41 réponses à ce sujet

[Jaison1986]

 Something that I really want to see is an fade quest were the Inquisitor gets pushed to the limit. I want to see demons trying to trick the Inquisitor with really believable disguises, were you won't know if the person you are talking to is really an friend stuck there as well, or an demon trying to trick you to lower your guard. An quest were paying attention to the slightest details might mean failure or victory.

Any body else would like something like this?

[The Elder King]

Good idea, OP. I support it.

[funmachine]

Qistina wrote...

There should be "Helm of Clear See" inside the fade and so the Inquisitor can see through the lies....

That only accomplishes the absolute opposite of what the OP is suggesting.

Anyways, I like this idea. In DA:O and DA2 it was always abundantly clear demons were trying to trick you into some kind of self-destructive action. It would be nice to run into situations where you actually have to work out if there's anyone around you can trust etc.

[Laughing_Man]

Depends, I like the idea, but not if it means a "whatever-you-do-you-lose" situation.
I like my player agency and all that.

[Ieldra]

Such a thing is hard to do. One player's "patently obvious" is another's "completely indecipherable", and it doesn't necessarily depend on intelligence either but on your perception of the context. I often ended up being wrong in such situations because I took things into account the writers didn't.

Edit:
Also, what TheRedVipress said.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 28 janvier 2014 - 12:13 .

[nightscrawl]

funmachine wrote...

Qistina wrote...

There should be "Helm of Clear See" inside the fade and so the Inquisitor can see through the lies....

That only accomplishes the absolute opposite of what the OP is suggesting.

Anyways, I like this idea. In DA:O and DA2 it was always abundantly clear demons were trying to trick you into some kind of self-destructive action. It would be nice to run into situations where you actually have to work out if there's anyone around you can trust etc.

One of the problems I have with situations like this is that dialog options often alert you to possible tricks by the NPC. Many times while questioning an NPC you might see the option "You're hiding something," or "What aren't you telling me?" Even if you don't pick that option, just by seeing it has planted the idea in your mind that the NPC might be hiding something.

Perhaps the player isn't very perceptive and wouldn't have even thought the NPC was lying if the dialog option hadn't been there in the first place. This is the case of the cRPG format showing its limitations. If this were Pen & Paper we wouldn't have these lines and so would have to intuit whether or not we thought the person was lying, rather than have it suggested by the dialog options.

So, while I do really like the OP's suggestion -- it's always irked me that our PC is somehow immune to the charms of the fade -- I would only want to see it implemented if it would be done in such a way as to not blatantly suggest, via dialog options, that the trick is there.

[Br3admax]

Who cares about what the player knows? This is about what the Player's Character knows. For people who talk about metagaming a lot, you sure like to use your own personal input from past experiences with everything.

[Veruin]

Br3ad wrote...

Who cares about what the player knows? This is about what the Player's Character knows. For people who talk about metagaming a lot, you sure like to use your own personal input from past experiences with everything.

Exactly.

It's even funnier (I find it anyway)  When people complain about the 3rd choice for Connor.  Even though the character has no idea it will work.

Modifié par Veruin, 28 janvier 2014 - 02:25 .

[Veruin]

Qistina wrote...

it matters because of like DA:O if the character don't know being in the Fade, the game don't progress, since DA is narrative based, the character MUST know eventually.

Or they can be fooled by the illusions and stay there for eternity.  Y'know, headcanon their story out and stop playing that save?

[Laughing_Man]

Br3ad wrote...

Who cares about what the player knows? This is about what the Player's Character knows. For people who talk about metagaming a lot, you sure like to use your own personal input from past experiences with everything.

Lots of over-the-top and obvious things from any RPG will equal the greatest mystery ever if you are RP'ing a cave man. Mages for example know quite a bit about the fade, and have survived at least one incursion there.

Even inquisitor of another class will probably learn more than he ever cared to about the fade.

This is not simply about player knowledge.

Modifié par TheRedVipress, 28 janvier 2014 - 02:47 .

[Br3admax]

Qistina wrote...

it matters because of like DA:O if the character don't know being in the Fade, the game don't progress, since DA is narrative based, the character MUST know eventually.

Unless the game is like Skyrim or Dark Souls....where the game progress not dependent on narrative

[Br3admax]

TheRedVipress wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Who cares about what the player knows? This is about what the Player's Character knows. For people who talk about metagaming a lot, you sure like to use your own personal input from past experiences with everything.

Lots of over-the-top and obvious things from any RPG will equal the greatest mystery ever if you are RP'ing a cave man. Mages for example know quite a bit about the fade, and have survived at least one incursion there.

Even inquisitor of another class will probably learn more than he ever cared to about the fade.

This is not simply about player knowledge.

These complaints are about seeing optional dialogue, so yes it is. 

[Veruin]

Qistina wrote...
In DA, if the warden stuck at Duncan, then what to do there? Nothing, you need to speak to Duncan again to progress the game

Or you stop playing that save as the player was fooled and doomed...

[Br3admax]

Qistina wrote...

no, it cannot be for DA, but it is ok for Skyrim

In DA, if the warden stuck at Duncan, then what to do there? Nothing, you need to speak to Duncan again to progress the game

But let say Skyrim have the Fade, you never know you are in the Fade, because the character awareness is your awareness, you may feel something is wrong, you yourself will try to find out what it is and get out

And? Is the story supposed to progress when you RP someone who wants to stay there? This is all about what you RP the character as knowing, and you can only blame yourself for wanting to make them not know anything. On a similar note, you can only blame yourself if you want them to know everything. And in Skyrim, the character does not know everything I know. For instance, I knew what a Dragonborn was before Oblivion even came out. Did my character, no. It's not the same. 

[Laughing_Man]

Br3ad wrote...

TheRedVipress wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Who cares about what the player knows? This is about what the Player's Character knows. For people who talk about metagaming a lot, you sure like to use your own personal input from past experiences with everything.

Lots of over-the-top and obvious things from any RPG will equal the greatest mystery ever if you are RP'ing a cave man. Mages for example know quite a bit about the fade, and have survived at least one incursion there.

Even inquisitor of another class will probably learn more than he ever cared to about the fade.

This is not simply about player knowledge.

These complaints are about seeing optional dialogue, so yes it is. 

Maybe, but wouldn't you agree that something that may work even on the player is *potentialy* much more effective and interesting?

[nightscrawl]

Let me use an alternative example. You are on a jury and one of the lawyers says something interesting/important and the judge orders you to disregard it. Well the damage has been done hasn't it? You can't unhear what the lawyer said. You can disregard it. In fact I have come up with various RP reasons to disregard the dialog options for Connor, but the point remains that I have seen them there, and also that the NPCs repeatedly say things like "There has to be another way," during the scene.

So, like you can't unhear what the lawyer said, you can't unsee a dialog option that puts suspicion in your mind where there had been none before. That is the key. If you had not previously been suspicious but are made so by the existence of the dialog option. You are forever altered at that point. You can make a conscious effort to disregard it, but the fact remains that it is now known to you that this character might be lying.

Br3ad wrote...

Who cares about what the player knows? This is about what the Player's Character knows. For people who talk about metagaming a lot, you sure like to use your own personal input from past experiences with everything.

If you are implying that all of us have spoken out against metagaming, you are mistaken. I enjoy doing that after my first play and certainly don't care whether other people do it in their own game.

[Br3admax]

nightscrawl wrote...

Let me use an alternative example. You are on a jury and one of the lawyers says something interesting/important and the judge orders you to disregard it. Well the damage has been done hasn't it? You can't unhear what the lawyer said. You can disregard it. In fact I have come up with various RP reasons to disregard the dialog options for Connor, but the point remains that I have seen them there, and also that the NPCs repeatedly say things like "There has to be another way," during the scene.

Because in life, people only except one way. It's a common thing to do when faced with dire consequences. Of course, we've never been told to kill a child because he was an abomination, so maybe I'm wrong.

So, like you can't unhear what the lawyer said, you can't unsee a dialog option that puts suspicion in your mind where there had been none before. That is the key. If you had not previously been suspicious but are made so by the existence of the dialog option. You are forever altered at that point. You can make a conscious effort to disregard it, but the fact remains that it is now known to you that this character might be lying.

I don't really see a problem with this, even though it's not the best example for the problem given. The games trying to give you a logical reason to not want to be in a place that will kill you. Finally, everyone doesn't look at every little eye twitch, so you can still RP the doomed soul.

Br3ad wrote...

Who cares about what the player knows? This is about what the Player's Character knows. For people who talk about metagaming a lot, you sure like to use your own personal input from past experiences with everything.

If you are implying that all of us have spoken out against metagaming, you are mistaken. I enjoy doing that after my first play and certainly don't care whether other people do it in their own game.

Talking to Qistina, who's made several threads on the topic. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 28 janvier 2014 - 02:57 .

[Br3admax]

TheRedVipress wrote...

Maybe, but wouldn't you agree that something that may work even on the player is *potentialy* much more effective and interesting?

Not really. I've never really cared about wat happens to my own impression of events, especially considring the fact that this is indeed a video game. I'm always suspicous. Finally, anything that does this would have to work on a very long time frame, and given what the Fade does to the body in such a time, it wouldn't be that effective, but the death might be interesting. 

[Br3admax]

Qistina wrote...

And? Is the story supposed to progress when you RP someone who wants to stay there? This is all about what you RP the character as knowing, and you can only blame yourself for wanting to make them not know anything. On a similar note, you can only blame yourself if you want them to know everything. And in Skyrim, the character does not know everything I know. For instance, I knew what a Dragonborn was before Oblivion even came out. Did my character, no. It's not the same.

But in Skyrim you and your character never know who is right, the Greybeard or the Blades, the Alak'r mercenaries or the Red Guard woman i forgot her name isn't it?

Problem?

That is dependent on you the player, not the character to decide who is lying.

Not it's not. It is dependent on how you would logically make your character think. If you want to make your character think like you, which is weird because you hate this game so much so why are you playing it still, fine, but don't assume that this is the only way to play an Elder Scrolls game.

That is what i mean because in Skyrim the character awareness is your awareness, in DA the character and you are two different entities

No, once again, it's not. 

[Jaison1986]

This trope would obviously only work the first time we play the game, after that, we of course, will know exactly what to do in order to overcome the situation.

[RedArmyShogun]

You should shut up, do your job, find the holy grail, and kill anyone that makes you question anything. Debates finish nothing you pigs in human clothing, only blind obedience will carry you past the gates of hell and into salvation, and that bridge that you must cross is built out of the bodies of those who stood against you.

Only the Faithful May Pass. Those who Question will fall from the path into damnation.

[Veruin]

Qistina wrote...

No it cannot be in DA especially now because the main character is not you, in Skyrim, the character is your alter ego. You role play the character in Skyrim, you just playing a character in DA. Not the same

How can you play a character if there is no set character and you create your own?

[ames4u]

TheRedVipress wrote...

Depends, I like the idea, but not if it means a "whatever-you-do-you-lose" situation.
I like my player agency and all that.

Agreed. 

I'd like to know that my loss was due to my own stupidity and not a forced outcome to make the story go in the direction the dev's wanted. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to exist anymore in many games where it could easily be applied. I've lost track of how much time I've wasted using up potions, health and mana trying to beat down a boss only to find I was supposed to lose to the pr*ck to trigger the next cutscene.

Modifié par ames4u, 28 janvier 2014 - 03:09 .

[Br3admax]

Qistina wrote...

Br3ad wrote...
Not it's not. It is dependent on how you would logically make your character think. If you want to make your character think like you, which is weird because you hate this game so much so why are you playing it still, fine, but don't assume that this is the only way to play an Elder Scrolls game.

No it cannot be in DA especially now because the main character is not you, in Skyrim, the character is your alter ego. You role play the character in Skyrim, you just playing a character in DA. Not the same

Lolwut? This doesn't even make any sense, friend. Do you know what roleplay means? I'm honestly asking.