254 réponses à ce sujet

[berelinde]

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.

That still doesn't answer the question about why you care how somebody else plays their game.

 

It's their game. It's their choices. It does not affect you or your choices in the slightest.

 

If this is really about reducing the number of no-cost happy outcomes, ask for that. People will still object to it because many people play video games specifically because it allows them to vanquish evil and save the day (and the devs will listen to them because their money is just as good as yours). But at least you would be honestly stating your opinion instead of trying to disguise it.

 

Of course, it is possible that the Keep/Village situation already has an unpleasant outcome elsewhere and we just don't know about it. Maybe saving both the Village and the Keep has spread the Inquisitor's resources too thin, and leaves both vulnerable to future problems, or exposes vulnerabilities in something else. Maybe saving both costs you a valuable ally you might need later in the game. I have great faith in the writers' ability to make life tough for us.

[TurretSyndrome]

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.

 

No, that thread wasn't a request for choices to be equal, that was a request for a certain choice to be punished because it is deemed the best one. Having a price for being able to achieve an all-good ending and not letting the player get the all-good ending because it is deemed to be the best choice, are two different things, people on that thread were asking for the latter. Basically, it was like asking for "I don't want players to be able to save both the village and the keep" not for "I want being able to save the keep and the village, to be difficult and with a price".

 

Similarly, It is a bad design choice if the devs try to punish the ones who are meta gaming rather than striving for a good balance between choices. If you don't like metagaming, don't do it. Go with your first playthrough as the true playthrough and keep the choices made in it as final ones. Don't worry about how other people may take advantage of the game's save function.  

[Realmzmaster]

Actually I think that Fast Jimmy's idea and Bioware are being too kind. I would probably be more draconian. I would not allows the possibility of saving both. I would force the Inquisitor to make the tough choice: Save the village or save the Keep. Make a decision and suffer the benefits and consequences of that decision. That also means no timer will be necessary. I know that most gamers would howl at that inability to save all no matter how slight the chance. 

 

Therefore Bioware has put it on a timer. If a person wishes to metagame or save file spam I say let them.

[spirosz]

No one's forcing you to metagame.

 

Everyone does. 

[Darth Krytie]

I think it's a bad idea on a more practical level. I live in an area where if a bigass truck drives past my house, sometimes my electricity blinks out for a second. Not long. Just a blink. I've had to replay over an hour of a game when that happened in the past. So, no, I wouldn't want to be in the middle of something, have my damned lights blink out, and not have the option any longer.

[Eveangaline]

Sometimes when there's tons of different choices I like to save and do them all just to see the cool cutscenes for each way, even ones I wouldn't ever want to do as part of my final save. Should I not be allowed to do that? Should I have to replay the entire game every time I want to see varric sob over dead bodies?

[Fast Jimmy]

Sometimes when there's tons of different choices I like to save and do them all just to see the cool cutscenes for each way, even ones I wouldn't ever want to do as part of my final save. Should I not be allowed to do that? Should I have to replay the entire game every time I want to see varric sob over dead bodies?

Arguably, you could go for the less "cowboy" options first, reload after seeing those outcomes, then try and tackle the harder road first to see if you could obtain that outcome?

Not an elegant solution, but not a terrible one.

[Mockingword]

Putting aside the fact that this is a terrible idea, and you belong in jail, how would they even make this work?

[Fast Jimmy]

I think it's a bad idea on a more practical level. I live in an area where if a bigass truck drives past my house, sometimes my electricity blinks out for a second. Not long. Just a blink. I've had to replay over an hour of a game when that happened in the past. So, no, I wouldn't want to be in the middle of something, have my damned lights blink out, and not have the option any longer.

This is a fair enough complete, as is the CTD concern. Ideally, the flags would not be activated until the player as undergone a Reload screen triggered by a total party wipe. Given that some achievements are triggered by similar requirements in other games, I'd postulate that it is not insanely difficult to track, but I wouldn't be able to state that with full certainty.

[berelinde]

Putting aside the fact that this is a terrible idea, and you belong in jail, how would they even make this work?

You'd have to use some kind of save spam countermeasure, such as limiting saves to when you exit the game or upon arrival at a new map.  It would pretty much be the end of voluntarily saving the game.

 

Honestly, that kind of thing works much better in games like Diablo where role-playing is kind of non-existent.

[Vapaa]

Why would you want that option ?

I mean if you want to make a no-turning back playthrough, can't you do it without the game having to nanny you ? Or are you too weak-willed to do it yourself ?

 

Besides it's taking away player agency, if you want hardcore decisions, real life is here for you, so a big NO with the force of a thousand suns.

[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.

[Nefla]

I take no thread posted today seriously, good day to you sir.

[Eveangaline]

Arguably, you could go for the less "cowboy" options first, reload after seeing those outcomes, then try and tackle the harder road first to see if you could obtain that outcome?

Not an elegant solution, but not a terrible one.

 

What if the devs and don't agree on what seems the most 'cowboy' option in some cases? Then when I reload oh crap, option I just tried isn't there.

 

That seems silly. This whole idea seems just..silly.

 

...I forgot it was april fools day, didn't I.

[Fast Jimmy]

<MODEDIT REMOVED QUOTED POST.  KEEPING FAST JIMMY'S RESPONSE AS IT STILL HAS GENERAL APPLICATION>

 

 

You all would think I'm demanding Bioware put this feature in, or that anyone who would dare be against it is an inferior player who doesn't deserve to play the game.

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

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 avril 2014 - 01:47 .
Removing deleted post.

[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)

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

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...?

I'm just spitballing here. And it would obviously have to relegate such choices to actually saying "I'm going to try to save both the Keep and the Village" or "I'm going to go to the Circle and get help to save Connor" or something similar.

Again, not elegant, but just trying to have a conversation.

[Bob from Accounting]

Dear God.

 

No!

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

I'd only want to prevent reloading if the player was trying to get the sunshine and rainbows outcome, mind you. The outcome that, clearly, has the player saying "oh, I can't believe I ever thought of choosing any other outcome other than that."

I know that this doesn't apply to you and your playstyle, since you are effectively a pure role player that always works to approach everything from your character's perspective, not your own. And while I do appreciate your efforts to promote said pure roleplaying styles, meta gaming is pretty much the anti-thesis of that.

[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.

[Bob from Accounting]

For stories like these to be their most effective, both players and developers need to understand that the player does not and cannot 'earn' the competence and success of the protagonist.

 

This would be a total 180 in completely the wrong, wrong, wrong direction.

[metatheurgist]

I'd only want to prevent reloading if the player was trying to get the sunshine and rainbows outcome, mind you.

What have you got against sunshine and rainbows?

I know that this doesn't apply to you and your playstyle, since you are effectively a pure role player that always works to approach everything from your character's perspective, not your own. And while I do appreciate your efforts to promote said pure roleplaying styles, meta gaming is pretty much the anti-thesis of that.

People play games for different reasons. Some people play games to relax, some play to be challenged. Some want to find the brightest ending, some want to find the darkest ending, some want to be a jerk, some want to be a good guy. In a SP game they should be able to do whatever the hell they want. There's no need to put limitations on what people choose to do in the privacy of their own game universes.

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

Fair enough. I was going to point to the "Bloodied" achievement from DA:O, but as you said, a full party wipe would be different. As well as only tracking if a full party wipe occurred ONLY during an attempted "cowboy" moment.

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.

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.