97 réponses à ce sujet

[Midnight Bliss]

No, shep can express a desire to have been asked to join Cerberus earlier in me2. He can express anti alliance views. Whilst shep can not hate Anderson he isn't forced into a railroaded father-child relationship prior to me3. shep can leave a vulnerable kid to be experimented on. That's just a tiny selection of the multiple freedoms and multiple freedoms that existed within the shep persona.

Me3 is terrible because it tries to create a singular version of shep through its awful auto shep and cut downcharacterisatio.

I don't ever remember being able to be pro-Ceberus. The most I can think of was dialogue suggesting Shep might become pro Cerberus but it never actually happens. Are you talking about that or something else? Maybe I forgot.

 

The rest yeah, that was my point about ME3 giving questionable continuity for some personality archtypes. Some of the stuff you mentioned I think was carried over well in 3, though, but we might disagree.

[In Exile]

When quests and dialogue need to be metagamed, that's when it stops being a roleplaying game.

Is there a way to make quest and dialogue decisions from an in-character perspective in any ME game?

I agree on quests and dialogue; I just think that developers don't view part of the "gameplay" (and remember you've persuaded me dialogue is gameplay; I'm just using this as a short-hand colloquial reference for combat and inventory). 

 

Here is the issue with the "in-character" definition - it does not capture the necessary degree of flexibility needed for an RPG. Having played through ME1 once, I could invent a character whose choices would be reflected in the dialogue. For example, someone who would be a frothing at the mouth loon in a public council meeting, no exceptions. So in that sense ME1 supports "in-character" decision making.

In my view, an RPG requires variability - it has to allow for multiple characters - and predictability - it has to give you clear information on the kinds of characters you can play, and the decisions you can make, before you make them. Our arguments on dialogue (full line vs. paraphrase) often turn on predictability. 

[In Exile]

I don't want to control the narrative. I want to see what sort of narrative emerges given a certain type of character

I'm not sure this is accurate. You're of the view you can interpret the reactions of NPCs in more than one way. That sounds like controlling the narrative, because you're controlling both sides of a conversation. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In my view, an RPG requires variability - it has to allow for multiple characters - and predictability - it has to give you clear information on the kinds of characters you can play, and the decisions you can make, before you make them. Our arguments on dialogue (full line vs. paraphrase) often turn on predictability.

I completely agree that those are necessary conditions.

I'm not convinced they are sufficient conditions.

I'm not sure this is accurate. You're of the view you can interpret the reactions of NPCs in more than one way. That sounds like controlling the narrative, because you're controlling both sides of a conversation.

Of course we can interpret NPC reactions more than one way.  That's an in-character determination.  I can interpret your statements more than one way, too.  That doesn't mean I'm actually changing what you are.

 

What I think you're referring to is my application of Schrödinger's Lore, where facts about the game world are not fixed until we experience them, so background about a character in one playthrough might not remain true in another playthrough if we don't encounter the same evidence.

[LPPrince]

I completely agree that those are necessary conditions.

I'm not convinced they are sufficient conditions.

Of course we can interpret NPC reactions more than one way.  That's an in-character determination.  I can interpret your statements more than one way, too.  That doesn't mean I'm actually changing what you are.

 

What I think you're referring to is my application of Schrödinger's Lore, where facts about the game world are not fixed until we experience them, so background about a character in one playthrough might not remain true in another playthrough if we don't encounter the same evidence.

 

 

Quoting you just to say I miss seeing your posts around and talking about them. Always well thought out. Not saying you've been missing, its me. But yeah, miss it.

[Mdizzletr0n]

exactly my point.

ME games or DA games are like "choose your own story book", that u get key points trow the game that allow u to change the narrative of it.

Not really because nothing really changes all that much. It's 90% the same thing regardless of what you choose. Even then, it all got handwaved anyways.

[Seboist]

Not really because nothing really changes all that much. It's 90% the same thing regardless of what you choose. Even then, it all got handwaved anyways.

That's a generous estimate on your part tbh, more like 95-98%.

[Mdizzletr0n]

That's a generous estimate on your part tbh, more like 95-98%.

Figured I'd take that approach for once. Lol

[wright1978]

I don't ever remember being able to be pro-Ceberus. The most I can think of was dialogue suggesting Shep might become pro Cerberus but it never actually happens. Are you talking about that or something else? Maybe I forgot.

 

The rest yeah, that was my point about ME3 giving questionable continuity for some personality archtypes. Some of the stuff you mentioned I think was carried over well in 3, though, but we might disagree.

 

With Miranda she can say 'Frankly based on what i've seen i wish Cerberus had recruited you earlier."

to which Shep can respond (so i do I)"I wish you'd made the offer"

[Midnight Bliss]

With Miranda she can say 'Frankly based on what i've seen i wish Cerberus had recruited you earlier."

to which Shep can respond (so i do I)"I wish you'd made the offer"

I definitely never saw that one.

 

Makes me wish they could have been more than just enemies in ME3 now.

[Iakus]

Not really because nothing really changes all that much. It's 90% the same thing regardless of what you choose. Even then, it all got handwaved anyways.

You can have choices that matter, or you can have game imports.  You can't have both

[CronoDragoon]

You can have choices that matter, or you can have game imports.  You can't have both

 

Or one can adjust his or her definition of choices "mattering" so it doesn't exclude 99% of RPGs.

 

my definition of choices mattering is simple: your choice produces two or more distinct outcomes. And by outcome I don't mean it has to tie into the ending, which is a fairly arbitrary qualification. I simply mean the in-game universe diverges relative to the scope of the choice.

 

This definition fits quite a lot of choices within both Mass Effect and Dragon Age, but not all. Under this definition, the Councillor choice in ME1 ends up not mattering. The Tuchanka or Rannoch choice does. Or the Divine choice in Inquisition.

[Iakus]

Or one can adjust his or her definition of choices "mattering" so it doesn't exclude 99% of RPGs.

 

my definition of choices mattering is simple: your choice produces two or more distinct outcomes. And by outcome I don't mean it has to tie into the ending, which is a fairly arbitrary qualification. I simply mean the in-game universe diverges relative to the scope of the choice.

 

This definition fits quite a lot of choices within both Mass Effect and Dragon Age, but not all. Under this definition, the Councillor choice in ME1 ends up not mattering. The Tuchanka or Rannoch choice does. Or the Divine choice in Inquisition.

My definition is a choice "mattering" is that it is more than merely cosmetic.

 

And the more such choices there are, the more baggage later games have to deal with.  Until you get to the point where the story buckles under the weight of all those divergent choices.

 

Me, I'd rather have one game where my choices lead to many distinct outcomes along the way rather than have an import system where my character wakes up after being dead for two years effectively undoing everything I accomplished in the last game.

 

Edit:  The Tuchanka decision is probably a high point in the Mass Effect trilogy in that choices from all three games played into how the situation was resolved.  But overall very little else mattered.  After all "ME3 is the best place to start"

[CronoDragoon]

My definition is a choice "mattering" is that it is more than merely cosmetic.

 

What does cosmetic mean in this situation?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Thats a false equivalency, because to score points a golfer has to hit the ball. To play an RPG a player doesn't have to always be in character, truth be told.

To roleplay, one does.

These are roleplaying games.

The fun is controlling the narrative, for better or for worse. To have mastery of the situation with your hybrid character, not a reactionary one with a specific-minded character.

If I wanted to control the narrative, I would write my own story. The fun is in interacting with a world I do not control.

I know you that's not what you want, and you would argue RPG's are not games, but this is not a tabletop game, it never was. There is no toolbox to play in here, you're beholden to the designers limitations and narrative structure regardless of how much freedom, or lack thereof, they give you.

I happily concede I have limited freedom. My concern with a Mass Effect style design is that I have nothing to do at all. The player can't bring anything interesting to the character or the story; we're left just following along someone else's work and doing what we're told.

[Iakus]

What does cosmetic mean in this situation?

More than simply swapping out names and faces of NPCs you happen to meet.  Or changing around arbitrary numbers on the "I Win-Meter"

 

It should changes the shape and direction of a story.  Even if it's only a side-story.

 

No, not every choice should be so dramatic.  But the "big" choices should.  There should be a payoff for making such a call.  This is stuff that takes up zots.  Making a choice matter takes work.  And I'm sure it's especially hard when you don't know where the story is going, or what the next story is, or even if there is going to be another story.

 

Take the Divine choice in DAI.  Sure it seems to be a big choice, but will it be?  Me, I doubt it.  They all choose "Victoria" as their new name.  And no matter who you choose, the Circle is Restored and the new College is founded.  And it's heavily implied the next game will be set outside the boundaries of the southern Chantry anyway.  So I doubt there will be any major divergences, for all that.

[CronoDragoon]

More than simply swapping out names and faces of NPCs you happen to meet.  Or changing around arbitrary numbers on the "I Win-Meter"

 

It should changes the shape and direction of a story.  Even if it's only a side-story.

 

No, not every choice should be so dramatic.  But the "big" choices should.  There should be a payoff for making such a call.  This is stuff that takes up zots.  Making a choice matter takes work.  And I'm sure it's especially hard when you don't know where the story is going, or what the next story is, or even if there is going to be another story.

 

Take the Divine choice in DAI.  Sure it seems to be a big choice, but will it be?  Me, I doubt it.  They all choose "Victoria" as their new name.  And no matter who you choose, the Circle is Restored and the new College is founded.  And it's heavily implied the next game will be set outside the boundaries of the southern Chantry anyway.  So I doubt there will be any major divergences, for all that.

 

But what you're saying is difficult to quantify. Just how much do big decisions need to change the scope of the story? And what's a payoff, anyway? Isn't it the case that one person might think something has a great payoff and another doesn't? What's the "shape" of a story? If the geth survive and the quarians don't, isn't that changing the shape of a story even if it doesn't change the direction? Why not? Because it doesn't specifically affect the final mission? What kind of definition is useful that posits saving one race over another as a meaningless choice just because it doesn't give you a different option later in the game? There's not really a great reason why the quarian/geth decision SHOULD have a massive (ugh, i almost said effect) consequence for something like Priority Earth.

 

You say that the Divine decision isn't huge because presumably it won't feature in later games (the Circles are not restored with Leliana, by the way. I think you'd have a difficult time arguing that all three Divines are functionally identical). But the decisions you make in Southern Thedas will stand. Similarly, I can import two entirely different world states from Origins. Do they have a HUGE affect on Inquisition? No. Do they need to for the decisions you made to still matter? Not really. Now, you could make an argument for something like killing Leliana. I think that's a good example of your choice not mattering. Inquisition fixes this, however, with the reveal about a slain-and-resurrected Leliana towards the end. That Leliana can be killed, revived as a lyrium ghost who then disappears in one playthrough, and be the lover of the Warden who eventually becomes Divine and abolishes the Circles of Magi in another, should dispel the notion that choices can't matter in continuous world states to the degree that they are mutually exclusive.

[Iakus]

But what you're saying is difficult to quantify. Just how much do big decisions need to change the scope of the story? And what's a payoff, anyway? Isn't it the case that one person might think something has a great payoff and another doesn't? What's the "shape" of a story? If the geth survive and the quarians don't, isn't that changing the shape of a story even if it doesn't change the direction? Why not? Because it doesn't specifically affect the final mission? What kind of definition is useful that posits saving one race over another as a meaningless choice just because it doesn't give you a different option later in the game? There's not really a great reason why the quarian/geth decision SHOULD have a massive (ugh, i almost said effect) consequence for something like Priority Earth.

 

I can't quantify this because the answer will be different with different stories and different decisions.  And even among "big choices" some will be bigger than others.  So yeah, it is difficult to quantify.  The fate of the geth is actually done fairly well, as it requires choices from two of the three games to resolve (even if I don't like the geth's sudden onset of Pinocchio Syndrome)  But the Council?  What difference did that make?  Different faces at the Citadel?  Saving or destroying the Collector base?  Jack living or dying had a bigger impact on the game than either of these!

 

It's actually a problem that plagued ME2 and ME3 both.  The status of given individuals only resulting in receiving an email or happening across them somewhere.

 

 

You say that the Divine decision isn't huge because presumably it won't feature in later games (the Circles are not restored with Leliana, by the way. I think you'd have a difficult time arguing that all three Divines are functionally identical). But the decisions you make in Southern Thedas will stand. Similarly, I can import two entirely different world states from Origins. Do they have a HUGE affect on Inquisition? No. Do they need to for the decisions you made to still matter? Not really. Now, you could make an argument for something like killing Leliana. I think that's a good example of your choice not mattering. Inquisition fixes this, however, with the reveal about a slain-and-resurrected Leliana towards the end. That Leliana can be killed, revived as a lyrium ghost who then disappears in one playthrough, and be the lover of the Warden who eventually becomes Divine and abolishes the Circles of Magi in another, should dispel the notion that choices can't matter in continuous world states to the degree that they are mutually exclusive.

If Leliana is Divine, VIvienne creates a new Circle herself.  And it comes to rival the College.  

 

And Dragon Age is making the best of the save imports by having a different protagonist with each game and moving the setting from region to region, thus minimizing the baggage each game carries.  But they can only keep that up for so long.

[Vox Draco]

Story. What else? In these Bioware-Games they should have focused on telling there story all the way, and realized that "choices matter" is a nice thing, but you will always be bound by the plot and story the devs want to tell - and the more you leave it open to the player, the less a writer can focus as things need to be open too much. And the more open you leave it, the more choices you give, the more problematic it becomes to stay coherent and have all the results of the choices work or "matter" in the end.

 

And not speaking of potential sequels - we saw ME3 and the lame attempt to (non-incorprate player-decisions of some impotartance. They got us ended up in Andromeda far, far away from all the consequences the trilogy brought with it. And when I think about the lengths TES: Daggerfall had to go to make ALL different endings canon at the same time? ^^

 

Nah, rather less freedom in MEA but an engaging, fast-paced story, with twists and maybe some different ways to tackle things, but still focused on the main story.

[LinksOcarina]

To roleplay, one does.

These are roleplaying games.
If I wanted to control the narrative, I would write my own story. The fun is in interacting with a world I do not control.
I happily concede I have limited freedom. My concern with a Mass Effect style design is that I have nothing to do at all. The player can't bring anything interesting to the character or the story; we're left just following along someone else's work and doing what we're told.

 

But isn't Mass Effect a world you don't control? 

 

. I guess the problem I see is you don't have a chance to be reactive to the story; you don't control everything either but the world is specifically shaped by narrative choices you make. 

 

I do agree that Mass Effect doesn't allow a lot of room for the player to add to Shepards identity, although it does give you some freedom and when narrative choices do come up, you can inject that personality into Shepard where appropriate. Compared to Dragon Age or previous games its less frequent, for sure.

 

But by design I think that was the sacrifice they made for a character like Shepard. If the same happens to the Pathfinder, I wouldn't be surprised I guess, but I have a feeling it won't be like Inquisition as much as people hope it can be. 

[tesla21]

I agree, but I guess that depends on how you want to roleplay your Shepard. I understand that player who want a more stoic protagonist were obviously much more happy with ME2, but that game was the worst for my Shepard...particularly because Shepard didn't seem to be affected by her death at all.

"Shepard. But you're dead."

"I got better."

"But you died."

"Meh."

No matter how hard I tried, I felt like she was nothing but an emotionless hollow shell with a gun throughout most of the story while ME3 Shepard felt at least somewhat alive to me. Sure, it wasn't perfect (I found Shepards Earth bias rather irritating for example)...but better than the brick I played in ME2.

Both of you are right in this, the answer is giving the player the choice to be more or less emotionally invested in cutscenes via wheel or something along those lines, just like there's a paragon/renegade wheel I think a grieving/shocked/angered/whatever + stoic wheel should've been there for ME3 because while *my* canon shepard fit alright with the auto scenes in ME3, those same scenes are a total turn off for some more stoic-renegade shepards, that the very same previous games allowed you to create. And like you I felt there were more scenes needed where my Shepard could express some shock and emotion over her own death back in Mass Effect 2.

 

But still it's as if they last minute ditched the stoic-renegade side of Shepard in ME3, it's just not fair for the players who chose to be that Shepard in the previous games. That's what I mean by you are both right, Bioware just should've been more consistent with including the different Shepard variations throughtout all games. The player should've had as much choice to not give a crap over Thessia for example as much as he should have the choice to mourn and feel bad for Liara, considering that Shepard had some very "human above all" choices and dialogue in previous games, plenty of "people die, get over it, that's war" dialogue as well. 

[Guitar-Hero]

Story. I like the idea that art is immitating life and in many ways our lives are stories, we make choices but we have no way of knowing how we are influenced by these choices.

 

I want to be able to have some degree of control over who i am in the context of the world, but i also want to be told a story, and not just faff about looking for elfroot having to find my own context, its like jacking off to your imagination. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

But isn't Mass Effect a world you don't control?

. I guess the problem I see is you don't have a chance to be reactive to the story; you don't control everything either but the world is specifically shaped by narrative choices you make.

I do agree that Mass Effect doesn't allow a lot of room for the player to add to Shepards identity, although it does give you some freedom and when narrative choices do come up, you can inject that personality into Shepard where appropriate.

Can you? Given the obfuscatory paraphrases, the ill-defined paragon/renegade dichotomy, and the completely opaque interrupt interface, we don't get to know what personality we're injecting until after we've done it.

That's not choice.

But by design I think that was the sacrifice they made for a character like Shepard. If the same happens to the Pathfinder, I wouldn't be surprised I guess, but I have a feeling it won't be like Inquisition as much as people hope it can be.

If we got to play exactly the same games as the ME series, but we got to know what our options were before we chose them, I'd probably think the ME games were pretty good. I'd probably rank ME and ME2 roughly on par with KotOR or BG2 (the second tier of BioWare's games, but well above Jade Empire). ME3 would probably be roughly equivalent to JE, even with the linear story and voiced protagonist, as long as we removed the guesswork from the dialogue selection and interrupts.