254 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

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.

Quoted for emphasis.

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

Arguably, you do, I suppose. You have to choose one versus the other in the dialogue initially, but the can say that you are going to try and save both. However, you have to save one of them first since they are in different locations. And after which, of course, the planet is evacuated.

All totally superficial; but at the same time, you could say the game gives you option in a round about way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Arguably, you do, I suppose. You have to choose one versus the other in the dialogue initially, but the can say that you are going to try and save both. However, you have to save one of them first since they are in different locations. And after which, of course, the planet is evacuated.

All totally superficial; but at the same time, you could say the game gives you option in a round about way.

Since you're not able to direct any resources at all at the second person, that statement about paying both comes across as lip service.  I'd have liked to be able to send someone after Kaidan while I try to save Ashley, for example.  Even if that meant everyone would die.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

But then it is, at least, player choice.

[Bob from Accounting]

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.

 

Right.

 

I'd appreciate you not wasting my time with ridiculous strawmen. What I said was that presenting options as 'equal' does not give players as much freedom as Ieldra thinks, at least in the sense of 'freedom' that's he referring to. That's it. I didn't say a thing about third options or optimal outcomes.

 

I'd expect a little better from someone who was posting for people to address the topic and not the poster not long ago. If you want to speak about this, we can speak.

 

So I'll say again. The problem is that such a game doesn't 'invite' players to make up their minds about the themes.

[Bob from Accounting]

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.

 

You're not acknowledging one crucial point.

 

Games like these don't merely challenge the player and their morality. They make a statement on it. They don't describe the player. They prescribe him. (In a sense.)

[Bob from Accounting]

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

 

Because you don't think it would undermine and betray established themes? Because you don't think those themes are there in the first place? Or because you don't think it matters?

[Allan Schumacher]

Because you don't think it would undermine and betray established themes? Because you don't think those themes are there in the first place? Or because you don't think it matters?

 

I do not agree that it'd betray established themes (especially not for Dragon Age), probably because I disagree that the themes are present in the first place (especially for Dragon Age).

 

I can understand that some people didn't like the ending to Mass Effect 3 because the first two games had established a history of Shepard achieving the impossible particularly with the endings of ME1 and ME2 (though ironically, I went into ME3 expected Shepard's luck to run out, so to speak).  Although there's still clearly moments where Shepard cannot have things play out exactly as Shepard may prefer.  Virmire is the biggest example.  It's also my favourite moment in the Mass Effect franchise.  If we had the ability to create it without too much effort (it's more than people realize), I'd have love to have seen BioWare set it up that the game chooses the player's two favourite NPCs at that point, rather than always one of Ashley and Kaiden.  (though this would also be a nightmare for save imports as well)

[Allan Schumacher]

So I'll say again. The problem is that such a game doesn't 'invite' players to make up their minds about the themes.

 

I don't think it needs a player to "make up their mind" about the themes.  Simply exploring and reflecting upon the theme can be a good thing.  In fact, I love it when a game presents to me a choice that seems like it may be the one I think may be the best course of action, but goes against my real world assumptions about those themes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Because you don't think it would undermine and betray established themes? Because you don't think those themes are there in the first place? Or because you don't think it matters?

Themes are an invention of the audience.  They never exist in the work itself.

[AresKeith]

Character morality and user morality are two different things at play here. One could make a character that is totally different from their beliefs. I have done so numerous times when it makes up for an interesting character.

 

And this is a roleplaying game right

[Bob from Accounting]

I don't think it needs a player to "make up their mind" about the themes.  Simply exploring and reflecting upon the theme can be a good thing.  In fact, I love it when a game presents to me a choice that seems like it may be the one I think may be the best course of action, but goes against my real world assumptions about those themes.

 

Such choices don't do that either.

 

The point I was trying to make is that when a game presents two options are more-or-less equal, Ieldra says it gives the player 'freedom' to think what they want. That instead of 'telling the player what to think,' the player now has freedom to decide on the issue for themselves. And thus an 'equal' choice is inherently more mature, thought provoking, etc.

 

But it's simply not true at all. Such choices 'force,' (to use the common phrase,) players to believe a certain thing just as much as a choice where one option is portrayed clearly superior. The player has no more 'freedom,' as Ieldra thinks of it, as they did before. In fact, they have a great deal less.

[Bob from Accounting]

Character morality and user morality are two different things at play here. One could make a character that is totally different from their beliefs. I have done so numerous times when it makes up for an interesting character.

 

That's not really important.

 

All fiction is about people who don't exist. But that doesn't really matter. By saying someone about the fictional characters, they also can and often do say something about the audience. About people in real life.

[Allan Schumacher]

Such choices don't do that either.

 

I disagree.  I feel as though game choices have often made me reflect on what I value as a person.  This gives an implication that you feel that I'm actually thinking and experiencing something else.  You will need to elaborate.

 

 

But it's simply not true at all. Such choices 'force,' (to use the common phrase,) players to believe a certain thing just as much as a choice where one option is portrayed clearly superior. The player has no more 'freedom,' as Ieldra thinks of it, as they did before. In fact, they have a great deal less.

 

On some level yes, this is a limitation of video games in general.  Gamers can typically only execute on the choices provided by the designers.  But what you seem to be describing here is that if it's not 100% free will, it's not freedom.  And in fact, they have less than if the obvious choice was prescribed (a notion I disagree with).

 

 

For instance, imagine a game plot (and yes, I'm using an extreme example to hopefully make it clear): 

 

You're provided with a scene where you must decide if an innocent woman is to be executed.  The choice you have are:

• Carry out the execution
• Do not carry out the execution.

 

In game, you are informed that:

• By carrying out the execution, you will be rewarded money from the corrupt official that framed the woman
• By refusing to carry out the execution, the law states that you will then accept the punishment in her stead.

 

 

To me, one of these choices is clearly superior to the other (since one ultimately ends the game).  Do you feel you have more freedom to make a choice here as opposed to the following consequences:

 

• You execute the prisoner, gaining and ally in the corrupt official that framed the woman at the expense of some resentment that felt the accusation was a sham
• You do not execute the prisoner, undermining your influence with the official ranks of the town, but garnering some good will among the common folk.

[Texhnolyze101]

To be fair, the feature wouldn't prohibit or limit meta-gaming, just save file spamming.

 

Nobody is forcing you to save file spam so stop worrying about how other people play their game and worry about yourself.

[Stelae]

I don't think it needs a player to "make up their mind" about the themes.  Simply exploring and reflecting upon the theme can be a good thing.  In fact, I love it when a game presents to me a choice that seems like it may be the one I think may be the best course of action, but goes against my real world assumptions about those themes.

In my household, this is called the Whedon Effect

[Bob from Accounting]

For instance, imagine a game plot (and yes, I'm using an extreme example to hopefully make it clear): 

 

You're provided with a scene where you must decide if an innocent woman is to be executed.  The choice you have are:

• Carry out the execution
• Do not carry out the execution.

 

In game, you are informed that:

• By carrying out the execution, you will be rewarded money from the corrupt official that framed the woman
• By refusing to carry out the execution, the law states that you will then accept the punishment in her stead.

 

 

To me, one of these choices is clearly superior to the other (since one ultimately ends the game).  Do you feel you have more freedom to make a choice here as opposed to the following consequences:

 

• You execute the prisoner, gaining and ally in the corrupt official that framed the woman at the expense of some resentment that felt the accusation was a sham
• You do not execute the prisoner, undermining your influence with the official ranks of the town, but garnering some good will among the common folk.

 

 

Okay, first things first. I regret having to use words like 'forced' and 'freedom.' Hence always trying to qualify them. Stories can never 'force' the audience to think something or in any way take away their freedom. But they're the words people recognize for this issue and so I go ahead and go along with it. The ultimate point I'm kind of trying to get to is that what people think of as 'freedom' to think what they want doesn't really exist. (Although actual freedom is perfectly intact. And thus that people are using a very wrong concept of 'freedom.')

 

It's a bit messy. Forgive me for that.

 

But as to your example, I would overwhelmingly prefer the bottom option. The bottom choices are the ones which have the overwhelmingly superior option to me. I would absolutely welcome such a choice in any BioWare with open arms. Whereas I would tend to see the top choices as 'equal' in having things really suck either way.
 

[AlanC9]

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 guess that's why Redcliffe didn't work for me. It was pretty obvious to me that the choice that was framed as reckless would in fact work just fine. Which has nothing much to do with DAO itself; it's just that I've seen that choice before, and it always works out.

Too much TV, maybe.

[Bob from Accounting]

What the protagonist is doing in every BioWare game I know of is 'reckless' and unlikely to work out.

 

Saving the world. Closing the Veil. Surviving bandits and thugs and mercenaries and monsters.

 

Yet we always know it's going to succeed in some form or fashion.