62 réponses à ce sujet

[Killroy]

I'm not opposed to boss fights sprinkled throughout the game, I would just prefer something more unique than "to get to the big bad you must first defeat his minions." It's old hat. I would prefer our struggles in the Andromeda galaxy have more to do with colonization and the strain of the whole situation causing rifts inside our Ark or organization or whatever. Like how your PC deals with the issues as they emerge has impacts on how much support you have from your people, potentially resulting in mutinies/attempted mutinies and political power plays.
I find the idea of struggling to keep your position and sanity intact much more appealing than fighting a big bad and his lackeys.

[WarBaby2]

I'm not opposed to boss fights sprinkled throughout the game, I would just prefer something more unique than "to get to the big bad you must first defeat his minions." It's old hat. I would prefer our struggles in the Andromeda galaxy have more to do with colonization and the strain of the whole situation causing rifts inside our Ark or organization or whatever. Like how your PC deals with the issues as they emerge has impacts on how much support you have from your people, potentially resulting in mutinies/attempted mutinies and political power plays.
I find the idea of struggling to keep your position and sanity intact much more appealing than fighting a big bad and his lackeys.

Pretty much this... would surely make for a more mature and interesting experience.

[Ahglock]

I'm not opposed to boss fights sprinkled throughout the game, I would just prefer something more unique than "to get to the big bad you must first defeat his minions." It's old hat. I would prefer our struggles in the Andromeda galaxy have more to do with colonization and the strain of the whole situation causing rifts inside our Ark or organization or whatever. Like how your PC deals with the issues as they emerge has impacts on how much support you have from your people, potentially resulting in mutinies/attempted mutinies and political power plays.
I find the idea of struggling to keep your position and sanity intact much more appealing than fighting a big bad and his lackeys.

 

That is what I hope the plot is about, but at the same time I'd like a antagonist who is trying to stop you from achieving your goals.  They see the land you are moving into as theirs or sacred land.  He is a slavers, carnivores, drinker of souls and sees your new colonists as a great opportunity for new product/food source.  The struggles with colonization should IMO include a outside committed to your downfall sentient obstacle. 

[Mathias]

I'm not opposed to boss fights sprinkled throughout the game, I would just prefer something more unique than "to get to the big bad you must first defeat his minions." It's old hat. I would prefer our struggles in the Andromeda galaxy have more to do with colonization and the strain of the whole situation causing rifts inside our Ark or organization or whatever. Like how your PC deals with the issues as they emerge has impacts on how much support you have from your people, potentially resulting in mutinies/attempted mutinies and political power plays.
I find the idea of struggling to keep your position and sanity intact much more appealing than fighting a big bad and his lackeys.

There are other ways to approach boss fights than that. For example, being ambushed in the middle of what seems to be a easy mission. What if you're on a mission with Liara and Garrus, and all of a sudden someone in the distance fires a missile at your party. The ceiling collapses and now Shepard is separated from his party and engages in a one on one fight with a Boss. Then there's so many things you can go from there. What if that missile came from a villain piloting his own specialized Mech and Shepard has to survive fighting on his own against heavy firepower. Or what if the Boss is just a crack shot with a Sniper rifle, and you have to engage in a battle of marksmanship against someone who can 1-2 shot the player character.

 

Just saying. There's so many ways to create interesting boss fights in games like this.

[Killroy]

That is what I hope the plot is about, but at the same time I'd like a antagonist who is trying to stop you from achieving your goals.  They see the land you are moving into as theirs or sacred land.  He is a slavers, carnivores, drinker of souls and sees your new colonists as a great opportunity for new product/food source.  The struggles with colonization should IMO include a outside committed to your downfall sentient obstacle.

That seems old hat to me too. The "new people?! I must kill them and take their stuff!" villain/trope is played out. That has more of a place in the Far Cry series IMO.

[Ahglock]

That seems old hat to me too. The "new people?! I must kill them and take their stuff!" villain/trope is played out. That has more of a place in the Far Cry series IMO.

 

Everything is old hat if you have been around long enough.

[BabyPuncher]

It doesn't necessarily need a central villain, but it absolutely needs a central conflict.

[BabyPuncher]

Like how your PC deals with the issues as they emerge has impacts on how much support you have from your people, potentially resulting in mutinies/attempted mutinies and political power plays.I find the idea of struggling to keep your position and sanity intact much more appealing than fighting a big bad and his lackeys.

 

I very, very, very seriously doubt any of that.

 

I think what you actually mean by 'mutiny' is a character is unhappy and makes a scene, and is then promptly and effortlessly executed by your protagonist, because he or she is just that awesome.

 

I don't think you'd be very happy with power legitimately taken away from your character. Because that's not very fun.
 

[Ahglock]

I very, very, very seriously doubt any of that.

 

I think what you actually mean by 'mutiny' is a character is unhappy and makes a scene, and is then promptly and effortlessly executed by your protagonist, because he or she is just that awesome.

 

I don't think you'd be very happy with power legitimately taken away from your character. Because that's not very fun.
 

Executed? You will just press the blue or red button and either a nice or mean speech will come out that forces obedience.

[Jaquio]

I'm not opposed to boss fights sprinkled throughout the game, I would just prefer something more unique than "to get to the big bad you must first defeat his minions." It's old hat. I would prefer our struggles in the Andromeda galaxy have more to do with colonization and the strain of the whole situation causing rifts inside our Ark or organization or whatever. Like how your PC deals with the issues as they emerge has impacts on how much support you have from your people, potentially resulting in mutinies/attempted mutinies and political power plays.
I find the idea of struggling to keep your position and sanity intact much more appealing than fighting a big bad and his lackeys.

 

Imagine a game where the antagonist develops organically from your own crew.  Maybe even a squadmate.  As you make hard choices that the squadmates bicker about crucial decisions in the early game (like in DA:O), eventually you can't please everyone and whichever main squadmate has the worst opinion of you finally breaks away and tries to mutiny, leading the entire crew and the fate of the Milky Way survivors spiraling towards outright civil war.

 

Just imagining it makes me feel good all over.  No way they'd try to pull that off though.  But we can dream.

[BabyPuncher]

Executed? You will just press the blue or red button and either a nice or mean speech will come out that forces obedience.

 

Sure, that's another option.

 

This is more or less the reason why I strongly advocate a cast of moral characters. So you don't have to deal with this sort of stupid nonsense for the (for all intents and purposes, canonical) good playthrough. Something Dragon Age has suffered heavily from, but Mass Effect has thankfully more or less been able to avoid.

[Killroy]

Everything is old hat if you have been around long enough.

Not in video games. Not yet.

I very, very, very seriously doubt any of that.

Where did I say it's going to be in the game?
 

I think what you actually mean by 'mutiny' is a character is unhappy and makes a scene, and is then promptly and effortlessly executed by your protagonist, because he or she is just that awesome.

Why don't you let me speak for myself? I don't need you telling me what I mean when I'm perfectly capable of expressing myself clearly.

I don't think you'd be very happy with power legitimately taken away from your character. Because that's not very fun.

I want video games to be experiences, not happy-go-lucky fun. If all I wanted was fun fun fun I would stick with Pong.

[BabyPuncher]

Imagine a game where the antagonist develops organically from your own crew.  Maybe even a squadmate.  As you make hard choices that the squadmates bicker about crucial decisions in the early game (like in DA:O), eventually you can't please everyone and whichever main squadmate has the worst opinion of you finally breaks away and tries to mutiny, leading the entire crew and the fate of the Milky Way survivors spiraling towards outright civil war.

 

Just imagining it makes me feel good all over.  No way they'd try to pull that off though.  But we can dream.

 

The obvious problem is that players would be wondering, (legitimately, I might add) why we've been putting up with this idiot for as long as we have and haven't kicked him to the curb. Do you have any good answers to that?

[Killroy]

Imagine a game where the antagonist develops organically from your own crew.  Maybe even a squadmate.  As you make hard choices that the squadmates bicker about crucial decisions in the early game (like in DA:O), eventually you can't please everyone and whichever main squadmate has the worst opinion of you finally breaks away and tries to mutiny, leading the entire crew and the fate of the Milky Way survivors spiraling towards outright civil war.
 
Just imagining it makes me feel good all over.  No way they'd try to pull that off though.  But we can dream.

I would thoroughly enjoy it if this sort of system was implemented but instead of the mutineer becoming a full-on antagonist our PC has to undertake a solo endeavor to escape his/her captors, evade detection and take out the mutineer to reclaim command. Dealing with the mutineer would pose multiple options, such as execution, exile on a hostile planet, or imprisonment. Putting the "fear of God" into would-be future mutineers would reduce the chances of future incidents.

[Killroy]

The obvious problem is that players would be wondering, (legitimately, I might add) why we've been putting up with this idiot for as long as we have and haven't kicked him to the curb. Do you have any good answers to that?

Why can't you put your imagination to use? Too busy telling everyone else what they think?

[BabyPuncher]

Dealing with the mutineer would pose multiple options, such as execution, exile on a hostile planet, or imprisonment. Putting the "fear of God" into would-be future mutineers would reduce the chances of future incidents.

 

See, you make claim that you're okay with power being taken away from your character, and yet your immediate reaction is to wonder how do you 'deal' with the mutineer. How do you deal with him? Because your character is beyond question just that much better. It's like an immediate instinct for you. Your character is better and thus wins, he is someone that is not your character and thus loses. Did it occur that maybe it's him dealing with you? Why should you even be given a choice? 

[Jaquio]

The obvious problem is that players would be wondering, (legitimately, I might add) why we've been putting up with this idiot for as long as we have and haven't kicked him to the curb. Do you have any good answers to that?

 

Good writing?

 

Quite possibly my favorite all-time BW moment was the fight with the Arishok in DA2.  My Hawke got along with the Arishok quite well (got the "worthy rival" reference and all).  He also romanced Isabela.  In Demands of the Qun, the Arishok wanted the book back, and he got it, but his honor and the position of his ideology demanded that he take back Isabela back to Par Vollen for the justice.  That was unacceptable to me, both in terms of loyalty and the course of the romance.

 

In the end, the battle was undesired, but forced due to the incompatibility Arishok's honor (or inflexibility), and my loyalty (or self-interest).  It was a scene 100x better than fighting some hackneyed mustache-twirling super evil force.

 

If you write it well enough, the conflict can come from incompatible ideologies, or even the impossibility of reconciling increasingly inflexible camps.

[Killroy]

See, you make claim that you're okay with power being taken away from your character, and yet your immediate reaction is to wonder how do you 'deal' with the mutineer. How do you deal with him? Because your character is beyond question just that much better. It's like an immediate instinct for you. Your character is better and thus wins, he is someone that is not your character and thus loses. Do it even occur that maybe it's him dealing with you? Why should you even be given a choice?

Why did you cut out the part of my post that answered this stupid concern?

[BabyPuncher]

It's effectively the same thing, isn't it? It's a given that your player character will complete the mission and retake command. Unless there's some sort of lingering consequence to the mutiny you can't prevent.

[Killroy]

It's effectively the same thing, isn't it? It's a given that your player character will complete the mission and retake command. Unless there's some sort of lingering consequence to the mutiny you can't prevent.

You're describing video games. Failure conditions are failure conditions. And you're being willfully obtuse just to argue. I'm not going to oblige you.

[Cyonan]

I could see it being interesting to have to try to deal with multiple people and groups of people, and if you make them angry enough they make a move against you.

 

It obviously wouldn't take away direct player player, but maybe a mutiny in a group could result in that group no longer helping you out later on another mission. Maybe your troops aren't able to be as well equipped because you lost a major arms supplier. Certain paths in future missions could no longer be available to you. Stuff like that.

 

Although it would require not having a "everybody wins" route that allows you to keep everybody happy with no consequences, as that would ruin the system in my opinion.

[Panda]

Good writing?

 

Quite possibly my favorite all-time BW moment was the fight with the Arishok in DA2.  My Hawke got along with the Arishok quite well (got the "worthy rival" reference and all).  He also romanced Isabela.  In Demands of the Qun, the Arishok wanted the book back, and he got it, but his honor and the position of his ideology demanded that he take back Isabela back to Par Vollen for the justice.  That was unacceptable to me, both in terms of loyalty and the course of the romance.

 

In the end, the battle was undesired, but forced due to the incompatibility Arishok's honor (or inflexibility), and my loyalty (or self-interest).  It was a scene 100x better than fighting some hackneyed mustache-twirling super evil force.

 

If you write it well enough, the conflict can come from incompatible ideologies, or even the impossibility of reconciling increasingly inflexible camps.

 

If only the actual fight wouldn't have been running circles half a hour...

 

[Halfdan The Menace]

What we need is a bunch of Paragon space Vikings fighting another Paragon space Vikings because one of the Viking is a Renegade fool and happen to be sympathetic to the evil aliens, so he make all of them hate/fight each other. Then this one petty newbie (Player Character) comes by and the saga begins...

[78stonewobble]

I strongly disagree. A strong singular antagonist is one of the surest things a storyteller can do to get me invested, personally.

 

Gul Dukat was the best antagonist in Star Trek, and he had the benefit of 40+ episodes of DS9, its most serialized series. I like that style more. I mean, I get what you're saying, but Andromeda won't be "a random episode of Farscape or TNG." It'll be a full season's worth of story, if it does itself justice. It could use a driving foe.

 

Gul Dukat was amazing and I loved pretty much every episode he were in. He wasn't the only antagonist though, but star trek isn't the worst to steal from. 

 

A good antagonist sure, but I wouldn't mind some more sedate conflicts... star trek also had plenty of coldwar / superpower manuvering and plotting with accompanying limited warfare. 

 

I would, personally, like some more down to earth motivations as well, atleast indispersed with a main plot. 

[mickey111]

I strongly disagree. A strong singular antagonist is one of the surest things a storyteller can do to get me invested, personally.

 

Gul Dukat was the best antagonist in Star Trek, and he had the benefit of 40+ episodes of DS9, its most serialized series. I like that style more. I mean, I get what you're saying, but Andromeda won't be "a random episode of Farscape or TNG." It'll be a full season's worth of story, if it does itself justice. It could use a driving foe.

 

I've actually got a lot of catching up to do in sci-fi. I've barely seen anything of startrek (any of them) and until farscape I knew little else beside starwars.

 

I'm really liking all the peacekeeper antagonists though. Skorpius actually reminds me a lot of Irenicus of BGII. Both highly ambitious, considered freaks and outsiders, no real leadership qualities, and only superior cold blooded logic as their only real advantage.