Schlumpfine Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I hate that annoying Bug. Why can´t i kill him or even sent him away like Ashara.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seireeni Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I lol'ed. I'm a terrible person. They've got creative ways of headcanoning "killing" companions in the Ashara thread, if you're interested! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eshvara Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) I lol'd. I'm sure some of the Vector fans are happy there wasn't one! But lets all wish Ashara had one. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think either Vector or Ashara deserves death and I think it's great there wasn't an option to. Edited March 20, 2018 by Eshvara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbladez Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 LOL I don't like both in the first place in vanilla story, I did get mad with Ashara but at least there is an option to reject her then it's good enough for me, although as a pure dark sith I kinda mad that I could not kill Ashara and let her walk away from a dark sith just like that....It's unacceptable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunafox Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Bioware started this mess. Do it for one, do it for all then. And Yes, I'm a Vector fan. But I think it stinks that things aren't being treated fairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyFlynn Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Care for some bug spray, then? Or hairspray, works wonders against spiders. Anyways, like Luna said, basically. I adore Vector but now that killing companions and LI's is a thing, it needs to be an option for all of them. Ah well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbilityDrain Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Wouldn't there need to be an in-game reason to do it? Far as I can tell he's not actively done anything to the protagonist yet for them to warrant it (outside of the player just not liking the character, I mean). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estelindis Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I can't agree with this "kill one, kill all" attitude. Not all characters are the same. Some just won't do anything that goes significantly against the spectrum of values the main character is likely to have. For example, Vector is inherently diplomatic and consensus-seeking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbilityDrain Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I can't agree with this "kill one, kill all" attitude. Not all characters are the same. Some just won't do anything that goes significantly against the spectrum of values the main character is likely to have. For example, Vector is inherently diplomatic and consensus-seeking. Agreed. If it feels right for the story and the companion/character in question has done something terrible to warrant it then absolutely there should be a kill option, but to kill them just for the sake of it seems kinda pointless, plus it would make things complex going forward when it comes to future main game story content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eshvara Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Agreed. If it feels right for the story and the companion/character in question has done something terrible to warrant it then absolutely there should be a kill option, but to kill them just for the sake of it seems kinda pointless, plus it would make things complex going forward when it comes to future main game story content. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyFlynn Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I can't agree with this "kill one, kill all" attitude. Not all characters are the same. Some just won't do anything that goes significantly against the spectrum of values the main character is likely to have. For example, Vector is inherently diplomatic and consensus-seeking. Quinn is inherently a loyal Imperial serving the Empire. He received orders from a Sith outranking the Warrior, from a man who was his boss and superior. Yet, we can kill him for it, years after the fact. To me, that makes as little sense as it does to kill Vector but it doesn't feel sense or story/character consistency applies any longer in the eyes of the writers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estelindis Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) Quinn is inherently a loyal Imperial serving the Empire. He received orders from a Sith outranking the Warrior, from a man who was his boss and superior. Yet, we can kill him for it, years after the fact. To me, that makes as little sense as it does to kill Vector but it doesn't feel sense or story/character consistency applies any longer in the eyes of the writers. Quinn is kind of a remarkable exception, in that it was originally supposed to be possible to kill him in the class storyline but people complained about losing a companion as a result. BW giving the kill option for Quinn is really trying to make it up to those people who always wanted to be able to do it - he doesn't (in my opinion) do anything on Iokath that actually justifies killing him. (Even if the SW sides with the Republic and he ends up seemingly backstabbing them again - arguably the SW is the traitor in that case!) I appreciate feeling something's unfair - I have plenty of feelings of that kind in other aspects of the game. And I actually love Quinn as a character, so I empathize doubly with your point of view. But - I'm sorry - trying to squash every character into Quinn's mold just doesn't make sense. Edited March 20, 2018 by Estelindis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbilityDrain Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Quinn is inherently a loyal Imperial serving the Empire. He received orders from a Sith outranking the Warrior, from a man who was his boss and superior. Yet, we can kill him for it, years after the fact. To me, that makes as little sense as it does to kill Vector but it doesn't feel sense or story/character consistency applies any longer in the eyes of the writers. I guess it depends on the person or the way you're roleplaying your toon. If it was me I'd absolutely kill Quinn years down the line for the betrayal he'd committed years earlier, but I hold a grudge like a motherf***** and to be fair he did try to kill us first, so I don't personally find it unrealistic because I'm the type of person that will happily wait years to take revenge on someone if they've severely wronged me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyFlynn Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Quinn is kind of a remarkable exception, in that it was originally supposed to be possible to kill him in the class storyline but people complained about losing a companion as a result. BW giving the kill option for Quinn is really trying to make it up to those people who always wanted to be able to do it - he doesn't (in my opinion) do anything on Iokath that actually justifies killing him. (Even if the SW sides with the Republic and he ends up seemingly backstabbing them again - arguably the SW is the traitor in that case!) I appreciate feeling something's unfair - I have plenty of feelings of that kind in other aspects of the game. And I actually love Quinn as a character, so I empathize doubly with your point of view. But - I'm sorry - trying to squash every character into Quinn's mold just doesn't make sense. Quinn was just the first example I could think of. I don't like all these kill options, at all, and personally, I've not really killed anyone. Vette and Torian once because we had to. I killed Tanno Vik once, I think, mostly because I didn't know he was a Trooper comp and he was hassling Tora so I assumed he was just another turd. Anyway, point being, for some it might make sense (though that's largely perspective/opinion based too) whereas for others it doesn't but none of that has stopped Bioware from catering to "I better get to kill <name>!" and if they're going to cater to player's personal approaches to a companion and demands for kill options then just apply it to all of them. Or better yet, they never should have made any of them killable to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estelindis Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Quinn was just the first example I could think of. I don't like all these kill options, at all, and personally, I've not really killed anyone. Vette and Torian once because we had to. I killed Tanno Vik once, I think, mostly because I didn't know he was a Trooper comp and he was hassling Tora so I assumed he was just another turd. Anyway, point being, for some it might make sense (though that's largely perspective/opinion based too) whereas for others it doesn't but none of that has stopped Bioware from catering to "I better get to kill <name>!" and if they're going to cater to player's personal approaches to a companion and demands for kill options then just apply it to all of them. Or better yet, they never should have made any of them killable to begin with. I do think that the Vette/Torian choice was a bit forced. Valky telegraphed it like hell. We have enough forces at our disposal that it shouldn't have come down to such a binary choice. At least with Jorgan and Kaliyo we have the option to keep them both. Anyway, I appreciate that you're not happy with this, but ultimately I don't think that the problem of some companions being treated in a way you don't think is great is somehow going to be improved by every other companion being treated that way too. That only makes the problem harder to fix. If you don't think so, that's fine - I don't mind agreeing to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IoNonSoEVero Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I can't agree with this "kill one, kill all" attitude. Not all characters are the same. Some just won't do anything that goes significantly against the spectrum of values the main character is likely to have. For example, Vector is inherently diplomatic and consensus-seeking. Agreed. This attitude that we need to be able to kill everyone out of spite is just wrong. So when every companion is written out of the main story that will be better? Yes BW let people kill off some companions. Not all ( I don't think Blizz, Temple, Guss, Elara etc can be killed). So? Change for the better. With Quinn the issue for me was that I wanted him nowhere in my Alliance and there was no option to ship him back to DK and ban him from Alliance territory forever so he always dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eshvara Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Agreed. This attitude that we need to be able to kill everyone out of spite is just wrong. So when every companion is written out of the main story that will be better? Yes BW let people kill off some companions. Not all ( I don't think Blizz, Temple, Guss, Elara etc can be killed). So? Change for the better. With Quinn the issue for me was that I wanted him nowhere in my Alliance and there was no option to ship him back to DK and ban him from Alliance territory forever so he always dies. Agreed! I used to be of the opinion that I wanted everyone dead, but not anymore. I do however want more variation in my story and my crew, ultimately, I hope they can achieve that without killing off LI. But yeah, I really don't like the, "my fun is ruined, so everyone else's may as well be too" It's not good for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estelindis Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 With Quinn the issue for me was that I wanted him nowhere in my Alliance and there was no option to ship him back to DK and ban him from Alliance territory forever so he always dies. Pardon me - I've only played the Quinn reunion once with his warrior wife who was target-focused on that flirt button. There's really no non-recruitment option? It's just re-recruit, love, or kill? IIRC your SW is involved with Lana - so I assume she wasn't married to Quinn? In that case, did she only have the option to re-recruit or kill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyFlynn Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 It isn't spite, not from my end. It comes down to equal treatment regardless of the character, which in turn affects equal treatment of content for players. Say you're an Aric fan but he was killable so you never really see him anymore yet other players who love Risha may receive new content involving her because she was never killable. They get to continue on enjoying their favorite/LI while you're left with nothing. That's the whole problem with this and while ideally I'd, yet again, always, say "Don't kill any of them", that ship has sailed. That cannot be reversed. All they can do now to provide any sense of everything being equal is apply a kill-option to all of them. That's my point which I guess is hard to understand but I'm not on a "oh Quinn was killable so now everyone else needs to die too because boo-hoo" streak, it isn't spite but since they cannot raise the already dead LIs/comps then they need a different route to bring them all on equal footing which sadly would mean applying a kill option to any and all companions. Or do you think they're going to continue pumping out content for those who've been killed by a percentage of the player base? And how would any of it work going forward? They're going to make multiple versions of scenes/convos in the (hopefully) expansion to make it work for everyone regardless of who they've killed, or just leave most all companions out of it completely? I'd rather see us all treated fairly but with this "A can be killed but B is protected!" I don't see that happening. Guess I'm a jerk for seeing it that way. It's just a mess, they should never have catered to any "I want to kill!" period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IoNonSoEVero Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Pardon me - I've only played the Quinn reunion once with his warrior wife who was target-focused on that flirt button. There's really no non-recruitment option? It's just re-recruit, love, or kill? IIRC your SW is involved with Lana - so I assume she wasn't married to Quinn? In that case, did she only have the option to re-recruit or kill? Yes, exactly. My SW is with Lana and never had anything romantic with Quinn. The only two choices she had were to welcome him or kill him. I THINK that if you side with the Republic he gets mad and won't join you (like Elara if you side Empire) but I was not going to choose the Republic just to get rid of him. They really needed a reject option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estelindis Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 (edited) Yes, exactly. My SW is with Lana and never had anything romantic with Quinn. The only two choices she had were to welcome him or kill him. I THINK that if you side with the Republic he gets mad and won't join you (like Elara if you side Empire) but I was not going to choose the Republic just to get rid of him. They really needed a reject option. That's a shame! There definitely needed to be a reject option if you side with the Empire! I say that because a shows that siding with the Republic allows for the coveted reject option! Quinn volunteers to become a prisoner of the Republic-allied Alliance (which is honestly pretty big given that he was only recently freed from years of prison), and there's the option to just let him rot. You have to make him beg for mercy first, though. He's so pathetic, just watching it makes me feel awful. Other options are to re-recruit or kill, as with the Empire. Maybe we simply can't refuse his presence if we side with the Empire because of his role with Acina, but that hardly makes sense if it's acceptable to kill him... Edited March 21, 2018 by Estelindis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IoNonSoEVero Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 That's a shame! There definitely needed to be a reject option if you side with the Empire! I say that because a shows that siding with the Republic allows for the coveted reject option! Quinn volunteers to become a prisoner of the Republic-allied Alliance (which is honestly pretty big given that he was only recently freed from years of prison), and there's the option to just let him rot. You have to make him beg for mercy first, though. He's so pathetic, just watching it makes me feel awful. Other options are to re-recruit or kill, as with the Empire. Maybe we simply can't refuse his presence if we side with the Empire because of his role with Acina, but that hardly makes sense if it's acceptable to kill him... Oh wow, WHY don't they allow that Imperial side?! The SW can tell him off a little (when he shows up you can ask if he is there to betray you again) but at the end your choices are something like kill, or saying 'um, don't betray me again' or 'welcome back, buddy!' No chance to toss him. I feel like since the Commander rules her space she would have easily been powerful and authoritative enough to tell Acina that Quinn would need to go or not be in the Alliance or any joint Alliance-Imperial stuff. After all as you say you can kill him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estelindis Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Oh wow, WHY don't they allow that Imperial side?! The SW can tell him off a little (when he shows up you can ask if he is there to betray you again) but at the end your choices are something like kill, or saying 'um, don't betray me again' or 'welcome back, buddy!' No chance to toss him. I feel like since the Commander rules her space she would have easily been powerful and authoritative enough to tell Acina that Quinn would need to go or not be in the Alliance or any joint Alliance-Imperial stuff. After all as you say you can kill him... I really tend to agree. An unfortunate oversight. It mustn't just be a restriction of the conversation wheel either (I mean with the wheel seeming to have maximum three "decision" nodes), because you can hide several further options behind a single decision, as with that Republic scene. What a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quraswren Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 (edited) I hate that annoying Bug. Why can´t i kill him or even sent him away like Ashara.... Because Heaven forbid bioware allow us the option. To much work to allow us to kill them. Edited March 21, 2018 by Quraswren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCobalt Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 They shoulda Never started this BS on killing LI's and comps in general; its a *Cheap story mechanic to raise tension and generate suspense (Like taking a Shortcut in a race). There are other ways to make stories *Exciting and *Compelling. The real SWTOR stories left it much simpler with still greater enjoyment and impact. If there's a character the player *Doesn't like send them away, leave them somewhere or whatever but leave that character Alive for everybody so they don't become paperweights and dust collectors. Friendly character are saved (or not through story) and the *Enemies Dies leave it at that (How it was) and the game/story progresses on with all characters every player "uses" keeps current. Now (assuming there are more stories) they have a complicated puzzle to create future content considering "what's the percentage of players with this comp?", "How many players killed/dismissed that LI?", "How many players have this character but wish they didn't (That's whether or not they'll want to do the content?)". Its a Mess right now that didn't have to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts