105 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Bad choices should have bad consequences, though. Why should a player be protected from making mistakes?

[capn233]

Bad choices should have bad consequences, though. Why should a player be protected from making mistakes?

 

This is true.

[Chealec]

I pushed the red button on the Nuke in Wasteland 2 just to see if it would .... (it did).

 

So yeah, why the hell not

[Fredward]

What sucks about that?

 

Making objectively stupid decisions/dialogue options should be punished.

 

A standardized loss of access to content because your character is bitchy? Pass.

 

If a desperate person is holding a gun against the protag's head and is demanding, I dunno, the code to the cafeteria or whatever and you decide to comment on them not needing more Snickers in their diet you should be shot. If you have a boss for whom you've done a bunch of missions and always got results and he's telling you about his string of wives, who've tried to stab, shoot and explode him respectively and he wants you investigate the latest one and you make a quip about his taste in women and he suddenly goes "Oh, you know what? Nevermind, you're an ass" because you filled up a sass-o-meter that's just bizarre.

 

Have people be assholes back, have them not return favors, have them betray you maybe even if they're particularly thin skinned, have them not give you that discount they would've if you'd been kinder etc. but don't close off the story.

[Ahriman]

This would only be acceptable if overly-nice, and naive, paragon options were punished as well. Otherwise, its only renegade players getting screwed over. Also, consequences should not mean getting less content than players who picked the "right" option. That's just lame. 

So I guess, we can agree that everyone should be punished, fits BSN spirit.

Jerks will be sitting on probationary ward between missions, while goodies will be on free herb collection quests.

[Millix]

I can recall from both Fallout 3 and New Vegas, where I would be railroaded from certain quests or even able to speak with NPCs anymore. *Sighs* Good times. The quest 'Agatha's Song' is a prime example of this, as well as 'Riley's Rangers'. The rewards even change depending on your responses.

[Mcfly616]

There's a quest in TW3, where you're investigating a string of murders. Based on your decisions throughout the investigation, you can end up cutting down the person you think is the murderer, and in doing so you get a mission complete, and move on to other things. But, had you made different choices, you come to find that the maniac that appeared to be the perp, was in fact just a distraction that was set up by the actual murderer, the quest continues and you eventually piece together the true identity of the individual who has been terrorizing Novigrad. 

 

Sometimes you think you've accomplished your mission, you think you were successful in your endeavor...and you never learn the truth. 

 

That's just one of many quests that TW3 took CDPR's branching choiced-based narrative approach, and knocked it out of the park.

[Who Knows]

Bad choices should have bad consequences, though. Why should a player be protected from making mistakes?

You can do consequences without a game over screen.

[Remix-General Aetius]

I pushed the red button on the Nuke in Wasteland 2 just to see if it would .... (it did).

 

So yeah, why the hell not

 

DIdn't you learn anything from those pesky Mangalores?

 

[The Night Haunter]

No that sucks. That's basically saying that there are wrong choices.

What's wrong with that? There are wrong choices in combat, why shouldn't there be wrong choices in Dialogue as well?

 

If you tell the queen she looks like an old ****** and she executes you, game over!

[Seraphim24]

What's wrong with it being game over and other things, inclusive?

[AlanC9]

You can do consequences without a game over screen.

Sure, but at some point you're going to hit resource constraints if you do full consequences for all choices.

I agree that a simple "game over" screen will rarely be optimal, though.

[Hexi-decimal]

Passive Aggressiveness should be defined according to common-sense interpretations, obviously, I feel there should be a verbal push and peaceful political movement to have it punished in real life as well, for the purposes of this discussion game I would like to see progress in this respect simply in a game theoretic context.

 

I got the idea from a thread in TESO which discussed the possibility of negative repercussions for passive aggressive behavior, such as, if people are deliberately choosing the wrong responses, being contrarian, these sorts of things, the NPC might not give them a quest, might give them a lower reward, or just might not even talk to them anymore.

 

You can die to bullets and and everything else in a video game, why not die on your own obstinate pride?

 

Of course, the possibility for implementations are limitless, as are punishments and such for that kind of thing, so I think it would be cool if in MEA we get some kind of tool or gimmick, akin to the "Renegade options" but just for more than just the typical thing. I would like to see these things go further, even micro amounts of passive aggression could be taken seriously and hinder your ability to complete the game.

 

If you for instance insist on it too much in conversation with certain NPCs, or on quests, as stated you can no longer complete the game, perhaps build up a meter, you are simply rendered unfit for duty by the high command and such, and your character is terminated.

 

It could also be as small as  I said less monetary reward for the quest and stuff like that, I think it would be great to incentivize non-whininess or otherwise being an annoying loser.

Ok I disagree with the one sided direction you speak of, but I do like the idea of consequences for your actions.  Sometimes being a contrarian or doing something like consistently hanging up on someone (the council in this case) should have consequences.  Purely negative?  No, not necessarily.  

 

A, perhaps terrible, example of what I mean is my friend (irl) is a contrarian.  Annoyingly so sometimes.  However it's the amazingly acerbic attitude he has that landed him into a very very happy relationship with his equally acerbic girlfriend.  

 

Anyway, I am for consequences, good/bad and in the gray area.

[Seraphim24]

I just think PA is a plague and scourge in socieity, there should be more exploration of how to punish it in games, I wasn't really saying it has to be this or that way.

 

Eventually it should be punished in reality as well, of course.

[Ophir147]

Bad choices should have bad consequences, though. Why should a player be protected from making mistakes?

 

Different choices should lead to different content, not a slap in the face. Smh. Don't put the choice in if you're not willing to follow through with and accommodate it.

 

it's like saying don't add a big red button on the wall beside the entrance to the final boss room if you're going to have it force my game to close and delete my save files. Even if the button has a helpful sign next to it that says "DO NOT TOUCH."

[AlanC9]

Different choices should lead to different content, not a slap in the face. Smh. Don't put the choice in if you're not willing to follow through with and accommodate it.

That works too, yes. But if failure would be relatively cheap to implement, or fun to see, why not implement the failure instead of preventing the choice?

Unless you're saying that it's just too late for this? RPG fans are conditioned to get away with doing anything the game lets them do?

[FlyingSquirrel]

The only thing I would say is that if a dialogue choice is literally going to get you killed, it should happen right away as opposed to finding out three hours later that you screwed up and have to replay from ten saves ago to keep going.

[Seraphim24]

^

 

On the contrary, pure poetic justice in that case.

[Hexi-decimal]

^

 

On the contrary, pure poetic justice in that case.

Or a waste of time depending on your outlook.  

[Ophir147]

Unless you're saying that it's just too late for this? RPG fans are conditioned to get away with doing anything the game lets them do?

 

Certainly not Mass Effect fans, particularly anyone that tried the refuse ending.

 

And I don't think it would be as cheap to implement in a good way as you might think. Take for example, my favorite Renegade line from Mass Effect. "Who pissed in your security chief's coffee today?" A+ line with good delivery from both Meer and Hale. I can't help but say it every time, no matter my Shep's alignment, it's just too damn good.

 

Apply some consequence to this line. They can't actually call security on Shep because s/he is a Spectre and has a writ to investigate Benezia, and even Noveria doesn't want to ****** off the council. Let's say that, however, Kaira Stirling overhears this and is a little pissed off. So in an act of impotent defiance, she assigns a member of Port Hanshan security to conspicuously shadow you and make sure you don't get into any trouble.

 

This would be a game over, because the only ways to get a garage pass would be to convince Opold to let you in on his smuggling and then rat him out, or conspire with Parasini to catch Anoleis. However Opold won't even bring up the smuggling with security looming over you and Parasini won't be able to contact you without blowing her cover. 

 

You get your added consequence for your actions but lose a lot in the process. First of all you've added an awesome dialogue choice in the game that you're not even allowed to use if you want to progress, so you are actually given *less* choice. Second if you get a game over there's the question of how to inform the player. Do you get a "Critical Mission Failure" as soon as you leave the conversation, and tell them to reload and try not to be such an ass this time? Or do you let them wander around Port Hanshan completely unable to progress, until they go online and figure out they've actually made the game unwinnable?

 

Let's look at the ways to subvert this, and they aren't nearly as simple or cheap. You could:

 

-Add a third quest that would allow you to obtain a garage pass. Not cheap.

-Don't ****** off Stirling with just one dialogue choice, but make it so that you have to demonstrate your unwillingness to comply with Hanshan Authorities multiple times before you will be assigned a "security escort"  which would be another thing that the game would have to keep track of, multi-factor flagging for a small part of a small part of a quest. Not simple.

 

You might know a lot more about what kind of effort goes into stuff like this than I do to be honest. I've never made a Bioware game before. All I know is that the more complex things Bioware games have to keep track of, the more often they **** their pants in the future with glitches and bugs.

 

But if we're going balls to the walls and throwing money in the bonfire, why not add some consequences for being nice all of the time too? Say you have multiple encounters with a person early on in the game and he's secretly sizing you up. If you are nice and polite everytime you meet him he gets the impression that you are an easy mark and kidnaps one of your companions to try to extort the McGuffin out of you so he can give it to the Big Bad (that he secretly works for). However, you don't actually have the McGuffin that you've been searching for! The dude doesn't believe you and says if you don't get it to him within a day, he'll kill your companion and disappear, new name, new face, and you'll never be able to find him. Of course, you can take option C, which is storm his hideout  and attempt to rescue your companion. Your sudden change in badassness throws him off and he is waiting in the final room with a gun to your companion's head. You can try to convince him that you will let him live, and he is free to go if he'll just let your companion go. He doesn't trust you enough, though; as far as he thinks you're a two faced snake. You put on a mask of civility when someone has someone that you want but you are actually a stone cold badass who isn't afraid to kill at the drop of a hat.

 

There's an extravagant consequence for ya. No game over required!

[Seraphim24]

If we punished everyone who was PA, we wouldn't have to punish people for just being "nice."

 

Besides "nice" isn't something you would go out of your way to punish, unless you had serious mental problems, in which case I don't think Bio should cater to that demographic.

[Seraphim24]

Or a waste of time depending on your outlook.  

 

That's part of the punishment, PA wastes everyone's time, so punishing PA should be poetic, you spend a huge chunk of time on a quest causing problems due to PA? Well then you waste a lot of time and get nothing. Small amount of time, small consequences.

[Hammerstorm]

If we punished everyone who was PA, we wouldn't have to punish people for just being "nice."

 

Besides "nice" isn't something you would go out of your way to punish, unless you had serious mental problems, in which case I don't think Bio should cater to that demographic.

 

I don't really understand what you mean with passive aggressive behavior in the game, can you give some examples?

Or do you mean the renegade choices? In that case it is ridiculous to punish a group just so you can make the game a speech for how bad it is in real life.

 

The problem is that this is a RPG, which means that there will be different kind of people in the game that will treat a "goody two-shoe" as an toy and use them for their own plans. So if you are to nice you might get shot in the back.

[Seraphim24]

^ Like I saw a thread in DA:I "Bioware can you please not screw us" or something like that, pretty basic passive aggressive. So imagine a comment like that in a game, it'd be like minus 20% of your HP bar or something.

[Beerfish]

Failure should not just be, you die.  All that will do is everyone picks that choice to see what it is like and then reloads.