254 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

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!

For the last time (because I'm putting you on my Ignore list, since you seem incapable of having a conversation) this is an idea I'm discussing, not even SUGGESTING, but merely discussing. To be blatantly so hostile to the discussion of a concept is ignorant.

[Xilizhra]

For the last time (because I'm putting you on my Ignore list, since you seem incapable of having a conversation) this is an idea I'm discussing, not even SUGGESTING, but merely discussing. To be blatantly so hostile to the discussion of a concept is ignorant.

If this isn't an idea you're even suggesting, why would you object to us calling it a total piece of ****? I for one am perfectly open to discussing it, I just am extremely unlikely to have any opinions on it that could be deemed complimentary.

 

I personally think the concept is utterly terrible because it attempts to dictate the choices other people make within their own games, and I do mean choices as opposed to problems.

[Shadow Fox]

For the last time (because I'm putting you on my Ignore list, since you seem incapable of having a conversation) this is an idea I'm discussing, not even SUGGESTING, but merely discussing. To be blatantly so hostile to the discussion of a concept is ignorant.

She is having a discussion, she's explaining why she dislikes it and why she thinks forcing such a design on players is a bad idea.

[Bugsie]

this is an idea I'm discussing, not even SUGGESTING, but merely discussing. To be blatantly so hostile to the discussion of a concept is ignorant.

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?

How is a 'form of suggestion' different from a suggestion?

Besides, people are hostile because the suggestion, were it to be implemented, limits players agency in the game. Role playing is all about exploring options. You could argue they should do another playthrough to explore that, but they might not have time.

It's an interesting idea, sure, but if your like me, my first playthrough is often a gut reaction playthrough, I never go back and reload on choices, that's for a second playthrough where I might do exactly that. And a limitation on that where I might not have time or inclination for multiple playthroughs (for example ME3) would annoy the hell out of me.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think this thread has reached the end of the road.