69 réponses à ce sujet

[Nohvarr]

 less offensive

We must've been on two different forms because I clearly recall the outcry on BSN, all the threads that were created when it was revealed that female gamers had more romance options than males....a fair number of commentors seemed offended to me.

 

not punishing players for their choices,

Man I have been here too long....I recall people insisting they not be punished for making 'choice x'. How playing 'the nice way' was being rewarded in Bioware games....and now Bioware's being call on not punishing players for making choices.

 

Honestly, fandom, make up your mind.

 

Mass Effect is pretty much dead to me. Dragon Age might be as well after this, but the DLC will be a deciding factor.

Well it's been a pleasure having you on the forums. I wish you well in whatever forums you decide to hangout in next.

[In Exile]

They're catering to a much different audience more and more with each game. Making it easier, shorter, less dark, less offensive, not punishing players for their choices, not making it hard to understand or remember, not including anything complex to figure out or be surprised by, etc...I guess it was the right choice for them.

 

The not punishing players is clearly a response to ME3's ending, that basically just straight up trolled players. We can certainly debate everything else, but this is one thing I will never agree is ever going to be good design. 

[TheRatPack55]

Just dance.

 

You don't want that, I have the dancing skill of Shepard.

 

But honestly, on the surface this evokes 'they made the game for casuuuuallssss' which makes me cringe - eff you all, I guess I'm one, I hated origins combat and liked da2 - but I also get what you're saying (I think..?)

 

The thing is, I don't want to make 'evil' decisions and be punished, which seems to be the way many games solve the 'decision effect' issue. I want to be able to achieve goals with 'evil' choices, possibly through sacrificing innocents and relationships with some characters, and to make 'good' ones sacrificing, idk, coin, gear? Something.

 

There is no choice, if there are two and one leads only to failure.

[Nefla]

We must've been on two different forms because I clearly recall the outcry on BSN, all the threads that were created when it was revealed that female gamers had more romance options than males....a fair number of commentors seemed offended to me.

 

Man I have been here too long....I recall people insisting they not be punished for making 'choice x'. How playing 'the nice way' was being rewarded in Bioware games....and now Bioware's being call on not punishing players for making choices.

 

Honestly, fandom, make up your mind.

Those things you listed were never complaints of mine. Shockingly there are different groups of people saying different things.

[Nefla]

The not punishing players is clearly a response to ME3's ending, that basically just straight up trolled players. We can certainly debate everything else, but this is one thing I will never agree is ever going to be good design. 

Another BioWare extreme why does it have to be all or nothing? I mean there's no reason to punish the player for every thing they did and give them no chance for a happy ending (for example) but it's just as bad to make everything sunshine and roses all the time with no setbacks and no consequence for any action.

 

You don't want that, I have the dancing skill of Shepard.

 

But honestly, on the surface this evokes 'they made the game for casuuuuallssss' which makes me cringe - eff you all, I guess I'm one, I hated origins combat and liked da2 - but I also get what you're saying (I think..?)

 

The thing is, I don't want to make 'evil' decisions and be punished, which seems to be the way many games solve the 'decision effect' issue. I want to be able to achieve goals with 'evil' choices, possibly through sacrificing innocents and relationships with some characters, and to make 'good' ones sacrificing, idk, coin, gear? Something.

 

There is no choice, if there are two and one leads only to failure.

It's just my frustration coming through (personally I don't like the style of combat in any DA game) I also think BW underestimates "casual" players. Just because someone isn't super invested in the game, or maybe doesn't have that much free time to play doesn't mean they're idiots or can't handle darker themes or complex subplots or intricate puzzles, etc...they're casual, not 4 years old. I really don't know who they're trying to make games for.

 

I don't mean that only one type of decision should be punished, I want my selfless decisions to sometimes take real sacrifice and/or make me miss out on rewards, I want something I did to blow up in my face later, etc...I don't want two exactly equivalent choices with the exact same outcome. Mages or templars? The breach is still closed, nothing else is affected. Celine or Gaspard (or both or whatever) Orlais is still stabilized and nothing else is affected. Keep or banish the wardens? Nothing is affected either way. I don't consider a wartable mission to be adequate differentiation or consequence for a choice.

[Lebanese Dude]

Another BioWare extreme why does it have to be all or nothing? I mean there's no reason to punish the player for every thing they did and give them no chance for a happy ending (for example) but it's just as bad to make everything sunshine and roses all the time with no setbacks and no consequence for any action.

 

Just gonna point out that we have yet to know the consequences of the game's choices.

 

Spoiler

Perhaps drinking from the well will backfire hardcore later (if it didn't already) in some confrontation with Solas.

Perhaps Hawke going to the North will eliminate a potential resolution in the Warden's situation.

So til then, I wouldn't make such broad assumptions.

[AlanC9]

The not punishing players is clearly a response to ME3's ending, that basically just straight up trolled players. We can certainly debate everything else, but this is one thing I will never agree is ever going to be good design.

Well, there's nothing conceptually wrong with giving the PC unpleasant choices. The problem is having 90+ hours of gameplay where the player can evade the hard choices lead to a scene where he can't.

OTOH, Star Trek 2: TWOK kinda did something like this, and it worked. Would that have worked in a game?

[mickey111]

have to say that I think I prefer the way the witcher series does choices... it's not about good vs evil, or even good vs good for them... usually it's evil vs evil which is actually probably the most realistic way to write stories for a world based on real world history. Real life just has so much evil in it. 

[KaiserShep]

Lol DA:I is the least choice driven BioWare game I have ever played. There is only one ending, no branching side quests, and the few main story choices you get to make...well you're lucky if you get to see any effect in game (not that the outcome is any different no matter what you choose).

ME2 says whaaat?

[In Exile]

Another BioWare extreme why does it have to be all or nothing? I mean there's no reason to punish the player for every thing they did and give them no chance for a happy ending (for example) but it's just as bad to make everything sunshine and roses all the time with no setbacks and no consequence for any action.

 

But punishment is naturally not enjoyable in a video game. We can talk about logical consequences, sure. There are situations where the purely happy ending seems a bit contrived. But at the same time, just having negative consequences for their sake (the favoured ME if you save the rachni they're all indoctrinated and kill your LI) is just spiteful. 

[In Exile]

Well, there's nothing conceptually wrong with giving the PC unpleasant choices. The problem is having 90+ hours of gameplay where the player can evade the hard choices lead to a scene where he can't.

OTOH, Star Trek 2: TWOK kinda did something like this, and it worked. Would that have worked in a game?

 

I think it only works if the theme of the game is that the PC is effectively always rigging the odds. The end of TWOK is all about how Kirk can't just rid the dice like he's always done - that sometimes things are terrible, and situations can't always be overcome. 

[Ashagar]

have to say that I think I prefer the way the witcher series does choices... it's not about good vs evil, or even good vs good for them... usually it's evil vs evil which is actually probably the most realistic way to write stories for a world based on real world history. Real life just has so much evil in it. 

 

Not really, real life wouldn't be that simple, you'd end up with light and dark and with a lot grey on both sides fighting each other. Real life is filled with really good and really evil people with many falling between the two extremes.
 

[mickey111]

Not really, real life wouldn't be that simple, you'd end up with light and dark and with a lot grey on both sides fighting each other. Real life is filled with really good and really evil people with many falling between the two extremes.
 

 

 

medieval life is a dog eat dog world filled with drought, famine, disease, poor hygiene, zero birth control and the random natural disasters of floods, fires and storms. These are the things that the majority of wars are fought over. Doesn't leave a lot of room for people to be nice and helpful and compassionate, and those who can afford to probably have a history of trampling on top of the ones unable to hold on to what land and resources they had or alternatively don't have that history but are fortunate enough to be included among the population of some might kingdom or something. I think the witcher series had some examples of this

[metatheurgist]

But punishment is naturally not enjoyable in a video game.

There's a slippery slope. I like a game that's hard and complex. Some people consider that punishment. "I play a game for enjoyment!" is like a death-rattle for gameplay.

[Farangbaa]

medieval life is a dog eat dog world filled with drought, famine, disease, poor hygene, zero birth control and the random natural disasters of floods, fires and storms. These are the things that the majority of wars are fought over. Doesn't leave a lot of room for people to be nice and helpful and compassionate, and those who can afford it probably have a history of trampling on top of the ones unable to hold on to what land and resources they had. I think the witcher series did a good job of showing us that harsh reality.

I am very interested in those many wars having being fought over poor hygiene.

[Nefla]

Just gonna point out that we have yet to know the consequences of the game's choices.

 

Spoiler

Perhaps drinking from the well will backfire hardcore later (if it didn't already) in some confrontation with Solas.

Perhaps Hawke going to the North will eliminate a potential resolution in the Warden's situation.

So til then, I wouldn't make such broad assumptions.

That would be a dick move. "You only get to see the results of anything you did if you buy the next game" I mean I'm not looking for them to wrap up every loose end but at least SOME of your in-game choices should have made an impact on the current game

[Nefla]

But punishment is naturally not enjoyable in a video game. We can talk about logical consequences, sure. There are situations where the purely happy ending seems a bit contrived. But at the same time, just having negative consequences for their sake (the favoured ME if you save the rachni they're all indoctrinated and kill your LI) is just spiteful. 

Call it whatever you like. Sometimes a choice should have a negative impact, sometimes you should have to try much harder to achieve something, sometimes things that seem like they'd come back and bite you in the ass should come back to bite you in the ass.

[CronoDragoon]

I doubt they'll punt many consequences to the next game. Gaider probably doesn't want the headache of dealing with 4 more years of fans asking about how X with be handled in future Y game, at least to the extent that the OGB was (fwiw, I thought it was handled beautifully).

[Ashagar]

medieval life is a dog eat dog world filled with drought, famine, disease, poor hygene, zero birth control and the random natural disasters of floods, fires and storms. These are the things that the majority of wars are fought over. Doesn't leave a lot of room for people to be nice and helpful and compassionate, and those who can afford it probably have a history of trampling on top of the ones unable to hold on to what land and resources they had. I think the witcher series did a good job of showing us that harsh reality. 

 

Medieval life was indeed harsh and brutal but a lot of what we believe is true is often misconceptions or things that were flat out made up in later periods so they could say see how much better and smarter we are than people back then but in reality things were much more complex. 

 

For instance one of the depictions often used is how everyone was filthy and never bathed however in reality people at least during the first part of the middle ages were frequent bathers perhaps to the point of being unhealthily so and roman bathing practices including communal bathing both continued and spread across Europe until the black death came along in the 14th century and put a stop to it.

 

Also unlike what you see in in books and movies medival lords did not have a right to sleep with brides, its was one of the things everyone would say about their enemies on what they would do if they took over the area.

[Al Foley]

Lol DA:I is the least choice driven BioWare game I have ever played. There is only one ending, no branching side quests, and the few main story choices you get to make...well you're lucky if you get to see any effect in game (not that the outcome is any different no matter what you choose).

Comments like this make me wonder if I am playing a differnt game then most people...

[Nefla]

Comments like this make me wonder if I am playing a differnt game then most people...

Different people just have different takes on things. A lot of people thought the war table missions were a really nice touch and added a lot to the story for example while I did not find them compelling.

[Al Foley]

Different people just have different takes on things. A lot of people thought the war table missions were a really nice touch and added a lot to the story for example while I did not find them compelling.

True, I get that, but when someone else's experience seems to completely contradict my own.  It just strikes me as...odd.  No offense this is just my confusion really.  

[Lebanese Dude]

That would be a dick move. "You only get to see the results of anything you did if you buy the next game" I mean I'm not looking for them to wrap up every loose end but at least SOME of your in-game choices should have made an impact on the current game

 

I had meant to imply possible continuity in future DAI DLC but in any case...Why not? Isn't that the point of playing the games in the same setting? These aren't disconnected games despite different protagonists. Isn't that what people technically expect from the imports in BioWare games? 

 

I recall the ME3 Geth-Quarian options being influenced by two seemingly trivial choices from previous games.

 

Spoiler

Also I find it odd that you say the choices have little impact on the game, considering this is the first game where there is significant divergence in the main plot and game setting depending on what side you choose in the Mage/Templar War. That's two entire mutually exclusive settings in the same game.... Then there is also some divergence in how you battle Corypheus with consequences we don't really know yet.

 

You seem to be discounting them.

[CronoDragoon]

I was surprised and pleased by how much of Thedas' world I could influence in Inquisition. Having 3 possible Divines that are anointed based on your choices in the game is nuts enough that I don't think future games can really even be held in Ferelden and Orlais anymore.

 

Also, having the Inquisition be known as either a peerless information network, center for diplomacy, or military might is a perfect example of meaningful reactivity.

[Lebanese Dude]

I was surprised and pleased by how much of Thedas' world I could influence in Inquisition. Having 3 possible Divines that are anointed based on your choices in the game is nuts enough that I don't think future games can really even be held in Ferelden and Orlais anymore.

 

Also, having the Inquisition be known as either a peerless information network, center for diplomacy, or military might is a perfect example of meaningful reactivity.

 

I am SERIOUSLY hoping for the next game to be set in Tevinter, with many of our protagonists potential options during major decisions being influenced by whatever happened in the South during the events of the Inquisition. They were just too big to ignore.