254 réponses à ce sujet

[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?

[Realmzmaster]

The only way it could logically be done is that the game itself automatically modifies and saves the world state to the last saved game file and quick save. It would be a programming nightmare to try and change all the saved game files especially since the world state in the other files would not be the same. 

Roguelikes can do it because there is only one save file which the game will automatically erase. The only way around that is to backup the save file.

 

If gamers wish to metagame or save file spam I say let them. It is a single player game that affects no one else.

[Jorji Costava]

I think I understand the underlying idea behind the OP's suggestion: Games struggle to do dark outcomes right because players are conditioned to try and 'win,' and outcomes in which bad things happen to the PC or his/her companions are perceived as a kind of fail state; there's not much catharsis in being told "You suck at playing this game."

 

But if I were to try and do something about this, I would go in the opposite direction (I've probably made some of these suggestions before, but I'll repeat them anyways). Instead of punishing or preventing metagaming and save scumming, how about we incentivize not doing so? For instance, suppose that the game keeps track of how many times you reload between point A and B, and gives you some kind of XP bonus inversely proportional to the number of times you reloaded. Of course, this feature might be a nightmare to implement; knowing nothing about programming whatsoever, I would have no idea. But it's a possibility, anyways.

 

Another possibility is that on some occassions, the game might imbalance the amount of story content in favor of the darker outcome, so that there is a bright and happy outcome, but the darker result might be longer or more involved somehow. I think of story content and cutscenes as a kind of feedback/reward mechanism, so having more such content for the darker outcome might counterbalance the feeling that arriving at this outcome constitutes failure.

[Nefla]

I think a game story is better when you make your choices and let the chips fall where they may. However not everyone is like this, I wouldn't want to force someone else to play this way. There are people that live on metagaming and to me they're missing out, but why would that be any of my concern? I'm reminded of ME2's long unskippable intro likely to force players to watch their story and hard work. It ended up being detrimental to ME, and I'm someone that watches every conversation and story snippet and never skips cutscenes and dialogues. In this case I ended up remaking my Shepards many times to get it right and EVERY time I was forced to watch that long and unskippable intro again and again. I say just play the way you want and let others play how they want.

 

This is a lot of effort put into an April Fool's thread...

[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.

[Ianamus]

The people who care enough about not being able to change their options simply wouldn't reload in the first place, so I don't know who this feature is supposed to be for. 

[Vapaa]

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.

 

You started this game of "let's play the devil's advocate", we're RPing along.

[Eveangaline]

Wait what if you're taking the hardest option because you want the chance to beat the highest difficulty path? Why should you only get one shot? If I play the game on hard and wipe should it force me to go to easy?

[AlanC9]

The people who care enough about not being able to change their options simply wouldn't reload in the first place, so I don't know who this feature is supposed to be for.

Exactly. The people who would use this feature don't need it, except for the very small fraction of us with such poor impulse control that they'd reload and feel bad about it later. Unless there's some sort of fantasy that people would really like playing this way if they were only forced to.

[Fast Jimmy]

You started this game of "let's play the devil's advocate", we're RPing along.

Criticism of the idea is fine. Making the comments personally about me is not.

Allan has already weighed in on this matter and deleted some posts. So let's keep it on topic.

[tmp7704]

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?

Looking at how other games handle this sort of stuff, Paradox' Europa Universalis has interesting system I think -- it gives the player option of using either local saves, or "Ironman mode" which utilizes Steam Cloud to store single save per game, which gets updated automatically after each major event/decision. The catch/carrot here is, the game only grants its achievement only for things the player achieve while they use that "Ironman" variant.

[oceanicsurvivor]

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."

 

Well, hopefully we don't have too many of those. In the example you initially posted, I hope that trying to save both means both recieve a degree of damage and people die in the battle. Your fort isn't wiped out, but you have lost 'resources', in whatever form that takes. And whatever larger purpose Crestwood had is somehow damaged. So, yes, you did the big heroic thing, but you are still limited. Further, given how potions and such seem to work in this game, risking your squad against the  hordes of Templars destroying the town is already a more daunting prospect.

 

Now obviously, there have been more sunshine and rainbow choices in the past, the biggest I can think of being saving Connor by running back to the Circle for help and mitigating the need for a sacrifice. However, moments like that in DA2 are few in far between (in my memory at least), and there were the opposite, no win situations, like losing your mom in Act 2 or (arguably) the choice you make with your sibling to end Act 1.

 

So while I agree that there shouldn't be one ultimate or obvious 'this is the best outcome' in every situation (although, there is nothing wrong with handing the player a true victory once and a while either ), trying to lessen that through gameplay mechanics instead of story related consequences seems like the wrong approach.

[Vulpe]

If this would apply no mather what, I don't like it. If they would make an selectable "Story-hardcore" mode that works this way for the people that want it then I have no objections.

[Mockingword]

The whole discussion is rooted in the assumption that there will be some sort of "best" ending, when there's not a single ending in any DA game so far that can be definitely said to be "the best". Why would we assume that Inquisition will have such an ending? And why would we assume that players automatically try to achieve an ending, just because Bioware says it's the best one?

 

It only takes a cursory examination of the forums for any of the other DA games (or even the ME games) to find that there is absolutely no consensus whatsoever on what constitutes the "best" ending in any of them, regardless of what Bioware staff might think. Some people think slaughtering the mages and becoming Viscount is a happy ending. Some think saving the mages and going on the run is the best ending. Some like Anora as queen, some like Alistair as king, some like them both together. Some like Loghain has a grey warden, some like him dead. Some think the dark ritual is the best ending, while some are wary of Morrigan's motives and think the ultimate sacrifice is better for everyone.

 

So the question is moot. Instituting a feature that would prevent players from getting the "best" ending is utterly pointless, because Bioware can't know beforehand what people think the "best" ending will be, and since we don't know what any of the endings are, individuals can't know which ending is the best, or which choices will take them there. Unless Bioware offers a walkthrough on release.

 

All you would achieve is upsetting players needlessly by taking away the freedom and control over an emergent narrative that is a major selling point of Bioware games (if not the major point). You claim the feature exists to alleviate "stress" in players (actually, what causes stress in people's real lives is a sense of lacking control, something that many turn to games in order to escape from). Then, in the same breath, you say it's "sadistic" and freely admit that you yourself don't think anyone would like it.

 

So what's the point?

[Innsmouth Dweller]

on topic:

OH HELL NO!

 

i love playing solo on NM (unless it's first PT, you know, companion interaction) and i usually struggle to have the best possible outcome if i choose it plot-wise (no deaths in redcliffe, no army summoned in Archdemon fight and so on, i'm masochist that way, i suppose).

 

and it does take more than 1 attempt!

 

off topic:

i have no idea how it looks in the engine, but from the structure of save files/directories for DA:O (char A has a unique directory, some files and saves) - just put flags in the char's config - limit option A = 1, or whatever after failing certain quest or on some triggering event and load those flags when player loads any save of this char. it shouldn't be too complex.

[Ieldra]

Here a few points @OP relevant to the discussion:

 

(1) The presence of optimal options in the subplots of a game is not a problem. Only the presence of one superior outcome overall is one. If there is a balance between situations where you can clearly win (Connor in DAO), hard choices and the (rare) situation where no matter what you do, it feels like a failure (Leandra's death), that's as it should be.

 

(2) As for the question: who would ever choose something else but the sunshine&rainbows outcome? Well, there are those of us who actually roleplay and make decisions appropriate for their characters regardless of the outcome. While I do consider a roleplaying approach to a Bioware game superior, it is not the developers' place  - nor yours or mine - to educate other players on its superiorness.

(Example: in the ME3 replay with my main Shepard, I sent the biotic youths to the frontline, even knowing they would die. The thing is, my character didn't know, and he thought we couldn't afford to keep them back. To act like this, however, was my playstyle. I wouldn't force it on someone else).

 

(3) Even if you are roleplaying, you are also shaping a story, and doing so with advance knowledge and specific outcomes in mind is not an inferior appraoch to shaping a story than doing so blindly and accepting the unknown consequences of a decision. That's the mistake ME3 made: the writers wanted the story to be about the virtue of sacrifice, but for many players it just wasn't that kind of story and the sacrifice felt forced into the story for them. Storytelling is always a collaboration between the storytellers and the reader/listener/player, in a game even more so than in more linear stories. The writers present different paths, but it's up to the player what to do with them.

 

(4) You say you want to guide players towards acceptance of inferior outcomes. Well, the operational term here is "guide", not "force". Also, if the developers actually wanted to do that, it is far better done with in-world mechanics. One way would be to make the presence of the optimal option dependent on a decision made much earlier in the story, and let the player know that at the time when the options of the later decision appear. The player now has the option to replay from a few hours earlier, or to accept the consequence and go for the optimal outcome in a different playthrough. If you use in-world mechanics, the message sent to players is "this is a story and you made a supoptimal decision". If you break the fourth wall to do it and implement it on the level where you perceive the game as a piece of software, the message is "we, the developers, are telling you that you played wrong". I hope you can see why the latter might be considered offensive.

 

(5) Those who would dislike such a feature would just find a way around it. Actually, I would make it a point to publish ways around it even if this proposed mechanism never affected me. I find the mindset that might lead to such a feature insufferably patronizing. It is acceptable only in games with clear win/fail conditions that you tend to approach as a game rather than a story. For instance, in XCOM, if you reload an in-mission save (as opposed to a save in the XCOM base), you get a hidden -10 or -15 on the next attack. While I found that somewhat acceptable in this case, it still was occasionally annoying since crashes did happen. Meanwhile, the developers also accepted save scumming as a legitimate playstyle by *adding* a game option "reset the RNG after a reload" with the "Second Wave" DLC. No patronization here. Thank you, Firaxis. I'm saying this as a player who acknowledges that the "ironman" playstyle is the most authentic way to play this (!) game and who has completed games on Classic/Ironman.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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."

And I'm asking why.  Does preventing this improve anyone's gameplay experience?

[Fast Jimmy]

And I'm asking why. Does preventing this improve anyone's gameplay experience?

Ideally, it would improve everyone's gameplay experience.

[Eveangaline]

Ideally, it would improve everyone's gameplay experience.

But in actuality, does it improve anyones gameplay? I mean I could say "ideally, a feature that caused anyone who gave their inquisitor a hairstyle I deem ugly to have random party wipes for no apparent reason should improve everyones gameplay experience"

 

but in practicality it would not.

 

How does your idea, practically, work, when the only people who would be effected by it would be the people who don't want it?

[Realmzmaster]

Ideally, it would improve everyone's gameplay experience.

 

Ideally it may in reality it appears it may not. I would look more at the practicality than the ideal. So in practice would it actually improve gameplay? 

[Fast Jimmy]

But in actuality, does it improve anyones gameplay? I mean I could say "ideally, a feature that caused anyone who gave their inquisitor a hairstyle I deem ugly to have random party wipes for no apparent reason should improve everyones gameplay experience"

but in practicality it would not.

How does your idea, practically, work, when the only people who would be effected by it would be the people who don't want it?

By upping the ante? By adding some tension? By introducing the possibility of not just a party wipe that results in trying again, but that the chance to make things as perfect as possible was on the line, and with the realization that if you didn't succeed to now ask yourself the hard questions of worth, sacrifice and choice in the "less shiny" options?

People can often mistake total player freedom with enjoyment. This is merely a suggestion to add some weight to your choices.

Also, for the record, this WOULD affect the people who don't metagame just as much as the people who don't. If given the option, I am going to try the "cowboy" approach to take out both sides of the enemy. And, if I die, I'm going to reload again (I'm not talking about an Ironman mode where reloads after death are flat out impossible, after all) and likely try to succeed in my objective.

That's not meta gaming. That is just reloading. If, however, the choice is off the table after a failure, then suddenly it affects me just as much as it affects the person who is following a strategy guide and knows that the cowboy method saves all village goats AND you get the pot of gold quest reward. We'd still try to achieve the goal we were offered and would have to deal with the game's restriction if we didn't succeed.

[Eveangaline]

By upping the ante? By adding some tension? By introducing the possibility of not just a party wipe that results in trying again, but that the chance to make things as perfect as possible was on the line, and with the realization that if you didn't succeed to now ask yourself the hard questions of worth, sacrifice and choice in the "less shiny" options.

People can often mistake total player freedom with enjoyment. This is merely a suggestion to add some weight to your choices.

Also, for the record, this WOULD affect the people who don't metagame just as much as the people who don't. If given the option, I am going to try the "cowboy" approach to take out both sides of the enemy. And, if I die, I'm going to reload again (I'm not talking about an Ironman mode where reloads after death are flat out impossible, after all) and likely try to succeed in my objective.

That's not meta gaming. That is just reloading. If, however, the choice is off the table after a failure, then suddenly it affects me just as much as it affects the person who is following a strategy guy and knows that the cowboy method saves all village goats AND you get the pot of gold quest reward. We'd still try to achieve the goal we were offered and would have to deal with the game's restriction if we didn't succeed.

To you it may feel like adding weight, but to me it just seems like artificial enforcement of some completely random idea of how the game "should" be played. It doesn't make the choices seem more dramatic or important, it makes it feel like the game is sitting on top of the fourth wall and yelling "You're not doing it the way I WANT IT"

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ideally, it would improve everyone's gameplay experience.

Let's assume that I like reloading to get my preferred outcome.  How would my experience be improved by this?