254 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?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I intensely dislike this idea.  I want to be able to make longshots happen (by reloading) without preventing them from being longshots.

 

Development resources should not be wasted on stopping me from doing something that might improve my experience.

[DrBlingzle]

This would be an intresting option to have in the game but if it is added it should certainly only be made as an option and not mandatory.

[Shadow Fox]

[Knight of Dane]

No thank you. This is robbing player freedom, it should be up to the player him/herself to show restraint and not just do what you propose if they so desire.

[TurretSyndrome]

FastJimmy always seems to have a problem with people who metagame for the best outcome, and amusingly he's not alone(good deeds should not go unpunished thread ).

[Ryzaki]

What if my game had a CTD and I had to reload.

 

No thanks.

[BigEvil]

On the day where bugs, glitches and freezes are 100% not an issue (which will never happen), this might be interesting as an option.

 

Picture the scene if you will. You've strived to save everyone, worked hard, built up everything you can (I don't know, made your party build finely-tuned, gotten the best gear available at that stage of the game, made any other decisions which help in this particular situation) and you make the choice to try and save everyone. You send the troops to the keep, and go to the village yourself, plenty of time to spare before the keep might fall. You carve through the enemies like a hot knife through butter, until you encounter one bugged enemy that refuses to take damage. You can hammer away all day, but he won't die and you'll need to reload to continue. 

 

Yeah, this would not be fun due to things like that.

[Eveangaline]

I just assumed the way to save both was have the soldiers defend the village, but be good enough to still save the keep before the timer runs out (I was working under the assumption that having soldiers help you with the keep gave you a longer timer/made it diminish slower). But I don't really..get the point of the feature you're asking for?

[Ieldra]

I think the fourth wall should remain intact. Which means that things we do with the game as a game and a piece of software should not impact the story. Saving and reloading are not part of the game world and should not impact the story in any way.

Also OP, playing an RPG is not a competition, and I'm mightily sick of people who want to force me to treat it as one. Damn it. I find this suggestion outright offensive.

[Rainbow Wyvern]

No. Definitely a no. 

If I want to metagame, I'm going to metagame. I don't need the game to tell me I'm not allowed, and take away my options because I clicked 'reload'

 

If someone wants these restrictions, they should impose them on themselves. 

[Fast Jimmy]

FastJimmy always seems to have a problem with people who metagame for the best outcome, and amusingly he's not alone(good deeds should not go unpunished thread ).

I don't necessarily have a problem with meta-gaming, per se. I just have a preference that the choices offered in a game be of equal value to the player, as it were.

The Village v. The Keep, from what little we know about it, seems like an interesting situation. As Inquisitor, it is your job to save Thedas and unite a force under one banner that can accomplish this task. In that light, what is the fate of one village compared to the success of your mission? On the other hand, what of the civilians you may have grown to know and like? What of their own innocence in an attack that, for all we know, may have been the result of helping the Inquisitor? Would sacrificing their lives make future allies less likely to join your side, upon seeing how you treated past allies?

These are all very interesting questions. And all of those questions become nearly pointless when you suddenly have a backdoor solution that if the player is a completionist who either always chooses the Blue/Paragon/Diplomatic option (an incredibly good bet to get the best outcomes in Bioware games) or who uses a guide to never have to make a hard choice. Or, for that matter, someone who is just spolied by prior game knowledge.

It's like giving toddler the choice between brocolli, green beans and an ice cream sundae. I'm not saying to be grimdark for the same of being grimdark (multiple out ones can all be happy, for all I care), but rather a matter of a player not looking at outcomes and clearly being able to say "this is the best one" by looking at a guide. "All of my companions die, all of my allies' forces die, or everyone lives with rainbows and sunshine" are not equitable outcomes, even if they involve a player reloading sixteen times to beat one hard boss fight.

[Shadow Fox]

I don't necessarily have a problem with meta-gaming, per se. I just have a preference that the choices offered in a game be of equal value to the player, as it were.

The Village v. The Keep, from what little we know about it, seems like an interesting situation. As Inquisitor, it is your job to save Thedas and unite a force under one banner that can accomplish this task. In that light, what is the fate of one village compared to the success of your mission? On the other hand, what of the civilians you may have grown to know and like? What of their own innocence in an attack that, for all we know, may have been the result of helping the Inquisitor? Would sacrificing their lives make future allies less likely to join your side, upon seeing how you treated past allies?

These are all very interesting questions. And all of those questions become nearly pointless when you suddenly have a backdoor solution that if the player is a completionist who either always chooses the Blue/Paragon/Diplomatic option (an incredibly good bet to get the best outcomes in Bioware games) or who uses a guide to never have to make a hard choice. Or, for that matter, someone who is just spolied by prior game knowledge.

It's like giving toddler the choice between brocolli, green beans and an ice cream sundae. I'm not saying to be grimdark for the same of being grimdark (multiple out ones can all be happy, for all I care), but rather a matter of a player not looking at outcomes and clearly being able to say "this is the best one" by looking at a guide. "All of my companions die, all of my allies' forces die, or everyone lives with rainbows and sunshine" are not equitable outcomes, even if they involve a player reloading sixteen times to beat one hard boss fight.

No one's forcing you to metagame.

[berelinde]

CTD says bad idea.

 

What happens if that CTD occurs just as you're about to clear the sequence, right before the autosave? To have earned the best outcome and be denied it just because somebody's insecure about his relative playing prowess is ridiculous. Impose your own no-reload challenges, if you want, but don't expect everyone to hop on the bandwagon.

 

At this point, it's still a single-player game. Nobody is going to come into your living room and give you a cookie for not reloading. If somebody wants to reload 700 times, let them! Most people have other demands on their time, but it's their game. They should play it however they want.

[AlanC9]

FastJimmy always seems to have a problem with people who metagame for the best outcome, and amusingly he's not alone(good deeds should not go unpunished thread ).

 

 

Nothing wrong with a bit of contempt for that kind of metagaming, but spending dev time to stop it?

[Fast Jimmy]

I think the fourth wall should remain intact. Which means that things we do with the game as a game and a piece of software should not impact the story. Saving and reloading are not part of the game world and should not impact the story in any way.

Also OP, playing an RPG is not a competition, and I'm mightily sick of people who want to force me to treat it as one. Damn it. I find this suggestion outright offensive.

It's not about competition, or me saying "I'm better than you because I got the uber awesome ending." It's more about guiding more players towards the harder decisions, since the options of "saving everyone and being ultra happy," especially when the alternatives require sacrifice and loss, are what I see as a loss. Since if a game has you make a hard choice that you (and your character) can identify with and stand by, then that choice sticks with the player.

In a way, the developers are telling players that they are losing, by offering clearly better choices gated with sometimes hard-to-reach requirements. I'm of the opinion that the choices should be designed such that you and I, looking at the same options, would have drastically different ideas of what is the best outcome, based on our own perspectives. Not be able to go to gamefaqs.com and see a header that says "for the ultra-mega-happy outcome, do this." My suggestion is just an offshoot of that concept.

If that offends you, you need to chill out.

[AlanC9]

So... yet another Fast Jimmy idea with no constituency. The players who don't metagame would never notice, and the players who do metagame would hate it.

[TurretSyndrome]

FastJimmy, if the best outcome comes without a price, and only because the player has pressed all the right buttons, then the fault lies with the implementation of these choices, not with the player itself who metagames. So its not fair to force such a mechanic on the player's side, when the developers can do a better job with the choices offered and the consequences the players will have to face.

[Fast Jimmy]

Nothing wrong with a bit of contempt for that kind of metagaming, but spending dev time to stop it?

To be fair, the feature wouldn't prohibit or limit meta-gaming, just save file spamming.

[Shadow Fox]

It's not about competition, or me saying "I'm better than you because I got the uber awesome ending." It's more about guiding more players towards the harder decisions, since the options of "saving everyone and being ultra happy," especially when the alternatives require sacrifice and loss, are what I see as a loss. Since if a game has you make a hard choice that you (and your character) can identify with and stand by, then that choice sticks with the player.

In a way, the developers are telling players that they are losing, by offering clearly better choices gated with sometimes hard-to-reach requirements. I'm of the opinion that the choices should be designed such that you and I, looking at the same options, would have drastically different ideas of what is the best outcome, based on our own perspectives. Not be able to go to gamefaqs.com and see a header that says "for the ultra-mega-happy outcome, do this." My suggestion is just an offshoot of that concept.

If that offends you, you need to chill out.

Then don't Metagame and let those of us who do enjoy our game in peace.

[Fast Jimmy]

FastJimmy, if the best outcome comes without a price, and only because the player has pressed all the right buttons, then the fault lies with the implementation of these choices, not with the player itself who metagames. So its not fair to force such a mechanic on the player's side, when the developers can do a better job with the choices offered and the consequences the players will have to face.

Yet you, just two posts ago, maligned the "no good deed goes unpunished" thread, which is precisely a request to have choice be equal (or, at the least, not have one choice clearly labeled as the "good" choice which leads to the best outcomes).

Is it bad design to try and limit meta-gaming, or is it bad design to have the best choices clearly labeled as the good ones? Because outside of clearly labeling the best choices or providing barriers to taking those said best choices, I'm not sure of another option.

[AlanC9]

To be fair, the feature wouldn't prohibit or limit meta-gaming, just save file spamming.

 

Right. To prevent all metagaming you'll need some more proposals. I suppose Bio could sue anyone who publishes a walkthrough. No merit to the case, but unless the EFF or somebody got involved nobody'd be likely to want to fight it out with EA's lawyers.

[Fast Jimmy]

Right. To prevent all metagaming you'll need some more proposals. I suppose Bio could sue anyone who publishes a walkthrough. No merit to the case, but unless the EFF or somebody got involved nobody'd be likely to want to fight it out with EA's lawyers.

True. And, again, I'd rather not try and combat meta-gaming, but as can be seen from this and other threads, people are actively hostile to the idea of not having one choice clearly labeled as the bright and happy one, so instead of re-hashing that discussion get again, I thought I'd try a new one.

[Sylvius the Mad]

To be fair, the feature wouldn't prohibit or limit meta-gaming, just save file spamming.

But why are you trying to stop that?  What if I like doing that?  Why are you trying to stop me (or anyone) from playing the game a certain way?

 

If you don't want to reload, don't reload.  If you don't want to choose that option again when you do reload, don't choose that option.