233 réponses à ce sujet

[shirespartan]

Nothing better than really hating someone as you persue them through the game for revenge, Rendon Howe springs to mind.. enjoyed killing that ****

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

It took me forever to understand that this was a boss I would get extra content by losing to. I had no idea she was designed to be lost to. If a game does this, there's no way it can be done within the rules without making it lame (e.g. infinite HP).

She wasn't.  She was designed to be extremely difficult.  You can defeat her, and defeating her doesn't break the game.

Yes, designing an encouter to be unwinnable cannot be done without breaking the game's setting, but the Cauthrien encounter didn't do that.

People want branching narrative based on choices and gameplay, and Cauthrien seems like the perfect example of that.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Cauthrien was bad as an encounter since she was a HP sponge.

Whacking another human being for half an hour and it still standing just ruins immersion. I could expect such ressiliance from a dragon or something....

[Captain Crash]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Cauthrien was bad as an encounter since she was a HP sponge.

Whacking another human being for half an hour and it still standing just ruins immersion. I could expect such ressiliance from a dragon or something....

Indeed.  This thread is three years old and I always noticed it was bumped recently.


Still that encounter was unique to the fact it was supposed to be a ridicolously hard challenge as getting captured was practically a certain and part of the plot.  It was nice that you could fight your way out though

Modifié par Captain Crash, 10 décembre 2012 - 10:15 .

[Realmzmaster]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Cauthrien was bad as an encounter since she was a HP sponge.

Whacking another human being for half an hour and it still standing just ruins immersion. I could expect such ressiliance from a dragon or something....

The problem is as StM and In Exile pointed out if Bioware had made the encounter unwinnable everyone would still be up in arms. So the encounter is extremely difficult but winnable. That way the gamer comes away with a sense of accomplishment on having beaten her.

I think that Bioware assumed (wrongly) that most gamers would surrender rather than put the queen in imminent danger. The agrument being that Loghain would not order Ser Cauthrien to kill his daughter in front of the party sent to capture the warden.

[DeathScepter]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Yup and an utterly horrible thing to say to your child.

That's still no excuse and it didn't endear me to her at all. In fact, I disliked her more and more everytime I replayed it.

Oh my god this instantly made me dislike her. Yeah she lost a child but blaming another one of her children for it.. WHAT? That's someone being a really awful parent. She do of course apologize for it but the damage is already done and there's just no way to mend it

Just to make note, I have had the misfortune of seeing a mother learn that her 17 year old son has been unexpectedly killed.

What I like about Leandra's reaction is that it's real. I don't call my Mom a horrible parent because in the immediate aftermath of learning her son was dead she was delirious with grief and considered my Dad partially responsible because it was my Dad that encouraged my brother to learn to ride the motorbike and it was my Dad's idea to go visit my grandmother on the motorbike. Had none of that happened, they wouldn't have been caught in a bad storm while on their motorbikes which unfortunately led to an accident that took my brother's life.

If you're to ask her now (18 years later) of course she realizes it was an unfortunate accident and no one is at fault. If you ask her at the moment (18 seconds later) she's hurt and angry and irrational.

good answer good response. And I am sorry for your brother.

Modifié par DeathScepter, 10 décembre 2012 - 10:46 .

[JamieCOTC]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

No, players are not *forced* to make that decision. For one thing, it's a role-playing game. Not everyone is interested in their character always winning. Much like players weren't forced to do the Dark Ritual.

Can Leandra's death be avoided? If not, had you substituted in a sequence that you could then choose Leandra or someone/something else, then yes the player is still forced to do it. If the alternative is stop playing, then the player is forced to do something in order to continue the narrative.

This isn't a pejorative. That someone happily agrees with the circumstances doesn't mean the decision isn't a requirement.

Take Virmire in ME. The player must choose between Ashley and Kaiden. They are forced to do so.

And that was a great example of the game developers and the player working in concert. The writer moves the narrative, but offers the player a choice between two outcomes. It's a win/win for all involved. In the case of Leandra there is no choice at all, and I feel less engaged because I'm not interating w/ the game. I'm watching it. I never want to feel like a spectator in a game, always the participant.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Take Virmire in ME. The player must choose between Ashley and Kaiden. They are forced to do so.

I hated that moment in ME.  We should have been allowed to choose both, even if it meant we would always fail.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote..
She wasn't.  She was designed to be extremely difficult.  You can defeat her, and defeating her doesn't break the game.

You're right. I was imprecise. I meant to say that I had no idea that the designers had made her challenging so as to, effectively, funnel a lot of gamers toward the Fort Drakon segment, rather than not.

Yes, designing an encouter to be unwinnable cannot be done without breaking the game's setting, but the Cauthrien encounter didn't do that.

No, that's possible in the setting, just useless (e.g. imagine an archdemon fight with no GWs).

People want branching narrative based on choices and gameplay, and Cauthrien seems like the perfect example of that.

Absolutely agree.

[In Exile]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I think that Bioware assumed (wrongly) that most gamers would surrender rather than put the queen in imminent danger. The agrument being that Loghain would not order Ser Cauthrien to kill his daughter in front of the party sent to capture the warden.

It's more like - our PCs are basically engines of death. You could literally have killed close to 1000 things before that point. Ser Cautherin is by no means intimidating (without, you know, the insane non-human buffs she has).

[Herr Uhl]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote..

Yes, designing an encouter to be unwinnable cannot be done without breaking the game's setting, but the Cauthrien encounter didn't do that.

No, that's possible in the setting, just useless (e.g. imagine an archdemon fight with no GWs).

The crux is that the Archdemon reincarnates. The battle can still be won though.

[Solmanian]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Cauthrien was bad as an encounter since she was a HP sponge.

Whacking another human being for half an hour and it still standing just ruins immersion. I could expect such ressiliance from a dragon or something....

IRL when knights were dueling in full armor, the fight lasted for an hour easily. Victory came to the guy who didn't collapse from exaustion. Full plate armor was the pinnacle of defence at its time, with very few things capable of penetrating it. Arrows and axe/sword blows just bounced of it. The term coup degrat is describing the "final mercy", when your opponent can't stand anymore and collapses and you stick a knife through his visor (unless he surrenders and offers a ransom). Many movies are showing full plate armor like it was made of tinfoil...

Soldiers back then were a hell of alot stronger (physically) than todays. Fighting the same oppponent for half an hour may be boring, but it is realistic and therfore you can't blame it for breaking immersion. People getting hit by arrow and explode on the other hand...

Modifié par Solmanian, 11 décembre 2012 - 03:40 .

[lunamoondragon]

I hope to see at least one decision (not necessarily major) that can end up majorly hurting you later on.
That moment of realizing that you've created a monster or it's your fault that you're all alone... If done right, it could be an amazing moment in the game. Especially if someone happens to stumble upon it in their second playthrough, and realize that they actually could have stopped it, but didn't.

[Sharn01]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Cauthrien was bad as an encounter since she was a HP sponge.

Whacking another human being for half an hour and it still standing just ruins immersion. I could expect such ressiliance from a dragon or something....

Cauthrien had no more hp then any other elite of her level,  there was a mage in the battle throwing non stop heals which may have made it seem that way, if you CC at least half the archers and kill the mage quickly the fight is over with as quickly as any other in the game.

[xsdob]

My idea was pretty lame now that I re-look at it, really just shock value and exploiting gamers nature to just follow the prompts on screen without question.

Anyhow, it seems that most people in the thread who were debating the issue seemed to come at it that there should have been some kind of loop hole to save a character from dying. I do not agree with this, mainly because most times it really does end up being a mistake on a characters part. From what I have seen, when bad things happen due to a players choice, they either reload their save and make a different choice, or don't make the same choice in another playthrough becasue of the consequence.

So saying players don't view it as a mistake when they treat it like one is a bit disconnected IMO. But more importantly, it takes away an impact from the story if there is nothing but consequencless choices that can be made. I feel that dragon age had a fairly good amount of these choices where you can't succeed with everything working out in the end. You had a lot of situations where you could do that, and so you got to keep the emotional satisfaction of coming out on top in the games. But it opens up much more roleplaying possibilities and especially chances for players to express themselves with their characters when something tragic happens that is out of their control. I feel bioware would simply need to do it correctly, make there be some foreshadowing about what would happen without it being obvious. I feel leiandra was one of the most perfect examples of this, since the slow build up and reveal really helped to capture the true horror of what had happened.

I think someone suggested that there should be a one or the other options only for these type of choices, I feel having all three choices being in play would work much more, where there are situations where you can't avoid loss, where you choose what is lost, and where you can avoid all loss.

[In Exile]

Herr Uhl wrote...
The crux is that the Archdemon reincarnates. The battle can still be won though.

We don't know how fast, though. I should have clarified, but Bioware could just say right away. So then it would literally be a never ending battle (or until you run out of consumables).

[Celene II]

Unless this happens at the VERY beginning before I have control of the character ala Cousland's in DAO i strongly disagree with the OP.

The game should be about progression not failure. Becoming stronger, not being mugged by the big bad half way through the game.


Dont break the PC unless its in the prelim tutorial

[Fredward]

Celene II wrote...
Dont break the PC unless its in the prelim tutorial

And face the same "I didn't CARE that Hawke's siblings died because I didn't, like, form an emotional attachment!"

Nah, le breaking definitely should take place later in the game.

[xsdob]

Why do players not.want to experience loss.during their playthrough? Why must it be in the early part of the game?

[Kidd]

lunamoondragon wrote...

I hope to see at least one decision (not necessarily major) that can end up majorly hurting you later on.
That moment of realizing that you've created a monster or it's your fault that you're all alone... If done right, it could be an amazing moment in the game. Especially if someone happens to stumble upon it in their second playthrough, and realize that they actually could have stopped it, but didn't.

... romancing unhardened Alistair >_>

Definitely the most touching subplot to me. Loved how that turned out. And even though I had no meta knowledge of how to avoid what was happening in front of my eyes, I kinda understood that it was my fault somehow. The writers may love fan tears, but they wouldn't force us into that situation, no? So I screwed up majorly and my character would face major feelings of loneliness for it.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 11 décembre 2012 - 07:07 .

[Parmida]

shirespartan wrote...

Nothing better than really hating someone as you persue them through the game for revenge, Rendon Howe springs to mind.. enjoyed killing that ****

LOL, me too.
Revenge is so sweet...

[Wulfram]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

And face the same "I didn't CARE that Hawke's siblings died because I didn't, like, form an emotional attachment!"

Nah, le breaking definitely should take place later in the game.

Not at the end though, since it's only one game per PC.

Dark middle chapters can work.

[Fredward]

Wulfram wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

And face the same "I didn't CARE that Hawke's siblings died because I didn't, like, form an emotional attachment!"

Nah, le breaking definitely should take place later in the game.

Not at the end though, since it's only one game per PC.

Dark middle chapters can work.

Yeah. Preferably a series of crushing defeats after a really satisfying victory. Or maybe after you've reached the height of complacency and you think all your ducks are in a row and then BAM.

If I don't feel disorientated and lost, with possible long term emotional trauma, the devs aren't doing their job. XD

[Lotion Soronarr]

Solmanian wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Cauthrien was bad as an encounter since she was a HP sponge.

Whacking another human being for half an hour and it still standing just ruins immersion. I could expect such ressiliance from a dragon or something....

IRL when knights were dueling in full armor, the fight lasted for an hour easily. Victory came to the guy who didn't collapse from exaustion. Full plate armor was the pinnacle of defence at its time, with very few things capable of penetrating it. Arrows and axe/sword blows just bounced of it. The term coup degrat is describing the "final mercy", when your opponent can't stand anymore and collapses and you stick a knife through his visor (unless he surrenders and offers a ransom). Many movies are showing full plate armor like it was made of tinfoil...

Lol ...NO.

Duels didn't last an hour. And battles even less so.
It's ture that plate was the pinnacle of protection and that moveis don't do it justice, but it had it's limits.

When 5 gang up on you, plate or no - you are dead. Not only is plate tireing, but it's thickness is no uniform and you can injure someone in armor. There are instances on knights dying from internal bleeding despite their amor never being breahed. And there are weapons and techniques to use agaisnt an armored opponent.

Soldiers back then were a hell of alot stronger (physically) than todays. Fighting the same oppponent for half an hour may be boring, but it is realistic and therfore you can't blame it for breaking immersion..

No, it's not realistic.

[Knight of Dane]

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.

It's gotta be a struggle. It's not exciting to just see your character get beaten up, let it be a chase quest or something similar that has the illusion of a successful goal but the effort ends in vain.

Foolsfolly wrote...
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.

Kinda like Hawke's family in DA2?
No, that won't work for it didn't the last time. The best way to make those feelings is if you fail at something you are invested in, and it should not be the romance interest for that will frustrate most players more than engange them.
What about a goal for the game that the player gets within reach of but then screws up to do something else like saving their loved one or escaping danger.

Foolsfolly wrote...
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.

There is no struggle in struggle alone, that's just as much feely as happiness or lovey dovey'ness is. IT's got to be a story element that the player gets invested in. There has to be solution and point to it.

If the developers and writers can do this, then I welcome it.