226 réponses à ce sujet

[sunnydxmen]

An people kill people with little to no reason an real life.

[Teddie Sage]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Teddie Sage wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

Never understood where the urge to murder companions who disagree with you is coming from.

Bethesda games.

Wrong. A lot of characters are set to essential, making it impossible to kill everyone. Just a few are expendable.

The number of people you can kill for any reason - up to and including because they annoyed you - is far, far higher and near-comprehensive minus a handful of plot critical characters.

Essential characters sometimes are killable in the right circumstance, as well.  Often they are set as essential simply because it's more dramatic if they die at another time and place.

The only essential characters that never die are the children. Bethesda has a sick trend of putting annoying children in their video games and they make them immortal. I would personally prefer not having them at all in the games. Some of the children NPCs are cool, but if you went through Fallout 3's Little Lampcamp, you would know what I'm talking about. A lot of players I know modded their games just to... you know.

But right now we're going too far in taboo subjects and I doubt this was the point of this conversation. Useless killing adds nothing to the plot. If you have a character, just ignore it and pretend it isn't there, TC.

[Conduit0]

sunnydxmen wrote...

Why cant you be a villain.

Because Bioware doesn't make those kinds of games. If you're really want to play the bad guy in fantasy setting that badly, go ask Rockstar to make Grand Theft Stallion or something.

[jokey javik]

David Gaider wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
I'm pretty sure allowing you to randomly murder your companions isn't on their to do list.

Anywhere on it, to be certain.

Yes becuase if you just randomly kill one of your friends it is down right logical to assume the rest of them would try to kill or arrest your psycopath self I do not know why anyone would want that this ain't fallout....not yet forshadowing mwhahahaha.

[tmp7704]

TobiTobsen wrote...

Never understood where the urge to murder companions who disagree with you is coming from.

Probably from being conditioned for years by games of all genres that killing is the best (and most of the time only) answer to anything and everything; the approach practiced by both the player's side and their opponents.

"Death" is treated largely meaningless, just a source of rewards and something to excitedly giggle about, how awesome it is to explode people into meat chunks by a dozen.

And then people go all  that the concept isn't suddently treated with respect in some singled out case. Who would've thought.

[Lithuasil]

Zkyire wrote...

sunnydxmen wrote...

Let us be able to kill our companions anytime we wish.an let all the companions be killable this time.

The PC is supposed to be a hero.

Not a psychopath.

The warden was a psychopath regardless of how you played him/her. Also, there's this whole roleplaying thing. Still, for the record, I believe we should only be able to off companions when we'd have actual motivation to do so, rather then because "I don't like their nose".

[siefier25]

meh, why not? Sometimes, Alistar would get on my nerves, and I would want to cleave his ginger colored head straight off his shoulders....however...I could not

[garrusfan1]

I think it would be stupid to do that but your entitled to your opinion

[garrusfan1]

Wait only if they make anders be part of the group again because I enjoy killing him

[Sylvius the Mad]

Conduit0 wrote...

Being able to kill a companion at any time without some sort of proper ingame justification is just plain stupid, and no, saying, "He's too whiney and I don't like him!" is not ingame justification. Like others said, you're suppose to be a hero, not a psychopath.

Heroes in fantasy RPGs often kill all manner of things with little or no justification.  "Because they have green skin and fangs, and we don't" is often about as far as the moral justification goes.

That the PC thinks the companion is a legitimate threat to the mission, for whatever reason, is stronger than the justification given for why we wiped out a whole village of Xvarts in BG, but we were allowed to kill those Xvarts.

I say again, any decent combat or death mechanic would allow this as a necessary consequence.  Even if BioWare didn't think killing the companions was valuable in and of itself, it should still be permitted by the game's mechanics simply by virtue of allowing friendly fire and character death.

[Realmzmaster]

If you want the PC to kill a companion at anytime then there must be dire consequences from that action unless it is justified. For example if the Hawke killed Varric before the Deep Road Expedition his brother Bartrand would call for assassins to eliminate Hawke and of course all plot related quests involving Varric are no longer available. Aveline would be force to arrest Hawke or hunt Hawke down with the guards. Other companions would have the option to leave Hawke and their quests become inaccessible

Zevran tried to kill the Warden and if approval was not high enough would try again. That is a justifiable reason. Leliana attacks the Warden to stop the defiling of the Scared Ashes. The warden has a right to defend herself/himself.
But to kill a companion for the sake of killing should come with heavy consequences.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 30 septembre 2012 - 03:50 .

[Todd23]

Make every companion have a predetermined point in which you can kill them, then. Like a scene in which there's a bunch of mages and you can throw Cullen in there and they tear him apart. And as they begin to harvest his blood for power, you get to hear him as he yells bloody-murder. Now that's what I call a mature dark fantasy.

[ElitePinecone]

... and people tell me the BSN isn't full of psychopaths.

[Hey]

I'd rather they focus on interesting scenerios in the game - which may or may not involve "ganking" a sqwadie.. DA:O was great at this I thought.

[Todd23]

@ElitePinecone It's full of me isn't it?

[Vandicus]

ElitePinecone wrote...

... and people tell me the BSN isn't full of psychopaths.

Wait who tells you that?

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That the PC thinks the companion is a legitimate threat to the mission, for whatever reason, is stronger than the justification given for why we wiped out a whole village of Xvarts in BG, but we were allowed to kill those Xvarts.

To be fair, those xvarts attacked first.  The PC was just defending himself. :innocent:

Honestly, the desire to kill anything and everything in games always mystifies me.  But I don't think I'm ever likely to play a PC (even an evil one) who's go to method of dealing with everything is murder.  Such a character holds no interest for me.  Still, if someone wants to do it, whatever.  I don't want the devs to waste time dealing with the repercussions of such actions, however.  If it breaks the game, it breaks the game.  It's a waste of zots to cater to psychopath PCs.

[Plaintiff]

No.

If you don't want the story Bioware is telling, go play something else.

[Beerfish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't see why BioWare would intentionally include such an option, but I would argue that the ability to kill your companions at any time would be a necessary consequence of any well-designed system of combat and death mechanics.

No, because once again you have the blinders on to the consequences of something you want for the 'perfect' game.  Take one companion and reverse engineer them.  Go back through a game and see the effect of removing them from the game, all the quests, conversations, plot flags...etc etc.  Now make sure the developers take into account every possible instance of each character being there or not.  Now do that for every companion in the game.  Now look at the group make up a realize that if the tank character is killed who is going to tank for the group.  If the healer is killed who is going to heal.  ETc etc.

[tmp7704]

Beerfish wrote...

Now do that for every companion in the game.  Now look at the group make up a realize that if the tank character is killed who is going to tank for the group.  If the healer is killed who is going to heal.  ETc etc.

That would be experiencing consequences of one's own actions, then. Through the feedback of gameplay rather than in-game preaching, that would quite obviously fall on deaf ears in case of someone who didn't give a damn about killing off the character in the first place.

[Eveangaline]

Most of your companions are people likely capable of fighting back or escaping. They don't usually stick you with rookies.

Plus didn't DA give you the option to kill most of your followers when you first met them? (Excepting morrigan and alistair)

[Sylvius the Mad]

Beerfish wrote...

No, because once again you have the blinders on to the consequences of something you want for the 'perfect' game.  Take one companion and reverse engineer them.  Go back through a game and see the effect of removing them from the game, all the quests, conversations, plot flags...etc etc.  Now make sure the developers take into account every possible instance of each character being there or not.  Now do that for every companion in the game.  Now look at the group make up a realize that if the tank character is killed who is going to tank for the group.  If the healer is killed who is going to heal.  ETc etc.

The classes shouldn't be so wed to their combat roles that only one of them can tank.  Anyone should be able to tank, given the right build.  Furthermore, the combat encounters should not be so formulaic as to rely on the tanking mechanic.  Even DAO didn't do that.

Also, the party persists regardless of who is in it.  The game can continue to treat the party the same.  We've already seen games that alter content on the fly based on who is in the party (the companion interjections in DAO and NWN2 are good examples) - this is merely an extension of that.

The only change this would require is to remove any specific companion from being required for any specific part of the game, and that's something I've been calling for for some time anyway, regardless of whether the companions are killable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Honestly, the desire to kill anything and everything in games always mystifies me.

I can't really imagine wanting to kill everything, either, but being able to kill anything is an obvious win.  Then any situation can be responded to with violence, regardless of whether the writers foresaw the need for it.  This allows a broader range of PC designs.

As I often do, I'll again mention Shandalar in the TotSC expansion for BG.  He unceremoniously teleports the player's party to a dangerous location from which they must escape.  He does this for a reason, and that reason is justifiable.  But when I first played through that, my character hadn't bothered to note the names of the people he'd wronged earlier in the game, so he didn't make that connection.  As such, he had no idea why Shalandar was antagonising him.  Shandalar was thus reduced to nothing more than a threat - much as a wandering monster is - and was dealt with accordingly.

But if the game had been designed such that I wasn't allowed to kill any character unless BioWare specifically desired it, that PC's desire for security (from Shandalar) would not have been able to be expressed through gameplay.

I request this purely as a tool to broaden the possible scope of roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

No.

If you don't want the story Bioware is telling, go play something else.

I want some wiggle room in that story.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
Honestly, the desire to kill anything and everything in games always mystifies me.

I can't really imagine wanting to kill everything, either, but being able to kill anything is an obvious win.  Then any situation can be responded to with violence, regardless of whether the writers foresaw the need for it.  This allows a broader range of PC designs.

As I often do, I'll again mention Shandalar in the TotSC expansion for BG.  He unceremoniously teleports the player's party to a dangerous location from which they must escape.  He does this for a reason, and that reason is justifiable.  But when I first played through that, my character hadn't bothered to note the names of the people he'd wronged earlier in the game, so he didn't make that connection.  As such, he had no idea why Shalandar was antagonising him.  Shandalar was thus reduced to nothing more than a threat - much as a wandering monster is - and was dealt with accordingly.

But if the game had been designed such that I wasn't allowed to kill any character unless BioWare specifically desired it, that PC's desire for security (from Shandalar) would not have been able to be expressed through gameplay.

I request this purely as a tool to broaden the possible scope of roleplaying.

Sure, and I understand that and support it.  It's just that once you start making everyone killable, people start expecting the game to react appropriately when you kill someone, and that's so far beyond the scope of what's really possible as to be insane.  If you kill someone plot critical, then you simply shouldn't be able to finish the game, as far as I'm concerned.

Though I'll admit...I don't know if I'd ever really be okay with them letting people kill random children in the street.