655 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

When I hear people say "the player shouldn't be allowed to make big choices," I hear "Bioware should make a more linear game."

Choices that let the player "define their character" or "make more personal choices" but result in the same exact outcomes are linear in nature. Sure, it may result in a slight dialogue change or a scene playing of differently/showing different characters... but aren't those the critiques of how the Save Import is addressed in sequels?

Not every choice needs to be "appoint a king" or "save or destroy an epic level artifact," but without any level of divergence in the story, either in terms of how the choice should influence the future (DA:O) or the content the player sees (TW2), then having the choices diminishes their worth.

If we had more personal choices it would still not be linier, the only difference is we wouldnt be making 3 different versions of the setting.  Like, for instance, if we choose to side with harrowmont even though Balen was going to be king no matter what, there could be long term consequences(throughout the game dwarves try and kill you, you get no support from them or a host of other things), through out the story, for the PC which would have a very different play though then someone who sided with Balen.  This allows the PC to experence branching paths, and different consequences, without making choices simply for the sake of choices.  

Personal choices that define the character have a much easier path to a LACK of liniarity, because it is easier to adjust the variables in a game/setting, that why it is a coherent world without a schizoid personality to the world.

Modifié par Meltemph, 29 décembre 2013 - 02:42 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I guess I would need to see examples of that in an actual game to truly say I support it. I can't think of many examples where a game has truly tried to execute that.

[Meltemph]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I guess I would need to see examples of that in an actual game to truly say I support it. I can't think of many examples where a game has truly tried to execute that.

Front Mission 3 for the PSone actually did a great job at this, imo(in a much smaller scale).

Modifié par Meltemph, 29 décembre 2013 - 02:47 .

[In Exile]

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

When I hear people say "the player shouldn't be allowed to make big choices," I hear "Bioware should make a more linear game."

Choices that let the player "define their character" or "make more personal choices" but result in the same exact outcomes are linear in nature. Sure, it may result in a slight dialogue change or a scene playing of differently/showing different characters... but aren't those the critiques of how the Save Import is addressed in sequels? [/quote]

TW1 is a phenomenal example of a very reactive game that does not really have "big" choices. A lot of the events are in motion and Geralt can't do much more than gently push the tidy of history one way or another. TW2 is a lot like that too. 

A choice can be very reactive without being world changing. Look at Alpha Protocol: a lot of the choices are both highly reactive and very self-contained. 

[quote]Not every choice needs to be "appoint a king" or "save or destroy an epic level artifact," but without any level of divergence in the story, either in terms of how the choice should influence the future (DA:O) or the content the player sees (TW2), then having the choices diminishes their worth. [/quote]

I don't think anyone would disagree with that, just with your conflating "no big choice" with "please more linearity". 

[quote][quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

I guess I would need to see examples of that in an actual game to truly say I support it. I can't think of many examples where a game has truly tried to execute that. [/quote]

The entire ending of TW1, with the difference between neutral path, Order path, and Sco'iatel path. And with going with Trish vs. Shani (or whatever her name was). TW1 has a lot of variety, even in your interaction with the final villain (turning a lot on certain philosophies Geralt shared with a character), but the end game is totally the same: Vizima burns in war, and Geralt (sort of) saves the day. 

Modifié par In Exile, 29 décembre 2013 - 02:48 .

[Hazegurl]

Il Divo wrote...

Keep in mind, from your post, you would think Bioware is this complete newcomer who came up with this great new idea. They also have an established style and fan base to deal with.

And that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying they have an opportunity to expand on what you consider a gimmick, so I see no reason why they shouldn't. And judging by your post you would think that players like yourself represent the majority of the fanbase or the only ones they need to consider with their choices.

Hell, DA2 was criticized partially because the PC was so powerless, which is very well the end result of what the save import will lead to.

I keep asking for proof of how the import feature caused the problems in DA2 and yet the only argument I get is the resource argument(which holds no water as we all know they had resource and time issues from the start) or potential issues for future games. DA 2 was a new location, new PC, new companions. The devs had no intention of sending the PC to Ferelden. Explain how the import from DAO had anything to do with DA2's limitations when all we got were some personal cameos with one being retconned anyway. 

Considering the fact that Gaider pretty much agrees with you that the choices only matter for that game further lends proof that even if you got your way (no import) it wouldn't automatically improve the next game's choices.

You're essentially telling fans who have been playing that style of Bioware games for the last 15 years "Go find some other developer, this one's mine!", which isn't going to be taken happily, especially for a feature that is currently a gimmick and not guaranteed to work.

 
No, I'm telling fans who seem to be very unhappy to the point of constantly comparing BW to a company they are happier with to perhaps stick with the company that makes them the happiest.  If you're going to keep buying the game that doesn't make you happy then you have only yourselves to blame.

Edit: I also want to add that I see nothing wrong in the PC making big decisions, but I think what made Rannoch and Turhanka work so well was because it was a series of small and even personal insignificant choices that led up to the big decision.  Who cares if Shepard can make Tali and Legion get along on his ship? But that small personal decision leads to peace between the Quarian and Geth. And even that requires other small decisions to make happen. I would love to be given a bunch of small transferrable choices, even personal that can lead to at least two big decisions being made for the last game of that particular story.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 29 décembre 2013 - 02:56 .

[Il Divo]

In Exile wrote...

TW1 is a phenomenal example of a very reactive game that does not really have "big" choices. A lot of the events are in motion and Geralt can't do much more than gently push the tidy of history one way or another. TW2 is a lot like that too. 

Discounting Henselt at least?

[Angrywolves]

Hope springs eternal.Those of us who were Bioware fans back in the days of the BG series hope they'll get back to that excellence.
Of course DAO was a step in the right direction.
But then they retrogressed.

Modifié par Angrywolves, 29 décembre 2013 - 02:51 .

[In Exile]

Il Divo wrote...
Discounting Henselt at least?

No. I debated whether to comment on that, but TW2 addresses it in-game by having Nielfgard do what they do at the endgame. In that sense, Henselt is a "tide of history" choice, because Kedwin can't be what he would have made it no matter his fate. Certainly the situation with Nilfgard changes depending on what happens to him, but that's the backdrop to everything. 

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...
-snip-

While I do respect The Witcher series in theory, I found their plot rather linear, despite its high commitment to divergent content (as contradictory as that sounds). The end game of each installment is always (relatively) the same, such that all choices made prior to that point wind up having the same path.

I personally prefer games like FO, Arcanum or DA:O, where the actions you took wind up creating very different endings, where small or big choices can have surprising twists and turns in the world. I find such variability in the endings to be much more enjoyable than divergent content that winds up routing to the same exact outcomes.

I realize that is not everyone opinion, nor do I want to feel like I am dogging the Wither series VERY impressive design attempt at creating divergent content. But I still like endings that react to my different choices, rather than variations in the game that wind up leading to the same end state (like on DA2 or ME3).

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 décembre 2013 - 03:07 .

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
While I do respect The Witcher series in theory, I found their plot rather linear, despite its high commitment to divergent content (as contradictory as that sounds). The end game of each installment is always (relatively) the same, such that all choices made prior to that point wind up having the same path.  

I personally prefer games like FO, Arcanum or DA:O, where the actions you took wind up creating very different endings, where small or big choices can have surprising twists and turns in the world. I find such variability in the endings to be much more enjoyable than divergent content that winds up routing to the same exact outcomes. 

So, in other words, to you it matters whether or not the ending is different? Whether or not something is reactive doesn't mean "react-to-my-choice-in-game" but rather "show-me-different-ending-slides"? 

To me, ending slides have little value. They're fluff I never experience. I think they're an important bookmark on a journey, but any consequence dealt with in an ending slide is not a "real" consequence to me because it's never something I experience in-game. I don't see it, or live it, or experience it. 

Anyway, I don't think it's right to call those games linear. They're just not, as a matter of design. 

I realize that is not everyone opinion, nor do I want to feel like I am dogging the Wither series VERY impressive design attempt at creating divergent content. But I still like endings that react to my different choices, rather than variations in the game that wind up leading to the same end state (like on DA2 or ME3).

I think this is a debate for another thread, but I will say that I don't think any of the ME games are different in that regard, or that DA:O actually has "very different endings" in substance. The epilogue slides try very hard to justify how different the world is with what you do, but I don't actually see any choice besides Bhelen v. Harrowmont being a "change the world" choice. Certainly not Anora vs. Alistair. 

Modifié par In Exile, 29 décembre 2013 - 03:19 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Let's see how many times we all can use 'power fantasy' or 'power trip' in a paragraph!

2 for you. 

That's all you seem to be interested in.

[BlackInquisitor]

People in here should really play The Stanley Parable, and see how meaningless the concept of "choices" are within a game. Save import between games make it at least worthwhile to a degree.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
To me, ending slides have little value. They're fluff I never experience. I think they're an important bookmark on a journey, but any consequence dealt with in an ending slide is not a "real" consequence to me because it's never something I experience in-game. I don't see it, or live it, or experience it. 

How do you put up with Bio, then? Displacing the effect of choices to a future that you don't actually play through is something they do a lot, isn't it?

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
How do you put up with Bio, then? Displacing the effect of choices to a future that you don't actually play through is something they do a lot, isn't it?

I don't play Bioware game for the reactivity to choices. This wasn't even a "thing" until, really, KoTOR (when it was about choice of alignment only) and then really took off with ME1/DA:O. Bioware gives you multiple quest resolutions, and your choice there can be informed by your character beliefs, but that's about it. That's how it was in Fallout 1-2, BG 1-2, even Planescape. 

Bioware games tend to be relatively reactive to personality, which other RPGs (except maybe TW1-2/DXHR) simply refuse to do as a matter of design. Most games outright refuse to recognize that your character even has a personality. That's what I like about Bioware games. The choices are just a means to an end here. And frankly I think Bioware would be better off defining their style of RPG as about "defining who the protagonist is" versus "choosing what the world will be" since it'll avoid all this dissapointment about far-reaching consequences they never deliver on. 

[Il Divo]

Hazegurl wrote...


And that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying they have an opportunity to expand on what you consider a gimmick, so I see no reason why they shouldn't. And judging by your post you would think that players like yourself represent the majority of the fanbase or the only ones they need to consider with their choices.

You don't see why they shouldn't expand to a feature, which for more than a few reasons, will never pan out? Especially while they want to hold onto their "world-shaking decisions"? If Bioware wants to drop the latter, shoot for the stars! But nothing that they have advertised hints that they have learned that lesson.

Hell, I'd love to see what ME4 is going to turn up, with the decisions the writers let Shepard make.

I keep asking for proof of how the import feature caused the problems in DA2 and yet the only argument I get is the resource argument(which holds no water as we all know they had resource and time issues from the start) or potential issues for future games. DA 2 was a new location, new PC, new companions. The devs had no intention of sending the PC to Ferelden. Explain how the import from DAO had anything to do with DA2's limitations when all we got were some personal cameos with one being retconned anyway. 

Who said anything about resources before? I pointed out that one of DA2's myriad of criticisms is that players felt like Hawke did not achieve anything of significance, he's powerless. There was no divergent content. You yourself, only just earlier, remarked on how if gamers got off their power fantasy, the save import would function.

It seems that quite a few gamers do not want to get off that power fantasy, hence the problem. 

From a resource perspective, the problem isn't "there's not enough money for other game features". The problem is Bioware has to take into account 3+different plot lines and the amount of time they spend on each is less time for the overall narrative. Perfect example: look at what happened to the Rachni/Collector Base decisions. Lack of resources killed these two plot points stone dead.

Edit: I also want to add that I see nothing wrong in the PC making big decisions, but I think what made Rannoch and Turhanka work so well was because it was a series of small and even personal insignificant choices that led up to the big decision.  Who cares if Shepard can make Tali and Legion get along on his ship? But that small personal decision leads to peace between the Quarian and Geth. And even that requires other small decisions to make happen. I would love to be given a bunch of small transferrable choices, even personal that can lead to at least two big decisions being made for the last game of that particular story.

And this is always going to be a non-issue for any story in which your last game allows for divergent outcomes. You don't have any expectation to follow through on. Sure, I can get behind that. In Exile pointed out the Witcher 2 and I thought that game was phenomenal, even if much too short. But based on Mass Effect 1, 2, and DA:O, Bioware hasn't really learned anything yet about combining the two.

I'm fully expecting the Old God Child plot point to fail because in any other medium, such as a book, you could give such a plot point proper exposition.

[Angrywolves]

Hope the OGB plot point doesn't fail, but expect you may be right.It has to be canon to give it proper execution imo.

Hawke did not achieve anything of significance.However we don't know if he/she would have done so in Exalted March and I suspect unless someone talks to David at a con/panel discussion and he feels good enough to discuss it we may never know how that would have come out and if it would have oh rehabilitated Hawke in the eyes of the fans.

[FGT3000]

But based on Mass
Effect 1, 2, and DA:O,
Bioware hasn't really
learned anything yet
about combining the
two.
I'm fully expecting the
Old God Child plot point
to fail because in any
other medium.i also exp that plot to fail cus in me2 if you save or destr the collector base that choice had very little impacht on me3 and a overhall of smaller choices had a bigger impach. so it will be up to the bw writters mostly to follow up on prev game and not make past mistakes.and give player who did the ritual the old god child and pc who dint something div.cus that why da 2 ending was weak regardless of who you side wht be it mage or templar i still feld like i was fighting both so i feld it wordles to even have the choice to side.

[archangel1996]

I think they'll put in the game the consequences of some meaningless choices to cover up the fact that the big ones have been either retconned or taken out entirely, much like ME3 really (Sidonis/Garrus situation, Morinth, Rachni, Council, keep-destroy base, Shadow Broker, Arrival[but then again Arrival gives some explenation to the complete nonsense that is the prologue], ecc ecc)

Modifié par archangel1996, 29 décembre 2013 - 05:36 .

[Nerdage]

I'm still not sure why people assume the dark ritual child to be some kind of world-destroyer. We have absolutely no idea what a soul is in DA, or what effect it has on a person, save for the fact that apparently you can't live without one. I'm fully expecting the child to be a more-or-less ordinary human to be honest, probably an unusually adept mage, but not some kind of super-being, and not a game-changer (not on the level the collector base could've/should've been, for instance).

And if that does turn out to be the case I wouldn't call it a "failure" to live up to the choice either, because everybody's expectations about that choice's consequences are completely imagined anyway. It's not like you did something and then the game undid it off-screen, which is what this thread is about, because you don't even know what it is you did yet.

Modifié par nerdage, 29 décembre 2013 - 05:54 .

[Il Divo]

nerdage wrote...

I'm still not sure why people assume the dark ritual child to be some kind of world-destroyer. We have absolutely no idea what a soul is in DA, or what effect it has on a person, save for the fact that apparently you can't live without one. I'm fully expecting the child to be a more-or-less ordinary human to be honest, probably an unusually adept mage, but not some kind of super-being, and not a game-changer (on the level the collector base could've/should've been, for instance).

And if that does turn out to be the case I wouldn't call it a "failure" to live up to the choice, because everybody's expectations about that choice are completely imagined anyway. It's not like you did something and then the game undid it off-screen, because you don't even know what it is you did yet.

Rules of foreshadowing. It's the same concept behind how keeping the Collector Base made everybody in the party flip out, which ultimately amounted to nothing.

Sure, on a technical level, you can argue we're making assumptions. There was no guarantee that TIM might find something from the Collector Base. But considering that was what all our efforts went towards and everyone is terrified of the implications, it should amount to something.

In Morrigan's case, the very reason she accompanies the protagonist, based on her and Flemeth's motivations, is for the possibility of creating this God Child. And we know that Morrigan (and likely Flemeth) will have a huge role to play in DAI, according to the build-up in DA:O. The God Child being just a hyped up mage would be a failure on Bioware's part, since in any other medium they could explore the full implications.

[David7204]

Guess what?

This isn't any other medium. It is what it is.

Modifié par David7204, 29 décembre 2013 - 06:01 .

[Angrywolves]

For better or for worse, it is what it is.
Players want it for better and not for worse.
All the ME mistakes, as pointed out...we don't want comperable mistakes in DAI.

[David7204]

Whatever 'mistakes' concerning choices in Mass Effect lie with the developers making misleading and honestly, rather foolish statements beforehand. They obviously should not have promised players would be blown away by the reactivity to every choice.

That being said, the reactions to choices in ME 2 and ME 3 are as varied and reactive as those I've seen in any game. No, they don't blow me away, but they're perfectly acceptable given the reality of game development, and if the gameplay and plot were otherwise perfect, I would no absolutely no qualms with awarding Mass Effect (or any other game) an 11 out of 10 with the reactivity to choices as they are. 

Modifié par David7204, 29 décembre 2013 - 06:14 .

[Angrywolves]

Mistakes get magnified when the games series very existence is on the line.
The fate of the ME series is on the line.ME4 fails it very like the end of ME after all the ME3 controversies.
The fate of the DA franchise is on the line.DAI fails and it's very likely over for DA.
Books and comics MIGHT continue as well as the board game.I don't know how those are licensed or what kind of contract Gaider has that allows him to do those or to farm them out to others.
But DAI fails and the video games are over.That's my opinion.All of this is just my opinion.If someone feels that's not the case they can say otherwise.

So the Bioware teams are under the gun imo to avoid mistakes this time.I hope they are successful.:innocent:

Modifié par Angrywolves, 29 décembre 2013 - 06:18 .

[David7204]

That's a very nice utterly irrelevant and misleading tirade.