170 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Now, that being said, I don't expect every story in existence to portray that truth. Storytellers are free to say whatever they'd like. If they'd like to tell a story about how 'humans suck and the world sucks and God sucks and you suck,' hell, go ahead. It's not a story I would ever be the slightest bit interested in, but it's your right to say what you want.

I expect stories to follow through with their narrative promises. So DA:I has a responsibility of meaningful and effective heroism where other stories do not. Contrary wise, there is really no justifiction whatsoever for being upset at the existence of heroism in DA:I. If you've been following DA:I, you'd have to be either blind or stupid.

Modifié par David7204, 13 janvier 2014 - 06:46 .

[AresKeith]

David how would feel about this Chestwood decision if there wasn't a chance to save both?

[Genshie]

spirosz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I hardly expect to play the game and have every character I meet bow down.

Ah.  Well Mass Effect had plenty of this.  Only two I can think of right now that didn't were Javik and Jack.  

Wouldn't Wrex also fall in this at least in ME1?

[David7204]

Depends on the consequences and the other choices in the game.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

Contrary wise, there is really no justifiction whatsoever for being upset at the existence of heroism in DA:I.

Implying that people are

[AresKeith]

SylvuisTheSwag wrote...

I just hope there is no unreactive system like Mass Effect War assets system. Wasted potential

What from I remember awhile back, David Gaider once said that it wasn't gonna be like that

[Genshie]

AresKeith wrote...

SylvuisTheSwag wrote...

I just hope there is no unreactive system like Mass Effect War assets system. Wasted potential

What from I remember awhile back, David Gaider once said that it wasn't gonna be like that

I miss my dino-riding Krogan that I never got to see or like any of the Geth fighing along side the other races.

[dreamgazer]

dreamgazer wrote...

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? 

Relevant question.

Also, how in the hell has Inquisition already made narrative "promises"?

[Zu Long]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

I don't see how reacting negatively to heads I win, tails you lose scenarios is a problem.

Because it isn't a heads or tails, it's an A or B. You choose which choice you live with and accept the consequences.

You can't "lose" or "win", you only "lose" when you can't have your cake and eat it too.

It's probably more of a problem when you hate it that other people enjoy being happy.

I'm happy when the story doesn't ever pat me on the back and actually appeals to every side of a coin, forcing me to think about what I'd like to do while struggling with emotions.

It's my happiness vs your happiness, don't pretend we're not both self-absorbed in this discussion.

See, but my happiness lies in a choice being presented, where as you prefer choices being limited. Pick a choice that sucks, regardless of the previous choices you've made, and how that affects your present situation. The castle or the town. No room for prior preparations or clever tactics on the player's part, this story needs ANGST, so force the choice. It's limiting and takes away the gravity of the choices you make when it's a forgone conclusion that you can't win.

People always bring up Redcliff, as some sort of poor example of how the third option made the other two meaningless. To which I respond that it was only meaningless if you knew the third option is viable ahead of time. For all you knew when you were presented with the choice, leaving for the mages could have meant both the kid and wife bought it. Do you risk it? Do you decide it's not worth the risk and make a terrible choice?

The choice had weight because it presented the option of success as well as defeat. What you chose reflected the outlook of the character. Rather than A or B heads or tails, lose or also lose, you had a number of options, one of which was risky but offered the possiblity of total victory. The only way it was cheap was if you had spoiled the story for yourself ahead of time, which I have no sympathy for.

And if, as you say, having the story punch you in the gut makes your day, then by all means, choose one of the gut punches. No one's going to stop you.

Modifié par Zu Long, 13 janvier 2014 - 07:47 .

[Zu Long]

Genshie 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.

Demon Souls says, "HELLO! ":devil:

Knights of the Old Rebublic says "Hi!" back.

[David7204]

All sorts of things. The developer interviews. The promises of 'choices that matter.' Promises of a powerful and capable protagonist with a powerful organization behind him. A character with the strength to rise above the circumstances? Imagery in a knight in shining armor, wielding a sword? Gaider saying, amongst other things, DA:I is a heroic story.

There's plenty, Dreamgazer. But it's predominantly the promise of a powerful character. Nobody sane can deny that what's the Inquisitor has been shown to be. And that plus a player's decision to be good equals a hero.

[Genshie]

Zu Long wrote...

Genshie 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.

Demon Souls says, "HELLO! ":devil:

Knights of the Old Rebublic says "Hi!" back.

My point was that there are players that actually want to work for their "goodies".

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lol @ David talking about the 'promises' of the Dragon Age games when he hasn't even played any of them.
Actually, imagining him play Origins and pickinh Harrowmont, or playing DA 2 after it's cries of a 'Rise to Power' would be hilarious. 

You should stream it, David. I'd definitely watch it and listen to your commentary.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 13 janvier 2014 - 07:01 .

[David7204]

If you want a harder game, you're free to play on a higher difficulty. But you don't have ground in demanding a good outcome be stripped from players who prefer to play on a lower difficulty.

[Zu Long]

AresKeith wrote...

David how would feel about this Chestwood decision if there wasn't a chance to save both?

Well, I'm not David, but my answer is that I shrug and choose whichever one seems least objectionable at the time. Since it's A or B, why care? I should note though, that even before Bioware confirmed it was possible to do both, I had decided I would try it. Coming into the situation cold, as a person it was my natural reaction to risk it all on doing both things at once, even if that made it hard.

Let me turn this around- before you KNEW it was a possiblity to do both, what were you thinking you would do?

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

If you want a harder game, you're free to play on a higher difficulty. But you don't have ground in demanding a good outcome be stripped from players who prefer to play on a lower difficulty.

AresKeith wrote...

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

[Zu Long]

Genshie wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Genshie 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.

Demon Souls says, "HELLO! ":devil:

Knights of the Old Rebublic says "Hi!" back.

My point was that there are players that actually want to work for their "goodies".

And for those people, hard and nightmare modes were made.

[AresKeith]

Zu Long wrote...

Let me turn this around- before you KNEW it was a possiblity to do both, what were you thinking you would do?

I would've sacrificed the village

[Zu Long]

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

If you want a harder game, you're free to play on a higher difficulty. But you don't have ground in demanding a good outcome be stripped from players who prefer to play on a lower difficulty.

AresKeith wrote...

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

Sure, but in easy it should still be easy to do it. Players have different fun levels after all. If this conversation proves anything, it's that. So when they choose easy, it's easy, and if they choose hard, it's hard.

And yeah, sometimes the story isn't going to go the player's way. Dragon Age would be pretty boring if the player could win Ostagar single-handedly, after all. But I think those choices should have a lot of thought put into them and come naturally to the story. They shouldn't be inserted because some people can't stand the idea of third options, or because the story needs more angst. DA: O had Redcliff, and the Elven choice, which offered good third options, but it also had the two Dwarven choices that were a lot more ambiguous. The latter two weren't my cup of tea, but I muddled my way through them. It just bugs me when people start yelling anytime Bioware rewards smart thinking and good planning, as in the Suicide mission.

[Genshie]

Zu Long wrote...

Genshie wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Genshie 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.

Demon Souls says, "HELLO! ":devil:

Knights of the Old Rebublic says "Hi!" back.

My point was that there are players that actually want to work for their "goodies".

And for those people, hard and nightmare modes were made.

Once again another point is that not all games need to hand hold as well. I mean after all we are playing a mature game so I kind of expect there to be somethings not to be easily done.

[Genshie]

AresKeith wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Let me turn this around- before you KNEW it was a possiblity to do both, what were you thinking you would do?

I would've sacrificed the village

You monster! (Don't take me seriously)

[AresKeith]

Zu Long wrote...

And yeah, sometimes the story isn't going to go the player's way. Dragon Age would be pretty boring if the player could win Ostagar single-handedly, after all. But I think those choices should have a lot of thought put into them and come naturally to the story. They shouldn't be inserted because some people can't stand the idea of third options, or because the story needs more angst. DA: O had Redcliff, and the Elven choice, which offered good third options, but it also had the two Dwarven choices that were a lot more ambiguous. The latter two weren't my cup of tea, but I muddled my way through them. It just bugs me when people start yelling anytime Bioware rewards smart thinking and good planning, as in the Suicide mission.

I would've went one step further with the Redcliff Conner choice

Modifié par AresKeith, 13 janvier 2014 - 07:21 .

[Ziegrif]

One way and one way only.

LEEEEEEEEEEEEROY!!!

JEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNKIIINNSSSS!!!!!

[Zu Long]

AresKeith wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Let me turn this around- before you KNEW it was a possiblity to do both, what were you thinking you would do?

I would've sacrificed the village

And why can't your character still do that now? Why wouldn't they, for that matter? Theoretically, your character is approaching the situation with the same information you had. You can metagame and know theres the possiblity of victory out there, and you might even be able to go look up how to do it, but that's your choice.

All Bioware did was add the option for people like myself, who instinctively, without knowing it was possible, would have tried to do both. And what I don't understand is why this is a bad move on Bioware's part, especially if they looked at the situation and said, "you know, even with how we've set things up, you could do both if you were smart enough to realize X or fast enough at accomplishing Z."

And just to be clear, I'm not some kind of clairvoyent on this stuff. My first character sacrificed the wife at Redcliff because I didn't think going to the tower was a good option.