140 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Games generally use children to tell a longer story. Agarest takes place over 5 generations, which would not be possible for a single protagonist in that setting.

Harvest Moon makes then useful, you can have them working on your farm while you go out and explore,or mine or do whatever else you want.

It's less about being a simulation and more about being a gameplay element, although the two do overlap.

[R0vena]

cindercatz,

Well, I understand your point of view. I disagree, however. Not having a romance in the game generally does not rob the player of any important content. You may not be in romantic relationship with any NPC, but you still get almost the same information (minus couple of little details) if you want. Alistair still tells your about his life no matter if you romance him or not and you still can help him to deal with his problems in the way you see fit, for example. Same with Zevran, Fenris and any other LI.
What you are asking for is a lot of additional content for the option that many players will not want at all. It will have the same problem with implementing in the game as VS in ME series. Because the companion could be dead they didn't integrate him/her into the whole third game, just a portion of it, and gave him/her only a brief appearance in the second one.
Just my opinion, of course.

[cindercatz]

sylvanaerie wrote...

But just HOW big do you want the game to be. Including a CHILD NPC who is the protagonist's child opens up entire parts of the game a lot of players won't ever see. Some players don't like romance storylines, some only prefer same sex partners, some may not like the idea of taking time to do child rearing duties (child rearing is tedious, especially compared to adventuring). Which means, only those players who want their PC having children will care about pursuing this line of adventuring. And how many times does "Rescue their kid from the crazy blood mage about to sacrifice him" get played out before it becomes tedious? Let's face it. All 'family' story lines Bioware has created up to this point end poorly with dead or lost family members. Any other storyline would be boring to most players (and unfeasible to the developers from a financial standpoint--between voice actors, bits of game devoted to that storyline only a select few will ever see etc). Not too keen on "Child endangerment" storylines unless one gets a chance to save the kid.  Bedtime stories and getting your toddler to eat his veggies, not so exciting/strong a storyline, which leaves 'child endangerment' as the only avenue left to make this prospect interesting.

It's a dead end prospect, and one I'd rather do without. Maybe some conversation about the possibility of pregnancy with a heterosexual relationship could be addressed, but that's about the limit of what I'd want.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Honestly, as big as it can be, within whatever budget they've got. But keep in mind, like I said, the actual child npc part would only be if the story takes place over a period of years. If not, the epilogue thing makes a lot more sense. Maybe if you have a kid in the epilogue, a future party member character in a later game could be that kid, and if you don't, then that character has a different backstory.

I want there to be a lot of branching paths, a lot of choice and consequence, and those things result in large parts of the game that you don't see unless you go back and play another character. That's what was so attractive, and fulfilling, about DA:O in the first place. This is just more of that, another branch. If you choose not to see it, that's your choice. If you'd like to see it but it doesn't fit your character, make another character after. That's replayability. If you're worried about s/s people who only play s/s characters, then come up with another branching couple story beats to provide that alternative. Maybe adopt. Maybe have a s/s LI specific personal side story. You won't have the kid NPC, but you can have a decent alternative if you want one. All down to whether they want to spend on it. Maybe there's a different storypath for all characters who don't procreate that's different from all players who do, so that there's decent bang for the developement buck.

As to the kind of story, there's as many as can be imagined. The rescue your kidnapped kid plot has been done to death. I'm more interested in the kid developing morally and vocationally, maybe the kid's an artist, maybe he/she's a mage and you have to deal with the circle, maybe your character's been on the street and the kid has to learn street smarts and improvosation through some story or another. Maybe the kid is priveleged and doesn't respect people around them, which could lead to a lot of stories. Maybe you're Dalish and the kid is learning to live with nature and basically growing up elf. Like I said, only if it's set over a period of a good many years does it make sense to do. But there is a lot to do.
Just because BioWare hasn't done something right in the past doesn't mean they won't if they set out to do it in the future. I think their odds of success actually improve in that regard. They can't just repeat what they've already done (storywise, aside from broad generalizations, sure, and game structure to an extent).

Tedium again is not an issue. In Fable, you do tedius things because the game is based around mundanity in a storybook world, full of sim farm type activities and faceless schlubs. In DA, you only play the high notes. The mundanity is there, but you never see it. I don't see why in the world it would be any different with a kid storyline. Why would you be changing diapers or filling bottles, etc? There's no reason you should be.

DA's all about story, not time wasting kill-a-thoning, or at least it should be. DA:O was. DA2 was through it's best parts. This is just another story path, with another npc, that could be rewarding as it provides a different perspective and branching story for the player to play.

Modifié par cindercatz, 02 juin 2012 - 03:33 .

[R0vena]

cindercatz wrote...
This is just more of that, another branch. If you choose not to see it, that's your choice. If you'd like to see it but it doesn't fit your character, make another character after. That's replayability. If you're worried about s/s people who only play s/s characters, then come up with another branching couple story beats to provide that alternative. 
 

That's exactly the problem, right here. Players shouldn't be robbed of big part of content because they play as they enjoy the  most. If the player choose not to have a kid - then provide an alternative branch with content that the players with the kid will not get. This will be fair and I wouldn't mind at all (but not likely to happen, purely cost-wise).

[AkiKishi]

R0vena wrote...

cindercatz wrote...
This is just more of that, another branch. If you choose not to see it, that's your choice. If you'd like to see it but it doesn't fit your character, make another character after. That's replayability. If you're worried about s/s people who only play s/s characters, then come up with another branching couple story beats to provide that alternative. 
 

That's exactly the problem, right here. Players shouldn't be robbed of big part of content because they play as they enjoy the  most. If the player choose not to have a kid - then provide an alternative branch with content that the players with the kid will not get. This will be fair and I wouldn't mind at all (but not likely to happen, purely cost-wise).

Don't really see that as a big deal. After all some people always play mages, but you would never remove the other classes because they are not seeing them. It's a choice they make.

The only time where it is unfair is when a player new to the game is cut out of content because of something they never did. Like a new player getting the B list cast in ME3.

[cindercatz]

R0vena wrote...

cindercatz,

Well, I understand your point of view. I disagree, however. Not having a romance in the game generally does not rob the player of any important content. You may not be in romantic relationship with any NPC, but you still get almost the same information (minus couple of little details) if you want. Alistair still tells your about his life no matter if you romance him or not and you still can help him to deal with his problems in the way you see fit, for example. Same with Zevran, Fenris and any other LI.
What you are asking for is a lot of additional content for the option that many players will not want at all. It will have the same problem with implementing in the game as VS in ME series. Because the companion could be dead they didn't integrate him/her into the whole third game, just a portion of it, and gave him/her only a brief appearance in the second one.
Just my opinion, of course.

sorry, was typing the above response, split the answer for this :-) : I agree with that problem about imports, but DA doesn't really have the same issue because it doesn't feature either returning protagonists or a strictly linear timeline. Also, like I said in my response here, having or not having a kid in one game doesn't necessarily mean you have or don't have a character in a future game. It could be as simple as changing a character's backstory to suit the import. What would change then is some dialogue related to your character from the earlier game, maybe the character has some innate perk that changes based on his/her parents. etc. Maybe their race can change, so you have essentially the same character with a different character model (or set of models, accounting for armor). See what I'm getting at?

[R0vena]

cindercatz,

Oh, I have no problem with the protagonist of the future game being a child of the previous one (if she/he had any children at all). My point was that a child as such could not exist at all in some games and thus spending a large developing time and content for it probably wouldn't be wise in developer's point of view. But - and it is a big BUT - let's imagine that the budget is not a problem. In this case I would very much like an alternative story branch for the childless hero. Otherwise it will be not: you can have A, B or C, but you can either have A or not.

BobSmith101,

I don't think it is the same. You could not have a warrior background, but you had a mage background instead. You had a full alternative. Here it would be - have a kid and a lot of extra content or.... don't. I don't think it is an equal choice.

ps typos... sorry, English is not my native language.

Modifié par R0vena, 02 juin 2012 - 03:51 .

[cindercatz]

R0vena wrote...

cindercatz,

Oh, I have no problem with the protagonist of the future game being a child of the previous one (if she/he had any children at all). My point was that a child as such could not exist at all in some games and thus spending a large developing time and content for it probably wouldn't be wise in developer's point of view. But - and it is a big BUT - let's imagine that the budget is not a problem. In this case I would very much like an alternative story branch for the childless hero. Otherwise it will be not: you can have A, B or C, but you can either have A or not.

BobSmith101,

I don't think it is the same. You could not have a warrior background, but you had a mage background instead. You had a full alternative. Here it would be - have a kid and a lot of extra content or.... don't. I don't think it is an equal choice.

ps typos... sorry, English is not my native language.

I was thinking more that it would be a party member follower who could be the child of your former protagonist, to keep with the protagonist drastically changing, story to story. But yes, I agree it should be at least A or B, not A or nothing. There are different ways you can go keeping in mind an alternative, lots of them really. It just comes down to it being a story that accomodates that length of time and personal focus on the player character (not like DA2, not as an active bystander). I'm not even asking for it to be DA3 as far as that goes, just to keep in mind what can be done at any point in the future, whatever game that may be (thinking DA though, of course).

I disagree that romances don't change the game so much though. Of course, it depends on what you do with them, how much is invested into them. IMO that should be quite a lot.

Modifié par cindercatz, 02 juin 2012 - 04:06 .

[R0vena]

cindercatz wrote...

I was thinking more that it would be a party member follower who could be the child of your former protagonist, to keep with the protagonist drastically changing, story to story. But yes, I agree it should be at least A or B, not A or nothing. There are different ways you can go keeping in mind an alternative, lots of them really. It just comes down to it being a story that accomodates that length of time and personal focus on the player character (not like DA2, not as an active bystander). I'm not even asking for it to be DA3 as far as that goes, just to keep in mind what can be done at any point in the future, whatever game that may be (thinking DA though, of course).

I disagree that romances don't change the game so much though. Of course, it depends on what you do with them, how much is invested into them. IMO that should be quite a lot.

Sure, why not. As long as we'll be provided with full and equal alternatives - I am all for it.

And romances definetely change things (I myself enjoy them very much and have a lot of emotional investment in them) - but not in the matter of pure content and importance to the overall story. For example, the Warden could not romance Morrigan, but he still could get her personal quest, he still had a DR option and he still could play  through The Witch Hunt. Of course, his emotional attachment to Morrigan would be on the different level, no doubt about that, he would hear some additional information about her, yes... but purely content-wise you don't miss much if you don't romance her. Hey, even if you kick her out of the party right away, you still get the option of DR and The Witch Hunt. No missing out of the important things here.

Is the romance an important part of personal story? Absolutely. But to overall story? Not as much, although the romance with characters closely tied to the main plot like Morrigan or Alistair give us the illusion that it is.

[Emzamination]

R0vena wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

I was thinking more that it would be a party member follower who could be the child of your former protagonist, to keep with the protagonist drastically changing, story to story. But yes, I agree it should be at least A or B, not A or nothing. There are different ways you can go keeping in mind an alternative, lots of them really. It just comes down to it being a story that accomodates that length of time and personal focus on the player character (not like DA2, not as an active bystander). I'm not even asking for it to be DA3 as far as that goes, just to keep in mind what can be done at any point in the future, whatever game that may be (thinking DA though, of course).

I disagree that romances don't change the game so much though. Of course, it depends on what you do with them, how much is invested into them. IMO that should be quite a lot.

Sure, why not. As long as we'll be provided with full and equal alternatives - I am all for it.

And romances definetely change things (I myself enjoy them very much and have a lot of emotional investment in them) - but not in the matter of pure content and importance to the overall story. For example, the Warden could not romance Morrigan, but he still could get her personal quest, he still had a DR option and he still could play  through The Witch Hunt. Of course, his emotional attachment to Morrigan would be on the different level, no doubt about that, he would hear some additional information about her, yes... but purely content-wise you don't miss much if you don't romance her. Hey, even if you kick her out of the party right away, you still get the option of DR and The Witch Hunt. No missing out of the important things here.

Is the romance an important part of personal story? Absolutely. But to overall story? Not as much, although the romance with characters closely tied to the main plot like Morrigan or Alistair give us the illusion that it is.

Neh, it was mandatory to the overall story.Who wants to take the long walk alone,unloved,unmourned and forgotten with no love child legacy to leave behind. 

[Emzamination]

Ivandra Ceruden wrote...

The thing I'm wondering about is...WHY? Why would you want to let your character have children? What would they add to the game as a whole? Children nurturing options? Then you'd better off playing the SIMs...I just don't see this as a viable plan, sorry.

Heirs for your money & estates you'll undoubtedly earn from a life of heroism and adventuring and besides you have an unspoken duty to the family to keep the bloodline strong.If you're a mage, it would be downright selfish to take all your epic power that might be of use to the realm ages after your gone to the grave, no?

[AkiKishi]

Ivandra Ceruden wrote...

The thing I'm wondering about is...WHY? Why would you want to let your character have children? What would they add to the game as a whole? Children nurturing options? Then you'd better off playing the SIMs...I just don't see this as a viable plan, sorry.

It depends very much on the game.

[Jerrybnsn]

R0vena wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...
Now as far as being forced to have children,  who is to say that your love interest isn't the one that wanted the child very much and you went along with it or you got careless.  That's life. 

Varric: after that little thing with Fenris Hawke got pregnant and had a baby. Had to sit at home and take care of it, of course, so... didn't have time to interfere with all that politics and invasions. Actually, she decided to move from Kirkwall permanently since it was not a healthy place for a child.
Endgame.

And nothing good ever came out of idea to force player into anything. Everytime it happens a lot of players feel cheated out of choice (not to able to kill a certain Chantry Sister, for example). Even in little things. A child is a huge change in life and players should be able to make decisions to have it for their protagonist or not.

So the female Hawke puts in for three months of maternity leave from running errands and killing people for others.  She's got the money to hire a nanny and get back to doing whatever it is she's suppose to.

[Jerrybnsn]

Ivandra Ceruden wrote...

The thing I'm wondering about is...WHY? Why would you want to let your character have children? What would they add to the game as a whole? Children nurturing options? Then you'd better off playing the SIMs...I just don't see this as a viable plan, sorry.

Having children is a consequence of having a deep relationship with someone.  Or at least the issue does have to be dealt with sooner or later.  I only have referred to children for the past protagonists such as the Warden or Hawke.  Whatever role that Bioware plans for these two in DAIII will be minimal and so would be the relationship between these and their children.

 And again, it's all about consequences from your past decisions.  I have a character for DAII I just referred to as "Jerk" Hawke, and as his name implies, he has no relationships except for what he pays for at the local bordello.  So no kids obviously for him.

[R0vena]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
So the female Hawke puts in for three months of maternity leave from running errands and killing people for others.  She's got the money to hire a nanny and get back to doing whatever it is she's suppose to.

Just my opinion. As I said before, as long as a hero without a child will be provided with equal alternative content, I don't care, Everybody has a right to play as they see fit. If the player thinks the life of the game protagonist is suited for parenthood - great. I don't.