|
|
Post by KingSpoom on Apr 3, 2005 15:16:43 GMT -5
I was thinking the other day about the many opportunities I have yet to take a look at in the latter parts of my game. Among these was the chance to introduce an npc. The only problem was how I wanted to set it up. I'm reminded of general Leo from ff3/6j. General Leo was your enemy, but not really your enemy. How many of you were disappointed that you didn't get to face leo in combat? For those of you who haven't played FF3/6j, would you be disappointed if a prominent enemy was shown, but you never get to deal with him personally? Would it depend how it was done, such as if he was killed by the main bad guy or if he is never seen again or was too injured to continue the conflict? Any sort of view on the subject would be helpful... as would any other game that might have done this. Any other non-ending things that cause disappointment included.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Knight Of Lodis on Apr 3, 2005 20:13:22 GMT -5
As for General Leo in FF6, I'm not so disappointed as he died without you fighting him, (which I was disappointed about) as I was that you played as him (or watched him fight...can't remember, been awhile) and then he died. I was excited a new character was joining the party.
Back to your actual question, it would definately depend on how it was done. I would hate to see a prominent enemy killed by anyone that was not controlled by the player, unless it was the main bad guy or one of his "leading officers" which might actually enhance the story by showing that the main bad guy is SO evil he even kills his own guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by KingSpoom on Apr 6, 2005 14:27:01 GMT -5
Ah yes, from some views they did set it up to seem like he would join the party. He had the personality, he had a character battle model. (by the way, you get to control him to fight once against you know you). So, anyone else?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dungeon Warden on Apr 6, 2005 16:24:35 GMT -5
There is a condition I sometimes see in stories which I call the passive hero syndrome. This is when the hero is either forced or chooses to sit and watch events unfold without doing anything. This includes being saved by a magic item (usually a sword) they have no control over, being saved by the "calvary" (basically anyone who comes and saves the hero), or the hero is too weak or uncaring to do anything.
The player should feel in control at all times and it is fustrating when that control is lost. If fighting a bad guy is something they want to do, then they should be allowed to do it. The reverse is also true, if the character wanted to save a bad guy who isn't that bad, they should have that option. Sometimes the story requires bad things to happen that unset the player, and that is all right as long as it is well planned out. If the player doesn't understand the reason they can't do what they want it is upsetting. Basically, it depends on the set up and ongoing story. Every detail needs to be taken into account. Don't remove an option for the player because it would be 'cool,' only do it because it is an interracial part of the overall story line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo Samurai on Apr 6, 2005 20:43:11 GMT -5
Well, it depends on the character. If it's someone like Sephiroth, yes (even though you do get to fight him). If it's someone like President Shinra Senior, then no.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Smurf on Apr 6, 2005 20:45:48 GMT -5
yeah, normally i like to fight the big villains, but if its really crucial to the plotline, its possible i'd make an exception.
-the smurf
|
|
|
|
Post by vespuleth on Apr 7, 2005 0:35:25 GMT -5
see, and dw, i think that stage is an ingenious one.
|
|
