214 réponses à ce sujet

[straykat]

If anything, I feel even better about sacrificing my Warden after all is said and done. I mentioned my RP reasons, but I just don't care to deal with the shoddy content later anyways. It doesn't interest me. I go more out of my way for Hawke (and I guess, Shepard... if you want to count that).

[Reorte]

You still haven't answered the question.

And you're metagaming. The only way to prevent that level of metaknowledge would be to randomize the outcomes. Is that what you're advocating?

It's a tricky path to tread (which is why I like to hand over money to people who make games and get it right). Choices that may as well be decided by tossing a coin are no choice, and just having ones that you can argue give no better or worse outcomes, just your own preference, aren't much better either (although having some of those is good). In a hypothetical perfect game good decision-making should be just as much of a skill tested as pew-pew ability. It'll always run into the metagaming issue, but IMO that's a price worth paying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's a tricky path to tread (which is why I like to hand over money to people who make games and get it right). Choices that may as well be decided by tossing a coin are no choice, and just having ones that you can argue give no better or worse outcomes, just your own preference, aren't much better either (although having some of those is good). In a hypothetical perfect game good decision-making should be just as much of a skill tested as pew-pew ability. It'll always run into the metagaming issue, but IMO that's a price worth paying.

I don't think we should care about the metagaming issue. If people want to make OOC decisions, that's their problem.

However, I disagree with you about the randomness. If my choice influences the fairness of the coin, then I've had an impact. Choices don't always work out; that I try to do something doesn't mean I should succeed at that thing, and if the problem is that success or failure is too predictable then adding some unpredictability would be a good thing, no?

[Cyonan]

However, I disagree with you about the randomness. If my choice influences the fairness of the coin, then I've had an impact. Choices don't always work out; that I try to do something doesn't mean I should succeed at that thing, and if the problem is that success or failure is too predictable then adding some unpredictability would be a good thing, no?

 

People like feeling like they have some control over events though, which means the randomness can't be too overbearing.

 

XCOM is a good example of randomness that doesn't remove player choice mattering. There are things you can do to help your odds like moving your soldiers or equipping them with scopes, you can take another shot with a different soldier, use explosives for a sure hit, or use things like suppression and smoke grenades to shift the odds in your favour when any surviving enemies fire back at you.

 

There's no choice in if a soldier hits a single shot or not really because it's just a basic dice roll, but the choices you make throughout the mission determine your success. If a squad ever gets fully wiped, it's usually because the player made a series of poor choices during the mission.

 

In Mass Effect after choosing to save the council if the game just rolled a dice to determine if my choice meant anything, that would feel like cheap RNG. Even if they weighted the roll based on my current paragon/renegade rating.

 

However a series of random events that my success in determines if the council is saved or not? That's not a bad setup, and one I generally prefer to the game turning to me and going "Which outcome would you like today?" like BioWare games have a habit of doing a lot.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Mass Effect after choosing to save the council if the game just rolled a dice to determine if my choice meant anything, that would feel like cheap RNG. Even if they weighted the roll based on my current paragon/renegade rating.

That would be dreadful, and not only because I don't see how my Paragon or Renegade status would matter.

But that is how I think persuasion should have worked in all the ME games. Instead of the P/R dialogue options functioning as I WIN buttons, they instead should always have been available, with their success or failure based on your Paragon or Renegade scores. And while this could still be deterministic (for each persuasion attempt there was a fixed value required to succeed), I would rather there be a RNG there to resolve those outcomes, with higher P/R scores simply providing a better chance at success.

[AlanC9]

You still haven't answered the question.

Sorry; I assumed it was obvious. For a long time now Bio has been doing a thing where supposedly risky choices are not risky. When you get one of those choices the safer option produces adequate results, and the risky option produces superior results. (This is related to the standard critique that Renegade choices are generally inferior on the Renegade's own terms.)

And you're metagaming. The only way to prevent that level of metaknowledge would be to randomize the outcomes. Is that what you're advocating?

Yes, I am. My characters may not be, but I am. I'd like to be unable to do so.

And yes, randomized outcomes is the idea. This wouldn't have to mean randomized outcomes for individual choices as long as the patterns are broken up across choices and games. However, assuming the zots hold up and the situation warrants it, a randomized outcome of an individual choice would be good. For instance, dealing with Connor at Redcliffe by going to the Circle didn't have to always work; the game already had code for Redcliffe being destroyed if the party doesn't try to save it, so all you'd need is a little alternate dialogue to handle this path

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sorry; I assumed it was obvious. For a long time now Bio has been doing a thing where supposedly risky choices are not risky. When you get one of those choices the safer option produces adequate results, and the risky option produces superior results.

I had never noticed this pattern.

Since I always approach these decisions from a purely in-character perspective, I probably never would have.

Yes, I am. My characters may not be, but I am. I'd like to be unable to do so.

And yes, randomized outcomes is the idea. This wouldn't have to mean randomized outcomes for individual choices as long as the patterns are broken up across choices and games. However, assuming the zots hold up and the situation warrants it, a randomized outcome of an individual choice would be good. For instance, dealing with Connor at Redcliffe by going to the Circle didn't have to always work; the game already had code for Redcliffe being destroyed if the party doesn't try to save it, so all you'd need is a little alternate dialogue to handle this path

This is an excellent idea.

[Cyonan]

That would be dreadful, and not only because I don't see how my Paragon or Renegade status would matter.

But that is how I think persuasion should have worked in all the ME games. Instead of the P/R dialogue options functioning as I WIN buttons, they instead should always have been available, with their success or failure based on your Paragon or Renegade scores. And while this could still be deterministic (for each persuasion attempt there was a fixed value required to succeed), I would rather there be a RNG there to resolve those outcomes, with higher P/R scores simply providing a better chance at success.

 

It could be tied to a number of things, I just picked the P/R meter because that's what basically decided most of dialogue based outcomes in the series. I hated that it did that myself.

 

I think that a better persuasion system for me would have been Deus Ex Human Revolution, where your dialogue options sway the outcome based on what you pick and their personality. Anybody who takes the augment that helps with social interactions in that game is given additional information about the target person as well as the ability to trigger a one time boost of the "persuasion bar".

 

It's the best dialogue system I've seen in a game so far. If one wanted to make it more stat based, then you could have some sort of P/R thing that increase the effectiveness of the dialogue you choice either for better or for worse.

[AlanC9]

I had never noticed this pattern.
Since I always approach these decisions from a purely in-character perspective, I probably never would have.

You're better at compartmentalization than I am.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You're better at compartmentalization than I am.

I might just be more oblivious to non-literal information.

I never noticed the pre-wheel trend of putting the nice dialogue options first, either.

[straykat]

I don't think that's necessarily true. Like the Dalish Warden, if you just clicked forward, would pick hostile options (placed on top). "Kill them. The others will never know." Although you only kill one as a "warning" at the end, it's still far from diplomatic. 

[Cyonan]

Yeah, I don't really recall DA:O putting all the nice options on the top either. Maybe a decent amount of the time, but not all of it.

 

Mass Effect's dialogue wheel however basically always put Paragon on the top right and Renegade on the bottom right.

[pdusen]

I might just be more oblivious to non-literal information.

I never noticed the pre-wheel trend of putting the nice dialogue options first, either.

 

I'm surprised to see you acknowledge that non-literal information even exists.

[Lucca_de_Neon]

bonehead.

You make it sound so kinky

[In Exile]

Yeah, I don't really recall DA:O putting all the nice options on the top either. Maybe a decent amount of the time, but not all of it.

 

Mass Effect's dialogue wheel however basically always put Paragon on the top right and Renegade on the bottom right.

 

Almost all the time, in fact. Like KoTOR. And Jade Empire. There was a hilarious furor over this in KoTOR when they got swapped at the temple near the endgame. 

[Shechinah]

Almost all the time, in fact. Like KoTOR. And Jade Empire. There was a hilarious furor over this in KoTOR when they got swapped at the temple near the endgame. 

 

Oh, I think remember seeing that and wondering how many accidentally choose the wrong one!

 

[Yermogi]

To the OP: The GOOD news is that this new series will be a trilogy, so chances are they're going to have an over-arching problem that clashes with the heroes trying to create a new home for themselves. If they don't reveal everything in the first game, they'll have two more coming to remedy this.

 

The big difference with the Dragon Age games (aside from all the other clearly obvious differences) and the Mass Effect games is that in Dragon Age, each game is a singular story within itself. As in, the Warden was the hero in Origins, the Hawke was the hero in DA2, etc, etc. But in Mass Effect, we have one hero who spans three games, which means that rather than trying to keep everything clean and simple for one game, as they did with DA:I, they can have loose ends open to deal with in the next game. The big issues don't necessarily have to be solved in one game- they can continue on. This can actually be a good thing because by doing this, a player can really see a problem as being an enormously significant one rather than an issue that didn't seem like such a big problem, as seemed to be the case in DA:I.

 

Also, remember that the feedback from DA:I also goes into the creation of future games, so hopefully they'll have seen some of the issues that people have with the plot of DA:I and make alterations so that in future games (including Andromeda) seem a bit more urgent and problematic. But I have to say, I think needing to find planet(s) to settle multiple alien species on (some with radically different biology such as Turians and Quarians) will probably be a huge problem in itself, what with each planet doubtlessly having significant issues to hamper or perhaps even prevent settling on them. Having pretty much everything be unfamiliar and potentially hostile is a huge problem, in addition to whatever over-reaching issue they'll have on top of that.

 

My point is that if you're worried, keep in mind that BW wants to make games that people like. If they didn't take into account the things that people didn't like, they wouldn't be so popular. 

 

Of course, this post might be seen as somewhat contrary to what I've been saying about the game- that I'm not going to buy it until it gets good reviews from previous players like myself. But I believe that BW couldn't possibly be so stupid as to make the same serious mistakes twice in a row when it comes to plot in two different franchises.

[Dalinne]

To the OP: The GOOD news is that this new series will be a trilogy, so chances are they're going to have an over-arching problem that clashes with the heroes trying to create a new home for themselves. If they don't reveal everything in the first game, they'll have two more coming to remedy this.

 

The big difference with the Dragon Age games (aside from all the other clearly obvious differences) and the Mass Effect games is that in Dragon Age, each game is a singular story within itself. As in, the Warden was the hero in Origins, the Hawke was the hero in DA2, etc, etc. But in Mass Effect, we have one hero who spans three games, which means that rather than trying to keep everything clean and simple for one game, as they did with DA:I, they can have loose ends open to deal with in the next game. The big issues don't necessarily have to be solved in one game- they can continue on. This can actually be a good thing because by doing this, a player can really see a problem as being an enormously significant one rather than an issue that didn't seem like such a big problem, as seemed to be the case in DA:I.

 

Also, remember that the feedback from DA:I also goes into the creation of future games, so hopefully they'll have seen some of the issues that people have with the plot of DA:I and make alterations so that in future games (including Andromeda) seem a bit more urgent and problematic. But I have to say, I think needing to find planet(s) to settle multiple alien species on (some with radically different biology such as Turians and Quarians) will probably be a huge problem in itself, what with each planet doubtlessly having significant issues to hamper or perhaps even prevent settling on them. Having pretty much everything be unfamiliar and potentially hostile is a huge problem, in addition to whatever over-reaching issue they'll have on top of that.

 

My point is that if you're worried, keep in mind that BW wants to make games that people like. If they didn't take into account the things that people didn't like, they wouldn't be so popular. 

 

Of course, this post might be seen as somewhat contrary to what I've been saying about the game- that I'm not going to buy it until it gets good reviews from previous players like myself. But I believe that BW couldn't possibly be so stupid as to make the same serious mistakes twice in a row when it comes to plot in two different franchises.

 

 

What??? When that has been confirmed???? We have a new trilogy??? Really????

 

Can I celebrate it? Can I dance now?????

[Yermogi]

What??? When that has been confirmed???? We have a new trilogy??? Really????

 

Can I celebrate it? Can I dance now?????

Erm... well... I'm pretty certain that I read articles where they talked about this being a new trilogy... but that could be incorrect, possibly, especially at this early stage. Now that you're all excited I'm going back to see if I can find exactly where I read that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm surprised to see you acknowledge that non-literal information even exists.

I didn't.

But if it does, it is necessarily ambiguous. Parsing it requires assumptions I actively try to avoid.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think that's necessarily true. Like the Dalish Warden, if you just clicked forward, would pick hostile options (placed on top). "Kill them. The others will never know." Although you only kill one as a "warning" at the end, it's still far from diplomatic.

Strictly speaking, DAO wasn't pre-wheel.

[Reorte]

I don't think we should care about the metagaming issue. If people want to make OOC decisions, that's their problem.

However, I disagree with you about the randomness. If my choice influences the fairness of the coin, then I've had an impact. Choices don't always work out; that I try to do something doesn't mean I should succeed at that thing, and if the problem is that success or failure is too predictable then adding some unpredictability would be a good thing, no?

Yeessss, possibly, maybe. To be honest I've never entirely made my mind up on this. Skilled decision making is (ideally) as much a part of a good game as skilled fighting, which certainly requires a fairly large non-random component. If it's too random then you're not making a decision, you're making a guess. A decision that might as well be made with a coin toss is just annoying. But certainly blindingly obvious choices are just dull and pointless. So influencing the fairness of the coin? It sounds good on paper but if it translates to being perceived as "I got screwed by the computer" rather than by the story it won't work.

 

I like to make comparisons with strategy games. You have to make decisions about where to send forces, what resources to allocate, and sometimes you'll blunder into a big enemy force that, when you get right down to it, is where it is because it's been (semi) randomly plonked there (take the type of game where you don't know where anything else is at the start). But that doesn't feel like "the computer's decided you've lost". How to translate that concept to an RPG though...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yeessss, possibly, maybe. To be honest I've never entirely made my mind up on this. Skilled decision making is (ideally) as much a part of a good game as skilled fighting, which certainly requires a fairly large non-random component. If it's too random then you're not making a decision, you're making a guess. A decision that might as well be made with a coin toss is just annoying. But certainly blindingly obvious choices are just dull and pointless. So influencing the fairness of the coin? It sounds good on paper but if it translates to being perceived as "I got screwed by the computer" rather than by the story it won't work.

I like to make comparisons with strategy games. You have to make decisions about where to send forces, what resources to allocate, and sometimes you'll blunder into a big enemy force that, when you get right down to it, is where it is because it's been (semi) randomly plonked there (take the type of game where you don't know where anything else is at the start). But that doesn't feel like "the computer's decided you've lost". How to translate that concept to an RPG though...

There's a relevant difference here between randomness and unpredictability.

If I know I have a 30% chance of success, and I know what success looks like, I'd say that's a good design. Even if I don't know what failure looks like, as long as I know what I'm trying to do and I know how likely I am to do it, that's all the predictability I need. The outcome is still determined by a RNG, but it's a RNG I can see and I can understand.

But if I don't know what I'm choosing, or I don't have any idea what the odds are, then I don't have predictability. When you said, "If it's too random then you're not making a decision, you're making a guess," I completely agreed with you, but this line made me think of ME's dialogue system. Because the paraphrases were completely opaque to me, and I just couldn't tell at all what line I would get from choosing any given option, there was no predictabilty there. The dialogue wheel made me guess rather than choose, and it made me do it every time. And I hated it every time. So I completely agree that too much unpredictability is a massive problem in an RPG, but if I know I have 80% confidence in my choice, then I know how often I should expect to fail (about 20% of the time).

[Killdren88]

 But I believe that BW couldn't possibly be so stupid as to make the same serious mistakes twice in a row when it comes to plot in two different franchises.

 

 

Almost spit out my milk at this part....
 

[AlanC9]

I dunno about that. Wouldn't a different kind of mistake be more likely?