39 réponses à ce sujet

[sim-ran]

"Give me MORE choices" is a complaint I've seen come up time and again for the last 3 Bioware games, and I've expressed it myself more than once.

Sometimes people mean they want lots of choices, big and small, and other times they mean they want the ability to completely transform the world state.

Whilst both of these requests seem only natural, since old Bioware games gave us these things, I think it's time we re-evaluated what we can realistically expect. For the most part the past Bioware games were self-contained stories, so transforming the world state had no impact beyond a rewarding epilogue. Now all their games are rolling franchises.

So the question is what do you want, and how realistic is it? Do you want no more ME or DA? To go back to standalone games with hugely divergent endings? There's probably a few who want this but I'm going to guess that most people here don't. So based on what we know developers can and will realistically do (based on their demonstrated skills, budget and time constraints, etc) what should we really be expecting?

I think we should still be able to expect lots of decisions on the character level, so long as we acknowledge what that means for the future of that character. If the change we make is big then we shouldn't really be surprised or outraged if that character doesn't reappear in future games. If they do appear then it's probably unreasonable to expect anything more than a small cameo, and/or the character to not be quite as different as we expected based on our decisions.

For the world shattering decisions I say let's forget about them as achievable, unless they're done in a way that kind be ironed out by being out of scope of the next game or rendered moot by some larger event, like the fate of Orzammar.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be chuffed to bits if we really did get earth-shattering changes that followed through, but at this point that's clearly not a realistic expectation.

[caradoc2000]

Also, not being able to play an "evil" character, such as was the case in the recent games, rules out quite a few potential choices.

[Orian Tabris]

I thought it was realistic to expect to have a brothel, as was the tradition in the main Dragon Age games. If only they could have just given us one, with things to do in it, that aren't important enough to be mentioned in the Keep, and have no baring on anything beyond the brothel itself...

 

My immersion was seriously broken... Well, maybe seriously.

[ThreeF]

I think it's unreasonable to expect choices that are world-shaping in a very grand way, it would be problematic. It is not unreasonable however to  expect visible reactivity from the environment you are playing in, there is no need for vastly different endings for it to happen. It is possible to have in-game reactions and connect the games so that they feel as one world,  DAI more or less does the latter well, it's the former that is lacking.

[Wulfram]

I think Bioware set a rather high bar for themselves to live up to, as far as world shaping choices. All those bits of dialogue about how the Inquisitor is super important and the Inquisitor's choices would shape the world were put in by Bioware.

More broadly than just this game, I think the important thing is that the player's choices should be important to the story. The thing is, Bioware writes stories about the fates of nations and peoples and faiths, so the choices need to reflect that.

I would rather ditch imports and go back to stand-alone games. At least, so long as we're not keeping the same protagonist. Just pick an outcome from a previous game and run with it. The import system in DAI is just a complicated way of showing that your choices don't actually matter.

If we do have imports, I accept that characters with a lot of divergent outcomes are less likely to show up in a meaningful role. But that's a good argument against imports.

[sim-ran]

Bioware might be guilty of creating some of the expectations with their marketing, but for those of us that have played all the MEs and DAs we should have a pretty good idea of the kind of thing they will probably deliver by now.

The big impacts more often than not are awesome in the game they happen in and offer great replay, but it's best not to expect too much to come off them in the future.

[Cyonan]

To be honest I probably wouldn't have minded if they let Origins be a one-off and went on to making other standalone games with great choice/consequence and left the save importing to Mass Effect which had a single story arc tying all three games together.

 

I don't really feel like it's been all that worth it in Dragon Age because we get a new story every time, but the save importing still means that ultimately none of our choices can matter a whole lot.

 

Even with Mass Effect, I've seen people suggesting that the next one be set far enough in the future so that they render almost all choices irrelevant and give us a blank slate to play with.

[Phoe77]

I never expected the world to be radically different based on the choices that my previous characters made.  In a way, it would almost annoy me if society had radically transformed just because Hawke sided with the mages or because the Warden defiled the urn.  Culture doesn't change overnight.  Choices should definitely matter, but I don't think that the only way to make a choice important is to have it change everything.  

 

I think that that mindset allows me to enjoy the fact that choices carry over without being upset by the superficial consequences. The superficial changes to dialogue, the brief cameos from past characters, and the alterations to codex entries based on past choices are rewarding enough to me.  It's more important for the game you're playing to react to your choices now than to ones you've made in the past, in my opinion.  

 

That brings up the question of how to offer meaningful consequences in the moment while still preserving a widely applicable worldstate for future games.  There are ways to do this, but they're often thought of as cop outs.  For myself, I think that choices can still be important and influential even if they're reversed later.

 

I really hope that the next ME game isn't set far in the future.  

[AlanC9]

I think it's unreasonable to expect choices that are world-shaping in a very grand way, it would be problematic. It is not unreasonable however to  expect visible reactivity from the environment you are playing in, there is no need for vastly different endings for it to happen. It is possible to have in-game reactions and connect the games so that they feel as one world,  DAI more or less does the latter well, it's the former that is lacking.

Note that the threshold for visible reactivity seems to be very, very low. In DA:O all that your choices changed were some sprites running around in the final battle.

[ThreeF]

Note that the threshold for visible reactivity seems to be very, very low. In DA:O all that your choices changed were some sprites running around in the final battle.

Yes and it is a problem, there is no reason to not have it more visibly done and it can be done as soon as you drop the notion that most of the players choices should  affect the epilogue and the next game significantly and start planning in-game branches.  I'm not comparing the three games, they are all low on in-game reactivity. However I'm under the impression that some of such branches were planned for DAI but were scrapped for reasons, so it's not like BW is not aware of this.

[Korva]

Bioware might be guilty of creating some of the expectations with their marketing, but for those of us that have played all the MEs and DAs we should have a pretty good idea of the kind of thing they will probably deliver by now.

 

This is a good point. I went through the whole "This time, our game will have wide-reaching consequences for your choices!" excitement and inevitable huge disappointment with Origins. Remember how even something as simple as feeding, ignoring or killing the caged deserter/thief at Ostagar was hyped as a big deal before the release? Yeah ... So my expectations have definitely shrunk significantly.

 

As far as the impact of previous games is concerned, I was pretty much content. My canon for Origins is the ultimate sacrifice, which was mentioned a few times. Could a few more Fereldan NPCs (like Cullen or the people in Crestwood) have made references to the one who stopped the Blight? Sure. But it was okay. Didn't play DA2, so I couldn't care less about Hawke and her posse and had no quibbles with whatever their impact on the world was. I really think people shouldn't expect too much in that regard, because every new game is a new story, not a big nostalgic homage to previous games. That would get boring very quickly, especially if we're not even playing the same character anymore. The most important thing IMO is that previous protagonists don't have a singular "canon" forced on them, like they did with Revan in KotOR.
 

Player freedom in general is definitely a difficult topic. I'm very much in favor of restrictions based on the intended theme and my role within the story. Bioware games generally have a "heroic" theme, and playing flat-out evil just tends to wreck that and the sense of story and NPC cohesion, so I see no point in having these choices. Ruthlessness, yes. Petty crimes or outright sadism for teh lulz, no. Stick to the "theme" and give me options within those boundaries. Fewer choices but more consequences and depth to them beat more freedom that has no impact even when it should.

[Avejajed]

Excessive choice would severely limit content in future games.  They have difficulty dealing with the amount of world states we already have. 

[ComedicSociopathy]

I've never believed in the "your choices matter" tagline of the Bioware or Telltale games. Ultimately, their stories have to stay grounded to some kind of linear narrative that has to take your players where the stories needs them to be. It doesn't matter how much of an evil jerk you are in Origins you're always going to end up in the Landsmeet and defeat Loghain even if you utterly failed to garner any political support. And in the end you cannot fail to kill the Archdemon. No matter what you do Dragon Age 2 Anders is always going to destroy the Chantry regardless of you romancing him or not. Lee will always end up in Savannah and will always die, your individual actions be damned. And in Inquisition it doesn't matter whether you recruit the Mages or the Templars, the Breach will always be sealed and in the end you will always defeat Corypheus. 

 

Your choices are ultimately superficial for the most part and will not result in radically different narratives or conclusions. But I knew that beforehand and I'm completely aware that having radically different stories in such games is a challenge that I don't expect to see for quite some time. So, whatever, as long as the main narratives is good I can accept that choice has little impact. 

[katokires]

I never asked for their setting.

I never asked for a huge world.

I never asked for a franchise.

I never asked for epic awesome thing.

I never asked for enjoyable combat.

 

I played their games because we had choices, couldn't care less about the consequences. I played their games because they had many races and classes. I played their games because how you built your character was everything, absolutely everything.

 

Realistically they will never make a good game again. HAPPILY we have a lot of great games to fill in now that Bioware is dead. Unless Legends of Storm Coast is cancelled my life is saved. Also Pillars of Eternity is probably going to help a lot.

[Phoe77]

It's worth pointing out that choices can have impact without actually impacting whether or not you succeed or fail in your final objective.  There is room for choices to matter within a game without determining whether or not the big bad is killed.  Part of the problem is that the consequences of your actions are rarely made apparent until the very ending of the game or in the epilogue.  

 

Bear with me, but the Fable games at least attempt to do something with choice and consequence throughout the game.  Areas are radically changed based on some decisions that can be made, and those changes occur while you can still feasibly be adventuring in the area.  That's the kind of thing that I would like to see in more games (though with more polish obviously).  

 

And this has nothing to do with the rest of my post, but I also agree that limiting the choices that are available to the protagonist based on the theme of the game can be a good idea.  

[Korva]

I've never believed in the "your choices matter" tagline of the Bioware or Telltale games. Ultimately, their stories have to stay grounded to some kind of linear narrative that has to take your players where the stories needs them to be. It doesn't matter how much of an evil jerk you are in Origins you're always going to end up in the Landsmeet and defeat Loghain even if you utterly failed to garner any political support.

 

Sometimes I think it would be really neat if games had more "fail states" if you really screw this sort of thing up. Insult half your potential allies and kill the other half? Game over because nobody listens to you and you're arrested, or your paltry forces are crushed by the enemy, or someone else gets the big leadership role. Less ego-stroking for the player, more expectations on actually making a real effort to fulfill our intended role. Reward smart play, punish for-teh-lulz stupidity.

 

But while that would be neat, it would also consume a lot of resources. So while I'd love to see this in my "ideal" game, for more realistic expectations I'd rather stick with more restrictions on player actions so they can focus on giving as much depth as possible to the "intended" story and my role in it.

 

Bear with me, but the Fable games at least attempt to do something with choice and consequence throughout the game.  Areas are radically changed based on some decisions that can be made, and those changes occur while you can still feasibly be adventuring in the area.  That's the kind of thing that I would like to see in more games (though with more polish obviously).  

 

Agreed. Hell, even though there aren't really any choices involved in what we do in Crestwood, simply seeing the zone change a little as a result of my efforts felt very rewarding. Sunshine instead of ominous gloom, villagers leaving their homes, my forces making themselves at home in the keep ... it's not much, but it's definitely a part of why Crestwood is my favourite zone because "not much" is still a lot better than "no impact at all" as with most other zones.

[AlanC9]

Sometimes I think it would be really neat if games had more "fail states" if you really screw this sort of thing up. Insult half your potential allies and kill the other half? Game over because nobody listens to you and you're arrested, or your paltry forces are crushed by the enemy, or someone else gets the big leadership role. Less ego-stroking for the player, more expectations on actually making a real effort to fulfill our intended role. Reward smart play, punish for-teh-lulz stupidity.

One problem with this in a long game is that a player could find himself in a losing position thanks to decisions he made many hours ago. This isn't all that uncommon in serious strategy games, but it's been a long time since an RPG dared to go that route. ME3 actually goes into this a little bit, since various decisions made in ME2 and ME3 can result in serious EMS penalties and/or locking out certain endgame options (all ME1 decisions are a wash except for recruiting Wrex). It's pretty weak in practice, since as long as you play a completionist game in ME3 you'll be able to avoid just about all of the bad states no matter what you do. Although that's just the ending choices; the earlier Tuchanka and Rannoch arcs have substantial consequences based on prior player actions that can't be handwaved away.

[Korva]

Yes, that is the drawback and what pretty much makes it a waste of resources, sadly. I do like the idea of choices that have consequences way down the line that aren't immediately obvious, but they should not come totally out of the blue if you play "smart". The general idea of the divine election or Leliana's change of character being influenced by past actions is great, but the execution is rather illogical/clumsy in parts.

[ThreeF]

One problem with this in a long game is that a player could find himself in a losing position thanks to decisions he made many hours ago. This isn't all that uncommon in serious strategy games, but it's been a long time since an RPG dared to go that route. ME3 actually goes into this a little bit, since various decisions made in ME2 and ME3 can result in serious EMS penalties and/or locking out certain endgame options (all ME1 decisions are a wash except for recruiting Wrex). It's pretty weak in practice, since as long as you play a completionist game in ME3 you'll be able to avoid just about all of the bad states no matter what you do. Although that's just the ending choices; the earlier Tuchanka and Rannoch arcs have substantial consequences based on prior player actions that can't be handwaved away.

It's not necessary to go good ending bad ending route, you can for instance have two choices that have their cons and pros in equal measure this way the player won't feel that they failed and are being punished, but rather than they traded something for something else.

[Hurbster]

Note that the threshold for visible reactivity seems to be very, very low. In DA:O all that your choices changed were some sprites running around in the final battle.

I had the same reaction to choosing the mages/templars in this game. It's literally a model swap, even the animations are identical. Which looks good for the templars, but I thought the whole point of choosing the mages was that they can punt more energy into the Rift as the Inquisitor tries to close it. The kneeling animation just looks a bit strange for the mages.

[Legion of 1337]

They should go play The Witcher 2 and take notes on divergent narrative threads and consequences of actions. Their excuse boils down to lack of time and/or laziness, not that 9t cant be done.

[fizzypop]

Standalone wouldn't bother me actually. I think the biggest problem for DA is that it has different heroes/different world states. So a lot of resources has to go into it to make it truly a game of choice and consequence. It is easier to create more choices and actions in games with one hero through specific storylines. Given all of that there is a lot I would compromise on if I could have a better storyline and more choice with consequences in the game. For instance I don't need a huge world like skyrim. A smaller world game with more rich quests, story, and atmosphere would have sufficed. I can also deal with smaller choices being represented over larger ones. IE smaller amount of endings, but how I get there being unique. I think the Mage vs Templar route was a good way to go, but they fell flat trying to implement it. This allows history to forget some of the smaller details and making the next installment easier to transition.

[LinksOcarina]

They should go play The Witcher 2 and take notes on divergent narrative threads and consequences of actions. Their excuse boils down to lack of time and/or laziness, not that 9t cant be done.

 

Except that it boils down to the same binary choices in the end for the Witcher 2. Who you choose to go with for Act 2 is more or less irrelevant in Act 3, since it all goes to the same place in the plot. 

 

Once again, what changes is not the plot, but the narrative consequences. So when you decide to go with Roache or the Iorveth, it changes the in-game narrative, but not the consequences of that narrative. When you go through the Enter the Dragon Quest, the narrative changes depending on the presence of Iroveth or Roache, but not necessarily the outcome.

 

These are just some examples that jump out at me, so honestly, Witcher 2 is just like all the other RPG's out there, like Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Baldurs Gate, Fallout, Wasteland 2, you name it, it's designed that way because the narrative needs to change, not the plot. 

[CronoDragoon]

They should go play The Witcher 2 and take notes on divergent narrative threads and consequences of actions. Their excuse boils down to lack of time and/or laziness, not that 9t cant be done.

 

The Witcher 2 converges again in Act 3 though, as Link noted. They also made irrelevant or outright ignored anything that happened in the Witcher 1, so in terms of a continuing series narrative The Witcher isn't even trying to do what Dragon Age did. Oh, forgive me, when they made Triss the canon romance for Witcher 2, they later patched a codex entry for Shani romance imports explaining why she and Geralt broke up. How well would that fly in the BioWare fanbase, I wonder.

 

If we want a genuine example, the best I can think of is Tactics Ogre LUCT. And it's pretty obvious why a game with no voice-acting and sprites might be able to pull off a true branching narrative whereas doing the same for a Dragon Age game would take ten years and 500 million bucks.

[SomberXIII]

I never asked for their setting.

I never asked for a huge world.

I never asked for a franchise.

I never asked for epic awesome thing.

I never asked for enjoyable combat.

The industry exists not just for you.