275 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

LolaLei wrote...
I want a vast array of varying personalities that my character can take the time to get to know.

I don't see that this is definitively contrary to anything I've said so far.

LolaLei wrote...
I wasn't playing to save the galaxy, I was playing to save the characters in it,

My understanding of that plot is that saving the galaxy is the great driving motivation behind every action...

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
I wasn't playing to save the galaxy, I was playing to save the characters in it,

My understanding of that plot is that saving the galaxy is the great driving motivation behind every action...

I wouldn't have given a damn about the krogan genophade if it weren't for Wrex and Moridan.

I hardly cared for the plight of the Dalish before I got to know Merrill.

I thought the Circle was a great idea. Then they took away Bethany, and I was like, "No, not my sister! You can't just come along and take her away, she hasn't done anything!"

If you want me to care about a larger issue in the setting, give me a companion with a personal interest in that issue.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 10 avril 2012 - 09:29 .

[Takamori The Templar]

I guess the major point in this topic is.
If you want a character with internal conflict , they should follow the pattern that pyxie posted.(And if the player don't tend to help the character he will get devoured by the conflict and do like Anders )
Also those character should have a decent internal conflict, nothing too tragic , Like a shell shock or nothing like Daddy issues or mother hates me.
Have an elaborated goal each character, making then unremarkable like Gaider mentioned.

Modifié par Takamori The Templar, 10 avril 2012 - 09:29 .

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...
If you want me to care about a larger issue in the setting, give me a companion with a personal interest in that issue.

Do you fight the reapers solely to save your companions? That would make it rather nonsensical to then have them be the team placed in the greatest level of danger to achieve that end.

[LolaLei]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
I want a vast array of varying personalities that my character can take the time to get to know.

I don't see that this is definitively contrary to anything I've said so far.

LolaLei wrote...
I wasn't playing to save the galaxy, I was playing to save the characters in it,

My understanding of that plot is that saving the galaxy is the great driving motivation behind every action...

I hadn't read your previous posts, I was merely responding to the one you sent me. I'll have a look at the rest in a second.

As for the ME3 thing, perhaps that is the driving force of the game but for me personally I was doing it for the characters. I wouldn't have cared about the plight of the Krogan if I hadn't met/gotten to know Wrex as a character etc. When I play to win I'm doing it for the characters, for my PC's friends, family, companions, love interests etc.

[LolaLei]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
If you want me to care about a larger issue in the setting, give me a companion with a personal interest in that issue.

Do you fight the reapers solely to save your companions? That would make it rather nonsensical to then have them be the team placed in the greatest level of danger to achieve that end.

Lol to be fair, if we had known we were screwed regardless of our choice then we probably wouldn't have brought them along for the ride.

[the_one_54321]

LolaLei wrote...
When I play to win I'm doing it for the characters, for my PC's friends, family, companions, love interests etc.

Did DA:O even give significant breathing room for such motivations? Whom are you saving, exactly, that isn't put in danger simply by being near you? 

[ScotGaymer]

David Gaider wrote...



I wrote Irenicus,

Greatest. Villian. Ever.

Seriously.

Lol.

I don't think that the Dragon Age team really has a massive problem with creating one-dimensional or boring characters.
All of the characters in DAO were great, each and every one. And in DA2, putting aside that ALL the companions in DA2 were rather Flanderized, the only characters I had any trouble relating to was Fenris and Merill.

Fenris I eventually warmed up to, once you get past his prickly exterior you find out he is actually pretty deep.

Merill on the other hand... I know Mary Kirby (that is who wrote her yes?) was going for innocent naive girl next door type of person but honestly I felt like she failed epically at that. To me (and this is just my opinion) Merill was just a moron.
No in fact she was The Moron. The Ultimate Moron from Moron Mountain.
At least Anders is all conflicted between the "old" him and the "new" him, and about sharing his body with Vengeance, about being an abomination; Merill is just fricking stupid.
I just couldn't relate to her at all. Anders turned out to be a d-bag yeh but at least you got the sense that he was hurting over it, that it broke him to do what he did which redeemed him somewhat. With Merill there was nothing redeeming about her, and thus nothing to endear her to the player or make her sympethetic or even tragic.

Sorry don't want to get off on a rant but I genuinely despise her. Lol. And not for any "good" reasons either, like with Irenicus who I despised because he repeatedly got the better of my PC and I was frothing at the mouth to get him by the end of BG2.

I would however point out that ME did have this exact "problem" (with uncomplicated stable characters). Kaidan in ME1, and Jacob in ME2 were both stable and reasonable characters. And both of them are amongst the most disliked of the Mass Effect companions (I personally liked them both and do not agree with the criticism of them at all).
And as a result Jacob is pretty much dropped from the franchise, and Kaidan has acquired a host of drama to go with him in ME3.

So the only things I would note is:-
Please try to NOT Flanderize the Companions in DA3.
Please do keep trying to make the Companions interesting in DA3.
And finally, Never Ever write another character like Merill again. Ever.

Thank you.

[Sylvanpyxie]

My understanding of that plot is that saving the galaxy is the great driving motivation behind every action...

Very few people actually care about the faceless masses. Companions are a Player's emotional link to a game.

So, you've basically just disqualified the definition of a "tragic character."

Forgive me if my post wasn't clear. Tragic characters are fine. In fact characters that are consumed by tragedy can be amazing, their obsessions can add a level of desperation that can be utterly compelling.

However, the majority of characters through-out an entire game being wholly consumed by their problems? Not a single one with the strength of will, or character, to rise above it and move on to become their own person? That's not compelling, that just makes them all entirely samey and unremarkable.

Tragic characters are fine, excellent even. Five or more in a single twenty hour game? Not so much.

If you want a character with internal conflict , they should follow the pattern that pyxie posted. 

It's acceptable for some characters to wallow in their self loathing, doubt, or pity. Some people are simply too obsessive or "weak" (for lack of a better word) to move past tragedy.

Some people, however, are strong enough to fight their losses, and whatever bad experiences they may have suffered, and strive to become better people because of them. Some people, also, simply refuse to let their problems define who they are.

There's plenty of ways tragedy and conflict can be handled for future characters. Dumping them all into the obsessive, weak of character, catagorey simply isn't compelling.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 10 avril 2012 - 09:48 .

[LolaLei]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
When I play to win I'm doing it for the characters, for my PC's friends, family, companions, love interests etc.

Did DA:O even give significant breathing room for such motivations? Whom are you saving, exactly, that isn't put in danger simply by being near you? 

Thing is about DA:O is there's always going to be at least one character with you the entire time, even if you turn away all the others Alistair stays with you from beginning until end. Bioware games are largely about friendship, companions and fighting the good fight in a team. If the game was all about your character being a lone ranger and fighting for the greater good all by yourself then it wouldn't be the type of Bioware game that we know and love.

Sure I could have gone it alone by doing a solo run but its bloody hard to do game play wise and I like the party banter, I'd get bored if without companions with me. Besides, usually in Bioware games theres the chance for an ending with minimum casualties so I was happy to let them come with me. If I'm willing to work my arse off to save as many of my companions as I can then why shouldn't I have them with me? It usually results in a "happy" ending.

Modifié par LolaLei, 10 avril 2012 - 09:53 .

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Sylvanpyxie wrote...

It's acceptable for some characters to wallow in their self loathing, doubt, or pity. Some people are simply too obsessive or "weak" (for lack of a better word) to move past tragedy.

Some people, however, are strong enough to fight their losses, and whatever bad experiences they may have suffered, and strive to become better people because of them. Some people, also, simply refuse to let their problems define who they are.

There's plenty of ways tragedy and conflict can be handled for future characters. Dumping them all into the obsessive, weak of character, catagorey simply isn't compelling.

+1

I'd also submit that there are ways to make characters insteresting and flawed that don't involve angsting. 

[the_one_54321]

LolaLei wrote...
Sure I could have gone it alone by doing a solo run but its bloody hard to do game play wise and I like the party banter, I'd get bored if without companions with me. Besides, usually in Bioware games theres the chance for an ending with minimum casualties so I was happy to let them come with me. If I'm willing to work my arse off to save as many of my companions as I can then why shouldn't I have them with me? It usually results in a "happy" ending.

This still rings as contradictory to me. I fought the blight to save Ferelden from destruction, and the rest of the world from a larger conflict. In the playthrough I'm doing right now, Alistair and I even had a conversation about that. Sacrificing yourself so that Alistair is not the one to die, I can see, but fighting to save your companions sounds like setting yourself up for disaster. Unless you metagame. Or in the case of ME3, metagaming set you up for even greater disaster.

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Sylvanpyxie wrote...
It's acceptable for some characters to wallow in their self loathing, doubt, or pity. Some people are simply too obsessive or "weak" (for lack of a better word) to move past tragedy.

Some people, however, are strong enough to fight their losses, and whatever bad experiences they may have suffered, and strive to become better people because of them. Some people, also, simply refuse to let their problems define who they are.

There's plenty of ways tragedy and conflict can be handled for future characters. Dumping them all into the obsessive, weak of character, catagorey simply isn't compelling.

+1

I'd also submit that there are ways to make characters insteresting and flawed that don't involve angsting.

+1's that +1

Modifié par the_one_54321, 10 avril 2012 - 09:58 .

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
If you want me to care about a larger issue in the setting, give me a companion with a personal interest in that issue.

Do you fight the reapers solely to save your companions?

Not solely, no. Then again, the majority of the game isn't about fighting the Reapers.

That would make it rather nonsensical to then have them be the team placed in the greatest level of danger to achieve that end.

Your passive sentence structure makes this difficult to respond to.

I appreciate their help.

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Then again, the majority of the game isn't about fighting the Reapers.

This has consistently struck me as odd. In DA:O, even the four cardinal quests were dedicated to building strength for fighting the blight.

Maria Caliban wrote...
Your passive sentence structure makes this difficult to respond to.

I appreciate their help.

I'll rephrase; if your drivng motivation is to see them safe and happy in the end, bringing them along is the surest way to fail.


........

Despite the sound of this, I'm not trying to find varous ways of phrasing "you played it wrong." I just find this notion of playing for the sake of the companions very confusing. It's the first I've heard it expressed and expanded on and I want to hear more.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 10 avril 2012 - 10:05 .

[LolaLei]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
Sure I could have gone it alone by doing a solo run but its bloody hard to do game play wise and I like the party banter, I'd get bored if without companions with me. Besides, usually in Bioware games theres the chance for an ending with minimum casualties so I was happy to let them come with me. If I'm willing to work my arse off to save as many of my companions as I can then why shouldn't I have them with me? It usually results in a "happy" ending.

This still rings as contradictory to me. I fought the blight to save Ferelden from destruction, and the rest of the world from a larger conflict. In the playthrough I'm doing right now, Alistair and I even had a conversation about that. Sacrificing yourself so that Alistair is not the one to die, I can see, but fighting to save your companions sounds like setting yourself up for disaster. Unless you metagame. Or in the case of ME3, metagaming set you up for even greater disaster.

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Sylvanpyxie wrote...
It's acceptable for some characters to wallow in their self loathing, doubt, or pity. Some people are simply too obsessive or "weak" (for lack of a better word) to move past tragedy.

Some people, however, are strong enough to fight their losses, and whatever bad experiences they may have suffered, and strive to become better people because of them. Some people, also, simply refuse to let their problems define who they are.

There's plenty of ways tragedy and conflict can be handled for future characters. Dumping them all into the obsessive, weak of character, catagorey simply isn't compelling.

+1

I'd also submit that there are ways to make characters insteresting and flawed that don't involve angsting.

+1's that +1

I guess it's a disaster if said companions die due to my actions lol.

... I dunno, maybe it's a woman thing? I've just always played games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect in large part for the character interaction and the witty banter along the way. Obviously, I still play for the adventure and the main storyline but I tend to get quite attached to the characters which makes it more of an incentive to play to save my companions etc with minimal casualties.

That doesn't mean to say the way I choose to play is wrong, nor is the way in which you play yours. That's the beauty of these types of games.

[the_one_54321]

LolaLei wrote...
That doesn't mean to say the way I choose to play is wrong, nor is the way in which you play yours. That's the beauty of these types of games.

Indeed.

Let me pose a different question then. Sometimes heroics require sacrifice. I'd go so far as to say that heroics ring hollow without any measurable need for sacrifice.

What happens then? Who pays the price of winning? 

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I'll rephrase; if your drivng motivation is to see them safe and happy in the end, bringing them along is the surest way to fail.

I am not Commander Shepard.

[LolaLei]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
That doesn't mean to say the way I choose to play is wrong, nor is the way in which you play yours. That's the beauty of these types of games.

Indeed.

Let me pose a different question then. Sometimes heroics require sacrifice. I'd go so far as to say that heroics ring hollow without any measurable need for sacrifice.

What happens then? Who pays the price of winning? 

Oooo this ones an interesting question.

I guess that depends on the game. If theres no way of saving everyone then of course some have to die (as with ME3 sacrifices had to be made which were unavoidable.) What I usually do is sacrifice my playable character (like in DA:O if you didn't take the dark ritual or ME3 with the control/synthesis endings.)

... If it's the choice between two characters, for example Ash and Kaidan in ME1, I sacrifice the one I like the least LOL. If it's between two characters that I like equally then I swear a lot and play two different playthroughs so I can save both in different games.

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I'll rephrase; if your drivng motivation is to see them safe and happy in the end, bringing them along is the surest way to fail.

I am not Commander Shepard.

Well put.

Your motivation in the game centers around the characters. Shepard's motivation centers around saving the galaxy. How do you create compatibility in making game decisions?

LolaLei wrote...
If theres no way of saving everyone then of course some have to die (as with ME3 sacrifices had to be made which were unavoidable.) What I usually do is sacrifice my playable character (like in DA:O if you didn't take the dark ritual or ME3 with the control/synthesis endings.)

... If it's the choice between two characters, for example Ash and Kaidan in ME1, I sacrifice the one I like the least LOL. If it's between two characters that I like equally then I swear a lot and play two different playthroughs so I can save both in different games.

Judging by your signature, it would seem that you may not like it when these types of events happen. But do you not find them to often be the most emotionally engaging moments of the game? 

As I mentioned above, I'd argue that heroism would ring hollow if there is no sacrifice in winning.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 10 avril 2012 - 10:24 .

[The Elder King]

the_one_54321 wrote...


Judging by your signature, it would seem that you may not like it when these types of events happen. But do you not find them to often be the most emotionally engaging moments of the game? 

I'm not following a lot the ME forums, but that signature is more related to the fact that a lot of people think that the endings sucked, not for the fact that certain characters died in ME3.

Modifié par hhh89, 10 avril 2012 - 10:29 .

[the_one_54321]

hhh89 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Judging by your signature, it would seem that you may not like it when these types of events happen. But do you not find them to often be the most emotionally engaging moments of the game?

I'm not following a lot the ME forums, but that signature is more related to the fact that a lot of people think that the endings sucked, not for the fact that certain characters died in ME3.

I've largely seen "the ending sucked" come from some variation of "the ending wasn't happy enough." Could certainly be that I'm mistaken in extrapolating this from her signature. But that's why I asked.

[LolaLei]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I'll rephrase; if your drivng motivation is to see them safe and happy in the end, bringing them along is the surest way to fail.

I am not Commander Shepard.

Well put.

Your motivation in the game centers around the characters. Shepard's motivation centers around saving the galaxy. How do you create compatibility in making game decisions?

LolaLei wrote...
If theres no way of saving everyone then of course some have to die (as with ME3 sacrifices had to be made which were unavoidable.) What I usually do is sacrifice my playable character (like in DA:O if you didn't take the dark ritual or ME3 with the control/synthesis endings.)

... If it's the choice between two characters, for example Ash and Kaidan in ME1, I sacrifice the one I like the least LOL. If it's between two characters that I like equally then I swear a lot and play two different playthroughs so I can save both in different games.

Judging by your signature, it would seem that you may not like it when these types of events happen. But do you not find them to often be the most emotionally engaging moments of the game? 

As I mentioned above, I'd argue that heroism would ring hollow if there is no sacrifice in winning.

I didn't like the endings to ME3 because they felt rushed an nonsensical not because there wasn't a happy ending. Would I have liked the option for a "happy" ending (as in Shepard reunited with the crew, not sunshine and butterflies lol) sure, I would have liked that option. I would have also liked the option for the Reapers to win. Did I mind Shepard sacrificing herself? Not at all, I thought that was a very moving scene (I picked synthesis.)

I just like to have the option of different outcomes to up the replayability factor.

[LolaLei]

hhh89 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...


Judging by your signature, it would seem that you may not like it when these types of events happen. But do you not find them to often be the most emotionally engaging moments of the game? 

I'm not following a lot the ME forums, but that signature is more related to the fact that a lot of people think that the endings sucked, not for the fact that certain characters died in ME3.

This!

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Your motivation in the game centers around the characters. Shepard's motivation centers around saving the galaxy. How do you create compataibility in making game decisions?

My experience with BioWare games is that they try very hard to make these things compatible.

Far an example, I'll use the suicide run in ME 2.

As a player, I've probably developed a connection to two companions that I've used throughout the game. I'll want to play the ending with them because it's that's what I'm used to. Within the setting itself, those two companions ought to be in the most danger, but they're actually in the least danger.

I have trouble thinking of a specific example where my focus on my companions conflicts with Shepard's focus on saving the galaxy.

the_one_54321 wrote...

I've largely seen "the ending sucked" come from some variation of "the ending wasn't happy enough." Could certainly be that I'm mistaken in extrapolating this from her signature. But that's why I asked.

The problems with the ending are many and varied. If it were happy, I think more people would be willing to forgive it, but it would still be poorly done.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 10 avril 2012 - 10:37 .

[the_one_54321]

LolaLei wrote...
Would I have liked the option for a "happy" ending (as in Shepard reunited with the crew, not sunshine and butterflies lol) sure, I would have liked that option. I would have also liked the option for the Reapers to win. Did I mind Shepard sacrificing herself? Not at all, I thought that was a very moving scene (I picked synthesis.)

I see. So, if characters in your party end up dying, even if there's nothing you can do to keep them all alive and happy, this does not conflict with your approach of playing the game mostly to become close to the characters?

Maria Caliban wrote...
I have trouble thinking of a specific example where my focus on my companions conflicts with Shepard's focus on saving the galaxy.

So being motivated by the character interaction is easy to reconcile with the existence of the overreaching plot. And this is to be expected from a BioWare game.

Doesn't this imply that some kinds of consequences are off limits in the game, even if your actions are supposed to affect the world around you? Seems like a tough balancing act to pull between meeting expectations and providing a world that feels real and reactive.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 10 avril 2012 - 10:40 .