197 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

I'm okay with the player character being able to kill any random person, so long as acts of cold-blooded murder also end with the player character swarmed by armed guards, clamped in irons, and condemned to this fate:

[Eragon-]

Then why not play GTA ? Why do want DA to be GTA ?

[The Xand]

Couldn't we just do what bankers do and throw money at the problem until it goes away?

[HiroVoid]

Han Shot First wrote...

I'm okay with the player character being able to kill any random person, so long as acts of cold-blooded murder also end with the player character swarmed by armed guards, clamped in irons, and condemned to this fate:

You know what game DID have this?  Witcher 2!

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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

I couldn't disagree more strongly (and I'm responding only to this remark because it is, by far, the most important aspect of what you said).

The player's perception, when roleplaying, is irrelevant.  The act of inhabiting the character, at least when I do it, involves something akin to what Sufi mystics would call Dissolution of the Self.  Someone here once described my approach as "the wilful induction of psychosis."

Roleplaying is nothing more than perceiving events from someone else's perspective.  The player's perspective (including his awareness that he even exists, let alone is playing a game) does not matter.

[The Xand]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

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

I couldn't disagree more strongly (and I'm responding only to this remark because it is, by far, the most important aspect of what you said).

The player's perception, when roleplaying, is irrelevant.  The act of inhabiting the character, at least when I do it, involves something akin to what Sufi mystics would call Dissolution of the Self.  Someone here once described my approach as "the wilful induction of psychosis."

Roleplaying is nothing more than perceiving events from someone else's perspective.  The player's perspective (including his awareness that he even exists, let alone is playing a game) does not matter.

Did you actually just make a reference to Sufi mystics.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Is there a reason I shouldn't?

[Tommy6860]

Ok, you're seriously generalizing what your preference would be in DAI would be and I have to disagree. Even after reading some of your replies I'd still say no. Now if doing this had consequences in the game making a result in performing such acts, then maybe. For those who compared this thinking to Oblivion or Skyrim, your reasoning doesn't follow and makes it seems you haven't played those games. If one did that in those games, they had consequences. You just couldn't randomly kill people free without having to pay for the crime or the deed.

Personally, I like games where you are allowed to do as you please, but not without consequences.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 11 novembre 2013 - 07:53 .

[Plato]

OKay for "realism" i can get behind the idea. But in that case i would prefer there was a "toggle civilian damage" on/off. I liked that there was a possibility for civilians to get hit by stray arrows or spells in Tes games or stray bullets in Fallout.
However it was far too frustrating and irritating in tes if you would accidentally hit a chicken and suddenly have everything from dogs to sick old women beating at you, Skyrim in particular was guilty of this with dragons attacking towns and your only viable spell being an AE spell like fireball.

Modifié par Billiem, 11 novembre 2013 - 08:33 .

[Tommy6860]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

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

I couldn't disagree more strongly (and I'm responding only to this remark because it is, by far, the most important aspect of what you said).

The player's perception, when roleplaying, is irrelevant.  The act of inhabiting the character, at least when I do it, involves something akin to what Sufi mystics would call Dissolution of the Self.  Someone here once described my approach as "the wilful induction of psychosis."

Roleplaying is nothing more than perceiving events from someone else's perspective.  The player's perspective (including his awareness that he even exists, let alone is playing a game) does not matter.

That is not role playing in any sense of the term, IMO. Yes, games are made on the ideas and creativity of the RPG game-maker, but how one plays the game is within his/her perception, is a basic driver of what an RPG is. Think about it, from character creation to how one plays out the story with choices on stats, character development having effects on the storyline, to where one goes in the game. That certainly isn't anything I've expereinced. I've been playing RPGs since the mid 1970s and began PC role playing with the first Ultima in 1981. I can assure you that in the 50+ RPGs that I've played, that I've had my own experiences with those games and not just that of the developer.

 IIRC, you once claimed how much you liked DA2 because you could do any quest you pleased (which isn't true), although that was restricted to what one opened as a main quest in ventruing around. At least in Oblivion and Skyrim (where you can go anywhere you please) you hit random quests that you can do or ignore (aside from actually having to peform unscripted fighting, etc), something you once mentioned as important that doesn't exist in DA2. In DA2 you were restricted (as was DA:O) to fighting until the game script warranted it. As much as you praise BG (one of my fav RPGs of all time), this was an astounding claim to make regarding DA2.

As an aside, from a role playing experience, I have to say that DA:O (though limited on random features and free roaming) may be the best RPG expereince I have ever had; too bad EA/Bioware went on a different path.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 11 novembre 2013 - 10:58 .

[Ridwan]

If you want a game to play like GTA, then go play GTA.

[Tommy6860]

Billiem wrote...

OKay for "realism" i can get behind the idea. But in that case i would prefer there was a "toggle civilian damage" on/off. I liked that there was a possibility for civilians to get hit by stray arrows or spells in Tes games or stray bullets in Fallout. However it was far too frustrating and irritating in tes if you would accidentally hit a chicken and suddenly have everything from dogs to sick old women beating at you, Skyrim in particular was guilty of this with dragons attacking towns and your only viable spell being an AE spell like fireball.

I can agree with this somewhat, if only that were a toggled feature. I mean, even if one suspends disbelief in games, the fact that one can cast fireballs and expects them to only affect the intended target is asking too much. Fire should only affect those in the crowds you intend, though fire can burn anyone in the crowd?

Although it is frustrating, the fact that you exprience that would warrant the thinking that you not engage in crowded areas until you can actually take out what you please through gameplay experience. Would you expect to play a shooter in a civilain area where you spray and pray your shots and not have consequences?

[Plato]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Billiem wrote...

OKay for "realism" i can get behind the idea. But in that case i would prefer there was a "toggle civilian damage" on/off. I liked that there was a possibility for civilians to get hit by stray arrows or spells in Tes games or stray bullets in Fallout. However it was far too frustrating and irritating in tes if you would accidentally hit a chicken and suddenly have everything from dogs to sick old women beating at you, Skyrim in particular was guilty of this with dragons attacking towns and your only viable spell being an AE spell like fireball.

I can agree with this somewhat, if only that were a toggled feature. I mean, even if one suspends disbelief in games, the fact that one can cast fireballs and expects them to only affect the intended target is asking too much. Fire should only affect those in the crowds you intend, though fire can burn anyone in the crowd?

Although it is frustrating, the fact that you exprience that would warrant the thinking that you not engage in crowded areas until you can actually take out what you please through gameplay experience. Would you expect to play a shooter in a civilain area where you spray and pray your shots and not have consequences?

To be fair, the skyrim issue I mentioned actually had much more to do with poor AI.
In Skyrim when a dragon lands in a small village, you will see EVERYONE engaging in combat, be it the old frail woman, the bard, the smith or the guards. I would expect a more realistic response to a dragon landing in your backyard, like "Run away" rather than "Attack the dragon! Come on Grandma grab your cane and whack it".
The idea of being able to attack or harm anyone you wish is, like I said, something I would agree to if we could toggle it off and on. Realistically, were you to throw, say, a fireball in a crowded area, everyone SHOULD be hit. But for the sake of those who do not wish this to be true, making it a togglable option seems more fair, as those who want it would get what they wanted either way, but those who do not wish it would have it be forced upon them.

Modifié par Billiem, 11 novembre 2013 - 12:44 .

[TurretSyndrome]

Billiem wrote...
post

You should try out Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning. The friendly fire toggle in that was implemented well.

[Nerevar-as]

Try Morrowind, you can even break the main story by killing someone you shouldn´t have.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sainna wrote...

People like OP are the ones who ruin bioware RPGs

So Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale are what?

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.

Easily fixed with some better AI/scripting (civies run away from a fight) and paying more attention.

After all, if you did kill little Timmy, I don't think his parents would care much if it was an accident or not.
Of course, if there's no one to witness the crime, then no one would know.

*****

In the ends, it's not about playing a crazy murdering psychopath, but rather playing naturally and avoiding "character shields". Like how your Hawke can't do a damn thing or attack half the people that deserve a good stabbin'.

If you're worried about brekaing the plot - Biff the Understudy. It's both a fail-safe and a easter egg.
OR reload.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 11 novembre 2013 - 01:33 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

In Exile wrote...
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.

That is NOW.
In our MODERN society.

In ages past, trials and justice was much simpler. 
There would be no long trials..often no trials at all. Just the local sheriff or guard captain makign a swift judgment or you being dragged in front of the magister for a switf judgment.
Which sometimes in some cultures included monetary or material reparations - for murder. Or being made a slave.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...

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.

Why?
Not all humans are an equal threat. A unarmed man in a tunic and a trained guard to no present an equal threat.

As for what happens when you're commit a crime?

You can surrender:
- get fined (or bribe a guard)
- get thrown in jail (escape)
- get executed
- be given a dangerous task as pennance

You can refuse to surrender:
- by running away and avoiding combat
- by killing guards who come after you


killing guards would raise your infamy making the response to your presnece (once detected) much harsher. You would face more and stronger guards. Assasins, etc..

Any crime commited would only be registered IF
- there was a witness
- the witness actually reports it (you can convince/bluff/threaten/bribe not to)

EVEN THEN there is no auto-detect, so guards wouldnt' automaticly know who you are. You could wear disguises and even pass undetected without any. Because facail recognition was not a big thing back then and news travels fast.

In essence the more crimes you commit in an area and the longer you stay, the bigegr the chances that you will be recognized. The further you go away from the area, the less chance there is. Time is also a factor, so if your'e not in an area for long, the chances of detection drop.


So really, you can add a lot of depth to it if you think about it.

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.

Nothing that can't be fixed

[Sir JK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sir JK wrote...
...
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.

Why?
Not all humans are an equal threat. A unarmed man in a tunic and a trained guard to no present an equal threat.

As for what happens when you're commit a crime?

You can surrender:
- get fined (or bribe a guard)
- get thrown in jail (escape)
- get executed
- be given a dangerous task as pennance

You can refuse to surrender:
- by running away and avoiding combat
- by killing guards who come after you

killing guards would raise your infamy making the response to your presnece (once detected) much harsher. You would face more and stronger guards. Assasins, etc..

Any crime commited would only be registered IF
- there was a witness
- the witness actually reports it (you can convince/bluff/threaten/bribe not to)

EVEN THEN there is no auto-detect, so guards wouldnt' automaticly know who you are. You could wear disguises and even pass undetected without any. Because facail recognition was not a big thing back then and news travels fast.

In essence the more crimes you commit in an area and the longer you stay, the bigegr the chances that you will be recognized. The further you go away from the area, the less chance there is. Time is also a factor, so if your'e not in an area for long, the chances of detection drop.

So really, you can add a lot of depth to it if you think about it.

Yeah... this was sort of what I meant... and yet not. The part of my post you quoted discussed that very rarely can society in a game actually threaten you. Past a certain point in most rpgs and you become a virtually invinsible demigod. Then why should you care about laws, guards or bodyguards then? They're very unlikely to be much more than a speedbump anyways. And this is something virtually endemic to the entire genre.
So in a sense, the suggestions above still would not actually add the depth I require.

But to address the issue they do seem to attempt to solve, namely portraying something that could be seen as verisimilar response of society. Well... a guardspawn would still fall short. Don't get me wrong, the suggestions are decent enough. But they don't really capture how society would react.
For one... it usually comes down to guards trying to apprehend you in woefully insufficient ways. If they were clever they wouldn't try to talk to you after the second group killed. They'd ambush you by boarding up the house you're in and burn it to the ground. They'd either be clever (and fight really dirty and unfair tactics) or stop coming after you.

Secondly... it fails to encapsule how the Law would handle such a dangerous individual such as yourself. Both, as In Exile mentioned, by lacking the display of Law (ie a trial) and by accounting to what you actually did and the threat you pose if let go and the proper punishment for this. Remember, even in past times the Law was created for protection and regulation. In all times it has at least paid lip-service to this idea.
Moreover it usually fails to account for such things as closing off roads, setting up guardposts to search anyone passing the citygates (or for that matter, closing them), organising armed patrols on the streets, banning weapons and armour from being carried or even start collecting people in groups to protect them.

Thirdly... it still does not cover civilian reactions. As I mentioned, very rarely does npc civilians flee. Whereas in reality you can be assured they will. After a certain point they'll even start to close shops, pack up their stuff to leave or even just plain run out into the woods. Just because they don't know who the murderer is does not mean they do nothing.

That's the worst part really... communities do not ignore people being murdered. Yet for the most part, that's exactly what the communities reaction's boils down to in the examples I've seen. And that's the problem I have with it.

Nothing that can't be fixed

I am still waiting for that. I'd applaud whomever tried, but I am not holding my breath.

[Kalas Magnus]

id like that.

its why i like liked fo:nv. killed every faction just cuz

[Kalas Magnus]

Han Shot First wrote...

I'm okay with the player character being able to kill any random person, so long as acts of cold-blooded murder also end with the player character swarmed by armed guards, clamped in irons, and condemned to this fate:

bring them on!!!the protagonists are gods. cant nobody take them down.

Hawke and the warden took out dragons, templars, mages, abomination, demons, qunari, darkspawn, archdemon, etc.

[Icy Magebane]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Why?
Not all humans are an equal threat. A unarmed man in a tunic and a trained guard to no present an equal threat.

As for what happens when you're commit a crime?

You can surrender:
- get fined (or bribe a guard)
- get thrown in jail (escape)
- get executed
- be given a dangerous task as pennance

You can refuse to surrender:
- by running away and avoiding combat
- by killing guards who come after you


killing guards would raise your infamy making the response to your presnece (once detected) much harsher. You would face more and stronger guards. Assasins, etc..

Any crime commited would only be registered IF
- there was a witness
- the witness actually reports it (you can convince/bluff/threaten/bribe not to)

EVEN THEN there is no auto-detect, so guards wouldnt' automaticly know who you are. You could wear disguises and even pass undetected without any. Because facail recognition was not a big thing back then and news travels fast.

In essence the more crimes you commit in an area and the longer you stay, the bigegr the chances that you will be recognized. The further you go away from the area, the less chance there is. Time is also a factor, so if your'e not in an area for long, the chances of detection drop.


So really, you can add a lot of depth to it if you think about it.

The lack of this level of complexity is the reason why most systems that allow random killing seem so utterly realistic.  Unless developers are willing to implement consequences with this level of detail, killing non-hostile NPCs should not be allowed outside of dialogues or special quests.  Unfortunately, most people seem to think that paying a small fine or "going to jail" is a fair punishment for wiping out an entire town...  a lot of gamers don't seem to want realism, only freedom.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...
Yeah... this was sort of what I meant... and yet not. The part of my post you quoted discussed that very rarely can society in a game actually threaten you. Past a certain point in most rpgs and you become a virtually invinsible demigod. Then why should you care about laws, guards or bodyguards then? They're very unlikely to be much more than a speedbump anyways. And this is something virtually endemic to the entire genre.
So in a sense, the suggestions above still would not actually add the depth I require.

The proble is caused by the leveling system and mechanics and thus is fixed by it.
The solution is simple - don't allow the palyer to become a demi-god. Keep the power curve low.

Alternatively, if you ****** of the wrong peopel, you might have demi-god assasins after you.
Or REAL assisins - not the kind to stage very predictable nad crappy ambushes, but the kind that poisons you without even knowing.
That pesant you helped that shaked your hand? - he just trasfered a super-deadly poision on you.
The Apple you ate - poison!
the new armor you bought? coated from the inside with poison!
Enjoy your last 10 seconds of life.

For one... it usually comes down to guards trying to apprehend you in woefully insufficient ways. If they were clever they wouldn't try to talk to you after the second group killed. They'd ambush you by boarding up the house you're in and burn it to the ground. They'd either be clever (and fight really dirty and unfair tactics) or stop coming after you.

So let them do it.
If the player breaks the law, he should be playing the hiding game (doning disguises, never staying too long in a place, etc..), and NOT declaring open warfare on the world.

Moreover it usually fails to account for such things as closing off roads, setting up guardposts to search anyone passing the citygates (or for that matter, closing them), organising armed patrols on the streets, banning weapons and armour from being carried or even start collecting people in groups to protect them.

No weapon in some towns would be good. Makes them a safe haven.
Or at least laws that forbid drawing a weapon unless in self-defense.

Increase town patrols? Yes.
Closing off the city? Maybe. Depends on how big of a threat you are.

Thirdly... it still does not cover civilian reactions. As I mentioned, very rarely does npc civilians flee. Whereas in reality you can be assured they will. After a certain point they'll even start to close shops, pack up their stuff to leave or even just plain run out into the woods. Just because they don't know who the murderer is does not mean they do nothing.

I dobut they'll leave town just because someone was murdered.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 12 novembre 2013 - 01:29 .

[Sir JK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The proble is caused by the leveling system and mechanics and thus is fixed by it.
The solution is simple - don't allow the palyer to become a demi-god. Keep the power curve low.

Alternatively, if you ****** of the wrong peopel, you might have demi-god assasins after you.
Or REAL assisins - not the kind to stage very predictable nad crappy ambushes, but the kind that poisons you without even knowing.
That pesant you helped that shaked your hand? - he just trasfered a super-deadly poision on you.
The Apple you ate - poison!
the new armor you bought? coated from the inside with poison!
Enjoy your last 10 seconds of life.

So let them do it.
If the player breaks the law, he should be playing the hiding game (doning disguises, never staying too long in a place, etc..), and NOT declaring open warfare on the world.

Indeed. This is exactly what I meant with games doing this being "quite different beasts than we're used to". I'm sure you and I would find a game doing this interesting at the very least, but I'm not sure we'd make up a very big crowd.

No weapon in some towns would be good. Makes them a safe haven.
Or at least laws that forbid drawing a weapon unless in self-defense.

Increase town patrols? Yes.
Closing off the city? Maybe. Depends on how big of a threat you are.

I dobut they'll leave town just because someone was murdered.

Yeah well, those two latter ones would be more akin to if it happens multiple times and there's no signs of it stopping.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tommy6860 wrote...

That is not role playing in any sense of the term, IMO. Yes, games are made on the ideas and creativity of the RPG game-maker, but how one plays the game is within his/her perception, is a basic driver of what an RPG is. Think about it, from character creation to how one plays out the story with choices on stats, character development having effects on the storyline, to where one goes in the game. That certainly isn't anything I've expereinced. I've been playing RPGs since the mid 1970s and began PC role playing with the first Ultima in 1981. I can assure you that in the 50+ RPGs that I've played, that I've had my own experiences with those games and not just that of the developer.

You misunderstand.  I'm not claiming that the developer has any authorship of the player character's point of view.  The player is the sole arbiter of what his character thinks.

But, when roleplaying, the player should make decisions for his character from that character's perspective, not from the player's perspective.  So, for example, in DAO, when the Warden meets Zevran and Zevran says he was hired by Loghain, does the Warden believe him?  The player knows Zevran is telling the truth, because the player saw the cutscene wherein Zevran was hired, but the Warden doesn't know that, so he needs to decide on his own (without access to the player's knowledge) whether Zevran's tale is likely to be true.