97 réponses à ce sujet

[zMataxa]

I laughed ALOT reading your Opening Post. Twas Great!
I admit - I did have to skim read-it (wow that was seriously epic in its length!).
But I did get the major points.

That's a Brutal question though.
For my own PC, I prefer two modes.
When I feel like being challenged - I like setbacks & penalties. Some distant variant of of how Dark Souls does it would be just about right. Losing something of value (like, face turned ugly ) and perhaps having to go back to a ways - makes me respect the grim reaper much more.

Other times I just want to enjoy "crashing away" through the game and then I like Bioware's setup just fine. Getting the odd reload screen is just right - meaning I pushed my luck just a bit too far.  Reload screen is just quick and easy.

So having death change with the difficulty setting would be like catnip for this cat.

As for Companions and death, I read Sylvius preference with interest, because it's always neat to see people who roleplay differently than you.
I prefer again Bioware's current setup, with my own major protest errupting the occasional time when the plot goes in a bitter-sweet way I didn't want it to.
A copious use of "Saves" keeps the number of protests down to a manageable level.

Modifié par zMataxa, 18 octobre 2013 - 05:02 .

[Sir JK]

Once again an interesting topic Jimmy, thank you.

I think the big issue with death as a whole is that too harsh a penalty limits your ability to finish the game, pure and simple. When the game is 50+ hours and some segments have already been replayed that will just end up being a massively frustrating experience. The shorter the game is, the more tolerable it'd would be. In roguelikes death is a big issue, but you don't tend to play them for long periods of time anyways.

Your suggestion on "permadeath" of combat ability was interesting, though it suffers the same problem. Lose too many or the wrong companions and it's essentially a slow game over, but with the ability to rewrite your saves past the point of no return.

If that problem can be solved, then there's essentially no stopping a death system with penalties (permadeath, permadeath of ability or maluses to combat ability). Reactivity could be solved by having a death scene trigger if the character falls, sort of like the scenes with your target's last confessions in the assassin's creed series. Or by your suggestion that they don't actually die but become crippled.
Sadly, short of having companions be completely (and infinantely) replaceable I don't see much in the ways of overcoming that obstacle. Or having the game be short enough that loosing so many companions should only be possible with a great effort.

[keightdee]

Jimmy, you need an editor.

[Dabrikishaw]

I'm not sure if your asking for permadeath to be "unrecoverable" by the player, such as loading a different save with the character still alive.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fair enough.

I do agree with your point that a cinematic RPG cannot really benefit (and, in fact, may suffer deeply) from a traditional Permadeath solution. However, I did offer three other "variations," shall we say, of the concept of Permadeath. Do you have any input on those?

Certainly. Lunch break doesn't provide enough time to respond to everything I might want to, alas.

One, people will reload (if the game gives them the option). And be upset that they had to do so. After all, I'm not going to play this game you gave me with these characters you created if I'm going to be missing content because of one of them being dead through a mistake/bad luck. A valid stance to take. I'd be lying if I said I didn't take advantage of the Reload option when Permadeath took a beloved companion.

Reloading is the option most people would take, I think, unless they actually wanted the companion to die, or didn't care about them (it happens! Just look at poor Zevran). While I'd argue that a kneejerk reload reaction could be countered by having content that takes the death of that companion into account, the fact that it is a kneejerk reaction would likely make this a waste of resources in the long run. Devs are, from what I understand, becoming less willing to create content that the bulk of their players won't see.

Two, the game could possibly not go on AT ALL if Permadeath was used. What would DA:O have looked like if Morrigan died before leaving Lothering (curse you, bears!)? No Dark Ritual, no OGB option, no plot twist in the 11th hour. What would DA2 have looked like if Anders had died against the Qunari? No Chantry boom, no dead Elthina, no Circle uprising. It then leaves the avenue of not having ANY companion be important, which brings all sorts of thorny questions and issues, mostly revolving around making companion characters totally ancillary - something Bioware would not (and I'd argue SHOULD not) do.

Hmmm...ok. So, I'm against anything that would legitimately break the game and make it unfinishable (Anders example). But I am not against stuff that would mean you're screwed out of a particular way the game could end, if the game could still be completed (Morrigan example). Rule of thumb is that if the game can still be finished despite your screwup, it's ok. Railroady if there's no contingency plan*, but workable. Random elements such as Death By Qunari should never, ever be gamebreakers however.

Removing companions as plot-centric figures could fix this, but as to whether this should be done or if Bioware would even consider it are different arguments. On that score, I'll just argue slightly contrary to yourself and suggest that companions should not always be directly required by the main plot.

*Contingency plans could make endgames where a plot character dies more dynamic. (1. Morrigan was killed by bears? Don't worry, Flemeth wasn't stupid enough to think that her daughter might not die accompanying Grey Warders during a Blight -- much less Grey Wardens she'd just personally saved from being killed. And hey, don't you want to repay her for that? And repay her for getting her daughter killed? 2. Qunari killed Anders? Not to worry. Meredith was already going crazy and Orsino isn't far from cracking himself. That kinda kindling doesn't need explosives to set it alight.)

And, lastly, there could be the option of Permadeath endings. These could be useful, especially towards the end of the game. If you fail in combat, or in completing an objective, etc., this could result in the story wrapping up as if your character was dead. Things could fall apart, things could barely skate by, perhaps things could even be better if you died a heroic death. I'm, again, not talking about a Plot Death, like the choices at the end of ME3, but rather a true gameplay, combat death that causes you to fall due to how well you did (or didn't) do.

An interesting idea, but the average player would be unlikely to consider them 'true endings' unless they had the cinematics to make it believable. That means another reload, and such endings would then run the risk of becoming annoying Reload-Try-Again screens if you're having repeated trouble in the same area.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to see some death scenes as additional content. I'd guess that's 'Nice but not necessary' territory at this point though.

-----

Part of this discussion wants me to go on a tangent-rant about the abuse of plot armour on NPCs.

[Huntress]

HiroVoid wrote...

Permadeath is fine and can add to a player's personal sense of drama in a game that is contained in itself such as the Fallout series. I know at least for myself I had Dogmeat and Tycho die in FO1 on my playthrough and Sulik in Fallout 2. It doesn't really work out well in a game series meant to be imported later on or games where the character may play an important role later on.

I think the character should get permadeath when the players rises the game dificulty.
exemple:

-casual/easy= reload the game.

-Nightmare/hard= chart loses all his gear + gold when it dies, The Chart spawn wearing shorts in middle of the road.

Hell/very hard=permadeath.



other than that, I like it the way it is, i normaly play in casual/easy if it was an option for noobs I'll drop to it and use it.

Modifié par Huntress, 18 octobre 2013 - 09:59 .

[crimzontearz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Death works fine the way it does now in DA and ME (minus the forced protagonist death for artistic integrity).

If permadeath was EVER implemented I would GLADLY save spam the hell out of the game and store saves on SEVERAL DIFFERENT offline media with multiple copies of each spammed save as well as cloud saves while playing the game offline to circumvent the situation.

So yeah....**** that

<sigh> Should I re-title this thread to say "NOT ABOUT PERMADEATH" in the subject line?

if you feel like

Death is an abstraction at best in most videogames especially cinematic story driven RPGs....which means that, as some pointed out, If permadeath was implemented some NPCs would have to be just immune to it....which in turn would be silly.

As for the other games, this is not the 80ies, this is not an arcade in which games had to be SUPER HARD  to suck coins out of you. These games are 60$ pieces of entertainments and trust me when I tell you, given people work for a living, most people do not have the time nor will to go through a 60+ hours game and have to re-do all of it to get the the end because devs thought perma death would be awzum to implement, hell MOST PEOPLE don't finish games as it is WITHOUT perma death


 
Now, as an OPTION for the hardcore crowd? Sure....as default? Hell no


 
As a side note, many games justify multiple deaths, at the top of my head:

• Vampire: the masquerade - redemption

• planescape torment

• crackdown

• LoK:SR

• Prey

Modifié par crimzontearz, 18 octobre 2013 - 10:49 .

[Estelindis]

I find your treatment of this topic very interesting, Fast Jimmy. I think that all the approaches that you mention have benefits. However, ultimately players are selfish creatures and generally prefer whatever gives the maximum gratification with the minimum inconvenience. In order for a system to work where a party member was put out of commission permanently, whether it means death, ineligibility for combat, or some other thing, I think that there would have to be a tangible benefit for players that would override the desire to just reload and pretend that didn't happen. Generally, I like being able to choose to bring whoever I like on a combat mission. What could the game offer me that would be better than this?

As it stands, it looks like Inquisition lets us use party members for other missions when they're not with the PC. I think this will offer benefits to bringing or not bringing any given party member. Maybe there will be non-PC-party missions for which some characters will be better suited than others, thus offering an incentive not to have them in the party. That seems to cover this angle without bringing death into the picture, without ruling out the option of having that character in the PC's party ever again. So what other angles might there be, what other benefits to excluding a character from all future combat missions?

Modifié par Estelindis, 18 octobre 2013 - 02:24 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Foshizzlin wrote...

Death is a cinematic, dramatic element in storytelling, not something you use as a gimmick.

While accidental deaths can and do happen, I agree that on the whole it shouldn't be used in RPGs as a cheap plot contrivance.

Going back a bit to where we were talking about permadeath as a consequence of failing combat, I was just thinking of how Wing Commander 3 dealt with it. For the unlearned (and the young), WC3 was a space sim with a lot of live-action cinematics for the role-playing elements. You had several companions you could choose between at the start of every mission to be your wingman, and during every mission it was possible for this wingman to be shot down.

During the early portion of the game I don't think it was possible for your wingmen to die, as each had a part to play in the plot. If they got shot down you'd get a scene at the end of the mission with the chief engineer who'd tell you they made it out alive (a slightly different dialogue for each companion). Once the game had advanced far enough though that characters were no longer strictly required, it was possible for some of them to die. If that happened there would be a military funeral scene with the PC giving the eulogy, and the coffin being launched into space.

It was pretty cool.

[mopotter]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Just as long as Bioware doesn't kill me off again no matter what I do, then everything's cool. If I want to sacrifice myself for the greater good, it should be by my choice, not because the writer wanted to make some desperate attempt to be deep and edgy. That's one of the reasons why I thought the endings to Dragon Age Origins were so well done. When I sacrificed myself in DA:O it was a very emotional moment, but it was my choice and I loved every minute of the ending. When I was forced to kill myself in Mass Effect 3, I felt betrayed and monumentally pissed off. I planned on living in that game.

This.  I also sacrificed one or two of my Wardens in DA:O.  But I sure didn't sacrifice all of them.  I had Shepards who would have happily died to save the universe, if they didn't have the right something to survive, but not all of them.  

I don't even mind a LI or friend dying in one game, if I can save them in another.   But i don't want every game to be exactly like the last one, unless I play it that way, and I don't.  Different characters, different choices, different deaths and different endings.  

[mopotter]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Permadeath is rather problematic in a series like this, where by virtue of traveling with the protagonist the companions are destined for greatness in future events. You have to account for different character states, which then influences world states, and it snowballs from there.

I think, anyway. Seems logical.

It's why I abhor even the option to kill off companions so... casually, like DAO and DAII did. They should only be killed off, in my opinion, when the developers and writers are absolutely certain that this person has filled their role... that their story is complete.

Granted, the option allows for roleplaying capabilities, but it also hinders the story to be told. That said, companions can still react to things like they're their own person. I would just prefer, if they're to be fought at  all, that it be left ambiguous as to their fate.

DA:O  I actually liked having Zev attack me because our friendship wasn't strong enough.  I also liked having the option of killing him the first time he showed up.  It fit the character i was playing, the same as letting him live fit the other character.   Maybe it was because I played it a lot, I even sent Leliana away once.  

DA:2 I would have really liked the option of having a choice at the beginning of who Hawke helped.  I liked both Carver and Bethany, and I "get" why they did it, for the story, but I like choices in who joins my group.

[Ziegrif]

Hm?

Someone died?

~ Player.placeatme ######
Resurrect.

Keep playing.

Hm? Party wipe?

F9.

Hooray for F5 - F9 and multiple saves along the way.

Death is trivial.

Modifié par Ziegrif, 18 octobre 2013 - 03:42 .

[mopotter]

Br3ad wrote...

Rickets wrote...

@Br3ad

Trust me, a stray enemy arrow or a dragon using big area shouts can easily kill a weakened follower.

No it can't. When you tell someone to follow you, the game gives them the same protected status that spouses have. Only you can kill them. 

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that if you have the knowledge that a follower, companion, teammate can die permanently EVEN during gameplay it usually would give players a bit more incentive to pay more attention and be more cautious.

Which doesn't work in a party basesd game. Not one with very indepth characters anyway. 

Off topic - Skyrim On the 360 I had two followers die, and my husband had Lydia die.  Doesn't happen often, but it can happen.  On the pc I have added a mod that makes followers essential.  

on topic - I wouldn't want someone in my party to die while we were fighting something.  It would have to be some kind of decision like Zev attacking me or having the chose to help this one or that activity.  

[Chaos Hammer]

Perma death sucks.... I remember the first time I played through Fire Emblem, I lost 2 characters in the second battle and I was just like "WTF whered they go????" in the next battle. And in FFTA I tried my hardest to avoid the Jagds (only areas in the game characters actually died).

Especially in a game designed with revives and such it would be extremely frustrating to players who didn't bring their spirit healer or have Sir Pounce a lot with them so they lose a character? I think the current system is the best way

[modernfan]

Permadeath could potentially boost the challenge & keep extremely skilled, hardcore players juiced about playing, but the vast majority of DA players probably do not fall into that category.  I certainly do not and, as a low skill but EQUALLY enthusiastic gamer with a passion for BioWare's games, would not want to see this implemented.

Inclusivity is key for any game to be successful, and the last thing I want to feel when I sink my precious, hard earned free time into a game is that I don't measure up.  I'm willing to invest time and effort into improving, but that is a process that occurs over time during the course of the game.  I might even argue that, along with a great storyline, it is the entire point of the game.  Permadeath takes away the opportunity to learn in a game from nearly all players except for those at the highest skill level.  I'm not saying BioWare shouldn't serve the challenge needs of players who find the permadeath concept attractive; just that any extremely punitive game consequence like permadeath should not not be forced on all who play.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

Once again an interesting topic Jimmy, thank you.

I think the big issue with death as a whole is that too harsh a penalty limits your ability to finish the game, pure and simple.

I don't accept your definition of "finish".  The game is finished when your character's story ends - that might be in a different place from character to character.

[Cainhurst Crow]

We need game of thrones levels of plot death up in here.

[Br3admax]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Once again an interesting topic Jimmy, thank you.

I think the big issue with death as a whole is that too harsh a penalty limits your ability to finish the game, pure and simple.

I don't accept your definition of "finish".  The game is finished when your character's story ends - that might be in a different place from character to character.

The game is finished when the plot ends. That's like shutting a book on the last six chapters and saying the book is finished. 

[Br3admax]

mopotter wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Rickets wrote...

@Br3ad

Trust me, a stray enemy arrow or a dragon using big area shouts can easily kill a weakened follower.

No it can't. When you tell someone to follow you, the game gives them the same protected status that spouses have. Only you can kill them. 

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that if you have the knowledge that a follower, companion, teammate can die permanently EVEN during gameplay it usually would give players a bit more incentive to pay more attention and be more cautious.

Which doesn't work in a party basesd game. Not one with very indepth characters anyway. 

Off topic - Skyrim On the 360 I had two followers die, and my husband had Lydia die.  Doesn't happen often, but it can happen.  On the pc I have added a mod that makes followers essential.  

on topic - I wouldn't want someone in my party to die while we were fighting something.  It would have to be some kind of decision like Zev attacking me or having the chose to help this one or that activity.  

Off topic-keep in mind that Skyrim is 
a) buggy as hell
and Enviroment counts as you. In the CK though, the game is programmed to give the Protected status to Followers and Lovers, these are factions mind you. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

osbornep wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As soon as I perceive the companions as NPCs rather than characters I control, that's when I stop using companions.

You'll have to forgive me as this is bound to come across as more glib than I intend (we're all aware of the difficulties with communicating intent via text), but here it goes: This an interesting fact about your play style, but I don't see what it has to do with the argument I was making.

You were advancing the position that companions should be viewed as NPCs.  I was explaining why I have an incentive never to do that.

Why should the game privilege this particular style of play.

I can offer no justification for that beyond "that's how I'd like it".  BioWare's games have traditionally allowed this style of play (some more than others), and I enjoy it.  I have no interest in controlling a character I'm not permitted to roleplay (since every gameplay decision is necessarily a roleplaying decision), so if the companions cease to be characters I can roleplay then I don't want them in my game at all.

[Estelindis]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why should the game privilege this particular style of play.

I can offer no justification for that beyond "that's how I'd like it".

I don't think you need a greater justification than that.    Of course, if the vast majority of people want something different, the devs are likely to privilege that style of play instead, but they can only know so many people want that if everyone is honest about what they want, saying: "Please do this, because that's how I'd like it."  

Modifié par Estelindis, 18 octobre 2013 - 05:42 .

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't accept your definition of "finish".  The game is finished when your character's story ends - that might be in a different place from character to character.

I'd say that the game finishes when there is no more content in it, but that the story concludes when you (the player) feel it does. And as you say, the story may very well conclude prior to the game finishing.

The problem with penalties like this is that you may suffer a game over before you feel the story has concluded. That you own skill as a player prevent your from reaching what feels like the correct ending (regardless of whether that ending is when the game finishes or not).

Hope that clarifies my position.

[Pink Pony]

I like the idea of being able to skip fights. This is an option I have wanted for quite some time.

I am not entirely sure it should have negative consequences. I think it would be primarily used to skip fights that have been repeatedly lost. Also, I think it will enable people who just want to play the game for the story to do so.

Modifié par Pink Pony, 18 octobre 2013 - 06:27 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Pink Pony wrote...

I like the idea of being able to skip fights. This is an option I have wanted for quite some time.

I am not entirely sure it should have negative consequences. I think it would be primarily used to skip fights that have been repeatedly lost. Also, I think it will enable people who just want to play the game for the story to do so.

I was curious if anyone would latch onto this part of my post (it seems everyone is SUPER excited about talking about Permadeath and nothing else) and, if so, how it would be received. 

I've flip flopped so many times my mindset on a skip combat function. I think it introduces some serious obstacles to more nuanced design of encounters, such as having multiple outcomes to how a fight age out depending on the actions of the player (such as ME's ability to keep some Feros survivors alive by using a nerve gas grenade, which let's NPCs be alive after the fight if you did not kill them). 

But, those instances aside, I would think a true "skip combat button" would only work best of it was offered after the player has fallen a couple of times against the same fight or area. Adding it to the base game would be quite problematic in terms of creating an experience that would feel genuine to many players.