197 réponses à ce sujet

[Helena Tylena]

In Exile wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

While I see no point in mindlessly killing each and every NPC, I certainly agree it should be possible.

In Fallout: New Vegas I had Legion assassins attacking my character at places where there was other people present, and soon guns were blazing all over the place. Lots of NPCs died from stray bullets. Great stuff. That's how it should be, IMO.

In DA2 my character was fighting a trash mob at the harbor front. Limbs flying and spells going off all over the place. No one even looked up. They just carried on hammering, sawing and debating the weather. If NPCs can't be killed, accidentally or deliberately, why even bother having them? It's just silly.

Kill the wrong guy in a fit of fury? To bad! Live with it, or reload. And be glad it isn't PnP RP where the GM would just say: Tough luck, guys!

The problem with all or that is that actual behaviours of people and crowds is really hard to model when you have what is a literal nuclear warzone developing around everyone. It's more than just fleeing and fighting. There would be guards, systems in place to prevent magical destruction etc. 

Think about what would happen IRL if a spontaneous gunfight broke out. The fact you only killed the people attacking you - and the fact they attacked first - wouldn't prevent an armed response, your detention, and potential  for things like reckless conduct. 

Not to mention that a society is unlikely to look like games try to portray it when there is a constant danger of warfare breaking out  where you live. 

I think people who claim they want more realism in their games have no real grasp on how utterly 'not fun' reality can get...

[Sylvius the Mad]

The advantage of this sort of open design is that the PC is then able to use lethal force whenever it is appropriate for his character, even if the writers didn't anticipate that.

My best example of this comes from the BG:TotSC expansion, where a wizard named Shandalar teleports the party to a prison island in response to some perceived slight. Now, it's possible Shandalar's actions were justified, but if the PC doesn't think they were then it's perfectly reasonable for the PC to escape the island and then track down Shandalar to kill him. And I think the PC should be allowed to do that.

This doesn't necessarily require that everyone be killable all of the time, but I do think that the default state for NPCs should be killable, with unkillable status being granted to plot NPCs only temporarily until their plots are complete.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The advantage of this sort of open design is that the PC is then able to use lethal force whenever it is appropriate for his character, even if the writers didn't anticipate that. 

My best example of this comes from the BG:TotSC expansion, where a wizard named Shandalar teleports the party to a prison island in response to some perceived slight. Now, it's possible Shandalar's actions were justified, but if the PC doesn't think they were then it's perfectly reasonable for the PC to escape the island and then track down Shandalar to kill him. And I think the PC should be allowed to do that.

This doesn't necessarily require that everyone be killable all of the time, but I do think that the default state for NPCs should be killable, with unkillable status being granted to plot NPCs only temporarily until their plots are complete.

I think that there should be circumstances were certain NPCs can be killed or hurt - but I think that it has to be in scenarios anticipated by then writers to avoid shattering the verisimilitude of the game world. 

It's one thing to track down and murder a hermit and another to kill everyone a crowded bar in Val Royeaux. If the game wants to pretend it adheres to even basic human psychology then it has to model semi believable reactions to this kind of conduct. 

[Schneidend]

cicero740 wrote...

If you kill all the npc's you will lose all the conversations, and the game will be no fun. In skyrim i try to keep the npcs alive from vampire attacks and dragons or a town like riverwood can be a ghost town even riften.

Another reason why NPCs being vulnerable to death can be a lot of fun. It provides incentive to protect them from the dangers of the game world. I remembering being heartbroken in Skyrim when my first random dragon attack in Whiterun killed Adrienne Avenicci the blacksmith, as she was the first person to give my orc gal smithing training. I didn't reload or quit, I kept playing, and hunted down dragons with renewed vigor.

deuce985 wrote...

I somehow doubt it would make sense in the story if our Inquisitior is going around murdering innocent people whenever he pleases. Shall we have a throne of bones and drink their blood too? 

Maybe not for killing random civilians, but what about some thieves guild thugs operating openly or some smug guardsmen who insult the Inquisition? Killing civilians has no point, really, but that's certainly not why I want looser targeting restrictions. I want full freedom to pull off creative strategies in battle and to kick the crap out of any bureaucrats or crooks who think their cute little network, bribed friends, and influence can stand up to an axe.

In Exile wrote...

I think that there should be circumstances were certain NPCs can be killed or hurt - but I think that it has to be in scenarios anticipated by then writers to avoid shattering the verisimilitude of the game world. 

It's one thing to track down and murder a hermit and another to kill everyone a crowded bar in Val Royeaux. If the game wants to pretend it adheres to even basic human psychology then it has to model semi believable reactions to this kind of conduct. 

Right, but if we leave it up to the writers, then things like Sister Petrice not being immediately cut in half and/or obliterated by magic happen. There are at least three situations where she's within ten feet of me and there's no reason for my Ruthless/Smartass Hawke to NOT kill her, and yet I can't kill her.

[Silfren]

Schneidend wrote...

cicero740 wrote...

If you kill all the npc's you will lose all the conversations, and the game will be no fun. In skyrim i try to keep the npcs alive from vampire attacks and dragons or a town like riverwood can be a ghost town even riften.

Another reason why NPCs being vulnerable to death can be a lot of fun. It provides incentive to protect them from the dangers of the game world. I remembering being heartbroken in Skyrim when my first random dragon attack in Whiterun killed Adrienne Avenicci the blacksmith, as she was the first person to give my orc gal smithing training. I didn't reload or quit, I kept playing, and hunted down dragons with renewed vigor.

deuce985 wrote...

I somehow doubt it would make sense in the story if our Inquisitior is going around murdering innocent people whenever he pleases. Shall we have a throne of bones and drink their blood too? 

Maybe not for killing random civilians, but what about some thieves guild thugs operating openly or some smug guardsmen who insult the Inquisition? Killing civilians has no point, really, but that's certainly not why I want looser targeting restrictions. I want full freedom to pull off creative strategies in battle and to kick the crap out of any bureaucrats or crooks who think their cute little network, bribed friends, and influence can stand up to an axe.

In Exile wrote...

I think that there should be circumstances were certain NPCs can be killed or hurt - but I think that it has to be in scenarios anticipated by then writers to avoid shattering the verisimilitude of the game world. 

It's one thing to track down and murder a hermit and another to kill everyone a crowded bar in Val Royeaux. If the game wants to pretend it adheres to even basic human psychology then it has to model semi believable reactions to this kind of conduct. 

Right, but if we leave it up to the writers, then things like Sister Petrice not being immediately cut in half and/or obliterated by magic happen. There are at least three situations where she's within ten feet of me and there's no reason for my Ruthless/Smartass Hawke to NOT kill her, and yet I can't kill her.

I love how you talk about leaving it up to the writers, as if we had any alternative.  It's up to them regardless.

Things like Sister Petrice happen because the story requires it.  Granted that DA2 was poorly written and that scene, like so many others, could have been handled SO much better, but it's not like NPCs being unkillable because of the larger plot is anything new. 

[Fredward]

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Helena Tylena]

Schneidend wrote...


Right, but if we leave it up to the writers, then things like Sister Petrice not being immediately cut in half and/or obliterated by magic happen. There are at least three situations where she's within ten feet of me and there's no reason for my Ruthless/Smartass Hawke to NOT kill her, and yet I can't kill her.

Because she's plot relevant. Imagine you killing her when you first get the chance, how would the rest of that story unfold? Because I have no bloody idea.
And that's exactly the biggest problem this poses: Dragon Age is already made out of hundreds, if not thousands of individual choices players make, and the devs already have problems holding it all together. What do you think that would mean if you add the possibility of anyone dying at any point?

[Schneidend]

Helena Tylena wrote...

Because she's plot relevant. Imagine you killing her when you first get the chance, how would the rest of that story unfold? Because I have no bloody idea.
And that's exactly the biggest problem this poses: Dragon Age is already made out of hundreds, if not thousands of individual choices players make, and the devs already have problems holding it all together. What do you think that would mean if you add the possibility of anyone dying at any point?

Pretty easily solved by just not having Petrice on the map when she shouldn't be killed. But, don't put her literally within axing distance and allow me to do nothing but snark or growl at her. Most of the time, Dragon Age never does that with characters a reasonable person would actually want to kill, as you're likely about to fight them, which is why Petrice's instance is so jarring and frustrating.

[Sir DeLoria]

Not gonna happen.

[-TC1989-]

meteorswarm wrote...

Trust me,this thing is very fun in a adventure/RPGs game.

The whole aspect of killing civilians in games is interesting given the right situation, or atmosphere. Nothing about how Dragon Age plays leads me to think this would go over well, or how it would make any real sense to begin with.

Besides, it gets boring really quickly anyway. I remember hearing some people saying that they buy GTA titles simply to do this, and I could not imagine playing GTA V simply to go on an endless killing spree. The game offers so much more, that doing something like that is rather pointless at this point.

[Helena Tylena]

Schneidend wrote...

Helena Tylena wrote...

Because she's plot relevant. Imagine you killing her when you first get the chance, how would the rest of that story unfold? Because I have no bloody idea.
And that's exactly the biggest problem this poses: Dragon Age is already made out of hundreds, if not thousands of individual choices players make, and the devs already have problems holding it all together. What do you think that would mean if you add the possibility of anyone dying at any point?

Pretty easily solved by just not having Petrice on the map when she shouldn't be killed. But, don't put her literally within axing distance and allow me to do nothing but snark or growl at her. Most of the time, Dragon Age never does that with characters a reasonable person would actually want to kill, as you're likely about to fight them, which is why Petrice's instance is so jarring and frustrating.

Okay, different example. What if I wanted to kill Bartrand as soon as we got in the Deep Roads because I didn't want to share the loot with him and/or didn't trust him. Meredith wouldn't get her hands on the idol, wouldn't go bat****, and the entirety of Act 3 wouldn't have happened. How'd you fix that?

[Helena Tylena]

-TC1989- wrote...

meteorswarm wrote...

Trust me,this thing is very fun in a adventure/RPGs game.

The whole aspect of killing civilians in games is interesting given the right situation, or atmosphere. Nothing about how Dragon Age plays leads me to think this would go over well, or how it would make any real sense to begin with.

Besides, it gets boring really quickly anyway. I remember hearing some people saying that they buy GTA titles simply to do this, and I could not imagine playing GTA V simply to go on an endless killing spree. The game offers so much more, that doing something like that is rather pointless at this point.

If I had GTA X, just to kill people, why would I want to spend money on GTA X+1 to do the same?

[Schneidend]

Helena Tylena wrote...

Okay, different example. What if I wanted to kill Bartrand as soon as we got in the Deep Roads because I didn't want to share the loot with him and/or didn't trust him. Meredith wouldn't get her hands on the idol, wouldn't go bat****, and the entirety of Act 3 wouldn't have happened. How'd you fix that?

Make the Idol a really valuable vendor trash item.

[Giant ambush beetle]

-TC1989- wrote...

meteorswarm wrote...

Trust me,this thing is very fun in a adventure/RPGs game.

The whole aspect of killing civilians in games is interesting given the right situation, or atmosphere. Nothing about how Dragon Age plays leads me to think this would go over well, or how it would make any real sense to begin with.

Besides, it gets boring really quickly anyway. I remember hearing some people saying that they buy GTA titles simply to do this, and I could not imagine playing GTA V simply to go on an endless killing spree. The game offers so much more, that doing something like that is rather pointless at this point.

In RPGs like Baldur's Gate and BG2 authorities would react to your crimes and send executioner squads and bounty hunters to stop you. Playing a criminal or murderous character was a lot of fun that way.

[Melca36]

meteorswarm wrote...

In GTA5,My most favorite thing is attack and kill NPCs free.

Inquisition is not your type of game then

[Helena Tylena]

Schneidend wrote...

Helena Tylena wrote...

Okay, different example. What if I wanted to kill Bartrand as soon as we got in the Deep Roads because I didn't want to share the loot with him and/or didn't trust him. Meredith wouldn't get her hands on the idol, wouldn't go bat****, and the entirety of Act 3 wouldn't have happened. How'd you fix that?

Make the Idol a really valuable vendor trash item.

So no matter what you do, the outcome is still the same? How is that 'choice with consequences'?

[Melca36]

meteorswarm wrote...

Trust me,this thing is very fun in a adventure/RPGs game.

No its not and I truly hope they dont cater to people like you

[-TC1989-]

Helena Tylena wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

meteorswarm wrote...

Trust me,this thing is very fun in a adventure/RPGs game.

The whole aspect of killing civilians in games is interesting given the right situation, or atmosphere. Nothing about how Dragon Age plays leads me to think this would go over well, or how it would make any real sense to begin with.

Besides, it gets boring really quickly anyway. I remember hearing some people saying that they buy GTA titles simply to do this, and I could not imagine playing GTA V simply to go on an endless killing spree. The game offers so much more, that doing something like that is rather pointless at this point.

If I had GTA X, just to kill people, why would I want to spend money on GTA X+1 to do the same?

Dont you know? Better graphics!

Modifié par -TC1989-, 06 novembre 2013 - 10:19 .

[-TC1989-]

The Woldan wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

meteorswarm wrote...

Trust me,this thing is very fun in a adventure/RPGs game.

The whole aspect of killing civilians in games is interesting given the right situation, or atmosphere. Nothing about how Dragon Age plays leads me to think this would go over well, or how it would make any real sense to begin with.

Besides, it gets boring really quickly anyway. I remember hearing some people saying that they buy GTA titles simply to do this, and I could not imagine playing GTA V simply to go on an endless killing spree. The game offers so much more, that doing something like that is rather pointless at this point.

In RPGs like Baldur's Gate and BG2 authorities would react to your crimes and send executioner squads and bounty hunters to stop you. Playing a criminal or murderous character was a lot of fun that way.

Like I said... if it's done in a way that makes sense then cool. I don't see that whole thing being relevant in Dragon Age, but it would make killing npc's more interesting. If they were to actually go into that, and make it a real choice/consequence thing, then we can talk.

[Helena Tylena]

-TC1989- wrote...

The Woldan wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

meteorswarm wrote...

Trust me,this thing is very fun in a adventure/RPGs game.

The whole aspect of killing civilians in games is interesting given the right situation, or atmosphere. Nothing about how Dragon Age plays leads me to think this would go over well, or how it would make any real sense to begin with.

Besides, it gets boring really quickly anyway. I remember hearing some people saying that they buy GTA titles simply to do this, and I could not imagine playing GTA V simply to go on an endless killing spree. The game offers so much more, that doing something like that is rather pointless at this point.

In RPGs like Baldur's Gate and BG2 authorities would react to your crimes and send executioner squads and bounty hunters to stop you. Playing a criminal or murderous character was a lot of fun that way.

Like I said... if it's done in a way that makes sense then cool. I don't see that whole thing being relevant in Dragon Age, but it would make killing npc's more interesting. If they were to actually go into that, and make it a real choice/consequence thing, then we can talk.

I'd much rather they flawlessly polish all of the existing choices and consequences over the span of several games before they introduce even more variables to this mix.
People who can die already have trouble staying dead if them being alive is important to the story as is...

[-TC1989-]

Helena Tylena wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

The Woldan wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

meteorswarm wrote...

Trust me,this thing is very fun in a adventure/RPGs game.

The whole aspect of killing civilians in games is interesting given the right situation, or atmosphere. Nothing about how Dragon Age plays leads me to think this would go over well, or how it would make any real sense to begin with.

Besides, it gets boring really quickly anyway. I remember hearing some people saying that they buy GTA titles simply to do this, and I could not imagine playing GTA V simply to go on an endless killing spree. The game offers so much more, that doing something like that is rather pointless at this point.

In RPGs like Baldur's Gate and BG2 authorities would react to your crimes and send executioner squads and bounty hunters to stop you. Playing a criminal or murderous character was a lot of fun that way.

Like I said... if it's done in a way that makes sense then cool. I don't see that whole thing being relevant in Dragon Age, but it would make killing npc's more interesting. If they were to actually go into that, and make it a real choice/consequence thing, then we can talk.

I'd much rather they flawlessly polish all of the existing choices and consequences over the span of several games before they introduce even more variables to this mix.
People who can die already have trouble staying dead if them being alive is important to the story as is...

Oh well of course. Bioware has enough trouble already with fully fleshing out the "choice/consequence" for the main story's sake. I would be pretty upset if they started expanding that idea before fully getting the main story under control first.

[DeinonSlayer]

Helena Tylena wrote...

If you want to play games where you can be a mindless psychopathic mass-murderer and kill anyone you see, stick to GTA or play The Elder Scrolls. I very much hope Dragon Age will never cater to this particular urge.

^

[Neon Rising Winter]

I don't see the appeal of the GTA style rampage of mass murder in this kind of game. Don't get me wrong, give me game with a combat model that supports inventive death and destruction, a supply of witless, unimportant, respawning NPCs - and preferably a flamethrower - and I'm a happy woman. How can a strongly story oriented RPG compete with that, and what would the point be?

[Si-Shen]

The problem I see, they want GTA-style rampage options... you have it if you have GTA, not every game HAS to have that feature and frankly no matter what some people claim, that style does not always fit every style of game.

It actually makes no sense and has no benefit in a DA game, so why add it? why waste programmers time adding in something that does not benefit the game or the play through?
They have said it before on the forums, code = $$ and time is limited, you put your $$ to its best use, a mindless butcher feature is not its best use.

[Angrywolves]

Consequences.
DAI has consequences .
Silly players like the OP won't last long in DAI.
I expect them to condemm the game as soon as they run headlong into the consequences.