178 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

There is nothing wrong with expecting choices to matter in an RPG. If they don't matter and outcomes of morality choices are predictable and one-sided, on some level the devs have failed.

[Bob from Accounting]

You're speaking in a bit of a contradiction. How can a choice 'matter' in the first place if the player has no meaningful control or knowledge over it? A choice is an interaction with the player, but if there's no knowledge and no control, what input does the player have?

 

It's always pleasant for choices to surprise the player in how the choices play out. But whatever is wrong with choices being predictable in what happens? And being one-sided? Nearly every work of fiction I can think is is very one-sided. (And while it's a bit subtle, equality is a 'side' like any other. So a fiction that portrays two views as equal is still one-sided in portraying that equality.)

 

Compared to this to the example I just gave you. The fact that the Inquisitor will save the world is certain. What happens is 'predictable.' The protagonist will succeed. How it happens is where the surprise and story unfolds.

[TataJojo]

Yeah it's like saying there's no point in playing the game if you know you're gonna succeed. Of course you can expect to succeed at the end of the game ( even though... ) but how you manage to succeed is interesting as well if not the most interesting thing about the story. Will your Inquisitor close the veil with the help of close friends that stay with him/her till the very end at the expense of having to sacrifice a lot to keep the best of the best team with you or did you end up making though choices and have some of your close friends sacrifice themselves so that you could get to the end...? Same result, different journey, different experience, different character...

 

Choosing something without meta knowledge is rather good isn't it ? I don't realy get you saying no control no knowledge.

[Bob from Accounting]

Not only is it not good, it's impossible. The mere knowledge that you're participating in a story is tremendous 'meta knowledge.'

[Han Shot First]

You're speaking in a bit of a contradiction. How can a choice 'matter' in the first place if the player has no meaningful control or knowledge over it? A choice is an interaction with the player, but if there's no knowledge and no control, what input does the player have?

 

It's always pleasant for choices to surprise the player in how the choices play out. But whatever is wrong with choices being predictable in what happens? And being one-sided? Nearly every work of fiction I can think is is very one-sided. (And while it's a bit subtle, equality is a 'side' like any other. So a fiction that portrays two views as equal is still one-sided in portraying that equality.)

 

Compared to this to the example I just gave you. The fact that the Inquisitor will save the world is certain. What happens is 'predictable.' The protagonist will succeed. How it happens is where the surprise and story unfolds.

 

By predictable I mean that there shouldn't be a model where the morally right choices are also always the correct choices. The devs should not use an approach where the good option in a morality choice always brings rewards and the evil or morally questionable option always brings about negative consequences. Such a model would then render morality choices entirely pointless by consistently punishing a player for choosing anything other than the good option.

 

You've in effect removed the 'role-playing' from role-playing game by introducing an illusion of meaningful choice and by attempting to guide the player into a single morality path.

 

Instead the devs should take a more varied approach where both the morally good and the morally questionable (or evil) choices can sometimes bring rewards and at other times bring negative consequences, and the 'correct' choice is determined by the situation at hand rather than where on the morality scale that player's decision falls.

 

Regarding the prisoner dilemma, whether or not sparing or executing him brings up negative consequences should be entirely determined by that character in question rather than the Inquisitor's morality. Is the prisoner honorable and a keeper of oaths, or is he a duplicitous schemer? Of course the player may not have access to that information when faced with that decision, and may be forced to guess or trust in a certain path, but whether or not that decision succeeds or backfires should be determined entirely by the prisoner's backstory and personality. Success or failure should not be determined by whether or not that Inquisitor's choice was moral.

[Bob from Accounting]

First of all, not every single 'good' choice needs to lead to good outcome. It's acceptable to have a very occasional betrayal of the player's intention for smaller choices. So there's that, for whatever it's good for.

 

Secondly, it never has to be as simple as 'pure reward' and 'pure punishment.' Generally, what defines so called and self-titled 'pragmatic' players is the overvalue of assets that are cheap, immediate, and obvious - such as money, material items, fear, immediate results - and the undervalue of assets that are strong, long-term, and powerful - such as trust, loyalty, courage, and willpower. It would great to see stories play on that a little more. For example, perhaps in ME 2, players who sacrificed the Council could be 'rewarded' with humans taking a more active militant stance and successfully pushing their agendas over aliens while players who kept the Council alive might have a human presence that superficially looks to be weaker and less effective. But then in ME 3 players who killed the Council are unable to unite humans and aliens together for a major effort and suffer a huge blow because of it, while players who kept the Council alive are successful. Stuff like that, maybe.

 

Thirdly, it doesn't invalidate choices at all. The heroism of 'good' choices is highlighted by the contrast of the 'evil' choice only a button press away.

 

Forthly, yes, the story would absolutely 'guide' the player towards a truth. This is a very good thing. In fact, this is the very purpose of stories. To reveal a truth that has been hidden or buried. Video games with choices should embrace that, not retreat away from it as far too many players have demanded.

[Bob from Accounting]

 

Regarding the prisoner dilemma, whether or not sparing or executing him brings up negative consequences should be entirely determined by that character in question rather than the Inquisitor's morality. Is the prisoner honorable and a keeper of oaths, or is he a duplicitous schemer? Of course the player may not have access to that information when faced with that decision, and may be forced to guess or trust in a certain path, but whether or not that decision succeeds or backfires should be determined entirely by the prisoner's backstory and personality. Success or failure should not be determined by whether or not that Inquisitor's choice was moral.

 

Of course it should be.

 

This is in essence exactly what happened with the Rachni Queen in ME 3. When the queen is trustworthy, the 'moral' choice is to save her. When she isn't, the 'moral' choice is to let her die. As it should be.

[Han Shot First]

Not every work of fiction has heroic deeds end in a successful outcome. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob from Accounting]

That's true. Many don't. Most don't.

 

Any modern game from BioWare, however, needs to.

[Parmida]

Well, you got to choose Bhelen or Harrowmont. I chose Harrowmont but he ruins Orzammar at the end whereas Bhelen improved his people's lives even though he was a douchebag. 

 

Now I always support Harrowmont but give the crown to Bhelen in the end.

[Cainhurst Crow]

That's true. Many don't. Most don't.

Any modern game from BioWare, however, needs to.

It doesn't need to do anything but present a decent story with good characters, the thing they've kinda made themselves famous for, along with that other thing about endings.

[Bob from Accounting]

Fulfilling the promises it's made is a necessity for something being a decent story. And Dragon Age Inquisition has meticulously laid down promises that this is a heroic story. Pretty much every bit of content they've released has been rife with heroic imagery and themes.

 

All of that is an implicit promise. (Not to mention the explicit promises of 'choices that matter' and Gaider saying DA:I will be a heroic story on the forums and all that) A promise to the audience as to what to expect. And such promises need to be fulfilled.

[Wulfram]

Being the good guy isn't a reward in itself.  The reward is making the world better for other people.  You need to deliver on that, or you're just turning the "good" character into just someone who can't stomach the tough decisions.

 

edit:  That's not to say that good characters can't make wrong decisions, or get unlucky or whatever.  But there shouldn't be a "morality tax" that effectively leads to good choices getting worse outcomes

[Cainhurst Crow]

Fulfilling the promises it's made is a necessity for something being a decent story. And Dragon Age Inquisition has meticulously laid down promises that this is a heroic story. Pretty much every bit of content they've released has been rife with heroic imagery and themes.
 
All of that is an implicit promise. (Not to mention the explicit promises of 'choices that matter' and Gaider saying DA:I will be a heroic story on the forums and all that) A promise to the audience as to what to expect. And such promises need to be fulfilled.

No it hasn't, if anything it has explicitly promised that you won't have to play a heroic story, or that there might not even be a heroic story within the game. In the trailer itself, it even explicitly states "Darkness closes in...will you stand against it? Or lead this world to its bitter end?" in the fires above trailer.

[TurretSyndrome]

edit:  That's not to say that good characters can't make wrong decisions, or get unlucky or whatever.  But there shouldn't be a "morality tax" that effectively leads to good choices getting worse outcomes

 

This is true. And to add to that, it's not that the decisions themselves shouldn't exist(the ones where everyone is happy), but they need to be handled right. They need to have a price, sure, but definitely not some sort of "punishment".

[wolfhowwl]

Fulfilling the promises it's made is a necessity for something being a decent story. And Dragon Age Inquisition has meticulously laid down promises that this is a heroic story. Pretty much every bit of content they've released has been rife with heroic imagery and themes.

 

All of that is an implicit promise. (Not to mention the explicit promises of 'choices that matter' and Gaider saying DA:I will be a heroic story on the forums and all that) A promise to the audience as to what to expect. And such promises need to be fulfilled.

 

David, have you even played Dragon Age: Origins, Awakening, or II yet? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the franchise before making claims about what the game should be doing.

[BabyFratelli]

I don't know. Humans are not inherently altruistic. That's why we get all misty eyed and admiring when we see someone do the 'right' thing, because it's not necessarily expected behavior to put yourself in harms way to help another, therefore it's admirable. We do good things to prevent feeling guilty, and to feel warm fuzzies inside. Those are the rewards.

 

Of course, demanding payment for my good deeds also gives me warm fuzzies. 

 

Anything else is an external side-effect, which means that realistically the result could be bad or good. In a video game world, it might not pay to keep punishing people for being kind because it turns them cynical and bitter. Gives them that boring "Why should I bother when everything turns out bad anyway?" point of view. (examples see: DayZ, some DA2 players, scary Friendzoned 'gentlemen' types)

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

David have you even completed any of the Dragon Age games?

 

I mean I'm almost certain you haven't, not nearly enough HEROISM on display for your refined tastes.

[JeffZero]

scary Friendzoned 'gentlemen' types

New rule: I can't be in the process of drinking something while reading your posts. Lemon ginger tea, meet my shirt.

[BabyFratelli]

New rule: I can't be in the process of drinking something while reading your posts. Lemon ginger tea, meet my shirt.

 

I'll try and be less incredibly witty. It'll be a challenge, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for the sake of a colleague's wardrobe. 

[Nefla]

I don't know. Humans are not inherently altruistic. That's why we get all misty eyed and admiring when we see someone do the 'right' thing, because it's not necessarily expected behavior to put yourself in harms way to help another, therefore it's admirable. We do good things to prevent feeling guilty, and to feel warm fuzzies inside. Those are the rewards.

 

Of course, demanding payment for my good deeds also gives me warm fuzzies. 

 

Anything else is an external side-effect, which means that realistically the result could be bad or good. In a video game world, it might not pay to keep punishing people for being kind because it turns them cynical and bitter. Gives them that boring "Why should I bother when everything turns out bad anyway?" point of view. (examples see: DayZ, some DA2 players, scary Friendzoned 'gentlemen' types)

I just think there should be a mix of rewarding and "punishing" selfishness and evil and rewarding and "punishing" selflessness and good.

 

**edit** changed the wording a little, I want both sides to be rewarded AND "punished"

Modifié par Nefla, 02 avril 2014 - 12:34 .

[JeffZero]

I'll try and be less incredibly witty. It'll be a challenge, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for the sake of a colleague's wardrobe.

See, normally I get to say these things.

This has been a humbling experience and I feel like I've really matured as an individual.

[BabyFratelli]

I just think there should be a mix of rewarding and "punishing" selfishness and evil and rewarding selflessness and good.

I agree. Enough to give us hope, but not so much to be boring. 

[Nefla]

I agree. Enough to give us hope, but not so much to be boring. 

And so you can't really predict what the outcome will be ex: you save a random traveler on the road from a bear and either:

 

1)The traveler thanks you profusely and tells his friend the local merchant about you so when you reach the nearest town the merchant is like "hey thanks for saving my buddy, have a discount "

 

or

 

2)The traveler thanks you profusely and leaves but later you learn he was really a bandit and saving him results in another NPC dying or being robbed or some other bad thing. (kind of like Elnora in ME2)

 

It would be cool if certain situations could be forseen through gathering information (ex: there is a wanted poster in town of a bandit, or a description of an innocent person who has gone missing, etc...)

[Eveangaline]

Aren't there tons of rewards for doing the bad thing instead of good already though? Heck one of the biggest moneymakers in the original game was to smuggle lyrium illegally, and extort the people involved with violence for extra cash, and pick pocket the guy you smuggle it to.

 

Not to mention lots of quests have rewards of money for just going out and murdering people for reasons that may or may not even be true, you don't know.