139 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Man]

maxernst wrote...


 It seems to me you would be happier watching a movie than playing a game. 

...
Ok, I really don't understand this assertion. I've always advocated choices. one of my most important wishes for any decent plot is to be able to influence it based on my decisions...something that for obvious reasons, can't be done in a movie. If your saying I should just 'watch a movie' because I like cinematic quality- fine. I won't lie, I DO want cinematic quality, it's what pulls me into the game world. But I really don't understand why a game shouldn't have that just because a movie does. Most movies also have plots and contain forms of spoken communication (language) does that mean games shouldn't? Should we all just play tetris?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr. Man wrote...

Ok, I really don't understand this assertion. I've always advocated choices. one of my most important wishes for any decent plot is to be able to influence it based on my decisions...something that for obvious reasons, can't be done in a movie. If your saying I should just 'watch a movie' because I like cinematic quality- fine. I won't lie, I DO want cinematic quality, it's what pulls me into the game world. But I really don't understand why a game shouldn't have that just because a movie does.

That's not it.  The question is, why do you enjoy the cinematic presentation taking away player control when player control (decisions) is the thing you say you like?

[soteria]

That's not it. The question is, why do you enjoy the cinematic presentation taking away player control when player control (decisions) is the thing you say you like?

Because the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive, and cutscenes can aid storytelling in ways that letting the player stay in control would inhibit. For example, the cutscenes before and after the Tower of Ishal simply wouldn't have worked if the player were still in control. The cutscenes in Denerim with Loghain and during the battle also would not have worked if the player were still in control.

Of course, the "quick time event" is the response to the player totally losing control during cutscenes, but I'm pretty sure you've said don't like them. Other people have criticized them for surprising the player with near-guaranteed failure on the first try, forcing you to watch the clip all over again.

[upsettingshorts]

ME2 did the cutscene thing pretty well with the approach to the endgame. Aside from Miranda magically appearing back next to Joker if you took her into the cargo bay. The cutscenes changed based on the player's actions and preparations, but the fact the bulk of it was pre-rendered made them more effective because of pacing and tension.

Still, it was limited and that's part of the reason I think it worked.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 octobre 2010 - 09:28 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

Because the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive, and cutscenes can aid storytelling in ways that letting the player stay in control would inhibit. For example, the cutscenes before and after the Tower of Ishal simply wouldn't have worked if the player were still in control. The cutscenes in Denerim with Loghain and during the battle also would not have worked if the player were still in control.

Those are all examples of scenes I thought added nothing to the game.  They were events that took place in the PC's absence, and as such can't have influenced any in-character decisions by the players.  They simply didn't matter.

Of course, the "quick time event" is the response to the player totally losing control during cutscenes, but I'm pretty sure you've said don't like them. Other people have criticized them for surprising the player with near-guaranteed failure on the first try, forcing you to watch the clip all over again.

The quick-time event might work if it's done better, but in ME2 there was really no way to know what you were going to do, and there was a limited time to do it (thus denying the player time to make a decision, even though other similar decisions - like dialogue choices - did grant that time).

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

soteria wrote...

Because the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive, and cutscenes can aid storytelling in ways that letting the player stay in control would inhibit. For example, the cutscenes before and after the Tower of Ishal simply wouldn't have worked if the player were still in control. The cutscenes in Denerim with Loghain and during the battle also would not have worked if the player were still in control.

Those are all examples of scenes I thought added nothing to the game.  They were events that took place in the PC's absence, and as such can't have influenced any in-character decisions by the players.  They simply didn't matter.

I think those kinds of scenes are examples of lazy storytelling, like voice-over narration in movies usually is.  If I need to know something, I'd rather be told through events in the game.  The radio broadcasts in the ME games or the gossiping people in the Dragon Age games are better because they convey information without pulling you out of the game, and they also help to make the world feel a little more alive and real.

[Mr. Man]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

soteria wrote...

Because the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive, and cutscenes can aid storytelling in ways that letting the player stay in control would inhibit. For example, the cutscenes before and after the Tower of Ishal simply wouldn't have worked if the player were still in control. The cutscenes in Denerim with Loghain and during the battle also would not have worked if the player were still in control.

Those are all examples of scenes I thought added nothing to the game.  They were events that took place in the PC's absence, and as such can't have influenced any in-character decisions by the players.  They simply didn't matter.

Of course, the "quick time event" is the response to the player totally losing control during cutscenes, but I'm pretty sure you've said don't like them. Other people have criticized them for surprising the player with near-guaranteed failure on the first try, forcing you to watch the clip all over again.

The quick-time event might work if it's done better, but in ME2 there was really no way to know what you were going to do, and there was a limited time to do it (thus denying the player time to make a decision, even though other similar decisions - like dialogue choices - did grant that time).

So the scene of the Battle of Ostagar and the confrontation with Loghain added nothing to the game? Ok, so what possibly DID add to the game? Since story, epic battles and important show downs clearly don't interest you.

[Reaverwind]

maxernst wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

soteria wrote...

Because the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive, and cutscenes can aid storytelling in ways that letting the player stay in control would inhibit. For example, the cutscenes before and after the Tower of Ishal simply wouldn't have worked if the player were still in control. The cutscenes in Denerim with Loghain and during the battle also would not have worked if the player were still in control.

Those are all examples of scenes I thought added nothing to the game.  They were events that took place in the PC's absence, and as such can't have influenced any in-character decisions by the players.  They simply didn't matter.

I think those kinds of scenes are examples of lazy storytelling, like voice-over narration in movies usually is.  If I need to know something, I'd rather be told through events in the game.  The radio broadcasts in the ME games or the gossiping people in the Dragon Age games are better because they convey information without pulling you out of the game, and they also help to make the world feel a little more alive and real.

I agree with you and Sylvius there. Those cutscenes don't add anything to the storyline, and end up not mattering at all. It's far more immersive to learn about what's going directly through game events.

[upsettingshorts]

Welcome to another thinly veiled first vs. third person narrative debate.

[Mr. Man]

Reaverwind wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

soteria wrote...

Because the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive, and cutscenes can aid storytelling in ways that letting the player stay in control would inhibit. For example, the cutscenes before and after the Tower of Ishal simply wouldn't have worked if the player were still in control. The cutscenes in Denerim with Loghain and during the battle also would not have worked if the player were still in control.

Those are all examples of scenes I thought added nothing to the game.  They were events that took place in the PC's absence, and as such can't have influenced any in-character decisions by the players.  They simply didn't matter.

I think those kinds of scenes are examples of lazy storytelling, like voice-over narration in movies usually is.  If I need to know something, I'd rather be told through events in the game.  The radio broadcasts in the ME games or the gossiping people in the Dragon Age games are better because they convey information without pulling you out of the game, and they also help to make the world feel a little more alive and real.

I agree with you and Sylvius there. Those cutscenes don't add anything to the storyline, and end up not mattering at all. It's far more immersive to learn about what's going directly through game events.

If you don't think cut-scenes add to the game than your blind

[Mr. Man]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Welcome to another thinly veiled first vs. third person narrative debate.

Well said. It's annoying having to defend the RPG on Bioware's own forums

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Welcome to another thinly veiled first vs. third person narrative debate.

I believe it was Ray Muzyka who first used those terms to describe RPGs (specifically ME vs DAO).  And given that, they're useful labels to help identify what gameplay consequences the various possible features actually have.

I'm always going to prefer the first-person narrative because those games offer more of the gameplay I enjoy.  A game that consciously avoids that gameplay (like ME2) isn't fun for me at all.

[Dave of Canada]

After playing Fable 3, I'd much rather prefer scripted sequences. When somebody yells out "reinforcements are coming!" then I'd rather be able to run and prepare for them, while a cutscene would just show the reinforcements arrive and not allow me to prepare or deal with them.



+ if there's an epic fight going on with exploding buildings, I want these buildings to be exploding as I fight instead of them happening in cut scenes.

[maxernst]

Mr. Man wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Welcome to another thinly veiled first vs. third person narrative debate.

Well said. It's annoying having to defend the RPG on Bioware's own forums

You're defending cinematics, not RPG's, which are very far from being the same thing.  

[Dhiro]

Well... I liked the part when you have to go to the Tower of Ishal and the way the cenary was destroyed as you walked until the tower. That's a scripted sequence? I really don't know...

[maxernst]

Mr. Man wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

soteria wrote...

Because the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive, and cutscenes can aid storytelling in ways that letting the player stay in control would inhibit. For example, the cutscenes before and after the Tower of Ishal simply wouldn't have worked if the player were still in control. The cutscenes in Denerim with Loghain and during the battle also would not have worked if the player were still in control.

Those are all examples of scenes I thought added nothing to the game.  They were events that took place in the PC's absence, and as such can't have influenced any in-character decisions by the players.  They simply didn't matter.

Of course, the "quick time event" is the response to the player totally losing control during cutscenes, but I'm pretty sure you've said don't like them. Other people have criticized them for surprising the player with near-guaranteed failure on the first try, forcing you to watch the clip all over again.

The quick-time event might work if it's done better, but in ME2 there was really no way to know what you were going to do, and there was a limited time to do it (thus denying the player time to make a decision, even though other similar decisions - like dialogue choices - did grant that time).

So the scene of the Battle of Ostagar and the confrontation with Loghain added nothing to the game? Ok, so what possibly DID add to the game? Since story, epic battles and important show downs clearly don't interest you.

What added to the game?  The things that your character is actually involved in, particularly the interactions with your fellow party members.  Getting the rose from Alistair.  Hespith and Rukh.  The Guardian's questions.  The Landsmeet.   Morrigan's surprise visit and your uncomfortable decision.  Yes, many of these inovled cut scenes (though they could have been handled without them), but the key difference is you are involved and actively making decisions, you're not just watching.  And honestly, I'm not opposed to ALL cut scenes, I just don't like ones that trigger automatically disrupting game play and yanking the control of your character out of your hands or showing you things that your character can't see.

No, in my opinion, stopping the game so I can watch battles that I'm not involved in (and have a pretty damn good guess at the outcome without seeing), and see people talking in a distant city doesn't add to the game. I would have preferred a good spoken description of the battle from Flemeth's point of view. And seeing Loghain & Howe higher Zevran subtracted from the game by giving me an out-of-character warning that Loghain was sending assassins after me.  It would have been much better to have the attack come out of the blue.  Then the PC might have thought he was just being attacked by bandits--and if he killed Zevran, he might never even learn that Loghain had sent him.  Much more interesting to me to learn it in the moment, so I'm not metagaming.

Real roleplayers hate that kind of stuff because they always want to act in character.  Play on a serious NWN roleplaying server and you'll be told to avoid using out-of-character knowledge. 

Modifié par maxernst, 30 octobre 2010 - 01:46 .

[Mr. Man]

maxernst wrote...

Mr. Man wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

soteria wrote...

Because the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive, and cutscenes can aid storytelling in ways that letting the player stay in control would inhibit. For example, the cutscenes before and after the Tower of Ishal simply wouldn't have worked if the player were still in control. The cutscenes in Denerim with Loghain and during the battle also would not have worked if the player were still in control.

Those are all examples of scenes I thought added nothing to the game.  They were events that took place in the PC's absence, and as such can't have influenced any in-character decisions by the players.  They simply didn't matter.

Of course, the "quick time event" is the response to the player totally losing control during cutscenes, but I'm pretty sure you've said don't like them. Other people have criticized them for surprising the player with near-guaranteed failure on the first try, forcing you to watch the clip all over again.

The quick-time event might work if it's done better, but in ME2 there was really no way to know what you were going to do, and there was a limited time to do it (thus denying the player time to make a decision, even though other similar decisions - like dialogue choices - did grant that time).

So the scene of the Battle of Ostagar and the confrontation with Loghain added nothing to the game? Ok, so what possibly DID add to the game? Since story, epic battles and important show downs clearly don't interest you.

What added to the game?  The things that your character is actually involved in, particularly the interactions with your fellow party members.  Getting the rose from Alistair.  Hespith and Rukh.  The Guardian's questions.  The Landsmeet.   Morrigan's surprise visit and your uncomfortable decision.  Yes, many of these inovled cut scenes (though they could have been handled without them), but the key difference is you are involved and actively making decisions, you're not just watching.  And honestly, I'm not opposed to ALL cut scenes, I just don't like ones that trigger automatically disrupting game play and yanking the control of your character out of your hands or showing you things that your character can't see.

No, in my opinion, stopping the game so I can watch battles that I'm not involved in (and have a pretty damn good guess at the outcome without seeing), and see people talking in a distant city doesn't add to the game. I would have preferred a good spoken description of the battle from Flemeth's point of view. And seeing Loghain & Howe higher Zevran subtracted from the game by giving me an out-of-character warning that Loghain was sending assassins after me.  It would have been much better to have the attack come out of the blue.  Then the PC might have thought he was just being attacked by bandits--and if he killed Zevran, he might never even learn that Loghain had sent him.  Much more interesting to me to learn it in the moment, so I'm not metagaming.

Real roleplayers hate that kind of stuff because they always want to act in character.  Play on a serious NWN roleplaying server and you'll be told to avoid using out-of-character knowledge. 

It added to the game because it fleshed out WHY your doing what you are. Before the epic battle of Ostagar I wasn't sure if I'd like the game, but afterwards I got very excited because I realized the world was much bigger than simply my character and that pulled me in. Also, you mention the landsmeet but remember the only reason we even knew Loghain was dangerous was because of these cut-scenes (like when he marched away instead of helping Cailan.)

[soteria]

Those are all examples of scenes I thought added nothing to the game. They were events that took place in the PC's absence, and as such can't have influenced any in-character decisions by the players. They simply didn't matter.

At the time, they give information your character wouldn't otherwise have about what is going on, tying the story together more coherently than an after-the-fact explanation. In practice, pretty much everything we saw in a cutscene was eventually told to the player. Pretty much right after you wake up, Flemeth tells your character what the player already knows: Loghain abandoned you. Watching that and Duncan/Cailan's death had much greater impact than, "Everyone is dead and Loghain is to blame." Just because something doesn't add to your character's immediate knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't add to the story. We already have people trying to claim Duncan is alive, and we saw him die on camera--what would it be like if they hadn't shown it? They had to show that scene for it to be real to a lot of players. To you personally only in-character knowledge may matter, but I'm sure you're well aware that a large number of other players don't play that way.

If the only thing players ever came to these games for was to roleplay, than you might have a point. Thing is, I personally know a number of people who don't care about RP at all--they just want to play a fun game. Then you also have the people who do care about RP but they also play the game for other reasons, such as the combat, the lore, or the story itself. To all of those people, who comprise an unkown percentage of players, the cutscenes do add something.

Real roleplayers hate that kind of stuff because they always want to act in character. Play on a serious NWN roleplaying server and you'll be told to avoid using out-of-character knowledge.

Lol at creating an elitist group ("real" roleplayers) and then speaking for them. classy.

[Reaverwind]

Mr. Man wrote...

It added to the game because it fleshed out WHY your doing what you are. Before the epic battle of Ostagar I wasn't sure if I'd like the game, but afterwards I got very excited because I realized the world was much bigger than simply my character and that pulled me in. Also, you mention the landsmeet but remember the only reason we even knew Loghain was dangerous was because of these cut-scenes (like when he marched away instead of helping Cailan.)

The cutscenes were inserted for one reason only: to provoke an emotional response that ends up feeling cheap and actually pulls me out of the story, since a) they distance you from your character and apparently what is shown is suspect - see raging debate on Loghain's actions.

[upsettingshorts]

No, this isn't about what's cheap, worthless, elitist, or anything else.

It really is about a third person vs. a first person narrative. A first person narrative is limiting by nature, but it is limiting in a way that benefits roleplayers because they can only rely on information at their character's disposal to guide their character's actions. A third person narrative is capable of telling a more expansive story, which if you've always viewed CRPGs as the story of the game's writers, is more important to you.

There's no way to debate which is "better" for CRPGs without getting into what an RPG is, suffice to say people approach the genre differently, with different expectations, and thus have different preferences. Both sides are free to express those preferences, but I think it would be more honest and reasonable if we left out the artificially universal value judgments.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 octobre 2010 - 05:34 .

[soteria]

It really is about a third person vs. a first person narrative. A first person narrative is limiting by nature, but it is limiting in a way that benefits roleplayers because they can only rely on information at their character's disposal to guide their character's actions. A third person narrative is capable of telling a more expansive story, which if you've always viewed CRPGs as the story of the game's writers, is more important to you.

QFT.

[maxernst]

soteria wrote...

Those are all examples of scenes I thought added nothing to the game. They were events that took place in the PC's absence, and as such can't have influenced any in-character decisions by the players. They simply didn't matter.

At the time, they give information your character wouldn't otherwise have about what is going on, tying the story together more coherently than an after-the-fact explanation. In practice, pretty much everything we saw in a cutscene was eventually told to the player. Pretty much right after you wake up, Flemeth tells your character what the player already knows: Loghain abandoned you. Watching that and Duncan/Cailan's death had much greater impact than, "Everyone is dead and Loghain is to blame." Just because something doesn't add to your character's immediate knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't add to the story. We already have people trying to claim Duncan is alive, and we saw him die on camera--what would it be like if they hadn't shown it? They had to show that scene for it to be real to a lot of players. To you personally only in-character knowledge may matter, but I'm sure you're well aware that a large number of other players don't play that way.
If the only thing players ever came to these games for was to roleplay, than you might have a point. Thing is, I personally know a number of people who don't care about RP at all--they just want to play a fun game. Then you also have the people who do care about RP but they also play the game for other reasons, such as the combat, the lore, or the story itself. To all of those people, who comprise an unkown percentage of players, the cutscenes do add something.

Real roleplayers hate that kind of stuff because they always want to act in character. Play on a serious NWN roleplaying server and you'll be told to avoid using out-of-character knowledge.

Lol at creating an elitist group ("real" roleplayers) and then speaking for them. classy.

Well, I was responding to somebody who claimed they were "defending RPG's" and telling me I would be happier playing shooters, which is just as elitist..  LOL that you didn't object to that. 

I think if you really believe in gameplay as a form of storytelling, you ought to have faith in the ability of the game to communicate the narrative.  That's why I compared it to voiceover in movies--it's usually used because the director can't think of a way to communicate the ideas with images and dialogue.  It's a crutch.  It may be necessary at times (I can't see any other way of covering the temporal gaps in DA2, for example), but it breaks the sense of being in the world. 

As far as the first-person narrative vs. third-person narrative goes, maybe it's because I come from a pen & paper background rather than a console-RPG background, but I can't really see an RPG as anything but a first-person narrative.

[maxernst]

Mr. Man wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Mr. Man wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

soteria wrote...

Because the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive, and cutscenes can aid storytelling in ways that letting the player stay in control would inhibit. For example, the cutscenes before and after the Tower of Ishal simply wouldn't have worked if the player were still in control. The cutscenes in Denerim with Loghain and during the battle also would not have worked if the player were still in control.

Those are all examples of scenes I thought added nothing to the game.  They were events that took place in the PC's absence, and as such can't have influenced any in-character decisions by the players.  They simply didn't matter.

Of course, the "quick time event" is the response to the player totally losing control during cutscenes, but I'm pretty sure you've said don't like them. Other people have criticized them for surprising the player with near-guaranteed failure on the first try, forcing you to watch the clip all over again.

The quick-time event might work if it's done better, but in ME2 there was really no way to know what you were going to do, and there was a limited time to do it (thus denying the player time to make a decision, even though other similar decisions - like dialogue choices - did grant that time).

So the scene of the Battle of Ostagar and the confrontation with Loghain added nothing to the game? Ok, so what possibly DID add to the game? Since story, epic battles and important show downs clearly don't interest you.

What added to the game?  The things that your character is actually involved in, particularly the interactions with your fellow party members.  Getting the rose from Alistair.  Hespith and Rukh.  The Guardian's questions.  The Landsmeet.   Morrigan's surprise visit and your uncomfortable decision.  Yes, many of these inovled cut scenes (though they could have been handled without them), but the key difference is you are involved and actively making decisions, you're not just watching.  And honestly, I'm not opposed to ALL cut scenes, I just don't like ones that trigger automatically disrupting game play and yanking the control of your character out of your hands or showing you things that your character can't see.

No, in my opinion, stopping the game so I can watch battles that I'm not involved in (and have a pretty damn good guess at the outcome without seeing), and see people talking in a distant city doesn't add to the game. I would have preferred a good spoken description of the battle from Flemeth's point of view. And seeing Loghain & Howe higher Zevran subtracted from the game by giving me an out-of-character warning that Loghain was sending assassins after me.  It would have been much better to have the attack come out of the blue.  Then the PC might have thought he was just being attacked by bandits--and if he killed Zevran, he might never even learn that Loghain had sent him.  Much more interesting to me to learn it in the moment, so I'm not metagaming.

Real roleplayers hate that kind of stuff because they always want to act in character.  Play on a serious NWN roleplaying server and you'll be told to avoid using out-of-character knowledge. 

It added to the game because it fleshed out WHY your doing what you are. Before the epic battle of Ostagar I wasn't sure if I'd like the game, but afterwards I got very excited because I realized the world was much bigger than simply my character and that pulled me in. Also, you mention the landsmeet but remember the only reason we even knew Loghain was dangerous was because of these cut-scenes (like when he marched away instead of helping Cailan.)

Umm...so you didn't notice Morrigan, Alistair and Flemeth's reactions when you ask about the battle?  The people telling you in Lothering that Loghain outlawed the wardens or the people attacking you for the price on your head?
Morrigan's advice to go after Loghain right away and kill him?  You didn't notice Jowan telling you that he was hired by Loghain to kill Eamon or the Loghain flunky trying to kill you outside of Orzammar?  How about the room in the Pearl where Loghain's buddy Howe has men murdering Grey Warden supporters?  I didn't need to stop playing the game and watch a movie to learn Loghain was a bad guy (and by the way, many people are still not convinced that Loghain betrayed Cailan at Ostagar)

[upsettingshorts]

maxernst wrote...
 That's why I compared it to voiceover in movies--it's usually used because the director can't think of a way to communicate the ideas with images and dialogue.  It's a crutch.  It may be necessary at times (I can't see any other way of covering the temporal gaps in DA2, for example), but it breaks the sense of being in the world. 

The voiceover is not always a crutch, it can be a storytelling tool.  It's a crutch when it is, as you say, used to explain things that the director can't figure out a way to show or in the case of the infamous Coleman Francis, because he didn't want to have to sync up the sound with the film.  It can also provide insight into the character's thinking and motivation.

maxernst wrote...
As far as the first-person narrative vs. third-person narrative goes, maybe it's because I come from a pen & paper background rather than a console-RPG background, but I can't really see an RPG as anything but a first-person narrative.

The problem with your argument here is the still thinly veiled presumption that someone would have to come from a different background than you to approach CRPGs a different way.  For example, I come from a tabletop background as well, and I'm in the CRPGs are stories camp.  I won't go into why because that's a "What is an RPG" discussion, so suffice to say I've always felt that CRPGs only mimic the tabletop experience and are incapable of reproducing it.  

Part of the reasons people get upset at each other on these forums needlessly is stuff like that, assuming people must have played some silly console game or must be a mouth-breathing shooter playing Neanderthal to like Mass Effect 2, and so on.  Reasons for preferences are just as diverse as those preferences themselves.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 octobre 2010 - 06:07 .

[AlanC9]

Reaverwind wrote...

The cutscenes were inserted for one reason only: to provoke an emotional response that ends up feeling cheap and actually pulls me out of the story, since a) they distance you from your character and apparently what is shown is suspect - see raging debate on Loghain's actions.

I don't take that debate all too seriously.

But it's an interesting point. Does anyone remember how our characters know that Loghain pulled out and left Cailan to die? It comes up in the post-Tower convos, obviously, but how? Are we taking Flemeth and Morrigan's word for it?

We should probably distinguish between cutscenes that give information that the characters don't have and cutscenes that don't really give you anything that would change your  PC's actions. For instance, the KotOR cutscene where Malak decides to destroy Taris doesn't change anything for the PC since you're about to find out that he's bombing the planet anyway. The scene's a ghastly mess because it makes Karrath's character incoherent, but the concept of such a scene isn't bad in itself, is it?

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 octobre 2010 - 06:17 .