861 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Stick668 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

That said, NPC's refusing to wear something wouldn't bother me. As long as the AI/script determining that worked good.

So, essentially and in practice indistinguishable from the end result of what they're planning for DA2, then?

No. Not even remotely.

[Images]

I am a bit confused why some people believe that wanting to change the equipment of a party member is tantamount to changing their entire personality. Its not. If I led a platoon I could give the whiniest geek in the world the BIGGEST DAMN GUN and FULL BODY ARMOUR and it would be my choice. Some would counter that I'm somehow ignoring all their years of training. Well while they're in my party I am training them! I'm upping their stats and teaching them new skills to make them more suited to the task. This is why equipment often has restrictions based on strength, dexterity etc to show that it takes focus if you want party members equipped with what you want.



For example, I too always put Alistair in light to medium armour and made him an archer mainly as I wanted my character to be the tank. That was my choice and to make it work it took focused choices during leveling up but they were my choices.



It didn't change his hilarious but whiny character though.

[Kronaras]

I actually loved mass effect 2's companion inventory, and i would totally prefer having sten,leliana and morrigan with their sacred ashes outfits for the whole game to all these armors that looked the same just with different colours.

[SilentK]

For me it is very important to be able to vary how my party looks between different plays with my wardens. I dress them in a way that I feel is correct to how they behave in my current party, what I have them do and how well they know my warden. The LI tend to get at much better looking outfit =) For me, since I often play a good warden, if my party looks the same every time, it makes it less enjoyable. I for once am not very fond of Morrigans robe so I always change that to another robe that I think that she looks better in. If I don't like the the way that Isabela's 2 outfits have been designed it will quite irritating. I like to be able to put my LI in a good looking outfit =) but perhaps not the best one. I could never get around to play a second shepard in ME2 because I couldn't really feel that my party were different from the last time. Thane looked exactly the same as when I romanced him, and this time he was just supposed to be a buddy. Didn't work for me. That is what I do with wardrobe, making them look different visually helps me to change them into new characters. This time my warden is romancing Leliana, so now I try to dress her with extra care. Since Alistair is just a friend this time, he get's something for stats that I find a bit less nice.



I would love to be able to get special outfits for my party, but I still want to be able to not use them if they do not suit me.

[mokponobi]

SilentK wrote...

For me it is very important to be able to vary how my party looks between different plays with my wardens. I dress them in a way that I feel is correct to how they behave in my current party, what I have them do and how well they know my warden. The LI tend to get at much better looking outfit =) For me, since I often play a good warden, if my party looks the same every time, it makes it less enjoyable. I for once am not very fond of Morrigans robe so I always change that to another robe that I think that she looks better in. If I don't like the the way that Isabela's 2 outfits have been designed it will quite irritating. I like to be able to put my LI in a good looking outfit =) but perhaps not the best one. I could never get around to play a second shepard in ME2 because I couldn't really feel that my party were different from the last time. Thane looked exactly the same as when I romanced him, and this time he was just supposed to be a buddy. Didn't work for me. That is what I do with wardrobe, making them look different visually helps me to change them into new characters. This time my warden is romancing Leliana, so now I try to dress her with extra care. Since Alistair is just a friend this time, he get's something for stats that I find a bit less nice.

I would love to be able to get special outfits for my party, but I still want to be able to not use them if they do not suit me.

This.

I like unique looks just fine, I just don't want choices taken away from me. Many times I kept Morrigan in her default outfit, but other times I did not. The point is I had the choice either way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is why cutscenes are bad.

What I took away from those examples is that there's a problem with the rules, not the cutscenes. The cutscenes make more sense than the actual gameplay.

By what standard do they "make more sense"?

The only sensible standard is the rules of the setting, and those are already laid out within the gameplay.  And by that standard, the contents of the cutscenes were completely absurd.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Images wrote...

I am a bit confused why some people believe that wanting to change the equipment of a party member is tantamount to changing their entire personality.

No, but it is an expression of their personality, and that personality might not always fit the garment BioWare chooses.

[Fortlowe]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Images wrote...

I am a bit confused why some people believe that wanting to change the equipment of a party member is tantamount to changing their entire personality.

No, but it is an expression of their personality, and that personality might not always fit the garment BioWare chooses.

C'mon Sylvius. You know that doesn't make sense. If the characters were drawn up by BW, and their personalities written by BW, then...well, no one is better suited for choosing a garb to fit that character and their personality than BW.

Now, I understand wanting to change their garb, but I really want their personalities to shine through of their own volition not mine,  and that includes visually. So If the choice is between the cookie cutter outfit changes we had in DA:O that completely eliminated visual individuality and having a standard and uncustomizable garment that is in harmony with the characters personality, I will choose the later every time.

Modifié par Fortlowe, 12 novembre 2010 - 12:07 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Shouldn't the player be the one to decide that?

I unequivocally think so.

No. Isabella should decide. She is her own person, after all.

If I'm in control of Isabela, those two options are both the same thing.

And if I'm not in control of Isabela, what is her purpose within the game?

Meltemph wrote...

Depends on the story and the role of the companions, I would say.  Also, if we are going to be changing companion equipment, I want it to feel like it is "their" equipment and not just some random outfit that happens to also fit them.

It is their equipment.  It's their equipment because I say so.

One time I play through DAO and Leliana chooses light armour, while the next time I play through DAO Leliana chooses heavy armour.  And each time, the armour suits her because she's different each time.

Actually I am suprised that you took this stance Sylvius. I think forcing NPCs to only have a custom outfit can be rediculous when it limits them from wearing certain armors or using certain weapons in a game. But, if Isabella has in In Character (IC) reason for not wearing a certain armor type, it can only add to the story.

A perfectly logical example could be that Isabella is a ship captain. As such, she wouldn't want to wear armor that could drown her if she fell overboard her own ship. Historically, in non-fiction, most sailors in 1400-1800's western culture could not swim. Even those that could knew better than to wear metal armors. Sure, most metal armors from chainmail to plate are equally distributed over your body mass, but it's felt greatly when you are treading water for even a couple of minutes.

I can see a story reason why Isabella might not be used to fighting in armors heavier than cloth or leather. I mostly find issue with me not being able to select a cloth or leather armor for a character because of style alone. If I wasn't a party leader in a group of heros, I would tell the "leader" where to stick their head if they told me I had to wear plate and I wasn't used to it or found it restrictive. But if an armor logically fit within my level of comfort and protected me, sure I would wear it, even if it was pink and covered in glitter.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Actually I am suprised that you took this stance Sylvius. I think forcing NPCs to only have a custom outfit can be rediculous when it limits them from wearing certain armors or using certain weapons in a game. But, if Isabella has in In Character (IC) reason for not wearing a certain armor type, it can only add to the story.

A perfectly logical example could be that Isabella is a ship captain. As such, she wouldn't want to wear armor that could drown her if she fell overboard her own ship. Historically, in non-fiction, most sailors in 1400-1800's western culture could not swim. Even those that could knew better than to wear metal armors. Sure, most metal armors from chainmail to plate are equally distributed over your body mass, but it's felt greatly when you are treading water for even a couple of minutes.

I can see a story reason why Isabella might not be used to fighting in armors heavier than cloth or leather. I mostly find issue with me not being able to select a cloth or leather armor for a character because of style alone. If I wasn't a party leader in a group of heros, I would tell the "leader" where to stick their head if they told me I had to wear plate and I wasn't used to it or found it restrictive. But if an armor logically fit within my level of comfort and protected me, sure I would wear it, even if it was pink and covered in glitter.

That would only be a problem if I were playing the party leader and my character was telling everyone else what to do.

But that's not how party-based games work.  First, there's no reason why the PC needs to "lead" the party.  And second, the player is playing all of the party members.  If in one playthough I decide Leliana won't use edged weapons, then I can enforce that restriction.  And that characteristic will be true of Leliana in that playthrough.

It's because you're only trying to play one character that you don't understand.

[Fortlowe]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Actually I am suprised that you took this stance Sylvius. I think forcing NPCs to only have a custom outfit can be rediculous when it limits them from wearing certain armors or using certain weapons in a game. But, if Isabella has in In Character (IC) reason for not wearing a certain armor type, it can only add to the story.

A perfectly logical example could be that Isabella is a ship captain. As such, she wouldn't want to wear armor that could drown her if she fell overboard her own ship. Historically, in non-fiction, most sailors in 1400-1800's western culture could not swim. Even those that could knew better than to wear metal armors. Sure, most metal armors from chainmail to plate are equally distributed over your body mass, but it's felt greatly when you are treading water for even a couple of minutes.

I can see a story reason why Isabella might not be used to fighting in armors heavier than cloth or leather. I mostly find issue with me not being able to select a cloth or leather armor for a character because of style alone. If I wasn't a party leader in a group of heros, I would tell the "leader" where to stick their head if they told me I had to wear plate and I wasn't used to it or found it restrictive. But if an armor logically fit within my level of comfort and protected me, sure I would wear it, even if it was pink and covered in glitter.

That would only be a problem if I were playing the party leader and my character was telling everyone else what to do.

But that's not how party-based games work.  First, there's no reason why the PC needs to "lead" the party.  And second, the player is playing all of the party members.  If in one playthough I decide Leliana won't use edged weapons, then I can enforce that restriction.  And that characteristic will be true of Leliana in that playthrough.

It's because you're only trying to play one character that you don't understand.

But, ultimately you are playing as one character. It's not as though when you have a conversation with one of your companions you are choosing both your own responses and theirs. It think you centering your view on changing the part members appearence on how your want them to preform while BW would rather the companions appearance be based on their identity.  

[Wicked 702]

Fortlowe wrote...

But, ultimately you are playing as one character. It's not as though when you have a conversation with one of your companions you are choosing both your own responses and theirs. It think you centering your view on changing the part members appearence on how your want them to preform while BW would rather the companions appearance be based on their identity.  

As long as you are able to control ANY aspect of that character (tactics, progression, etc.), you are in fact playing as that character. Until all aspects of said character are divorced from player control, you are speaking for them in specific ways.

[soteria]

AlanC9 wrote...

This is a perpetual problem with RPGs. In Champions, for instance, a handgun bullet couldn't kill a normal person. It'd probably take three shots to do it. This works fine most of the time since the system isn't supposed to be lethal. But there are all sorts of situations where the handgun has to be lethal for the scene to make sense, even comic-book sense.

To be fair, firearms aren't nearly as lethal as they are often portrayed on TV. I watched a news clip of a guy getting shot 7 times with a .22 pistol, including one shot to the neck. He walked away. I know guys who said that in Iraq, they'd shoot insurgents 4-5 times, and they'd just get right back up, especially if they were on drugs. I'm sure arrows are more or less the same.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I was making dinner so my response is a little late. Fortlowe covered some of my ideas in response. I think there would be a balance between a NPC character using equipment based on it statistically being better and the NPC's personal preferences based on character history and fighting style. It makes for a complex situation, no?



I don't think the situation of being in absolute controle of the main character should give you absolute control over the NPCs. If they have no will about personal identity, then what is the point of a roleplaying game or even dialogue?



My ideal situation would be to have NPCs have preferences, but not have one armor or "look" they wear the entire game. It would be funny to have them complain in a party banter about having to wear chainmail or plate once or twice, but submit that it protected them better. To have a NPC outlawed from wearing an armor because of game style is rediculous. But it would be interesting if they had limitations based on occupation or character history. Then the player has to weigh party skill effectiveness (min/maxing skills) versus party unity (personality). A much more dynamic and real-life type scenerio.



In a need-based situation, any character is going to put on plate rather than run around naked. The same with weapons. If I have to confront a horde of darkspawn or anything with axes, I want an axe too, regardless of what weapon some software programer says my class can use effectively. It would be interesting if characters just had preferences, maybe bonuses for what they are used to and penalties for what they are not, until they level up a bit.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

By what standard do they "make more sense"?

The only sensible standard is the rules of the setting, and those are already laid out within the gameplay.  And by that standard, the contents of the cutscenes were completely absurd.

'Tis true, I was going out on a limb there by assuming that arrows, swords, human bodies, etc., work in the setting the way they do ITRW.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No. Isabella should decide. She is her own person, after all.
If I'm in control of Isabela, those two options are both the same thing.

And if I'm not in control of Isabela, what is her purpose within the game?

She is a central character to the narrative; her interactions define the "story" part of your experience in the game. As to whether or not you control her, the answer is that you do both depending on which metaphysical state the game is in.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I also hated this about KotOR2.

Either
I wasn't in control of my character (I didn't know his past, and I
didn't know his personality), or I was (Kreia was an unreliable
narrator) but then the entire plot made zero sense.

KotOR2 was a
profoundly bad game.

KoTOR II was the writing team going to down and producing the story they wanted with little regard to the fact that it was a game. It just felt to me that they wanted to write a novel so bad, but for whatever reason they had to settle and make a game. Writing a good story and writing a good game are not the same thing.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I have to say, this is one of the
areas where your lack of tabletop experience badly harms your impression
of a mechanic.

HP made more sense in tabletop games because
there was a lot more going on in a combat round that was represented
statistically.  It made even more sense if you created an
endurance/fatigue mechanic to go with it (allowing diminishing combat
performance as the encounter progressed).

It is not about whether or not HP makes sense. It is about the fact that HP is only a property of the world in a set number of states. The physical reality of the game literally changes depending on whether or not you are involved in the game as a matter of "story" or the game as a matter of "gameplay".

In "story" the laws of nature are the laws of our world, more or less. Characters act as if the same kinds of ills that befall us befall them in the same sort of ways. Swords are dangerous because they can cut flesh as they do here; fire is dangerous because it can burn; they feel cold and fatigue as any other person. Insofar as characters can speak about their world, or insofar as they can make plans in it, they act as if their world corresponding largely to the same physical rules our world did with some exceptions for magic.

Vaeliorin wrote...
Dark and tragic was your description, not
mine.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]

Right, okay, I see the issue. I wasn't clear in my initial post. I feel that is what the writers wanted their game to be; I don't think that is what the game was, and for whatever reason from one post to the other I just lost sight of whether I was talking about my impression of KoTOR II or what I believed the writers wanted to get at with KoTOR II.

I didn't really think it was hitting you over the head with the
"reinvention" of the setting, so much as it was trying to tell a story
that wasn't really typical for the setting.  I'd be willing to bet that
the writers at Obsidian didn't really want to make a Star Wars game, but
when given the opportunity to make a Star Wars game, you don't say no,
because even if it sucks it's going to be a cash cow (or at least that
was the case before the prequels.)

Here is the thing: the setting is not amenable to complex moral quandries, deep philosophical inquiry, or complicated villain-protagonist. In fact, the entire medium isn't very amenable to this because the protagonist is in essence a set piece the player is supposed to have creative freedom over, but by making the hidden history of that character central to the story, you create a problem.

Whereas look at how DA2 is handling this. It's the same principle for the story, insofar as the driving force of the narrative is how did the character get to this point? The difference is that as the player you are experiencing the story as it occurs; you make these choices yourself and then can see their impact in the present. This is one thing Alpha Protocol did well, even if the game was broken.

It isn't, really, though.  It's another instance of an RPG glossing over
your character's reaction to something that would probably be somewhat
controversial to include in a mass-market game.  Honestly, the idea that
something like that could happen to a person, and they wouldn't have
some sort of breakdown upon finding out about it is a little bit beyond
my comprehension.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but even this nature of the reaction should be left up to your character. Which is to say, you could have a complete nervous breakdown, but that's like not wanting to save Ferelden in DA:O. You just need that buy-in.

Though I appreciate your feeling. This was what I felt re: the forceful push to have you adopt the identity of a Grey Warden in DA:O. I think the origins did the opposite that they were intended to for me; instead of giving me a background prior to being a Warden, they gave me a story and character wholly incompatible with ever being or seeing myself as a Grey Warden.

Just because she argues that doesn't mean she's right.  Regardless,
I'm not arguing that KOTOR2 is perfect, simply that I think that the
story that it tells is a much more compelling one (to me) than the story
of KOTOR1.

Usually, we would say this is impossible because she cannot read minds. But this is Star Wars. This is actually something people can do.

Personally, I think that that distinction is a failure on the part of
the developers.  The world shouldn't change based on whether you're in
combat or a cutscene.  The cutscenes, story and gameplay should all be
based upon the rules of the world that are determined beforehand.  So
yes, I don't think Cailan should have died so easily.  Perhaps the ogre
should have hurled him into a cluster of darkspawn who would all swarm
him under.  Or they should have done like they did with Duncan and cut
away.

The problem with this is that if you argue that the game mechanism are something that are actually true of "reality" in DA:O, then nothing makes sense.

They Grey Wardens should be an order that farms and grinds for levels in the Deep Roads. Every single of the 40 or whatever Wardens in Ferelden ought to have been level 25+. Duncan and Cailan should have been unkillable since conceivably they could have have 99 healing pots on the front line.

Duncan still does not make sense; fatigue in the game is impossible. There is no amount of time you can fight for and not be completely identical in capacity to how you were at the start of the fight, minus some % closer to incapacitation that in no way affects your ability.

Seriously, if the game is supposed to be how the characters in-game believe their world works, the entire plot just breaks down and everyone is acting out an MMO, because that is what it's like.

If the rules of the world actually were an RPG, then everyone in the world would act as if they lived in an MMO. On a non-RP server.

The fact of the matter is, I don't really care about the appearance of
the companions.  They could pull a JRPG and have them always look the
same regardless of equipment and it wouldn't particularly bother me. 
I care about the functionality, and where in a case like Isabella it
might make sense to restrict her (after all, she is the
duelist) in other cases, it makes no sense whatsoever (take a character
like Sighrun, who I had dressed in armor ranging from light to massive
on different playthroughs, none of which in any way contradicted her
character.  Or restricting Leliana to archery, which only makes sense
based on a single item in the game and is, in fact, contradicted by her
prequel story.)

I think we should have as much discretion to alter the characters as is reasonable with respect to having a functional "story". To me, gameplay is entirely divorced from this. So long as the "gameplay" part of the game is fun, that's all I care about.

Modifié par In Exile, 12 novembre 2010 - 04:58 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
By what standard do they "make more sense"?

The only sensible standard is the rules of the setting, and those are already laid out within the gameplay.  And by that standard, the contents of the cutscenes were completely absurd.

The sensible standard is the things that the characters believe to be true of their world. They do notbelieve the rules of the setting as laid out in the gameplay are true of their world. They believe that, broadly speaking, the things true of their world are the things true of our world, with some allowance for a small subset of events we consider impossible (such as the spontaneous creation of fire, ice, etc. by particualr individuals).

On the whole, though, what characters believe and act on is the sensible standard, especially since if it was the case the world actually corresponded to the rules of the setting, then everyone in the game is clearly insane.

[AlanC9]

soteria wrote...
To be fair, firearms aren't nearly as lethal as they are often portrayed on TV. I watched a news clip of a guy getting shot 7 times with a .22 pistol, including one shot to the neck. He walked away. I know guys who said that in Iraq, they'd shoot insurgents 4-5 times, and they'd just get right back up, especially if they were on drugs. I'm sure arrows are more or less the same.

Oh, absolutely. Lost was famous for gunshots to the torso being instantly lethal.

The Hero System problem was cleared up pretty nicely in Fantasy Hero. A head or vitals shot would double damage, and at GM's discretion any such hit that did Impairing damage (more than half base Body score) would be potentially lethal on an NPC, though normally not a PC. That works out to 6 points or better on a normal human after doubling, so even a 1D6 weapon is dangerous if well-aimed or just lucky. You certainly wouldn't want to risk your DNPC to those odds.

Concerning KotOR II, does anyone remember a Chris Avellone interview where he copped to not really liking Star Wars, or at least its metaphysics, in the first place?

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 novembre 2010 - 05:24 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fortlowe wrote...

But, ultimately you are playing as one character. It's not as though when you have a conversation with one of your companions you are choosing both your own responses and theirs.

If you're playing as just one character, then that character is "the party", and any conversations between the party members act as the party's internal monologue.  You bounce ideas off each other to help you make decisions.

It think you centering your view on changing the part members appearence on how your want them to preform while BW would rather the companions appearance be based on their identity.  

And I insist that BioWare isn't in control of the companions' identities, so this approach is nonsensical.

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

I don't think the situation of being in absolute controle of the main character should give you absolute control over the NPCs. If they have no will about personal identity, then what is the point of a roleplaying game or even dialogue?

The point is the roleplaying.  Making decisions on behalf of the party and the characters within it.  Constructing a coherent world view.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

'Tis true, I was going out on a limb there by assuming that arrows, swords, human bodies, etc., work in the setting the way they do ITRW.

The limb isn't even there.  It's a completely baseless conclusion.

In Exile wrote...

She is a central character to the narrative;

I don't think BioWare can know that.  But then we disagree about what the narrative is.

her interactions define the "story" part of your experience in the game.

As to whether or not you control her, the answer is that you do both depending on which metaphysical state the game is in.

But here you're just presupposing your metaphysical dichotomy.

It is not about whether or not HP makes sense.

But it is.  you wouldn't need your metaphysical dichotomy if the rules of the world could be universally applied without nonsensical results.

It is about the fact that HP is only a property of the world in a set number of states.

But that's not true.  That's my point.  A HP system can work in all states - it's just that all the CRPG versions to which you've been exposed don;t, so you need this extra metaphysical explanation.

The physical reality of the game literally changes depending on whether or not you are involved in the game as a matter of "story" or the game as a matter of "gameplay".

This is true in many CRPGs, but this is a problem with the game's implementation.  This is not a necessary nor a desirable feature.

And in many modern games, simply turning off (or distrusting) the cutscenes makes the problem go away.

In "story" the laws of nature are the laws of our world, more or less.

This is an entirely baseless claim.  You've made this up out of whole cloth.

Characters act as if the same kinds of ills that befall us befall them in the same sort of ways. Swords are dangerous because they can cut flesh as they do here; fire is dangerous because it can burn; they feel cold and fatigue as any other person. Insofar as characters can speak about their world, or insofar as they can make plans in it, they act as if their world corresponding largely to the same physical rules our world did with some exceptions for magic.

I find it interesting then that BioWare specifically tried to fix some aspects of this by eliminating resurrection magic.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but even this nature of the reaction should be left up to your character. Which is to say, you could have a complete nervous breakdown, but that's like not wanting to save Ferelden in DA:O. You just need that buy-in.

Worse, you need that buy-in before you even know about the breakdown (I don't even remember the breakdown - did I completely miss KotOR2's plot?).

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

The sensible standard is the things that the characters believe to be true of their world. They do not believe the rules of the setting as laid out in the gameplay are true of their world.

Why do you think that?  Based on what?

[Maria Caliban]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Stick668 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

That said, NPC's refusing to wear something wouldn't bother me. As long as the AI/script determining that worked good.

So, essentially and in practice indistinguishable from the end result of what they're planning for DA2, then?

No. Not even remotely.

I'd prefer that these things happen through conversation instead of opening up a panel and equipping someone. That said, I understand that they might not have the time or resources to implement that for the companions.

Images wrote...

If I led a platoon....

The companions in Dragon Age aren't military officers that you outrank. They are a group of people who see their goals as aligning with the PC's and choose to work with him or her.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 12 novembre 2010 - 07:56 .

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The limb isn't even there.  It's a completely baseless conclusion.

Completely? The game world includes things that look like human beings and things that look like swords, but that gives us no basis for conculding that the interaction between the two resenbles how humans and swords interact ITRW. Are you really going that far?

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's a distinct setting entirely separate from our own. There's no necessary connection between the two.

I'd say that any evidence it provides needs to be taken as true. And the evidence it provides is the rules of gameplay.

I see no reason at all to assume that "reality" overrides actual facts about the setting.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...
I can't believe I'm saying this, but even this nature of the reaction should be left up to your character. Which is to say, you could have a complete nervous breakdown, but that's like not wanting to save Ferelden in DA:O. You just need that buy-in.

Worse, you need that buy-in before you even know about the breakdown (I don't even remember the breakdown - did I completely miss KotOR2's plot?).

That was in reference to the Revan revelation in KOTOR1, which I felt the game wrongly ignored, much like Shepard's resurrection is ignored in ME2.  It's one of those instances where the questions are so controversial (nature of the self, dualism versus materialism, etc.) that the likelihood of a mainstream game actually dealing with them in my lifetime are, I think, nil.

Essentially, I thought that the fact that the game just kind of shoved to the side the potentially serious repercussions of the character in KOTOR finding out that they were not, in fact, who they thought they were, and were actually someone who they could reasonably view as one of the vilest of the vile was just as serious a flaw as KOTOR2's revelation about past events in the character's life that you should have known about, but didn't.  This is especially true given that, on subsequent playthroughs of KOTOR2, you could take those facts into account, while KOTOR never makes any serious attempt to deal with your character's reaction to finding out the truth about his past.