![]() The world may not be that interconnected.Īnd? There's no complexity to adding an "evil" option as choices. The other side to me is that I'm not sure it's a healthy thing for role-playing if the player is under the impression that they're constantly under surveillance, which has become more and more common, every stat is saved, every action is remembered, a karma action will somehow affect someone on the other side of the map. (I'll grant there's a bit of a disconnect between a RPG where they try and account for everything in character stats, and your 'internal' model of your character's character) I know I did it, so how does that affect me and what I choose later. "The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching". Not everyone sees everything you do, and not all of it matters, but it informs what kind of person I am. However I think there's a decent role-playing side to offering the blood pool scenario in that it matters to the player. I agree to an extent, because games are centered around reacting to player actions and choices. There has to be a point of someone doing something evil (take a lesson right there Bioware), otherwise you're just being a dick for no reason. If the player is leaning good, then the blood pool can be easily ignored. And I'd like to see it happen with a large enough portion of the game remaining so that they can see the hole in their party line-up, to both 1) ponder the loss of the character, and 2) figure out what adjustments must be made in their gameplay tactics to compensate.Ĭomparatively, the blood pool is a low-risk design in that if the player is not roleplaying, or is leaning towards evil, there's little tension in making that choice, especially with granting stat bonuses to make up for the impact to gameplay. Then we'll see how many players will stumble from the popular noble and heroic path to take the selfish choice when the decision actually hurts for the first time. Preferably with little or no in-game reward for it too, other than to successfully complete a main storyline objective. Rather, I'd prefer to see a game require the player to sacrifice a companion in order to save many lives. If you see an example of "sacrifice" in games it's not coming from the player, or it'll happen in the end-game cutscene so that the act of sacrifice has no impact on the player. ![]() Developers almost never make a choices hurt. r/CoOpGaming - A community for co-op gaming r/xboxone - Xbox-specific subreddit for general Xbox news and discussion r/playstation, /r/PS4 & /r/PS5 - PlayStation-specific subreddits for general PlayStation news and discussion r/pcgaming - PC gaming-specific subreddit for general PC gaming news, discussion and gaming tech support r/nintendo - Nintendo-specific subreddit for general Nintendo news and discussion r/shouldibuythisgame - Find out what's worth getting. r/gamingsuggestions - Go here to help you find your next game to play r/gaming4gamers - Discussion, bar the Hivemind Top-level comments must be at least 100 characters in length.Accounts must be at least one month old.External Links must follow these guidelines ![]() No topics that belong in other subreddits This subreddit shouldn't be used for advice of any kind.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |