231 réponses à ce sujet

[Deflagratio]

I try not to be so arrogant as to make a judgement by claiming to know more than anyone possibly can.

 

It sounds like what they did with Dragon Age: Origins, specifically the mission Urn of Sacred Ashes.

 

 

Sure it does. What is the choice between two options with no meaningful information to differentiate them, if not random?
 

 

It depends on where you're drawing the line. In kind of a Schrodinger's cat kind of multiverse "Infinite possibility sense" you could consider the actual choice between each machine as the possibility space. However, each machine has a preset and guaranteed outcome. The only difference here is where each person draws the line.

 

Unfortunately for Maraas, your argument can backpedal infinitely up to the point where the Universe began. As a Universe existing and not exiting in itself is a random factor.

 

 

Whatever the case is, I think you're taking a huge assumption and running away with it, dragging it through the dirt as needed. Calling a piece of the "art" as a mistake has a certain air of arrogance that automatically discredits your stance though. It can be perceived bad or good on an individual level, but "Mistake" implies there's an objective quantity that isn't going to be fulfilled. A quantity only the writers and designers truly know.

[MKDAWUSS]

Wouldn't "Bring Character A to Event A to get Outcome A" add replayability?

[Bob from Accounting]

I've always found it extremely odd when I commit actions that my party rarely engages in them. They seem like lifeless robots as I just go around on murder sprees with the murder knife. How does that make any sense? These companions are people too and have their own personal belief, morals and codes they follow in their life. They should not be static personalities. Seeing as Bioware likes to define characterization and personalities as a big part of their games, I think this is a natural mechanic that makes sense to evolve.

 

It doesn't make sense. That's perfectly true.

 

But I really don't think you want it to.

 

I think you still want 'murder' to be a video game novelty, where upon commiting it forces you into perhaps an ugly conversation, maybe a fight, maybe a few sneers from a character or faction. But that's really it. Consequences that are 'realistically' more suited to throwing a rock at someone than taking their life. More serious than a blank stare, certainly, but not a lot more.

 

You might, I suppose, if you feel 'evil' actions should be punished to the point of 'evil' playthroughs no longer being any fun.

 

I quote Raymond Chandler, who brilliantly writes of audiences who "like their murders scented with magnolia blossoms and do not care to be reminded that murder is an act of infinite cruelty." We, as video game players, like our murders scented with facades of invulnerability, of any pointless cruelty being excused and justified by the slightest annoyance. We enjoy being able to slaughter anyone who so much as mutters a comment we don't like. And that's fine. But let's not pretend it's 'realistic.'

[Bob from Accounting]

Wouldn't "Bring Character A to Event A to get Outcome A" add replayability?

 

It would. But there are better ways of adding replayability. Replayability, as I said, that builds upon the players expecations and intentions, instead of invalidating or betraying them.

 

And of course, you could always simply foreshadow the outcome. Strongly hint to the player that they need to bring Character A to Event A to do things right, and then the player can later leave Character A at camp on their 'screw-up-playthrough' to see how badly things go without them.

[The Elder King]

It would. But there are better ways of adding replayability. Replayability, as I said, that builds upon the players expecations and intentions, instead of invalidating or betraying them.

And you know that all the players has those expectations...how? Why do you think that some players might not expect or want characters in the game being revelant in obtaining certain outcomes?

[Bob from Accounting]

And you know that all the players has those expectations...how? Why do you think that some players might not expect or want characters in the game being revelant in obtaining certain outcomes?

 

If they didn't, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

 

If people knew bringing a character they liked on a quest would automatically get him killed, they wouldn't do it. So clearly, if they're bringing him along in the first place, there must be an expectation of 'This character will be safe if I take him along for this mission.'

 

Otherwise they'd pick someone else.

[AlexJK]

And of course, you could always simply foreshadow the outcome. Strongly hint to the player that they need to bring Character A to Event A to do things right, and then the player can later leave Character A at camp on their 'screw-up-playthrough' to see how badly things go without them.

I don't think you understand what foreshadowing is. Foreshadowing is not presenting the player with a great big sign saying "take this party member or you'll screw everything up." Seriously, just buy a strategy guide, then you never have to worry about it. But please, let me use my brain when I play, and make decision based on subtle information or hints that I can find and deduce from the game world.

[The Elder King]

If they didn't, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

If people knew bringing a character they liked on a quest would automatically get him killed, they wouldn't do it. So clearly, if they're bringing him along in the first place, there must be an expectation of 'This character will be safe if I take him along for this mission.'

Otherwise they'd pick someone else.

We are talking about outcomes in general, not a character automatically dying becuase you brought him/her. Or at least the was what the poster said in the post you quoted.

[Nonoru]

If people knew bringing a character they liked on a quest would automatically get him killed, they wouldn't do it.

 

I would. 

[Bob from Accounting]

I don't think you understand what foreshadowing is. Foreshadowing is not presenting the player with a great big sign saying "take this party member or you'll screw everything up." Seriously, just buy a strategy guide, then you never have to worry about it. But please, let me use my brain when I play!

 

If we hear that a game features a puzzle difficult to the point that only 20% of players can solve it, we're immediately eager to place ourselves within the elite. We're smart. We're capable. We can surely do it. Our powers of deductive reasoning are flawless. Our perception is impeccable. It's those others who are going to have a problem. That other 80% who just isn't smart enough like I am. That other 80% who can't 'use their brain' the way I do. I feel sorry for that 80% surely made of other people and definitely not me. 

 

But of course...life doesn't work that way, does it now? I think almost everyone would consider themselves smarter than average.

 

Which means half of them are wrong.

 

The plain and simple truth is that video games are built to be beatable. (Or at least AAA games.) Whatever challenges, whatever difficulties the player encounters are built to be solvable by the average player, hopefully on the first time through. Yes, you may have to somewhat 'use your brain.' But keep in mind...this is a game. Not an exam. It's built to be beaten. Not to be smart.

 

And of course, this is all completely dependant on the puzzle in question legitimately testing those qualities. Which is far from guaranteed, to say the least.
 

[Ibn_Shisha]

I don't see any problem with have different outcomes for certain quests depending on who you bring, and based on DA experience up to now (a certain deep roads death not withstanding), I trust the team that these will make sense, and that we will reasonably be able to deduce them from personality and other in-game clues.  The strongest example, of course, being when you talk to a certain Leonidas-like NPC on certain quest, who makes a certain offer, and if you happen to have a certain very religious companion along, the outcomes can become interesting.  Even then, the game gives you several outs, and I expect any such scenarios in DAI will be the same.

[AlexJK]

If we hear that a game features a puzzle difficult to the point that only 20% of players can solve it, we're immediately eager to place ourselves within the elite. We're smart. We're capable. We can surely do it. Our powers of deductive reasoning are flawless. Our perception is impeccable. It's those others who are going to have a problem. That other 80% who just isn't smart enough like I am. That other 80% who can't 'use their brain' the way I do. I feel sorry for that 80% surely made of other people and definitely not me. 
 
But of course...life doesn't work that way, does it now? I think almost everyone would consider themselves smarter than average.
 
Which means half of them are wrong.
 
The plain and simple truth is that video games are built to be beatable. (Or at least AAA games.) Whatever challenges, whatever difficulties the player encounters are built to be solvable by the average player, hopefully on the first time through. Yes, you may have to somewhat 'use your brain.' But keep in mind...this is a game. Not an exam. It's built to be beaten. Not to be smart.
 
And of course, this is all completely dependant on the puzzle in question legitimately testing those qualities. Which is far from guaranteed, to say the least.

I have no idea why you quoted my post about foreshadowing when you posted this. Yes, games are designed to be beatable, with varying levels of challenge usually provided by difficulty settings, and critical path puzzles usually not requiring more than a little time or trial and error to solve. What does that have to do with outcomes varying based on the presence of a companion, or an unexpected story twist surprising you when you take a certain companion on a particular quest?

[Samahl]

I don't have a problem with this. Certain things the player should have control over and others, they should not. The one area a player should never have control over is a companion's personality with rare exceptions like Leliana being hardened in DAO. I've always found it extremely odd when I commit actions that my party rarely engages in them. They seem like lifeless robots as I just go around on murder sprees with the murder knife. How does that make any sense? These companions are people too and have their own personal belief, morals and codes they follow in their life. They should not be static personalities. Seeing as Bioware likes to define characterization and personalities as a big part of their games, I think this is a natural mechanic that makes sense to evolve. If this is the type of content they're talking about, I'd love this.

 

I want my companions to express opinions when I do something they don't agree with. I want them to intervene if it's so extreme they can't see my side of things. I want them to challenge my authority if they can't see eye to eye with me. I want unique encounters that only a Qunari could see like Iron Bull. Some things you should not be able to see coming. Can you see everything in your life happening based on every choice you make? Absolutely not. I really like this type of design decision because it makes consequence more meaningful to me and believable.

 

I just don't feel every little thing should be some notification for the player that he's going to miss this content or see this just because he brought this companion. Not everything in life you can see coming or have the answers to. That's how all our worlds work. Now, if Bioware doesn't offer various outcomes to this content or funnels you down a specific path that you can't control with this content, then I think it's a bad design decision based on the philosophy they're marketing to the player. You should never be forced into specific outcomes on content that can't be seen because I'm in the belief they always have another way...especially in a fantasy realm.

I've run out of likes for today, but +1 in any case.

[Maraas]

Sure it does. What is the choice

What "choice"? We're... you were talking about the outcome, and namely—to drive the point home and away from gas station and lottery ticket—death of a follower. Why switch topics?

 

Now, the player may act at random, of course (many of us don't, though), or not knowing that the choice is meaningful. But. The game is not even out yet and already we know that choice of a companion for a mission could be vital. So not knowing is out of the question, especially in your case. All that is left to discuss is uncertainty—that something may happen that you didn't expect. 

 

But if anything is random here, it's the player's expectations. There could be people who haven't expected Leliana will jump the Warden for defiling the Ashes, for example. But you obviously need not be concerned—you managed to assume the worst before the game even came out.

 

With such a great hunch ability I'm sure you'll be fine.

[Bob from Accounting]

I have no idea why you quoted my post about foreshadowing when you posted this. Yes, games are designed to be beatable, with varying levels of challenge usually provided by difficulty settings, and critical path puzzles usually not requiring more than a little time or trial and error to solve. What does that have to do with outcomes varying based on the presence of a companion, or an unexpected story twist surprising you when you take a certain companion on a particular quest?

 

You seem to be under an impression that because you 'use your brain,' it's not going to be a problem for you. That you, as a smart person, will figure out what you need to do from whatever 'subtle information or hints' you find. That other people might run into problems because they just aren't as clever. Not you though.

 

I really don't think things would work out that way. 
 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Oh look, Blob is tilting at windmills again. What else is new?

[schall_und_rauch]

If this refers to the mechanic of killing your sibling if you didn't bring Anders to the Deep Roads: Yeah, that was bad. Really bad. Exactly what the TO talked about: A choice which you could hardly forsee, a "Deus Ex Machina" mechanic that doesn't make any sense (why is only your sibling suffering from a wound, but nobody if you brought three other companions) and an choice where the outcome could not be expected in any way (bringing Anders or not). Agency was replaced with seeming randomness.

So I can understand that he is worried about this mechanic, because Bioware f!cked it up already once.

 

However, I think and hope that they won't pull this off again. I like to believe that what they wanted to express is additional dialogue options, additional recognition of a character, or an additional nice-to-have content, such as bringing in the right people to Isabella. I could imagine bringing Sera/Solas to the Dales, Cassandra to the templar stronghold and Varric to the lost thaig as rewarding. That sort of the thing.

 

I don't think that it will be something as bad as having somebody die or not reaching the optimal outcome of a quest -- without any sign of foreshadowing. I just hope the writers know (by now) how bad that is.

[SwobyJ]

I think the hard reality is that you're going to have to deal with that to a large extent.

 

Could a game be made where companions react 'realistically' to such things? Probably. But it would almost certainly involve the player being punished exceedingly for 'evil' acts. Such as every good or even neutral character abandoning, turning in, or downright executing the player character the first time they kill an innocent person. It would mean the game ending at the of the first act four hours in because the King or whoever who gives otherwise you the grand quest decides you're an animal to be put down.

 

Because that's 'realistic,' isn't it? You might be thinking it means a line or two of dialogue. But no, 'realistic' is a good and courageous character putting a knife through your back the first chance they get. 'Realistic' is a prison cell.

 

And that wouldn't be a very fun game, would it?

 

Actually, that sounds very fun. As long as I can find ways, even if very difficult, to get myself out of jail and continue the game.

 

And a central character stabbing my protagonist in the back? Sure!
 

[SwobyJ]

No, it wouldn't make it interesting. You don't get it. You talk about 'realism,' you talk about 'consequences' but you don't really grasp what those things actually are. You're still thinking terms of video games. You no longer have that priviledge when you try and advocate 'realism.' In a video game, murder gets you a slap on the wrist. You're still the boss. You still do what you want, kill anyone you want.

 

That's not consequence.

 

You commit first degree murder in real life and get found guility, your life is over. Do you understand what that really means? You will never see the outside world ever again. You are stuck there, you are powerless, and that's the end of it. It's done. Is that a game to you? I assure you it's not. 

 

Oh my god.

 

Realism does not = 100% real.

 

Realism just means an interest in the real. It doesn't need to be entirely real. Just more real than it would have otherwise been.

 

 Ism. Ism. Ism.

[schall_und_rauch]

BTW, I think an excellent example of foreshadowing is Deus Ex, the quest with the replacement biochip. The game drops hints that this is a bad idea and that the chip company is under the control of the enemy corporation. 

But if you just run around, fullfilling blindly all quests to get it done, then, yeah, you get the quest done. And are severly punished for doing something stupid much later. And you know exactly that you did something stupid. I did. Next time, I'd better think.

 

Oh, and if you want to desecrate the urn of sacred ashes and really think that bringing Leliana with you is a good idea, then that's not a random choice. That's not a matter of "bringing the wrong companion." That's just you either wanting to kill (or whatever) Leliana or being stupid.

[Nefla]

You seem to be under an impression that because you 'use your brain,' it's not going to be a problem for you. That you, as a smart person, will figure out what you need to do from whatever 'subtle information or hints' you find. That other people might run into problems because they just aren't as clever. Not you though.
 
I really don't think things would work out that way.

I really don't think it's going to be a problem either way. DA has never been a thinking game. There have never been difficult puzzles or unpredictable choices (aside from the sibling/Anders/deep roads thing) it's always been cut and dry, good or evil. It's not like if you take Alistair with you to cure the werewolves he randomly dies for no reason with no warning. The companion differences will likely be along the lines of ex: if you bring Varric on your quest he talks down a group of enemies an you finish the quest, if he's not there you fight that group and finish the quest. If there is a big change based on the presence of a companion, you will likely be beat over the head with it before you go "I grew up in this alienage, I know the people, this is important to me, you're taking me with you!"

[schall_und_rauch]

Actually, that sounds very fun. As long as I can find ways, even if very difficult, to get myself out of jail and continue the game.

 

And a central character stabbing my protagonist in the back? Sure!
 

 

I believe BW said explicitly that they disallowed extreme actions (such as randomly killing people in the streets), because it would take up too much ressources for the game mechanic to implement without enough benefit, because there's only few people who want to play like that.

I mean, every quest, every guard, every shopowner must recognize that you are actually a hunted criminal.

 

However, I admit I still want to kill that crone sister in Denerim who tells me that magic exists to serve man and never to rule over it. Only to never hear her voice again.

[Nefla]

BTW, I think an excellent example of foreshadowing is Deus Ex, the quest with the replacement biochip. The game drops hints that this is a bad idea and that the chip company is under the control of the enemy corporation. 
But if you just run around, fullfilling blindly all quests to get it done, then, yeah, you get the quest done. And are severly punished for doing something stupid much later. And you know exactly that you did something stupid. I did. Next time, I'd better think.
 
Oh, and if you want to desecrate the urn of sacred ashes and really think that bringing Leliana with you is a good idea, then that's not a random choice. That's not a matter of "bringing the wrong companion." That's just you either wanting to kill (or whatever) Leliana or being stupid.

Oh I loved that! I hope there are similar situations in DA:I. I only played that game once but I was like "well this is shady as hell, keep your chips to yourself!"

[Bob from Accounting]

I really don't think it's going to be a problem either way. DA has never been a thinking game. There have never been difficult puzzles or unpredictable choices (aside from the sibling/Anders/deep roads thing) it's always been cut and dry, good or evil. It's not like if you take Alistair with you to cure the werewolves he randomly dies for no reason with no warning. The companion differences will likely be along the lines of ex: if you bring Varric on your quest he talks down a group of enemies an you finish the quest, if he's not there you fight that group and finish the quest. If there is a big change based on the presence of a companion, you will likely be beat over the head with it before you go "I grew up in this alienage, I know the people, this is important to me, you're taking me with you!"

 

Probably, yeah. Let's hope so.

[SwobyJ]

I believe BW said explicitly that they disallowed extreme actions (such as randomly killing people in the streets), because it would take up too much ressources for the game mechanic to implement without enough benefit, because there's only few people who want to play like that.

I mean, every quest, every guard, every shopowner must recognize that you are actually a hunted criminal.

 

However, I admit I still want to kill that crone sister in Denerim who tells me that magic exists to serve man and never to rule over it. Only to never hear her voice again.

 

I'm not asking for it for Dragon Age, just expressing interest in the concept for the RPG genre into the future.