12 réponses à ce sujet

[Wolven_Soul]

I was thinking last night, and it occurred to me that there are two things that I would like to see happen in RPG's in the future.

 

1.  Characters we don't recruit should still have an impact.  Just because we decide not to take a character or two into our little family, doesn't mean that character should disappear entirely from the game.  These characters clearly want to help fight against the big evil, so why shouldn't we end up seeing them again down the road somewhere?  

 

For instance, if we decide not to bring Iron Bull with us.  Clearly the Qunari are concerned about the big green hole in the sky.  So just because the Inquisition refuses their choice to join it, doesn't mean that they are going to just go away.  How interesting would it have been if the Qunari decided to try and capture the Inquisitor and try and force him/her to fix the breach?  Kind of leash him like they do their mages?  Especially if the Inquisitor is a mage?

 

And do we really believe that Sera and the Red Jennies are not going to mess with the Inquisition if they turn her down?  Clearly Dorian is invested in stopping the Venatori, he's not just gonna pack it in and go home and wait for the end of the world if he doesn't get to join up is he?  

 

Just a few examples and something I would like to see in future games.

 

2.  The order that we do things should matter.  Just because we decide to do one thing first does not mean that things are not still happening in the rest of the world.  I would really like to see different situations develop in missions if I leave them until later to do.  I know this would probably be difficult to pull off but, I think it would really add to the immersion of a video game if something like this was done.

[Jay P]

1. Not sure this is really practical. You are making content, and expending resources, for content that most people won't see because most people are going to recruit all the companions.

I could see minor stuff. Or if the companions were mutually exclusive (have to pick between Dorian and Cole for instance).

2. Totally agree here.

There is no sense of urgency. In DA:I, there are rifts pouring out demons into the countryside, but whether I go close them all immediately, or if I get around to it in my own good time after locating random goats, or if I never do it, the impact in game is the same.

Obviously, the passage of time in a video game can be tricky. But ME2 and DA:O both had certain things and it felt like it made the game stronger.

[disi123]

About 2.

I will never forget the shock when Lothering was destroyed by the darkspawn in Dragon Age Origins. No going there anymore, everyone dead.

 

So, I agree with the order in which you do things to have an impact, but do not put timers on tasks or missions. I hate not being able to explore off the road, go to the toilet or stop playing and read a book for a while.

[Jay P]

So, I agree with the order in which you do things to have an impact, but do not put timers on tasks or missions. I hate not being able to explore off the road, go to the toilet or stop playing and read a book for a while.

Real time timers? I agree, no thanks.

(Unless of course it's in a specific mission, and it fits the narrative, and you can pause, since it's a single player game).

But I think there should be consequences if the story says something bad is about to happen, and you spend too much time looking for someone's goat, or running to put an old lady's flowers on the grave, or looking for a monument on top of a random mountain.

[thewatcheruatu]

Real time timers? I agree, no thanks.

(Unless of course it's in a specific mission, and it fits the narrative, and you can pause, since it's a single player game).

But I think there should be consequences if the story says something bad is about to happen, and you spend too much time looking for someone's goat, or running to put an old lady's flowers on the grave, or looking for a monument on top of a random mountain.

 

Kind of reminds me of the thing from Mass Effect 2 where your abducted crew members would get turned to jelly by the Collectors if you dicked around too much with side missions after they were taken. I didn't expect that and lost some of my people the first try--had to reload from an old save. It was kind of annoying, though, because unless you checked a guide, you wouldn't really know when this was going to come about. So if you had some minor quests you never finished or turned it, you were just out of luck.

 

You could do something like two missions, and one of them was non-negotiable if you wanted to save Legion during the Suicide Mission.

 

Edit: Pretty sure I'm misremembering some things about how it worked, but the point was, it mattered how quickly you responded. I think that was actually one of the things they originally planned for the first Mass Effect--that every priority decision you made would have a consequence.

[disi123]

Real time timers? I agree, no thanks.

(Unless of course it's in a specific mission, and it fits the narrative, and you can pause, since it's a single player game).

But I think there should be consequences if the story says something bad is about to happen, and you spend too much time looking for someone's goat, or running to put an old lady's flowers on the grave, or looking for a monument on top of a random mountain.

So they would need to make the steps in the main quest depend on level.

Lvl1-10 - Do what you like on your own terms.

Lvl 11 -> Event! if you haven't moved on to Skyhold yet, Haven is being attacked while you are not there and they kill all the people you could have saved. You skip all the other quests you could/should have done and end up in Skyhold.

[Jay P]

So they would need to make the steps in the main quest depend on level.

Lvl1-10 - Do what you like on your own terms.

Lvl 11 -> Event! if you haven't moved on to Skyhold yet, Haven is being attacked while you are not there and they kill all the people you could have saved. You skip all the other quests you could/should have done and end up in Skyhold.

 

That would be really problematic just because of the mechanic.  

 

How do you adjust for people leveling faster or slower because of different difficulty levels?  Lots of other problems like that, unless they tie experience gain directly to the completion of certain specific tasks and don't allow for experience gains from killing mobs, exploration, etc.  And that seems unlikely.

[NoForgiveness]

I like the idea of number 1 but im not sure it'd be the best use of resources. I mean most people seem to recruit everyone even if they don't use them. And the game doesn't really give a good solid reason to decline anyone. Also, with the amount of companion content and different relationships your character can have with each of them, I almost think it'd be better if they were like varric/Cass/Solas where there isn't a choice to recruit them or not.

[Jay P]

Kind of reminds me of the thing from Mass Effect 2 where your abducted crew members would get turned to jelly by the Collectors if you dicked around too much with side missions after they were taken. I didn't expect that and lost some of my people the first try--had to reload from an old save. It was kind of annoying, though, because unless you checked a guide, you wouldn't really know when this was going to come about. So if you had some minor quests you never finished or turned it, you were just out of luck.

 

You could do something like two missions, and one of them was non-negotiable if you wanted to save Legion during the Suicide Mission.

 

Edit: Pretty sure I'm misremembering some things about how it worked, but the point was, it mattered how quickly you responded. I think that was actually one of the things they originally planned for the first Mass Effect--that every priority decision you made would have a consequence.

 

I kind of agree and kind of disagree with you.

 

I agree that they shouldn't have tied it into the end-game.  Once you triggered the Legion mission, you had to almost immediately begin the end-game, or lose people. 

 

However, I like how it was handled.  I try not to read any guides or spoilers before my first playthrough, and I want to take the story at it's own face value.  When the game tells me that I need to do something quickly, I like that there are consequences to me not doing it, because that is one of the few ways that they can work real choices into the game.  

 

I get that you can still "game" it, and on subsequent playthroughs, it's not nearly as big a deal because you already pretty much know the story.  

 

But I want to feel that I have to take what the game is telling me seriously.  That the narrative in the story matters.

[thewatcheruatu]

I kind of agree and kind of disagree with you.

 

I agree that they shouldn't have tied it into the end-game.  Once you triggered the Legion mission, you had to almost immediately begin the end-game, or lose people. 

 

However, I like how it was handled.  I try not to read any guides or spoilers before my first playthrough, and I want to take the story at it's own face value.  When the game tells me that I need to do something quickly, I like that there are consequences to me not doing it, because that is one of the few ways that they can work real choices into the game.  

 

I get that you can still "game" it, and on subsequent playthroughs, it's not nearly as big a deal because you already pretty much know the story.  

 

But I want to feel that I have to take what the game is telling me seriously.  That the narrative in the story matters.

 

I think it makes sense. It's just that the Reaper IFF mission was kind of like a soft point of no return, but on a first playthrough, you don't know that. There are dramatic reasons not to reveal that sort of thing to the player, but it can still be frustrating if there was, like, that one stupid side quest you put off for too long. It didn't matter that much to me, because the only thing I hadn't done, I think, was one of the Project Firewalker missions, so...whatever. I just loaded up an old save from before I did it and proceeded to take on the Collectors. No big deal.

 

Thank god I had done all of the loyalty missions, because losing anybody during the Suicide Mission was just not an option!

[Wolven_Soul]

1. Not sure this is really practical. You are making content, and expending resources, for content that most people won't see because most people are going to recruit all the companions.

I could see minor stuff. Or if the companions were mutually exclusive (have to pick between Dorian and Cole for instance).

2. Totally agree here.

There is no sense of urgency. In DA:I, there are rifts pouring out demons into the countryside, but whether I go close them all immediately, or if I get around to it in my own good time after locating random goats, or if I never do it, the impact in game is the same.

Obviously, the passage of time in a video game can be tricky. But ME2 and DA:O both had certain things and it felt like it made the game stronger.

 

If I know that not recruiting certain people will lead to some interesting interaction with them down the road, I will absolutely not recruit certain characters.  Normally I do recruit every single character, but that's only so that I don't miss out on their content and potential rewards for their quests.  But again, if there is different content and different rewards if you go a certain way, then I will take that other option sometimes.  

 

For instance, if I was faithfully playing my mage character, who believes that mages should be free, I am not going to recruit Vivienne and allow her the chance to influence that particular story line with the extra influence she gained by being part of the Inquisition.  Or if I am a dwarf who doesn't trust mages, I would not recruit a mage from Tevinter, Dorian, or a spirit from the Fade, Cole.  

[Wolven_Soul]

About 2.

I will never forget the shock when Lothering was destroyed by the darkspawn in Dragon Age Origins. No going there anymore, everyone dead.

 

So, I agree with the order in which you do things to have an impact, but do not put timers on tasks or missions. I hate not being able to explore off the road, go to the toilet or stop playing and read a book for a while.

 

Oh I absolutely agree with you there.  I hate timers like that.  What I am thinking is that when you finish a mission, it triggers a change of certain aspects of other missions.

[Wolven_Soul]

That would be really problematic just because of the mechanic.  

 

How do you adjust for people leveling faster or slower because of different difficulty levels?  Lots of other problems like that, unless they tie experience gain directly to the completion of certain specific tasks and don't allow for experience gains from killing mobs, exploration, etc.  And that seems unlikely.

 

Like I said, doing things like this would be difficult to put into games, but I hope that developers someday find a way to do it.