Games don't work when characters have a conscience. This isn't just about being desensitised with killing - an RPG protagonist easily kills over 1000 people. That's so far beyond mass murder IRL the only people who'd do it are ... well, I don't even know if we can find people who personally killed a thousand plus people in the modern era.
I imagine in real life, someone might be kind of upset that over 1000 people want to kill them.
Its the little things that give a game its depth. I just want the way we play recognized with these examples above. Move away from renagade/paragon red/blue good/bad. Make our character seem more human, show his/her flaws. Surely it wouldnt take much effort to achieve or am i wrong.. Either way i dont think im wrong when i say it would be worth it. Move away from the space saviour stuff and get into the grit... Give us traits Bioware... And let them show..
I don't think you know how womanizers are perceived.
Cause that stuff really only works if people don't know you, and therefore don't know you're a womanizer.
You must be using a different definition of womanizer then. A weird one.
How can someone be a womanizer if women are avoid him? That doesn't make any sense.
For example: Charlie Sheen is a well-known womanizer. Everyone knows he is one. Yet women are still throwing themselves at his feet. If women were avoiding him then he wouldn't be a womanizer now would he?
You must be using a different definition of womanizer then. A weird one.
How can someone be a womanizer if women are avoid him? That doesn't make any sense.
For example: Charlie Sheen is a well-known womanizer. Everyone knows he is one. Yet women are still throwing themselves at his feet. If women were avoiding him then he wouldn't be a womanizer now would he?
As a guy, it's not exactly my place to presume, but somehow I doubt that any woman with a modicum of self respect would "throw themselves" at Charlie Sheen.
Again, these are the more popular definitions of womanizer. I recommend scrolling through a few; none of them are very positive.
Allow us to have character traits like being a smoker... Lighting a cigar after a mission and blowing smoke in someones face during a conversation. Being known as a bit of a space drunk. Being considered as a womanizer. Violent and sarcastic. Give us traits we can choose for our characters to truly define them as our own. I would like to see something like this happen in more games, and see just how NPC's react to us. And to have everyones character be just that little bit more unique. A new layer of player choice... It wouldnt take much work to do... and it would be a great replacement for the paragon/renagade system... Thoughts?
<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
Hmm...
An interesting challege from a writer's perspective and the number of lines allotted to the character. I'm thinking about the dreaded Word Budget limitations.
Games don't work when characters have a conscience.
Who said anything about them retaining a conscience? They'll eventually become desensitized to the killing.
As a guy, it's not exactly my place to presume, but somehow I doubt that any woman with a modicum of self respect would "throw themselves" at Charlie Sheen.
Again, these are the more popular definitions of womanizer. I recommend scrolling through a few; none of them are very positive.
LOL are you for real? Are you seriously linking the Urban Dictionary? How about you try a real dictionary?
http://www.thefreedi...y.com/womanizer
Tell me, how is the real definition of womanizer negative?
And why would a woman who throws herself at Charlie Sheen not have any self respect? Charlie Sheen is a cool manly dude, he's charming , he's rich, he's funny and he knows how to get a woman's blood pumping faster. You might not like him, many women might not like him either, but many other women do, hence he's a womanizer. And there is nothing wrong with that.
We'll bang, okay?
Unlikely. As much as I'd like them, not only do character traits exponentially complicated conversations, they make it hard to justify certain aspects of the story.
I'm tired of this "hard" excuse. Just because it's hard it doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented.
Character Traits would add depth to the roleplaying aspects of the game. The system overall would react more to character personality than just dialogue. I think this adds a new layer of how you could interact with the game.(POE does this well and frankly bioware hasn't been that great at character reacitivity. They are times I thought, "I am an engineer, I should be able to do this."
I didn't say it was mandatory, it's completely optional based on the character's psychological history (if an option like that exists).
I should revise the statement: That kind of character doesn't work very well in a game with combat focused gameplay.
It is something that could work, and in a game like Deux Ex it is even optional to not murder everything that moves however Mass Effect is a game that always has been about lots of shooting indoctrinated people once the dialogue ends.
It would require a pretty significant gameplay redesign just to add this one character trait and allow people to get through without actually killing a lot of people or go through it the normal way to keep it optional.
As of right now, even the class with the ability to go invisible primarily uses it to deal more damage.
As a guy, it's not exactly my place to presume, but somehow I doubt that any woman with a modicum of self respect would "throw themselves" at Charlie Sheen.
Again, these are the more popular definitions of womanizer. I recommend scrolling through a few; none of them are very positive.
I would ignore the person you're attempting to converse with for obvious reasons, but perhaps a more appropriate term would be "Casanova" or "ladykiller" (plus I think a female character could be called a ladykiller, too, which is great). Both have positive connotations. It's too bad there's no equivalent for being attractive to males.
I should revise the statement: That kind of character doesn't work very well in a game with combat focused gameplay.
It is something that could work, and in a game like Deux Ex it is even optional to not murder everything that moves however Mass Effect is a game that always has been about lots of shooting indoctrinated people once the dialogue ends.
It would require a pretty significant gameplay redesign just to add this one character trait and allow people to get through without actually killing a lot of people or go through it the normal way to keep it optional.
As of right now, even the class with the ability to go invisible primarily uses it to deal more damage.
Post 31 should answer that.
Post 31 should answer that.
Well you still have the first parts of the game.
I assume that your character isn't going to become desensitized in the first 5 minutes and will go through multiple combats before being a killing machine.
I should revise the statement: That kind of character doesn't work very well in a game with combat focused gameplay.
It is something that could work, and in a game like Deux Ex it is even optional to not murder everything that moves however Mass Effect is a game that always has been about lots of shooting indoctrinated people once the dialogue ends.
It would require a pretty significant gameplay redesign just to add this one character trait and allow people to get through without actually killing a lot of people or go through it the normal way to keep it optional.
As of right now, even the class with the ability to go invisible primarily uses it to deal more damage.
They could always introduce a weapon upgrade for non-lethal rounds or something.
I'm tired of this "hard" excuse. Just because it's hard it doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented.
Character Traits would add depth to the roleplaying aspects of the game. The system overall would react more to character personality than just dialogue. I think this adds a new layer of how you could interact with the game.(POE does this well and frankly bioware hasn't been that great at character reacitivity. They are times I thought, "I am an engineer, I should be able to do this."
Unfortunately, that's how the industry works. Mass Effect is a TPS/RPG; it's already a complicated affair that prides itself on production value. Every aspect of the game can only get so much attention, and incidentally, investing in the small stuff which give things character quickly starts giving back diminishing returns in the general market. Believe me when I say that I wish this weren't the case.
Were this an isometric CRPG with mostly text dialog, I would agree with you entirely, but Mass Effect is an entirely different affair: fully rendered and unique characters with facial and body animations and full voice over, a deep story that heavily involves the characters that are with you, and a combat system semi-dependent on a diverse squad. Potentially throwing a wrench in all that for the sake of slightly more personality from the PC is not a very wise decision.
I wish that I was wrong, but that's how the AAA industry works. I want BioWare to make a smaller scale Mass Effect with more character depth, but it won't happen any time soon.
They could always introduce a weapon upgrade for non-lethal rounds or something.
Then there's still tech and Biotic abilities which can cause incineration or blunt force trauma. Then there's story moments where you might be forced to blow up a building or something.
Unless it's tied directly to the core mechanics and story like Deus Ex, non-lethal is pretty tough to pull off well.
If our character is an N7 soldier, then he/she would have had to lead multiple combat missions if I remember correctly, and would likely have killed living and sentient beings before (Batarians, Humans, Geth, Asari, etc...) and would thus be more "comfortable" with killling. However if our "skilled but untested" protagonist is a very inexperienced Alliance Officer or part of a support unit (Combat Engineers, Field Medic, Desk Jockey, etc...) or is non-military then I can see some intial issues with killing sentient aliens.
If such is the case, during the intro perhaps a battle-hardened soldier will mock our inexperience, our character will get caught up in a firefight, and after the subsequent mission another soldier (maybe even that same marine) will ask if we are ok. Then we become a remorseless killing machine.
Then there's still tech and Biotic abilities which can cause incineration or blunt force trauma. Then there's story moments where you might be forced to blow up a building or something.
Unless it's tied directly to the core mechanics and story like Deus Ex, non-lethal is pretty tough to pull off well.
The player doesn't have to use those skills. Maybe they could add biotic or tech abilities which are also non-lethal in nature, like something that stuns them so they can't fight. As for story moments, all they'd have to do is write alternate paths.
It'd be difficult sure, but I definitely think they should try it rather than us just being an agent of death again.
I think it would be hilarious and pretty damned fun to have a little mini wheel in the corner of the screen that you can access in addition to the regular convo wheel in the center of the screen. You could just stick to conversations OR you can add a little "personal effect" to any line. For example, the wheel would have choices such as... the following...
1..Light up a cigar
2. Scratch buttocks
3. Pick nose
4. Run hands nervously through hair
5. Put on a pair of shiny, glitter gloves
You would click on one of these, and then click your dialouge option. Your actions would come right before your dialogue choice, to add a little personality. Even better, after you pick the first action, you get a follow up one to use somewhere else in the conversation. Sorta like a second step. For example, following the list above, you could choose one of the following to go with the next response.
1. Blow smoke in their face
2. Scratch crotch and shrug helplessly
3. Flick booger on their face
4. Run hands nervously through their hair
5. Spin and do a little Michael Jackson "Heee hee!!" move
I'm just being silly, but it would be cool to have this level of rolepalying in a game. Ie, cool options to add movement or nuances to your dialogue choices. Would make for wonderful, subtle differences in multiple playthroughs, imo, even if the other characters in game never respond...or occasionally do to make it fun to try them all.
Unfortunately, that's how the industry works. Mass Effect is a TPS/RPG; it's already a complicated affair that prides itself on production value. Every aspect of the game can only get so much attention, and incidentally, investing in the small stuff which give things character quickly starts giving back diminishing returns in the general market. Believe me when I say that I wish this weren't the case.
Were this an isometric CRPG with mostly text dialog, I would agree with you entirely, but Mass Effect is an entirely different affair: fully rendered and unique characters with facial and body animations and full voice over, a deep story that heavily involves the characters that are with you, and a combat system semi-dependent on a diverse squad. Potentially throwing a wrench in all that for the sake of slightly more personality from the PC is not a very wise decision.
I wish that I was wrong, but that's how the AAA industry works. I want BioWare to make a smaller scale Mass Effect with more character depth, but it won't happen any time soon.
Completely contextual as resource utilization is. Remember which game had a lot of reactivity with lots of dialogue? Alpha protocol. Remember when multiple races for voiced dialogue was completely out of the question? Again, completely contextual.
DA2 Hawke could choose their personality, and your ppl responded to your dominant one. It was great. The only problem was that they went into autodialogue dominant tone instead of letting you choose. So, the choice on how to respond in a different situation was not there. But most of the time you got to choose, which was fantastic. And Aveline will call you an azz if you say something utterly inappropriate.
ME3 just would just go straight mopey Shep. BW would choose how you felt for you. It did not have three tones to choose from. And noone ever reacted to paragon/renegade differences. Well, actually, one time in ME1 Kaidan said, "that was a bit extreme, Commander" if you punched some guy out. Or Jack calling you a puzzy if you went Para on her when you first meet.
So, if I punch out Khalisah, it would be nice if my crew had some kind of reaction. A simple, "What are you doing?!?" or "Damn" or even a small snicker. Or if I'm the kind of Shep that endorses all the shops on the Citadel, by the 3rd time I do that, one of your squad could just laugh, shake their heads and say, "You're unbelievable, you know that?"
Not only would these things help characterize the PC, but how the npc reacts would also be an opportunity to help further flesh them out.
You must be using a different definition of womanizer then. A weird one.
How can someone be a womanizer if women are avoid him? That doesn't make any sense.
For example: Charlie Sheen is a well-known womanizer. Everyone knows he is one. Yet women are still throwing themselves at his feet. If women were avoiding him then he wouldn't be a womanizer now would he?
People are weird about famous people though, and I don't think our crew members (most of them, anyway) will act like groupies.
Someone above mentioned alphe protocol, terrible action, but great conversation system and choice. It had a screen that showed traits if i remember correctly. They gave little bonus's to your skills and showed your characters personality and gameplay choices made. It just needs to be better than that. And have them reflected in game, as someone said above.. At the the start of a conversation have an adde choice on the wheel to light a cigar and have follow up actions to it. Scenes would play out slighty differently depending on these minor choices and after a few times they would become an established trait recognized as part of our character. That extra cool factor...
I think that, unless you have some way of picking the character trait, I could definitely see a downside to it. Someone mentioned smoking. I detest smoking, so I'd rather not have my PC be a smoker, if I can help it. I think that, if my character was a smoke, I'd lose a little bit of a connection with them. I just don't think there's a way to do this without causing people to dislike those traits in their own characters. I guess, I'm not seeing how it's a net positive. It's only positive for those who happen to like whatever traits they add in.
Or, if they allow you to choose the trait, then it ends up being a resource pit because you'd have to account for multiple 'traits' where applicable. Again, from a cost/benefit view, I'm not seeing how it's worth it. It's good in theory. But I think it'd lose something in practice.
Completely contextual as resource utilization is. Remember which game had a lot of reactivity with lots of dialogue? Alpha protocol. Remember when multiple races for voiced dialogue was completely out of the question? Again, completely contextual.
There's a reason Alpha Protocol had horrible combat and lame AI. Obsidian has their priorities and BioWare has their own. I like an Obsidian game as much as the next guy, but reactivity requires sacrifice.
Game development evolves rapidly, but complex reactions to chosen traits seems pretty much out of the question from my perspective. It's not just a matter of hiring a few more voice actors; it's a combination of new VO, story content, animations, and potentially new gameplay design.
BioWare want to tell a story with a high production value, and that's a tough thing to do while accounting for so many variables and making a fun game. I would love for BioWare to prove me wrong and release a super fun and perfectly reactive ME:A, but I don't think it's going to happen. There are so many other aspects of Mass Effect that need to be fleshed out or expanded before a trait system.
Retour en haut