174 réponses à ce sujet

[Yemeth]

Planescape: Torment has some interesting moments like that that I think are pretty magnificently done as well!
 

 

JUSTICE!

 

Regarding companion interaction, I also think the mentioned Wrex moment from ME1 made the character truly come alive - as did Ashley's when she shot Wrex while I tried to talk him down. Characters acting independently, without input from the PC, make them that much more interesting - especially when they do not act according to the player's agenda or moral compass. I'd like to see NPC romances, rivalries/jealousy, goal-related conflicts and generally less of a follower-leader relationship. It would demand actual diplomacy or leadership from the player.

[Bob from Accounting]

That's ridiculous. How does Wrex shooting Fist 'demand' "actual diplomacy or leadership" from the player in the slightest? 'Leadership' has nothing to do with it. 'Diplomacy' has nothing to do it it.

 

It's a matter of happening to have brought Wrex along or not. That's literally it. How does the player having less control 'demand' more supposed 'leadership' and 'diplomacy'?

[Yemeth]

By learning about the characters through their actions and treating them accordingly afterward, taking them on the right missions, talking to them to learn more about them or influence them, pairing them with the right choice of other characters etc.

[Bob from Accounting]

There are about a half dozen problems with that that make it not nearly as good of an idea as it sounds.

 

For that to happen, the player has to have a reasonably good idea of the effect certain companions will have, and the story has to follow through with those expectations. For example, if having a mage around is able to save someone's life in a mission, the player has to know that before they start. Otherwise, it's nothing but a dice roll. Nothing but 'You happened to pick the right person out of blind luck, so this character gets to live' or 'You weren't able to magically divine which characters you were supposed to bring so this character dies.'

 

That means you need foreshadowing. Which means you have to come up with some reason why and how someone knows and tells the player character that it would be smart to have a mage along for this mission. And if you have many such missions, you need a lot of such foreshadowing. 

[Bob from Accounting]

Another problem is that it's certain to devalue certain characters.

 

If players learn that 'evil' or 'rebel' companions cause problems, what are they going to do? Simple. Avoid them. Stick to more timid and agreeable characters who follow orders and don't run their mouths. Not many people cared too much about Fist, but I can absolutely guarantee you that if bringing certain characters along seriously messed up missions and got innocent people killed, players would be demanding the companion's head on a plate. And rightfully so. And at this point, you've pretty much thrown an entire archetype of characters down the drain. You've taught players to avoid them and hate them.

 

Same thing with classes. On the topic of Mass Effect, suppose tech or biotic characters help out or save people on a few missions. Why would anyone bother to bring along a soldier anywhere then? Why risk it when you know biotics and techs will get the mission done? Soldiers aren't more helpful in combat. So characters like Liara and Tali get a huge boost and characters like James and Ashley get utterly thrown under the bus.

 

Same thing with companion pairings. Instead of letting players explore dynamics of companions who disagree with each other, you're just teaching them to avoid such pairings, and building resentment and even hatred against the characters in question for being incompetent and petty.

[KaiserShep]

They shouldn't be.  There should be no divide between gameplay and story or lore or characterisation.  The gameplay should be consistent with the setting, of which the characters are a part.

 

Segregation between gameplay and story is a necessity in this series, otherwise the difficulty curve would be game-breaking. In the Final Onslaught, there's no good reason why four people should be able to successfully kill multiple ogres and a swath of darkspawn as they push through Denerim. A single dwarf cannot take down a high dragon. Mass Effect gets away with having high tech weaponry at its disposal.

 

Regarding companion interaction, I also think the mentioned Wrex moment from ME1 made the character truly come alive - as did Ashley's when she shot Wrex while I tried to talk him down. Characters acting independently, without input from the PC, make them that much more interesting - especially when they do not act according to the player's agenda or moral compass. I'd like to see NPC romances, rivalries/jealousy, goal-related conflicts and generally less of a follower-leader relationship. It would demand actual diplomacy or leadership from the player.

 

I gotta agree with Bob here that this can be very problematic if done too often. Companions killing companions or other NPC's in a fit of jealousy or heated disagreement or looking at them cockeyed, or characters simply leaving because they can't take it anymore before you have time to react to them frequently would no doubt frustrate more players than please them.

[JakeLeTDK]

"Insert wall of text with crap load of complicated words."

And all in all, my long, awesome, super dedicated post can be summarized into this one simple point: I don't see what's the point of our argument here. Even if one side win, not like BioWares gonna take their ideas and use it in their games though. They are experienced game makers, and I think (hopefully) that they know what they are doing, and what suit their direction best. Also, I'm pretty sure they know better than anyone here what are technically "doable" or "impossible" in developing games anyway.

Just let them do their job. And trash them later if you don't like their game =)))

[DRTJR]

My favorite interrupts are Varric's masterful BS's with Ser Karras and the Slavers who captured Feynriel.

[Vincent-Vega]

There are about a half dozen problems with that that make it not nearly as good of an idea as it sounds.

 

For that to happen, the player has to have a reasonably good idea of the effect certain companions will have, and the story has to follow through with those expectations. For example, if having a mage around is able to save someone's life in a mission, the player has to know that before they start. Otherwise, it's nothing but a dice roll. Nothing but 'You happened to pick the right person out of blind luck, so this character gets to live' or 'You weren't able to magically divine which characters you were supposed to bring so this character dies.'

 

That means you need foreshadowing. Which means you have to come up with some reason why and how someone knows and tells the player character that it would be smart to have a mage along for this mission. And if you have many such missions, you need a lot of such foreshadowing. 

 

No one is saying you should be bombarded with moments like that, in fact, one of the reasons these moments are so special is the fact, that they are relatively rare.

 

In DA:2  your sibling died in the Deep Road unless you took Anders with you. I know, many probably didn't like that scene either and felt like the game "punished" them for their choice, I, on the other hand, loved that scene. I actually took Anders with me the first time because he is a Grey Warden  and I thought that I could somehow benefit from him. (To be honest I expected something like additional dialogue or information.)

However, when Anders actually saved Bethany, that was a brilliant moment. At this moment, I actually felt like I was roleplaying and that is always a good thing in a RPG.

[dewayne31]

My favorite interrupts are Varric's masterful BS's with Ser Karras and the Slavers who captured Feynriel.

 those were good, the shooting of the blood mage my favorite cause you didnt ask him to do it

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's about as useful as saying power plants should run on fairy dust and produce tasty ice cream as a waste product while giving us all free energy.

 

It would be nice. But the universe just doesn't work that way, and that's really the end of it.

It can.  You design the gameplay mechanics first - this way you can have the fun gameplay you seem to want - and then write the lore and narrative around that gameplay without violating it.

 

Any time the game is internally inconsistent is a failure of the game's design.

[Sylvius the Mad]

By that logic we wouldn't get past the first Abomination we fight

Then the lore was badly written, or the encounter poorly placed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

At it's core structure, narrative is not the prime aspects of what makes a game, a game. Bare in mind that we are talking about something that runs on limited resources. The things that could be done out of gameplay probably use less resources than the things that can be done in gameplay aspects. At this moment, developers are still finding it hard to have seamless sequence between cut scenes and gameplay. I am using cut scenes as my prime example because they are the main vehicle for narrative in a game.

 

Devil May Cry 3, Dante could run on walls and shoot bullets at his gun to kill enemies. During the gameplay it is a hack and slash fest. They could be able to do that if the resources were available but at the moment such things are very difficult. I mean the variables that come into place with your ideas increase the domain and scope of your game immersely.

I would argue that the narrative shouldn't even be a thing in the game's development.  The game's narrative is created by the player as he plays.

 

That lack of a seamless transition between gameplay and cutscenes is an argument against having cutscenes at all.  Now, BioWare has previously hadn't conversations in a way that did integrate more seamlessly with the rest of the game, but they haven't even really tried to do that since NWN.

[AresKeith]

Then the lore was badly written, or the encounter poorly placed.

 

The lore is not badly written and it wasn't poorly placed

 

It's called gameplay segregation 

[Bob from Accounting]

Then the lore was badly written, or the encounter poorly placed.

 

That is just stupid.

 

Is the 'lore badly written' for every single game with guns in which the player character can survive shots to the head? Which is all of them? Are the 'encounters poorly placed'?

 

Or for every single game where the player character can recover from crippling injuries to full health and functionality in a few seconds? Which is all of them?

[Sylvius the Mad]

The lore is not badly written and it wasn't poorly placed

 

It's called gameplay segregation 

Gameplay segregation breaks roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That is just stupid.

 

Is the 'lore badly written' for every single game with guns in which the player character can survive shots to the head? Which is all of them? Are the 'encounters poorly placed'?

 

Or for every single game where the player character can recover from crippling injuries to full health and functionality in a few seconds?

Not if the lore permits that.  If all characters within the setting can do it, then there's no need to segregate the gameplay.

[AresKeith]

Gameplay segregation breaks roleplaying.

 

I strongly disagree

[Bob from Accounting]

The 'lore' doesn't permit it. Humans don't survive repeated gunshots to the head. Humans cannot recover from crippling injuries to full health in a few seconds.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The 'lore' doesn't permit it. Humans don't survive repeated gunshots to the head. Humans cannot recover from crippling injuries to full health in a few seconds.

The game world is not necessarily the real world.

[Bob from Accounting]

So it's your understanding that in pretty much every game with guns in existence, the humans in question have some sort of magical ability to survive multiple gunshots with no ill effects and recover from grevious wounds near instantly. Despite those very same games nearly always featuring cutscenes where the same humans are killed with a single shot.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I strongly disagree

If a character pulls a dagger on you, how do you react?  It is a laughable gesture, because within the gameplay it is a woefully underpowered weapon, of are you terrified because it routinely one-shots people in cutscenes?

 

If you encouter the same weapon under different circumstances, does your reaction change?  Why?  How do you explain that difference from your character's perspective?

 

When I'm roleplaying, every decision I make is an in-character decision.  How can I do that when the rules that govern the reality in which my character lives keep switching back and forth arbitrarily?

 

Tabletop RPGs don't need this sort of segregation.  Why do computer RPGs?

[Sylvius the Mad]

So it's your understanding that in pretty much every game with guns in existence, the humans in question have some sort of magical ability to survive multiple gunshots with no ill effects and recover from grevious wounds near instantly. Despite those very same games nearly always featuring cutscenes where the same humans are killed with a single shot.

If the gameplay conflicts with the cutscenes, then the game is broken.

 

I mostly play games that don't contain cutscenes.  BioWare games are the primary exception.  Cutscenes are a fairly new addition to roleplaying games, and so far they are almost universally bad.

[AresKeith]

Not if the lore permits that.  If all characters within the setting can do it, then there's no need to segregate the gameplay.

 

The lore doesn't permit it

 

If a character pulls a dagger on you, how do you react?  It is a laughable gesture, because within the gameplay it is a woefully underpowered weapon, of are you terrified because it routinely one-shots people in cutscenes?

 

If you encouter the same weapon under different circumstances, does your reaction change?  Why?  How do you explain that difference from your character's perspective?

 

When I'm roleplaying, every decision I make is an in-character decision.  How can I do that when the rules that govern the reality in which my character lives keep switching back and forth arbitrarily?

 

Tabletop RPGs don't need this sort of segregation.  Why do computer RPGs?

 

Because it's a video game, gameplay always comes first