178 réponses à ce sujet

[Bob from Accounting]

What does "good choices provide greater NPC agency - while bad choices provide greater Story Agency" even mean, exactly?

[xAmilli0n]

I agree in general with the OP.  In a situation where others are looking out for their best interest, I think its reasonable to expect them to take advantage of the players generosity.  That being said, I think its important for the situation to be handled fairly, and the intentions of each party should at least in general be clear, that way the player can decide which pro and which cons they are willing to accept.

 

Completely unforseen consequences can work, but they can also fall completely flat and leave the player fustrated.

[Grieving Natashina]

Why folks think comparing anything from the Witcher series as better than BioWare in any manner utterly escapes me.  I'm glad that this is BioWare and not CDPR, whom I am never buying another game from ever again.  

 

As far as the topic goes, it was a royal pain in the butt to get the best results among the dwarves.  They made you earn that, and I enjoyed it.  I'd rather be calling out for being psychotic/reckless (like after Redcliffe if you choose the blood magic route) than be "punished" for the extra work that it takes to have a "golden ending."  As Nefla mentioned, plenty of characters call you out if you do an "evil" or reckless act.  

 

I think someone mentioned that Origins didn't have puzzles, indeed they did.  Unless you blocked out the entirety of the Fade sequence or the Elven puzzle it took to complete the Ancient Elven armor set.

[naddaya]

I think someone mentioned that Origins didn't have puzzles, indeed they did.  Unless you blocked out the entirety of the Fade sequence or the Elven puzzle it took to complete the Ancient Elven armor set.

 

And the Gauntlet. And all the puzzles in MOTA. The one in MOTA where you have to flip the tiles left me frustrated for hours

[Grieving Natashina]

And the Gauntlet. And all the puzzles in MOTA. The one in MOTA where you have to flip the tiles left me frustrated for hours

Oh and the ones in Awakening, with the circles of runes.  That deserves a mention too.  

[Ryzaki]

Those don't necessarily go together.  If I'm doing something that I know is a long shot, but that long shot is in character, I may well want that long shot to succeed, without changing the fact that it is a long shot.

 

Reloading is a choice.  No one should choose frustration.  If reloading is frustrating, don't reload.

 

Yeah I already don't find RNG fun. I find it tolerable. with those changes I'd find it infuriating. I don't play a game to have the desire to throw my PC out a window.

[Master Warder Z_]

Oh and the ones in Awakening, with the circles of runes.  That deserves a mention too.  

 

...I think i only did that successfully once.

[Grieving Natashina]

...I think i only did that successfully once.

I have no shame when I admit to using a walkthrough for those blasted puzzles.  

[AlanC9]

The problem is that losing on the basis of a random number generator instead of any meaningful choice or action by the player is even more frustrating. It's frustration vs. frustration.

 

 

But the player has made a choice. He's chosen to run that risk.

[AlanC9]

I don't think there should be forced Bad Consequences for Good Actions nor Evil or Neutral actions. I think that anything should be able to happen if the Inquisitor doesn't take action or does take action. The player, not some metagame, should determine the game's events, and their action, or lack thereof, determines consequences.

 

Nobody's saying that actions shouldn't have consequences. The question is what those consequences will be.

[Steelcan]

Doing things like letting terrorists go should have negative consequences

[Nefla]

You probably shouldn't use the ME examples there, since people don't actually react badly to Shepard's actions.

 

I should have been clearer, though. The problem is with the kinds of evil choices they give us more than a problem with the reactions.

I see, so more choices like TW2 or TWD where it's not good or evil but rather how you react to circumstance. Ex: more rescue elven women from burning building while letting the oppressive and pretty much evil guy who put them there run away, or chase the evil guy leaving the women to burn to death but saving more lives in the long run(TW2) vs Sacrifice all the captured elven villagers with a blood magic ritual to make yourself a bit stronger or free them all and send the slavers packing?(DA:O) I would like choices that aren't a clear right or wrong, where the outcome isn't 100% predictable. I also stand by my opinion that I think some selfless acts should be detrimental to the player in some way, otherwise it doesn't feel like a sacrifice.  

[Bob from Accounting]

But the player has made a choice. He's chosen to run that risk.

 

...Why would that make any difference at all?

[Han Shot First]

Doing things like letting terrorists go should have negative consequences

 

There are all sorts of 'good' decisions that could potentially have negative consequences. Say for example the Inquisitor defeats some enemy who then yields, asks for quarter, and then if spared swears an oath to serve the Inquisition faithfully. Does that character honor his oath, or is he an oathbreaker trying to save his own skin, who will betray the Inquisition when the opportunity presents itself?

 

Sparing that defeated enemy might be the chivalrous and honorable thing to do, but is it also the wisest decision? Murdering an unarmed prisoner in cold blood might be considered evil by society as whole, but it might also be pragmatic if that defeated enemy is untrustworthy.

 

On that note I'd also hope a lot of the 'evil' decisions don't necessarily involve mustache-twirling villainy (though a few of those are fine as well), but involve some practical considerations in potentially choosing that 'evil' option.

[Master Warder Z_]

There are all sorts of 'good' decisions that could potentially have negative consequences. Say for example the Inquisitor defeats some enemy who then yields, asks for quarter, and then if spared swears an oath to serve the Inquisition faithfully. Does that character honor his oath, or is he an oathbreaker trying to save his own skin, who will betray the Inquisition when the opportunity presents itself?

 

Sparing that defeated enemy might be the chivalrous and honorable thing to do, but is it also the wisest decision? Murdering an unarmed prisoner in cold blood might be considered evil by society as whole, but it might also be pragmatic if that defeated enemy is untrustworthy.

 

On that note I'd also hope a lot of the 'evil' decisions don't necessarily involve mustache-twirling villainy (though a few of those are fine as well), but involve some practical considerations in potentially choosing that 'evil' option.

 

Like for example, say the Inquisitor had all but dealt the death blow to the Red Templars and their organization ceases to effectively exist, but survivors pledge themselves to the faction that bested them in exchange for their lives.

 

Would you select to spare or finish them off entirely? If you deem them trust worthy you get super powered templars on you're side and if you reject them you lose that asset but you also lose the risk of them possibly betraying you further down the line. I think the line should be drawn between immediate and long term benefit personally, not morality.

[Aimi]

Like for example, say the Inquisitor had all but dealt the death blow to the Red Templars and their organization ceases to effectively exist, but survivors pledge themselves to the faction that bested them in exchange for their lives.
 
Would you select to spare or finish them off entirely? If you deem them trust worthy you get super powered templars on you're side and if you reject them you lose that asset but you also lose the risk of them possibly betraying you further down the line. I think the line should be drawn between immediate and long term benefit personally, not morality.

You say that as though there's always a difference between immediate and long-term benefit.

[Master Warder Z_]

You say that as though there's always a difference between immediate and long-term benefit.

 

In some cases there isn't and some cases there is, It shouldn't however be a predetermined outcome merely on a moral spectrum.

 

Sometimes as history has shown however, allies either get too powerful or become too costly to maintain.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Choosing to try and save everyone, rather then focusing on saving one, should result in over all casualties on all fronts, and you should be able to see and hear about those casualties instead of read about it in a slide. That's about the only choice that never had any consequences in these bioware games, the compromise/cooperation/best of both worlds routes. Otherwise you have to always make a binary choice and there were usually consequences to be had from them.

[Bob from Accounting]

There are all sorts of 'good' decisions that could potentially have negative consequences. Say for example the Inquisitor defeats some enemy who then yields, asks for quarter, and then if spared swears an oath to serve the Inquisition faithfully. Does that character honor his oath, or is he an oathbreaker trying to save his own skin, who will betray the Inquisition when the opportunity presents itself?

 

That's every bit as true for 'evil' decisions. In fact, more so.

 

Let's not perpetuate any myths that 'evil' decisions are sound and safe and reasonable and 'good' decisions only succeed on the generosity of the story. The reverse is far closer to the truth.

[Bob from Accounting]

Choosing to try and save everyone, rather then focusing on saving one, should result in over all casualties on all fronts, and you should be able to see and hear about those casualties instead of read about it in a slide. That's about the only choice that never had any consequences in these bioware games, the compromise/cooperation/best of both worlds routes. Otherwise you have to always make a binary choice and there were usually consequences to be had from them.

 

Absolutely not.

[Han Shot First]

That's every bit as true for 'evil' decisions. In fact, more so.

 

Let's not perpetuate any myths that 'evil' decisions are sound and safe and reasonable and 'good' decisions only succeed on the generosity of the story. The reverse is far closer to the truth.

 

I did no such thing.

 

For the record, I more often play characters that fall somewhere on the 'good' spectrum in RPGs. I'm just against the 'good' morality choice always turning out to be the correct choice. There shouldn't be a model where the top right dialogue choice always leads to victory and the bottom right leads to epic fail.

 

Going back to my earlier example of the prisoner, after Julius Caesar's victory at the Battle of Pharsalus, both Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus, both of whom had fought against Caesar, were spared. Certainly sparing the men would be considered merciful or chivalrous and thus morally good by most people, but that mercy was ultimately rewarded with murder. Brutus and Cassius were two of the chief conspirators in Caesar's later assassination.

 

There are plenty of 'good' choices throughout history that have backfired, just as there plenty of evil decisions that have brought about failure or ruin.

[Bob from Accounting]

That's perfectly true and perfectly irrelevant.

 

Consider the main plot. The protagonist is out to close the Veil, save the world, yadda yadda yadda. The 'real life' odds are miniscule that a person could accomplish such a thing. The real life odds dictate that we should expect the Inquisitor's head to end up on a pole at the very first bandit encounter.

 

Yet we know that the Inquisitor is not going to die and fail on the first bandit encounter. We know he or she is going to achieve some type of success. All this despite the 'real life' odds. More so, we're completely justified in being angry and upset if the Inquisitor failed to do these things.

[Han Shot First]

That's perfectly true and perfectly irrelevant.

 

Consider the main plot. The protagonist is out to close the Veil, save the world, yadda yadda yadda. The 'real life' odds are miniscule that a person could accomplish such a thing. The real life odds dictate that we should expect the Inquisitor's head to end up on a pole at the very first bandit encounter.

 

Yet we know that the Inquisitor is not going to die and fail on the first bandit encounter. We know he or she is going to achieve some type of success. All this despite the 'real life' odds. More so, we're completely justified in being angry and upset if the Inquisitor failed to do these things.

 

Failure doesn't necessarily have to be total. A decision that backfires (whether good or evil) for example might not result in the Inquisitor's death or a failure to close the veil. It might instead cause the death of a companion, alienate a potential ally, create new enemies, or result in the the loss of some strategic resource. Perhaps it merely makes the end goal a little more difficult to achieve rather than impossible.

[Bob from Accounting]

That's not really the point.

The point is that any amount of success is extremely unlikely by supposed 'real life' odds. We're not even talking loss, sacrifice, or death. We're talking making the first step and not getting your head lopped off by the bandits twenty feet out the door.

And yet, despite that, we as the audience know the protagonist will defy those odds. We expect it. And most importantly, we're justified in expecting in.

What this means is that there must be something very wrong with writing or expecting a story based on what might happen or even what's likely or even incredibly likely to happen in real life. And there is.