839 réponses à ce sujet

[Fredward]

It seems weird to say heroic sacrifice is a huge cliche and should be avoided and then advocate the only bigger cliche in storytelling. It's a tricky topic for me. I mean I like unambiguously happy endings as much as the next guy, who doesn't like warm fuzzies? But they're boring. They don't stick. There's no gravitas. There's no thinking required because everything is tied in a nice ribbon with a helpful dollop of rainbow to add to the already saccharine goodness. It's hard to complain about happy other than it's all too often jejune when it's delivered.

 

I loved how Origins handled the ending. The only word I can think to describe it is elegant. You could have your happy ending but the specter of doubt and the potential future cost would always hang over it. And unlike maaaaaannnyyyy others I had no problem with ME3's ending. It was only 3 different colours if you were focusing solely on Shepard and co. But it had none of the subtlety that seemed to go into Origins ending. ME2 was nice as well, a nice amount of variables without feeling arbitrary or forced. I kinda forgot where I was going with this post but I do know that I don't envy the devs when they get to thinking 'bout endings.

[javeart]

About the possibility of a better outcome depending on our performance in combat, I'm totally against the idea. I'm all for rewards for those who excell at combat, but those should be also combat related. I could agree that it would be coherent, from a certain point of view, but I think players satisfaction is much more important, and not everyone cares that much about that part of the game, or has the ability. I have never been remotely interested in playing DAO or DA2 in nightmare, and I honeslty doubt that it would change with DAI (though it would be great if that was the case), so I'd feel terribly and unfairly punished. 

 

That's part of my problem with "earned" happy endings, even if I'm not oppossed to the idea. Earned in what way? Good performance in combat?  Compulsive completionism?   "smart" choices?  None of those are bad options for me, up to a point, and where do you put the mark (as Allan have been arguing)? I agree it's tricky. Some "good leader" choices in the SM where a little debatable in my opinion, but all in all, I think it was ok, but I think it was because for the most part, the weren't really "smart" choices, but much more "obvious" choices, you could slip here and there, but it was kind of easy get it right. I've already said that I hated ME3 scanning, for example, so going the "completionist" route it's highly unappealing to me... It's also hard to imagine a way to make it comat-related that wouldn't be unfair to people who is simply not very good at it. 

 

Edit: so, my point is, if the "earned" happy ending it's in the end easy or plain boring to get, I'd rather let everyone get it, even if undeservedly 

[Inprea]

You know, I really wouldn't mind if the "best" endings were only achievable in the higher difficulties. 

 

I'm sure if there was a dislike function this post would get like a 100 dislikes. 

 

In all seriousness, I don't hate sliders but I definitely would like it if there were actual in game rewards to playing on the higher levels (be it with item rewards or story outcomes).

 

Anyway, I doubt DAI will be like this at all, but it's a nice thought.

 

 

It'd be nice and you're probably right about the dislikes. I'm still used to the best ending requiring the defeat of an optional boss that requires a very solid battle plan, high level and top end equipment. For me there needs to be an incentive to raise the difficulty. Take Mass Effect 2. I raise the difficulty to obtain the geth pulse rifle. Now having the difficulty influence the story that would be wonderful to me in part because it'd feel like my character is defeating storyline level enemies. I've often wondered at what setting it'd be safe to say your character is fighting opponents with storyline level of ability.

 

About the possibility of a better outcome depending on our performance in combat, I'm totally against the idea. I'm all for rewards for those who excell at combat, but those should be also combat related. I could agree that it would be coherent, from a certain point of view, but I think players satisfaction is much more important, and not everyone cares that much about that part of the game, or has the ability. I have never been remotely interested in playing DAO or DA2 in nightmare, and I honeslty doubt that it would change with DAI (though it would be great if that was the case), so I'd feel terribly and unfairly punished. 

 

Not everyone cares about exploration or having to pick a choice they find disagreeable just to get the outcome they desire. I personally really dislike having my character's combat ability ignored. I find great satisfaction in having my character's abilities actually influencing the story. I'm reaching a bit back here but let's take Vanguard Bandits for an example. A nice real time strategy game. There is an arena fight and your army actually responds to your performance. If you lose early they lose loyalty because they trust in your ability less but if you not only win but beat the day lights out of the arena master despite being fatigued from battle they get a huge boost. This is fairly normal through the game the more of them you keep alive through each battle the more they trust you to keep them alive and get them home. If you do a really good job they're a bit on the fanatical side near the end and why shouldn't they be? You've guided them to victory after victory with few losses against some rather powerful foes. Complete victory also inspires the arena master to not only give you more soldiers but also to join your army which is awesome as he is a fine heavy unit.

 

You mention Mass Effect 2. It rather annoys me that certain squad mates die in the pipes no matter how fast you make it. Heck I've actually been running ahead of my squad mate before opening tubes as I went. How does it make sense that they didn't have time enough or that my Shepard couldn't protect that door? The average survival rate for enemies in her presence was a matter of seconds and many die before they can hit the ground.

 

Thinking on Inquisition. What soldier wouldn't be inspired after seeing their commander sneak into an enemy fortification with three lieutenants and open the door revealing they've already kill everyone inside that so much as thought of holding a sword?

 

Now if the developer doesn't want these kind of super human acts to be part of the story they shouldn't let the character develop that kind of combat strength. Tone it down.

 

We all like what we like though and it's natural to want those aspects of a game you dislike devalued so you can succeed. I still think of role playing games as a mix of many elements though and believe in embracing all of them to get the best outcome. Having dialogue choice dominate is no more agreeable to me then having combat completely dominate. It'd be nice if some choices carried long term penalties to. Growlanser heritage of war I believe or perhaps sense of justice have a nice moment with that. One of your allies needs to get back to the capital city but the main character has been poisoned and the toxin is a new strain that can't be cured with the medicine you have on hand.

 

You have to choose to try to make it back while poisoned or wrest. Your poisoned throughout the event and that makes combat much tougher. Which I loved. That said if you can make it back that companion is far more loyal though she now thinks your absolutely crazy for demanding a forced march in your condition.

 

It could be such fun if the Inquisitor had to set up a quick defense and you had to decide how many of your health potions to give up. If you choose all everyone is moderately stocked on potions but well you have none. Perhaps the Inquisitor can even refrain from telling the people that she/he gave them all she had. Now begin the epic battle. Unfortunately this scenario loses any bite if you can just turn the difficulty way down so that nothing can even scratch your character's armor.

 

I wonder how those who don't enjoy combat but want dialogue choices to matter would respond if those who enjoy combat demanded a slider that would make all the Inquisitors dialogue choices automatically get the best outcome.

[javeart]

(...)

 

Making choices it's an integral part of the game, while playing it in nightmare (or any difficulty, for that matter) difficulty it's not. It's a big difference. I don't care for exploration either, btw, and I also disagree with the idea of having to pick an option you're not comfortable with to have the happy ending. For me, all of these way to differentiate who gets the happy ending and who doesn't are equally bad. In fact, I'm all for different flavors of happy or bittersweet, whith a minimal difference of success related to "technical" achievements, f there has to be any.

[Inprea]

Making choices it's an integral part of the game, while playing it in nightmare (or any difficulty, for that matter) difficulty it's not. It's a big difference. I don't care for exploration either, btw, and I also disagree with the idea of having to pick an option you're not comfortable with to have the happy ending. For me, all of these way to differentiate who gets the happy ending and who doesn't are equally bad. In fact, I'm all for different flavors of happy or bittersweet, whith a minimal difference of success related to "technical" achievements, f there has to be any.

 

What makes choices more integral to the game then combat? Considering the resources and the attention combat gets it seems rather essential to me. I don't believe we have the same view of what an rpg is. I know when i set down at the table I feel it's my responsibility to punish my group for bad choices in combat or in social settings as I expect from others when they're the game master. In this case I see bioware as the game master and thus I expect to be rewarded for good play and penalized for bad.

 

If you don't want combat, dialogue or exploration to determine the type of ending you get I have to wonder if you even want a game or do you want a story book? Even those are influenced by what page you choose to turn to.

[javeart]

What makes choices more integral to the game then combat? Considering the resources and the attention combat gets it seems rather essential to me. I don't believe we have the same view of what an rpg is. I know when i set down at the table I feel it's my responsibility to punish my group for bad choices in combat or in social settings as I expect from others when they're the game master. In this case I see blizzard as the game master and thus I expect to be rewarded for good play and penalized for bad.

 

If you don't want combat, dialogue or exploration to determine the type of ending you get I have to wonder if you even want a game or do you want a story book? Even those are influenced by what page you choose to turn to.

 

I didn't say combat wasn't integral to the game, I was talking about the difficulty. In fact, I don't mind it there's the option to fail one side-quest, as long as it doesn't have a big impact in the outcome, only a minor one. I'd even say that if you want that ind of mechanic being present throughout all the game, you're not even asking for a different way to "earn" a happy game, but for a different kind of game entirely.

 

I didn't say either I don't want story choices to determine what kind of ending do I get. I don't want them to determine if I get the happy ending or not. It's perfectly possible to give a variety of endings, all equally happy or bittersweet or tragic. I dislike the "happyness scale" idea

[Kimarous]

I wonder how those who don't enjoy combat but want dialogue choices to matter would respond if those who enjoy combat demanded a slider that would make all the Inquisitors dialogue choices automatically get the best outcome.

 

As an advocate of those who enjoy Easy difficulty, **** that noise. I hate locked content based on difficulty. Okay, achievements and extra-super loot, I get, but locking story elements would drive me away from the series.

 

Besides, wouldn't upping the difficulty and have it affect the narrative logically make the story inherently WORSE? At least, in terms of getting happier endings? "Both the castle and village are under siege. If I hurry, maybe I can rescue both. Uh-oh. Looks like I've spent half the day fending off a Red Templar Juggernaut on Nightmare difficult. OH WELLZ, GUESS CRESTWOOD BURNS! *comical shrug*"

 

But no, seriously, that's the logical end of this line of thinking. If you want people who play on higher difficulties to experience more bittersweet storylines (since they're clearly masochists anyways), I'd get it, but locking "good" options to the more treacherous slog makes NO sense!

[LadyKarrakaz]

As an advocate of those who enjoy Easy difficulty, **** that noise. I hate locked content based on difficulty. Okay, achievements and extra-super loot, I get, but locking story elements would drive me away from the series.

 

Besides, wouldn't upping the difficulty and have it affect the narrative logically make the story inherently WORSE? At least, in terms of getting happier endings? "Both the castle and village are under siege. If I hurry, maybe I can rescue both. Uh-oh. Looks like I've spent half the day fending off a Red Templar Juggernaut on Nightmare difficult. OH WELLZ, GUESS CRESTWOOD BURNS! *comical shrug*"

 

But no, seriously, that's the logical end of this line of thinking. If you want people who play on higher difficulties to experience more bittersweet storylines (since they're clearly masochists anyways), I'd get it, but locking "good" options to the more treacherous slog makes NO sense!

Agreed, the difficulty slider should not change the narrative.

A diffulty bar, eventually unlocking the best equipment for higher difficulties, would be more than enough.

[Inprea]

As an advocate of those who enjoy Easy difficulty, **** that noise. I hate locked content based on difficulty. Okay, achievements and extra-super loot, I get, but locking story elements would drive me away from the series.

 

Besides, wouldn't upping the difficulty and have it affect the narrative logically make the story inherently WORSE? At least, in terms of getting happier endings? "Both the castle and village are under siege. If I hurry, maybe I can rescue both. Uh-oh. Looks like I've spent half the day fending off a Red Templar Juggernaut on Nightmare difficult. OH WELLZ, GUESS CRESTWOOD BURNS! *comical shrug*"

 

But no, seriously, that's the logical end of this line of thinking. If you want people who play on higher difficulties to experience more bittersweet storylines (since they're clearly masochists anyways), I'd get it, but locking "good" options to the more treacherous slog makes NO sense!

 

No increasing the difficulty wouldn't make the story inherently worse. Your example is a rather poor one. A better response would be to realize that your combat effectiveness is too low. Perhaps you need to rethink your plan of attack and evaluate your equipment and abilities again so that you can perform better. Practice is also important so that you spend less time needing to think about what your character should do and instead having them carry out the act.

 

A counter to your example as far as a comical event goes. "Wow. It only took me five minutes to kill every red templar in the village and yet somehow the castle has already fallen. What were those idiots doing inside? Perhaps they just left the doors open and put down their weapons."

 

As far as your logic goes. It's far more typical for the more difficult battles to be required to bring about the best ending in games that have more then one if they do influence the ending. Persona 4, Shadow Hearts from the new world, Growlanser heritage of war, Chrono Cross all required fairly difficult battles to achieve the best ending. The only game I can think of that granted a bitter ending for taking on the greater challenge was final fantasy 13-2.

 

Of course final fantasy 13-2 is the only one of these games with a difficulty slider. From my perspective at least the difficulty slider has caused combat to no longer be an effective narrative challenge resulting in its effect on it being reduced.

[Chron0id]

No increasing the difficulty wouldn't make the story inherently worse. Your example is a rather poor one. A better response would be to realize that your combat effectiveness is too low. Perhaps you need to rethink your plan of attack and evaluate your equipment and abilities again so that you can perform better. Practice is also important so that you spend less time needing to think about what your character should do and instead having them carry out the act.

 

A counter to your example as far as a comical event goes. "Wow. It only took me five minutes to kill every red templar in the village and yet somehow the castle has already fallen. What were those idiots doing inside? Perhaps they just left the doors open and put down their weapons."

 

As far as your logic goes. It's far more typical for the more difficult battles to be required to bring about the best ending in games that have more then one if they do influence the ending. Persona 4, Shadow Hearts from the new world, Growlanser heritage of war, Chrono Cross all required fairly difficult battles to achieve the best ending. The only game I can think of that granted a bitter ending for taking on the greater challenge was final fantasy 13-2.

 

Of course final fantasy 13-2 is the only one of these games with a difficulty slider. From my perspective at least the difficulty slider has caused combat to no longer be an effective narrative challenge resulting in its effect on it being reduced.

Shadow Hearts from the New World required a difficult battle for the best ending?  Damnit.  That makes me sad.  I have yet to beat that game. It's been in my backlog for the past 10 or so years.

[Dabrikishaw]

Max Payne 2 did something similar. Beating the game on it's hardest difficulty gave you a happier ending.

[Inprea]

Shadow Hearts from the New World required a difficult battle for the best ending?  Damnit.  That makes me sad.  I have yet to beat that game. It's been in my backlog for the past 10 or so years.

 

Yeah but that's not the only requirement. You need to fully advance all of Shania's transformations which naturally means acquiring them all. That's where the difficult part comes in. As you may recall the spirits don't just give her their forms. The final one isn't actually required to complete the story and unlike the previous battles you don't have your entire party to help you.

[Feybrad]

I do not want to have the Difficulty I play on change the Story.

 

That's because I am usually a bad Player, but a Sucker for the Story. I do not want to have Restrictions because I am bad in the Gameplay. End of Discussion.

 

 

And because many people think like me, it won't happen. It's just not fair. Not everyone wants to invest so much Time into the Gameplay Mechanics and "how to become good at the Game". I want to experience the Story and I want to be able to have it end with every possible Outcome. Even if I play on easy, on which I fare well.

What would "higher Difficulty enables better Ending for Story" accomplish besides belittling me? Making me feel bad?

[CronoDragoon]

That's why if you're going to go the "earn it" type route the Suicide Mission style is probably best; being a better player is not required, you just have to complete more content that you were probably going to do anyway.

[Inprea]

I do not want to have the Difficulty I play on change the Story.

 

That's because I am usually a bad Player, but a Sucker for the Story. I do not want to have Restrictions because I am bad in the Gameplay. End of Discussion.

 

 

And because many people think like me, it won't happen. It's just not fair. Not everyone wants to invest so much Time into the Gameplay Mechanics and "how to become good at the Game". I want to experience the Story and I want to be able to have it end with every possible Outcome. Even if I play on easy, on which I fare well.

What would "higher Difficulty enables better Ending for Story" accomplish besides belittling me? Making me feel bad?

 

I see it as a reward for defeating the higher difficulty settings and over coming the greater challenge. Much like when I'm playing Diablo 3 on Torment+. The higher legendary drop rate and the torment only gear is a reward for beating the enemies on the higher difficult not a punishment for those who choose to play the game on normal. Now in case you're about to say that's gear not storyline that simply means you don't value the equipment as much as going through the different endings.

 

As for the claim that it isn't fair. What's unfair about seeking a greater reward for overcoming a greater challenge? Is it not fair that someone who doesn't like exploring doesn't find the ancient cave with the sword of beheading in it? To me effort, dedication and ability should be rewarded.

[Dean_the_Young]

That's why if you're going to go the "earn it" type route the Suicide Mission style is probably best; being a better player is not required, you just have to complete more content that you were probably going to do anyway.

 

The Suicide Mission (and the ME3 war assets) are as much completionist checks as anything else. Success broadly depends on you maxing out the intended content, with wiggle room.

 

I'm of mixed views of it, but broadly feel it's a good way to earn 'extra' rewards. I don't think it fits or negates the need for Hard Decisions- often people want an out for a decision that stands much better without the exit option for content- but it can be useful.

 

I see it as a reward for defeating the higher difficulty settings and over coming the greater challenge. Much like when I'm playing Diablo 3 on Torment+. The higher legendary drop rate and the torment only gear is a reward for beating the enemies on the higher difficult not a punishment for those who choose to play the game on normal. Now in case you're about to say that's gear not storyline that simply means you don't value the equipment as much as going through the different endings.

 

As for the claim that it isn't fair. What's unfair about seeking a greater reward for overcoming a greater challenge? Is it not fair that someone who doesn't like exploring doesn't find the ancient cave with the sword of beheading in it? To me effort, dedication and ability should be rewarded.

 

I agree that loot and gameplay advantages are a reasonable reward for difficulty levels, but I'd personally be very skeptical about tying story into it. Tying gameplay into story is a potentially great but tricky thing to do, but I generally prefer not to lock out story content to people who are bad players (contrasted with people who make 'bad' choices).

 

To take an example, I once knew someone who was playing Mass Effect who injured his hand. While it was in the cast, he could only play it one-handed: he was able to get by on the lowest of low difficulty, but anything higher would have been impossible for him. Him missing the Geth Plasma Rifle in ME2? Sure, okay- it's nice to have, but hardly a story factor. Had he not been able to, say, complete a hypothetical Zaeed's loyalty mission in which you could both free the miners and catch Santiago if you were quick enough, just because he was unable to fight through quickly enough? Not so okay.

[Felya87]

I see it as a reward for defeating the higher difficulty settings and over coming the greater challenge. Much like when I'm playing Diablo 3 on Torment+. The higher legendary drop rate and the torment only gear is a reward for beating the enemies on the higher difficult not a punishment for those who choose to play the game on normal. Now in case you're about to say that's gear not storyline that simply means you don't value the equipment as much as going through the different endings.

 

As for the claim that it isn't fair. What's unfair about seeking a greater reward for overcoming a greater challenge? Is it not fair that someone who doesn't like exploring doesn't find the ancient cave with the sword of beheading in it? To me effort, dedication and ability should be rewarded.

 

usually one of the achievemants are about beating the game at hight difficult.  is already a reward.

 

I'm against having to be a "pro" to have some contenct, expecially story contenct. Is a thing that I can't stand. I play many games, but I'm not very good at most of them. Since I haven't much time to spend trayning myself in only one of them. I simply can't. I have work, friends, boyfriend and others activities I have to do. I can't spend hours tryng to defeat a single boss because I lost every time. Is one of the motives I didn't finished many games in the past.

 

When I have two hours to play I'm in paradise. So I have to play all I can in those hours. I can't use all of them being defeated in a single battle because i'm not good enought. is one of the motives I will never play a Dark Souls.

 

and I play videogames to have fun. if a game is too difficult for me, or I know I'm not good enought to have a certain outcome, I will feel defeated, and angry, and the only thing it would happen is that the game will be left in a corner to dust.

[Artemis Leonhart]

The Suicide Mission (and the ME3 war assets) are as much completionist checks as anything else. Success broadly depends on you maxing out the intended content, with wiggle room.

 

I'm of mixed views of it, but broadly feel it's a good way to earn 'extra' rewards. I don't think it fits or negates the need for Hard Decisions- often people want an out for a decision that stands much better without the exit option for content- but it can be useful.

 

 

I agree that loot and gameplay advantages are a reasonable reward for difficulty levels, but I'd personally be very skeptical about tying story into it. Tying gameplay into story is a potentially great but tricky thing to do, but I generally prefer not to lock out story content to people who are bad players (contrasted with people who make 'bad' choices).

 

To take an example, I once knew someone who was playing Mass Effect who injured his hand. While it was in the cast, he could only play it one-handed: he was able to get by on the lowest of low difficulty, but anything higher would have been impossible for him. Him missing the Geth Plasma Rifle in ME2? Sure, okay- it's nice to have, but hardly a story factor. Had he not been able to, say, complete a hypothetical Zaeed's loyalty mission in which you could both free the miners and catch Santiago if you were quick enough, just because he was unable to fight through quickly enough? Not so okay.

This. There are people with various disabilities who also play games, it would be extremely unfair if they were forever denied an happy ending or a good quest outcome just because they can't play the game at the highest difficulty level.

[frylock23]

If the game hooks me in enough that I keep playing it over and over, I might eventually get to the point where I can play it at the higher difficulties, but if the best endings are impossible from the start because I can't start out playing at higher difficulties ... I will likely never play it enough to get that good. I am a fully functioning adult and parent and I do have a life that has to be maintained after all.

[Feybrad]

I see it as a reward for defeating the higher difficulty settings and over coming the greater challenge. Much like when I'm playing Diablo 3 on Torment+. The higher legendary drop rate and the torment only gear is a reward for beating the enemies on the higher difficult not a punishment for those who choose to play the game on normal. Now in case you're about to say that's gear not storyline that simply means you don't value the equipment as much as going through the different endings.

 

As for the claim that it isn't fair. What's unfair about seeking a greater reward for overcoming a greater challenge? Is it not fair that someone who doesn't like exploring doesn't find the ancient cave with the sword of beheading in it? To me effort, dedication and ability should be rewarded.

 

I am totally pulling the "It's Gear, not Story" on this one, sorry. Gear is a Gameplay Reward, it is totally okay if I have to unlock it by Gameplay. Story however, should not be unlocked by Gameplay. It might be tricky to unlock a better Ending by a System of Choices inside the Storyline, but these should never be tied into Gameplay. Thus, I totally agree with what Dean the Young said.

 

Effort, Dedication and Ability should be rewarded, yes. But always in the same Field, if the Reward should have actual Effect on Gameplay or Story.

 

I, for one, think that it would be best to keep these Rewards on a purely cosmetic Level. New Armor Skins, new Dyes, new Achievements. Not Things that have any Effect in the Game. So you have the bragging Rights and can prove you have achieved that, but you do not have another Advantage.

[Inprea]

I am totally pulling the "It's Gear, not Story" on this one, sorry. Gear is a Gameplay Reward, it is totally okay if I have to unlock it by Gameplay. Story however, should not be unlocked by Gameplay. It might be tricky to unlock a better Ending by a System of Choices inside the Storyline, but these should never be tied into Gameplay. Thus, I totally agree with what Dean the Young said.

 

Effort, Dedication and Ability should be rewarded, yes. But always in the same Field, if the Reward should have actual Effect on Gameplay or Story.

 

I, for one, think that it would be best to keep these Rewards on a purely cosmetic Level. New Armor Skins, new Dyes, new Achievements. Not Things that have any Effect in the Game. So you have the bragging Rights and can prove you have achieved that, but you do not have another Advantage.

 

I don't agree with your view but I understand you want to enjoy the story. My desire for computer rpg's on the other hand is to see them become more like table top role playing games in which there is no segregation between combat and the storyline. If your character can dodge bullets during combat, with celerity activated, they can dodge bullets during storyline events and no being beaten by someone that you just put on the ground in less then a minute. I believe the abilities of the player character and enemies need to match up with what they can do in lore.

 

As for those with a handicap as mentioned by Dean. I view that as more of an issue with the interface system rather then the difficulty level. I remember playing some of the older games with an injured hand, in my case I managed to get myself burned, but the games were turned based so it was a problem. Well that comes with being more of a fan of the table top experience though. I've never had my game master throw a ball at me to see if I can dodge it. Unless we're talking a larp.

[Felya87]

I don't agree with your view but I understand you want to enjoy the story. My desire for computer rpg's on the other hand is to see them become more like table top role playing games in which there is no segregation between combat and the storyline. If your character can dodge bullets during combat, with celerity activated, they can dodge bullets during storyline events and no being beaten by someone that you just put on the ground in less then a minute. I believe the abilities of the player character and enemies need to match up with what they can do in lore.

 

 

having intelligent events to make the storyline work with the gameplay would be the real solution.  if, for example, in the Thane VS Lang scene Shepard was seen stopped by some Cerberus soldiers, it would have made sense for her not helping Thane. Instead she just stand there.  just like Hawke do many times (Qunari imprisoned by Petrice's fanatics, the blood mage elf who used his wife's blood after Hawke had said she would protect her...yeah, right... )

 

I'm still against your approach. way too much elitist.

[Feybrad]

I don't agree with your view but I understand you want to enjoy the story. My desire for computer rpg's on the other hand is to see them become more like table top role playing games in which there is no segregation between combat and the storyline. If your character can dodge bullets during combat, with celerity activated, they can dodge bullets during storyline events and no being beaten by someone that you just put on the ground in less then a minute. I believe the abilities of the player character and enemies need to match up with what they can do in lore.

 

Of course, what you propose right there is admirable. Certainly, a total Connection of Gameplay and Story would be the ideal Way for every storyfocused game. However, unlike in Tabletop RPGs, we do not have a Gamemaster who can adjust the Campaign to what is happening on the Board at the Drop of a Hat. This would mean that the Game had to have a Myriad of branching Paths, leading to each Path being completely shallow, short and unenjoyable.

 

Think of it as a Bowl of Water. The Bowl contains a limited Amount of Water, just like every Game has limited Resources to include Story Possibilities. You could now either fill a deep Channel with a few Branches with the Water in the Bowl or you could pour it on the ground to create a large, but extremely shallow Puddle. It's the same with Story in Games. You could either limit the Player's and the Gameplay's Effect on the Story and get a deep Storyline out of it or you could allow every imaginable Factor to have an Effect on the Story like in Tabletop RPGs. But Tabletop RPGs have unending Resources for Story unlike Videogames, due to stemming from a human Brain that has Capacity to react to each individual Style. Videogames don't have that and thus the Storybranches get more shallow the more Ways Player Input can influence it.

 

Videogames can't emulate the Freedom of Player Influence in Tabletop RPGs to a Degree that preserves an interesting Story. And instead of half-assing Things, one should go the other Route and segregate Gameplay (where most of these Influences stem from) and Story, so they can offer the Player instead enough Interaction directly with the Stopry, to give him some Choice.

 

Better don't do Things than do them half-assed.

[Chron0id]

I don't agree with your view but I understand you want to enjoy the story. My desire for computer rpg's on the other hand is to see them become more like table top role playing games in which there is no segregation between combat and the storyline. If your character can dodge bullets during combat, with celerity activated, they can dodge bullets during storyline events and no being beaten by someone that you just put on the ground in less then a minute. I believe the abilities of the player character and enemies need to match up with what they can do in lore.

If this means less control in the hands of the writers and more in hands of the player, sign me up.  Although, I must admit, I REALLY hate that I have unlock all of Shania's transformations in order to get the best ending.  The game is difficult enough as it is.  So, I'm kind of on the fence about making the gameplay more intertwined with the story.  I have honestly never played game for the challenge.  Then again, I've never played games purely for the narrative either.  I've always stuck with NORMAL mode for every title.  The way the game was meant to be played. Too hard and it becomes a pain in my backside.  Too easy and what's the bloody point?

[Inprea]

Of course, what you propose right there is admirable. Certainly, a total Connection of Gameplay and Story would be the ideal Way for every storyfocused game. However, unlike in Tabletop RPGs, we do not have a Gamemaster who can adjust the Campaign to what is happening on the Board at the Drop of a Hat. This would mean that the Game had to have a Myriad of branching Paths, leading to each Path being completely shallow, short and unenjoyable.

 

Think of it as a Bowl of Water. The Bowl contains a limited Amount of Water, just like every Game has limited Resources to include Story Possibilities. You could now either fill a deep Channel with a few Branches with the Water in the Bowl or you could pour it on the ground to create a large, but extremely shallow Puddle. It's the same with Story in Games. You could either limit the Player's and the Gameplay's Effect on the Story and get a deep Storyline out of it or you could allow every imaginable Factor to have an Effect on the Story like in Tabletop RPGs. But Tabletop RPGs have unending Resources for Story unlike Videogames, due to stemming from a human Brain that has Capacity to react to each individual Style. Videogames don't have that and thus the Storybranches get more shallow the more Ways Player Input can influence it.

 

Videogames can't emulate the Freedom of Player Influence in Tabletop RPGs to a Degree that preserves an interesting Story. And instead of half-assing Things, one should go the other Route and segregate Gameplay (where most of these Influences stem from) and Story, so they can offer the Player instead enough Interaction directly with the Stopry, to give him some Choice.

 

Better don't do Things than do them half-assed.

 

I don't see things quite as dire as you do. For an example look at Dragon Age Origins when you go to save Anora. For me that fight was handled perfectly. If you lose the fight or surrender you're taken prisoner. If you kill all the soldiers you just don't go to the dungeon. I'd been fine if in Mass Effect 3 you could kill Kai Leng on Thesia and simply went to sanctuary to save the people or didn't go at all.

 

 

If this means less control in the hands of the writers and more in hands of the player, sign me up.  Although, I must admit, I REALLY hate that I have unlock all of Shania's transformations in order to get the best ending.  The game is difficult enough as it is.  So, I'm kind of on the fence about making the gameplay more intertwined with the story.  I have honestly never played game for the challenge.  Then again, I've never played games purely for the narrative either.  I've always stuck with NORMAL mode for every title.  The way the game was meant to be played. Too hard and it becomes a pain in my backside.  Too easy and what's the bloody point?

 

Well I can't help with the fence thing but have you tried gamefaqs? They have some good guides for the boss fights if that's what you're having trouble with. I recommend just getting into the habit of using your camera I believe to see enemies weak points before you really start fighting and exploit them. For me seeing my character grow more powerful is one of the major draws of the game and the only way I can really do that is if the character has enemies strong enough to test herself against.

 

Killing the hostile in three hits that used to require ten has always provided me with a thrill.