122 réponses à ce sujet

[Fredward]

Why would you even think this? Bioware does not make sandboxes they make mazes and it seems unlikely that randomly punching people will mesh with their story.

[Rolling Flame]

Probably not, but it would be a nice touch if civilians ran away from combat and could be killed by AOE attacks, as opposed to being completely apathetic and invincible.

[Rylor Tormtor]

General Slotts wrote...

Examurai1 wrote...

General Slotts wrote...

I am playing Dishonered. There they give you the option to kill anyone but if you kill a key character you get a mission failed screen, which made sense in context of the game. I thought it was neat.

... But pointless. Why give the option if the game is gonna fail you anyway.

Why not? It adds a bit or realism for very little cost, actions have consequences. 

Yes, slaughtering whole villages with little or no real consequence is so realistic. And before you go on about reputation and not being able to trade in villages and so on, by actual consequences I mean being hunted down by groups with either enough power or numbers to kill you and effectively end the game for that character. I mean, as a PC, that is what you basically do to threats. Narrative consistency would almost require the same thing to happen to you, and hence end the game, and as such, is waste of resources and developer time. 

[Rylor Tormtor]

JCAP wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

General Slotts wrote...


Why not? It adds a bit or realism for very little cost, actions have consequences. 

This would be a much more convincing argument if games that let you kill random NPCs actually had the world react  appropriately to this. They don't.

Guards coming after you isn't a reaction from the world?

Non-existent threats do not count as actual reactivity. It has not real effect because most likely you just slaughter the small groups of mooks that the "authorities" send after you.

[Knight of Dane]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

JCAP wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

General Slotts wrote...


Why not? It adds a bit or realism for very little cost, actions have consequences. 

This would be a much more convincing argument if games that let you kill random NPCs actually had the world react  appropriately to this. They don't.

Guards coming after you isn't a reaction from the world?

Non-existent threats do not count as actual reactivity. It has not real effect because most likely you just slaughter the small groups of mooks that the "authorities" send after you.

Or you go to jail and either escape or wait time out. Something which does not require you to slaughter anyone too, so it's not an exclusive reaction either.

[TheKomandorShepard]

I hope so i would like have much options no only paragon or renegade inquisitor or sarcastic , diplomatic and aggressive.

And it is a game if you want play in realistic games you have simulators.

[Wulfram]

A specific mission or two where there are civilians who you need to protect and avoid hitting with AoEs might be interesting. I mean, something like the terror missions in XCOM.  Though it could be tremendously annoying

Just allowing random slaughter seems like it'd be taking away from stuff that'd actually fit with the story being told.

Modifié par Wulfram, 02 novembre 2013 - 11:00 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Or you go to jail and either escape or wait time out. Something which does not require you to slaughter anyone too, so it's not an exclusive reaction either.

Yes... because murder, a capital offense in nearly every culture, would result in being locked up for a few days and paying 40 gold, the price of a cheap set of armor.

If you murdered an innocent person, let alone an entire village, you'd go away for life. There would be a trial. You'd likely hanged. NOTHING about the way TES games handle crime is realistic in the least, so all of the posters drawing from there should at least say it is not realism they are looking for, but complete freedom, but freedom where they don't really want to face the consequences (aka an instant Game Over screen).

And to anyone who says this is a "low cost" feature that would be fun, I really question you to take it more than one step beyond what you suggest. First off, it would require the combat system to be active at all points in the game, which could create serious cutscene and dialogue issues. Secondly, you would need to have companions react to these mass killings (or, in the case of controlling the companion, having them actually kill said innocents) which would mean additional dialogue being recorded, different checks and calls to see if a companion would "fall in line" or revolt against you, redundancies that would check to make sure you aren't killing an important, quest sensitive NPC, writing changes so no one companion would be integral to the story (since you could tick them off and cause them to leave or attack you for your wanton level of murder), then you'd need some more mundane things, like the stats, skills, combat equipment, loot drops, etc. for a random peasant and other more "grunt work" like either setting up a system that magically spawn guards to fight you or some type of in-game guards that would have their own patrols, routes, areas of visibility, speed with which they could chase the PC, a jail system that could effectively contain the player (or not, if they make that decision)... and the list goes on. And on. And on.

If the game is more about giving the player the freedom to do anything they want, like a Skyrim game, then cool. But if it about the story over anything else, like Bioware games are often striving to be, then it is just an added bonus, not integral to their approach. And the above list (which is by no means exhaustive) shows this is a HUGE investment for a "wouldn't it be nice" kind of feature.

I'd personally rather they focus on creating more content and reactivity to choices that really matter and tie into the story than throw tons of work at creating a false sense of reaction, where you can kill the Empreror and then bribe a guard with the equivalent of what it would cost to buy a Snickers bar.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 novembre 2013 - 11:02 .

[Wulfram]

Weregild doesn't fit too badly in the Norse style Skyrim culture

[Dermain]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Snip

You're just raining on their parade, but you're supposed to blow up the floats too!

I shall never understand this desire to kill every NPC in the game. It accomplishes nothing besides making an empty game world even more empty (TES), or trivializes the death (GTA-esque). It also happens to waste resources as you explicitly pointed out!

[Rylor Tormtor]

Wulfram wrote...

Weregild doesn't fit too badly in the Norse style Skyrim culture

Ya, because any ruler that accepts money as recompense for the slaughter of dozens upon dozens of villagers is going to have ring thanes just lining up to support him. 

...

[mickey111]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

JCAP wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

On topic... no, this would be a terrible idea. It would essentially make the thrust of the game illogical and impossible to kill innocents left and right (just like it does in TES games). The only reason the TES games can get away with this is that the "main story" is so extraneous and unnecessary to the game as to be an afterthought. In DA, this is not (at all) the case.

Why is it a terrible idea? It's up to you if you want to kill innocents or not. And who knows? Killing innocents could hurt your reputation.


Another games where you can do this AND are story-driven are Deus Ex Human Revolution and The Witcher 2

I think it is a bad idea, personally, because it serves no purpose. Developing a system that allows you to strike down and kill anyone and then have the game react to that does nothing to advance the narrative, develop the world or tell a better story.

I realize that's my own opinion, but I just don't think it makes the game any better, regardless of what other games do it. 

You didn't think very hard before commenting I see.

The purpose of assaulting people in GTA was so you could take their stuff. The purpose in games like fallout took it a step further by allowing you to sell people into slavery. DA could take that further still and allow you to become one of the slaver bosses of a slave trade company or something.

[Wulfram]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Weregild doesn't fit too badly in the Norse style Skyrim culture

Ya, because any ruler that accepts money as recompense for the slaughter of dozens upon dozens of villagers is going to have ring thanes just lining up to support him. 

...

Yes, it doesn't handle mass slaughter sensibly.  But a murder or two, weregild fits.

[Il Divo]

J. Reezy wrote...

Couldn't you kill plot-important characters in Morrowind? That would be kind of cool to allow.

It would be cool, if Bioware were designing a sandbox, with nigh infinite possibilities for play. Bioware games tend to move in a more linear fashion.

Imagine killing Mission Vao as you soon as you reach Taris. How long before the player runs out of things to do and loses the ability to move forward. It just doesn't justify the resource cost, given the type of game Bioware tends to make.

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:55 .

[Zatche]

mickey111 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

JCAP wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

On topic... no, this would be a terrible idea. It would essentially make the thrust of the game illogical and impossible to kill innocents left and right (just like it does in TES games). The only reason the TES games can get away with this is that the "main story" is so extraneous and unnecessary to the game as to be an afterthought. In DA, this is not (at all) the case.

Why is it a terrible idea? It's up to you if you want to kill innocents or not. And who knows? Killing innocents could hurt your reputation.


Another games where you can do this AND are story-driven are Deus Ex Human Revolution and The Witcher 2

I think it is a bad idea, personally, because it serves no purpose. Developing a system that allows you to strike down and kill anyone and then have the game react to that does nothing to advance the narrative, develop the world or tell a better story.

I realize that's my own opinion, but I just don't think it makes the game any better, regardless of what other games do it. 

You didn't think very hard before commenting I see.

The purpose of assaulting people in GTA was so you could take their stuff. The purpose in games like fallout took it a step further by allowing you to sell people into slavery. DA could take that further still and allow you to become one of the slaver bosses of a slave trade company or something.

So...you want to sell random people on the street into slavery after you murder them?

In all seriousness, he's right. What would that (the ability to murder random NPCs or sell them into slavery) actually add to the narrative? And how would the world react in such a story driven game? How would your companions react? Allowing the player to murder NPCS and implementing appropriate consequences would be a high cost feature that does not add much.

[mickey111]

Because role playing. Adds little? Do you even play games? Did you know that rockstar becoming one of the worlds most successful developer partly because they allow you to assault people and take their stuff. Also, if slavery isnt off limits then so are a lot of other criminal elements like extortion, vice, etc you know, the usual organized crime type of GTA things.

Modifié par mickey111, 02 novembre 2013 - 01:45 .

[Zatche]

GTA is fun because it allows you to screw around. And it's story revolves around crime anyway, so criminal elements makes sense. Skyrim is fun for the same reason.

Dragon Age is fun, because it draws you into the story. If you have a system where you can murder random people in the street and go back to saving the world from veil tears, not really suffering any consequences, I think that takes away from that story part. You can only roleplay within the confines of the story.

Modifié par Zatche, 02 novembre 2013 - 01:57 .

[Fast Jimmy]

mickey111 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

JCAP wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

On topic... no, this would be a terrible idea. It would essentially make the thrust of the game illogical and impossible to kill innocents left and right (just like it does in TES games). The only reason the TES games can get away with this is that the "main story" is so extraneous and unnecessary to the game as to be an afterthought. In DA, this is not (at all) the case.

Why is it a terrible idea? It's up to you if you want to kill innocents or not. And who knows? Killing innocents could hurt your reputation.


Another games where you can do this AND are story-driven are Deus Ex Human Revolution and The Witcher 2

I think it is a bad idea, personally, because it serves no purpose. Developing a system that allows you to strike down and kill anyone and then have the game react to that does nothing to advance the narrative, develop the world or tell a better story. 

I realize that's my own opinion, but I just don't think it makes the game any better, regardless of what other games do it. 

You didn't think very hard before commenting I see.

The purpose of assaulting people in GTA was so you could take their stuff. The purpose in games like fallout took it a step further by allowing you to sell people into slavery. DA could take that further still and allow you to become one of the slaver bosses of a slave trade company or something.

So you're suggesting not only a system that allows you to kill any person the player may have a whimsy to kill (even if it is totally by mistake or accident as can be the case in Bethesda games) but to ALSO capture and enslave them? 

Now you're opening up an whole new can of worms. You'd need a system where NPCs can, on a whim, become followers, where they would be tailed along as part of the group. This introduces combat challenges, memory issues, scene loading hooks and a whole host of other problems to go along with "this slave I've captured needs to be taken somewhere." 

It also involves character animations for every random NPC - if you've noticed in even Bioware's two most recent games; DA2 and ME3 every single non-companion NPC is bolted down when there isn't cutscene going on. So you're asking for them to go from cardboard cutouts to fully animated background NPCs, capable of being transported out of the screens they were created in and being treated as combat targets and participants.

And then, of course, you've got HUGE story issues. If you captured Anora as a slave in DA:O and then sold her off, what happens when you go the Landsmeet? What if you've captured her and HADN'T sold her, with her just being a docile lapdog behind your party... but then she's suddenly appearing from another area, making demands and issuing orders? What about a character like Fenris, who says he would rather die a free person than live as a slave... would it make sense for him to say those words while you have a slave trailing right behind you without him reacting? Would it make sense for him to be in a party with a slaver lord? It would mean every instance of dialogue would need to be examined and every cutscene re-evaluated to develop plans in case any NPC is involved. 

These are all doable (although given the huge amount of glitches in games that let you do this suggest the output of said work would be questionable at best) but the question is "is it worth it for the game we are creating to put this work in?" For a DA game, I'd say confidently that the answer is "no" in this case. 
I'm sure that I'M the one who is posting without thinking here. 

[mickey111]

There was at least one instance in DA:O where the warden could be in support of Loghaines slaving operations. Supporting organized slavery is not quite as technical as developing "Dragon Theft Auto" but it was still present within the narrative and it was a seedy underground plot element which added to the narrative... where is the harm in letting the player play a bigger part in this sort of thing? Pretty sure that attacking royalty isnt a thing that slavers do either. that's more a job for armies and government spies. The whole idea of slavery is to make easy money by preying on the weak, you see. Just ask Loghaine.

Modifié par mickey111, 02 novembre 2013 - 02:35 .

[Makkaramestari]

If I ever want to play Skyrim, I can always play Skyrim. I want Dragon Age to be Dragon age, Let Bethesda worry about the next Elder Scrolls game.

[Ianamus]

I certainly hope not. In my opinion it's a stupid mechanic and has no place in the Dragon Age series.

[Zatche]

mickey111 wrote...

There was at least one instance in DA:O where the warden could be in support of Loghaines slaving operations. Supporting organized slavery is not quite as technical as developing "Dragon Theft Auto" but it was still present within the narrative and it was a seedy underground plot element which added to the narrative... where is the harm in letting the player play a bigger part in this sort of thing? Pretty sure that attacking royalty isnt a thing that slavers do either. that's more a job for armies and government spies. The whole idea of slavery is to make easy money by preying on the weak, you see. Just ask Loghaine.

No one is arguing that you shouldn't be able to do anything shady and underground. We're arguing that you shouldn't be able to just off random (or important) NPCs at will...

[tfcreative]

I liked Halo. Will we be able to fight the Covenant in DA:I? It would be a great way to really please fans of BioWare games at a minimal costs.

[riverbanks]

Makkaramestari wrote...

If I ever want to play Skyrim, I can always play Skyrim. I want Dragon Age to be Dragon age, Let Bethesda worry about the next Elder Scrolls game.

^ this.

If I want to wander around aimlessly being irrelevant to anything, I go play Skyrim. If I want to run around punching people in the face for no reason, I go play GTA. I play Dragon Age to play Dragon Age - story, characters, world. Shanking random joes in the streets just because you can makes no sense in DA. Different games serve different purposes, we don't need every game to be just the same tired rehash of each other's features.