102 réponses à ce sujet

[CakesOnAPlane]

No doubt this has been said already but anyway-



My problem with the ME system (hopefully this will be changed in the DA2
system) is that you can either be:



1) Good

2) Nasty

3) Combination of the two



Unfortunately the combination doesn't really work as it just feels like
your character has a split personality disorder when one second he
punches some guy in the chest, then gives him a medkit 10 seconds later. DA:O was alot less linear in dialogue I thought.



Also what happened to imagination? A voice over for my character just
reminds me that I'm playing a game. If the story is engaging (and it was
in DA:O imo) then it doesn't really matter if it's "cinematic", the
player can 'fill in' the voices (not literally lol, well maybe some
people do idk) - it creates a direct connection to the character that is
lost when someone else is voicing it (also why I can become so easily
invested in a book and less so in a film). Race customisation isn't even
a big deal for me tbh, KOTOR gave you what? 10 faces? Yet I still felt
more a part of that game than ME1+2. But one man's drink is another
man's poison... or something like that



All that said, in a way I'm glad the game is undergoing big changes. Not
because the first one need big changes, but because change is far more
exciting.

[Estel78]

In Exile wrote...

Luke Bioware wrote...

I'd rather hear some awesome voice talking. The short segments of text work really well in Mass Effect. I have to admit: the 'humor' and way your character talks is already defined, but what's the problem with that? In Dragon Age you choice a voice to only hear him say that he is dying or he can't open up a box. Wow... How immersive!

TL;DR? I don't get the hate.

I had the same issue for a very long time, but talking about it on the old DA forums prior to release helped me get a good grasp of the issue.

Effectively, role-playing to some people is like fan-fiction. What I mean is, they want the game to avoid mentioning details or remain sufficiently ambiguous that they can fill in a mental explanation for parts of their background, etc.

A huge opposition to origins was that lots of backgrounds people wanted to invent would become logically impossible (e.g. human warriors that are forest dwelling recluses).

VO is not immersive to people who think that way because you can imagine alternatives that you self-create as much.

iTomes wrote...
what made it sucky.... let's see: for once the
fact that  i could for example choose "i don't trust you" and got a
speech saying how loyal i was to the alliance. than that there always
was ONE right dialoque option, all others werent effective in sense of
gameplay (besides some "yes-nos") and that my character was an
stereotype action hero so i couldn't play as anything else than "some
guy with gun huh-huh".

But the same thing happens in DA:O. The dialogue trees are worthless. Most of the time, characters respond to you the same way regardless of what you say. The difference in ME/ME2 was that sometimes your character would respond with effectively the same line. Which makes sense, because among other thingsif you said two different things and everyone responded the same way, that wouldn't be any fun either.

As I said above: no VO has to do with this premise that role-playing has to be a mental fantasy that has to be completely excluded from the game. They make things ambiguous enough so you can pretend that what youwant about a character is true. VO cuts down on ambiguity to make you more part of the world.

For example, before the last DA battle with the darkspawn, the King/Queen of Ferelden gives the speech; you, the main character, get to say nothing. Often, the other characters speak for you at dramatic moments, or take actions while you are off to the side. For some people, this is cool; for people that don't want this, they're forced with a side character or lackey that never seems involved in the story;

Take KoTOR, too - in the endgame at the Star Forge your character never speaks; it is either Bastilla or Carth. You are not allowed to be a dramatic set piece without VO.

Crrash wrote...

when i refer to ME i usually refer to
things that happened in my game as "Shepard did this and that" while
with Dragon age i say "MY warden did this and that" and even "I did this
and that".

I was just completely immersed in the game.
i know
you don't understand, you won't understand because you don't immerse
yourself the same way i do.
as i've said before:
Mass Effect was
like watching it.
Dragon Age was like living it.

See,for me it was the opposite. It was very easy to get immersed in the role of Shepard, and say, "I did this."

Onthe other hand, in DA:O, it was voiceless puppet did this. I was told this, versus I did this.

Like I said - I understand partially why you have the view you do. But please appreciate that for some of us, the opposite is true with the same facts.

Very well said, In Exile.

[Leinadi]

I think you can have a good roleplaying game with a set character, don't get me wrong (I really liked Alpha Protocol and Torment is one of my fav games). But I think that it's a lame move for DA2 to go into that direction when it has established a precedent of the character creation freedom in the first game. I would've hoped that they'd expand and improve upon that instead of tossing it away in favor for a fixed character.

I would certainly not wish for a future Fallout game to go the route of a fixed, voiced character. Or if BG3 ever came around, that they'd toss away race selection.

It's been said many times on this board already, but the beauty was that they have these two different franchises going in DA and ME. But instead of expanding upon some of the trademarks of DA and improving them, it's moved closer to ME instead.

Modifié par Leinadi, 10 juillet 2010 - 05:35 .

[Kalcalan]

Leinadi wrote...

As I said
above: no VO has to do with this premise that role-playing has to be a
mental fantasy that has to be completely excluded from the game. They
make things ambiguous enough so you can pretend that what youwant about a
character is true. VO cuts down on ambiguity to make you more part of
the world.

Not quite. I think a good roleplaying
game provides enough options for character creation and choices to
*enocourage* a player to come up with character concepts for their
playthroughs. Now, this will swing either way depending on what type of
game we're dealing with. Dragon Age is, true to Bioware's style, a very
story-driven game. Even so, Bioware managed to fuel the idea of
different characters with the Origins and plenty of options to take
in-game. I played my Dwarf Commoner vastly different from my Human Noble
for example, and many times the game can respond fairly well to the
concepts.

Arcanum is a different type of game which also provides
excellent roleplaying options. Not as driven by the story, it instead
features much freer reins when it comes to characters. Playing a Dwarven
Thief Technologist vs an Elven Mage vs a low INT Ogre all makes for
different playthroughs.

What you're describing is more akin to
what I've come to call the "Oblivion style of roleplaying", where the
player basically has to imagine everything in his head because the game
doesn't respond well to the characters you create aside from which way
you want to kill your enemies.

A good roleplaying game will
encourage the player to come up with character concepts and then will
*react* to those concepts and choices in the best way possible. DA was
not amazing in this regard but the Origins were a great step in the
right direction for story-based RPGs in that the player still had some
"power". While I'm sure DA2 will still have in-game choices to make,
it's still disappointing to see them going more towards a style that
constricts the player in favor of telling a story instead of encouraging
the player to "make his own path" as it were.

Very good
post.

Judging by the information we have now it seems DA2 will
focus on the Hawke persona rising from lowly beginnings to become the
most important character in Thedas.

That will probably make for a
very epic game but at the same time it will limit what we players will
be able to do with Hawke unless Bioware succeeds in making choices that
matter enough to keep us interested and make for really different
playthroughs (my fingers are crossed and hopefully they'll be able to
pull it off).

Regarding voice overs, IMO that doesn't improve
immersion as most of us can read and don't need an actor to speak the
words. It will also make all characters sound the same whether Hawke is a
good guy or a real bastard.

Besides it's been said before, voice
over is a costly feature. I for one would have preferred the option of
playing a non human character and have specific dialogue options and
choices for such characters instead of extensive voice over.

After
all, there will be different dialogue options depending on classes
(hopefully). A rogue, a warrior or a mage shouldn't say the same things
and if it is not for budget constraints I can't see why designers chose
to drop non humans (too complicated? Probably, but that would have made DA2 a sequel offering as many opportunities as the first DA game).

Merci357 wrote...

A good roleplaying game will encourage the player to come up with character concepts and then will *react* to those concepts and choices in the best way possible. DA was not amazing in this regard but the Origins were a great step in the right direction for story-based RPGs in that the player still had some "power". While I'm sure DA2 will still have in-game choices to make, it's still disappointing to see them going more towards a style that constricts the player in favor of telling a story instead of encouraging the player to "make his own path" as it were.

I still don't see how a character concept is limiting you choices - it's the game that does or does not allow freedom. The prime example is Planescape: Torment, for me. There, fixed character, fixed background, fixed looks even. However, I'm still amazed how many options and choices you had to go on from.
For me, a story matters as much as "choices" - and maybe a fixed background lacks the diversity given in DA:O, however it might improve the narrative.

Planescape Torment is not in the same league as the story is presented in a very unique way. Your protagonist is not just an ordinary character. It's a very good example but it's also an extreme example and setting. Old IE games worked very well with few lines being spoken by the way.

The problem with CRPGs is that the limits are huge (compared to pnp RPGs) and that is something that we have to accept (at least until game developers come up with AI that will be able to generate dialogue and game options tailored for your character concept -but that is wishful thinking right now).

At times in DAO I was frustrated by the fact that none of the options really worked for some of my characters. So real choices are great but dialogue options that result in the same reply by an NPC no matter what do not help with immersion.

By limiting the game to the Hawke persona Bioware will have opportunities to improve immersion but that is not without risks. For one these choices will have to be really good for the game to be interesting (and I believe they can pull it off if they manage to give players the impression that player-made choices do matter indeed). Nevertheless, if the voice over doesn't work for you then you won't be able to enjoy the game... Or at least half the game.

[Sidney]

errant_knight wrote...

In a shooter, fast interactions may be a good thing. In an RPG, that's the opposite of good. The greater the depth of interaction, the better. I liked the converstaions because it allowed real interaction with the companions and NPCs. It felt like a conversation, where you think about what you might say. The fewer dialogue choices, the shorter the dialogue, the worse it is for roleplaying.

The thing is in those short clipped menu options you get the opposite of depth. The wheel/voiced convos actually allow for much deeper conversations on both sides.

[In Exile]

[quote]Leinadi wrote...

Not quite. I think a good roleplaying game provides enough options for character creation and choices to *enocourage* a player to come up with character concepts for their playthroughs. Now, this will swing either way depending on what type of game we're dealing with. Dragon Age is, true to Bioware's style, a very story-driven game. Even so, Bioware managed to fuel the idea of different characters with the Origins and plenty of options to take in-game. I played my Dwarf Commoner vastly different from my Human Noble for example, and many times the game can respond fairly well to the concepts. [/quote]

I disagree fundamentally. This is a matter of the psychology of the player. To me, things that I physically hear or see are absolutely fixed; they cannot be in flux even if I imagine a different character being part of the action. So to put it one way: Morrigan is always the same person, with the same attitude and reply, regardless of who is saying the same line, word-for-word, to her.

Creating character concepts is simply not what role-playing is to me. While I appreciate this to some degree, it's fundamentally a position I can't relate to.

[quote[Arcanum is a different type of game which also provides excellent roleplaying options. Not as driven by the story, it instead features much freer reins when it comes to characters. Playing a Dwarven Thief Technologist vs an Elven Mage vs a low INT Ogre all makes for different playthroughs.[/quote]

I haven't played that game, so I honestly can't speak to the playing style. Would it be possible to talk about something we're both familiar with? Say, IWD or BG?

With regard to those games, I think that what I've described applies perfectly.

[quote]What you're describing is more akin to what I've come to call the "Oblivion style of roleplaying", where the player basically has to imagine everything in his head because the game doesn't respond well to the characters you create aside from which way you want to kill your enemies.[/quote]

That's just a matter of degree. What is sufficient to you to count as "meaningfully reacting" is not sufficient to me. To put it another way: to me, Dragon Age was completely equivalent to Oblivion in terms of how the game entirely failed to react to potential backgrounds you invented. To you, it wasn't. But this is a matter of preference.

To me, the only game that has to some degree of success done this, reacted to your actions, is the Mass Effect series. And half the time in that game you're either nice Shepard, mean Shepard, or bipolar Shepard.

[Luke Bioware]

Lulz. I got like a hundred mails in my inbox for this topic, gotta turn that option off :').

I do agree with one thing people said here, because I also hate it when my character has to refer to the Maker for instance (although you can hardly be an atheist in a game like Dragon Age IMO, roleplaying wise). That's the only downside which counts for me, from which I've heard until now.

To people saying players like me are not 'hardcore': I played through almost every BioWare RPG, including Baldur's Gate and Planescape for instance, twice and I'm really OCD'ish about reading all the text .

Modifié par Luke Bioware, 10 juillet 2010 - 06:09 .

[In Exile]

errant_knight wrote...

When you speak to people, you know what you're going to say. It's not a surprise. You say what you say for a reason.

I'm going to have to disagree. When we speak to people, we know the gist of what we're going to say, and what we hope to get across. Have you ever been in an argument? That's one of those times we're I get super frustrated that despite knowing what I want to say, I simply cannot keep up fast enough to say it how I want to say. It gets you right into those, "man, I wish I had said it that way reflection moments."

If you didn't like tho old system, you're not going to get what I'm saying here, but for me, what made Origins so unique and immersive was that not only did I get to choose what I would say, but I got to choose when and where I said it. Different character made different choices at different times, depending on how I roleplayed them. These changes take the dialogue from being part of roleplay to being straight gameplay.

I appreciate that. Look, I haven't said otherwise. I get your internal mental state about the internal mental state of the character is a big part of how you play games. That's not really what I'm getting at.

What I am saying is that to some of us, depth of role-playing refers to how well the dialogue system reflects how dialogue works in real life. So to say that the dialogue-wheel lacks depth is to make a very specific claim about what depth is, and that's where I disagree with you.

That doesn't mean it's bad for people who don't care about roleplaying, but for those that do, it is. Origins was not only an RPG in a way that Mass Effect is not, but it was a particularly immersive example of the genre. It's very disappointing for those who loved it for that reason to see exactly what they loved about it tossed out even before a year is out.

This is where I have to get offended. Just because you have your definition of role-playing doesn't mean that it's justified for you to tell me I don't care or don't like role-playing. I do. I just disagree with you about how to best achieve that.

It's very insulting to people tell you can't like something if you don't like it in a specific way. I wouldn't tell a football fan, "Well, to those that don't care about football since they prefer rule change [x]..."

This is the attitude that I am rallying against. By all means, defend the type of role-playing game you like. But don't tell me I don't care about role-playing just because I don't role-play the way you do.

Crrash wrote...
i do understand your point too. heck i love
cinematic games. But there are already so many games like that and so
few where like in Dragon Age I fill voiceless puppet with life, emotion
and a voice.
the dragon age series was to be the one old school
series where i could truly roleplay and im just so disappointed that it
seems that now not even dragon age serves that purpose

I don't think you appreciate my point, if you think there are so many  games like that already. I have Mass Effect 1&2. To a minor degree, Alpha Protocol and the Witcher sort of count, because they try to keep  the part of the concept, but force me into a fixed character in a way that is abhorent to me by fixing apperance/gender.

You have KoTOR 1&2, NWN 1&2, IWD, BG & BG2,DA:O. You have a decade of new games and I have a series that came out in 2006 with two hits. The fact that you're saying "cinematic" without understanding appreciating what about it is appeaing is the source of our disconnect.

Modifié par In Exile, 10 juillet 2010 - 06:14 .

[Gaxhung]

In DAO, being a different race always seemed somewhat superficial to me, they aren't treated any differently for the most part, you are always conveniently seen as a warden. Only the dwarf commoner origin slants your choice of future king to one party, but you are still free to choose. All the little dialog differences and sometimes unique events for each of the origin does make it fun trying to spot them during subsequent play throughs, but then again, how do you compare a game you completed x number of times to another game you played zero times?

[Sidney]

In Exile wrote...
To me, the only game that has to some degree of success done this, reacted to your actions, is the Mass Effect series. And half the time in that game you're either nice Shepard, mean Shepard, or bipolar Shepard.

Why are you bipolar shep? This is part of the dialog wheel bit I don't get. It isn't all or nothing and based on your setting you might answer one way or another. My Shep is somewhere in between and can be Renegade when it calls for it or Paragon when it works for him.

Now, let's see, in DAO I have an Eleven Warrior. He kills Connor w/o even blinking an eye (he goes all Renegade in simple terms) becasue it would take too much time to "fix" the other ways but yet he saved the smith's daughter (paragon) for the same  reason - it was on the way. He's all about expedience.

There's nothing in "the wheel" that constrains your option. People gripe that "it hand holds" with good and evil but if you are reading the dialo9g in BG2, KoTOR, DAO and can't figure out the slapping you in the face with the dead trout good and evil options then you aren't paying attention.

One thing I hate about Bioware is that going all the way back to BG2 and the reputation through KoTOR with the light/dark, through ME with paragon/renegade and into DAO with companion boosts there is an incentive to min/max through roleplaying. The more "renegade" you are in ME2 the more options you open up, the more friendly in DAO you get with NPC's you unlock Massive <Attribute>. I wish that dialog and relationship building were their own reward and not tied to game mechanics.

[Luke Bioware]

I have to agree with In Exile. We DO value roleplaying, very much in fact. I personally choose the dialogue system of Mass Effect above the one from Dragon Age: Origins. It feels unnatural at many points in the game, especially when you want to ask all the questions available to you. Bleh. It really feels like breaking that fourth wall.

Can I ask you a question?
I don't have a lot of time right now, but sure!
Question.
Answer.
Can I ask you about something else?
I don't have a lot of time right now, but sure!
Question.
Answer.
Can I ask you about something else?
I don't have a lot of time right now, but sure!
Question.
Answer.

Modifié par Luke Bioware, 10 juillet 2010 - 06:21 .

[In Exile]

Sidney wrote...

Why are you bipolar shep? This is part of the dialog wheel bit I don't get. It isn't all or nothing and based on your setting you might answer one way or another. My Shep is somewhere in between and can be Renegade when it calls for it or Paragon when it works for him.

The paragon option is very diplomatic. The renegade option is often very aggresive if not out and out violent, and at the very least a lot more crass and insulting. To me, a renegade is a personality shift from a paragon. It's very hard to mix and match choices, because Shepard goes from extremes: incredibly diplomatic and friendly, to occasional punch in the face.

But this is exclusive to ME. ME2 is much better at balance, because the renegade interrupts are the actions, and the dialogue just switches approaches, which works much better.

There's nothing in "the wheel" that constrains your option. People gripe that "it hand holds" with good and evil but if you are reading the dialo9g in BG2, KoTOR, DAO and can't figure out the slapping you in the face with the dead trout good and evil options then you aren't paying attention.

Err... you're debating with the wrong guy. I happen to agree with you. I just really think the execution was flopped in ME. ME2 is better, but still sometimes has personality shifts because Meer talks differently as renegade than a paragon. And I don't mean a different tone; I mean I get the feeling he envisions renegade Shepard as a different person than paragon Shepard, versus as two poles on the same guy.

One thing I hate about Bioware is that going all the way back to BG2 and the reputation through KoTOR with the light/dark, through ME with paragon/renegade and into DAO with companion boosts there is an incentive to min/max through roleplaying. The more "renegade" you are in ME2 the more options you open up, the more friendly in DAO you get with NPC's you unlock Massive . I wish that dialog and relationship building were their own reward and not tied to game mechanics.

Oh, I completely agree. It was the same proble in KoTOR 2. You were either groveling at each character's feet to get influence so you can comprehend the story, or you were SOL.

[Luke Bioware]

One last thing: BioWare will improve the wheel to make stuff more grey. I won't expect less from those guys. DAO excelled in that and DA2 will again. That part was a bit weak in ME1, you either had to go Renegade or Paragon. DAO already doesn't have that anymore.

[Leinadi]

I haven't played that game, so I honestly can't speak to the playing style. Would it be possible to talk about something we're both familiar with? Say, IWD or BG?

With regard to those games, I think that what I've described applies perfectly.

 

Sorry, I can't really talk about IWD or BG there. While I like both of those games quite a bit, I don't think they're very amazing in the roleplaying department. The first two Fallouts are also good in this regard in case you've played one of them?

That's just a matter of degree. What is sufficient to you to count as "meaningfully reacting" is not sufficient to me. To put it another way: to me, Dragon Age was completely equivalent to Oblivion in terms of how the game entirely failed to react to potential backgrounds you invented. To you, it wasn't. But this is a matter of preference.

To me, the only game that has to some degree of success done this, reacted to your actions, is the Mass Effect series. And half the time in that game you're either nice Shepard, mean Shepard, or bipolar Shepard.

It's perfectly OK to say that you feel the degree of reactivity in DA was not sufficient for you.. But you can't claim that it's equivalent to Oblivion because it's a simple truth that the DA world reacts more to your choices than Oblivion. That's just a fact. Aside from flavor lines recognizing your race and all that, there are occasional options that open up based on your origins as well (the most famous one being the Human Noble Male at the end of the game). 

But my point is more that, I was also slightly underwhelmed that the Origins didn't affect things more "genuinely". But I was looking forward to an improvement on that formula, not a sidestep to another style of game.

[In Exile]

[quote]Leinadi wrote...

Sorry, I can't really talk about IWD or BG there. While I like both of those games quite a bit, I don't think they're very amazing in the roleplaying department. The first two Fallouts are also good in this regard in case you've played one of them? [/quote]

Both, actually.

[qupte]It's perfectly OK to say that you feel the degree of reactivity in DA was not sufficient for you.. But you can't claim that it's equivalent to Oblivion because it's a simple truth that the DA world reacts more to your choices than Oblivion. [/quote]

I didn't say otherwise. I only said that I believe they are not different in kind, which is to say that we can fit both on a continuum and say that the way you play each is the same, but one is just better at executing than the other.

[quote]That's just a fact. Aside from flavor lines recognizing your race and all that, there are occasional options that open up based on your origins as well (the most famous one being the Human Noble Male at the end of the game).[/quote]

I guess to me, I fee those Origin lines are all flavour, because of how they're divorced from the main story so heavily. There are solid implementations though, and I agree with you Origins are done well on the whole.

But I wasn't thinking of the Origins when I made this comment, but rather the style of dialogue, which is what I thought the debate was, per the thread title.

With regard to the Origins, I absolutely agree that is a shame we're losing them. They're IMO the cost of VO, but to me, the cost is justified.

[quote]But my point is more that, I was also slightly underwhelmed that the Origins didn't affect things more "genuinely". But I was looking forward to an improvement on that formula, not a sidestep to another style of game.[/quote]

Right, but that doesn't relate to the dialogue system, which is what I thought we were debating.

[Lavitage]

*didn't read replies*

Is it even confirmed that DA2 will be using the wheel, or is it just an inference people are drawing because "dur hur, it's like ME in one way (a fixed character) so they must be porting over all of ME's dialogue related mechanics"?

Modifié par Lavitage, 10 juillet 2010 - 06:41 .

[soteria]

This is just wrong. When you use a wheel you don't see the full spoken lines on screen. In many cases they just wouldn't fit, and in all cases it would be annoying to read the same lines that you're about to hear spoken. What appears on the screen is a paraphrase. You still have to read it unless you don't care what your character is saying.

Are you saying you wouldn't have wanted to see what you were actually going to say beforehand? One of my complaints about that dialogue system is that the summary failed to accurately represent what you were going to say, and the only way I could guess more accurately was that I knew renegade would be mean and paragon diplomatic. I still got surprised ever so often, sometimes pleasantly, but often not. As a side note, I'm not a fan of the wheel itself. I want to be able to use the keyboard to make my choice. I'm sure it's great for a console game, but on the PC, I think the list is better.

I think I've said this in other threads, but I don't see the summary with a dialogue wheel really working in a game without a morality meter and generally more complex dialogue choices.



By the way, Bioware did use a specific order in DA for dialogue choices. In general, the first option is what a reasonable and normal person might say. For example, when Cailan greets you, I believe the first option is to respond politely, because a normal person would be polite to a even a king he didn't like. That's from one of the writers (Mary Kirby, I think), though I can't find a quote.

[b09boy]

There's just too many negatives to the spoken dialogue wheel compared to the unspoken lines.  What works for one game does not for another and things like this can really change how a game works.

For starters, the Warden is your character.  Yes the lines were pre-made, but that is being narrow-minded for the sake of making an argument.  Generally we had enough options and different characters could say the same lines in vastly different ways for vastly different reasons and still (usually) get the response they'd expect.  In the end, we made the Warden.  Bioware gave us the template with enough reactions to make it believable, we brought them to life.  Shepard, on the other hand, is Bioware's character.  He has a set personality where we can influence how he goes about things, though not directly control them.  This may not be much to a lot of people, but it's a hell of a lot to others.

Perhaps just as importantly, VA is expensive.  It takes up a ton of space.  Imagine tripling the amount of VA in DA.  Let me run some numbers by you.  DA took up most of one disk.  So did ME.  ME2 was two disks.  Yet somehow DA had more than double the content with vastly more fleshed-out characters.  That in mind, I will be extremely impressed if DA2 has 2/3 or even half the content of the original title.  And that's a rather depressing thought.

So yes, goody goody, it will be a more cinematic experience.  Perhaps even a more immersive experience for a lot of people.  But people won't be buying DA2 for the same reason they bought DAO.  It's an entirely different style, an entirely different feeling.  Maybe I get proven wrong.  Maybe DA2 will be bigger and there will be more choices to shape your character and whoever plays Hawke will be excellent at distinguishing these choices.  But if all that happens - if any of that happens - it'll be the first time in gaming history.  So excuse me if I have some reservations.

[Sidney]

b09boy wrote...

Shepard, on the other hand, is Bioware's character.  He has a set personality where we can influence how he goes about things, though not directly control them.  This may not be much to a lot of people, but it's a hell of a lot to others.

He does not have a set personality. That's bunk. You can configure everything about Shep to your liking BUT his voice.

The difference between that and DAO is that you have one voice whereas in DAO you choose 1 of 5 voices that I can't tell apart and you hear it during combat but no other time unless you are picking locks. You still have a voice so you can't just imagine he's got an Irish or Russian accent unless he drops intio some other accent when he's excited.

[b09boy]

Sidney wrote...

He does not have a set personality. That's bunk. You can configure everything about Shep to your liking BUT his voice.

Paragon, renegade, neutral, inquisitive.  This was the limit of your personality in ME.  In every case, Shepard is a fearless, tough-as-nails alliance soldier.

You underestimate what voice does to a charcter.  It's not just about choices or the lack thereof.  It's the tone.  It will be consistent throughout and give the character a more set personailty.  A more believable one.  Why?  So that they don't sound like a pansy one second and a hardass the next.

[Sidney]

b09boy wrote...
Paragon, renegade, neutral, inquisitive.  This was the limit of your personality in ME.  In every case, Shepard is a fearless, tough-as-nails alliance soldier.

You underestimate what voice does to a charcter.  It's not just about choices or the lack thereof.  It's the tone.  It will be consistent throughout and give the character a more set personailty.  A more believable one.  Why?  So that they don't sound like a pansy one second and a hardass the next.

Good, evil, neutral that is the limit of your personality in BG2. DAO doesn't even let you do that, it is all neutral. If you want to lump then do it for all the games. What ME2 (and Bioware in general) gets wrong is rewarding you for being too much of one or the other as opposed to Fallout where your morality was just your morality.

The problem seems to be that mix/maxers will go all or nothing for things but then again min/maxing ins't the goal.I think my Shep as I played him is pretty interesting. He can be violent and abusive, and often is as a matter of expediency, but there are specific things/people he's not like that with or about. Just like my Eleven Warden was a ruthless SoB unless he was working with Elves, then he wasn't or if being nice (the smith in Redcliffe) asked for something that didn't distract from the mission at hand.

Yes Shep is a "space marine" in the same way your Warden is,well, a Warden. They both have a job to do and that constrains what they can and can't do. Your Warden is "tough as nails" or he'd not have been sleected by Duncan nor survived the joining - the back story there limits you every bit as much as the ME back does for Shep.

The voice arguement is bogus. Voice doesn't define a character. Mike Tyson has a wispy thin voice that sounded like it belonged on a 98 lbs weakling but at one point he was the baddest man on the planet. If Bioware had stuck his voice on Shep you'da been 100% mental though. The fact that you bring biases about what a voice "should" sound like is your problem and not that of the game.

[Seanylegit]

I'm excited for the dialogue wheel. I'm definitely going to get a pre-order.

[b09boy]

Sidney wrote...

Good, evil, neutral that is the limit of your personality in BG2. DAO doesn't even let you do that, it is all neutral. If you want to lump then do it for all the games. What ME2 (and Bioware in general) gets wrong is rewarding you for being too much of one or the other as opposed to Fallout where your morality was just your morality.

The problem seems to be that mix/maxers will go all or nothing for things but then again min/maxing ins't the goal.I think my Shep as I played him is pretty interesting. He can be violent and abusive, and often is as a matter of expediency, but there are specific things/people he's not like that with or about. Just like my Eleven Warden was a ruthless SoB unless he was working with Elves, then he wasn't or if being nice (the smith in Redcliffe) asked for something that didn't distract from the mission at hand.

Yes Shep is a "space marine" in the same way your Warden is,well, a Warden. They both have a job to do and that constrains what they can and can't do. Your Warden is "tough as nails" or he'd not have been sleected by Duncan nor survived the joining - the back story there limits you every bit as much as the ME back does for Shep.

The voice arguement is bogus. Voice doesn't define a character. Mike Tyson has a wispy thin voice that sounded like it belonged on a 98 lbs weakling but at one point he was the baddest man on the planet. If Bioware had stuck his voice on Shep you'da been 100% mental though. The fact that you bring biases about what a voice "should" sound like is your problem and not that of the game.

You do not get it.  Try making a ruthless power-hungry character with Shepard.  A slick negotiator. A reckless brawler.  A character bound by honor.  A sleezy killer.  An weak, indecisive leader.  These are all beyond Shepard.  They are not beyond the Warden.  Why?  Because they supplied the necessary lines for us, the necessary reactions and WE could decide how the lines were meant to be said with the voice and tone they were said in.

If you were too limited to create said personality for a character in BG or DA, that's your issue and one others obviously haven't had.  It doesn't change facts and the fact is you could role play a much wider variety of characters in BG or DA (that you would argue this at any level is beyond ridiculous - it's flat out beyond a doubt wrong).  It also doesn't change the fact that it's going to severely limit content.  And whether you like it or not, people take issue with this.

[BomimoDK]

b09boy wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Good, evil, neutral that is the limit of your personality in BG2. DAO doesn't even let you do that, it is all neutral. If you want to lump then do it for all the games. What ME2 (and Bioware in general) gets wrong is rewarding you for being too much of one or the other as opposed to Fallout where your morality was just your morality.

The problem seems to be that mix/maxers will go all or nothing for things but then again min/maxing ins't the goal.I think my Shep as I played him is pretty interesting. He can be violent and abusive, and often is as a matter of expediency, but there are specific things/people he's not like that with or about. Just like my Eleven Warden was a ruthless SoB unless he was working with Elves, then he wasn't or if being nice (the smith in Redcliffe) asked for something that didn't distract from the mission at hand.

Yes Shep is a "space marine" in the same way your Warden is,well, a Warden. They both have a job to do and that constrains what they can and can't do. Your Warden is "tough as nails" or he'd not have been sleected by Duncan nor survived the joining - the back story there limits you every bit as much as the ME back does for Shep.

The voice arguement is bogus. Voice doesn't define a character. Mike Tyson has a wispy thin voice that sounded like it belonged on a 98 lbs weakling but at one point he was the baddest man on the planet. If Bioware had stuck his voice on Shep you'da been 100% mental though. The fact that you bring biases about what a voice "should" sound like is your problem and not that of the game.

You do not get it.  Try making a ruthless power-hungry character with Shepard.  A slick negotiator. A reckless brawler.  A character bound by honor.  A sleezy killer.  An weak, indecisive leader.  These are all beyond Shepard.  They are not beyond the Warden.  Why?  Because they supplied the necessary lines for us, the necessary reactions and WE could decide how the lines were meant to be said with the voice and tone they were said in.

If you were too limited to create said personality for a character in BG or DA, that's your issue and one others obviously haven't had.  It doesn't change facts and the fact is you could role play a much wider variety of characters in BG or DA (that you would argue this at any level is beyond ridiculous - it's flat out beyond a doubt wrong).  It also doesn't change the fact that it's going to severely limit content.  And whether you like it or not, people take issue with this.

Not to mention when you chose a "general discriptive" shorter version of what you want to say... you want to be ironic and apologetic, but Mr. Voiced shepard just takes the liberty of swearing up a ****storm. Non spoken, fullwritten lines will fix this.
As for the Dialogue wheel... mods will revert that back to DA if it's such a problem.

[Sidney]

b09boy wrote...

You do not get it.  Try making a ruthless power-hungry character with Shepard.  A slick negotiator. A reckless brawler.  A character bound by honor.  A sleezy killer.  An weak, indecisive leader.  These are all beyond Shepard.  They are not beyond the Warden.  Why?  Because they supplied the necessary lines for us, the necessary reactions and WE could decide how the lines were meant to be said with the voice and tone they were said in.

Prove it, you show me how you can be a "slick negotator" in DAO more than ME2. For every "Persuade"/"Intimidate" option based on points you just dump into skills in DAO there are also Persuade and Intimiate options  in ME. I've talked my way out of plenty of fights in ME2 and conned other people the options surely exist. I know this is mantra for people like you but prove it...and don't just drop the "It's obvious" because it isn't.

No matter what you can NEVER decide how the lines were meant to be said with the voice or tone. Why?
1. You pick a voice for your character in DAO. That voice exists rather you want to admit it or not. I guess you just forget/ignore that part.
2. The really important one - the reaction is based wholly on the reaction the developers thought that line had. You can imagine any tone/voice you want but the NPC's react to it based on pre-determined decisions. The code is If dialog option = 1 then NPC dialog option = a.  You have no control over that. You might want a "Let's kill them" option to be playful and funny but if the code says "Let's Kill Them" causes the NPC's to attack and Allistar and Leliana's approve to drop -5 that is what will happen because they don't know funny.