226 réponses à ce sujet

[Sealy]

Um, How about instead we have an option of not recruiting them... I really don't think we should promote the idea of murdering people just cause we don't share opinions with them or like how they look.

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

You get a lot of wriggle room as-is, just not as much as you want.

If you can't accept that your character is not the only important one in the entire story (maybe not even the most important one), that others might need to survive or even (gasp!) be present, at least until a certain point, then what can I say?

What I don't accept is that BioWare's is the only story being told.

Making some characters unkillable makes sense.  Making all of the characters whom BioWare doesn't specifically intend for me to kill unkillable is a bridge too far.

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

Which is why they shouldn't expect it.

When players wanted games to react to what their characters did, that made sense.  And when developers then put those reactions into the game, that made sense.  But when developers increased the proportion of actions to which there are reactions by reducing the available actions, that didn't make sense.  There they were aiming for the wrong target.

To the first point, how would you know the difference besides meta-gaming and hearing the dev team say they are important? 

To the second point, can you say that three times fast? 

In all seriousness, the second point I barely follow. Are you trying to say that the developers put more reactions over actions into the game?

If so, why does it not make sense when it is logically impossible to be the cause of each effect in an RPG, especially when most RPGs have story-decisions that are  designed to be a reaction to the player, versus an action they can fully control?

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Fleshdress wrote...

Um, How about instead we have an option of not recruiting them... I really don't think we should promote the idea of murdering people just cause we don't share opinions with them or like how they look.

Not being allowed to kill people for different opinions? The BSN can't handle that!

[FaWa]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Fleshdress wrote...

Um, How about instead we have an option of not recruiting them... I really don't think we should promote the idea of murdering people just cause we don't share opinions with them or like how they look.

Not being allowed to kill people for different opinions? The BSN can't handle that!

^This
I'd have a meltdown if we weren't allowed to kill everyone just because why not. Even if I have to plan their "accidental" death like in ME2/3. 

[Sealy]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Fleshdress wrote...

Um, How about instead we have an option of not recruiting them... I really don't think we should promote the idea of murdering people just cause we don't share opinions with them or like how they look.

Not being allowed to kill people for different opinions? The BSN can't handle that!

I was actually gonna end that with, "especially on a forum where we really can't go a page and a half without arguing:pinched:." I think this thread is great, I will make note of everyone who supports the killing of combatant opinion peoples and ensure that I never end up in the same timezone as them. 

[TheJediSaint]

So I guess there's no place for people who want to limit there body count on BSN, then?

[Wulfram]

Fleshdress wrote...

Um, How about instead we have an option of not recruiting them... I really don't think we should promote the idea of murdering people just cause we don't share opinions with them or like how they look.

There are lots of things the PC can do that I don't think should be promoted.  Selling children's souls for demon sex, for example.

[Todd23]

Fleshdress wrote...

Um, How about instead we have an option of not recruiting them... I really don't think we should promote the idea of murdering people just cause we don't share opinions with them or like how they look.

I think we should promote that idea.  I guess this means we don't share opinions.

[PsychaDurmont]

FINE HERE wrote...

Mage- Inquisitior, I wish to join your party and offer my magic to aid you.
Inquisitor- ... Yeah, I don't like your haircut.
Mage- I- What?
Inquisitor- You die.
Mage- But I-Gaaaaah!
Other Companion- Maker! What did you kill him for!? He wanted to HELP us!
Inquisitor- Your hair is starting to look stupid too...

Can I have this in the game please? 

But in all seriousness... Several main reasons to be able to kill off companions... (SPOILERS just in case people have not played the two DA games by now)

1. ANDERS after blowing up Althina.  Glad I could do it
2. ORSINO after I discovered he Caused my Mothers Death!  Sorry that little tid bit about him funding the research for that blood mage had me seriously wanting to kill him right there on the spot in front of the knight commander (who probably wouldnt object).  His death later on was unfulfilling.

There are several in DA that can be killed off should the right circumstances arise(I think all of the companions in either the main origins story or in an expansion can be killed).  So this in a way was addressed.  

BUT... I want/need the right that should a story arc do something that affects my character or his/her family that they should be able to appropriately react.  Seriously that Orsino thing just kills me.  He would never have lived to start that mage uprising.

Modifié par PsychaDurmont, 01 octobre 2012 - 10:14 .

[Sealy]

Wulfram wrote...

Fleshdress wrote...

Um, How about instead we have an option of not recruiting them... I really don't think we should promote the idea of murdering people just cause we don't share opinions with them or like how they look.

There are lots of things the PC can do that I don't think should be promoted.  Selling children's souls for demon sex, for example.

Well if the child soul was already half sold, and you just uh... don't hit the red eject button to send demon-ness packing, is it really your fault the child gets soul sucked. Plus killing randoms comes up in the game all the time, so you still get the murderer option checked, the demon sex option is so rare, it seems like it may be a fair trade off. 

(just kidding by the way, both really shouldn't be promoted, but since there is no thread for "Bioware, please give me the option to sell all the children souls for all the demon sexes" and I don't really have to worry about staying out of the timezone of someone who does want to sell my soul for demon sex... cause Santa protects me, then I shall stick to eye-balling the crazies that want to stab me cause I don't worship them.)

[MisterJB]

BouncyFrag wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

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

Bethesda games.

So true. The boards before Skyrim came about were disturbing thanks to those obsessed with not being able to kill certain 'age groups.'

Don't tell me that spending five minutes in Little Lamplight (Fallout 3) didn't make you consider child murder. That is a lie and you know it.

[bzombo]

Make characters permanently dead if they die in combat. Then, you can "kill" your character by stripping them and sending them off into combat. I do this to Jaheira in BG1 and BG2. :-)

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

To the second point, can you say that three times fast? 

I can't say anything three times fast.  Speaking isn't my strong suit.

In all seriousness, the second point I barely follow. Are you trying to say that the developers put more reactions over actions into the game?

I'm saying that they eliminated some actions simply because they couldn't program reactions to them.

I can see why they would want reactions to more actions, but making it look like more actions have reactions by eliminating the actions that don't doesn't benefit anyone.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

To the first point, how would you know the difference besides meta-gaming and hearing the dev team say they are important? 

I want to reduce the number of unkillable people so that it's less likely that you'll want to kill someone and be unable to do so.

Also, killing NPCs by accident (green on blue friendly fire) should be possible.  If I'm losing a fight, and I think I could win by dropping a fireball in a crowded restaurant, the consequences of killing those innocent diners should play some role in my decision-making.  One or two of them surviving unexpectedly is very different from all of them remaining unscathed.

[NedPepper]

It's a waste of time, resources, voice actors and destroys the narrative. If you want cardboard companions you can kill off and just grab another one, go play Skyrim. Bioware tells stories with great characters. Even if I don't "like" a character juxtaposed with how I'm role playing my character, I don't have this need to murder them. In fact, I like the idea of playing again with a different character who may be more in line with that character. Some people need to realize that video game RPGs are never going to give you the options of table top, old school, do it yourself rle playing. But guess what? You can still do that to heart's desire. It doesn't make any sense in a game with a narrative. The best they can do, as someone put it to me recently, is give you the illusion of complete freedom. It's an illusion, and it works. And that's all they can do.

[Todd23]

@BouncyFrag Was I the only one who was also upset about not being able to romance certain ages?

[NedPepper]

PsychaDurmont wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...

Mage- Inquisitior, I wish to join your party and offer my magic to aid you.
Inquisitor- ... Yeah, I don't like your haircut.
Mage- I- What?
Inquisitor- You die.
Mage- But I-Gaaaaah!
Other Companion- Maker! What did you kill him for!? He wanted to HELP us!
Inquisitor- Your hair is starting to look stupid too...

Can I have this in the game please? 

But in all seriousness... Several main reasons to be able to kill off companions... (SPOILERS just in case people have not played the two DA games by now)

1. ANDERS after blowing up Althina.  Glad I could do it
2. ORSINO after I discovered he Caused my Mothers Death!  Sorry that little tid bit about him funding the research for that blood mage had me seriously wanting to kill him right there on the spot in front of the knight commander (who probably wouldnt object).  His death later on was unfulfilling.

There are several in DA that can be killed off should the right circumstances arise(I think all of the companions in either the main origins story or in an expansion can be killed).  So this in a way was addressed.  

BUT... I want/need the right that should a story arc do something that affects my character or his/her family that they should be able to appropriately react.  Seriously that Orsino thing just kills me.  He would never have lived to start that mage uprising.

The point: Killing these characters was part of the narrative.  It's end game decisions.  Kililng Merrill or Fenris while walking through Kirkwall in the middle of the day because he/she says something "your character" finds annoying is absolutely an uneeded function, and in fact, HURTS the role playing experience. 

[Kail Ashton]

I'm going to say no, that's one of the most ill thought out ideas ever on this forum and that's saying something! even the most deranged murder knife happy main character wouldn't just murder companions for no freaking reason, if i wanted to play "sociopath: the game" i'd play freaking manhunt or sumth'n

[Sylvius the Mad]

nedpepper wrote...

The point: Killing these characters was part of the narrative.  It's end game decisions.  Kililng Merrill or Fenris while walking through Kirkwall in the middle of the day because he/she says something "your character" finds annoying is absolutely an uneeded function, and in fact, HURTS the role playing experience. 

How does that hurt the roleplaying experience?  It aids roleplaying by giving the character more avenues to express himself through his actions.

It hurts the narrative, if the narrative is written to require these characters, but the authored narrative has very little to do with roleplaying.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 octobre 2012 - 11:22 .

[Todd23]

But Kail, I want to play sociopath: the dragon age game.

[Vandicus]

Todd23 wrote...

But Kail, I want to play sociopath: the dragon age game.

Well luckily for you, Green Ronin has a dragon age tabletop rpg, so you can play "Sociopath: The Dragon Age game" as much as you want. I would recommend finding a group to play with. Sociopathy is so much more fun with other people.

[Sylvius the Mad]

nedpepper wrote...

It's a waste of time, resources, voice actors and destroys the narrative. If you want cardboard companions you can kill off and just grab another one, go play Skyrim. Bioware tells stories with great characters. Even if I don't "like" a character juxtaposed with how I'm role playing my character, I don't have this need to murder them. In fact, I like the idea of playing again with a different character who may be more in line with that character. Some people need to realize that video game RPGs are never going to give you the options of table top, old school, do it yourself rle playing. But guess what? You can still do that to heart's desire. It doesn't make any sense in a game with a narrative. The best they can do, as someone put it to me recently, is give you the illusion of complete freedom. It's an illusion, and it works. And that's all they can do.

Then how is it that they used to do more?

BioWare has made games wherein the companions could die as part of normal gameplay.  And I miss that.  And if my PC cares about that charcater, then that character's death becomes a dramatic moment, regardless of whether BioWare wrote it that way.

[NedPepper]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

The point: Killing these characters was part of the narrative.  It's end game decisions.  Kililng Merrill or Fenris while walking through Kirkwall in the middle of the day because he/she says something "your character" finds annoying is absolutely an uneeded function, and in fact, HURTS the role playing experience. 

How does that hurt the roleplaying experience?  It aids roleplaying by giving the character more avenues to express himself through his actions.

It hurts the narrative, if the narrative is written to require these characters, but the authored narrative has very little to do with roleplaying.

Because Bioware creates games where the companions are a key component TO the narrative.  By eliminating them in pointless situations, it's like your short changing one of Bioware's greatest strengths as a game developer.  I have no issue killing off other NPCs.  The bar keep in Redcliffe for example who gets a knife in his back?   That was a great little moment.  It allowed choice and moral decison.  You could play cutthroat.  You can let Connor die or you can save him.  But the companions are a key part of the story-telling process.  Otherwise, they wouldn't put so much money, time, and effort into them. 

By implenting this, you're asking them to change how they develop their entire style of making games.  And if you do that, are you really even playing a Bioware game anymore, or just some strange amalgation of the "perfect" role playing game, which, by the way, doesn't exist.  Because everyone's definition of "RPG" is so very different.

[guardian_titan]

Wow.  The game really has a lot of psychopaths playing it with everyone wanting to murder their companions.  No wonder people say video games corrupt the youth.    If anything, Bioware should remove the ability to murder companions since that seems to cause story issues later on.  Leliana and Zevran were in DA2 even if you killed them (although Zevran was due to a bug).  Anders was in DA2 even if he died in Awakening.  Nathaniel was supposed to be in DA2 as a companion instead of Sebastian but got replaced because he was killable in Awakening.  Morrigan's supposedly killable in Witch Hunt although that's uncertain if she's really dead.  At best, we should just tell our companions to leave so if they appear in the next game, there's no confusion on how a character who died suddenly reappeared.

In real life, when you can't tolerate someone, what do you do?  You either suck it up and deal with it while avoiding them when you can or you leave.  You can't murder someone just because you hate their clothes or their house looks like a dump.  You get sent to prison for it.  You work with a variety of people in real life and many you can't get away from.  At work and at school, we work with people of all personalities.  We need to learn to work with those people rather than immediately resort to getting rid of that person.  You can't get someone fired from a job because you hate their desk or because they do better at their job than you do.  You can't get a kid kicked out of your class because their clothes are better than your's.  Cliques only take you so far.  Eventually, you have to venture outside of those cliques and deal with people outside of your comfort zone.  Playing a game such as DA where you have to deal with a variety of personalities is a good way to learn to deal with people you don't normally deal with.  If you can't figure out how to cope with a variety of personalities whether it be in a game or in the real world, then maybe you need to consider seeking psychiatric help.  Murdering people is not healthy, even if you only imagine it.  It doesn't take much to go from imagining to doing.  War may be an excuse to murder people, but that's war.  Murdering a companion just because you hate their personality is murder, especially if they did nothing to provoke you like poison you first.  Self defense is the only legal way to murder someone, and even that is a bit iffy.

[Vandicus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

The point: Killing these characters was part of the narrative.  It's end game decisions.  Kililng Merrill or Fenris while walking through Kirkwall in the middle of the day because he/she says something "your character" finds annoying is absolutely an uneeded function, and in fact, HURTS the role playing experience. 

How does that hurt the roleplaying experience?  It aids roleplaying by giving the character more avenues to express himself through his actions.

It hurts the narrative, if the narrative is written to require these characters, but the authored narrative has very little to do with roleplaying.

Because unless you're intentionally roleplaying a psycopath who kills people for annoying him/her, that behavior would be out of character. Sociopathy is not a supported roleplaying experience in the DA game series. In a normal pen and paper rp group, you'd be "that guy", ostracized unless you find a like minded group of roleplayers who like killing everything in sight, including other PCs for very little reason.