33 réponses à ce sujet

[iTomes]

"Say you chose to not save a family, and that family turned out to have a son that wasn't there, and that son becomes a companion, that guy would be more inclined to fight to the death -now that he has nothing to live for- rather than retreat when you tell him to."



i could live with that^^. cause and effect would be quite reasonable and obvious, and the guy could tell you something like "i have nothing to live for"or something in a dialoque. only wouldn't like it if i for example chose to let some assassin or whatever live (like zevran) and then he suddenly sneaks on my LI and kills her or something. especially because it would all hang on one dialoge. in your "guy without family" example i propably could convince the guy that theres still something to live for...

[Helena Tylena]

iTomes wrote...

"Say you chose to not save a family, and that family turned out to have a son that wasn't there, and that son becomes a companion, that guy would be more inclined to fight to the death -now that he has nothing to live for- rather than retreat when you tell him to."

i could live with that^^. cause and effect would be quite reasonable and obvious, and the guy could tell you something like "i have nothing to live for"or something in a dialoque. only wouldn't like it if i for example chose to let some assassin or whatever live (like zevran) and then he suddenly sneaks on my LI and kills her or something. especially because it would all hang on one dialoge. in your "guy without family" example i propably could convince the guy that theres still something to live for...

Exactly. Now, add in enough stuff like that and metagaming in such a way that everyone survives becomes tricky. But not impossible, ofcourse. Having everyone survive should be a challenge, unlike ME2 where it was fairly obvious, and all concentrated in one mission.

[iTomes]

"Exactly. Now, add in enough stuff like that and metagaming in such a way that everyone survives becomes tricky. But not impossible, ofcourse. Having everyone survive should be a challenge, unlike ME2 where it was fairly obvious, and all concentrated in one mission."



well what id like are rather tricky situations like that: an enemy on the top of a tower has to be slain. we must leave companions behind to kill incoming enemies that could fall in our back during the fight. if we choose weak equiped characters who dont like us at all or something theyll die fast or leave theryre post, if we take high-geared characters theyll propably even survive but we cant use them during the bossfight and weaker characters propably get killed by the boss. that way we'd be in a "what can i risk" situation and our choice would have a direct influence on the survival of youre characters.

[Narreneth]

SirShreK wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

Avaflame wrote...


I don't like the idea of different sets of companions, nor do I like the idea of having the same ones for 10 or so years.

So basically what you're saying is no matter what they do you won't like it. 

That our you think the game is actually 10 years long.

It is 10 years long. In the Game timeline i.e.

I meant literally, genius.  It's pretty common knowledge that the story arc is 10 years long.

[_Dejanus]

 The most exciting possibility there for me is that romances and friendships have actual consequences. You know, like children. Or perhaps a former companion helping you out immensely in the inevitable fight against the Qunari by raising his own army in the interim.

Lots of possibilities, and this has rarely been done in games.

[Narreneth]

Helena Tylena wrote...

iTomes wrote...

"Say you chose to not save a family, and that family turned out to have a son that wasn't there, and that son becomes a companion, that guy would be more inclined to fight to the death -now that he has nothing to live for- rather than retreat when you tell him to."

i could live with that^^. cause and effect would be quite reasonable and obvious, and the guy could tell you something like "i have nothing to live for"or something in a dialoque. only wouldn't like it if i for example chose to let some assassin or whatever live (like zevran) and then he suddenly sneaks on my LI and kills her or something. especially because it would all hang on one dialoge. in your "guy without family" example i propably could convince the guy that theres still something to live for...

Exactly. Now, add in enough stuff like that and metagaming in such a way that everyone survives becomes tricky. But not impossible, ofcourse. Having everyone survive should be a challenge, unlike ME2 where it was fairly obvious, and all concentrated in one mission.

But being that it's a game in not real life, it's not a good (or fair) move for developers to throw in cause and effect events in a way that makes them feel random.  If not saving the family will somehow affect one of your party members there needs to be some clue that it will.  Not just "oh look, there's a guy in trouble" help him or no?

What you're proposing would make it feel random and not connected to choices.

[Avaflame]

Stupid time difference.

distinguetraces wrote...

I think it'd be cool to have two or three new characters become available in each episiode -- and then depending on how you resolve the episode, only one of them joins your permanent squad.

There are 19 white silhouettes around Hawke on the splash page of the DA2 site, suggesting a pretty big supporting cast.

I also think this would quite an interesting concept, I only just looked closely  enough yesterday to actually recognise the silhouettes, which lead to a similar thought.

Narreneth wrote...

Avaflame wrote...


I don't like the idea of different sets of companions, nor do I like the idea of having the same ones for 10 or so years.

So basically what you're saying is no matter what they do you won't like it. 

That our you think the game is actually 10 years long.

Clearly I don't think the game is actually that long, considering I mention time skips or jumps numerous times. As for the 'no matter what happens I won't like it' quote, I think you have taken that out of context, or perhaps I didn't state myself clear enough. I have, what I think, are valid apprehensions about either course. Neither idea appeals to me. I've made it inherently clear though that I know I don't have enough information to actually judge it yet and most likely won't until I have a first-hand experience of the game.  I merely have worries. If they were to treat it like I'm thinking, then yes, I won't like it either way. I'm sure they won't though, I just want other people's opinions on how it might/could be handled so that I may assauge my concerns for the moment.

Deviija wrote...

Avaflame wrote...

See the issues I have with this is that I'm not there to see them evolve. It won't feel as natural to me. I liked the fast paced progression of the relationships you had with characters in Origins. Still, I'm willing to give anything a shot.

My thoughts are that we will not see the 'fast paced progression' of relationships in Origins or ME2 because we will not be confined within a time period long enough, or so I am led to believe right now.  We have to span ten entire years, and we jump from event to narrated event, and seemingly skipping the menial travel/time where nothing happens aspects.  That's why I was saying it would be quite interesting, if that is the context, to see characters and relationships evolve over years.  Since we may be skipping around in the timeline a lot.

I don't think children will be on the table though, as a game mechanic.

Yes.  I was going to put in an addendum of 'No, I do not mean children when I say family dyanamics' since that is what most people seem to jump to thinking about when family is spoken of.  

I don't think we'll see the same level of progression as in Origins either, I just meant that that is what I like. I'm just saying I like seeing relationships develop and now how they HAVE developed. If I start one chapter of the story with a relatively different dynamic with a certain character, I will feel as if I have missed something.

I was sceptical as to whether you were regarding children or not, but I thought I'd add it anyway just in case and also because it has been talked about recently as something that people think could be/is implemented in the game.

Edit: Ugh, typos. If you see any more or I seem incoherent, can I point out I only just woke up? I'm still adjusting to the light.

Modifié par Avaflame, 18 juillet 2010 - 10:08 .

[Avaflame]

Narreneth wrote...

Helena Tylena wrote...

iTomes wrote...

"Say you chose to not save a family, and that family turned out to have a son that wasn't there, and that son becomes a companion, that guy would be more inclined to fight to the death -now that he has nothing to live for- rather than retreat when you tell him to."

i could live with that^^. cause and effect would be quite reasonable and obvious, and the guy could tell you something like "i have nothing to live for"or something in a dialoque. only wouldn't like it if i for example chose to let some assassin or whatever live (like zevran) and then he suddenly sneaks on my LI and kills her or something. especially because it would all hang on one dialoge. in your "guy without family" example i propably could convince the guy that theres still something to live for...

Exactly. Now, add in enough stuff like that and metagaming in such a way that everyone survives becomes tricky. But not impossible, ofcourse. Having everyone survive should be a challenge, unlike ME2 where it was fairly obvious, and all concentrated in one mission.

But being that it's a game in not real life, it's not a good (or fair) move for developers to throw in cause and effect events in a way that makes them feel random.  If not saving the family will somehow affect one of your party members there needs to be some clue that it will.  Not just "oh look, there's a guy in trouble" help him or no?

What you're proposing would make it feel random and not connected to choices.

I agree. It could work, but it would have to be handled carefully.