55 réponses à ce sujet

[Sable Rhapsody]

The problem with approval systems is that they're difficult to implement, but interesting roleplaying in principle. KOTOR was a little jarring when I was running about Korriban cackling at the top of my evil evil lungs, and Carth was making googly eyes at me. O.O (Though killing him was the sweetest video game death I've ever inflicted on anyone. Stupidity is a cardinal sin.)



Enter KOTOR2, and Obsidian's first attempt at influence/approval. Which was...decidedly meh. I think it got better with DA2, but the problem with an influence/approval system is the same as its benefit--it makes it so that your roleplaying affects gameplay in a substantive way, always a bit of a challenge. You can roleplay as a massive JERK who hates mages...which locks you out of Wynne, makes Morrigan hate you, and essentially gimps you for the rest of the game. Fewer party members/party members with lower approval becomes a gameplay problem.



So I'm not really sure how I feel about approval meters. I'd like to see some kind of approval system implemented, but I'm not sure how. I'll leave it to game designers who are smarter than I am to work that one out.

[Felfenix]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

The problem with approval systems is that they're difficult to implement, but interesting roleplaying in principle. KOTOR was a little jarring when I was running about Korriban cackling at the top of my evil evil lungs, and Carth was making googly eyes at me. O.O (Though killing him was the sweetest video game death I've ever inflicted on anyone. Stupidity is a cardinal sin.)

Enter KOTOR2, and Obsidian's first attempt at influence/approval. Which was...decidedly meh. I think it got better with DA2, but the problem with an influence/approval system is the same as its benefit--it makes it so that your roleplaying affects gameplay in a substantive way, always a bit of a challenge. You can roleplay as a massive JERK who hates mages...which locks you out of Wynne, makes Morrigan hate you, and essentially gimps you for the rest of the game. Fewer party members/party members with lower approval becomes a gameplay problem.

So I'm not really sure how I feel about approval meters. I'd like to see some kind of approval system implemented, but I'm not sure how. I'll leave it to game designers who are smarter than I am to work that one out.

I love my characters changing toward me based on my actions, but I think the meters are a poor way of trying to do it.

[TheMadCat]

You can roleplay as a massive JERK who hates mages...which locks you out
of Wynne, makes Morrigan hate you, and essentially gimps you for the
rest of the game. Fewer party members/party members with lower approval
becomes a gameplay problem.

See, that's not a problem that's how the system should have been. Actual consquences to your actions from your party memebers, people with their own personalities making their own decisions about your and determining their future course with you from there. Instead it ended up being hollow, incredibly easy to raise your approval by occasionaly picking the dialogue choice they like, quickly forgetting everything you've done that they despised. And let's not even get into the whole gift nonsense.

I'd love to see BioWare grow the balls to implement a system where you can't have all the companions pretty much every game because their personality clashes with yours, because they despise your motives and actions, because you scorned your lover or left him/her for another, because you treat them like dirt and not having them forget two conversations later about a negative action or forgiving your rape, murder, and pillaging because you handed them a cheap trinket.

[Phazor58]

I think the approval meter works fine. However, the use of gifts is not good. Perhaps we can be given a few gifts. But the fact that we could basically make a party member hate us and then max out their approval with gifts was ridiculous.

And perhaps they can provide a larger group of possible party members, with varying personalities.  If certain party members don't like the way we go about our business, then they can leave and we'll be left with the party members who think the same way as us.  That way the experience will be very different depending on how you play the game.

Modifié par Phazor58, 10 juillet 2010 - 05:59 .

[Emma-Lath]

David Gaider wrote...

Felfenix wrote...
I also think the morality meters oversimplify your reputation and the effects of decisions. One of the things I enjoyed more about Dragon Age than Mass Effect was that Dragon Age didn't have a morality meter.

We have not implemented a morality meter, no. Making morally complex decisions and dealing with the consequences of those decisions on those around you are pretty central to what we feel Dragon Age is all about.

Thank God! I was worried that with all the changes that this would changes as well, I am so happy that you are keep with the no morality meter.

[Sable Rhapsody]

TheMadCat wrote...

You can roleplay as a massive JERK who hates mages...which locks you out
of Wynne, makes Morrigan hate you, and essentially gimps you for the
rest of the game. Fewer party members/party members with lower approval
becomes a gameplay problem.

See, that's not a problem that's how the system should have been. Actual consquences to your actions from your party memebers, people with their own personalities making their own decisions about your and determining their future course with you from there. Instead it ended up being hollow, incredibly easy to raise your approval by occasionaly picking the dialogue choice they like, quickly forgetting everything you've done that they despised. And let's not even get into the whole gift nonsense.

I'd love to see BioWare grow the balls to implement a system where you can't have all the companions pretty much every game because their personality clashes with yours, because they despise your motives and actions, because you scorned your lover or left him/her for another, because you treat them like dirt and not having them forget two conversations later about a negative action or forgiving your rape, murder, and pillaging because you handed them a cheap trinket.

Hmm, maybe I misstated.  Or maybe it's a product of how essential mages are in DA:O.  Not having mages for the final sequence--and you can pull that off if you're really trying--essentially makes the game unbeatable, at least on PC.  That's a design problem, and it's one that I hope will be fixed in DA2.

The interesting thing is that in Mass Effect 2--which is apparently a game analogous to Spawn of Satan on these boards--there is no approval meter yet characters will still sometimes respond to your morality and choices independent of their loyalty missions.  Everyone comments on the Collector base.  Samara is the best example, responding to Shepard differently after the mission based on the moral choices you made.  That's...honestly kinda cool, though it wasn't implemented with much depth.

What I'd really like to see is an approval system that follows the general gameplay philosophy of Heavy Rain.  You can make bad decisions, ones that really make the game tougher, but it's pretty obvious when you're about to shoot yourself in the foot.  And if you merrily shoot away for roleplaying purposes, there are consequences, but it's never game-ending and it never makes the game impossible.

[drkshine86]

gifts kinda ruin the experience. I thought the couple that would actually cause dialog was fine but the others for maxing out the bars artificially were meh for me. It was nice finding Duncan's shield and giving it to Alistair. It meant something and was a real gift. The extra stuff was kinda throwaway and I'd rather not see them in DA2.

[TheMadCat]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...


Hmm, maybe I misstated.  Or maybe it's a product of how essential mages are in DA:O.  Not having mages for the final sequence--and you can pull that off if you're really trying--essentially makes the game unbeatable, at least on PC.  That's a design problem, and it's one that I hope will be fixed in DA2.

See, that's just an flaw on the gameplay mechanics, forcing so much emphasis on a healing mage. It certainly wouldn't have been much of a problem if you chased off Sten or Leliana or another of their likes.

The interesting thing is that in Mass Effect 2--which is apparently a game analogous to Spawn of Satan on these boards--there is no approval meter yet characters will still sometimes respond to your morality and choices independent of their loyalty missions.  Everyone comments on the Collector base.  Samara is the best example, responding to Shepard differently after the mission based on the moral choices you made.  That's...honestly kinda cool, though it wasn't implemented with much depth.

On principle I actually liked the whole approval meter, but I thought they just a terrible job of implementing it. I actually like the fact that there is not only a response to your actions, but a consequence and at times a bonus as well. I wouldn't mind if they stuck with it but it would need a serious overhaul from it's current state. Enough negative actions should have a permanent effect on your relationship, maybe a permanent loss on your max approval level to simulate how they never forgot you killed that kid despite their plea for you not to or whatever.

What I'd really like to see is an approval system that follows the general gameplay philosophy of Heavy Rain.  You can make bad decisions, ones that really make the game tougher, but it's pretty obvious when you're about to shoot yourself in the foot.  And if you merrily shoot away for roleplaying purposes, there are consequences, but it's never game-ending and it never makes the game impossible.

Never played it, personally though I don't like the idea of having to go so far out of your way to feel consequences. Even natural reactions should have negative consequences at times, sometime subtle and sometimes severe. It helps enhance the experience and emphasize the trials and tribulations one would experience taking such daunting tasks.

[SirOccam]

I wish they'd tone down the effects gifts can have, but I'd also like to see there be some kind of unique experience for NOT being at max approval. In DAO, there's pretty much nothing to be gained by having companions at anything but max approval. The higher it gets, the more dialogue you unlock and they get bonuses to constitution or magic or whatever. In other words, higher approval = more content. If you make them hate you, they can leave or sometimes fight you, which is something unique I guess, but there's no profit in losing a companion. For all you know, you might need them for something later on, so what possible reason do you have for not plying everyone with gifts and agreeing with everything they say?

My idea, which I've posted before somewhere on the DA forums, is for there to be several bars instead of one. For now, let's say, three: Respect, Friendship, Love.

The stat bonuses would be tied to Respect. You'd be rewarded for "handling" companions in a way that's right for them, instead of fawning over everyone. If this existed in DAO, then when Sten challenges your leadership in Haven, shutting him down abruptly and with conviction would earn you Respect points. Being so short with someone else, like Alistair or Leliana, would lose you Respect points. The more you're respected, the more effective you are as a commander, and therefore the better your team should perform.

Then, for the companions you LIKE, you can work on the Friendship meter. Again, if this system were in DAO, I'd raise the Friendship meter with Leliana, Morrigan, and Alistair probably. For the rest, their respect would suffice. This way, you don't HAVE to be best buds with everyone.

Finally, the Love meter is probably self explanatory. This would primarily be used for your chosen LI, but theoretically you could have love triangles and all the juicy drama that they entail. It could be partially dependent on the Friendship meter (like maybe Friendship has to be high before Love can be raised).

Overall, the point is to provide flexibility. By moving from one dimension to three, you really open up a lot of possibilities, and importantly, it can accommodate the unique personalities I hope we will encounter.

A few more DAO examples, Morrigan's Love and Friendship meters might be used in different combinations because of her relatively unique outlook on the subjects. When you make a decision like killing Connor, maybe it'll affect Alistair's Respect meter but only Leliana's Friendship meter. If Alistair's Friendship and Respect meters are both high enough when you spare Loghain, maybe he'd be more amenable than he would be if only Respect was high but not Friendship. And so on and so forth.

[Sable Rhapsody]

TheMadCat wrote...
Never played it, personally though I don't like the idea of having to go so far out of your way to feel consequences. Even natural reactions should have negative consequences at times, sometime subtle and sometimes severe. It helps enhance the experience and emphasize the trials and tribulations one would experience taking such daunting tasks.

That's true, though I can only imagine the coding nightmares associated with it.  I dunno.  The whole thing with having roleplaying affect gameplay is riddled with implementation hurdles, not the least of which is that a lot of gamers have a bit of an OCD/perfectionist streak.  Games have conditioned us to look for the "right" answer, and I'm certainly no exception.  

SirOccam wrote...
My idea, which I've posted before somewhere on the DA forums, is for there to be several bars instead of one. For now, let's say, three: Respect, Friendship, Love.
The stat bonuses would be tied to Respect. You'd be rewarded for "handling" companions in a way that's right for them, instead of fawning over everyone. If this existed in DAO, then when Sten challenges your leadership in Haven, shutting him down abruptly and with conviction would earn you Respect points. Being so short with someone else, like Alistair or Leliana, would lose you Respect points. The more you're respected, the more effective you are as a commander, and therefore the better your team should perform.
Overall, the point is to provide flexibility. By moving from one dimension to three, you really open up a lot of possibilities, and importantly, it can accommodate the unique personalities I hope we will encounter.

Something like a Respect, like, and love approval system isn't a bad idea--it helps reflect more accurately how people feel about each other.  Sten might respect the Warden without particularly liking the Warden.  Once again, though, the problem is implementation.  Something like that where each NPC has a multifacted response to the PC could be an implementation nightmare.

I liked that ME2 was sensitive not to your morality, but to the choices you made in-game when characters responded to you.  Again, Samara is the best example because hers was employed with the most depth, though it was still pretty shallow compared to a full-blown approval system.  She responded negatively in the final conversation if Shepard tended to pick Renegade choices at major decision points, and very positively if Shepard tended to pick Paragon choices at the same decision points.  It's not strictly based on morality; I have a friend who had filled the Renegade meter, but picked Paragon for most major decisions, and she got Samara's positive response.  That's not a bad way to do the influence.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 10 juillet 2010 - 06:34 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

David Gaider wrote...

Felfenix wrote...
I also think the morality meters oversimplify your reputation and the effects of decisions. One of the things I enjoyed more about Dragon Age than Mass Effect was that Dragon Age didn't have a morality meter.

We have not implemented a morality meter, no. Making morally complex decisions and dealing with the consequences of those decisions on those around you are pretty central to what we feel Dragon Age is all about.

You have no idea how much I am relieved by this. Thank you.

[Blacklash93]

I dislike morality-based conversation mechanics in any form. I should be concerned in dealing with the present situation in in the story the way I see fit instead of worrying about obtaining more good/evil points for future benefits above all else.

Origins' persuasion system is much more friendly to people who like to play around in the grey area of morality... Which is also a major point of the DA series last time I checked.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 10 juillet 2010 - 06:37 .

[ZaroktheImmortal]

I think the Witcher was a good example of moral complexity. Often it was hard to tell which was the right way and often it was like choosing the lesser of two evils.

[SirOccam]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
My idea, which I've posted before somewhere on the DA forums, is for there to be several bars instead of one. For now, let's say, three: Respect, Friendship, Love.
The stat bonuses would be tied to Respect. You'd be rewarded for "handling" companions in a way that's right for them, instead of fawning over everyone. If this existed in DAO, then when Sten challenges your leadership in Haven, shutting him down abruptly and with conviction would earn you Respect points. Being so short with someone else, like Alistair or Leliana, would lose you Respect points. The more you're respected, the more effective you are as a commander, and therefore the better your team should perform.
Overall, the point is to provide flexibility. By moving from one dimension to three, you really open up a lot of possibilities, and importantly, it can accommodate the unique personalities I hope we will encounter.

Something like a Respect, like, and love approval system isn't a bad idea--it helps reflect more accurately how people feel about each other.  Sten might respect the Warden without particularly liking the Warden.  Once again, though, the problem is implementation.  Something like that where each NPC has a multifacted response to the PC could be an implementation nightmare.

I liked that ME2 was sensitive not to your morality, but to the choices you made in-game when characters responded to you.  Again, Samara is the best example because hers was employed with the most depth, though it was still pretty shallow compared to a full-blown approval system.  She responded negatively in the final conversation if Shepard tended to pick Renegade choices at major decision points, and very positively if Shepard tended to pick Paragon choices at the same decision points.  It's not strictly based on morality; I have a friend who had filled the Renegade meter, but picked Paragon for most major decisions, and she got Samara's positive response.  That's not a bad way to do the influence.

I am not a game programmer, but I don't think it would necessarily have to be that hard to implement. Instead of going at it from the viewpoint of monitoring the bars and figuring out when to do things, anything that needed to pass certain checks would simply check the bars as they do now, but instead of one bar they'd be checking 3. I just typed that and I already know it doesn't explain it at all.

An example: Let's say you walk up to Morrigan to have a chat. Already DAO checks your approval to determine whether she responds with a sharp "What is it?" or a conversational "What do you wish of me?" or a friendly giggle or a sultry "Your desire?". In the new system, it would just have to check the bars in order of most significant to least, so if a Love meter is maxed, then go with the most romantic option. If it's low but Friendliness is high, then go with the friendly greeting. If Friendliness is low but Respect is high, go with more of a grudging "What do you need?", but if Respect is low, maybe go with a more scornful option. Friendliness high and Respect low: go for something sort of dismissive.

If I were designing it, I'd check Love first, then if it's not high enough, go with one of the other two based on magnitude. So if Respect is 33% of the way between 0 and max respect, and Friendliness is at around -50%, then I'd base it on the -50% Friendliness.

The point is no matter how complex the bars got, anything needing to use them would already come with its own set of requirements. You wouldn't have to tackle the entire range of combinations every time. Just check for what you need and move on.

What I really hated about ME/ME2 was having dialogue options unavailable if you weren't enough of a Paragon or Renegade already. You shouldn't have to pass a morality check to do something good or evil. That's backwards, IMO. Plus it got Tali killed on one of my playthroughs. I wasn't enough of a Paragon to resolve the whole mess with her father satisfactorily, which meant she wasn't "loyal," which meant she went bye-bye during the last mission. That kind of system totally disallows the concept of character change. Either you're good or you're evil, and you have to STAY good or evil if you want to do something good or evil later.

Okay this is way too rambly...I get that way typing late at night. Sorry.

Modifié par SirOccam, 10 juillet 2010 - 08:28 .

[highcastle]

SDNcN wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

I much prefer the DA system. Foe one thing, it's much like how we are influenced to make choiced in life. We take the opinions of those we like and respect seriously, while taking opinions of those we don't generally agree with less seriously. It's a morality meter of a kind, just a more personal one. I tried to keep everyone happy, but the only people whose opinions I really noted were Alistair, Wynne, and to a lesser extent, Leliana. Of course, that doesn't mean that I disagreed with Zevran when he said 'slavery is bad.'

I  slightly disagree.
It gave off the impression that friendships are based on how closely a person's viewpoints match up with your own. While that is true to a certain degree, removes the possibility for characters to agree to disagree on certain issues and still like each other.

I really wanted my Mage to be House and Alistair to be his Wilsion.
<_<

You can do this. Most disaggreements come with a Persuade check, and many times passing the persuade check won't result in a drop of approval. Also, you can sometimes disagree with a character, but phrase it in a polite or acceptable way to stave off an approval drop. Two examples:

In Orzammar, if you have Zevran with you, he'll mock Harrowmont and call him a weak canidate for the throne. A persuade check here won't convince Harrowmont's not weak, just to reserve his judgment until he actually knows more about the man. And even then, his tone suggests he's still not happy with the choice. But passing the check means no drop in approval. Ergo, he respects you enough to agree to disagree.

One conversation with Wynne will have her expressing disapproval with a PC's relationship with Zevran. No matter what you say, you can't convince her that the romance is a good thiing. But if you keep it civil, she won't disapprove of you. She just expresses her concerns and moves on. 

Now, these conversations are definitely in the minority. I remember countless early talks with Morrigan wondering just what it was I'd said that made her approval drop so dramatically, then being thankful there were so many pieces of jewelery I could hurl at her to make up the difference. I would love to see there be more conversations in which it was possible to disagree with companions and yet not lose approval. More persuade checks might do it, as long as the checks don't result in the companions completely changing their tune with one statement.

[Gill Kaiser]

Dileos wrote...

Exactly. I liked being able to defuse a volatile situation, and then go and yell to an NPC who deserved to be yelled at.

The problem with ME:2 and to a lesser extent ME:1 was that if I was going to be a paragon I had to be one ALL the time. People can be nice, but everyone has limits. I should be allowed to flip sh*t when an NPC does something insanely stupid.

ME2 only had that problem if you didn't import a decent ME1 character. I imported my level 60 Shepard and by the end of ME2 I had full a Paragon bar and over half the Renegade bar, and for the majority of the game I had been able to choose between both Charm and Intimidate options, except the really difficult ones like the companion fights.

[JemyM]

Great. Finally some good news. Having only two character options possible have been in Bioware games since KOTOR and before Dragon Age one had to go back to Baldur's Gate to be able to control your own character.

I hope the Red or Cyan system will die with ME and stay dead. One of several horrible design decisions in that game.

Modifié par JemyM, 14 août 2010 - 06:07 .

[thebrah]

dragon age origins didn't have any morally grey choices anyway. might as put in morality meters.

[asaiasai]

David Gaider wrote...

Felfenix wrote...
I also think the morality meters oversimplify your reputation and the effects of decisions. One of the things I enjoyed more about Dragon Age than Mass Effect was that Dragon Age didn't have a morality meter.

We have not implemented a morality meter, no. Making morally complex decisions and dealing with the consequences of those decisions on those around you are pretty central to what we feel Dragon Age is all about.

I agree with you entirely Mr. Gaider, but at the same time the player MUST have some way to influence those decisions. What DAO did was provide the player the option to assign value to thier stats, is 2 points of cunning for the next level of persuasion more valuable to the player than say the 2 points applied to strength for a heavier armor, that is a decision the player made. In ME2 the situation was not as fluid as DAO or ME (in ME the player could sacrifice points to boost Charm or Intimidate opening up actions avalable) where as ME2 the player was locked into a path that had to be followed, this was detrimental to both immersion and role play. A Paragon had to hug everybody, a Renegade had to slap everybody, regardless of what the player wanted to do. When you limit the player's choices because the morality system is limited, you limit the players ability to immerse themselves in the world, as such the game seems to on occasion boot the player back out into reality. In ME2 you are limiting the player by the "actions speak louder than words" morality system. It is backwards in ME2 the actions set the personality avalable, where as in DAO the personality sets the actions avalable. At current it is slaps or hugs for everybody, where it should be slaps or hugs where the player feels it is apropriate and then the consequences should be applied. By forcing the player to make sacrifices in thier stats to set the personality of thier character before any action is implemented the player is now in control of the character and the story. It can be argued chicken or the egg i understand that, but the morality system in DAO and ME felt more organic than ME2.

Asai

Modifié par asaiasai, 14 août 2010 - 07:25 .

[thebrah]

asaiasai wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Felfenix wrote...
I also think the morality meters oversimplify your reputation and the effects of decisions. One of the things I enjoyed more about Dragon Age than Mass Effect was that Dragon Age didn't have a morality meter.

We have not implemented a morality meter, no. Making morally complex decisions and dealing with the consequences of those decisions on those around you are pretty central to what we feel Dragon Age is all about.

I agree with you entirely Mr. Gaider, but at the same time the player MUST have some way to influence those decisions. What DAO did was provide the player the option to assign value to thier stats, is 2 points of cunning for the next level of persuasion more valuable to the player than say the 2 points applied to strength for a heavier armor, that is a decision the player made. In ME2 the situation was not as fluid as DAO, in ME2 and a lesser degree ME (although the player could sacrifice points to boost Charm or Intimidate) the player was locked into a path that had to be followed, this was detrimental to both immersion and role play. A Paragon had to hug everybody, a Renegade had to slap everybody, regardless of what the player wanted to do. When you limit the player's choices because the morality system is limited, you limit the players ability to immerse themselves in the world, as such the game seems to on occasion boot the player back out into reality. In ME2 you are limiting the player by the "actions speak louder than words" morality system. It is backwards in ME2 the actions set the personality avalable, where as in DAO the personality sets the actions avalable. At current it is slaps or hugs for everybody, where it should be slaps or hugs where the player feels it is apropriate and then the consequences should be applied. By forcing the player to make sacrifices in thier stats to set the personality of thier character before any action is implemented the player is now in control of the character and the story. It can be argued chicken or the egg i understand that, but the morality system in DAO and ME felt more organic than ME2.

Asai

god shut up nerd. btw dragon age had limited choices.

[Saibh]

thebrah wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Felfenix wrote...
I also think the morality meters oversimplify your reputation and the effects of decisions. One of the things I enjoyed more about Dragon Age than Mass Effect was that Dragon Age didn't have a morality meter.

We have not implemented a morality meter, no. Making morally complex decisions and dealing with the consequences of those decisions on those around you are pretty central to what we feel Dragon Age is all about.

I agree with you entirely Mr. Gaider, but at the same time the player MUST have some way to influence those decisions. What DAO did was provide the player the option to assign value to thier stats, is 2 points of cunning for the next level of persuasion more valuable to the player than say the 2 points applied to strength for a heavier armor, that is a decision the player made. In ME2 the situation was not as fluid as DAO, in ME2 and a lesser degree ME (although the player could sacrifice points to boost Charm or Intimidate) the player was locked into a path that had to be followed, this was detrimental to both immersion and role play. A Paragon had to hug everybody, a Renegade had to slap everybody, regardless of what the player wanted to do. When you limit the player's choices because the morality system is limited, you limit the players ability to immerse themselves in the world, as such the game seems to on occasion boot the player back out into reality. In ME2 you are limiting the player by the "actions speak louder than words" morality system. It is backwards in ME2 the actions set the personality avalable, where as in DAO the personality sets the actions avalable. At current it is slaps or hugs for everybody, where it should be slaps or hugs where the player feels it is apropriate and then the consequences should be applied. By forcing the player to make sacrifices in thier stats to set the personality of thier character before any action is implemented the player is now in control of the character and the story. It can be argued chicken or the egg i understand that, but the morality system in DAO and ME felt more organic than ME2.

Asai

god shut up nerd. btw dragon age had limited choices.

That's irony, right? My troll sense have never been good, but that has to be irony. I mean, you post on the BioWare forums. We're all nerds.

Every. Single. One of us.

The point being made is that you were told THIS IS GOOD and THIS IS BAD, and you were limited by this. There was no room edgewise for what you consider right or wrong. It was what the devs said, and that was that.

[thebrah]

Saibh wrote...

thebrah wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Felfenix wrote...
I also think the morality meters oversimplify your reputation and the effects of decisions. One of the things I enjoyed more about Dragon Age than Mass Effect was that Dragon Age didn't have a morality meter.

We have not implemented a morality meter, no. Making morally complex decisions and dealing with the consequences of those decisions on those around you are pretty central to what we feel Dragon Age is all about.

I agree with you entirely Mr. Gaider, but at the same time the player MUST have some way to influence those decisions. What DAO did was provide the player the option to assign value to thier stats, is 2 points of cunning for the next level of persuasion more valuable to the player than say the 2 points applied to strength for a heavier armor, that is a decision the player made. In ME2 the situation was not as fluid as DAO, in ME2 and a lesser degree ME (although the player could sacrifice points to boost Charm or Intimidate) the player was locked into a path that had to be followed, this was detrimental to both immersion and role play. A Paragon had to hug everybody, a Renegade had to slap everybody, regardless of what the player wanted to do. When you limit the player's choices because the morality system is limited, you limit the players ability to immerse themselves in the world, as such the game seems to on occasion boot the player back out into reality. In ME2 you are limiting the player by the "actions speak louder than words" morality system. It is backwards in ME2 the actions set the personality avalable, where as in DAO the personality sets the actions avalable. At current it is slaps or hugs for everybody, where it should be slaps or hugs where the player feels it is apropriate and then the consequences should be applied. By forcing the player to make sacrifices in thier stats to set the personality of thier character before any action is implemented the player is now in control of the character and the story. It can be argued chicken or the egg i understand that, but the morality system in DAO and ME felt more organic than ME2.

Asai

god shut up nerd. btw dragon age had limited choices.

That's irony, right? My troll sense have never been good, but that has to be irony. I mean, you post on the BioWare forums. We're all nerds.

Every. Single. One of us.

The point being made is that you were told THIS IS GOOD and THIS IS BAD, and you were limited by this. There was no room edgewise for what you consider right or wrong. It was what the devs said, and that was that.

hey calm down buddy i'm not the one who posted a long boring rant about morality or something.

[asaiasai]

thebrah wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Felfenix wrote...
I also think the morality meters oversimplify your reputation and the effects of decisions. One of the things I enjoyed more about Dragon Age than Mass Effect was that Dragon Age didn't have a morality meter.

We have not implemented a morality meter, no. Making morally complex decisions and dealing with the consequences of those decisions on those around you are pretty central to what we feel Dragon Age is all about.

I agree with you entirely Mr. Gaider, but at the same time the player MUST have some way to influence those decisions. What DAO did was provide the player the option to assign value to thier stats, is 2 points of cunning for the next level of persuasion more valuable to the player than say the 2 points applied to strength for a heavier armor, that is a decision the player made. In ME2 the situation was not as fluid as DAO, in ME2 and a lesser degree ME (although the player could sacrifice points to boost Charm or Intimidate) the player was locked into a path that had to be followed, this was detrimental to both immersion and role play. A Paragon had to hug everybody, a Renegade had to slap everybody, regardless of what the player wanted to do. When you limit the player's choices because the morality system is limited, you limit the players ability to immerse themselves in the world, as such the game seems to on occasion boot the player back out into reality. In ME2 you are limiting the player by the "actions speak louder than words" morality system. It is backwards in ME2 the actions set the personality avalable, where as in DAO the personality sets the actions avalable. At current it is slaps or hugs for everybody, where it should be slaps or hugs where the player feels it is apropriate and then the consequences should be applied. By forcing the player to make sacrifices in thier stats to set the personality of thier character before any action is implemented the player is now in control of the character and the story. It can be argued chicken or the egg i understand that, but the morality system in DAO and ME felt more organic than ME2.

Asai

god shut up nerd. btw dragon age had limited choices.

Thanks for playing child which is obvious judging by your barely literate reply, you seem a bit cranky, is your diaper wet, do you need a nap now? DAO was as limited as the player chose it to be, because you were limited does not mean it lacked depth. Because you could not find that depth also leads one to believe that my original assessment of your maturity level is correct. If you do not like what I say ignore me, engage me, or go away, but I am here every night, not sorry about your luck.

Asai

[KLUME777]

I agree. This was revolutionary for me back in KotOR days, but it now needs a lot of work or cut entirely. Problem is the gift system in DAO isn't good either because there's not enough dialogue.

[thebrah]

asaiasai wrote...

thebrah wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Felfenix wrote...
I also think the morality meters oversimplify your reputation and the effects of decisions. One of the things I enjoyed more about Dragon Age than Mass Effect was that Dragon Age didn't have a morality meter.

We have not implemented a morality meter, no. Making morally complex decisions and dealing with the consequences of those decisions on those around you are pretty central to what we feel Dragon Age is all about.

I agree with you entirely Mr. Gaider, but at the same time the player MUST have some way to influence those decisions. What DAO did was provide the player the option to assign value to thier stats, is 2 points of cunning for the next level of persuasion more valuable to the player than say the 2 points applied to strength for a heavier armor, that is a decision the player made. In ME2 the situation was not as fluid as DAO, in ME2 and a lesser degree ME (although the player could sacrifice points to boost Charm or Intimidate) the player was locked into a path that had to be followed, this was detrimental to both immersion and role play. A Paragon had to hug everybody, a Renegade had to slap everybody, regardless of what the player wanted to do. When you limit the player's choices because the morality system is limited, you limit the players ability to immerse themselves in the world, as such the game seems to on occasion boot the player back out into reality. In ME2 you are limiting the player by the "actions speak louder than words" morality system. It is backwards in ME2 the actions set the personality avalable, where as in DAO the personality sets the actions avalable. At current it is slaps or hugs for everybody, where it should be slaps or hugs where the player feels it is apropriate and then the consequences should be applied. By forcing the player to make sacrifices in thier stats to set the personality of thier character before any action is implemented the player is now in control of the character and the story. It can be argued chicken or the egg i understand that, but the morality system in DAO and ME felt more organic than ME2.

Asai

god shut up nerd. btw dragon age had limited choices.

Thanks for playing child which is obvious judging by your barely literate reply, you seem a bit cranky, is your diaper wet, do you need a nap now? DAO was as limited as the player chose it to be, because you were limited does not mean it lacked depth. Because you could not find that depth also leads one to believe that my original assessment of your maturity level is correct. If you do not like what I say ignore me, engage me, or go away, but I am here every night, not sorry about your luck.

Asai

no, it was limited as in there weren't a whole lot of choices. thanks for playing nerd.