254 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

Err...you need more context?

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

What if the woman was secretly working with the enemy?

[Allan Schumacher]

No great truth?

 

You don't see and recognize power in courage, in will, in integrity? What do you imagine sets the characters you play in video games apart from the normal townsfolk? Their skill with a weapon? Their muscles?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "great truth."  That the characters are special snowflakes that do things that are pretty impossible?  Perhaps I am reading more into what a "great truth" should mean but I was hoping for something more concrete and substantial than the idea of "look at the characters they are powerful!"

[Allan Schumacher]

What if the woman was secretly working with the enemy?

 

I had considered creating an extension that showed that the prisoner was actually a bigger monster, and we just didn't know it at the time.

[AresKeith]

I had considered creating an extension that showed that the prisoner was actually a bigger monster, and we just didn't know it at the time.

Sometimes we wouldn't know at the time

[Fast Jimmy]

next thing you know your going to try to have them outlaw strategy guides

If there was no clear cut best outcome choice, then having a strategy guide would be immaterial to the problem.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Sounds like a game that relies on the autosave feature exlusively. Not sure I'm up for that honestly, sometimes I do just want the ability to dick around with the options instead of starting a new game from scratch to see what happens for sake of curiosity.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy made a suggestion. This is the Feedback and Suggestion section of the DAI forum. Many here express their disapproval of that suggestion, but that is all it is a suggestion. Bioware is free to incorporate or ignore anything mention here. The idea is to politely debate the relative merits of the idea.

 

I understand the point of the suggestion. I would like to see more decisions that do not have good or bad choices. In DAI the Inquisitor will command an army.  The choices in war are based on two strategies: the enemy's and in this case the Inquisitor's. In war a "good" choice is achieving the objective which could require massive loss of life. The "bad" choice could be not achieving the objective but minimal life is lost. The question then becomes how important is the objective and what are the consequences of not achieving it weighed against achieving the objective but depleting the army.

 

No matter what the choice life will be lost.

[Ieldra]

You know, Fast Jimmy, what I really, really don't understand is why you're arguing for a mechanism that forces a particular playstyle on the player (namely, the "ironman" playstyle). That's what's riling me up. I find that fundamentally unacceptable - and I notice you have made no effort at all to deal with objections based on this. I simply don't get that mindset.

"No best outcome", that's something I can agree with as something to implement as a loose guideline, not a rule. Anything beyond that, no. You've made all sorts of arguments for the pragmatic implementation of your proposed mechanism and talked a lot about decision-making in a theoretical sense, but nowhere at all did you address the points of criticism that (1) a particular playstyle shouldn't be forced on the player, and (2) that the fourth wall should remain intact.

As for my last post, I don't know why you'd find it report-worthy but I maintain what I said there. Some strategy games offer an ironman mode, but even there it is optional. Neither would I mind one in a Bioware game, even as the default option. But it should never be more than an option you can disable.

[Realmzmaster]

You know, Fast Jimmy, what I really, really don't understand is why you're arguing for a mechanism that forces a particular playstyle on the player (namely, the "ironman" playstyle). That's what's riling me up. I find that fundamentally unacceptable - and I notice you have made no effort at all to deal with objections based on this. I simply don't get that mindset.

"No best outcome", that's something I can agree with as something to implement as a loose guideline, not a rule. Anything beyond that, no. You've made all sorts of arguments for the pragmatic implementation of your proposed mechanism and talked a lot about decision-making in a theoretical sense, but nowhere at all did you address the points of criticism that (1) a particular playstyle shouldn't be forced on the player, and ( that the fourth wall should remain intact.

As for my last post, I don't know why you'd find it report-worthy but I maintain what I said there. Some strategy games offer an ironman mode, but even there it is optional.

 

Maybe because shouting is not necessary in a polite discussion of a suggestion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

But I think what the player expects matters too. Since I can't un-know what I know about Bio's house style, this sort of fake dilemma puts unnecessary distance between me and my characters. In effect, my first playthrough is pre-spoiled because I know Bio's house style. Though this has been somewhat less of a problem for me with recent Bio releases.

I think un-knowing that sort of thing is a critical part of roleplaying.  I compartmentalise my brain so that I'm not aware of my metagame knowledge while I'm making in-character decisions.

 

It's very similar to the mental gymnastics required to work through many philosophical thought experiments.

[Endurium]

I respectfully disagree with this thread's suggestion, unless it is an option tied solely to a specific higher difficulty setting.

[Fast Jimmy]

Maybe because shouting is not necessary in a polite discussion of a suggestion.

And using profanity, especially while directing it at an individual.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

My impression is that he thinks that the game, if it consistently rewards the non-good option, is implicitly telling the players that doing "good" is for suckers, and he finds that offensive.

 

I don't agree, but that's my understanding of his position.  It seems he is judging the morality of the game within the real world: does the game advance a moral message overall?

 

I could be wrong about that, but his remarks remind me very much of the writings of Dr. Thomas Hurka - a prominent Moral Perfectionist.

[Fast Jimmy]

You've made all sorts of arguments for the pragmatic implementation of your proposed mechanism and talked a lot about decision-making in a theoretical sense, but nowhere at all did you address the points of criticism that (1) a particular playstyle shouldn't be forced on the player, and (2) that the fourth wall should remain intact.

I'm not arguing that such a choice shouldn't be forced on the player, because that's exactly what the mechanics does - it forces the player into a smaller subset of options if certain criteria aren't met. There is nothing for me to argue there - it is the reality. If that's not something you'd even remotely entertain when evaluating the merits of a theoretical suggestion, then say so and move on.

As for the fourth wall, I'd argue that is just as flimsy with a large enough set of optimal third option scenarios, or a Reload screen at all for that matter. You could view it as the character going through their head the high likelihood of failure in their head the first time if you reload, showing that they don't consider it a viable option when going back a second time if you want to. That's up to how you want to role play things, just like how you can roleplay your characters being ripped apart by dragons and then standing up and walking away with only a small injury, easily fixed by an injury kit. People fight "realism in video game" threads as much as this debate, so I find the concern low on the list of something to worry about.

[Fast Jimmy]

My impression is that he thinks that the game, if it consistently rewards the non-good option, is implicitly telling the players that doing "good" is for suckers, and he finds that offensive.

I don't agree, but that's my understanding of his position. It seems he is judging the morality of the game within the real world: does the game advance a moral message overall?

I could be wrong about that, but his remarks remind me very much of the writings of Dr. Thomas Hurka - a prominent Moral Perfectionist.

Actually, in my experience, he is saying a game (or any story or piece of fiction) CAN'T have such outcomes. That the protagonist, by virtue of being the protagonist, is exceptional and has exceptional things happen to them, otherwise there would be no story to tell.

[Xilizhra]

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?

Those who wish for a happy experience should get a chance to create it. Those who wish for a less happy experience should as well. Those who want to remove the chance of the former should get back into their own universes.

[Bob from Accounting]

I'm not sure what you mean by "great truth."  That the characters are special snowflakes that do things that are pretty impossible?  Perhaps I am reading more into what a "great truth" should mean but I was hoping for something more concrete and substantial than the idea of "look at the characters they are powerful!"

 

The moral is why they're powerful. Why the hero is the hero. Why he walks the path he does, and why others don't.

 

It's not a coincidence. There's a driving force behind it.

[Shadow Fox]

The moral is why they're powerful. Why the hero is the hero. Why he walks the path he does, and why others don't.

 

It's not a coincidence. There's a driving force behind it.

Anti-Heroes and Villain Protagonists exist you know.

[Bob from Accounting]

Of course. Not every story portrays this.

[Bob from Accounting]

My impression is that he thinks that the game, if it consistently rewards the non-good option, is implicitly telling the players that doing "good" is for suckers, and he finds that offensive.

 

Not really.

 

There's a belief, I think, that 'heroic' stories say that man is basically good. And pessimistic stories, or whatever you'd like to call them, say that man is basically evil. And the disagreement is whether men are ultimately good or not.

 

It's not true.

 

In fact, the most heroic and the most pessimistic stories are in total agreement about almost everyone. They both agree that 99.9% of people are what you'd call 'grey' or worse. Perhaps well meaning, but ultimately susceptible to greed, fear, foolishness. Just normal human weaknesses. Also simple bad luck. 

 

The only issue in debate is the last .1%.

 

Even the most heroic story only says something about a tiny fraction of people. They only claim to say something about the best of humanity. But 'pessimistic' stories are different.

 

Consider a show like The Walking Dead. I've caught enough episodes to get a good sense of the setting. A show that portrays humans and the settlements they set up as very, very flawed. Very fragile.

 

But you see, even if 999 of settlements fall to corruption, betrayal, weakness, compromise, or simple bad luck (as you might expect to 'realistically' happen), the 1 in a 1000 that doesn't will flourish. And shine as an example. And grow. And eventually, win.

 

The story can't have that. It can't let even .1% be heroic. It has to quash out every glimmer of it or else that one shining example would ruin the setting they want. So they have to make a statement on all of mankind. They must say everyone is weak, corruptible. Down to the last man. Including every person in the audience.

 

Heroism is individualistic. Evil is collective.

[AresKeith]

Of course. Not every story portrays this.

 

Well both Dragon age and Mass Effect does

[Bob from Accounting]

Exactly right. They both do.

[Ieldra]

I'm not arguing that such a choice shouldn't be forced on the player, because that's exactly what the mechanics does - it forces the player into a smaller subset of options if certain criteria aren't met. There is nothing for me to argue there - it is the reality. If that's not something you'd even remotely entertain when evaluating the merits of a theoretical suggestion, then say so and move on.

Just so that it is clear that you'd be putting elements of an ironman playstyle into the game with no way to opt out of them. I can't say it's not a legitimate suggestion - there are games that already do similar things. Yet, in a typical Bioware game I have a complex web of choices and consequences, and I often like to experiment until I find the path that fits the story version I want to tell with any one particular playthrough. So implementing your suggestion would f*ck up my preferred playstyle. If your suggestion became part of an overall design philosophy at Bioware, I'd probably stop playing Bioware games.

What I would support is an option for an "ironman" playstyle you can select at character creation and once selected, can't disable within that playthrough until you either finish your playthrough or abandon it. You would then be able to reload only if you die in a fight, and always from the last autosave. An autosave would be written after every decision. The magic word is "option" here. I would actually use it occasionally.

However, making this non-optional reeks too much of "this game wants to educate me about the virtue of accepting failure". I dislike that just as much as I dislike the game telling me what the good option is instead of letting me make up my mind about it. Since I guess making it non-optional and being patronizing is very much the point from your POV, I can only say: No!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Not really.

 

There's a belief, I think, that 'heroic' stories say that man is basically good. And pessimistic stories, or whatever you'd like to call them, say that man is basically evil. And the disagreement is whether men are ultimately good or not.

 

It's not true.

 

In fact, the most heroic and the most pessimistic stories are in total agreement about almost everyone. They both agree that 99.9% of people are what you'd call 'grey' or worse. Perhaps well meaning, but ultimately susceptible to greed, fear, foolishness. Just normal human weaknesses. Also simple bad luck. 

 

The only issue in debate is the last .1%.

 

Even the most heroic story only says something about a tiny fraction of people. They only claim to say something about the best of humanity. But 'pessimistic' stories are different.

 

Consider a show like The Walking Dead. I've caught enough episodes to get a good sense of the setting. A show that portrays humans and the settlements they set up as very, very flawed. Very fragile.

 

But you see, even if 999 of settlements fall to corruption, betrayal, weakness, compromise, or simple bad luck (as you might expect to 'realistically' happen), the 1 in a 1000 that doesn't will flourish. And shine as an example. And grow. And eventually, win.

 

The story can't have that. It can't let even .1% be heroic. It has to quash out every glimmer of it or else that one shining example would ruin the setting they want. So they have to make a statement on all of mankind. They must say everyone is weak, corruptible. Down to the last man. Including every person in the audience.

 

Heroism is individualistic. Evil is collective.

As long as the player gets to make the decisions for his character, the game cannot then enforce that universal statement about 100% of people.  But I don't agree that that last .1% needs ultimately to win.  The triumph is in the struggle to do better, I think, rather than ultimate victory.

 

And I'm speaking entirely theoretically here, as I don't concede that good and evil are even meaningful concepts.  Arguably evil is (I don't see any other way to classify malice, for example), but everything else seems neutral at best, as I cannot divorce free will from selfishness.

[Bob from Accounting]

Sure it can. By simply having the protagonist be weak or ineffective. By having him land in no-win situations.