197 réponses à ce sujet

[Schneidend]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

Nothing, which is my point.

I ask you to elaborate on what you think would be a good consequence, and you reply with "nothing"? You have a unique argumentative style, I'll give you that.

OperatingWookie wrote...

It also sends out bounty hunters to collect on you.

Oh how fun!

Also a consequence of robbing people. Good times.

[TurretSyndrome]

Schneidend wrote...

I ask you to elaborate on what you think would be a good consequence, and you reply with "nothing"? You have a unique argumentative style, I'll give you that.

You ought to look at what you've written. You asked me what else I was expecting beyond what currently happens in Skyrim, to which I replied "nothing". It is because nothing else beyond paying a fine and accepting punishment ever happens, I call it pointless fun.

As long as the system in Dragon Age: Inquisition is made to be as simple as in Skyrim, it will remain pointless. You will have no real consequence to all the killings you made , as quest givers never die, and everything you've done will be forgiven as long as you pay the gold. 

A real consequence would be, say, changes in the plot if the person killed is essential for a quest. Let's say there are various ways to go about doing a quest in Inquisition. If you killed an NPC who acts as one of those pathways to finish the quest, you will have to find another way to finish it, which might be a lot less rewarding. This could happen anywhere between side quests to main quests. While I'm not against such a system to be implemented in the game, I see the effort required to implement it as unnecessary.

This is why game developers go for the simpler method of allowing players to kill NPCs, which is "kill and pay fine". I'm not against this either, as long as the developers don't need to go out of their way to do it, which in this case, I feel it is so, as Dragon Age games tend to have a combat mode and an exploration mode.

[snackrat]

Instead of GTA, how about we take a page from Saints Row instead - let us insult/compliment. That way we don't have to choose being stoicly ignoring someone, and murdering the crap out of them.

[Schneidend]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

You ought to look at what you've written. You asked me what else I was expecting beyond what currently happens in Skyrim, to which I replied "nothing". It is because nothing else beyond paying a fine and accepting punishment ever happens, I call it pointless fun.

I recall exactly what I wrote. I related what happens in Skyrim, and then asked what more you expected to happen. As in, what else would you want to happen?

As long as the system in Dragon Age: Inquisition is made to be as simple as in Skyrim, it will remain pointless. You will have no real consequence to all the killings you made , as quest givers never die, and everything you've done will be forgiven as long as you pay the gold. 

A real consequence would be, say, changes in the plot if the person killed is essential for a quest. Let's say there are various ways to go about doing a quest in Inquisition. If you killed an NPC who acts as one of those pathways to finish the quest, you will have to find another way to finish it, which might be a lot less rewarding. This could happen anywhere between side quests to main quests. While I'm not against such a system to be implemented in the game, I see the effort required to implement it as unnecessary.

This is why game developers go for the simpler method of allowing players to kill NPCs, which is "kill and pay fine". I'm not against this either, as long as the developers don't need to go out of their way to do it, which in this case, I feel it is so, as Dragon Age games tend to have a combat mode and an exploration mode.

I don't believe I ever suggested that I did not want that sort of thing to happen. I want to be able to target NPCs and party members alike, and I want any consequences that come with it.

[KC_Prototype]

THIS ISN'T SKYRIM!

[Sylvius the Mad]

KC_Prototype wrote...

THIS ISN'T SKYRIM!

Skyrim granted arguably less freedom to do this than Baldur's Gate did.

[-TC1989-]

Karsciyin wrote...

Instead of GTA, how about we take a page from Saints Row instead - let us insult/compliment. That way we don't have to choose being stoicly ignoring someone, and murdering the crap out of them.

I think something like that would be fun. People you walk by making a comment at you, and then you reply negatively or positively? I think that could fit in nicely. I don't know how much sense it would make to go one on one with a pedestrian with say your character mage? But another fighter or something? Sure.

[Sylvius the Mad]

-TC1989- wrote...

I don't know how much sense it would make to go one on one with a pedestrian with say your character mage?

How much sense it makes depends on the character you are playing.

[-TC1989-]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

I don't know how much sense it would make to go one on one with a pedestrian with say your character mage?

How much sense it makes depends on the character you are playing.

I meant from the NPC's perspective. But if you wanted to fight them anyway, then I guess it wouldn't matter.

[rapscallioness]

Karsciyin wrote...

Instead of GTA, how about we take a page from Saints Row instead - let us insult/compliment. That way we don't have to choose being stoicly ignoring someone, and murdering the crap out of them.

or maybe we could just slap the shyte outta them? a good pimp hand goes a long way...

[ImperatorMortis]

 GTA is overrated trash. 

Come at me. 

[Hazegurl]

I wouldn't mind getting into a good bar fight. Pick a fight or someone picks one with you and it erupts into a big brawl.

As for consequences. In Dragon's Dogma, you get sent to the dungeons for attacking people and you either sneak out or bribe the jailor.

[Schneidend]

ImperatorMortis wrote...

 GTA is overrated trash. 

Come at me. 

Your opinion of GTA isn't even kinda relevant.

[Paul E Dangerously]

This is kind of something a lot of older RPGs used to let you do, but in the modern age they prize narrative agency over player agency. Being able to off Lord British in the Ultima series was always amusing, even if it made the game unwinnable. Origin was pretty awesome about that, though.

Anyone saying "Go back to the Elder Scrolls" probably hasn't been paying attention, since they haven't let you go wild since Oblivion. Half of every Bethesda game is immortal these days, and most notably the "since you can't kill them let's make them as ungodly annoying and have them belittle the player as much as humanly possible" half. Little Lamplight in Fallout 3, Maven Black Briar in Skyrim, etc.

I always liked Morrowind's "You broke the threads of prophecy" popup that let you know when you offed a character that was essential to the plot, but let you continue anyway. Something like that is the best balance.

[In Exile]

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.

I'm not sure how I can address your point when you don't offer a reason for why you think it worked just fine. All I can say is that it's such a mockery of basic human reactions to this sort of thing that, again, I think it destroys any versimiltude the setting pretends to have. 

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!

I'm not sure where this is going. I don't disagree with you that a game that could properly handle sponatenous moments like this would be great, but the issue is "properly handle". 

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.

Having NPCs behave realistically in combat in crowded areas would be a good feature. I would say it'd be justified to create a "running" mechanic for this. The problem is the abuse of the feature, and the versimultide of the world. 

I don't disagree with you on either of points (i) or (ii). I disagree with you on points (iii). There's no way to portray a functional society where an a pack of marauders can basically murder people with impunity in every single part of town. 

Again, what do you think would happen if gang-warfare - with grenades, rocket launchers, and automatic weapons - would suddenly start spoantenously in the middle of crowded population centres? What would our society look like? How would we react? It'd be a militaristic police state in the long run, and in the short run, the area would be crowded with everything from SWAT teams to the proper army. 

And the defence of "I didn't kill any civilians" and "the people who I killed attacked me first" would in no way prevent you from being arrested, tried and jailed. 

Modifié par In Exile, 10 novembre 2013 - 05:17 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.

I don't like that anywhere. But this isn't a choice between freedom and limit, with freedom being objectively better. This is a balancing sitatuation. The cost of that freedom is so damaging for the setting that it can't be included. 

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

No, it doesn't. Any more than an unwillingness to view food as edible would insulate you from starvation. Being wrong isn't an immunity to science. 

[In Exile]

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

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

It makes no sense. Even if we accepted that accidental killing should be compensated by money - which our legal system does, depending on whether the accident was actually your own fault via negligent conduct - we have a complicated justice system that reaches this determination.

Criminal trials, detention in the interim, etc. for months to establish that the killing was an accident. Month long civil trials to determine if the accident was negligent. Appeals. It takes years in real-life to sort out these things. We have systems in place - on the criminal side - to prevent people from leaving when these crimes are being investigated. 

But in an RPG nothing like this happens. There's no functional justice system, and even when the game pretends there is, the player is above it anyway for absolutely no explained reason. 

[durasteel]

Back in the old D&D days when playing an rpg meant getting together with a group of friends, a handful of dice, several pizzas, and way, way, way too much beer, if the players went nuts and killed one of the story npcs it was no big deal--the DM could just rewrite the story on the fly and the narrative progressed unbroken.

This is a lot different.

BioWare games have generally had decent enough combat, I suppose, but that's really not why they're popular. I'm definitely a BioWare fan from way way back, but I would never pick one of their titles as a contender for the best virtual fighting system. These games are about the story and the characters, and while they go to some effort to provide player agency and choices, at its core a modern BioWare game lets you participate in the telling of BioWare's story. This is a good thing. This is entertainment.

There are other types of games, and other types of RPGs, but most of us are here because we like this type of game, the modern BioWare style of participatory narrative. I don't want a sandbox, or an open world, or some kind of life simulator. I want an entertaining story with compelling characters, in a richly detailed virtual world. The ability to go around randomly screwing that world up doesn't add a damn thing, from my perspective.

[Metalspoon60]

Instead of being able to directly strike npcs. Maybe our strategic actions as an inquisitor might have civilian death tolls that are evident in game. Like you send inquisition agents on a mission to subdue a rebellious town, turns out things go array lots of civilians die and the people there hate you.

[Sir JK]

My real problem with the freedom to kill (virtually) anyone in a game is that very rarely can this be turned into something interesting. I mean, the freedom is is all well and good. But games, by and large, have thus far been incapable of depicting both the reactions of society and individuals to violence in their direct or social presence and worse yet, particularily in the case of rpgs, actually provide a credible threat as the consequence of the actions themselves.

Many stealth games that include combat handle the latter issue better (if not good) as part of the punishment for failing to be stealthy. Often being detected and having the alarm blaze off is actually a threat to you, at least in the beginning. This means that while you may try to kill anyone in your path, the threat this poses to you provides you with an incentive not to.
RPGs, however, tend to be more along the path of power fantasies. Tending to go along the line of "if I can fight it, I can defeat it". This means that a body guard unit or a city watch detachment seldom works well as the deterrents and protection they're supposed to be unless they're frequently presented as virtually undefeatable... at which point one starts to wonder why they're sending you to kill the dragon and not one of those immortal bodyguards. The obvious solution would be to make a game where -any- combat is a credible threat, but that's quite a different beast from what most of us are used to. Furthermore, it would go against the very idea of the freedom that killing any npc is supposed to provide.

The first hurdle is much more difficult to overcome however. That is modelling a verisimilar reaction to your actions. Both in terms of individuals present in the game and society as a whole. And also both during the action and after it as well.
For the most part, whatever cities and villages shown in the game are not functioning societies. Not even Skyrim or Oblivion are anything more than elaborate set pieces. NPCs serve a very limited role, usually as a background element, and cannot react to anything outside pre-set parameters. They don't pull back when they see your weapons. They quickly forget the death that happened just there a mere hour ago (sometimes even just walking past the body). They don't start patrolling and shutting off parts of the city. They don't close their shops. They don't flee. They don't grieve. They don't form lynch mobs to hunt down whomever did it. Maybe some guards spawn to attack you,. But neither shopkeepers, guards or background npc learn how to handle it.

And this is what I feel is the biggest problem in allowing it. It's freedom sure. But it's so utterly detached from the world that, to me, it's more likely to shatter my immersion than to reinforce it. The price of allowing me to kill anyone is pointing out that neither the one in front of me, nor anyone surrounding me, is actually a person.

Then of course we have all the narrative hurdles that means I, as the developer, have to start coming up with methods to protect plot critical npc. By arbitrary limits, or by handicapping my storytelling.

Modifié par Sir JK, 10 novembre 2013 - 05:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

No, it doesn't. Any more than an unwillingness to view food as edible would insulate you from starvation.
Being wrong isn't an immunity to science.

The very concept of groups is itself unscientific, as it add an unjustified level of complexity.

In Exile wrote...

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

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

It makes no sense. Even if we accepted that accidental killing should be compensated by money - which our legal system does, depending on whether the accident was actually your own fault via negligent conduct - we have a complicated justice system that reaches this determination.

Criminal trials, detention in the interim, etc. for months to establish that the killing was an accident. Month long civil trials to determine if the accident was negligent. Appeals. It takes years in real-life to sort out these things. We have systems in place - on the criminal side - to prevent people from leaving when these crimes are being investigated. 

But in an RPG nothing like this happens.

1.  Abstraction.

2. We should look at ways to fix the system, not discard it.  Otherwise, we're dealing with a reactivity problem by eliminating possible character actions.

Is it better to eliminate the possibility of certain character designs, or is it better to risk some players finding the game world incongruous?

There's no functional justice system, and even when the game pretends
there is, the player is above it anyway for absolutely no explained
reason

Why do you insist on using the words "player" and "character" interchangeably?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 novembre 2013 - 12:13 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The very concept of groups is itself unscientific, as it add an unjustified level of complexity.

That's plainly false. A "group" is a method of simplification - it's basically just abstraction. 

In Exile wrote...
s1.  Abstraction.

That only works when the phenomenon you're abstracting from isn't 'staring you in the face' so to speak. I can abstract body language in a 2D game when the game engine clearly can't render it and isn't trying, but not in a 3D game when the engine actively tries to render it. In the same way, I can "abstract" an environment in a book when the writer is only trying to describe it in broad strokes, but not in a movie when it is actively displayed on screen. 

2. We should look at ways to fix the system, not discard it.  Otherwise, we're dealing with a reactivity problem by eliminating possible character actions.

That's how every game deals with reactivity. There is no possible way to deal with reactivity in a video-game besides circumscribed the possible inputs and outputs, unless you design what amounts to a live simulation of an entire universe. 

Is it better to eliminate the possibility of certain character designs, or is it better to risk some players finding the game world incongruous?

It's better to absolutely eliminate the possibility of almost all character designs and have a few rendered convincingly. Every RPG necessarily does this - even a tabletop game - in virtue of the basic circumstances, setting and rules it adopts. 
 

Why do you insist on using the words "player" and "character" interchangeably?

Because insofar as perception is concerned, they're interchangeable. 

[The Xand]

meteorswarm wrote...

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

What a disturbing wee bairn.

It does make being the baddie more fun if you can kill anyone. In Neverwinter Nights I once broke into some family's home, butchered a kid's parents then blackmailed him into giving me money.

[Magehand2278]

sure why not, if you want to be an angel you are allowed going around helping every tom dick and harry and are rewarded for it, if you are opportunistic you do quest that best suits your needs and get the benefits, but if you choose or want to be evil, its's like no.... not this game, this thread makes me question was there ever a bad guy main character in any DA, i think i found my new topic

[Face of Evil]

Good points, Sir JK.