226 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

BrotherWarth wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

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 Wardenslaughtered Wynne? No, she encouraged it. Would she not nave done that at any given time? I think she would.

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

Why would Morrigan be alright with the Warden killing Wynne for absolutely no reason? Do you think she's a maniac? And what possible benefit is there to being able to kill any companion at any time? It would limit the amount of influence your companions have on the story, which is an artificial hindrance to the writers ability to tell good stories. I would rather keep my homicidal tendencies in check and have a story with relevant companions.

Yep agree 100% with this.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BrotherWarth wrote...

I'm talking about a part of the story in which you can decide to kill a companion. 

Every part of the story should be a part of the story in which you can decide to kill a companion.

[TMZuk]

BrotherWarth wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

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 Wardenslaughtered Wynne? No, she encouraged it. Would she not nave done that at any given time? I think she would.

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

Why would Morrigan be alright with the Warden killing Wynne for absolutely no reason? Do you think she's a maniac? And what possible benefit is there to being able to kill any companion at any time? It would limit the amount of influence your companions have on the story, which is an artificial hindrance to the writers ability to tell good stories. I would rather keep my homicidal tendencies in check and have a story with relevant companions.

Oh, you would like to keep your homicidal tendencies in check, would you? Then I think you better play something else than DA3, because I guarentee you that your character will be striding through piles of (probably dissappearing, but still...) corpses, and wade through rivers of blood. It will splatter all over your character and probably even splash onto your screen.





DA:O spoiler alert!




And my Warden killed Wynne in the mage-tower, with Morrigans blessing!




End spoiler!

Modifié par TMZuk, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:52 .

[FaWa]

wow, what great observations. Because I "Killed" Miranda in ME2, I must be a psycopath in real life.

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

I'm talking about a part of the story in which you can decide to kill a companion. 

Every part of the story should be a part of the story in which you can decide to kill a companion.

But therein lies a fundamental problem because the design of what Dragon Age is (and BioWare's MO for the most part) is to not do that. The only time companions die is during scripted moments or when they turn/you're given a choice to do so. It's not bad, and usually the reason to keep narrative flow.

Basically, you can't control it because it would clash with design. 

[Miss Greyjoy]

Being able to dismiss companions at any time would be great. But I would hate for interesting characters to be locked out of future content because SOME people killed them in their individual playthroughs.

[sully.nathan]

Teddie Sage wrote...

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.

I know what you mean I just wish I could have killed them

[NedPepper]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

And I'm fine with that, really. It's the people who complain about their decisions not being imported over that hurt this argument.  Say someone kills all their companions.  The next game wants to use them in the plot.  Now you have people screaming that their choices aren't being honored.

I look at each game and each playthrough as its own little alternate reality.  And I enjoy that.  But my enjoyment isn't lessened because Bioware decided that for the continuation of the over all plot, they needed or wanted to use character X, Y, or Z.  Whether you killed them in another game or not.

The real issue here?  It's the import from game to game.  We take that out of the equation, you can play your character however you want, but the Bioware's status quo might not reflect it.  Why that's such a big deal, I'm not sure.  Importing saves is actually a new feature, and to be honest, a slippery slope when it comes to creating choices that matter in one game, but neutering the next.  And just creating an overall headache.

So if you're if favor of complete freedom to roleplay within each game, I'm on your side.  But if you want the sequel to reflect every single decisioin via import?  That's where we differ.  And that's where killing off companions becomes a problem.

[NedPepper]

FaWa wrote...

wow, what great observations. Because I "Killed" Miranda in ME2, I must be a psycopath in real life.

Why does every argument in this place have to turn into one extreme versus another?  This isn't pacifism vs. violence.  That's not even the crux of this argument.

It's all in how it is utilized and for what purpose.

I don't think the murder knife should be taken out of the game completely.  What makes Dragon Age interesting is the fact that it can a brutal world. It's about using it in morally interesting ways that go more toward a gray area. 

Playing a hard case Warden who would slit a throat or kick a guy into a fiery pit weren't reflections on the person playing the game.  On some playthroughs, playing an SOB is fun.

The issue is that companions usually become components to the story, and killing them willy nilly is a waste.  Killing the fat, selfish bar keep in DA: O was an evil act, and allowed for you to make your PC, well, mentally questionable, but he was hardly an important facet to the story.

I don't think this is a "let's take out the murder knife" thread.  Although I could be wrong.  But it's not what I'm arguing for.

[Han Shot First]

Lenimph wrote...

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"

I support this.

[Althix]

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.

well consider this, in DA2 some companios aka family members disappear from major gameplay, however they come back in the end to annoy you in the last moments of the game (of course you can kill them but not by your own hand.)

You see there is a feature of last games that you can be a badass, punch people in the faces, and annoy people further, however you can't be butcher, you can't swing your sword, axe, cast spells on left and right and slaughter people just because in this very moment you just want it.
If i remember correctly in ME2 DLC about some merc, you can leave people to burn alive in a factory. But that's it. I guess that was fun. In most cases as good guy you perform deeds worthy of songs, as a "bad" guy... well i guess if you would  steal a candy from child it's gonna be epic crime.

Where is a scale of awesome epicness of being a dark, brutal, violent, cold blooded slayer of man?

So you must endure all those pointless, pompous talks, listen your companions about how bad their lives are, and so on and so on and so on. Bioware have mercy on them, just allow us to slay them. It's a mercy killing not a murder.
For example i really wanted to quarter Isabela for what she is done, but i couldn't. I wanted to hang or decapitate Anders but i just stabed him(well i guess something is better than nothing).

Chaotic Evil is good for you!

[AlienWolf728]

FaWa wrote...

wow, what great observations. Because I "Killed" Miranda in ME2, I must be a psycopath in real life.

Kind sir, you look like me; STAWP IT. 

[xxLDZxx]

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.

You are a Inquisitor, you do what has
do be done.

best thing you start the execution with the
following word: "In the name of the inquisition, we, the hand of
the maker find you guilty for the sins.....*BAM* "

he he
he... and you can choose like fleeing from a enemy, disobeying orders or
standing in the way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

But therein lies a fundamental problem because the design of what Dragon Age is (and BioWare's MO for the most part) is to not do that. The only time companions die is during scripted moments or when they turn/you're given a choice to do so. It's not bad, and usually the reason to keep narrative flow.

Again, given that many of the companions are optional, they can't actually be important to the narrative.

Second, narrative pacing and flow isn't BioWare's job.

Basically, you can't control it because it would clash with design.

It's bad design.

nedpepper wrote...

And I'm fine with that, really. It's the people who complain about their decisions not being imported over that hurt this argument.  Say someone kills all their companions.  The next game wants to use them in the plot.  Now you have people screaming that their choices aren't being honored.

They complain because they were told that their decisions will carry over.  They complain because they think they've been lied to.

Stop doing that, and the problem goes away.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 octobre 2012 - 07:28 .

[Meltemph]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

But therein lies a fundamental problem because the design of what Dragon Age is (and BioWare's MO for the most part) is to not do that. The only time companions die is during scripted moments or when they turn/you're given a choice to do so. It's not bad, and usually the reason to keep narrative flow.

Again, given that many of the companions are optional, they can't actually be important to the narrative.

Second, narrative pacing and flow isn't BioWare's job.

Basically, you can't control it because it would clash with design.

It's bad design.

nedpepper wrote...

And I'm fine with that, really. It's the people who complain about their decisions not being imported over that hurt this argument.  Say someone kills all their companions.  The next game wants to use them in the plot.  Now you have people screaming that their choices aren't being honored.

They complain because they were told that their decisions will carry over.  They complain because they think they've been lied to.

Stop doing that, and the problem goes away.

I wouldnt mind a mix of companions.  You have the companions that are important to the setting and are therefore controlled by the setting, and then having characters that are more influenced by the PC.  However, I dont see a need to fullfill the desire of a playerbase that wants to be able to murder anyone.   

[Fiery Phoenix]

sunnydxmen wrote...

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

What's the point of killing companions anyway? If it's for the sake of doing so, then no, thanks. I'm sure there are far more pressing matters than decapitating Varric because you don't like his chest hair.

Your "point" for wanting to kill companions really has to do with you not feeling they should be in your party, in which case, having the option to simply tell them to leave at any time would be more than enough (as in DAO). No point in killing them when asking them to leave for good does just as well.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 03 octobre 2012 - 04:32 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

I wouldnt mind a mix of companions.  You have the companions that are important to the setting and are therefore controlled by the setting, and then having characters that are more influenced by the PC.  However, I dont see a need to fullfill the desire of a playerbase that wants to be able to murder anyone.   

I don't think that, in itself, is a particularly important feature, either.

But it is a natural consequence of other features I do think are important.

[Aolbain]

xxLDZxx 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.

You are a Inquisitor, you do what has
do be done.

best thing you start the execution with the
following word: "In the name of the inquisition, we, the hand of
the maker find you guilty for the sins.....*BAM* "

he he
he... and you can choose like fleeing from a enemy, disobeying orders or
standing in the way.

Doing whats necesary, yes. Wanton murder for fun and profit, not so much.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

This would assume that the characters the PC had control over are going to be totally non-essential to A) the main plot and the plot f any future game that Bioware made inthebseries, since the choice of keeping that companion alive would reverberate down through the series. It also assumes that Bioware knows the story of their next game and who will be involved while designing the current game - which is nonsense.

Bioware could give us a game that lets us murder everyone, a game that lets drastically different outcomes happen and where there are multiple endings that truly are different... but that's only if they give up the import choice mechanic. It's a dead end, a trap, a fairy tale that was spun with best of intentions but no possible concept of how difficult it would be to actually create in any meaningful way at all.

If Bioware came out and said 'okay, DA4 will track X, Y and Z from DA3, but nothing else' then this would be doable, a compromise that can be met. As is, every single companion except Varric and (allegedly, according to dev comments stating that Witch Hunt's optional stab did not kill her) Morrigan. Which means that every single companion will only return as either a cameo for ten seconds or as a possible retcon.

I can't even IMAGINE how terribly hard that is for a writer to account for.

If, instead, we weed out all the imports on dead/living companions and NPCs, all the romance flags, all the side and major plot flags except three for each game, then set canon for everything except those three, this could work.

From DA:O, you could have the DR choice (if you did not do the ritual, it would not track if you died or the other Gray Warden... in fact, a canon playthrough would likely have Loghain killed by Allistair at the Landsmeet, married to Anora as queen), if you were able to save Amaranthine Keep in Awakening and if you joined Morrigan in the Eluvian after Witch Hunt. In DA2, you have if Anders died, who you sided with during Act 3 and... I don't know, maybe if you Friended or rival'd Varric.

Bioware tried to run before they could crawl by trying to make series where EVERYTHIF imports over. They could have found it much more of a valuable and sustainable experience if they tried for just a few choices each game, instead of dozens.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

What about just kicking them out of your company? Just like DAO ... and a nice alternative like Alistair/Loghain choice.

These kind of threads are the product of the minds of some unrespectable psycopaths. Ignore them in the future.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

This would assume that the characters the PC had control over are going to be totally non-essential to A) the main plot

I would argue that this was true of DAO, and the ways it wasn't true of DA2 were part of the problem with DA2.  That Anders could ostensibly be a party member and then do those things-- well, it makes me glad I didn't get that far into the game.

Honestly, only Varric was essential in a way that made sense and worked.

and the plot f any future game that Bioware made inthebseries, since the choice of keeping that companion alive would reverberate down through the series.

As Leliana demonstrates, BioWare doesn't care about that (as they shouldn't).

It also assumes that Bioware knows the story of their next game and who will be involved while designing the current game - which is nonsense.

This is why inter-game coherence is a foolish objective.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 octobre 2012 - 06:14 .

[Arch1eviathan]

This thread is bad and OP should feel bad.