353 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well they didn't do the first, since you can't "fail" unless being obstinate on purpose and the ending isn't just liara's memory box (now that would have been a bold ending!) no matter what you do in the game and they didn't do the second, when you couldn't really win big against a vastly superior force (unless destroy, the others are tie's at best).

So while that might make for better stories... it's not what we got.

Not in ME3, no, which is why we were discussing an example from DAO.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is silly. The community will have put millions of man-hours into the game within a week of its release. Random long-shot endings that work out or fail won't be "random" for very long.

If an ending leads to success, the community will figure out which actions lead to that ending and add them to the list of ways to successfully play the game. If an ending leads to failure, actions that lead to that ending will be considered playing the game incorrectly.

There will be no unpredictability past the first week of release. The only thing "unpredictable" endings will lead to is a lack of a logical connection between narrative and gameplay. It will be unclear to the player on the first play through how to succeed; but only on the first play through.

I don't care about the information available to the player. I care about the information available to the character, and that doesn't change no matter how many people play the game.

If you want to metagame and ruin your narrative, go right ahead.

Of course, if this is a problem, we can tie the outcomes to RNGs. That would preserve uncertainty for the players.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And everything being based on a coin flip robs scenes of drama too. If everything is either predetermined or left to a RNG, then what's the point of my input? All my efforts are meaningless then. Might as well just watch the Youtube video.

You're assuming that your inputs have no influence over the odds.

Why?

Also, I would argue that the point is making the choice from a position of uncertainty, which this provides. I don't judge the game based on its outcomes.

[Felya87]

You're assuming that your inputs have no influence over the odds.

Why?

Also, I would argue that the point is making the choice from a position of uncertainty, which this provides. I don't judge the game based on its outcomes.

Than bioware dhould have thought better about How their games are presented. "choices matter" and "different, varied outcomes" were part of the promise of ME3.

[78stonewobble]

Not in ME3, no, which is why we were discussing an example from DAO.

 

Not in the reply I quoted, or in the reply, which it quoted, or in the reply that quoted.

[kalikilic]

Dont repeat ME3 endings? that shipped sailed when schlerf was shown the door.

 

RIP Andromeda. get ready for starchild 2.0 and roundabout logic.  

 

[WillieStyle]

I don't care about the information available to the player. I care about the information available to the character, and that doesn't change no matter how many people play the game.

If you want to metagame and ruin your narrative, go right ahead.

Of course, if this is a problem, we can tie the outcomes to RNGs. That would preserve uncertainty for the players.

 

One thing all successful game designers try to do is give the player in-game guidance as to how to succeed.  It is a game after all. This guidance is sometimes embedded in the narrative (dialogue from friendly NPCs for istance). Sometimes it's metagame data (an in game tutorial or codex entry).  But game designers typically try to avoid situations where the player has no idea how to achieve a given outcome. 

 

You're suggesting not simply leaving the player with no idea how to achieve outcomes, but making these outcomes random.  I think this would be a terrible way to design a game.  But I'd donate to your Kickstarter to fund development of such a game just to see how badly it would be received.

[AlanC9]

I don't care about the information available to the player. I care about the information available to the character, and that doesn't change no matter how many people play the game.
If you want to metagame and ruin your narrative, go right ahead.
Of course, if this is a problem, we can tie the outcomes to RNGs. That would preserve uncertainty for the players.

The RNG would suit me fine. I really prefer to simply not know things that my character wouldn't know, at least on the first playthrough. Though I wouldn't have much problem in any event since I don't look at LP vids or walkthroughs until it's postmortem time.

[AlanC9]

You're suggesting not simply leaving the player with no idea how to achieve outcomes, but making these outcomes random.  I think this would be a terrible way to design a game.  But I'd donate to your Kickstarter to fund development of such a game just to see how badly it would be received.

I don't think it's quite correct to say that the player would have no idea. He just wouldn't have any more certainty than the PC does.

[WillieStyle]

I don't think it's quite correct to say that the player would have no idea. He just wouldn't have any more certainty than the PC does.

 

If you give the PC all the information the player needs, then you're just doing what Bioware and other developers have been doing for ages.  If neither the player nor the PC know how to achieve success, then you've likely made a shitty game.

[AlanC9]

If you give the PC all the information the player needs, then you're just doing what Bioware and other developers have been doing for ages.  If neither the player nor the PC know how to achieve success, then you've likely made a shitty game.

I don't see this as being true. The fact that some choices are chancy doesn't mean that they all are, does it? Presumably there will be other options for players who don't want to roll the dice.

[WillieStyle]

I don't see this as being true. The fact that some choices are chancy doesn't mean that they all are, does it? Presumably there will be other options for players who don't want to roll the dice.

 

I don't think it would be well received at all.  But it would be interesting to see a developer try to pull it off.  Thinking back to the suicide mission in ME2, there was the whole "hold the line thing" where if you didn't send Tali or Mordin back with the crew, and you took two of Garrus/Zaeed/Grunt with you for the final fight, then even if everyone was loyal, you could still have a squadmate die.  That drove people nuts and the community went to great lengths to reverse engineer the formula for a flawless victory.  

 

Now imagine if that squadmate's death was random.  It's a game.  Players will often attempt to play the game optimally.  Making that impossible by making some outcomes random will likely just ****** people off.  It won't even lead to the drama of uncertainty, because even if a player doesn't normally look at guides and such, this particular outcome will become so notorious that almost every player will have heard of it.  I could be wrong.  But I think it would be a very bad idea.

 

[Edit]

I think you have to consider the psychology of gamers.  Developers have had to get creative in how they seed their random number generators so that players don't reload constantly until they get their desired result (see % mastercraft materials in DA:I for example).  This is the context in which you want to add random narrative outcomes? 

[/Edit]

[Iakus]

I don't think it would be well received at all.  But it would be interesting to see a developer try to pull it off.  Thinking back to the suicide mission in ME2, there was the whole "hold the line thing" where if you didn't send Tali or Mordin back with the crew, and you took two of Garrus/Zaeed/Grunt with you for the final fight, then even if everyone was loyal, you could still have a squadmate die.  That drove people nuts and the community went to great lengths to reverse engineer the formula for a flawless victory.  

 

Now imagine if that squadmate's death was random.  It's a game.  Players will often attempt to play the game optimally.  Making that impossible by making some outcomes random will likely just ****** people off.  It won't even lead to the drama of uncertainty, because even if a player doesn't normally look at guides and such, this particular outcome will become so notorious that almost every player will have heard of it.  I could be wrong.  But I think it would be a very bad idea.

 

[Edit]

I think you have to consider the psychology of gamers.  Developers have had to get creative in how they seed their random number generators so that players don't reload constantly until they get their desired result (see % mastercraft materials in DA:I for example).  This is the context in which you want to add random narrative outcomes? 

[/Edit]

I think if that happened, they'd tear the game apart looking for ways to stack the deck so certain undesirable or less desirable characters died.  The thing about games is, people in general try to play their best.  They derive enjoyment from victory, from succeeding at challenges.  

 

If you make it so winning  and losing is just random chance, or hobble them so that they can't win, then they'll just ragequit.  That's something the Bioware team utterly failed to figure out with their endings.

[LinksOcarina]

I think if that happened, they'd tear the game apart looking for ways to stack the deck so certain undesirable or less desirable characters died.  The thing about games is, people in general try to play their best.  They derive enjoyment from victory, from succeeding at challenges.  

 

If you make it so winning  and losing is just random chance, or hobble them so that they can't win, then they'll just ragequit.  That's something the Bioware team utterly failed to figure out with their endings.

 

Which is odd because you still won in the end of Mass Effect 3 no matter what you do...just not the way people wanted, it seems.

[Iakus]

Which is odd because you still won in the end of Mass Effect 3 no matter what you do...just not the way people wanted, it seems.

 

Is it victory if it doesn't feel like victory?  It it feels bitter, if you feel manipulated and lied to, and wish you had never started playing the franchise, did you "win"? 

[LinksOcarina]

Is it victory if it doesn't feel like victory?  It it feels bitter, if you feel manipulated and lied to, and wish you had never started playing the franchise, did you "win"? 

 

 

In truth, I didn't feel like that though, so I probably can't say for sure based upon personal feelings, but the ultimate point is you won, so i'm going to say yes.

 

That said, if you truly believe you were manipulated and lied to, if you are truly this bitter, why do you care still? 

[Mcfly616]

Dont repeat ME3 endings? that shipped sailed when schlerf was shown the door.

 Glad to seem him go. Could've been worse. He could've injected his approach to Halo 4's narrative into ME:A. 

 

 

 

Dodged a bullet.

[Sylvius the Mad]

One thing all successful game designers try to do is give the player in-game guidance as to how to succeed. It is a game after all.

The way the player succeeds in a roleplaying game is by making in-character decisions. Granting access to metagame knowledge interferes with that.

Unlike other types of games where the player is represented within the game by an avatar, in RPGs the character under the player's control is distinct from the player. The player can succeed even when the character does not.

This guidance is sometimes embedded in the narrative (dialogue from friendly NPCs for istance). Sometimes it's metagame data (an in game tutorial or codex entry). But game designers typically try to avoid situations where the player has no idea how to achieve a given outcome.

I actively avoid using information provided to me in that way. I interpret all information from an in-character perspective.

You're suggesting not simply leaving the player with no idea how to achieve outcomes, but making these outcomes random. I think this would be a terrible way to design a game. But I'd donate to your Kickstarter to fund development of such a game just to see how badly it would be received.

One of my favourite dramatic moments in a BioWare game came in the BG expansion. I was exploring Durlag's Tower, and my party consisted entirely of spellcasters and archers. They were also mostly out of spells.

Rather than rest, I decided to have them explore a bit further. Unfortunately, through the next door was a Demonknight. As mentioned, I had almost no spells left, and Demonknights have 95% magic resistance anyway. In desperation, my cleric cast Hold Monster.

It worked. The spell had overcome the magic resistance, and the party proceeded to poke it to death with arrows and darts.

That was incredibly dramatic, because the odds of success were low, and I knew it. I made a bad decision and it worked out, by chance. It's the chance, however, that made it dramatic.

That's the sort of storytelling opportunity I'm trying to create.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If you give the PC all the information the player needs, then you're just doing what Bioware and other developers have been doing for ages. If neither the player nor the PC know how to achieve success, then you've likely made a shitty game.

You're looking at it backward. You give the PC the information he would reasonably have within the setting, and then give the player exactly the same information as a way to help him avoid metagaming.

This is why I hate it when we see cutscenes showing events at which the PC isn't present. Those scenes should never exist.

The point here isn't to provide a game the player can win. The point is to simulate a world in which the PC lives.

[Aimi]

This is why I hate it when we see cutscenes showing events at which the PC isn't present. Those scenes should never exist.

ugh I hate those so much

[Iakus]

In truth, I didn't feel like that though, so I probably can't say for sure based upon personal feelings, but the ultimate point is you won, so i'm going to say yes.

 

That said, if you truly believe you were manipulated and lied to, if you are truly this bitter, why do you care still? 

Because I see great potential in the Mass Effect setting.  And I hate seeing that potential being wasted on "Art"

[WillieStyle]

You're looking at it backward. You give the PC the information he would reasonably have within the setting, and then give the player exactly the same information as a way to help him avoid metagaming.

This is why I hate it when we see cutscenes showing events at which the PC isn't present. Those scenes should never exist.

The point here isn't to provide a game the player can win. The point is to simulate a world in which the PC lives.

 

Good luck with that.  Let us know how many copies your game sells.

[Iakus]

 
The point here isn't to provide a game the player can win. The point is to simulate a world in which the PC lives.

A strange game.  The only winning move is not to play...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Good luck with that. Let us know how many copies your game sells.

RPGs aren't games. Games have winning conditions.

[AlanC9]

I don't think it would be well received at all. But it would be interesting to see a developer try to pull it off. Thinking back to the suicide mission in ME2, there was the whole "hold the line thing" where if you didn't send Tali or Mordin back with the crew, and you took two of Garrus/Zaeed/Grunt with you for the final fight, then even if everyone was loyal, you could still have a squadmate die. That drove people nuts and the community went to great lengths to reverse engineer the formula for a flawless victory.

Now imagine if that squadmate's death was random. It's a game. Players will often attempt to play the game optimally. Making that impossible by making some outcomes random will likely just ****** people off. It won't even lead to the drama of uncertainty, because even if a player doesn't normally look at guides and such, this particular outcome will become so notorious that almost every player will have heard of it. I could be wrong. But I think it would be a very bad idea.

[Edit]
I think you have to consider the psychology of gamers. Developers have had to get creative in how they seed their random number generators so that players don't reload constantly until they get their desired result (see % mastercraft materials in DA:I for example). This is the context in which you want to add random narrative outcomes?
[/Edit]

You raise a fair point. I don't have much use for the tastes of average gamers, but obviously they do impose constraints on what can be done with a design ITRW, as long as I'm still playing in the AAA space.

So let's go back to the SM model, then. Deterministic, but with a lot of factors that won't be precisely known while playing for the first or second time. (The HTL scores are even somewhat irrational compared to the actual stats of the characters; I would have preferred that the rest be a little harder to figure out.)