184 réponses à ce sujet

[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.

If you dont want to play a parenting sim, then don't. I doubt theyd force you to spend time with your child. If your child or LI asks you to help your kid, say you don't have time or whatever option there is to get out of it.

[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.

If you dont want to play a parenting sim, then don't. I doubt theyd force you to spend time with your child. If your child or LI asks you to help your kid, say you don't have time or whatever option there is to get out of it.

Then I am playing a bad parent.

I swear you guys don't read points in these things.  Dunno why I bother.

[Hathur]

If Hawke were 40 years old or so, and the "kid" was a 20 year old daughter or son who joined them as a team member, that'd be very cool.



If it's a 30 year old Hawke with a 2 year old kid in the crook of his arm while slaying demons... that'd be lame.

[SirOccam]

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

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.

Point 1: I haven't played BG2 yet (just started BG actually), but what I'm getting is that it was pretty insubstantial in that regard, is that accurate? You had a kid but never had to actually attend to him or her at any point? And yet you maintain that the only way to avoid it is to turn the game into a full-on parenting sim, in which you must attend to your child's every need? You honestly see no middle ground there?

Point 2: You know what else you do in RPGs? Interact with other characters. Form and maintain relationships. Why aren't you complaining that DAO was a business sim for including buying and selling?

Point 3: *sigh*

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

So If I have your line of reasoning correct Harid, then any parent who spends less that 100% of their time raising a child is a bad parent?

[Harid]

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

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.

Point 1: I haven't played BG2 yet (just started BG actually), but what I'm getting is that it was pretty insubstantial in that regard, is that accurate? You had a kid but never had to actually attend to him or her at any point? And yet you maintain that the only way to avoid it is to turn the game into a full-on parenting sim, in which you must attend to your child's every need? You honestly see no middle ground there?

Point 2: You know what else you do in RPGs? Interact with other characters. Form and maintain relationships. Why aren't you complaining that DAO was a business sim for including buying and selling?

Point 3: *sigh*

Point 1:  In order to not be a half assed parent, you would have to turn your child rearing into some sort of parenting sim.  There is no middle ground unless you are fine with being a mediocre to bad parent, or you wish to rationalize, or have the game tell you you are doing a stand up job.
Point 2:  Because selling loot is part of playing an RPG.  You don't need romances or relationships in a RPG for it to be one.  Demon's Souls lacks both and is one of the best RPG's this gen.

Modifié par Harid, 30 janvier 2011 - 05:18 .

[KLUME777]

Harid wrote...

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.

Have you played Red Dead!! The only thing i think they did do right in that game was the story, especially the end (i hated the gameplay aspects).

**SPOILERS FOR RED DEAD REDEMPTION**

In Red Dead, the main plot of the game is that the Gov't has taken your family hostage and forced you to track down and kill your old, extremely dangerous gang. At the climax end of the game (or at least you think it is), when you kill the leader of your gang, your old friend (its also emotional) you think the credits are gonna roll.

But no, the Gov't releases you and you ride on home to your estate and see your wife and son for the first time. You spend time and do things with your son, like taking him hunting etc. Then at the very end (or so you think) the Gov't goes to your house to kill you all to tie up loose ends. You have a shootout, and your son escapes, but your character (John Marston) and his wife die. This part is extremely emotional. Finnaly, you think the game is about to end, but no, it jumps ahead 10 years, and your character is your son. The last and final mission is to track down and kill the Gov't official that orchestrated the whole thing and killed your father. It was done very well and very emotionally. Definitely something new that no other videogame has ever done.

**END SPOILERS**

[Harid]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

So If I have your line of reasoning correct Harid, then any parent who spends less that 100% of their time raising a child is a bad parent?

Never stated this, but nice strawman argument.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Harid wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

So If I have your line of reasoning correct Harid, then any parent who spends less that 100% of their time raising a child is a bad parent?

Never stated this, but nice strawman argument.

I simply infered what seemed to be your argument from reading your posts.

[Harid]

KLUME777 wrote...

Harid wrote...

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.

Have you played Red Dead!! The only thing i think they did do right in that game was the story, especially the end (i hated the gameplay aspects).

**SPOILERS FOR RED DEAD REDEMPTION**

In Red Dead, the main plot of the game is that the Gov't has taken your family hostage and forced you to track down and kill your old, extremely dangerous gang. At the climax end of the game (or at least you think it is), when you kill the leader of your gang, your old friend (its also emotional) you think the credits are gonna roll.

But no, the Gov't releases you and you ride on home to your estate and see your wife and son for the first time. You spend time and do things with your son, like taking him hunting etc. Then at the very end (or so you think) the Gov't goes to your house to kill you all to tie up loose ends. You have a shootout, and your son escapes, but your character (John Marston) and his wife die. This part is extremely emotional. Finnaly, you think the game is about to end, but no, it jumps ahead 10 years, and your character is your son. The last and final mission is to track down and kill the Gov't official that orchestrated the whole thing and killed your father. It was done very well and very emotionally. Definitely something new that no other videogame has ever done.

**END SPOILERS**

Sigh,  I never stated that Red Dead had a bad story.  I stated it did not do child rearing right.  Two wholly separate points.  I think Red Dead had a better story than GTA4, yet GTA4 gets "Oscar Worthy" buzz from "game journalists."

[SirOccam]

Harid wrote...

Point 1:  In order to not be a half assed parent, you would have to turn your child rearing into some sort of parenting sim.  There is no middle ground unless you are fine with being a mediocre to bad parent.

You're just continuing with the arbitrary declarations. Either you have an incredibly inclusive view of what a sim is, or you're just being difficult.

Ignore your child = BG2
So much as look in your child's direction = parenting sim

Got it.

Point 2:  Because selling loot is part of playing an RPG.  You don't need romances or relationships in a RPG for it to be one.  Demon's Souls lacks both and is one of the best RPG's this gen.

And yet the inclusion of the latter two doesn't turn a game into a dating sim, does it?

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Whose definition of child rearing are you going on?

Because there are a very large number of methods of child rearing.

[KLUME777]

Harid wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

Harid wrote...

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.

Have you played Red Dead!! The only thing i think they did do right in that game was the story, especially the end (i hated the gameplay aspects).

**SPOILERS FOR RED DEAD REDEMPTION**

In Red Dead, the main plot of the game is that the Gov't has taken your family hostage and forced you to track down and kill your old, extremely dangerous gang. At the climax end of the game (or at least you think it is), when you kill the leader of your gang, your old friend (its also emotional) you think the credits are gonna roll.

But no, the Gov't releases you and you ride on home to your estate and see your wife and son for the first time. You spend time and do things with your son, like taking him hunting etc. Then at the very end (or so you think) the Gov't goes to your house to kill you all to tie up loose ends. You have a shootout, and your son escapes, but your character (John Marston) and his wife die. This part is extremely emotional. Finnaly, you think the game is about to end, but no, it jumps ahead 10 years, and your character is your son. The last and final mission is to track down and kill the Gov't official that orchestrated the whole thing and killed your father. It was done very well and very emotionally. Definitely something new that no other videogame has ever done.

**END SPOILERS**

Sigh,  I never stated that Red Dead had a bad story.  I stated it did not do child rearing right.  Two wholly separate points.  I think Red Dead had a better story than GTA4, yet GTA4 gets "Oscar Worthy" buzz from "game journalists."

You brain dead? Red Dead Remption won the game of the year award, as well as almost all the other game of the year awards.

And you didn't answer my question. Have you played Read Dead Redemption? Because your argument is invalid if you havn't.

Modifié par KLUME777, 30 janvier 2011 - 05:28 .

[KLUME777]

Double post

Modifié par KLUME777, 30 janvier 2011 - 05:28 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Honestly I'm not a fan of child rearing in games, however I will concede that if there is any game maker who can pull it off it's Bioware.

[Harid]

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

Point 1:  In order to not be a half assed parent, you would have to turn your child rearing into some sort of parenting sim.  There is no middle ground unless you are fine with being a mediocre to bad parent.

You're just continuing with the arbitrary declarations. Either you have an incredibly inclusive view of what a sim is, or you're just being difficult.

Ignore your child = BG2
So much as look in your child's direction = parenting sim

Got it.

Point 2:  Because selling loot is part of playing an RPG.  You don't need romances or relationships in a RPG for it to be one.  Demon's Souls lacks both and is one of the best RPG's this gen.

And yet the inclusion of the latter two doesn't turn a game into a dating sim, does it?

Point 1: Reductio ad Absurdum is always fun, but no.  You would have to get involved with child rearing at some point.  Teaching him how to use a sword, playing with him as a baby, something.  At that point, it does become a bit of a sim, because they would have to have repercussions from not spending time with your kid sometime along the line, otherwise, they might as well leave it like BG2.  If there are no repercussions from not raising your kid properly, and your kid turns out the same whether you ignore him all the time, or you spend time with him, then what's the point? the child rearers will complain.  That's why I say there can't be a middle ground.  The only middle ground would be optional content, and if they made it optional your kid could not have any major contribution to the game's lore, or it's not really optional at that point, it's "optional".  A lot of people will feel compelled to play the sim to get the reward you get for doing it properly during the game's epilogue, or DA:3, thus, being forced to play a child rearing sim.  I suppose I should say "forced" in order for you to get my point.

As for your second point, see Persona 3 and 4, people call those games dating sim RPG's all the time, because of the large portion of the plot dating takes up in it.  So to answer your question. . .it can?

[Harid]

KLUME777 wrote...

Harid wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

Harid wrote...

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.

Have you played Red Dead!! The only thing i think they did do right in that game was the story, especially the end (i hated the gameplay aspects).

**SPOILERS FOR RED DEAD REDEMPTION**

In Red Dead, the main plot of the game is that the Gov't has taken your family hostage and forced you to track down and kill your old, extremely dangerous gang. At the climax end of the game (or at least you think it is), when you kill the leader of your gang, your old friend (its also emotional) you think the credits are gonna roll.

But no, the Gov't releases you and you ride on home to your estate and see your wife and son for the first time. You spend time and do things with your son, like taking him hunting etc. Then at the very end (or so you think) the Gov't goes to your house to kill you all to tie up loose ends. You have a shootout, and your son escapes, but your character (John Marston) and his wife die. This part is extremely emotional. Finnaly, you think the game is about to end, but no, it jumps ahead 10 years, and your character is your son. The last and final mission is to track down and kill the Gov't official that orchestrated the whole thing and killed your father. It was done very well and very emotionally. Definitely something new that no other videogame has ever done.

**END SPOILERS**

Sigh,  I never stated that Red Dead had a bad story.  I stated it did not do child rearing right.  Two wholly separate points.  I think Red Dead had a better story than GTA4, yet GTA4 gets "Oscar Worthy" buzz from "game journalists."

You brain dead? Red Dead Remption won the game of the year award, as well as almost all the other game of the year awards.

And you didn't answer my question. Have you played Read Dead Redemption? Because your argument is invalid if you havn't.

You seem to have some sort of issue reading my posts.  I am done with you.

[KLUME777]

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

Point 1:  In order to not be a half assed parent, you would have to turn your child rearing into some sort of parenting sim.  There is no middle ground unless you are fine with being a mediocre to bad parent.

You're just continuing with the arbitrary declarations. Either you have an incredibly inclusive view of what a sim is, or you're just being difficult.

Ignore your child = BG2
So much as look in your child's direction = parenting sim

Got it.

Point 2:  Because selling loot is part of playing an RPG.  You don't need romances or relationships in a RPG for it to be one.  Demon's Souls lacks both and is one of the best RPG's this gen.

And yet the inclusion of the latter two doesn't turn a game into a dating sim, does it?

Point 1: Reductio ad Absurdum is always fun, but no.  You would have to get involved with child rearing at some point.  Teaching him how to use a sword, playing with him as a baby, something.  At that point, it does become a bit of a sim, because they would have to have repercussions from not spending time with your kid sometime along the line, otherwise, they might as well leave it like BG2.  If there are no repercussions from not raising your kid properly, and your kid turns out the same whether you ignore him all the time, or you spend time with him, then what's the point? the child rearers will complain.  That's why I say there can't be a middle ground.  The only middle ground would be optional content, and if they made it optional your kid could not have any major contribution to the game's lore, or it's not really optional at that point, it's "optional".  A lot of people will feel compelled to play the sim to get the reward you get for doing it properly during the game's epilogue, or DA:3, thus, being forced to play a child rearing sim.  I suppose I should say "forced" in order for you to get my point.

As for your second point, see Persona 3 and 4, people call those games dating sim RPG's all the time, because of the large portion of the plot dating takes up in it.  So to answer your question. . .it can?

Those people are stupid, because its a part of the story. If a movie has the character teaching their child how to wield a sword, is it a child rearing sim? No, its to characterize the characters in the movie and to put some emotion into it. Why would this be different in a Bioware game? The only difference is that you can choose what to say. It could be done in a cinematic conversation thing (Stanley Woo said ther is like triple the amount of cinematic convos in DA2 than there were in DAO).

[KLUME777]

Harid wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

Harid wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

Harid wrote...

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.

Have you played Red Dead!! The only thing i think they did do right in that game was the story, especially the end (i hated the gameplay aspects).

**SPOILERS FOR RED DEAD REDEMPTION**

In Red Dead, the main plot of the game is that the Gov't has taken your family hostage and forced you to track down and kill your old, extremely dangerous gang. At the climax end of the game (or at least you think it is), when you kill the leader of your gang, your old friend (its also emotional) you think the credits are gonna roll.

But no, the Gov't releases you and you ride on home to your estate and see your wife and son for the first time. You spend time and do things with your son, like taking him hunting etc. Then at the very end (or so you think) the Gov't goes to your house to kill you all to tie up loose ends. You have a shootout, and your son escapes, but your character (John Marston) and his wife die. This part is extremely emotional. Finnaly, you think the game is about to end, but no, it jumps ahead 10 years, and your character is your son. The last and final mission is to track down and kill the Gov't official that orchestrated the whole thing and killed your father. It was done very well and very emotionally. Definitely something new that no other videogame has ever done.

**END SPOILERS**

Sigh,  I never stated that Red Dead had a bad story.  I stated it did not do child rearing right.  Two wholly separate points.  I think Red Dead had a better story than GTA4, yet GTA4 gets "Oscar Worthy" buzz from "game journalists."

You brain dead? Red Dead Remption won the game of the year award, as well as almost all the other game of the year awards.

And you didn't answer my question. Have you played Read Dead Redemption? Because your argument is invalid if you havn't.

You seem to have some sort of issue reading my posts.  I am done with you.

No, you say Red Dead does Child Rearing wrong. Have you played the game, though? Because if you havn't, how can you say that if you've never played it. You are ignoring that question.

[Harid]

KLUME777 wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

Point 1:  In order to not be a half assed parent, you would have to turn your child rearing into some sort of parenting sim.  There is no middle ground unless you are fine with being a mediocre to bad parent.

You're just continuing with the arbitrary declarations. Either you have an incredibly inclusive view of what a sim is, or you're just being difficult.

Ignore your child = BG2
So much as look in your child's direction = parenting sim

Got it.

Point 2:  Because selling loot is part of playing an RPG.  You don't need romances or relationships in a RPG for it to be one.  Demon's Souls lacks both and is one of the best RPG's this gen.

And yet the inclusion of the latter two doesn't turn a game into a dating sim, does it?

Point 1: Reductio ad Absurdum is always fun, but no.  You would have to get involved with child rearing at some point.  Teaching him how to use a sword, playing with him as a baby, something.  At that point, it does become a bit of a sim, because they would have to have repercussions from not spending time with your kid sometime along the line, otherwise, they might as well leave it like BG2.  If there are no repercussions from not raising your kid properly, and your kid turns out the same whether you ignore him all the time, or you spend time with him, then what's the point? the child rearers will complain.  That's why I say there can't be a middle ground.  The only middle ground would be optional content, and if they made it optional your kid could not have any major contribution to the game's lore, or it's not really optional at that point, it's "optional".  A lot of people will feel compelled to play the sim to get the reward you get for doing it properly during the game's epilogue, or DA:3, thus, being forced to play a child rearing sim.  I suppose I should say "forced" in order for you to get my point.

As for your second point, see Persona 3 and 4, people call those games dating sim RPG's all the time, because of the large portion of the plot dating takes up in it.  So to answer your question. . .it can?

Those people are stupid, because its a part of the story. If a movie has the character teaching their child how to wield a sword, is it a child rearing sim? No, its to characterize the characters in the movie and to put some emotion into it. Why would this be different in a Bioware game? The only difference is that you can choose what to say. It could be done in a cinematic conversation thing (Stanley Woo said ther is like triple the amount of cinematic convos in DA2 than there were in DAO).

You don't 'play' a movie.  It's not the same thing.

The fact that you make choices in your child rearing would push it into sim territory.  Unless the choices are pointless.  And if they are pointless, then what's the point in child rearing.  It would be pretty much BG2 all over again.

Clearly I played RDR.  I don't feel it did child rearing right, sorry.  It was like playing with a puppy.  Most players didn't even like  Jack.

Modifié par Harid, 30 janvier 2011 - 05:42 .

[Thiefy]

actually this was brought up before and I believe it was Mr Gaider who said it wasn't happening in DA2



at least I think it was him because I distinctly remember a comment about babies being a throw item in an npc's backpack and how it was kind of inappropriate to put players in a position to be a bad parent

[SirOccam]

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

Point 1:  In order to not be a half assed parent, you would have to turn your child rearing into some sort of parenting sim.  There is no middle ground unless you are fine with being a mediocre to bad parent.

You're just continuing with the arbitrary declarations. Either you have an incredibly inclusive view of what a sim is, or you're just being difficult.

Ignore your child = BG2
So much as look in your child's direction = parenting sim

Got it.

Point 2:  Because selling loot is part of playing an RPG.  You don't need romances or relationships in a RPG for it to be one.  Demon's Souls lacks both and is one of the best RPG's this gen.

And yet the inclusion of the latter two doesn't turn a game into a dating sim, does it?

Point 1: Reductio ad Absurdum is always fun, but no.  You would have to get involved with child rearing at some point.  Teaching him how to use a sword, playing with him as a baby, something.  At that point, it does become a bit of a sim, because they would have to have repercussions from not spending time with your kid sometime along the line, otherwise, they might as well leave it like BG2.  If there are no repercussions from not raising your kid properly, and your kid turns out the same whether you ignore him all the time, or you spend time with him, then what's the point? the child rearers will complain.

But this stuff could happen off-screen. You don't eat or drink in Origins, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There could be other ways for the player to indicate what kind of parent their character is without actually simulating the child-rearing. It could easily be handled in dialogue, for example.

Maybe whenever you visit your home, which I'm guessing is the Amell estates, maybe you can "speak" to your child, just like you can probably speak to Leandra or your sibling or whoever else lives there. Maybe that means playing with him/her, sure, at first. Maybe after they've grown a little the dialogue might include a little motherly or fatherly advice. Maybe just giving them a toy. Would you call that a sim, even though it would take up no more time than interacting with any other character?

It's not like there'd be a hunger meter for the baby and you have to equip a bottle and press X to burp it or something. With the above system (and it's just an example, mind you; I'm sure BW could do an infinitely better job of designing one), there is plenty of opportunity to be as good or bad a parent as you like, without having to spend an inordinate amount of time performing trivial tasks. The child would not be abandoned (in fact it'd be surrounded by a presumably loving family 24/7), but neither would you be holding him while wading into a horde of darkspawn, nor making the player change his diapers.

That's why I say there can't be a middle ground.  The only middle ground would be optional content, and if they made it optional your kid could not have any major contribution to the game's lore, or it's not really optional at that point, it's "optional".  A lot of people will feel compelled to play the sim to get the reward you get for doing it properly during the game's epilogue, or DA:3, thus, being forced to play a child rearing sim.  I suppose I should say "forced" in order for you to get my point.

The verdict is still out on this one. We'll have to see how they handle the OGB from Origins before we can really make any definitive predictions. But I don't see why people would necessarily feel pressured to make sure they always had a child. I'm sure many would like to explore those possibilities, which is what multiple playthroughs are for. I was curious to see what the Ultimate Sacrifice was like, but that didn't mean I felt like I needed to do that. It's just another optional turn your character's path can take.

As for your second point, see Persona 3 and 4, people call those games dating sim RPG's all the time, because of the large portion of the plot dating takes up in it.  So to answer your question. . .it can?

Right, but it doesn't do so necessarily. It's for that same reason that I don't see why the possibility of having a child would necessarily turn a game into a parenting sim.

[KLUME777]

Harid wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

Point 1:  In order to not be a half assed parent, you would have to turn your child rearing into some sort of parenting sim.  There is no middle ground unless you are fine with being a mediocre to bad parent.

You're just continuing with the arbitrary declarations. Either you have an incredibly inclusive view of what a sim is, or you're just being difficult.

Ignore your child = BG2
So much as look in your child's direction = parenting sim

Got it.

Point 2:  Because selling loot is part of playing an RPG.  You don't need romances or relationships in a RPG for it to be one.  Demon's Souls lacks both and is one of the best RPG's this gen.

And yet the inclusion of the latter two doesn't turn a game into a dating sim, does it?

Point 1: Reductio ad Absurdum is always fun, but no.  You would have to get involved with child rearing at some point.  Teaching him how to use a sword, playing with him as a baby, something.  At that point, it does become a bit of a sim, because they would have to have repercussions from not spending time with your kid sometime along the line, otherwise, they might as well leave it like BG2.  If there are no repercussions from not raising your kid properly, and your kid turns out the same whether you ignore him all the time, or you spend time with him, then what's the point? the child rearers will complain.  That's why I say there can't be a middle ground.  The only middle ground would be optional content, and if they made it optional your kid could not have any major contribution to the game's lore, or it's not really optional at that point, it's "optional".  A lot of people will feel compelled to play the sim to get the reward you get for doing it properly during the game's epilogue, or DA:3, thus, being forced to play a child rearing sim.  I suppose I should say "forced" in order for you to get my point.

As for your second point, see Persona 3 and 4, people call those games dating sim RPG's all the time, because of the large portion of the plot dating takes up in it.  So to answer your question. . .it can?

Those people are stupid, because its a part of the story. If a movie has the character teaching their child how to wield a sword, is it a child rearing sim? No, its to characterize the characters in the movie and to put some emotion into it. Why would this be different in a Bioware game? The only difference is that you can choose what to say. It could be done in a cinematic conversation thing (Stanley Woo said ther is like triple the amount of cinematic convos in DA2 than there were in DAO).

You don't 'play' a movie.  It's not the same thing.

The fact that you make choices in your child rearing would push it into sim territory.  Unless the choices are pointless.  And if they are pointless, then what's the point in child rearing.  It would be pretty much BG2 all over again.

Clearly I played RDR.  I don't feel it did child rearing right, sorry.

Bioware games are about making story and plot choices, not about selling items to shops and grinding. And the choices are not always about saving the world for eg. the Kaiden and Ashley choice. That choice has nothing to do with saving the world, it is purely a personal one for Shepherd and to emotionally connect with the player. A child in the game can be seen as another potential big emotional choice, and to give emotional impact to the player.

A choice like this i would consider to be pretty powerful:

Hawke can see an invading Qunari army in the distance heading towards a city. He Has enough time to run ahead and warn the city of the impending surpise attack and likely save the city.
However, a group of Qunari just attacked and kidnapped his daughter, heading in the oppossite direction of the city. Hawke is able to pursue them and likely rescue his daughter from harm, saving her. But he wont have enough time to save the city from its certain doom.

Which does he choose, save his daughter and lose the city, or save the city and lose his daughter. One life for many, or many lives for one.

That would be a tough, personal decision. Having that would add a whole lot more to the game, more than if a movie did it, because in a movie, the choice isn't yours, as you have no burden, your only watching. In a game, the choice is yours, and it adds a whole lot more, you have to way the pros and cons. Thats why "interactive movies" are better, and thats what Bioware games are about. Choices and decisions within the story. A child would fit perfectly into that.

[Harid]

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Harid wrote...

Point 1:  In order to not be a half assed parent, you would have to turn your child rearing into some sort of parenting sim.  There is no middle ground unless you are fine with being a mediocre to bad parent.

You're just continuing with the arbitrary declarations. Either you have an incredibly inclusive view of what a sim is, or you're just being difficult.

Ignore your child = BG2
So much as look in your child's direction = parenting sim

Got it.

Point 2:  Because selling loot is part of playing an RPG.  You don't need romances or relationships in a RPG for it to be one.  Demon's Souls lacks both and is one of the best RPG's this gen.

And yet the inclusion of the latter two doesn't turn a game into a dating sim, does it?

Point 1: Reductio ad Absurdum is always fun, but no.  You would have to get involved with child rearing at some point.  Teaching him how to use a sword, playing with him as a baby, something.  At that point, it does become a bit of a sim, because they would have to have repercussions from not spending time with your kid sometime along the line, otherwise, they might as well leave it like BG2.  If there are no repercussions from not raising your kid properly, and your kid turns out the same whether you ignore him all the time, or you spend time with him, then what's the point? the child rearers will complain.

But this stuff could happen off-screen. You don't eat or drink in Origins, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There could be other ways for the player to indicate what kind of parent their character is without actually simulating the child-rearing. It could easily be handled in dialogue, for example.

Maybe whenever you visit your home, which I'm guessing is the Amell estates, maybe you can "speak" to your child, just like you can probably speak to Leandra or your sibling or whoever else lives there. Maybe that means playing with him/her, sure, at first. Maybe after they've grown a little the dialogue might include a little motherly or fatherly advice. Maybe just giving them a toy. Would you call that a sim, even though it would take up no more time than interacting with any other character?

It's not like there'd be a hunger meter for the baby and you have to equip a bottle and press X to burp it or something. With the above system (and it's just an example, mind you; I'm sure BW could do an infinitely better job of designing one), there is plenty of opportunity to be as good or bad a parent as you like, without having to spend an inordinate amount of time performing trivial tasks. The child would not be abandoned (in fact it'd be surrounded by a presumably loving family 24/7), but neither would you be holding him while wading into a horde of darkspawn, nor making the player change his diapers.

*Pats kid on head*

Hawke: "Nice to see you again pup.  I brought you a snowglobe! 
Lil' Hawke : *smiles warmly*
Hawke: Now I have to visit Seheron on business.  I'll see you in 4 months.   Have fun with the maids, and do your homework!"
Lil' Hawke:  *cries*
Hawke: *Leaves*

It's just.  I can't suspend disbeleif like this.  This is a bad parent to me,a nd to many others.  I think it's worse that some of you want to play bad parents who think they are good parents, fine.  But I can't imagine considering myself as a good parent when someone else is doing all of the dirty work of being a parent while you are handling business out of the home.  Like I stated, this isn't a 9-5 job, and you will by virtue of the times, not be spending a lot of time with your child.  If you are, you aren't handling your business as an adventurer or as the Champion of Kirkwall, which is fine, but you are never given a choice in the matter.

Your choices are only a middle ground if they have no end result in the game, but even if they don't you are intentionally playing a bad parent by ignoring your child.  And even best case, spending most of your time on the road will not allow you to spend time with your child per normal.  Seeing your kid every 1-2 months does not a good parent make.  Your maid is the parent, or your cousin is the parent, or your wife is the parent, not you.  And even so, you are indirectly being a bad parent by taking yourself, your child's father/mother, and your love interest, which by Bioware virtue is one of your companions, both out of the picture from properly raising your child.  Your child will not know you.  That would be the problem I would have with it.  As a parent, your children are supposed to come first, and you can't realistically spend a bunch of time with your life in direct danger instead of spending that time raising your kid, and simultaneously, consider yourself a good parent.  In your example, you are playing the good parent who is really a bad parent.  Those type of parents are worse than the ones that don't give a ****, at least the kid is used to it, instead of having a glimmer of hope.  And while different children need different levels of parenting, if you are going to by default state your kid needs a light touch to rationalize not being there all the time, well, that's just bad storytelling to me.

I don't want to play a bad parent in my game.  If I am able to have a kid, it cannot be concurrent with my adventures.  If it is, I am playing a bad parent sim.  Because I cannot do both, in times where there are no cars, no planes, when you will be spending months at a time on the road, or possibly in the belly of some beast, instead of raising your child.  If I am able to do both, if you are going to make it clear this is a game, then you are in effect playing a child rearing sim because of it.

Modifié par Harid, 30 janvier 2011 - 06:08 .