692 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

So when you say Shepard's efforts were wasted, you don't mean anything of the sort, huh? That reward vs. cost thing you were talking about was about the player's hours put in rather than Shepard's decision? And the player deserves a happier ending after all those hours?

Was that not obvious?  These are our Shepards, after all.  These are our decisions, made over three games played over five years.  

"Sorry, your Shepard came to a tragic end, but hey, you managed not to take the rest of the galaxy with you.  That's a win, right?"

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

Was that not obvious?  These are our Shepards, after all.  These are our decisions, made over three games played over five years.  

"Sorry, your Shepard came to a tragic end, but hey, you managed not to take the rest of the galaxy with you.  That's a win, right?"

Sorry. I'm having trouble telling your rhetoric from your real views these past few months.

How come you don't say what you actually mean anymore?

Edit: I think we started talking at cross-purposes back here

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
And yeah, you don't understand. I'm not quite sure it's explainable.  I don't want us to all always get what we want from the choices. Or rather, I don't want this to be possible for me; what happens to you just isn't my problem.

And it's not about always getting what you want, it's about balance.  Reward vs cost. ME3's endings were grossly out of balance for me, for Mopotter, it seems, and for many others.

We're talking about different "wants" here. I'm actually the one being sloppy, since my "get what we want" is about the PCs wants, not the player's.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 janvier 2014 - 05:53 .

[CronoDragoon]

Almostfaceman wrote...
Call it what you want, they are choices and they affect the emotional tone of the end of the game, which was my initial point.

They are right choices and wrong choices. In this respect they are completely different from, say, Virmire. Don't you see how tying tone to competence LIMITS choice, instead of expanding it? If I want a sad playthrough, I need to deliberately suck more at playing the game. How is that fair to players who prefer more poignant, artistic stories?

Ugh, don't even try to compare losing a squadmate to the silly low EMS endings of ME3. Bleh.

The Suicide Mission squadmate deaths are stupid. No acknowledgement of their deaths are made either during the mission or after it. Every cutscene plays out the same regardless of who is occupying the "about to die" slot. It's rather poorly done, actually.

The Low EMS endings aren't all that, either. But saying you can't compare them is implying that ME2 did it right. No: ME3 did it right prior-ending. Character deaths in ME3 actually have emotional and narrative impact.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...
Call it what you want, they are choices and they affect the emotional tone of the end of the game, which was my initial point.

They are right choices and wrong choices. In this respect they are completely different from, say, Virmire. Don't you see how tying tone to competence LIMITS choice, instead of expanding it? If I want a sad playthrough, I need to deliberately suck more at playing the game. How is that fair to players who prefer more poignant, artistic stories?

And how is forcing tragic outcomes on players regardless of choice or preparation fair to those who wanted the more traditional "upbeat" endings the previous games had no trouble offering?

You may have to "deliberately suck" to get your sad playthrough.  But at least you get that option.  You can't tell someone who wants an upbeat ending to simply "play better"  There's less than a bad  option, there is no option

[Almostfaceman]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...
Call it what you want, they are choices and they affect the emotional tone of the end of the game, which was my initial point.

They are right choices and wrong choices. In this respect they are completely different from, say, Virmire. Don't you see how tying tone to competence LIMITS choice, instead of expanding it? If I want a sad playthrough, I need to deliberately suck more at playing the game. How is that fair to players who prefer more poignant, artistic stories?

Ugh, don't even try to compare losing a squadmate to the silly low EMS endings of ME3. Bleh.

The Suicide Mission squadmate deaths are stupid. No acknowledgement of their deaths are made either during the mission or after it. Every cutscene plays out the same regardless of who is occupying the "about to die" slot. It's rather poorly done, actually.

The Low EMS endings aren't all that, either. But saying you can't compare them is implying that ME2 did it right. No: ME3 did it right prior-ending. Character deaths in ME3 actually have emotional and narrative impact.

So, let me get this straight. Your logic is that Bioware can't design a wide variety of endings and has to stick to grimdark because a lot of people will like the happy ending and think it's the right ending? Really? That's nonsense. 

There's two examples I'll throw out. In DA:O, you can have a "happy" ending and let your warden live by having sex with the strange witch woman, thereby and possibly spawning an old god who will do who knows what in the future.

In the "original" plot of Mass Effect 3, at the end Shep could have a "happy" ending and live, killing the Reapers in the process - and maybe dooming the galaxy if they can't resolve some dark energy problem that's devouring the galaxy.

It only takes a little bit of imagination to insert some of this grimdark and still tie in a "happy" fate for the protagonist and his happy band that we've all come to know and love. Edit: And hey spawn some interesting sequels with a new problem to solve!

I don't really agree with your opinion about the squadmates death (in ME2) for this reason - when I first played the game - without looking at spoilers or whatever - Mordin died. I was gut-punched. There was an emotional response. I had come to like Mordin and the poor guy died. It happened when he died. Then I watched youtube vid's of examples of how the other squaddie's could die. When they died, because I liked them, it sucked to watch them die. There's really no getting around that, despite your points about "acknowledging their deaths". By the way, Shep will definitely mention loss for the Paragon dialogue when choosing to destroy the collector base (don't know about keeping the base). 

ME2 did it right enough for me. There's always room for improvement, but on the whole fan response to the first two games was not to get up in arms about the ending. People had fun, and were able to re-play the games and get at least some desired variety in their experience. 

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 19 janvier 2014 - 08:51 .

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...
But this is just a taste thing. You and mopotter have tender sensibilities, while CronoDragoon and I don't. (Feel free to recast that distinction in whatever terms you care to.) Our tastes, and thus our interests, really are different.

And I just wanted to clarify a bit here that my tastes change from game to game, series to series. Generally I accept what a game is trying to do and play through with that mindset attached. For Dragon Age this means being prepared for non-ideal outcomes and tough choices. For Mass Effect, at least the first 2.8 games, it was essentially a series about customizing your story, which is another way of saying Shepard pretty much always gets what he wants, when he wants it. Bioware themselves made this comparison when they said that while Dragon Age is about "the world of Dragon Age" Mass Effect was about Shepard and how Shepard - like an unstoppable hurricane" alters the universe around him. And I was fine with that.

Because of this, Alan and I's taste in ME3's endings actually differ. I don't really want a difficult final decision. I'm of the camp that would have preferred Priority Earth to be a bit more personalized to your choices, and for there to be a token end decision that - like the Collector Base - was more a moral stance than a universe game-changer. I would not have wanted the geth and EDI destroyed. In other words - surprise! - I wanted a golden ending, because that's functionally what Mass Effect has supported for a long time. I suppose the paradigm example of how I see Mass Effect's choice system would be Rannoch with peace option, whereas for Dragon Age I'd want no peace option (I don't think it's a coincidence that Gaider doesn't like the peace option).

Where I start to differ with others who don't like the tone of the endings comes in the details - like suggesting that you can have a "happy ending" alongside bittersweet endings and have the choice system be structurally coherent. On the contrary, I'm perfectly fine with saying that I wanted a happy ending, and would not have really cared if others who wanted a tough/universe-unfair ending did not get what they want. On this point, Alan and I agree.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

And how is forcing tragic outcomes on players regardless of choice or preparation fair to those who wanted the more traditional "upbeat" endings the previous games had no trouble offering?

You may have to "deliberately suck" to get your sad playthrough.  But at least you get that option.  You can't tell someone who wants an upbeat ending to simply "play better"  There's less than a bad  option, there is no option

See above. I believe you have to pick one paradigm or the other: competence determining tone or a set tone with a choice offering substantially different benefits and consequences. You can't please both parties, so you need to pick one even if the other side doesn't get what they want. I actually prefer the competence structure while simultaneously recognizing that it limits choice and therefore diminishes enjoyment of the game for people like Alan. In other words, I'd prefer for Destroy to have an extra tier above the current one where a perfectly built Crucible doesn't kill the geth and EDI.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 janvier 2014 - 09:00 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

And how is forcing tragic outcomes on players regardless of choice or preparation fair to those who wanted the more traditional "upbeat" endings the previous games had no trouble offering?

You may have to "deliberately suck" to get your sad playthrough.  But at least you get that option.  You can't tell someone who wants an upbeat ending to simply "play better"  There's less than a bad  option, there is no option

See above. I believe you have to pick one paradigm or the other: competence determining tone or a set tone with a choice offering substantially different benefits and consequences. You can't please both parties, so you need to pick one even if the other side doesn't get what they want. I actually prefer the competence structure while simultaneously recognizing that it limits choice and therefore diminishes enjoyment of the game for people like Alan. In other words, I'd prefer for Destroy to have an extra tier above the current one where a perfectly built Crucible doesn't kill the geth and EDI.

I'd be fine with competence if it didn't already feel like the Paragon/Renegade system was meant to force difficult decisions. If Bioware does want to go this route, I'd prefer something in the style of KotOR. At least there, dark side characters were purposely trying to  make the world a miserable place, instead of pretending that they want to save it but doing a weak job (as per Renegades).

That said, I find the less than optimal endings in such games boring. Jade Empire's ending where you sacrifice yourself to the final villain being a prime example.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 19 janvier 2014 - 09:06 .

[CronoDragoon]

Almostfaceman wrote...
So, let me get this straight. Your logic is that Bioware can't design a wide variety of endings and has to stick to grimdark because a lot of people will like the happy ending and think it's the right ending? Really? That's nonsense. 

There's two examples I'll throw out. In DA:O, you can have a "happy" ending and let your warden live by having sex with the strange witch woman, thereby and possibly spawning an old god who will do who knows what in the future.

And what is the distribution of fans who choose the Dark Ritual vs. other endings? Rather high, actually. If you'd like to dispute me, you can try to find data. I was relatively unsuccessful in that the only poll I could find on the first three pages of Google was this one. It's an extremely small sample size, bit it gels with the anecdotal evidence I've found on the BSN where the OGB choice is popular enough to get threads on speculation of the OGB's role in future Dragon Ages pages and pages.

[Almostfaceman]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...
So, let me get this straight. Your logic is that Bioware can't design a wide variety of endings and has to stick to grimdark because a lot of people will like the happy ending and think it's the right ending? Really? That's nonsense. 

There's two examples I'll throw out. In DA:O, you can have a "happy" ending and let your warden live by having sex with the strange witch woman, thereby and possibly spawning an old god who will do who knows what in the future.

And what is the distribution of fans who choose the Dark Ritual vs. other endings? Rather high, actually. If you'd like to dispute me, you can try to find data. I was relatively unsuccessful in that the only poll I could find on the first three pages of Google was this one. It's an extremely small sample size, bit it gels with the anecdotal evidence I've found on the BSN where the OGB choice is popular enough to get threads on speculation of the OGB's role in future Dragon Ages pages and pages.

The distribution is irrelevent. The happiness of the customer is what's relevent. People did not get upset about the endings of DA:O as they did with ME3. The people who wanted grimdark were satisfied along with the people who wanted happy. Sorry if I was not clear about this point in my previous post. 

[CronoDragoon]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
I'd be fine with competence if it didn't already feel like the Paragon/Renegade system was meant to force difficult decisions. If Bioware does want to go this route, I'd prefer something in the style of KotOR. At least there, dark side characters were purposely trying to  make the world a miserable place, instead of pretending that they want to save it but doing a weak job (as per Renegades).

That said, I find the less than optimal endings in such games boring. Jade Empire's ending where you sacrifice yourself to the final villain being a prime example.

I actually find the primary function - if not the original intent- of the Paragon/Renegade system to be getting you OUT of difficult decisions. The only substiantial difference P/R points provide is unlocking persuasion options which are basically a better version of the corresponding white option, or in some cases allowing you to have your cake and eat it too: having enough Paragon points lets you earn Zaeed's loyalty even when you screw him over and thwart his life objective in order to save the factory workers.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 janvier 2014 - 09:18 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
And how is forcing tragic outcomes on players regardless of choice or preparation fair to those who wanted the more traditional "upbeat" endings the previous games had no trouble offering?

This is a much stronger case than talking about what the features of choice-based RPGs are. I'll certainly agree that it's traditional for Bio to give the player a way out of their purported dilemmas. See post above; as I've said before, I think Bio believes that they make games with tough choices, but they actually don't. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 janvier 2014 - 09:20 .

[CronoDragoon]

Almostfaceman wrote...
The distribution is irrelevent. The happiness of the customer is what's relevent. People did not get upset about the endings of DA:O as they did with ME3. The people who wanted grimdark were satisfied along with the people who wanted happy. Sorry if I was not clear about this point in my previous post.

Considering there are no grimdark Origins endings I sincerely doubt this. I also don't agree with the application of grimdark as regards to ME3's post-EC endings. Possibly the ME3 original endings fit the description.
Why do you think Origins has different tonal endings? I actually see it as structurally similar to ME3's design choice for D/C/S, not ME2's Suicide Mission. The tone of the endings aren't determined by competence.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 janvier 2014 - 09:38 .

[Almostfaceman]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...
The distribution is irrelevent. The happiness of the customer is what's relevent. People did not get upset about the endings of DA:O as they did with ME3. The people who wanted grimdark were satisfied along with the people who wanted happy. Sorry if I was not clear about this point in my previous post.

Considering there are no grimdark Origins endings I sincerely doubt this. I also don't agree with the application of grimdark as regards to ME3's post-EC endings. Possibly the ME3 original endings fit the description.

Ah, well you and I can agree to disagree on the grimdark, which is perfectly fine personal tastes being what they are.

[CronoDragoon]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Ah, well you and I can agree to disagree on the grimdark, which is perfectly fine personal tastes being what they are.

We can disagree on what grimdark is, but is it really your position that any ending featuring a single sacrifice of a character is grimdark? Or are we talking about the Dark Ritual post-Inquisition?

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 janvier 2014 - 09:38 .

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Semantics aside, I think you are mischaracterizing people like Alan. What is important for him is that the choice is difficult for the character, not someone who primarily meta-chooses his endings because they want a specific type of ending. The difference is significant because any happy ending automatically invalidates a less-happy ending for the purposes of the character choosing: no one trying to save the world is going to choose saving half of it over all of it, unless extenuating circumstances necessitate it. But I'll let Alan explain himself more clearly if he wishes it; I don't want to speak for him.

That's pretty good. The only thing I'd add is that there's a different issue if the outcomes of the choice are determined by earlier choices. The choices are difficult, but it's only because the character made a mistake earlier so he doesn't get the better choices. But then getting the non-optimal options requires player failure or deliberate sabotage.

Which isn't always a problem. RPG choices should work in all of these ways.

[Almostfaceman]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Ah, well you and I can agree to disagree on the grimdark, which is perfectly fine personal tastes being what they are.

We can disagree on what grimdark is, but is it really your position that any ending featuring a single sacrifice of a character is grimdark? Or are we talking about the Dark Ritual post-Inquisition?

A "single" sacrifice? Spawning an old god can have all kinds of negative ramifications to those with the imagination to ponder the choice. In making the choice is my warden dooming other innocent folk, possibly entire civilizations, to something far worse than any Blight? One can imagine many, many sacrifices for the "selfishness" of preserving one's own life. Yes, to me that is grimdark when you position it agains, say, the ending to Disney's Snow White, where she weathers the trials to live happily ever after, not dooming a single soul - or perhaps even the Bhaalspawn - I think he can choose to live a "normal" life with his romance. 

This is where tastes can differ and I doubt that your definition of grimdark and mine will ever match up, despite further debate. 

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 19 janvier 2014 - 09:51 .

[chemiclord]

AlanC9 wrote.

Which isn't always a problem. RPG choices should work in all of these ways.

Well, I'd say they can work in all of these ways.  I'm not sure it's effective to try and work in all those way simultaneously.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Why do you think Origins has different tonal endings? I actually see it as structurally similar to ME3's design choice for D/C/S, not ME2's Suicide Mission. The tone of the endings aren't determined by competence.

Because while Origins does have the Warden dabble in politics, it does not force the Warden to reshape Thedas in some horrible way.

In addition, Wardens that are dead are dead and get a funeral, while Wardens that are alive are unambiguously alive and reunited with friends.

[AlanC9]

chemiclord wrote...

AlanC9 wrote.

Which isn't always a problem. RPG choices should work in all of these ways.

Well, I'd say they can work in all of these ways.  I'm not sure it's effective to try and work in all those way simultaneously.

In a single choice? Yeah, that'd be difficult.

[CronoDragoon]

Almostfaceman wrote...
A "single" sacrifice? Spawning an old god can have all kinds of negative ramifications to those with the imagination to ponder the choice. In making the choice is my warden dooming other innocent folk, possibly entire civilizations, to something far worse than any Blight? One can imagine many, many sacrifices for the "selfishness" of preserving one's own life. Yes, to me that is grimdark when you position it agains, say, the ending to Disney's Snow White, where she weathers the trials to live happily ever after, not dooming a single soul - or perhaps even the Bhaalspawn - I think he can choose to live a "normal" life with his romance. 

This is where tastes can differ and I doubt that your definition of grimdark and mine will ever match up, despite further debate. 

So we were talking about the Dark Ritual. In that case, Inquisition has a chance to make the Dark Ritual retrospectively "dark" if the OGB causes some horrible catastrophe. We'll see how that goes.

As for pre-Inquisition, it's simply too easy for players to handwave away concerns. Morrigan isn't a bad person! Perhaps it'll be good! They aren't forced to confront the downsides of their action, which essentially means the consequences were punted to later, nondescript points of time. This fits for the original dark energy choice as well.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
Because while Origins does have the Warden dabble in politics, it does not force the Warden to reshape Thedas in some horrible way.

I'm not sure we're on the same wavelength here. I am saying that Origins' endings are different in tone from ME3 overall, on-the-whole, but similar in tonal structure (all 3 endings are similar in tone to each other). They all contain the same relative tone, but the benefits and consequences are different for each besides the shared benefit of ending the Blight. This actually makes them a structural sibling to ME3's ending choice in all but the average tone of the ending.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 janvier 2014 - 10:40 .

[Singu]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
But this is just a taste thing. You and mopotter have tender sensibilities, while CronoDragoon and I don't. (Feel free to recast that distinction in whatever terms you care to.) Our tastes, and thus our interests, really are different.

And I just wanted to clarify a bit here that my tastes change from game to game, series to series. Generally I accept what a game is trying to do and play through with that mindset attached. For Dragon Age this means being prepared for non-ideal outcomes and tough choices. For Mass Effect, at least the first 2.8 games, it was essentially a series about customizing your story, which is another way of saying Shepard pretty much always gets what he wants, when he wants it. Bioware themselves made this comparison when they said that while Dragon Age is about "the world of Dragon Age" Mass Effect was about Shepard and how Shepard - like an unstoppable hurricane" alters the universe around him. And I was fine with that.

Because of this, Alan and I's taste in ME3's endings actually differ. I don't really want a difficult final decision. I'm of the camp that would have preferred Priority Earth to be a bit more personalized to your choices, and for there to be a token end decision that - like the Collector Base - was more a moral stance than a universe game-changer. I would not have wanted the geth and EDI destroyed. In other words - surprise! - I wanted a golden ending, because that's functionally what Mass Effect has supported for a long time. I suppose the paradigm example of how I see Mass Effect's choice system would be Rannoch with peace option, whereas for Dragon Age I'd want no peace option (I don't think it's a coincidence that Gaider doesn't like the peace option).

Where I start to differ with others who don't like the tone of the endings comes in the details - like suggesting that you can have a "happy ending" alongside bittersweet endings and have the choice system be structurally coherent. On the contrary, I'm perfectly fine with saying that I wanted a happy ending, and would not have really cared if others who wanted a tough/universe-unfair ending did not get what they want. On this point, Alan and I agree.

I still don't understand how you can say that there's a vital component to the choice system/moral conundrum that excludes the potential to "win the war and ride into the sunset with the kings daughter". You say it yourself; Shepard is James Bond, Jesus, Neo and Superman all rolled into one big bundle of awesome for 2.8 games. There is no coherent structure left to be challenged, because Bioware allready shredded it when they nailed down the ending in light of the structure they crafted somewhat competently for 2.8 games.

[mopotter]

AlanC9 wrote...

mopotter wrote...

OK  "Of course. Giving you those better endings would make my experience worse"  Why would giving more endings with better results make your experience worse?    

It would change my experience of the choices themselves. Sure, I could still screw up and get a non-optimal ending. But that's the thing; I'd get there by screwing up, either deliberately or by stupidity. Weren't you looking for an ending to counteract other endings? I'm looking for them to not be counteracted.

I don't know about you, but I seldom get what I want in real life, I like getting what I want in a video game sometimes.   I didn't expect Shepard to get what she wanted in every game.  Just once in awhile. 

Sometimes is fine. Just not always. Shepard got his way plenty in ME3.

I guess it's a game play thing then.  I never screw up when I'm playing Shepard.  

Each decision I make is based on information I have.  I/Shepard  does not screw up.  Rational decisions that have different results.  In Me2, to me Garus, Jacob and Zaeed,  all should have been capable for taking a team in the sucide run. Tali, Legion and Kasumi were all qualified to do the vents and Samara, Jack and Miranda could do the umbrella bubble. So in each game I pick someone to do the jobs and watch the results.  Not a screw up, but definately different results.  I did break this rule for the crew, once I lost a few of them and then lost most of them, hated that.  

[mopotter]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Was that not obvious?  These are our Shepards, after all.  These are our decisions, made over three games played over five years.  

"Sorry, your Shepard came to a tragic end, but hey, you managed not to take the rest of the galaxy with you.  That's a win, right?"

Sorry. I'm having trouble telling your rhetoric from your real views these past few months.

How come you don't say what you actually mean anymore?

Edit: I think we started talking at cross-purposes back here

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
And yeah, you don't understand. I'm not quite sure it's explainable.  I don't want us to all always get what we want from the choices. Or rather, I don't want this to be possible for me; what happens to you just isn't my problem.

And it's not about always getting what you want, it's about balance.  Reward vs cost. ME3's endings were grossly out of balance for me, for Mopotter, it seems, and for many others.

We're talking about different "wants" here. I'm actually the one being sloppy, since my "get what we want" is about the PCs wants, not the player's.

This is why I like reading your post.