233 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

javajedi217 wrote...

They were able to make the "Get Out of Jail" card work in Origins. You didn't have to choose between Connor and Isolde - you could save them both if you chose to save the Circle first and have them help you.

And they regret it.

It's something I absolutely loathed.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 décembre 2012 - 10:05 .

[Celene II]

Hey i have this great idea.

Let the main villain win.

Without any possibility of the Main Character to defeat them, they put the MC's head up on a pike and that is what you see through the entire end credits. Your head.

Why do people want to fail in a wish fulfillment genre?

Why do they want their hard work to be destroyed or their friends killed?

I hated the entire unstoppable death of the mom from DA2

I wont even play the walking dead. All the walking dead is a bunch of writers trying to tug on heart strings for some fake emotional response.

If you want to have some portion of the game where you break the Main Character, then make it so you can totally avoid it.

That way my favorite companion isnt slaughtered, my castle isnt burned to the ground and my 40 hours to this point playing the game doesnt feel like a waste of my time.

[SeptimusMagistos]

The problem is that the line between the player feeling the tragedy and the player feeling like the game is taking away their control to pointlessly mess with them is pretty thin. The former evokes feelings. The latter evokes a mixture of annoyance and a reluctance to keep playing.

[RedWulfi]

I hate how everything goes smoothly and perfect. I think you should have to make really tough decissions that make us players sit there for a moment to think which option to choose,
ME1: kill kaidan or ashley
ME2: destroy the base or keep it
ME3: so many difficult choices like sacrificing mordin to save the krogan or keep him alive and trick them.

They were really hard choices for me. And I loved it.

[Felya87]

hard choise are good, and if well written are a piece of cake. Is when the tragedy is there just for the sake of it, in a situation that the character should be able to made something, like with leandra (really I played only once DA2 and already I knew the first time Leandra speak of her new admirer that there where hight chance that guy would be the mad killer...I as Hawke would have at least sayd to Lenadra to be careful of suitors, because there was a serial killer in town who give flowers to his victims. But no. Hawke really is a marble head!!!and only when Leandra disappeared asked of the flowers!!!!really...the fereldian Cadfael or Sherlock, eh???)without have the chance to choise, and change something that's bad.

If it was given the chance to chose in ME1 who you save in Virmine, but after have made the choise, both kaidan and ashley end up dead, well, that's just tragedy for the sake of it.

It's good to have tragedy in the game. If done well and without exageration. as with too much happy moments. there should be a balance.

happy moments, heroic moments, emotional moments, sad moments, funny moments, tragic moments, romantic moments,m friendiship moments, hate moments...

there should be a balance of all of them and more.
not too few, and not too many.

If there are too many tragic moments, the player would not be sad or emotionally touched. just annoyed and bored. nothing good ever happen to my character, why should I play? Why should I want to be/create a complete looser? I have already too many sad/tragic/looser moments in real life. I want to play as someone who potentially can do great things, and save at least some of the persons he/she love, even if not all of them.

a tragic event is a good think if it made the conflict with the villain something personal. That's how I see the virmine choise in ME1. a way for Shepard to have a more personal grudge against Saren.
but overuse the tragic moments would made them jiust something repetitive and depressing/annoying for most people.

Modifié par Felya87, 13 décembre 2012 - 12:24 .

[Sabariel]

We didn't get enough AAAAAAAAANGST!@@(@*!@!!111!!! in DA2? More is needed in DA3?

No thx.

Modifié par Sabariel, 13 décembre 2012 - 12:24 .

[Wulfram]

I think there should be "Get out of jail free" cards sometimes.

Not always, that feels cheap and takes away from their impact. But also not never. If all choices are basically "you're screwed either way", then that feels contrived, and probably results in the game not being fun.

I think it's valuable in ME3 that you can make peace between Geth and Quarians. It gives the game an emotional high which it needs, a moment of almost pure victory.

DA:O was probably a bit too heavy on happy third options. I'd remove the one for Connor, but keep the one for the Dalish/Werewolves.

[d4eaming]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So many people who can't stomach bad things they can't avoid in a game. Seriously?
Does the death of a few pixels really cause you that much rage?

There's a reason that, after waiting about 13 years to finish up the Dark Tower (1991 when I first read the original trilogy to 2004 when the series was completed), I vowed to never, ever read it again. And I am not the only one.

Oh sure, Roland got his second chance (and so did everyone else), it wasn't the same, at all. And I simply cannot read that series again, knowing what happens, even though I read the first three over and over and over again, and then read them all again when Wizard and Glass came out, and then again when the last books finally came out.

If you can't understand the attachment people get to their pixels, I wonder why you play a roleplaying game :huh:

[Daissran]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I'm going to just blame this on The Dark Knight Rises but I hope, I mean really hope, that at some point in DA3 the villain(s) devestate the protagonist.

I mean kills your loved ones, sacks your castle, breaks your spirit, usurp your intelligence network, and scatters your team to the four winds. Just a real real low point for the character to either get out of and become stronger for it or, since why not, remain bitter and broken from for the rest of the game.

Jade Empire gave us a similar point after arriving at the Palace and it was well done enough. But the game industry is so much more sophisticated these days. Such scenes can be so much more powerful now. (KOTOR had a smaller scale version on the Leviathan where the world was turned upside down).

I'd just personally enjoy this a lot. Far too often in RPGs you are a god. There are no real set-backs and everything can be overcome by gameplay. Throwing the PC through a ringer (especially if it's possible for the PC to be responsible for their suffering depending on your prior choices) would be a breath of fresh air.

I always think it's too easy to hurt the loved ones of the protagonist. I feel like it's a lazy for the writers to choose something like 'kill off X in order to make Y stronger'... I feel like in order for the PC to truly grow they have to themselves suffer, go through hardships, poverty, be taken away from their loved ones, etc. I feel like the PC's emotional pain is then made the centre point of the narrative and ultimately undermines the suffering of those that had died or had suffered horribly. It's kind of an overused, tired plot device. This is typical of male protagonists and tends to be the PC's girlfriend, lover, wife, daughter, etc. Which then morphs into some kind of vengeance massacre.