9 réponses à ce sujet

[levyjl1988]

After watching the Dragon Age Keep, it kept me thinking if this game will offer balanced consequences. 

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=3rNDZ0Ih3v0

 

I hope the game in terms of decisions is balanced.

ie) In Fallout 3 DLC if you choose to save the base you get to keep everyone alive and still enjoy the company of NPCs and take on missions. However if you decide to blow up the base, you kill everyone inside but within the rubble you find an exclusive powerful weapon that you couldn't get unless you blew up the base. 

So either decision you earn some things that are exclusive in the choice. It feels more balanced this way. If one was more weighted than the others it just incites most players to choose the best outcome that guarantees the most experience or items rather than losing out on items. Thus players feeling the sense of regret through their playthrough if they chose wrong from missing out on the ego centric character. 

With a long game like DA:I I can imagine a few playthroughs from players with time constraints. 
Usually players pick one outcome, play through the game, if curiosity incites then they youtube a playthrough or video to see the alternative rather than play through the whole 40-80 hour adventure to reach that point, unless it affects multiple fractures in the game decision and not solely based on binary set of 1 or 2 options. 

I'm hoping the consequences have merit in terms of emotional conveyance by the characters not just a simply a physical reward for doing good like given a good item for being good but discourages getting nothing for selecting a bad choice. That will deter one choice from being selected and quite often missed out.

 

The affects of choices should infringe and start to take hold and affect other scenarios in games, often giving constant reminder to the impact of the world. 

 

ie) If Conner is possessed in DA: Origins and in DA:I we should see the affect of this drastically remind the player in DA:I and not just a one time quest that is shook off.

 

The other concern of DA: I I have is that since it's more open world I might be distracted more often infringing in the whole Skyrim notion. Unsure of where to go they are bombarded in all directions and get sidetracked easily rather than have a structured narrative follow through. For this game to succeed, I don't want to go through a major emotional quest line only to be distracted by a minor quest line and then all of a sudden the minor takes precedent over something more weighty because I feel compelled to 100% or satisfy my OCD of collecting all the herbs thus ruining my experience. 

 

DA2 distracted me from enjoying the game personally. I focused myself too much in reading and following through a guide rather than playing because I was scared I would reach a point of no return in my game and miss out on collecting all the herbs necessary to get the achievement of collecting x items as I couldn't get them as the game prevented me from revisiting locations. 

 

I want to be able to enjoy the game the first time without strategy guide focused. I don't want to be taken out of the game or experience because I missed out on something. I don't want to feel player regret down the road. 

 

In Dark Souls, areas are revisable and coming back to those areas are quite often enough especially when doing PvE and PvP. Missed out areas, locations, and items are brilliance in discovery as there is a witty I didn't think of doing that realization. I'm not trying to compare games but I believe in terms of game design, convenience for the player is necessary to avoid player frustration at the broken game design and decisions made by the developers.

 

[AlexiaRevan]

I want choices and consequences . I want my choice be it good , neutral or evil MATTER . I would like choices that are choices , not reward choices . I don't care for monetery gains , only morale stance kinda of choices . 

[Puppy Love]

I want choices and consequences . I want my choice be it good , neutral or evil MATTER . I would like choices that are choices , not reward choices . I don't care for monetery gains , only morale stance kinda of choices . 

Yeah I want consequences as well, with choices that matter.  I also want fairness in choices. 

 

I want taking the high road to sometimes backfire really badly.  I want the low road to sometimes be the best option. 

 

What I don't want is, playing the paladin gets the best of everything 90% of the time.  If I play the pure good person, I want to suffer for it just as much as if I play a total bastard.

 

I also want to be rewarded fairly too.

 

Speaking of which the middle response should have it's own unique rewards and punishments. 

 

I want to actually think about my response and have it matter.

[AlexiaRevan]

I know what you mean , in NWN (Mask of the Betrayer) It did feel like that . I played a goodie goodie and in the end , it felt like I was being punished for my alignement . 

[dutch_gamer]

If anyone gets distracted along the way I don't see why a developers needs to solve the issue of someone getting distracted. For me the game would fail as a game if the developers have little to no side quests just to appease the ones who are fearful they may miss something in their quest to finish 100 % of the game.

In Skyrim it was easily to get distracted not because it is an open world game but mainly because, in my opinion, Bethesda is not that good in writing a compelling main story line, nor are they good with side quests for that matter. The main saving grace of Skyrim and TES in general is probably the ability to mod pretty much everything.

I also don't really recall there being some kind of imbalance in choosing any particular decision in the DA series. It could easily just be me for not being able to recall something but I don't believe BioWare ever handed out anything for making a certain decision and not another.

I also don't believe Conner still being possessed should play a role in numerous quests or quest lines. If we happen to have to kill a possessed Conner why should he stick around after this? Or who says he is still there in Redcliffe Castle after agents from Tevinter take it over? It has been 10 years a possessed Conner could have been killed in the interim or moved somewhere else. Sure, it would be nice if a possessed Conner is included in DAI but I don't believe he should thus stick around for more than a one time quest.

If every important decision we made in previous games should be more than just one quest too much of the content will be only available in another playthrough. I liken this to what CDPR did with the Witcher 2. Act 2 being completely different depending on the choice you made lead to the game being way too short to my taste. I felt the original Witcher was better storywise. The more time and money is spend on each decision the less content we will get in one playthrough.

[Steelcan]

I'd like to see equal outcomes on choices, less ME and more TW2

[PhroXenGold]

I have to admit, I would like a lot more situations where the "good" choice is absolutely the wrong one. All to often in games, if I'm playing a "at all costs" type character (not an "evil" one who's out to serve himself, which frankly makes no sense in Bioware type games, but one who's prepared to sacrifice others in order to "save the world" or whatever), and I'm make sacrifices, I'll refuse to help others when it means risking my resources (including my people), I'd do things that seem abhoerent if it gives me the power to protect what matters. And yet, in the end, I'm usually no better off than if I play Mr. Goody-Goody-Two-Shoes who went around helping everyone instead of focusing on doing what is neccesary to stop the greater threat. If anything, I'm worse off, I'll find it harder to fight the big bad.

[UniformGreyColor]

If anyone gets distracted along the way I don't see why a developers needs to solve the issue of someone getting distracted. For me the game would fail as a game if the developers have little to no side quests just to appease the ones who are fearful they may miss something in their quest to finish 100 % of the game.

In Skyrim it was easily to get distracted not because it is an open world game but mainly because, in my opinion, Bethesda is not that good in writing a compelling main story line, nor are they good with side quests for that matter. The main saving grace of Skyrim and TES in general is probably the ability to mod pretty much everything.

 

I liked it in DA:O to be able to complete everything and everything having a purpose. I did not like that I could make more money being a rogue than anything else and only being able to beat the game on nightmare with only a mage. I like Skyrim cuz I can make the game my own with mods but I think Skyrim has too many bugs. I think Bioware is doing a good thing by making a long storyline that has good replay value since I usually play a game until I'm bored of it.

[Medhia_Nox]

I'd like the good choice to be "mostly" be costly in terms of resources and personal gain.

 

And I'd like evil choices to "mostly" be easy and provide fast reward. 

 

"Why" you make a choice should be entirely based on who you want to play.  If I want to be a good person - I take the hard road.  If I want to be an evil one - I take the easier path.  

[Marshal Moriarty]

I just want them to avoid having choices that are so overwhelmingly more beneficial that basically everyone chooses them. There should not be a repeat of that silly bit in the (otherwise excellent) Arl of Redcliffe story, where instead of choosing to kill Connor or do the Blood Ritual on Isolde, you can somehow leave for a few days (which is utterly bizarre and irresponsible, seeing as how you;re placing the castle in the most outraegous danger by doing that), go get some mages and come back like there was nothing even remotely odd about that choice. And yet somehow its the best choice, and everyone lives happily ever after. It was ridiculous.

 

Bioware talk a good game on this issue of tough choices, but far too often they give you a third option that lets you win big and please everyone to mostly universal satisfaction (or at the very least, your loss will be something you can live with). There are very few actual tough choices, with no real 'right' answer. But that's the kind of thing we want! 

 

And please - don't make choices hinge on whether or not certain characters die. Because the fanbase *never* kill off characters, even if they don't like them at all (and especially not their own character). Because why would you, considering that you will cut off any chance of further content involving that character, and lose any influence they may have been able to exert on future events, in future games or DLC even? In practice, on their canon playthroughs, people always keep everyone alive, at least until they play the sequel(s) and know exactly what relevance each character has. As for losing your own character, nobody expects that decision to count for anything - because even if the developers say 'No, that's the ending, definately no DLC or sequels - make the choice to kill your character, if that's what feels appropriate etc etc' people still won't, because that developer could either be lying, be telling the truth but not actually be in charge of such a decision, or could leave the company and a new guy could overturn that decision etc etc.

 

So basically, don't give us choices that tie up the issues with 'Choose A and your characters live' and 'Choose B and some of your characters die' because that is the only thing that people will focus on. It won't matter about the ethics, or what will happen or how they are roleplaying - people don't want to lose characters and lose future content. Forcing decisions like this, just ties people's hands into choosing the 'characters live' option. The only time that might not apply is they genuinely believe it to be an end game, definately no new content after this situation (Mordin in ME3 for example, and some people *still* kept him alive).