Aller au contenu

Photo

No more killing bears or other animals...


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
177 réponses à ce sujet

#101
AlexXIV

AlexXIV
  • Members
  • 10 670 messages

ShrinkingFish wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Well this one one of this things that could work different than it does (or did). It is not new to RPGs that for example animals act different than monsters or humans, as in they go about their daily business and are rather shy or peaceful than aggressive. I don't mind killing pixel animals since, sad but true, they were not alive to begin with, but it sure adds to the general atmosphere of the game for me if animals are not all rabid maneaters. Even a pack of wolves wouldn't attack an enemy they know is too much for them be it other animals or monsters or even humanoids. Animals are smarter that it is given credit to them in most games, even those calling themselves RPGs. Well, with he exception of a certain mabari.


As I remember it wolves and bears only ever willfully attacked you when they had overwhelming force. Like, three wolves never tried to take you down, that would be foolish. But everytime I was jumped by wolves they outnumbered me and my party. As my party grew more powerful, more armor, better weapons and the like, the wolves numbers increased accordingly. And it is no stretch of the imagination that a hungry animal would seek to kill and eat humans who they felt they had the advantage over.

Or that a hungry animal wouldn't defend its food if threatened. And most of the animals you fight in game come at you because you're approaching their meals. This is a perfectly reasonable, animalistic reponse.


Yeah well I didn's say they never attack. But animals are economic. For example they don't hunt if they are not hungry or just done eating. They always go for the prey that poses the least threat and effort. I only know this from TV shows of course, but I have seen lions giving up on a warthog because it proved too difficult to kill so they went for something smaller and less dangerous. Animals don't go to war like humans who calculate losses etc. They don't want to lose someone of their pack, since their survival depends on every member. So they hunt in a way that they know they will be most efficient.

Of course a hungry pack or even single wolf would attack anyone if there is really nothing else to hunt, but only then. But usually animals who live in the vicinity of humans know how dangerous they are and, if anything go for stragglers as childs or a single lost person. Also if a wolf kills a person near a settlement or something it is almost sure that the humans start a large scale hunt to kill every wolf they can find. There is a difference between those wolves from legends and movies and reality. Of course wolves are wild animals and like any, dangerous. But as I said they are smart enough to avoid humans if they have the option to hunt less dangerous things. Wolves are in general more intelligent than dogs, not the other way round.

Even if they outnumer you 3 or 4 times they know that killing humans will bring more humans to hunt them down. But that's ofc only if they 'know' humans as in live in their vicinity for a while, But even a wolf that has never seen a human will probably be careful, since it doesn't know what this thing is and what weapons it possesses, so it would rather go for prey they know. They'd maybe observe the human first to see if he or she is a possible rival. There are documented stories that humans befriended wild wolves and bears, and that's because humans are not a natural prey of these animals and would only be attacked if they became either rivals for the same territory or if they are sort of starving.

#102
Jenova65

Jenova65
  • Members
  • 3 454 messages

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

 I agree with OP there are ways around it, given that we are in a fantasy setting NOT a real medieval setting (or everyone would be quite dirty and with rotten teeth, syphilis etc)


Have you seen the character's teeth in game?! Rotted to the CORE!

Plus... everyone is making references constantly to how much people stink... especially Alistair!

And Morrigan even references syphilis if you have her in your party when you sleep with Isabella!!

I see your point not at all.

Edit: Well... maybe not syphilis directly. But she does refer to some sort of sexually transmitted disease.

I don't need you to see my point, it makes it no less relevant :) Whatever references are made, many of the characters are enjoying far more robust health than they did back then. And that bit was merely a joke, as indicated by the winky face...............
My point is that we are NOT dealing with reality, we are playing a fantasy game where serious head wounds can always be fixed at camp and magic and Dragons exist, we have already suspended our disbelief and if tweaks were made so that you could still kill, but I don't have would that really keep you awake at night? ;) < Light hearted comment. 
I hope this clarifies my view for you :)


*shrug* perhaps. I feel like Bioware did a pretty good job of blurring the reality fantasy lines though. Considering the plagues, the diseases, the rotting teeth, the poverty, the starvation, the beggars, the refugees, the realities of the Blight and, of course, how these realities would affect the wildlife.

And I'm not sure how rampant you think diseases were... but there were plenty of sick people in the game as it was...

I felt like nothing was out of place. Just new stuff was inserted in. Such as magic. Though I agree that it is a bit silly that a cracked skull or shattered arm can be fixed by an "injury kit" or a return to camp... but they had to work in penalties for "dieing" somewhere...

And dragons are as much animals in this game as wolves and bears. Perhaps even more intelligent, like dolphins and elephants are said to be, perhaps even more intelligent than that! And there are no qualms about killing them. Not even about killing their young while they're still in the nest. But I can see why people wouldn't care about killing them so much.

Anyways, I feel like the way animals are portrayed in this is pretty fair. They don't just throw wolves and bears at you all the time for the sake of throwing bears and wolves at you. All the animals react to you exactly how you'd expect them to react. And for me this extra sense of reality enhances the gameplay.

I mean there are plenty of animals you cannot kill in the game. Cats, dogs (not mabari, though I don't see many people complaining about killing all those poor dogs, that was upsetting to me I must say), halla, birds, most rats and the like. And that is because these animals pose no threat to you... simple as that.

You are still missing a large part of my original point a little, in a fantasy game reality is not necessary and therefore immersion is not sacrificed, and I don't like killing the mabari either btw, my point was/still is - If the game were tweaked so that you could kill bears to your heart's content BUT I don't have to, it shouldn't bother you is my point! And your sense of immersion is not affected unless you are playing thinking ''Urgh, that pansy I chatted with on BioWare isn't killing these animals it is totally ruining my experience...........'' ;)


I also feel that you are missing my point.

If I walk up to a bear that is starving due to a lack of food caused by a prevading disease, the Blight, who is leaning over a carcass of something, that bear is going to attack me because it feels that I am threatening its food source. I am not. I am just walking around a tree. But that doesn't matter. The bear will kill me out of a perceived threat. And it is only natural for it to do so.

The only way to prevent this type of occurance is to take these types of encounters out of the game. In fact, you'd have to remove every encounter with any animal that would feel threatened by you enough to try to defend itself. Which for bears could very well equal walking up to it... or within sight of it... depending on the type of bear it was.

For me, these encounters enrich the story as it reveals another aspect of the Blight, that people are not the only ones affected. Removing this from the game, I feel, cheapens the experience. If I have the option to kill bears but don't have to... I wont. But bears are certainly not docile creatures. No matter how much they appear to be so in certain nature shows.

They are also deceptively fast, unreasonably strong, with incredibly thick fur that many bullets cannot even penetrate and are capable of tearing a strong man in half with barely so much as an effort. Honestly... I think they should be much much harder to kill. I think walking around a corner and seeing a bear should be much more terrifying than turning that same corner and seeing a Darkspawn.

No! I am not missing your point and I am not disagreeing with it, if you go and read it all again, I totally understand your point, I am merely saying FOR ME that I don't need it to be that realistic :D Are we clear now? Lol!

#103
ShrinkingFish

ShrinkingFish
  • Members
  • 1 214 messages

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

 I agree with OP there are ways around it, given that we are in a fantasy setting NOT a real medieval setting (or everyone would be quite dirty and with rotten teeth, syphilis etc)


Have you seen the character's teeth in game?! Rotted to the CORE!

Plus... everyone is making references constantly to how much people stink... especially Alistair!

And Morrigan even references syphilis if you have her in your party when you sleep with Isabella!!

I see your point not at all.

Edit: Well... maybe not syphilis directly. But she does refer to some sort of sexually transmitted disease.

I don't need you to see my point, it makes it no less relevant :) Whatever references are made, many of the characters are enjoying far more robust health than they did back then. And that bit was merely a joke, as indicated by the winky face...............
My point is that we are NOT dealing with reality, we are playing a fantasy game where serious head wounds can always be fixed at camp and magic and Dragons exist, we have already suspended our disbelief and if tweaks were made so that you could still kill, but I don't have would that really keep you awake at night? ;) < Light hearted comment. 
I hope this clarifies my view for you :)


*shrug* perhaps. I feel like Bioware did a pretty good job of blurring the reality fantasy lines though. Considering the plagues, the diseases, the rotting teeth, the poverty, the starvation, the beggars, the refugees, the realities of the Blight and, of course, how these realities would affect the wildlife.

And I'm not sure how rampant you think diseases were... but there were plenty of sick people in the game as it was...

I felt like nothing was out of place. Just new stuff was inserted in. Such as magic. Though I agree that it is a bit silly that a cracked skull or shattered arm can be fixed by an "injury kit" or a return to camp... but they had to work in penalties for "dieing" somewhere...

And dragons are as much animals in this game as wolves and bears. Perhaps even more intelligent, like dolphins and elephants are said to be, perhaps even more intelligent than that! And there are no qualms about killing them. Not even about killing their young while they're still in the nest. But I can see why people wouldn't care about killing them so much.

Anyways, I feel like the way animals are portrayed in this is pretty fair. They don't just throw wolves and bears at you all the time for the sake of throwing bears and wolves at you. All the animals react to you exactly how you'd expect them to react. And for me this extra sense of reality enhances the gameplay.

I mean there are plenty of animals you cannot kill in the game. Cats, dogs (not mabari, though I don't see many people complaining about killing all those poor dogs, that was upsetting to me I must say), halla, birds, most rats and the like. And that is because these animals pose no threat to you... simple as that.

You are still missing a large part of my original point a little, in a fantasy game reality is not necessary and therefore immersion is not sacrificed, and I don't like killing the mabari either btw, my point was/still is - If the game were tweaked so that you could kill bears to your heart's content BUT I don't have to, it shouldn't bother you is my point! And your sense of immersion is not affected unless you are playing thinking ''Urgh, that pansy I chatted with on BioWare isn't killing these animals it is totally ruining my experience...........'' ;)


I also feel that you are missing my point.

If I walk up to a bear that is starving due to a lack of food caused by a prevading disease, the Blight, who is leaning over a carcass of something, that bear is going to attack me because it feels that I am threatening its food source. I am not. I am just walking around a tree. But that doesn't matter. The bear will kill me out of a perceived threat. And it is only natural for it to do so.

The only way to prevent this type of occurance is to take these types of encounters out of the game. In fact, you'd have to remove every encounter with any animal that would feel threatened by you enough to try to defend itself. Which for bears could very well equal walking up to it... or within sight of it... depending on the type of bear it was.

For me, these encounters enrich the story as it reveals another aspect of the Blight, that people are not the only ones affected. Removing this from the game, I feel, cheapens the experience. If I have the option to kill bears but don't have to... I wont. But bears are certainly not docile creatures. No matter how much they appear to be so in certain nature shows.

They are also deceptively fast, unreasonably strong, with incredibly thick fur that many bullets cannot even penetrate and are capable of tearing a strong man in half with barely so much as an effort. Honestly... I think they should be much much harder to kill. I think walking around a corner and seeing a bear should be much more terrifying than turning that same corner and seeing a Darkspawn.

No! I am not missing your point and I am not disagreeing with it, if you go and read it all again, I totally understand your point, I am merely saying FOR ME that I don't need it to be that realistic :D Are we clear now? Lol!


Sorry. I assumed you were missing my point cause you kept saying I was missing yours. And I wasn't... I was just disagreeing with your suggestion to make the fights optional. Cause for me I do like it to be that realistic...
So yeah, I guess we're clear.  :P

Sorry for the confusion.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 02 octobre 2010 - 10:38 .


#104
BroBear Berbil

BroBear Berbil
  • Members
  • 1 516 messages

Jenova65 wrote...

You are still missing a large part of my original point a little, in a fantasy game reality is not necessary and therefore immersion is not sacrificed, and I don't like killing the mabari either btw, my point was/still is - If the game were tweaked so that you could kill bears to your heart's content BUT I don't have to, it shouldn't bother you! And your sense of immersion is not affected unless you are playing thinking ''Urgh, that pansy I chatted with on BioWare isn't killing these animals it is totally ruining my experience...........'' ;)


It seems like a rather pointless thing for BioWare to spend time on. Ultimately, it's not keeping you and others like you from playing the game, is it?

You all have (want to point out that I'm speaking generally here) killed pixel animals in the past and if BioWare chooses not to make the enemies a la carte you'll do it again. It can't be that jarring if you come back for more. Sure, raise the issue if it makes you feel better but when the game comes out you'll stop the bleeding from your heart and kill a smattering of wild animals amongst the dozens, if not hundreds, of humanoids you'll decapitate, set on fire, etc.

Modifié par OnionXI, 02 octobre 2010 - 10:40 .


#105
blothulfur

blothulfur
  • Members
  • 2 015 messages
Not as bad as the Tomb Raider games anyway where you're killing endangered bloody bengal tigers willy nilly, honestly Lara Croft is a one woman extinction event worse than asteroids or the syberian traps.

#106
Jenova65

Jenova65
  • Members
  • 3 454 messages

OnionXI wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

You are still missing a large part of my original point a little, in a fantasy game reality is not necessary and therefore immersion is not sacrificed, and I don't like killing the mabari either btw, my point was/still is - If the game were tweaked so that you could kill bears to your heart's content BUT I don't have to, it shouldn't bother you! And your sense of immersion is not affected unless you are playing thinking ''Urgh, that pansy I chatted with on BioWare isn't killing these animals it is totally ruining my experience...........'' ;)


It seems like a rather pointless thing for BioWare to spend time on. Ultimately, it's not keeping you and others like you from playing the game, is it?

You all have (want to point out that I'm speaking generally here) killed pixel animals in the past and if BioWare chooses not to make the enemies a la carte you'll do it again. It can't be that jarring if you come back for more. Sure, raise the issue if it makes you feel better but when the game comes out you'll stop the bleeding from your heart and kill a smattering of wild animals amongst the dozens, if not hundreds, of humanoids you'll decapitate, set on fire, etc.

It isn't pointless and it isn't time wasting since it already exists in pretty much every area of every BioWare game, the mechanics for it are already there :) but no need to quibble over it since they aren't going to change it anyway. I just don't see why it would bother people that want to kill, if people who didn't want to didn't have to.

#107
BroBear Berbil

BroBear Berbil
  • Members
  • 1 516 messages

blothulfur wrote...

Not as bad as the Tomb Raider games anyway where you're killing endangered bloody bengal tigers willy nilly, honestly Lara Croft is a one woman extinction event worse than asteroids or the syberian traps.


No kidding. She kills dinosaurs ffs.

#108
ShrinkingFish

ShrinkingFish
  • Members
  • 1 214 messages

Jenova65 wrote...

OnionXI wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

You are still missing a large part of my original point a little, in a fantasy game reality is not necessary and therefore immersion is not sacrificed, and I don't like killing the mabari either btw, my point was/still is - If the game were tweaked so that you could kill bears to your heart's content BUT I don't have to, it shouldn't bother you! And your sense of immersion is not affected unless you are playing thinking ''Urgh, that pansy I chatted with on BioWare isn't killing these animals it is totally ruining my experience...........'' ;)


It seems like a rather pointless thing for BioWare to spend time on. Ultimately, it's not keeping you and others like you from playing the game, is it?

You all have (want to point out that I'm speaking generally here) killed pixel animals in the past and if BioWare chooses not to make the enemies a la carte you'll do it again. It can't be that jarring if you come back for more. Sure, raise the issue if it makes you feel better but when the game comes out you'll stop the bleeding from your heart and kill a smattering of wild animals amongst the dozens, if not hundreds, of humanoids you'll decapitate, set on fire, etc.

It isn't pointless and it isn't time wasting since it already exists in pretty much every area of every BioWare game, the mechanics for it are already there :) but no need to quibble over it since they aren't going to change it anyway. I just don't see why it would bother people that want to kill, if people who didn't want to didn't have to.


It bothers me because I don't want to kill them, I have to. And I like being put in that possition as it helps the story seem more real. If they put in the choice then I obviously wont kill them. But if they stick in bears that are docile then I will not appreciate the unnecessary break from reality.

#109
AlexXIV

AlexXIV
  • Members
  • 10 670 messages
Well in Dragon Age there are only two kinds of mobs. Blue and red. Blue you can't attack unless they turn to red for some reason, and red will always attack you. They'd have to change that just for the animals so they probably won't. There are things that make even less sense though, for example that enemies rarely give up. If you fight those fugitives outside of lothering you'd think you don't have to kill them all but you have to. Because in this respect the game is stupid. They would need a cutscene like with the bandits on the highway to change that, and I think that's too much effort for something 'neglectable' (in the eyes of Bioware).

#110
Jenova65

Jenova65
  • Members
  • 3 454 messages

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

OnionXI wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

You are still missing a large part of my original point a little, in a fantasy game reality is not necessary and therefore immersion is not sacrificed, and I don't like killing the mabari either btw, my point was/still is - If the game were tweaked so that you could kill bears to your heart's content BUT I don't have to, it shouldn't bother you! And your sense of immersion is not affected unless you are playing thinking ''Urgh, that pansy I chatted with on BioWare isn't killing these animals it is totally ruining my experience...........'' ;)


It seems like a rather pointless thing for BioWare to spend time on. Ultimately, it's not keeping you and others like you from playing the game, is it?

You all have (want to point out that I'm speaking generally here) killed pixel animals in the past and if BioWare chooses not to make the enemies a la carte you'll do it again. It can't be that jarring if you come back for more. Sure, raise the issue if it makes you feel better but when the game comes out you'll stop the bleeding from your heart and kill a smattering of wild animals amongst the dozens, if not hundreds, of humanoids you'll decapitate, set on fire, etc.

It isn't pointless and it isn't time wasting since it already exists in pretty much every area of every BioWare game, the mechanics for it are already there :) but no need to quibble over it since they aren't going to change it anyway. I just don't see why it would bother people that want to kill, if people who didn't want to didn't have to.


It bothers me because I don't want to kill them, I have to. And I like being put in that possition as it helps the story seem more real. If they put in the choice then I obviously wont kill them. But if they stick in bears that are docile then I will not appreciate the unnecessary break from reality.

Which was why, in my original comment I suggested a ranger skill that would pacify, rather than having unrealistically passive animals..................
Are you still bothered?
Look, I am just saying I don't like it, there is a way round it that would work for everyone and I would choose a non killing option if it were there. 
As I mentioned my lack of need for reality in the game doesn't/shouldn't/wouldn't affect your fun at all and remember - Unless their opinion affects your opinion, their opinion matters not at all.
Anyway, it's been nice exchanging different opinions :) But  since your opinion has not affected mine and mine hasn't affected yours, further debate might be pointless.............. Lol
I hope you have a lovely weekend :)

#111
Shepard Lives

Shepard Lives
  • Members
  • 3 883 messages

The Hardest Thing In The World wrote...

The wolves area with a lot of traps in DA:O sadden me. Wolves are such great creatures. We shouldn't be forced to kill them. Bears too. 

Wolves:
http://t3.gstatic.co...svWrpmIflxeyZE=

A little about them in folklore. See Fenrir in particular. They are truly magnificent and great. I'd like one as a companion in DA2 and once again let me stress, not killing them.


If this were in real life, you'd have my unconditioned support. But since it's a videogame...
I was only saddened about having to kill mabari. Wolves and bears, sure, they command respect, but they're mainly huge murdering beasts of the forest.
As a rule of thumb, I don't like killing animals in videogames, since 99% of the time they do not mean you any personal harm, but wolves and bears and stuff like that are fine as long as it's in self -defense and we don't go about slaying their young and setting their dens on fire.
Maybe in DA2 a new skill/talent (or, if it's still in, the higher tiers of the depressingly useless Survival skill) could grant you a free pass from murderous beasts of prey and the like. That'd work, I think. :wizard:

#112
Jenova65

Jenova65
  • Members
  • 3 454 messages

shepard_lives wrote...

The Hardest Thing In The World wrote...

The wolves area with a lot of traps in DA:O sadden me. Wolves are such great creatures. We shouldn't be forced to kill them. Bears too. 

Wolves:
http://t3.gstatic.co...svWrpmIflxeyZE=

A little about them in folklore. See Fenrir in particular. They are truly magnificent and great. I'd like one as a companion in DA2 and once again let me stress, not killing them.


If this were in real life, you'd have my unconditioned support. But since it's a videogame...
I was only saddened about having to kill mabari. Wolves and bears, sure, they command respect, but they're mainly huge murdering beasts of the forest.
As a rule of thumb, I don't like killing animals in videogames, since 99% of the time they do not mean you any personal harm, but wolves and bears and stuff like that are fine as long as it's in self -defense and we don't go about slaying their young and setting their dens on fire.
Maybe in DA2 a new skill/talent (or, if it's still in, the higher tiers of the depressingly useless Survival skill) could grant you a free pass from murderous beasts of prey and the like. That'd work, I think. :wizard:

This is similar to my suggestion of a new ranger type skill that would allow beasts to be pacified :) Either way would be simple enough.......... I only ever pay points into survival for the Dalish camp to help the animal handler there, so yes, it would give it a purpose.

#113
The Hardest Thing In The World

The Hardest Thing In The World
  • Members
  • 1 205 messages
Yes! Do it! I only pick the Survival skill because there are no other skills to pick(I don't need extra tactic slots as I micro-manage) and the nature resistance bonus might be useful against spiders. With this we can pacify wild animals even if we walked into their feeding ground unintentionally.

#114
blothulfur

blothulfur
  • Members
  • 2 015 messages
Seconded.

#115
Sir JK

Sir JK
  • Members
  • 1 523 messages
One thing that has always annoyed me a bit in fantasy games is that wolves never really acts like wolves do. That they attack humans is something I'm willing to excuse, given that it is a game and you can't have a person or monster attack you at every turn. But it's all the other little things.

Like that they come out of the blue and attack you as soon as they see you... wheras real wolves, if they were really hunting you, would surround and study you for a long time before they attacked.

Or the fact that one can take the wolves by surpise, the animals with extremely good hearing and smell that knows every inch of their territory...

Not to mention that they attack on their own (even if part of a group), stay in combat, against targets standing still and attack... well.. not the weak spots, that's for certain. Whereas real wolves would never expose themselves to harm, supports each others so the prey don't get a chance to gather it's defences, preferably only attacks fleeing targets and goes for the heels and the neck first and formost.

I understand that it'd be difficult to make such wolves in a game, partly because they'd be very dangerous and partly due to limitations of engine. But still... it's always been a bit annoying that they don't act like what they're supposed to be,

#116
Guest_slimgrin_*

Guest_slimgrin_*
  • Guests

Sir JK wrote...

One thing that has always annoyed me a bit in fantasy games is that wolves never really acts like wolves do. That they attack humans is something I'm willing to excuse, given that it is a game and you can't have a person or monster attack you at every turn. But it's all the other little things.
Like that they come out of the blue and attack you as soon as they see you... wheras real wolves, if they were really hunting you, would surround and study you for a long time before they attacked.
Or the fact that one can take the wolves by surpise, the animals with extremely good hearing and smell that knows every inch of their territory...
Not to mention that they attack on their own (even if part of a group), stay in combat, against targets standing still and attack... well.. not the weak spots, that's for certain. Whereas real wolves would never expose themselves to harm, supports each others so the prey don't get a chance to gather it's defences, preferably only attacks fleeing targets and goes for the heels and the neck first and formost.
I understand that it'd be difficult to make such wolves in a game, partly because they'd be very dangerous and partly due to limitations of engine. But still... it's always been a bit annoying that they don't act like what they're supposed to be,


I absolutely agree with this. Imagine traveling through a forest at night, only catching glimpses of a lurking pack of wolves circling you. You know its only a matter of time before they bear down on you, probably from behind...this would be so cool.

I don't mind killing animals in games (although whacking stray dogs in The WItcher wasn't exactly fun) as long as some of the animals just prefer to leave you alone while others attack, perhaps if you venture too close. Just like it would be in real life.

Modifié par slimgrin, 02 octobre 2010 - 02:43 .


#117
NKKKK

NKKKK
  • Members
  • 2 960 messages
Keep in mind that the animals at this time were numerous, it's only when Thedas reaches the industrial age that you gotta start worrying.

#118
supernovashadow

supernovashadow
  • Members
  • 122 messages

shepard_lives wrote...

Maybe in DA2 a new skill/talent (or, if it's still in, the higher tiers of the depressingly useless Survival skill) could grant you a free pass from murderous beasts of prey and the like. That'd work, I think. :wizard:


I like this idea too.  Just like you don't have to fight every person you come across, having a way of avoiding some animal confrontations as well would be cool.

#119
Diogo Gomez

Diogo Gomez
  • Members
  • 177 messages
I'm a loving animal person... I fight a lot for their rights in my house so yes I really hte qhen you have to kill animals in games...

#120
KLUME777

KLUME777
  • Members
  • 1 594 messages
This is a game people, if you don't like killing animals that try to kill you then you should have problems killing the people that try to kill you as well.



Honestly, i like animals, but this didn't even cross my mind in the game...

#121
KLUME777

KLUME777
  • Members
  • 1 594 messages

Diogo Gomez wrote...

I'm a loving animal person... I fight a lot for their rights in my house so yes I really hte qhen you have to kill animals in games...


Im guessing you really really hate Red Dead Redemption then...

I hate murderers, thieves and criminals of all kind, but i love to play Grand Theft Auto and go on a massacre-ing rampage.

Its a game.

#122
TheMufflon

TheMufflon
  • Members
  • 2 265 messages
For the record: Animals hardly ever hunt humans for food; they attack them for intruding on their territories and thus behave in a different way than they do when hunting.

#123
Russalka

Russalka
  • Members
  • 3 867 messages

Sir JK wrote...

One thing that has always annoyed me a bit in fantasy games is that wolves never really acts like wolves do. That they attack humans is something I'm willing to excuse, given that it is a game and you can't have a person or monster attack you at every turn. But it's all the other little things.
Like that they come out of the blue and attack you as soon as they see you... wheras real wolves, if they were really hunting you, would surround and study you for a long time before they attacked.
Or the fact that one can take the wolves by surpise, the animals with extremely good hearing and smell that knows every inch of their territory...
Not to mention that they attack on their own (even if part of a group), stay in combat, against targets standing still and attack... well.. not the weak spots, that's for certain. Whereas real wolves would never expose themselves to harm, supports each others so the prey don't get a chance to gather it's defences, preferably only attacks fleeing targets and goes for the heels and the neck first and formost.
I understand that it'd be difficult to make such wolves in a game, partly because they'd be very dangerous and partly due to limitations of engine. But still... it's always been a bit annoying that they don't act like what they're supposed to be,


That is what has bothered me as well.
There just does not seem to be a logical reason to these huge wolf assaults either.
It would have been more believable if the animals attacked because of some evil presence, but half the times it was not the case at all.

#124
Xanduin123

Xanduin123
  • Members
  • 46 messages
im surprised this is a thread (well, not THAT surprised) wheres the thread for killing people? or is that ok? its a video game

i mean seriously, im studying to become a veterinarian, and im fine with this, you say that wolves in the brecillian forest attack you on sight like its something they dont do, trust me, you go in the forest and walk in on a bunch of wolves, theyre not going to just sit there and go "dude, should we attack him?" "no, no, hes cool with wolves, let him be" they couldnt care less if you love them or not, one or 2 wolves might run, but if you walk in on 10-15 (as seen in the trap scene, probably more) theyre going to attack. chances are even 1 wolf might attack if you get too close to its territory.

i understand fighting for their rights in real life, but in a video game? if you remove killing of wolves, i demand you remove the killing of humans

Modifié par Xanduin123, 02 octobre 2010 - 03:31 .


#125
KLUME777

KLUME777
  • Members
  • 1 594 messages

Xanduin123 wrote...

im surprised this is a thread (well, not THAT surprised) wheres the thread for killing people? or is that ok? its a video game

i mean seriously, im studying to become a veterinarian, and im fine with this, you say that wolves in the brecillian forest attack you on sight like its something they dont do, trust me, you go in the forest and walk in on a bunch of wolves, theyre not going to just sit there and go "dude, should we attack him?" "no, no, hes cool with wolves, let him be" they couldnt care less if you love them or not, one or 2 wolves might run, but if you walk in on 10-15 (as seen in the trap scene, probably more) theyre going to attack. chances are even 1 wolf might attack if you get too close to its territory.

i understand fighting for their rights in real life, but in a video game? if you remove killing of wolves, i demand you remove the killing of humans


Absolutely agree, this is a video game, if you have a problem with killing wolves, then you have a problem with everything else in the game.