145 réponses à ce sujet

[iM3GTR]

I can imagine ME2:
"Shepard, I've found Sidonis. Can we stop off at the Citadel for a few hours?"
"Sure thing, Garrus. I'll wait on the Normandy feeding my space hamster."

"I'm back. Shepard, you should've been there. I stormed into a warehouse, fought through an army of Blue Suns; killed not one but TWO heavy mechs; beat up Harkin and shot Sidonis through the head. It was great!"

I'd be pretty disapointed if this happened. In all seriousness though, it's an OK idea, I guess.

[Laughing_Man]

I think that like in other areas, the answer is very simple: Strive for a measure of realism.

 

When it comes to an important decision or the ability to influence something, ask yourself, does it makes sense that the PC should be able to do this?...

 

One thing is for certain, I wouldn't want to see a walking failure of a bystander as the PC as the answer to this dilemma.

 

Simply find a balance that makes common sense.

[YourFunnyUncle]

DA2 had many problems (waves of mooks dropping from thin air, recycled dungeons, an obviously rushed third act) but I never agreed with those who complained about Hawke's lack of agency. For me, being caught in a maelstrom of events and just trying to steer a way through was a welcome change of pace.

I also love that Sera is her own person in DAI and you can't change her. When she chills out in Trespasser it's on her own terms. Of course this frustrated some people, but I would not be averse to seeing more characters like that. Not everyone needs to bend to the protagonist's will at all times.

Whatever they do with MEA, someone won't like it and will come here and moan...

[SNascimento]

I agree that Mass Effect could be silly in that Shep could just talk to resolve pretty much any conflict between two parties. I literally solved the Geth/Quarian decades of problems with a simple paragon or renegade dialogue choice that says the same thing regardless of which one I picked.

That's incorrect. Being able to save the Quarians, Geth or both takes into consideration multiple decisions from three games. You can reach out the last scene with Legion and Tali (indeed you can reach it with neither) and not be able to save both races.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

I can imagine ME2:
"Shepard, I've found Sidonis. Can we stop off at the Citadel for a few hours?"
"Sure thing, Garrus. I'll wait on the Normandy feeding my space hamster."

"I'm back. Shepard, you should've been there. I stormed into a warehouse, fought through an army of Blue Suns; killed not one but TWO heavy mechs; beat up Harkin and shot Sidonis through the head. It was great!"

I'd be pretty disapointed if this happened. In all seriousness though, it's an OK idea, I guess.

 

SWTOR has exactly this. Some of your companions take leave, go do something and then come back and tell you all about it.

 

In the other direction, we have Bethesda games. In the ES games you do a few missions for a group and they make you their leader. That would be like Shepard becoming the leader of Cerberus, the Spectres, the STG and the Asari religion all in one play through.

[wright1978]

I think that like in other areas, the answer is very simple: Strive for a measure of realism.

 

When it comes to an important decision or the ability to influence something, ask yourself, does it makes sense that the PC should be able to do this?...

 

One thing is for certain, I wouldn't want to see a walking failure of a bystander as the PC as the answer to this dilemma.

 

Simply find a balance that makes common sense.

 

I'd say no the very nature of the game experience is that we don't want pure realism. As you say it would be very dull if pc became a bystander as realism would dictate. While yes they should always ask themselves is this level of effect disproportional i don't think they should be removing the fantasy element of providing an outlet for player influence.

[katamuro]

I'd say no the very nature of the game experience is that we don't want pure realism. As you say it would be very dull if pc became a bystander as realism would dictate. While yes they should always ask themselves is this level of effect disproportional i don't think they should be removing the fantasy element of providing an outlet for player influence.

 

Exactly, I don't want to play an NPC in a game, I am already one in real life. Most of us indeed are NPC's in a sense. But yeah there needs to be less trivial quests or at least quests that while might seem trivial are not.

For example, in DAI there is sidequest in the first area where a hunter can't hunt because its "too dangerous" so instead we get to go hunting. Instead of hunting for 10 ram meat pieces we should have been made to go and make the area safe because meat that we hunt is going to run out soon but if we make the area safe then they can go on hunting. 

A good example in DAI is where we are asked to retrieve a ring of her husband for a widow from some rogue templars. That is indeed a trivial thing(a ring) but because she is just one woman, who is not a fighter she needs our help to do that. 

[Semyaza82]

   Really interesting article, thanks for linking it McFly. I think it makes some really good points - and I actually really agree with the Anders example. He's action makes him a more 'real' character for me. If the game had given me the option of talking him out of it, even as his boyfriend (as most of my Hawke's tended to be) it would have felt like cheapening the character for me. 

 

   An important thing to note is that no where in the article does it say anything about removing all, or even most, player agency. Just that the player should not be given control over everything, and that NPC's should have agency of their own.

[katamuro]

   Really interesting article, thanks for linking it McFly. I think it makes some really good points - and I actually really agree with the Anders example. He's action makes him a more 'real' character for me. If the game had given me the option of talking him out of it, even as his boyfriend (as most of my Hawke's tended to be) it would have felt like cheapening the character for me. 

 

   An important thing to note is that no where in the article does it say anything about removing all, or even most, player agency. Just that the player should not be given control over everything, and that NPC's should have agency of their own.

 

I have a problem with Anders example because it doesn't allow the Hawke to notice even when the writing of what he is about to do is on the wall. Apart from that it is a good example but so are various other NPC actions. Isabella and the book, her leaving all of those things were beyond the control of player. 

[Cyonan]

That's incorrect. Being able to save the Quarians, Geth or both takes into consideration multiple decisions from three games. You can reach out the last scene with Legion and Tali (indeed you can reach it with neither) and not be able to save both races.

 

Having saved a single ship from Geth and blowing up a bunch of Geth heretics shouldn't really mean that suddenly certain Quarians are willing to forget decades of hate just because I made a paragon or renegade dialogue choice.

 

In either case the point is that Shep can solve too many issues by yelling at people in either blue or red.

[Jedi Comedian]

I wanna be badass normal and have choices.
DAO was kinda an example of this (in the Origins).

[In Exile]

Having saved a single ship from Geth and blowing up a bunch of Geth heretics shouldn't really mean that suddenly certain Quarians are willing to forget decades of hate just because I made a paragon or renegade dialogue choice.

 

In either case the point is that Shep can solve too many issues by yelling at people in either blue or red.

The issue is that the Geth-Quarian story is stupid from the start in ME3. We can't focus on the microcosm of stupid (suddenly the Quarians are totally cool with not wholesale exterminating the Geth) without appreciating the macrocosm of stupid (the Quarians, for barely cogent reasons, decide that the technically possible but really unknowable invasion of the reapers requires to implement a strategy that will make it far more likely their entire population will be exterminated by the reapers). 

[Draining Dragon]

Just the nerfing of them?

No, I think that was another thread.

[AlanC9]

I just wonder if people would be able to accept if there is something happening on the screen and it is for us to know and not our character. I think the interactivity of games is making that line a little fuzzy for we are still pressing buttons to interact with those scenes and especially with RPG style games were are using the character as our avatar so it is information for us to know to influence our decisions.

I'm not a fan of this sort of thing myself. I'd just as soon Bio didn't bother trying to deliver suspense and kept everything from the PC's perspective.

But Bio has shown us plenty of stuff from outside the PC's POV. In ME1 we don't have to wonder about the accuracy of that Eden Prime witness' testimony since we've already seen Saren and Nihlus, and we later see Saren working with the geth. DA:O did it several times. So did KotOR and BG2. BG2's actually the worst of the lot since the player knows that the premise of one of the main plot missions is faulty, but the PC does not.

[Ruadh]

No.

 

How else are we gonna level up?

 

Pyjak.

 

Love love.

[Khrystyn]

I see the gist of the article proposing the notion that the PC doesn't have to solve everything. Let others handle certain situations. Or even let several squadmates make suggestions (such as what to do next) that the PC has to make a decision about.

 

I'd like to have a dialog wheel where we can only chose to have one (or both) of our squadmates reply to a question or comment. Our squaddies have such rich background and character depth that we should hear more from them when handling situations. The opportunity for comical humor from a squaddie could be wonderful. On a mission replay, the squaddie could say something different in the same situation to add some variety.

 

One of the aspects about Zaeed that I liked were all the stories he told (about his previous exploits) to Shepard during shipboard conversations. Some of his stories could have been put to effective use during other missions:

 

Zaeed:  "Shepard... see that guard off to the far right? Lemme get around him and knock him out with ol' Bessie.

              She's really good at that - and slices and dices them up pretty good too!"

 

Shepard's Dialog Wheel Options:

 

* Paragon: Just knock him out cold. I want him alive. We need intel right now, not bodies.

     Edit: Zaeed tries to just knock out the guard, but the guard dies anyway. When Zaeed return, he would say:

         "It's too bad he died, Shepard. Bessie doesn't always listen."

 

* Neutral: Just take him out quietly. Nothing fancy. Got it?

 

* Renegade: I gotta see that. Go enjoy yourself!

 

Giving squadmates more opportunities to act on their own, instead of simply setting a marker for them to hold position during a fight, would be really great. Our squadmates are capable in a fight, so let them do something while we watch it happen. Afterwards, we progress the mission further. Seems like it also would add to the variety of conversations when back on the ship, talking about the mission as an after-action report. There was a team conversation on the Normandy SR-1 (ME-1) after rescuing Liara on Therum. Several teammates had points to make that Shepard needed to hear. I liked that aspect to that scene. I hope we can see squaddies put to more effective use in Andromeda.

[In Exile]

I'm not a fan of this sort of thing myself. I'd just as soon Bio didn't bother trying to deliver suspense and kept everything from the PC's perspective.

But Bio has shown us plenty of stuff from outside the PC's POV. In ME1 we don't have to wonder about the accuracy of that Eden Prime witness' testimony since we've already seen Saren and Nihlus, and we later see Saren working with the geth. DA:O did it several times. So did KotOR and BG2. BG2's actually the worst of the lot since the player knows that the premise of one of the main plot missions is faulty, but the PC does not.

I think Trespasser is the worst offender. The entire premise of the DLC is pointless, because we already know the answer. 

[9TailsFox]

I think Trespasser is the worst offender. The entire premise of the DLC is pointless, because we already know the answer. 

Solas/Flemeth post credit scene shouldn't be in game. Than trespasser would be much better story wise.

[goishen]

The one reason why I play video games is to feel powerful.  Not lolpowerful (like some games, MGS5 comes to mind), but still, powerful.  To paraphrase someone else in the thread, that's great if you want to feel that emasculated in your own game world.  I can feel that walking out my front door and playing real life, where not even the truth matters.  

 

So, yah. 

[9TailsFox]

Yes I would like more of this, I so get use to PC being general with companions who blindly follows you orders regardless of personality. Like Fenris fine with me helping all the mages. Or Anders lets you just kill/send to circle all mages.

I was like Varric did you just shot him without me clicking {special] --> Varric.

 

And I want more companions opinions in general like in Swtor bounty hunter story you have to kill important nice guy by order of sith. And I didn't kill him because I am goodor evil. I let him live only because Mako ask me.

[Khrystyn]

The one reason why I play video games is to feel powerful.  Not lolpowerful (like some games, MGS5 comes to mind), but still, powerful.

 

Goshen, I'm not sure what you mean by not being "lolpowerful,' or referring to MGS5 (what's that?).

 

I wouldn't want to be omnipotent, if that's what you mean by being "lolpowerful." Playing through (recovering from) some setbacks adds to a more balanced realism. Shepard being unable to defeat Kai Leng at the Temple of Athame on Thessia, and then later gets his revenge on Kai Leng on Chronos Station for what he did to "Thane and Miranda/Kirrahe," has a greater sense of victory that simply being so powerful that Kai Leng couldn't survive their first encounter. I hope I have not misunderstood your point about "feeling powerful."

[RoboticWater]

I'm not a fan of this sort of thing myself. I'd just as soon Bio didn't bother trying to deliver suspense and kept everything from the PC's perspective.

But Bio has shown us plenty of stuff from outside the PC's POV. In ME1 we don't have to wonder about the accuracy of that Eden Prime witness' testimony since we've already seen Saren and Nihlus, and we later see Saren working with the geth. DA:O did it several times. So did KotOR and BG2. BG2's actually the worst of the lot since the player knows that the premise of one of the main plot missions is faulty, but the PC does not.

I don't think BioWare should refrain from the third person entirely, but to use it more sparingly. 

 

Going with the Eden Prime example, I would think that constraining our perspective would provide an even more suspenseful scene. Rather than getting the details shown to us immediately, maybe we talk to Nihilus over the radio until he says something like "wait, there's someone here," and cuts off contact. We hear the gunshot and have no idea what just happened. This would make the witness' testimony much more interesting because he's trying to explain how this one turian shot this other turian but they seemed to know each other... etc.

 

Perspective is a narrative tool like any other that should be used to enhance the story. It's more difficult to properly implement into an RPG where understanding the PC's motivations is important, but sometimes giving the player ulterior motives through dramatic irony can work out in an interesting way. As long as the player's knowledge doesn't defeat the purpose of their character's goals but perhaps works alongside them.

 

I think Trespasser is the worst offender. The entire premise of the DLC is pointless, because we already know the answer. 

The premise isn't entirely pointless. For one, the plot premise starts centered around the dubious relevance of the Inquisition, but I'd argue that Trespasser, from the player's perspective, is more about why Solas did what he did than anything else. However, I'll admit that the dramatic irony wasn't exceptionally implemented.

[goishen]

Goishen, I'm not sure what you mean by not being "lolpowerful,' or referring to MGS5 (what's that?).

 

I wouldn't want to be omnipotent, if that's what you mean by being "powerful." Playing through (recovering from) some setbacks adds to a more balanced realism. Shepard being unable to defeat Kai Leng at the Temple of Athame on Thessia, and then later gets his revenge on Kai Leng on Chronos Station for what he did to "Thane and Miranda/Miranda/Thane/Kirrahe," has a greater sense of victory that simply being so powerful that Kai Leng couldn't survive their first encounter. I hope I have not misunderstood your point about "feeling powerful."

 

K, welp, here's what I feel.  K, first of all, I like Tom Francis (who wrote the article).  I follow him on youtube.  I like his series on creating a game, even though my art looks like it was drawn by a three year old who has had too much caffeine.  It appears as though he's picking on BioWare simply for the sake of picking on BioWare. 

 

I can think of plenty of games where you're solving other people's problems for them.  XCom (and you're trusting me to defeat the aliens....   why?), MGS5 (and you're trusting me to go into Afghanistan...   Why just exactly?), etc etc.  At least BioWare gives you the option, as I said before in most cases, to just walk away.  Whereas with other games, it comes down to "Yes I'll do it", or "No, I'll deal with it later". 

 

You don't have the option of just walking away.  I certainly don't mean to pick on those games (well, maybe a bit for MGS5, god that game sucked), because I enjoyed playing them.  But in both of those games, it's either "my way or the highway". 

 

EDIT :  And yes, I completely agree with your portrait of Shepard vs. Kai Leng on Thessia.  Whereas in the other two games that I've mentioned, it would be a loss in the best case scenario or in the worst case, a crit path loss.

[AlanC9]

I think Trespasser is the worst offender. The entire premise of the DLC is pointless, because we already know the answer.

Well, depends on what the premise of the DLC is. Marketing aside, it only really gets bad in-game after the qunari plot is stopped and we're pursuing the Viddasala to save Solas. Though then it's really bad, since not only does the player know that Solas doesn't need any rescuing, but the PC can reasonably conclude the same -- in fact, is allowed to conclude the same later on.

I would have liked an option for the Inquisitor to say "well, this should be hilarious," follow the qunari at a distance, and watch the Viddasala's epic fail. Then again, I always prefer setups that allow you to skip the bossfights or casually dispose of the boss.

[9TailsFox]

K, welp, here's what I feel.  K, first of all, I like Tom Francis (who wrote the article).  I follow him on youtube.  I like his series on creating a game, even though my art looks like it was drawn by a three year old who has had too much caffeine.  It appears as though he's picking on BioWare simply for the sake of picking on BioWare. 

 

I can think of plenty of games where you're solving other people's problems for them.  XCom (and you're trusting me to defeat the aliens....   why?), MGS5 (and you're trusting me to go into Afghanistan...   Why just exactly?), etc etc.  At least BioWare gives you the option, as I said before in most cases, to just walk away.  Whereas with other games, it comes down to "Yes I'll do it", or "No, I'll deal with it later". 

 

You don't have the option of just walking away.  I certainly don't mean to pick on those games (well, maybe a bit for MGS5, god that game sucked), because I enjoyed playing them.  But in both of those games, it's either "my way or the highway". 

What do you talking about?

In DA:O How we can refuse to become warden.

In DA:II How we can go to any city who is not Kirkwall.

And in Mass effect how I can not care about earth.