48 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth Krytie]

What I meant was, can you give me your idea of what a scenario with several possible *good* outcomes looks like?

[Xilizhra]

Perhaps a scenario where the player has the choice of making a society very authoritarian and controlling as opposed to individualistic. And both lead to very happy endings. The authoritarian society is prosperous and just. Everyone's smiling. Warm music. Maybe a monologue as to how great things are now that everyone has given up their freedom.

 

Yeah, I can see something that like being a big problem.

That is, admittedly, a good point. So what the good outcomes would be would have to be carefully chosen, but I still see it as ultimately possible.

[jtav]

What I meant was, can you give me your idea of what a scenario with several possible *good* outcomes looks like?

The DAO boon. They're all good and mutually exclusive.

[Darth Krytie]

The DAO boon. They're all good and mutually exclusive.

 

I was looking for something more quest like, if you get me. Something that you can see within a game. The boons really only changed the epilogue slides.

[Bob from Accounting]

Err...I just gave you one. You make the society very authoritative and get a very good outcome. Or let it stay as it is and get a very good outcome.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Because the concept of evil exists alongside good.

 

The concept exists. But it's not an objective in reality.

[Darth Krytie]

Err...I just gave you one. You make the society very authoritative and get a very good outcome. Or let it stay as it is and get a very good outcome.

 

I saw that and thought: Oh, sarcasm.

 

I didn't realise you meant that as a legitimate answer to my question. Added to that, my question was more to the OP, who presumably has a clear idea in mind about what they want to see.

[Ieldra]

What I meant was, can you give me your idea of what a scenario with several possible *good* outcomes looks like?

I think that ME3's main outcomes, properly anchored in the story and without the contrived costs and the association with antagonists which is contextual, not intrinsic to the options, would be all good from the perspective of the ideologies they represent, with neither of those ideologies being evil. The outcomes represent freedom, order and advancement respectively, which are all good things whose lack would adversely affect any civilization from any reasonable (human) viewpoint. Mainly, you are making a decision about which one of three good things you value most.

 

But if you mean several *unambiguously* good ones? Hmm.....I think there David may have a point that this would be likely trivial, because in any other case, everyone will very likely value one option as significantly better or worse than the other, even if those affected by it end up happy in either case. Suppose you only make a decision about bringing two people together in a relationship or not. They end up living very different lives but are happy in either case, yet *you* are likely to value one lifestyle as superior and would never agree that both are unambiguously good. 

 

Edit:

jtav's example counts. It doesn't matter than we don't see the outcome in-game. The nature of the choice is the same whether we do or not. It only matters that we know. My point also stands: it is quite possible to see the freedom of the circle as a bad thing, so these options aren't unambiguously good, but almost certainly everyone had an option they like rather than only ones they dislike to different degrees.

 

Edit2:

Here's another example: suppose your decision about Isabela in DA2 had not involved supporting slavery as one option, but you had the choice between giving Isabela the ship and persuading her to give up her old life, basically, a decision similar to those in DAO's companion quests for Leliana and Alistair. 

[Darth Krytie]

I think that ME3's main outcomes, properly anchored in the story and without the contrived costs and the association with antagonists which is contextual, not intrinsic to the options, would be all good from the perspective of the ideologies they represent, with neither of those ideologies being evil. The outcomes represent freedom, order and advancement respectively, which are all good things whose lack would adversely affect any civilization from any reasonable (human) viewpoint. Mainly, you are making a decision about which one of three good things you value most. 

 

But if you mean several *unambiguously* good ones? Hmm.....I think there David may have a point that this would be likely trivial, because in any other case, everyone will very likely value one option as better or worse than the other, even if those affected by it end up happy in either case. Suppose you only make a decision about bringing two people together in a relationship or not. They end up living very different lives but are happy in either case, yet *you* are likely to value one lifestyle as superior and would never agree that both are unambiguously good. 

 

Okay, I see what you mean more properly now. I thought you meant 'good' in a different way than you had meant it.

 

...question, ignoring the reactive questline...but in Wayward Son, you have a choice to send Feynriel to either the Circle or the Dalish at the end. Do you feel that this is a decision with two equally good outcomes, depending on your alignment? Or do you think it's lacking for whatever reason?

[AlanC9]

Feynriel's life at the Circle is unpleasant, and they're of no real help to him. It's all pain, no gain.

[Mes]

Some of this discussion is lost on me but I totally agree with the OP - would be very refreshing to have more quests prinkled into the story that are guaranteed a "positive" outcome no matter what you do. Not saying I'd ever want the entire game to be like that, or major quests, but just enough to bring the occasional smile to the player's face.

[Darth Krytie]

Feynriel's life at the Circle is unpleasant, and they're of no real help to him. It's all pain, no gain.

 

During that quest, you don't actually know the full extent of his problem which is why I said to ignore the reactive quest. If you're a templar supporter, you're sending a potentially dangerous mage to where they can both monitor him and take steps if the danger becomes present. Wouldn't that be considered good, if that's what you believe is the best course of action?

[Ieldra]

Okay, I see what you mean more properly now. I thought you meant 'good' in a different way than you had meant it.

 

...question, ignoring the reactive questline...but in Wayward Son, you have a choice to send Feynriel to either the Circle or the Dalish at the end. Do you feel that this is a decision with two equally good outcomes, depending on your alignment? Or do you think it's lacking for whatever reason?

To be precise, with "good" I mean mainly that those affected by it are happy with it, with no reason to dismiss their happiness as unreal, and I didn't have to do anything bad to achieve that. 

 

Note that I have also railed against the ME trilogy's tendency towards a "feel-good morality", where actions that feel good always had a good outcome. The thing is that I dislike persistent patterns that make the world unbelievable. Every decision being of the kind I'm promoting in this thread would be just as unpleasant as none of them being of the kind.

 

As for Feynriel, neither was an option I found satisfying. In this case, I didn't have any problem with that since it's indicative of the larger problem. The decision would at least be balanced if the Circle was Ferelden's but since it's Kirkwall's...

[Darth Krytie]

To be precise, with "good" I mean mainly that those affected by it are happy with it, with no reason to dismiss their happiness as unreal, and I didn't have to do anything bad to achieve that. 

 

Note that I have also railed against the ME trilogy's tendency towards a "feel-good morality", where actions that feel good always have a good outcome. The thing is that I dislike persistent patterns that make the world unbelievable. Every decision being of the kind I'm promoting in this thread would be just as unpleasant as none of them being of the kind.

 

As for Feynriel, neither was an option I found satisfying. In this case, I didn't have any problem with that since it's indicative of the larger problem. The decision would be balanced if the Circle was Ferelden's but even that is not the case.

 

 

Ooh, thanks for the clarification. It would be nice if your options at the end of a quest didn't end up with a sort of 'right/wrong' feel to it.  Maybe like that quest in Dust Town where you can reconcile the dwarf and her child with her family or convince her to take her child to the surface or encourage her to the chantry (if you got it open).  Each have their benefits and each potentially offers her and her child a decent way out of Dust Town without taking the other option of convincing her to kill her child. (Does it work? I never tried.)

[Ieldra]

Ooh, thanks for the clarification. It would be nice if your options at the end of a quest didn't end up with a sort of 'right/wrong' feel to it.  Maybe like that quest in Dust Town where you can reconcile the dwarf and her child with her family or convince her to take her child to the surface or encourage her to the chantry (if you got it open).  Each have their benefits and each potentially offers her and her child a decent way out of Dust Town without taking the other option of convincing her to kill her child. (Does it work? I never tried.)

Ah, yes. that little quest would indeed be an example. I don't know if the "kill" option works. I never tried. I'm usually too angry at the caste system to smile after the decision, but yes, there is satisfaction and this has indeed several good outcomes. Well, the story doesn't tell you, but you have no reason to believe that any non-kill option isn't a drastic improvement of the situation.

 

Now, that design should be applied to one of the more important decisions. Not necessarily in the main plot, but somewhere more important than in a minor sidequest.

[metatheurgist]

Multiple outcomes has the same problem as meaningful choices. If the stuff you chose actually meant a totally different experience then it's more writing, coding, voice work, in other words more $$$ for Bioware for essentially no return. It's the same reason why we never really get a true good/evil path.

[AlanC9]

Well, I presume we're talking about implied experiences and maybe endgame slides.

[Wulfram]

I agree with the OP.

 

Though I think it can be difficult to have multiple distinct positive outcomes unless they're somewhat disconnected from the overall plot and objective of the game.  When big holes are opening in the sky and demons are pouring out it may be difficult to see things in terms other than "does it help stop this?".

 

Also, I'd note that opportunity cost can taint an option that is nominally a choice between purely good options.  I mean, say you could free the elves or free the mages - and lets assume for the sake of the example that both of these is a good thing - then whichever you pick you're effectively condemning the other lot.

[JCFR]

the more outcomes for choices in Inquisition, the more problematic it gets to integrate them all to DA4.

And if some less favored fall under the table... then why even having them inside?

 in my opinion it doesn' need to be more in count, but more in Relevance. Make us feel, having influence to the world.

 

That's something i couldn't stand in DA2 for example. The whole story of the champion should take 10 years but surprisingly, neither Kirkwall nor its surroundings did change.

Not even after the riot of the qunari when i thought "oh, after this, some scars will bel left to the city".  But no, all buildings magically restored and the qunari-quarter got closed like "well, this might be a big citiy with a lack of space for everyone  but we'r still closing this area and make it unavailable for anyone".

 

i want my choices to have weight  and i would like the world to reflect them... otherwise the whole thing would be futile.

[DaySeeker]

It was nice in ME3 to have carry-over characters frm previous games help make better outcomes possible.  It would be nice to see things like that even if they were in-game choices from previous chapters.

[calvinien]

I think the best way to handle it is like the landsmeet. There are several different outcomes and they can be good OR bad depending on how you play.

 

Alistair becomes king? Good...unless he later dies or you are romancing him and he dumps you.

Anora becomes Queen? Bad if you don't trust her. Good if you respect alistair's wishes to not take the crown.

 

Loghain alive: Could be bad. You hurt your relationship with a freind/lover for your enemy. Or it could be good. You saved the life of ferelden's greatest general and allowed him to redeem himself either by killing the archdemon, or serving as a grey warden.

 

I agree that too many decision where you can't win is tiresome(one of the many reasons I lost patience with the witcher. If nothing I do matters and everything falls apart no matter what, then what is the point?). But making things no fail could be just as bad. I'd rather a range of choices that can be good or bad based on how I play. At least make the ubergood solutions require more work like Mass Effect 2's perfect suicide run.

[BurstAngel75]

Sigh, kind of sad that no one believes that Good will defeat Evil. Our society has become so jaded that we don't even trust goodness or righteousness.

 

 I think you miss the point, she was asking that the writers let a good deed lead to a good outcome. It would be nice to have a feel good subplot.

[xXxshemlifexXx]

No good deed goes unpunished, as they say

[Sylvius the Mad]

Which would go back to what I said about trivial choices. There's no underlying principle in question. Everyone agrees helping the person is good.

Not necessarily. Think about that greedy merchant in Lothering in DAO. Was stopping him good? He was taking advantage of desperate people.