226 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow Fox]

How about let me romance Cassandra and kiss and grope her whenever I wantz?

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 02 octobre 2012 - 02:08 .

[LTD]

I'd much appreciate such freedom.It ticks me off how in this golden age of full VA, it pretty often feels like all major characters are very much protected by the plot. Can't have that expensive VA and all those hard worked lines o dialogue go waste! Tis a bad design choise, waste of moneys and thusly certainly not the EA way of doing things. If they hire Lady Gaga to do some NPC or another for six bazillion dollars, then BY GOD YOU WILL LISTEN THROUGH EVERY GODDAMNED LINE SHE WAS PAID TO DELIVER.YOU WILL MOST ASSUREDLY TAKE HER TO PARTY AND NO YOU WILL NOT KILL HER TYVM.

This was exceptionally frustrating in TOR where I wanted nothing more than kill at least half of my terrible boring talking head compansions and could not:( Some evil overlord I was. Working in my team was safer than weekend in Detroid. One guy actyually betrayed me. Did I get to kill him? Imprison him? Punish him somehow? Even fire him from my team of douchebags?! NO!



" Hey ya! It's me, Imoe*splat!*



@Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke
Dear Sir or Madam, this may come as news to you but Internet is actually ful of porn. Some of it is really awesome. Please begin consuming it instead of wishing it all over my RPGs. Thank you&have fun!

Modifié par LTD, 02 octobre 2012 - 02:32 .

[Vandicus]

LTD wrote...


This was exceptionally frustrating in TOR where I wanted nothing more than kill at least half of my terrible boring talking head compansions and could not:(


" Hey ya! It's me, Imoe*splat!*

Many companions in TOR were originally killable in beta. It was removed because people were upset at killing a companion character or quest giver off permanently. 

[LTD]

Such a huge shame they didn't implement it! Mere idea of being able to kill quest npcs and compansions makes it feel much less restricted game than it is. 

Jeeez, what's wrong with people. (" Waaaaahhh, I killed Quinn but I didn't REALLY mean it:( Give him baaaackkk" Pansies!

Modifié par LTD, 02 octobre 2012 - 02:35 .

[Vandicus]

LTD wrote...

Such a huge shame they didn't implement it! Mere idea of being able to kill quest npcs and compansions makes it feel much less restricted game than it is. 

Jeeez, what's wrong with people. (" Waaaaahhh, I killed Quinn but I didn't REALLY mean it:( Give him baaaackkk" Pansies!

How'd you know Quinn was one of them? 

Yeah I was pretty disappointed in it too. Lots of the decision arcs/consequences for courses of actions were removed from TOR precisely because people did not like having permanent consequences for MMO characters. Ironic that this was originally one of the things they talked about most in the very early interviews and that people bashed it so heavily in beta.

[Shadow Fox]

LTD wrote...

I'd much appreciate such freedom.It ticks me off how in this golden age of full VA, it pretty often feels like all major characters are very much protected by the plot. Can't have that expensive VA and all those hard worked lines o dialogue go waste! Tis a bad design choise, waste of moneys and thusly certainly not the EA way of doing things. If they hire Lady Gaga to do some NPC or another for six bazillion dollars, then BY GOD YOU WILL LISTEN THROUGH EVERY GODDAMNED LINE SHE WAS PAID TO DELIVER.YOU WILL MOST ASSUREDLY TAKE HER TO PARTY AND NO YOU WILL NOT KILL HER TYVM.

This was exceptionally frustrating in TOR where I wanted nothing more than kill at least half of my terrible boring talking head compansions and could not:( Some evil overlord I was. Working in my team was safer than weekend in Detroid. One guy actyually betrayed me. Did I get to kill him? Imprison him? Punish him somehow? Even fire him from my team of douchebags?! NO!



" Hey ya! It's me, Imoe*splat!*



@Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke
Dear Sir or Madam, this may come as news to you but Internet is actually ful of porn. Some of it is really awesome. Please begin consuming it instead of wishing it all over my RPGs. Thank you&have fun!

....You actually took that seriously?

[daaaav]

What?

Actually I was hoping that bioware would move away from the noble hero / murderous psychopath dichotemy...

[Darth Wolfenbarg]

I think non-essential companions should have points where you can dismiss them. I remember after having to kill Merrill's entire tribe in DA2, I was so enraged at her that I wanted her gone. However, instead of getting that option, my aggressive option was more like aggressive reassurance. She isn't vital to the plot after act 1, and yet I was forced to keep her around even though she was toxic to everyone around her by that point. The other characters like Fenris, Isabela, and Anders all had options when their story arcs hit a climax, but not Merrill's. That was very aggravating.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vandicus wrote...

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.

Except that the "hero" in a fantasy RPG routinely kills all manner of things with even less justification than that.

And it's not just annoyance.  The PC might perceive a companion as a threat, or even an immediate danger.  It would be tragic if the PC killed his companion because he misunderstood what was going on, but making them unkilling deprives us of that story-telling tool.

[Sylvius the Mad]

guardian_titan wrote...

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.

In real life, you can't slaughter an entire village just to steal their money, either, but that's routinely supported behaviour in CRPGs.

[Bfler]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

guardian_titan wrote...

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.

In real life, you can't slaughter an entire village just to steal their money, either, but that's routinely supported behaviour in CRPGs.

Which RPG forces you to slaughter villages to get money?

[Sylvius the Mad]

nedpepper wrote...

Because Bioware creates games where the companions are a key component TO the narrative.

That's debatable.  Particularly since many of their companions are unceremoniously killable.  Just in DAO, Zevran and Wynne can be killed when you meet them.  Leliana and Sten can be left to die before they ever join the party.  How important can they to the narrative given that they're entirely optional?

And even if they're in the party, their story content is optional.  You need never talk to Morrigan again after taking her out of the Wilds.  You need never talk to Varric.  You need never even meet Isabela or Fenris.  Again, if they're so vital, why are they optional?

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.

First, as I've shown above, the companions are clearly not a key part of the story-telling process.  Second, the development resources are irrelevant.  Once BioWare has developed the companions, that's a sunk development cost.  At that point, whether we ever use that content makes no material difference.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bfler wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

guardian_titan wrote...

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.

In real life, you can't slaughter an entire village just to steal their money, either, but that's routinely supported behaviour in CRPGs.

Which RPG forces you to slaughter villages to get money?

I didn't say they forced you to do it.  I said they allowed you to do it.  No one is asking to be forced to kill companions.

It's a staple of the genre that the hero can and will kill all manner of creatures simply because they have green skin and he doesn't.  The xvart village in BG fits my description perfectly.

[The Six Path of Pain]

LinksOcarina wrote...

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

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.

What if we don't want to be a hero,What if we want to be an Anti-Hero at the very least.

Then he wouldn't have companions to begin with, so no need to kill them.
I don't recall ever agreeing with the slaying of our companions on my post
Anti-heros don't kill people wantonly or do bad deeds on a whim. As a matter of fact, a lot of so called anti-heroes in gaming are not anti-heroes at all (Kratos comes to mind as a glaring example of a non-anti-hero.)A good anti-hero is more in line with a byronic hero, a literary character trope created by romantic poet Lord Byron. These are the guys that are cynical, thieves, rogues and asassins who fight for no cause until they are roped into it by fate or happenstance.

So they can have feelings of revenge or despair, and follow their own code of morals, but they wouldn't kill people for the fun of it, nor would he do it for enjoyment or necessity. You would do it because you have no choice, or because you were paid to and it is the right decision at the time. 

[The Six Path of Pain]

LinksOcarina wrote...

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

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.

What if we don't want to be a hero,What if we want to be an Anti-Hero at the very least.

Then he wouldn't have companions to begin with, so no need to kill them.

Anti-heros don't kill people wantonly or do bad deeds on a whim. As a matter of fact, a lot of so called anti-heroes in gaming are not anti-heroes at all (Kratos comes to mind as a glaring example of a non-anti-hero.)A good anti-hero is more in line with a byronic hero, a literary character trope created by romantic poet Lord Byron. These are the guys that are cynical, thieves, rogues and asassins who fight for no cause until they are roped into it by fate or happenstance.

So they can have feelings of revenge or despair, and follow their own code of morals, but they wouldn't kill people for the fun of it, nor would he do it for enjoyment or necessity. You would do it because you have no choice, or because you were paid to and it is the right decision at the time. 

I don't recall ever agreeing with the slaying of our companions on my post

[NedPepper]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

Because Bioware creates games where the companions are a key component TO the narrative.

That's debatable.  Particularly since many of their companions are unceremoniously killable.  Just in DAO, Zevran and Wynne can be killed when you meet them.  Leliana and Sten can be left to die before they ever join the party.  How important can they to the narrative given that they're entirely optional?

And even if they're in the party, their story content is optional.  You need never talk to Morrigan again after taking her out of the Wilds.  You need never talk to Varric.  You need never even meet Isabela or Fenris.  Again, if they're so vital, why are they optional?

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.

First, as I've shown above, the companions are clearly not a key part of the story-telling process.  Second, the development resources are irrelevant.  Once BioWare has developed the companions, that's a sunk development cost.  At that point, whether we ever use that content makes no material difference.

Can you kill Alistar or Morrigan?  Nope.  And killing off these characters actually became a problem.  I guess either didn't think ahead or figured people wouldn't get so bent ouf of shape that their own story experience may deviate from canon, but as someone posted before, Bioware had plans for characters you killed.

Only Zevran really applies to not really adding future plot devices to the series.  (And even that's not completely true.  DA 2 had a story for Zevran in place.)  Wynne and Shale were the stars of Asunder, and if the rumors are true, that story might actually be the imortant bridge between Dragon Age 2 and 3 and some of the characters may even be in the game.  And a certain death in that book had a much bigger effect and more emotional resonance than if that character would have been slaughtered because he/she was "annoying" in Origins.

Just for the record, I think it was stupid to have Shale or Leliana turn on you and attack you to begin with in Origins.  But, all the deaths were courtesy of reacting to the plot. Not just mindless murder.  I still consider it short sighted.  But maybe Bioware had no idea they were creating a series and a fantasy world with Origins and that these characters would become very popular and beloved.  The former, I doubt, the latter...well you have no way of knowing which characters will resonate.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't see how any discussion of canon is at all relevant. I see no value is tying one game to the next in terms of player choices. I would rather each game set its own canon anew at the start.

Killing off Morrigan or Alistair wouldn't actually have that much impact on DAO's story. Losing Alistair would mean we'd miss some exposition in Redcliffe, and be denied a few ending options from the Landsmeet on. Losing Morrigan would deny us only the Dark Ritual.

By losing companions, we don't damage the story - we just change it. Creating a new story with each playthrough is kind of the whole point of playing these games, I think. We're constructing a narrative in concert with BioWare. But when BioWare won't let us participate, and forces us to experience only their narrative, that's when the games cease to be worth my time.

[macrocarl]

No thanks. The idea of 'murder' as 'player freedom' is messed up.

[wright1978]

macrocarl wrote...

No thanks. The idea of 'murder' as 'player freedom' is messed up.

Having companions leaving or allowing player to dismiss/not recruit them is something i can get behind. Giving people the option to just willynilly execute companions is not.

[TMZuk]

Reading through this thread is becoming increasingly amusing.

Especially those who attempt to take the moral high ground makes me laugh hard! We should not be allowed to kill NPCs and companions just because we disagree with them? What a load of...... ! You spend the entire ~game~ slaughtering people by the hundreds because you disagree with them! Get a grip, people! I have no ~idea~ how much hapless trash my warden slaughtered in DA:O, and the same goes for my Shepard in ME/ME2.

And then there are those arguing that Bioware simply do not make that kind of games and we should go and play Skyrim instead. Uh.... Baldur's Gate ring a bell? Baldur's Gate 2? I could kill or at least attack anyone I wanted to if I felt like it.  Pretty sure I could in NWN as well, but I don't remember, the campaign was so utterly boring I only played it once.

Just because you ~can~ attack someone, doesn't mean you ~will~. And if you do, you might regret it. If you do, they might be stronger than you. But having the option is the option anyone has in RL, and should have in any RPG worthy of the name.

Modifié par TMZuk, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:31 .

[TMZuk]

BrotherWarth wrote...

I wouldn't mind if we were given an opportunity to kill a companion for being a detriment to your cause/goal, but just being able to kill any companion at any time for any reason? That's stupid IMO. Who would stay with someone who kills people for no reason?

Maybe someone who thought that your characters murder on someone else was entirely justified? Did Morrigan protest if the Warden slaughtered Wynne? No, she encouraged it. Would she not have done that at any given time? I think she would.

Once again, the concept that "being able to" isn't the same as "doing it all the time" seems to be so very hard to grasp!

Modifié par TMZuk, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

BrotherWarth wrote...

I wouldn't mind if we were given an opportunity to kill a companion for being a detriment to your cause/goal, but just being able to kill any companion at any time for any reason? That's stupid IMO. Who would stay with someone who kills people for no reason?

Any reason is different from no reason.

If we're to be able "to kill a companion for being a detriment to our cause/goal" (your words), the only way to do that without needing to wait until BioWare decides it might be true is to be allowed to kill them under any circumstances.

BioWare can't know when your PC might decide that some companion is a threat.  As such, you cannot rely on BioWare to provide you with an appropriate opportunity to kill him.  Therefore, in order to allow you to kill that companion upon realising that he is a threat, you would need to be allowed to kill him at any time.

[Lenimph]

I'm surprisingly ok with this idea as long as the companions have the right to do the same.

"You were murdered in your sleep for being a douchebag - game over"

Modifié par Lenimph, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:33 .