231 réponses à ce sujet

[Knight of Dane]

I didn't make any comment about how psychology works but I know for a fact there have been players who deliberately took Bethany or Carver into the deep roads to die or just didn't see it as a bad thing when they did. Not everyone is going to view it the same way you do. 

 

Yes you are right, for most people death is the worst scenario but so what?

 

The living sibling doesn't add much to the game afterwards but ok I agree that in an ideal world no choice should lose you content. Ideally, content lost in one way should gain you content in some other way. This isn't an ideal world though so It can't always play out that way but I would be perfectly happy for the negative outcome like a companion death to result in other outcomes and potentially more content. 

 

Well DA2 was rushed which may or may not be an excuse I guess. There probably should have been more significance to the sibling dying and maybe it even leading to something. 

 

Remember that I was primarily responding to your comment that claimed there should be several ways to do something and not a right way and a wrong way. There are in fact three different outcomes as I said. One will be considered as the most wrong by most people but the other two are debatable and lead to the same amount of content later on. 

I know you didn't, and I didn't say you did, but I brought it in. I am also aware what some players did and actually remarked on that in my post myself.

 

And let me say that I agree with you, I think the Bethany/Carver deep roads choice is far from the worst scenario in any rpg ever, I was however just using it to point out that there is a irregularity in the choice and that I personally, and other people, prefer choices to have an equal amount of content or consequence instead of an uneven amount.

 

It was not my point to say that "those who had Bethany killed did it wrong" but that the choices are not entirely equal and that the best kind of choice is the ones based on a morality as opposed to payoff. Payoff is what will make a "better" or "worse" choice, but morality is a fluid concept that everyone can play with.

[Raikas]

Fine, but even if you weren't going into those areas with those specific quests in mind, it makes no sense to just plow through without stopping to check your surroundings. You're willfully depriving yourself at that point.

To be fair, I think we've seen stats before that the number of people who do unhighlighted side-quests is similar to the numbers who finish games or use the romance content - it's very much a minority.

Of course those also tend to be the same people who won't be overly concerned with best endings or non-necessary character deaths, so I don't know how much overlap there is between the people who care deeply and the people who don't fully explore, but regardless, the non-explorers are probably a majority or people playing the game, even if they're a minority of people on the BSN.

[mikeymoonshine]

I know you didn't, and I didn't say you did, but I brought it in. I am also aware what some players did and actually remarked on that in my post myself.

 

And let me say that I agree with you, I think the Bethany/Carver deep roads choice is far from the worst scenario in any rpg ever, I was however just using it to point out that there is a irregularity in the choice and that I personally, and other people, prefer choices to have an equal amount of content or consequence instead of an uneven amount.

 

It was not my point to say that "those who had Bethany killed did it wrong" but that the choices are not entirely equal and that the best kind of choice is the ones based on a morality as opposed to payoff. Payoff is what will make a "better" or "worse" choice, but morality is a fluid concept that everyone can play with.

 

Ok, i agree but the problem is you can't have choice and have equal consequences every time. For one thing it's not realistic (i know people hate realism arguments but I think it applies here) for another it's just too much work for the devs. They can't change the world for every possible outcome no matter how much they would like to. 

 

What I would like to see is a greater payoff for some of the more "evil" choices. This hasn't really got anything to do with companion death but I think sometimes you should be punished for trying to always be the hero. Of course the game has to give people the option to play the hero and give them their heroic outcome sometimes but not all the time. 

 

It's like ME's replacement characters Wreav and Mornith for example. They didn't amount to much in the end or really benefit Shepard's cause at all so anyone who picked those options basically made the wrong choice. That's one of the reasons I prefer DA actually, it handles choice a little better than ME and doesn't punish you as much for being a "bad" character. 

[Enigmatick]

It would help the community more if you could bring some actual points to the debate instead of just commenting on the community itself.

There's nothing to say here, it's just another David thread where he pretends to be objectively right for wanting every single piece of content to be available to him regardless of what he does in the game. People like him are why other devs can use "Not everyone will experience the same content and that's okay" as a marketing tool.

[Knight of Dane]

No I disagree, I don't think it is unreasonable to design a game to benefit all choices. I'm not trying to say the choices should benefit the same consequence, just that they have the same amount of "show."

 

Bethany and Carver dying in the deep roads is a choice I only really dislike because it's never reflected upon. I only think it's Merrill you get to talk to about it.

 

If there had been a scene or two, or special instances with companions and family reflecting on it I would consider it a much more equal choice, but everyone just forgets about them.

[Knight of Dane]

There's nothing to say here, it's just another David thread where he pretends to be objectively right for wanting every single piece of content to be available to him regardless of what he does in the game. People like him are why other devs can use "Not everyone will experience the same content and that's okay" as a marketing tool.

Shouldn't stop you from talking with the rest of us nice reasonable folks 

[Enigmatick]

Shouldn't stop you from talking with the rest of us nice reasonable folks 

Good point, sorry.

[wetnasty]

Yes, it certainly sounds 'cool' if you only consider it in terms of 'different things happen, but they're all fun and exciting.' Which I tend to think is the subconcious assumption when people hear the idea. Instead of the reality.

 

Somehow, I don't think people would find it very 'cool' to have their favorite character be killed without any input from them. I think that would make people very angry.

 

Well, I suggest not playing any Bioware games because... 

[Avaflame]

Whether it be a good feature or no, telling people your subjective opinion on its worth is fact and respond to them telling you they disagree by essentially saying it's because they are mindless idiots is extremely arrogant. It makes you seem like a petulant child and blocks any chance of having a meaningful conversation about the topic, at least for me. Which is sad because it's actually a very interesting topic when you take into consideration both *cough* perspectives.

[KennethAFTopp]

It is a little bit of a double edged sword for me. A. I like metagaming and being able to tell the story of a certain character the way I want.

B. it's always interesting to see things both good and bad you did expect based on the choices you made.

[ArtemisMoons]

There have always been times where your choices might make a companion leave or force you to kill a companion. This is just another way that happens.

 

However, my interpretation was that these "ripple effect" things are more geared to missions that you send out an agent to explore. They mentioned that they had sent Leliana to look at the Redcliffe situation, which when you think about it, might not have been the best choice. Sure she's a bard, but there is a chance some mages/templars knew she was the right hand of the Divine, which could have caused issues. Sending a mage in that situation (especially Dorian, it seems) would probably have ended differently. *This is just what I assume they were talking about rather than "Take this specific party here or everyone dies! lulz". 

 

Overall, though, I think people are getting a little too worked up over something they aren't even sure about. 

[Gannayev of Dreams]

For alta-holics like myself having many variations based on who you chose as your Inquisitor and who you choose as your companions is like crack.  It is already looking like DA:I will claim more hours of my life than the previous two games combined.

 

I am purposefully not speculating on whether this is a good thing or not.

[Vincent-Vega]

One one the most memorable scenes I ever experienced in a video game was in Deus Ex I.

 

For those who don't know the game. After a talk with your brother, you're detected by several enemies who are about to storm the room. He tells you to leave through the window and that he will be fine. So you can either go or stay and protect him. If you go, you will later discover that he is dead, if you stay and help, he can survive.

 

What's so special about this scene is not, that you have a choice, it's the fact, that the game never mentiones that you have a choice. There is no "Renegade" or "Paragon" option telling you to go or to stay. There's only you, the player, playing your role.
When I discovered during my third playthrough that you can save him, I was shocked (in a positive way). I hadn't played a game before, which takes me, the player, so seriously.

I'm not saying the scene was perfect (you had, for example, to leave through the front door to save him), but memorable moments like that just don't happen in a game which is afraid to deny players content. It's moments like that which make a RPG great and not just very good.

[ArtemisMoons]

One one the most memorable scenes I ever experienced in a video game was in Deus Ex I.

 

For those who don't know the game. After a talk with your brother, you're detected by several enemies who are about to storm the room. He tells you to leave through the window and that he will be fine. So you can either go or stay and protect him. If you go, you will later discover that he is dead, if you stay and help, he can survive.

 

What's so special about this scene is not, that you have a choice, it's the fact, that the game never mentiones that you have a choice. There is no "Renegade" or "Paragon" option telling you to go or to stay. There's only you, the player, playing your role.
When I discovered during my third playthrough that you can save him, I was shocked (in a positive way). I hadn't played a game before, which takes me, the player, so seriously.

I'm not saying the scene was perfect (you had, for example, leave through the front door to save him), but memorable moments like that just don't happen in a game which is afraid to deny players content. It's moments like that which make a RPG great and not just very good.

That happens again in Deus Ex: HR. If you take your time and explore the office right before your mission, hostages die and everyone looks at you like you are a giant tool bag. lol. If you hurry to the scene, you have more of a chance of saving people and are looked at as someone much more positively.

 

So it's not unheard of for these things to happen. I actually don't mind it, though I would prefer to know some sort of headsup if my characters might die. xD

[9TailsFox]

Whether it be a good feature or no, telling people your subjective opinion on its worth is fact and respond to them telling you they disagree by essentially saying it's because they are mindless idiots is extremely arrogant. It makes you seem like a petulant child and blocks any chance of having a meaningful conversation about the topic, at least for me. Which is sad because it's actually a very interesting topic when you take into consideration both *cough* perspectives.

How do you feel if someone don't like part of game which was in both DA:O and DA2 (In this case story content changes based on what companions you take) to be removed? Especially if this one of main reason why DA is great. This is proof why making games for wide audience is bad, when you make game for everyone you make game for no one.

[9TailsFox]

That happens again in Deus Ex: HR. If you take your time and explore the office right before your mission, hostages die and everyone looks at you like you are a giant tool bag. lol. If you hurry to the scene, you have more of a chance of saving people and are looked at as someone much more positively.

 

So it's not unheard of for these things to happen. I actually don't mind it, though I would prefer to know some sort of headsup if my characters might die. xD

Other DEX:HR.

Spoiler

Or then you fly to chine your pilot is shot and you can save here or leave hear to die, but game don't tell you this. my first play she day because I focus on stealth so i just run,I thought it was suppose to happen, my second was guns blazing so I was surprised I saved her.

[zambingo]

I can totally understand the frustration anyone could feel if something they thought they were working towards got fubared because Vivienne decided the scenario must end her way. However in many ways that is life. You can really only control you. As such I can see it as a valid mechanic.

[Nefla]

Eh...I doubt it will be anything impossible to predict or that it will have massive consequences. It's probably more like if you need to deal with the Qunari, it goes much smoother with Iron Bull than Varric or you have greater access to the Orlesian chateau you are trying to infiltrate if you bring Vivienne than if you bring Sera, etc...The game/characters will probably also tell you before you choose like it did in the ME2 suicide mission. I like things that add replay value and even if we are unable to predict it (which I don't think is true) on the first playthrough, we can try other options on subsequent playthroughs.

[ArtemisMoons]

It's almost as though companions have specific tasks that they are better at and some that they are not as good at. What a shocking turn of events!

[Vincent-Vega]

That happens again in Deus Ex: HR. If you take your time and explore the office right before your mission, hostages die and everyone looks at you like you are a giant tool bag. lol. If you hurry to the scene, you have more of a chance of saving people and are looked at as someone much more positively.

 

So it's not unheard of for these things to happen. I actually don't mind it, though I would prefer to know some sort of headsup if my characters might die. xD

 

Yes, and I think that's great.

 

The scene with Paul was just an example. I'm not saying a game needs such a death to be great, I just wanted to show, that IMO, less obvious consequences are way more rewarding.

[9TailsFox]

Eh...I doubt it will be anything impossible to predict or that it will have massive consequences. It's probably more like if you need to deal with the Qunari, it goes much smoother with Iron Bull than Varric or you have greater access to the Orlesian chateau you are trying to infiltrate if you bring Vivienne than if you bring Sera, etc...The game/characters will probably also tell you before you choose like it did in the ME2 suicide mission. I like things that add replay value and even if we are unable to predict it (which I don't think is true) on the first playthrough, we can try other options on subsequent playthroughs.

Or Varric just kill someone he don't like  1min 40s

Spoiler