244 réponses à ce sujet

[Wompoo]

Would prefer neither approach... I would like the game to allow me to at least avoid combat via using the companions and play my character in a more gentle roll... rather then one who feels all things can be solved with a big cave man stick.

[maliluka]

@knight_quack the reason I put might, is if you hadn't played the game you are taking Morrigan's word that the ritual will work, and the only one who gets to benefit with sleeping with her if you are a female is Alistair so you get to live with the choice you coerced someone else into doing... And the real guilt if that someone was your LI, that was no ego builder.

[AventuroLegendary]

Honestly, I wouldn't mind. The times where the player is meant to feel like a hero/monster/somewhere in the middle will have more impact.

Modifié par LegendaryAvenger, 29 août 2013 - 03:59 .

[Shadow Fox]

dragondreamer wrote...

Like the time my Warden tried to be a tough guy and told Ser Cauthrien that "you're all gonna die RAWWRRR" and she proceeded to kick his ass?  Sure.  

Unless you exploited a glitch...like me.

[Star fury]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

dragondreamer wrote...

Like the time my Warden tried to be a tough guy and told Ser Cauthrien that "you're all gonna die RAWWRRR" and she proceeded to kick his ass?  Sure.  

Unless you exploited a glitch...like me.

Or stasis field on your tank lulz.  

[cjones91]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

dragondreamer wrote...

Like the time my Warden tried to be a tough guy and told Ser Cauthrien that "you're all gonna die RAWWRRR" and she proceeded to kick his ass?  Sure.  

Unless you exploited a glitch...like me.

What sort of glitch?I always get destroyed by Cauthrien despite playing as high damage rogues and mages so I would like to know your secret.

[AmRMa]

Most people get upset when their characters aren't in charge of everything. For example stuff happened to Hawke that was out of his/her control and everybody thinks he/she was a screw up and couldn't accomplish anything. They didn't like not controlling outside agency such as companions doing their own things and not listening to Hawke ex. Anders and Merrill they both had their own beliefs and ideas and acted on them rather than acting on the player's directions. People viewed Hawke not able to control everything happening around them as a personal failing of Hawke's rather than grasp the idea that sometimes things just happen that you can't control - which was more realistic than the "I can solve and control everything" in DA:O.

So, no I don't think that many people want choices that make the character look anything other than an unstoppable hero or anti-hero (however you like to play) otherwise they will think the character isn't any good. It's more about wish fulfillment a lot of the time.

Modifié par AmRMa, 29 août 2013 - 05:04 .

[cjones91]

AmRMa wrote...

Most people get upset when their characters aren't in charge of everything. For example stuff happened to Hawke that was out of his/her control and everybody thinks he/she was a screw up and couldn't accomplish anything. They didn't like not controlling outside agency such as companions doing their own things and not listening to Hawke ex. Anders and Merrill they both had their own beliefs and ideas and acted on them rather than acting on the player's directions. People viewed Hawke not able to control everything happening around them as a personal failing of Hawke's rather than grasp the idea that sometimes things just happen that you can't control - which was more realistic than the "I can solve and control everything" in DA:O.

Yeah that seems to a problem in alot of games.People want to be gods who can control everything in a game and they react poorly when something does'nt go their way.In some ways I liked the fact Hawke screwed up because it was a major change of pace of being the "guy/girl who can kill entire armies and do anything they want".

Modifié par cjones91, 29 août 2013 - 05:06 .

[marktcameron]

Well that's why it's a video game this is the only place we get to be completely badasses.

[marktcameron]

If you want realism stick to real life.

[Rolling Flame]

Star fury wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

dragondreamer wrote...

Like the time my Warden tried to be a tough guy and told Ser Cauthrien that "you're all gonna die RAWWRRR" and she proceeded to kick his ass?  Sure.  

Unless you exploited a glitch...like me.

Or stasis field on your tank lulz.  

Or run away screaming like a little baby, luring her away from most of her soldiers.

[Ianamus]

Watching my character kill twenty men without breaking a sweat in a cutscene does not make me feel "badass". Beating Ser Cauthrien with actual gameplay on the other hand does make me feel like a badass (or at least it would if I could ever do it)

I don't see why choices would inflate my ego, not when I'm more than aware that all I did was press a particular button to achieve them. Good outcomes make me happy, but they do not make me feel proud unless I myself had to earn them through gameplay. 

Likewise Hake's failing never made me feel like a failure. I was sad that his mother died and that he got wrapped up in such mess, but it didn't make me feel like I personally failed. Or that Hawke had, for that matter. 

Modifié par EJ107, 29 août 2013 - 04:57 .

[AmRMa]

marktcameron wrote...

Well that's why it's a video game this is the only place we get to be completely badasses.

Exactly what I said- I was answering the the thread's question which was no- most people like choices that feed the player's ego.

[AmRMa]

EJ107 wrote...

Watching my character kill twenty men without breaking a sweat in a cutscene does not make me feel "badass". Beating Ser Cauthrien with actual gameplay does make me feel like a badass (or at least it would if I could ever do it)

I don't see why choices would inflate my ego, not when I'm more than aware that all I did was press a particular button to achieve them. Good outcomes make me happy, but they do not make me feel proud unless I myself had to earn them through gameplay. 

Likewise Hake's failing never made me feel like a failure. I was sad that his mother died and that he got wrapped up in such mess, but it didn't make me feel like I personally failed. Or that Hawke had, for that matter. 

Me too- but the reason most people "hate" Hawke was the fact that he/she couldn't stop Leandra from being killed or control companions actions therefore making Hawke useless or a screw-up.  I just felt that my character was trying to help as much as they could.

Modifié par AmRMa, 29 août 2013 - 05:19 .

[TheKomandorShepard]

AmRMa wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

Watching my character kill twenty men without breaking a sweat in a cutscene does not make me feel "badass". Beating Ser Cauthrien with actual gameplay does make me feel like a badass (or at least it would if I could ever do it)

I don't see why choices would inflate my ego, not when I'm more than aware that all I did was press a particular button to achieve them. Good outcomes make me happy, but they do not make me feel proud unless I myself had to earn them through gameplay. 

Likewise Hake's failing never made me feel like a failure. I was sad that his mother died and that he got wrapped up in such mess, but it didn't make me feel like I personally failed. Or that Hawke had, for that matter. 

Me too- but the reason most people "hate" Hawke was the fact that he/she couldn't stop Leandra from being killed or control companions actions therefore making Hawke useless or a screw-up because Hawke didn't have control over the actions of people around him/her.

Well first he was incompetent , stupid (especially in dlc) , he couldn't couldn't solve problem in another way than being brute (and "solve" problem is overstatement). he was causing more problems than he was solving ,game as well could be without him and thing whould end that same way or even better , he failed in pretty much every goal that he had like protecting faimly , protecting kirkwall , protecting mages (most of them died) , and keeping peace with qunari also loosing all his property, released Corypheus , helped tallis to cause death of millions of people even if he wanted her to give him list, pardon only one what was success is gaining gold from DR but still ended badly ,he was nothing more than pawn strong one but still pawn to most characters petrice , flemeth , meredith , orsino , tallis , arishok.His life was failure even if i liked him as person (at least nice personality)/    

[Huntress]

cjones91 wrote...

AmRMa wrote...

Most people get upset when their characters aren't in charge of everything. For example stuff happened to Hawke that was out of his/her control and everybody thinks he/she was a screw up and couldn't accomplish anything. They didn't like not controlling outside agency such as companions doing their own things and not listening to Hawke ex. Anders and Merrill they both had their own beliefs and ideas and acted on them rather than acting on the player's directions. People viewed Hawke not able to control everything happening around them as a personal failing of Hawke's rather than grasp the idea that sometimes things just happen that you can't control - which was more realistic than the "I can solve and control everything" in DA:O.

Yeah that seems to a problem in alot of games.People want to be gods who can control everything in a game and they react poorly when something does'nt go their way.In some ways I liked the fact Hawke screwed up because it was a major change of pace of being the "guy/girl who can kill entire armies and do anything they want".

Well i certanly not going to pay $80 for a game where in all the ending the hero fails, fail to survive with 100% Accomplishment or fails at whatever he was suppose to do, one thing is sure many people doesn't like  failures neither in  games or real life.

Me: evolution-based genetics dictating things--> "survival".

People are driven by the thought of winning answer this:
1) Which will give you more pleasure: gaining $10 or not losing $10?
2) Which will give you more pain: not gaining $10 or losing
$10?
3)Which matters to you more gaining another $10 or losing $10?
which will you choose?

My answer:
1) Gaining $10
2) Losing   $10
3) gaining  $10

The Loser's bad experiences become self-fulfilling prophecies. They become accustomed to thier own misery, since misery is all they've known.
It makes little sense to most of us, but people who know nothing but misery tend to perpetuate it because it is what they are used to. 
Everyone has the power to change things, but if change means threatening that sense of misery that they have become accustomed and addicted to (and subconsciously make decisions to perpetuate the misery) - then change cannot happen.

foot note: I'm  against  games where the player is able to kill childrens, thats just scr8up other than that... good game!

[Han Shot First]

Actually I'd prefer the villain to be one step ahead of the protagonist until the end game. Think Letho from the Witcher 2.

[In Exile]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...
Well first he was incompetent , stupid (especially in dlc) , he couldn't couldn't solve problem in another way than being brute (and "solve" problem is overstatement). he was causing more problems than he was solving ,game as well could be without him and thing whould end that same way or even better , he failed in pretty much every goal that he had like protecting faimly , protecting kirkwall , protecting mages (most of them died) , and keeping peace with qunari also loosing all his property, released Corypheus , helped tallis to cause death of millions of people even if he wanted her to give him list, pardon only one what was success is gaining gold from DR but still ended badly ,he was nothing more than pawn strong one but still pawn to most characters petrice , flemeth , meredith , orsino , tallis , arishok.His life was failure even if i liked him as person (at least nice personality)/    

Not going to object to much of that, but I will point out that the only way the Warden solved problems was through murder, unless the people he was murdered offered to negotiate once the Warden finished murdering all of their goons. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

In Exile wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...
Well first he was incompetent , stupid (especially in dlc) , he couldn't couldn't solve problem in another way than being brute (and "solve" problem is overstatement). he was causing more problems than he was solving ,game as well could be without him and thing whould end that same way or even better , he failed in pretty much every goal that he had like protecting faimly , protecting kirkwall , protecting mages (most of them died) , and keeping peace with qunari also loosing all his property, released Corypheus , helped tallis to cause death of millions of people even if he wanted her to give him list, pardon only one what was success is gaining gold from DR but still ended badly ,he was nothing more than pawn strong one but still pawn to most characters petrice , flemeth , meredith , orsino , tallis , arishok.His life was failure even if i liked him as person (at least nice personality)/    

Not going to object to much of that, but I will point out that the only way the Warden solved problems was through murder, unless the people he was murdered offered to negotiate once the Warden finished murdering all of their goons. 

Well in truth warden could solve problems by intimidation or persuasion or even without it (unless we talking about psychos who tried put us down) warden could convince zathrian to ending his hate , win Landsmeet by persuasion , convince mercenaries to leaving tavern , intimidate Lloyd to help village for what he after attack thanks you and become better person , he could convince caladrius to leave , damn he could even gain trust of dales by helping them , also could avoide fight with bandits or convince elves to leave their hatred when you cure werewolves  and more.  Persuasion system could be more exploited but still far from arcanum where you could practically be pacifist when you had appropriate attributes.   

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 29 août 2013 - 06:41 .