208 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

But that doesn't conclusively support your position. You're welcome to believe it's true all you like, but know that you're choosing to do it.

And I still like RNGs. Because I see all of the game mechanics as abstractions. Every one. Combat, skills, xp, dialogue, exploration - all of it

 

By your standard, nothing can be conclusive. We've been over this. The existence of the very post I'm typing isn't something I can conclusive prove.

 

There are only some game mechanics meant to be abstractions - chiefly combat and surrounding skills, but certainly not things like exploration (not even in the old isometric games). 

 

Okay, sure. But we usually see are players making choices based on little or no in-game evidence. In-game, choosing the third option can look remarkably naive. So I'd like it to fail a lot.

Just not all the time. Because I think risk makes for better stories.

 

I don't disagree with your conclusion; I just think it's possible to be genre savvy. 

[Maraas]

I was under the assumption this conversation had nothing to do with out of game reasons.

If we're talking in-game (which I wasn't aware of), then the whole discussion is pointless. In game you can only comment on the reasons why the Inquisitor doesn't want to divide their forces, not that they "should"'ve come up with different/additional plans.

The moment we bring into the discussion the assumption there could be (not to mention should) more solutions we're no longer talking in-game, since it implies we acknowledge there's the man behind the curtain.

[BubbleDncr]

I don't like Redcliffe as an example of a good 3rd option.

 

My first playthrough, I didn't take it, because I was presented with two options and picked the lesser of two evils - that was a tough choice. And tough choices are my favorite thing about Dragn Age games.

 

But I guess if you don't accept having to make a tough choice, and keep arguing, they present you with....a 3rd choice. That is quite obviously the best choice.

 

If there is a 3rd option, it should be either equally as bad an option, or really difficult to do. Not just something you have to do anyways (mage tower quest), but "hey, do it now instead of later please. But oh, you don't really have to do it now."

 

I would also say their third option should have the biggest risk as well - like, if your choice is between saving the village or the keep, you can try really hard to save both, but if you fail, they both fall.

[Trikormadenadon]

If we're talking in-game (which I wasn't aware of), then the whole discussion is pointless. In game you can only comment on the reasons why the Inquisitor doesn't want to divide their forces, not that they "should"'ve come up with different/additional plans.

The moment we bring into the discussion the assumption there could be (not to mention should) more solutions we're no longer talking in-game, since it implies we acknowledge there's the man behind the curtain.

All I originally said is there should be more options because if you were actually there there would be more options other than everyone stay here or everyone go there. That's all I was saying. Had nothing to do with out of game limitations due to time constraint or bugs or whatever else might crop up in the game development.

 

EDIT: The concept of the developers adding new stuff or anything like that was not on my mind at the time. I was simply saying if I was there, I probably would not choose either of those two choices. I would probably split the group up and take my chances trying to save everyone. If i failed, so be it. And if the game made it so you fail when you try that, so be it. But the option should be there in my opinion.

[Schreckstoff]

All I originally said is there should be more options because if you were actually there there would be more options other than everyone stay here or everyone go there. That's all I was saying. Had nothing to do with out of game limitations due to time constraint or bugs or whatever else might crop up in the game development.

EDIT: The concept of the developers adding new stuff or anything like that was not on my mind at the time. I was simply saying if I was there, I probably would not choose either of those two choices. I would probably split the group up and take my chances trying to save everyone. If i failed, so be it. And if the game made it so you fail when you try that, so be it. But the option should be there in my opinion.

I disagree, splitting the force by three is just condemning each of them to death and from both in game as well as developer perspective should simply not be feasible.

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't like Redcliffe as an example of a good 3rd option.
 
My first playthrough, I didn't take it, because I was presented with two options and picked the lesser of two evils - that was a tough choice. And tough choices are my favorite thing about Dragn Age games.
 
But I guess if you don't accept having to make a tough choice, and keep arguing, they present you with....a 3rd choice. That is quite obviously the best choice.

If memory serves me correctly, I think Jowan actually mentions you can use lyrium from the Mage Circle before they even throw out the idea of Isolde sacrificing herself. No push needed.


That being said, I agree that Third Options really make things watered down. In real life, let's say you work very hard over the course of years and finally obtain a difficult certification. This puts you in line for a promotion. "You've earned it and you've worked really hard," your boss says. "However, budget constraints are tight. We can give you the promotion, but if we give you a suitable promotion, we'll have to fire Anderson, even though he has two kids at home and a great work record. Or, conversely, we can give you the promotion with no raise and you can do a job you have wanted and everyone gets to keep their jobs... but you get no extra pay." Not a TRULY realistic scenario, but one that is not totally unlike what does happen in the workplace sometimes.

If there was a third option of saying "what about you pay me more AND Anderson keeps his job?" that magically makes everything better, then you'd wonder why they even brought up the other options in the first place... unless you just hate Anderson and want to see him fired anyway, I suppose.

[Trikormadenadon]

I disagree, splitting the force by three is just condemning each of them to death and from both in game as well as developer perspective should simply not be feasible.

Why? They already allowed you to do it in Awakening when you had to choose where to defend. If you chose to try to defend everything, you succeed. Also, I already said I am fine with making so that it fails if you mess up or are to slow, or even that it has no chance to succeed, just that the option should be there. That's all.

 

EDIT: I just find it unrealistic in this situation that there is only 2 options. Many other situations only warrant 2 option. I am not trying to say all choices should have more than 2 options, just that some make sense to have more than 2 options and this one is one of them.

[Maraas]

All I originally said is there should be more options because if you were actually there

Then I apologize for misunderstanding. I wouldn't call that in-game per se, though. As Traynor puts it, "In real life one doesn't move on an eight by eight square grid." So not all options that could've made sense or been available to you if you were there are applicable.

The more options the better, of course, on that we can agree, I just wouldn't go as far as saying there should be more. It's more than sufficient to have the most obvious choices covered. As is the case with Crestwood, where you decide how to deploy not a batallion, but mere four or six soldiers.

[Trikormadenadon]

Then I apologize for misunderstanding. I wouldn't call that in-game per se, though. As Traynor puts it, "In real life one doesn't move on an eight by eight square grid." So not all options that could've made sense or been available to you if you were there are applicable.

The more options the better, of course, on that we can agree, I just wouldn't go as far as saying there should be more. It's more than sufficient to have the most obvious choices covered. As is the case with Crestwood, where you decide how to deploy not a batallion, but mere four or six soldiers.

I agree, but in this specific situation it is not abnormal to have another option other than everyone stay or everyone go. That's all I was trying to point out. I have said in a quote to someone else in this thread that this would not be true in all situations. Some times, there really only makes sense there would be 2 choices.

[In Exile]

If memory serves me correctly, I think Jowan actually mentions you can use lyrium from the Mage Circle before they even throw out the idea of Isolde sacrificing herself. No push needed.


That being said, I agree that Third Options really make things watered down. In real life, let's say you work very hard over the course of years and finally obtain a difficult certification. This puts you in line for a promotion. "You've earned it and you've worked really hard," your boss says. "However, budget constraints are tight. We can give you the promotion, but if we give you a suitable promotion, we'll have to fire Anderson, even though he has two kids at home and a great work record. Or, conversely, we can give you the promotion with no raise and you can do a job you have wanted and everyone gets to keep their jobs... but you get no extra pay." Not a TRULY realistic scenario, but one that is not totally unlike what does happen in the workplace sometimes.

If there was a third option of saying "what about you pay me more AND Anderson keeps his job?" that magically makes everything better, then you'd wonder why they even brought up the other options in the first place... unless you just hate Anderson and want to see him fired anyway, I suppose.

 

The Third Option does have a risk, though - aside from the time, the Circle actually has to be saved to do it. So if for whatever reason you don't save the Circle, you actually can't pull off the third option. 

 

While I'm not a fan of timer quests, I actually think that a kind of quest timer (like the ME2 suicide mission) should have been in place for Redcliffe. If you haven't saved the Circle yet, picking the third option and then not immediately running back to Redcliffe when you find out the Tower is under siege should lead to a bunch of NPC deaths and chaos at Redcliffe, the equivalent of never having saved the town in the first place. 

[Trikormadenadon]

The Third Option does have a risk, though - aside from the time, the Circle actually has to be saved to do it. So if for whatever reason you don't save the Circle, you actually can't pull off the third option. 

 

While I'm not a fan of timer quests, I actually think that a kind of quest timer (like the ME2 suicide mission) should have been in place for Redcliffe. If you haven't saved the Circle yet, picking the third option and then not immediately running back to Redcliffe when you find out the Tower is under siege should lead to a bunch of NPC deaths and chaos at Redcliffe, the equivalent of never having saved the town in the first place. 

It is not like this? Wow, I thought it was that's why I always did the circle prior to going to Redciffe. LOL That's what I love about these games. I am always learning new things about them.

[Schreckstoff]

Why? They already allowed you to do it in Awakening when you had to choose where to defend. If you chose to try to defend everything, you succeed. Also, I already said I am fine with making so that it fails if you mess up or are to slow, or even that it has no chance to succeed, just that the option should be there. That's all.

EDIT: I just find it unrealistic in this situation that there is only 2 options. Many other situations only warrant 2 option. I am not trying to say all choices should have more than 2 options, just that some make sense to have more than 2 options and this one is one of them.

There are 3 options: defend the keep, defend the village and defend the wounded.

While I agree that that decisions bothered me, it should be able to carry the wounded to the keep you have to defend anyway, giving the players an option they can't succeed at is bad design.
The majority of the players will pick the do gooder choice fail, reload to a previous savegame only to fail again and end up frustrated once again.

[In Exile]

It is not like this? Wow, I thought it was that's why I always did the circle prior to going to Redciffe. LOL That's what I love about these games. I am always learning new things about them.

 

No, you can totally head to Redcliffe first, then go to the Tower, then clear out the tower, and as long as you save Irving you can mission it back to Redcliffe. 

[In Exile]

There are 3 options: defend the keep, defend the village and defend the wounded.

While I agree that that decisions bothered me, it should be able to carry the wounded to the keep you have to defend anyway, giving the players an option they can't succeed at is bad design.
The majority of the players will pick the do gooder choice fail, reload to a previous savegame only to fail again and end up frustrated once again.

 

Moving wounded is often a good way to kill a bunch of them. 

[Trikormadenadon]

There are 3 options: defend the keep, defend the village and defend the wounded.

While I agree that that decisions bothered me, it should be able to carry the wounded to the keep you have to defend anyway, giving the players an option they can't succeed at is bad design.
The majority of the players will pick the do gooder choice fail, reload to a previous savegame only to fail again and end up frustrated once again.

I disagree that giving an option that is doomed to failure is bad design. It really isn't. Sometimes, if you try to save everyone, you end up saving no one. Fact of life. It's even a military quote, "He who tries to defend everything defends nothing."

[Trikormadenadon]

No, you can totally head to Redcliffe first, then go to the Tower, then clear out the tower, and as long as you save Irving you can mission it back to Redcliffe. 

Did not know that. That's really stupid actually. Kinda wish I never found that out but oh well. I still love the game. =)

[Fast Jimmy]

No, you can totally head to Redcliffe first, then go to the Tower, then clear out the tower, and as long as you save Irving you can mission it back to Redcliffe.

Heck, you can do Redcliffe first, say you are going to the Circle for help, then do all other quests (Brecillian Forest, Orzamar/Deep Roads, even the Urn of Sacred Ashes) and THEN do the Circle, keep Irving alive and not a thing will have changed. Connor really mellows out after your first chat, apparently.

[Trikormadenadon]

Heck, you can do Redcliffe first, say you are going to the Circle for help, then do all other quests (Brecillian Forest, Orzamar/Deep Roads, even the Urn of Sacred Ashes) and THEN do the Circle, keep Irving alive and not a thing will have changed. Connor really mellows out after your first chat, apparently.

That's seriously messed up. Heheh.

[Schreckstoff]

I disagree that giving an option that is doomed to failure is bad design. It really isn't. Sometimes, if you try to save everyone, you end up saving no one. Fact of life. It's even a military quote, "He who tries to defend everything defends nothing."

It's bad design on a different basis as mentioned that option would ultimately end up frustrating many players the more avid player will most likely shrug it off but many of the broad mass of gamers who don't even finish games might give up altogether.

[Fast Jimmy]

There are 3 options: defend the keep, defend the village and defend the wounded.
While I agree that that decisions bothered me, it should be able to carry the wounded to the keep you have to defend anyway, giving the players an option they can't succeed at is bad design.
The majority of the players will pick the do gooder choice fail, reload to a previous savegame only to fail again and end up frustrated once again.

This really is the issue.

The reason things like Permadeath and RNG outcomes aren't as common in games anymore is that he player always has the option to save scum. And, all things the same, many will and will then be annoyed by it. "The game is making me reload AGAIN?"

I predict that if the game does offer the choice to save both the Keep and the Village and the determining factor is a test of player skill through difficutly combat, it will result in the vast majority of players choosing to save both and just reloading as many times as it takes to beat the difficult fight.

No one will force the players to do this, of course, but many will FEEL that way. And it will likely result in complaints. Where if just the "save the Keep or save the Village" were the only two options, people would struggle and ultimately pick one or the other. Or, if choosing both was an option but as a static outcome (where both the Keep and Village experienced losses) that didn't depend on player skill, that might work as well. But dangling a perfect plot outcome to the player will cause them to consider anything else as unacceptable and any roadblock out in front of them preventing them from getting it as tedium or articial. That's why it's best to avoid such perfect options altogether.

[Trikormadenadon]

It's bad design on a different basis as mentioned that option would ultimately end up frustrating many players the more avid player will most likely shrug it off but many of the broad mass of gamers who don't even finish games might give up altogether.

Oh that's what you meant. Yes I can see this as a possibility but honestly...should we really be catering to the type of player that would quit the game over something like that? Or should we be catering to the player who will respect the outcome for that merit alone? It's a dicey question, with valid reasoning on both sides so I am not really sure which side of the fence I am on with that one.

 

EDIT: From a devs perspective it is probably best not to isolate any potential customers i suppose.

[Trikormadenadon]

This really is the issue.

The reason things like Permadeath and RNG outcomes aren't as common in games anymore is that he player always has the option to save scum. And, all things the same, many will and will then be annoyed by it. "The game is making me reload AGAIN?"

I predict that if the game does offer the choice to save both the Keep and the Village and the determining factor is a test of player skill through difficutly combat, it will result in the vast majority of players choosing to save both and just reloading as many times as it takes to beat the difficult fight.

No one will force the players to do this, of course, but many will FEEL that way. And it will likely result in complaints. Where if just the "save the Keep or save the Village" were the only two options, people would struggle and ultimately pick one or the other. Or, if choosing both was an option but as a static outcome (where both the Keep and Village experienced losses) that didn't depend on player skill, that might work as well. But dangling a perfect plot outcome to the player will cause them to consider anything else as unacceptable and any roadblock out in front of them preventing them from getting it as tedium or articial. That's why it's best to avoid such perfect options altogether.

This is a good point. Honestly, I feel it is up to the fanbase and the devs to tell those players to suck it up. No one forced you to keep reloading. You chose to do so so stfu and a stop complaining about it. But that's just me I guess. Might not be the best marketing strategy for a dev though....

[Schreckstoff]

Oh that's what you meant. Yes I can see this as a possibility but honestly...should we really be catering to the type of player that would quit the game over something like that? Or should we be catering to the player who will respect the outcome for that merit alone? It's a dicey question, with valid reasoning on both sides so I am not really sure which side of the fence I am on with that one.

EDIT: From a devs perspective it is probably best not to isolate any potential customers i suppose.

Yes especially as that is the broad mass. RPGs already are the least profitable genre as they are very expensive to develop yet have comparatively low sales in return.

Mass effect is a perfect example of this. It is one of the greatest series story and gameplay wise but if it remained an RPG at its core instead of a story driven TPS it wouldn't have sold nearly as good.

[Sylvius the Mad]

By your standard, nothing can be conclusive. We've been over this. The existence of the very post I'm typing isn't something I can conclusive prove.

But that's important. Everything that isn't necessarily false is possibly true. That gives you tremendous power over how you choose to perceive the game world.

There are only some game mechanics meant to be abstractions - chiefly combat and surrounding skills, but certainly not things like exploration (not even in the old isometric games).

Travel distance. Travel time. Viewable distance. Fog of war. You're saying that none of those are abstract?

And again, why do I care what the designers' intent might have been?

[Fast Jimmy]

This is a good point. Honestly, I feel it is up to the fanbase and the devs to tell those players to suck it up. No one forced you to keep reloading. You chose to do so so stfu and a stop complaining about it. But that's just me I guess. Might not be the best marketing strategy for a dev though....

I think better design is the solution over telling a customer to suck it up. Easier, too. Don't give people the option for the Rainbow and Sunshine, but don't make the options totally Dark and Depressing, either. Make them decision people can truly identify with... And then watch them tear each other apart on the forums! Brilliant!