer to an director/actor relationship. As an actor I may have some latitude in my portrayal of the protagonist. However, bringing the script to life is all the director's responsibility. They will reign me in as needed to suit their overall vision of what the experience should be. It's ultimately their decision. There is no escaping that.

[Ieldra]

TurretSyndrome wrote...
I'll add to this, but these are companion restrictions.

Neutrality was absolutely gone from DA 2, and it also extends to companions. You could have a companion who loves you or hates you, but never one who has spent a long time with you but only slightly tilts in one direction or another. 

You could have a companion who would argue with you only 50% of the time(so 0 bonus to F/R), and one who would argue with you 100% of the time(full rival), but the one that will leave/will be impossible to persuade will be the first one, the result of the restriction caused by the Friendship/Rivalry system in the game.

We lost the the ability to face proper harsher consequences for our actions. After DA:O, gone are the days when your companions would leave you because of the choices you make. "She turns on me because of a stupid urn, and I don't want that to happen ever again" type of thinking landed us with, again, the Friendship/Rivalry system which was a not-so-oblivious leash on the necks of our companions. They can hate you for killing their mothers, but will follow you around doing favors for you for a decade, nevertheless.

Did people really complain about that Leliana didn't go along with destroying the sacred ashes? Most people I've heard only complained that her death was retconned.

Having said that, I agree with you that companions' characterization shouldn't be compromised by the player's inability to deal with rejection. This *can* be believable character development, but for instance, a high-rivalry Fenris shouldn't go along with defending the mages in DA2. On the other hand, the game doesn't need to be unduly harsh with it, making things end in a fight to the death. The companion could just leave.  

Then comes the relationship restriction(on the companion side). No longer the companions can have their own sexual orientations or gender preferences. Just in the other thread I was arguing with someone that Alistair being a heterosexual is in the right. Players DO NOT get to decide the traits of companions, as companions are characters with their own personalities, just as they can't control what classes they belong to, or what backgrounds they are from, where they were born etc.

While I agree with you, the issue is a little more complex than that, and it's one I do not want to get into in this thread, because it tends to dominate debate wherever it appears.

Since this thread is dealing with restrictions and their removal: do you see the absence of negative consequences as a restriction? I could understand that, since it means that certain kinds of stories can never be told through the medium of the game, but it's not the kind of restriction I was aiming at with this thread.

[Hellion Rex]

I definitely agree with your 2, 3, and 4, Ieldra. Especially your number 2.

Edit: You are really cranking out some good topics, Ieldra.

Modifié par eluvianix, 09 décembre 2013 - 12:21 .

[Ieldra]

eluvianix wrote...
I definitely agree with your 2, 3, and 4, Ieldra. Especially your number 2.

Edit: You are really cranking out some good topics, Ieldra.

You don't agree with (1)? Because I consider that absolutely essential. Shepard's canonical stupidity and their canonical guilt complex over people they couldn't have done anything to save did more to sour me towards ME3 than anything else. While I think the other three aspects are important for how the game world feels to me, they pale into insignificance in comparison. Not that I'm all that worried about DAI going there, but the inability to avoid expressing certain character-defining emotions is the most important constraint in the list. DA2 had Hawke's reaction to Leandra's death, but that's so commonplace it isn't character-defining, and even there we could influence things somewhat.

BTW: Thank you

[TurretSyndrome]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Since this thread is dealing with restrictions and their removal: do you see the absence of negative consequences as a restriction? I could understand that, since it means that certain kinds of stories can never be told through the medium of the game, but it's not the kind of restriction I was aiming at with this thread.

Well, I was replying to this specifically: "So, what do you think? Which kind of restriction would bother you most in DAI, and where do you think the DA team can do most to recreate a feeling that you're free to act in the game within constraints set only by major plot considerations? "

And yes, I do consider the lack of appropriate negative consequences as a constraint that I feel needs to be addressed in Inquisition and any future games. 

About Leliana: Yes, I have seen enough comments about how they didn't like companions especially Leliana to turn against them for destroying the urn, justifying the complaint by saying that "it's not a big deal" or something that doesn't need such a drastic action. I was annoyed of seeing people who don't want to lose companions even if it is in response to their psychotic modd swings. Anyway, as you said, let's not derail your thread and keep to the topic.

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 09 décembre 2013 - 12:38 .

[Hellion Rex]

Ieldra2 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
I definitely agree with your 2, 3, and 4, Ieldra. Especially your number 2.

Edit: You are really cranking out some good topics, Ieldra.

You don't agree with (1)? Because I consider that absolutely essential. Shepard's canonical stupidity and their canonical guilt complex over people they couldn't have done anything to save did more to sour me towards ME3 than anything else. While I think the other three aspects are important for how the game world feels to me, they pale into insignificance in comparison. Not that I'm all that worried about DAI going there, but the inability to avoid expressing certain character-defining emotions is the most important constraint in the list. DA2 had Hawke's reaction to Leandra's death, but that's so commonplace it isn't character-defining, and even there we could influence things somewhat.

BTW: Thank you

I left out number 1 because I figured that it was obvious as to its importance.

[Ieldra]

eluvianix wrote...
I left out number 1 because I figured that it was obvious as to its importance.

Ah....well, to you and me it is. David doesn't appear to think so... not that I think I could convince him of the entertainment value of roleplaying. 

[Steelcan]

I can live with losing access to already covered ground and not being able to dress up the companions. I think that they should have a set look that can be upgraded, but I don't particularly like having to give my companions clothing that either just isn't practical IMO or is just plain ugly.

Talking to the companions at any time I'm a bit hazy on... In ME3 I find myself going around the ship after every mission to hear what they had to say. And overall they all have a few "big" conversations and they all have their banter with other squadmates and I was fine with that. It avoided the infamous "Can it wait...." by just cutting out the option to start a conversation where you were only going to hear something you already have. The same thing happened in DA:O you'd go half the game without anything new to say to your companions.

However I completely agree with you on the subject of PC control over emotion. ME3 was horrible at this, DA2 also fairly bad. ME1 also was bad in this regard since many of the dialogue "options" were just the same line with three different slots to choose it from. ME2 and DA:O had it right for me. In ME2 and DA:O you could essentially decide your own motivation and decide who you got along with. The other games lack this sorely.

[Br3admax]

What's wrong, Steel? You don't like;

:| Let's save the people, for honor and justice!
XD Hey let's go save the people, no one else will. They can't even tie their shoes.
:[U> Save the people, or else!

[Hellion Rex]

Ieldra2 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
I left out number 1 because I figured that it was obvious as to its importance.

Ah....well, to you and me it is. David doesn't appear to think so... not that I think I could convince him of the entertainment value of roleplaying. 

David rarely seems to listen to anyone but himself.

[Silcron]

While I agree with 1 I can see it not happening. Sometimes for the sake of the plot the PC must care for something, now since it's an rpg I think that if we have to be forced to care for something at least we have options. We are simpathetic to some people and want to help. Why not? Could be fun. Or because it can further our own agenda could be examples of options, possibly in a dialogue for our character to care in one situation. You can force us to care, but please give us options as to why.

Just imagine the Thessia mission in ME3. We would have always do it but in the conversations with the councilors we can show that Shepard goes for different reasons and is even simpathetic or not. We would still be forced to go, we could not roleplay that our character just doesn't care and is not going to waste time or riks himself for it, but we could choose why we go.

As per two I get what you mean. Do it KotOR style, where meaningfull conversations where one timers but you could always ask them what htey tought about the planet they were in, or trigger cutscenes with Bastila. I like the idea tbh, more than click on them and get a phrase out as if he was any other npc around.

In a setting like in ME it really doesn't bother me that much. I'd still like to have worlds to go through like in ME1, but if I don't get to visit a space station that had a rogue AI (ME2) it's no big deal to me. Since we're talking DA:I I think this will happen. It's going to be a sort of open world game, having to capture keeps and such, so being able to visit secondary mission areas is kind of a given in this game, just take into consideration what you said about zones being closed off.

Yes and if I remember correctly they've already said we'll go back to DA:O style in that. Probably with restrictions. Mage does not have heavy armor perk so he can't wear it but maybe he can wear light leather armor.

Also I think you may be interested in this: http://www.gameinformer.com/p/dai.aspx specially on the exploring the world video, since that pretty much confirms your suggestion number 3 as I pointed out before.

Modifié par Silcron, 09 décembre 2013 - 03:13 .

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Compared, to ME1....
...with DAO we lost the ability to explore sidequest locations at will after the quest playing out there was done.
...with ME2 we lost the ability to explore any location but the hubs at will, making the world appear small and fragmented. We also lost the ability to change the style of our companions' appearance.
...with DA2 we lost the ability to talk with our companions at any time.
...and lastly, with ME3 we lost the ability to deny our protagonist character traits we didn't like (namely, stupidity and guilt). We also lost the ability to be emotionally detached and neutral about many things.

There are a couple of problems with thinking of this as a linear process. ME2 granted a freedom not present in ME1 -the freedom to complete quests after the conclusion of the main plot. ME3 took that freedom away, but the ME3 plot required this while ME1's did not. ME1 didn't really have the ability to talk to companions at any time; the interface functioned, but most of the time they had nothing to say except "ready to move out" or some such. Unless that's ypur point -we can only talk to them when they have something to say?

And I'm not sure your ME3 problems are a good conceptual fit here. The rest of the issues seem to be about Bio controlling pacing, but the ME3 issues are about forced emotional content and, in the case of stupidity, outright bad writing.

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

So, what do you think? Which kind of restriction would bother you most in DAI, and where do you think the DA team can do most to recreate a feeling that you're free to act in the game within constraints set only by major plot considerations?

For me, it's all of the above:

(1) Not being forced to express certain character traits with my protagonist. That should really be a given, and that ME3 did this comes across as some kind of "developers' original sin" to me.

Oh, Maker THIS!!!  It was such a rookie mistake in ME3. 

(2) Talk to my companions at any time. It doesn't really matter if I can exhaust the options currently available fast or not. It only matters that there are some things I can talk about at any time, even if I only get a repeat of options after a while.

Also approve.  yeah it's not exactly common, even in Bioware games but it's enjoyable

(3) Explore the locations of the game world freely after having unlocked them. It doesn't matter if there are events taking place there or not after the main plot has passed them. Unless main plot developments closed them off (as in being destroyed) they should remain accessible. 

Given the emphasis on exploration we've been hearing, I suspect this will not be a problem in DAI

(4) Affect the style of my companions' oufits. I hate mage robes, for instance. Nobody with a jot of sense would wear those while traveling the countryside occasionally fighting stuff.

This is right behind forced protagonist traits for me.  I can appreciate characters having a particular "theme" but I would like to have some sort of range of looks within that theme.  I hate it when style trumps substance and there's nothing I can do about it.

[Ieldra]

Silcron wrote...
While I agree with 1 I can see it not happening. Sometimes for the sake of the plot the PC must care for something, now since it's an rpg I think that if we have to be forced to care for something at least we have options. We are simpathetic to some people and want to help. Why not? Could be fun. Or because it can further our own agenda could be examples of options, possibly in a dialogue for our character to care in one situation. You can force us to care, but please give us options as to why.

My suggestion was actually not to make nothing canonical, but only those things required for the protagonist to work as the protagonist, and not more. The Warden must've had a reason not to just walk away after all. That's fine with me, as long as - as you say - the game doesn't force a specific reason on me about why I don't walk away. ME3 went much further than that in its forced characterization, though in case of the stupidity it might've been just bad writing. I find this level of bad writing hard to imagine though. I wonder what's going on in the head of a writer who comes up with the likes of ME3's prologue.

Just imagine the Thessia mission in ME3. We would have always do it but in the conversations with the councilors we can show that Shepard goes for different reasons and is even simpathetic or not. We would still be forced to go, we could not roleplay that our character just doesn't care and is not going to waste time or riks himself for it, but we could choose why we go.

No argument from me here. See above.

In a setting like in ME it really doesn't bother me that much. I'd still like to have worlds to go through like in ME1, but if I don't get to visit a space station that had a rogue AI (ME2) it's no big deal to me. Since we're talking DA:I I think this will happen. It's going to be a sort of open world game, having to capture keeps and such, so being able to visit secondary mission areas is kind of a given in this game, just take into consideration what you said about zones being closed off.

This, too, I mentioned: I'm ok with things being closed off for plot reasons, as in the occasional (!) station being destroyed or cave caved-in. Places that still exist and can be accessed in should remain accessible though. The rule should be accessible unless prevented by the plot, rather than inaccessible unless required by the plot.

Yes and if I remember correctly they've already said we'll go back to DA:O style in that. Probably with restrictions. Mage does not have heavy armor perk so he can't wear it but maybe he can wear light leather armor.

That was for the PC, which I appreciate. My point from the old thread (link in the OP) was about companions and artistic style, and how if I don't like the style of some outfit I won't take the companion with me regardless of how useful they are. So I find not just different outfits important (ME3 has those) but different outfits with different styles, such as "mage robe" vs. "mage light armor".
 

Also I think you may be interested in this: http://www.gameinformer.com/p/dai.aspx specially on the exploring the world video, since that pretty much confirms your suggestion number 3 as I pointed out before.

I know this. I'm not really worried about this point. I just mentioned it for completeness' sake since it was one of those points contributing to the feeling of increasing constraint in Bioware's ME and DA titles so far.

[Silcron]

I agree with you completely here Ieldra, but I must be honest. I didn't read anything in the OP apart form the suggestions and worked from there. So thank you for clearly readying my whole post (and sorry about that).

[Ieldra]

Silcron wrote...
I agree with you completely here Ieldra, but I must be honest. I didn't read anything in the OP apart form the suggestions and worked from there. So thank you for clearly readying my whole post (and sorry about that).

*chuckles*
No problem. Can't say this never happened to me. BTW may I mention I like your sig?

[Silcron]

Thank you, it's one of my favourite quotes. Oddly enough I got to know it thanks to a trailer to Uncharted 3, but it's an actual quote from him, not made up for the trailer (I did some research, mainly wiki quotes )