254 réponses à ce sujet

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Maybe if there was a sort of special nightmare mode, or something, but I don't see it as a particularly important feature. If you want the game to be exceptionally hard, have the willpower to impose it on yourself and give up if you can't do it the first time. I don't see why everyone else shouldn't be able to keep trying, if they'd rather. 

[Allan Schumacher]

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

 
That's fine - not everyone is going to like every way a story is presented.  But the game is pretty universally praised and typically regarded as an excellent game.  On Metacritic both the critic, and user reviews are overwhelmingly positive.  I find it a pretty entertaining and humorous game that presents some interesting themes within it.

 

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 do not acknowledge that it'd be completely inappropriate for Inquisition, nor even Mass Effect.  Sorry.  We don't agree on this perspective.

[Milan92]

Nope.

[AresKeith]

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

 

I somewhat agree, I like the occasional significantly superior choices but not overused the whole game

[Allan Schumacher]

I somewhat agree, I like the occasional significantly superior choices but not overused the whole game

 

I think that this is fair.  I appreciate the variety.  If nothing ever works out well, then the player will start to expect that and part of what makes choices compelling is lost IMO.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think that this is fair. I appreciate the variety. If nothing ever works out well, then the player will start to expect that and part of what makes choices compelling is lost IMO.

Agreed. Constant grimdark and forced failure isn't the answer. Multiple rainbow and sunshine outcomes would be equally valid, honestly. The Boon choice in DA:O comes to mind, where all of the options are good and positive, but can define or mean different things to different players. Granted, the boon option wasn't really acknowledged all that much and some of the outcomes were hand waved as not really occuring, but the concept is there.

Not every choice needs to be "have X number of puppies die." It's just that when you juxtapose dead puppies with nothing bad at all, it's pretty clear which option is there for the sole purpose of someone trying to play an evil jerk character.

[AresKeith]

I think that this is fair.  I appreciate the variety.  If nothing ever works out well, then the player will start to expect that and part of what makes choices compelling is lost IMO.

 

I also feel that people who wants to do those options should in fact be willing to do extra work, whether it's difficult or not

[Allan Schumacher]

The problem for me comes when "do extra work" is always available, and it's typically always the same (which is often simply play more game, which is what most people are okay with doing anyways).

 

It's equivalent to breaking the choice down into a problem.  Works sometimes, but not always.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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

Sony's official corporate definition of fun is (or was, at some point) "learning in a safe environment".  So there's certainly a possible relationship between fun and learning.

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

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.

That sounds like an amazing game.  I want to play that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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'm far more interested in being a person than I am in being a good person, and a game that allows me always to be a good person is one that is going to have a harder time of presenting me with a believable setting, and the setting is an important part of letting me play a believable character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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

Are we talking about choices, or outcomes?

 

I would agree that objectively superior choices shouldn't exist.  There shouldn't be a moment where it's clear that one option is vastly better than all the others, and this would be true for basically all reasonable characters.

 

But I don't mind at all if some outcomes are superior.  Again, I point to Redcliffe in DAO.  I liked the good outcome there because it was hidden behind a bad decision.  If it was obvious that you could save everyone, then that would be bad, yes.  But the choice you need to make in order to save everyone looks (to me) like an incredibly reckless one.

 

I'm not a fan of the idea that we should expect the PC to be heroic all of the time.  Or for all PCs to define heroism similarly.  But I would not accept that universally good outcomes should be impossible.  They just shouldn't be obvious.

[nightscrawl]

Alright.

 

In theory I agree with you. However, given the fact that the overwhelming majority of players will choose the "standard" options when playing a game--the generally good character, the male warrior who's the default, all that--it appears that the majority of players don't put very much thought into these things--they're not so much choosing as NOT choosing to deviate. The premise of "earning a happy ending" aims to combat this extremely passive mindset, and I personally acknowledge it as a valid way of heightening player mental involvement with the game...though, as I've stated here, I feel Jimmy's ideas go too far towards forcing it.

 

This raises questions though: who is a feature like this for, what is the reason behind putting it in the game, and -- perhaps the most important -- who is likely to use it?

 

Is it for the majority who don't deviate from the standard options? Why would those people use it in the first place? I really don't see the efficacy of the plan. I tend to feel that the players that would make the most use of the feature are the ones who don't need it: those who are more willing to explore alternative methods, or choose the non-standard options. Perhaps because that is their mindset from the outset, or maybe they are already planning multiple plays so they go into the game knowing they are going to see most of the content anyway.

 

Aside from the above, I also don't see how it would "heighten a player's mental involvement with the game." All it would do is cause frustration, especially if you didn't know that such a feature existed and only stumbled upon it accidentally, most likely after it has already been failed, never to be tried again because the game has locked you out of it. Haven't you ever accidentally gotten an achievement in a game? You're just going along, playing as normal, and in that particular play you just happen to sidestep all of a boss's special ability, and BOOM, Achievement Toast.

 

The primary complaint with DA2's dialog system is that players were frustrated because they felt they never knew what they were going to hear out of Hawke's mouth. For some, hovering over the colored icons became a cringe-worthy guessing game of "pick the right option" so their character sounds like a normal human being. Adding an option like this will cause distrust in the player and lead to frustration the first time one such objective is failed, not mental involvement.

 

IMO, a carrot is a much more effective tool than a stick.

[Allan Schumacher]

Are we talking about choices, or outcomes?

 

I would agree that objectively superior choices shouldn't exist.  There shouldn't be a moment where it's clear that one option is vastly better than all the others, and this would be true for basically all reasonable characters.

 

But I don't mind at all if some outcomes are superior.  Again, I point to Redcliffe in DAO.  I liked the good outcome there because it was hidden behind a bad decision.  If it was obvious that you could save everyone, then that would be bad, yes.  But the choice you need to make in order to save everyone looks (to me) like an incredibly reckless one.

 

I'm not a fan of the idea that we should expect the PC to be heroic all of the time.  Or for all PCs to define heroism similarly.  But I would not accept that universally good outcomes should be impossible.  They just shouldn't be obvious.

 

Pretty reasonable I find.

[nightscrawl]

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

 
Some games purposely seek to challenge our morals by presenting situations that allow us to make "good" choices, and conversely allow us to become "monsters". But that description is really in the eye of the beholder isn't it? Some people will do anything for their children, and others will look on those choices as completely acceptable, or at least understandable in a human way, because of the reasons for them, not monstrous.
 
I look on such games, or such choices within games, as akin to scientific experiments, but with a much wider pool of subjects than your typical experiment. A famous experiment explored "the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience." In this case it was being instructed to deliver increasingly painful electrical shocks to another person, even when demonstrated that it caused that person pain.

 

Such stories might be repulsive or offensive to you, but they can explore the real lengths to which humans will go to to further a particular goal. However, I would argue that when it comes to games in particular, that it is only the rare person who will refuse to do something because it conflicts with their morality, because "it's just a game" and no real people are harmed. A couple of expansions ago there was a quest in World of Warcraft that involved torturing a subject to obtain information. Keep in mind too that this was a time where torture of prisoners was in the news, so it was something that was in the consciousness of many players. Typically, there was an outcry on the forums, but most people did the quest anyway and for a myriad of reasons: a real person was not harmed, they needed to complete the quest in order to progress, it went along with the roleplay for their character, and so forth. Occasionally there were responses that indicated that the player would sacrifice character progression because the quest conflicted with their morality, but those were pretty rare. For my part, I did the quest and didn't give much moral thought to it at the time; I've killed hundreds of thousands of other humanoids, animals, and other creatures in WoW alone; why should I balk at torture?

 

 

 

Sorry for the deviation from Jimmy's topic. I found Bob's comments above too compelling to ignore.

[Fast Jimmy]

Are we talking about choices, or outcomes?

I would agree that objectively superior choices shouldn't exist. There shouldn't be a moment where it's clear that one option is vastly better than all the others, and this would be true for basically all reasonable characters.

But I don't mind at all if some outcomes are superior. Again, I point to Redcliffe in DAO. I liked the good outcome there because it was hidden behind a bad decision. If it was obvious that you could save everyone, then that would be bad, yes. But the choice you need to make in order to save everyone looks (to me) like an incredibly reckless one.

I agree, although with the caveat that with fore knowledge of this outcome, most players will choose the bad option with the superior optimal outcome, simply because it is the optimal outcome. But the fact that it was not clear from the onset makes it better than some others, like the Dalish vs. werewolves choice. Or Vigil's Keep vs. Amarathine, which boils down to being a completionist rather than being a difficult choice.

I'm not a fan of the idea that we should expect the PC to be heroic all of the time. Or for all PCs to define heroism similarly. But I would not accept that universally good outcomes should be impossible. They just shouldn't be obvious.

I'll play devil's advocate and ask what's the virtue in them not being obvious? Is it to increase the chance that our character will encounter "bad" outcomes if they consistently act in character? If so, do you think that will encourage people to be better role players, or more active meta gamers?

[TurretSyndrome]

Are we talking about choices, or outcomes?

 

I would agree that objectively superior choices shouldn't exist.  There shouldn't be a moment where it's clear that one option is vastly better than all the others, and this would be true for basically all reasonable characters.

 

But I don't mind at all if some outcomes are superior.  Again, I point to Redcliffe in DAO.  I liked the good outcome there because it was hidden behind a bad decision.  If it was obvious that you could save everyone, then that would be bad, yes.  But the choice you need to make in order to save everyone looks (to me) like an incredibly reckless one.

 

I'm not a fan of the idea that we should expect the PC to be heroic all of the time.  Or for all PCs to define heroism similarly.  But I would not accept that universally good outcomes should be impossible.  They just shouldn't be obvious.

 

 

And that's really what some people do not want other gamers to do, to be able to always pick such options. I've always said that the problem does not exist with the choices like saving both the Keep and the village existing in the game, but how they are being handled. For example, you could protect both the farmhold and the city with your meager forces in Awakening. The choice itself was not bad but the outcome of it was ridiculous, and could've been handled better.

 

I don't understand why it should always be a door 1 and door 2 situation, and why can't someone strive to save everything if they can? Everyone talk about how the Redcliffe choice makes it so easy, but being able to save the kid was behind of veil of danger the choice posed, which was leaving the demon alone for so long and venturing off. It was a risk the player took, a chance.

 

The mistake the game committed after that quest however, was Alistair's backlash towards the choice of not risking to go the Circle, but save the child with Blood Magic instead. The game did not even allow the players to properly explain to him that the choice made was justified, but instead provided a meager persuasion option to lower the disapproval points that would be received. That's why when some people replay the game, they always go to the Circle because they feel that the game believes that they were wrong for not going to the Circle. Either that or they metagame or use guides to know exactly where each choice leads, which defeats the purpose of playing a roleplaying a choice-consequence game like this, but that's just my opinion. In the end, they can play however they want including metagaming, cheating, modding etc.

 

But I digress. I think no matter what, there will always be threads like this where people are so ludicrously concerned about others metagaming for getting what they feel is the superior choice and therefore feel that either the game needs to somehow put a stop to it by means such as what was suggested here, or by the removal of the so called superior choices themselves. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Some games purposely seek to challenge our morals by presenting situations that allow us to make "good" choices, and conversely allow us to become "monsters". But that description is really in the eye of the beholder isn't it? Some people will do anything for their children, and others will look on those choices as completely acceptable, or at least understandable in a human way, because of the reasons for them, not monstrous.

I look on such games, or such choices within games, as akin to scientific experiments, but with a much wider pool of subjects than your typical experiment. A famous experiment explored "the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience." In this case it was being instructed to deliver increasingly painful electrical shocks to another person, even when demonstrated that it caused that person pain.

For the record, this psychology experiment (or at least the famous original) did not actually have someone else in another room being hurt. The test participant simply believed their button pushing was hurting another human.

Sorry for the deviation from Jimmy's topic. I found Bob's comments above too compelling to ignore.

There is no Bob. Only Zuul David.

[nightscrawl]

For the record, this psychology experiment (or at least the famous original) did not actually have someone else in another room being hurt. The test participant simply believed their button pushing was hurting another human.

I know that (and it's all right there in the link I posted), and it doesn't really have anything to do with my post. My point was in the purpose of the experiment and the impact on the person being tested, not on the morality of the experiment itself. The WoW quest didn't involve hurting a real person either, but people still did it. Just as the experiment tried to do, there are some games that purposely strive to look at how players react to a given situation, and to challenge their morality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'll play devil's advocate and ask what's the virtue in them not being obvious? Is it to increase the chance that our character will encounter "bad" outcomes if they consistently act in character? If so, do you think that will encourage people to be better role players, or more active meta gamers?

It's to make it easier for the player to justify choosing any of the options.

 

If there is one obviously superior choice, it becomes much harder to justify choosing something else.  Whereas, if we're choosing among idealism, optimism, and pragmatism, we can have reasonable characters who would choose each of those.

 

I'm not trying to encourage roleplaying as much as I'm trying to accommodate it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

I don't understand why it should always be a door 1 and door 2 situation, and why can't someone strive to save everything if they can?

Exactly.  In Mass Effect on virmire, why couldn't Shepard try to save both Kaidan and Ashley?  Even if successfully doing so was impossible, we should have been able to try.

[nightscrawl]

And that's really what some people do not want other gamers to do, to be able to always pick such options.

I do prefer that fewer such options be available and the reason is that players WILL take them. I tend to feel that the existence of the "perfect" choice reduces the challenge -- mental, emotional, roleplay -- for the player.

 

I don't understand why it should always be a door 1 and door 2 situation, and why can't someone strive to save everything if they can? Everyone talk about how the Redcliffe choice makes it so easy, but being able to save the kid was behind of veil of danger the choice posed, which was leaving the demon alone for so long and venturing off. It was a risk the player took, a chance.

 

For me, one of the drawbacks of discussing this quest in particular is hindsight. The very first time I played DAO I picked the blood magic option. I agreed with the discussion that taking the time to go all the way to the Circle to talk to the mages was risky. I also had other reasons for picking blood magic over killing Connor, which I won't get into here. Suffice it to say that it was a carefully thought out decision.

That said, on subsequent plays I have always taken the Circle choice. Why shouldn't I? It is a guaranteed win. So, do we measure response to this quest based on the first play, or subsequent plays? On later plays I knew that there was no chance of failure. Does that diminish my choice? Meta gaming is perhaps a topic for another thread, but it can and does influence our choices and reasons for them.

 

The mistake the game committed after that quest however, was Alistair's backlash towards the choice of not risking to go the Circle, but save the child with Blood Magic instead. The game did not even allow the players to properly explain to him that the choice made was justified, but instead provided a meager persuasion option to lower the disapproval points that would be received.

I disagree that this is the mistake. Alistair responds according to his nature and I don't really see anything wrong with that scene. True I have also wanted the option to explain the reasoning behind my decision, but we don't always get to explain things in an argument, and too the devs couldn't possibly have put in a reason for every player.

I think the mistake comes in not having an actual consequence to the choice. To me, having Alistair yell at you was never strong enough. Likewise, there isn't a consequence for taking the Circle path either, it is the 100% perfect solution. I think that might have been easier to stomach if there were some repercussions for leaving. Given that Dagna says that travel to the Circle takes eight or nine days (I don't recall exactly) from Orzammar, we might be able to assume that traveling there, and back, from Redcliffe on a flat road might take a week or longer. That is a lot of time for things to go wrong. More people could have been killed or something. It seems doubtful to me that the Connor-Abomination would have just sat quietly for over a week after all of that time of nightly activity.

Really, the only downside is that once you arrive at the Circle you have to go and complete an entire section of the game, which was quite tiresome for some players, in order to have this optimal solution. Of course, players didn't know that at the time when leaving Redcliffe.

 

That's why when some people replay the game, they always go to the Circle because they feel that the game believes that they were wrong for not going to the Circle.

Again though, this comes from the fact that not all of the options have a consequence. If you take the Orzammar choice as an example, many players take the results differently as to the best outcome for picking the "right" choice, and it is based on their perspective. To me, there is no right choice in that situation, only a choice that goes along with your beliefs as to what is right for the future of Orzammar. It is extremely subjective.

If the Redcliffe choice were handled in a similar fashion there wouldn't be a perfect solution.

 

I think no matter what, there will always be threads like this where people are so ludicrously concerned about others metagaming for getting what they feel is the superior choice and therefore feel that either the game needs to somehow put a stop to it by means such as what was suggested here, or by the removal of the so called superior choices themselves.

If there are consequences to every action, then there are no superior choices, there are only preferred choices, according to the player's goals for the game. So if it is my desire to save Connor, or even just assuage my conscience by not having to kill a child or resort to blood magic, then the consequence might be that 20 more people die while I am gone. Is that an acceptable loss? Only I can know what feels right to me. Similarly, I think that Behlen might be better for Orzammar in the long run. However, working with/for him is so repulsive to me that I refuse to do it. To me, the Orzammar choice is the most difficult in the entire game and I struggle with it every time. Not so with Redcliffe.

[Amfortas]

I personally think that allowing a failure outcome would be a better option. You tried to save both and if you fail end up losing both. Forcing the player to choose something he doesn't want, doesn't seem like a good idea.

I'd like it, but it is incompatible with the ability to save anywhere however and I don't think it's worth it.

[TurretSyndrome]

@nightcrawl

 

Actually, I've been watching someone's playthrough of Origins and Alistair doesn't actually act according to his nature all the time. In fact, he's the one who suggests killing the boy, calmly I might add. His exact words are "I wouldn't normally suggest slaying a child, but... he's an abomination. I'm not sure there's any choice". Now, it's possible that he was upset only after the Circle choice was presented to us and because we declined it, but it was also mentioned in his presence afterwards, that going to the tower is a risk, not to mention he's standing right next to us when we kill the boy or use Blood Magic, and doesn't say a word. Also, just a note, he shouts at you at the camp, even if you did what he suggested, which is to kill the boy instead of using Blood Magic. I'm just pointing out that the game punishes you even though you did have proper reasoning. Maybe you thought going to the Circle would kill more NPCs(which is what the youtuber who's let's play I'm watching thought, which made him pick the BM option), and that either killing the boy or killing the demon through BM was better than that. The game does not let the player explain that part about the choice to Alistair, instead gives you the option to just apologize. As I said, that part of the game was not handled properly. 

 

From the second playthrough on, I agree that we acquire hindsight regarding the game's events(whether we like it or not) but honestly, I don't understand why that's a problem. It's really not so hard to set aside the outcome of the choice made, be it good or ill, and still make the choice by roleplaying. As an example, in DA 2, and my first playthrough, I picked the option to side with the mages. My Hawke felt sympathy for the mages in the Circle and decided that he would not let Templars slaughter innocent mages because there may be a few blood mages among them. When I did sided with the mages however, I saw those very mages that I gave the benefit of doubt to, summon demons and make them fight the Templars. Even after knowing that, in my final complete playthrough, guess what, I chose the exact same thing again. I knew most of the mages were going to betray me, I knew Orsino was going to betray me, yet I still picked that choice. It's simply because I roleplayed. To make the choice, I set aside my player knowledge(the outcome of the choice made) and just thought about what my character would do with all that he has learned so far, that's all.

 

Now coming back to the Redcliffe quest. On the game's defense, I will say that it only said that it is a risk going to the Circle. It did not promise you or persist on saying that there will be 20 or so people dead by the time you return. Therefore the only thing changed on your second playthrough is the knowledge you acquired from your first. If I roleplayed as a cautious guy here, just like my DA 2 choice, I'll choose not to go to the Circle and either slay the kid or use Blood Magic to kill the demon. So really, nothing changed.

 

So no, not everyone picks the best option the second time, and that's the point I'm trying to make. Therefore, I really don't see a problem here. There are people who will use knowledge of their previous playthroughs to pass through all the land mines and get the best outcomes(I did that with companion approvals once, and I'm sure a lot of others did too), true, but then there are also people who will roleplay and make certain choices even though they are well aware of the consequences of those choices. 

 

All I'm saying is, let people play the game however they want. If they want to metagame, cheat to god mode, play it on "narrative" difficulty mode(because I know there are people who think that it's wrong) or even type "killall" in the console mode, let them. It's their playthroughs. If that's how they derive their fun from the game, let them. If metagaming and perfect-choice saves make them happy, so be it. 

[Fast Jimmy]

I personally think that allowing a failure outcome would be a better option. You tried to save both and if you fail end up losing both. Forcing the player to choose something he doesn't want, doesn't seem like a good idea.

I'd like it, but it is incompatible with the ability to save anywhere however and I don't think it's worth it.

Yet I think if you failed to achieve the goal and it resulted in a "you lose the Keep and the Village" outcome, it will lead to a reload by the player just as likely as the reload screen seen when there is a party wipe, I would think.