366 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

Vilegrim wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I nominate the Inquisitor

Why not? It's not like his/her story will continue anyway, so dying during the endgame is fine (as long as it makes sense ofc) 

I'd rather have the PC get an appropriately heroic death at the end of the game than see them abandoned to the writers tender mercies.

[The Source]

If I wanted my Protag or companions to die then in the first battle I would just sit there and do nothing and let myself be killed, but I want to play the game so I dont do that. After playing the game and getting to the end I want my choices to determine my fate not some developers "railroaded" plug and play in order to fit some predetermined story ending. I do not like it when you play any game where you have to fight and survive every battle to get to the end and then be killed in the final fight after I win it because the developers want it to end a certain way..if I played the hardass that courted death all game and the decisions I made were not productive to my survival...then ok...death is on the table, but if I play to live..do everything to live...take care of my companions and LI....then yes...at the end I expect to live................if not so why give us the illusion of choice.......to be it bluntly......NOT ANOTHER ME3!!!

Modifié par The Source, 12 juin 2013 - 06:20 .

[The Source]

Morocco Mole wrote...

The Source wrote...

If I wanted my Protag or companions to die then in the first battle I would just sit there and do nothing and let myself be killed, but I want to play the game so I dont do that. After playing the game and getting to the end I want my choices to determine my fate not some developers "railroaded" plug and play in order to fit some predetermined story ending. I do not like it when you play any game where you have to fight and survive every battle to get to the end and then be killed in the final fight after I win it because the developers want it to end a certain way..if I played the hardass that courted death all game and the decisions I made were not productive to my survival...then ok...death is on the table, but if I play to live..do everything to live...take care of my companions and LI....then yes...at the end I expect to live................if not so why give us the illusion of choice.......to be it bluntly......NOT ANOTHER ME3!!!

lol.

It really is all about that power fantasy isn't it? 

Not really...but if your so eager to "die" heroically or for some overall moral..then just go to the first enemy encounter and stand there and let the creature/enemy kill your character.............so epic....I'm sure you'll look back on that experience with strong emotions

[Lennard Testarossa]

The Source wrote...
If I wanted my Protag or companions to die then in the first battle I would just sit there and do nothing and let myself be killed, but I want to play the game so I dont do that. After playing the game and getting to the end I want my choices to determine my fate not some developers "railroaded" plug and play in order to fit some predetermined story ending. I do not like it when you play any game where you have to fight and survive every battle to get to the end and then be killed in the final fight after I win it because the developers want it to end a certain way..if I played the hardass that courted death all game and the decisions I made were not productive to my survival...then ok...death is on the table, but if I play to live..do everything to live...take care of my companions and LI....then yes...at the end I expect to live................if not so why give us the illusion of choice.......to be it bluntly......NOT ANOTHER ME3!!!

Again: Having a choice is determined by whether or not you have a choice, not by whether or not you can achieve the outcome you'd like to have. It is easy to imagine a story in which every possible choice the protag can possibly make will inevitably lead to his death. This would not invalidate the choices made by said protagonist. It does not make his choices an illusion.

Modifié par Lennard Testarossa, 12 juin 2013 - 06:33 .

[LoonySpectre]

If you want your and only your choices to determine your fate in a story, the only way to achieve that is to write the story yourself from scratch.

[esper]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

The Source wrote...
If I wanted my Protag or companions to die then in the first battle I would just sit there and do nothing and let myself be killed, but I want to play the game so I dont do that. After playing the game and getting to the end I want my choices to determine my fate not some developers "railroaded" plug and play in order to fit some predetermined story ending. I do not like it when you play any game where you have to fight and survive every battle to get to the end and then be killed in the final fight after I win it because the developers want it to end a certain way..if I played the hardass that courted death all game and the decisions I made were not productive to my survival...then ok...death is on the table, but if I play to live..do everything to live...take care of my companions and LI....then yes...at the end I expect to live................if not so why give us the illusion of choice.......to be it bluntly......NOT ANOTHER ME3!!!

Again: Having a choice is determined by whether or not you have a choice, not by whether or not you can achieve the outcome you'd like to have. It is easy to imagine a story in which every possible choice the protag can possibly make will inevitably lead to his death. This would not invalidate the choices made by said protagonist. It does not make his choices an illusion.

Though not being forced into making a heroic sacrifice is very impotant. It is one thing if the character succumbs to impossible odss... it is another if you are forced into matyrdom for the greater good-

[JoltDealer]

Death for the sake of death is stupid. I get what the OP is trying to say, but coming from an entertainment background, dark tragedy and death does not make a story better. Death without meaning is just another casualty and we only ever care about those if there's a LOT of them (i.e. 500 casualties).

[Jamesnew2]

Morocco Mole wrote...

The Source wrote...
Not really...but if your so eager to "die" heroically or for some overall moral..then just go to the first enemy encounter and stand there and let the creature/enemy kill your character.............so epic....I'm sure you'll look back on that experience with strong emotions

This is a really stupid example and you should be ashamed of yourself

Well i think its safe to assume, that post was exactly the opposite of what we all want...

[garrusfan1]

I hope shepard inquisitor will live in the end and not die or be left in a breath scene

[Pzykozis]

Fetunche wrote...

All you grimdark game of thrones fans do realise that there is a game of thrones game available. Go play that and let DA be DA.

Ugh, that moment when grimdark becomes so much less than what it is.

GoT isn't really dark anyway its just kinda.. *rolls dice to see heroic fantasy clichés* oh! *writes inverted form*, reminds me of Pratchett's line something like darkness isn't the opposite of light it's just the lack of it (I did win that pretentiousness award by the way).

Anyway, yes to dark, doesn't necessarily have to be killing off characters randomly since thats a tricky thing to get right, I saw someone using GW2 as a discreditor for that and well, thats true but that's not necessarily the best implementation of character death ever. But what it does have to be if it is in the game more is mandatory, that doesn't mean there can be no affects on it through choice it just can't be done in a way where theres sunshine and rainbows on path A and misery and mud on path B, because really in a large amount of cases you mayaswell just not use the resources.

[Nefla]

A heroic sacrifice is meaningless and even annoying or frustrating if it's not your choice.

[garrusfan1]

garrusfan1 wrote...

I hope shepard inquisitor will live in the end and not die or be left in a breath scene

really I thought this would get hit quick

[Xilizhra]

Il Divo wrote...

^ "Tower Age" would be my nomination.

Actually, there already was a Towers Age.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I don;t even know if I would call game of thrones as dark as people make it out to be. I can think of only about 2, or 3, major dark and tragic deaths, and the rest are very easily forgettable. A surprisingly small number of the main focused cast are killed, and even than, their deaths usually serve as a pivotal role in something else on a grander scale going on. For example, one of the major characters in the first game of thrones is killed, and his death is what helps to set in motion a massive war. Another characters death occurs later on, almost 2 whole books later, and that sets up another huge event that causes ripples throughout the story. The way a song of ice and fire is set up, things tend to happen for a reason, and not to needlessly make things darker, as so many people who write that stories that are more darker tend to demand.

[Arppis]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE DARK!

[Cainhurst Crow]

Xilizhra wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

^ "Tower Age" would be my nomination.

Actually, there already was a Towers Age.

Demon Age

[Sejborg]

They killed quite a few characters in DA2 your whole family, and I got to kill Merrill as well. But that didn't make the game any dark.

[Il Divo]

Xilizhra wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

^ "Tower Age" would be my nomination.

Actually, there already was a Towers Age.

That actually was my point. It just sounds so non-epic for a game that it would be hilarious to see Bioware go with it for a title.

[Wulfram]

"Sauce Age"

The Divine had a particularly good dinner beforehand, you see.

[Sejborg]

pwn age?

[Bungie]

Might as well be in the fade for the entire game if that's what you want.

Fade Age:mellow:

Modifié par F e n r i s, 12 juin 2013 - 09:36 .

[Realmzmaster]

The killing of companions really only works on the first playthrough. You simply either avoid developing that character on subsequent playthroughs or never use him/her in the party again. That simply limits player choice on the makeup of their party. I have no problem with that if it is my choice. For example I turn Fenris over to Denarius.
I decide to remove him as a companion or leaving Sten in the cage. Player choice. I would not be happy if Bioware decides to kill off a companion that I have invested time building up.
Now if Bioware wants to kill off characters that were in the the previous two games that are not companions that is fine.
The killing of Anders in DA2 was left to player choice. Bioware has been good at letting players decide the makeup of their party even if you did not like (insert companion). The player got to choose whether to include or not include that companion.

Player choice (IMHO) will always trump darkness or heroic. Just because it is war that does not mean having to further limit player choice.

Even in BG2 where personalities came in conflict to the point that companions would kill each other it was left to the gamer to decide whether to risk that when the party was composed.