170 réponses à ce sujet

[Deflagratio]

You will be able to save both, this is even mentioned in the demo, or at the very least, strongly hinted at.

Keep in mind though, the enemies in the demo had their HP scaled back to around 10%-50% of intended values. Saving both could be extremely difficult, especially at high difficulties.

Someone also asked why the Red Templars are attacking Crestwood village and not the larger town on the Horizon, the in-game dialog sheds some light on the answer, while supposition based on logic fills in the rest. The Red Templars attacked the village to lure the Inquisition's garrison (or at least part of it) out, in order to take the keep with less resistance. Divide and Conquer, that kind of strategy. The larger town itself likely has its own garrison, making it a much harder target.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

This is a game. Not an exam, and not work. Players shouldn't be denied a good story because they aren't the best at video games.

As for your other comment, no, that's not what I'm playing an RPG for at all. Nor are many other people, I suspect.

I don't see how giving players an extra challenge or more work to do is a bad thing, especially in RPGs

[Zu Long]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Of course there will be a way to save both, do you honestly expect for the game to give you a difficult choice without a way out? That'd upset people who want happily ever after.

Far be it for anyone to actually enjoy playing the story. Nay, we must bow to the grim-dark gods! No happiness for anyone. A phyrric victory is all a hero should be able to achieve no matter what choices you make!

Modifié par Zu Long, 13 janvier 2014 - 05:49 .

[David7204]

The 'ability of choice'? I welcome the 'ability of choice.' What I don't welcome is a protagonist who isn't strong enough to rise above the issues of the world. That's pretty contrary to what a hero is.

[David7204]

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

This is a game. Not an exam, and not work. Players shouldn't be denied a good story because they aren't the best at video games.

As for your other comment, no, that's not what I'm playing an RPG for at all. Nor are many other people, I suspect.

I don't see how giving players an extra challenge or more work to do is a bad thing, especially in RPGs

Sure, as long as you remember your audience. Whatever challenge presented should be something a decent video game player with average intelligence has a reasonable chance of succeeding at the first itme through.

[AresKeith]

eluvianix wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

If past Bioware games are an indication saving everyone will just require the player to at most complete available content and not be a fool like the much overhyped Suicide Mission.

I'm not expecting to have to make many "hard choices."

I kinda like how they did it in the demo, how you can sabotage the Red Templar forces but at the cost of the village 

Wait, can't you do both? Couldn't you burn the boats then turn back and fight the red templars?

I'm not really sure, you probably can do both

From the demo it seemed like they chose to sabotage over the Village when Varric was talking about fighting the Red Templars

[Dave of Canada]

Zu Long wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Of course there will be a way to save both, do you honestly expect for the game to give you a difficult choice without a way out? That'd upset people who want happily ever after.

Far be it for anyone to actually enjoy playing the story. Nay, we must bow to the grim-dark gods! No happiness for anyone. A phyrric victory is all a hero should be able to achieve no matter what choices you make.

You can't enjoy a story without winning? That's unfortunate, I'd hate to not be able to enjoy the majority of works because I need empowerment through a pixel character patting me on the back.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 janvier 2014 - 05:51 .

[wolfhowwl]

David7204 wrote...

The 'ability of choice'? I welcome the 'ability of choice.' What I don't welcome is a protagonist who isn't strong enough to rise above the issues of the world. That's pretty contrary to what a hero is.

Why shouldn't there be some challenges that are beyond the protagonist?

Sometimes you can't save everyone, sometimes you can't get you want.

[David7204]

Dave of Canada wrote...

You can't enjoy a story without winning? That's unfortunate, I'd hate to not be able to enjoy the majority of works because I need empowerment through a pixel character patting me on the back.

You'd be better off dropping that foolish argument. I admit I'm a little irritatated of the unending shrieks of 'power fantasy' to any notion of a successful protagonist.

There's zero merit to it.

Modifié par David7204, 13 janvier 2014 - 05:54 .

[Zu Long]

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

This is a game. Not an exam, and not work. Players shouldn't be denied a good story because they aren't the best at video games.

As for your other comment, no, that's not what I'm playing an RPG for at all. Nor are many other people, I suspect.

I don't see how giving players an extra challenge or more work to do is a bad thing, especially in RPGs

Sure, as long as you remember your audience. Whatever challenge presented should be something a decent video game player with average intelligence has a reasonable chance of succeeding at the first itme through.

My thoughts on this is that it should correspond to the difficulty you've set. Easy should be, well, easy, normal you can fail if you mess up, hard is pretty challenging and nightmare nearly impossible. The player themselves sets the difficulty of the "third way." If you want it to be nearly impossible to do everything, ramp up the difficulty.

[Hellion Rex]

David7204 wrote...

The 'ability of choice'? I welcome the 'ability of choice.' What I don't welcome is a protagonist who isn't strong enough to rise above the issues of the world. That's pretty contrary to what a hero is.

Issues of the world? If anything, I welcome a protagonist who is bound by racial or cultural bias. A Dalish elf who is very wary and distrustful of humans. A mage who hated being stuck within a Circle. They all can be heroes and still be bound by their biases.

[Zu Long]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Of course there will be a way to save both, do you honestly expect for the game to give you a difficult choice without a way out? That'd upset people who want happily ever after.

Far be it for anyone to actually enjoy playing the story. Nay, we must bow to the grim-dark gods! No happiness for anyone. A phyrric victory is all a hero should be able to achieve no matter what choices you make.

You can't enjoy a story without winning? That's unfortunate, I'd hate to not be able to enjoy the majority of works because I need empowerment through a pixel character patting me on the back.

If I can't win, why play the game? I'd hate to live through life needing to be kicked in the gut for entertainment. It sounds stressful.

[Dave of Canada]

David7204 wrote...

You'd be better off dropping that foolish argument. I admit I'm a little irritatated of the unending shrieks of 'power fantasy' to any notion of a successful protagonist.

I'd stop saying it when it stops being right.

Zu Long wrote...

If I can't win, why play the game?

For the experience of playing through the game? Games aren't any different from any other medium, asking for a game to always be something which you always win is ridiculous, it's like asking for every movie or book to have be happy because you don't want to be upset.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 janvier 2014 - 05:57 .

[David7204]

wolfhowwl wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The 'ability of choice'? I welcome the 'ability of choice.' What I don't welcome is a protagonist who isn't strong enough to rise above the issues of the world. That's pretty contrary to what a hero is.

Why shouldn't there be some challenges that are beyond the protagonist?

Sometimes you can't save everyone, sometimes you can't get you want.

It doesn't have to be nothing but unending victory. I don't mind sacrifice and loss. But the overarching story and particularly the ending need to uphold meaningful and effective heroism.

[Hellion Rex]

David7204 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

You can't enjoy a story without winning? That's unfortunate, I'd hate to not be able to enjoy the majority of works because I need empowerment through a pixel character patting me on the back.

You'd be better off dropping that foolish argument. I admit I'm a little irritatated of the unending shrieks of 'power fantasy' to any notion of a successful protagonist.

There's zero merit to it.

Foolish in your opinion.

Modifié par eluvianix, 13 janvier 2014 - 05:57 .

[AresKeith]

Zu Long wrote...

My thoughts on this is that it should correspond to the difficulty you've set. Easy should be, well, easy, normal you can fail if you mess up, hard is pretty challenging and nightmare nearly impossible. The player themselves sets the difficulty of the "third way." If you want it to be nearly impossible to do everything, ramp up the difficulty.

Only problem is that only applies to combat

What we're talking about is choices, and yes there should be times where we can't save everyone just as there should be times where we can save everyone. But you should be willing to do extra work and bit more challenge in order to do it

[wolfhowwl]

Zu Long wrote...
If I can't win, why play the game? I'd hate to live through life needing to be kicked in the gut for entertainment. It sounds stressful.

You will always still win in the end. Shepard ALWAYS stops Saren.

But Virmire is made much more meaningful because Shepard doesn't have a third choice. He can't save Ashley and Kaiden, you have to make a hard sacrifice.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 13 janvier 2014 - 05:59 .

[David7204]

Dave of Canada wrote...
For the experience of playing through the game? Games aren't any different from any other medium, asking for a game to always be something which you always win is ridiculous, it's like asking for every movie or book to have be happy because you don't want to be upset.

You know, for someone who aspired to be a writer, you've missed an incredibly important and obvious point. I'll ignore your ridiculous and baseless delusions for the time being.

I don't expect DA:I to be heroic because I expect all stories to be heroic. I expect (and more important, am justified to expect) DA:I to be heroic because the of various implicit and explicit promises pushing heroic themes very strongly. Wanting all stories to be heroic has nothing to do with it, is is just a very ridiculous and completely untrue strawman.

Is this the best you can do?

Modifié par David7204, 13 janvier 2014 - 06:01 .

[AresKeith]

You managed to put heroic in every sentence, that is really a buzzword for you

[Hellion Rex]

wolfhowwl wrote...

Zu Long wrote...
If I can't win, why play the game? I'd hate to live through life needing to be kicked in the gut for entertainment. It sounds stressful.

You will always still win in the end. Shepard ALWAYS stops Saren.

But Virmire is made much more meaningful because Shepard doesn't have a third choice. He can't save Ashley and Kaiden, you have to make a hard sacrifice.

I agree entirely. Having to make that hard choice made it much more powerful.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Nothing was presented in writing, nor explicitly stated, therefore dragon age is under no obligation, legally, honorably, spiritually, morally, or figuratively, to deliver any degree of heroic content to the gamer.

[Zu Long]

Dave of Canada wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You'd be better off dropping that foolish argument. I admit I'm a little irritatated of the unending shrieks of 'power fantasy' to any notion of a successful protagonist.

I'd stop saying it when it stops being right.

Zu Long wrote...

If I can't win, why play the game?

For the experience of playing through the game? Games aren't any different from any other medium, asking for a game to always be something which you always win is ridiculous, it's like asking for every movie or book to have be happy because you don't want to be upset.

Games are games because you have the possibility of winning. A game that precludes the possibility of victory isn't a game, it's a cruel joke, like "heads I win, tails you lose" from elemetary school. Just as the impossibility of failure robs the game of enjoyability, so too does the impossibility of success. The true balance of a game is in allowing the possibility of winning, while also presenting the ability to fail. The genius of an interactive narrative is allowing the player to shape the story. Otherwise, it's just an Oscarbait movie, moaning about the grimdarkness of the human condition, where you get to pick which terrrible end the DVD has. I've got better things to do than wallow in misery.

Modifié par Zu Long, 13 janvier 2014 - 06:10 .

[David7204]

Nothing is ever ironclad like a contract. Doesn't matter. Stories make promises. And to be good writing, they have an obligation to fulfill those promises. And more important, audiences are justified to be upset when those promises are broken.

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

Stories make promises. And to be good writing, they have an obligation to fulfill those promises.

And what promises did Dragon Age: Origins make to the audience, pray tell? 

[Hellion Rex]

David7204 wrote...

Nothing is ever ironclad like a contract. Doesn't matter. Stories make promises. And to be good writing, they have an obligation to fulfill those promises. And more important, audiences are justified to be upset when those promises are broken.

Hang on. If nothing is ever ironclad like a contract, how are stories are obligated to "fulfill promises", like an ironclad contract?