197 réponses à ce sujet

[fchopin]

You could kill NPC's in Risen and you had to be careful how you played the game but i don't see why it would not be possible to do the same in DAI.

It doesn't have to be every NPC just the ones that don't break the plot.

[TMZuk]

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 it worked just fine in the Baldur's Gate series. In fact, it's probably one reason why I consider these far superiour to the DA games. I find the mechanism in the DA games where your character only reacts to the agression of others silly and contrived. In an RPG I expect to be able to instigate combat.

In FO:NV, first time I had a character deciding to kill Mr. House, I was waiting for a script. A prompt to give the signal that now was the time. Either in the dialogue or some other way. I was slightly dumbfounded when it didn't come  and then realized... oh! Pulled out a gun and shot him in the head! You know what that felt like? Murder. As it should, because it was!

That's the kind of stuff I expect from an RPG.

[Hazegurl]

LOLandStuff wrote...

In GTAV, you also one hit kill people. I didn't find that fun. I wanted a mob to follow and try beating me.

I loved that about the older GTA games you beat the crap out of people and they get up and come after you. lol! it would cool if you could do that and lose the support of the citizens in the area. Then a mob could show up at your door like in Awakening.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

That limits the PC's actions to those things the writers anticipated.  That's exactly the sort of thing you don't like in dialogue.

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.

My unwillingness to view groups as groups insulates me, somewhat, from the findings of psychology.

[Shark17676]

0/10

[TurretSyndrome]

Freedom to kill NPCs is fun. No seriously, it is. But it is also "pointless fun". Nothing comes out of it whatsoever.

In games like Skyrim, Risen and Kingdoms of Amalur, you could attack every person on the map, but not all die. The ones needed for quests are always invincible(in a sense). So if this is implemented in such a way that you could kill off each and every person, the game will break, no quests, no method of progression. This is why this method is never used in games(at least in the games that I know of).

It all comes down to whether or not it is worth it. In my honest opinion, it really isn't, especially if it's something the developers actually need to put some effort into. We must also keep in mind that Dragon Age games tend to have modes. Combat and exploration, so you can't really swing your sword around like in Skyrim when out of combat. So we all can forget about it, if that's how it's going to be in Inquisition.

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 07 novembre 2013 - 03:58 .

[AlanC9]

TMZuk wrote...

I think it worked just fine in the Baldur's Gate series. In fact, it's probably one reason why I consider these far superiour to the DA games. I find the mechanism in the DA games where your character only reacts to the agression of others silly and contrived. In an RPG I expect to be able to instigate combat.

If you think the Baldur's Gate approach worked, I think we have substantially different definitions of what counts as working just fine. You were OK with donating some gold at a temple and everything being fine?

(As often happens, my position here is indistinguishable from In Exile's)

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

If you think the Baldur's Gate approach worked, I think we have substantially different definitions of what counts as working just fine. You were OK with donating some gold at a temple and everything being fine?

If killing the innocent was accidental, that makes some sense.

We shouldn't throw out the system - merely refine it.

[Am1vf]

I don't want to be able the attack anyone at will in DAI. A sort of "friendly fire" for civilians could add to the game but it needs to be very well done both in consequences and mechanics, for example:

Crazy Eyed One wrote...

meteorswarm wrote...

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

No it isn't really, I was playing Baldur's Gate when a group of guys started attacking my group so I decided to throw a fireball to kill off their summons. The only thing is was that I was in a crowded area and I once again misjudged the AOE of the fireball and incinerated a few civilians (seriously who walks into a middle of a fight?) and now I made some friends whose favourite line is "I serve the Flaming Fist!"

So for me no it isn't fun especially if they get in my way in combat and make my job that more difficult later on because I killed little Timmy who was the son of Lord whats-is-face and he unleashes armies of very strong mercenaries to kill me WHEN I was playing the not-so-much-of-a-douche character.

The AI should be smart enough to run away from fights, specially if there are mages involved. Of course the player should also be careful with AOE spells if doesn't want to give the templars more reason to hunt them.

This is obviously very hard to do right and it might not be worth the effort, but that could be said about a lot of things in game deveopment. It's a do it right or don't do it at all kind of situation.

Oh, and if of a game is said you can kill anyonone it has to be anyone, no exceptions or plot armor or it's simply a lie. If it breaks the game then the game wasn't done right.

[Schneidend]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

Freedom to kill NPCs is fun. No seriously, it is. But it is also "pointless fun". Nothing comes out of it whatsoever.

In games like Skyrim, Risen and Kingdoms of Amalur, you could attack every person on the map, but not all die. The ones needed for quests are always invincible(in a sense). So if this is implemented in such a way that you could kill off each and every person, the game will break, no quests, no method of progression. This is why this method is never used in games(at least in the games that I know of).

It all comes down to whether or not it is worth it. In my honest opinion, it really isn't, especially if it's something the developers actually need to put some effort into. We must also keep in mind that Dragon Age games tend to have modes. Combat and exploration, so you can't really swing your sword around like in Skyrim when out of combat. So we all can forget about it, if that's how it's going to be in Inquisition.

Most questgivers in Skyrim can be killed without even closing off the quest. They will be replaced by a relative or apprentice in that instance. It's just that Jarls and their aides that are usually invincible, with the occasional secret agent innkeeper being the exception.

Further, some of us just want looser targeting restrictions in general, like the ability to hit a commoner with Goad,  using the Force Field + Crushing Prison combo from DA:O on a party member, or casting Aganazzar's Scorcher on a fire-resistant party member in Baldur's Gate so I can run them around clotheslining people with fire. I also want to be able to put NPCs who think they're hot **** in their place, but the writing does not always let me do that.

Dismissing this option as mindless or "pointless" fun is not a refutation.

[Icy Magebane]

Schneidend wrote...

Most questgivers in Skyrim can be killed without even closing off the quest. They will be replaced by a relative or apprentice in that instance. It's just that Jarls and their aides that are usually invincible, with the occasional secret agent innkeeper being the exception.

I'm sorry, but this is completely false.  Quest givers are almost uniformly "essential," and this status is also given to supposedly major NPCs who actually don't give quests and whose presence won't be missed (like Rolf Stone-Fist).  Everyone in the College of Winterhold is essential, the Vigilant of Stendar in Markarth is essential, Eltrys in Markarth is essential, the Thieves Guild is essential, the Dark Brotherhood is essential unless you follow a very specific path before joining, etc, etc, etc...   Hell, even the leaders of Imperial and Stormcloak camps are essential, after you complete the Civil War!  Are you playing Skyrim with mods?

Some of the arguments in favor of random killing have changed my mind a bit... but I still think there should be realistic penalties, such as permanently making guards and military hostile if you take it too far, locking you out of quests, and having bounty hunters and elite soldiers hunting you at all times.  Also, people like Cassandra and Varric should at least attempt to kill or imprison the Inquisitor if they engage in such crimes.  Or you can surrender and die in prison, because there's no way you'd be getting out or paying a fine after killing everyone in a village.  Irrational implementation is what makes this such an absurd idea.  A lot of people want freedom, but don't want to deal with realistic consequences of psychopathic behavior.

Modifié par Icy Magebane, 07 novembre 2013 - 07:59 .

[Nohvarr]

See I have no problem with a game mode where you have to be conscious of your surroundings during a fight. Calling down fire or shaking the earth could wreck the town/people you're trying to save so taking that into account is fine by me. Yet Randomly killing people because I can....I understand people's point but it just doesn't feel like a good use of time and resources to me.

[Pasquale1234]

This strikes me as one of those things that could quickly become a case of "be careful what you ask for..."

My biggest concern is that it could make combat much more tedious than it has been, at least for those of us who are not generally interested in micro-managing the entire party.  It would be very easy to inadvertently catch some bystander in an AOE or 2H sword sweep.  If this were to be implemented, I would hope that a lot more care would be taken in designing non-combatants to make some effort to flee the area when a fight breaks out.

I might also want to have 2 different sets of combat tactics: one for battles in populated areas and another for battles where only combatants are in the immediate area.  Trying to keep every member of the party from killing civilians during a fast-paced action combat scenario is not my idea of a good time...

[Usergnome]

This isn't GTA V. Or Elder Scrolls. I don't want quest chains to be broken because an NPC randomly died, and I don't want to slaughter a village for no reason and still have people believe in me and follow my inquisition. STUPID. STUPID IDEA. BAD DOG

[-TC1989-]

Am1_vf wrote...

I don't want to be able the attack anyone at will in DAI. A sort of "friendly fire" for civilians could add to the game but it needs to be very well done both in consequences and mechanics

Assuming you're talking about NPC's accidentally getting in the middle of the battle... I think this would be interesting. It kind of gets away from the topic, but it's also a way to kind of make the world feel more included. Now in essence I see this being a pretty cool way to bring a choice/consequence thing a new twist; but the negative being that if it does draw that kind of attention from say... the guards? I fully understand that being reckless, and endangering (possibly ending) innocent lives could draw attention from the local authority, but I could see it also being annoying having the pay the price of say lacking AI? All speculation, but the fear would be there...

Quite frankly I'll repeat what I said earlier, that before Bioware starts including these kinds of things, they need to sort out the real important things in the game. The last thing I want is to have the half assed "your choices count" scenario again so they can squeeze in more content, at the cost of sacrificing the main plot line or something.

[TMZuk]

AlanC9 wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

I think it worked just fine in the Baldur's Gate series. In fact, it's probably one reason why I consider these far superiour to the DA games. I find the mechanism in the DA games where your character only reacts to the agression of others silly and contrived. In an RPG I expect to be able to instigate combat.

If you think the Baldur's Gate approach worked, I think we have substantially different definitions of what counts as working just fine. You were OK with donating some gold at a temple and everything being fine?

(As often happens, my position here is indistinguishable from In Exile's)

It worked better than DA to be sure. First of all, if combat happens in a crowded area, don't use AOE! Secondly, the AI should have most NPCs flee. Thirdly, a lot has happened since the days of BG, making it possible to implement cause and consequence much better. But if you like the kind of handholding you see in the DA games, then I agree that we will just have to disagree.

[Realmzmaster]

I have no problem with NPCs being killable as long as there are harsh penalties for doing so. If you kill a merchant NPC in a city no other merchant in that city will talk or trade with you. The city guard will hound your party's every step. The city officials will not deal with the party (no quests) until the guilty party is brought to justice or a sacrificial lamb is offered. It has to be a party member who was in the party at the time of the killing. Choices must have consequences.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

meteorswarm wrote...

Bioware,I want to attack and kill NPCs free in DAI.

I'm in favour of this with the following conditions:

1. If you kill a plot-critical NPC you're screwed.
2. NPCs react when other NPCs get wantonly killed.
3. "GUARDS!"

[Schneidend]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I'm in favour of this with the following conditions:

1. If you kill a plot-critical NPC you're screwed.
2. NPCs react when other NPCs get wantonly killed.
3. "GUARDS!"

I don't think anybody suggested otherwise.

[Zatche]

The only consequence I would find adequate to killing a bunch of innocent NPCs in broad daylight is your companions turning to each other and saying, "Hey, this person is a lunatic. Not mentally fit to lead the inquisition." And then they kill you.

I normally allow a good amount of gameplay story separation, but I wouldn't be able to take the story seriously here. If Varric second guesses me for pragmatically and passively letting people die (see the demo), then turns a blind eye when I murder people for no reason (or worse: would I be able to order him to carry it out?), that would be quite jarring.

[TurretSyndrome]

Schneidend wrote...

Dismissing this option as mindless or "pointless" fun is not a refutation.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm calling it as I see it. Unless the developers actually take time to include consequences with more depth than what Skyrim has when you kill an NPC, it will remain pointless.

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 08 novembre 2013 - 04:14 .

[Schneidend]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

I'm not dismissing it, I'm calling it as I see it. Unless the developers actually take time to include consequences with more depth than what Skyrim has when you kill an NPC, it will remain pointless.

Killing NPCs in Skyrim turns everybody hostile and causes non-combatants to freak out and flee. What else are you expecting to happen, exactly?

[TurretSyndrome]

Schneidend wrote...
Killing NPCs in Skyrim turns everybody hostile and causes non-combatants to freak out and flee. What else are you expecting to happen, exactly?

Nothing, which is my point.

[Red Panda]

Schneidend wrote...

TurretSyndrome wrote...

I'm not dismissing it, I'm calling it as I see it. Unless the developers actually take time to include consequences with more depth than what Skyrim has when you kill an NPC, it will remain pointless.

Killing NPCs in Skyrim turns everybody hostile and causes non-combatants to freak out and flee. What else are you expecting to happen, exactly?

It also sends out bounty hunters to collect on you.

Oh how fun!