248 réponses à ce sujet

[Jorji Costava]

I think what the OP suggests is actually a very good idea. I think it would be nice to at least have the occasional companion whose issues you can't fix with your awesome powers of psychotherapy, or a companion who doesn't actually have that inner spark of humanity waiting to be rekindled by the PC. This would force the player to make decisions about who they are willing to trust in their party, and how much they are willing to trust them. These decisions couldn't be settled by assuming, "My PC is awesome, so he or she will be able to get them to come around and see things his way."

Here's an example: Realistically, it's just not smart to recruit a guy like Sten, who is a child-murderer. Of course most players (including myself) do, because (a) we know we're going to miss out on a lot of interesting content if we don't, and ( we can always assume that however extreme an NPC's issues are, the PC can somehow fix them enough to trust them (this was an epidemic in ME2). But what if decisions like this sometimes blew up in the PC's face? Or what if we at least had the fear that these decisions could blow up in our face? That would seem to make for better immersion IMO.

[CronoDragoon]

But is Sten redeemed? I mean, you helped him and he liked you, but ultimately he's still returning to his homeland to admittedly come back and kill everyone.

Morrigan has issues that aren't resolved, either. You gain her respect but ultimately she is who she is and will do what she wants.

I understand the difference between these examples and what the OP is suggesting, but it's not exactly like Mass Effect, either, where everyone really does become toothless.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 22 juillet 2013 - 07:19 .

[AtreiyaN7]

osbornep wrote...

I think what the OP suggests is actually a very good idea. I think it would be nice to at least have the occasional companion whose issues you can't fix with your awesome powers of psychotherapy, or a companion who doesn't actually have that inner spark of humanity waiting to be rekindled by the PC. This would force the player to make decisions about who they are willing to trust in their party, and how much they are willing to trust them. These decisions couldn't be settled by assuming, "My PC is awesome, so he or she will be able to get them to come around and see things his way."

Here's an example: Realistically, it's just not smart to recruit a guy like Sten, who is a child-murderer. Of course most players (including myself) do, because (a) we know we're going to miss out on a lot of interesting content if we don't, and ( we can always assume that however extreme an NPC's issues are, the PC can somehow fix them enough to trust them (this was an epidemic in ME2). But what if decisions like this sometimes blew up in the PC's face? Or what if we at least had the fear that these decisions could blow up in our face? That would seem to make for better immersion IMO.

The difference is that Sten isn't a murderer and doesn't have deep-seated psychological issues that cause him to be sadistically abusive or evil. He certainly panicked because he lost his sword, and it resulted in tragedy because in this state of panic, he killed an entire family. However, he was someone with remorse and with whom that was clearly a one-off incident.

Sten's situation is a lot different from some twit who thinks using women as punching bags is normal behavior. And it's not the behavior of a serial killer or your average murderer either.

[Am1vf]

AtreiyaN7, but the warden doesn't know that when first meeting him. We are only told, by almost everyone in the village including Leliana, that he is dangerous and killed the family that helped him. Also we recieve several warning that it can happen again if he is set free, but we the players don't belive that for a second because that is not the kind of thing that happens in this games.

It would be nice to change that preconception so we are more careful with the companions we decide to take.

[Jorji Costava]

CronoDragoon wrote...

But is Sten redeemed? I mean, you helped him and he liked you, but ultimately he's still returning to his homeland to admittedly come back and kill everyone.

Fair enough. But the point is that these kinds of consequences should be felt in game far more often than they are.

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

The difference is that Sten isn't a murderer and doesn't have deep-seated psychological issues that cause him to be sadistically abusive or evil. He certainly panicked because he lost his sword, and it resulted in tragedy because in this state of panic, he killed an entire family. However, he was someone with remorse and with whom that was clearly a one-off incident.

Sten's situation is a lot different from some twit who thinks using women as punching bags is normal behavior. And it's not the behavior of a serial killer or your average murderer either.

Also all true. But you don't know any of this the moment you recruit Sten. Pretty much all you know is, "It is as she says." That's not a great basis on which to recruit someone to join your ragtag band of adventurers.

I don't mean be picking on Sten; I actually think he's one of the most interesting NPC's in DAO (one of my favorite moments in DAO is when you get +7 approval from Sten for telling him "I'm not here to impress you." That kind of things keeps you on your toes and discourages you from just saying the 'nicest' thing you can say at any time). But the point is that games should strive to increase immersion or "depth," which means (following MrBTongue) that the game encourages you to make decisions as you or your character would if it were a real life situation.

Often in Bioware games, your PC will have strong evidence that a character just isn't a good dude (or conversely, that they're too goody-goody to do the kinds of things you think need to be done). What I'm saying is that this kind of evidence should sometimes translate into bad consequences for the PC if not acted upon, as a way of encouraging you to act only on stuff your PC would know in the game universe, rather than on the basis of metagame considerations like the awesomeness of the protagonist.

EDIT: Fixed quote

Modifié par osbornep, 22 juillet 2013 - 07:30 .

[Zombie_Alexis]

Am1_vf wrote...

I meant that abandonning or killing a companion can be part of the roleplaying, one of my wardens wanted to kill Morrigan or bring her to the templars and I was disappointed that choice it wasn't in the game.

Oh! I didn't quite catch your meaning. Yes, I quite agree. Morrigan put a couple of my Wardens' teeth on edge. And you are right, she couldn't be killed or abandoned -- although she did leave towards the end without getting what she wanted in my games. But there were some redeeming qualities that some of my Wardens could see in Morrigan and so she was welcome in those games. I just don't see how a companion who is abusive toward your main character would be useful to ANY PC. (Although, speaking of Morrigan, there were a few times where she came awfully close to that.) But as I stated, my preference is just an opinion.

[mopotter]

Narrow Margin wrote...

Good god no, I have real friends, real family and real life to provide real dysfunction, why on earth would I pay someone for more?

This.

[AtreiyaN7]

osbornep wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

But is Sten redeemed? I mean, you helped him and he liked you, but ultimately he's still returning to his homeland to admittedly come back and kill everyone.

Fair enough. But the point is that these kinds of consequences should be felt in game far more often than they are.

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

The difference is that Sten isn't a murderer and doesn't have deep-seated psychological issues that cause him to be sadistically abusive or evil. He certainly panicked because he lost his sword, and it resulted in tragedy because in this state of panic, he killed an entire family. However, he was someone with remorse and with whom that was clearly a one-off incident.

Sten's situation is a lot different from some twit who thinks using women as punching bags is normal behavior. And it's not the behavior of a serial killer or your average murderer either.

Also all true. But you don't know any of this the moment you recruit Sten. Pretty much all you know is, "It is as she says." That's not a great basis on which to recruit someone to join your ragtag band of adventurers.

I don't mean be picking on Sten; I actually think he's one of the most interesting NPC's in DAO (one of my favorite moments in DAO is when you get +7 approval from Sten for telling him "I'm not here to impress you." That kind of things keeps you on your toes and discourages you from just saying the 'nicest' thing you can say at any time). But the point is that games should strive to increase immersion or "depth," which means (following MrBTongue) that the game encourages you to make decisions as you or your character would if it were a real life situation.

Often in Bioware games, your PC will have strong evidence that a character just isn't a good dude (or conversely, that they're too goody-goody to do the kinds of things you think need to be done). What I'm saying is that this kind of evidence should sometimes translate into bad consequences for the PC if not acted upon, as a way of encouraging you to act only on stuff your PC would know in the game universe, rather than on the basis of metagame considerations like the awesomeness of the protagonist.

EDIT: Fixed quote

Oh, I agree that you don't you know about all that when you first meet Sten, but I believe that the writers' goal was that the conversational clues would lead you to investigate the situation much more closely. For example, the fact that Sten is highly resistant to the idea of leaving his cage and his evident desire to be punished, coupled with the curious fact that he turned himself in without a fight, are supposed to point to the situation being a good deal more complex than it first looks. I imagine the idea was that your immediate reaction was supposed to be that he was a monster, only to later have your beliefs about him turned upside down. Again, I think that regardless of when (or even if) you find this out, the situation differs from that of a serial killer or someone who engages in physically abusive behavior.

Should there be complex and possibly dark characters with a lot of facets? Sure - since people have brought up GoT, then a character akin to Tyrion or even a Jaime would be interesting  to interact with. In other words, someone who has their own agenda and motivations, but who can also evolve over time, would be something that I would like to see. I would never call Jaime a good person, but he seems to be changing a bit (if you've read all the ASoIaF novels, then you know what I mean). However, I don't see some relative or companion with spousal abuse issues or whatnot as being particularly interesting in DA:I.

EDIT: Also agree with you that on occasion, maybe you should get a nasty surprise for believing in someone and being wrong about it.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 23 juillet 2013 - 12:00 .

[iOnlySignIn]

I had real dysfunction in my family IRL that involved murder. I've gotten used to it.

So I doubt similar things in a video game would upset me much.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 22 juillet 2013 - 08:50 .

[Jorji Costava]

@AtreiyaN7:

As far as Sten goes, the only thing I want to add is that from the fact that a character expresses (or seems to express) remorse over a misdeed, it doesn't follow that they won't lapse back into doing that same kind of misdeed. I might feel guilty about not keeping my diet and having that bit of cheesecake, but that doesn't mean I will always resist temptation from then on. I'm not saying they necessarily needed to have Sten start killing civilians in the middle of the game, but again, it's a matter of the evidence your character has at that moment. Sometimes, these decisions should go against you. DAO was actually pretty good about this; Morrigan goes off and does her own thing no matter what, Zevran can betray you at Denerim, Shale gets pretty darn upset if you killed Caridin, and defiling the Urn of Sacred Ashes is not a nice thing to do in the presence of Leiliana.

As far as specific issues like stalking, abuse, cheating, etc., there are a couple of things I want to say. First off, I think at least some of the items mentioned in the OP are absolutely fair game, such as cheating on the PC, deceiving the PC in a way that is exceptionally harmful and personal ("Haha! I was just using you all along!"), and perhaps even relationships that are psychologically abusive or at least hostile (the rivalry system in DA2 attempted to accomplish this sort of thing). It's easy for me to say that, because I tend to skip the romances, but I don't see any reason why these kinds of actions would be too icky, too personal or just not interesting enough to include in a game.

Concerning some of the 'ickier' things like stalking or abuse, there are a couple of things going on here:

1. There's a perception that games (or perhaps gaming audiences) aren't mature enough as a medium to handle this subject matter. And I have to concede that there is a seed of legitimacy to this concern. Could you imagine the reaction if an AAA video game included a sequence where an NPC attempts to sexually assault the PC? The Tomb Raider fiasco testifies to the thorniness of this issue. Maybe we just really aren't ready as an audience to deal with these kinds of things in our games. I don't know if that's just our fault as an audience, a testament to the limitations of the medium itself, or a combination of the two.

2. There's a tendency to code certain kinds of morally bad actions as "dark" or "badass," adding a sense of mystery to a character, while other kinds of actions aren't coded this way. Compare how we react to a character who is a professional assassin (on his last job, of course) versus how we react to a character whose past involves spousal abuse. The former character (Zevran, Thane, etc.) is pretty cool, and the latter is not so much.

Again, there's legitimacy to this (here's a Jimquisition video which touches on this subject). Domestic abuse just involves a different and more personal kind of victimization. It also isn't really a trade or skill that you perfect, like assassination is (it makes sense to talk about a 'good' assassin, but there's no such thing as being 'good' at spousal abuse). Still, it might be worth exploring these 'uncool' kinds of characters at least some of the time (even if not as NPC's), if only as a reminder that even the 'cooler' things aren't so cool after all. Arguably, this is what Watchmen was trying to do with the character of the Comedian. Of course it would be deeply problematic to allow the PC to engage in such activities, but that's not what the OP was asking for.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't know what to say about the icky stuff. You may be right that Dragon Age, which after all isn't a simulator of domestic environments, isn't the best place to try and break the ice on these issues. But I think that beyond the icky stuff, we agree that role-playing games would do well to expand the range of ways in which PC-NPC dynamics can break down.

[Maclimes]

In regards to the OP, I'm certainly fine with that level of intense personal drama. But I don't want it in Dragon Age.

I know people like to say it's "dark" or "mature", whatever that means, but at the end of the day I want an epic tale of heroism, not a staggering tale of personal growth.

[MWImexico]

Trista Hawke wrote...
Wouldn't it be interesting to have to deal with a sibling, friend, or lover who stalks or harasses your protagonist? Maybe someone who is abusive, whether physically or emotionally, driven by a severe drug/alcohol problem. Someone who lies to you. Cheats you. Cheats on you. Hurts you. I mean really hurts you.
Discuss.

You can not choose your family but your friends / lovers, yes. to make it simple (but harsh) I think this kind of character would be "enjoyed" only by masochists and people who suffer from a deep inferiority complex.

In addition, past the Cape of surprise (first playtrough), it is likely that the vast majority of people will just either completely avoid this type of character, or bluntly kill them at the first opportunity given by the game. Why repeat a experience if the outcome is always bad and painfull?

[AutumnWitch]

I would like to see the LI be settled fairly early on in the game and then have the PC have to work at "making it work" by fending off other potential suitors, dealing with what happens when he/she sees her/his LI injured in battle. The game would have a whole new dimension if the PC had to "fight for two" per say.

Of course then there would be the issue of perhaps having the PC leave the original LI for another if he/she wanted to. And when that happens having the PC face her/his ex and deal with all the baggage that comes with that.

It has always seemed to me if we want a romance option then we need all of it, not just the "good parts".

[Blackrising]

AutumnWitch wrote...

I would like to see the LI be settled fairly early on in the game and then have the PC have to work at "making it work" by fending off other potential suitors, dealing with what happens when he/she sees her/his LI injured in battle. The game would have a whole new dimension if the PC had to "fight for two" per say.

Of course then there would be the issue of perhaps having the PC leave the original LI for another if he/she wanted to. And when that happens having the PC face her/his ex and deal with all the baggage that comes with that.

It has always seemed to me if we want a romance option then we need all of it, not just the "good parts".

You mean me stabbing Anders after he blew up the Chantry was the good part? Dang, girl.

Jokes aside, I like the romances the way they are now. Sure there can be some drama, but it's actually kinda nice to know that there's something my PC can look forward to when they come 'home' after battling hordes of enemies. I imagine having a dysfunctional relationship (whether that be with friends, family or their LI) on top of having the weight of the world rest on their shoulders might make them want to jump off a cliff sooner or later. Even video game protagonists need a break now and then.

[AutumnWitch]

Blackrising wrote...

AutumnWitch wrote...

I would like to see the LI be settled fairly early on in the game and then have the PC have to work at "making it work" by fending off other potential suitors, dealing with what happens when he/she sees her/his LI injured in battle. The game would have a whole new dimension if the PC had to "fight for two" per say.

Of course then there would be the issue of perhaps having the PC leave the original LI for another if he/she wanted to. And when that happens having the PC face her/his ex and deal with all the baggage that comes with that.

It has always seemed to me if we want a romance option then we need all of it, not just the "good parts".

You mean me stabbing Anders after he blew up the Chantry was the good part? Dang, girl.

Jokes aside, I like the romances the way they are now. Sure there can be some drama, but it's actually kinda nice to know that there's something my PC can look forward to when they come 'home' after battling hordes of enemies. I imagine having a dysfunctional relationship (whether that be with friends, family or their LI) on top of having the weight of the world rest on their shoulders might make them want to jump off a cliff sooner or later. Even video game protagonists need a break now and then.

I have never romanced Anders so its never really bothered me lol...plus I have never killed him once in ten play throughs, always let him live. i am a real softie for "hard cases".  ;-P

I agree with you about liking the way things are. My problem is I like the romance parts of DA so much I want to see ways to make them even deeper and more special to my PC. I really hope there will be marriage/hand fasting one day.

[dragondreamer]

I think my limit comes where I have to ask "why is my pc letting this character tag along?" I prefer companions that my pc actually likes to some extent, even if they don't see eye to eye. A truly abusive/reprehensible character is likely to be left to the wayside or potentially murderknifed - I've yet to actually do the latter to a character (aside from Anders on some playthroughs), but it's not out of the question.

For example, my Warden left Sten behind because at that point he didn't feel prepared to take responsibility for a potential Jason Voorhees. I had him talk to everyone trying to find some perspective on Sten, but when there was none to be found, I couldn't see my Warden realistically deciding to take Sten. As a player, I could assume there was probably more to him than what was being presented, but my Warden couldn't know that.

Sure, you could include abusive relationships in the game, but I wouldn't be interested in playing them. One of the reasons I haven't touched Anders' romance is because from what I've seen, he feels borderline abusive to me when taken in that direction, though I like him as a friend. It isn't quite the same because he's literally not entirely himself, which makes him sympathetic, but it isn't a situation I've felt comfortable putting my Hawkes into. I'm not going to put them through something I would walk away from myself. But hey, I know some people like that sort of drama in their stories...it's just not my cup of tea.

[Gileadan]

Trista Hawke wrote...

Wouldn't it be interesting to have to deal with a sibling, friend, or lover who stalks or harasses your protagonist? Maybe someone who is abusive, whether physically or emotionally, driven by a severe drug/alcohol problem. Someone who lies to you. Cheats you. Cheats on you. Hurts you. [/b][b]I mean really hurts you.

I'm not fond of dyfunctional characters. I find that most of them end up being annoying duds.

Why? To actually hurt me, I would first have to really like the character in question. I'd have to care for them. And that isn't easy to pull off - DA2 for example surely didn't manage to do that for me. If I don't care about a character who is supposed to somehow "hurt" my player character, then I'd just apply fist to jaw/kick them out of the party/personally hang them at dawn (as appropriate for the transgression in question) and move on with things (and if the game doesn't let me do that and forces me to drag them along anyway, I won't be a happy camper). And there's the Catch-22 - a dysfunctional character would have to have some personality facets that I find really appealing, because otherwise I would just find them annoying. Constant complaining about their favorite issue du jour or being abusive makes a character pretty unlikable to me, so there'd have to be something really awesome about them to make up for that. So far, that feat hasn't been pulled off yet.

I could see myself feeling sympathy for someone with a drug or alcohol problem, especially if the whining is kept to a bearable minimum. I'd have have no problem with a rookie who collapses at the first sight of blood or even panics on the battlefield so you lose control of him à la XCOM. But I seem to have developed an allergy to the NPC archetype that just whines and guilt-trips people. DA2 eroded the last bit of patience I had for that.

Also, I think that this kind of drama, dealing with dysfunctional companions, needs to fit the story that is being told. DA2 got away with giving you a bunch of nursing cases as companions because its story almost completely lacked any feeling of "clear and present danger". It just meandered along. Sure you could play therapist here and there.

For DA:I, however, I really hope that we get more of a nailbiter story. The Veil is torn open, demons pour into our world, the end may be right upon us! Seriously, if my character was tasked with sorting out a mess of such epic proportions, then he wouldn't have the time to talk about someone's messed up childhood, or tell a stalker to get lost, or educate an abusive companion about proper etiquette. He wouldn't have much use for a companion who insists to talk about the mean things his mom said to him while there's a bunch of monstrosities devouring a nearby village. Someone's mentally unfit for the job of saving the world? Get a replacement! Or go without them, if they turn out to be more hindrance than help.

[nomoredruggs]

That doesn't sound like fun at all to me.

[schalafi]

Carver was annoying enough for me. I kept wishing there was a conversation where I could tell him to grow up, or slap him once or twice. I certainly don't want all my npcs to have dysfunctional behaviors, and I appreciate the ones who seem relatively even tempered.

[AtreiyaN7]

Gave it some more thought, and I think it's certainly possible that you might meet a character who seems to be charming at first and then turns out to be a raging sociopath/psychopath later on. The problem is that that sort of thing seems like it would only really work if it were a more traditional villainous role, as opposed to being one of your companions. Honestly, would the average person want to gallivant around Thedas with the equivalent of Jack the Ripper tagging along? You'd probably be lucky if Jack didn't try to off you in your sleep or leave a string of bodies behind in whatever city you happen to be visiting.

The only way I could see tolerating someone like that is if A) the player wants their character to be similarly sociopathic and you have some sort of weird (and disgustingly icky) bonhomie with Jack the Ripper or if Jack the Ripper happens to be the key to beating the foozle and your souls are linked in some unfortunate way thanks to a magic spell gone terribly wrong.

As for someone who beats their spouse or whatnot: I find it highly unlikely that you could break said person of their habit. Abusers don't just wake up one day and change because you've gently tried to teach them to change their ways. So really, what would be the point? Seeing how nasty one of your companions is and just putting up with it because you need them? Beating the crap out of them to teach them a lesson?

Even if you wanted to give an individual like that a taste of their own medicine (aka beat the crap out of them for being a terrible person)...I think the odds are good that not only will it NOT teach them a lesson, they'll just bide their time until they have a chance to get revenge by beating the crap out of you, or outright killing you and the person that they've been abusing. That would certainly be similar to real-life domestic abuse situations that ultimately end in murder.

Again, I only really see stuff like that working out if the individual in question is not a companion. And do I want to travel around with a victim of domestic violence? I have empathy for those people, but we're always fixing our companions as it is most of the time. I don't see delving into their past as abused individuals as being entertaining unless there's a darned good reason for it - like if it somehow fits in with the overall story. As separate stories with unrelated NPCs, then I don't mind seeing a dark storyline or two - but that's different from them being one of your companions.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 23 juillet 2013 - 02:36 .

[Angrywolves]

Not fun to me either.
The turn Morrigan over to the Templars or kill her would have just been another example of those players who seem eager to genocide the Dalish or kill their companions needlessly.
Hope the news that player actions/decisions will have major consequences in the game is true.
Unintended consequences for them may blow up in their faces.
And that would be a good thing imo.

[Am1vf]

Angrywolves wrote...

Not fun to me either.
The turn Morrigan over to the Templars or kill her would have just been another example of those players who seem eager to genocide the Dalish or kill their companions needlessly.
Hope the news that player actions/decisions will have major consequences in the game is true.
Unintended consequences for them may blow up in their faces.
And that would be a good thing imo.

Morrigan is not only a powerful witch but can also be considered evil. Personally I like her, but sometimes I want to roleplay a religious type who follows the Chantry and that includes bringing apostates like Morrigan and Anders to the templars. And I hoped to have the option to make those decisions AND deal with the consequences.

If it makes you feel any better I hatted that particular character (because of the way he dealt with Connor) to the point of having to stop playing him for a few months.

About the Dalish genocide, I still haven't found a reason to do so, I don't see why anyone (any character) would want to do that.

[Sister Goldring]

I'm open to different types of relationships, reactions from and conflicts with companions. I don't really know how much I'd enjoy this dynamic until I played the game but I'm not horrified by the idea and I suspect I would get a kick out of it.

I like the idea that your romance could do you wrong. It might be fun for a change to have someone who just doesn't 'wuv you for ever and ever, even if circumstances keep you apart.' or having to overcome their issues until they decide that you're the best thing since buttered toast.  Righteous indignation or a woman scorned can fun to roleplay too.  I remember being dumped by Alistair as the high point of my first DAO fem protagonist playthrough, I was so incredibly angry.......it was awesome!

Modifié par Sister Goldring, 23 juillet 2013 - 02:01 .