254 réponses à ce sujet

[gangly369]

Eh, I can't say I'm entirely on board with an idea such as this. If it was possible to make this feature exclusive to, say, people playing on the hardest difficulty, it might be alright. People who play on that setting would be the only ones who I could see would probably see a benefit in it, as this would add that extra degree of difficulty to getting an ideal option.

 

But would that even matter if a person was RPing a 'bad' character, or as someone who didn't give a damn about that golden option? Ultimately, I don't see a huge benefit to this feature in games that are like Biowares.

[Allan Schumacher]

In reality, pigeon-holing games as simply "entertainment" is kind of a slight to Bioware, who's striven (for better or worse--in some areas I don't care for it) to give more meaning to their games than simply "fun."

 

Entertainment is also subjective.  My favourite book of all time is Heart of Darkness.  I prefer stuff like Lord of the Flies over Harry Potter, because I find reading it more entertaining.  The Shawshank Redemption over Lord of the Rings.

 

That's not to say that I don't like the other things, but it's just not what I prefer (at this time, anyways).

[Bob from Accounting]

Okay, first of all, I don't really think games being a 'learning exercise' has much to do at all with this issue.

 

Secondly, being fun, being enjoyable comes first. If fiction is unenjoyable, why would anyone spend time with it, much less money? Why should anybody? Rest assured video games are far the first topic to face this issue. It's been noted, for example, that war fiction inherently glamorizes war since the story must be enjoyable in some form or fashion, even if the author wishes to portray war as a completely miserable thing.

[Bob from Accounting]

I disagree and I don't think it'd be particularly fruitful to resuscitate a months old conversation on the BSN when the reality is that people will want different things from their games.

 

What would it take for you to be satisfied that a significantly superior choice has been 'earned'?

 

An extra mission or obstacle in gameplay? A few more points in a skill? (None of which would be particularly challenging.)

 

A challenge? Of what? How difficult? A challenge of gameplay ability, which would damn people like my dad, who enjoy video games and want to see the stories, but who honestly just aren't very good at them? Who many people who decided to play on 'Normal' difficulty and not 'Nightmare' for a reason would find incredibly frustrating and unfair?

 

A challenge of logic and deduction? We all like to think we're intelligent and would make excellent detectives, but it's inevitable that any challenge difficult enough to seriously delay the average player is going to leave a great deal of people out in the cold. Would it be difficult enough for you if it's built for the average player? How difficult is difficult enough?

[Allan Schumacher]

What would it take for you to be satisfied that a significantly superior choice has been 'earned'?

 

I prefer that significantly superior choices not exist at all.  It has nothing to do with game difficulty.

[Allan Schumacher]

Okay, first of all, I don't really think games being a 'learning exercise' has much to do at all with this issue.

 

Secondly, being fun, being enjoyable comes first. If fiction is unenjoyable, why would anyone spend time with it, much less money? Why should anybody? Rest assured video games are far the first topic to face this issue. It's been noted, for example, that war fiction inherently glamorizes war since the story must be enjoyable in some form or fashion, even if the author wishes to portray war as a completely miserable thing.

 

A movie like Saving Private Ryan was praised because it showed a push to NOT glamorize war like it was in the past.  Band of Brothers was the same way.  Game of Thrones is a work of fiction where bad things happen to good people (and bad people) all the time.  24 was another TV show where the main character went through a lot of things, and the ending of the very first season was completely and utterly fantastic and personally one of the most enjoyable season finale's I had ever seen.  I will never forget the last 10 seconds of that show.  They even included the alternate, happy ending on the DVD and it just comes across as a weaker ending.

[Bob from Accounting]

In all games with choices?

[Darth Krytie]

I prefer that significantly superior choices not exist at all.  It has nothing to do with game difficulty.

 

I actually agree with this. Not that I don't sometimes think that a good choice is nice once in a while, I do like choices that are fairly even depending on your morality or goals and your choices can forward that morality or goal.

 

Take the oft talked about Crestwood dilemma: You can save Crestwood or the Keep or try to save them both. Saving them both is hard, but it comes at a cost to both the city and the keep. You get them both, at half power. It's not necessarily the superior choice, then, if it hampers you down the line in a way it wouldn't if you saved one or the other completely.

[Ieldra]

The problem is that content such as having to do an extra mission or something isn't seen by some as a legitimate 'price.'

 

Suppose you have two choices, with one obviously far better than another, but the better choice requires the player to do something extra like go into a dungeon and kill a monster or something. Whatever. People have and do complain that the choices are still pointless because going into the dungeon isn't a 'cost' in any real sense. After all, the player bought the game to delve into dungeons and kill monsters! According to many, it's not good enough to merely play more of the game. The player must suffer somehow to get the best option. Only when the player suffers can the choice be 'earned.'

 

Of course, this is absurd, and collapses the entire notion of video games and stories in general as entertainment. Nevertheless, this is where we see the demands for purposely frustrating and tedious gameplay arise, as well as the demands for the choice to be narratively dragged down to an equal level with the 'lesser' choice.

This is only part of the problem. It should not be too difficult to get people to adjust their perception and learn to see "cost" in the context of the story. The real problem with obviously superior outcomes is perceived ideological bias.

 

Bioware's games connect strongly with real-world themes: mages vs. templars = freedom vs. safety, Tevinter vs. qunari = individualism vs. collectivism and so on. A superior outcome can legitimately be seen as sending a message about the superiority of the principle it represents. A game which invites us to make up our minds about those themes in the context of the story (for instance by choosing for the mages or templars) should avoid suuperior outcomes where they would relate to those themes, because that would come across to those who chose the inferior outcomes as a message that they not only made the wrong decision but chose the wrong ideological principle to support. Needless to say, that never goes over well.

 

Usually, outcomes that just save more lives tend to be unproblematic in this regard, but as a rule I think obviously superior outcomes are undesirable. They have their place here and there because having them *nowhere* is not believable and comes across as contrived, but they should be used with extreme care.

 

And to reinterate my stance on the topic of this thread: where such outcomes do exist, they should remain accessible because they're clearly as legitimate as the lesser ones. Most notably, mechanisms of the game as a game and a piece of software should not interfere with the story. Else I could claim equal legitimacy for a character saying he's now using the ultimate super spell "load savegame". Thankfully, it has so far been a part of Bioware's design philosophy to not break the fourth wall. I hope things stay that way.

[Bob from Accounting]

The problem is that such a game doesn't 'invite' players to make up their minds about the themes. Not in the sense that you mean, anyway.

[Ieldra]

The problem is that such a game doesn't 'invite' players to make up their minds about the themes. Not in the sense that you mean, anyway.

No? Read the templar vs. mage debates. Countless pages of passionate debate. Do you really think anything completely unrelated to real-world beliefs and preferences could ever result in such passion? Do you think people are unaware of the real-world parallels? In that case, read again. 

[Allan Schumacher]

In all games with choices?

 

Before I go into this, I think the Extra Credits clip Video Games and Choice is a compelling watch, and it establishes a distinction between choices and problems.

 

 

Yes, I like choices to typically not have an obvious correct answer.  I find them more compelling and introspective.  They often surprise me and illicit emotions, and when a game genuinely makes me feel an emotion by design (almost irrespective of WHICH emotion that is), I like that.

 

Now on some level it's a novelty thing.  This is rare.  As the video points out, most games present the player with problems.  And that's not necessarily a bad thing.  I just prefer genuine choices, because I find them more interesting.  The Bioshock example used is the one I like, where choosing to save the Little Sisters presents the player with no tangible cost.  Basically you're choosing between "be a monster" and "be a good human being."  I've reduced the choice to a problem, and the game suffered for it.

 

I found Paper's Please immensely gratifying because it put me in such a challenging situation (while lacing it with fantastic atmosphere, humor, and all those other things).  The interesting thing I took from that game was how quickly I resorted to being a monster, because of intrinsic challenges in the game setting that made being a good, upstanding person so difficult.  To the point where "My son is sick... I can detain this person for an expired passport and buy him medicine, or simply deny the person access, get no money as a result, and hope I can make up the money elsewhere."  It gets additionally complicated when the game world starts to present ethical concerns.  Someone comes asking for political asylum where if I don't let her in, she'll be killed.  I can let her in, and accept the reprimand, or deny her.  What should I do?  I find it simply fascinating and I want more games like that, because they are so few and far between.

 

 

With respect to RPGs, I'm not against "good things happening."  I like things to be diverse and unpredictable though.  If I play an RPG and can distill all the choices into problems, I find that disappointing.  By the same token, I can understand that "no matter what you do, bad things happen" will grow tiresome (especially if all games were to do this).  In situations that *could* appear to simply be problems, I like the idea that sometimes the assumptions that I make are incorrect.  I like for the consequences to sometimes work out better than I expected, and I also like for the consequences to work out worse than I expected.  If I feel like I can simply game the system based on previous knowledge of tropes in RPGs, then the game has lost the opportunity to fully captivate me.

 

That's not to say I'll hate the game or anything like that.  Nor do I think that all games need to be like this.  But the games that I consider my favourite often have traits like this.  I want to see more of them, and I feel that the RPG genre is particularly well suited to stuff like that, as it's one that has historically already attempted to give players choices.

[Bob from Accounting]

It's not an issue of having real-world parallels or not. It's an entirely different problem.

[Elhanan]

It would be far easier for those not wanting to meta-game to simply not do it, and stay out of policing other solo gamer's mechanics and systems, IMO. Same goes for those wanting to regulate pizza toppings, beverage sizes, and my chocolate-chip cookies....

[Bob from Accounting]

The interesting thing I took from that game was how quickly I resorted to being a monster, because of intrinsic challenges in the game setting that made being a good, upstanding person so difficult. 

 

I don't think you'd be much interested in hearing why I would find such a story repulsive, and even offensive.

 

But do you acknowledge that such a thing would be completely inappropriate (to be mandatory) in Inquisition and undoubtedly the next Mass Effect, considering the very clear heroic themes and imagery in pretty much every bit of released content so far? Considering statements by developers talking about a protagonist who is pretty much defined (at least optionally, which is all that's necessary) by rising above challenges that make being a 'good' person so difficult?

[J-Reyno]

Read the first page, then skimmed through the rest of the thread. I don't agree with the suggestion and I don't think it was meant to be a serious "HEY DEVS DO THIS HURR!" so much as spark a bit of discussion. 

 

*bops rude and offended people on the head*  

 

So yeah, anyway, I get the point, but like others have said I think it'd be the wrong way to go about it.  I agree that the ultrasolution to game world issues needs to be done away with for the most part.  Most solutions should have merits and drawbacks that make you consider what's best.  Otherwise it's up to those of us who don't desire these outcomes to just do things the way we feel is best.  I do that often, like getting the best option and feeling like it's just too good, then reloading to pick something different.  I just pretend that particular solution didn't exist, or that my character just wasn't the guy capable of bringing that about.  

 

That said I'm a master of headcannon and defining my games/stories the way I want, when I'm allowed.  I make myself happier than any dev could tbqh.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I don't think you'd be much interested in hearing why I would find such a story repulsive, and even offensive.

 

But do you acknowledge that such a thing would be completely inappropriate (to be mandatory) in Inquisition and undoubtedly the next Mass Effect, considering the very clear heroic themes and imagery in pretty much every bit of released content so far? Considering statements by developers talking about a protagonist who is pretty much defined (at least optionally, which is all that's necessary) by rising above challenges that make being a 'good' person so difficult?

 

I don't see any of what you see David. It's really not inappropriate: to you it might be, but I don't get how it'd be offensive. If you're legitimately offended over an ideological ideal presented in a video game because it deconstructs the position of being a 'good' guy, I suggest you read some philosophy. Simply put, the world, especially the developers world where they're trying to add options that don't have any clear moral or ethical benefits to solving problems, doesn't run the way you think it does. Remember it all comes down to a point of view with each interpretation of a theme. I'm completely with Allan: granted, for me, it's a lot easier to make the difficult decisions based on both a meta-game perspective and an in-built capability of mine to disregard morality and ethics if they come between me and my goals. I have a goal, I look at my resources, and I achieve that goal based on the most economically feasible route I can rationally and reasonably get. Also, what you see as heroic, one might see as entirely different. I personally see heroic actions as you describe them as hopelessly foolish, misinformed, and naive.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

The problem is that such a game doesn't 'invite' players to make up their minds about the themes. Not in the sense that you mean, anyway.

 

I completely disagree. You can make up your mind about themes without having to worry about the consequences. Why do you think several people do hold to choosing refuse? As Ieldra said, look at the Mage/Templar debate (leaving out the obligatory 'go play DA David'). Look at how some of these decisions are agonizing to the player/viewer since there's isn't simply a conflict within the pc over choosing the 'right' option or the 'smart' option. There is no right option to choose from. You have to make a difficult decision, and you can choose based on your worldview what you hope will lead to your outcome.

[Fast Jimmy]

The problem is that such a game doesn't 'invite' players to make up their minds about the themes. Not in the sense that you mean, anyway.

So... when a developer presents the struggle between freedom vs. safety, where we evaluate the civil liberties of a few against the life and well-being of the many, the solution should be... heroism? Where our PC can swoop in, solve the problem without any cost, and then say "come on guys, we're on the same team" to get everyone to work together and have that be that?

Call me crazy, but that sounds like something that would cause no one to take the issue seriously at all.

[Fast Jimmy]

I prefer that significantly superior choices not exist at all. It has nothing to do with game difficulty.

I would prefer this as well, but it is a topic which has been done many times on this board. And is ultimately moot because there are people who find the idea stupid or offensive, so they don't acknowledge a clearly superior choice to be a problem (as can be seen by this thread) and because if the Keep vs. the Village dilemma is present in DA:I, where you can save both areas through a bit of extra work/faster battles/what have you... then the "problem" is going to be present in DA:I again. Unless, of course, there are equitable drawbacks to trying to save both (which could very well be the case).

While I don't agree with David's premise, I do agree with his assessment that putting a timer, or making a fight hard, or including some type of puzzle is not a good way to gate such outcomes. Mostly because the presence of save games and walkthroughs. David is pestered by the idea that players would have to go through tedium of multiple reloads or looking a solution up online (the number of people who slogged through the nonsense Arishok duel I think shows that people will go through such tedium to achieve the optimum outcome, even if they hate it), while my solution works to make the superior outcome less easy to obtain not from a gameplay stand point, but rather a game DESIGN stand point.

Anyway, I realize it is an approach that has flaws, it is not something I'm married to not want to die on a hill for, just thought it would be an interesting conversation point to try and solution the superior solution problem in another manner than taking it out (which doesn't seem to be happening) or throwing more in-game stumbling blocks to achieve it (which I can see as being tedium, since there is not a true chance for pure failure in them, just added reloads or lowering of the difficulty to complete one objective).

[Ieldra]

Fast Jimmy, your solution would break down in the face of people using walkthroughs or lowering the difficulty as well. With using those means, people ensure that they succeed in the first attempt, and that's enough to render the "remove options after loading" moot. For me personally, if I even remotely suspected such a feature existed, I would lower the difficulty in advance, install an extra-easy mod on top of it *and* make a complete backup of everything related to this game including registry entries, just because I hate getting my options limited retroactively by a game design mechanism. As I said, I find this insufferably patronizing, I deny game design mechanisms the legitimacy to interfere with my story, and I'm saying that as a player who isn't married to the best outcomes as a rule.

 

It's really a matter of principle. Only story elements have the legitimacy to interfere with other story elements. It's actually a fundamentally moral matter to me.

[Darth Krytie]

I would prefer this as well, but it is a topic which has been done many times on this board. And is ultimately moot because there are people who find the idea stupid or offensive, so they don't acknowledge a clearly superior choice to be a problem (as can be seen by this thread) and because if the Keep vs. the Village dilemma is present in DA:I, where you can save both areas through a bit of extra work/faster battles/what have you... then the "problem" is going to be present in DA:I again. Unless, of course, there are equitable drawbacks to trying to save both (which could very well be the case).
 

 

We know we can save both areas, yes, but in what condition? As I stated earlier, we're only supposing saving both will result in a optimal outcome. It could be that choosing to save both is also hamstrung in some way equal to that of choosing one over the other.

[Fast Jimmy]

We know we can save both areas, yes, but in what condition? As I stated earlier, we're only supposing saving both will result in a optimal outcome. It could be that choosing to save both is also hamstrung in some way equal to that of choosing one over the other.

I agree. That would be a good compromise, but the reason I didn't respond to it before was that it is making some assumptions about outcomes that may not be true.

I suppose I am as well, to be fair... but I also feel the precedent set previously has defaulted towards the presence of some superior outcome choices, although that may not be true for DA:I entirely.