623 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Gotholhorakh wrote...
Well, TES games are far from perfect for a narrative-driven experience, and BioWare do it extremely well, so it's no surprise we're all on a BioWare forum hearing your opinion on this.

This isn't about a narrative. I would use Morrowind as an example of a feature I think is far more acceptable. It's merely about class and skill appropriate restriction.

How does this relate to the Witcher games, though? The witcher combat I have played has been pretty much horrible for me which is a big issue for me (for me gameplay is the interface, the glue that allows me to mesh with the game's 'verse and RP so if that's not spot on, I'm stuffed) - but do you view the witcher universe as vague, or more in keeping with what BioWare does?

I think CD Projekt has, insofar as they design quest and storylines and choices, to have the right view of the relationship of the player to the game. It's not that the player is not restricted; but the restriction is (as Il Divo put it) in terms of what reasonable possible actions the player could perform in the game, vis-a-vis class and story.

And it's important to point out that your class in that game is fixed.

Addai67 wrote...
It's up to the player to help make the world coherent.  This sort of game is a two-way street.

I didn't say that every RPG had to be that way- so don't even go there.

You: "The game rewards natural, logical roleplay, while keeping possibilities open for off the wall type characters.  That is the best kind of game IMO.  And Skyrim does it so beautifully. "

You're right. You weren't saying every RPG has to be that way. Just every good RPG, and that this is what good RP is. Well, that's certainly an important difference, and isn't at all an attack on other gaming preferences.

[In Exile]

Joy Divison wrote...
Having God-mode as the standard for RPGs is not the solution.  Death has ZERO consequences.  Hell, you don't even want it to be an inconvenience.

How is having it become an inconvenience have any consequence? It means that you either re-load (and if you didn't save before the fight, you have to go for x amount of time before you get back to the same point) or you just invest whatever amount of time is required to get back to the point you were before.

If there was real death, i.e. dead companion is lost forever, there was no replacement, and there was some kind of meaningful reaction to the death of the character, then maybe we could start talking about RPGs lacking God-Mode.

But so far, God-Mode has been the stable of RPGs whenever resurection exists in-game/

[In Exile]

google_calasade wrote...
I do see where bringing the death back to life could be immersion breaking for some, but the opposite end of the spectrum is that no one in your party dies, even temporarily.  That takes all the suspense from battles.  That is immersion breaking as well, isn't it?

No, what Velarion is talking about is how we would actually react to a world where, if you were rich enough, death was actually quasi-impossible. That is such a fundamental change to what it means to be human, way more than magic is basically just technology (with some of it just doing a worse job that stuff we already have) that the setting not actually talking it seriously is a huge deal.

[TEWR]

Yrkoon wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

When you guys are talking about characters dying in BG, do you mean they would literally die and you would have to use something called raise dead to bring them back or would they just be knocked unconscious and rendered unusable until you took the time to heal them like the Final Fantasy games also do?

I've never played BG, so if it's like the latter and not the former I could definitely get behind the latter being implemented in DA. Along with other gameplay concepts from the Final Fantasy series.

They flat out die in the BG series.  Their portrait turns black & white and they're  plain dead, until you find some magical means to raise/ressurect them.

And that's not all.  The BG series  also takes it a step further.  Depending on *how* they died, there's a chance that  they can die forever and  not be  raised  even by magical means.  If they die from, say,   a frost attack, their bodies  freeze solid.... as in, they turn into an ice sculpture and can be shattered into a million pieces at the slightest hit.  If that happens, they're gone from the game.  Their portrait disappears  from the party lineup, as well.

They're also  permanently dead and gone if they get chunked  (if the killing blow/spell brings them down to below -9 hitpoints and  they "explode")

The BG series also has  petrification.    If someone or something turns one of your characters to stone, you can bring them back with a stone to flesh spell/scroll, or, if they annoyed the hell out of you in life  (I'm looking at you, Anomen and Tiax)  you can  choose to  whack their statue  forms with your weapon or a spell, shatter it, and then they're permanently gone from the game.

BG2  has additional  ways  for your companions to be eliminated.   They can be Disentigrated.  This turns them to dust.  And since you can't ressurect dust, they're gone forever.   And then there's Imprisonment.   Imprisonment is a spell a high level mage can cast.  it captures the character and instantly places them in a forcefield cage, then   thusts that cage  deep below the surface of the earth and that's where the victim remains.  Forever.  Until the reverse of the spell (freedom) is cast.  Neat, huh?

That definitely does sound pretty awesome, but it also sounds like it was designed for pure lulz.

"I don't like you. Go to hell!"

*imprisons character in hell*

That said, I wouldn't like it in DA. I'd probably just end up reloading constantly. Especially since in the DA games companions are starting to have an effect on the story of the game.

[Wolf]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

When you guys are talking about characters dying in BG, do you mean they would literally die and you would have to use something called raise dead to bring them back or would they just be knocked unconscious and rendered unusable until you took the time to heal them like the Final Fantasy games also do?

I've never played BG, so if it's like the latter and not the former I could definitely get behind the latter being implemented in DA. Along with other gameplay concepts from the Final Fantasy series.

They flat out die in the BG series.  Their portrait turns black & white and they're  plain dead, until you find some magical means to raise/ressurect them.

And that's not all.  The BG series  also takes it a step further.  Depending on *how* they died, there's a chance that  they can die forever and  not be  raised  even by magical means.  If they die from, say,   a frost attack, their bodies  freeze solid.... as in, they turn into an ice sculpture and can be shattered into a million pieces at the slightest hit.  If that happens, they're gone from the game.  Their portrait disappears  from the party lineup, as well.

They're also  permanently dead and gone if they get chunked  (if the killing blow/spell brings them down to below -9 hitpoints and  they "explode")

The BG series also has  petrification.    If someone or something turns one of your characters to stone, you can bring them back with a stone to flesh spell/scroll, or, if they annoyed the hell out of you in life  (I'm looking at you, Anomen and Tiax)  you can  choose to  whack their statue  forms with your weapon or a spell, shatter it, and then they're permanently gone from the game.

BG2  has additional  ways  for your companions to be eliminated.   They can be Disentigrated.  This turns them to dust.  And since you can't ressurect dust, they're gone forever.   And then there's Imprisonment.   Imprisonment is a spell a high level mage can cast.  it captures the character and instantly places them in a forcefield cage, then   thusts that cage  deep below the surface of the earth and that's where the victim remains.  Forever.  Until the reverse of the spell (freedom) is cast.  Neat, huh?

That definitely does sound pretty awesome, but it also sounds like it was designed for pure lulz.

"I don't like you. Go to hell!"

*imprisons character in hell*

That said, I wouldn't like it in DA. I'd probably just end up reloading constantly. Especially since in the DA games companions are starting to have an effect on the story of the game.

I agree that I wouldn't want it in a DA game but... think of the possibilities!

*Anders blows up the Chantry*

Anders: It had to be done Hawke. This standstill would not have held, mages would never be free!
Hawke: *sigh* You know the drill. 50 minutes in Satan's Box. (spell)

Modifié par Gaiden96, 14 janvier 2012 - 03:46 .

[Il Divo]

google_calasade wrote...

Where's said petition?  I'll sign that sucker.

Huge apologies. In the chaos of the thread, I completely missed this.

http://petitionburea.../DarkSoulsForPC

Pretty substantial. They're sitting on 70,000 signatures and it's barely been a week, I think.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 janvier 2012 - 05:11 .

[DreamwareStudio]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

That said, I wouldn't like it in DA. I'd probably just end up reloading constantly. Especially since in the DA games companions are starting to have an effect on the story of the game.

...sometimes, it's simply better to stay silent.

[DreamwareStudio]

I tire of stating it, so this will be the last time.  God-mode is boring.  It is simple.  It is being spoiled and pandered to.

THERE SHOULD BE MORE CONSEQUENCE.

As for some of what I've seen...the impatience, not wanting to deal with consequences, wishing for less difficulty, seeing challenge as a deterrent, the poor excuses for reloading and circumventing the spirit of the game, well, I don't have much to say, except to ask why play on anything above easy if when something bad happens you simply reload the game?

To those who understand not just role-playing but the basics of fair play to a better degree, I've enjoyed reading your responses.

To both, happy gaming!

(it's time to write!)

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 janvier 2012 - 06:05 .

[Yrkoon]

google_calasade wrote...
As for some of what I've seen...the impatience, not wanting to deal with consequences, wishing for less difficulty, seeing challenge as a deterrent, the poor excuses for reloading and circumventing the spirit of the game, well, I don't have much to say, except to ask why play on anything above easy if when something bad happens you simply reload the game?

You'd be surprized at the huge number of players out there that will do just that.    They'll play on Easy mode when they buy a Bioware game.   Why?  because they don't want to fight.   They'll  tell you straight up that they're not interested in Combat OR challenge.  All they want is  Bioware's masterful  storytelling.   Anything else is a hinderence or pointless filler.  

I remember a thread here a while back where someone was literally arguing that there should be a  'fast-forward' button in the UI to let you skip  combat whenever you wish.

To each his own, I suppose.  Though I'd strongly recommend renting a movie if you just want to watch a good story.  Hollywood has  mastered storytelling too.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 14 janvier 2012 - 07:01 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Il Divo wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

Where's said petition?  I'll sign that sucker.

Huge apologies. In the chaos of the thread, I completely missed this.

http://petitionburea.../DarkSoulsForPC

Pretty substantial. They're sitting on 70,000 signatures and it's barely been a week, I think.

Done!

Now, back to writing...

[Realmzmaster]

I guess some gamers are OK with not dying. Maybe my opinion on death is because I come from a wRPG and wargame background. The original D & D was based on Chainmail which was a medieval wargame. Your foes finished the job. This means the killing blow. You should always make sure the foe you engaged is dead and you should expect your enemy to do the same.

In Dragon Age after a battle and a companion is injured it is like:

Aveline: Hawke I think my back is broken.
Hawke: Aveline can you stand.
Aveline: Yes Hawke I can.
Hawke: Aveline here is an injury kit. It will repair your broken back. Your loss in health will return also.
Hawke: Feeling better Aveline
Aveline: Yes, Hawke Let's get on with the mission!

Or Varric just got stab in the heart falls unconscious. But after the battle is won jumps back up and goes Hawke give an injury kit and I will be okay.

Falling in battle happens. Dying in battle happens except in Dragon Age and some other cRPGs.
There is no consequence in a companion falling in battle unless the entire party dies. If the remaining members win the battle the companion is fine after getting an injury kit.

So I can send Aveline or whoever on what would be called suicide missions because I know they cannot die. So I have her engage the big bad boss while the other members mop up the other enemies. If Aveline dies no big dean she has serve her purpose. Now I concentrate the remaining members on the big bad boss that Aveline has whittle down in hit points. I win the battle Aveline jumps back up and gets an injury kit.

Now envision the same scene but Aveline can actually die. Now some of your may say I will reload. Well that is fine, but now you have to come up with a different strategy to keep all of your companions alive.

Or you use the same strategy and Aveline dies. You can either accept the loss or find aid for her. For me IMHO roleplaying options open up and can be explored by the designers.



So it is okay for your character and companions to kill the enemy , but that cannot happen to your party.

[esper]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I guess some gamers are OK with not dying. Maybe my opinion on death is because I come from a wRPG and wargame background. The original D & D was based on Chainmail which was a medieval wargame. Your foes finished the job. This means the killing blow. You should always make sure the foe you engaged is dead and you should expect your enemy to do the same.

In Dragon Age after a battle and a companion is injured it is like:

Aveline: Hawke I think my back is broken.
Hawke: Aveline can you stand.
Aveline: Yes Hawke I can.
Hawke: Aveline here is an injury kit. It will repair your broken back. Your loss in health will return also.
Hawke: Feeling better Aveline
Aveline: Yes, Hawke Let's get on with the mission!

Or Varric just got stab in the heart falls unconscious. But after the battle is won jumps back up and goes Hawke give an injury kit and I will be okay.

Falling in battle happens. Dying in battle happens except in Dragon Age and some other cRPGs.
There is no consequence in a companion falling in battle unless the entire party dies. If the remaining members win the battle the companion is fine after getting an injury kit.

So I can send Aveline or whoever on what would be called suicide missions because I know they cannot die. So I have her engage the big bad boss while the other members mop up the other enemies. If Aveline dies no big dean she has serve her purpose. Now I concentrate the remaining members on the big bad boss that Aveline has whittle down in hit points. I win the battle Aveline jumps back up and gets an injury kit.

Now envision the same scene but Aveline can actually die. Now some of your may say I will reload. Well that is fine, but now you have to come up with a different strategy to keep all of your companions alive.

Or you use the same strategy and Aveline dies. You can either accept the loss or find aid for her. For me IMHO roleplaying options open up and can be explored by the designers.



So it is okay for your character and companions to kill the enemy , but that cannot happen to your party.

It is either or for me. Either companions are knocked out like in dragon age which I like or they are permentantly dead which I don't mind, I just reload and change my tactis untll they work. I litterary stopped playing Baldurs Gate II when I got to the part where the character in all seriousness can debate with Jahira, I think she was named, whereever or not it is etchial to raise her dead husband. In such a game death is something cheap and not serious, I can simply not relate and uninstalled the game.

On the other hand I have played jrpgs which treat any companions death as a game over since they are important to the story, but I don't think that it would work in dragon age because it is not turned based the same way this was and the AI is simply not smart enough to react properly in da to make this even remotely fair. I also want the companions to matter in a bioware story and too do that they have to do companion dead = game over if it is permantely.

I understand your argument and example with Aveline, but in my experience perment dead until revial spell cheapen death so much that I am more willing to say that the enemy is too busy with the rest of the player party to check that everyone are dead before all are K.O. than there exist some way to actually resurrect dead people which make a universe where I simply cannot take death seriously.

[Mclouvins]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I guess some gamers are OK with not dying. Maybe my opinion on death is because I come from a wRPG and wargame background. The original D & D was based on Chainmail which was a medieval wargame. Your foes finished the job. This means the killing blow. You should always make sure the foe you engaged is dead and you should expect your enemy to do the same.

In Dragon Age after a battle and a companion is injured it is like:

Aveline: Hawke I think my back is broken.
Hawke: Aveline can you stand.
Aveline: Yes Hawke I can.
Hawke: Aveline here is an injury kit. It will repair your broken back. Your loss in health will return also.
Hawke: Feeling better Aveline
Aveline: Yes, Hawke Let's get on with the mission!

Or Varric just got stab in the heart falls unconscious. But after the battle is won jumps back up and goes Hawke give an injury kit and I will be okay.

Falling in battle happens. Dying in battle happens except in Dragon Age and some other cRPGs.
There is no consequence in a companion falling in battle unless the entire party dies. If the remaining members win the battle the companion is fine after getting an injury kit.

So I can send Aveline or whoever on what would be called suicide missions because I know they cannot die. So I have her engage the big bad boss while the other members mop up the other enemies. If Aveline dies no big dean she has serve her purpose. Now I concentrate the remaining members on the big bad boss that Aveline has whittle down in hit points. I win the battle Aveline jumps back up and gets an injury kit.

Now envision the same scene but Aveline can actually die. Now some of your may say I will reload. Well that is fine, but now you have to come up with a different strategy to keep all of your companions alive.

Or you use the same strategy and Aveline dies. You can either accept the loss or find aid for her. For me IMHO roleplaying options open up and can be explored by the designers.



So it is okay for your character and companions to kill the enemy , but that cannot happen to your party.

That would break the game. Skyrim and Oblivion can get away with this becasue so few of their characters are important, but you can't kill the ones who are vital because they are just knocked out temporarily.

[Yrkoon]

esper wrote...

I understand your argument and example with Aveline, but in my experience perment dead until revial spell cheapen death so much that I am more willing to say that the enemy is too busy with the rest of the player party to check that everyone are dead before all are K.O. than there exist some way to actually resurrect dead people which make a universe where I simply cannot take death seriously.

For me, that would depend on the enemy.  In a big street squirmish with thugs, yes.  It's far more logical to explain away the inability for your character to die by just saying:  "hey, thugs aren't doctors.  And they have more important things to do at the moment than stop to make sure  Varric's vital signs have ceased completely before  moving  on to  Isabela."

But that logic doesn't apply when your party faces, say, a large pack of hungry wolves.  If Varric is beset by wolves, they're probably not going to think about moving on  to the next victim until  there's nothing left on the floor but his Bones.

Mclouvins wrote...


That would break the game. Skyrim and Oblivion can get away with this becasue so few of their characters are important, but you can't kill the ones who are vital because they are just knocked out temporarily.

Well, yes.  Specifically, it would break a game like Dragon Age 2, where Characters are more than just important.  They're plot essential.  But again,  BG2  (for example)   had a great story, and fantastic, deep NPC party members that most players of the game  will remember for the rest of their lives.  They just weren't directly tied to the plot, and therefore, could be killed if the player wishes, and it won't break the game. (might ruin  the protagonist's  current romance with them though.  death tends to do that)

Modifié par Yrkoon, 14 janvier 2012 - 07:57 .

[esper]

Yrkoon wrote...

esper wrote...

I understand your argument and example with Aveline, but in my experience perment dead until revial spell cheapen death so much that I am more willing to say that the enemy is too busy with the rest of the player party to check that everyone are dead before all are K.O. than there exist some way to actually resurrect dead people which make a universe where I simply cannot take death seriously.

For me, that would depend on the enemy.  In a big street squirmish with thugs, yes.  It's far more logical to explain away the inability for your character to die by just saying:  "hey, thugs aren't doctors.  And they have more important things to do at the moment than stop to make sure  Varric's vital signs have ceased completely before  moving  on to  Isabela."

But that logic doesn't apply when your party faces, say, a large pack of hungry wolves.  If Varric is beset by wolves, they're probably not going to think about moving on  to the next victim until  there's nothing left on the floor but his Bones.

Well your party is hammering on the wolfes trying to eat Varric thus distracting them. I know that that too takes a suspension of belief, but I am more willing to figure out meta reasons for that - however thin they might be, than accept a universe where dead is so cheap that people get resurrected regulary unless their body is permentantely cut up in tiny pieces.

[DreamwareStudio]

esper wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

esper wrote...

I understand your argument and example with Aveline, but in my experience perment dead until revial spell cheapen death so much that I am more willing to say that the enemy is too busy with the rest of the player party to check that everyone are dead before all are K.O. than there exist some way to actually resurrect dead people which make a universe where I simply cannot take death seriously.

For me, that would depend on the enemy.  In a big street squirmish with thugs, yes.  It's far more logical to explain away the inability for your character to die by just saying:  "hey, thugs aren't doctors.  And they have more important things to do at the moment than stop to make sure  Varric's vital signs have ceased completely before  moving  on to  Isabela."

But that logic doesn't apply when your party faces, say, a large pack of hungry wolves.  If Varric is beset by wolves, they're probably not going to think about moving on  to the next victim until  there's nothing left on the floor but his Bones.

Well your party is hammering on the wolfes trying to eat Varric thus distracting them. I know that that too takes a suspension of belief, but I am more willing to figure out meta reasons for that - however thin they might be, than accept a universe where dead is so cheap that people get resurrected regulary unless their body is permentantely cut up in tiny pieces.

Suspension of belief is just one aspect.  The argument for consequential deaths goes beyond that.  It allows for more roleplaying opportunities and also provides more suspense by way of the loss not to mention making the battles more meaningful and challenging.

Hard to believe you hung up BG 2 because of Khalid's death (to which there was a purpose as you would have learned later) but you played DA 2 considering how that begins with Hawke's family.  Oh wait, that's right it was because of the debate about raising him.  Death to me is cheaper if you have to do nothing to overcome it.

Having said that, if overcoming death does trip up your suspension of belief so easily, how did you handle Andraste's ashes being able to heal and return the Arl to a state of consciousness or the Darkspawn or the mage vs. templars in DA 2 and how there were no reactions to Hawke or how the people never reacted to anything and nothing every really changed, or really, anything in general having to do with any fantasy RPG game?

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 janvier 2012 - 08:10 .

[In Exile]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Now envision the same scene but Aveline can actually die. Now some of your may say I will reload. Well that is fine, but now you have to come up with a different strategy to keep all of your companions alive.

Or you use the same strategy and Aveline dies. You can either accept the loss or find aid for her. For me IMHO roleplaying options open up and can be explored by the designers.

So it is okay for your character and companions to kill the enemy , but that cannot happen to your party.

I'd fully support this system... if there was actual meaning to the death, as opposed to the game carrying on as it does sans Aveline's content.

I'm a fan of greater challenges, but the game world has to be reactive (insofar as the RPG features are concerned).

[esper]

google_calasade wrote...

esper wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

esper wrote...

I understand your argument and example with Aveline, but in my experience perment dead until revial spell cheapen death so much that I am more willing to say that the enemy is too busy with the rest of the player party to check that everyone are dead before all are K.O. than there exist some way to actually resurrect dead people which make a universe where I simply cannot take death seriously.

For me, that would depend on the enemy.  In a big street squirmish with thugs, yes.  It's far more logical to explain away the inability for your character to die by just saying:  "hey, thugs aren't doctors.  And they have more important things to do at the moment than stop to make sure  Varric's vital signs have ceased completely before  moving  on to  Isabela."

But that logic doesn't apply when your party faces, say, a large pack of hungry wolves.  If Varric is beset by wolves, they're probably not going to think about moving on  to the next victim until  there's nothing left on the floor but his Bones.

Well your party is hammering on the wolfes trying to eat Varric thus distracting them. I know that that too takes a suspension of belief, but I am more willing to figure out meta reasons for that - however thin they might be, than accept a universe where dead is so cheap that people get resurrected regulary unless their body is permentantely cut up in tiny pieces.

Suspension of belief is just one aspect.  The argument for consequential deaths goes beyond that.  It allows for more roleplaying opportunities and also provides more suspense by way of the loss not to mention making the battles more meaningful and challenging.

Hard to believe you hung up BG 2 because of Khalid's death (to which there was a purpose as you would have learned later) but you played DA 2 considering how that begins with Hawke's family.

It is not because he is dead. It is because I have to have an ethical debate with his wife about raising him or not. It is because the theoretical options exits to have him raised which means that I can take no dead in the universe seriously unless their body is mutiliated or shattered if I understood Yrkoons explanation right. I cannot take death seriously in such a universe.  Hawkes family cannot just be dragged to the nearest chantry and ressurected that is the point.

[In Exile]

google_calasade wrote...
Having said that, if overcoming death does trip up your suspension of belief so easily, how did you handle Andraste's ashes being able to heal and return the Arl to a state of consciousness or the Darkspawn or the mage vs. templars in DA 2 and how there were no reactions to Hawke or how the people never reacted to anything and nothing every really changed, or really, anything in general having to do with any fantasy RPG game?

In DA:O, there was quite a lot of content built around the ashes and whether or not they were just magic (versus something divine). And DA2, obviously, failed miserably at being reactive. But we all knew that, and DA2 doing a bad job shouldn't really be an example of anything more than DA2 being a bad game.

[TEWR]

I have to agree that the BG mechanic cheapens death and consequently renders any death in the narrative of a game pointless, as they could just be brought back to life later on with a simple resurrection spell.

Granted it's still awesome that BG allowed them to die in so many ways, but there's no denying that the revival/resurrection does cheapen death.

In DA however, death is permanent unless unusual circumstances come into play. Just look at Wynne, Leandra, and Leliana (the latter of which has yet to be explained, but let's not open that can of worms again).

Question: Would people accept the Final Fantasy variant of unavailable characters being implemented? They get knocked unconscious, stay unconscious until you heal them, and are then usable again.

EDIT: Also, as a random side note if Bioware is going to also use "fighting the companions" as a way to get rid of them, I think they should at least leave it ambiguous as to whether or not they'll die from wounds sustained in battle. A simple cutscene showing them bleeding profusely -- but still alive -- would be enough.

If they show up later, Bioware wanted to use them again and they survived their wounds.

If they don't show up later, Bioware didn't want to use them and they died from their wounds.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 janvier 2012 - 08:20 .

[DreamwareStudio]

esper wrote...

It is not because he is dead. It is because I have to have an ethical debate with his wife about raising him or not. It is because the theoretical options exits to have him raised which means that I can take no dead in the universe seriously unless their body is mutiliated or shattered if I understood Yrkoons explanation right. I cannot take death seriously in such a universe.  Hawkes family cannot just be dragged to the nearest chantry and ressurected that is the point.

Neither could Khalid.  He was actually beyond the state of resurrection.

As for party members, sometimes it took a bit more than simply getting to the nearest chantry.  Sometimes it failed, but in either case there were usually consequences, which is my main argument.

Regarding the death of party members, I just don't see how consequential deaths are cheaper than DA 2 or DA:O where no death is consequential, that as soon as the battle is over everyone returns to life and full health via a bit of injury kit.  I guess we differ on that point, but as stated many times previously, there are roleplaying aspects lost because of how DA handles it.

[In Exile]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Question: Would people accept the Final Fantasy variant of unavailable characters being implemented? They get knocked unconscious, stay unconscious until you heal them, and are then usable again.

I think the injury mechanic, if it was far more punishing (e.g. far less injury kits, each injury cuts all stats to half their pre-injury value, HP/Mana in half and they compounded until the character was unuseable would be better) would be superior.

[DreamwareStudio]

In Exile wrote...

google_calasade wrote...
Having said that, if overcoming death does trip up your suspension of belief so easily, how did you handle Andraste's ashes being able to heal and return the Arl to a state of consciousness or the Darkspawn or the mage vs. templars in DA 2 and how there were no reactions to Hawke or how the people never reacted to anything and nothing every really changed, or really, anything in general having to do with any fantasy RPG game?

In DA:O, there was quite a lot of content built around the ashes and whether or not they were just magic (versus something divine). And DA2, obviously, failed miserably at being reactive. But we all knew that, and DA2 doing a bad job shouldn't really be an example of anything more than DA2 being a bad game.

I wasn't debating whether there was lore built up around the ashes.  I asked how could suspension of belief be ruined by a matter of death and not by the ashes themselves.  We're talking miracles, basically, and not believing one while being okay with the other seems...illogical.

[DreamwareStudio]

In Exile wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Question: Would people accept the Final Fantasy variant of unavailable characters being implemented? They get knocked unconscious, stay unconscious until you heal them, and are then usable again.

I think the injury mechanic, if it was far more punishing (e.g. far less injury kits, each injury cuts all stats to half their pre-injury value, HP/Mana in half and they compounded until the character was unuseable would be better) would be superior.

Though the doesn't lend itself to more roleplaying opportunities, I could definitely get on board with that.  It at least makes a fallen party member more meaningful.

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 janvier 2012 - 08:23 .

[esper]

@Ehtereal, the final fantasy way is how I percieve the battle in this regard. You tend to their wound immediealty after the battle before moving on because dragging and unconsious person with you is not viable and remember that there is no healing temple/water/moggle/tent in dragon age, instead you have the healing bandages. I could live with injuries only being tended once you returned to homebase, though, and completely forego the magical injuri pack.