317 réponses à ce sujet

[saladinbob]

With the concept of a rogue's gallery, I've just had sort of a weird idea.

There could be an assortment of maybe a dozen or so minor antagonists doing various antagonistic stuff (heh), with the player's choices and approach determining whether they were killed, prosecuted, or slipped away. The ones that manage to get away could ally with the big bad at the end, and you'd have to get through various pitfalls that they set, depending on which ones were left.

Kind of like a reverse ME2, but instead of a dozen squadmates, you'd have a dozen different antagonists to deal with throughout the game and included in the final mission.

Could be interesting if it was done right.

 

Where would the incentive be for keeping them alive? Both choices should have a consequence, not just one otherwise players will just kill them in order to make life easier for themselves further down the line. Those consequences should also be consequences for the game world, as well as the player.

 

For example, in The Witcher 3, there's a point where you come across someone tied up and left for dead. You can choose to walk away or fight off some monsters and free him, but doing so later results in finding out he slaughtered the village responsible for tying him up. The consequence to you is the extra XP you get from two fights but it also deals with the morality in a way that shows that sometimes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's something you never see in a Bioware game and its high time we did.

[Dio Demon]

Had you done a simple 5 minute search on google and did research you would know what PMMM truly is instead of coming off as ignorant like you just did. Even the bloody staff does not consider it a show for kids or pre teens. The shows is heavily marketed towards teens and adults.

 

You pulled a FOX news, never pull a FOX news.

Next he's going to say PMMM causes Atheism which increases crime rates and abortion rates which is all caused by those damned democrats who are letting PMMM into America to corrupt their youth.

[KaiserShep]

Not at all. If you took the time to read my posts before throwing your accusation you may have comprehended the reason for the Astro Boy image was to show that clothing -in and of itself- does not imply sexualization. That the outrage expressed at the image of the Xenoblades character is an autonomic behavioral response not a considered and reasoned objective conclusion. Fight or Flight.
 
---
 
Chess and Go are wonderful games.

Y so srs?

[slimgrin]

Where would the incentive be for keeping them alive? Both choices should have a consequence, not just one otherwise players will just kill them in order to make life easier for themselves further down the line. Those consequences should also be consequences for the game world, as well as the player.

 

For example, in The Witcher 3, there's a point where you come across someone tied up and left for dead. You can choose to walk away or fight off some monsters and free him, but doing so later results in finding out he slaughtered the village responsible for tying him up. The consequence to you is the extra XP you get from two fights but it also deals with the morality in a way that shows that sometimes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's something you never see in a Bioware game and its high time we did.

 

More and more devs are doing this now, talking about complex morality and avoiding simplistic outcomes to plot events. I'd be surprised if the writers at Bioware aren't aware of the trend. 

[Lady Artifice]

Where would the incentive be for keeping them alive? Both choices should have a consequence, not just one otherwise players will just kill them in order to make life easier for themselves further down the line. Those consequences should also be consequences for the game world, as well as the player.

 

For example, in The Witcher 3, there's a point where you come across someone tied up and left for dead. You can choose to walk away or fight off some monsters and free him, but doing so later results in finding out he slaughtered the village responsible for tying him up. The consequence to you is the extra XP you get from two fights but it also deals with the morality in a way that shows that sometimes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's something you never see in a Bioware game and its high time we did.

 

No? There are two different instances (Edit: In fact, three) in Dragon Age games where keeping someone alive is treated as an extremely controversial, even heinous, choice. You can spare the life of a mass murderer, and the choice results in war between two city states. 

 

In Mass Effect 2, you can let someone live only to find out that choice leads to even more death and destruction. 

 

It seems to me that not only has Bioware done it as well, but that Bioware did it first. 

Modifié par Lady Artifice, 21 décembre 2015 - 02:19 .

[Seboist]

More and more devs are doing this now, talking about complex morality and avoiding simplistic outcomes to plot events. I'd be surprised if the writers at Bioware aren't aware of the trend. 

 

The ME branch of BW still needs to work on having choices worth a damn that have a tangible impact on gameplay first. If not, then I don't particularly care how "complex" the morality is if all it amounts to is fluff like emails, interchangeable dialogue and brief cameos followed by going down the same linear whack a mole corridors that everyone else experiences.

[KaiserShep]

I do wish that the ravagers simply didn't exist if you wiped out the rachni queen.

[RoboticWater]

I do wish that the ravagers simply didn't exist if you wiped out the rachni queen.

If only it were so simple. DA:I was able to get away with the Mage/Templar choice by just messing with the prevalence of Venatori and Red Templar encounters. Outright removing one or the other would have been a significant disservice to the combat variety.

 

However, it would have been nice if ME3 pulled a similar trick. Have the "Rachni mission" be one of two missions: the first is the regular Rachni mission as it was and the other is a similar mission that introduces the exact same enemy type but made with some other species (Collectors or Varrren or something). That maintains the variety with only extra strain on the art department. If BioWare were really strapped for cash, they could have the mission take place in the exact same location (presumably a Reaper base of some sort) and use play out exactly the same (meet with Grunt, etc.), but preferably, BioWare would have had two completely separate missions like DA:I. 

[Keitaro57]

What's the more sad this couple last years is that we never met an "almost perfect" RPG who will be a stepstone fort the whole genre.

All the games were released with bugs, glitches and/or some screwed interface making them not totally pleasant to play. Bioware need to learn about that and release a game as polished as possible and MUST do an AAA level betatesting. Not the standard AAA where the first months buyers found all the bugs, no, the version where the devs correct them BEFORE release. Launching a game without any mortal bug or glitches is so rare, if ME:A is able to do it the game will instantly become legendary.

 

I'm not for trying to follow W3 : this game works with the help of a lot of books written prior to the trilogy. We won't have that at all for ME:A : Let Bioware decide about the background for the new galaxy and the squademates. Just hope we won't game some space Marie Sue who will, with only one spaceship, obliterate millions year warbringers civilizations loaded with billions of overpowered dreadnought.

 

If the game is a 18+, why don't they throw some complexity? Watering down has a limit named Call of.

[saladinbob]

No? There are two different instances (Edit: In fact, three) in Dragon Age games where keeping someone alive is treated as an extremely controversial, even heinous, choice. You can spare the life of a mass murderer, and the choice results in war between two city states. 

 

In Mass Effect 2, you can let someone live only to find out that choice leads to even more death and destruction. 

 

It seems to me that not only has Bioware done it as well, but that Bioware did it first. 

 

But there is no consequence to it. You can only do it within the context of A is the 'good' choice and B is the 'evil' choice. Morality in real life is no so black and white as it is presented in Bioware games. As slimgrin says, more and more developers have realised this and embraced a more complex system that doesn't judge the player, simply presents them with the consequences of their choices but Bioware retain the same system they were using over a decade ago. Gaming moved on, Bioware haven't.

 

In the example you give, you are knowingly freeing a Mass Murderer, equally knowing there is a high probability of re-offending. In the example I give from TW3 you don't. You think you're doing the right thing by saving someone from being killed. You have no idea he will go on to commit mass murder because you are not told he's a mass murderer. He's simply someone you can either choose to help or not as your conscience dictates. That's the difference in Bioware games.

 

 

 

The ME branch of BW still needs to work on having choices worth a damn that have a tangible impact on gameplay first. If not, then I don't particularly care how "complex" the morality is if all it amounts to is fluff like emails, interchangeable dialogue and brief cameos followed by going down the same linear whack a mole corridors that everyone else experiences.

 

A good start on that would be a reason to take Companion A over Companion B on the mission. The game would benefit from having missions with multiple paths to completion that change in accordance with your companion choice. One of the things that annoys me most with Bioware games is you have a gigantic pool of companions who have all the same skills. You can play ME 1-3 with any combination of the companions available to you and the game never plays out any different. Miranda is no different to Jack, it's simply that Miranda is the Paragon choice and Jack the Renegade choice. The game never rewards you for choosing Miranda over Jack of vice versa.

 

Companions need more diversity in their skills and the missions should be tailored towards those skills giving you a reason to bring certain companions on certain missions. This would stop players just bringing along their favourites on every mission.

[Lebanese Dude]

But there is no consequence to it. You can only do it within the context of A is the 'good' choice and B is the 'evil' choice. Morality in real life is no so black and white as it is presented in Bioware games. As slimgrin says, more and more developers have realised this and embraced a more complex system that doesn't judge the player, simply presents them with the consequences of their choices but Bioware retain the same system they were using over a decade ago. Gaming moved on, Bioware haven't.

 

There are no "good" and "evil" choices. A practical player might see the renegade choices as being the good ones. It's all subjective. Don't impose your own moral compass on others.

 

Squad members and minor characters pass their own judgement on the player, not the game (by extension the devs). Differentiate the two.

 

 

In the example you give, you are knowingly freeing a Mass Murderer, equally knowing there is a high probability of re-offending. In the example I give from TW3 you don't. You think you're doing the right thing by saving someone from being killed. You have no idea he will go on to commit mass murder because you are not told he's a mass murderer. He's simply someone you can either choose to help or not as your conscience dictates. That's the difference in Bioware games.

 

This is a bad example to use.

 

The "choice" presented here is action or inaction. That is not a narrative choice. It's a gameplay choice with a minor consequence for inaction.

 

That is what you can do in any BioWare game. You don't have to do any side missions. Many of them make no sense for a practical protagonist.

 

In ME, choosing not to do many side missions throughout ME leads to a lower War Asset score. Not doing missions before the main mission can lock them off. You have the University, Tuchanka, Rannoch, etc... missions. Action/Inaction leads to a different set of potential outcomes.

 

There's your action/inaction consequences.

 

Also I'd sincerely wish people would stop comparing a single character (no party) RPG to a squad-based RPG. For example, the mere existence of companions and their input regarding your choices can have an effect on the breadth of choices and paths available.

[Pasquale1234]

Where would the incentive be for keeping them alive? Both choices should have a consequence, not just one otherwise players will just kill them in order to make life easier for themselves further down the line. Those consequences should also be consequences for the game world, as well as the player.

Well - notice that I said:
"the player's choices and approach determining whether they were killed, prosecuted, or slipped away."

... so let's think outside the box a little bit here.

Firstly - I don't agree that everyone would want them out of the way. I think a lot of players would welcome the additional challenges they could present at the end, and might be curious to see what kinds of traps the different antagonists would set.

Secondly - there are a variety of ways a mission to track them down could go. A few examples:
-- Hostage situations.
-- Dungeon with multiple paths. Choose the wrong one, and the antagonist gets away (and I would randomize that, so it isn't the same path each playthrough)
-- Chase scene, with the possibility of the antagonist getting away.
-- Prosecution could release them if you don't bribe the judge or present enough evidence or lack the reputation for your testimony to be believable.
-- Mission order / selection could impact the results. Do mission A and catch that antagonist, but there isn't enough evidence to hold them unless you go get the evidence in Mission B right away. But if you don't do Mission C right away, the antagonist in Mission C will commit their nefarious deeds and get away. So - regardless of choices, at least one of them will get away.
-- Some could escape incarceration.
-- Ooh, shiny... see that beautiful weapon unlock? Touch it and you'll release a trap that knocks out your party while the antagonist escapes. U can haz the weapon or the antagonist, but not both.
-- Samara's loyalty mission also comes to mind. You had to first navigate situations at the club to get her attention, and then navigate dialogue to get her to invite you home. Failure at any point means she gets away.

What I would not want to see is cutscene imposed failure, ala Kai Leng.

The biggest problem I see is the idea that the protag could be "failing" some of these missions. I think most players are accustomed to being successful on every mission, and some people might get frustrated over it.

[The Hierophant]

 

Also I'd sincerely wish people would stop comparing a single character (no party) RPG to a squad-based RPG. For example, the mere existence of companions and their input regarding your choices can have an effect on the breadth of choices and paths available.

So like Fallout 4, and New Vegas? 

[Lebanese Dude]

So like Fallout 4, and New Vegas? 

 

Not squad-based RPGs to begin with. 

[The Hierophant]

Not squad-based RPGs to begin with.

But the companions statements and approval helped shape my decisions during quests, and which factions i allied with. That has to count for something?

[Lebanese Dude]

But the companions statements and approval helped shape my decisions during quests, and which factions i allied with. That has to count for something?

 

Welp lemme copy paste my edit lol

 

But to a lesser extent, yes. Although Bethesda makes sure that companions are as non-intrusive as possible given the gameplay itself. Depth of relationship development is insignificant in comparison too. 

 

I'd sooner compare TW3 to Fallout games really. Fallout 4 is actually between the two. 

[Lady Artifice]

 

But there is no consequence to it. You can only do it within the context of A is the 'good' choice and B is the 'evil' choice. Morality in real life is no so black and white as it is presented in Bioware games. As slimgrin says, more and more developers have realised this and embraced a more complex system that doesn't judge the player, simply presents them with the consequences of their choices but Bioware retain the same system they were using over a decade ago. Gaming moved on, Bioware haven't.

 

In the example you give, you are knowingly freeing a Mass Murderer, equally knowing there is a high probability of re-offending. In the example I give from TW3 you don't. You think you're doing the right thing by saving someone from being killed. You have no idea he will go on to commit mass murder because you are not told he's a mass murderer. He's simply someone you can either choose to help or not as your conscience dictates. That's the difference in Bioware games.

 

There are consequences in every single one of the four examples I referrenced, and absolute none of them are presented as involving a black and white understanding of morality. Even in the case of paragon and renegade, which are often denounced as inconsistent and flawed, it's never been about the good choice versus the evil choice.

 

Now if you don't think those consequences are significant enough, that's your prerogative, but the example of consequences that you provided involved the death of background characters in the fictional world. You established the qualifications for what you consider to be real consequences, and Bioware has already met your qualifications numerous times, well before TW3 came along.

 

Kelder Vanard is a remorseful serial killer of children in DA2 who begs you kill him. Most of your companions consider it the best choice and reward you with more approval if you do it yourself. He also very definitely continues to kill if you let him live. But if you do kill him, you must take on the role of judge and jury, and execute him in cold blood. You also must completely sacrifice any goodwill you had with his father, the Magistrate who hired you to return him. There are several potential problems here. First, what if the player character doesn't believe in killing outside of self defense or believe that they have the personal right to condemn a man to death? There's also the matter of self interest, and protecting your family. You're a poor refugee who either is an apostate themselves or is sheltering an apostate sister. Your position is precarious, and making and enemy out of a Magistrate is an extremely dangerous idea.

 

In DAO, whether you kill or recruit Loghain, someone is going to think you made the wrong choice. Recruiting him means you lose another companion, so there is a consequence. It's the job of the player to decide whether that consequence is a acceptable loss for them. The reasons for sparing can be practical, idealistic and forgiving, or even punitive, if the player thinks killing him lets him off too easy.

 

Killing Anders gives him precisely what he wants and turns him into a martyr for his cause, while sparing him leads to, as I mentioned, an actual war between two city states.

 

However, the example from a Bioware game that most closely resembles your Witcher example is probably Rana Thanoptis. We know she's been up to some shady stuff both times you meet her in Mass Effect 1 and 2, but she always offers excuses. We have no hard evidence that she's a direct danger to anyone, any more than anyone else you meet in the galaxy. In order to kill her, you must kill her in cold blood. If you let her live, she turns out to be indoctrinated, and you find out that she kills a lot of people in ME3.

 

The remaining distinction is that, in your example, Geralt doesn't have any context for why the person he frees is tied up, while the Bioware protagonists in my example are given more background. His choice is to either leave a stranger bound and helpless, or free him.

 

I'd argue that particular lack of context doesn't, in fact, contribute to a more meaningful moral dilemma. It does perhaps contribute to a sense of grimdark, because it's a well meaning, good samaritan version of Geralt that ends up indirectly causing more death and suffering. But the choice that's presented to him has far fewer ethical and practical variables that any of the simillar examples in Bioware games.

 

It's cool that you like this thing in The Witcher, but the truth is that Bioware has already been there and done that several times over.

[Lebanese Dude]

There are consequences in every single one of the four examples I referrenced, and absolute none of them are presented as involving a black and white understanding of morality. Even in the case of paragon and renegade, which are often denounced as inconsistent and flawed, it's never been about the good choice versus the evil choice.

 

Now if you don't think those consequences are significant enough, that's your prerogative, but the example of consequences that you provided involved the death of background characters in the fictional world. You established the qualifications for you consider to be real consequences, and Bioware has already met your qualifications numerous times, well before TW3 came along.

 

Kelder Vanard is a remorseful serial killer of children in DA2 who begs you kill him. Most of your companions consider it the best choice and reward you with more approval if you do it yourself. He also very definitely continues to kill if you let him live. But if you do kill him, you must take on the role of judge and jury, and execute him in cold blood. You also must completely sacrifice any goodwill you had with his father, the Magistrate who hired you to return him. There are several potential problems here. First, what if the player character doesn't believe in killing outside of self defense or believe that they have the personal right to condemn a man to death? There's also the matter of self interest, and protecting your family. You're a poor refugee who either is an apostate themselves or is sheltering an apostate sister. Your position is precarious, and making and enemy out of a Magistrate is an extremely dangerous idea.

 

In DAO, whether you kill or recruit Loghain, someone is going to think you made the wrong choice. Recruiting him means you lose another companion, so there is a consequence. It's the job of the player to decide whether that consequence is a acceptable loss for them. The reasons for sparing can be practical, idealistic and forgiving, or even punitive, if the player thinks killing him lets him off too easy.

 

Killing Anders gives him precisely what he wants and turns him into a martyr for his cause, while sparing him leads to, as I mentioned, an actual war between two city states.

 

However, the example from a Bioware game that most closely resembles your Witcher example is probably Rana Thanoptis. We know she's been up to some shady stuff both times you meet her in Mass Effect 1 and 2, but she always offers excuses. We have no hard evidence that she's a direct danger to anyone, any more than anyone else you meet in the galaxy. In order to kill her, you must kill her in cold blood. If you let her live, she turns out to be indoctrinated, and you find out that she kills a lot of people in ME3.

 

The remaining distinction is that, in your example, Geralt doesn't have any context for why the person he frees is tied up, while the Bioware protagonists in my example are given more background. His choice is to either leave a stranger bound and helpless, or free him.

 

I'd argue that particular lack of context doesn't, in fact, contribute to a more meaningful moral dilemma. It does perhaps contribute to a sense of grimdark, because it's a well meaning, good samaritan version of Geralt that ends up indirectly causing more death and suffering. But the choice that's presented to him has far fewer ethical and practical variables that any of the simillar examples in Bioware games.

 

It's cool that you like this thing in The Witcher, but the truth is that Bioware has already been there and done that several times over.

[Lucca_de_Neon]

I believe that there's nothing like learning from your own mistakes and the ending to ME3 was a mistake (IMO!). Hopefuly, we won't have another moment like that in which everything you accomplished (or failed to) it's reduced to a last second choice, regardless of previous things (it losses some of the impact of all the previous hours).
In terms of gameplay, i have no complains whatsoever. It becomes better with each new installment and i'm glad about not having to check the inventories of my teammates in search of things like in the first mass effect (I've never been big on sharing the loot with my squad. Get your own things, dammit!). What scares me is that we might be able to fly our ship...i don't like that at all

[Sylvius the Mad]

Agree about the cinematics. They mostly exist for dramatic effect.

Disagree about the dialogue clearly demonstrating a superior choice. It's not unusual for Bioware to have squadmates offer different opinions when players are asked to make choices, and this situation was no different.

True, but when the squadmates present an option that doesn't tell us that option is better (or even viable).

[Pasquale1234]

True, but when the squadmates present an option that doesn't tell us that option is better (or even viable).

Correct, and that's pretty much the point I was trying to make.

Squadmate opinion =/= actual tactical info.

[Shechinah]

Kelder Vanard is a remorseful serial killer of children in DA2 who begs you kill him. Most of your companions consider it the best choice and reward you with more approval if you do it yourself.

 

I always feel so sad for Kelder despite what he has done because he is so clearly a man who is mentally ill in a time where mental illness is not recognised the same as it is now and he seems to have had no chance of obtaining the help he desperately needs. 

 

It does not change what he has done but it does make the whole affair all the more tragic, in my opinion. It also adds this subtle tone of horror to the setting of how people with psychological conditions such as intrusive thoughts very likely fear that they are being influenced by a demon and what they might do to themselves if they worry they might be compelled to carry out their thoughts by the demon.     

 

A small correction note of correction: I believe all companions consider killing Kelder to be the best course of action and they all approve of it.
 

[Lady Artifice]

I always feel so sad for Kelder despite what he has done because he is so clearly a man who is mentally ill in a time where mental illness is not recognised the same as it is now and he seems to have had no chance of obtaining the help he desperately needs. 

 

It does not change what he has done but it does make the whole affair all the more tragic, in my opinion. It also adds this subtle tone of horror to the setting of how people with psychological conditions such as intrusive thoughts very likely fear that they are being influenced by a demon and what they might do to themselves if they worry they might be compelled to carry out their thoughts by the demon.     

 

A small correction note of correction: I believe all companions consider killing Kelder to be the best course of action and they all approve of it.

 

That was what I was thinking at the time as well. What seems strange is that some of the darkest, most horrific things in Bioware games often seem to go completely overlooked.

 

That's true. I was just being cautious, because I thought I remembered that Anders didn't offer any actual approval points one way or the other.

[Steelcan]

That was what I was thinking at the time as well. What seems strange is that some of the darkest, most horrific things in Bioware games often seem to go completely overlooked.

 

That's true. I was just being cautious, because I thought I remembered that Anders didn't offer any actual approval points one way or the other.

cause the games overall aren't usually very grimdark

[slimgrin]

There are consequences in every single one of the four examples I referrenced, and absolute none of them are presented as involving a black and white understanding of morality. Even in the case of paragon and renegade, which are often denounced as inconsistent and flawed, it's never been about the good choice versus the evil choice.

 

Now if you don't think those consequences are significant enough, that's your prerogative, but the example of consequences that you provided involved the death of background characters in the fictional world. You established the qualifications for what you consider to be real consequences, and Bioware has already met your qualifications numerous times, well before TW3 came along.

 

Kelder Vanard is a remorseful serial killer of children in DA2 who begs you kill him. Most of your companions consider it the best choice and reward you with more approval if you do it yourself. He also very definitely continues to kill if you let him live. But if you do kill him, you must take on the role of judge and jury, and execute him in cold blood. You also must completely sacrifice any goodwill you had with his father, the Magistrate who hired you to return him. There are several potential problems here. First, what if the player character doesn't believe in killing outside of self defense or believe that they have the personal right to condemn a man to death? There's also the matter of self interest, and protecting your family. You're a poor refugee who either is an apostate themselves or is sheltering an apostate sister. Your position is precarious, and making and enemy out of a Magistrate is an extremely dangerous idea.

 

In DAO, whether you kill or recruit Loghain, someone is going to think you made the wrong choice. Recruiting him means you lose another companion, so there is a consequence. It's the job of the player to decide whether that consequence is a acceptable loss for them. The reasons for sparing can be practical, idealistic and forgiving, or even punitive, if the player thinks killing him lets him off too easy.

 

Killing Anders gives him precisely what he wants and turns him into a martyr for his cause, while sparing him leads to, as I mentioned, an actual war between two city states.

 

However, the example from a Bioware game that most closely resembles your Witcher example is probably Rana Thanoptis. We know she's been up to some shady stuff both times you meet her in Mass Effect 1 and 2, but she always offers excuses. We have no hard evidence that she's a direct danger to anyone, any more than anyone else you meet in the galaxy. In order to kill her, you must kill her in cold blood. If you let her live, she turns out to be indoctrinated, and you find out that she kills a lot of people in ME3.

 

The remaining distinction is that, in your example, Geralt doesn't have any context for why the person he frees is tied up, while the Bioware protagonists in my example are given more background. His choice is to either leave a stranger bound and helpless, or free him.

 

I'd argue that particular lack of context doesn't, in fact, contribute to a more meaningful moral dilemma. It does perhaps contribute to a sense of grimdark, because it's a well meaning, good samaritan version of Geralt that ends up indirectly causing more death and suffering. But the choice that's presented to him has far fewer ethical and practical variables that any of the simillar examples in Bioware games.

 

It's cool that you like this thing in The Witcher, but the truth is that Bioware has already been there and done that several times over.

 

Some serious mental gymnastic here. All there is to say is that most of the industry recognized the contribution CDPR has made in the C&C dept ever since the first Witcher came out. That is to say, they do it with moral ambiguity and time delayed consequences. This does not characterize the thrust of RPG design by Bioware, which centers around chosen hero cliches and power trips. Sure, some of the decisions in their games are nuanced - especially in DA:O - but most are plain old black and white and meant to stroke the player's ego. Both approaches are valid, but don't go pretending Bioware paved the way in this regard. They most certainly have not.