268 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

We are exploring ways to allow the player to better react in a variety of ways to big events.

Has the fallback of ultimately "You can only select these reactions at the times that we allow you to" with the benefit of "At least for these choices, you're given a bit more flexibility in how you react."

Not a perfect solution, and still being investigated, but it is something that I think is a good thing to investigate.

It is good, hopefully it will also include lingering effects such as the team at least being a little angry at the main PC for things like... handing Fenris over to Danerius.

It does not deal with the main problem, though. That any PC by the end of the game is effecitively a mass murderer.

But I cannot see anyway out of it, the only way would be to force emotional trauma on the PC such as Mass Effect 3 did and that hampers roleplaying.

[Brockololly]

Xewaka wrote...

This is more a game design issue. Simply put, when the brunt of the game consist of murdering things, having the character break down over that is counterproductive. If this was a low bodycount game (such as stealth games or graphic adventures) it'd make more sense. But for a combat based game, it clashes frontally with the main gameplay element.

Unless you're going with a much more set player character, like Walker in Spec Ops, where the whole point of the game is to make you reflect on how much of a murdering psycho the gameplay forces you into becoming.



Its one thing if you're killing animal like Darkspawn, but in something like DA2, Hawke has to be one of the biggest mass murderers of other humans/elves/qunari/dwarves in Thedas history.

Maybe if the game allowed for more instances and possibilities to avoid combat or find alternate solutions, this would be a little better.

[TheRealJayDee]

Xewaka wrote...

This is more a game design issue. Simply put, when the brunt of the game consist of murdering things, having the character break down over that is counterproductive. If this was a low bodycount game (such as stealth games or graphic adventures) it'd make more sense. But for a combat based game, it clashes frontally with the main gameplay element.

This was one of my main problems with DA2. They were trying to tell a story about normal people just trying to make do, having death and murder and grief as elements of this story and expecting them to emotionally move the player and were then having a huuuge part of the game consist of slaughtering droves of people who in the context of the setting can only be considered normal people just trying to make do, only with less luck than the PC and his friends.

secretsandlies wrote...

yes it is game design issue. But that's beside the point. OP have a question about how could pc kill scores of people and be fine with it and even banter about kill count.

Thing is that topic starter for some reason considers enemies as people. When they are not people, they are enemies.

Well, at some point I thought about starting to write fanfiction about Joe Thug and his 4 look alike brothers, and the tragic events that ended with them being so desperate as to try to assault the Champion of Kirkwall and his companions, leading to their inevitable and bloody death. Like so many hundred of desperate citiziens before them.

It's true that the human enemies are treated by the game as being interchangable faceless enemies, but the result of this was that the whole setting lost even more of what little believability it had.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

We are exploring ways to allow the player to better react in a variety of ways to big events.

Has the fallback of ultimately "You can only select these reactions at the times that we allow you to" with the benefit of "At least for these choices, you're given a bit more flexibility in how you react."

Not a perfect solution, and still being investigated, but it is something that I think is a good thing to investigate.

That does sound interesting...!

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 24 janvier 2013 - 03:38 .

[Wulfram]

esper wrote...

It does not deal with the main problem, though. That any PC by the end of the game is effecitively a mass murderer.

But I cannot see anyway out of it, the only way would be to force emotional trauma on the PC such as Mass Effect 3 did and that hampers roleplaying.

Cutting down on pointless filler combat like those night time thug attacks, and not making minor fights use wave after wave of enemies would help.

And offering ways for the player to avoid combat in more morally ambiguous situations, rather than assuming that they'll be OK just slaughtering these guys.

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...
Well, I think it mostly ignored the issue rather than going "LOL we killed 100s of people" as DA2 did on occasion.

I don't think that makes the partly less sociopathic.

And it helped that for much of the game you were killing monsters, not people.  There were exceptions, which I often wasn't all that keen on.

The Warden kills more humans/elves than darkspawn throughout the game. My kill count (if I recall) was 600 humans (or whatever) and maybe 400 darkspawn. You don't actually fight monsters for most of the game. 

Think of Haven - it's more cultists than dragons. Think of All of Denerim. Do the werewolves count as monsters? 

On the balance you might say that at least 30%-40% of what you kill (counting abominations etc) are not monsters, and you kill a lot of things. 

[In Exile]

TheRealJayDee wrote...
It's true that the human enemies are treated by the game as being interchangable faceless enemies, but the result of this was that the whole setting lost even more of what little believability it had.

Every single Bioware game does this. The monsters and non-monsters are the same thing. 

[esper]

Wulfram wrote...

esper wrote...

It does not deal with the main problem, though. That any PC by the end of the game is effecitively a mass murderer.

But I cannot see anyway out of it, the only way would be to force emotional trauma on the PC such as Mass Effect 3 did and that hampers roleplaying.

Cutting down on pointless filler combat like those night time thug attacks, and not making minor fights use wave after wave of enemies would help.

And offering ways for the player to avoid combat in more morally ambiguous situations, rather than assuming that they'll be OK just slaughtering these guys.

That doesn't really change it.

You will still end up with a body count over 20 which constitutes a serious problem if we are talking real world morality. Heck above 10 and I would think that any person either has proffessionel training to deal with it (ie. soldiers) or has a problem in the real world.

And those night time thugs are technically optional you know. You don't have to cut through them all and you could just run through the city at night, not fighting them, but we do... because it's a game.

But, yes, I would like none combat ways out of it, but bioware has stated that these games are never going to become completely non-violent, so this grace would properly not extent to mooks and we would still rack up a body count in double digits.

Generally though Thedas as a whole see, densensitized to violence. Nobody seems to have a problem with solving thing by a sword (or spell), so I just really think as the main character as a product of their culture.

[Wulfram]

esper wrote...

That doesn't really change it.

You're right, but for me at least it makes it easier to ignore.

[Tootles FTW]

I wouldn't mind our PC character expressing shock or remorse during the first battle/killing-scenario we encounter, such as it was in Far Cry 3 when Jason Brody kills his first man and has a mini-freakout.

Edit to add: I don't care about random mooks, and I don't think our PC should be designed to care about them, either.  The NPCs we kill due to choice - like Feynriel in DA2, or Connor in DAO - are an exception and I wouldn't mind the option to express my character's regret over the situation.  I thought DAO's option to back out of killing Connor at the last minute, only to have Isolde take over, was pretty powerful.

Modifié par Tootles FTW, 24 janvier 2013 - 04:06 .

[esper]

Wulfram wrote...

esper wrote...

That doesn't really change it.

You're right, but for me at least it makes it easier to ignore.

I think making it easier to ignore is much, much worse.

At least I was aware of the problem in da2 with those banters (previous mentioned in thread) which basically did point to the fact that: "You are murdering people". It made it so much easier for me to incorperate it in my roleplaying, than when it is glossed over/ignored.

I much prefer to get it pointed out the the value dissonace exist, than have it ignored, because the latter implies that the developers think that I as a player as so desensitized in video games that I am completely okay with murdering 50 mooks and not even bat an eye about it.

At least making fun off it point out the absurdity.

[In Exile]

The other thing here is that killing is rewarding (in the gameplay sense). The player has a tremendous incentive to mass-murder: XP. Murder doesn't really work like that in the real world, which is a big difference in the weird feedback the player receives.

[esper]

Tootles FTW wrote...

I wouldn't mind our PC character expressing shock or remorse during the first battle/killing-scenario we encounter, such as it was in Far Cry 3 when Jason Brody kills his first man and has a mini-freakout.

Edit to add: I don't care about random mooks, and I don't think our PC should be designed to care about them, either.  The NPCs we kill due to choice - like Feynriel in DA2, or Connor in DAO - are an exception and I wouldn't mind the option to express my character's regret over the situation.  I thought DAO's option to back out of killing Connor at the last minute, only to have Isolde take over, was pretty powerful.

I would, in this kind of game.

I don't want the emotional trauma forced on my character if I am suppossed to have control over their personality. I would like if it is an option, though.

[esper]

In Exile wrote...

The other thing here is that killing is rewarding (in the gameplay sense). The player has a tremendous incentive to mass-murder: XP. Murder doesn't really work like that in the real world, which is a big difference in the weird feedback the player receives.

Indeed. In fact Dragon Age is so conditioned that murder works best, since when faced with a kill/not kill it is often only the kill that gives XP.

That is not good.

[wright1978]

Tootles FTW wrote...

I wouldn't mind our PC character expressing shock or remorse during the first battle/killing-scenario we encounter, such as it was in Far Cry 3 when Jason Brody kills his first man and has a mini-freakout.

I certainly wouldn't want forced shock.

I do agree the idea of having some ways of avoiding certain combat situations and there being different rewards for these situations. At the end of the day i don't have an issue with the necessary combat element of gameplay and am certainly not willing to sacrifice player characterisation of the protaganist to create a forced response to it.

[Wulfram]

esper wrote...

At least making fun off it point out the absurdity.

When there's no ability given to address the issue through roleplaying, and no option given to take a different course, then for me pointing out the absurdity does nothing but bring what would otherwise be a minor annoyance that I can dismiss as a bit of gameplay/story segregation, right into the front and center where I can't ignore it.

From my point of view, they should either actually try to deal with it properly or let it stay in the background.

Really, it feels a bit like the silly side-quests in DA2.  There, as here, the attitude seems to be to make a joke of it rather than try to make it actually better.

[esper]

Wulfram wrote...

esper wrote...

At least making fun off it point out the absurdity.

When there's no ability given to address the issue through roleplaying, and no option given to take a different course, then for me pointing out the absurdity does nothing but bring what would otherwise be a minor annoyance that I can dismiss as a bit of gameplay/story segregation, right into the front and center where I can't ignore it.

From my point of view, they should either actually try to deal with it properly or let it stay in the background.

Really, it feels a bit like the silly side-quests in DA2.  There, as here, the attitude seems to be to make a joke of it rather than try to make it actually better.

The mini-fech quest I appreciated because that meant I didn't have to go get 18 gall corps again. I would rather see them go, but minized is better and it did leave room for improvement and inclusion of other better and larger side quest. So I think it good, perhaps next game, we get no fecth quest at all.

And I see the absuridity as part of the universe. It is very obvious to me that Thedas is a world where killing people is considered a valid approach, there has not been one major influence or hero in the word which did not ultimately kill people, a lot, so why should our protagonist not be conditioned to think that way too? It is absurd with our modern days eyes, but in a world where the law does not function and protect its ordinary citizen and society where inner structure is not all there yet, it is not unnatural.

Just absurd with our eyes. And I will rather have absurd than close my eyes and pretend the problem is not there.

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...
Really, it feels a bit like the silly side-quests in DA2.  There, as here, the attitude seems to be to make a joke of it rather than try to make it actually better.

It's a personality difference, though. Some people like lampshade hanging. I think making  a joke of things is - within reason - a good thing.

[esper]

In Exile wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Really, it feels a bit like the silly side-quests in DA2.  There, as here, the attitude seems to be to make a joke of it rather than try to make it actually better.

It's a personality difference, though. Some people like lampshade hanging. I think making  a joke of things is - within reason - a good thing.

Indeed. I prefer absurdity over turning the blind eye, turning the blind eye puts me out of my roleplaying, absurdity I have always liked where I could find it.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...
The other thing here is that killing is rewarding (in the gameplay sense). The player has a tremendous incentive to mass-murder: XP. Murder doesn't really work like that in the real world, which is a big difference in the weird feedback the player receives.

This is one of the main reasons why I want cRPGs to become more like current PnP RPGs (other than D&D, I mean). Experience should be objective-based, not based on head count.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
This is one of the main reasons why I want cRPGs to become more like current PnP RPGs (other than D&D, I mean). Experience should be objective-based, not based on head count.

I agree, but as you might recall, people called ME2's mechanic of XP for mission completion as being decidedly non-RPG. Some people want their pez.

[esper]

In Exile wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
This is one of the main reasons why I want cRPGs to become more like current PnP RPGs (other than D&D, I mean). Experience should be objective-based, not based on head count.

I agree, but as you might recall, people called ME2's mechanic of XP for mission completion as being decidedly non-RPG. Some people want their pez.

Why is it non-RPG?
I actually agree that is should be done like that. It doesn't have to be only major quest ending, it could be obstacle based so that each time we cleared and obstacle either by talk or force we get the same amount of experience.

[Icesong]

Wulfram wrote...

DA2 did seem to actively promote a blazé attitude towards death. Maybe it was mostly Varric doing his lampshading thing, but I still wasn't keen on it.

You bothered with the accented e but messed up on the s? Not being a grammar ****, just funny.

My favorite character trait is stoicism. This can come across as desensitized. I hope in the variety of better reactions they're looking into that the option to not react will be among them.

[FenrirBlackDragon]

nightscrawl wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Well the PC and the party would hardly be able to do what the story requires of them if they stopped to blubber over everyone they killed. If that were the case, I would advise a career change.

It doesn't have to be that extreme though.

Consider this exchange between Anders and Varric...

Varric: Oh, cheer up, Blondie. You're making me cry just looking at you.
Anders: Don't.
Varric: You made a mistake. It happens.
Anders: I almost killed a girl.
Varric: You've killed two-hundred and fifty-four by my last count. Plus about five hundred men, a few dozen giant spiders, and at least two demons.
Anders: It's not the same.
Varric: Why? Because this one you feel bad about? Maybe that's the problem.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask to express similar regret for the PC, even if you think the death is necessary. In fact, it has always irked me that I could never express regret over killing Anders at the end of DA2, you just knife him and move on.

Being able to express your character's emotions, whatever they may be, seems to be the very essence of roleplay options.

I agree. At first I thought killing Anders would be easy because I was furious with what he did. But, when it came down to it, it was a tough decision to make.  I finally got around to playing Awakening and understood finally why a lot of people were upset. I kept my warden somewhat distant from Anders, occasionally a joke here and there but putting her duty as Warden-Commander first. But, seeing Anders in Awakening (who seemed almost like a different person then) really changed how I saw him that moment when he told my Hawke to kill him.  Having the opportunity to express regret about it would have been great, I think. Maybe it's just the headcanon talking though. 

I am glad the option to have different reactions is being explored so there is more flexibility with how one roleplays their character.

[BubbleDncr]

I support them always giving us a variety of reactions to characters' death - one of the biggest annoyances to me with my evil Hawke, was that I wanted to purposely leave Bethany to die in the deep roads because I was anti-mage and evil - but all of my dialog options were variations of "i love you and I'm sorry this happened."

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...
It's true that the human enemies are treated by the game as being interchangable faceless enemies, but the result of this was that the whole setting lost even more of what little believability it had.

Every single Bioware game does this. The monsters and non-monsters are the same thing. 

Which is a problem both with the Bio house style, and with CRPGs in general.