184 réponses à ce sujet

[Harid]

wulfsturm wrote...

Harid wrote...

Point 1:  If you are forced to have children in the course of a relationship, then you would be forced to play a bad parent sim.  I have covered this, many times.
Point 2:  I don't have children, but knowing what is neccessary to be a good parent is not rocket science.  There are not only millions of books on the subject, but I have first hand experiance with my upbringing to go off on.  I may not be a good parent when I have children, but I very well know I'd try.  Thus the "wannabe" caveat.  I am a wannabe.
Point 3: Whatever?  I don't really care if you are mad or not, my bigger issue is how you cannot understand how not being there for your kid, having your kid in potential warzones, and other issues don't make you a bad parent.

Point 1: Your opinion.

Point 2: Many parents would disagree with you.

Point 3. Your opinion.

So tell me, do you have any conjectural evidence that you can bring to back-up your statement? Or are you going to keep on giving your opinion to people that don't really care about it?

This whole thread is opinion.  You can't discount my opinion and then act like your opinion is paramount.  If that's the case, why are you still posting?  You say you aren't mad, and then you post things like this.  What the hell?

Modifié par Harid, 30 janvier 2011 - 04:29 .

[KLUME777]

Beocat wrote...

Harid wrote...
In order to be a good parent, you would not be able to do any of the things that you tend to do in RPG, battling monsters, saving people, etc, because you have to spend time watching your children.  And you can't do a 9-5 kinda thing when you are in dungeons killing Dragons and Darkspawn.  You have to either be a bad parent, or suspend disbelief for the amount of time you are spending away from your family.  And if you are suspending disbelief, then you are in fact, playing a bad parent sim.

Not even going to count the general sidequests that a parent should not be sacrificing their lives for when they have a kid at home.

So....what you are saying is that all parents who serve in the military in order to provide a safe and better future for their children are bad parents when they are deployed?    I respect your right to your opinion, but I must disagree.

You know, you should consider that being present for your child's life does not mean that you care about your child or that you are a good parent.  When you are able to spend time with your kids outside of work and you choose to take care of your children in that time because you care, that makes you a good parent.  Going off to war to protect your Hawke-spawn should make the war more meaningful to you and make any sacrifices you make actually worthwhile.

Yes, this, exactly.

Related and expanding upon that, has anyone ever read book series Star Wars: Legacy of the Force series. Im a big Star Wars nerd, and in the books, Jacen Solo tries to take over the whole galaxy for the sole reason of preventing future wars so that there is peace for his daughter. He would'nt care if not for his daughter.

So, maybe it would be more believable for Hawke to be saving FreeMarches if he has a child on the way. He wants to make the future peaceful and safe for his child.

[wulfsturm]

Harid wrote...

This whole thread is opinion.  You can't discount my opinion and then act like your opinion is paramount.  If that's the case, why are you still posting?

I didn't give opinion, I gave fact: See my Roman times argument.

Here, you may find this article about parenting practices useful: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting_practices

[SirOccam]

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Also you have to remember, Harid, that this isn't real life. It's not a sim. No harm will come to the child unless the plot decrees that it should. This arbitrary declaration that any parent who faces any kind of danger on a regular basis is a bad parent is a bit ridiculous. Children, especially in stories, don't need perfect childhoods. In fact the less perfect they are, the more dramatic potential there is.

Covered this under "suspension of disbelief."  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say it's a game when it comes to the plot, but then it's not a game in the fact that it's not a sim.  I don't tend to read fantasy due to a lack of minority characters.  So your examples are lost to me.

Arguing that it's not a sim is not the same as saying it's not a game. I seriously don't understand the continued use of "sim." Like there'd be a diaper-changing mini-game or something? I don't think anyone's asked for that, and more to the point I doubt anyone would want it.

I don't see why you insist that a child would change the entire structure of the game from RPG to simulation.

It's a story, first and foremost. This weird preoccupation with ensuring the child has an idyllic upbringing is rather beside the point. No character in a story needs to be guaranteed a perfect life.

[RosaAquafire]

I would only want to have kids if they were important to the plot and handled delicately and realistically. Literally the only game you can have kids that I've played where it didn't make me raise my eyebrow is Harvest Moon. I don't want BW to give us kids so they can say LOOK, YOU CAN HAVE KIDS. If they do it, I want them to go all the way and do it in a way where they give us an emotional connection with that kid, because that's what Bioware sells.

[Harid]

wulfsturm wrote...

Harid wrote...

This whole thread is opinion.  You can't discount my opinion and then act like your opinion is paramount.  If that's the case, why are you still posting?

I didn't give opinion, I gave fact: See my Roman times argument.

Here, you may find this article about parenting practices useful: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting_practices

DA is closer to the Dark Ages than "Roman Times".  You are pulling things out of your ass.  And regardless, I already answered this "Fact" when I stated that comparatively, they would be considered bad parents now.  To put it in perspective, is the rich parent that bounces around their kid around boarding schools and maids considered a good parent?  Thanks for agreeing with me, I guess, though.

[KLUME777]

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Also you have to remember, Harid, that this isn't real life. It's not a sim. No harm will come to the child unless the plot decrees that it should. This arbitrary declaration that any parent who faces any kind of danger on a regular basis is a bad parent is a bit ridiculous. Children, especially in stories, don't need perfect childhoods. In fact the less perfect they are, the more dramatic potential there is.

Covered this under "suspension of disbelief."  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say it's a game when it comes to the plot, but then it's not a game in the fact that it's not a sim.  I don't tend to read fantasy due to a lack of minority characters.  So your examples are lost to me.

Arguing that it's not a sim is not the same as saying it's not a game. I seriously don't understand the continued use of "sim." Like there'd be a diaper-changing mini-game or something? I don't think anyone's asked for that, and more to the point I doubt anyone would want it.

I don't see why you insist that a child would change the entire structure of the game from RPG to simulation.

It's a story, first and foremost. This weird preoccupation with ensuring the child has an idyllic upbringing is rather beside the point. No character in a story needs to be guaranteed a perfect life.

@Harid,

Even if the parents dont want a child, its not entirely unrealistic if they have an accident. Before contraception was easily available, for most couples it was normal to have 10 kids.

[Harid]

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Also you have to remember, Harid, that this isn't real life. It's not a sim. No harm will come to the child unless the plot decrees that it should. This arbitrary declaration that any parent who faces any kind of danger on a regular basis is a bad parent is a bit ridiculous. Children, especially in stories, don't need perfect childhoods. In fact the less perfect they are, the more dramatic potential there is.

Covered this under "suspension of disbelief."  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say it's a game when it comes to the plot, but then it's not a game in the fact that it's not a sim.  I don't tend to read fantasy due to a lack of minority characters.  So your examples are lost to me.

Arguing that it's not a sim is not the same as saying it's not a game. I seriously don't understand the continued use of "sim." Like there'd be a diaper-changing mini-game or something? I don't think anyone's asked for that, and more to the point I doubt anyone would want it.

I don't see why you insist that a child would change the entire structure of the game from RPG to simulation.

It's a story, first and foremost. This weird preoccupation with ensuring the child has an idyllic upbringing is rather beside the point. No character in a story needs to be guaranteed a perfect life.

You would have to spend time away from the main plot in order to 'play' with your child.  That's where the 'sim' derision comes from.  If someone else is doing all of the parenting stuff for you, and the kid is just there, then you pretty much have BG:2 all over again.

And yeah, your kid wouldn't be guaranteed a perfect upbringing.  But then, you can't see that because of that, some people would not consider themselves good parents to baby Hawke?

[Harid]

KLUME777 wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Also you have to remember, Harid, that this isn't real life. It's not a sim. No harm will come to the child unless the plot decrees that it should. This arbitrary declaration that any parent who faces any kind of danger on a regular basis is a bad parent is a bit ridiculous. Children, especially in stories, don't need perfect childhoods. In fact the less perfect they are, the more dramatic potential there is.

Covered this under "suspension of disbelief."  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say it's a game when it comes to the plot, but then it's not a game in the fact that it's not a sim.  I don't tend to read fantasy due to a lack of minority characters.  So your examples are lost to me.

Arguing that it's not a sim is not the same as saying it's not a game. I seriously don't understand the continued use of "sim." Like there'd be a diaper-changing mini-game or something? I don't think anyone's asked for that, and more to the point I doubt anyone would want it.

I don't see why you insist that a child would change the entire structure of the game from RPG to simulation.

It's a story, first and foremost. This weird preoccupation with ensuring the child has an idyllic upbringing is rather beside the point. No character in a story needs to be guaranteed a perfect life.

@Harid,

Even if the parents dont want a child, its not entirely unrealistic if they have an accident. Before contraception was easily available, for most couples it was normal to have 10 kids.

Don't see where I argued against this?

I never said having kids in the times was implausible.  I have clearly stated that you can't be hawke, Champion of Kirkwall, and all the things that entails, you can't be a treasure hunter and a dragon slayer, you can't be a helper of merchants and the poor, or mass murderer of all of them, and then be a good parent as well.  It's too much.  And if the choice is to be a bad parent, then I don't want the choice.

A good parent is going to be raising the child it put on Thedas, not killing dragons and killing bandits.  You can't do both, unless you clearly admit that the whole thing is a game.  And if you do that, then yeah, expecting a parenting sim somewhere in there.

Modifié par Harid, 30 janvier 2011 - 04:47 .

[KLUME777]

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Also you have to remember, Harid, that this isn't real life. It's not a sim. No harm will come to the child unless the plot decrees that it should. This arbitrary declaration that any parent who faces any kind of danger on a regular basis is a bad parent is a bit ridiculous. Children, especially in stories, don't need perfect childhoods. In fact the less perfect they are, the more dramatic potential there is.

Covered this under "suspension of disbelief."  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say it's a game when it comes to the plot, but then it's not a game in the fact that it's not a sim.  I don't tend to read fantasy due to a lack of minority characters.  So your examples are lost to me.

Arguing that it's not a sim is not the same as saying it's not a game. I seriously don't understand the continued use of "sim." Like there'd be a diaper-changing mini-game or something? I don't think anyone's asked for that, and more to the point I doubt anyone would want it.

I don't see why you insist that a child would change the entire structure of the game from RPG to simulation.

It's a story, first and foremost. This weird preoccupation with ensuring the child has an idyllic upbringing is rather beside the point. No character in a story needs to be guaranteed a perfect life.

You would have to spend time away from the main plot in order to 'play' with your child.  That's where the 'sim' derision comes from.  If someone else is doing all of the parenting stuff for you, and the kid is just there, then you pretty much have BG:2 all over again.

And yeah, your kid wouldn't be guaranteed a perfect upbringing.  But then, you can't see that because of that, some people would not consider themselves good parents to baby Hawke?

How is it at all simulation? If where going by your logic, then Dragon Age: Origins is a relationship and sex simulation. But thats not true. Having a child would have a huge impact upon the story (assuming BW dont turn it into a gimmick). It would be a plot device, with an emotional connection.

[Nefla]

I'd love to have my character have children, but only if it was well done, was optional/needed certain requirements to be met, and added to the story not a generic tamagochi type thing like in Fable. I can also see why some people wouldn't want to have kids in the game, but I see no reason why that couldn't be part of certain endings instead. Your character has done their andventuring and saved the land and then settled down to have a family. (just no text endings)

[Harid]

KLUME777 wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Also you have to remember, Harid, that this isn't real life. It's not a sim. No harm will come to the child unless the plot decrees that it should. This arbitrary declaration that any parent who faces any kind of danger on a regular basis is a bad parent is a bit ridiculous. Children, especially in stories, don't need perfect childhoods. In fact the less perfect they are, the more dramatic potential there is.

Covered this under "suspension of disbelief."  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say it's a game when it comes to the plot, but then it's not a game in the fact that it's not a sim.  I don't tend to read fantasy due to a lack of minority characters.  So your examples are lost to me.

Arguing that it's not a sim is not the same as saying it's not a game. I seriously don't understand the continued use of "sim." Like there'd be a diaper-changing mini-game or something? I don't think anyone's asked for that, and more to the point I doubt anyone would want it.

I don't see why you insist that a child would change the entire structure of the game from RPG to simulation.

It's a story, first and foremost. This weird preoccupation with ensuring the child has an idyllic upbringing is rather beside the point. No character in a story needs to be guaranteed a perfect life.

You would have to spend time away from the main plot in order to 'play' with your child.  That's where the 'sim' derision comes from.  If someone else is doing all of the parenting stuff for you, and the kid is just there, then you pretty much have BG:2 all over again.

And yeah, your kid wouldn't be guaranteed a perfect upbringing.  But then, you can't see that because of that, some people would not consider themselves good parents to baby Hawke?

How is it at all simulation? If where going by your logic, then Dragon Age: Origins is a relationship and sex simulation. But thats not true. Having a child would have a huge impact upon the story (assuming BW dont turn it into a gimmick). It would be a plot device, with an emotional connection.

It kinda is?  Though I would say awkward, clothing on sex.

All jokes aside, your child would not be that large a part of the plot. While it would be to you, the character, it would not be to the overall arc of the series, unless Hawke's child was set to be the next hero in the series, or something.

Given how you can create your Hawke, I don't really expect Bioware to allow a created character to then become a future NPC.  They haven't done it ever.  Now that I think about it. . .no one has.

Modifié par Harid, 30 janvier 2011 - 05:00 .

[Harid]

Nefla wrote...

I'd love to have my character have children, but only if it was well done, was optional/needed certain requirements to be met, and added to the story not a generic tamagochi type thing like in Fable. I can also see why some people wouldn't want to have kids in the game, but I see no reason why that couldn't be part of certain endings instead. Your character has done their andventuring and saved the land and then settled down to have a family. (just no text endings)

I got no problem with this.

I do have a problem with actual child rearing during 'saving the realm.'  Because you couldn't be a good parent and save the realm.  And I really don't want to play some sort of parenting sim.  I know people are throwing out hypotheticals of it being 'done right', but who the hell has done it right?  I have yet  to play an RPG that has done it right.

Modifié par Harid, 30 janvier 2011 - 04:58 .

[Oblivious]

HyperLimited wrote...

If I wanted kids in a video game, I'd fire up my copy of the Sims or Fable.

Shouldn't the fact you have the Sims and Fable mean you do want kids in a videogame?

[TheButterflyEffect]

My point exactly I think the Warden settling down and having chillens would be a wonderful addition to the story if done right. If not during the game then at the end, that would be great ending.

Modifié par TheButterflyEffect, 30 janvier 2011 - 04:58 .

[SirOccam]

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Also you have to remember, Harid, that this isn't real life. It's not a sim. No harm will come to the child unless the plot decrees that it should. This arbitrary declaration that any parent who faces any kind of danger on a regular basis is a bad parent is a bit ridiculous. Children, especially in stories, don't need perfect childhoods. In fact the less perfect they are, the more dramatic potential there is.

Covered this under "suspension of disbelief."  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say it's a game when it comes to the plot, but then it's not a game in the fact that it's not a sim.  I don't tend to read fantasy due to a lack of minority characters.  So your examples are lost to me.

Arguing that it's not a sim is not the same as saying it's not a game. I seriously don't understand the continued use of "sim." Like there'd be a diaper-changing mini-game or something? I don't think anyone's asked for that, and more to the point I doubt anyone would want it.

I don't see why you insist that a child would change the entire structure of the game from RPG to simulation.

It's a story, first and foremost. This weird preoccupation with ensuring the child has an idyllic upbringing is rather beside the point. No character in a story needs to be guaranteed a perfect life.

You would have to spend time away from the main plot in order to 'play' with your child.  That's where the 'sim' derision comes from.  If someone else is doing all of the parenting stuff for you, and the kid is just there, then you pretty much have BG:2 all over again.

Who says? Can't that happen offscreen? Or combine it with other story elements? Or make it minor enough that it's not a significant departure from the plot?

I bet you spent more time in Origins buying and selling junk loot than you would have to spend attending to a child (and still have that child be a significant character). And yet Origins wasn't a commerce sim.

And yeah, your kid wouldn't be guaranteed a perfect upbringing.  But then, you can't see that because of that, some people would not consider themselves good parents to baby Hawke?

The two are not mutually related.  If some people think that they are bad parents because their kids' upbringing wasn't perfect, then by that logic every single parent is a bad one. You can have good parents raising children in dangerous times, doing the best they can. Especially considering the fact that it's a story and they can have the child turn out as well as they like.

Modifié par SirOccam, 30 janvier 2011 - 05:00 .

[TheButterflyEffect]

Oh and Lady Hawke should be able to become a mother if boy Hawke can become a dad. Yes? YES!!!!

[KLUME777]

Harid wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Also you have to remember, Harid, that this isn't real life. It's not a sim. No harm will come to the child unless the plot decrees that it should. This arbitrary declaration that any parent who faces any kind of danger on a regular basis is a bad parent is a bit ridiculous. Children, especially in stories, don't need perfect childhoods. In fact the less perfect they are, the more dramatic potential there is.

Covered this under "suspension of disbelief."  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say it's a game when it comes to the plot, but then it's not a game in the fact that it's not a sim.  I don't tend to read fantasy due to a lack of minority characters.  So your examples are lost to me.

Arguing that it's not a sim is not the same as saying it's not a game. I seriously don't understand the continued use of "sim." Like there'd be a diaper-changing mini-game or something? I don't think anyone's asked for that, and more to the point I doubt anyone would want it.

I don't see why you insist that a child would change the entire structure of the game from RPG to simulation.

It's a story, first and foremost. This weird preoccupation with ensuring the child has an idyllic upbringing is rather beside the point. No character in a story needs to be guaranteed a perfect life.

You would have to spend time away from the main plot in order to 'play' with your child.  That's where the 'sim' derision comes from.  If someone else is doing all of the parenting stuff for you, and the kid is just there, then you pretty much have BG:2 all over again.

And yeah, your kid wouldn't be guaranteed a perfect upbringing.  But then, you can't see that because of that, some people would not consider themselves good parents to baby Hawke?

How is it at all simulation? If where going by your logic, then Dragon Age: Origins is a relationship and sex simulation. But thats not true. Having a child would have a huge impact upon the story (assuming BW dont turn it into a gimmick). It would be a plot device, with an emotional connection.

It kinda is?  Though I would say awkward, clothing on sex.

All jokes aside, your child would not be that large a part of the plot. While it would be to you, the character, it would not be to the overall arc of the series, unless Hawke's child was set to be the next hero in the series, or something.

It would have an emotional impact on the player (if done right), and on the game. Plus it would have an impact on Hawke and it could be a main reason why hes trying to save the world. A plot device.

And DAO is not "Kinda" a relationship and sex sim, those are done within the story to bring emotional context to the player, much the same reason movies and books have romances. Simply because its in a game and is interactive does not make the romance any less of a part of the narrative.

[Auroras]

I agree with most everyone on this thread -- it would be fun if it was done correctly.

[KLUME777]

Harid wrote...

Nefla wrote...

I'd love to have my character have children, but only if it was well done, was optional/needed certain requirements to be met, and added to the story not a generic tamagochi type thing like in Fable. I can also see why some people wouldn't want to have kids in the game, but I see no reason why that couldn't be part of certain endings instead. Your character has done their andventuring and saved the land and then settled down to have a family. (just no text endings)

I got no problem with this.

I do have a problem with actual child rearing during 'saving the realm.'  Because you couldn't be a good parent and save the realm.  And I really don't want to play some sort of parenting sim.  I know people are throwing out hypotheticals of it being 'done right', but who the hell has done it right?  I have yet  to play an RPG that has done it right.

Red Dead redemption has you doing menial tasks with your son at the end of the game, but aside from that, DA2 can brake the barrier and bring something new to the table.

[Harid]

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Also you have to remember, Harid, that this isn't real life. It's not a sim. No harm will come to the child unless the plot decrees that it should. This arbitrary declaration that any parent who faces any kind of danger on a regular basis is a bad parent is a bit ridiculous. Children, especially in stories, don't need perfect childhoods. In fact the less perfect they are, the more dramatic potential there is.

Covered this under "suspension of disbelief."  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say it's a game when it comes to the plot, but then it's not a game in the fact that it's not a sim.  I don't tend to read fantasy due to a lack of minority characters.  So your examples are lost to me.

Arguing that it's not a sim is not the same as saying it's not a game. I seriously don't understand the continued use of "sim." Like there'd be a diaper-changing mini-game or something? I don't think anyone's asked for that, and more to the point I doubt anyone would want it.

I don't see why you insist that a child would change the entire structure of the game from RPG to simulation.

It's a story, first and foremost. This weird preoccupation with ensuring the child has an idyllic upbringing is rather beside the point. No character in a story needs to be guaranteed a perfect life.

You would have to spend time away from the main plot in order to 'play' with your child.  That's where the 'sim' derision comes from.  If someone else is doing all of the parenting stuff for you, and the kid is just there, then you pretty much have BG:2 all over again.

Who says? Can't that happen offscreen? Or combine it with other story elements? Or make it minor enough that it's not a significant departure from the plot?

I bet you spent more time in Origins buying and selling junk loot than you would have to spend attending to a child (and still have that child be a significant character). And yet Origins wasn't a commerce sim.

And yeah, your kid wouldn't be guaranteed a perfect upbringing.  But then, you can't see that because of that, some people would not consider themselves good parents to baby Hawke?

The two are not related.  If some people think that they are bad parents because their kids' upbringing wasn't perfect, then by that logic every single parent is a bad one. You can have good parents raising children in dangerous times, doing the best they can. Especially considering the fact that it's a story and they can have the child turn out as well as they like.

To your first point "Then it's BG2 all over again."
To your second point, yeah, selling loot is what you do in RPGs.

To your third point.  Ok, it's a game.  Embrace your bad parenting sim.

[Harid]

KLUME777 wrote...

Harid wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Also you have to remember, Harid, that this isn't real life. It's not a sim. No harm will come to the child unless the plot decrees that it should. This arbitrary declaration that any parent who faces any kind of danger on a regular basis is a bad parent is a bit ridiculous. Children, especially in stories, don't need perfect childhoods. In fact the less perfect they are, the more dramatic potential there is.

Covered this under "suspension of disbelief."  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say it's a game when it comes to the plot, but then it's not a game in the fact that it's not a sim.  I don't tend to read fantasy due to a lack of minority characters.  So your examples are lost to me.

Arguing that it's not a sim is not the same as saying it's not a game. I seriously don't understand the continued use of "sim." Like there'd be a diaper-changing mini-game or something? I don't think anyone's asked for that, and more to the point I doubt anyone would want it.

I don't see why you insist that a child would change the entire structure of the game from RPG to simulation.

It's a story, first and foremost. This weird preoccupation with ensuring the child has an idyllic upbringing is rather beside the point. No character in a story needs to be guaranteed a perfect life.

You would have to spend time away from the main plot in order to 'play' with your child.  That's where the 'sim' derision comes from.  If someone else is doing all of the parenting stuff for you, and the kid is just there, then you pretty much have BG:2 all over again.

And yeah, your kid wouldn't be guaranteed a perfect upbringing.  But then, you can't see that because of that, some people would not consider themselves good parents to baby Hawke?

How is it at all simulation? If where going by your logic, then Dragon Age: Origins is a relationship and sex simulation. But thats not true. Having a child would have a huge impact upon the story (assuming BW dont turn it into a gimmick). It would be a plot device, with an emotional connection.

It kinda is?  Though I would say awkward, clothing on sex.

All jokes aside, your child would not be that large a part of the plot. While it would be to you, the character, it would not be to the overall arc of the series, unless Hawke's child was set to be the next hero in the series, or something.

It would have an emotional impact on the player (if done right), and on the game. Plus it would have an impact on Hawke and it could be a main reason why hes trying to save the world. A plot device.

And DAO is not "Kinda" a relationship and sex sim, those are done within the story to bring emotional context to the player, much the same reason movies and books have romances. Simply because its in a game and is interactive does not make the romance any less of a part of the narrative.

What part of your parenting and child rearing has **** to do with the Templar vs. Mages battle?  Or the Qunari incursion?  Or becoming the Champion of Kirkwall?  Kirkwall names parents of the year their champions?  Like I stated, it has nothing to do with the narrative and comes down to simple wants in a game.  And I don't want to play a parenting sim.

But you are talking to someone who dialogue aside, does not think Bioware does romances right anyway, so we might have to agree to disagree with your choice of examples.

Modifié par Harid, 30 janvier 2011 - 05:06 .

[Harid]

KLUME777 wrote...

Harid wrote...

Nefla wrote...

I'd love to have my character have children, but only if it was well done, was optional/needed certain requirements to be met, and added to the story not a generic tamagochi type thing like in Fable. I can also see why some people wouldn't want to have kids in the game, but I see no reason why that couldn't be part of certain endings instead. Your character has done their andventuring and saved the land and then settled down to have a family. (just no text endings)

I got no problem with this.

I do have a problem with actual child rearing during 'saving the realm.'  Because you couldn't be a good parent and save the realm.  And I really don't want to play some sort of parenting sim.  I know people are throwing out hypotheticals of it being 'done right', but who the hell has done it right?  I have yet  to play an RPG that has done it right.

Red Dead redemption has you doing menial tasks with your son at the end of the game, but aside from that, DA2 can brake the barrier and bring something new to the table.

You would consider that doing it right?  I do not.

[Oblivious]

Rake21 wrote...

I will say that the best moment in Fable II was the mission where your kid, wanting to be like their parent, gooes off on an "adventure" and gets trapped in a Hobbe infested cave.

You end up bringing the wrath of god down on the dimminuative little monsters to save your kid. Really a great moment.

Point being, kids can work in RPGs if done right

What I love is that despite everyone complaining nonestop about Fable 2's take on marriage and children, hating the system, and calling the game a disgrace (looking at you Zero Punctuation lol) I have not heard of anyone who did not go all sword-crazy when they heard their kid got kidnapped. The fact that people say they felt so much anger at hearing that a digital kid they see for 2 minutes (if even that) gets kidnapped but monsters really gives me hope that someday children will be implemented well into videogames and videogames will, at last, really form an emotional attachment to people:happy:. Well that's before the ESRB and retards like Jack Thompson ruin it for everyone:whistle: