268 réponses à ce sujet

[Wolfva2]

I dunno....I just see this scenario. PC: "Oh...oh my god! We...we killed them! Those poor people! WHY! GODS WHYYYY!! Why did we have to slaughter them like lambs!" NPC: "Errr, because they came at us with swords and tried to lop off our heads? Man up already!"

Ok. DA doesn't take place in the modern world where most people never encounter violence. It occurs in a medievalistic world where violence is common. You play as as soldier who makes his living fighting. You are inurred to it. Unless the game starts where you're a bright faced lad living in a monastary (Like in Baldur's Gate) our characters shouldn't be to broken up about killing a bunch of folks that just tried to slaughter them.

This is the thing about role playing; you take on a role. In these games, we're assigned a base role which we can flesh out a bit. That role is of a warrior. A warrior in a land and time where life is cheap. I'd be all for a 'pacifist' option in the game, except the pacifists were killed by the darkspawn, or mercs, or blood mages, or dragonlings, or drowned in their own tears. "But...but...I don't want to play a warrior! I want to play a loving hippy who embraces everyone and turns them to the paths of rainbows and unicorns with the brightness of my loving smiiiiile!" Whatever; these games aren't for you. At least, not until Bioware produces, "Dragon Age: My Little Pony edition"

[Fishy]

The PC may be shallow, but the npc aren't. because they want to keep him ''neutral'' for gameplay reason obviously. That probably one of the reason they did what they did with da2. Because the PC in Origins was horribly blank and empty.

I remember my pc standing emotionless dyring important conversation in DA:O .. Some people enjoy this because they can ''imagine''  how their avatar think. SOme people enjoy stronger narration like Mass Effect.

Skyrim has probably the most shallow character ever created.. But some people enjoy that .. SInce skyrim anyway it's about exploration and not the character.

Modifié par Suprez30, 29 janvier 2013 - 05:49 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Suprez30: Did you actually use "imagine" derisively in your post?

@Wolfva2: You've never experienced any form of real conflict - this much is evident. Killing and conflict don't just damage the minds of simple peace loving individuals. Please stop getting your psychological profiles from action movies.

----

This - and not violence or sex - is what I want if I ever ask for "mature". Something that more closely mirrors the way real humans (even in the skins of squat bearded miners or lithe weak people who excel at poverty) deal with situations.

I cannot stand it when people think that the mindset of the medieval time period was one of calloused hard asses who solve everything with violence - it wasn't - at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

All of these things should be left up to the player of course.

The most important part of this thread.

And, of course, the most difficult.

It worked before.

On this path toward cinematic presentation, every step of the way should have involved asking what was being lost, and if the gains were worth that cost.

In the days of 2D sprites, we had total control over our characters' emotional states.  Why don't we still?  Why was that ever something we were willing to surrender?

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's a reason I generally don't count JRPGs as roleplaying games.

[wright1978]

Twisted Path wrote...

Yeah, for me the absolute worse thing about Mass Effect 3 was that the game suddenly started deiciding how the player character felt about stuff. It was especially jarring since the first two games did a pretty good job of making the PC a blank slate that the player mostly defines, despite having a voiced protagonist.

The more the player can customize and define their little in-game-avatar in roleplaying games, both physically and personality wise, the better.

Agree completely.

[wright1978]

DPSSOC wrote...

Ok to address something I'm seeing a lot of in the first couple pages, you don't need to have the PC breakdown over every person they kill for this to work, you don't need it for anybody really. All you really need is a moment, maybe a few, where an NPC turns to your character and asks, "How you doing?"

ME3 did it with Liara and ignoring the nightmares those scenes aren't bad. Example you have an old veteran soldier in your party, 1 day from retirment until he met you kind of guy, who about half way through the game says to the PC, "30 years a soldier and I've killed more men fighting alongside you than in any war. Does it ever get to you?" The player is then given options to respond.

One maybe two moments like that in the game would be fine, it allows the player to establish that, while it might not show, they do have thoughts and issues about killing people enmasse, and even express growth.

Depends how it is handled. I disliked it in ME3 because often i was left with the impression i was being told 'you're in denial' rather than no, meaning i'm fine.

[Todd23]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It worked before.

On this path toward cinematic presentation, every step of the way should have involved asking what was being lost, and if the gains were worth that cost.

In the days of 2D sprites, we had total control over our characters' emotional states.  Why don't we still?  Why was that ever something we were willing to surrender?

I would disagree with that, actually--that is, I would if I had experience in the area. The only 2D RPG I've ever played is FF III, and you have less control over your character in that game than in the latest Final Fantasy game.

I've not played any old-style CRPGs, though, so I can't really argue with you here. Though I'd like to.

Play Final Fantasy 7.  You won't regret it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

nm

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 29 janvier 2013 - 08:40 .

[Thasinta]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Suprez30: Did you actually use "imagine" derisively in your post?

@Wolfva2: You've never experienced any form of real conflict - this much is evident. Killing and conflict don't just damage the minds of simple peace loving individuals. Please stop getting your psychological profiles from action movies.

----

This - and not violence or sex - is what I want if I ever ask for "mature". Something that more closely mirrors the way real humans (even in the skins of squat bearded miners or lithe weak people who excel at poverty) deal with situations.

I cannot stand it when people think that the mindset of the medieval time period was one of calloused hard asses who solve everything with violence - it wasn't - at all.

Good one. Simply filling a work with violence and sex and violent sex and sexual violence doesn't make it more mature. It might make it less suitable for children, but not more mature.

[Isolaede]

I’m not sure this is completely accurate. I think we had less sense of our Warden’s emotions in DA:O since his or her dialog was handled via text responses, instead of vocal ones. All Wardens are devastated by Duncan and Cailin’s deaths. The dialog gives you plenty of opportunity to express regret and sorrow. Heck the DLC where you bury Cailin made me cry. In various origin stories, your character is profoundly impacted by death. Human Nobles spend the entire story mourning the death of their parents and seeking revenge against the Howes. Dalish elves are haunted my memories of their lost friend. City Elves grieve for the injustice of their husband or wife’s death. You can even choose to wear the wedding ring throughout the story.

And poor Hawke is almost destroyed by his or her mother’s death (which you pointed out), not to mention devastated over Ander’s actions and the deaths of all those innocent priestesses. The grief after the chantry deaths was very poignant no matter what dialog options you chose. Then we have Orsino’s change and death – my dialog responses gave me plenty of room to express sorrow and regret for what happened in that final battle.

In my experience, the Dragon Age games give you enough dialog options to role play your character however you’d like. Perhaps your play through you took more mercenary or hardcore responses (like always picking the red options in DA2). Try playing through again, and choosing the “nice” or “diplomatic” options and you’ll see plenty of grief.

Modifié par Isolaede, 29 janvier 2013 - 10:39 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

nm

A JRPG slur?

My impressions of FF7 (the only JRPG I've ever played).

[The Hierophant]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

nm

A JRPG slur?

My impressions of FF7 (the only JRPG I've ever played).

This saddens me as I wish that you had played Chrono Trigger instead.

[DPSSOC]

Wolfva2 wrote...
I dunno....I just see this scenario. PC: "Oh...oh my god! We...we killed them! Those poor people! WHY! GODS WHYYYY!! Why did we have to slaughter them like lambs!" NPC: "Errr, because they came at us with swords and tried to lop off our heads? Man up already!"

Ok. DA doesn't take place in the modern world where most people never encounter violence. It occurs in a medievalistic world where violence is common. You play as as soldier who makes his living fighting. You are inurred to it. Unless the game starts where you're a bright faced lad living in a monastary (Like in Baldur's Gate) our characters shouldn't be to broken up about killing a bunch of folks that just tried to slaughter them.

 
Which is a fair point.  However I suspect even the most hardened soldier reflects on what they're doing once they realize they've got a four digit body count.  Also this really doesn't work considering remarkably few of the non-monstrous enemies we face (in either game) came looking for us.  9 times out of 10 we went gunning for them with murderous intent, we are the instigator.  It's one thing not to agonize over the morality of killing people trying to kill you, it's quite another when you're essentially breaking into their homes so you can stab them in the face and steal their stuff.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There's a reason I generally don't count JRPGs as roleplaying games.

High five!

wright1978 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Ok to address something I'm seeing a lot of in the first couple pages, you don't need to have the PC breakdown over every person they kill for this to work, you don't need it for anybody really. All you really need is a moment, maybe a few, where an NPC turns to your character and asks, "How you doing?"

ME3 did it with Liara and ignoring the nightmares those scenes aren't bad. Example you have an old veteran soldier in your party, 1 day from retirment until he met you kind of guy, who about half way through the game says to the PC, "30 years a soldier and I've killed more men fighting alongside you than in any war. Does it ever get to you?" The player is then given options to respond.

One maybe two moments like that in the game would be fine, it allows the player to establish that, while it might not show, they do have thoughts and issues about killing people enmasse, and even express growth.

Depends how it is handled. I disliked it in ME3 because often i was left with the impression i was being told 'you're in denial' rather than no, meaning i'm fine.

True. Like I said if you ignore the nightmares (a clear indicator that whatever you choose Shepard is not "fine") those scenes aren't bad, they aren't great, but they're not bad. Those scenes though are really all it would take though. We don't need a PC constantly agonizing over the lives he's taken, or even agonizing over particular lives, we just need a few moments to establish whether our character is perfectly fine with it or whether they feel bad but press on for the greater good (assuming our PC's goal is some kind of "greater good")

[Sharn01]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

nm

A JRPG slur?

My impressions of FF7 (the only JRPG I've ever played).

I still think you should give Tactics Ogre a try.

[Martagin]

I don't remember any scenes involving crying. What I do remember however is the emotion behind the scene in the Human Noble Origin where you leave your parents to die.

[Saphean71]

With the whole family death thing I always thought it would be good if you did Legacy dlc in act 2 or 3 (when your character has an LI and you took them with you) maybe they could have been the ones to talk to you afterwards. Not Gamlen who only seems to bother that you are there when Leandra dies. It could have made for a more interesting conversation if nothing else.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Hierophant wrote...

This saddens me as I wish that you had played Chrono Trigger instead.

Sharn01 wrote...

I still think you should give Tactics Ogre a try.

Is there any JRPG where the player is able to construct his character's personality himself, and then have his character behave accordingly?

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Most people expect you to make eye contact when you talk to them - at least some of the time.  If you don't, they tend to notice.

Except they don't, actually.  They'll notice if there's nothing else going on, but, just like a good stage magician, you can make sure there is other stuff going on.  I never make eye contact when I talk to people, but I've learned to disguise this through a system of misdirection.

Believe me, they do notice more often than you realise.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Believe me, they do notice more often than you realise.

If they do, that just reinforces my position that body language doesn't matter.