515 réponses à ce sujet

[Aradace]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Aradace wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Axekix wrote...

Fatex3 wrote...

Kids are bad enough in real life, why the hell do you want them in a game....

LOL, the way some of you guys talk it's like you forgot you were  children once too.

You misunderstand lol.  It's because I do know what I was like as a child that I dont want kids.  If there is even the slightest possibility that my child could end up like me in any way then helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllls no.  To quote Riddick "The universe doenst know what to do with just ONE of me."  Aside from that, my wife and I enjoy a very easy going lifestyle where we do whatever we want, when we want to do it.  Putting a child into the equation almost automatically takes any fun out of our lives.  If we sound selfish or self-centered because we'd rather have fun than take care of an anklebiter then it is what it is I suppose.

Hahah!  I totally know what you mean... but picture this...  Your Hawke(tte!) comes back from an adventure... and the only people there to greet him are pale as death guards stammering and sweating bullets.  Hawke is like... WTF?  Into the base of operations s/he goes only to find out...  Your kid left a note.  Your kid, his mabari, and three of his best friends have decided to go off on an adventure.  So now you have to either send companions after them, or go yourself and send the companions on whatever mission is next.  It would be a neat twist... with a cost associated to it.

I wouldnt do either....My opinion would be If my child is "adult" enough to pick up a blade and venture off on his own.  Then he/she's adult enough to deal with the consequences of their actions and that "daddy" isnt going to be there to save him/her.  I understand the scenario you're putting out here but it only works with certain individuals.  I am not one of them lol.

So if your character's daughter is seven and decides to be a hero with her friends, you'd let her run off and get violated by a hurlock or two before they turn her into a broodmother?  :o:o

Yep, and then I would do what was necessary afterward and kill her.  Because as my child, she would have been "warned" ahead of time of the danger.  And if she chose to disregard my warnings, it's her problem to deal with.  Man, woman, child, I dont have sympathy for anyone who brings suffering upon themselves

[Russalka]

The child would no doubt be very young since I don't think Hawke would get into a romance in just 3 years, if the storyline keeps jumping in timeshifts.

A child can still serve as an effective plot device, regardless of the age, it can change the parent's life, cause rifts or connections within relationships, make the hero weigh his or her choices more and so on.

I sincerely doubt it will come to slaying and violating children though. -.-

Modifié par Russalka, 15 septembre 2010 - 09:23 .

[Aradace]

Russalka wrote...

I sincerely doubt it will come to slaying and violating children though. -.-

I guess Im one of the few who actually killed Connor in DA:O then? lol

[Russalka]

Wonderful, good for you.

Slaying as a term means obvious butchering with graphic means and outcome though.

[Selvec_Darkon]

10 years will not be continous roleplay.



Think 2 or three year breaks, in which a child's life skipping all the awkard stages. Meaning while you can have kids, its not likely to be fable.

[Aradace]

Russalka wrote...

Wonderful, good for you.
Slaying as a term means obvious butchering with graphic means and outcome though.

Bahhh, what fun is that then? 

[Russalka]

Aradace wrote...

Russalka wrote...

Wonderful, good for you.
Slaying as a term means obvious butchering with graphic means and outcome though.

Bahhh, what fun is that then? 

Relevance to the topic, now?

[Aradace]

Why yessa masta.....lol. Seriously though, I can see where it COULD be an effective plot device but remember. Not EVERYONE wants to have a child. So, if it were part of the plot, it'd have to be minor.  And by minor I mean it would have to still feel seemless or whatnot if you chose NOT to have a child.

Modifié par Aradace, 15 septembre 2010 - 09:35 .

[Russalka]

We realise that not everyone wants to have the option. But do you realise that SOME people might want to have it?

Modifié par Russalka, 15 septembre 2010 - 09:35 .

[Aradace]

Russalka wrote...

We realise that not everyone wants to have them. But do you realise that SOME people might want to have it?

Yep and thats why I said what I did....That the relevance to the plot would have to be MINOR.

[nightcobra]

Aradace wrote...

Why yessa masta.....lol. Seriously though, I can see where it COULD be an effective plot device but remember. Not EVERYONE wants to have a child. So, if it were part of the plot, it'd have to be minor.

not insignificantly minor though 

like a guy once said:

larger than a brood, smaller than a horde:devil:

[Russalka]

Aradace wrote...

Yep and thats why I said what I did....That the relevance to the plot would have to be MINOR.

That is not logical. Making it a minor impact into the story because "not everyone" wants it. But does one know the estimated amount of "not everyone"? The storytellers don't, they don't care. They do whatever they want.

[Aradace]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Why yessa masta.....lol. Seriously though, I can see where it COULD be an effective plot device but remember. Not EVERYONE wants to have a child. So, if it were part of the plot, it'd have to be minor.

not insignificantly minor though 

like a guy once said:

larger than a brood, smaller than a horde:devil:

I understand that and hence why BioWare probably wont do it...Because it would be a proverbial "razor's edge" they'd have to dance.  If they made it TOO relevant to the plot, it might feel like there is a hole somewhere if you didnt have a child.  And visa versa by not making it too minor because it might feel like it was "tacked on" at the last minute.

[Aradace]

Russalka wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Yep and thats why I said what I did....That the relevance to the plot would have to be MINOR.

That is not logical. Making it a minor impact into the story because "not everyone" wants it. But does one know the estimated amount of "not everyone"? The storytellers don't, they don't care. They do whatever they want.

Yes it WOULD have to be minor...Because as in my previous post, if it made it TOO relevant, it might make it feel as though theres a hole in the plot if you didnt have a child...And visa versa by making it too minor and making it feel "tacked on".  It has to be a balance.

Which in terms of the former, it would be as though BioWare was punishing the players who didnt knock someone up (or get knocked up in the case of FemHawke) And the same thing in terms of the latter.

Modifié par Aradace, 15 septembre 2010 - 09:42 .

[Russalka]

Did not sleeping with Morrigan leave a hole? Did siding with one or the other in various quests to gather allies leave any holes?

[nightcobra]

Aradace wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Why yessa masta.....lol. Seriously though, I can see where it COULD be an effective plot device but remember. Not EVERYONE wants to have a child. So, if it were part of the plot, it'd have to be minor.

not insignificantly minor though 

like a guy once said:

larger than a brood, smaller than a horde:devil:

I understand that and hence why BioWare probably wont do it...Because it would be a proverbial "razor's edge" they'd have to dance.  If they made it TOO relevant to the plot, it might feel like there is a hole somewhere if you didnt have a child.  And visa versa by not making it too minor because it might feel like it was "tacked on" at the last minute.

well... only time will tell, if it isn't on the game i won't whine about it though i think it is a feature that should be explored.

[Aradace]

Russalka wrote...

Did not sleeping with Morrigan leave a hole? Did siding with one or the other in various quests to gather allies leave any holes?

Nope and that's what Im saying if you read carefully.  They cant just toss this in there and hope for the best.  It would have to be done, literally, perfectly for it to work right.

[Aradace]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Aradace wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Why yessa masta.....lol. Seriously though, I can see where it COULD be an effective plot device but remember. Not EVERYONE wants to have a child. So, if it were part of the plot, it'd have to be minor.

not insignificantly minor though 

like a guy once said:

larger than a brood, smaller than a horde:devil:

I understand that and hence why BioWare probably wont do it...Because it would be a proverbial "razor's edge" they'd have to dance.  If they made it TOO relevant to the plot, it might feel like there is a hole somewhere if you didnt have a child.  And visa versa by not making it too minor because it might feel like it was "tacked on" at the last minute.

well... only time will tell, if it isn't on the game i won't whine about it though i think it is a feature that should be explored.

I agree to a point I suppose but again, this isnt something they could just cough up and throw in.  It has to feel equally as seemless on both sides.  The story has to progress seemlessly as though you didnt have a child if you chose not to, and the same goes for if you did, it'd have to flow seemlessly without either choice feeling "generic"

[Russalka]

So you agree with the first point I tried to make in this thread. Good.

It is an unlikely plan, but at least the idea is out there.



Seriously though, people were like this when romances and love scenes came to games, Bioware being the pioneer for this. I am not saying they should be the best baby and dating sim revelers, but things like these do stir drama in the storyline.

[Aradace]

Russalka wrote...

So you agree with the first point I tried to make in this thread. Good.
It is an unlikely plan, but at least the idea is out there.

Seriously though, people were like this when romances and love scenes came to games, Bioware being the pioneer for this. I am not saying they should be the best baby and dating sim revelers, but things like these do stir drama in the storyline.

Kind of off topic a little.  Fable III has supposedly improved that aspect of the game from the previous title.  I wont go into the specs of the system (In short it's called the "touch" system or something like that) but in short, you can actually interact with your child in Fable III as in picking him or her up, tossing him/her in the air, holding his/her hand and walking with them....etc. etc.  But, that's still a month and some change away.  Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnd back to the original topic lol

[Axekix]

Aradace wrote...

Axekix wrote...

Fatex3 wrote...

Kids are bad enough in real life, why the hell do you want them in a game....

LOL, the way some of you guys talk it's like you forgot you were  children once too.

You misunderstand lol.  It's because I do know what I was like as a child that I dont want kids.  If there is even the slightest possibility that my child could end up like me in any way then helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllls no.  To quote Riddick "The universe doenst know what to do with just ONE of me."  Aside from that, my wife and I enjoy a very easy going lifestyle where we do whatever we want, when we want to do it.  Putting a child into the equation almost automatically takes any fun out of our lives.  If we sound selfish or self-centered because we'd rather have fun than take care of an anklebiter then it is what it is I suppose.

Hahaha!  There is so much gold in this post.  Come to think of it I was a pretty lousy kid too.

[nightcobra]

Axekix wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Axekix wrote...

Fatex3 wrote...

Kids are bad enough in real life, why the hell do you want them in a game....

LOL, the way some of you guys talk it's like you forgot you were  children once too.

You misunderstand lol.  It's because I do know what I was like as a child that I dont want kids.  If there is even the slightest possibility that my child could end up like me in any way then helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllls no.  To quote Riddick "The universe doenst know what to do with just ONE of me."  Aside from that, my wife and I enjoy a very easy going lifestyle where we do whatever we want, when we want to do it.  Putting a child into the equation almost automatically takes any fun out of our lives.  If we sound selfish or self-centered because we'd rather have fun than take care of an anklebiter then it is what it is I suppose.

Hahaha!  There is so much gold in this post.  Come to think of it I was a pretty lousy kid too.

hahaha:lol: well there's your chance to rectify that in a game, think of it as practice (although you wouldn't have to do the messy stuff like cleaning feeding and taking care of him/her, more like dialog based interaction) 

[Rieverre]

Skimming through the thread, the thought occurred to me ... we get siblings, right? Unless they and mum die somewhere along the line, chances are one of them will be the one getting involved with someone and having a sprog, which aunt/uncle Hawke will then help raise ... or ignore as appropriate.



Although the last time we had a nephew didn't turn out so great, so maybe it'd be better if this didn't happen.



... makes me wonder if Hawke gets to do the shovel-speech at Bethany's potential love interests. That would be both funny and appropriate if we want to play the overprotective sibling.

[Aradace]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Axekix wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Axekix wrote...

Fatex3 wrote...

Kids are bad enough in real life, why the hell do you want them in a game....

LOL, the way some of you guys talk it's like you forgot you were  children once too.

You misunderstand lol.  It's because I do know what I was like as a child that I dont want kids.  If there is even the slightest possibility that my child could end up like me in any way then helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllls no.  To quote Riddick "The universe doenst know what to do with just ONE of me."  Aside from that, my wife and I enjoy a very easy going lifestyle where we do whatever we want, when we want to do it.  Putting a child into the equation almost automatically takes any fun out of our lives.  If we sound selfish or self-centered because we'd rather have fun than take care of an anklebiter then it is what it is I suppose.

Hahaha!  There is so much gold in this post.  Come to think of it I was a pretty lousy kid too.

hahaha:lol: well there's your chance to rectify that in a game, think of it as practice (although you wouldn't have to do the messy stuff like cleaning feeding and taking care of him/her, more like dialog based interaction) 

I even sucked at in in Fable II lol....Every single time my "wife" ended up divorcing me and or she ended up dying somehow and the child protective agency ended up taking the kid away from me

[nhsk]

The whole comparing child analogy to f.example elves vs. werewolves is rather odd to say the least. The story progresses anyway and the only difference it makes, is who you summon at the last battle and some npc's in Redcliffe aka. the "choice" has a minor influence on the game itself and a larger influence on the epilogue.



You can't compare that to have a child that should make a difference later on, in the plot unless it is something like "do you save the 1000 innocents or your stupid kid who wandered off to a hobbe cave?" - and that choice would mostly affect epilogue.