839 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

There are playthroughs where I kill Connor,again nobody forces you to pick the option where he lived without nobody dying.

 

 

That you have the ability to kill Connor on subsequent playthroughs is not in question.

 

That the player is guaranteed to feel any kind of emotional consequence to the deed is (I've done the above, it hasn't worked on me once).

 

That is my concern, as someone who enjoys thought experiments. "Is it better to kill one person or let five die?" "Would you sacrifice the person you love most to save a planet?" So on and so forth. 

 

If the game gives the player those options and on top of it says "Or would you rather press this magic button where everything turns out fine", the player is no longer engaging in any sort of value judgment. 

[cjones91]

the "problem" here is: why there shouldn't be something like DAO again? why can't we with ours decisions get our preferred ending? why must we be forced to have a dramatic ending like in ME3?

 

and I ask again: why tryng to have the better ending is wrong? why people are so scared about sad endings be seen as "minor"? why should people care, this is something I don't understand.

 

why should be bad playng to have the best outcome? is what many people play for. and taking away this is injust.

Dark and sad endings have been a fad for some time.In reality they are just as cliche and overused as the happy endings that some love to look down on.

[Felya87]

That you have the ability to kill Connor on subsequent playthroughs is not in question.

 

That the player is guaranteed to feel any kind of emotional consequence to the deed is (I've done the above, it hasn't worked on me once).

 

That is my concern, as someone who enjoys thought experiments. "Is it better to kill one person or let five die?" "Would you sacrifice the person you love most to save a planet?" So on and so forth. 

 

If the game gives the player those options and on top of it says "Or would you rather press this magic button where everything turns out fine", the player is no longer engaging in any sort of value judgment. 

 

the problem is when I decide to sacrifice a planet to save my loved one, and said person is killed regardless, or I sacrife her and the planed is destroyed no matter what. I will not be sad, I will just rage and destroy the CD, and never buy anything from the same SH.

 

and this happen in bot DA2 and ME3. result? those are the worse RPG from Bioware I have ever played.

[King Dragonlord]

I can also seduce Gheyna and then brag about it to Cammen. I gain nothing from that but a dark chuckle. That kind of choice is valid in a game but it doesn't establish that you're a conflicted hero. It establishes that you're a royal jerk.

 

And thats what the hypothetical Silverite Javelin would do to the other choices. Yes the choices would still be there and you could still take them. But what those choices now say about your character has completely changed. If the Silverite Javelin* is available and you don't go for it, that means you're playing a lazy, stupid, or sociopathic hero. 

[Iakus]

If there is a golden ending, any other ending becomes a failure state by default. Dragon Age is a story, but it's also a game and we naturally want to do as well as possible. The PC is rarely a masochist; they'll seek the best possible ending for them. There's no compelling reason to choose anything else except for curiosity. Or having played badly. But tragedy inspired by playing badly doesn't inspire the same feeling as tragedy woven into the plot.

 

But at the same time, unavoidable tragedy makes you wonder just how much your choices really mean.  Great care must be taken in how much to dole out.

[Il Divo]

the problem is when I decide to sacrifice a planet to save my loved one, and said person is killed regardless, or I sacrife her and the planed is destroyed no matter what. I will not be sad, I will just rage and destroy the CD, and never buy anything from the same SH.

 

 

That's fair. 

[Il Divo]

But at the same time, unavoidable tragedy makes you wonder just how much your choices really mean.  Great care must be taken in how much to dole out.

 

Personally, I've never found myself wondering that (obviously can't speak for others on that point).

 

But for me, the main issue is that even given Shepard's guaranteed demise, he still has a key role in shaping quite a few different futures for the galaxy. That's not even taking endings into account, but simply looking at the Rachni, Krogan Genophage, various companions, etc. That doesn't cease to be merely because of the protagonist's death. 

 

To be clear, I don't think for a second that every decision at every point in a game should be a tragedy. But neither do I think it's a game's responsibility to in every instance present the player with a clear solution to their problems (which Bioware has done a few times, to ill effect). 

[Nefla]

The perfect outcome third option is used too often by BioWare. I don't think it should be taken out completely but I think it should be used only in rare cases and you should have to work quite hard to get it which would either involve previous groundwork such as doing lengthy questlines for two opposing factions being the only way you can convince them to peacefully negotiate, or leaving to go kill a very difficult boss within a time limit (and if you exceed the time limit you get the worst possible outcome to that quest) to get an ingredient that will cure somebody rather than let them die or kill someone else to get it, etc...

 

I'm also sick of black and white choices with only two options such as free the poor captive elves being sold into slavery (which may include your own father) or sacrifice them all in a blood magic ritual to make yourself slightly stronger. I know people hate it when TW2 is brought up (and overall I greatly prefer BioWare games) but one thing TW2 does really well is giving you choices you can't predict the outcome of, choices that aren't obviously good or evil.

[Inprea]

For me the only emotion I've ever really felt due to a guaranteed melancholy ending is annoyance with the developer or even anger. The recent trend towards such endings in games have made me wary and is indeed the primary reason I haven't pre ordered Inquisition yet. I do wonder if that's fair to the dragon age team though after all I was quite happy with the resolution of Origins, Awakening and well I was okay with DA2's ending.

 

It may be bias but I think the only games that haven't triggered that response for me are Blizzard's and even they have some hope at the end of the game. Spoiler for those who might play Diablo 3. I have no real hope for saving Leah's life, that ship has sailed, but they do give you some hope for saving her soul in a future expansion.

 

Though I do wonder what people mean by happy at times.

[TheKomandorShepard]

The perfect outcome third option is used too often by BioWare. I don't think it should be taken out completely but I think it should be used only in rare cases and you should have to work quite hard to get it which would either involve previous groundwork such as doing lengthy questlines for two opposing factions being the only way you can convince them to peacefully negotiate, or leaving to go kill a very difficult boss within a time limit (and if you exceed the time limit you get the worst possible outcome to that quest) to get an ingredient that will cure somebody rather than let them die or kill someone else to get it, etc...

 

I'm also sick of black and white choices with only two options such as free the poor captive elves being sold into slavery (which may include your own father) or sacrifice them all in a blood magic ritual to make yourself slightly stronger. I know people hate it when TW2 is brought up (and overall I greatly prefer BioWare games) but one thing TW2 does really well is giving you choices you can't predict the outcome of, choices that aren't obviously good or evil.

 

It all depends how you see things as your example wasn't black and white for me simple i sacrificed elves for benefit that will push forward my goal or just to avoid hard and unnecessary fight that may be dangerous. If you see world in black and white game will be also black and white...

[Nefla]

It all depends how you see things as your example wasn't black and white for me simple i sacrificed elves for benefit that will push forward my goal or just to avoid hard and unnecessary fight that may be dangerous. If you see world in black and white game will be also black and white...

Your average person will see saving innocents vs murdering them for personal gain as a black and white choice...a non obvious choice would be like in TW2 where you can either save a group of elven women from a burning building or run after and kill the guy who put them there. Killing the guy ends up being better for the nonhumans in the long run but you don't know what's going to happen at the time.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Your average person will see saving innocents vs murdering them for personal gain as a black and white choice...a non obvious choice would be like in TW2 where you can either save a group of elven women from a burning building or run after and kill the guy who put them there. Killing the guy ends up being better for the nonhumans in the long run but you don't know what's going to happen at the time.

Well that is self-created problem if such peoples want grey morality but they see something in black or white (which is funny as loghain did the same thing and most argue that his action were grey).Pretty much from what i remember that choice was save few elves or kill guy that will massacre elves a classic choice with 5 peoples on the rails and with 1 on another rails will you pull lever and kill 1 person instead 5 or do nothing and save that 1 person life.Pretty much easy choice as most peoples kill 1 person instead 5 if you want you easily can pull black and white on that same as in any other case.  

[Nefla]

Well that is self-created problem if such peoples want grey morality but they see something in black or white (which is funny as loghain did the same thing and most argue that his action were grey).Pretty much from what i remember that choice was save few elves or kill guy that will massacre elves a classic choice with 5 peoples on the rails and with 1 on another rails will you pull lever and kill 1 person instead 5 or do nothing and save that 1 person life.Pretty much easy choice as most peoples kill 1 person instead 5 if you want you easily can pull black and white on that same as in any other case.  

So you think Dragon Age choices so far have been grey and subtle?

[TheKomandorShepard]

So you think Dragon Age choices so far have been grey and subtle?

Choices are as you see them some see destruction of ashes as evil when i don't see it as evil for me it is just action that help me avoid hard fight with dragon and cultists so argue it was black and white.

 

 

[Ryzaki]

Both types of endings are common, there's nothing new under the sun as they say. The important thing is that no matter the type of ending it has to fit the game and be well done. ME3's was not fitting and not well done.

 

This.

 

P3's one of my favorite games. The endings? Very bitter sweet. But they fit the game. You were pretty much beat with the sacrifice symbolism. "Memento mori." the first person you meet is the death arcana route, so on.

 

Trying to shove a happy ending where something should be sad gives you stupidity like Star Ocean's 3 ending where "well we though we're real so we are." nevermind they learn they weren't real in the last few hours or so of the game in a really goddamn stupid sequence. Then again that was hardly the only issue with the trainwreck that was SO3's second disk.

[King Dragonlord]

To  weigh in on this "too much/too little" business.

 

All I'm saying is that these are mechanisms and they they have to be considered carefully when placed in a game. If Bioware is trying to tell a certain type of story, they have to consider what kinds of outcomes they're going to allow from the choices they make available. 

 

Less perfect outcomes can lend weight to an unambiguously golden ending. Knowing that you can do what the game lets you do and that the game can conclude in a less favorable way does make the more favorable conclusion sweeter. It makes it feel more earned. But you have to realize that at that point you really designing your game around that outcome because that's what the players will go for. And that shapes what the less favorable outcomes say about the situation and the characters.

 

This is all valid and a perfectly fine way to design your scenario. It worked well for Mass Effect 2's suicide mission. 

 

On the other  hand, if you want to create a difficult dilemma, you must necessarily avoid a golden third option. All of your options should have costs and risks attached. Maybe some less than others, maybe some favoring certain types of player or certain political and ethical perspective but there should be no unambiguous best choice.

 

And dilemmas are interesting. They're a major hallmark of the Bioware brand. Bioware has hit upon something that is truly special about this medium. Its fun to debate a dilemma amongst friends or watch a hero make a difficult choice, but now we get to actually consider these dilemmas ourselves. Do you save your friend or a dozen faceless people who mean nothing to you personally? That might be an interesting thing to debate in the abstract but its downright gripping when you're playing a character who actually has to make that choice and live with the consequences. When you either get chewed out by the Admiral for failing your duty as a commander or you bury a comrade, that lends weight to the dilemma. That brings it into focus. Thats ruined the moment you use the rocket pack you spend 3 hours grinding to build to allow you to save both. 

 

That said, yes if the game lets you grind and make the rocket pack and then arbitrarily takes that pack away from you to enforce the dilemma, that is frustrating too. But it shouldn't stop the developers from trying to find a way to make a workable dilemma.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

So to those who don't want optimal outcomes, what you're saying is that in the example they gave us at PAX last year where you either choose to save the keep or choose to save the village but if played well enough you can save both, what you're saying is that you think the ability to save both should be taken away and instead you have to lose one or the other? 

[Zjarcal]

So to those who don't want optimal outcomes, what you're saying is that in the example they gave us at PAX last year where you either choose to save the keep or choose to save the village but if played well enough you can save both, what you're saying is that you think the ability to save both should be taken away and instead you have to lose one or the other? 

 

If the "save both" option is executed well enough (i.e. not another Connor situation), there's nothing wrong with it being there.

[Ryzaki]

If the "save both" option is executed well enough (i.e. not another Connor situation), there's nothing wrong with it being there.

 

Conner would've worked fine if they forced you to leave 4 people behind to watch him. But they didn't =/

[King Dragonlord]

So to those who don't want optimal outcomes, what you're saying is that in the example they gave us at PAX last year where you either choose to save the keep or choose to save the village but if played well enough you can save both, what you're saying is that you think the ability to save both should be taken away and instead you have to lose one or the other? 

 

I'll have to see how that situation fits into the story before I can weigh in. 

 

If they're trying to make me feel like I'm in a dilemma, then yes, this third option is a bad idea. Especially now that I know that the third option exists.

 

If they hide the third option well enough, then the dilemma can still have some limited impact but only if I buy the game and play it right away and avoid visiting the forums. I tend not to buy games right away though this is the last remaining exception to that rule (and there will be no more exceptions if this game doesn't win me over like DAO and ME2 did.) 

[Samahl]

So to those who don't want optimal outcomes, what you're saying is that in the example they gave us at PAX last year where you either choose to save the keep or choose to save the village but if played well enough you can save both, what you're saying is that you think the ability to save both should be taken away and instead you have to lose one or the other?

It's more that it shouldn't be ridiculously easy to save both. The compromise solution for both Redcliffe and the elves/werewolves in Origins were very easily attainable, even though they shouldn't have been in the context of the story.

[Zjarcal]

Conner would've worked fine if they forced you to leave 4 people behind to watch him. But they didn't =/

 

That's why I said, "executed properly".

 

Leaving companions behind is indeed the most logical thing to do (if you really intend to be reckless and go for that gamble anyway, I'd never do it), and you could've also been thrown into a big (and very challenging) fight with the demon once you got back (have it be similar to the defense of Redcliffe where NPCs can permanently die). If you chose to leave no companions, then when you get back Bann Teagan is possessed again and this time you have to kill him, or have that also happen if you hadn't already previously done the Circle quest and have to take that extra time.

 

Seriously, it could've worked fine in so many ways... *le sigh*

[cjones91]

I'll have to see how that situation fits into the story before I can weigh in. 

 

If they're trying to make me feel like I'm in a dilemma, then yes, this third option is a bad idea. Especially now that I know that the third option exists. 

So screw the people who wanted the third option right?I don't get this mindset,why would you want less options in a RPG that's about choice?

 

Don't pick the third option if it bothers you that much,but do not under any circumstances selfishly take that option away from people who want it.

[TheKomandorShepard]

So screw the people who wanted the third option right?I don't get this mindset,why would you want less options in a RPG that's about choice?

 

Don't pick the third option if it bothers you that much,but do not under any circumstances selfishly take that option away from people who want it.

I think by third option he meant way out from sadistic choice not less options.

[Ryzaki]

That's why I said, "executed properly".

 

Leaving companions behind is indeed the most logical thing to do (if you really intend to be reckless and go for that gamble anyway, I'd never do it), and you could've also been thrown into a big (and very challenging) fight with the demon once you got back (have it be similar to the defense of Redcliffe where NPCs can permanently die). If you chose to leave no companions, then when you get back Bann Teagan is possessed again and this time you have to kill him, or have that also happen if you hadn't already previously done the Circle quest and have to take that extra time.

 

Seriously, it could've worked fine in so many ways... *le sigh*

 

XD my bad.

 

That could've been fun. Would've been better if Isolde got possessed tho. Since Teagan might be needed for future games (Plus screw Isolde).