61 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadowLordXII]

Why would you even want to? 

 

It's not a matter of want, but whether the enrichment of replay value that comes from having the option available.

 

Especially since past games allowed you to off your party depending on your roleplay personality and choices.

 

Sometimes, you killed companions to be a jerk. Sometimes it was for the greater good. Sometimes it was the inevitable consequence of an irreconcilable differences in morality and world viewpoint.

 

Either way, the crisis points where a companion may end up dead added depth to the experience.

 

That is until BW chickened out by giving certain characters like Leliana and Sten plot armor. At least in their canon.

[Rannik]

Hey he is honest about being a spy. It's not like he doesn't tell you he is a spy.  You agreed to it going in!

 

The only thing I'd agree to is bringing him to skyhold and put an arrow in his neck two nights after.

 

His employees would be free to walk out, if they want to.

[PsychoBlonde]

You can skip recruiting everyone but the initial three. Vivienne, Sera, Blackwall, Iron Bull, Dorian and Cole are all optional.

 

You can't kill any of them, though. I think BioWare are mostly done with killing off people they might want to use later - just look at what happens to Calpernia if you decide to fight her.

 

So THIS is why I couldn't execute Samson.  That was a major Moment of Bafflement for me.  "What do you mean I can't just chop his head off?!"  I thought Cullen was trying to mess with me.  But from that perspective it does kind of make sense.  This game has a lot of that in it, though.  Butcher your way carelessly through 5 dozen followers, but leave the ringleader alive?  WHY?!

[PsychoBlonde]

Okay, I dislike Vivienne, but not enough to wipe her off the very face of Thedas. 

No idea how anyone could hate a companion so passionately. There isn't a single hateful inner circle member! 

Perhaps some people need anger management? 

 

I think that games are their anger management, so they want to be able to live out their fantasy of Solving Problems Through Murder.

 

I personally prefer to live out a fantasy of Being Able To Talk People Out of Attempting To Solve Problems With Murder.  It's a bit weird, though, because this takes place in a world where I will have murdered about 99% of the population--except for the ones who actually have quests to hand out.  Them, I treat like Faberge Eggs.

 

Named NPC Privilege, that's what it is.

[riverbanks]

(...) Sometimes it was the inevitable consequence of an irreconcilable differences in morality and world viewpoint.

 

So in real life, when you have irreconcilable differences in morality and world viewpoint with say, your co-workers (or classmates, depending on your age), do you tend to solve your differences by murdering them? That's... an interesting way to agree to disagree.

[congokong]

That is until BW chickened out by giving certain characters like Leliana and Sten plot armor. At least in their canon.

I want to know how Sten is still alive in DA:I for me. Yes, it's referenced a hornless qunari is now Arishok but how is that the swordless qunari I left to rot in a cage as the darkspawn marched on Lothering? And what if the Arishok didn't die in DA2?

 

Bioware didn't retcon my choice because they let you choose leaving Sten to die in the Keep. It's not like killing Brother Genitivi, for example, who always survives Haven because they denied having his fate be a Keep option.

[congokong]

So THIS is why I couldn't execute Samson.  That was a major Moment of Bafflement for me.  "What do you mean I can't just chop his head off?!"  I thought Cullen was trying to mess with me.  But from that perspective it does kind of make sense.  This game has a lot of that in it, though.  Butcher your way carelessly through 5 dozen followers, but leave the ringleader alive?  WHY?!

The judgments' role-playing potential were often restrictive. In Samson's case you couldn't simply kill him, and in others you can't just let them go (Chief Movrin, Crestwood's Mayor).

[myahele]

would be nice to bind Cole.

 

Or make Dorian and Vivienne tranquil as as an alternative to muder knifing them

[Lady Artifice]

There's always Pillars of Eternity   Obsidian Entertainment rarely shies away from letting their players do horrible, stomach-turning stuff.

 

True, people who want to do this kind of thing could just go play a different game, but I'm a little leery of making those kind of suggestions in the face of calm, reasonable criticism because they're sometimes used as a way to tell critics to shut up and deal with it. 

 

About says it all really... I mean, play another game, like Skyrim (the daedric quests) or Sims or... But choosing a game mainly based on teamwork and then criticizing it because you can't murder all the members of your team is pretty... Dense as well as sadistic.

 

It's like criticizing a coffee shop because they won't give you gin... Just go to the boozer already!

 

 

As someone who works at a winery and deals with the occasional member of the frustrated public distressed that we don't have coffee or lunch options, I can appreciate your example, though I disagree with the metaphor. 

 

This game is primarily about leadership, and as an rpg it benefits from having a wide variety of rp options. I most often play as a "Paragon" character. I've never shot Mordin in the back, or let Alistair be executed, or permitted Feynriel to be possessed, even on my more ruthless or pragmatic play throughs. The fact that those options existed, however, didn't hurt me. In fact, their existence meant that I was making a conscious rp choice not to take them. This, in my opinion, makes those choices mean more than if they weren't choices at all. 

 

Additionally, I disagree that those of us who think those options being available would be a positive rp element are being "dense and sadistic." 

 

Even in the case of those who do want to play those options, it says nothing about them as people. It says that they want to play that kind of character, period. They might enjoy that kind of behavior themselves or they might not, but their roleplaying preferences are not, in and of themselves, an indicator of their personal standards.

[X Equestris]

I want to know how Sten is still alive in DA:I for me. Yes, it's referenced a hornless qunari is now Arishok but how is that the swordless qunari I left to rot in a cage as the darkspawn marched on Lothering? And what if the Arishok didn't die in DA2?
 
Bioware didn't retcon my choice because they let you choose leaving Sten to die in the Keep. It's not like killing Brother Genitivi, for example, who always survives Haven because they denied having his fate be a Keep option.

Maybe someone let him out of the cage when the darkspawn came, and he managed to track down his sword on his own. Unlikely, yes, but not impossible.

The Arishok is most likely deposed after Kirkwall, as the Qunari pretty much disavow him after that fiasco. And if Sten has come back from a successful scouting mission that revealed intel about the Blight, that might have made him a decent candidate for filling the position.

[riverbanks]

Even in the case of those who do want to play those options, it says nothing about them as people. It says that they want to play that kind of character, period. They might enjoy that kind of behavior themselves or they might not, but their roleplaying preferences are not, in and of themselves, an indicator of their personal standards.

 

It's mostly the weird tone in these threads, of "I want to kill (so and so character)." You rarely see people saying "my character is very volatile and would kill this person because (roleplaying reasons)" it's always "I hate this character I want to murder-knife her" / "this guy annoys me I want to set him on fire" / etc. There's rarely a tone of roleplaying in it, it's more a lot of people wanting to take their anger issues out on fictional characters who seem to offend them on a very real life level.

 

I mean, roleplaying is awesome and if you're roleplaying a sociopath who solves minor disagreements with gruesome murder because you like to explore that kind of psyche that's cool, have fun with that. But when it gets down to "this character disagreed with me that one time so I want to punch him in the throat and put a knife in his eye and flay him alive and display his dismembered body parts on spikes across the battlements" it does get a bit... you know.

[Lady Artifice]

It's mostly the weird tone in these threads, of "I want to kill (so and so character)." You rarely see people saying "my character is very volatile and would kill this person because (roleplaying reasons)" it's always "I hate this character I want to murder-knife her" / "this guy annoys me I want to set him on fire" / etc. There's rarely a tone of roleplaying in it, it's more a lot of people wanting to take their anger issues out on fictional characters who seem to offend them on a very real life level.

 

I mean, roleplaying is awesome and if you're roleplaying a sociopath who solves minor disagreements with gruesome murder because you like to explore that kind of psyche that's cool, have fun with that. But when it gets down to "this character disagreed with me that one time so I want to punch him in the throat and put a knife in his eye and flay him alive and display his dismembered body parts on spikes across the battlements" it does get a bit... you know.

 

This is true, sometimes excessive amounts of energy are put into hating fictional characters. 

 

On the other hand, the reaction to that can be very protective of those characters, to the point of trying to shut people down who happen to suggest more rp freedom just might be a good thing. Like I said, I don't necessarily want to take the opportunities I talked about myself. I just see the freedom the character had in DAO as compared to DAI, and I understand the point of people who say they want "darker" choices re-implemented into the Dragon Age franchise. 

 

If this franchise hadn't previously set a precedent for the potential to play an underhanded thug or a cold criminal, then the whole "just go play another game" retort might seem more fair to me. 

 

As it is, I can see where it's coming from, but I don't think its necessarily the best response to earnest criticism regarding rp freedom.

[MrGDL87]

Is there a way to kill companions?

 

Yes ... just turn on "friendly fire"

[ShadowLordXII]

So in real life, when you have irreconcilable differences in morality and world viewpoint with say, your co-workers (or classmates, depending on your age), do you tend to solve your differences by murdering them? That's... an interesting way to agree to disagree.

 

Personally no.

 

But there are players who may have a character who won't broker dissent and it may lead to blows when neither side backs down. Escalation occassionally works that way

[Bugsie]

I'd wager that the majority of people wanting to kill characters it's often not for rp purposes.  They just don't want them around. That's fine and all but this is an rp game that is trying to tie together a huge number of threads, too many and you start to get inconsistencies in narrative and game play.  I'm assuming they are trying to give a breadth of choices, it might simply be a time management issue or resources needed to make sure that things are consistent.  Personally if killing a character I disliked meant some other long form narrative was messed up I'd rather they didn't make that choice available.  As long as I can shunt the disliked character to the side I'm usually pretty happy.

[Tamyn]

Too bad being able to kill off companions doesn't stop them from being revived to appear in sequels, so killing is rather pointless in Dragon Age. I'd rather we get new teams every game so I can be rid of the companions I don't like. It's almost as good as killing them. My favorite companions are never the writers' favored pets for reappearances anyway.

[Digger1967]

Okay, I dislike Vivienne, but not enough to wipe her off the very face of Thedas. 

No idea how anyone could hate a companion so passionately. There isn't a single hateful inner circle member! 

Perhaps some people need anger management? 

 

Can I take the classes after I use the murder knife?

 

Lol

 

Ok, seriously, there are a couple of companions that aren't on my favorites list.  I really do despise Cole, for me he's like fingernails on a chalkboard.  I can't imagine any of my inquisitors killing him though.  Just not really their style at all.  

[TheRatPack55]

So in real life, when you have irreconcilable differences in morality and world viewpoint with say, your co-workers (or classmates, depending on your age), do you tend to solve your differences by murdering them? That's... an interesting way to agree to disagree.

 

So in real life, you generally run around the countryside killing bandits, dragons, demons and nugs, and have the authority to execute people by beheading them with a sword?

 

Why do people think it makes sense to bring up the 'so in real life...' argument in a discussion about roleplay choices in a fantasy rpg.

_{(Although I must say there are a number of co-workers at my workplace I certainly wouldn't cry for)}

[BabyPuncher]

The answer is a big, fat, useless 'it depends.'

 

The first thing to understand is that games with choices do not and very likely will not ever play as well for 'evil' choices as for 'good' choices. If you look at the story of pretty much every RPG every made, the 'good' story flows much better and is much less contrived. The 'evil' path nearly always requires significant mental gymnastics to reason around, namely, 'While is my character allowed to walk the streets or even go on breathing by the people around him.' The usual answer of 'Because he's just so badass/desperately needed he can act with total impunity' doesn't carry much narrative weight.

 

With that in mind, I tend to think it better for 'evil' choices games be implemented more for fun and entertainment rather than attempting to carry serious dramatic value.

[Lady Artifice]

I'd wager that the majority of people wanting to kill characters it's often not for rp purposes. They just don't want them around.

Maybe true, or they just hate the character and want to kill them for the pleasure of it, which strikes me as a silly priority as well.

Still, I've seen people who were actually talking about wanting more rp options be dismissed and told to "go play sims/skyrim/etc." In fact I've been on the receiving end as well. What always strikes me as strange is that I really do like to prefer to play as "Paragon" to Paragade" characters, but I've also been dismissed as a petty sadist for suggesting that the presence of extremely "Renegade" options make for a better overall rp experience, at least insofar as to make the choice to not take those options mean more.

That's fine and all but this is an rp game that is trying to tie together a huge number of threads, too many and you start to get inconsistencies in narrative and game play. I'm assuming they are trying to give a breadth of choices, it might simply be a time management issue or resources needed to make sure that things are consistent. Personally if killing a character I disliked meant some other long form narrative was messed up I'd rather they didn't make that choice available. As long as I can shunt the disliked character to the side I'm usually pretty happy.

Well, as far as what I was personally saying, it was as much about behavior toward general NPCs as toward companions. In the first DA, you were able to murder the Ostagar prisoner, the unscrupulous merchant in Lothering, and Brother Genitivi. I don't actually have any world states where any of these options happened, but I don't personally mind them being there. ::shrug:: They strike me as options that would be available to a person in the Warden's position, and so I think that if possible they should be implemented in the game, preferably without detracting from more idealistic PC behavioral traits. There was a decrease in those options on DAI, and while I'm not personally upset about it, I don't really think having them would damage the plot development too much.

Anyway, my opinion, clearly. I do see where you're coming from with the addition of options that might take resources away from a flowing narrative.

[Forsythia77]

So in real life, you generally run around the countryside killing bandits, dragons, demons and nugs, and have the authority to execute people by beheading them with a sword?

 

Why do people think it makes sense to bring up the 'so in real life...' argument in a discussion about roleplay choices in a fantasy rpg.

_{(Although I must say there are a number of co-workers at my workplace I certainly wouldn't cry for)}

What kind of sick monster goes around killing nugs?  I can't even    I accidentally fire mined a fennec and that bothered me. 

 

I think in role playing there is an element of personal morality that a lot of people bring into the game.  And with some people their personal morality goes out the window.  I'm fine with people doing either.  It is your game.  You play it how you want to.

[Uccio]

Why would you even want to?

It is called roleplaying. You know, a bit like renegade shepard.

[TheKomandorShepard]

So in real life, when you have irreconcilable differences in morality and world viewpoint with say, your co-workers (or classmates, depending on your age), do you tend to solve your differences by murdering them? That's... an interesting way to agree to disagree.

Do you spend time killing and fantasy creatures while traveling the world in real life?

In first place majority of players didn't fight anyone not mention kill somone also most important decisions people make is whether give hobo money.In war time well lets say that even families can start kill each other.

 

In fact you spend majority of game killing people who oppose your morality or just goals so well...  

[Catche Jagger]

It didn't hurt the game for me, as I rarely choose the more psychotic or murderous options in the game. However, I can see why some might want to act like a complete psychopath, killing everyone.

 

For all its many flaws, DA2 had the best balance of choices in my opinion. You were free to make some rather morally questionable choices, but you couldn't be a story-derailing, completely amoral crazy person (played it that Hawke was not being genuine at certain points). For example you could choose to aggressively provoke the Qunari, but you couldn't join them in taking over the city.

 

DAO was a bit too liberal with its use of choice. For example there's the choice to kill the injured soldier at Ostagar. There's really no reason to do something like that, but you can do it, basically just cause its fun. I understand that it's a game and it should provide the maximum amount of fun, but it is difficult to deal with choices that kill off characters, especially when there really is no story sense behind it.

[congokong]

Maybe someone let him out of the cage when the darkspawn came, and he managed to track down his sword on his own. Unlikely, yes, but not impossible.

The Arishok is most likely deposed after Kirkwall, as the Qunari pretty much disavow him after that fiasco. And if Sten has come back from a successful scouting mission that revealed intel about the Blight, that might have made him a decent candidate for filling the position.

Technically what you're suggesting isn't impossible, but practically it is. Sten surviving the blight on his own when being in the worst possible position, finding his sword, returning home, and becoming Arishok is a ludicrous assumption. I'd much rather assume another hornless arishok rules instead of that child-killer.