153 réponses à ce sujet

[Muspade]

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

 

- Father of three son's and with a deceased wife, you have now deprived another soul from this world. Possibly four.

- Spirited by default and eager to aid her/his cause, this knight fell to X's (sword, magic, arrow, etc) In combat, leaving the world without regret for his actions.

- Alcoholic by nature, this woman/man suffered In life but suffers no more...

- A demon has been slain! This terror demon once played dice with a demon of lust and lost his fade domain. What a loser.

[N7recruit]

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 have to believe that Developers can come up with other, more creative Mechanics to engage players with than Violent ones. 

[N7recruit]

- Father of three son's and with a deceased wife, you have now deprived another soul from this world. Possibly four.

- Spirited by default and eager to aid her/his cause, this knight fell to X's (sword, magic, arrow, etc) In combat, leaving the world without regret for his actions.

- Alcoholic by nature, this woman/man suffered In life but suffers no more...

- A demon has been slain! This terror demon once played dice with a demon of lust and lost his fade domain. What a loser.

Play spec ops, context can be given to the enemies you kill in ways that don't ruin the pacing. 

[Massakkolia]

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

If I remember correctly, Alpha Protocol told you the number orphans your actions caused after every mission. That element itself was "gamey", but because of that piece of information, I mostly used only tranquilizer guns and martial arts throughout the game.

[Muspade]

Play spec ops, context can be given to the enemies you kill in ways that don't ruin the pacing.

Why would I play a game again that isn't even enjoyable? It's an experience.

Moreover, your response has nothing to do with my comment.

[Lebanese Dude]

Play Spec Ops the line

Dragon Age is not Specs Ops the line.

 

There is a massive difference in scope. Do not compare.

[HiroVoid]

Play Spec Ops the line

Dragon Age does not have the intention of becoming Spec Ops: The Line.

 

Dragon Age is a party-based combat RPG.  The combat means violence happens.  The developers use this as part of the party-based combat part of the game.  Until the devs decide they want to make another type of game, they currently don't seem interested in what seems mostly a means to an end of playing the game between locations.

[Kleon]

It will most certainly be a gamey filler. More nuanced and mature approach to violance and enemies is againts everything in BioWare story chart. Majority of choices in BioWare games have always been binary: good one and bastard one. 

 

If BioWare were to suddenly abandon their 0/1 story system they would need to contribute more Resources^TM to creating complex second and third plan characters. 

[N7recruit]

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.   

 

What's wrong with wanting an experience that doesn't trivialise but acknowledges the Mass murder committed by the player? 

 

You kill HUNDREDS of people in DA games through gameplay but no one bats an eye. But oh I'm meant to ignore that & only be super invested in the  Story part of the game that Bioware want me to take seriously.

 

You don't think it's absolutely RIDICULOUS that someone who kills hundreds or even thousands of people can be 100% Emotionally sound like the Player character is in almost every triple A game? Come on.  

 

Not all escapism is meant to be "fun" but engaging, survival horror games prove this.  

 

I don't see why games that want to be taken seriously shouldn't take their own mechanics seriously first.  

[HiroVoid]

What's wrong with wanting an experience that doesn't trivialise but acknowledges the Mass murder committed by the player? 

 

You kill HUNDREDS of people in DA games through gameplay but no one bats an eye. But oh I'm meant to ignore that & only be super invested in the  Story part of the game that Bioware want me to take seriously.

 

You don't think it's absolutely RIDICULOUS that someone who kills hundreds or even thousands of people can be 100% Emotionally sound like the Player character is in almost every triple A game? Come on.  

 

Not all escapism is meant to be "fun" but engaging, survival horror games prove this.  

 

I don't see why games that want to be taken seriously shouldn't take their own mechanics seriously first.  

In order:

Nothing.  Dragon Age, as far as I can tell, just isn't that game.

Pretty much.

Not really.  Again, its the ability to separate realizing devs putting the combat focus over the story in these instances.

Agreed.

They do take the mechanics seriously.  That's why they don't want the story to force the mechanics to adhere to the story.

[N7recruit]

Dragon Age does not have the intention of becoming Spec Ops: The Line.

 

Dragon Age is a party-based combat RPG.  The combat means violence happens.  The developers use this as part of the party-based combat part of the game.  Until the devs decide they want to make another type of game, they currently don't seem interested in what seems mostly a means to an end of playing the game between locations.

I'm not saying that the Inquisitor should become what Sargent Walker did but violence should affect the PC somewhat at least. Other IMO wise the character doesn't feel real.

 

I use spec ops as an example because it did this the best out of the games that I have played.  

[Illyria God King of the Primordium]

I'm not saying that the Inquisitor should become what Sargent Walker did but violence should affect the PC somewhat at least. Other IMO wise the character doesn't feel real.

 

I use spec ops as an example because it did this the best out of the games that I have played.  

Spec Ops uses violence against civilians in the modern day where soldiers are criticised for killing people at all.  

 

Dragon Age uses violence in a semi-medieval society where it is a key tennet of politics and most people's daily lives, especially the characters in question.  

 

I agree, Bioware games could handle violence better.  But they're in different contexts, and the context dragon age should use is NOT the context Spec Ops had.  

 

Though Spec Ops was a very good game.  

[Beerfish]

They should have a scene of Javaris Tintop looting their bodies.  All 30,000 of them.

[HiroVoid]

I'm not saying that the Inquisitor should become what Sargent Walker did but violence should affect the PC somewhat at least. Other IMO wise the character doesn't feel real.

 

I use spec ops as an example because it did this the best out of the games that I have played.  

There might be a dialogue to mention something like this, but again....as far as I can tell, Bioware, despite being lauded for story-telling, generally tries to keep the mechanics from affecting the story and vice-versa.  Especially since we don't actually have the options not to fight like in Deus Ex or Dishonored.

[Cyonan]

Just remember that the last time BioWare tried to show the main character as being emotionally troubled we got the dream sequences from Mass Effect 3.

 

It would be okay if they could introduce something to deal with it in an interesting manner, but at the end of the day games really still need to be fun or enjoyable for the person playing them. Yes, even survival horror games need to be enjoyable(and I personally do find them to be).

[CrazyMooNew]

Well...of course not all of it is as in depth and meaningful as you seem to want....you're killing enemies for exp. and because they're in the way of some objective (or perhaps just need killing). But not all enemies are going to be like that...not all will be faceless goons...there will be some that have garner a true reason to fight/kill.

 

Honestly though...what you seem to want will likely never happen...and Bioware want's DA:I to be enjoyable...having an Rpg where you only fight a handful of bad guys for the sake of not wanting "filler" or...one of the most important parts of the game...is silly...although it is an interesting idea...don't expect every enemy you encounter to be significant to the plot...because at that point the plot becomes a terrible mess.

[Almostfaceman]

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.

 

*snip*

 

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?

 

 

Ruh roh, red shirt alien in the top red row is about to bite it, big time, laser to the face. As he disintegrates in digital agony, let's feel his alien pain as we sit safely behind our bunker.

 

How silly. 

 

There is a reason this game mechanic is fun for people. We know it's not real. 

[N7recruit]

Why would I play a game again that isn't even enjoyable? It's an experience.

Moreover, your response has nothing to do with my comment.

Your joking response to the text box every time you kill some one comment.

 

Just because a game isn't "Enjoyable" dose not mean it isn't good or that you won't find it engaging. 

[Wiggs Magee]

I really don't see what OP is asking for

 

You want it to be the case where EVERY SINGLE enemy you kill is given some emotional weight?

Or do you just want it to be the case where the death of companions/advisors is treated as meaningless to balance things out?

 

The first is hilariously silly... seeing as how that would mean we would be doing almost zero fighting in the game (please tell me any action games you've played where every single individual kill your character achieves is given a sizable amount of weight? Only one i can think of would be the squads deterioration in Spec Ops The Line, and even then its not for individuals, but key parts of the storyline)

The second would just weaken the storyline and come off as laziness of bioware's part if a companion dies and literally no one cares 

[N7recruit]

 

 

Ruh roh, red shirt alien in the top red row is about to bite it, big time, laser to the face. As he disintegrates in digital agony, let's feel his alien pain as we sit safely behind our bunker.

 

How silly. 

 

There is a reason this game mechanic is fun for people. We know it's not real. 

I'll have you know that the red aliens were fresh recruits with their whole lives ahead of them dammit. And some of the Blue ones were family men, you heartless monster! But the green ones were assholes I'll give you that. 

[N7recruit]

There might be a dialogue to mention something like this, but again....as far as I can tell, Bioware, despite being lauded for story-telling, generally tries to keep the mechanics from affecting the story and vice-versa.  Especially since we don't actually have the options not to fight like in Deus Ex or Dishonored.

Yeah, I'm just not a fan of the disconnect. Kinda annoying especially in "Mature" games

[Almostfaceman]

Yeah, I'm just not a fan of the disconnect. Kinda annoying especially in "Mature" games

 

I think there has to be some kind of disconnect. That's part of what makes it a game and not real life. We as a society do care about violence, that's why so many of our soldiers come back from war with PTSD. We're not mindless killers.

 

You bring the agency of a game into the ultimate connection with realism, then we'll all end up suffering PTSD after we play a "game". 

[Blisscolas]

I quite disagree with the OP, but I think he/she could have had a better kind of argument that somehow would fit the dragon age world a little better.

 

If you take the example of A song of Ice and Fire (also wrongly thought to be Game of Thrones)

 

In the novels, you can clearly see that the actions of the big men/women of the world impact both nobility and peasants in different ways. Now, the characters didn't go completely nuts (well, let's say that some of them are) but these experiences ,mostly caused by politics, are what shaped these characters into what they are at that moment.

 

Now the real problem here, would be that by letting these things affect you, you would effectively take away everything that makes up for roleplay that happens in your head while you are playing. By making the character crack under the pressure, you would not be able to fully role play the tough badass ***hole that you wished to play. It's also true that it's up to the devs to implement that kind of mechanic in their game....but then again that would be restricting the ways people wish to roleplay their characters.

 

In the end it's quite the dilemma: either you make characters emotional and find yourself with roleplay limitations, either you leave room for roleplay, but you end up with something that isn't completely consistent with whatever seems to make sense if you were mister Lamda in that world.

[Father_Jerusalem]

I know when I play a video game, getting lectured on the psychological impact the death of Hurlock #1721 has on my character is exactly what I'm looking for.

 

If you choose to roleplay your Inquisitor as getting scarred by all the death that surrounds him, that's great and you should do that.

 

But, let's not forget that this is a video GAME. And that the game part has to be both playable and enjoyable, or else people will not purchase your video game. Getting told that because I fought an enemy, my character now has to go visit a shrink in order to continue to the next part of the game is not my idea of fun.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Play spec ops, context can be given to the enemies you kill in ways that don't ruin the pacing. 

 

I sure as hell don't want Dragon Age to become a hypocritical, moralisating navel-gazing story like Spec Ops: The Line was. The game forces you to gun down enemies if you want to progress, forces you to push forward, forces you to launch the attack on the civilians, so the entire ''it's all your fault!!'' message is so diluted as to be meaningless, unless the devs expect one to fork over 60$ for a game and then stop playing because pixels are guilt tripping them.

 

Dishonored or Deus Ex are a bit better, since you actually have a choice as to whenever you kill people or don't. But the entire game is designed with that freedom in mind. Pacifist runs in Dragon Age would be cool, if the game properly supports it. But the game attempting to guilt trip you for playing it? No way in hell.