157 réponses à ce sujet

[-TC1989-]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

karushna5 wrote...

I know that I like to be surprised, but art has never mad me feel. I play games and read for entertainment, in fact if art does make me feel those emotions are so hurtful I usually hate the movie/ book forever. The reason I avoid art movies is they hurt. I am not fond of feeling hurt or depressed. If I cry or get upset than I am sure it gets worst movie or book of the year in my mind.

It takes a lot to get me upset or react, but if I do and it is a negative emotion I cry for hours and never look at it again. I think I am in the vast minority on this one. And understand very few movies or books ever do it to me, and never a video game. I play to have fun or be entertained, by a sad story if it is good...it is fun, but if it stops being fun than I am done.

I'm a sucker for things that make me cry.
The best Bioware tear jerker scene for me was Mordin's death scene (where he actually cures the genophage and sings his song) That made me weep, and I really do mean *weep*
It was devastating, and yet at the same time beautiful.

Agreed. The whole Grunt scene when he took on like a dozen rachni got to me too honestly, it was pure bad ass. Though I was a Renegade and felt differently about the Genophage than Mordin did.

*SPOILERS*






I actually shot him, because I just didn't want to take the chance of another Krogan Rebellion... and let me tell you, when that moment slowed down and I shot him... wow that was hard.... hard.

[karushna5]

See I approached that scene as something that made him amazing. Mordin was awesome in that and it made me go aww to see him die in such a heroic way. But cry? No. Not that it is wrong to cry. It just takes me to be traumatized to react to art or any creative work.

Sexual Assault done in a personal, or even worse off hand way, will send me sobbing. I believe if it ever happened to a character I was playing I would quit video games for good. That sort of thing. If it happens to a close character I just quit the game, and sell it. If it happened in the past...I can deal with it, but if it is ever shown, I just lose it.

As I said I am in the minority, but I am either bored( rarely) entertained, or traumatized

[Gibb_Shepard]

@plaintiff: TWD has been available for Australians since the middle of last year.

@Gandalf: I don't feign sadness. I role play my character. If my character has his sister die, I'll naturally guide him in a manner that would reflect mourning. If I give a **** about the sister is completely irrelevant.

I write my characters, I don't become them.

[Plaintiff]

Xilizhra wrote...
I'm curious: in the scene in ME3 where Jack punches you over the whole Cerberus thing, did you wholly cut her off thereafter?

I do agree with your statement overall, though I assume that Misanthrope Prime doesn't see Anders as a friend in any case. Of course, you can outright stab him, so one would assume that would be sufficient.

I don't really recall that scene. It's possible something about that particular interaction convinced me that she deserved a second chance.

But in any case, no, I didn't avoid later interactions with her. Even when I IRL-hate companions (like Sten), I keep them around to experience all of their content. It's a metagame decision, and certainly not how I handle my relationships in real life.

[Plaintiff]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

@plaintiff: TWD has been available for Australians since the middle of last year.

Obviously I'm thinking of a different game then. There is a 'Walking Dead' game for PS3 coming out in a few days.

I'm not really a fan of the comic, show, or other associated media, so I've not been paying close attention.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 17 mars 2013 - 02:39 .

[SgtElias]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

It would seem I am unclear on your definition of roleplaying then, I always viewed roleplaying as putting the player in the protagonist's shoes and having them experience the world through their eyes which in writing a video game this would be the goal I strive to achieve, however you seem to view roleplaying as a colaboration of storytelling between the player and writer where the writer gives the options and the player pieces them together while determining what the character should be feeling even if it may or may not be shown in game or being felt by the player deciding these emotions. Is that correct?

I view roleplaying as what you make of it. As I said, if it's important to you that you feel the same as your character, then I think that's perfectly fine. But others (myself included) want to create characters; my characters are their own people, and sometimes I not only don't agree with the conclusions they've drawn, but I definitely don't sympathize with them. My goal is to create an interesting person to play, with their own strengths and weaknesses and opinions, even if I don't necessarily empathize with them.

And I suppose I do see it as a collaboration, of sorts; I cannot determine every single facet of my characters at all times, and if I could the game would have to be a good deal more open-ended than I think is possible. So all I can do is take the information that the game gives me, and decide how the character I'm playing would respond to it.

Honestly, I think both styles of play are perfectly valid. I'm just explaining why I don't necessarily think that the player always has to be emotionally invested on the same level as their character for every part of the game. As many parts as possible? Sure. But it's not an exact science; every scene is going to be hit-or-miss, depending on the player.

Anyway, just my two cents.

[Allan Schumacher]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think it's more just a matter of how one approaches their roleplaying.  For some it will be a struggle, while for others it will still work (I had zero issue feeling emotion for Hawke's sibling, but Jenkins was mostly just a comic relief tongue in cheek kill based on pop culture meme).

I wasn't upset when Duncan died. I barely knew him. However, I ended up feeling bad later on when talking about him with Alistair. You got to know a little bit about Duncan's character through this other character who was still alive and in mourning.

With Hawke's mother, I never got that. She talks about Bethany or Carver a little bit, but then just goes on like nothing happened. Alistair brought up Duncan a lot in conversations and it seemed like it was something he was dealing with throughout the entire game.

Mama Hawke dying is another example of forced and unnecessary deaths. Beyond the fact that the whole scene was incredibly stupid (zombie mom!), the player has no reason to give a crap about his mother because you never get to know her.

You talk to her a few times about the estate and the family wealth, but that's about it. Then Bioware throws in the "Hawke is sad" moment and his friends or love interest pays him a visit to tell him that everything's okay, and apparently that's enough because he seems to get over it rather quickly. Player shrugs and moves on.

I think it's important to substitute "Player" with "EpicBoot2daFace"

It's unfortunate if it doesn't resonate as strongly for you, but given that it can still resonate strongly with people goes back to different people being different.

[Allan Schumacher]

Solmanian wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I never buy into the idea that the characters are "homicidal sociopath" since one could argue that the attacks are typically in self-defense. When wandering Kirkwall, it was aggressive mobs attacking me, not me looking to stir up trouble.

I'm a veteran who saw substantial combat duty, as do many of my friends. It changes you. Some found religion, others became etheists, and some just got realy quiet. Though it was in different ways, they all changed. You can't kill people, especialy on a regular basis, without emotional repercussions. We may not have become "homicidal socipath" but we defintely didn't come out of unscathed.

Fantasy games aren't reality (which is probably a good thing).

If we were to do a game that goes on about the effects killing another living creature would have on someone, the only way to do it justice would be to have that be the central theme of the game.

[Renmiri1]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

***

I think it's important to substitute "Player" with "EpicBoot2daFace"

It's unfortunate if it doesn't resonate as strongly for you, but given that it can still resonate strongly with people goes back to different people being different.

Anders coming and consoling Hawke was very touching. Leandra's last words too.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I never buy into the idea that the characters are "homicidal sociopath" since one could argue that the attacks are typically in self-defense. When wandering Kirkwall, it was aggressive mobs attacking me, not me looking to stir up trouble.

I'm a veteran who saw substantial combat duty, as do many of my friends. It changes you. Some found religion, others became etheists, and some just got realy quiet. Though it was in different ways, they all changed. You can't kill people, especialy on a regular basis, without emotional repercussions. We may not have become "homicidal socipath" but we defintely didn't come out of unscathed.

Fantasy games aren't reality (which is probably a good thing).

If we were to do a game that goes on about the effects killing another living creature would have on someone, the only way to do it justice would be to have that be the central theme of the game.

Games and virtual words can be really helpful for PSTD sufferers and others with problems. It is a safe place to many. I know a few Iraq and Bosnia vets that really love gaming, it helps them relax and connect to other gamers.

Bioware is doing a good thing with games. They are more important than people realize. Herodotus wrote about them, the earliest text about games we know:

 the Lydians were the first to introduce the use of gold and silver coin, and the first who sold good retail. They claim also the invention of all the games...  In the days of Atys the son of Manes, there was great scarcity through the whole land of Lydia. For some time the Lydians bore the affliction patiently, but finding that it did not pass away, they set to work to devise remedies for the evil. Various expedients were discovered by various persons: dice, knuckle-bones, and ball, and all such games were invented, except checkers, the invention of which they do not claim as theirs. The plan adopted against the famine was to engage in games one day so entirely as not to feel any craving for food, and the next day to eat and abstain from games. In this way they passed eighteen years.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 17 mars 2013 - 03:55 .

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

SgtElias wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

It would seem I am unclear on your definition of roleplaying then, I always viewed roleplaying as putting the player in the protagonist's shoes and having them experience the world through their eyes which in writing a video game this would be the goal I strive to achieve, however you seem to view roleplaying as a colaboration of storytelling between the player and writer where the writer gives the options and the player pieces them together while determining what the character should be feeling even if it may or may not be shown in game or being felt by the player deciding these emotions. Is that correct?

I view roleplaying as what you make of it. As I said, if it's important to you that you feel the same as your character, then I think that's perfectly fine. But others (myself included) want to create characters; my characters are their own people, and sometimes I not only don't agree with the conclusions they've drawn, but I definitely don't sympathize with them. My goal is to create an interesting person to play, with their own strengths and weaknesses and opinions, even if I don't necessarily empathize with them.

And I suppose I do see it as a collaboration, of sorts; I cannot determine every single facet of my characters at all times, and if I could the game would have to be a good deal more open-ended than I think is possible. So all I can do is take the information that the game gives me, and decide how the character I'm playing would respond to it.

Honestly, I think both styles of play are perfectly valid. I'm just explaining why I don't necessarily think that the player always has to be emotionally invested on the same level as their character for every part of the game. As many parts as possible? Sure. But it's not an exact science; every scene is going to be hit-or-miss, depending on the player.

Anyway, just my two cents.

To be clear I am not stating that your way of playing is wrong nor am I saying that any game that doesnt use my design philosophy is wrong I am just saying is this is how I would design an RPG and this is the experience I look for in an RPG. I guess it is also why I dont agree with Origin stories for Player Characters and dont think the game should make assumptions on who the player character should care about or what the character should be feeling as even if you do hit the mark with more than a few players odds are there are still a lot who are going to be alienated from their character.

[KiwiQuiche]

Yeah I found is really weird when Merrill was crying next to Pol/the Keepers bodies and there was no "Press button to hug your mourning teammate". You just....stood there awkwardly. Made even worse if you romanced her.

And as some said, I wanted options to be more nasty to teammates/people- so give me a good dish of either side in DAI and I'll be a happy panda.

[karushna5]

@Shumacher

Emphatically yes. Games are not realistic and I think that is what makes them fun. To show Hawke as a realistic person would make her into someone she definitely is not. I like to make fun of the fact that she will steal from a hovel for some torn trousers while having 20 gold.

some things, like stealing everything in sight, is just a gaming motif, but also murder as a serious dark way to go about things would be impossible a more realistic way might be to show her happy, and dealing with killing her first person, death rattles, blood, begs of mercy, psychological damage on Hawke. Dealing with it, horrific encounters, even PTSD. None of which make fun games, not if done maturely and seriously. Scary, horrifying, but not fun.

I would prefer the goons who we kill for laughs half the time than the experiance of real battle. That is fun. I always am confused when peoplle want to take dark themes to the max and wonder if they know what a realistic take on War, murder, poverty, would mean a whole game dealing with a characters psychological damage. I don't think it would be a fun game by any means.

[darrylzero]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I never buy into the idea that the characters are "homicidal sociopath" since one could argue that the attacks are typically in self-defense. When wandering Kirkwall, it was aggressive mobs attacking me, not me looking to stir up trouble.

That's fair enough, but killing someone who attacks you is only one way of resolving that situation.  The character I was trying to play would have tried very hard to avoid those fights (via stealth, perhaps) and would have much preferred to run than fight once the various bandits or whoever were after him.  l pursued that strategy with very limited success.

What's more, I think I would like to play characters who are uncomfortable with killing.  They may do it, but they don't do it lightly.  Killing bandit after thug after bandit in Kirkwall made me feel a little naseous, and I like to think it Hawke feel a great deal sicker.  That doesn't make him unwilling to kill, either in self-defense or otherwise.  If he could have, he would have snuck into Meredith's bedchamber and killed her in her sleep.  But that doesn't mean he's comfortable with it.  These are difficult choices and difficult actions for people to make/take, and if we want to take video game characters seriously, I think that's something we have to engage with.

I know not all playing styles or roleplaying options are supportable in a game like this, but I don't think "sociopath" or "not sociopath" is a very satisfying dichotomy, and I think the game would be better if we could play characters that were genuinely reluctant to kill other human beings (or elves or dwarves).  Being faced with mob after mob of human enemies and having no way to avoid killing them or dying yourself doesn't feel good to me.  Maybe that's just me and the odd serious roleplayer, but it would make a real difference in my playing of your games if I felt like that was something you were paying attention to.  

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fantasy games aren't reality (which is probably a good thing).

If we were to do a game that goes on about the effects killing another living creature would have on someone, the only way to do it justice would be to have that be the central theme of the game.

I feel like this has a hint of the unsatisfying sociopath / not-sociopath dichotomy.  Are all these things either / or?  Is this something you can only either do justice to or not do justice to?  Why the central theme?  I think it would be more productive to think of this as something that scaled more than a switch you could turn on or off.  How much justice can we do to this concept?  How central of a theme should it be?

I know there are real limits to how much you can do in this regard, and to how much of your audience would even notice.  Some might actively dislike it, and I wouldn't be surprised if they outnumbered people like me (unfortunately).  But I still think it would make a better character, a better story, and a better game.  And I would feel better about the future of the DA series if I thought its creators weren't stuck in this either / or trap.

(If that comes across a little harsh, apologies.  I generally find your comments helpful and your opinions insightful.  I just wanted to make the point strongly.)

Modifié par darrylzero, 17 mars 2013 - 07:28 .

[darrylzero]

karushna5 wrote...
...I would prefer the goons who we kill for laughs half the time than the experiance of real battle. That is fun. I always am confused when peoplle want to take dark themes to the max and wonder if they know what a realistic take on War, murder, poverty, would mean a whole game dealing with a characters psychological damage. I don't think it would be a fun game by any means.

This is a good example of why I think we would do better to think about this on a scale rather than as either/or.  You are of course correct that a game that was completely realistic about the experience of killing and/or poverty would not be very fun for very many people (maybe a few, maybe none).  But I think it's pretty clear that a game that dealt with these things more realistically would be very fun (and a lot more satisfying) for a number of us.  

That might not be you, but I suspect you don't want zero realism either.  So why take to the 100% realistic hypothetical when critiquing the other side?  I would suspect that there's some difference between us in terms of how much realism we want in our fantasy, be it games, books or what have you.  In fact, I'll readily admit I'm probably pretty far on the realistic side.  But I bet our preferences are closer together than something being either "realistic" or "not realistic" implies.

Regardless, I totally respect that my preferences aren't everyone's, and people want less realistic fantasy for plenty of legitimate reasons.  It is, after all, a game, and Bioware has to adjudicate between all these preferences and their own vision and all that.  For me, though, a big part of the experience is trying roleplay a character who is forced to kill at times but doesn't much like it (though he probably wouldn't admit that to very many people, being aware that showing weakness is dangerous).  I can do a fair amount of that in my head, but I can always feel the dissonance.  Feeling less of it would make me happier.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

The Hierophant wrote...

People seriously cried at Leandra's death? I thought the scene was unintentionally comical as it looked like something from a Tim Burton flick.

More importantly, along with an option to be more sensitive, there should be an option to be apathetic.

I know, it was ****ing hilarious because of how stupid it was. Zombie Mom! What the hell was going through the writer's mind?

Oh, and for the people who cried over that scene... uhh... really?

[BeatoSama]

I thought it was sad because how Hawke reacted to it.
Sarcastic Hawke's lines during the scene made me want to cry even if the rest was a bit unintentionally hilarious

[Allan Schumacher]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

People seriously cried at Leandra's death? I thought the scene was unintentionally comical as it looked like something from a Tim Burton flick.

More importantly, along with an option to be more sensitive, there should be an option to be apathetic.

I know, it was ****ing hilarious because of how stupid it was. Zombie Mom! What the hell was going through the writer's mind?

Oh, and for the people who cried over that scene... uhh... really?

Evidently people have taken the scene differently than you.

I'd rather not go down any paths of judging those people for being different human beings than you.

[Allan Schumacher]

That's fair enough, but killing someone who attacks you is only one way of resolving that situation. The character I was trying to play would have tried very hard to avoid those fights (via stealth, perhaps) and would have much preferred to run than fight once the various bandits or whoever were after him. l pursued that strategy with very limited success.

Fair, though that's more a critique of the game and the options provided to you than any sort of critique that the player is or is not emotionally affected by the killing.

I feel like this has a hint of the unsatisfying sociopath / not-sociopath dichotomy. Are all these things either / or? Is this something you can only either do justice to or not do justice to? Why the central theme? I think it would be more productive to think of this as something that scaled more than a switch you could turn on or off. How much justice can we do to this concept? How central of a theme should it be?

I think that attempting to do so in a less "all-in" perspective will likely find it come across as jarring and not entirely clear as to what is happening, and worst case even potentially disrespectful to those that do suffer from some afflictions.

What I mean by "all-in" I more mean "Make the game explicitly about how the character views and justifies *all* of the actions that he or she takes."


If you include this for killing, but not for other questionable acts (i.e. thievery since it was mentioned) could create some level of suspension of disbelief disruption.

If it's side commentary of "Wow I've killed a lot of people" is that really sufficient? If we make it start to actually have a tangible effect on the character, it becomes something very different and more interesting (and more challenging)

[Fortlowe]

I think the problems with with the Leandra scene were that, first, there just wasn't enough interaction with her during the game. I get that she was always available to speak to, but it just wasn't to enough of an extent to develop an emotional attachment to, like for instance, Clementine from TWD.

Also, by the time we got to her, the damage was done. Maybe we shouldn't have had the chance to save her, but it might have been nice to at least have the illusion that there was a chance or a choice or something other than franken mom.

Not that I hated how it played out, just that it seemed rather shallow in its execution.

[Rawgrim]

Fortlowe wrote...

I think the problems with with the Leandra scene were that, first, there just wasn't enough interaction with her during the game. I get that she was always available to speak to, but it just wasn't to enough of an extent to develop an emotional attachment to, like for instance, Clementine from TWD.

Also, by the time we got to her, the damage was done. Maybe we shouldn't have had the chance to save her, but it might have been nice to at least have the illusion that there was a chance or a choice or something other than franken mom.

Not that I hated how it played out, just that it seemed rather shallow in its execution.

Pretty much this.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

People seriously cried at Leandra's death? I thought the scene was unintentionally comical as it looked like something from a Tim Burton flick.

More importantly, along with an option to be more sensitive, there should be an option to be apathetic.

I know, it was ****ing hilarious because of how stupid it was. Zombie Mom! What the hell was going through the writer's mind?

Oh, and for the people who cried over that scene... uhh... really?

Evidently people have taken the scene differently than you.

I'd rather not go down any paths of judging those people for being different human beings than you.

I can understand a person crying over some of the death scenes in Mass Effect 3, but not this. The writing is laughably bad, the dialogue between the characters is poorly delivered, and the scene itself is devoid any emotion and becomes comedy relief as soon as the evil mage begins speaking.

I'm not judging anyone on a personal level. I just can't believe that people would actually get emotional over this really crappy scene.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 18 mars 2013 - 01:48 .

[mlgumm]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I never buy into the idea that the characters are "homicidal sociopath" since one could argue that the attacks are typically in self-defense. When wandering Kirkwall, it was aggressive mobs attacking me, not me looking to stir up trouble.

I'm a veteran who saw substantial combat duty, as do many of my friends. It changes you. Some found religion, others became etheists, and some just got realy quiet. Though it was in different ways, they all changed. You can't kill people, especialy on a regular basis, without emotional repercussions. We may not have become "homicidal socipath" but we defintely didn't come out of unscathed.

Fantasy games aren't reality (which is probably a good thing).

If we were to do a game that goes on about the effects killing another living creature would have on someone, the only way to do it justice would be to have that be the central theme of the game.

I know that DA3 already probably has it's plot and everything, but this might make for a very strong game in the future.

[The Hierophant]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

People seriously cried at Leandra's death? I thought the scene was unintentionally comical as it looked like something from a Tim Burton flick.

More importantly, along with an option to be more sensitive, there should be an option to be apathetic.

I know, it was ****ing hilarious because of how stupid it was. Zombie Mom! What the hell was going through the writer's mind?

Oh, and for the people who cried over that scene... uhh... really?

Evidently people have taken the scene differently than you.

]I'd rather not go down any paths of judging those people for being different human beings than you.

There's no condemnation of the people in our posts, rather it's a disbelief at the sorrow the poorly voice acted scene with wooden facial animations evokes. Then there's Varric's potential killing of Gascard that is depicted in a comical manner, along with a drawn out fight sequence afterwards.

[darrylzero]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That's fair enough, but killing someone who attacks you is only one way of resolving that situation. The character I was trying to play would have tried very hard to avoid those fights (via stealth, perhaps) and would have much preferred to run than fight once the various bandits or whoever were after him. l pursued that strategy with very limited success.

Fair, though that's more a critique of the game and the options provided to you than any sort of critique that the player is or is not emotionally affected by the killing.

Yeah, I think you're mostly right here, but I think they're inseperable for me.  I want to avoid those fights partially because I see my characters as generally cautious and risk-averse -- that's certainly what they would say about it, not wanting to show weakness (at least early in their relationships with potential confidants) -- but it's also because I imagine it freaking them out a bit and taking a real toll on them.  A part of any complete solution to this problem (which I don't expect) would be finding ways for characters to communicate about these things in a way that feels natural.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I feel like this has a hint of the unsatisfying sociopath / not-sociopath dichotomy. Are all these things either / or? Is this something you can only either do justice to or not do justice to? Why the central theme? I think it would be more productive to think of this as something that scaled more than a switch you could turn on or off. How much justice can we do to this concept? How central of a theme should it be?

I think that attempting to do so in a less "all-in" perspective will likely find it come across as jarring and not entirely clear as to what is happening, and worst case even potentially disrespectful to those that do suffer from some afflictions.

What I mean by "all-in" I more mean "Make the game explicitly about how the character views and justifies *all* of the actions that he or she takes."

If you include this for killing, but not for other questionable acts (i.e. thievery since it was mentioned) could create some level of suspension of disbelief disruption.

If it's side commentary of "Wow I've killed a lot of people" is that really sufficient? If we make it start to actually have a tangible effect on the character, it becomes something very different and more interesting (and more challenging)

I suppose there's an historical argument to made that certain kinds of stealing might have much more stigmatized than certain kinds of killing.  Some of them might even hold true today (taking money or even food from the near-starving versus killing in genuine self-defense, for example).  But most of the kinds of things that might be just as traumatic as taking a life are either not likely to appear in a DA game or will absolutely be reflected upon in game via conversation with NPCs or some such thing.  And I don't think that it would cause suspension of disbelief to treat killing as different.  It seems pretty clear to me that it's not an easy thing for most people, and I don't suspect that was so different in different eras.  I think it would be ok to treat it differently.

I see the concern here about trivializing the trauma that real people have experienced, but I think it's worth asking whether or not ignoring it entirely does the same thing.  And I think there are possible interventions short of centrality that wouldn't trivialize anything.  A significant NPC could ask your character if they've ever killed before, after the first time your character kills another human/elf/dwarf, for example.  I'm sure someone could come up with some other, better ways to do similar things (and there's a good chance my characters would lie about it anyway), but it would give a sense that the game recognizes that killing someone else is a pretty momentous thing.  

As for dealing with something like PTSD, I agree that would have to be handled carefully.  A throwaway line would feel pretty cheap.  But I can imagine things that could address these things pretty minimally without feeling like a throwaway.  A significant character, at some point in the game, could think they see your character having a bit of a hard time and ask what's wrong.  The character's options for responding  could be along the lines of:

a)  It's nothing.
 All this killing, are you sure we're doing the right thing?
c)  It's just (some specific event, like your mother's death in DA2)...
d)  What business is it of yours?

You could even throw the option to break down in tears, stay stoic, or fly off the handle in rage in there if you wanted after choosing one of those lines.  Once again, I'm sure the writers could improve on that substantially.  But even if they didn't, would that trivialize real-life experiences of war, killing, and/or PTSD?  Maybe some people would think so, but I kind of doubt it.  As long as you're giving the player control of how the character is reacting, I don't really see the problem (except, perhaps, in terms of resources -- I recognize that's always a concern).

[Plaintiff]

The Hierophant wrote...
There's no condemnation of the people in our posts, rather it's a disbelief at the sorrow the poorly voice acted scene with wooden facial animations evokes. Then there's Varric's potential killing of Gascard that is depicted in a comical manner, along with a drawn out fight sequence afterwards.

When you say "I can't believe people found that scene sad, because it was a stupid and dumb and stupid some more", you are, in fact, mocking the people who felt sad at that scene.