Of course, the counterpoint to that would be to drop save import altogether, but Bioware is not going to do that after setting up the Keep, and having save import a staple of their game design since Mass Effect 1.
They already did drop the save import. The great thing about the Keep is that we can import a world state without having to achieve it through gameplay.
And that means that it doesn't even need to be possible to achieve it through gameplay. That's what we're calling for.
Good point. Let's dispense with incorporating saves altogether.
Save import is theoretically a nice thing, but to this point it's been a failure, and I'm willing to label it as such.
Ideally, your decisions have far-reaching consequences that effect later titles in the series. Realistically, you get limited to cameos and background mentions, and maybe a change or two. If you don't do (X), then you'll likely get roughly similar content instead - the OGB being the one exception. You choose one figure instead of the other. You do this thing instead of that. Instead of character X, you get character Y, who might act differently but gives you more or less the same options.
To properly incorporate such a mechanic, it takes either money, time, or drive - and one of them has obviously been lacking. Then someone's 'creative' decisions change and they decide to wipe entire chunks off the slate without a word as to why, because the plot "has" to be that way.
At this point, I'd be willing to sacrifice carry-over saves that might pay off in a game years from now (but looking historically, they haven't) in exchange for a "canon" start/ending to each game and more branching options within the individual titles.
Save import is theoretically a nice thing, but to this point it's been a failure, and I'm willing to label it as such.
Ideally, your decisions have far-reaching consequences that effect later titles in the series. Realistically, you get limited to cameos and background mentions, and maybe a change or two. If you don't do (X), then you'll likely get roughly similar content instead - the OGB being the one exception. You choose one figure instead of the other. You do this thing instead of that. Instead of character X, you get character Y, who might act differently but gives you more or less the same options.
To properly incorporate such a mechanic, it takes either money, time, or drive - and one of them has obviously been lacking. Then someone's 'creative' decisions change and they decide to wipe entire chunks off the slate without a word as to why, because the plot "has" to be that way.
At this point, I'd be willing to sacrifice carry-over saves that might pay off in a game years from now (but looking historically, they haven't) in exchange for a "canon" start/ending to each game and more branching options within the individual titles.
I see this argument over and over and it makes no sense. You think save imports are restricting the impact your choices can have, and your solution is to get rid of them entirely and set up a canon state at the start of each game, meaning that your choices now have zero impact.
But, you say, they will have greater impact within the game! Oh, well, good for you saving that guy's life, I hope you enjoy basking in his gratefulness for the whole two hours or so he will remain alive until the canon state decides that you didn't actually do that!
Save import is theoretically a nice thing, but to this point it's been a failure, and I'm willing to label it as such.
Ideally, your decisions have far-reaching consequences that effect later titles in the series. Realistically, you get limited to cameos and background mentions, and maybe a change or two. If you don't do (X), then you'll likely get roughly similar content instead - the OGB being the one exception. You choose one figure instead of the other. You do this thing instead of that. Instead of character X, you get character Y, who might act differently but gives you more or less the same options.
To properly incorporate such a mechanic, it takes either money, time, or drive - and one of them has obviously been lacking. Then someone's 'creative' decisions change and they decide to wipe entire chunks off the slate without a word as to why, because the plot "has" to be that way.
At this point, I'd be willing to sacrifice carry-over saves that might pay off in a game years from now (but looking historically, they haven't) in exchange for a "canon" start/ending to each game and more branching options within the individual titles.
It's not really an either/or choice. The only RPG I could name that has too many branching paths to ever incorporate a sequel was Fallout New Vegas. All others, save import or not, truly didn't have enough possible branching paths to prevent potential imports beyond perhaps boring Best Guy Ever/Most Evil Person Ever dichotomic choices. And even that didn't stop KOTOR 2 from existing.
It's not really an either/or choice. The only RPG I could name that has too many branching paths to ever incorporate a sequel was Fallout New Vegas. All others, save import or not, truly didn't have enough possible branching paths to prevent potential imports beyond perhaps boring Best Guy Ever/Most Evil Person Ever dichotomic choices. And even that didn't stop KOTOR 2 from existing.
Fallout in general had a LOT of branches. Maybe not for the main questline, but you could really screw over lots of stuff. Fo2 didn't even bother trying to incorporate all of the possibilities from Fo1.
And hell, Daggerfall. Bethesda actually had to go "All twelve endings are canon, it's magic."
I see this argument over and over and it makes no sense. You think save imports are restricting the impact your choices can have, and your solution is to get rid of them entirely and set up a canon state at the start of each game, meaning that your choices now have zero impact.
But, you say, they will have greater impact within the game! Oh, well, good for you saving that guy's life, I hope you enjoy basking in his gratefulness for the whole two hours or so he will remain alive until the canon state decides that you didn't actually do that!
They already have an impact? Let's just go ask anyone who killed Leliana, Morrigan, Wynne (or hell, any of the PCs that can turn on you) or over in Mass Effect, when an entire ME1 ending got the retcon hammer because Bioware figured it would be too hard to build from.
What I'm saying is that the impact the choices do have is negligible enough that it's almost not necessary to continue with it. How much mileage did anyone get out of choosing the King/Queen of Ferelden or the King of Orzammar, again? A pair of minor quests in DA2 and perhaps a brief appearance in DAI? Or over in ME, where all you got was Roughly Similar NPC filler even if you did/didn't do something?
Fallout in general had a LOT of branches. Maybe not for the main questline, but you could really screw over lots of stuff. Fo2 didn't even bother trying to incorporate all of the possibilities from Fo1.
And hell, Daggerfall. Bethesda actually had to go "All twelve endings are canon, it's magic."
They already have an impact? Let's just go ask anyone who killed Leliana, Morrigan, Wynne (or hell, any of the PCs that can turn on you) or over in Mass Effect, when an entire ME1 ending got the retcon hammer because Bioware figured it would be too hard to build from.
What I'm saying is that the impact the choices do have is negligible enough that it's almost not necessary to continue with it. How much mileage did anyone get out of choosing the King/Queen of Ferelden or the King of Orzammar, again? A pair of minor quests in DA2 and perhaps a brief appearance in DAI? Or over in ME, where all you got was Roughly Similar NPC filler even if you did/didn't do something?
If what you expect is a lot of differences in terms of main plot an a different cast of characters, then you will always be dissapointed I'm afraid. Yes, save import is and will mostly stay flavor. That's for certain. Not only is it easier to implement, it means you don't get locked out of significant content because you took X choice some time ago then forgot about it. But then again, RPGs are mostly built upon flavor. So that's not really a bad thing all the time.
Whenever that is good enough is in the eyes of the beholder. That's not an excuse to scrap the entire system. Loads of people were happy to see Alistair as King, Loghain as a Warden, or have their Hawke be an NPC for instance, not to mention have Morrigan reference her past with the Warden. Myself, I consider the scene you get between Morrigan and Flemeth if Kieran has the OGB soul well worth the price of admission. Mass Effect 3 alternate NPCs weren't filler, the guy who replaced Mordin (and has a name I can never spell) had a very different personality for instance, and the entire outcome of Rannoch and Tuchanka hinged on your past choices.
The better PnP systems -- for instance, GURPS -- give the GM more tools for this, since you can plan the adventure around the PCs' existing psychological disadvantages. It's hardly being unfair since the players have already consented to this sort of thing happening when they took the points. But the technique's not really applicable to CRPGs unless they come with a set PC, or at least a limited range of potential PC types.And that's a problem. If the PC does something, the PC has to want to do it, or be forced into it. Neither was true with Legacy. BioWare simply assumed that the monkey would pull the lever to get the prize. And that's not good enough.
I see this argument over and over and it makes no sense. You think save imports are restricting the impact your choices can have, and your solution is to get rid of them entirely and set up a canon state at the start of each game, meaning that your choices now have zero impact.
But, you say, they will have greater impact within the game! Oh, well, good for you saving that guy's life, I hope you enjoy basking in his gratefulness for the whole two hours or so he will remain alive until the canon state decides that you didn't actually do that!
It's not really an either/or choice. The only RPG I could name that has too many branching paths to ever incorporate a sequel was Fallout New Vegas. All others, save import or not, truly didn't have enough possible branching paths to prevent potential imports beyond perhaps boring Best Guy Ever/Most Evil Person Ever dichotomic choices. And even that didn't stop KOTOR 2 from existing.
Without the need to design the game such that the possible outcomes will accommodate future games, we could be allowed to do a wider range of things and produce a wider range of outcomes.I see this argument over and over and it makes no sense. You think save imports are restricting the impact your choices can have, and your solution is to get rid of them entirely and set up a canon state at the start of each game, meaning that your choices now have zero impact.
But, you say, they will have greater impact within the game! Oh, well, good for you saving that guy's life, I hope you enjoy basking in his gratefulness for the whole two hours or so he will remain alive until the canon state decides that you didn't actually do that!
Without the need to design the game such that the possible outcomes will accommodate future games, we could be allowed to do a wider range of things and produce awider range of outcomes.
Even if you ignore the needs of future games, a wider range of outcomes still means more work for the company in preparing them. A greater possible divergence means fewer shared characters, locations, and cinematics, and that means the game costs more money to make, unless other aspects of it are scaled back.
Of course, someone is now going to say that a silent protagonist saves money, but well, so does delivering the game in a used Pizza box.
---
As for pen & paper RPGs and min-maxing/game-breaking:
Too bad the Smallville and Marvel Heroic RPGs aren't being sold anymore. Both had solved the problem of min-maxing by figuring out ways to incorporate characters of wildly different power levels (and morality, for Smallville) into the same group not just optionally, but as the default state.
Smallville takes a group as diverse in capability and morality as Superman, Lois Lane, Lex Luthor, and General Zod and makes the game about their relationships and power dynamics.
Marvel Heroic lets you play Thor, Hawkeye, Iron Man, and Black Widow in the same group without anyone being overshadowed by the powers of other characters.
Even if you ignore the needs of future games, a wider range of outcomes still means more work for the company in preparing them. A greater possible divergence means fewer shared characters, locations, and cinematics, and that means the game costs more money to make, unless other aspects of it are scaled back.
I guess, from my point of view, if BW have enough money/resources to make 60 hours of content, I'd much rather a 40 hour long game, where, the second time I play it through, 20 hours of the game are different, than a 60 hour long game where the game plays out the same with only cosmetic differences.
Even if you ignore the needs of future games, a wider range of outcomes still means more work for the company in preparing them. A greater possible divergence means fewer shared characters, locations, and cinematics, and that means the game costs more money to make, unless other aspects of it are scaled back.
Of course, someone is now going to say that a silent protagonist saves money, but well, so does delivering the game in a used Pizza box.
Even if you ignore the needs of future games, a wider range of outcomes still means more work for the company in preparing them. A greater possible divergence means fewer shared characters, locations, and cinematics, and that means the game costs more money to make, unless other aspects of it are scaled back.
Of course, someone is now going to say that a silent protagonist saves money, but well, so does delivering the game in a used Pizza box.
Well BioWare have shown they can afford to ****** who knows how many hundreds and thousands of dollars in development up against a wall with that infamous Pax demo.
Planescape Torment did at 15 or so years ago, and today they somehow can't?
I guess, from my point of view, if BW have enough money/resources to make 60 hours of content, I'd much rather a 40 hour long game, where, the second time I play it through, 20 hours of the game are different, than a 60 hour long game where the game plays out the same with only cosmetic differences.
Oh, I agree. Something like Long Live the Queen as a Bioware game would be amazing, but it would be a very short game if it was done with the level of technical and storytelling craft we're accustomed to from the company. As I understand it, for every alternate outcome, you'd have to cut the total duration of the game. So a theoretical 60 hour game budget would result in a 40 hour game with only 2 vastly different outcomes, as the company couldn't really reuse assets from each branch in the other.
That said, this is of course a vast simplification. Something focused on a single location like DA2 would have probably more chances of reusing assets even if the story was going differently than a continent-spanning game like Inquisition. Focus it on even fewer characters and a tighter location, maybe something like the King's Landing or Castle Black sequences in Game of Thrones, and the possibilities for reusing assets while allowing strongly different story outcomes would be even greater, I guess. Though then you'd have people complaining that they can't change the world...
It's not necessarily about the allocation of resources, it's also about not hemming in writers into a box where they're forced to make important plot points in previous games trivial due to the Save Import having to take into account all possible outcomes. Not having to worry about how to portray a plot point in future games gives the writers more leeway in how the outcomes within a single game pan out.
Maybe I'm not following you, but without resources allocated to it, the outcome a writer pens won't be part of the game.
Well BioWare have shown they can afford to ****** who knows how many hundreds and thousands of dollars in development up against a wall with that infamous Pax demo.
Planescape Torment did at 15 or so years ago, and today they somehow can't?
Yeah but compared to a modern game like Inquisition, Torment was a text adventure with a few sprites. The market has changed. 15 years ago, nobody expected professional voice-acting, movie-like cinematics, modern high-end graphics, 3D environments, etc.
You're comparing two very different games in very different contexts and saying that because one did something on a financially and technically much smaller scale, the other should do it too.
Yeah but compared to a modern game like Inquisition, Torment was a text adventure with a few sprites. The market has changed. 15 years ago, nobody expected professional voice-acting, movie-like cinematics, modern high-end graphics, 3D environments, etc.
You're comparing two very different games in very different contexts and saying that because one did something on a financially and technically much smaller scale, the other should do it too.
So we've gone backwards in 15 years. Awesome.
So we've gone backwards in 15 years. Awesome.
Way to strip out all nuance and context.
Oh, I agree. Something like Long Live the Queen as a Bioware game would be amazing, but it would be a very short game if it was done with the level of technical and storytelling craft we're accustomed to from the company. As I understand it, for every alternate outcome, you'd have to cut the total duration of the game. So a theoretical 60 hour game budget would result in a 40 hour game with only 2 vastly different outcomes, as the company couldn't really reuse assets from each branch in the other.
That said, this is of course a vast simplification. Something focused on a single location like DA2 would have probably more chances of reusing assets even if the story was going differently than a continent-spanning game like Inquisition. Focus it on even fewer characters and a tighter location, maybe something like the King's Landing or Castle Black sequences in Game of Thrones, and the possibilities for reusing assets while allowing strongly different story outcomes would be even greater, I guess. Though then you'd have people complaining that they can't change the world...
Hah, Long Live the Queen, that was a fun little game. Although I'm not sure how many options it really had. It all seemed to boil down to "get killed by the poisoned chocolate".... 
But yeah, of course there is going to be some level of tradeoff in terms of reuse of assests and so forth. Things like environments can likely be reused, althout their populations would probably vary. Dialogue - both writing and VA - would have to be redone. But I do feel that it's worth it to provide 2, maybe 3 genuinely differentiated options for a significant part of the game. Not just, say, the finale differing, but maybe 30-50% of the game differing in some way. You don't have to have everything in those part of the game being different, but I want my choices and actions to actually have a major and noticable impact on the game, not just on my RPed character and the epilogues, and I want to be able to see the effects of that impact by doing things differently next time I play. And if this comes at the cost of a reduction in game length by, say, 30%, IMO, it's worth it.
edit (had more thoughts):
To give another really good example, and one that has had a massive impact on how I look at video games since, Wing Commander. Back, 20+ years ago, I'd played a buch of video games at my friends houses, as they had various systems from an old tape driven Amstrad to the consoles of the day, but the first games I myself owned were those that came free with my first PC (a 386!!!), and the best of those was WC - I mean, for a 8 or 9 year old kid who loves Star Wars and similar, being able to fly around in a fighter spaceship was pretty much the definition of a perfect game. But it went beyond just having cool gameplay. Although it didn't have quite the heavily cinematic feel of the later games in the series [WC2 was really my introduction to heavily story-driven gaming, and what an introduction], the story was good, and most importantly, it branched.
Unlike many games, failing a mission wasn't game over, provided you survived. If you had, say, an objective to destroy an enemy ship before it got into hyperspace, but didn't manage to stop it, you could return to base and continue with the game. Even if you were blown up, if you were quick enough, you could eject - there were a few bastard enemies that would shoot you after you'd escape, but you usually survived. And when you made it back, you got on with the next mission. Every 3 or so missions, depending on how you'd done, the game would take one of two paths - basically, you driving the enemy back, or they doing it to your forces. Eventally, it lead to one of two finales - either attacking the enemy's stronghold, or a desperate defence of your last base in the sector. I forget the exact numbers, but on a full playthorugh, you'd probably only get to do about 50% of the missions due to the branching (as there was not just a "winning" branch and a "losing" branch, but a series of in-between ones that took you between the two paths and so on - if you knew how to "game" it by winning and losing the right missions to keep you on the in between tracks, you ended up with the game lasting quite a bit longer than winning everything).
Hah, Long Live the Queen, that was a fun little game. Although I'm not sure how many options it really had. It all seemed to boil down to "get killed by the poisoned chocolate"....
But yeah, of course there is going to be some level of tradeoff in terms of reuse of assests and so forth. Things like environments can likely be reused, althout their populations would probably vary. Dialogue - both writing and VA - would have to be redone. But I do feel that it's worth it to provide 2, maybe 3 genuinely differentiated options for a significant part of the game. Not just, say, the finale differing, but maybe 30-50% of the game differing in some way. You don't have to have everything in those part of the game being different, but I want my choices and actions to actually have a major and noticable impact on the game, not just on my RPed character and the epilogues, and I want to be able to see the effects of that impact by doing things differently next time I play. And if this comes at the cost of a reduction in game length by, say, 30%, IMO, it's worth it.
edit (had more thoughts):
To give another really good example, and one that has had a massive impact on how I look at video games since, Wing Commander. Back, 20+ years ago, I'd played a buch of video games at my friends houses, as they had various systems from an old tape driven Amstrad to the consoles of the day, but the first games I myself owned were those that came free with my first PC (a 386!!!), and the best of those was WC - I mean, for a 8 or 9 year old kid who loves Star Wars and similar, being able to fly around in a fighter spaceship was pretty much the definition of a perfect game. But it went beyond just having cool gameplay. Although it didn't have the heavily cinematic feel of the later games in the series [WC2 was my introduction to primarily story-driven gaming, and what an introduction], it had a branching storyline.
Unlike many games, failing a mission wasn't game over, provided you survived. If you had, say, an objective to destroy an enemy ship before it got into hyperspace, but didn't manage to stop it, you could return to base and continue with the game. Even if you were blown up, if you were quick enough, you could eject - there were a few bastard enemies that would shoot you after you'd escape, but you usually survived. And when you made it back, you got on with the next mission. Every 3 or so missions, depending on how you'd done, the game would take one of two paths - basically, you driving the enemy back, or they doing it to your forces. Eventally, it lead to one of two finales - either attacking the enemy's stronghold, or a desperate defence of your last base in the sector. I forget the exact numbers, but on a full playthorugh, you'd probably only get to do about 50% of the missions due to the branching.
That snake bite near the start got me so damn often...
Wing Commander is a good example of what I'm talking about, actually. As far as I recall, outside the missions these changes were restricted to a a few barely-animated head shots and some text on screen. It was like a longer version of the post-game slide show from Inquisition and Fallout 3, but without the spoken word element. And while mission parameters changed, the assets from which the missions were made up - the starships, the animations in the briefing screens, etc. - didn't.
So we've gone backwards in 15 years. Awesome.
Not backwards, sideways.
We gave up unimportant things like complexity and narrative depth in favour of innovations like action oriented gameplay, flashy "cinematic" visuals, and fully voiced characters.
Okay, maybe we did go backwards, after all...
Voiced characters and visual storytelling are hardly negatives when they so strongly enhance emotional engagement with a story-oriented game.
And the claim that any Dragon Age game is action-oriented is laughable. You can pause at any time, leisurely think about what you want to do while getting a cup of coffee, take as long as you like to give orders to your characters, drink some more of your coffee, unpause for a few seconds to see how the next bit of the fight plays out, freeze the "action" again while having another sip of coffee, maybe go for a cookie...
Really, I think people confuse the visuals with the actual gameplay when they call any Dragon Age an action game. Character action in combat look awesome, but the game plays exactly at the pace you want it to, whether that's quick as lightning or sedately. What, does Civilization become an action-oriented game when you let it run quickly and don't use pause?
Voiced characters and visual storytelling are hardly negatives when they so strongly enhance emotional engagement with a story-oriented game.
And the claim that any Dragon Age game is action-oriented is laughable. You can pause at any time, leisurely think about what you want to do while getting a cup of coffee, take as long as you like to give orders to your characters, drink some more of your coffee, unpause for a few seconds to see how the next bit of the fight plays out, freeze the "action" again while having another sip of coffee, maybe go for a cookie...
Really, I think people confuse the visuals with the actual gameplay when they call any Dragon Age an action game. Character action in combat look awesome, but the game plays exactly at the pace you want it to, whether that's quick as lightning or sedately. What, does Civilization become an action-oriented game when you let it run quickly and don't use pause?
Civ is a pretty bad example there as it's turn based so it automatically "pauses". Europa Universalis would be more appropriate
But overall, I do rather agree on this. Neither DA2 or DA:I have action oriented combat. Just because things are quicker (irrelevent given the ability to pause) or you have the option to manually activate your charater's basic attacks (irrelvant, as you have the option to...well...not), make it "action-oriented". Hell, when DA2 came out, I remember people saying it was less tactical because you couldn't zoom the camera out as much....
Overall, DA:I's combat really hasn't changed tham much compared to DA:O. The interface and controls are much worse, but the actual gameplay is still much the same. Not identical sure, but very similar.
Civ is a pretty bad example there as it's turn based so it automatically "pauses". Europa Universalis would be more appropriate
Huh? EU is a turn-based game, just like Civilization.
EDIT: Oh, now I get it. You mean because EU keeps running unless you pause it, while you have to hit a button to move a year ahead in Civ.
Retour en haut