41 réponses à ce sujet

[Beerfish]

After more than one BioWare game they have stated that they were surprised that some characters were popular, (whether it be love or hate).  Too often they give the player the option of killing such and such a characer or having a character die.  This puts them in a bind of not including that character in future games.  I don't mind them putting options in to be nasty to npcs but I would like to see less murder knife of character kills.

A couple of examples would be Petrice and Javaris Tin top, both characters that I would have loved to see in future installments.  This is not unique to DA, Mass Effect as well where you had neat characters but because in one case you could have them die they are unlikely to return....(biotic god for example).

By all means abuse, discredit or what have you but less down right killing. 

[Zjarcal]

I kind of agree. It's wasted potential unless they're willing to retcon those deaths.

But I would've been pissed if I had been denied watching Petrice die!

[TheBlackBaron]

Well, they need to stop putting the ability to kill party members into the game. By all means, allow you to get rid of them in some fashion, but allowing people to kill them just causes problems later when you want to use them but there's a gigantic uproar because 5% of the player base killed them and took a standard combat finishing move very literally.

[Mr.House]

I'm happy Petrice is dead.

[Esbatty]

Yeah murdering companions, while satisfying for some of the playerbase who apparently hate fictional character to the point of digital slaughter and dev-writer hatred, is not always the best thing.

...

Seriously, I even went out of my way to kill Zevran the first time his trap/introduction came up. I kicked his ass then shivved him. Then like... uhh... a few hours later the trap/introduction happened AGAIN and I guess I took the hint and just accepted him into my party. So that playthrough retconned itself right quick... that or The Antivan Crows use doubles.

Modifié par Esbatty, 13 mai 2011 - 04:59 .

[ObserverStatus]

I disagree, bioware needs to go J.K. Rowling on it's cast.

[Special_Agent_Goodwrench]

Agreed. Character deaths are something that needs to be taken seriously and approached with great care. I'm all for removing the ability of the player to kill off certain companions.

I'm currently working on original fiction and have plans to kill off quite a few major characters. However, I also have a sequel in mind to the story I'm already writing and I worry that some of the killed characters might prove to be a bit too popular (not to mention my own attachement to them). As I've said, character deaths need to be approached with caution.

If Bioware wants the players to have the ability to get rid of certain important characters, I'd rather it be done in a more ambiguous manner. Denarius taking Fenris away is one such choice. If the devs wished to include Fenris in a future DA relase, they could say he escaped from Denarius on their way to Tevinter without retconning Fenris' death.

Modifié par DrunkDeadman, 13 mai 2011 - 05:35 .

[AtreiyaN7]

I hate Petrice - which I believe is the kind emotion that they wanted to evoke in relation to that character. I don't know about NPCs, but hmm, if they have plans to actually bring back certain characters (or potentially consider bringing them back) and companions, then maybe they could be a little more cautious and/or ambiguous per what deadman said up above with the Fenris example. At least that way people can't whinge about retconning - hah.

[HSHAW]

DrunkDeadman wrote...

Agreed. Character deaths are something that needs to be taken seriously and approached with great care. I'm all for removing the ability of the player to kill off certain companions.

I'm currently working on original fiction and have plans to kill off quite a few major characters. However, I also have a sequel in mind to the story I'm already writing and I worry that some of the killed characters might prove to be a bit too popular (not to mention my own attachement to them). As I've said, character deaths need to be approached with caution.

If Bioware wants the players to have the ability to get rid of certain important characters, I'd rather it be done in a more ambiguous manner. Denarius taking Fenris away is one such choice. If the devs wished to include Fenris in a future DA relase, they could say he escaped from Denarius on their way to Tevinter without retconning Fenris' death.

Er, no, you get a letter from Danarius afterwards that tells you that Fenris has been mindwiped and he and and Danarius are back in Tevinter.

@OP: Agreed, they need to ease up on the "kill this character" options or let us know that they're not afraid to retcon our decisions.

[whykikyouwhy]

I'm not sure that any perfect balance can be struck with handling the mortality options of characters. If the writers/devs take out the ability to kill some (or all) characters, then people may cry foul over not being able to shank someone (based on how they are playing, or how their head canon dictates their character should be). If the writers allow players to wield a murder knife now and again, people cry foul over losing a character they have grown to love or simply just want around. It's very akin to the romance options - where is the line drawn as to who is what to whom? (Just using this as an example - by no means am I seeking to stir up any discussion about LIs) I'm not saying that either opinion about the kill options is correct/incorrect, just that there may be no way to get that mix just right.

My take on it is that we have the options to kill or not to kill - it all boils down to how we play Hawke (or the Warden, or whoever) as to which characters may have some (limited) sense of longevity. Having those options, however broad they may be, allows the devs/writers to try and please as many players as possible.

It all makes me think of Boba Fett. All of 10 minutes in Empire made him a fan icon, then after a drop into the Sarlacc Pit, there was great and tremendous indignation.

[Beerfish]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I hate Petrice - which I believe is the kind emotion that they wanted to evoke in relation to that character. I don't know about NPCs, but hmm, if they have plans to actually bring back certain characters (or potentially consider bringing them back) and companions, then maybe they could be a little more cautious and/or ambiguous per what deadman said up above with the Fenris example. At least that way people can't whinge about retconning - hah.

That is the point about Petrice though.  I'm betting BioWare is a bit surprised that she is more villified and many people think is the biggest villain of the piece.  A really good villain (storyline, looks, voice) is worth it's weight in gold in story telling.  I would have preferred that you be able to have her striped of all things changry and tossed in a dungeon or exiled ro something.  Then she makes a return in either future DLC or in the next game in the series.

Also the death of Petrice was not as satisfying as it could have been for me in the games I've played where I have been against her.  Having a lone Qunari bowman shoot her in the Chantry didn't feel good to me unless you are happy with the Qunari in that play through.

[Wereparrot]

If you take Bethany/Carver into the Deep Roads without Anders, I understand you are forced to kill your brother/sister personally (I've never done this and never will, I'm just going by the wiki). That is way too harsh. I personally always kill Wesley because I won't and can't have Aveline commit mariticide, so can't someone else in Hawke's party extend the same mercy and save Hawke from commiting siblicide?

[G00N3R7883]

Killing characters is a critical tool for creating an emotional response from the player. No writing team in any form of entertainment (be it games, TV, books, films) can limit themselves to only killing characters that are unimportant. The death of a popular character can cause sadness, and also anger against the character who was responsible for their death. And when a writer shows that they are willing to kill an important character, they can later put other characters in dangerous situations and create genuine fear - Bioware's track record shows that no character is off limits, and their deaths could occur at any time. By contrast, does anybody ever really feel worried that James Bond would die during scenes where he is "in danger"?

The only problem is about retconning deaths for sequels. The solution should be to create new characters to fulfill that role where necessary. For example, see how the Krogan leader on Tuchanka was handled in Mass Effect 2.

[CorruptedRed]

I agree. Even though some players thoroughly enjoy disposing of some characters due to personal hatred for them, it really does make things confusing for future installments. I always tend to think of it in a Soap Opera kind of way for some reason. The characters that are killed off NEVER DIE. Honestly, it just makes more work for Bioware in the long run, what with them having to think up a bajillion reasons for why certain characters magically came back to life. I think just having the option of dismissing them from your party or them just leaving because they don't like you would suffice. I'm personally extremely curious as to what Bioware plans on doing with those that killed Anders, because I strongly believe that he'll play a pretty big part in whatever expansion or sequel they plan to make. But hey, I could be wrong.

[Kilshrek]

:ph34r:whoops:ph34r:

Modifié par Kilshrek, 13 mai 2011 - 03:35 .

[Kilshrek]

Only time I had a proper emotional response to a character dying in DA 2 was when Petrice got what was coming to her. Might be my upbringing but there's always a little cringe in me when a woman is killed, even Petrice, though that was then outweighed by the fact that she'd single handedly started a war in the city. That and I really don't care for religious zealots.

I felt slightly more angry at the writers than Quentin for not having any sort of option to save Leandra, all roads led to death in her case.

Frustration as I only watched while Nyssa was stabbed by her mad husband. Frustration as I arrive just in time to see Thrask's daughter turn into an abomination. The number of times Hawke was too late to save someone really led me to just go "meh" by the end of the game.

[Ryzaki]

Nope.

There were few enough choice in this game I don't need more being taken out.

[Beerfish]

PurebredCorn wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

After more than one BioWare game they have stated that they were surprised that some characters were popular, (whether it be love or hate).  Too often they give the player the option of killing such and such a characer or having a character die.  This puts them in a bind of not including that character in future games.  I don't mind them putting options in to be nasty to npcs but I would like to see less murder knife of character kills.

A couple of examples would be Petrice and Javaris Tin top, both characters that I would have loved to see in future installments.  This is not unique to DA, Mass Effect as well where you had neat characters but because in one case you could have them die they are unlikely to return....(biotic god for example).

By all means abuse, discredit or what have you but less down right killing. 

Choosing to spare or kill Petrice is one of the few choices that are offered in the game that can change things up a bit from the perspective of replaying the game, so I'm glad we have the choice to do either. It's good from a roleplaying perspective too. Seeing her take an arrow in the head and chest never gets old, but her creepy promise of future support is also kinda cool for when I'm playing a qunari hatin' Hawke. Javaris was a minor character where murdering him doesn't really impact anything in the rest of the game whether you replay it or not (I've never murder knifed him.)

I get what you're saying, but I don't support removing any more of the very few choices we have in this game.

I'm not suggesting you remove choice to do harm or discredit those you don't like.  I suggest you removed the outright ability to kill or if you are going to have an impactful kill then let the player do it.  Having petrice arrowed by an quanri, other than the cool cutscene was not satisfying to me in the play throughs that I thought she deserved to 'get it'.

The last time you see Petrice if you support her efforts she indicates that she may work with you again.  The fact that in the majority of the games played she is killed pretty well precludes her showing up again.

[Beerfish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Nope.

There were few enough choice in this game I don't need more being taken out.

you guys do realize I'm talking about just killing characters off and not taking choices out right?  Unless a choice to kill is much much more important than for instance a choice to discredit or being thrown in the brig or something more creative.

[tmp7704]

G00N3R7883 wrote...

The only problem is about retconning deaths for sequels.

The other problem is death becomes of "what, again?" experience when it's overused and it's all that ever happens in each conflict. I have to admit that when the story has every single opponent wind up dead it can be bit of an eyeroll. Things don't exactly work this way, which is why the law actually covers cases other than homicide and there's field hospitals.

The player and their companions have no problem getting up after a fight with a wound or a few. Don't know why for everyone else even a prickle has to be fatal.

[Ryzaki]

Beerfish wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Nope.

There were few enough choice in this game I don't need more being taken out.

you guys do realize I'm talking about just killing characters off and not taking choices out right?  Unless a choice to kill is much much more important than for instance a choice to discredit or being thrown in the brig or something more creative.

 

Nope. I prefer being able to kill people. Throwing them in jail (especially when it's something they should be killed for) undermines my suspension of disbelief. 

[tmp7704]

Ryzaki wrote...

Throwing them in jail (especially when it's something they should be killed for) undermines my suspension of disbelief. 

If it's something they should be killed for then they won't get a prison sentence. If they do get the prison sentence then they didn't do something they should be killed for, and you're simply trying to get revenge on them, ignoring the law. Which actually could have some consequences in a game detailed enough.

Modifié par tmp7704, 13 mai 2011 - 04:24 .

[ipgd]

Ryzaki wrote...

Nope. I prefer being able to kill people. Throwing them in jail (especially when it's something they should be killed for) undermines my suspension of disbelief. 

I'd rather they focus more on writing narratives that circumvent the need for retcons than attempt to satisfy a small subset of sociopaths in the playerbase.