366 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightdragon8]

GodWood wrote...

iakus wrote...

mopotter wrote...
And because I don't want to play a game where the ending is the same every time.  I want a variety of endings at least two endings with different ways to get there depending on your choices.   Choices where some have a "happy" ending with LI and some friends and some choices where ending is sad and depressing, and maybe some inbetween.

This.  All of it.

This is choice mattering

This seems to be a view that's especially common amongst the Bioware fanbase. Simply picking whether you want a happy ending or a sad ending is not a good example of choice and consequence. A good example would be two different endings that both have positive qualities and negative qualities which are a direct result of one's actions.

That's choice mattering.

Why don't we just say it.... We want DA:O ending. Where the choices we made mattered in some form or another. And the only way to get a "sad" or "Happy" ending is to die as a result of it or not.

Also, I also don't want characters to nessarily die just because "it was writen" that way. Like with your sibling in DA2, your sibling could die/go into greywardens/templar or circle. That is a good place where, your choices mattered.

The mother dieing because of a crazy bloodmage, you could call that a forced death. And with a sibling death because of the deeproads, could really make for a pretty sad story.

Also you could say the ending was pretty forced, considering you had to kill both sides but it was you sided with the templars and ended up ruling the city (which is kind of funny for a mage to be there) or disaper with Isabella.

[Killdren88]

Sure it basically a world war. But that doesn't mean we aren't allow to have light options. Being forced to kills characters at every turn doesn't equal good story telling.

[xAmilli0n]

Its almost guaranteed characters will die. But its important to remember, character deaths don't equal dark, and dark doesn't equal good.

Let BW make the game they want.

[Tatsumaki]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Tatsumaki wrote...

You want main characters dying, you can play Mass Effect 3 and have that option. There are some people whom play RPG as a diversion from their difficult and hard lives. Call it escapism or what have you, but these forms need not be a replicate of their already difficult and miserable lives thank you very much

Then you've got issues which are completely unrelated to the game and shouldn't play darker storylines.

I don't watch depressing movies when I'm depressed.

You are assuming that we watch or play games where we already know or have a lot of knowledge of. Using Mass Effect 3 as an example, no one knew how it would unfold having the deaths of Mordin and Legion. On top of that Space Beiber. 

[LinksOcarina]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

iakus wrote...

mopotter wrote...
And because I don't want to play a game where the ending is the same every time.  I want a variety of endings at least two endings with different ways to get there depending on your choices.   Choices where some have a "happy" ending with LI and some friends and some choices where ending is sad and depressing, and maybe some inbetween.

This.  All of it.

This is choice mattering

This seems to be a view that's especially common amongst the Bioware fanbase. Simply picking whether you want a happy ending or a sad ending is not a good example of choice and consequence. A good example would be two different endings that both have positive qualities and negative qualities which are a direct result of one's actions.

That's choice mattering.

Why don't we just say it.... We want DA:O ending. Where the choices we made mattered in some form or another. And the only way to get a "sad" or "Happy" ending is to die as a result of it or not.

Also, I also don't want characters to nessarily die just because "it was writen" that way. Like with your sibling in DA2, your sibling could die/go into greywardens/templar or circle. That is a good place where, your choices mattered.

The mother dieing because of a crazy bloodmage, you could call that a forced death. And with a sibling death because of the deeproads, could really make for a pretty sad story.

Also you could say the ending was pretty forced, considering you had to kill both sides but it was you sided with the templars and ended up ruling the city (which is kind of funny for a mage to be there) or disaper with Isabella.

You by chance, a fan of The Walking Dead game by Telltale? Keep in mind, none of the choices in that game really mattered at all once you get down to metagame knowledge on everything.

Even in Origins, the choices you make didn't really amount to much except by filling the blanks with a small post-credits blurb. So what are we really talking about here? A choice of narrative, or a choice of plot? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 12 juin 2013 - 04:45 .

[lady_v23]

Choces people, make it a choice where they all may live. And by the way, killing characters does not equal dark.

Freeing an npc that is easy loveable but later rapes and kill an entire family. That's dark.

[Medhia Nox]

@Lady_v23: It isn't if there's no context to it.

Death of characters with context - excellent, go for it.

I'm also interested in betrayal, deception, brutality, cruelty, malice, ignorance and apathy as useful "dark" aspects - but, of course - they must have a context.

I'd love the NPCs to work according to their own interests - not be molded to the player's interests. Though - of course - interests could be the same. I don't want it to be by default of "Player Awesomeness".

[lady_v23]

@Medhia box. I still fail to see hoe killing a character is dark.

Let's say they kill an important character. It's angst as hell but how is it dark? Because the character simply died? I think if the character is humiliated in a cruel way/tortured/accused Then maybe die it would be considered dark. Not dieing in a simple way.

[lady_v23]

^^^^ damn auto correct. *sigh *

[Cainhurst Crow]

Dave of Canada wrote...

iakus wrote...

That is an excellent way to turn people off of your games.

I'd like to mention that The Walking Dead did far worse and still managed to sell over fifteen million copies, was well-regarded and won countless Game of the Year awards and praise the fact that players felt emotionally wrecked at the end.

A apocolypse story is much different than a fantasy one. People have an expectation that bad things will happen to their characters in their stroy and thus know what to more or less expect. The audience wants to have this kind of thing happen, and therefore it is welcomed and celebrated when it does. It is an example of a story doing what it is suppose to do well. For example, when I buy something like a cup of coffee, I expect a cup of coffee. If I order coffee and it turns out to be vodka, and I go to complain to the person about my coffee being vodka, would the person giving an explination about how the vodka I'm drinking has sold millions of bottles, and won dozens of awards for being the best damn vodka in the world change the fact that he was suppose to give me coffee? No, it would not.

Same thing. People want different things out of dragon age and their rpg's than they do out of grimdark games such as walking dead or even game of thrones. And forcing one audience ideal onto another audience simply because you find it better seems very rude to other players.

[Allan Schumacher]

I nominate the Inquisitor

[AresKeith]

Alistar and Anders

Modifié par AresKeith, 12 juin 2013 - 06:21 .

[Chiantirose82]

I'm okay with NPC's dying, or former companions. What I'm not okay with is taking away my party members, especially if they have a vital role like Healer or Tank.

If they absolutely have to kill of my party members than at least do it by some choice I made, so when I play a different character and make different choices that member is safe and someone else dies. I don't like scripted deaths on party members, what's the point on even recruiting or getting to know them if they die anyway?

I guess Kaidan/Ashley choice is okay, just don't have it be a single character that has to die no matter what. Let me make the decision who dies, because I tend to play total different characters who take different people with them in DA. What I really would have liked to see in the Virmire situation is for me to be able to leave someone else, like Tali or Garrus etc. I would have loved a playthrough with Kaidan and Ashley alive, but alas it was not meant to be

TL;DR
No scripted deaths, let me make the choice.

[AtreiyaN7]

I don't mind if it there's a meaningful death a la Mordin in ME3 - it just shouldn't be casually done for the sake of "oooo, let's be dark!"

[Fredward]

Tatsumaki wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Tatsumaki wrote...

You
want main characters dying, you can play Mass Effect 3 and have that
option. There are some people whom play RPG as a diversion from their
difficult and hard lives. Call it escapism or what have you, but these
forms need not be a replicate of their already difficult and miserable
lives thank you very much

Then you've got issues which are completely unrelated to the game and shouldn't play darker storylines.

I don't watch depressing movies when I'm depressed.

Never thought I'd say it but I agree with Dave. Expecting games to cater to your emotional needs is ridiculous. Besides you can use a depressing game as a form of escapism too. "Wow Shepard's life sucks so much more than mine. WOOHOO!"


Anyway. Death is an awesome way to shock people. Give them a wake-up call. Especially if the game's setting is really dark, like DAI seems to be, yet nothing bad has happened to the protag. It works especially well right after a moment of levity or a really big victory. BUT. You don't have to kill a companion or a LI to get the point across. 'Specially not if the death is unavoidable. I mean it would work but people would be pissy too. Do you know how much it hurts to kill off a relatively unimportant, yet likeable, side character? Imagine for instance someone killing Sandal. If you're human some part of you is shrieking "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" both because Sandal is the Maker and cannot be killed and because it's really sad to imagine him dead. Like Sanderson killing Bella in WoT. Not cool dude. NOT COOL.

You don't need to have a Red Wedding to come across as dark, you just need to make it clear that your choices have consequences, some unavoidable.

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 12 juin 2013 - 07:33 .

[fiveforchaos]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Dragon Age is already a pretty dark setting compared to Mass Effect. Origins alone contains two instances of possible child killing by your own hand. Or his mother's hand, even.

Just remove those pesky third options. If you want difficult choices. It doesn't make any sense to have a choice that defeats the purpose of having them.

Some people (perhaps even including me, depending on my mood) like having those in there on the condition that they made the right choices.

Are they wrong for liking those in their game?  Why should these options be removed for the sake of someone who doesn't have to take them if they don't want to?

I'm kind of on the fence about these options, I'm kind of curious what sort of situations would "eliminate the third option".

[Tatsumaki]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Never thought I'd say it but I agree with Dave. Expecting games to cater to your emotional needs is ridiculous. Besides you can use a depressing game as a form of escapism too. "Wow Shepard's life sucks so much more than mine. WOOHOO!"

Where the heck did anyone say or imply that a game should cater to a player's emotional needs? And two, who said escapism in the form of "Shepard's life sucks so bad more than mine" = Good? You obviously have no idea what escapism is. To put simply: To do things that you can't in the real world. Go on, go wield some sword or cast magic spells in real world.

Escapism is not bad. Don't paint it so.


Everything depends on that form which one is escaping. We view the flight of a deserter and the escape of a prisoner very differently. "Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home?"  - John Ronald Reuel Tolkien

Modifié par Tatsumaki, 12 juin 2013 - 08:11 .

[9TailsFox]

Knight of Dane wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Disagree death needs to come down to consequences of choices given it is an rpg. I don't railroaded deaths for previous companions/LI's/protaganists.

I agree, death in a RPG doesn't mean anything is it isn't a consequence or a sacrifice from the players decision.

But what if random weak darkspawn just killed your LI no warning bam dead, imagin impact, imagin outcry 

[ComfortablyNumb]

I wish people stop comparing everything to GoT and Red Wedding. I swear, it's like a new bible around here. It's getting old really fast now.

That said, I'm all for a possibility to get characters killed. I only would prefer it to be reflection of my choices, rather that a decisions devs made for me.

Modifié par mrufka_z, 12 juin 2013 - 08:29 .

[Fredward]

Tatsumaki wrote...

Where the heck did anyone say or imply that a game should cater to a player's emotional needs? And two, who said escapism in the form of "Shepard's life sucks so bad more than mine" = Good? You obviously have no idea what escapism is. To put simply: To do things that you can't in the real world. Go on, go wield some sword or cast magic spells in real world.

Escapism is not bad. Don't paint it so.


Everything depends on that form which one is escaping. We view the flight of a deserter and the escape of a prisoner very differently. "Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home?"  - John Ronald Reuel Tolkien

Uh you did? Like right there in your previous post? "Some people don't want a sad game because some people's lives suck and it makes them sad*" What you're implying is that some people want a pleasant escapist fantasy instead of just a fantasy. Which misses the entire point of escapism. It doesn't and shouldn't have to be positive, you just use it to avoid something unpleasant IRL.

No escapism isn't bad. In moderation. Using escapism as some kind of emotional crutch and not just expecting a game to cater to it (which it does already as you so helpfully pointed out) but wanting it to have a specific flavor as to better cater to some people's need just screams neuroticism.

* - paraphrased.

[Dave of Canada]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

A apocolypse story is much different than a fantasy one.

The problem being that most generic fantasy stories have loss and human condition remain, the protagonists are comfronted with themes on their adventure and might lose friends along the way to reach the end. What the average player is asking for isn't the fantasy experience, they're asking for an experience which caters to them in every possible way.

Let's imagine Lord of the Rings trilogy as an RPG game, you've got the fellowship which tag along and do everything with you and feel comfortable about it, never questioning or fighting against you. The demands which most people offer would want Frodo to live a comfortable life after the end, they want a way to save Boromir and they want a way to stop the sacking of the Shire without any hobbits dying.

Yet, the story wouldn't have been as great without those moments. Boromir attacking Frodo in search of the Ring, his redemption for his mistake by saving the lives of his friends, the impact his death had on his friends. They're all tied together, paving what comes afterwards.

Hell, Frodo's deteriorating mental health, Sam and Frodo's friendship being troubled during their quest ultimately leading to their farewells as Sam lives his happy ending and Frodo leaves, forever changed for the worse due to his adventure despite it's critical importance to the entire land. The most typical fantasy story ends up with the protagonist being plagued by near-madness and self-exile.

Fantasy stories need it's darker elements to make the brighter elements shine through, the player shouldn't be able to have his cake and eat it too. The player who goes through hell and back should have forged friendships, lost friends along the way and win at a cost.

Ignoring that mini-talk, DA:I could technically be considered pre-apocalypse considering the fade is ripping through the damn sky and invading the world while everyone is warring with each other. Hardly fun times for anyone involved.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 12 juin 2013 - 08:54 .

[Tatsumaki]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Uh you did? Like right there in your previous post? "Some people don't want a sad game because some people's lives suck and it makes them sad*" What you're implying is that some people want a pleasant escapist fantasy instead of just a fantasy. Which misses the entire point of escapism. It doesn't and shouldn't have to be positive, you just use it to avoid something unpleasant IRL.

No escapism isn't bad. In moderation. Using escapism as some kind of emotional crutch and not just expecting a game to cater to it (which it does already as you so helpfully pointed out) but wanting it to have a specific flavor as to better cater to some people's need just screams neuroticism.

* - paraphrased.

You're either putting words in my mouth or misinterprating. Most if not all games paint the player as a hero. Few games make the player a villiain. Most if not all people play game for entertainment purposes. Entertaintment basically just temporarily focuses the person / mind on something enjoyable.

If a game is filled with hardship, grief, sorrow and pain why bother playing? Is that entertaining
? (Lets not go into the topic about BDSM and such) In short, I'd like a playing a game (any game) to be entertaining. If its terrible I might as well just resort to real life.

So when you say I expected game developers to cater to me? You are mistaken.

Why hasn't any game marketed as such?

Dragon Age 3: You and your family dies
Mass Effect 3: Earth gets Harvested
Game Title X : All your base belonged to someone else

Modifié par Tatsumaki, 12 juin 2013 - 09:02 .