268 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

If I were doing the design work, that's kind of how I would have run the advisor missions--give the Inquisition more numerical stats and design the missions like an actual card game (playing this card depletes Resources but adds to Power), give your opponents "hands" they can play (and there should be opponents), map out a series of responses, and then give the player some scorched-earth reactions like "assassinate that dude" or "invade and destroy that location" that minorly deplete all your stats (and give you neg with all the allies of that opponent) but also completely remove an "opponent" from the game.  So in general terms what you'd want to do would be to pile up all your negative reaction onto one or two dudes and then eliminate them.  You could add a further level of interest by giving your "opponents" a "negative threshhold" where if they go over it, they go batshit and do something really detrimental like suicide-bombing a university or assassinating a bunch of your allies.  So you try to make them eat as much of the neg rep as you possibly can and then eliminate them BEFORE they go critical.

 

Really Machiavellian but ultimately it's all a numbers game so it's (relatively speaking) simple to program--you just have to do writeups for all the different critical state changes and perhaps a few extra cinematics for the Denoument.  That's why you'd design it as an actual "game", then you can create a game theory diagram to show all the possible resulting states so you know how many different writeups you need.  If you're smart, you actually merge as many of the similar states as possible which limits your final writeup number and thus also how many actually voiced lines and cinematic differences you need.

 

It'd be interesting to do game design that way, where you game theory out the different possibilities of your mechanical setup FIRST and then assign writing based on that.  It would probably feel a lot more complex and convoluted if you did it that way and it would probably be an easier design methodology than sitting there with a notebook going "what's something creative we could do with this character" and then try to figure out "what else should that affect?"

[Lady Luminous]

I still find it annoying in DA:O that the best/moral choice is to leave a possessed child (who is raising an army of skeletons to attack townsfolk) on his own to travel for days on end to get some mages to perform a ritual. Seriously, how does nothing go wrong in all that time? 

[PsychoBlonde]

I still find it annoying in DA:O that the best/moral choice is to leave a possessed child (who is raising an army of skeletons to attack townsfolk) on his own to travel for days on end to get some mages to perform a ritual. Seriously, how does nothing go wrong in all that time? 

 

Especially since when you suggest doing this, people are like "OMG SOMETHING COULD HAPPEN!"  Nope.

[Navasha]

I prefer just having plain consequences for your choices rather than writing quests specifically for 'gotcha' circumstances.    The Tenpenny tower example actually is a good example of a quest with interesting consequences.   If you poke around in the game a little bit there is more than enough information to be found that the ghouls aren't just poor smucks just looking for a home.    So in that, letting them in isn't the 'right' choice. 

 

A well written quest or choice should have realistic consequences based on the 'truth' of the situation.   How much the player gets informed about that 'truth' should also be concealed and is up to then to seek out that type of information before necessarily making that kind of decision.    That is how good quests are done, imo.  

 

So, yes and no on agreeing with the OP.    I want quests where if the player just quickly makes a rash choice for either good/bad without knowing all there is to know about the situation to occasionally backfire upon them.    However, if the player actually puts in the effort to discover the details about the situation, where they can make a more informed decision, then I would want it to rather play out as expected.

 

A game should allow the player enough information to make a rational choice.   That doesn't mean the game has to easily give up that information, but the player should at least be allowed to find it out for themselves.      

[Lady Luminous]

I would definitely see something like that, that the "good" thing would lead to bad consequences but only if it is a logical consequence like Bhelen/Harrowmont.

 

I wouldn't want to see some crazy "You saved Elora's Halla and now through a series of weird coincidences the whole Dalish clan is dead" In your face player!!! thing

 

I still want to see the fact that I didn't save the halla come about. I mean seriously, no consequences to having a werehalla wandering the camp? 

[Lady Luminous]

Especially since when you suggest doing this, people are like "OMG SOMETHING COULD HAPPEN!"  Nope.

 

Sure, just leave the demon kid wandering about, everything will be fine. He'll behave! 

[Medhia_Nox]

I don't think leaving Connor in the castle is the best moral choice at all... it is grossly irresponsible and the fact that nothing happens does not diminish that.  

 

You knew what he did before you broke into the castle.

 

I do believe it was a missed opportunity on Bioware's behalf. 

[Lady Luminous]

I don't think leaving Connor in the castle is the best moral choice at all... it is grossly irresponsible and the fact that nothing happens does not diminish that.  

 

You knew what he did before you broke into the castle.

 

I do believe it was a missed opportunity on Bioware's behalf. 

 

Exactly. So many fans have pointed this out, but now I'm considering sacrificing Isolde; I've never played that way before. It seems the most responsible action though. 

[Aimi]

Not really, because the Suicide Mission was more specific choices instead of aggregate--you could get different results depending on which specific people you sent to do different things, instead of based more around how *many* times you picked one side or another.

I was thinking about the loyalty mechanic more than fire-team leadership/tech specialist/biotic specialist.

[Fast Jimmy]

This one again? Yawn.

Leave the heavy-handed soapboxes to Obsidian, please.


Also: No good deed goes unpunished
No act of charity goes unresented!
No good deed goes unpunished, that's my new creed!
My road of good intentions led where such roads always lead
No good deed, goes unpunished!

Watch Dogs has made you cynical.

[Fast Jimmy]

I was thinking about the loyalty mechanic more than fire-team leadership/tech specialist/biotic specialist.

I still don't really think that is a good model. It rewards completionists, it doesn't present a choice. Unless you are Roleplaying someone who doesn't like talking to his companions, there is no real alternative - complete all the quests/dialogue/upgrades and get the best outcomes or don't. That's not really a series of aggregate choices, it's a matter of turning in all your homework.

ME3 could have been a great example of aggregate choices if Priority Earth had actually been a battle where your various forces and choices made throughout the entire series had played together in some meaningful way other than the same, generic scenes and levels. If choosing between the genophage cure or not, if that chocie had affected how things played out in a meaningful way, you would have seen far less outcry about those choices didn't matter.

[Medhia_Nox]

I have no idea why people worry about moral choice at all.

 

There is nothing evil you can do in these games that will stop you from winning.

 

There is nothing good in these games that makes winning easier. 

 

The "better" choice is simply opinion - players literally got what they've been asking for since forever. Yet - people still call saving Connor the "best" choice because they label it moral.

 

My Cousland Warden had no interest in trekking all the way to the Tower - which he hadn't been to yet - to talk to some mages, come back, and have to battle his way in all over again.  There is not an altruistic bone in my Main Warden - he's not motivated by saving little boys from their stupid mothers - but he also found the blood ritual to be risky cause he isn't going to trust something he doesn't understand (magic).  

 

Likewise - he also isn't motivated by mustache twirling evil either.  He's not excited about killing the boy - he's more annoyed than anything to find out some dumb Orlesian woman allowed this entire mess to slow him down.

 

For him - the better choice was to kill the boy and get this mess done with.  I don't worry about what "morality" would say - and I'm not sure why other people do.

[AzukiJin]

I have no idea why people worry about moral choice at all.

 

There is nothing evil you can do in these games that will stop you from winning.

 

There is nothing good in these games that makes winning easier. 

 

The "better" choice is simply opinion - players literally got what they've been asking for since forever. Yet - people still call saving Connor the "best" choice because they label it moral.

 

My Cousland Warden had no interest in trekking all the way to the Tower - which he hadn't been to yet - to talk to some mages, come back, and have to battle his way in all over again.  There is not an altruistic bone in my Main Warden - he's not motivated by saving little boys from their stupid mothers - but he also found the blood ritual to be risky cause he isn't going to trust something he doesn't understand (magic).  

 

Likewise - he also isn't motivated by mustache twirling evil either.  He's not excited about killing the boy - he's more annoyed than anything to find out some dumb Orlesian woman allowed this entire mess to slow him down.

 

For him - the better choice was to kill the boy and get this mess done with.  I don't worry about what "morality" would say - and I'm not sure why other people do.

The truely evil choice is to convince the mom to kill her own son. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I still want to see the fact that I didn't save the halla come about. I mean seriously, no consequences to having a werehalla wandering the camp? 

If you break the curse or kill the clan, why would there be any?

[Lady Luminous]

I have no idea why people worry about moral choice at all.

 

There is nothing evil you can do in these games that will stop you from winning.

 

There is nothing good in these games that makes winning easier. 

 

The "better" choice is simply opinion - players literally got what they've been asking for since forever. Yet - people still call saving Connor the "best" choice because they label it moral.

 

My Cousland Warden had no interest in trekking all the way to the Tower - which he hadn't been to yet - to talk to some mages, come back, and have to battle his way in all over again.  There is not an altruistic bone in my Main Warden - he's not motivated by saving little boys from their stupid mothers - but he also found the blood ritual to be risky cause he isn't going to trust something he doesn't understand (magic).  

 

Likewise - he also isn't motivated by mustache twirling evil either.  He's not excited about killing the boy - he's more annoyed than anything to find out some dumb Orlesian woman allowed this entire mess to slow him down.

 

For him - the better choice was to kill the boy and get this mess done with.  I don't worry about what "morality" would say - and I'm not sure why other people do.

 

A little something called roleplaying. And some people are really attached to kidlets, so can't stand the thought of killing Connor. 

 

But really, it's just the fact that their characters have different motivations than yours and don't mind trekking to the tower. 

[Lady Luminous]

If you break the curse or kill the clan, why would there be any?

 

...Right, I'm dumb. Retract my question. 

[Medhia_Nox]

@Azukijin:  I didn't even know that was possible... and I could still argue that you're solving the problem and making the woman take responsibility.  I don't think it's inherently evil at all.

 

As a note - I am a very black and white person in real life.  

 

But in game - I can think anything. 

 

And I think the only "evil" choice - is to have a mage make a deal with the demon for the Blood Magic spec.

 

@CaptivatingKS:  I think you misunderstand.  

 

I'm talking about us sitting here talking about it right now.  That's when I'm confused why people worry about the "evil" choice.

 

If you're playing a compassionate person who would be swayed by a kid and would do anything for him... then maybe you take that chance. 

 

For me - I'd argue you do the blood ritual if you really care about Connor.  

 

My point - is that ALL choices are actually neutral in the context of the boards - and only take shape in game with what character you're playing.

[Aimi]

I still don't really think that is a good model. It rewards completionists, it doesn't present a choice. Unless you are Roleplaying someone who doesn't like talking to his companions, there is no real alternative - complete all the quests/dialogue/upgrades and get the best outcomes or don't. That's not really a series of aggregate choices, it's a matter of turning in all your homework.

Loyalty isn't based purely on completionism, it can also be based on in-game choices for four squadmates (Tali, Zaeed, Samara, and Thane). There's also the relevant point that completionism is not just a gameplay choice but also a roleplaying choice, not just in terms of talking to one's companions but in terms of deciding whether or not to handle a given quest after being informed of it. Choosing to assist Kasumi in grand theft, for instance, is a roleplaying decision, as is choosing not to assist her. Perhaps Shepard is a stickler for the law, and draws a line at this sort of thing.

It's obviously not a perfect analogy, which is why I said that it sounds "like" the Suicide Mission rather than saying "dude this is the exact same thing". But then again, neither is the Landsmeet analogy that PsychoBlonde preferred, which is also based in significant part on "turning in all your homework". Do the quests for Alfstanna and Sighard and Ignacio or don't.

Frankly, I don't see the problem with the fact that some of these quests are optional. I understand your visceral reaction against being able to progress and achieve desired outcomes through combat gameplay rather than purely through dialogue gameplay, but it's hard for me to translate it into a meaningful alternative approach. Are you aiming for no optional quests at all - a patently ridiculous idea? Or do you simply want them all to have no impact on story questions, and simply revolve around the acquisition of gold, loot, and XP? If you want there to be some kind of mixture, with some optional quests having impacts on some story questions and some not having that impact, and with those story questions able to be solved without reference to the optional quests if certain choices are made...well, isn't that what we have already?

[veeia]

I prefer choices that aren't "good" or "bad" or even principled/pragmatic. Those binaries are a bit contraining, and just don't work. The absence of a morality system in Dragon Age is one of the things that makes it much more satisfying on a role playing level than Mass Effect, imo.

My favorite "moral dilemma" in the series was whether or not to spare Loghain, because it was very layered, there were many reasons to do it or not do it, and you get tangible consequences for all choices. More if you're playing an Alistair romance or if you want to be Queen/King, but definitely a lot of variables for any playthrough. You can struggle with it on your first PT, and then meta-gaming, there are also different reasons to consider it that don't end up in "this is good" or "this is bad" like Bhelen/Harrowmount....but like B/H, the more you know about the characters and the history and the world, the more depth the decision has.

Sparing Loghain
pragmatic view: renowned general, brilliant warrior, the grey wardens need more members, riordan knows more than you about this and he's telling you to spare him
principled view: he's yielded to you, his daughter is begging you to spare him, maybe he can be redeemed, the grey wardens don't judge based on background
personal view: tons of RP reasons why. maybe you relate to him, maybe you agree with him completely, maybe you headcanon that your PC is in love with him or his child or...whatever.
loss: alistair. potentially you drive him into drunken misery or death. you definitely get dumped if you're dating him. you lose your comrade at arms. if you're a more manipulative pc who wants to use alistair as a puppet king, you lose your hold over him
gain: you gain an experienced, new party member. if you don't want to do the DR or die, loghain is an option for defeating the archdemon, and it's pretty narratively satisfying to have him do the last blow. you get new content and perspective on loghain. favor with anora, if you're marrying her or crowning her in general.


Killing Loghain
pragmatic view: can he really be trusted? is sparing him worth upsetting your allies whose loyalty is not in doubt? if you're crowning alistair, does loghain's existence threaten that?
principled view: he sold elves into slavery, and poisoned eamon, left at ostagar, and committed all kinds of crimes that are punishable by death.
personal: you're pissed he tried to kill you. you're pissed he left at ostagar. you promised alistair he would die. he's a shem. etc
loss: you lose anora's favor, you lose loghain as a potential companion, you now have to do the DR or lose alistair if you don't want to die
gain: alistair stays in your party, you keep his favor/friendship/love

It's very complex, and also interacting with other decisions (Anora v Alistair vs Anora/Alistair & your romances & the way you play out the Landsmeet & if you harden Alistair etc). Of course, it's sort of an end-game decision, not all quests can be that complex. But it's a good model for me of what makes an interesting choice because you're given multiple motivations for picking either choice, not just one....and yet in any given play through, it may or may not actually be a difficult choice to make. And the "goodness" or "badness" of the outcome depends on your personal relationships with the other characters and what your wardens goals are.

[Lady Luminous]

I prefer choices that aren't "good" or "bad" or even principled/pragmatic. Those binaries are a bit contraining, and just don't work. The absence of a morality system in Dragon Age is one of the things that makes it much more satisfying on a role playing level than Mass Effect, imo.

My favorite "moral dilemma" in the series was whether or not to spare Loghain, because it was very layered, there were many reasons to do it or not do it, and you get tangible consequences for all choices. More if you're playing an Alistair romance or if you want to be Queen/King, but definitely a lot of variables for any playthrough. You can struggle with it on your first PT, and then meta-gaming, there are also different reasons to consider it that don't end up in "this is good" or "this is bad" like Bhelen/Harrowmount....but like B/H, the more you know about the characters and the history and the world, the more depth the decision has.

Sparing Loghain


Killing Loghain
 

 

My sociopathic Warden kept Loghain because he had convinced Anora to marry him, and figured it would be best to keep up appearances if he didn't have his father-in-law murdered. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Loyalty isn't based purely on completionism, it can also be based on in-game choices for four squadmates (Tali, Zaeed, Samara, and Thane). There's also the relevant point that completionism is not just a gameplay choice but also a roleplaying choice, not just in terms of talking to one's companions but in terms of deciding whether or not to handle a given quest after being informed of it. Choosing to assist Kasumi in grand theft, for instance, is a roleplaying decision, as is choosing not to assist her. Perhaps Shepard is a stickler for the law, and draws a line at this sort of thing.

It's obviously not a perfect analogy, which is why I said that it sounds "like" the Suicide Mission rather than saying "dude this is the exact same thing". But then again, neither is the Landsmeet analogy that PsychoBlonde preferred, which is also based in significant part on "turning in all your homework". Do the quests for Alfstanna and Sighard and Ignacio or don't.

Frankly, I don't see the problem with the fact that some of these quests are optional. I understand your visceral reaction against being able to progress and achieve desired outcomes through combat gameplay rather than purely through dialogue gameplay, but it's hard for me to translate it into a meaningful alternative approach. Are you aiming for no optional quests at all - a patently ridiculous idea? Or do you simply want them all to have no impact on story questions, and simply revolve around the acquisition of gold, loot, and XP? If you want there to be some kind of mixture, with some optional quests having impacts on some story questions and some not having that impact, and with those story questions able to be solved without reference to the optional quests if certain choices are made...well, isn't that what we have already?

Optional quests are fine. Completing objectives solely through combat/gameplay is fine. Rewarding players with things other than XP/gold/loot/etc. is fine.

Having optional quests determine the level of success off of larger goals is what I have a problem with. Or, at least, it isn't a moral choice and wouldn't really fall into the discussion at hand. It's not a moral choice, it's simply a narrative reward for completing everything in your Quest journal.

If the game was designed to have some cost or mechanic that made completing every single objective impossible or have a negative aspect to it, then I could see this making sense. A better explained and implemented version of ME2 where your crew would die if you did other quests after they were abducted is an example.

But otherwise, it is a narrative pat on the head for following age-old RPG adages of talking to everyone until their dialogue begins repeating after every main quest and completing every side quest or goal the game puts in front of you. Again - that's not a morality choice, just a completionist gauge.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

My sociopathic Warden kept Loghain because he had convinced Anora to marry him, and figured it would be best to keep up appearances if he didn't have his father-in-law murdered. 

I meant to have my King Cousland have Alistair duel Loghain, and then when Loghain's head comes off Cousland says "Whoops. Didn't occur to me that that would happen."*winks at Alistair* "Are we still engaged?" But then I hit the wrong button and my Cousland dueled Loghain, which meant that I needed to outright decide to execute Loghain. I was rather relieved that that didn't end the marriage contract.

[Lady Luminous]

I meant to have my King Cousland have Alistair duel Loghain, and then when Loghain's head comes off Cousland says "Whoops. Didn't occur to me that that would happen."*winks at Alistair* "Are we still engaged?" But then I hit the wrong button and my Cousland dueled Loghain, which meant that I needed to outright decide to execute Loghain. I was rather relieved that that didn't end the marriage contract.

 

Good thing you didn't lose your throne, that would have sucked!~

 

I banished Alistair to go be a drunk. The only playthrough where I ever kept Loghain actually. 

[veeia]

That's my canon--Alistair exiled. And I was romancing him. It was the worst. Heartbreaking. But also so narratively meaningful for my character and made the story one of my favorite stories I've ever played.

[Almostfaceman]

I still find it annoying in DA:O that the best/moral choice is to leave a possessed child (who is raising an army of skeletons to attack townsfolk) on his own to travel for days on end to get some mages to perform a ritual. Seriously, how does nothing go wrong in all that time? 

 

It's for those of us who've got a gambling problem, Bioware makes a list and sells it to casinos.