184 réponses à ce sujet

[Harid]

KLUME777 wrote...

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.

Why weren't you there to protect your child from the Qunari?  Because you were off being a bad parent in some dungeon somewhere instead of taking care of business?  Because you were helping some peasant from a Darkspawn incursion instead of protecting your home and kin?  This isn't a difficult choice, this is a choice you have to make because you are off being a bad parent instead of watching and taking care of your kid in the first place.  There in lies the problem with kids in games.  Who would not choose to save their kid, outside of people roleplaying sociopaths or pragmatists?  Most people would argue why can't they do both, for that matter.

Modifié par Harid, 30 janvier 2011 - 06:12 .

[KLUME777]

Harid wrote...

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.

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.

In otherwords, your saying that a king, or a modern day president even, is a bad parent, simply because they have to spend more time protecting there country than spending time with there kids, who *know* there cared for, *are* cared for by others, which is not a bad thing. Sometimes duty comes first. And having a child would complicate that. And since this is a story, complications are a good thing. It makes it more interesting.

[KLUME777]

Stupid Bioware Social, Double post.

Modifié par KLUME777, 30 janvier 2011 - 06:13 .

[Harid]

KLUME777 wrote...

In otherwords, your saying that a king, or a modern day president even, is a bad parent, simply because they have to spend more time protecting there country than spending time with there kids, who *know* there cared for, *are* cared for by others, which is not a bad thing. Sometimes duty comes first. And having a child would complicate that. And since this is a story, complications are a good thing. It makes it more interesting.

Never stated being raised by others is bad for the child, I have only stated that you can't consider yourself a good parent if other people are doing all of the legwork, yes.  So, to answer your question, yes.  There is nothing wrong with duty coming first, but as a parent, children are supposed to come first so you have a contradiction, there.

As for complications making stories more interesting, see, MGS series, see the Matrix series.  This is not a blanket truth.

[KLUME777]

Harid wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

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.

Why weren't you there to protect your child from the Qunari?  Because you were off being a bad parent in some dungeon somewhere instead of taking care of business?  Because you were helping some peasant from a Darkspawn incursion instead of protecting your home and kin?  This isn't a difficult choice, this is a choice you have to make because you are off being a bad parent instead of watching and taking care of your kid in the first place.  There in lies the problem with kids in games.  Who would not choose to save their kid, outside of people roleplaying sociopaths or pragmatists?  Most people would argue why can't they do both, for that matter.

Actually, i was thinking the child was with Hawke, and they were attacked and the child taken, but either is fine. Because this is a story and complications and hard decisions are good. And maybe Hawke didnt want to have a child in the first place, because of your reasons, but it was an accident. So then what is he going to do? Throw the baby in the Trash? No, hes going to do the best he can to take care of her, and make the best out of the situation.

And not everyone would save the child. Losing the city could mean they lose the war, and in turn the whole country is taken over, meaning Hawke Spawn is killed anyway.

[KLUME777]

Harid wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

In otherwords, your saying that a king, or a modern day president even, is a bad parent, simply because they have to spend more time protecting there country than spending time with there kids, who *know* there cared for, *are* cared for by others, which is not a bad thing. Sometimes duty comes first. And having a child would complicate that. And since this is a story, complications are a good thing. It makes it more interesting.

Never stated being raised by others is bad for the child, I have only stated that you can't consider yourself a good parent if other people are doing all of the legwork, yes.  So, to answer your question, yes.  There is nothing wrong with duty coming first, but as a parent, children are supposed to come first so you have a contradiction, there.

As for complications making stories more interesting, see, MGS series, see the Matrix series.  This is not a blanket truth.

Yes, i own Metal Gear Solid, whats your point. Are you saying the complications are bad, because you are insanely wrong. (Actually, i dislike MGS4, but only beacuse of all the retcons and nanomachines being the reason for everything).

[Arngrimmar]

Correct me if I'm wrong please.

Back in the day, the Baldurs Gate 2 day actually, I believe if the PC romanced Aerie through the main game and its expansion, at some point she would tell the PC she believed she was with child.  

The revelation was somewhat endearing to me, but at the same time I had to wonder, what kind of parent would bring a child into the world and situation that the PC currently faced?  It would be an aweful thing to do.  Granted aerie never gave birth in the game proper, but on another note, having the mother of your child (currently carrying him/her) stand side by side with you as you do battle with demigods and dragons and the like seemed to me to be far too dangerous.  Had the PC an option I would have ended my quest, settled down, and raised the family.  Or perhaps sent Aerie away to someplace safe. 

My 2 cents, stretching on a broad tangent in the topic.

[SirOccam]

Harid wrote...

*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.

Okay, but there aren't going to be any 4-month expeditions to far-off lands. We already know that the majority of the game will be in Kirkwall, and even when you do leave the city you won't be going outside of the Free Marches. And you would live in the same home as the child, presumably. So in all that off-screen time when you are eating dinner, relaxing, or doing whatever else it is you do when not saving the city/country/world, who's to say your child isn't allowed to be in your presence? When we skip a year or two ahead in time due to Varric's storytelling, who's to say that during that time you weren't at home being the best damn father or mother ever?

I won't attempt to write my own version of a dialogue, because they always end up sounding stupid, but maybe you could talk about something you did with your child. Maybe the dialogue could reflect the kind of home life you have. The child doesn't have to act as if he or she hasn't seen you in ages. He or she could tell you about something that happened that day, one of those completely mundane things that a child sees as incredible, like "look at this rock I found". They could come running to you crying because their pet just died and you either comfort them or tell them to get used to it, depending on the kind of parent you are. That sort of thing.

The point is, though, that none of this has to be any more time-consuming than any other relationship you have. You speak to your other companions from time to time, changing the nature of those relationships. So why would it be so different with a child?

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.

But this is just not true. We're not going to be traveling all over the world in DA2, nor is it a necessity in a future RPG where someone might try to put in something like this. You're taking it for granted that the parent(s) will be off gallivanting around the countryside 99% of the time, but there's just no reason to assume something like that.

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.

You don't always have a choice about the danger you find yourself in. And your children can "come first" while you have other things to take care of. Your children could be your character's motivation for all we know. Maybe you're trying to make your home city safer for him or her.

I don't understand what example you're referring to when you say I'm playing the good parent who is really a bad parent, unless you just mean my examples about giving motherly/fatherly advice. The only thing I can imagine is that you are taking it for granted again that this is only one of precious few moments when the child even sees his or her parent. Like I said before, you would most likely live in the same home as the child, and you spend most of the game in the same city.

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.

"spending months at a time on the road"

I think that right there is a good indication of where our disagreement is coming from. I think you are making assumptions that are not necessarily valid about what must be the case.

Modifié par SirOccam, 30 janvier 2011 - 06:31 .

[TJPags]

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.

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.

You know what I think the problem is here?  It's that you think anyone who doesn't spend a ton of time with their children are bad parents.

Now, that's a wonderful thing.  But it's hardly realistic.  As mentioned before, people in the military spend a lot of time away from their children.  That says nothing about what they do when they ARE around their children.  Many people work long hours, or night hours, etc., and aren;t around their children a lot.  Again, that says nothing about the time they DO spend with their kids.

You're making generalizations that, frankly, are not always true.  You seem to be emphasizing quantity over quality.

Not to mention, I don't think anyone in this thread has advocated mandatory baby-making.  People have said an option would be nice.  That obviously implies you'd be free NOT to take that option.

[SirJeal]

Can I play as a Broodmother and spam out Darkspawn as my children?

[TJPags]

SirJeal wrote...

Can I play as a Broodmother and spam out Darkspawn as my children?

No.  Because Broodmothers aren't human. 

[Fidget6]

Having kids, and having them stay at your home base while mama Hawke (or whoever) watched over them would feel too much like Fable to me. And while I love Fable, I didn't enjoy the Fable romances, so I don't think I would like that.

[Collider]

If you're going to put it in, make it a choice.

You always have to consider those who have prefer a same sex romance.

[Fidget6]

Collider wrote...

If you're going to put it in, make it a choice.
You always have to consider those who have prefer a same sex romance.

Well, of course if they were going to do it, I'm sure they wouldn't get rid of same-sex romances. Some games have already allowed for adoption if you're in a same-sex romance (The Sims, Fable 3)

[Collider]

Fidget6 wrote...

Collider wrote...

If you're going to put it in, make it a choice.
You always have to consider those who have prefer a same sex romance.

Well, of course if they were going to do it, I'm sure they wouldn't get rid of same-sex romances. Some games have already allowed for adoption if you're in a same-sex romance (The Sims, Fable 3)

Of course, they probably wouldn't get rid of same sex romance.
However, you have to consider how much content the player would potentially be missing out if they elect to pursue a homosexual romance instead of a heterosexual one. In other words, I would say that any content regarding Hawke having a child shouldn't be so large that same sex romance fans would be missing out on a lot.

I think ideally you might have an option at the end of the game (or whatever game is the end of Hawke's story) where Hawke can express something of a desire to have children, or may be adopt if it's a same sex pairing.

[Nefla]

Collider wrote...

Fidget6 wrote...

Collider wrote...

If you're going to put it in, make it a choice.
You always have to consider those who have prefer a same sex romance.

Well, of course if they were going to do it, I'm sure they wouldn't get rid of same-sex romances. Some games have already allowed for adoption if you're in a same-sex romance (The Sims, Fable 3)

Of course, they probably wouldn't get rid of same sex romance.
However, you have to consider how much content the player would potentially be missing out if they elect to pursue a homosexual romance instead of a heterosexual one. In other words, I would say that any content regarding Hawke having a child shouldn't be so large that same sex romance fans would be missing out on a lot.

I think ideally you might have an option at the end of the game (or whatever game is the end of Hawke's story) where Hawke can express something of a desire to have children, or may be adopt if it's a same sex pairing.

That's why you play the game more than once.  if you only do one playthrough as one type of character you're missing a huge ammount of content no matter what.

[pumpkinman13]

If children/offspring were to be implemented they'd have to be fairly central i think. I can imagine some fairly cool scenarios where you have to teach your kid how to fight, train him etc. Loads of RPGs do the Mentor training the Hero scene/montage, but few do it with the audience playing the Mentor. It would also be cool if at points you could switch to take control of your kid etc.



Then later on the youth grows up, and decisions that you made over the course of the kid's youth could come back to haunt you, eg if you encouraged them to be competative and not give up, then when they're 15 or something they race after you as you head towards your final quest and end up getting their untrained/poorly trained ass killed in the process, queue tragic scene. Alternatively if you neglect them then they grow up to despise you, become more powerful than you and they ultimately become the final big boss fight. Something like that.

[efrgfhnm_]

I think it would probably result in the loss of of a female party member, which would no doubt annoy many players, and would be unavailable to female players, since I can't imagine fighting darkspawn while pregnant.

If done with a side character, it could possible be done well, but would have to have a lot of thought put into it, not like one of the Fable kids or anything

[LordBegrezen]

Something is wrong with this thread. There is one guy in favor of taking good care of your child, and the rest ist against him.



Yeah I know it's only a game, but some people are sensitive to this matters. I mean, there is a reason we don't get to see children slaughtered in DA. Why should I want to see children suffering at all in my game?

[Il Divo]

LordBegrezen wrote...

Something is wrong with this thread. There is one guy in favor of taking good care of your child, and the rest ist against him.

Yeah I know it's only a game, but some people are sensitive to this matters. I mean, there is a reason we don't get to see children slaughtered in DA. Why should I want to see children suffering at all in my game?

In Kotor, Jade Empire, most other Bioware games, why would anyone necessarily want to go around killing innocent people? Bioware games are all about doing things we can't do in the day to day of our actual lives, including being an evil bastard.

That said, I don't think anyone here is advocating something as simple as 'children suffering'. Instead, having a child adds a completely new dynamic to the experience, one which we haven't explored before. The problem comes down to how it's handled. I have no problem with children suffering in any medium, book, film, video game, etc, but I do think it must always be handled delicately. Walking around in Grand Theft Auto or Oblivion and letting someone gun down a school for absolutely no reason is something I'm against. Hawke's child potentially dying over the course of a ten year narrative because of the Qunari Invasion is something I would actually support if it's given sufficient gravity.

Ex: Hawke lamenting because he realizes he never spent sufficient time getting to know his own son/daughter, etc. That sort of thing.

[Il Divo]

Harid wrote...

Never stated being raised by others is bad for the child, I have only stated that you can't consider yourself a good parent if other people are doing all of the legwork, yes.  So, to answer your question, yes.  There is nothing wrong with duty coming first, but as a parent, children are supposed to come first so you have a contradiction, there.

And do you honestly think that every parent who has a child is able to give them as much attention as they would like? Take Mass Effect 2 with most of its daddy issues; one might say that an assassin like Thane should never have reproduced, knowing the dangers, but it's something most human beings do anyway. Carth Onasi is another great example in this regard.

As others have pointed out, the problem is that you are assuming that because you cannot be a good parent, you must not be a parent at all. How many stories are there which feature the neglected child whose father is always away on business/duty/whatever? There is no reason why Hawke cannot fill a similar role. Perhaps he wishes to settle down, but is forced to battle the Qunari to protect his family.

[blothulfur]

Thirty minutes of joy and sixteen years of bloody misery.

Still getting to see the ex wife endure the utter pain and agony of childbirth is a memory i'll always cherish, even kept the camcorder tape so I can ocassionally have a good laugh.

In case you're wondering I would say PLEASE GOD NO, NOT AGAIN, NOT EVER WHAT THE HELL DID I EVER DO TO YOU.

[Vearsin]

if well done having kids would be cool, However the only rpg ive played where it was semi well done was Dragon quest 5 but in that game raising a family was a major plot point rather than a choice.

[TJPags]

LordBegrezen wrote...

Something is wrong with this thread. There is one guy in favor of taking good care of your child, and the rest ist against him.

Yeah I know it's only a game, but some people are sensitive to this matters. I mean, there is a reason we don't get to see children slaughtered in DA. Why should I want to see children suffering at all in my game?

I don't think anybody in this thread is "against" being a good parent.

I think people are questioning his definition of "good parent".

[Russalka]

This idea is a horse who is very much dead. I do wonder how many times people mentioned Fable or Sims though. I am not bothered to count.

EDIT: Oh, and the person who started this thread has done a few troll topics before. 

Modifié par Russalka, 30 janvier 2011 - 03:55 .