254 réponses à ce sujet

[The Hierophant]

I'd prefer instead if there's a randomization of enemy types and formations upon reload/restart, finite military resources like manpower, while there's consequences for all choices even though their distribution, and impact might not be equal.

[Fast Jimmy]

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

You'd likely not enjoy it and resent the dev for making you chose an option that had some actual negative aspects to it instead of an option that was without any.

Yet, at the same time, you may then truly question your characters beliefs and ask what they would do if given a hard choice, one that might be more ethically compromising than "do I save everyone or do I not" and, in the process, become more attached and integrated with your character. With the situation. With the world.

That's what I imagine the net result would be. In theory.

[wright1978]

No I don't think this is a good idea. I'm not very pro the idea of mechanics that reward with optimal results those who excel at combat in the first place. However then to further punish those less proficient by stopping them having subsequent attempts at encounters they find difficult and trying to bully them into taking another outcome. Actually the likely results I'd expect is much more in depth use of walkthroughs, players playing at lower levels of difficulty rather than testing themselves at higher ones and less enjoyable experience of the game overall.

[Eveangaline]

Out of curiosity, should we be forced to have our character in a romance whether we want one or not? After all it would make us think about our character and, in the process, become more attached and integrated with our character. With the situation. With the world.

[Fast Jimmy]

It's doable, it would just create a whole domain of bugs and problems. Seems like it would be hell for a QA tester. So many things can go wrong at this point. The idea of of it operating like an achievements scheme is light compared to save file. A save file contains much more volatile and persistent data, an achievement could get got again this system could potentially introduce a domain of data corruption.

Good idea, I just don't think it is something for bioware to spend their dev time looking at.

That's fair enough. I had seen some other games apply updates to all saves upon certain actions and thought it might be fairly easy to implement, but it seems like that would not be the case with a total party wipe in only certain situations. In that light, this conversation has in my eyes been moved from suggestion to more of an intellectual exercise than anything else.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

I find this position patronizing.  It's not up to you to force people to play in a way that you think they will enjoy more.  The players should get to choose their own playstyle.

 

Increasing awareness is good.  Taking away options is not.

[Fast Jimmy]

Out of curiosity, should we be forced to have our character in a romance whether we want one or not? After all it would make us think about our character and, in the process, become more attached and integrated with our character. With the situation. With the world.

If you ask the Mass Effect devs, one could argue that their response would be "yes" given the presence and treatment of Liara...

But in all seriousness, no. That would not be a good situation. But, then again, I am giving the player the option of getting the "rainbow" outcome, albeit with strings attached. Bioware does the same thing, with things like approval, completion of side quests, morality, gauges, etc. being the strings. I'm just suggesting a different type of string. One that doesn't seem too popular (as I imagined it wouldn't be).

[Eveangaline]

If you ask the Mass Effect devs, one could argue that their response would be "yes" given the presence and treatment of Liara...

But in all seriousness, no. That would not be a good situation. But, then again, I am giving the player the option of getting the "rainbow" outcome, albeit with strings attached. Bioware does the same thing, with things like approval, completion of side quests, morality, gauges, etc. being the strings. I'm just suggesting a different type of string. One that doesn't seem too popular (as I imagined it wouldn't be).

 

You get one chance to opt out of being in a romance then, and if you fail, or didn't even realize that you had to opt out at that point if you didn't want to be in a romance, you get forced into one whether you want to or not. I think it would make everyone appreciate the game a lot more if they had a certain npc they were especially invested in. It makes the game much deeper. Lets say there's a very large boss once you have all four romanceable companions and if you fail against it, one of the companions at random will save you, and you enter a romance with them from that point on. Even if you re-set. Sure people who don't want to be in a romance wouldn't like it at first but honestly once they get forced to play with one I'm sure they'll agree that it's much better and they were foolish to have thought otherwise.

 

Plus it will sure add a LOT of weight to that boss fight.

[Fast Jimmy]

I find this position patronizing. It's not up to you to force people to play in a way that you think they will enjoy more. The players should get to choose their own playstyle.

That's fair. Think of it this way, then... every chance to get more money, or XP, or better equipment now becomes more important, since you would want every possible resource to help you overcome these "challenge" areas. This could lead people into treating these situations more like their character would.

For instance, do I give this wounded NPC a healing potion? RPG 101 tells you yes, of course, if the devs are offering such a choice, you do it, as it will obviously give a better outcome. Yet if potions are limited in DA:I and you give one of them away, suddenly you might be at a disadvantage if a challenge fight comes up. You could have doomed an entire village by short changing your own supplies and closing the "rainbow" ending from being possible.

I don't think of it as patronizing. I think of it as incentivizing people to be more cognizent of the way they play.

[Fast Jimmy]

You get one chance to opt out of being in a romance then, and if you fail, or didn't even realize that you had to opt out at that point if you didn't want to be in a romance, you get forced into one whether you want to or not. I think it would make everyone appreciate the game a lot more if they had a certain npc they were especially invested in. It makes the game much deeper. Lets say there's a very large boss once you have all four romanceable companions and if you fail against it, one of the companions at random will save you, and you enter a romance with them from that point on. Even if you re-set. Sure people who don't want to be in a romance wouldn't like it at first but honestly once they get forced to play with one I'm sure they'll agree that it's much better and they were foolish to have thought otherwise.

Plus it will sure add a LOT of weight to that boss fight.

I think you are trying to sound condescending or sarcastic, but I'd find such a mechanic hilariously fun.

[Eveangaline]

I think you are trying to sound condescending or sarcastic, but I'd find such a mechanic hilariously fun.

Perfect. And if we only have dev time for one our ideas I say mine. It would pull out much better roleplaying and thinking about what your character should do.

[AlanC9]

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.

 

So this really is a straight-up paternalist argument. Fast Jimmy knows what's best for all gamers so he wants them all forced to play Fast Jimmy's way. Presumably because Fast Jimmy can't control his own reloading (note italed)

 

So the question is, are there a lot of people who just can't stop themselves from reloading, and would like to be stopped? So far we've got.... one.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's fair. Think of it this way, then... every chance to get more money, or XP, or better equipment now becomes more important, since you would want every possible resource to help you overcome these "challenge" areas. This could lead people into treating these situations more like their character would.

For instance, do I give this wounded NPC a healing potion? RPG 101 tells you yes, of course, if the devs are offering such a choice, you do it, as it will obviously give a better outcome. Yet if potions are limited in DA:I and you give one of them away, suddenly you might be at a disadvantage if a challenge fight comes up. You could have doomed an entire village by short changing your own supplies and closing the "rainbow" ending from being possible.

I don't think of it as patronizing. I think of it as incentivizing people to be more cognizent of the way they play.

That's a worthy objective, but you're doing it by forcing a confluence of the player and his character.  The character's decisions are made within a single linear timeline.  The player's decisions (because of the availability of the reload) are not.

 

If a player wants his character to do good and still succeed, I don't want to prevent the player from having that just because you think it encourages save spamming (a practice I have no problem with at all - it's something I do a fair amount in strategy games).

[Fast Jimmy]

So this really is a straight-up paternalist argument. Fast Jimmy knows what's best for all gamers so he wants them all forced to play Fast Jimmy's way. Presumably because Fast Jimmy can't control his own reloading (note italed)

So the question is, are there a lot of people who just can't stop themselves from reloading, and would like to be stopped? So far we've got.... one.

It's not a matter of reloading being the problem, though. Again, I'm not arguing an Ironman mode or anything. I'm not even arguing against the ability to reload if you have an outcome that wasn't what you wanted. Just that if Bioware is going to offer an obvious Take A Third Option approach to some of their choices (which they have been guilty of numerous times in their games) that they make it a little more interesting instead of just choosing the obvious choice.

For the record, I usually go through a game and do multiple playthroughs that use and see all the options. I never go back and say "well, that outcome wasn't what I was hoping for, let me reload and try again" but my suggestion (and, again, it is just a suggestion, not something I'm adamantly advocating of fighting for... just DISCUSSION... you'd think I was threatening to break into people's houses and kick their puppies) wouldn't prevent that, either.

[HunterX6]

Just.....no I would lose interest in this game so fast just because of many reasons. Also I like to have control over my game experience not let the game choose the experience for me according to some bad decision I made because i forgot to pause or etc.

[Darth Krytie]

Honestly, I have read through the arguments in favour of this option and remain unconvinced. If I need to choose between the lesser of two evils, then two evils should be all that I'm presented with to start.

 

If a third, really great option is available, and I fail it, I should be able to try again as often as I please. There are plenty of people who, when confronted with the initial difficulty, will opt to go for one of the other options as they no longer think the extra effort is worth it. I'd wager if you could track the telemetry on that, my theory would bear it out. Only really dedicated players would keep redoing the same quest, multiple times, just to get the optimal outcome.

[AlanC9]

Fastjimmy was giving a suggestion.

 

Right. A suggestion that players be forced to play his way. Or is the thing toggleable?

 

It's not a matter of reloading being the problem, though. Again, I'm not arguing an Ironman mode or anything. I'm not even arguing against the ability to reload if you have an outcome that wasn't what you wanted. Just that if Bioware is going to offer an obvious Take A Third Option approach to some of their choices (which they have been guilty of numerous times in their games) that they make it a little more interesting instead of just choosing the obvious choice.
 

 

You most certainly are arguing against the ability to reload if you have an outcome that wasn't what you wanted. Otherwise the feature wouldn't change anything

 

I presume you're only asking for this to be toggleable, though? In which case nobody would actually use it, so I suppose the feature is harmless. Though in that case it won't accomplish your goals, since the whole point of this is getting other people to play your way, right?

[The Hierophant]

Someone mentioned toggle?

The memories. It used to be a BSN tradition.

[Fast Jimmy]

You most certainly are arguing against the ability to reload if you have an outcome that wasn't what you wanted. Otherwise the feature wouldn't change anything

I presume you're only asking for this to be toggleable, though? In which case nobody would actually use it, so I suppose the feature is harmless. Though in that case it won't accomplish your goals, since the whole point of this is getting other people to play your way, right?

You are not paying attention. And having me seriously deploying the Ignore User function.

The suggested proposal was to have the player get one shot at a Golden Path third opportunity when/if they appeared. If they failed their first attempt, they wouldn't be able to choose that Golden Path any longer.

This does not preclude choosing any option (including even the Golden Path choice should you succeed your first time) and reloading the game to try other options. It would not preclude anyone from reloading a bad outcome save and trying something else (including the Golden Path option), since the restriction would only affect your save games if you had a full party wipe while attempting the Golden Path and at no other time.

If you decided to kill the Werewolves in the Brecillian Forest, did not like how that played out, you'd be clear to reload the game and see what happens if you killed the Dalish, or even attempt the Golden Path of fighting Zathrien and getting the Golden Path option of everyone living except Zathrien (since you hadn't tried the option previously and, therefore, wouldn't be locked out of trying the Golden Path a subsequent time).

This isn't NEARLY as restrictive as people are making it out to be. And, again, it is a suggestion for DISCUSSION, not a demand I'm making or even an idea I'm married to as something I'd even LIKE to see in the game. If you can't have a discussion about a theoretical game design idea without becoming emotional and antagonistic, you may want to seriously take a step back and reconsider your interaction with others online.

[KaiserShep]

I imagine this would frustrate more players than it would serve to their benefit. As it is, players who want to reload could already face the prospect of having to go through an entire quest line again, depending on the most recent save, so if player 1 has to go through the cursed catacombs of doom all over again just to find that the other choice is missing because they didn't like the previous outcome, they're not going to be happy with the game at all.

[Rusty Sandusky]

Jimmy, I suggest you quit while you're a head

Spoiler

Bonus points for getting the reference