129 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Looking over the main plot-related choices of some past games in the ME and DA franchise, I can't but notice how many of them were not satisfying in that the set of choices we were presented with felt contrived to be as extreme as possible with no reason given why there weren't any less extreme, more moderate choices a forward-thinking protagonist might want to consider.

DA2: Side with the resident fascists or "help dangerous people run amok".
ME2: Destroy the technology or give it to the terrorists.
ME3: All choices make extreme galaxy-wide changes and are facilitated by the Bigger Bad.

These choices feel as if they were not a natural outgrowth of the plot, but created with controversy in mind, and - here comes the problem - not only that, but at the cost of common sense.

For future games, I wish for a set of options that all feel as if I might want to take them depending on how I envision my character, rather than all feeling as if I might want to avoid them. Usually, that would mean options that don't make the most extreme versions of their underlying ideologies thematically dominant. DA2's siding with the templars should not result in supporting an Annulment, for instance, and siding with the mages should not thematically connect you to all the insane mages you had to kill in the course of the story (dishonorable mention: Orsino). Also, perfectly plausible compromise options should not be excluded just for the sake of controversy. If there exists a middle option and everyone ends up taking it, the rationale for the extreme options was weak to start with and they shouldn't have been included in the first place but replaced by less extreme ones.

Another issue I have is with the forced symmetry of options. These all feel like the infamous "ABC" endings ME3 marketing promised we wouldn't get. Yet again, I have to point to DAO for a non-symmetric setup that feels like a natural outgrowth of the plot. Only the Ultimate Sacrifice requires a set of plot and characterization constraints I don't feel is very plausible, since you either have Alistair with you (the more senior Warden who would usually make the kill) or Loghain (whose redemption is an attractive outcome), and if you don't bring your second Warden with you to the final fight you're stupid. Anyway, the other options feel natural and I find them all attractive depending on the character I play in any specific playthrough. Meanwhile, in DA2 I usually wish to walk away, in ME2 I feel as if either being stupid or complicit with terrorists, and ME3's options all feel extremely uncomfortable.

Now watching the BSN may make you believe otherwise, but I am firmly convinced that most players aren't ideological extremists, and that most players are intelligent enough to discern what the options mean even if they're not extreme. 

Thus, this request: I wish for main plot-related choices I all find attractive, choices where I would consider the positive outcome worth the downsides in the face of those absent options we aren't allowed to take but which would naturally exist in the world anyway. Something is wrong when faced with a decision, I look to one side, then the other, and desperately want to say: "I'll have no part of this" and walk away.

Edit:
To clarify: I don't necessarily mind the presence of extreme choices, only that there are none of a more moderate kind. Extreme choices should be present for those players who want them, but forcing all players into one of those is undesirable. Also, there should be no attempt to make the extreme choices more attractive by making the moderate ones more extreme in their own right. Extremists are usually minority. I don't see any problem with in-game choices reflecting that.
.

Modifié par Ieldra, 25 février 2014 - 02:12 .

[The Elder King]

I completely agree with you, Ieldra. I support this.

[fchopin]

I don’t want options taken out of games but i understand that choices should be done better.
Most options come out of the blue and break immersion in the game so my opinion is that choices should be implemented according to the story in a more natural way than out of the blue.
Same for personal choices, it should depend on the kind of character the PC chooses and there should be differences according to character.

I know things can be unexpected and sometimes we should be surprised but not everything should be the same.

[Hellion Rex]

I can agree with this. What I absolutely hated about the ending of DA2 was that it made me feel like I was unequivocally evil if I were to choose the Templar side over the Mages, when I feel that my choice should been much more grey and difficult to make.

[Ieldra]

I would like to add one more thing: if you - the developers - feel there is a need for balance between the options, and the reason for any imbalance appears to be their perceived morality, it is usually the better choice to remove "evil" from the option(s) chosen least rather than to add it to the option(s) chosen most. This depends somewhat on the actual setup, but for instance, I think siding with the templars in DA2 feels too evil, and that adding insane blood mages does not make it and the fundamental injustice it represents more attractive, it only makes it more apparent that you want it to be more attractive and compromised the believability of the setting and the plot for the attempt to make it so.

Having said that, I do not see the need for balance. Some options will always be less popular than others, and an unbalanced setup only becomes a problem if the reason is that the story appears to favor one side.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 février 2014 - 11:45 .

[Silent Yoker]

I agree with OP. And while I don't hate Mass effect 3's ending anymore I still want more openness to it. Life is grey in essence. black and white are ideals to strive for but not reality.

[leaguer of one]

I disagree. Why does it have to be choices we like? It would be obvious which choice are picked if there was an agreeable flat out choice. It about questioning the player about the choice on hand and to get them to think about it not them just pick what ever they like.

If you have 2 choices and one has an award and one does not, it's not really a choice.

[Ieldra]

leaguer of one wrote...
I disagree. Why does it have to be choices we like? It would be obvious which choice are picked if there was an agreeable flat out choice. It about questioning the player about the choice on hand and to get them to think about it not them just pick what ever they like.

If you have 2 choices and one has an award and one does not, it's not really a choice.

You are limiting yourself needlessly. There is no need to restrict the number of options to two, and no need to make one choice better than the others in an objective, countable way. Also note that I haven't argued for options with no downside. Instead, I have argued that the possible downsides should not contaminate the options to such an extent that none of them feels worth taking.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 février 2014 - 12:00 .

[leaguer of one]

Ieldra2 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
I disagree. Why does it have to be choices we like? It would be obvious which choice are picked if there was an agreeable flat out choice. It about questioning the player about the choice on hand and to get them to think about it not them just pick what ever they like.

If you have 2 choices and one has an award and one does not, it's not really a choice.

You are limiting yourself needlessly. There is no need to restrict the number of options to two, and no need to make one choice better than the others in an objective, countable way. Also note that I haven't argued for options with no downside. Instead, I have argued that the possible downsides should not contaminate the options to such an extent that none of them feels worth taking.

There is a need. The point is to question the player. A 3rd awnser should only be their is it makes sense to the plot and story. There cases like Tuchanka in me3 were the 2 choice work because it pressures the player on reasonable pros and cons of each choice and then there is Rennoch the choices on hand is based on the actions of the player in ME2 and ME3. Both work based on the fact that player choice, belief  and action effect the outcome , not because they are flexible.

Too much flexiblity in these choice ruin the very point of the question these choice are asking the player. The entire idea is about getting them to think about it.

Sure, there are bad way to do it, like the ending of DA2 where a choice of just getting the city guard trying to control the situation being avalible if you make the right choices in the game should of been an option. But that does not mean that all choice have to be that flexible. It has to make sense to the story and plot and the actions the player has done. 

[esper]

Ieldra2 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
I disagree. Why does it have to be choices we like? It would be obvious which choice are picked if there was an agreeable flat out choice. It about questioning the player about the choice on hand and to get them to think about it not them just pick what ever they like.

If you have 2 choices and one has an award and one does not, it's not really a choice.

You are limiting yourself needlessly. There is no need to restrict the number of options to two, and no need to make one choice better than the others in an objective, countable way. Also note that I haven't argued for options with no downside. Instead, I have argued that the possible downsides should not contaminate the options to such an extent that none of them feels worth taking.

What contaminate a choice is individual. I never falter in my belief that the mages are where in the right at the end game, no matter how many crazy blood mages they threw at us, because it was Anders who blew up the chantry and not the circle and thus I would never get behind siding with the templars in that situation (expect that one time for achievement which i reloaded afterwards). '

As for you general OP, I think it was right to remove the middle ground at the end of da2. The 'not my busniness' option actually exist, but Meridith simply says that means you side wiht the mages in her eyes. Basically outside circumstance means that the less extreme options are no longer viable and that does happens sometimes.

I don't want to have only such choice, but where it is propable then yes I think it is fitting, but generally I would like less choice in the end game, because I generally find the end games choice artificial. What I want to see is an end game consequence of your prior choices and only have and big end game choice for those who wavered doing the game and thus have no clear loyalty.

[MisterJB]

leaguer of one wrote...
Sure, there are bad way to do it, like the ending of DA2 where a choice of just getting the city guard trying to control the situation being avalible if you make the right choices in the game should of been an option.

Technically, it's already there. If you side with the Templars, Aveline tells you that is what the Guard has been doing and you can convince her to order them to aid the Order in the assault on the Circle.

You just don't have the option to not pick a side and help the Guard instead.

[leaguer of one]

MisterJB wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
Sure, there are bad way to do it, like the ending of DA2 where a choice of just getting the city guard trying to control the situation being avalible if you make the right choices in the game should of been an option.

Technically, it's already there. If you side with the Templars, Aveline tells you that is what the Guard has been doing and you can convince her to order them to aid the Order in the assault on the Circle.

You just don't have the option to not pick a side and help the Guard instead.

She does the same thing if you side with the mages. So no it's not an option.

[Xilizhra]

Thus, this request: I wish for main plot-related choices I all find attractive, choices where I would consider the positive outcome worth the downsides in the face of those absent options we aren't allowed to take but which would naturally exist in the world anyway. Something is wrong when faced with a decision, I look to one side, then the other, and desperately want to say: "I'll have no part of this" and walk away.

Is this not fundamentally incompatible with the role of the PC? You can't just walk away from things, you're in the thick of it, and that's your job as, well, hero to deal with that sort of thing.

I also don't entirely agree, as I've never really had a problem negotiating extremities; I find it sort of fun, actually, as thus far, one side has always appealed to me fairly strongly (this didn't happen in Skyrim, where I'd have preferred to negotiate something between the Stormcloaks and Empire, but Bioware's avoided that problem for me). However, it would make save imports easier, so for that alone, I might agree with you.

[Amirit]

Drama for the sake of drama plus cliche - yes, in every game you mention it is there. You can add SWTOR to the list (oh, so much! For every class). Unfortunately, the plot is already set, finished and on the go. More then this: it was already declared that the whole situation is very extreme (end of the world) and we are playing as and extremely important political figure making extremely important political decisions.
All we can do now is to prepare ourselves to the already common very extreme set of choices to ease the future pain.

[MisterJB]

You have the option of allowing them to continue or asking for their help. At least in the Templar ending, not sure if that is possible in the Mage ending.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

You have the option of allowing them to continue or asking for their help. At least in the Templar ending, not sure if that is possible in the Mage ending.

It's not possible to ask the guard to help fight the templars, as you don't get a report on their status until after you're already inside the Gallows. They are, however, containing the situation as best they can and not supporting Meredith, while the templars neglect the demon outbreaks to go after the mages.

[leaguer of one]

Amirit wrote...

Drama for the sake of drama plus cliche - yes, in every game you mention it is there. You can add SWTOR to the list (oh, so much! For every class). Unfortunately, the plot is already set, finished and on the go. More then this: it was already declared that the whole situation is very extreme (end of the world) and we are playing as and extremely important political figure making extremely important political decisions.
All we can do now is to prepare ourselves to the already common very extreme set of choices to ease the future pain.

I would not say drama for drama sake. Its just the game asking you a question to think deeply about. It sounds like you just don't want to be bothered with thinking about it.

[esper]

Xilizhra wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

You have the option of allowing them to continue or asking for their help. At least in the Templar ending, not sure if that is possible in the Mage ending.

It's not possible to ask the guard to help fight the templars, as you don't get a report on their status until after you're already inside the Gallows. They are, however, containing the situation as best they can and not supporting Meredith, while the templars neglect the demon outbreaks to go after the mages.

Aveline can actually leave you on the mages side. In which case both she and her guardsmen walk out on the order pre-fight.

[Fetunche]

Templars are evil, easy choice.

Modifié par Fetunche, 24 février 2014 - 12:30 .

[Ieldra]

leaguer of one wrote...
There is a need. The point is to question the player. A 3rd awnser should only be their is it makes sense to the plot and story. There cases like Tuchanka in me3 were the 2 choice work because it pressures the player on reasonable pros and cons of each choice and then there is Rennoch the choices on hand is based on the actions of the player in ME2 and ME3. Both work based on the fact that player choice, belief  and action effect the outcome , not because they are flexible.

Too much flexiblity in these choice ruin the very point of the question these choice are asking the player. The entire idea is about getting them to think about it.

Sure, there are bad way to do it, like the ending of DA2 where a choice of just getting the city guard trying to control the situation being avalible if you make the right choices in the game should of been an option. But that does not mean that all choice have to be that flexible. It has to make sense to the story and plot and the actions the player has done.

That's what I'm saying. It has to make sense and not feel contrived to be extreme just for the sake of controversy.

And no, I very much disagree that ME3's Genophage choice was done well. Either do nothing or cure it all? I can only say I see the unfairness of it all, but with what the story tells us a complete reversal is outright insane from any even remotely pragmatic viewpoint. So we are either good and stupid and astronomically lucky that it doesn't backfire, or we're continuing a state of affairs which really should be mitigated.

Yes, the game does ask the player about these things. But what does this achieve if all answers are of a kind any reasonable player would never give?

[leaguer of one]

Ieldra2 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
There is a need. The point is to question the player. A 3rd awnser should only be their is it makes sense to the plot and story. There cases like Tuchanka in me3 were the 2 choice work because it pressures the player on reasonable pros and cons of each choice and then there is Rennoch the choices on hand is based on the actions of the player in ME2 and ME3. Both work based on the fact that player choice, belief  and action effect the outcome , not because they are flexible.

Too much flexiblity in these choice ruin the very point of the question these choice are asking the player. The entire idea is about getting them to think about it.

Sure, there are bad way to do it, like the ending of DA2 where a choice of just getting the city guard trying to control the situation being avalible if you make the right choices in the game should of been an option. But that does not mean that all choice have to be that flexible. It has to make sense to the story and plot and the actions the player has done.

That's what I'm saying. It has to make sense and not feel contrived to be extreme just for the sake of controversy.

And no, I very much disagree that ME3's Genophage choice was done well. Either do nothing or cure it all? I can only say I see the unfairness of it all, but with what the story tells us a complete reversal is outright insane from any even remotely pragmatic viewpoint. So we are either good and stupid and astronomically lucky that it doesn't backfire, or we're continuing a state of affairs which really should be mitigated.

Yes, the game does ask the player about these things. But what does this achieve if all answers are of a kind any reasonable player would never give?

The question was never about about what they would do in a noraml situation. Every question has the player's hand or hand tied back in a way. If a player can do anything to solve an issue, there is no personal debate for the player on the issue on hand.


And cure was well done. The concept was more then just about curing the krogan but doing political plays to gain allies for a war. The issues on hand was the wants of the two sides of the issue not the player. For the player to have more control over the situation, they had to be able to convince the krogan that their's a need for the genophage and that cleary is not going to happen. It should not be a case that every character in the story is a slave to the players choice or will.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 24 février 2014 - 12:41 .

[Ieldra]

esper wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
I disagree. Why does it have to be choices we like? It would be obvious which choice are picked if there was an agreeable flat out choice. It about questioning the player about the choice on hand and to get them to think about it not them just pick what ever they like.

If you have 2 choices and one has an award and one does not, it's not really a choice.

You are limiting yourself needlessly. There is no need to restrict the number of options to two, and no need to make one choice better than the others in an objective, countable way. Also note that I haven't argued for options with no downside. Instead, I have argued that the possible downsides should not contaminate the options to such an extent that none of them feels worth taking.

What contaminate a choice is individual. I never falter in my belief that the mages are where in the right at the end game, no matter how many crazy blood mages they threw at us, because it was Anders who blew up the chantry and not the circle and thus I would never get behind siding with the templars in that situation (expect that one time for achievement which i reloaded afterwards). '

To some extent it's individual, yes, but as i said: I am firmly convinced most players aren't extremists. It's fine if those extreme choices are present for those who like them, but in general players shouldn't be forced down the same path in every big decision they make.

As for you general OP, I think it was right to remove the middle ground at the end of da2. The 'not my busniness' option actually exist, but Meridith simply says that means you side wiht the mages in her eyes. Basically outside circumstance means that the less extreme options are no longer viable and that does happens sometimes.

I don't mind this happening occasionally. I mind that the extreme choices have become a pattern to the extent that it makes me feel as if I'm forced to play an extremist in Bioware's games if I want to get any kind of real satisfaction from their endings.  

I don't want to have only such choice, but where it is propable then yes I think it is fitting, but generally I would like less choice in the end game, because I generally find the end games choice artificial. What I want to see is an end game consequence of your prior choices and only have and big end game choice for those who wavered doing the game and thus have no clear loyalty.

That's a different problem. I would actually prefer that the endgame plays out as a result of decisions made earlier, but that would just move the big decisions somewhere else.

[budzai]

Good idea. I would also like some small looking choises which cause big inpact...IMO it would be fun and surprising..

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

And no, I very much disagree that ME3's Genophage choice was done well. Either do nothing or cure it all? I can only say I see the unfairness of it all, but with what the story tells us a complete reversal is outright insane from any even remotely pragmatic viewpoint. So we are either good and stupid and astronomically lucky that it doesn't backfire, or we're continuing a state of affairs which really should be mitigated.

Yes, the game does ask the player about these things. But what does this achieve if all answers are of a kind any reasonable player would never give?

I disagree as i think the genophage arc choices in ME3 are fine. However my issue with the genophage arc in ME3 is actually the framing of the discussion around the genophage in ME3. It's completely skewed towards depicting it as a sterility plague rather than fertility reduction, Mordin(the figure associated with that alternate viewpoint has flipped sides and Eve is there to graphically illustrate the negatives.

[Ieldra]

leaguer of one wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
There is a need. The point is to question the player. A 3rd awnser should only be their is it makes sense to the plot and story. There cases like Tuchanka in me3 were the 2 choice work because it pressures the player on reasonable pros and cons of each choice and then there is Rennoch the choices on hand is based on the actions of the player in ME2 and ME3. Both work based on the fact that player choice, belief  and action effect the outcome , not because they are flexible.

Too much flexiblity in these choice ruin the very point of the question these choice are asking the player. The entire idea is about getting them to think about it.

Sure, there are bad way to do it, like the ending of DA2 where a choice of just getting the city guard trying to control the situation being avalible if you make the right choices in the game should of been an option. But that does not mean that all choice have to be that flexible. It has to make sense to the story and plot and the actions the player has done.

That's what I'm saying. It has to make sense and not feel contrived to be extreme just for the sake of controversy.

And no, I very much disagree that ME3's Genophage choice was done well. Either do nothing or cure it all? I can only say I see the unfairness of it all, but with what the story tells us a complete reversal is outright insane from any even remotely pragmatic viewpoint. So we are either good and stupid and astronomically lucky that it doesn't backfire, or we're continuing a state of affairs which really should be mitigated.

Yes, the game does ask the player about these things. But what does this achieve if all answers are of a kind any reasonable player would never give?

The question was never about about what they would do in a noraml situation. Every question has the player's hand or hand tied back in a way. If a player can do anything to solve an issue, there is no personal debate for the player on the issue on hand.

And cure was well done. The concept was more then just about curing the krogan but doing political plays to gain allies for a war. The issues on hand was the wants of the two sides of the issue not the player. For the player to have more control over the situation, they had to be able to convince the krogan that their's a need for the genophage and that cleary is not going to happen. It should not be a case that every character in the story is a slave to the players choice or will.

Of course not. This is not about that but this:
(1) I can't even mention a moderate choice. That is a roleplaying flaw if that moderate choice is an obvious and plausible one.
(2) Yet again, one decision where the writers contrive circumstances to prevent the obvious moderate option from working is ok. When this becomes a pattern, however, it reflects badly on the believability of the world and prevents players from getting any satisfaction from their choices. And no, being able to make satisfying choices in personal matters is no acceptable substitute.

@wright:
I agree to some extent: if the debate had been less ideologically loaded the choice might've felt less extreme, but I still think there is a need to explicitly explain why an obviously better moderate choice can't be taken.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 février 2014 - 12:52 .