1044 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

Of course it could penetrate me (... that sounds wrong on so many levels...)! That arrow could kill me! Any sharp object with enough applied force could kill me. Hell it wouldn't even have to be sharp. I'm saying that an arrow like that, hiting a target in armor (or, in the case of a bear, with a thick hide) would do little to no damage at all, if not applied the correct force. Too little and it won't penetrate into flesh (or even worse the skin/armor it self), too much and you will have to hope for having hit a vital organ on the way through (or wait for the angry bear to bleed to death). And as an archer it takes years of pratice to know jsut the right amount of force to apply to inflict maximum damage, adjust to the wind and hit the target.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 19 janvier 2011 - 10:53 .

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Can't we all just agree to disagree? This conversaiton is getting rather unpleasant, on both sides.

Stop being so damn diplomatic! You make the rest of us look bad

I have had great fun. But  I leave you argue here can Isabella use bows xD (will though come back at times and lol).

(And BioWare choses can Isabella use bows, and since it is my game I will draw my conclusions of Isabella after that.)

[Meltemph]

I can help you a little by posting a picture which would help anyone with average intelligence understand why 200lbs mega overkill bows are not needed to kill even bears.
Just think how those blades would do to you if they penetrate you.

The arrow tip is not near as important as the draw of a bow. For a compound bow if you are hunting a moose/elk you will need around a 65lb draw.  Now imagine if that was a longbow and imagine if you were trying to kill a armored human...

You in fact need around 150-200lb's(for longbows) to be effective at killing a human, military armored target.
More power to you for whatever you were arguing, but you in fact do need a very heavy draw for a longbow, doesn't matter how magical the tip is.

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 janvier 2011 - 11:25 .

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Of course it could penetrate me (... that sounds wrong on so many levels...)! That arrow could kill me! Any sharp object with enough applied force could kill me. Hell it wouldn't even have to be sharp. I'm saying that an arrow like that, hiting a target in armor (or, in the case of a bear, with a thick hide) would do little to no damage at all, if not applied the correct force. Too little and it won't penetrate into flesh (or even worse the skin/armor it self), too much and you will have to hope for having hit a vital organ on the way through (or wait for the angry bear to bleed to death). And as an archer it takes years of pratice to know jsut the right amount of force to apply to inflict maximum damage, adjust to the wind and hit the target.

I agree. Isabella can't use bows. Not even crossbows because they are not bows like longbows and shortbows are not bows. Also Isabella can begin to giggle hysterically when she tries to use bow or just outright refuse to use such "difficult" weapons. Last time she said what's the point to use bows. I went speechless because I did not know how to say her this:

[Addai]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I mean from acharacter point of view. All mechanics of the game aside. Leliana was an accomplished archer even before she met the Warden and had trained her marksmanship for a long time. Isabela havn't and thus she can't use a bow for combat as she wouldn't be effective.

This is stretching things a bit.  Zevran doesn't have a single point in archery, but comes equipped with a good bow, and because of his high dex is a better starting archer than Leliana.  Gameplay factors aren't everything.

[Meltemph]

This is stretching things a bit. Zevran doesn't have a single point in archery, but comes equipped with a good bow, and because of his high dex is a better starting archer than Leliana.

Gameplay factors aren't everything.

Didn't you just mention gameplay?

[Uomoz1987]

Russalka wrote...

What is this thread about?

thread about getting a character that uses daggers to a character that uses a bow.

hopefully not gonna happen, i like uniques.

[moilami]

Meltemph wrote...

I can help you a little by posting a picture which would help anyone with average intelligence understand why 200lbs mega overkill bows are not needed to kill even bears.
Just think how those blades would do to you if they penetrate you.

The arrow tip is not near as important as the draw of a bow. For a compound bow if you are hunting a moose/elk you will need around a 65lb draw.  Now imagine if that was a longbow and imagine if you were trying to kill a armored human...

You in fact need around 150-200lb's(for longbows) to be effective at killing a human, military armored target.
More power to you for whatever you were arguing, but you in fact do need a very heavy draw for a longbow, doesn't matter how magical the tip is.

What anything you wrote relates to the question can Isabella use bows?

I could begin to argue with you about penetration, "system shock" (no idea what the right word is in English), different arrow heads, launching speeds, weights of arrows and everything, but nothing of those have nothing to do about can Isabella use bows.

Believe me when I say these things has been discussed long long time ago in great detail. One result of it was that in certain role playing games certain artficial rules were changed.

I don't have interest to discuss about meta archery in Internet, that's for sure. I would just become pissed I can't do real world experiments (but not on living targets).

It is better everyone just stops this arguing and goes to local archery club and starts shooting. It is tons of fun I can say to shoot with very powerful bows! There is immersive power you can't experience even close in computer games. Best of all those archery clubs will for sure let you try archery in real without any costs. You can have great fun and good time for free!

As for the original question, the right answer for it is whatever.

Modifié par moilami, 20 janvier 2011 - 12:20 .

[Addai]

Meltemph wrote...

This is stretching things a bit. Zevran doesn't have a single point in archery, but comes equipped with a good bow, and because of his high dex is a better starting archer than Leliana.

Gameplay factors aren't everything.

Didn't you just mention gameplay?

Is this a trick question?

[moilami]

Uomoz1987 wrote...

Russalka wrote...

What is this thread about?

thread about getting a character that uses daggers to a character that uses a bow.

hopefully not gonna happen, i like uniques.

I bet the answer depends on who you ask. For me this thread was just opportunity for fun with option to maybe learn something new.

But but but... this logic to make Isabella "unique" by make her refuse/unable to use bows is just---hilarious xD

[Uomoz1987]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The player can define a character's characteristics just as BioWare can.  It happens all the time with the PC.  Why must the companions be any different?

You are assuming she is part of a Rogue class similar to DAO or BG, yet this is deeply misleading.

Try play Planescape Torment. Try argument that it's not one of the greatest rpg experience in pc gaming.

Now:
Define Morte's class.
Define Dak'kon's customization options.
Find a single ranged weapon in the whole game (other than Mordon's).

Did this elements ruin any player's experience while playing the game?

/thread

(sorry again for the bad english)

[moilami]

Uomoz1987 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The player can define a character's characteristics just as BioWare can.  It happens all the time with the PC.  Why must the companions be any different?

You are assuming she is part of a Rogue class similar to DAO or BG, yet this is deeply misleading.

Try play Planescape Torment. Try argument that it's not one of the greatest rpg experience in pc gaming.

Now:
Define Morte's class.
Define Dak'kon's customization options.
Find a single ranged weapon in the whole game (other than Mordon's).

Did this elements ruin any player's experience while playing the game?

/thread

(sorry again for the bad english)

Oi, Planescape Torment. Never finished it. Never got attached on the realm or characters. So much fail xD Was just not my game. But something inside me say I should try again seriously.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I want to be clear that I've never asked for the removal of intra-party banter.  But when dealing with the outside world, they should act as a team that wasn't designed by a crazy person.

I played a Warden with crippling social anxiety.  Why was the party having him be the spokesperson?

But how else can the narrative possibly play out if your Warden is no longer the spokesperson? Imagine if you could make Morrigan 'party leader'. Morrigan as party leader would either leader to one of two possibilities:

1) No dialogue options. Morrigan has a scripted response with all npcs since she was given her own personality.

2) Dialogue options, where you (the player) chooses what Morrigan says. However, with all the added lines, Morrigan would likely no longer be fully voiced and treated as a silent protagonist.

Neither option is viable to develop. DA:O allows you 10 party members (Warden included). Bioware cannot possibly account for all these differences in crafting a coherent story. They cannot provide full voice-acting for these branches, pushing us back into the days of silent npcs. And what if I want Dog to be party leader? Or Shale? These all would produce widely different branches in conversation. Party leader is the 'face' of the party. How npcs react to the face would logically have to change. It's simply not cost-effective by any stretch.

None, but that has nothing to do with DA2.  DA2 is a single-player game.

Which is why as a single-player game I would say it is more effective that you control one protagonist, as per typical DnD.  

That's where you're wrong.  She's an individual person independent of what your player character thinks of her, but that does not require she have a personality independent of what the player thinks of her.

You're needlessly conflating the player and his character.

No, I'm not. Because I decide to equip Isabella with a longsword, it does not mean my player character (Hawke) was involved and forced her to equip a longsword. I can justify it to myself by saying that Isabella decided to equip a longsword, not that Hawke made her do so.

But this still presents narrative problems which was even the case in Dragon Age. Sten lost his sword, which apparently was his 'life'. He cannot return to the Qunari without it. You help him recover it yet I (the player, not the character) can still make Sten dual wield if I so choose, even though the narrative indicates that he places a great deal of value on his 2-hander. My gameplay decision to equip him with two swords changes Sten and that's never addressed in the narrative.

Let me try another example as well. Let's say part of Alistair's personality (expressed through dialogue) is that he hates longbows. He never tells the Warden why, he just has this undeniable hatred of them. The player decides to equip Alistair with a longbow (which we are to assume is Alistair's decision). Why would he do this and never address it to the Warden? I can't point out "Hey, I thought you said you hated longbows...". Making up an explanation as the player is not enough to justify this completely out of character shift by Alistair.
 

But that introduces now problems.  If I control only one member of the party, and that member isn't a suitable leader for that party, what happens then?  Either the game needs to wrest control for me, or the party no longer makes any sense.

Neither of those solutions is a good one. 

Letting the player control the whole party, though, eliminates that problem.

But your 'solution' introduces many other problems which I addressed above from a cost perspective. 

What you are suggesting also introduces another problem. Free 100% role-playing freedom is impossible, even on a tabletop. DMs rarely let players create insane PCs, because it becomes difficult (if not impossible) to limit them; it's hard to create a compelling motivation for an insane man to save a town from a band of evil orcs (the plot hook) or get along with the other PCs. He's as likely to kill them as talk to themThis for example is why DMs limit their players from evil alignments, which often can result in party member-killing and isn't fun for anyone. In order to create a coherent adventure, there must always be limits on the type of character your DM lets you create.

In this way, I would say instead that creating a player character who cannot serve as the party face is an example of this.  This doesn't mean that you can't play an evil character who may not care that he is terrible with the outside world, but very specific types (a protagonist who has social anxiety) are going to be ommitted. It's not a happy solution, but it's necessary for the genre. So for Bioware games, unfortunately that means giving up any characters where it's non-sensical for you to be party face.

That's only true if you presuppose that Isabela's character has an established tone over which you, the player, has no control.
 
Once again, you're presupposing your conclusion

She has a personality, which already is quite a step in that direction. See my earlier example; Isabella tells Hawke she really hates longbows and would die long before she equips them. You (the player) equip Isabella with a bow, Isabella makes no comment. Inconsistency. Having played many different characters in dnd, I can tell you that what weapon/style you employ in combat does often lend itself (in some way) to a character's personality.

Take for example Darth Maul's double-bladed lightsaber, which is often regarded as anathema amongst Jedi because it represents a greater propensity towards violence. Although it is a shame you could not address this point with Bastilla.

Now you're just making baseless assertions.  Why would the game need to become one of these two things?

Sticking with the BG example, the death of the Bhaalspawn might mean that you'd no longer get attacked by assassins (since their target is dead - though Sarevok could still view the party as a threat).  But the coast-wide iron conspiracy would still exist, and all those plots could still be followed.  There'd be very little need to adjust the game at all, save perhaps for the very end.

I think Planescape Torment or Kotor serve as much better examples of why this can't be possible; it leads to so many divergent storylines that a coherent narrative can't afford to keep up with them all. The story would have to take into account:

1) At what point in the story there is a split amongst the party and how that which plot developments.
2) Which characters you are choosing to take control of.
3) Motivations to fuel those characters you choose.

That's something that no developer can take account of. If the player decided to no longer experience the story with the Nameless One, but decided to take Morte and go off somewhere you no longer have a narrative. The entire narrative is based on the Nameless One's visions and his ability to follow his previous lives. Same with Kotor. Providing an alternate, believable plot hook for how Carth will defeat Malak in Kotor if he puts a bullet in Revan's head is impossible. Hence why the end result is a sandbox, which is the only way that you could take some random character (Morte, Carth, anyone) and still have a game experience.

I'd tell the DM what my character says to the follower, though I'd only ever be doing that in cases where I'd want to be overheard, because otherwise I could just have the follower do things without having to make the discussion explicit.

But it's impossible for you to role-play any kind of interaction between your character and his follower. That results in you talking to yourself. The only other option is for your DM to take control of their personality (which is what my DM does) but it is in defiance of your conclusion that you control your follower 'all the time'.

By that reasoning, no author can write a book containing two characters which have a relationship with each other.

And that's obviously false.

Then show me. Show me how you are able to do this. The end result is rarely pretty.

Your logic is also broken. Any author when writing a book either writes in the third person or the first person,neither of which is detrimental to the final result. A movie featuring two characters allows us to observe two different people filling each role, not one. A book let's us imagine the conversation the characters are having with each other. Tabletops are a different medium. You are your characters.

There has never been an author able to tell the story from two different first person viewpoints at the same time. That is the contradiction you refuse to observe. One player occupying two first person viewpoints with himself simply does not work. You're talking to yourself and writing the script. Hence, no longer role-playing but writing. You are deciding both action-reaction which is not how role-playing is conducted. The relationship between the two characters you control becomes a bastardization in comparison to the relationship between any other characters.

That's why typically only the DM ever controls multiple characters.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 janvier 2011 - 12:54 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Uomoz1987 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The player can define a character's characteristics just as BioWare can.  It happens all the time with the PC.  Why must the companions be any different?

You are assuming she is part of a Rogue class similar to DAO or BG, yet this is deeply misleading.

Try play Planescape Torment. Try argument that it's not one of the greatest rpg experience in pc gaming.

Now:
Define Morte's class.
Define Dak'kon's customization options.
Find a single ranged weapon in the whole game (other than Mordon's).

Torment didn't really have a class-based system.  Each character's advancement was unique.

And there's nothing wrong with that.  But what sort of system in DA2 using?  Is it class-based, or not?

Did this elements ruin any player's experience while playing the game?

It certainly changes the player's experience.  Whether that experience is then ruined would depend on the player.

[IRMcGhee]

I get the impression that the companion characters don't use the warrior/rogue/mage classes, instead having unique ability trees. Hence Isabela sticking to daggers and Sebastian seemingly being an archer/warrior. We'll find out soon enough.

[moilami]

Il Divo wrote...


But it's impossible for you to role-play any kind of interaction between your character and his follower. That results in you talking to yourself. The only other option is for your DM to take control of their personality (which is what my DM does) but it is in defiance of your conclusion that you control your follower 'all the time'.

Well, yeah, of course you would talk to yourself, but it would still be you rolelaying two (or more) different characters, and there is no reason why you could not do that. If you would be spectacular roleplayer you could, for example, roleplay 6 different characters. I believe those who write books do a lot of "roleplaying" with all the characters they have in the book (and even more metagaming) when they write the book.

[Il Divo]

IRMcGhee wrote...

I get the impression that the companion characters don't use the warrior/rogue/mage classes, instead having unique ability trees. Hence Isabela sticking to daggers and Sebastian seemingly being an archer/warrior. We'll find out soon enough.

In this sense, I think it's closer to Mass Effect. You had Commander Shepard, with access to 6 different classes, but Kaidan/Ashley aside, none of your party members fell neatly into that list. There were similarities; Wrex was a soldier/biotic hybrid like the Vanguard, but his specific abilities/weapon options differed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

But how else can the narrative possibly play out if your Warden is no longer the spokesperson? Imagine if you could make Morrigan 'party leader'. Morrigan as party leader would either leader to one of two possibilities:

1) No dialogue options. Morrigan has a scripted response with all npcs since she was given her own personality.

2) Dialogue options, where you (the player) chooses what Morrigan says. However, with all the added lines, Morrigan would likely no longer be fully voiced and treated as a silent protagonist. [/quote]
False dichotomy.  Morrigan could still be voiced in all the places she's already voiced in DAO.  The only unvoiced lines would be the player selected lines, which are also not voiced in DAO as it is now.

So there's no change to the voice.  The only change is in which character is the one doing the speaking on behalf of the party when the player selects those dialogue options.
[quote]Neither option is viable to develop. DA:O allows you 10 party members (Warden included). Bioware cannot possibly account for all these differences in crafting a coherent story. They cannot provide full voice-acting for these branches, pushing us back into the days of silent npcs.[/quote]
Why would you think that?  The companions can still be voiced when speaking on their own behalf; they just wouldn't be voiced when speaking on behalf of the party.
[quote]And what if I want Dog to be party leader?[/quote]
If the game were designed like this, then either BioWare would need to limit the dog's ability to start conversations, or just not give us a non-speaking party member.
[quote]Or Shale? These all would produce widely different branches in conversation. Party leader is the 'face' of the party. How npcs react to the face would logically have to change.[/quote]
Not at all.  If the NPCs react to the party as a group, and address the party as a group, then nothing needs to change from spokesperson to spokesperson.

I've given this a lot more thought than you have.

Which is why as a single-player game I would say it is more effective that you control one protagonist, as per typical DnD.[/quote]
And that's one way to do it, but that would deny us detailed tactical combat.  Either we'd have no party at all, or we'd need to let the AI run all the companions.  Do you want to let the AI do that?
[quote]No, I'm not. Because I decide to equip Isabella with a longsword, it does not mean my player character (Hawke) was involved and forced her to equip a longsword. I can justify it to myself by saying that Isabella decided to equip a longsword, not that Hawke made her do so.

But this still presents narrative problems which was even the case in Dragon Age. Sten lost his sword, which apparently was his 'life'. He cannot return to the Qunari without it. You help him recover it yet I (the player, not the character) can still make Sten dual wield if I so choose, even though the narrative indicates that he places a great deal of value on his 2-hander. My gameplay decision to equip him with two swords changes Sten and that's never addressed in the narrative. [/quote]
No it isn't.  And if that's important to you, don't change Sten's weapons.

If, however, you do want to make Sten a dedicated archer (as I did on more than one occasion), Go Ahead! It's your game, after all.
[quote]Let me try another example as well. Let's say part of Alistair's personality (expressed through dialogue) is that he hates longbows. He never tells the Warden why, he just has this undeniable hatred of them. The player decides to equip Alistair with a longbow (which we are to assume is Alistair's decision). Why would he do this and never address it to the Warden? I can't point out "Hey, I thought you said you hated longbows...". Making up an explanation as the player is not enough to justify this completely out of character shift by Alistair.[/quote]
That's not unlike giving Wynne the Blood Mage specialisation, and I've already offered possible justifications for that.

Moreover, you don't need to ask Alistair about longbows in that circumstance, since you're already playing everyone.  You could have that conversation take place off-screen.
[quote]But your 'solution' introduces many other problems which I addressed above from a cost perspective. 

What you are suggesting also introduces another problem. Free 100% role-playing freedom is impossible, even on a tabletop. DMs rarely let players create insane PCs, because it becomes difficult (if not impossible) to limit them; it's hard to create a compelling motivation for an insane man to save a town from a band of evil orcs (the plot hook).[/quote]
I would argue that the game doesn't need to offer a compelling reason for an insane man to save the town from orcs.  The man can simply leave the town (BG-style open travel helps with this a lot, though DAO was adequate).

There is a limitation to what range of possible stories the game accommodates, sure.  But nothing I'm suggesting requires that we change that.  If you want your Warden to leave Ferelden and just not care about the Blight, sorry, but the game simply doesn't model that outcome.  That doesn't mean your character can't do it, but you don't get to see it played out on screen.
[quote]This for example is why DMs limit their players from evil alignments, which often can result in party member-killing and isn't fun for anyone. In order to create a coherent adventure, there must always be limits on the type of character your DM lets you create.[/quote]
This is more important in tabletop games where the enjoyment of other players, and the DM, need to be taken into account.

This isn't a problem in CRPGs.  This is another advantage of not requiring the participation of other people.
[quote]In this way, I would say instead that creating a player character who cannot serve as the party face is an example of this.  This doesn't mean that you can't play an evil character who may not care that he is terrible with the outside world, but very specific types (a protagonist who has social anxiety) are going to be ommitted. It's not a happy solution, but it's necessary for the genre. So for Bioware games, unfortunately that means giving up any characters where it's non-sensical for you to be party face.[/quote]
I played such a character in DAO, and it mostly worked.  But it would have worked better if Leliana or Wynne could have been the one interacting with NPCs (which, as I explained above, wouldn't require extensive additional resources).
[quote]She has a personality, which already is quite a step in that direction.[/quote]
But not necessarily an immutable personality.  This is where you're making your mistake.

A step in one direction is not the entire journey.
[quote] See my earlier example; Isabella tells Hawke she really hates longbows and would die long before she equips them. You (the player) equip Isabella with a bow, Isabella makes no comment. Inconsistency.[/quote]
There's no strict contradiction, there.  Isabela did equip a bow, and Isabela did say she never would.  Either she changed her mind, or she was lying before.
[quote]Having played many different characters in dnd, I can tell you that what weapon/style you employ in combat does often lend itself (in some way) to a character's personality.[/quote]
I agree.  But there's no reason why that personality for any given character can't be different from playthrough to playthrough, or player to player.

If you play DAO with a human mage, and then later play DAO with a dwarf rogue, is Alistair the same person each time?  Does he need to be?  Is there some aspect of the game that breaks if he has a somewhat different personality on each playthrough?

No.  The game works fine.  Mutable personalities work.
[quote]I think Planescape Torment or Kotor serve as much better examples of why this can't be possible; it leads to so many divergent storylines that a coherent narrative can't afford to keep up with them all. The story would have to take into account:[/quote][
KotOR is a terrific example in my favour, because of the jailbreak sequence.  You control a single character, who is not your PC, for an extended period.
[quote]But it's impossible for you to role-play any kind of interaction between your character and his follower.[/quote]
You wouldn't need to.  There would be no point, and it would add nothing to the game for the other participants.  Why bother?
[quote]Then show me. Show me how you are able to do this. The end result is rarely pretty. [/quote]
Seriously?  Have you never read a book?  They have multiple characters all written by the same author all the time.
[quote]There has never been an author able to tell the story from two first person viewpoints interacting at the same time.[/quote]
I never said they needed to be first person viewpoints.  The characters are not me; I view them from a third-person perspective.  They view themselves from a first-person perspective, and to roleplay them I need to know what that perspective tells them, but that's how I view them.

It's just like an author writing a book.

[moilami]

Il Divo wrote...

Neither option is viable to develop. DA:O allows you 10 party members (Warden included). Bioware cannot

WTF 10 different companions! Will be interesting will Isabella manage to keep perma position in my team.

[Il Divo]

moilami wrote...

Well, yeah, of course you would talk to yourself, but it would still be you rolelaying two (or more) different characters, and there is no reason why you could not do that. If you would be spectacular roleplayer you could, for example, roleplay 6 different characters. I believe those who write books do a lot of "roleplaying" with all the characters they have in the book (and even more metagaming) when they write the book.

But it's the presentation that's relevant. A film director who crafts 6 different characters will obtains 6 different actors, each occupying one role. A writer will produce a work where you envision 6 different characters, all speaking their lines. A writer is also not improvising the characters' lines but has a substantial amount of time to develop how they want that interaction to work. Role-playing offers neither. You have one person filling those multiple roles and being expected to produce their lines on the spot. The effect is usually very lacking. Also remember that metagaming is often viewed as an RPG no-no.

[PrinceOfFallout13]

37-38 pages is there even a point to this topic anymore? no offense tc but i think every point has been covered now its just repeating the same thing

Modifié par PrinceOfFallout13, 20 janvier 2011 - 01:27 .

[The Gentle Ben]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The characters are not me; I view them from a third-person perspective. They view themselves from a first-person perspective, and to roleplay them I need to know what that perspective tells them, but that's how I view them.

It's just like an author writing a book.

An interesting analogy. I (and I suspect most players, but I could be mistaken) play Bioware's games like reading a book (we navigate the variable content without creating alternate occurrences outside of the "in-game" possibilities or imagining off-screen interactions (This would never occur to me to do)). Sylvius claims to approach them as if writing a book, but since the story and characters already exist and are implemented within a secondary party's created framework, what Sylvius is really seeking is the ability to engage in "in-game" fan fiction. That's fine certainly but it's understandable why Bioware wouldn't feel particularly obligated to cater to such a desire for imagination unfettered by their designed implementation.

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 20 janvier 2011 - 01:38 .

[Meltemph]

Seriously? Have you never read a book? They have multiple characters all written by the same author all the time.

That isn't a proper comparison. A book is written by a single person(typically) and the story is already written and finished. The writer is the authority on the characters and personality of the people in the book.

A video game, you are playing inside an already written story and you are given leeway to change that story per the developer. If anything, you using a book as a comparison hurts your case, because you can not change the book at all and the characters are who they are.

You are purposing that you have as much authority on the story/lore of the game as the developers. This would be a terrible idea, not saying giving her a bow would be a terrible idea, but if the story pushed her abilitiy with close range combat and then in the game she preferred to use bows, well then that would just be stupid for a developer to allow.

If, however, you do want to make Sten a dedicated archer (as I did on more than one occasion), Go Ahead! It's your game, after all.

And, imo, a story should never encourage a terrible idea that runs contrary to the character.

Modifié par Meltemph, 20 janvier 2011 - 01:49 .

[Meltemph]

this logic to make Isabella "unique" by make her refuse/unable to use bows is just

It adds to her definition of character. It is no more silly then thinking, because I want her to learn bows, therefore she must.

[wolfsite]

PrinceOfFallout13 wrote...

37-38 pages is there even a point to this topic anymore? no offense tc but i think every point has been covered now its just repeating the same thing

I think it's just a battle to have the last word now.