105 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

You're right. I didn't do a good job justifying myself. I agree that games have to invest into atmosphere. I just don't think children are worth the cost versus - for example - more unique body models for adults (e.g. characters who are over or underweight).

I think they are a good 'resource investment' -- a lot of adults' activities and motives for them revolve around their (and others') children so actually having the kids in the game gives you entire extra set of tools to work with, when it comes to quest creation and such, as well as fleshing out the adult NPCs.

[Eveangaline]

We aren't going anywhere there would be a large amount of qunari or dwarf kids, right?  No qunari towns or settlements and no orzzamar.

 

But I don't see why we can't run into human and elf ones like in origins.

[aTigerslunch]

Kal-Sharok possibly but not Orzammar.  I think this is what was said.

[OrayMoor]

I'd would be happy if they add children NPC I think it adds immersion  

[9TailsFox]

No

[NoForgiveness]

Well children in video games usually look monsters, so I'd almost rather them not be there.

[Eveangaline]

Kal-Sharok possibly but not Orzammar.  I think this is what was said.

Huh..really?

[Grieving Natashina]

You are referring to "Cricket" right?

That was my first thought.  I have no problem seeing a few kids around, but Cricket was a little creepy.   His voice reminded me of a possessed Conner.  I wouldn't want to dodge a lot of kids in every village I hit up, but I thought they did a good job with Lothering in Origins.  That seems like a good balance.  I wouldn't want more than a few  in the game unless it was quest related (i.e a village with all the adults dead from demons, ect.)

[Eveangaline]

There were lots of kids in origins now that I think about it, but none in da2...even when there should have been? Like the dude who kidnaps elf children kidnapped instead a fully grown elf woman from what it looked like.

 

Although honestly they may not want to do that quest if they'd had a more childish looking model, and I wouldn't blame them.

[mopotter]

It does add to the ambience of the setting.  And we did have human children in DA:O (in Denerim and Lothering.) just running around.

Yeah, my dog brought me one and wanted to keep it.     

[Shapeshifter777]

You are the reason Bioware should not add children if u can't see how its wrong then you need help sir.

 

Please explain to me how it's wrong to kill a 3d model that looks like a kid with no real consciousness in a virtual reality?  Really, do explain.  So I'm assuming you don't kill anyone during your playthroughs of any video game?  Cause that's pretty messed up if you do.  What is the difference?

[BroBear Berbil]

You are the reason Bioware should not add children if u can't see how its wrong then you need help sir.

 

How is it more wrong than any of the other things he said? How is a pixel child more real than a pixel adult or animal?

 

I'm not advocating having kids in video games solely to harm them, but the argument that they're above being harmed could pretty much be used for anything else; for example nothing bad should happen to women in video games. The logic seems to be that doing something in a game means people will do it in real life after all.

 

Origins had kids. Some of them got hurt or killed while others were NPCs who couldn't be harmed. Kids could never be harmed in Fable beyond punching a bully in the first game or things that happen in cutscenes. But then there's games like TWD where you play a kid, get injured, and can die. And in Black & White I could gather dozens of children up and sacrifice them, or lob fireballs at them. There certainly isn't a consistant standard when it comes to kids in video games.

 

If children are completely absent from DA:I, or can't even come to harm it would be a clear sign to me that this series, which was originally billed as a dark fantasy, has been neutered.

 

I'll leave you with this...

 

[Inquisitor7]

Please explain to me how it's wrong to kill a 3d model that looks like a kid with no real consciousness in a virtual reality? Really, do explain. So I'm assuming you don't kill anyone during your playthroughs of any video game? Cause that's pretty messed up if you do. What is the difference?

To me I think it is wrong for a picture or a pixel to display a child being murdered for 1 the adult that u kill in the game are usually evil or attack u. The game doesn't show to many children who need to be killed not even Conor. You shouldn't be able to go around blasting children. And no my purpose isn't to kill everyone like it seems to be yours I even try passing people as much as possible whats twisted about that?All I'm saying is how much threat can a child or a pixel that represents one can pose to u that u need to kill them game or not its wrong because they cant defend themselves.

[Inquisitor7]

It looks like I will just have to suck it up and skip that content though. Sorry I have no need to kill a child, even in a dark game I have standards.

[Eveangaline]

It looks like I will just have to suck it up and skip that content though. Sorry I have no need to kill a child, even in a dark game I have standards.

Just because they add kids doesn't mean you have to kill them. I don't think there was any point in origins you HAD to kill a child. Even the kids in haven disappeared when everyone attacked.

[9TailsFox]

To me I think it is wrong for a picture or a pixel to display a child being murdered for 1 the adult that u kill in the game are usually evil or attack u. The game doesn't show to many children who need to be killed not even Conor. You shouldn't be able to go around blasting children. And no my purpose isn't to kill everyone like it seems to be yours I even try passing people as much as possible whats twisted about that?All I'm saying is how much threat can a child or a pixel that represents one can pose to u that u need to kill them game or not its wrong because they cant defend themselves.

I still don't understand what is difference, between killing adult and killing child both are same wrong. And we kill not only "evil" we kill Innocent or just someone who fight for what they beleave. In DA2 no mater if you pick mages or templars you killed a lot of innocent people. Mages done nothing wrong, and temlars just did her superior orders. And who saying "Put children in DA so we can kill them all" ?

[Inquisitor7]

Kids should be welcome. Only if i could stomp on them.

[Inquisitor7]

Only if you can kill them.

[Inquisitor7]

This is what I'm referring to and you condone that. I honestly can't believe you can't see that killing innocent children for sport is wrong especially when compared to killing people who attack you first.

[Icy Magebane]

This is what I'm referring to and you condone that. I honestly can't believe you can't see that killing innocent children for sport is wrong especially when compared to killing people who attack you first.

I think they understand that murder is wrong but simply do not care, and are not willing to draw the line at children.  After all, we are free to commit random murders on non-hostile adults in Dragon Age, and it's actually pretty tame compared to how easily it can be done in Fallout, the Elder Scrolls, or, lord help me... Grand Theft Auto.  I think what those people are saying is that we are already allowed to commit murder, and that age should not determine who is fair game and who isnt... at least, that's what I think they are saying.  You would have a point if we only were allowed to kill hostiles in Dragon Age, however, we kill many unarmed people with the murder knife in both DA:O and DA2, so... that's just not the case.

 

The thing is, this kind of murder is something that should come with serious consequences, which I doubt people are willing to deal with.  I mean, randomly killing adults locked in cages and saying "it's fine, I'm a Grey Warden," is one thing, but I don't think this can be applied to children.  No society would allow you to walk free if they knew you did such things, regardless of the PC's unique role in the story.

 

I am not opposed to the outcome in DA:O where Connor Eamon must be killed, but I don't think that's what people are arguing for... this seems to be more about random murders which, again, would draw a public outcry that would pretty much end the game right then and there.  Without realistic consequences for this type of behavior, it sounds pointless to me.

[Shimmering Nug]

I would like to see more children in DA:I and fat people too, otherwise it's a world full of sculpted adults and that's kinda immersion breaking for me.

 

On the (other) topic of making the kids killable: eh I'm not opposed to it morally, Lord British Postulate and all that, but I can see the media fit that would happen over it and that's just more trouble than it's worth, frankly.

[9TailsFox]

Wait did I miss something, since when we can randomly kill people in DA? All I remember is story related and trash mobs.

[Icy Magebane]

Wait did I miss something, since when we can randomly kill people in DA? All I remember is story related and trash mobs.

The Hungry Deserter, that merchant in Lothering who was charging a lot for supplies, Deygan, Vaughn (in Arl Howe's prison), Rexel, the 3 humans at the beginning of the Dalish origin in DA:O, the 3 mages who surrender during the Rite of Annulment in DA2, Lord Harriman (sp), and so forth.  These are all examples of non-hostile, unarmed civilians that we can murder if we wish to.  So unless there is some kind of hostile child enemy type in DA:I, I would assume that the argument is related to random people we meet...

 

Random in the GTA or Elder Scrolls sense would call for entirely new game mechanics... so I would assume that non-hostile child killing would be conversation based like all the other murders our protagonists can commit.

[9TailsFox]

Icy Magebane my point is we can't kill nothing in DA if we not allowed. Then in games like GTA we can kill all random NPC for no reason. Or best example The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind you can literary kill everything, except guards who re-spawn.  In Skyrim I hate I can't kill what Imperial .... who wanted to cut my head for no reason.

[Icy Magebane]

Icy Magebane my point is we can't kill nothing in DA if we not allowed. Then in games like GTA we can kill all random NPC for no reason. Or best example The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind you can literary kill everything, except guards who re-spawn.  In Skyrim I hate I can't kill what Imperial .... who wanted to cut my head for no reason.

Wait, you actually do get to kill her if you follow Ralof.  She's one of the first Imperials you meet after you grab that guy Gunjar's equipment... she has the key that unlocks the rest of the fortress.  I always follow Ralof so I can kill her, no matter what faction I join later. 

 

Speaking of which, if there are child NPCs in DA:I, I hope they are not annoying like the ones in Skyrim.  Those kids would just walk up and insult you for no reason... the darn brats.