I'm just wondering, from the reactions to the last couple of Bioware Games, is giving players direct choice of storyline a bad thing for gamers? 1.)If you have too many different events, you can't make a sequel without loosing popularity, because ultimately you have to have certain events be canon. 2.)You can't end a series the way that it was writen because it doesn't stay with the feel of choice. The reason for this is as you go further and further into a series of too many events you end up having to make full different games to follow certain choices, also storyline suffers because if you try to tie all events back to a funnel point, players have expressed...yeah. Anyhow thoughts?Sir Fritz (talk) 03:00, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
Choice is always good. It's the devs' jobs to make sure they can tie it all in so that sequels are possible. We're just gamers and want to have our fun.Daenerys Hawke (talk) 03:23, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
In terms of playing the game yourself, yes you want good choices. Now when that changes to coming on the internet and talking about how some of those choices are diminished or ignored in later games in the same series with the import feature bioware employs, not so much. But that has less to do with the choices themselves than it does simply not accepting that there is only so much a developer can do in the time and money they are given, so it comes down to would you rather have an overall diminished plot that plays to all choices with less polish on the product due to time developing all of the permutations or would you rather just see something new and just hear about something or see small things that affect a completely new thing, because you cannot have everything you want. Tommyspa (talk) 04:11, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
I think that choices in a game are important, especially in RPGs, and it can be done really well too. For example there is Alpha Protocol, where every conversation every decision has consequences, and while the end has slight variations depending on how well your relationships went, it is still the same. Then again, AP is one game, so they could do whatever they wanted with it. Bioware decided to turn it's games into series, which while it is a nice thought, it shows that they lacked the foresight while making the first games. In both ME1 and DAO you make a lot of choices that could possibly change the setting in important ways... then comes the second game, and Bioware realizes that developing a game that encompasses all your choices is hard, and they don't have the resources to do that, so they retcon and make everything unimportant. I think that's a bad move, because while it doesn't say directly that our choices doesn't matter, it feels like it. IMHO Bioware should work around this like Fallout, and have an established canon for major choices, they could also base it on statistics, like if most people made the ritual with Morrigan, then they would make OGB canon for everyone, in order to be able to write a more interesting story. I certainly would be okay with an approach like that, especially if the base their decisions on player statistics.--SunyiNyufi (talk) 09:03, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
Choices and different outcomes matter a lot, and if a company is unwilling to invest the effort in implementing them, they should move out of RPGs and do some other kind of games. I understand that it is next to impossibly to cover every single player choice, but there can be taken precautions to avoid the seeming that the player choices are being ignored, and careful planning is here paramount. Another thing that can help is devising a plausible explanation why the situation was changed: e.g., if you need the OGB, yet the Warden refuses the ritual, it may be revealed that Morrigan had a plan B, only it was something highly risky and she'd much rather stick to the safe A, and, of course, since Warden was adamant that OGB was a bad thing, she wouldn't tell him. The explanation must fit in the context, not change it or ignore it, the way Anders-Justice did when totally ignoring the Awakening outcome and timeline. That was an unnecessary retcon which ignored the decisions, and it's something that definitely shouldn't have happened. --Ygrain (talk) 09:18, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Ygrain. No, it's not a bad thing. The consistency of player's choices is only limited by the dev's ability and willingness to implement them in a right way. Mass Effect 1-2-3 has much more choices then DA:O-2, yet they are logical and coherent (except for the last ten minutes, but that's another story). If a character is dead, s/he won't "pull a Leliana" (gotta love that one) in the next game. If you are pro-krogan, let Wrex survive in ME1, save the research data in ME2 and disarm the bomb in ME3, you'll have a best possible future for the race, which is the logical outcome of your choices. If you decide to be merciful to Shiala in ME1, help her in ME2, you get a war asset and an interesting way to counter indoctrination in ME3, which is the logical outcome of your choices. It all makes sense. Now compare this to DA2. Leliana, Zevran, is that you? I see dead people O_o. Anders and Justice? Good idea, bad execution. And there are a lot more inconsistencies I'm sure you can add yourself. Summary: It's not that there were "too many" choices in DA, it's that DA2 team screwed up.-Algol- (talk) 09:49, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
There's no reason that more choice can't be a good thing. The impact of choices would not matter for future titles if all non-linear story elements and conflicts could be resolved in the games they are started in, and not featured in future games. As novel a concept of having your decisions carry over is, it's not an essential feature, and I for one could do without it if it meant having more depth and choice for a single game than half-assing an import feature that thus far has been buggy and unreliable. So far, in the case of DA2, all the import has led to are a lot of very pointless cameos and shoehorning of Origins characters into a setting they had no real reason to be in. It's all very awkward and silly, and I have to ask myself does it really serve any purpose other than pandering?
If stories are resolved as they should be, we could move on from one game to a new one with utmost satisfaction. A new story with all new characters and choices and conflicts of its OWN to resolve. With satisfying conclusions for all our player characters and companions that were wrapped up in the previous game being LEFT in the previous game, removing the need for cameos and worthless pandering and any potential breakage in the player's experience, hopes, and wishes for a particular character/romantic couple. As it is, Dragon Age has obviously become episodic, and there are pointless appearances of old characters forcing previous "choices" to become "canon" (Leliana), when there really is no need to bring old characters back when new characters could have done the job just as well without discarding the player specific experience from the previous game.
Blah blah blah. Etc.
 Tekka Ijuin | Talk |
10:06, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
- This. This this this. The pointless and unnecessary recycling of old characters, like in a bad fanfic. I really don't understand the obsession. --Ygrain (talk) 11:35, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
""If you have too many different events, you can't make a sequel without loosing popularity, because ultimately you have to have certain events be canon."
Not necessarily. Seeing old characters is certainly a bonus, but let's take DA2 for instance. We've had:
Leliana - she really didn't need to appear, and in fact, she doesn't unless you have the DLCs.
Alistair - He did not need to appear either. What we could have had was, say, Alistair's original gear being sold as a relic (or something). It's almost a given that the player would have given Alistair new gear, and a lot of heroes' first time stuff get sold later on as legacies, or collected as a memorial. We could have just had a codex going "Alistair was one of the heroes who saved Ferelden blah blah" without ever mentioning how he ended. And it's certainly possible for Alistair to be a hero despite being executed or becoming a drunkard (executed famous people ALWAYS become heroes - Robespierre or Danton, for instance).
Zevran - again, not necessary, and in fact, even more so because we know what happened to him in the Origins ending as either the guildmaster of the Crows or some other (can't remember).
I think we would have happily just accepted a codex about our characters and moved on. Heck, we did that with our Warden, and who wasn't happy to see our Warden writing letters (to Avernus), showing up in the codex, getting talked about in the streets? That really was enough.
The reason we play RPG is because we want to be heroes. Not because we want to read a novel, but because we want to make choices that will be remembered years later. So more choices the better, I say. -
11:51, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
Never. The whole DA and ME series is about making choices, some important and some completely inconsequential; but it's the fact they are there at all is what makes these series so great. DA2 screwed many of those choices up, ME3 didn't do it as badly IMO, some choices though *cough* Ending *cough* were not so greatly implemented. I think the only thing that stands in the way of getting people's decisions to fit in the game is a lazy writing team. Granted, I know it must be difficult to come up with a plausible way to include EVERYTHING, but it's the job of a good writer to do the best job they can because they owe it to the fans and more importantly they owe it to those fans as customers. I fear that because of how Bioware has handled recent events on this given subject, they've not only alienated alot of their fan-base but have also badly damaged their bottom line (profit) in the future. Pre-Orders are gonna take a massive dive for DA3 I suspect. EzzyD (talk) 12:52, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say they owe it not only to fans but especially to themselves, as professionals proud of their work which they should try to deliver as flawless as possible. Somehow, I don't see that happening.--Ygrain (talk) 14:10, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
Alpha Protocol is a good example, but is there a game series that actually links storyline together successfully? I'm pretty sure Bioware's the first to actually do anything like this, which is attempting to impact sequels directly if you played earlier titles. But from reading down, is it better just to sever all ties with a previous game to start fresh each time?Sir Fritz (talk) 14:25, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
True, there is just so much a company can do in the time and money it's given and indeed heavy emphasis on the story can limit importance of choices. And yet, "Planescape: Torment", the story-heaviest and therefore most rigid RPG manages to give you a choice what to do with the final boss, not to mention a bunch of lesser impact decisions, and "Fallout: New Vegas", while being a sandbox where players can do pretty much whatever they want still takes account of and incorporates player's actions in a very decent story. Unfortunately, Dragon Age 2 tells a weak story and gives no choices, so the 'either or' excuse does not work. Also, remember hype and how it hammered on and on and on and over again the importance of "Choices and consequences"? People may be called naive for falling for marketing trick, sure, but naivety isn't a wrong thing. Misleading advertisement, however, is. Dorquemada (talk) 14:35, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
Choices are the reason people play an rpg in the first place. It would be called an action otherwise) There is one thing that concerns me, though - easy choices. I hate them. And they are everywhere. A recent example: I've played ME3 without ME2 saves (because I've never played ME or ME2), and I really liked the geth vs quarians dilemma. Took me quite a while to decide. My husband then bought the first two parts and replayed the entire series in the correct order (not sure I'll do the same though). And he had that "third option," namely peace. I watched him play, and it was so incredibly... cheap. I had exactly the same feeling in DAO with the elves vs the werewolves story, and in several other cases.
It puzzles me to no end why would game developers need to ruin really good A vs B choices with providing a third option being {A+B} with no negative consequences of both. Is it because the majority of players generally want to "win" the game and to have a clearly better choice? Is it because they need some sort of patting on the shoulder, a reward for playing? May be the developers think people can't bear negative consequences? I don't get that. Asherinka (talk) 15:01, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
- The "third choice" isn't really so bad, however, it should be something that you work for and won't be able to get unless you put the necessary amount of effort into. Like all diplomacy, it should provide a challenge to the player and give them that reward and pat on the shoulder for doing a good job. Games like this are all about wish fulfilment. Hard choices with equally appalling consequences are equally dissatisfying unless you're playing a character that has the intent of favouring one side over the other.
15:11, April 11, 2012 (UTC) Tekka Ijuin | Talk
- That's why I feel that I'm in a minority - I like choices that make me think. Not the ones that allow me to save the galaxy :) The longer I think - the better was the question. I felt really sorry for Tali, but I chose the geth because I thought it was the right thing to do. It's always the same, basically... what price are you willing to pay, when do you cross the line? And the bittersweet feeling you get as a result is satisfying in its own way - it is about knowing your limits. Had I the third {A+B} choice, I would think for 5 seconds. All the "rewards for the hard work" wouldn't compensate for that. IMHO. Asherinka (talk) 15:31, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
- I wish I could convince you otherwise...
15:41, April 11, 2012 (UTC) Tekka Ijuin | Talk
- I wish I could convince you otherwise...
- "And the bittersweet feeling you get as a result is satisfying in its own way" - there's a difference between "bittersweet" and "limited, because of absence of prior knowledge of the whole situation". Playing ME1-2 and then siding with the geth would be about 101% harder, then to make a decision in one game alone. That's why the third option exists. It implies building a consistent line of actions throughout ME2, resolving Tali's quest in a certain way, choosing the right dialogue options with Legion and having four bars of paragon/renegade. How can you call that easy, I don't even... Now, hitting one out of two options really is easy.-Algol- (talk) 16:01, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
- If you imply that I don't understand the situation well enough and I would choose quarians with more knowledge.. well, may be, but it was quite heart-wrenching even without this prior knowledge.
- Doing something specific to get the best option is easy, it is only time-consuming. Solving a moral dilemma is not. For me, at least. Asherinka (talk) 16:33, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't imply that. I didn't agitate anyone to side with anyone. What I was implying, however, is that ME1 shows the Morning War from the perspective of the quarians, ME3 shows it from the perspective of the geth, and ME2 shows it's ambiguity, and that there are no right and wrong sides of this conflict.
- "Doing something specific to get the best option is easy, it is only time-consuming. Solving a moral dilemma is not. For me, at least" - everyone is entitled to their opinions, of course, but think about this: a third choice is a moral dilemma too, however, you actually take time to study all the facts, which complicate it even further. Picking one of two options is not a moral dilemma, it's a wild guess, that has as much emotional impact, as a cheap and poor melodrama.-Algol- (talk) 16:46, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
- "And the bittersweet feeling you get as a result is satisfying in its own way" - there's a difference between "bittersweet" and "limited, because of absence of prior knowledge of the whole situation". Playing ME1-2 and then siding with the geth would be about 101% harder, then to make a decision in one game alone. That's why the third option exists. It implies building a consistent line of actions throughout ME2, resolving Tali's quest in a certain way, choosing the right dialogue options with Legion and having four bars of paragon/renegade. How can you call that easy, I don't even... Now, hitting one out of two options really is easy.-Algol- (talk) 16:01, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
- "Why can't you study all the facts, which complicates it even further, and pick from the two options?" - you certainly can, but: A)It just so happens, that all the facts are spread out in three games. B)Gathering them creates a probability of re-assesing your views on the dilemma itself. In fact, you're having a false dilemma there. tricking yourself into it has nothing to do with bitter-sweetness, really.-Algol- (talk) 17:34, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it is a false dichotomy, but the game makes it seem this way by introducing the option to avoid it. I don't like that - that's the whole point, actually. Same with Connor vs his mother and elves vs werevolves in DAO. Any discussion whether such {A+B} solutions are realistic would be moot - it depends entirely on the writer's perception of the setting. Asherinka (talk) 17:56, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with having a middle ground - now and then. Some situation might allow such a solution, some don't. Sometimes there is a good solution, sometimes only the lesser evil. I like the options varied. - And, above all, I want the option to roleplay. Stand by the Dalish, because you are a Dalish to the core and would never admit that they can do something wrong. Side with the werewolves, because you're a bloody racist and you are offended how the Dalish have treated you. Get the middle ground, because you realize how dangerously close you were to becoming obsessed with your revenge, and you don't want to end up like Zathrian, harming innocents. For me, such choices are not about some universal moral values but about the character's choices. --Ygrain (talk) 18:25, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
O_o Who deleted my last comment?-Algol- (talk) 19:47, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
Ygrain. You can always check the history, no need to ask that) She was most likely typing her response simultaneously with you, and overwrote yours as a result.
PS I've just read it:
I am implying that brokering peace is a bad way to deal with dilemmas in games, yes. Not because it is unrealistic - what is realistic depends entirely on the setting - but because it is obvious. It doesn't make one think about anything but the fact that "peace is good."
Also, if two options have flaws, it doesn't make them unacceptable. This is in fact something that makes them interesting. I know what I will do with a "peace" option without a game to show me that - in 95% of cases I will choose it. I didn't know whether I would agree to "wipe out the (seemingly) innocent, or you'll watch me, so nice and kind, dying" or "wipe out millions of innocents for (supposed) wrongs their ancestors inflicted on us, or else justice will never be made" until I played ME3. You still don't know that - and you don't want to know, as it makes you feel too uncomfortable, or so it seems :) Asherinka (talk) 19:59, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I've got to say it: Everyone needs to chill the hell out. Maybe I'm seeing personal attacks where there aren't any, but still, this doesn't seem as much like a 'discussion' anymore. EzzyD (talk) 20:17, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not trying to attack anyone, I'm actually in a very good mood :) Don't get me wrong)
This: @}->-- A token of good intentions. Does that help?) Asherinka (talk) 20:19, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
- XD HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Thank you, that made my evening when I figured out what it was :D EzzyD (talk) 20:26, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
*SPOILER WARNING*
It's true that in this case it's not strictly a false dichotomy, because the middle ground rests on the cooperation of the Quarian fleet, since Shepard doesn't directly control whether he can make them cease fire or not. They simply don't have the ability to choose the middle ground of their own volition. Plus, there is still a basis for calling it a moral dilemma, as Legion informs us that the Geth will not fire upon the Quarians unless attacked first. But if Shepard cannot guarantee the cooperation of the Quarian fleet, he can either allow the Quarians to wipe the Geth out or allow the Geth to become true AI and retaliate against their aggressors in self preservation. However, the choice is still ultimately "Save this race, and wipe that race out" or "Save this race, and wipe that race out", neither of which are particularly palatable. :(
| Tekka Ijuin | Talk |
20:27, April 11, 2012 (UTC)