655 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

Choices carrying over to sequels is so overrated I wish Bioware never even thought of it.

[CitizenThom]

It would be nice if any retconning were dressed up a tad. I think the Rachni Queen in ME3 was a little underdressed (if you kill her in ME1, they magically find another Rachni Queen in ME3). I didn't experience a lot of retconning in DA2 though... my only concern in DA3, is that it might take on some of the lesser qualities of ME3...which was 95% great game, but 5% who-the-expletive-wrote-this-expletive.

Modifié par CitizenThom, 25 décembre 2013 - 10:07 .

[Meltemph]

slimgrin wrote...

Choices carrying over to sequels is so overrated I wish Bioware never even thought of it.

Pretty much agree.  Just make all our choices personal and not world changing, so it is easier to transfer decisions or just dont let us transfer choices, imo.  How we get to the destination, let us choose that, imo, but no need to change the face of thedas with 1 decision, which makes it impossible to carry over because of so many variables.  Setting integrity, to me, though is a very big deal with these kind of games.  

[spirosz]

Yep, I'm fine with a game fiddling with the concept, but basing your PR and then blaming the fans for having too much of an expectation is a bit... sketchy. Sure, fans do have too high of expectations for certain things, I know I did - but we're not the only ones at fault for expecting so much when you're advertising these "epic" and "awesome" moments. The original Fallout had better consequences and it was never advertised as a game to deliver any such thing.

The thing is too, one of ME's first advertisements was exploring the idea of ignoring a planet, I forgot if it was Noveria or some other place, but that is different than having Jack become a softer person, per say and I know not every element will come into play and I shouldn't expect it to, but there is a different between the two. My Shepard did change Jack and did have an influences on his crew, the more personal choices did have consequences, but I was expecting more than that - since those become irrelevant to the story that is being unfolded.

Modifié par spirosz, 25 décembre 2013 - 10:16 .

[slimgrin]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Choices carrying over to sequels is so overrated I wish Bioware never even thought of it.

Really, all of this could have been avoided if they didn't put so much emphasis on their choices. They need to stop with the whole "your choices matter" thing. It just creates too much expectations.

Both Bioware and CDPR have touted this quality in games to a fault. I actually agree with Gaider for once. Said choices should impact the game they are made in, and not the next. Only minor stuff should carry over, or else the writers have to jump through hoops to make choices 'matter' in a sequel while catering to newcomers. It's a colossal waste of effort, but fans cry foul if they don't do this now.

Modifié par slimgrin, 25 décembre 2013 - 10:19 .

[Toasted Llama]

They should seriously establish some sort of canon that they can fall back to at some point. Even if it's only to say "Sorry guys, but the amount of decisions you can make and have to be carried over is too great, we will have to make a reset back to our own canon." I would not be offended at all and I most certainly would not think that it is "bad" on Bioware's behalf. Decisions are definitely fun and it is great to shape a game to your own desires, but the amount of "alternate universes" it creates is far too much to properly handle. At least, with the technology we have nowadays it's simply too much work. You can't blame Bioware to retcon things every now and then.

After all, Origins started with an established canon and nobody complained about that.

Again, I say Bioware should take note of Quantic Dream; you have a couple of decisions, not too many major ones, different endings yet none of the decisions carry over.

[spirosz]

I'm fine with a canon as well, if it helps deliver a more quality story experience.

[Meltemph]

spirosz wrote...

Yep, I'm fine with a game fiddling with the concept, but basing your PR and then blaming the fans for having too much of an expectation is a bit... sketchy. Sure, fans do have too high of expectations for certain things, I know I did - but we're not the only ones at fault for expecting so much when you're advertising these "epic" and "awesome" moments. The original Fallout had better consequences and it was never advertised as a game to deliver any such thing.

The thing is too, one of ME's first advertisements was exploring the idea of ignoring a planet, I forgot if it was Noveria or some other place, but that is different than having Jack become a softer person, per say and I know not every element will come into play and I shouldn't expect it to, but there is a different between the two. My Shepard did change Jack and did have an influences on his crew, the more personal choices did have consequences, but I was expecting more than that - since those become irrelevant to the story that is being unfolded.

Wait, so you want setting changing decisions(multiple) in a game, and you want them to carry over?  How do you expect that to happen, unless we have like, 15 hour or less campaigns with crapton of endings/variables?  Fallout had a bunch of decisions, but very few of them actually impacted the world, and Fallout 2 didnt care much at all for what you did in 1.  Setting changing choices, imo, are bad for games if they are more then stand alones, and I have yet to see a good example of this happening since the inclusion of voice acted games.

[AresKeith]

slimgrin wrote...

Choices carrying over to sequels is so overrated I wish Bioware never even thought of it.

That isn't really a problem, the problem with that is Bioware creating too many variables with the amount of choices in their games

[Meltemph]

slimgrin wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Choices carrying over to sequels is so overrated I wish Bioware never even thought of it.

Really, all of this could have been avoided if they didn't put so much emphasis on their choices. They need to stop with the whole "your choices matter" thing. It just creates too much expectations.

Both Bioware and CDPR have touted this quality in games to a fault. I actually agree with Gaider for once. Said choices should impact the game they are made in, and not the next. Only minor stuff should carry over, or else the writers have to jump through hoops to make choices 'matter' in a sequel while catering to newcomers. It's a colossal waste of effort, but fans cry foul if they don't do this now.

Why not just give us choices that effect the player personally, and not give us all these setting changing choice events?  That way the choices can be transfered, assuming you are the same character, and if not, the integrity of the game you played and the setting they created stays intact.

[spirosz]

Meltemph wrote...
Wait, so you want setting changing decisions(multiple) in a game, and you want them to carry over?  

Not necessarily, no.  But I guess what I (which can be subjectivie) consider a major decision in a previous game seeming like it will have a profound effect on the story for the next title, I would expect it to play a role that is more than just "we'll have this in for the sake of it" so we don't exclude other players.  

[AresKeith]

AresKeith wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Choices carrying over to sequels is so overrated I wish Bioware never even thought of it.

That isn't really a problem, the problem with that is Bioware creating too many variables with the amount of choices in their games

Also trying to give players an equal experience because of a choice they made doesn't help either because it makes pervious choices irrelevent: ME3 Rachni

[slimgrin]

Meltemph wrote...

Why not just give us choices that effect the player personally, and not give us all these setting changing choice events?  That way the choices can be transfered, assuming you are the same character, and if not, the integrity of the game you played and the setting they created stays intact.

A good RPG has both. If anything should carry over it's the personal choices affecting the PC. Major narrative branching should be entirely in the writer's hands, not the players.   

Modifié par slimgrin, 25 décembre 2013 - 10:32 .

[Meltemph]

spirosz wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
Wait, so you want setting changing decisions(multiple) in a game, and you want them to carry over?  

Not necessarily, no.  But I guess what I (which can be subjectivie) consider a major decision in a previous game seeming like it will have a profound effect on the story for the next title, I would expect it to play a role that is more than just "we'll have this in for the sake of it" so we don't exclude other players.  

Well that I somewhat agree with but that is why I dont think those types of  choices, that add too many variables, is a good idea.  It sets expectations on its own, even if they didnt advertise it.  I've never, personally, even understood why they wanted to give us those choices...  Also I think the story suffers for it, as well.

[spirosz]

slimgrin wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Why not just give us choices that effect the player personally, and not give us all these setting changing choice events?  That way the choices can be transfered, assuming you are the same character, and if not, the integrity of the game you played and the setting they created stays intact.

A good RPG has both. If anything should carry over it's the personal choices affecting the PC. Major narrative branching should be entirely in the writer's hands, not the players.   

Yep. 

[Meltemph]

slimgrin wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Why not just give us choices that effect the player personally, and not give us all these setting changing choice events?  That way the choices can be transfered, assuming you are the same character, and if not, the integrity of the game you played and the setting they created stays intact.

A good RPG has both. If anything should carry over it's the personal choices affecting the PC. Major narrative branching should be entirely in the writer's hands, not the players.   

I disagree,(that both are good) I think even good RPG's if they took out setting altering changes would be even better, story wise.  You can design a game that gives you multiple paths that all lead to the same destination, that doesnt make 5 different versions of a setting that look very different from one another.  The character specific choices are always the best ones, and the most rewarding, while at the same time not effecting the integrity of the setting.  

Choosing who is king of the dwarves is a worthless decisions, that would have been better served where making that choice would have effected the PC much more, instead of effecting Orzammar.  Would have been awesome, imo, if who you supported would have instead created an entire different way you had to handle that whole area vs making such a change to dwarf society.

In every choice that effected the setting in a major way, imo, would have been better if it effected the character instead of the setting, even more.  I can't even think of a single setting changing choice that I would rather have, vs making those same choices just impact the PC much more.

Modifié par Meltemph, 25 décembre 2013 - 10:39 .

[Afro_Explosion]

AresKeith wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Choices carrying over to sequels is so overrated I wish Bioware never even thought of it.

That isn't really a problem, the problem with that is Bioware creating too many variables with the amount of choices in their games

What about the players expecting every random quest and character to have and influence somewhere down the line.

[slimgrin]

Meltemph wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Why not just give us choices that effect the player personally, and not give us all these setting changing choice events?  That way the choices can be transfered, assuming you are the same character, and if not, the integrity of the game you played and the setting they created stays intact.

A good RPG has both. If anything should carry over it's the personal choices affecting the PC. Major narrative branching should be entirely in the writer's hands, not the players.   

I disagree,(that both are good) I think even good RPG's if they took out setting altering changes would be even better, story wise.  You can design a game that gives you multiple paths that all lead to the same destination, that doesnt make 5 different versions of a setting that look very different from one another.  The character specific choices are always the best ones, and the most rewarding, while at the same time not effecting the integrity of the setting.  

Choosing who is king of the dwarves is a worthless decisions, that would have been better served where making that choice would have effected the PC much more, instead of effecting Orzammar.  Would have been awesome, imo, if who you supported would have instead created an entire different way you had to handle that whole area vs making such a change to dwarf society.

In every choice that effected the setting in a major way, imo, would have been better if it effected the character instead of the setting, even more.  I can't even think of a single setting changing choice that I would rather have, vs making those same choices just impact the PC much more.

If a game's narrative doesn't change, if it's all about personal character development, then it feels a bit narcisstic to me. But this is entirely subjective. We're talking about two distinct literary devices here.

[AresKeith]

mx_keep13 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Choices carrying over to sequels is so overrated I wish Bioware never even thought of it.

That isn't really a problem, the problem with that is Bioware creating too many variables with the amount of choices in their games

What about the players expecting every random quest and character to have and influence somewhere down the line.

Players shouldn't expect every single choice they make to have an effect in the other games, but the blame still falls on both Bioware and their PR as well as those players who think that way

[Meltemph]

slimgrin wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Why not just give us choices that effect the player personally, and not give us all these setting changing choice events?  That way the choices can be transfered, assuming you are the same character, and if not, the integrity of the game you played and the setting they created stays intact.

A good RPG has both. If anything should carry over it's the personal choices affecting the PC. Major narrative branching should be entirely in the writer's hands, not the players.   

I disagree,(that both are good) I think even good RPG's if they took out setting altering changes would be even better, story wise.  You can design a game that gives you multiple paths that all lead to the same destination, that doesnt make 5 different versions of a setting that look very different from one another.  The character specific choices are always the best ones, and the most rewarding, while at the same time not effecting the integrity of the setting.  

Choosing who is king of the dwarves is a worthless decisions, that would have been better served where making that choice would have effected the PC much more, instead of effecting Orzammar.  Would have been awesome, imo, if who you supported would have instead created an entire different way you had to handle that whole area vs making such a change to dwarf society.

In every choice that effected the setting in a major way, imo, would have been better if it effected the character instead of the setting, even more.  I can't even think of a single setting changing choice that I would rather have, vs making those same choices just impact the PC much more.

If a game's narrative doesn't change, if it's all about personal character development, then it feels a bit narcisstic to me. But this is entirely subjective. We're talking about two distinct literary devices here.

With settings though, when you make those setting choices you are just making choices for the sake of choices.  I would rather have more impactful choices that have meaning to the story and the setting vs making choices that are there, just to make me feel powerful, in terms of having control of the setting.  I mean, otherwise you are left with a "true ending", which I don't think is a desirable effect on a game series/setting that isnt a standalone.

Modifié par Meltemph, 25 décembre 2013 - 10:50 .