Oh man, it would be great if you got a nature loving companion who refused to attack random monsters.
It would.
Right up until people began complaining about how useless the hippie NPC is. Starting and abusing a bunch of unfunny memes. And demanding some kind of 'fix' that satisfies them to their core.
For example, the timer and limited save slots/locations in Dead Rising is supposed encourage a bit of urgency and remind people that there is a limited amount of time to get the answers.
Instead, it's a mechanic that ruins 'immersion' or whatever and sucks the fun right out of the game somehow. The argument is not that it would've been nice to have a sandbox mode, but that the player's experience was ruined because the dev wanted gameplay and the story to be much closer than people are used to. Innovation is nice, right up until it interferes with traditionally expected gameplay.
A RPG where NPCs have agency? Good luck with that.
Everything about Dragon Age 3 looks amazing except that it looks like a much prettier Skyrim and not a new Dragon Age game. The DA series, despite the extremely generic setting, has a very unique personality and I'm not seeing it in any of these videos. If I didn't know already, I'd think this a new IP, or even worse, a next-gen tech demo that wasn't getting made into a game. I hope we see some charm and personality soon.
ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
Steam: adamjnet
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
In any case, one of the best things about Bioware is that they always learn and apply what they learned from previous attempts. And it's possible that with Dragon Age they're willing and able to make real consequence. Even if they don't I'll still enjoy it personally, because Bioware scratches my love of character itch like no other.
Everything about Dragon Age 3 looks amazing except that it looks like a much prettier Skyrim and not a new Dragon Age game. The DA series, despite the extremely generic setting, has a very unique personality and I'm not seeing it in any of these videos. If I didn't know already, I'd think this a new IP, or even worse, a next-gen tech demo that wasn't getting made into a game. I hope we see some charm and personality soon.
And you may be right, Spaffy. But one thing I'm loving about DA3 more than any elder scrolls game I've played is that DA3 characters have weight in the world. It was talked about in the Wildfire MMO thread, but the characters feel like they belong in the world. You can almost feel them actually cut through a guy from hem to haw. In any elder scrolls game, I've felt like any other disembodied head in an FPS, and most of the characters just glide along the ground even with the walking animations.
They're hitting the buzz word so hard, it's actually making me more skeptical. On the other hand, maybe they saw the way the wind was turning with the witcher and the like?
Meh. Bioware has been saying "consequences" forever.
And meh, I don't know if the Witcher did anything better. Honestly, I played Witcher 2 after it was hyped so hard and I didin't feel the "consequences" were any better than a Bioware game in the long run.
But maybe I'm just hard to please.
Well I mean it's no Alpha Protocol, but I'd argue there was that whole 'completely different 2nd half' move that was pretty ballsy. The problem is that reactivity is expensive, doubly so when it's backed with full cutscenes and VA and stuff.
My point is, the way they introduced the set piece, it sounded like a thing that happened often, but I'm skeptical it isn't one of the half dozen 'major moral choices' you make in every game, like they played up the sacred ashes before DAO came out, and when you actually played it, the other option was rather stupid. Hopefully their C&C will be more like Orzammar, which we've had some pretty good arguments about.
Also, Re: razing the village. What happened if you sided with the werewolves/left redcliffe to die again?
well. there are consequences. at PAX, they decided to keep going and help the keep instead of helping the village.
The presenters said that village was a place you could go to and buy things, it was a staging point out there in the wilderness and probably had a quest or two in it. Now they are dead and gone.
This is a perfect example of "consequence". Consequence isn't a buzzword, it's a simple way of displaying that two choices have different meaningful effects. If choice one results in A but choice two results in B, with a meaningful gameplay distinction between these two things, then it's a meaningful consequence. If you don't save the Keep and get a different outcome than saving the village, then that is a good example as well - say not getting the help of a regent or someone else later as you left their cousin in the keep to die (or whatever).
weren't the elves a lot more useful though, especially in the final battle when it helps to pile as much ranged as possible on the archdemon?
Well that, and did the werewolves sell unlimited elfroot?
I am most likely wrong, but wasn't it the other way around? Like the elves gave you elfroot and the werewolves gave you something else plus being absolutely murderous melee troops?
well. there are consequences. at PAX, they decided to keep going and help the keep instead of helping the village.
The presenters said that village was a place you could go to and buy things, it was a staging point out there in the wilderness and probably had a quest or two in it. Now they are dead and gone.
This is a perfect example of "consequence". Consequence isn't a buzzword, it's a simple way of displaying that two choices have different meaningful effects. If choice one results in A but choice two results in B, with a meaningful gameplay distinction between these two things, then it's a meaningful consequence. If you don't save the Keep and get a different outcome than saving the village, then that is a good example as well - say not getting the help of a regent or someone else later as you left their cousin in the keep to die (or whatever).
I'm not sure how I feel describing it just in terms of pure If-then logic. I mean, take this recent post in the eternity thread:
C&C should be more about the accumulation of reactions to your choices over the course of the game, not just the payoffs of the Big Moral Decisions (TM) at the end of each hub. Which is why Alpha protocol is the best, since you can still find new results from your actions 4-5 playthroughs in, each with a completely different ending that feels like your choices actually impacted it.
EDIT: thegreatcow, I don't know, I never sided with the werewolves, that's why I was asking
weren't the elves a lot more useful though, especially in the final battle when it helps to pile as much ranged as possible on the archdemon?
Well that, and did the werewolves sell unlimited elfroot?
I am most likely wrong, but wasn't it the other way around? Like the elves gave you elfroot and the werewolves gave you something else plus being absolutely murderous melee troops?
I don't think they give you anything. At least I don't remember that. What also happens is no elves and thus no potential vendors to buy/sell crap. The weres didn't do shit.
I'd never seen Redcliff get massacred, so I don't know what happens there. But I'd guess the same: losing vendors. I don't think many survivors show up during the final battle to make anything particularly interesting.
DA companions have a modicum of agency. Leliana, Wynne, and Shale will attack you in certain occasions. And we all know what Anders does.
It'd be interesting to see other stuff, like maybe if you are too evil, your companions may or may not plot a coup or something for being a destructive asshole. But then if you accomplished something important to the individual, that specific companion would defend you.
Probably asking too much.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Isn't that kind of what they tried to do with the discussion after anders does his schtic? Or is the only one that doesn't automatically fall in line the redundant DLC character whose name I can't even recall anyway
Honestly with how late DA3 is coming out next year, I'm debating whether or not I should just buy a PS4 and get it for that... though I don't trust any previous game data management that they plan on coming out with; those things usually miss just the most minor things possible, but really... why must it come out Fall 2014?
Anders thing is that, aside from using his agency to do a horribly shitty thing, the event plays out the same no matter what you choose earlier.
Help him? It's the same as if you don't.
Anders should have suffered a minor consequence himself for failing to acquire Hawkes help. Perhaps he doesn't kill everyone in the church, cause he could only get a portion of the explosives or could only place them in limited portions of the building without Hawke doing the legwork of finding the components and distracting the people inside.
Nothing that would change the point of the scene, but just make it seem as if Hawkes presence or lack thereof had consequences to Anders.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
well. there are consequences. at PAX, they decided to keep going and help the keep instead of helping the village.
The presenters said that village was a place you could go to and buy things, it was a staging point out there in the wilderness and probably had a quest or two in it. Now they are dead and gone.
This is a perfect example of "consequence". Consequence isn't a buzzword, it's a simple way of displaying that two choices have different meaningful effects. If choice one results in A but choice two results in B, with a meaningful gameplay distinction between these two things, then it's a meaningful consequence. If you don't save the Keep and get a different outcome than saving the village, then that is a good example as well - say not getting the help of a regent or someone else later as you left their cousin in the keep to die (or whatever).
I'm not sure how I feel describing it just in terms of pure If-then logic. I mean, take this recent post in the eternity thread:
C&C should be more about the accumulation of reactions to your choices over the course of the game, not just the payoffs of the Big Moral Decisions (TM) at the end of each hub. Which is why Alpha protocol is the best, since you can still find new results from your actions 4-5 playthroughs in, each with a completely different ending that feels like your choices actually impacted it.
I agree with you as well there that it also should be something that builds up over the entire game as well. Possibly even without the player consciously realizing that is what they are doing.
However, I am simply mentioning that this is a simple and clear example they've given. It's also much much better than the "choices" in most RPGs.
You help the werewolves slaughter everyone in the village, they thank you, and they promised to show up when called. Then they're one of the reinforcements you can call during the battle of Denerim.
With game budgets being what they are we're never going to get a real consequence to 99.99999999% of our actions because who is going to pay for stuff a lot of people will never see? Until some billionaire privately funds the best RPG ever it's pretty much a pipe dream. That helps temper expectations for stuff like the Project Eternity stuff. That way when the developer does manage to get something in it's a minor miracle!
"For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men. Not women. Not beasts...this you can trust."
With game budgets being what they are we're never going to get a real consequence to 99.99999999% of our actions because who is going to pay for stuff a lot of people will never see? Until some billionaire privately funds the best RPG ever it's pretty much a pipe dream. That helps temper expectations for stuff like the Project Eternity stuff. That way when the developer does manage to get something in it's a minor miracle!
Having *real* consequences to 99.99% of your actions would be close to impossible to design just because of how much of a clusterfuck the whole thing would be. First off you would need to document every single action a player can execute in the game.
That's where indirect reaction systems like factions come in though.
Eh, Alpha Protocol had a lot of consequences, sure, but the same story beats still happen, no matter what.
Thorton always get betrayed, Scarlett always tries to kill the President, you always have to allow yourself to be captured by AP, etc.
c&c is a magic act. Just because it isn't real doesn't mean the illusion can't be impressive. The Walking Dead has no real choice at all, but people still praise it for player consequence. It hides it with well done sleight of hand.
Obviously anyone who plays through these types of games more than once would see through the facade, but there are ways to do it well.
Eh, Alpha Protocol had a lot of consequences, sure, but the same story beats still happen, no matter what.
Thorton always get betrayed, Scarlett always tries to kill the President, you always have to allow yourself to be captured by AP, etc.
Yeah, but that's the frame of the story.
IMO, I prefer the things I do during a story actually modifiying that story rather than full on branching. Little choices working together and in a complex way creating unique situations rather than *just* going on a different path. Of couse, while I prefer it, I don't mind a combination of both.
I do think one could do even better than AP in this regard, though. AP is close to the only game that actually offers me this. (Hope Telltale will put more emphasis on it in future games)
<insert another rant about the evils of VA and/or every game needing to be a AAA blockbuster>
Aren't there kickstarter games you could support that promise old school RPG's for people like you? Why are you even checking out DA3 when you already know it has everything you hate.
Anyway, real consequences for every action is an nightmare to implement, especially when the game isn't standalone but part of a series where that stuff carries over.
AP, telltale games, Bioware... they all try really hard but they're all "painting the tunnel" approaches. A linear path, but a few decorations change depending on earlier choices. And that's okay! If my actions result in a different stronghold populated by different allies, periodically attacked by different enemies, that's pretty cool! Honestly, acknowledgement of earlier choices in dialogue everywhere is what's most important to me.
<insert another rant about the evils of VA and/or every game needing to be a AAA blockbuster>
Aren't there kickstarter games you could support that promise old school RPG's for people like you? Why are you even checking out DA3 when you already know it has everything you hate.
Anyway, real consequences for every action is an nightmare to implement, especially when the game isn't standalone but part of a series where that stuff carries over.
AP, telltale games, Bioware... they all try really hard but they're all "painting the tunnel" approaches. A linear path, but a few decorations change depending on earlier choices. And that's okay! If my actions result in a different stronghold populated by different allies, periodically attacked by different enemies, that's pretty cool! Honestly, acknowledgement of earlier choices in dialogue everywhere is what's most important to me.
Because I still think that DAO was bioware's best game this decade?
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited November 2013
As far as C&C goes, honestly I've just started to aim lower.
I mean I don't really look at world changing decisions as much as I used to. Rather, I'm more concerned about your ability to scalp your character's personality and their interpersonal relationships. And add in a bit of politics and I'm usually good.
They were woefully underdeveloped, but I thought both the armies idea in Dragon Age Origins and the resource system in Mass Effect 3 pointed to a way that you could get real consequences in a modern RPG. If you set certain conditions based on resources/territory/armies/etc. that are complex systems in-game and tie them to NPC interaction and plot flags, you could get a real chain of consequences going that didn't need to be completely scripted.
You spend the time to get that factory built, play the economics mini-games to get enough iron for production, complete the quest for the general's support (which is dependent on flags based on how many resources you have available), and you have a much stronger army for the final battle with the Dark Lord. Building those kinds of complex in-game systems isn't really Bioware's forte, but I don't think it is an impossible goal.
The resource system in DA2 was not too bad, but the potion costs were too high for being able to be anders free. Maybe if they combined that with the ME3 style mutually exclusive stuff, like that cave they showed in that vid (except it seemed like you could get everything in that if you ground out "agents"?)
Posts
Not so weird, because that's exactly what happened.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
It would.
Right up until people began complaining about how useless the hippie NPC is. Starting and abusing a bunch of unfunny memes. And demanding some kind of 'fix' that satisfies them to their core.
For example, the timer and limited save slots/locations in Dead Rising is supposed encourage a bit of urgency and remind people that there is a limited amount of time to get the answers.
Instead, it's a mechanic that ruins 'immersion' or whatever and sucks the fun right out of the game somehow. The argument is not that it would've been nice to have a sandbox mode, but that the player's experience was ruined because the dev wanted gameplay and the story to be much closer than people are used to. Innovation is nice, right up until it interferes with traditionally expected gameplay.
A RPG where NPCs have agency? Good luck with that.
Steam: adamjnet
Steam: BrocksMullet http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197972421669/
And you may be right, Spaffy. But one thing I'm loving about DA3 more than any elder scrolls game I've played is that DA3 characters have weight in the world. It was talked about in the Wildfire MMO thread, but the characters feel like they belong in the world. You can almost feel them actually cut through a guy from hem to haw. In any elder scrolls game, I've felt like any other disembodied head in an FPS, and most of the characters just glide along the ground even with the walking animations.
Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN
My point is, the way they introduced the set piece, it sounded like a thing that happened often, but I'm skeptical it isn't one of the half dozen 'major moral choices' you make in every game, like they played up the sacred ashes before DAO came out, and when you actually played it, the other option was rather stupid. Hopefully their C&C will be more like Orzammar, which we've had some pretty good arguments about.
Also, Re: razing the village. What happened if you sided with the werewolves/left redcliffe to die again?
The in-game outcome or the post-game outcome?
It's sort of its own reward
No BioWare dev team has ever done a particularly good job at following through on that campaign promise.
This is a perfect example of "consequence". Consequence isn't a buzzword, it's a simple way of displaying that two choices have different meaningful effects. If choice one results in A but choice two results in B, with a meaningful gameplay distinction between these two things, then it's a meaningful consequence. If you don't save the Keep and get a different outcome than saving the village, then that is a good example as well - say not getting the help of a regent or someone else later as you left their cousin in the keep to die (or whatever).
I am most likely wrong, but wasn't it the other way around? Like the elves gave you elfroot and the werewolves gave you something else plus being absolutely murderous melee troops?
Wud yoo laek to lern aboot meatz? Look here!
I'm not sure how I feel describing it just in terms of pure If-then logic. I mean, take this recent post in the eternity thread:
C&C should be more about the accumulation of reactions to your choices over the course of the game, not just the payoffs of the Big Moral Decisions (TM) at the end of each hub. Which is why Alpha protocol is the best, since you can still find new results from your actions 4-5 playthroughs in, each with a completely different ending that feels like your choices actually impacted it.
EDIT: thegreatcow, I don't know, I never sided with the werewolves, that's why I was asking
I don't think they give you anything. At least I don't remember that. What also happens is no elves and thus no potential vendors to buy/sell crap. The weres didn't do shit.
I'd never seen Redcliff get massacred, so I don't know what happens there. But I'd guess the same: losing vendors. I don't think many survivors show up during the final battle to make anything particularly interesting.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
It'd be interesting to see other stuff, like maybe if you are too evil, your companions may or may not plot a coup or something for being a destructive asshole. But then if you accomplished something important to the individual, that specific companion would defend you.
Probably asking too much.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
XBL: GamingFreak5514
PSN: GamingFreak1234
Help him? It's the same as if you don't.
Anders should have suffered a minor consequence himself for failing to acquire Hawkes help. Perhaps he doesn't kill everyone in the church, cause he could only get a portion of the explosives or could only place them in limited portions of the building without Hawke doing the legwork of finding the components and distracting the people inside.
Nothing that would change the point of the scene, but just make it seem as if Hawkes presence or lack thereof had consequences to Anders.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I agree with you as well there that it also should be something that builds up over the entire game as well. Possibly even without the player consciously realizing that is what they are doing.
However, I am simply mentioning that this is a simple and clear example they've given. It's also much much better than the "choices" in most RPGs.
(also, not being able to ever tell TIM no)
Well,
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Having *real* consequences to 99.99% of your actions would be close to impossible to design just because of how much of a clusterfuck the whole thing would be. First off you would need to document every single action a player can execute in the game.
That's where indirect reaction systems like factions come in though.
(Ofc, I know you were just kidding
c&c is a magic act. Just because it isn't real doesn't mean the illusion can't be impressive. The Walking Dead has no real choice at all, but people still praise it for player consequence. It hides it with well done sleight of hand.
Obviously anyone who plays through these types of games more than once would see through the facade, but there are ways to do it well.
Yeah, but that's the frame of the story.
IMO, I prefer the things I do during a story actually modifiying that story rather than full on branching. Little choices working together and in a complex way creating unique situations rather than *just* going on a different path. Of couse, while I prefer it, I don't mind a combination of both.
I do think one could do even better than AP in this regard, though. AP is close to the only game that actually offers me this. (Hope Telltale will put more emphasis on it in future games)
Aren't there kickstarter games you could support that promise old school RPG's for people like you? Why are you even checking out DA3 when you already know it has everything you hate.
Anyway, real consequences for every action is an nightmare to implement, especially when the game isn't standalone but part of a series where that stuff carries over.
AP, telltale games, Bioware... they all try really hard but they're all "painting the tunnel" approaches. A linear path, but a few decorations change depending on earlier choices. And that's okay! If my actions result in a different stronghold populated by different allies, periodically attacked by different enemies, that's pretty cool! Honestly, acknowledgement of earlier choices in dialogue everywhere is what's most important to me.
Because I still think that DAO was bioware's best game this decade?
I mean I don't really look at world changing decisions as much as I used to. Rather, I'm more concerned about your ability to scalp your character's personality and their interpersonal relationships. And add in a bit of politics and I'm usually good.
You spend the time to get that factory built, play the economics mini-games to get enough iron for production, complete the quest for the general's support (which is dependent on flags based on how many resources you have available), and you have a much stronger army for the final battle with the Dark Lord. Building those kinds of complex in-game systems isn't really Bioware's forte, but I don't think it is an impossible goal.
I don't want to play Skyrim.
I want to play Dragon Age 3.