153 réponses à ce sujet

[N7recruit]

Something that 99% of the industry is guilty of is the "Gamey" portrayal of the violence that the Player character engages in throughout the game & Bioware are no exception.

 

In Kotor it was faceless Storm troopers, droids & Sith. 

In Mass effect it was faceless Cerberus goons, mercenaries, mecs & Reaper monsters 

And In Dragon Age so far it has been Mindless Dark spawn, Faceless Bandits/templars/mages, a couple of random Dragons & now we have a plot that revolves around stopping Unanimously Evil Demons from Destroying the world. 

 

Notice how the enemies in these games are not really all that sympathetic or morally complex. They are either Evil Monsters or Evil Faceless goons. So you as the player can feel 100% morally justified in mowing them down & having a body count high enough to fill a cemetery just 4 hours in.

 

The thing that absolutely drives me up the wall though is that Violence or death only matters in cut scenes & only when a main character is involved.

 

Hawke & friends kill about 400 people in game play, Lol who cares. Characters joke about it.

Hawke's mom dies, OMG THE FEEL'S! 

 

Shepard Commits genocide & has a body count over 350'000. "What, you think I didn't feel bad? What ever bro party at my apartment YEAH!!!"

Shepard looses one team mate, OMG THE FEEL'S!  

 

See the pattern here? 

Literally NO ONE GIVES A SINGLE FLYING **** about the Violence that happens in gameplay. Hell you could it cut out & the Story would progress the same. It's practically filler content. Just Busy work for the player.

 

At least there is the Roleplaying mechanics (AKA the only relevant part) of the game to engage in MEANINGFULLY but the rest feels like its there just to be filler "Gamey" content.  

 

The only relevance the violence has is "Kill the Bad Guys & gain points to progress the plot. Also its Fun!" 

Nothing is strictly wrong with that approach but if your game is trying to be taken seriously, Mass Murder committed by the player should not be casually dismissed.

 

I know its a war game but Can we have the insane amount violence the player character commits actually affect them & their companions? I'm sure killing HUNDREDS of people MIGHT cause some psychological trauma.

 

We know that the carefully constructed moral Choices that we select form a list will affect the characters but the in game violence should as well.  

 

Thoughts?

[Mirrman70]

I think that this would be quite the hassle to implement.

[Ryzaki]

Filler most likely.

 

Has there ever been a BW game where most of the violence wasn't filler?

[Lebanese Dude]

You're playing a combat-based game. By definition, the combat is a major part of the game. How is it gamey filler?

 

Do you want every encounter to be a meaningful? The game would be mostly talk and no play.

 

No thank you.

The way DA and ME do it is fine. You kill a bunch of bad guys, get to the boss, and win.

 

Feels good.

[Sylentmana]

Its a video game, not an interactive movie. Its supposed to be "gamey." If you didn't have those combat parts (you know, the actual gameplay?) then DA:I would just be a really well done visual novel.

[Shadelon]

So you would find a meter that says you can suffer this much more psych trauma before your character goes insane. . . Fun? It's a video game. Video games are meant to be fun. The moment they cease to be is the moment playing it becomes pointless. Game designers have to think about all these things.

[LightningPoodle]

So you want every enemy to have their own individual opinion? For every possible situation they find themselves in? Whoever tries to implement this in a game needs several pints of vodka before they even get to the point where it starts to make sense.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Your logic is sound OP.

 

But the answer is simple: Gameplay and fun VS realism. At some point plausibility has to make way for making an actual game.

 

It is kinda humorous to think about though (In a macabre way). Lets say each person killed had 5 close family members and 5 close friends. That means when Hawke kills... I dont know, 2000 people in DA:2 - that means 20 000 grieving people because of your actions, maybe 10 000 children made into orphans, 10 000 grieving wives etc. So yeah from a gameplay into realism perspective Hawke probably left the world in a state of misery and despair in his wake

[Lebanese Dude]

Your logic is sound OP.

 

But the answer is simple: Gameplay and fun VS realism. At some point plausibility has to make way for making an actual game.

 

It is kinda humorous to think about though (In a macabre way). Lets say each person killed had 5 close family members and 5 close friends. That means when Hawke kills... I dont know, 2000 people in DA:2 - that means 20 000 grieving people because of your actions, maybe 10 000 children made into orphans, 10 000 grieving wives etc. So yeah from a gameplay into realism perspective Hawke probably left the world in a state of misery and despair in his wake

 

Don't make us think of the repercussions of our actions. I just want to murder mooks in a video game in peace without thinking that I'm killing someone's son.

 

*rocks back and forth in denial*

 

They are only vessels of XP. They are only vessels of XP. They are only vessels of XP.

[Beerfish]

Yeah but we having bouncing ****** so it all evens out.

[Murder Knife]

A small digression:

Its a video game, not an interactive movie. Its supposed to be "gamey." If you didn't have those combat parts (you know, the actual gameplay?) then DA:I would just be a really well done visual novel.

I dislike the notion that combat is the only "actual gameplay". Interactive dialogue and story decisions is gameplay. Managing the inquisition from the war table and elsewhere is gameplay. Character creation is gameplay. Crafting is gameplay. Even exploring can be gameplay.

 

Combat is gameplay too, and a very important part of this game. But it's not the only part.

 

That's all, carry on.

[Navasha]

Seriously?   I think maybe you are missing the entire POINT to gaming.    This ISN'T real life.   Nor should any game ever be misconstrued as to represent real life.    Gaming is about escapism.   People don't read books, watch movies, and play games to get a sense of 'real life'.    Oh sure... I know... there are real life depictions in some movies/books/games.    However, that is NOT the game you are playing here. 

 

If that is the kind of experience you want in a game, go find those types of games.    If you have a hard time finding those kinds of games, maybe there is a reason for that.   No one buys them.  

 

I have yet to play a game that was fun where the main character curls up in a corner after they first kill a bad guy.   

[Cyonan]

Every time you kill an enemy, a little piece of information about them should pop up on screen.

[frankf43]

who was the out and out bad guys in DA:2 the game was set up in a way that has completely split  the fanbase over whether

a) the mages were right

the Templars were right

c) both are as bad as each other

 

DA:O you had characters like Loghain and The warewolves and the Dalish  whowere grey in their motives for doing what they did. 

[ComedicSociopathy]

Erich Maria Remarque had this great quote I want to share with you all.

 

"Strange, I think to myself, how we have seen so much death in the wars and we know that two million of us have fallen in vain - how come we are so stirred up by this one man and have almost forgotten those two million? But that's just how it is, because one man is always the dead - and two million is always just a statistic."

 

Gamers and most people in general don't care about the faceless goons they face in their games because they are faceless, soulless, personality-less and voiceless trash enemies that only exist to be destroyed by your PC. Seriously, just think about it. Give a NPC a name and he suddenly matters, but call him/her Bad Guy Guard and he just becomes XP waiting to be consumed by our mass murdering "hero".

 

Not that's wrong or anything, it's just that the game can't pause for an emotional moment every time you kill a nameless mook. 

[natalscar]

First off, in a sense this is war stimulation. This is not an exercise in ethics but a game designed in a fantasy setting where we see only through the prism of the main characters-that's the point. Defeating an ultimate evil and the forces meant to stop you. This isn't real life and doesn't masquerade as such. Ultimately if we were truly fighting for our lives and loved ones, we'd have to make these same choices if our enemy was beyond reason.

[LightningPoodle]

Every time you kill an enemy, a little piece of information about them should pop up on screen.

 

The man you just slaughtered in cold blood... has a wife... and a newborn... He only took this job because his wife became ill... and now his wife will never know what has happened to him. Did he give up, run away from the responsibilities? I guess she'll never know...

[Lebanese Dude]

A small digression:

I dislike the notion that combat is the only "actual gameplay". Interactive dialogue and story decisions is gameplay. Managing the inquisition from the war table and elsewhere is gameplay. Character creation is gameplay. Crafting is gameplay. Even exploring can be gameplay.

 

Combat is gameplay too, and a very important part of this game. But it's not the only part.

 

That's all, carry on.

 

Exactly. You're quite correct.

 

I just detest the notion that the combat portion MUST appease all other parts of the game. If combat was like lore, we'd one shot everything and get one-shotted ourselves. That's hardly fun.

 

SImilarly, we kill waves of faceless mooks rather than the literal dozen before having a dynamic boss battle that would also realistically be over in 10 seconds.

 

Combat simply obeys its own rules. It has to fit into the game of course, but it's its own thing.

[rocsage]

OP should try bashing BF/COD/CS/Halo/AC crowd; i think they're more appreciative of ideological differences.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

seriously though, having a face or not makes really no difference.

remember Jake the snake?

remember Hanker, idol of Followers of She?

remember Rendon Howe?

They all have faces, but none with any redeeming value.

Okay, maybe the last one has some if you look hard enough.

The point is, as Bioware employees have pointed out, the lack of visual distinction is intended to reduce processing burden, for each uniquely outfitted enemy consumes a substantial amount of processor capacity.

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

I feel like now might be a good time to point out that the majority of our companions are battle hardened veterans, one of whom probably already has PTSD.  There's...not much else they can do.  Anyone who fights in this kind of society is going to be completely inured to death unless it effects them at some personal emotional level.  The only exception I can think of is probably Cole, who's spent less time in this society and thus is probably less denatured to violence.  But then he's a spirit, so his morality is wacky anyway.  

[Eledran]

No it won't, that's very obvious from the trailers. Some people's deaths will be valued much more than others, at least emotionally.

 

It's unfair to fault Dragon Age for this, games still have to come a long long way before violence is taken "seriously".

Heck, even films and other media have to come a long way as well.

 

You could even argue real life news reporting and even simply caring has to come a long way. Thousands of random Africans dying of ebola isn't enough to spark much of a reaction, a couple of westerners dying is. Same with many other disasters and wars.

[Lebanese Dude]

No it won't, that's very obvious from the trailers. Some people's deaths will be valued much more than others, at least emotionally.

 

It's unfair to fault Dragon Age for this, games still have to come a long long way before violence is taken "seriously".

Heck, even films and other media have to come a long way as well.

 

You could even argue real life news reporting and even simply caring has to come a long way. Thousands of random Africans dying of ebola isn't enough to spark much of a reaction, a couple of westerners dying is. Same with many other disasters and wars.

 

When I was a kid, I watched Titanic with my family.  I was sad over the loss of all the other passengers as well while my sister was only concerned about Leonardo's character.

 

It's just how it is. People only usually care about the characters directly involving the protagonist. It seems automatic.

 

We don't care if everyone else dies, as long as the main dude and his girl get away in like every movie ever made.

[N7recruit]

You're playing a combat-based game. By definition, the combat is a major part of the game. How is it gamey filler?

 

Do you want every encounter to be a meaningful? The game would be mostly talk and no play.

 

No thank you.

The way DA and ME do it is fine. You kill a bunch of bad guys, get to the boss, and win.

 

Feels good.

Play Spec Ops the line

[N7recruit]

So you would find a meter that says you can suffer this much more psych trauma before your character goes insane. . . Fun? It's a video game. Video games are meant to be fun. The moment they cease to be is the moment playing it becomes pointless. Game designers have to think about all these things.

Not fun exactly, But engaging.