Please let Deadfire be enjoyable in a single playthrough

[algroth]

 

 

• At the end of PoE I didn't like the endings I got for many of my companions (particularly for Aloth and the Grieving Mother, but also for others). The bad thing is that I wasn't able to see them coming and act accordingly when I had the chance. When I made the decisions that brought me to the endings I got, I wasn't able to understand their possible impacts. This wouldn't have been a problem years ago: I would have played through the game once more just to achieve the "perfect ending", but doing that has become a problem for me now. I personally don't like this trend of giving unexpected consequences to the actions of players that RPGs seem to like so much these days. Sometimes unforseeable results are useful to pass the message that "life does not always go as expected", but when overdone it just adds frustration to players. I hope that this kind of consequences will be toned down a bit in the next chapter, in favor of choices that let the player know the effects they will cause on the end state of the world and the end state of the characters involved.

 

That is absolutely fair. I think we still don't know WHY certain endings happen and what the factors weigh in. It would be nice to at least retroactively look back at choices and go "aha, so that is why I got a bad companion ending".

 

 

I think this is important, too.

 

Spoiler from PoE ahead:

 

Just yesterday i played PoE and came across a point in the story when Sagani found the Persoq the Stag. If you say "tell him about your family" in the ending she loves her family and everything is nice. But If i tell her "It doesn't matter what you tell him, because you are doing this for your village" this means she is going to kill herself, because her whole life is without meaning. I not only interpreted this last sentence completely different because this was for me "the good" answer. In my opinion there there is nothing meaningless in "doing it for your village". I also saw no reason why telling a animal about his family from his previous life could help. It is an animal after all and i'm sure he will not understand anything.

 

I really hated this part. I mean: suicide because she instantly think live is meaningless? What about all her other achievements? She helped to save many lifes in my party. And one sentence (very open to interpretation) takes all this meaning from her?

 

 

 

It's strange, but that supposedly should not happen. If you push her to telling her about the deeds for the village, the end result is that she'll grow to be the next village elder instead (which is the ending I got). I think the only way you can arrive to that more downbeat ending is if your previous interactions with her did not push her to either family or village, and by the time that moment came you tell her it doesn't matter - or tell her to trust her instincts.

 

If I'm not mistaken, I also think the point here is less so that she saw life as meaningless but that she felt she did not truly succeed in her quest - in turn she strives to find another means to help her village and find some manner of closure, which leads her to pushing herself into the blizzard, and into her death, in the process. Unless this is a different ending to the one you had.

 

 

Edit: Ah, I see it was addressed. My bad, and I agree with Amentep.

Edited February 20, 2017 by algroth

[Rahelron]

 

Mmmm... You are right.

 

But I still don't like this trend in RPGs:

 

1.0 RPG quests: you are hired by the good guy in order to kill the bad guy. You do that and everyone lives happily ever after

 

2.0 RPG quests: you are hired by someone who tells you to be the good guy, in order to kill the supposed bad guy. You set off to do that, but you learn that things are different and the real bad guy is the one who hired you. You kill him and everyone lives happily ever after.

 

3.0 RPG quests: two different factions try to earn your support, but there are no good or bad guys. You have to choose the lesser evil based on your personal beliefs. At the end you achieve your goal, but there is always a bittersweet side to it.

 

4.0 RPG quests: two or more factions try to earn your support, there are no good and no bad guys and you also don't know what are the exact plans of each faction. You struggle to understand what's going on while the quest progresses and in the end you kill a final enemy hoping you did the right thing. At the end of the game you learn that it was more complex than you thought (don't you say...) and that your actions brought unexpected consequences.

 

 

 I think I see what you mean here. As consequences get more nuanced, if there isn't a way in the game to investigate the nuances, then the game hasn't gotten more interesting to play.

 

 Or, to put it another way, when the plot thickens, the game play needs to thicken by an equal amount.

 

 To use a silly example, if you played Pacman and got poignant ending slides that varied depending on the order that you ate the ghosts, that wouldn't make the game better because you have no way to make an informed decision in the game. Choices aren't meaningful if you end up making them randomly.

 

 Is that point you are making?

 

 

Yes, more or less, and I strongly think that writing complex plots doesn't automatically bring to more meaningful stories... most of the times the result is the opposite.

 

The choice between Yennefer and Triss in the witcher 3 is one of the most difficult and meaningful decisions you have to make, affects the ending a lot, is a great roleplaying device... and all of this is achieved by the developers without hiding any information or putting unexpected plot twists in the end. You know exactly what choices you have: you can choose either one of the other and you know what type of person they are, what your choice will bring to. There is no "screw up dialogue line" that, if chosen, brings disaster upon your playthrough. You can screw up of course, but it is something that happens only if you actively try to pursue a path that you know is wrong (trying to have them both). I would say that is a good way to handle choices in games.

[Yonjuro]

 

 

...

 

 

....when the plot thickens, the game play needs to thicken by an equal amount.

 

...

 

Yes, more or less, and I strongly think that writing complex plots doesn't automatically bring to more meaningful stories... most of the times the result is the opposite.

 

 

 Sure. If the plot is more complex, the writing needs to be up to the task. You need to understand the choice you are making and you need to be able to decide what your character would do in that situation rather than picking something randomly because the writing isn't giving you a clear choice.

 

 I don't think that you need to be able to predict the outcome perfectly. E.g., You can side with Kolsc over Raedric and it is a meaningful choice; what happened after was not predictable (at least, I didn't see it coming). I think that is fine.

 

 

... the witcher 3 ...

 

 

 I haven't played it, so I can't really comment further.

[Heijoushin]

Just to throw in my 2 cents here. I was very surprised that my Aloth

decided to become Grandmaster of the Leaden Key. Like, dude, we've just finished killing the last Grandmaster, at what point did I indicate that this was a good idea!?

This wasn't a big deal to me (and I'm not totally against unpredictable endings) but... instead of a few random lines of "advice" dialogue (which the player will probably forget), I would prefer more dramatic events to determine the fate of your companions. Like, did you kill someone? Did you do a certain quest? Did you disobey a God? That's life changing stuff, not random party banter.  

[GhostofAnakin]

This is a very personal need I have, I don't know if it applies to any other member of this forum, but'ill express it anyways. 

 

I've noticed that some of the new features that will be introduced in Deadfire (like for example the enhanced reactivity, berath's blessing and so on) can be effectively enjoyed only if the player does multiple playthroughs.

 

Please Obsidian, try also to focus on those that will be able to play through your game just once.

This requests comes from the fact that I'm in a moment of my life that allows me to set aside only a few hours per week to play games. It literally took me more than a year to go through the 103 hours I needed to finish Pillars of Eternity, and this doesn't count the expansions, that I've never played even though I bought them. I can't afford to play through a game multiple times to see all the weath of choices, features and reactivity that appear only with multiple playthroughs.

 

I'm not saying that PoE should stop focusing on choices, consequences and interactivity. In fact this is the very reason why I play RPG games. I mean that Deadfire should present those choices, consequences and interactivity in a way that is enjoyable even in a single playthrough.

 

I'll make some examples in order to explain mysef better:

• At the end of PoE I didn't like the endings I got for many of my companions (particularly for Aloth and the Grieving Mother, but also for others). The bad thing is that I wasn't able to see them coming and act accordingly when I had the chance. When I made the decisions that brought me to the endings I got, I wasn't able to understand their possible impacts. This wouldn't have been a problem years ago: I would have played through the game once more just to achieve the "perfect ending", but doing that has become a problem for me now. I personally don't like this trend of giving unexpected consequences to the actions of players that RPGs seem to like so much these days. Sometimes unforseeable results are useful to pass the message that "life does not always go as expected", but when overdone it just adds frustration to players. I hope that this kind of consequences will be toned down a bit in the next chapter, in favor of choices that let the player know the effects they will cause on the end state of the world and the end state of the characters involved.
• I also don't look forward to having all the "enhanced reactivity" based on the race, class and background of the main character. This is another thing that is enjoyable only thrugh multiple playthroughs, and let me say that I don't consider it meaningful in general. Having some dedicated dialogue choices, or some NPCs that react to you in a particular way just because your rac or class e is XY is a gimmick that is great at the beginning, but grows old quickly.
• Finally, I do not like when games cut content away from the player just because of a choice he makes during the campaign. IMPORTANT: when I talk about cutting content away I mean removing content from the playthrough without giving something else in return. For example: I hate how Baldur's Gate II punishes the player for making the right choice when it prevents the player from playing through the part in the underwater city if he refuses to follow Saemon Havarian in the return trip from Spellhold. Saemon is clearly not to be trusted, every single smart person should choose to use the portal instead of asking a men who already betrayed him once to help him again. The problem is that doing that the player looses on experience, unique loot and a whole subplot without getting anything in return. By comparison, the Witcher 2 cuts away a whole zone in chapter 2 depending on player's choices, but it also gives the player access to another, exclusive zone. This is a branching path that doesn't punish the player, impacts the story in a meaningful way and is enjoyable even in a single playthrough because the player doesn't feel to loose something without something else in return.

 

Those were just three examples, but there could be more. I think that in order to make a game enjoyable in a single playthrough it should:

• Let the player understand the consequences of the choices he is making, throwing at him unforseeable results ONLY when it is absolutely necessary for the plot.
• Do not hide meaningful story content behind difficult puzzles or in easter eggs. Those are exactly the things that players usually miss in the first playthrough and having to restart the game just to access to an important plot point that you missed the first time is frustrating as hell.
• Focus on features that expand what the player can do in the world and do not cut content away without giving something else in return, forcing him to restart the game if he wants to experience what he lost.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks a lot.

 

This sounds like you want Obsidian to remove pretty much any reason for people to even bother replaying the game.  I, for one, hope they do the opposite of what you request.