34 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

 This is related to but distinct from the idea of having more quests with non-violent elements or non-violent solutions.  Something I'd like the devs to at least think about is that when you fight people in games, you nearly always kill them.  Even the nicest, most benevolent doormat Mother Teresa of protagonists has still amassed an enormous mountain of skulls by the end of the game.

This was another thing that I really liked about Gothic--when you defeated people in combat, you didn't automatically kill them.  You had to intentionally go and trigger a kill animation while they were on the ground.  And it would REALLY UPSET anyone who witnessed you doing it.  This integrated really well with the "world" of Gothic--you were in a prison that was predominately run by the prisoners.  Violence in the form of beating people up and taking their stuff was pretty much expected.  But while the inhabitants were seedy, they weren't, for the most part, evil, so murder was still regarded pretty badly.

It's just something to think about.  Filling the game with casual murder communicates some things that definitely conflict with some of the other major themes of the Dragon Age series.  Why should I care about mages unleashing a demon that resulted in, gosh, a whole 70 deaths, when I killed more people than that just walking across nighttime Hightown?  You might not think that people notice stuff like this, but it does wind up driving yet another wedge between the story and the gameplay.

[Sir JK]

This I agree with completely. I'd love to see fights end with the opponents incapacitated, but not neccessarily dead, surrendered or fleed. Loot can still be taken, it's not like they're going to resist much. But mostly it's to put value in life itself, and in the act of giving mercy.

It can also serve as a atmospheric element. Because if the vast majority of human enemies surrender when fights start going against them, then it also hammers home just how dangerous the undead, the demons and the fanatical are. Since they won't surrender. Even better if common soldiers also cease to surrender against Protagonists notoruious for killing their defeated opponents.

[PsychoBlonde]

I don't expect them to fully implement a non-killing solution, as it'd be a MAJOR change for the series. But I would like to see signs that this sort of thing is at least entering the universe of their attention, yah?

[cJohnOne]

I really enjoyed the Combat in both DAO and DA2 so would like that to continue, but the combat made more sense in DAO.

It might be a guy thing where they just like action and fist fights. What do you think?

[PsychoBlonde]

I'm not opposed to combat, I just don't think it needs to always end in murder. There was a TON of combat in Gothic, but (relatively) little murdering of people.

[CaptainBlackGold]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

I'm not opposed to combat, I just don't think it needs to always end in murder. There was a TON of combat in Gothic, but (relatively) little murdering of people.

Sorry Nit-Picking Police here; killing is not the same as murder. Murder is the illegal taking of life. Killing is simply the taking of life. All murders involve killing, but not all killing is murder.

For example the soldier on the battlefield, the police officer in shooting an armed criminal, or the average citizen acting in self-defense may all "kill" someone - but none of these incidents qualify as "murder."

However, to your main point; an option that allows you to subdue, without killing opponents, would be a nice alternative. In fact, I often "head-canon" that in many battles against non-monstrous, not necessarily evil beings, that the fight ended in a sound drubbing, but not actually death. So to see this in game would be a positive.

Even better would be to see the consequences; i.e., people you let go, come back and try to have you assassinated or offer some sort of assistance at a later time...

[leminzplz]

hahaha! Thedas' biggest ***hole. It would be uuh, interesting if your character suddenly cracked and then went on to kill everyone they see.

[Azrielon]

I like the idea, although if the setting is with the mage/templar war, I would expect that there would be cases where we didnt have the opportunity to choose whether or not we kill the poor saps.

[Bfler]

Less violence is better.
If I remember right, f.e. in Gothic 3 the remains of the former occupants of a city flee, after you have defeated a part of them. You don't have to slaughter everyone, like in other games.

[Archereon]

In my opinion, it should be completely possible to play the game like a historical Inquisitor, or even better, a 40k Inquisitor, which is to say a ruthless, self righteous badass who'd burn anyone at the stake for so much as taking the name of their god in vain, being a mage or a nonhuman.

Being intensely lawful evil is hilariously awesome. Suffer not the alien, the mutant, the heretic.

[PsychoBlonde]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

I'm not opposed to combat, I just don't think it needs to always end in murder. There was a TON of combat in Gothic, but (relatively) little murdering of people.

Sorry Nit-Picking Police here; killing is not the same as murder. Murder is the illegal taking of life. Killing is simply the taking of life. All murders involve killing, but not all killing is murder.

Hawke and the Warden are not legal law enforcement and they kill scads of people without even attempting to subdue them or escape.  The legal conditions under which you can kill in self-defense are pretty stringent.  Therefore, if you're killing people in these games, it's murder.

And, yes, I know what the difference between killing and murder is.

[PsychoBlonde]

Azrielon wrote...

I like the idea, although if the setting is with the mage/templar war, I would expect that there would be cases where we didnt have the opportunity to choose whether or not we kill the poor saps.

I'm not opposed to having the option to slaughter your way across the continent if you want.  It'd just be interesting to ALSO have the option NOT to do this.

[AstraDrakkar]

I think it would be nice if you had the option of not killing someone you defeated in battle at least some of the time. It would be an unexpected pleasant change from the norm.

[Foolsfolly]

Conan! What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

[AshenShug4r]

I somewhat agree. Slaying a horde of nameless men and women in frequent and bloody altercations does kinda trivialize the act of killing another human being. Non-violent solutions and non-lethal combat does sound promising, but realism wise, hacking and slashing a foe to the point where you incapacitate them, without actually killing them, does seem a little crude. If they handled it right, it would be nice to see implemented. If anything, I wouldn't mind a reduced number of foes who were actually more tactical and competent.

Modifié par AshenShug4r, 19 novembre 2012 - 01:21 .

[CaptainBlackGold]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Conan! What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

Who would have thought Arnold was a disciple of Genghis Khan?

(The Mongol leader, not Kirk's opponent in ST2)

[Nashimura]

Options...

[sharkboy421]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Conan! What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

We used this line as a cheer on my old swim team.  Good times.

But anyways, idk I'd be fine with this.  To me it was one of those things you could chalk up as gameplay and story segergation.  There are several fights where the end of the fight is a cutscene of you talking to whoever you just "killed".  I know normally the bodies disappear because they are "dead" but I still just figured it was a gameplay thing.  Still I wouldn't mind if they did this.

[Mummy22kids]

There were quite a few times in DAO where you could spare someone (Loghain's soliders in Lothering, the soldier who challenges you to a duel in Denerim, the Assassin who comes after Liliana etc) with persuasion or intimidation. Honestly if someone is charging at me sword drawn then I'm not likely to worry about sparing that person, rather I'm worried about them running me through.

[DMWW]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Hawke and the Warden are not legal law enforcement and they kill scads of people without even attempting to subdue them or escape.  The legal conditions under which you can kill in self-defense are pretty stringent.  Therefore, if you're killing people in these games, it's murder.

I'd hazard a guess that the self-defence clause in Kirkwall jurisprudence is a fair bit more inclusive than in contemporary Western democracies...

[Han Shot First]

Gothic was a great game, I'd love to see something similar in Dragon Age 3.

It would be cool if occasionally quests resulted in duels or brawls where your opponent might yield. This has happened occasionally (though not often) in the Dragon Age games in the past however, most notably with Zevran.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 19 novembre 2012 - 09:41 .

[Wulfram]

If I don't kill them, can I still take their stuff? [/isabela]

edit:  More seriously, I think the main problem is what you do with your defeated enemies when they're alive.  Handling that for everyone would be a pain.

Also, this is why "Orcs" or their equivalents are useful.  You can fill up your quota of combat with people who it's OK to merrily slaughter by the thousands, because they are green and have fangs almost mindless beings controlled by the archdemon.

Modifié par Wulfram, 19 novembre 2012 - 10:29 .

[Swagger7]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Conan! What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

Who would have thought Arnold was a disciple of Genghis Khan?

(The Mongol leader, not Kirk's opponent in ST2)

Fun fact:  Many historians doubt the athenticity of the original Genghis Khan quote that line comes from and believe it to be a later fabrication.

On topic:  I'd like to see more scenes like the one with Zevran or the bandits outside Lothering, where you defeat a group of enemies and have to decide what to do with the survivors.

[Chipaway111]

I hadn't thought about this before but it makes a lot of sense, and I think the OP is being reasonable to request it. I became very desensitized to murder in the DA games so murdering a bartender for refusing to risk his life for a village he didn't particularly like seemed perfectly natural.

Genitivi is also a good example, maybe if I hadn't butchered my way through most of Thedas I would have put a lot more thought into those deaths. I definitely support the idea of more 'surrender' fights where your opponents clearly realize they're outmatched and try for a bargain, isn't that what most people would do? Heck, even the protagonist can do it at one point in Origins. I really enjoyed that.

Edit: The spelling errors, so many errors.

Modifié par Chipaway111, 19 novembre 2012 - 12:37 .

[Foolsfolly]

Swagger7 wrote...

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Conan! What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

Who would have thought Arnold was a disciple of Genghis Khan?

(The Mongol leader, not Kirk's opponent in ST2)

Fun fact:  Many historians doubt the athenticity of the original Genghis Khan quote that line comes from and believe it to be a later fabrication.

On topic:  I'd like to see more scenes like the one with Zevran or the bandits outside Lothering, where you defeat a group of enemies and have to decide what to do with the survivors.

God I wish I could have made them into my personal gang of lackies.