38 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarah1281]

But again, now that I think about it - it would be pretty petty to have a character continue to disavow the religion when the ashes are healing Eamon before his very eyes.. It was a poor example.

It doesn't have to be petty 'none of this is real, oh look, Eamon woke up.' All of my characters except my reluctantly Andrastian HN are convinced it's the lyrium. Lyrium does power magic so why not, over the course of hundreds of years, give the ashes healing proprties? It's no more than the lyrium veins in the Fade do.

Modifié par Sarah1281, 10 mai 2010 - 03:30 .

[Xandurpein]

When I roleplay, it's important to not just focus on the choice, but WHY my character would choose doing so. It's for example perfectly possible to roleplay an evil character doing good things, as long as it's done from a selfish reason.



The best thing to roleplay for me is to establish a focus, a drive. Why is my character doing all this? The Orgins stories can help a lot. Are you a human noble who maybe only pay lip service to the Wardens to get a chance to wring Howe's neck? Are you a city elf out to take revenge on all the stinking Shem?



Establish some goal that is what really matters to your character. With that goal in mind, you can see which choices that really matters to you and which choices where you can take a more pragmatic stance.

[Elhanan]

What you actually choose to say does not have to mean this is what you are thinking.



I mean, how many times a day do you edit yourself when responding to others? Saying what you first consider may be direct and more to your honest thought, but may not be the more diplomatic choice considering any possible consequences. I know I would not have a job if I spoke all my thoughts aloud....



* Yes M'am! I know you have half a mind; you made that abundantly clear*

* You are going to have my job? Sorry; takes people skills, and you ain't qualified*

* Sorry Sir! However, I did manage to smile the very first time I heard that line those many, many moons ago*

[Tirigon]

Sarah1281 wrote...

But again, now that I think about it - it would be pretty petty to have a character continue to disavow the religion when the ashes are healing Eamon before his very eyes.. It was a poor example.

It doesn't have to be petty 'none of this is real, oh look, Eamon woke up.' All of my characters except my reluctantly Andrastian HN are convinced it's the lyrium. Lyrium does power magic so why not, over the course of hundreds of years, givethe ashes healing proprties? It's no more than the lyrium veins in the Fade do.

It´s the Placebo effect.

[Corker]

DA:O is the first computer RPG I've ever played, but I've been playing pen and pencil RPGs for years, too. My first playthrough was strongly influenced by my husband's tutelage, and he tends to be a "do all the quests, get all the XP and game the reactions as much as possible" sort, within a broad "character" of "playing a good guy."



My second playthrough was very meta, as I tried to hit some of the roads not taken in my first playthrough. I was curious to see how a Leiliana romance went, for instance - but it was such a bad fit for the PC that it just felt weird and awkward until I ended it.



Finally, on my third playthrough, I feel confident enough to just play the character. My Brosca can't be bothered with the Mage's Collective, the Blackstone Irregulars, or any of the 'Interested Parties' except for 'R,' because those love letters are just funny. (She didn't kill Beraht just to be someone else's fall girl!) She's telling her companions what she thinks, and living with the resulting approval changes. If some of them leave, oh well. And I'm not doing any backtracking or whatever (to get locks or fights that I missed) unless I actually want to. It's very freeing, actually.



The game scales for level. If you miss some XP because you've skipped some side quests, it shouldn't be the end of the world. If you lose a companion or two, it shouldn't be the end of the world.

[C9316]

Well when I roleplay I generally take about 10-15 mins before playing the game to create my chracters personality for example my Dalish elf at first wanted nothing to due with humans or their society. Of course there were some flaws in the game that prevented me from doing this RP (Urn of ashes for an example either become urn worshiper or dragon cultist XD) so I generally had to RP my Elf becoming slowly but soundly becoming more tolerant of human culture(which is why he can even be in a relationship with leiliana) so in general after you've come up with a personality you've got to consider all choices you're given and then analyze how your character would react considering his or her personality

[DWSmiley]

I agree with Corker. Good role playing cannot maximize the approval ratings of all the npcs but that just makes sense and is no obstacle to completing the game. My naive and inquisitive Dalish lad was never able to connect with Sten, for instance, but got along well with most humans because his first significant contacts were positive. For my emotionally scarred City Elf lass, it was pretty much the opposite. And I like that most decisions are not black and white, as it lets the pc's character evolve. You can credibly take two characters from the same origin and have them become quite different personalities.

[Brako Shepard]

Whilst its great to have actual voices in games these days, I also think it has its flaws.

If RPG games were just text based, role playing could be done so much better. Due to all other characters being voiced in the game, I feel this is what prevents true role play.



In the end you have a RPG, but when you look properly, you see that most of the plot lines have already been chosen for you.



If the majority of the world who play video games weren't affraid of a bit of reading. I feel that text could open up a whole new game due to less cost on voice actors, aswell as restrictions.

[Discus]

I wonder how the writers and creators of Dragon Age play the game. Do they stick to the choices they make. I mean they should know all the outcomes and be able to shape it just as they want to which in a sense makes it even more likely that they roleplay characters. I mean the point of the game is question, action, reaction, consequence, the idea is that you play through a story, that the choices are hard choices and if the point was to always make the most beneficial choice then there would be no such game mechanic as for example approval rating or different plot outcomes.

I would be very curious how the creators play the game, what they enjoy about it and how they would prefer the gamers to play it. What their vision is with the game storywise and game mechanic wise. Besides creating a game that has general commercial success and suits all kinds of players; roleplayers, powergamers, casual gamers, young and old etc. I am sure that if there was no influence on the creative choices coming from a sale and investment/monetary gain and profit point of view they would shape the game differently, the quesion is how.

With that I am in no way saying it is a game that is not good enough or should have been something else. I really love the game, it is fantastic and fun but I am still curious. I think if Bioware could have completely free hands and basically a more or less unlimited economical situation they could go even further.

Modifié par Discus, 12 mai 2010 - 10:35 .

[maxernst]

Brako Shepard wrote...

Whilst its great to have actual voices in games these days, I also think it has its flaws.
If RPG games were just text based, role playing could be done so much better. Due to all other characters being voiced in the game, I feel this is what prevents true role play.

I'm not so sure about that.  I don't recall older games that had much less voiced speech as being hugely better in that respect.  With the singular exception of Planescape:Torment, I can't think of any games that were spectacularly more successful from a roleplaying perspective or even had that much more text.  I expect BG2 had more text total, but it also had far more characters, more quests, more areas...it was just bigger, in general.  I don't recall it having a whole lot more in-depth conversations and I don't recall very many of the choices you made requiring much thought--there tended to be pretty straightforward good/evil paths.  Planescape:Torment is another thing entirely, but it only had one PC avatar to worry about (no background-specific conversations) and it had a LOT of text.  I loved the game, personally, but the very text-heavy nature of it turned off some players and it didn't sell particularly well.

Of course, it would be nice to have more response options a lot of the time, but there's only so far roleplaying can be taken with a text-tree dialogue system.  Even if you're not voicing the characters (which, if it's really a big monetary issue, could surely be done much more cheaply by hiring non-celebrities) more dialogue options still means more coding and more playtesting for bugs.  And let's face it--text alone can be ambiguous at times.  Did you never find that one of your companions acted unexpectedly to your PC because they interpreted your words differently than intended?  Sometimes the facial expressions and tone of voice communicate as much as words.,

[Discus]

Do you care if you would for example miss out on companion quests because of the way you roleplay dialogue and do you ever reload saves because of approval ratings going down?

[maxernst]

I don't--I feel if I really want them, I can build another character. I can recall reloading a save because of an approval rating change once. Mostly out of curiosity I asked Morrigan "why she was still here", thinking perhaps I'd get some insight into her/Flemeth's interest in helping the Wardens, but she took it as "Get lost". Since I didn't really intend it that way, I felt okay about reloading. On the other hand, I sucked up the -10 for telling her that there were things worse than death. I think only somebody with a very limited imagination would believe that survival was always better than death...I really wanted to introduce Morrigan to Hespith and the Brood Mother, but I wasn't travelling with her in Orzammar.

Anyway, the gifts make it pretty easy to raise approvals, even if they don't like your answers. I suppose showering people you don't particularly care for with gifts could be viewed as bad RP, but my PC wasn't above bribery. Besides, most of the companion quests weren't all that.

Modifié par maxernst, 13 mai 2010 - 06:39 .

[Discus]

Cool, that is good reasoning. I try to stay away from reloading to but I admit it does happen and sometimes it is hard not to because I want to experience all the quets to enrich the story. So it is a balance between RP and wanting to experience the story, NPC backgrounds and so on to its fullest. I am starting a new playthrough now and this time I thought out a personality for my character and guidelines for how he might change because of what he goes through. It will be interesting to see what new directions the game might take. If I can for example romance Morrigan even if I stick to telling her the things she might not like, like you talked about.

It would be nice to see more deep psychology for coming DA games. More dialogue options and more advanced reactions from NPCs. For example if you chose to answer in a certain way in a previous dialogue it does not only discard some future options and/or add some but also changes tone of NPCs voices and maybe adds some extra NPC initiated dialogues refferring to how you responded and/or treated them. Could see more of that I think. Because sometimes I have the feeling you miss out on stuff because you might not always please an NPC. It would be cool if instead of less you would get as much back even if it would end up in a fight. Or even better, lets say you fight with Leliana and she ends up using her companion quest to have you killed instead and ends up somehow on Marjolaines side. Then Marjolaine would trick Leliana and you would end up protecting her anyway if you would want to. This would be true DA style in the sense that no one in the game is truly pure hearted good, moral is grey, and you would not miss the companion quest but merely experience it differently.

Modifié par Discus, 13 mai 2010 - 06:53 .

[Cenwyn]

I play my character based on how I would I react in if I was in the same spot. Some spots have stumped granted on what to do but the morals and values I hold carry over into my character. Some choices I have regretted, some I have not. Some play throughs I make completely different decisions because I am curious about things will turn out.
Sometimes I bring my mischevious, naughty or flirty side out for a bit a of fun (Feastday pranks are awesome!)
But I certainly cannot play an evil character. Not in my nature to be like that and way outside my comfort zone.

Because I adore all my companions I too cannot bring myself to deliberately hurt them in anyway. Yes some will not agree with me based on my choices but that would be true in real life. My hardest play through was when I decided to harden Alistair when I played an elf rogue. I wanted to get involved with Zev and Lel and explore other relationships but it really hurt when I had to turn his advances down. He has always been my love and seeing him hurt like that just killed me.

Now on the other the hand the folks I of course enjoy hurting are the ones who deserve it or darkspawn. Some folks such as Loghain I have no issues loping off that head of his or better yet letting Alistair do it. But all in all I try to do something a little different in each playthrough for variety.

Modifié par Cenwyn, 13 mai 2010 - 08:29 .