1638 réponses à ce sujet

[BaladasDemnevanni]

And because there's no possibility of saving both it doesn't hit home as hard as it could do. Screw the people who savescum. If you work on the assumption that people will then you've removed any possibility of any sort of meaningful failure, so you either don't have any at all (which is hopeless) or just force it upon the player anyway (and then they'll rightfully get annoyed with you). Neither of those are good options. Don't mess up your game by catering for the savescummers.

 

Having two options where one isn't better than the other fails to have much emotional impact, or at least more than a film can have. "I've not done anything wrong, may as well have tossed a coin for all the difference it makes" is not making the best use of the game for storytelling. Whilst reloading is a way around it it's a route that quite frankly kicks in the head anyone who claims bad outcomes are "realistic". They happen in reality thanks to cockups that quite probably wouldn't happen if people could redo the same events again.

 

Because these options can't possibly be designed to explore what the player (or character) values most? A game allowing the player to choose whether they value their Love Interest or saving 100 lives has no greater player agency than a film? Sorry, but I think your argument is extremely flawed on that front.

 

As with any medium, it's all in the presentation. Trying to reframe this into some " forced tragedy" or "forced happy endings" is foolish.

[DeltaTimo]

When I first played through Mass Effect, I was very angry.. refusing to accept the ending. Then, after playing a lot of Multiplayer, I played through a second time having in mind to visit every single planet to scan and do every quest I can see / I have time for. After I had then played through, I couldn't even fall asleep as fast as normally: I had to think so much - How would it go on? And now I don't hate Mass Effect 3, but instead I like it! Even the ending! A game that achieves to make me think for half a year and longer about the story is truely good.

[Reorte]

Because these options can't possibly be designed to explore what the player (or character) values most? A game allowing the player to choose whether they value their Love Interest or saving 100 lives has no greater player agency than a film? Sorry, but I think your argument is extremely flawed on that front.

 

As with any medium, it's all in the presentation. Trying to reframe this into some " forced tragedy" or "forced happy endings" is foolish.

A game that forces you into that choice is going to leave the player pissed off at the writers, not themseleves. Two different shades of crap, and yes, no real player agency in a meaningful sense because the whole thing is still controlled. It IS forced tragedy or forced happy endings whether you like it or not, with no scope on how the emotional turn runs depending upon the player's actions.

[Reorte]

I don't check you on the emotional impact being less if the bad outcome was unavoidable. If anything, the reaction to ME3 shows the opposite. You were in the "tragic ending" thread over on the DAI board, right? One persistent complaint was that ME3 had too much impact; the free choice of the US in DA:O did not.

 

Edit: we're talking about kinds of emotional impact in the two cases, though.

No, not posted anything on the DAI board

 

The reaction to ME3 was people angry and upset at the game, not within the game - the same sort of difference as being laughed at and being laughed with.

 

The complaint about ME3's impact is unrelated, that's down to what state it leaves the galaxy in at the end and how that might affect sequels. As far as it's impact on ME3 itself goes it's pretty minor.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

A game that forces you into that choice is going to leave the player pissed off at the writers, not themseleves. Two different shades of crap, and yes, no real player agency in a meaningful sense because the whole thing is still controlled. It IS forced tragedy or forced happy endings whether you like it or not, with no scope on how the emotional turn runs depending upon the player's actions.

 

 

Really now? So you know 100% of the time what every player is feeling at every point in time? Players are going to get exclusively angry at the writers, even when a scene is well-written and extremely thought-provoking? Again, I think you need to think a bit more about how games operate as a medium vs. film. You have a very narrow understanding of both mediums. This is why universal arguments are stupid and so easy to disprove. By this argument, the Genophage should have allowed the player to keep Wrex, Mordin, and Eve alive, cure the Krogan, get Salarian support, and not have a single negative outcome. And considering the extremely positive reaction to scenarios like choosing to Destroy or Rewrite the Geth, it's clear that there is some room for players who want to think about moral consequences. Hell, I could even point to other stories in other game series with forced tragedy that have been absolutely applauded. My point is saying forced tragedy was a bad idea for ME3 as implemented might be a fair point. Saying forced tragedy (or happy endings) has no place in gaming? Sorry, you're stretching beyond belief.

 

You're ignoring the fact that, as per real life, you do not have 100% control over tragic vs. happy outcomes. Because believe it or not, there are such things as circumstances beyond your comprehension and control. In essence, you're saying tragedy is less tragic because it doesn't occur in the manner that actual tragedies can occur.

[TheRealJayDee]

When I look at my feelings towards ME3 today I find indifference primarily, with a hint of sadness and some barely noticeable dying embers of once burning passion. 

 

I got into Mass Effect late, but I soon fell in love with the setting and the characters, as well as with the ideas and ambition behind making the trilogy. I liked the first game better than ME2, but I enjoyed them both very much. I played quite a few Shepards through ME1+2, and naturally was very, very excited about ME3. 

 

ME3 was, in fact, one of my most anticipated games ever. I so much wanted to play it that I even broke with my anti-DRM principles for the very first time, grudingly accepting Origin on my sytem in order to finish my Shepards' stories. I pre-ordered the N7 edition despite my disappointing experiences with DA2, and even though there were some warning signs before release that should have convinced me it might be a good idea to take a wait-and-see approach I didn't cancel that pre-order. I wanted the game, I wanted it to be glorious and I was convinced it wouldn't go terribly wrong.

 

Things went south from the start with the broken face-import. I won't go into detail about all my problems with ME3 itself and the the circumstances surrounding it, but there was a lot I wasn't too happy about. And it definitely wasn't just the endings, though they were a major factor. 

 

In hindsight I can put some of the blame about why the Mass Effect franchise and I are now going our different ways due to irreconcilable differences on my own unrealistic expectations and failure to take a more cautious approach. Though I can't say Bioware didn't do their part in fueling those expectations and encouraging the purchase behaviour, equally through well-earned trust and at times somewhat dubious marketing. But they're a business, so that's just what they do. Having played through ME3 twice I'd say I more or less got my money's worth in hours of entertainment from the game, so yeah, that's that. 

 

All in all the Mass Effect trilogy turned out to be a fun ride, that got increasingly bumpy as it went on and ultimately lead nowhere I wanted to go. I had fun with the games, I probably got invested too much, and I definitely learned from the experience for the future. By now the entire ME trilogy is long gone from my PC, and my interest in the franchise is mostly gone as well, but, you know, that's okay. Maybe it'll change in the future, maybe not. 

 

Let me finish by saying that I'm genuinely happy for those who enjoyed ME3 and the Mass Effect trilogy as a whole more than I did in the end (well, as long as they weren't jerks about it ^^), and I hope as many people as possible will have tons of fun with the next ME game!  

[Reorte]

Really now? So you know 100% of the time what every player is feeling at every point in time? Players are going to get exclusively angry at the writers, even when a scene is well-written and extremely thought-provoking? Again, I think you need to think a bit more about how games operate as a medium vs. film. You have a very narrow understanding of both mediums. This is why universal arguments are stupid and so easy to disprove. By this argument, the Genophage should have allowed the player to keep Wrex, Mordin, and Eve alive, cure the Krogan, get Salarian support, and not have a single negative outcome. And considering the extremely positive reaction to scenarios like choosing to Destroy or Rewrite the Geth, it's clear that there is some room for players who want to think about moral consequences. Hell, I could even point to other stories in other game series with forced tragedy that have been absolutely applauded. My point is saying forced tragedy was a bad idea for ME3 as implemented might be a fair point. Saying forced tragedy (or happy endings) has no place in gaming? Sorry, you're stretching beyond belief.

 

You're ignoring the fact that, as per real life, you do not have 100% control over tragic vs. happy outcomes. Because believe it or not, there are such things as circumstances beyond your comprehension and control. In essence, you're saying tragedy is less tragic because it doesn't occur in the manner that actual tragedies can occur.

You are continually missing the point, concentrating on the fact that it's impossible to get things perfect all of the time as an excuse for not bothering at all.

 

In life you have a lot more control than you think, it's just incredibly difficult to get certain outcomes. When tragedy happens you can always point to things that could've been differently to avoid it. The "realism" explanation always just seems to get dragged out as an excuse not to think about things. Some of them would've resulted in different tragedies of course, but there are always different possibilities. Those different possibilities are what a game can offer, and that is a key point of using a game as a storytelling medium and neither you nor BioWare appear to grasp, the fundamental difference between the two mediums. The player can be responsible for both tragedies and successes, and therefore the emotional impact of both is far higher. Now a game of course can't handle every single possibility - all it can reasonably do is make a good stab at covering a reasonable number of them. Sometimes events have to be forced, and if that's handled well enough to not seem forced it'll be accepted. That's why Virmire or no completely perfect resolution to the Genophage are accepted and even praised - they do a much better job of the balancing act.

[AlanC9]

No, not posted anything on the DAI board

The reaction to ME3 was people angry and upset at the game, not within the game - the same sort of difference as being laughed at and being laughed with.

The complaint about ME3's impact is unrelated, that's down to what state it leaves the galaxy in at the end and how that might affect sequels. As far as it's impact on ME3 itself goes it's pretty minor.

Again, I don't check you on this. People have repeatedly made the argument that Shepard's death hurt too much, not too little.

[AlanC9]

Now a game of course can't handle every single possibility - all it can reasonably do is make a good stab at covering a reasonable number of them. Sometimes events have to be forced, and if that's handled well enough to not seem forced it'll be accepted. That's why Virmire or no completely perfect resolution to the Genophage are accepted and even praised - they do a much better job of the balancing act.

It seems like this bit is doing all the work in your argument. Forced situations are fine except when they aren't? OK, but then "not seem forced" is the real criterion, and the earlier business about games being a different medium isn't relevant.

[Reorte]

It seems like this bit is doing all the work in your argument. Forced situations are fine except when they aren't? OK, but then "not seem forced" is the real criterion, and the earlier business about games being a different medium isn't relevant.

I don't think that they are ever good but sometimes (often) they are a necessity for purely practical reasons (i.e. it's impossible to create a game that offers complete freedom of choice). Once you're in that situation then players will accept it if you do a good enough job of it. Done well they don't break the illusion of being in control of your character, and BioWare has got enough examples of doing it well to show that they're capable of it. They still don't have the impact of defeats or victories that the player has to accept responsibility for.

[Reorte]

Again, I don't check you on this. People have repeatedly made the argument that Shepard's death hurt too much, not too little.

In the wrong way though, leaving people feeling hurt at the game instead of with it.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

You are continually missing the point, concentrating on the fact that it's impossible to get things perfect all of the time as an excuse for not bothering at all.

 

1) In life you have a lot more control than you think, it's just incredibly difficult to get certain outcomes.

 

2) When tragedy happens you can always point to things that could've been differently to avoid it. The "realism" explanation always just seems to get dragged out as an excuse not to think about things. Some of them would've resulted in different tragedies of course, but there are always different possibilities.

 

3)Those different possibilities are what a game can offer, and that is a key point of using a game as a storytelling medium and neither you nor BioWare appear to grasp, the fundamental difference between the two mediums. The player can be responsible for both tragedies and successes, and therefore the emotional impact of both is far higher. Now a game of course can't handle every single possibility - all it can reasonably do is make a good stab at covering a reasonable number of them.

 

4) Sometimes events have to be forced, and if that's handled well enough to not seem forced it'll be accepted. That's why Virmire or no completely perfect resolution to the Genophage are accepted and even praised - they do a much better job of the balancing act.

 

 1) Tell that to all the people who have lost loved ones to disease or circumstances truly beyond feasible control. A video game does not mean the player/character needs to be a super hero. Sure, sometimes a game has forced tragedy so utterly obvious I find myself shaking my head, which is bad writing majority of the time. But your conclusion, that all tragedy can be avoided, still doesn't work.

 

2) If you're resulting in different tragedies, where is your argument? My point is that it is possible for a game to handle extremely well morally grey areas, where the player is in effect choosing between different outcomes, none of which are clearly superior.

 

3) Really? So everyone experiences tragedy exactly as you described? I'm sorry, but that doesn't work. I have very different responses to the scenarios which you consider well-handled. Yeah, I can kill off my entire crew in ME2 and watch Shepard eat dirt. But there was no emotional impact. I simply laughed at the scenario. That ME2's suicide mission was absurdly easy made Shepard's death less tragic, not more.

 

And as I said, you're assuming an extremely narrow interpretation of what a game is meant to achieve. By virtue of providing the player with multiple options in the style of a thought experiment, the game has already provided the player with choice, making it fundamentally different than a film. Witcher 2, while not perfect, does demonstrate the strengths of the gaming medium with very few perfect outcomes to be had. Hell, Half-Life 2 Episode 2 ends with an extreme tragedy and yet the series is considered one of the best demonstrations of what gaming can achieve.

 

4) I'm with Alan on this one. Your arguments to the gaming medium aren't doing you any favors on this point and here you seem to be contradicting yourself. Basically, avoid crappy writing is the key point based on this last bit, and that's not inherently tied to forced outcomes. Hence why games like Planescape: Torment can get away with always killing off its protagonist, but is considered by many to be one of the best role-playing games ever made.

 

I'm not sure how Virmire is considered acceptable by you, given that even with limited development resources, it would have required minimal resources to create a scene where Shepard is able to save Kaidan and Ashley.

[Reorte]

1) Anyone who's ever died tragically might well not have done had it been possible to go back in time and replay some event, often not requiring much change. Nothing is fated, no-one is ever doomed to die. Tragedy generally boils down to plain bad luck at some point.

 

2) Different tragedies is only one possible outcome, and certainly not an inevitable one.

 

3) No, of course not, and claiming so is a sever over-simplification of my point. ME2's Collector Base mission's failing is due to it being too easy to get a perfect outcome (although it would be interesting to know how many did without any metagaming), and too hard to fail without deliberately trying to do so. Just because the approach was better doesn't mean that there still can't be flaws in the implementation.

 

I agree that the Witcher 2 handles it much better, although largely with the events that are part of what the protagonist is moving in instead of being in control of. It'll be interesting to see if it manages to stay on the rails.

 

4) I'm sorry if you think I'm contradicting myself simply by accepting the obvious that it isn't a complete black-and-white, one way is always perfect, the other always bad situation. Avoiding crappy writing makes the undesirable but sometimes necessary forced scenes work, a necessary evil (and consider about whether they work because of or in spite of various factors). My arguments for the gaming medium are simply that there's scope for greater emotional impact when the events are the result of player agency, and with that possibility exists the opposite, that any forced on the player have less impact than they might otherwise (and that works for both good and bad ones), and possibly even resentment. I'm struggling to see how you and Alan can even have an issue with that concept.

 

The events of Virmire flow much better from what's going on in the story to that point, so work at least on a first playthrough. On later ones they seem to fall under the practicality limits of what's achievable, and are limited to secondary characters at least.

[AlanC9]

I don't think that they are ever good but sometimes (often) they are a necessity for purely practical reasons (i.e. it's impossible to create a game that offers complete freedom of choice). Once you're in that situation then players will accept it if you do a good enough job of it. Done well they don't break the illusion of being in control of your character, and BioWare has got enough examples of doing it well to show that they're capable of it. They still don't have the impact of defeats or victories that the player has to accept responsibility for.

 

You're consistently conflating the illusion of  "control of your character" with the illusion of "control over your character's fate." Is this rhetoric, a product of implicit assumptions about how such game illusions work, a metaphysical stance about how the universe itself works, or just intellectual confusion?

[Iakus]

You're consistently conflating the illusion of  "control of your character" with the illusion of "control over your character's fate." Is this rhetoric, a product of implicit assumptions about how such game illusions work, a metaphysical stance about how the universe itself works, or just intellectual confusion?

 

 

Control over the character's fate is the most basic kind of control in a video game.  How do your actions impact not just upon others, but upon your character personally?

 

If the endpoint to virtually every path is "charcoal briquette" then I would say the control over your character's fate is small to the point of nonexistent.

[Reorte]

You're consistently conflating the illusion of  "control of your character" with the illusion of "control over your character's fate." Is this rhetoric, a product of implicit assumptions about how such game illusions work, a metaphysical stance about how the universe itself works, or just intellectual confusion?

You'd do better to avoid tones of personal insult ("intellectual confusion") if you want to be taken seriously.

 

What happens to anyone is a combination of what they do and luck, so there's not much difference between control of your character and control of your character's fate. Why do you see them as any different, unless you're simply talking about direct control in combat (and I assume that you're not)?

 

The question is do you want a game to simply be little different from a film, except that you can shade a few things - not much different fundamentally from changing your character's appearance, or do you think it should try to aim for more than that?

[AlanC9]

What happens to anyone is a combination of what they do and luck, so there's not much difference between control of your character and control of your character's fate. Why do you see them as any different, unless you're simply talking about direct control in combat (and I assume that you're not)?

 

The question is do you want a game to simply be little different from a film, except that you can shade a few things - not much different fundamentally from changing your character's appearance, or do you think it should try to aim for more than that?

 

Bad shorthand on my part. I was referring to this level of control:  "Anyone who's ever died tragically might well not have done had it been possible to go back in time and replay some event, often not requiring much change." Sure, if we could travel back in time all tragedies could be undone. But we can't. And there's no particular reason for the PC to have enough control over the universe to be able to avoid any tragedy he's involved in. The universe doesn't work like that. But of course this is not news to you, since you've already accepted Virmire. Remind me again what principle it is  that Virmire doesn't violate but the ME3 ending does violate. Besides the "crappy writing " principle, of course.

 

As for the question of whether games should aim for more player control, I think they should be allowed to do both. Some things you can avoid, some things you can't. Why restrict games to always letting the player avoid stuff?

[CronoDragoon]

And because there's no possibility of saving both it doesn't hit home as hard as it could do. Screw the people who savescum. If you work on the assumption that people will then you've removed any possibility of any sort of meaningful failure, so you either don't have any at all (which is hopeless) or just force it upon the player anyway (and then they'll rightfully get annoyed with you). Neither of those are good options. Don't mess up your game by catering for the savescummers.[/quote]

 

It's actually your argument that caters to the save-scummers, since you're advocating game design that enables save-scumming in the first place. Were games to always follow the moral choice paradigm where no choice is clearly superior, save-scumming would disappear.

 

And you can't just say "don't design games with save-scummers in mind" because again, most players are save-scummers. So if you're designing a game with the purpose of tough moral choices, then you have to make sure the choice design doesn't simply allow players to side-step the ethical conflict in play.

 

Having two options where one isn't better than the other fails to have much emotional impact, or at least more than a film can have. "I've not done anything wrong, may as well have tossed a coin for all the difference it makes" is not making the best use of the game for storytelling. Whilst reloading is a way around it it's a route that quite frankly kicks in the head anyone who claims bad outcomes are "realistic". They happen in reality thanks to cockups that quite probably wouldn't happen if people could redo the same events again.

 

Response to first part above.

 

I also sincerely doubt that you haven't save-scummed, so I don't know why you are separating yourself here.

 

However, I see no reason to accept your claim that emotional impact is devalued if the game does not contain various win-states, which is essentially another way of saying games should always allow flawless victories. You reiterate this in a later post that you don't think games should ever have such choices where "one is not clearly superior." The statement that games should concentrate their choices around degree of victory instead of ethical dilemmas is extremely limiting, as BD has pointed out, and frankly boring. There should be games that center around ethical dilemmas, and games that center around a "perfect run." This is why I can enjoy both ME2 and ME3.

[Reorte]

Bad shorthand on my part. I was referring to this level of control:  "Anyone who's ever died tragically might well not have done had it been possible to go back in time and replay some event, often not requiring much change." Sure, if we could travel back in time all tragedies could be undone. But we can't. And there's no particular reason for the PC to have enough control over the universe to be able to avoid any tragedy he's involved in. The universe doesn't work like that. But of course this is not news to you, since you've already accepted Virmire. Remind me again what principle it is  that Virmire doesn't violate but the ME3 ending does violate. Besides the "crappy writing " principle, of course.

 

As for the question of whether games should aim for more player control, I think they should be allowed to do both. Some things you can avoid, some things you can't. Why restrict games to always letting the player avoid stuff?

We can't but a game can, whether by savescumming or starting a new playthrough. Seeing if you can make things happen differently and turn out better should be a significant part of an RPG (IMO, anyway). The universe DOES work like that by the way. Every single tragedy is avoidable if you go back far enough, just some are harder to avoid than others. What's more realistic (if we stick to the sort of thing we'll encounter in games) is a war where we know lots will die, but who dies is completely and utterly unpredictable.

 

You say "beside the crappy writing" principle but that's why Virmire gets by. It isn't written as crappily and as I've said a few times already such forced results can work if the writing is OK, but that's despite the concept and not because of it. We all accept that there are limits on what can be implemented after all so railroading has to be there to a greater or lesser degree, simply due to those practical limits. Hence if you write it well enough people will tolerate it. Write it really well and people will praise it. However to be tolerable it needs to be well written, it needs to be convincing, and it needs to not feel inserted with a sledgehammer. The more it affects things close to the player the more effort needs to be done to get away with this sometimes necessary evil - and there's another one - it needs to be necessary railroading and not lazy railroading.

[Reorte]

Response to first part above.

 

I also sincerely doubt that you haven't save-scummed, so I don't know why you are separating yourself here.

 

However, I see no reason to accept your claim that emotional impact is devalued if the game does not contain various win-states, which is essentially another way of saying games should always allow flawless victories. You reiterate this in a later post that you don't think games should ever have such choices where "one is not clearly superior." The statement that games should concentrate their choices around degree of victory instead of ethical dilemmas is extremely limiting, as BD has pointed out, and frankly boring. There should be games that center around ethical dilemmas, and games that center around a "perfect run." This is why I can enjoy both ME2 and ME3.

I don't savescum in first playthroughs (other than reloading after a critical mission failure or things like getting stuck when talking to Joker). Sure, I'm advocating a design that results in people wanting to savescum. So what? The alternative is to skip meaningful choice. May as well play a straightforward shooter then. If people want to cheat themselves to victory that's their decision, they won't get anywhere near the sense of achievement as someone who's earned it. Making the impact of the choices appear later in the game though makes life harder for savescummers (I dimly recall reading somewhere that that was deliberately part of The Witcher's design).

 

What is extremely boring are choices that only have two shades of crap. No room for making mistakes, no room for feeling good because you've won a victory or bad because you've lost someone. Sometimes there might be decisions where which is the best one depends upon a person's own morals (or whatever morals you're roleplaying your character to have). The ending doesn't have to be totally implausibly perfect (actually winning against the Reapers at all is implausible, which is a bit of a barrier to anything), and even the very best result needs to be hard to earn, but you're talking about a game where I may as well toss a coin for every choice and have the same atmosphere throughout.

 

I don't understand why you don't see that any emotional impact is lessened if you're not the one responsible for the result. You don't think you've lost a character because you've screwed up will have more of an impact than it being scripted?

 

I like hard choices but they're only hard choices if you're agonising over whether you're making the right one. It doesn't have to be at all obvious at the time which is the clearly superior choice - you need to think about it. If it was obvious then I agree it would be very dull.

 

Incidentally you can quote multiple parts of a post and reply to them in turn but it's a copy-paste faff.

[AlanC9]

The universe DOES work like that by the way. Every single tragedy is avoidable if you go back far enough, just some are harder to avoid than others.

Wait a second. Who is it doing the going back here? A single person? Are you really saying that it's impossible for an individual to be put into a tragic situation because of other people's choices? I'll certainly agree that if we run the universe far enough back and get everybody to do the right thing any dilemma can be undone, but I don't see how this holds true if we only have control over one person's actions.

As for the rest of your post..... so you've got a design principle that situations like Virmire are bad, but if the writing's good enough you're willing to overlook that principle? Have I got that right?

[Mcfly616]

How are situations like Virmire "bad"?

[AlanC9]

What is extremely boring are choices that only have two shades of crap. No room for making mistakes, no room for feeling good because you've won a victory or bad because you've lost someone. Sometimes there might be decisions where which is the best one depends upon a person's own morals (or whatever morals you're roleplaying your character to have).

Nobody is arguing in favor of endings that are two shades of crap in the first place. (Just because the situation is bad doesn't mean that the player couldn't also have failed worse.)

They are arguing that the PC should be placed in negative, tragic situations sometimes, though. Are you really saying that players should always be able to avoid negative situations?

[AlanC9]

How are situations like Virmire "bad"?

I'm trying to sort that out myself. I think they're bad because the player can't avoid them by being awesome, or something like that.

[OctagonalSquare]

I bought the Mass Effect Trilogy sometime in February and finished the series last week. I loved every damn minute. I'm not very critical of video games at all, and I had the Extended Cut to begin with, so I liked the ending and habor no negative feelings for the series. Hell, it's my favorite series ever.