|
Uncle Wemus posted:Can't remember if it was this thread or gamers.txt but someone posted someone doing a blind playthrough of ME2 and they got Tali killed and people freaked out because it wasn't the optimal way to play. Is it possible to make the "choices and consequences" not result in a single optimal way to play the story so as to actually encourage multiple playthroughs with different choices? Or would it defeat the small level of consequences that the games do have by just letting you get whatever result regardless? Witcher 2 did this. You have three main ending variables The strength of the Northern Empires, the state of nonhumans, and the state of the College. At the end of Chapter 1, you either go down the Northern Empires/Nonhumans route. At the end of Chapter 3, this ends with two paths for each core path. If you went with Roche, you have to choose between saving the royal children, or saving your friends. If you save the royal children the Northern Kingdoms stand a chance against the invading Empire. But since your friends weren't saved by you, they didn't know what was coming at the council, and the College's treachery got exposed, so all the Mages are executed. If you save your friends, they can speak up for the College, saving the Mages, but the Northern Kingdoms will be in a political quagmire as the Empire invades. If you side with Iorveth, you choose between saving Sansa or saving your friends. Save Sansa and she can represent the nonhumans at the Council, getting Aedirn recognized by the other Northern Kingdoms before the invasion. But again, without a Mage speaking for the Mages, they all die. Save your friends, and they'll save the Mages, but the nonhumans will have no leader and will get slaughtered by the invasion forces/Radovid claiming the resource rich territory for himself. No matter what choices you make, someone else loses. And you have to play the game at least twice to see both major arcs, because the end of Chapter 1 takes you to two entirely different cities. And even in the "ideal" ending, you still end up with a war starting that'll lead to thousands dead. Heck, if you play an idealist, even more will die! Rookersh fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Jul 28, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
Generally for the first playthrough of a game I'll do it blind and take things as they come, then if it's good enough to play again I'll read up on the choices and try to see what I missed the first time. And for almost every game, the way you miss things is by letting NPCs die early. (This is true for Alpha Protocol as well, if you shoot everyone the first chance you get, you'll not see some later encounters.) If there's more content that's exclusive to a 'bad' choice then I'd consider taking it to see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Calax posted:The problem is more that the game tells you "THIS IS THE GOOD ENDING!".
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:That actually doesn't sound like a recommendable quality to me, though many the good things to be said about Alpha Protocol may be. It's a game where choice changes the variables in events and conversations to even the events or conversations themselves. I don't think that's suspect quality, I call the good game design for game that gives you a lot of choice. It's by no means perfect but your choices affecting the gameplay isn't something the game lacks or does poorly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Calax posted:The problem is more that the game tells you "THIS IS THE GOOD ENDING!".
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
I was referring more to ME2 vs ME3, with ME 2 having a specific ending for when you keep everyone alive. ME3's problem was that the "war assets" bs made it so you had a quantified "best" ending where you knew how "good" you were for a particular item based on how much of your assets you get.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Synthesis was pretty clearly what the writers considered the "best" ending, and the war assets barely affected it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Synthesis was pretty clearly what the writers considered the "best" ending, and the war assets barely affected it. That's why it's poo poo: the ending is "Pick a color!" and nothing you've ever done throughout three games changes that ending a single whit. So you get to choose the ending while realizing that no other choice you've made mattered. It's got a lot of mixed messages, that whole series does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
I've never really understood the "my choices didnt matter" complaint about ME3s ending, is it because there is no ending based around specifically that time you punched that reporter in the first game or is the pick the color ending some reset the universe bullshit where none of the choices you made matter because now everyone is dead?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
I don't really care that the ending wasn't altered by your choices, because how was that ever going to really be the case? But it was super frustrating to get the galaxy to work together and have it be reflected in the "War Assets" screen where everything was assigned a numerical value and wasn't ever reflected in the gameplay or final assault on the Citadel. Like, Dragon Age: Origins had you fighting alongside all the bros you'd accumulated throughout the game in a climactic final battle. The epic Mass Effect Trilogy ended on a weak rear end final wave battle with two squadmates of your choosing and then you walk along a hallway slowly. Like, I wanted at least a final section that was reactive based on the people you'd gotten to work together throughout the game/series, like a big version of ME2's suicide mission. Instead I was treated to a wet fart. And I don't have much of a problem with the ending itself, just the execution of the climax.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:The story says that the original Inquisition is remembered in a lot of conflicting stories. Some say they were as rabid as the actual Inquisition, some say they were fair-minded heroes trying to keep mages and normal people safe, and others that they were basically tyrants. Nobody has the full truth, but they all know and respect the name which is why Divine Justina re-created the organization as her only real option now that the Chantry has been officially rendered toothless by losing both the Circle and the Templars/Seekers. Yeah, that's what I was trying to allude to. The Chantry is remaking the Inquisition on a hope and a prayer that they won't do anything too bad because they have almost no means of bringing them back in line if the Inquisition decides it wants to be even more powerful than it already is. Divine Justinia is smart enough to not doom her own efforts by making the Inquisition too tied to Chantry law but she also isn't dumb enough to not let a stickler for the rules like Cass - or I guess Leliana's "skills" if you want to call them that - to not be involved with the leadership. Especially when Cass is going to be watching the Inquisitor like a hawk because of their glowy hand fade powers. What the hell would Justinia do if the Grand Inquisitor alters or changes papal authority even more so that Elves have their own homeland again or some other huge political move that undermines Chantry law in a drastic way? Hopefully BioWare makes sure there will be some attempts by Justinia to keep you "considerate" of the Chantry's need to repair itself during your big mission to save the world. ShadowGlass posted:Bioware said it depends on the player's choices if the Inquisition is religious or secular, so I hope something like the above happens. I mean 3 of the 4 possible races of the Inquisitor probably wouldn't care about the Chantry at all. The Inquisition is a Protestant Reformation waiting to happen. Alistair/Annora could completely validate their existence if they try to court a less bloody Edward the 8th with you, regardless of player gender or intentions with spouse. The Church of Fantasy England wouldn't look that scandalous what with their version of Jesus (or technically a world where Mary became more important than any Son of the Maker) actually coming from Fantasy England and possibly the house of what little remains of her sacred ashes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Clever Spambot posted:I've never really understood the "my choices didnt matter" complaint about ME3s ending, is it because there is no ending based around specifically that time you punched that reporter in the first game or is the pick the color ending some reset the universe bullshit where none of the choices you made matter because now everyone is dead? With the way you asked I'm assuming you never played ME3. the ending is literally you walking into a red, green, or blue light. Then the same cutscene that plays in every ending happens, but depending on what light you walked into, thats the light that explodes out of the catalyst. It's like 2 minutes long. Heres a video of the endings side by side. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPelM2hwhJA It was just a horrifyingly bad ending to a trilogy. Roobanguy fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Clever Spambot posted:I've never really understood the "my choices didnt matter" complaint about ME3s ending, is it because there is no ending based around specifically that time you punched that reporter in the first game or is the pick the color ending some reset the universe bullshit where none of the choices you made matter because now everyone is dead? Both! The final choice had such a large impact that it overwrote a lot of the "smaller" ones in the game. Did the Quarians or the Geth have control of Rannoch (one of the major subplots for the series), or did they co-exist? If you choose Destroy or Synthesis that doesn't matter. It didn't acknowledge punching the reporter, but the release version didn't acknowledge anything. There was no slideshow or epilogue showing what happened to all of the people you'd interacted with, the game just ended. E: Dragon Age: Origins was exactly the kind of thing they should have been aiming for, mechanically speaking. Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Even Dragon Age 2 had a variable final battle, with your choices throughout the game massively influencing who would fight alongside you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Clever Spambot posted:I've never really understood the "my choices didnt matter" complaint about ME3s ending, is it because there is no ending based around specifically that time you punched that reporter in the first game or is the pick the color ending some reset the universe bullshit where none of the choices you made matter because now everyone is dead? Punching the reporter should have had a butterfly effect that lead to the deaths of at least 4 reapers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Even Dragon Age 2 had a variable final battle, with your choices throughout the game massively influencing who would fight alongside you. Did you side with the templars or the mages? Doens;t matter, you have to kill Merideth and Orsio no matter waht and 99% of the mages you are tryoign to save turn into abominations and try to kill you
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Knuc U Kinte posted:Did you side with the templars or the mages? Doens;t matter, you have to kill Merideth and Orsio no matter waht and 99% of the mages you are tryoign to save turn into abominations and try to kill you That was because Dragon Age 2 is a writing clusterfuck as well a poorly conceived ending. 99% of all kerkwalian mages are abominations waiting to happen despite how you treat them. They just are because BioWare, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Darth Windu posted:Except not really. Except...yes really? Anatomical studies, like dissections had to be kept on the down low for a while. It was not kosher and consorting with grave robbers was kind of part of the job. No magic needed. Taboos regarding disturbing the dead are super common and don't have much to do with the Chantry or any particular organization. China still doesn't let you show skeletons in videogames last I checked. Captain Oblivious fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Knuc U Kinte posted:Did you side with the templars or the mages? Doens;t matter, you have to kill Merideth and Orsio no matter waht and 99% of the mages you are tryoign to save turn into abominations and try to kill you I meant the party members, who would fight with or against you, depending on who you side with AND on your previous choices throughout the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Just on the topic of optimal choices, a lot of the problem with video games is the 'bad' choice is inferior in game content terms. I have often argued that games should make all the options equally valid, but that's not how it works in the majority of games. Normally, letting people die, or equivalent, just means you experience less content, not different content. When that's the case, one choice clearly is optimal. Why ever have a save where you let someone die, when the only consquence of that save is that the amount of content in the later game is reduced? This is actually one of the reasons that making the default import into DA:I have everyone be dead is odd to me. Perhaps they'll do it right, and truly different content will replace the inevitable cameos, but I'm skeptical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I meant the party members, who would fight with or against you, depending on who you side with AND on your previous choices throughout the game. I sided with the mages and the only person who left was Sebastian because I refused to execute Anders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:The notion of "optimal" is kind of at odds with the notion of a choice-based story. Like, if Tali dies you can't unite the geth and quarians on Rannoch in ME3, but isn't that an interesting and worthwhile story in itself, the story of two societies being unable to reconcile with one another? A bitter or tragic conclusion to an arc can be just as interesting as a happy one. Mass Effect is pure power fantasy though, so if you fail to bring peace to space middle-east (by way of shooting/punching stuff and saying awesome things) then it's a "bad" ending. It's different for games like Alpha Protocol which is based on real life settings and conflicts and plays out more like spy fiction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:This is actually one of the reasons that making the default import into DA:I have everyone be dead is odd to me. Perhaps they'll do it right, and truly different content will replace the inevitable cameos, but I'm skeptical. Everyone being dead as default is intended to ease new players in, by preventing characters they don't know from popping up and referencing some thing that they never experienced.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:Just on the topic of optimal choices, a lot of the problem with video games is the 'bad' choice is inferior in game content terms. I have often argued that games should make all the options equally valid, but that's not how it works in the majority of games. Normally, letting people die, or equivalent, just means you experience less content, not different content. When that's the case, one choice clearly is optimal. Why ever have a save where you let someone die, when the only consquence of that save is that the amount of content in the later game is reduced? This is basically why I go for the "optimal" playthroughs in most games that have such a thing. It is also often compounded by the fact that if some sort of morality system is involved, the "evil" route is the one where you just plain see less of the content, not different content (since the person triggering the content/quest is now dead or missing). ME's renegade system was lauded, beyond being less puppy-kicking evil than usual, for the fact that sometimes the renegade option was the one triggering more stuff for you later. Not alot, but sometimes (at least I seem to recall a few times where the Paragon option was basically talking people out of a plan, where the renegade version gave you a quest to go on). Having everyone that can be dead by default be dead was explained as not wanting to have to write introduction sequences for all the optional persons. By assuming them dead, they can also assume that if they are alive, then it is because the player chose (via the keep) to make them that, and presumably that means the player knows who the person is already. That is fairly reasonable to me: It would be a drag to sit and hear Wynnes backstory f.inst, when if she is alive, it means I spent a lot of DA:O getting to know the character already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
GhostBoy posted:Having everyone that can be dead by default be dead was explained as not wanting to have to write introduction sequences for all the optional persons. That's a far more believable reason that just the general fear that new players wouldn't understand what was going on. But yeah, as long as there's a big flashing warning the first time you boot up the game that you should really use the keep, for people who might not be as up on this stuff as we are, then it's not egregiously bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:The notion of "optimal" is kind of at odds with the notion of a choice-based story. Like, if Tali dies you can't unite the geth and quarians on Rannoch in ME3, but isn't that an interesting and worthwhile story in itself, the story of two societies being unable to reconcile with one another? A bitter or tragic conclusion to an arc can be just as interesting as a happy one. It also had the even more interesting opposite thing where if you let Wrex die in ME1 (not a perfect playthrough by any measure back when that game came out), he was replaced by his dumber cousin in ME3 who you can trick with a false cure, allowing you access to both krogan and salarian fleets for the endgame, but still protecting the galaxy from a new krogan war afterwards. If you saved Wrex, he'll see through your trick and cost you one of the fleets plus put the galaxy in danger of a new krogan insurrection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
RubberJohnny posted:Everyone being dead as default is intended to ease new players in, by preventing characters they don't know from popping up and referencing some thing that they never experienced. All the same, I hope they don't lock stuff you need or even just really, really want entirely behind that content. Like, if you wanted to max out Varric's armor in DA2, you needed to import a save from Awakening with Nathaniel still alive, because his final upgrade is only in that mission. There's an alternate mission you get only if Nathaniel's isn't available, but for some reason they don't put Varric's upgrade in there. If they had, I wouldn't have minded so much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Roobanguy posted:With the way you asked I'm assuming you never played ME3. Any game that ends where the player just picks between a series of buttons and that determines the outcome is a horrible ending. ME3 and Deus Ex : HR being the most notable offenders. It should never be the case where the last 2 minutes of the game is even a "choice" it should be all the choices you made up until that point determines how it ends. Preferably with a quick recap showing how the choices you made during the game resulted in which "button" was chosen for you. Obviously "Button" doesn't need to be a literal button; but in sci-fi games most of the time it is! Eldragon fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Eldragon posted:Any game that ends where the player just picks between a series of buttons and that determines the outcome is a horrible ending. ME2 and Deus Ex : HR being the most notable offenders. It would be more ideal, certainly preferable to an override button, but I think it bears notice that such an accumulation is exceedingly tricky to pull off, without risking undue exposition or obvious and jarring telegraphs about the impact along the way. An ending like that can feel just as bullshit, if the reaction is "Wait, THAT was important?" during the recap. Not impossible, mind, but a game doing that needs a few proper writers to make it work, not just "developer in charge of story" as is often the case. And there is some small merit in the button solution, that you can quite easily see all the endings without full playthroughs for each one to get the right combo/relying on finding a non-lovely version on youtube. So there is that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
While not ideal a format, the "push button for ending" was used in Deus Ex original recipe and I think it managed to be very effective mainly because the three buttons were hidden behind diverging paths in the final level. That's a model I wouldn't mind being copied.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
GhostBoy posted:It would be more ideal, certainly preferable to an override button, but I think it bears notice that such an accumulation is exceedingly tricky to pull off, without risking undue exposition or obvious and jarring telegraphs about the impact along the way. An ending like that can feel just as bullshit, if the reaction is "Wait, THAT was important?" during the recap. I guess I see being able to see all the endings so easily as ultimately a disservice to the game. A game should make you want to play through a second time, and seeing the "other" ending should be one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Juvenalian.Satyr posted:While not ideal a format, the "push button for ending" was used in Deus Ex original recipe and I think it managed to be very effective mainly because the three buttons were hidden behind diverging paths in the final level. That's a model I wouldn't mind being copied. As I recall, while you could choose quite freely in the final level, the rest of the game was sort of set up to help you decide in the final level. So while you could get any of the endings, they wouldn't make a huge amount of sense without a second playthrough, as the information which would lead you to want to make the choice differently is hidden behind different choices in the game. Which is a pretty good way of doing it, I agree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Eldragon posted:Any game that ends where the player just picks between a series of buttons and that determines the outcome is a horrible ending. ME3 and Deus Ex : HR being the most notable offenders. I forget who came up with it first, but I've always liked the idea that your ending for ME3 should have been locked in as soon as you started Priority: Earth. At that point, any decisions you make are unlikely to change the course of how the story wraps up, either you've prepared enough to take on the Reapers or you're poo poo out of luck. Then again, I'm of the opinion that whether or not the Reapers get destroyed shouldn't be something the player chooses at all, and the real focus should have been on what the state of the galaxy is post-final battle, but that's neither here nor there. Dash Magnum fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Knuc U Kinte posted:Did you side with the templars or the mages? Doens;t matter, you have to kill Merideth and Orsio no matter waht and 99% of the mages you are tryoign to save turn into abominations and try to kill you Yeah.. Orsino doesn't make any loving sense.. Throughout the entire game you help mages.. You make it so that you can be the voice of mages (playing as a mage) and then all of a sudden "You know what? I've never used blood magic.. Even though you have done everything to make a good impression for mages.. IM GOING TO poo poo ALL OVER IT AND USE BLOOD MAGIC ANYWAY!!.." Why the gently caress couldn't you of talked him out of it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Zyntherius posted:Yeah.. Orsino doesn't make any loving sense.. Throughout the entire game you help mages.. You make it so that you can be the voice of mages (playing as a mage) and then all of a sudden "You know what? I've never used blood magic.. Even though you have done everything to make a good impression for mages.. IM GOING TO poo poo ALL OVER IT AND USE BLOOD MAGIC ANYWAY!!.." Why the gently caress couldn't you of talked him out of it? Orsino basically had no development in the story, but they needed him to look as bad as Meredith for "balance", so he was a made a surprise blood mage and tied to the creator of frankenmom just so there'd be something objectively wrong for him to do. Him having an actual character or any real reason to work with a serial killer were secondary to ensuring that the mages were ticking time bombs to match the newly fascist Templars. Because the DAII writers were lazy and decided making everyone look as bad as possible was the same as being morally complex. I choose to pretend he never existed (he barely does as far as the story's concerned anyway), and Anders was the real anti-Meredith. Geostomp fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Apparently they were forced to put Orsino in as a boss fight because of a mandate from the higher ups. Because a rushed production schedule really needed another boss fight instead of paying attention to everything else. EA cares!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:You know that happened in real life right That's venturing dangerously close to metaphor territory, son.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
MartianAgitator posted:That's why it's poo poo: the ending is "Pick a color!" and nothing you've ever done throughout three games changes that ending a single whit. So you get to choose the ending while realizing that no other choice you've made mattered. It's got a lot of mixed messages, that whole series does. The whole point of the ending is that you're not special, no matter how much you think you are and that you have this "agency" thing you think you have. It's a mindfuck. You were set up to fail from the beginning, the best you can hope for is to break the system. Humans (and Shepard) are seen as uppity little bitches from the get-go. The fact that you can even disrupt things is a miracle. The galaxy doesn't owe you anything, let alone a space blowjob for healing the galaxy But hey, here's a participation trophy*, snowflake! *the trophy is getting reaped
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
CAPT. Rainbowbeard posted:The whole point of the ending is that you're not special, no matter how much you think you are and that you have this "agency" thing you think you have. It's a mindfuck. You were set up to fail from the beginning, the best you can hope for is to break the system. Humans (and Shepard) are seen as uppity little bitches from the get-go. The fact that you can even disrupt things is a miracle. The galaxy doesn't owe you anything, let alone a space blowjob for healing the galaxy 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
CAPT. Rainbowbeard posted:The whole point of the ending is that you're not special, no matter how much you think you are and that you have this "agency" thing you think you have. It's a mindfuck. You were set up to fail from the beginning, the best you can hope for is to break the system. Humans (and Shepard) are seen as uppity little bitches from the get-go. The fact that you can even disrupt things is a miracle. The galaxy doesn't owe you anything, let alone a space blowjob for healing the galaxy This is a really stupid rationalized interpretation. There is nothing about this that's correct in the game universe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 01:53
|
|
