197 réponses à ce sujet

[TMZuk]

Ayane Matrix wrote...

I thought this was Dragon Age- an RPG not GTA Online or Call Of Duty Ghosts. I want to explore the game world, not just slaughter everything that moves. If you do that, wouldn't you cut your self off from cool side/mini quests? Even in Skyrim or Oblivion, killing everybody isn't too smart. If they are the enemy, yes; but an entire town, including the guards? The town would be empty and boring after that!

Nobody says I want to. But if someone in a town gives me a reason, and I play a character with enough of a murderous trait to commit murder, I want the posibility to be there. Like it is in the Fallout games, in Baldur's Gate I and II, in Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim.

Now, in truth, in the three latter games it's more or less pointless, because all the NPCs are so generic and utterly boring that it's not worth the effort. But in BG I and BG II, certainly. In the Fallout games? Very much so. Maybe with FO 3 as the exception, as that had all the boring NPCs from Oblivion transferred and equipped with guns.

It's about having the posibillity! And it's about NOT having DA 2 repeated, where you could drop a fireball in the middle of a busy dock, and no one would even lift a brow. It's about Roleplaying!

Modifié par TMZuk, 14 novembre 2013 - 03:32 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ayane Matrix wrote...

I thought this was Dragon Age- an RPG not GTA Online or Call Of Duty Ghosts. I want to explore the game world, not just slaughter everything that moves. If you do that, wouldn't you cut your self off from cool side/mini quests? Even in Skyrim or Oblivion, killing everybody isn't too smart. If they are the enemy, yes; but an entire town, including the guards? The town would be empty and boring after that!

The goal here isn't to kill everyone, but to be able to kill anyone.

If my character has some reason to want to kill someone, then he should be able to do that, even if the writers didn't imagie he might.

Yes, if he kills everyone it might ruin the game for me, but that's not why we're asking.  We'd just like to be able to choose targets in a more natural way that isn't constrained by the writing.

[darthrevaninlight]

meteorswarm wrote...

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

I ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE WITH THIS 
Or at least do something like Dragon's Dogma where u can beat them and they run away until you can't find them anymore and the other town members react in horror :devil:

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:

This I could get behind
And you should also be able to frame others for murder!!!!  ......
On second thought that'd a completely different genre of videogame so... 

Modifié par darthrevaninlight, 20 novembre 2013 - 12:22 .

[Giantdeathrobot]

The thing is, if you implement the ability to kill anyone, it should have believable (and nasty) consequences.

New Vegas did it right, IMO: pretty much all important characters for the main quest/ major side quests are hiding behind a bevy of guards, everyone else is fair game, and there's one NPC that you cannot kill permanently, for good reason. But, going into a killing spree will send your reputation with any offended faction  to the bottom, making them all hostile, and several of them will send hit-squads after your sorry ass, which you cannot get rid off. Unlike in Baldur's Gate or Skyrim. where you can simply pay off someone and be on your merry way even after murdering hundreds, here the consequences are long-lasting and permanent. And I felt it still wasn't enough; after killing too many non-hostile NPCs, it should have been known that you are a raving psycopath and everyone should have stopped doing business with you out of fear/mistrust. Except maybe the Fiends.

Another problem is tying a murderous chararcer into an established story. You pretty much need your story to have a selfish goal, and even then it's a long shot. The story of Baldur's Gate makes little sense if you ''roleplay'' a guy who kills people for looking at him funny. Why should he cares about his foster father or some guy's plan to divert iron from a region? In Baldur's Gate 2 it makes a bit more sense, as your motivation can be to increase your own power, but it still suffers from the problem of being able to pay a pittance in order to have your every crime forgotten. In Skyrim it's even worse, as most stories have you being a selfless defender of the people, and even the Dark Brotherhood frowns upon undiscriminate killing sprees. New Vegas had one ending with a selfish goal, but even then it seems unlikely that a mass murdering madman would have the patience to go through with the scheme Yes-Man presents, let alone be willing to rule a place he himself made a ghost town. And that game also had some problems with nominally calm/well-adjusted companions not hesitating to help you massacre an entire hospital for **** and giggles.

Given that Inquisition will have the PC be a leader of a big, respected organization, I see absolutely no way to reconcile that with them being a complete psycopath. And let's not get into the fact that a mass-murderer wouldn't give a rat's ass about saving the world from a Fade tear or whatever, or that some companions have established morals that would run completely contrary to rampant slaughter for kicks.

So yeah, my standards for implementing such a thing are very high, and few games have ever reached them. Dark Souls could be another contender, but it's not the same kind of story/game as Dragon Age at all, it also doesn't have the same story presentation and most NPCs are expendable because the plot is pretty bare-bones. So I'd prefer if Bioware polished the choice/consequence aspect of their current model, rather than add a very hard to implement and ultimately pretty unnecessary feature. Being able to kill some NPCs would be OK, being able to go on wanton massacres wouldn't.

[Killdren88]

So you want to be able to kill plot important people and basically wander around in a fail state? You killed the guy who knew the location of the macguffin that saves us all. What then?

[Metalspoon60]

Your the leader of a global war organization, why would you want to go around killing random peasants. Instead they should implement more violent paths into the story, ones where you can carve your path through blood.

[Neon Rising Winter]

Metalspoon60 wrote...

Your the leader of a global war organization, why would you want to go around killing random peasants. Instead they should implement more violent paths into the story, ones where you can carve your path through blood.

Yes, this. I mean you can imagine the companion dialogue - 'We've chosen to follow and support our esteemed colleague here, as the best chance to save the world. Yes, that's them over there, where the screaming's coming from. You know I think you're right, they are disembowelling the fishmonger." - I'm just not seeing it.

[senorbluez88]

Hmmm..doesn't really fit into the way bioware runs shop imo. They are trying to create a powerful narrative over a broad area, which I think will be a huge challenge as it is without the player randomly nuking the populace. However, If bioware allows the player to draw their weapon anywhere, and swing at ppl or cast meteor spells in a city, then they should cross the line into the realm of consequence a bit. A city has a leader, subjugate the city and take the citizens as slaves to build forts or force the leader of the city to provide troops maybe? 
It has to be deeper than just "pwning evry1" and getting a bounty..your the damn inquisitor, not a bum who just got out of irons. I mean, the Inquisitor bring chased by town guards... Lol..comooonn

[Lady Lionheart]

I really don't wan't NPC's that can be killed, what if you stab/freeze them by accident?
What if it glitches and they try to kill you like in Skyrim?
Two words:
You're fudged.

[jkflipflopDAO]

Yeah, they should make everyone move and act like the automatons in "a small world" while constantly spouting the same "Here's a single repeating line over and over again because you've exhausted my fresh dialog until the next major plot point" line. MAYBE I could see letting them walk to and from a single position, as long as it's nothing too fancy.

[Bluto Blutarskyx]

meteorswarm wrote...

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

saints row is a better example for this since you can punch them in the nuts as well as use amusing weapons like the "rectifier" (an alien anal probe that launches your enemy a far distance after bieng rectified or the "penetrator" (a giant sex toy)  to kill them too.

fallout makes a good example as well, but I feel that both games need the comedic effect of death by sex toy.

[Bluto Blutarskyx]

Xbox360Girl1321 wrote...

I really don't wan't NPC's that can be killed, what if you stab/freeze them by accident?
What if it glitches and they try to kill you like in Skyrim?
Two words:
You're fudged.

then you accept the consequenses of your rampage. that's part of what makes fallout and morrowind great. the player has more control.

keep in mind that "massacre" playthroughs tend to be the most boring  of all after the first 5 mins. its just that there needs to be some recourse available to the player for that person we find obnoxious enough that they just need to be removed from the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bluto Blutarskyx wrote...

its just that there needs to be some recourse available to the player for that person we find obnoxious enough that they just need to be removed from the game.

It also adds some drama to encountering people.  In Skyrim, for example, if you're wandering through the forest and you see someone up ahead, you don't know if he's friendly.  If you're already badly hurt, you need to decide whether to risk showing yourself, or whether killing him from a distance is the better option.

But if potential enemies are clearly marked, there's no risk.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Bluto Blutarskyx wrote...

its just that there needs to be some recourse available to the player for that person we find obnoxious enough that they just need to be removed from the game.

It also adds some drama to encountering people.  In Skyrim, for example, if you're wandering through the forest and you see someone up ahead, you don't know if he's friendly.  If you're already badly hurt, you need to decide whether to risk showing yourself, or whether killing him from a distance is the better option.

But if potential enemies are clearly marked, there's no risk.

Meh, Skyrim was easy enough that it was a non-issue after level 10. And any hostile entity was automatically added to your radar, so no surprises unless they become hostile after a dialog. I'm not sure it's a great example.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

Meh, Skyrim was easy enough that it was a non-issue after level 10. And any hostile entity was automatically added to your radar, so no surprises unless they become hostile after a dialog. I'm not sure it's a great example.

If they don't become hostile until after dialogue, then you don't get to find out if they're hostile until they're close enough to pose a threat to you.

And you're also assuming that the PC is built as an effective combatant.

[Ariella]

Trying to compare BG 1 and 2 in this sense to DAI is kind of like comparing a PC junior to pretty much any computer right now. The game is a lot more interactive, and considering how big this game is supposed to be along with the kind of narrative we're looking at... I don't see how killing random NPCs would work, let alone be useful, plus I'd rather they spend time on polishing the story, art environments et al instead of trying to implement a system that by its very nature will either break the game or have little to no consequences. And since choice and consequence are part of the point of the DA series...

[Airell]

I don't think they are going to let you kill any npc right now. they are all most done putting the game together and will start polishing the game after winter break. for them to put kill any npc into the game they would have to take the game apart and start over.

[The Qun & the Damned]

I'd rather not. Though if we're allowed to kill anything at our own whim, it better be birds. I hate those disgusting things.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Metalspoon60 wrote...

Your the leader of a global war organization, why would you want to go around killing random peasants. Instead they should implement more violent paths into the story, ones where you can carve your path through blood.

That would depend, wouldn't it?
Did that pesant insult you? Is he in your way? Are you feeling bad?
What reason did Vaughn had to kill some city elves?

Seems to me people are confusing the abiltiy to kill people with the desire to RANDOMLY kill everyone.
No one wants to kill without reason and pointless murder-sprees should end up with the entire Thedas wanting your head.

However, various characters can have reasonons for killing specific NPC's. And if not kill, at least slap/hit/beat up

[TMZuk]

Ariella wrote...

Trying to compare BG 1 and 2 in this sense to DAI is kind of like comparing a PC junior to pretty much any computer right now. The game is a lot more interactive, and considering how big this game is supposed to be along with the kind of narrative we're looking at... I don't see how killing random NPCs would work, let alone be useful, plus I'd rather they spend time on polishing the story, art environments et al instead of trying to implement a system that by its very nature will either break the game or have little to no consequences. And since choice and consequence are part of the point of the DA series...

A lot MORE interactive? Ehhh.... We must be disagreeing upon the definition of the word interactive. There's a LOT more things you can interact with in the Infinity Engine games than in any of the Dragon Age games and especially Dragon Age 2. Doors you can open, houses you can enter, things you can talk to or attack. Dragon Age is more like a long chain of scripts and triggers. That's hardly interactivity.

And if Obsidian could pull off combining story line with freedom in Fallout: New Vegas, I dare say it should be possible for EA/Bioware as well.

(Edited so I don't like a fool claiming that Bethesda made FO:NV)

Modifié par TMZuk, 23 novembre 2013 - 04:55 .

[manbobjoe]

No, no, please oh dear God no. I enjoy playing a Bethesda game well enough(even though story is always massively weak in them) but when I sit down to play a Bioware game I don't want that kind of crap. Let companies keep to the games they're good at, Bethesda gets totally open sandboxes with little to no story and Bioware gets a less open world but a fantastic narrative, a good trade off no?

[TMZuk]

manbobjoe wrote...

No, no, please oh dear God no. I enjoy playing a Bethesda game well enough(even though story is always massively weak in them) but when I sit down to play a Bioware game I don't want that kind of crap. Let companies keep to the games they're good at, Bethesda gets totally open sandboxes with little to no story and Bioware gets a less open world but a fantastic narrative, a good trade off no?

I did mean Obsidian. Not Bethesda. FO:NV was in my opinion that brillant mix between story-driven and sandbox. And I believe that the three latest Bioware games, ME2, DA2 and ME3, have been dissapointing in regard to both story and exploration.