98 réponses à ce sujet

[goofyomnivore]

I don't know about dieing via conversation.. since you will just reload and continue on. However I'd like to see the PC suffer more often from saying the wrong things. Merrill busting Hawke's lie was a good step in the right direction in this aspect. Things like that should be more common, rather than the PC always being so silver tongued despite what they say/do.

[EricHVela]

Dying by conversation forces metagaming that Allan has all but ridiculed already.

Dying by combat does not force metagaming.

[AlexJK]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Dying by conversation forces metagaming...

Not necessarily. If the conversation is written well, you will be aware of the likely consequences of your actions.

Situation: John has a gun to Steve's head.
John: I will shoot you if you insult my wife again.
Steve: (a) I'm sorry; ( your wife's ugly.

What "metagaming" is required to know that option B is going to get you shot?

Situation 2: John has a gun to Steve's head again.
John: I don't want to shoot you.
Steve: (a) I'm sorry [you go free]; ( I want to go home [John shoots Steve].

Here, the situation is completely unreasonable; you have no possible way of anticipating that option B will get you killed. You could say that this requires metagaming, or we could agree that it's pretty unlikely you'd ever be "surprised" into an instant-death option.

Modifié par AlexJK, 15 octobre 2012 - 01:29 .

[EricHVela]

AlexJK wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

Dying by conversation forces metagaming...

No, it doesn't.

Situation: John has a gun to Steve's head.
John: I will shoot you if you insult my wife again.
Steve: (a) I'm sorry; ( your wife's ugly.

What "metagaming" is required to know that option B is going to get you shot?

Your analogy makes little sense. We're talking about the player dying and ending the game in a loss.

You die and have to play again and purposely make a different choice to continue. How is that not metagaming?

Do you know what metagaming is? It's using your existing knowledge of the game to make something different happen.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 15 octobre 2012 - 01:27 .

[Kail Ashton]

This "lets do this cause witcher 2 did it" idea seems poorly thought out; as per usual; cause i'm sure evvvvvvveryone would love to be punished for playing with dialoge options by having their game suddenly end, i sure hope you saved before talking to some random jerkoff npc that just randomly killed you cause you were stupid enough to take advantage of the game choices

Now go restart your game after lose'n an hours worth of gameply time! ha! that'll teach you for wanting choices!

[AlexJK]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Your analogy makes little sense.

I amended the example as you replied, sorry.

We're talking about the player dying and ending the game in a loss. You die and have to play again and purposely make a different choice to continue. How is that not metagaming?

If the choice you made was very clearly going to get you killed without possibility of escape (see my example, it does apply) then you should know what's going to happen and not make that choice. This is why I don't like instant-death options. They're silly and pointless because no reasonable player would ever choose them.

Do you know what metagaming is? It's using your existing knowledge of the game to make something different happen.

Yes. Which you should never have to do to avoid making an instant-death choice in the first place (see Morinth example).

[AnacondaDarce]

Personally, i think if i'm going to die at least give me the option to defend myself, even against impossible odds i'd rather go down swinging then be told i died.

Modifié par AnacondaDarce, 15 octobre 2012 - 02:08 .

[Sanunes]

It depends on the conversation for I can see good and very very bad conversations that can happen in a system like this. The problem I really have is that a "death choice" becomes a null choice after you know its going to happen or like Mass Effect 2 you really have to try. The other problem I have and its really my biggest issue is that it makes a wrong choice in a conversation, for there might be a consequence for my action, but at the same time it makes that conversation choice wrong, so being the good hero (or even the aggressive hero) the wrong choice which means the character has to avoid that conversation or play against how the player foresees how their character would react in that situation.

Edit:

I forgot to say it fits more into The Witcher story because you are playing a set hero who has been established in the books and the personality isn't completely developed by the player.

Modifié par Sanunes, 15 octobre 2012 - 02:29 .

[Aulis Vaara]

Sanunes wrote...

It depends on the conversation for I can see good and very very bad conversations that can happen in a system like this. The problem I really have is that a "death choice" becomes a null choice after you know its going to happen or like Mass Effect 2 you really have to try. The other problem I have and its really my biggest issue is that it makes a wrong choice in a conversation, for there might be a consequence for my action, but at the same time it makes that conversation choice wrong, so being the good hero (or even the aggressive hero) the wrong choice which means the character has to avoid that conversation or play against how the player foresees how their character would react in that situation.

Your hero shouldn't be allowed to be stupid and live if that should get him killed. If your hero is the kind of hero that gets himself killed because he has no tact, then that's exactly the kind of hero he is and he'll die.

There's really nothing wrong with this.

I'm all for being able to die in some conversations, but it shouldn't feel forced. The Witcher situation in the OP is a wonderful example of how it works, as is the Morinth "romance" in Mass Effect 2. If you make stupid mistakes, you'll get killed, that's the way it should be.

[Fyurian2]

Going back to the opening post, the scenario given from The Witcher 2 has blatant and clear visual indication of what's going to happen based on the dialogue you choose.
You select a line, and if the elves don't like what you say, you see them draw their bowstrings. If your next line is a good one, they loosen their bowstrings.
Not to mention that if you read the dialogue options before selecting, you should be able to guess what their reactions will be before you choose.

Putting that into context of Dragon Age 2 (and undoubtedly DA3 having the dialogue wheel again), we could be given a verbal warning along the lines of "I don't like your tone", accompanied by someone drawing a weapon or some other example of an already tense situation getting worse.


I remember in Baldur's Gate you could die just by being the party leader and getting kissed by a Driad which was unavoidable once you'd triggered her interaction by having the group near enough to her that she automatically came over.

Sanunes wrote...

I forgot to say it fits more into The Witcher story because you are playing a set hero who has been established in the books and the personality isn't completely developed by the player.

Yet we still have control over Geralt's choices and actions.
Remember, he's not the same Geralt of Rivia as the books. He's still recovering his memory in the second game, after the first game.
His amnesia at the beginning of The Witcher allows us to define "our" Geralt of Rivia, and to continue doing so in The Witcher 2. Yes the whole amnesia of whom you really are at the start of a game has been done before, but in the case of a character that has already been established in an IP, it's a good choice for role playing.
In The Witcher, I could choose whether or not Geralt sided with The Order of the Flaming Rose and fought the "monsters" threatening humanity directly, or fight the true "monsters" that threaten all humans and dwarves and elves prejudice and corruption influenced by the leader of the Order and his machinations.

Modifié par Fyurian2, 15 octobre 2012 - 03:03 .

[Medhia Nox]

Main Protagonist games are antiquated for this reason.

You are already the victor of a game wherein you are the only protagonist who can complete the main quest.

This makes death (any Main Protagonist death) a pointless exercise - as the player will just load an old save.

====

If these were - what I call - Ensemble Protagonist games, then a main character COULD die... and the story would continue on.

Though complex - the Ensemble games were among the first invented with the Gold Box games. You didn't meet an army of plucky NPCs that traveled with you - you invented your entire party from scratch.

Now - the modern version should have a mix to be certain.

===

As for the OP - I wouldn't mind death at the end of a long chain of conversations that occurred throughout the game... but one conversation chain is far too short a time to determine character death.

What I recommend for Main Protagonist games... is that conversations and actions should put the NPCs at jeopardy.

Losing the Main Protagonist means nothing in either combat or conversation (as these games are currently built)

[Imryll]

Well, if you risk dying as a result of conversation, they'd better spell out exactly what the conversation options are--not just tell you you're choosing the "sarcastic" option.

[SeptimusMagistos]

If I can take dozens of elves on in battle then I should be allowed to insult them all I want.

I hate it when video game protagonists spontaneously become weaker in cutscenes.

[garrusfan1]

Oh I thought you would use the part in the beginning of the witcher 2 when you charge Roche in the dungeon and Ves shoots you with the crossbow. But yeah this would be cool as long as you had an autosave just before the conversation

[Brodoteau]

As long as it was like DA:O were you could "lose" the Landsmeet (without fighting Loghain), I think that does add to the experience

[Cultist]

Dragonn Age 2 go in the direction if NWN2. Which is bad, because the trial you were on in NWN2 was one of the most horrible thing that came from Obsidian. You can lose, fail at all stages of interrogation, cross-interrogation and so on yet in the end you'll still get the very same result.

[Vicious]

You CAN fail conversations. Look at the Landsmeet. You just don't get insta-death because Bioware doesn't do that [except Morinth which is for the lulz anyway]

[Ridwan]

No, stop asking for Bioware to make Dragon Age 3 more like the Witcher 2.

[Cultist]

Vicious wrote...

You CAN fail conversations. Look at the Landsmeet. You just don't get insta-death because Bioware doesn't do that [except Morinth which is for the lulz anyway]

Why landsmeet? but if there would be situation where your character i in prison or interrogation room or other specific circumstances, insta-death could be logical result of failed conversation. in no case dialogue-death should be applied to common dialogues, because that will surely spawn metagaming and reloading.

[thats1evildude]

Cultist wrote...

And if you die in battle you'll reload and try again, thus, we must remove all battles?

The difference is that battles are tests of a player's skill and strategy. No one is guaranteed to succeed at battling the Ancient Rock Wraith; you might die 99 times before finally defeating it on that lucky 100th try.

Options to be killed in conversations only require that the player not be dumb enough to pick the wrong dialogue options twice. It's a pointless stumbling block.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 15 octobre 2012 - 07:41 .

[Foolsfolly]

thats1evildude wrote...

Cultist wrote...

And if you die in battle you'll reload and try again, thus, we must remove all battles?

The difference is that battles are tests of a player's skill and strategy. No one is guaranteed to succeed at battling the Ancient Rock Wraith; you might die 99 times before finally defeating it on that lucky 100th try.

Options to be killed in conversations only requires that the player not be dumb enough to pick the wrong dialogue options twice. It's a pointless stumbling block.

And ultimately a dialogue option that should have been used for something other than "Reload now".

[silentassassin264]

NO. GOD NO. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I had enough of that in KOTOR.

[Volus Warlord]

That sounds really aggravating.