182 réponses à ce sujet

[UpUpAway]

As far as I can see, people are still just asking for variations of a morality system... just not using the term "morality" to describe it.  As long as a player's decision is to have a consequence that is in anyway meaningful to the outcome of the game and that decision is based on taking a moral perspective, a form of "moral system" will be in place and the author of the game is going to be the one making the "judgment" as to what actions result in better or worse consequences for the player's character.  It's inevitable then that the game will reflect the general "morality" of the game's authors.

[frylock23]

I don't think we can really expect to have this unless and until we have actual companion reactions to it, up to and including them leaving.

 

Did anyone ever actually have companions leave on them? I never did although I did end up being betrayed by Iron Bull a couple of times and actually left Rainier to his fate once or twice too. But that's companion neglect more than them disagreeing with what my PC did.

 

I want to see the system set up such that you will have companions who will leave if you walk too "blue" or too "red" or that companions will act on their own against you in some places with consequences for everyone.

[Ieldra]

If an approval system is implemented, I would very much appreciate it if we could at least get the option to hide the numbers behind it. I don't want to see "Liara approval +10", I just want to experience the change in the interaction with these NPCs and/or factions. I loved how the decision who would become the next Divine in DA:I was a complex formula that took place entirely behind the scenes. All we'd see was the result and we could speculate what caused it (until they revealed the mechanics on the forums of course). That was great! Of course, this kind of subtlety needs quite a bit of careful balancing but I'd love to see more of it.

The problem with hiding these things is that you don't know your decision had an impact. You can't discern if the behaviour of the NPC is different from the default. IRL, you have more data since there's been much more previous communication than a few hours of very selective dialogue, and you usually have more ways to evaluate other people's opinions. I think the way DAI did this worked well, although of course different options for presenting these things to us are always good.

[Master Warder Z_]

The problem with hiding these things is that you don't know your decision had an impact. You can't discern if the behaviour of the NPC is different from the default. IRL, you have more data since there's been much more previous communication than a few hours of very selective dialogue, and you usually have more ways to evaluate other people's opinions. I think the way DAI did this worked well, although of course different options for presenting these things to us are always good.

Snarfles: @ThisUnit1025 RAAAAA MACHINE, YOU STILL HERE? #Citadel
Geth Infiltrator1025: @VorchaDaddy Yes. #Citadel
Snarfles: @ThisUnit1025 ME MAYBE ALREADY LOST MOST OF CREDITS ON QUASAR. YOU HELP? #Citadel
Geth Infiltrator1025: @VorchaDaddy Inability to calculate simple probability on your part does not obligate cheating on ours. #Citadel
Snarfles: @ThisUnit1025 IT NOT FOR ME! IT FOR ASARI GIRLFRIEND ON OMEGA! #Citadel
Geth Infiltrator1025: @VorchaDaddy We have not yet reached consensus regarding the existence of the mate you have described. #Citadel
Snarfles: @ThisUnit1025 MAYBE YOU NO CAN HACK QUASAR MACHINE. YOU NOT EVEN COUNT TO 2 TO 10TH POWER RIGHT. #Citadel
Geth Infiltrator1025: @VorchaDaddy Remain silent. We will recover your credits #Citadel
Geth Infiltrator1025: @VorchaDaddy You are failing to remain silent. Audio comparison to medical references suggests asthma or a deviated septum. #Citadel
Snarfles: @ThisUnit1025 IT NATURAL PART OF VORCHA BREATHING. GIRLFRIEND THINK IT SEXY. #Citadel
Geth Infiltrator1025: @VorchaDaddy Error: Silver Coast Casino anti-cheating software has been alerted to our activity. #Citadel
Snarfles: @ThisUnit1025 RAAAAAAA! YOU MACHINE! HOW YOU NO HACK RIGHT? #Citadel
ANN: Even when they encounter setbacks, the team focuses on working together as a single dedicated unit. #Citadel
Snarfles: @ThisUnit1025 STUPID MACHINE! ME NO GO TO JAIL BECAUSE YOU TOO DUMB TO HACK QUASAR GAME! #Citadel
Geth Infiltrator1025: @VorchaDaddy Regardless of our perceived intelligence, we possess a tactical cloak, while you do not. #Citadel
Amda Talons Flufyria: Hey, guys, what's up, and wow, look at all these security guys coming our way. Hey, Mister Big-Crest, busy night on the job? #Citadel
De-MEL-Isher: Woooo! Guys! Guys, meet my hot date! This is Thax! #Citadel
Amda Talons Flufyria: @De_Mel_Isher Um, Thax the criminal warlord krogan? That Thax? #Citadel
De-MEL-Isher: @TalktotheTalons I told him I had a turian cabal member in my squad, and he couldn't believe it. Had to see for himself! #Citadel
Amda Talons Flufyria: @De_Mel_Isher Why couldn't he believe it? Doesn't think a cabal member can handle the field with the rest of the N7s? #Citadel
Amda Talons Flufyria: @De_Mel_Isher Too pretty? I'll show you pretty! Just because krogan keep all their women penned up like cattle… #Citadel
Snarfles: RAAAAA YOU NO GET IN PERSONAL SPACE OF TALONS, STUPID KROGAN! #Citadel
De-MEL-Isher: Hey, come on, guys, don't be jerks. Thax is gonna take us out on his yacht to do shots later! #Citadel
Snarfles: RAAAAA SECURITY, THAX BIG CRIMINAL, PROBABLY HE DOING ANY HACKING OF QUASAR GAME! #Citadel
Geth Infiltrator1025: @VorchaDaddy Agreed. The krogan is the likely suspect. #Citadel
De-MEL-Isher: @ThisUnit1025 Oh, 1024, you're still here! Oh, hey, security guys, it's just my geth buddy -- don't worry, he's a kickass shot. #Citadel
Geth Infiltrator1025: @de_mel_isher This unit is nongendered and requests -- Alert: security officers are drawing weapons. #Citadel
ANN: High-spirited and full of life, the squad fights above all else for the people they have sworn to protect. #Citadel
Amda Talons Flufyria: Crap. CHAAAAAAAAAARGE! #Citadel
De-MEL-Isher: RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN! #Citadel

[Hazegurl]

I don't think we can really expect to have this unless and until we have actual companion reactions to it, up to and including them leaving.

 

Did anyone ever actually have companions leave on them? I never did although I did end up being betrayed by Iron Bull a couple of times and actually left Rainier to his fate once or twice too. But that's companion neglect more than them disagreeing with what my PC did.

 

I want to see the system set up such that you will have companions who will leave if you walk too "blue" or too "red" or that companions will act on their own against you in some places with consequences for everyone.

 I agree, this is why I'm not a fan of the DA companion approval system, it just feels pointless.  Just a scroll of extra text on my screen that I don't care to see.  Nothing ever really comes of it. You'll never walk into a room and just see your companion gone because they had enough of you being too good or too bad for their tastes. They'll never try to kill you (at least now they won't), all they'll do is act snotty or angry with you when they talk to you.  If MEA does have an approval system I would just prefer it be one where the companions respond to our choices and be more proactive. Try to stop me, join the enemy, leave, et al.

 

The problem with hiding these things is that you don't know your decision had an impact.

 

BW should do more showing and less telling. DA's approval notification scroll fest is just lazy.

[KaiAdamori]

As far as I can see, people are still just asking for variations of a morality system... just not using the term "morality" to describe it.  As long as a player's decision is to have a consequence that is in anyway meaningful to the outcome of the game and that decision is based on taking a moral perspective, a form of "moral system" will be in place and the author of the game is going to be the one making the "judgment" as to what actions result in better or worse consequences for the player's character.  It's inevitable then that the game will reflect the general "morality" of the game's authors.

 

The only way a game isn't going to have the authors (in this case BW) morality feature prominently, is one that doesn't have a storyline at all. Then, we're talking about an open world sandbox type game or MMO setting, in which the "story" is one created entirely by the player(s), owing to an absence of one imposed by the developer and the story they are telling. For my part, after the Leviathen DLC, I kinda of understood the logic (even if i didn't agree with the method) of the reapers. But I couldn't follow my own moral compass on the issue outside of the story BW was trying to tell. The closest I might get was Synth/control ending. I had to make my choices within BW's moral perspective based upon the story they wanted to tell. It doesn't really matter what we call it, it's there, as an intricate and inseperable part of the story.

 

I don't think we can really expect to have this unless and until we have actual companion reactions to it, up to and including them leaving.

 

Did anyone ever actually have companions leave on them? I never did although I did end up being betrayed by Iron Bull a couple of times and actually left Rainier to his fate once or twice too. But that's companion neglect more than them disagreeing with what my PC did.

 

I want to see the system set up such that you will have companions who will leave if you walk too "blue" or too "red" or that companions will act on their own against you in some places with consequences for everyone.

 

Absolutely the case, IMO. As it stands, the choices we make and the way we rp our shep seemed almost entirly divorced from how companions and the npcs react or percieve our character.

 

As it stands, I felt that my shep could be stood before the council wearing, military boots, a tutu and a top hat while waving a d***o and ranting about humanities "being held back" and none of the npc's would bat an eyelid. Same for companions. It just didn't seem to matter.

[UpUpAway]

The only way a game isn't going to have the authors (in this case BW) morality feature prominently, is one that doesn't have a storyline at all. Then, we're talking about an open world sandbox type game or MMO setting, in which the "story" is one created entirely by the player(s), owing to an absence of one imposed by the developer and the story they are telling. For my part, after the Leviathen DLC, I kinda of understood the logic (even if i didn't agree with the method) of the reapers. But I couldn't follow my own moral compass on the issue outside of the story BW was trying to tell. The closest I might get was Synth/control ending. I had to make my choices within BW's moral perspective based upon the story they wanted to tell. It doesn't really matter what we call it, it's there, as an intricate and inseperable part of the story.

 

 

Absolutely the case, IMO. As it stands, the choices we make and the way we rp our shep seemed almost entirly divorced from how companions and the npcs react or percieve our character.

 

As it stands, I felt that my shep could be stood before the council wearing, military boots, a tutu and a top hat while waving a d***o and ranting about humanities "being held back" and none of the npc's would bat an eyelid. Same for companions. It just didn't seem to matter.

 

The first part is exactly what I'm trying to say.  In the second part, you disagree with yourself... There is no way that Shep would have been standing in front of the Council wearing a tutu... because that's not the story BioWare was telling.  The NPCs were reacting to Shepard's different selection of lines differently... but just not to the degrees that you as a player wanted to see, but rather within the limits that the BioWare authors wanted to show.

[Silcron]

Imo, I feel that the morality should be removed entirely. In some missions, I would have preferred to speak very carefully for anything I could have said would have backfired and the mission would end in a failure (Not like Critical Mission Failure) like Thessia. Like Fallout 3, they had the good karma and the bad karma system, in Fallout 4 it was removed and it went just fine, I don't see why it wouldn't work here. I don't know for everyone else, but whenever I see a Paragon or a Renegade option, it's imprinted in my mind that I need to take it no matter the situation. That's something that me personally, don't want.

I agree, and it has happened to me too. They're the special option, maybe ones that we have unlocked or will work towards unlocking dialogue options. Since they take that work they *must* be better options that the standard ones. They may not be, or you may not want to tkae them for roleplay reasons, but from the get go I'm already compelled to take one of them.

It also affected the interrups, as much as I liked them, thinking back, if the prompt appeared and it was of the path you were following or following the most in the case of a paragade, tell me you didn't have a hard time not taking the interrup, if you ever tried to not use them, that is.

[KaiAdamori]

The first part is exactly what I'm trying to say.  In the second part, you disagree with yourself... There is no way that Shep would have been standing in front of the Council wearing a tutu... because that's not the story BioWare was telling.  The NPCs were reacting to Shepard's different selection of lines differently... but just not to the degrees that you as a player wanted to see, but rather within the limits that the BioWare authors wanted to show.

 

Yeah, thats what I'm getting at when I asked, are we ever going to see a morality system in ME (or games in general) that have a broader range of depth, consistancy and maturity. This ofcourse is dependant on developers choosing to implement a working system with those qualities. I'm looking to find out peoples opinions on such, offering my thoughts and trying to find out, how others think it might be implemented. The language being used can sometimes be misleading, hence, as I have said, I might have chosen the subject heading for the thread with a little bit more forethought. I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was sharing my perspective on the matter.

 

And to a marginal degree, yes npc's react to the our sheps lines and actions, but as you have picked up, I'd love to see those reactions be more prominent, have more impact and be more complex and engaging.

 

As for the tutu, like BW, I can be silly too.

[KaiAdamori]

I agree, and it has happened to me too. They're the special option, maybe ones that we have unlocked or will work towards unlocking dialogue options. Since they take that work they *must* be better options that the standard ones. They may not be, or you may not want to tkae them for roleplay reasons, but from the get go I'm already compelled to take one of them.

It also affected the interrups, as much as I liked them, thinking back, if the prompt appeared and it was of the path you were following or following the most in the case of a paragade, tell me you didn't have a hard time not taking the interrup, if you ever tried to not use them, that is.

 

Yeah I can see what folks are saying with this. It's "special content" status lends it weight, not taking it, is like not doing a side mission that might net me rewards and that is inly available as a result of investment elsewhere. I wouldn't mind the red/blue option being indistinguishable from any other dialogue option.

[AlanC9]

I
Did anyone ever actually have companions leave on them? I never did although I did end up being betrayed by Iron Bull a couple of times and actually left Rainier to his fate once or twice too. But that's companion neglect more than them disagreeing with what my PC did.
 

This is not quite correct. Iron Bull leaving is a result of a particular choice made while doing his personal quest., so it's not neglect. Arguably, when the Iron Bull leaves he leaves because he agrees with the PC's stance there.

[AlanC9]

Yeah I can see what folks are saying with this. It's "special content" status lends it weight, not taking it, is like not doing a side mission that might net me rewards and that is inly available as a result of investment elsewhere. I wouldn't mind the red/blue option being indistinguishable from any other dialogue option.

I think this would go over very badly. I've seen several CRPGs try to hide how their persuasion mechanics work, but I've never seen it be anything but hated. Players want to know, and I'd say they have a right to know, when their character is using a persuasion skill, and whether the character is succeeding or failing in the attempt.

[Shechinah]

This is not quite correct. Iron Bull leaving is a result of a particular choice made while doing his personal quest., so it's not neglect. Arguably, when the Iron Bull leaves he leaves because he agrees with the PC's stance there.

 

Yes, the Iron Bull is following the Inquisitor's example; in his eyes, the Inquisitor put aside personal feelings in the face of duty and so the Iron Bull put aside personal feelings in the face of duty. It is a choice-based consequence.
 

[Shechinah]

I don't think we can really expect to have this unless and until we have actual companion reactions to it, up to and including them leaving.

 

Did anyone ever actually have companions leave on them? I never did although I did end up being betrayed by Iron Bull a couple of times and actually left Rainier to his fate once or twice too. But that's companion neglect more than them disagreeing with what my PC did.

 

Throughout the Dragon Age series, there has always been, at least, one companion that will leave the party as consequence;

 

In Dragon Age: Origins, some of the companions would attempt to leave and some would even attack based on decisions made by the player. Wynne and Leliana are two companions that will attack the player character based on a decision they make during the main storyline if they are in the player character's party.

 

In Dragon Age II, I know of two examples; Isabella would not return after she initially left if her friendship or rivalry was too low. Fenris would leave if Hawke delays pursuing Hadriana and refuses to do so after an attack. I think, however, that Hawke's decision to sell Fenris into slavery should have caused some companions to leave since all but one strongly objects to it. Quite frankly, it made the companions in question look bad that they were never caused a consequence for this decision.

 

In Dragon Age: Inquisition, some companions will leave  if their approval becomes too low, I believe. I think Dorian Pavus and Cole are two companions who leaves. There were always reactions from companions if their approval were too low; even characters who were plot-related and so could not leave had a negative approval reaction.

[Shechinah]

I want to see the system set up such that you will have companions who will leave if you walk too "blue" or too "red" or that companions will act on their own against you in some places with consequences for everyone.

 

I'd rather not because if they continue the trend of locking dialogue options behind morality meters, that might mean you would have to fight to keep the morality meter from becoming too much one thing or another while at the same needing it at a certain level because otherwise you would be locked out of options. It would feel too much, I think, like I would be fighting a game mechanic.

 

Basically, I would still rather see a system based on approval decision since that would, I feel, would be better for roleplaying.

 

I think I've come to just not feel like the paragon and renegade system work as a mechanic in Mass Effect; take the lightside and darkside system in the Star Wars setting and compare it to the paragon and renegade system in the Mass Effect setting. The former is connected to its setting through the lore and so it make sense as a mechanic, the latter is not and so makes less sense as a mechanic.
 

[MrFob]

The problem with hiding these things is that you don't know your decision had an impact. You can't discern if the behaviour of the NPC is different from the default. IRL, you have more data since there's been much more previous communication than a few hours of very selective dialogue, and you usually have more ways to evaluate other people's opinions. I think the way DAI did this worked well, although of course different options for presenting these things to us are always good.

 

I don't think this would be much of a problem. BioWare has a habit of establishing their characters fairly quickly. Since those changes would not happen instantly but you'd need a couple of decisions to really make the character act very different to you, I'd think there should be enough time to get this right in a 40+ hour game. It would require some careful design but I think it's possible. Also, as I said, I'd only want it as an option. I know there are people who are very fond of seeing the statistics of the mechanics at work.

[AlanC9]

How much additional wordcount would you think you'd need to burn in, for example, DAI to get this right?

[KaiAdamori]

I think this would go over very badly. I've seen several CRPGs try to hide how their persuasion mechanics work, but I've never seen it be anything but hated. Players want to know, and I'd say they have a right to know, when their character is using a persuasion skill, and whether the character is succeeding or failing in the attempt.

 

Thats true. I do wonder if, as players we have fallen into certain habits with modern crpgs, years ago, I'd play my first playthrough of a game, picking dialogue and making choices based on what seemed right for my PC  "in the moment" there wasn't wiki's and guides practically on day one and part of the fun of a second (or third, or fourth!  ) playthrough was then going back through the game and really digging into the branching dialogue in preperation for my "ultimate" perfect playthrough. I think quite a few  players now want to get the sweetspot gaming experience first time through, so the hand-holding is built into the game itself and coupled with guides that explain the intricacies of the systems, are go to affairs.
I can understand that there can be all kinds of, legitimate, reasons for playing this way. I'm not saying it's wrong. I just think something is lost in the process.

 

I'd rather not because if they continue the trend of locking dialogue options behind morality meters, that might mean you would have to fight to keep the morality meter from becoming too much one thing or another while at the same needing it at a certain level because otherwise you would be locked out of options. It would feel too much, I think, like I would be fighting a game mechanic.

 

Basically, I would still rather see a system based on approval decision since that would, I feel, would be better for roleplaying.

 

I think I've come to just not feel like the paragon and renegade system work as a mechanic in Mass Effect; take the lightside and darkside system in the Star Wars setting and compare it to the paragon and renegade system in the Mass Effect setting. The former is connected to its setting through the lore and so it make sense as a mechanic, the latter is not and so makes less sense as a mechanic.
 

 

I don't think this would be much of a problem. BioWare has a habit of establishing their characters fairly quickly. Since those changes would not happen instantly but you'd need a couple of decisions to really make the character act very different to you, I'd think there should be enough time to get this right in a 40+ hour game. It would require some careful design but I think it's possible. Also, as I said, I'd only want it as an option. I know there are people who are very fond of seeing the statistics of the mechanics at work.

 

It can be frustrating having to choose between taking an action, making a particular choice ingame and having the consequence be losing out on having a particular companion, but I think that, for me personally, I'd rather have a companion that seemed real and believeable, whos personality wasn't just window dressing but actually, is something I need to consider and take into account.

 

As MrFob says, I dont think it would be too much of a stretch to implement some sort of warning signs,changes in demeanour (we already have this with characters changing the way they greet the PC in dialogue in both ME & DA, it's just too subtle). the companion in question could object quite vocally in the instant. The player could get the chance to talk them around after the fact, if you have an influence system (more robust than the already present but rather two dimensional loyalty system)  present that took into consideration, other major choices and personal and factional influence and disposition. We could get a very functional and fluid setup that offers more diversity and deviation per-game.

 

@AlanC9 I'll be honest, considering the vast amount of banter already present in DA, I can't see how a fraction more would make a significant difference, but I will concede, I'm not an expert! hehe

 

EDIT: many, many spelling mistakes and dire grammar!

[MrFob]

How much additional wordcount would you think you'd need to burn in, for example, DAI to get this right?

 

Been a while since I played it but IIRC, not much at all. DA:I already did a good job of showing you what the others think of what you do and I found the little messages saying by how many points exactly I changed stuff to be more annoying than helpful. Also, sometimes I remember they are actually spoilers. I don't remember the exact decision but I had an instance where I made a decision which I was sure Solas would like. Then it said "approval -10". At first I thought this must be a bug and it was only through a later dialogue that I found out why this happened. Granted, in this case, it was kind of a nice "aha" moment but it would have been even better and definitely more immersive if this was handled through conversation alone, rather then showing statistics.

 

I will concede though, that after a year, I may be focusing on the best parts in my memory but that doesn't change the fact that I clearly remember coming out of DA:I thinking "this would have been better without the constant indicator"s.

 

And again, I don't mind if people can see this if they want. I personally would prefer the option to turn these off though as I feel it allows me to see the NPC more like people than a stats matrix during gameplay.

[Ieldra]

I think this would go over very badly. I've seen several CRPGs try to hide how their persuasion mechanics work, but I've never seen it be anything but hated. Players want to know, and I'd say they have a right to know, when their character is using a persuasion skill, and whether the character is succeeding or failing in the attempt.

I don't think this would be a problem if this was optional. I see more of a problem implementing nonverbal communication.

 

We are still talking about approval systems, right? Because I really don't want a morality system.

[Linkenski]

Bioware would need to replace their entire writing team before that happens.

[KaiAdamori]

I don't think this would be a problem if this was optional. I see more of a problem implementing nonverbal communication.

 

We are still talking about approval systems, right? Because I really don't want a morality system.

 

Im interested in both myself, but any discussion on either aspect is great and TBH  if an influence system can achieve the things I'd like to see achieved in gaming in general,  while I can't speak for anyone else, I'd be more than happy.

[KaiAdamori]

Bioware would need to replace their entire writing team before that happens.

 

You see, you say this, and yeah, BW is so very hit and miss, sometimes they can really surprise us.

 

Case in point: after the dross that was NWN2, I was totally not expecting MotB, which, was phenominal!

 

Then you get DAO, also great and despite it's bumpiness. ME is pretty grand, we wouldn't all be here otherwise, right?

[straykat]

You see, you say this, and yeah, BW is so very hit and miss, sometimes they can really surprise us.

 

Case in point: after the dross that was NWN2, I was totally not expecting MotB, which, was phenominal!

 

Then you get DAO, also great and despite it's bumpiness. ME is pretty grand, we wouldn't all be here otherwise, right?

 

I didn't like NWN2, but it wasn't Bioware anyways. That was Obsidian

[KaiAdamori]

I didn't like NWN2, but it wasn't Bioware anyways. That was Obsidian

 

Pmsl Well, Colour me stupid! So it was!

 

In my defense (like there could be any! lol) they do share some similarities (and staff/roots)

 

In which case, I retract my prior examples. hehe

 

I hated NWN2 (buggy to hell and awful story) but I really loved the story and characterisation of the Mask of the Betrayer expansion, particularly the "evil" ending, which was one of the hardest to achieve and the most satisfying.