27 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

This is a particularly sadistic idea I have, framed in the now popular "Save the Keep/Village" dilemma which seems somewhat iconic for DA:I fans at this point.

The decision is whether or not you have your forces defend your Keep, where you can maintain a strong control of the region, or save the Village, which we assume the Inquisitor has developed friends or bonds with in previous encounters. Of course, the devs have hinted that there could also be a way that if the player worked hard enough, they would be able to save both.

Let's assume for a second that the way that saving both groups is through sending your troops to one location (say, the Keep) and then having your party go to the other one, taking out the threat there.

Now... what if the encounter was made incredibly hard if you tried this "cowboy" method of saving both (after all, you are working to take out a group that would otherwise take a small army) and, if you failed and had to reload, the game would not let you try the "cowboy" method again, but made you choose between the Keep and the Village, as a true struggle? This way, it would be exceptionally difficult to get the best outcome (ideally, even on the lowest difficulty levels, the encounter design would still be tougher than the regular fights on the same difficulty level, but with the Narrative/Easy difficulty boosts).

While many would call this sadistic (which, I'll admit, it pretty much is) I also think that it would help alleviate some of the stress from gamers. Why? Because it doesn't force the gamer to keep retrying. Many feel that they would have to keep reloading a bad outcome until they get it right, resulting in frustration. Yet if that option is taken away and the player more or less prodded to keep moving forward in the game and owning up to one of the "harder" choice outcomes, I think that would be a very interesting method to offer a happy choice and not, by the same stroke, make the best option the only one people go after.

I know this form of suggestion will be regarded as pure devil-spawn of an idea that stomps on people's experience and gameplay preference, but why doesn't everyone go ahead and confirm that for me? What are your thoughts?

[Allan Schumacher]

I think implementing this would be a lot more challenging than may seem obvious, with a lot of potential for bugs and other breakages to happen.  For a benefit that I'm not entirely sure is there.  Thinking about QAing a feature like this makes me curl into the fetal position, let alone the implementation challenges which I am less 100% specific on.

 

I love the idea of not metagaming, but I'm not sure if there's much benefit in trying to actively prevent people from doing it.  Doubly so since, for myself, the "no metagaming" applies more to my first playthrough, while subsequent playthroughs I want to exert my authority over how the narrative plays out to see how those things play out.

[Allan Schumacher]

If the level of personal attacks against me keeps up, I'm going to start reporting people. Fair warning.

 

Fair statement.  I've tidied up some recent posts.

 

 

To the thread in general:

 

While I can understand that it's difficult to completely omit any and all baggage and context from previous discussions with a poster, to be perfectly frank this thread is just about an idea and please feel free to challenge the idea, not the poster presenting the idea.

 

(And no, this thread wasn't reported.  I just have a tendency to return to threads I have posted in and considered it starting to get out of line)

[Allan Schumacher]

Hmmmm. As I mentioned a little earlier, I was basing my general assumption upon such occurrences as achievements that were able to determine that the player had never reached a full party wipe. If such an achievement could be tracked, then having the same behavior trigger a modification to the save file would, in theory, be possible. And just like certain dialogue options can only be available if the save file reflects certain criteria were met (like if a romance flag was active), then the option to choose the "cowboy" option would no longer be available...?

 

That's a single byte used once, throughout the entire campaign (and it technically cannot be a part of the saved game unless the game lets you respawn without reloading... does our game have an achievement like this BTW?)  Note the specificity of what you just said: "having the same behaviour trigger a modification."  It's not the same behaviour though, because it's used much more frequently on a per level basis rather than once.  It's trivial to point out that you can't have it fire just once (or ALL the options disappear the moment the party is wiped).  Keeping track of this on a per level basis would be more complicated.

 

Never mind that more options in a conversation/plot means more complexity, and that complexity inevitably means more bugs.  If you had to choose more bugs, what type of content would you prefer to get these potential bugs in?

 

 

As I write this, I'm very curious about how the game tracks a full party wipe, and logs it in a saved game.  Lets say I have 20 saved games.  When my full party wipes, does the software go back and retroactively modify each of those saved games to set the flag that the party has wiped?  Is there additional meta data that exists on the character itself that flags this trait, and that every time the game is loaded we bring in this meta information and pass it into the game?

 

I notice that we track the main character falling in DAO, which is muuuuuuuuch easier to include in the save game, though I suspect the achievement can still be achieved by reloading the game and that it simply requires the player to not reload after being knocked down during combat.  So I'm not sure we've ever done anything that would modify a saved game (or several save games) by virtual of loading a save game.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm curious to why this would be the case. At the moment, I am just a developer looking from outside to the inside. 

 

Why would it modify the total saves? The way I look at it, there a boolean flag. When the flag is true it represents a total party kill and this means it is not in battle anymore. When there is battle it sets it to false which represents that the character is not in combat. From a separation of concerns perspective, the flag should not know about the enemies. The flag just needs to know if the total party has been killed or not. 

 

Which in my analysis means there is a short period of time between the total party kill in between combat times. I say this because dragon age is a system without permadeath. If there was a total party kill in a situation of permadeath it would probably need to be implemented differently.

 

Unless the player is saving their game after their party is wiped (which is a game over in the Dragon Age game), there's no place to save the boolean flag.

 

Look at DAO.  When all 4 party members die, the game is over and you are presented with the option to exit the game or reload a save.  How does the save game that you reload recognize that the party has been wiped, since the party was NOT wiped when the save was made?

[Allan Schumacher]

In terms of how to apply it to saves, DA:O (and, possibly, DA2, my memory is a little fuzzy) there were separate save files earmarked for certain character profiles. In theory, this flag update would need to apply to all save files for that character, rather than just the most recent manual save or an Autosave.

 

Yes, that is how you'd have to do it.  This can't happen instantly and the player can circumvent the system by powering down the console first.  Which means that some players will then choose to quickly power off/force quit upon party wipe, opening up risks for save game corruption and simply being a frustrating way to experience a game.

 

I'd be curious to see how many times this would need to be applied, honestly. The number of times when a large decision would play out in such a large way would be rather small, less than half a dozen I would assume? I can't seem to remember too many side quests that had more than two choices that would warrant a deterrent away from a more "standard" set of options.

 

In this case, if the situation doesn't happen very often then I'd ask if it's worth the effort.  To me, doing the system work would make more sense if we were willing to apply this type of design to a lot of places, as the marginal cost of using the implementation goes down every time we can leverage the system.  If it's not used frequently, then maybe it's best to spend our time working on something else entirely.

 

 

In terms of implementation, I think one of the ways to structure this is to give the decision an id. The id wil of the decision will correspond to a number of id decisions. That way when you find an xml data structure without a decision you know that someone made that decision. The previous data decision and the decision will most likely be the same and will be changed only when loaded. The previous decision will act as a place holder. It would make the xml save file much more vulnerable though.

 

I think that that is how DAO/DA2 handled the saves, in that a plot flag that didn't exist yet was equivalent to false (even if it isn't the way we did it, it's not an uncommon way to do it that way).

 

 

ohhhhhh this was in relation to this idea. I thought it was just in a general scale. My mistake,

 

Yeah, DA specific application.  If you're going to do anything at the game over/party wipe screen, you need to either keep the player in the game (have it respawn at a checkpoint, and the next save gets the party wipe flag), or find a way to alter the existing saved games and auto/quick saves.  This *may* cause issues with consoles, as I don't know if the auto/quick save for those platforms were independent for the character.

[Allan Schumacher]

Only to limit the ease with which someone can pick the rainbow and sunshine outcomes that are heads above the other options, even if they know exactly which option can give them that outcome. It's not about stopping meta gaming, but rather limiting its effectiveness in the situations where the choices being offered are exceptionally lopsided.

 

To echo EntropicAngel (and apologies if it was stated as I missed it), but why would it be considered good to limit the ease at which someone can pick the "rainbow and sunshine outcomes?"  Further, when does it become clear in, for example, Redcliffe that you are taking the ideal solution and as such the code now must alter save games on party wipe?

 

 

As a follow up question: are there alternative things that could be done that could achieve a similar goal?  If we make it so big choices don't have clear optimal solutions, would that just be preferred all along?

[Allan Schumacher]

If the game doesn't actually have any choices that are clearly optimal and sunshine/rainbows, it seems to me that a feature like wouldn't be necessary at all.

[Allan Schumacher]

Video games are built to be beatable. And that's exactly what players will do. They'll beat them. So if we decide that 'sunshine and rainbows' options need to be earned in comparison to 'lesser choices', we head into absurd territory very quickly.

 

I disagree and I don't think it'd be particularly fruitful to resuscitate a months old conversation on the BSN when the reality is that people will want different things from their games.

 

Stating that my gaming tastes are "absurd" immediately shuts down productive conversation.

[Allan Schumacher]

In reality, pigeon-holing games as simply "entertainment" is kind of a slight to Bioware, who's striven (for better or worse--in some areas I don't care for it) to give more meaning to their games than simply "fun."

 

Entertainment is also subjective.  My favourite book of all time is Heart of Darkness.  I prefer stuff like Lord of the Flies over Harry Potter, because I find reading it more entertaining.  The Shawshank Redemption over Lord of the Rings.

 

That's not to say that I don't like the other things, but it's just not what I prefer (at this time, anyways).

[Allan Schumacher]

What would it take for you to be satisfied that a significantly superior choice has been 'earned'?

 

I prefer that significantly superior choices not exist at all.  It has nothing to do with game difficulty.

[Allan Schumacher]

Okay, first of all, I don't really think games being a 'learning exercise' has much to do at all with this issue.

 

Secondly, being fun, being enjoyable comes first. If fiction is unenjoyable, why would anyone spend time with it, much less money? Why should anybody? Rest assured video games are far the first topic to face this issue. It's been noted, for example, that war fiction inherently glamorizes war since the story must be enjoyable in some form or fashion, even if the author wishes to portray war as a completely miserable thing.

 

A movie like Saving Private Ryan was praised because it showed a push to NOT glamorize war like it was in the past.  Band of Brothers was the same way.  Game of Thrones is a work of fiction where bad things happen to good people (and bad people) all the time.  24 was another TV show where the main character went through a lot of things, and the ending of the very first season was completely and utterly fantastic and personally one of the most enjoyable season finale's I had ever seen.  I will never forget the last 10 seconds of that show.  They even included the alternate, happy ending on the DVD and it just comes across as a weaker ending.

[Allan Schumacher]

In all games with choices?

 

Before I go into this, I think the Extra Credits clip Video Games and Choice is a compelling watch, and it establishes a distinction between choices and problems.

 

 

Yes, I like choices to typically not have an obvious correct answer.  I find them more compelling and introspective.  They often surprise me and illicit emotions, and when a game genuinely makes me feel an emotion by design (almost irrespective of WHICH emotion that is), I like that.

 

Now on some level it's a novelty thing.  This is rare.  As the video points out, most games present the player with problems.  And that's not necessarily a bad thing.  I just prefer genuine choices, because I find them more interesting.  The Bioshock example used is the one I like, where choosing to save the Little Sisters presents the player with no tangible cost.  Basically you're choosing between "be a monster" and "be a good human being."  I've reduced the choice to a problem, and the game suffered for it.

 

I found Paper's Please immensely gratifying because it put me in such a challenging situation (while lacing it with fantastic atmosphere, humor, and all those other things).  The interesting thing I took from that game was how quickly I resorted to being a monster, because of intrinsic challenges in the game setting that made being a good, upstanding person so difficult.  To the point where "My son is sick... I can detain this person for an expired passport and buy him medicine, or simply deny the person access, get no money as a result, and hope I can make up the money elsewhere."  It gets additionally complicated when the game world starts to present ethical concerns.  Someone comes asking for political asylum where if I don't let her in, she'll be killed.  I can let her in, and accept the reprimand, or deny her.  What should I do?  I find it simply fascinating and I want more games like that, because they are so few and far between.

 

 

With respect to RPGs, I'm not against "good things happening."  I like things to be diverse and unpredictable though.  If I play an RPG and can distill all the choices into problems, I find that disappointing.  By the same token, I can understand that "no matter what you do, bad things happen" will grow tiresome (especially if all games were to do this).  In situations that *could* appear to simply be problems, I like the idea that sometimes the assumptions that I make are incorrect.  I like for the consequences to sometimes work out better than I expected, and I also like for the consequences to work out worse than I expected.  If I feel like I can simply game the system based on previous knowledge of tropes in RPGs, then the game has lost the opportunity to fully captivate me.

 

That's not to say I'll hate the game or anything like that.  Nor do I think that all games need to be like this.  But the games that I consider my favourite often have traits like this.  I want to see more of them, and I feel that the RPG genre is particularly well suited to stuff like that, as it's one that has historically already attempted to give players choices.

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't think you'd be much interested in hearing why I would find such a story repulsive, and even offensive.

 
That's fine - not everyone is going to like every way a story is presented.  But the game is pretty universally praised and typically regarded as an excellent game.  On Metacritic both the critic, and user reviews are overwhelmingly positive.  I find it a pretty entertaining and humorous game that presents some interesting themes within it.

 

But do you acknowledge that such a thing would be completely inappropriate (to be mandatory) in Inquisition and undoubtedly the next Mass Effect, considering the very clear heroic themes and imagery in pretty much every bit of released content so far? Considering statements by developers talking about a protagonist who is pretty much defined (at least optionally, which is all that's necessary) by rising above challenges that make being a 'good' person so difficult?

I do not acknowledge that it'd be completely inappropriate for Inquisition, nor even Mass Effect.  Sorry.  We don't agree on this perspective.

[Allan Schumacher]

I somewhat agree, I like the occasional significantly superior choices but not overused the whole game

 

I think that this is fair.  I appreciate the variety.  If nothing ever works out well, then the player will start to expect that and part of what makes choices compelling is lost IMO.

[Allan Schumacher]

The problem for me comes when "do extra work" is always available, and it's typically always the same (which is often simply play more game, which is what most people are okay with doing anyways).

 

It's equivalent to breaking the choice down into a problem.  Works sometimes, but not always.

[Allan Schumacher]

Are we talking about choices, or outcomes?

 

I would agree that objectively superior choices shouldn't exist.  There shouldn't be a moment where it's clear that one option is vastly better than all the others, and this would be true for basically all reasonable characters.

 

But I don't mind at all if some outcomes are superior.  Again, I point to Redcliffe in DAO.  I liked the good outcome there because it was hidden behind a bad decision.  If it was obvious that you could save everyone, then that would be bad, yes.  But the choice you need to make in order to save everyone looks (to me) like an incredibly reckless one.

 

I'm not a fan of the idea that we should expect the PC to be heroic all of the time.  Or for all PCs to define heroism similarly.  But I would not accept that universally good outcomes should be impossible.  They just shouldn't be obvious.

 

Pretty reasonable I find.

[Allan Schumacher]

Because you don't think it would undermine and betray established themes? Because you don't think those themes are there in the first place? Or because you don't think it matters?

 

I do not agree that it'd betray established themes (especially not for Dragon Age), probably because I disagree that the themes are present in the first place (especially for Dragon Age).

 

I can understand that some people didn't like the ending to Mass Effect 3 because the first two games had established a history of Shepard achieving the impossible particularly with the endings of ME1 and ME2 (though ironically, I went into ME3 expected Shepard's luck to run out, so to speak).  Although there's still clearly moments where Shepard cannot have things play out exactly as Shepard may prefer.  Virmire is the biggest example.  It's also my favourite moment in the Mass Effect franchise.  If we had the ability to create it without too much effort (it's more than people realize), I'd have love to have seen BioWare set it up that the game chooses the player's two favourite NPCs at that point, rather than always one of Ashley and Kaiden.  (though this would also be a nightmare for save imports as well)

[Allan Schumacher]

So I'll say again. The problem is that such a game doesn't 'invite' players to make up their minds about the themes.

 

I don't think it needs a player to "make up their mind" about the themes.  Simply exploring and reflecting upon the theme can be a good thing.  In fact, I love it when a game presents to me a choice that seems like it may be the one I think may be the best course of action, but goes against my real world assumptions about those themes.

[Allan Schumacher]

Such choices don't do that either.

 

I disagree.  I feel as though game choices have often made me reflect on what I value as a person.  This gives an implication that you feel that I'm actually thinking and experiencing something else.  You will need to elaborate.

 

 

But it's simply not true at all. Such choices 'force,' (to use the common phrase,) players to believe a certain thing just as much as a choice where one option is portrayed clearly superior. The player has no more 'freedom,' as Ieldra thinks of it, as they did before. In fact, they have a great deal less.

 

On some level yes, this is a limitation of video games in general.  Gamers can typically only execute on the choices provided by the designers.  But what you seem to be describing here is that if it's not 100% free will, it's not freedom.  And in fact, they have less than if the obvious choice was prescribed (a notion I disagree with).

 

 

For instance, imagine a game plot (and yes, I'm using an extreme example to hopefully make it clear): 

 

You're provided with a scene where you must decide if an innocent woman is to be executed.  The choice you have are:

• Carry out the execution
• Do not carry out the execution.

 

In game, you are informed that:

• By carrying out the execution, you will be rewarded money from the corrupt official that framed the woman
• By refusing to carry out the execution, the law states that you will then accept the punishment in her stead.

 

 

To me, one of these choices is clearly superior to the other (since one ultimately ends the game).  Do you feel you have more freedom to make a choice here as opposed to the following consequences:

 

• You execute the prisoner, gaining and ally in the corrupt official that framed the woman at the expense of some resentment that felt the accusation was a sham
• You do not execute the prisoner, undermining your influence with the official ranks of the town, but garnering some good will among the common folk.

[Allan Schumacher]

But as to your example, I would overwhelmingly prefer the bottom option. The bottom choices are the ones which have the overwhelmingly superior option to me. I would absolutely welcome such a choice in any BioWare with open arms. Whereas I would tend to see the top choices as 'equal' in having things really suck either way.

 

You seem to be comparing each pair with the other pair.  In the first choice, it seems pretty clear which choice is superior to the other.  In the second pair, I need more context.  It's also more likely that which one I think would be the superior choice.

 

You mention the second pair is superior.  Which choice specifically is clearly the superior one?  Keep in mind I only presented the information that you'd know at the time.  Knowing that, which one is clearly the superior?

 

 

I'll PM how the game reacts to each choice to Sylvius and Fast Jimmy (so I can't cheat and make it so whatever you choose turns out badly).

[Allan Schumacher]

Err...you need more context?

 

Well...it's the second choice. It's what's right. Of course you don't execute the woman.  

 

Do you still feel it's the clearly better choice if the long term consequences end up being like so:

 

 

 

if you choose to execute the prisoner:

 

• The population dislikes you, refusing to sell their goods to you any further, and to no longer help you in your journey in any capacity.  However, by remaining in the inner circle of the corrupt official, you are granted the opportunity to implicate him in his corruption, disposing him from his rule and allowing your character to directly influence the lives of the townspeople in whatever way you feel is appropriate.

 

If you do not execute the prisoner

 

• The population likes you.  They'll provide clues when applicable, and even sell you things at a discount.  Ultimately, however, your influence in the city extends no further because the authority of the official goes unchecked.  While you can help out people piecemeal from time to time, the corrupt official continues to exploit the people for years to come.

Sylvius and Jimmy can verify that I didn't alter this response to ensure your long term consequences or less clear.

[Allan Schumacher]

Indeed I can.  But upon reading the consequences the first time, I was pretty sure Bob would still choose not to execute the woman.

 

For him, it's not about the outcomes - it's about the actions.  As long as he always does the right thing in that moment, his conscience is always clear.

 

That's fair.  But if he felt this way, then he wouldn't care that the consequences may not turn out as ideally as he would like.  I don't get the impression that he feels this way, however, given that he calls into scrutiny the validity of the writing to require that this happens.  If it's just about the action, there'd be no need for caveats.  An evil choice working out isn't good, it's "lucky."  As opposed to a host of other potential things such as manipulative, cunning, and so forth.

 

 

I mean, my extreme choice was intentionally framed in a way that video games rarely, if ever, frame their choices.  It's typically more likely this:

 

• Choose to not execute the prisoner, overthrowing the corrupt official in the process while winning the support of the people
• Execute the prisoner, enjoying the rewards of the corrupt official while living the life of affluence at the exploitation of others

 

This type of choice isn't really an interesting choice.  I don't feel it's very nuanced and in the world of RPGs, pretty cliche.  Although it's still better than what SOME games had, which was:

 

• Be evil and keep the awesome item you found
• Be good and be rewarded with the awesome item you found, while also being a good guy in the process.

 

I find

 

• Be evil and keep the awesome item you found
• Be good and sacrifice the reward and increase in power, because frankly it's the right thing to do.

 

 

In the first, unless your goal is to simply play an *******, the second choice is an obvious one (and an uninteresting one).  The last pair is more interesting to me.

 

 

 

EDIT:

I would *definitely* choose to not execute the woman.  That it doesn't necessarily work out the best for everyone involved is what makes it interesting to me.  If it happens early in the game, it also sets the stage that the solutions may be more nuanced (and hence interesting), since the idea of a situation coming along that may require more foresight.  For instance, I like the choice between going after the magistrate at the end of The Witcher 2's first act.  I am provided with a choice to either save an elf in a burning tower (and win the favour of the elf I am with), or go after the corrupt magistrate while he's exposed and kill him.  One feels like the "right" thing to do at the time, but if I decide to sacrifice the elf I can spare the elves and dwarves from the oppression they are experiencing.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 04 avril 2014 - 08:16 .

[Allan Schumacher]

See, I find it more interesting when simply being "the good guy" isn't enough.  I've spent most of my life playing "the good guy" where simply wanting to be good was enough (and often not just enough, but ideal).  Maybe it's because I've been gaming for 30 years, but it's just not as interesting for me anymore, because I've been saturated with it.

 

I'd like to see where obtaining weapons, popularity, money, and prestige can lead to the greater good.  Where being courageous without question leads to impetuous decision making that isn't ideal.  Where your loyalty can lead to some people staying by your side, but also lead to people taking advantage of it.

 

 

It's important to note that I don't want "you do all the evil things, things play out just the way you like" either.  I also like that side having to evaluate their decisions.  If you're looking on playing a Machiavellian protagonist, it doesn't mean that you're always take advantage of people in ways that never benefit those other people as well.  Sometimes you have to sacrifice short term to achieve your long term goals, whatever your short and long term goals may be depending on the type of character that you're playing.

[Allan Schumacher]

Often times it's not enough. Nobody is in denial that no-win situations exists. Heroism is not a shield that protects from bullets and knives and bad luck. It won't protect a man from getting his head cut off or a heart attack or a car accident or simply bad genes.

 

Also note that protagonists aren't successful because they want to be strong and good. They're successful because they are strong and good. The strength comes from the character. Not the player.

 

You'll have to clarify what you mean by "good" here.  I'll agree that they are capable and talented, but if you mean "good" as some sort of qualitative statement of their ethical standing, it's not hard to come up with examples that demonstrate that protagonists (especially in video games) do not need to be good to be successful.

 

 

The reason stories exist is to enunciate great and hidden truths. That's why we have them. Why we tell them. Why they have meaning. Things like will and courage and integrity are great hidden truths. That's why we have countless upon countless stories with the basic premise of the lone, superficially weak hero against the great, superficially strong evil. It enunciates a great truth. That what the hero possesses is triumphant over numbers and weapons and greed and fear.

 

It's trite and overused.  I find it less interesting, and infinitely less meaningful.  I find a story like Lord of the Flies or Heart of Darkness enunciates "great and hidden truths" about life than Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings.  And those are quality stories and not something like Transformers.

 

I also disagree with your reasoning as to why stories exist.  I see no "great truth" in a typical underdog overcoming all odds through perseverance of character.  I see escapism that people find entertaining that in many cases, but ultimately move on without giving the story much of a second thought after consuming them.  Escapism isn't bad, and it will always have a place.  In video gaming, I find it over saturated.  I feel we can do so much more with them than we currently do.

 

 

In contrast, whatever power the things you listed have are obvious. The power of an army is obvious. The power of money is obvious. Of authority. Of popularity. The benefits we get from all of these things are immediately apparent. What is there for a story to enunciate? What truth is there to reveal?

 

That having those things doesn't have to be bad.  That wielding those things appropriately and responsibly is useful.  And it's such a trope that those things are obvious, and therefore not necessary, that it'd actually be fresh if good things could happen when you leverage it.