122 réponses à ce sujet

[mickey111]

riverbanks wrote...

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.

Why wander around aimlessly in skyrim when you can do the same thing in fallout? Or Deus Ex? Or Gothic? Or morrowind? Or Oblivion? Or Ultima? Or GTA? Or RDR? Or Assassins Creed? Or the other dozen games I've forgotten about?

[riverbanks]

Because Skyrim has the weakest gameplay and storylines of all the games you mentioned and is basically a terrible but beautiful game where you wander around doing nothing interesting but looking at a lot of pretty scenery. The others actually have interesting stories to play through, so you do a lot less wandering "aimlessly".

Neither of which has anything to do with the point I was making there, though.

[Realmzmaster]

Randomly killing people in Fallout does have an effect on reputation. There are consequences for killing people in Fallout. If you have a negative reputation with different factions you may be visited by legendary assassins or NCR troops sent to hunt the PC down. Certain companions will not join you or leave if your reputation changes in a way they do not like.
Some merchants will not trade with you.

If random killing was allowed in DAI then your own companions should have the ability to turn on the PC and kill the PC without warning. For example, Varric puts an arrow through the PC's heart from the back or companions just leave with no way of getting them back. All quests associated with those companions are lost.

If an important NPC is killed then all quests associated with that NPC are lost. If the PC kills an NPC whose quest is needed to advanced the main story then the main quest cannot be finished.

If you randomly kill people on the street then all the people, including guards, soldiers etc automatically become hostile to the PC and party attacking them on sight. If the PC kills to many random people no one will follow or give quests to the PC effectively ending the game. Even if the PC goes to a different city or place their reputation will follow him/her. Everyone in the new place will be instantly hostile to the PC and party.

If the player wants freedom to kill anyone then the player also has the freedom to deal with the consequences. One of those consequences should be the inability to complete the main quest line.

[Si-Shen]

I find that games that let you slaughter everyone are not nearly as fun, you spend way too much time saving and loading because "you accidently slaughtered someone in a crowd when your hand slipped and hit the wrong key".
The DA games have worked well and fine without a feature that is not really needed in them.

[Schneidend]

riverbanks wrote...

Because Skyrim has the weakest gameplay and storylines of all the games you mentioned and is basically a terrible but beautiful game where you wander around doing nothing interesting but looking at a lot of pretty scenery. The others actually have interesting stories to play through, so you do a lot less wandering "aimlessly".

Neither of which has anything to do with the point I was making there, though.

Skyrim's gameplay, weaker than Oblivion? Laughable.

[Giant ambush beetle]

I hope so, I hated that in DA or DA2 I couldn't kill NPC's that weren't marked as enemies.

Why do I hate it? Well, not only because I want to roleplay an evil character who kills those who do not bend to his/her will or fail to comply but also because I'd like to attack neutral groups of NPC's to loot their equipment etc.

[Schneidend]

I do agree that being able to kill NPCs is always awesome. Just make it so that killing vital characters results in a game over.

[AmRMa]

I don't want this in the game- one thing that bothered me in Elder Scrolls an GTA games was fighting with enemies then accidently killing an innocent bystander and the guards/police coming after me on top of my initial enemies. It made me angry and frustrated especially if it made me die or fail the mission.

[Red Panda]

Wulfram wrote...

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.

XCOM's an interesting can of worms.

The best gameplay strategies actually involve not saving very many or even killing them yourself to ensure the aliens don't get their claws or regurgitated eggs into them.

Or one might think about firing a rocket into a cluster of aliens surrounded by civilians, killing all of them. You'll win, but lose out on rewards.

It's a serious ethical choice in that game, and it never tells you if you guessed right or wrong unlike most Bioware games with clear cut outcomes.


Though, this is a little off-topic, to say the least.


The reactivity is all in the background and not in your face.

[slimgrin]

I doubt they'd do this. I'm of the opinion that story-centric games must maintain their own internal logic for a plot to progress and for the game world to make sense. Killing random strangers not only goes against this, but most likely against any parameters set for the characterization of your PC. The disparity between serious story telling and running over random folks and blowing sh*t up is given a pass in games like GTA, but to me it says: don't take any of this seriously.

Modifié par slimgrin, 02 novembre 2013 - 08:15 .

[Red Panda]

Schneidend wrote...

I do agree that being able to kill NPCs is always awesome. Just make it so that killing vital characters results in a game over.

Kind of pointless then.

Morrowind may have warned you, but you could still complete the main quest without divine aid as long as you didn't kill the bloated corpus afflicted dwemer who could jury rig wraithguard for you.


Essentially, you could slay everyone else almost.


Loopholes like that, despite how hard they are to use, could be an excellent alternative narrative. Otherrwise, we're just playing te same game every time.

[Schneidend]

OperatingWookie wrote...

Kind of pointless then.

Morrowind may have warned you, but you could still complete the main quest without divine aid as long as you didn't kill the bloated corpus afflicted dwemer who could jury rig wraithguard for you.


Essentially, you could slay everyone else almost.


Loopholes like that, despite how hard they are to use, could be an excellent alternative narrative. Otherrwise, we're just playing te same game every time.

What I suggested is exactly what you just described.

[Red Panda]

Schneidend wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

Kind of pointless then.

Morrowind may have warned you, but you could still complete the main quest without divine aid as long as you didn't kill the bloated corpus afflicted dwemer who could jury rig wraithguard for you.


Essentially, you could slay everyone else almost.


Loopholes like that, despite how hard they are to use, could be an excellent alternative narrative. Otherrwise, we're just playing te same game every time.

What I suggested is exactly what you just described.

But it's not a game over. You can still win even though you decapitated the local deity and played an electric guitar on his corpse in front of his worshippers.

[Iakus]

 I fail to see the point of going around killing random NPCs just for the lulz.  Unless one is determined to play a Stupid Evil  character.

That said, the original Baldur's Gate did have Biff the Understudy, who would appear and say the lines of any plot-critical characters whom you happened to get killed.

[TheKomandorShepard]

OperatingWookie wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

Kind of pointless then.

Morrowind may have warned you, but you could still complete the main quest without divine aid as long as you didn't kill the bloated corpus afflicted dwemer who could jury rig wraithguard for you.


Essentially, you could slay everyone else almost.


Loopholes like that, despite how hard they are to use, could be an excellent alternative narrative. Otherrwise, we're just playing te same game every time.

What I suggested is exactly what you just described.

But it's not a game over. You can still win even though you decapitated the local deity and played an electric guitar on his corpse in front of his worshippers.

You mean vivec? No one knows that you killed them you can try tell someone they won't belive and will think that you are crazy so that action don't have negative consequences at least for pc. 

[Schneidend]

OperatingWookie wrote...

But it's not a game over. You can still win even though you decapitated the local deity and played an electric guitar on his corpse in front of his worshippers.

It's a game over for the main plot. Since Bioware games focus on main plots, it would obviously have to be a game over.

[Red Panda]

Schneidend wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

But it's not a game over. You can still win even though you decapitated the local deity and played an electric guitar on his corpse in front of his worshippers.

It's a game over for the main plot. Since Bioware games focus on main plots, it would obviously have to be a game over.

Considering Dagoth Ur can still be beaten and catastrophe can be averted without conforming to Azura's wishes, I wouldn't call that a game over. I'd call that a winning situation with bumpiness along the way.

[In Exile]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Randomly killing people in Fallout does have an effect on reputation. There are consequences for killing people in Fallout. If you have a negative reputation with different factions you may be visited by legendary assassins or NCR troops sent to hunt the PC down. Certain companions will not join you or leave if your reputation changes in a way they do not like. Some merchants will not trade with you.

These consequences are very simple and the actual cinematic cost - and the number of character specific interactions that flow from it - are very minor. 

If random killing was allowed in DAI then your own companions should have the ability to turn on the PC and kill the PC without warning. For example, Varric puts an arrow through the PC's heart from the back or companions just leave with no way of getting them back. All quests associated with those companions are lost.

Not only is this just the game trolling you, it would be incredibly costly to have to create all of the animations (the instant kill scene), then bug test all of the quest to make sure that locking them off doesn't bork the game, and then makign sure that the same thing happens for all of the 9 companions. Then (so that the effects actually exist in the world), Bioware has to create more cutscenes for various Plot Important NPCs reacting to your being an unhigned lunatic. They also have to deal with all of your followers and your keep, and with the fact that you're basically a brigand. 

Do you have a few million dollars lying around for this to happen? There's a reason why GTA and Saint's Row games have a very specific structure and plot when they allow you to be this coo-coo for cocopuffs. 

If an important NPC is killed then all quests associated with that NPC are lost. If the PC kills an NPC whose quest is needed to advanced the main story then the main quest cannot be finished.

So then the game is borked, and someone only uses one save... and then... what? They're told to go screw themselves? That's just bad design that not even TES followed straight up. 

If you randomly kill people on the street then all the people, including guards, soldiers etc automatically become hostile to the PC and party attacking them on sight. If the PC kills to many random people no one will follow or give quests to the PC effectively ending the game. Even if the PC goes to a different city or place their reputation will follow him/her. Everyone in the new place will be instantly hostile to the PC and party.  

Do you have any idea how much effort it would take to accurately portray this?

If the player wants freedom to kill anyone then the player also has the freedom to deal with the consequences. One of those consequences should be the inability to complete the main quest line.

Bioware isn't creating a psycopath simulator, which is what this would amount to. The work to get all of this to function would be insane. 

Modifié par In Exile, 02 novembre 2013 - 09:52 .

[RifuloftheWest]

In Exile wrote...

There's a reason why GTA and Saint's Row games have a very specific structure and plot when they allow you to be this coo-coo for cocopuffs. 

This line gave me a chuckle

Bioware isn't creating a psycopath simulator...

But this line is just full of win.

[Schneidend]

OperatingWookie wrote...

Considering Dagoth Ur can still be beaten and catastrophe can be averted without conforming to Azura's wishes, I wouldn't call that a game over. I'd call that a winning situation with bumpiness along the way.

Well, then I guess there's been a misunderstanding. I was talking about giving a game over for killing NPCs that are absolutely critical.

[Schneidend]

Anyway, I find it amusing that opponents of this concept seem to have forgotten that BG1&2 allowed you to target any character, friend, foe, or neutral. It was awesome.

[riverbanks]

Schneidend wrote...

Anyway, I find it amusing that opponents of this concept seem to have forgotten that BG1&2 allowed you to target any character, friend, foe, or neutral. It was awesome.

Last I checked, Dragon Age is not Baldur's Gate.

That's kinda the point that proponents of the concept are missing too - GTA did it, Skyrim did it, this game and that game and that other game and that other other game did it... soooo? DA is none of those games. GTA also did cars and choppers. Skyrim also did vampires and romans. So what gives, should we have cars and choppers and vampires and romans in DA because other games did it too?

[tfcreative]

The fact that BG games allowed it doesn't really affect the fact that I don't think it would help DA:I.

[snackrat]

I think we should have some interaction with NPCs, but not killing or maiming. It means that it becomes a tossup between killing everyone and breaking quests, or making targets immune and defeating the point (SCREW YOU ROLFF STONE-FIST).
Alternatively, going to route of Fallout: New Vegas (where only two targets are essential - a for-bug-reasons robot you can't reach, and another who technically respawns as he downloads into new bodies) where the quests are removed the the story adapts (for better or for worse) - but that would be super buggy and I don't think they have time for it.


No, I'd rather go the route of Saints Row and let us taunt/compliment. Games where murder is your catharsis make little sense to me, because as far as the victim is concerned you are as stoic as the queen's guard and simply do not care what they do or say, until you suddenly snap and murder them, their family, and loot their house. Holy ****!
Letting as taunt/compliment (like, punch them in the face or give them a high-five, like SR they may even let you choose) means you can express your dislike (or appreciation) for a character without necessarily breaking the story.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 03 novembre 2013 - 01:47 .