19658 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Skip Assassins' Creed 1 and just play 2. Two is much better.

[KC_Prototype]

Assassin's Creed had the best protagonist. I loved Altiar over Ezio.

[Lucy Glitter]

Who is voting for a romantic dance number at Halamshiral? 

 

 

Preferably with an 80s ballad.

 

 

Skip Assassins' Creed 1 and just play 2. Two is much better.

 

Disagreed. If you hate obnoxious and cocky Italian men, you'll hate Ezio who is the protagonist in AC2. I grew up with men like him and I cannot stand having to watch his silly face in cutscenes. Altair is interesting enough and the setting was really interesting.

Also, I refuse to play AC games anymore. 

[ahellbornlady]

When I heard people referring to the KOTOR graphics as being "retro" I was expecting some King's Quest realness.

 

[KC_Prototype]

Who is voting for a romantic dance number at Halamshiral? 

 

 

Preferably with an 80s ballad.

 

 

 

Disagreed. If you hate obnoxious and cocky Italian men, you'll hate Ezio who is the protagonist in AC2. I grew up with men like him and I cannot stand having to watch his silly face in cutscenes. Altair is interesting enough and the setting was really interesting.

Also, I refuse to play AC games anymore. 

I want to have a romantic dance with Cassandra at the Winter Palace, just imagine her joyful face with a mask on  Also, what put you off about AC games?

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I realize I'm late for the fraternization discussion, but I've always found it weird that people drew the line at romance for favoritism. Humans are emotional beings and we're going to make good or bad connections with people. Do you think just as many people wouldn't have as hard a time sacrificing a popular "bro" character like Varric or a non-romanced Garrus than a good chunk of the romances? Human connections will always cloud a good number of people's judgment. I don't believe there's any way to completely root that out. It's also important to keep in mind that negative feelings are just as likely to do so as positive ones. How many people on the BSN want an option to murderknife companions without even having to be offered a one lives, one dies situation?

[AkiKishi]

I realize I'm late for the fraternization discussion, but I've always found it weird that people drew the line at romance for favoritism. Humans are emotional beings and we're going to make good or bad connections with people. Do you think just as many people wouldn't have as hard a time sacrificing a popular "bro" character like Varric or a non-romanced Garrus than a good chunk of the romances? Human connections will always cloud a good number of people's judgment. I don't believe there's any way to completely root that out. It's also important to keep in mind that negative feelings are just as likely to do so as positive ones. How many people on the BSN want an option to murderknife companions without even having to be offered a one lives, one dies situation?

 

And that's why they have rules.In a game it's harmless, but if your running an organisation and you have people doing that , well not so harmless. What Bioware should be doing is including situations where playing favourites has unforseen and catastrophic consequences. 

[Vapaa]

What Bioware should be doing is including situations where playing favourites has unforseen and catastrophic consequences. 

 

No, just...no

[Former_Fiend]

How would one even determine "playing favorites", anyway? 

[zestalyn]

Then that compels you to not take out your LI for missions... kinda takes away the fun of romancing your companions doesnt it lol....

[Grieving Natashina]

How would one even determine "playing favorites", anyway? 

The game could probably be able to keep track of how many times you added someone into your party.

 

 For instance, in ME3 Citadel DLC, whomever you pick the least when you're going after the bad guy for that DLC will complain.  For me, it was EDI.  They will say something like, "It seems like I never get picked." However, the most that the player got from EDI (or whomever) in Citadel was a bit of a whine.  

 

That's all there should be, really. I don't think there should be "unforeseen and disastrous consequences" because a player might prefer a certain party makeup or wants to take their LI around.

[Former_Fiend]

That's a really loose definition of playing favorites, though.

[AkiKishi]

How would one even determine "playing favorites", anyway? 

 

There are any number of ways. The point is to not let the player get comfortable with the idea that they have control over anything beyond their character.

[Vapaa]

There are any number of ways.

 

Please elaborate.

[Former_Fiend]

Well, lets examine a few of the ways;

 

Who you take with you the most? Character X's class and specialization are more useful for the player's party configurations. Besides, can't this one bite both ways? Couldn't one be showing favoritism by not taking a given character into life and death situations? How would the game determine that?

 

Agreeing with/heeding advice? What if you just honestly think Character X proposes the best course of action? Obviously choosing a stupid course of action should have consequences, but if all courses of action are equal, is agreeing with one person more often than not favoritism? Can't we simply think that they're right? Should the romance options give worse advice than the non romance options? How else would playing favorites in this situation bite us?

 

Giving equipment? What equipment we get is left to the whims of the random number gods. Sorry, Sera, that I haven't given you any nice bows, but all enemies have been dropping is plate and staves. 

[TheLastSuperSaiyan87]

So someone brought to my attention that Varric and IB may be the only ones race gated but you never know, since Sera is already gender gated she will probably not be race gated. 

[Deviija]

I'd really dislike the idea of the game punishing me for playing a certain way.  What if there are only two mages in the game, and one is dead due to plot-choice circumstance (like Wynne at the Circle Tower), then I'm only left with Morrigan to utilize for magic.  If the game slaps you for bringing your only remaining mage with you everywhere, that'd be really silly.  Also, siding with a companion on social/political plots wouldn't translate to nepotism either.  If I sided with Wrex on all things genophage, it doesn't mean I like him.  

 

P.S.  Can't stand Ezio.  

[Shark17676]

There are any number of ways. The point is to not let the player get comfortable with the idea that they have control over anything beyond their character.

 

What are you even talking about?

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, lets examine a few of the ways;

 

Who you take with you the most? Character X's class and specialization are more useful for the player's party configurations. Besides, can't this one bite both ways? Couldn't one be showing favoritism by not taking a given character into life and death situations? How would the game determine that?

 

 

By taking the extreme outliers and taking the outside viewpoints reasonable assumption. Whether the character is useful or not, the companion who is almost always present can be seen as favored. The companion that is almost never used is the one being ignored.

 

More to the point, the companion that is always sitting on the bench and not helping the cause they signed up for could feel resentment for never being taken, regardless of your reasoning why. It's their feelings of being neglected that matter to if they feel aggrieved.

 

 

 

Agreeing with/heeding advice? What if you just honestly think Character X proposes the best course of action? Obviously choosing a stupid course of action should have consequences, but if all courses of action are equal, is agreeing with one person more often than not favoritism? Can't we simply think that they're right? Should the romance options give worse advice than the non romance options? How else would playing favorites in this situation bite us?

 

 

In Dragon Age, there's an even easier way: the approval meter. People metagame the **** out things to maximize approval for the characters they like and avoid disapproval. In a game like DA2, where so many of the companions were at zero-sum odds with eachother, agreeing with one often meant disagreeing with another. You can track that if the system were intended for this (DA2 was not), or track a list of significant decisions.

 

You cast it in terms of the player feeling Character X regularly proposes the best course of action, and I'm certain Character X agrees or else they wouldn't approve, but your point of view isn't the one that matters for being seen as favoritism. Character Y, who disagrees with Character X but who feels that their course of action is the best, can easily see favoritism if the player character is constantly agreeing with Character X and making the 'wrong' decisions.
 

 

Giving equipment? What equipment we get is left to the whims of the random number gods. Sorry, Sera, that I haven't given you any nice bows, but all enemies have been dropping is plate and staves. 

 

Aside from the plethora of fixed loot drops throughout the game, RNG distribution would, over time, provide you with appropriate loot as well. If you aren't giving her any nice bows, it's because you've sold them.

 

 

Of course, item equipment can come into play in another way as well. In Neverwinter Nights 2's finale, the main villain plays the divisions in your group and gets a number of your companions to abandon you. As most of the companions are arranged in a rivalry set with others, the companion with higher approval/loyalty/what have you stayed, and the lower approval would betray you and fight you with the equipment they had.

 

Thing was, people would obviously strip them of equipment before doing so. A little catch in the system was that the boss would note this, chastise the player and use this as proof of unworthiness, and then give the betrayers new and better equipment. This is the sort of idea you could do.

[Former_Fiend]

See, when you phrase it like that it's just going to come down to the same consequences we face for not having all characters with maximum approval, anyway. Who we are and aren't romancing doesn't necessarily have to factor into that. Just a matter of which companions company we enjoy more.

 

Also my first point and your counter point to it(who you take, who you leave) factors into a larger problem I have with Bioware games; that the bench warmers are actually warming the bench back at home base. Just because I'm not taking them on my squad doesn't mean they can't be doing something else. If Cassandra's the only person I take on a given mission, Iron Bull and/or Blackwall should be leading troops on another assignment.

[Dean_the_Young]

I'd really dislike the idea of the game punishing me for playing a certain way.  What if there are only two mages in the game, and one is dead due to plot-choice circumstance (like Wynne at the Circle Tower), then I'm only left with Morrigan to utilize for magic.  If the game slaps you for bringing your only remaining mage with you everywhere, that'd be really silly.  Also, siding with a companion on social/political plots wouldn't translate to nepotism either.  If I sided with Wrex on all things genophage, it doesn't mean I like him.  

 

P.S.  Can't stand Ezio.  

 

A game that doesn't punish you for playing a certain way is a game that, at the end of it, has no consequences. Plenty of people would like that sort of reactivity, both approving and disapproving, of player actions.

 

Of course, what would be silly would change from context to context. The game would and should be set up to account for the implicit choices and consequences as much as the explicit ones. If your punishment for taking Morrigan everywhere more often than Alistair is accusations that she has you twisted around her finger and a loss of respect and/or approval from him, is that so bad?

 

In the end, though, your reasons for why you side with a character as often as you do are irrelevant to perceptions of favoritism. You might not feel you like Wrex despite siding with him on all things genophage... but would everyone else who disagrees with Wrex agree that you're not? They say don't. Wrex says do. You do, and you do consistently. Why shouldn't they be upset with you for choosing Wrex and his interests over them and their concern?

[Dean_the_Young]

See, when you phrase it like that it's just going to come down to the same consequences we face for not having all characters with maximum approval, anyway. Who we are and aren't romancing doesn't necessarily have to factor into that. Just a matter of which companions company we enjoy more.

 

Who said it has to react to that? These are thoughts, not dictates.

 

Party interaction is on a lot of levels, and Bioware has never been consistent. DA2 was about as close they got to major animosity within a group, but it was unavoidable. In-party animosity and consequences because of bias and favoritism, or just romance, is an area they haven't done yet.

 

 

Also my first point and your counter point to it(who you take, who you leave) factors into a larger problem I have with Bioware games; that the bench warmers are actually warming the bench back at home base. Just because I'm not taking them on my squad doesn't mean they can't be doing something else. If Cassandra's the only person I take on a given mission, Iron Bull and/or Blackwall should be leading troops on another assignment.

 

 

Sure. I got no beef with that. SWTOR had a semi-solution in that your crew could be sent on crafting and gathering missions.

 

Of course, like any group, people can grow resentful for getting the **** jobs even if they're employed. They can also have opinions and views of the happenings of the away team, even if they weren't there.

 

One thing I feel the Dragon Age games  could have stood to benefit from is to let Big Decisions (the end-of-mission ones) affect the approval rating of even companions who weren't part of the party at the moment of decision. People talk, even amongst the companions, and even if they don't necessarily need a word-by-word replay about your dialogue choices they could still be influenced by the notable decisions. Alistair will confront you about Connor even if he's not there at the time, for example.

[Char]

A game that doesn't punish you for playing a certain way is a game that, at the end of it, has no consequences. Plenty of people would like that sort of reactivity, both approving and disapproving, of player actions.

 

Of course, what would be silly would change from context to context. The game would and should be set up to account for the implicit choices and consequences as much as the explicit ones. If your punishment for taking Morrigan everywhere more often than Alistair is accusations that she has you twisted around her finger and a loss of respect and/or approval from him, is that so bad?

 

In the end, though, your reasons for why you side with a character as often as you do are irrelevant to perceptions of favoritism. You might not feel you like Wrex despite siding with him on all things genophage... but would everyone else who disagrees with Wrex agree that you're not? They say don't. Wrex says do. You do, and you do consistently. Why shouldn't they be upset with you for choosing Wrex and his interests over them and their concern?

But surely that punishment already takes place in Dragon Age via the approval system. Making choices they disagree with, regardless of reason results in a decrease in approval. I'm not sure I'd want an extra punishment added on top of what may already be a complex balancing act in Inquisition ( I do my utmost to make all the companions like my PC )