271 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Sidney wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Of course a game can't cover every single possibility or contingency.  But this example is one of something you wished was there and wasn't, rather than of something that happened that was counter to your intent.  Not a very compelling example for your case.

Yes but that is my point. People act like the VO limits their options but all CRPG options are inherently limited. The VO doesn't really change that one whit because for all the ticky-tack about tone the real weakness if that you don't have a broader set of options to explain yes and no. Constraint is a natural part of the format, you can't escape the fact that your voice - and this is using the narrtiave voice meaning what you say and how you say it- isn't ever in any game.

Limitations= bad
 
More limitations= more bad

Why is that not obvious??  Not trying to be a snit, but I feel like I've had this conversation a dozen times now.

[Narreneth]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

They happen a lot more frequently than just once or twice.  And apart from the places where it's impossible there are many where it's such a stretch to do so it may as well be impossible.

I played through DAO numerous times, with quite a few different personalities and I really didn't run into any trouble role-playing what I wanted to role play.

Maybe that's because I didn't have lofty expectations of wanting to b*tch slap all the characters who annoyed my character, or the like.

What is your deal?  Are you utterly incapable of not resulting to **** like that?  Every other post you're trying to set yourself apart as some kind of supreme being because you choose to "roleplay" in a video game differently from other people.

I've played through the game a great deal of times myself.  Not everytime do I have a character where I feel I want to "**** slap" any character let alone everyone that annoys me.  I also managed to have multiple personalities for my different characters otuside of the "this is the good guy, this is the bad guy" stuff.  And guess what?  I did it within the paramters provided without imagining that every line meant something it did not.  Does that make my way better?  No.  Does it make it worse?  No again.  There's no reason to assume that your way is the only way of doing something. 

[the_one_54321]

Addai67 wrote...
Limitations= bad
 
More limitations= more bad
Why is that not obvious??  Not trying to be a snit, but I feel like I've had this conversation a dozen times now.

Limitations on whom? On the player or on the writers? It's a trade off. You take the good with the bad whichever direction you go.
In this case, I support diversity, because diversity is always a good thing in general. We don't really need more pre-determined characters. But that doesn't make it definitively bad. It could quite easily be awesome.

A whole lot more people around here need to become accustomed with the addendum "In My Opinion." Since there isn't really anything that is objectively bad. Just different.

[SDNcN]

Some of you are forgetting that role-playing in tabletop games is always restricted based on the system, setting, and campaign premise. If I am running a campaign based in a Thayan academy, arcane magic users within the group would be restricted to humans of Mulan decent.  If I am running a game about political intrigue at court, I wouldn't accept character concepts that do not mesh with that premise.

Crpgs are obviously much more restrictive due to the medium. But you also have to consider that in tabletop the group can simply come together a decide on a campaign that will please everybody at the table. Bioware doesn't have that relationship with its playerbase, and should not have that relationship, so in the end their game will be the story they want to tell.

That also applies to dialogue, all they can do is give options. They don't know your character or his/her intentions like a DM. Bioware has to assume character intent for their NPCs to react. People ask for more depth to character interactions and more consequence for player actions, but without making some assumptions about your character they can't do that.

The fact that some of you imagined lines different than what was intended due to ambiguity, doesn't change that the line was more than likely intended to be delievered a certain way.

Modifié par SDNcN, 16 juillet 2010 - 09:50 .

[Fraevar]

the_one_54321 wrote...

And what about the folks that took a different approach while not adding their John Han**** to her list of supporting signatures? 

In your case, one: A cookie

[the_one_54321]

Oh wow. One of the founding fathers is censored. That's new.

[Fraevar]

His own fault for having a name spelled that way. EA: 1. Ship captain: 0. In all seriousness, it's just the auto filter.

[Sidney]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

I played through DAO numerous times, with quite a few different personalities and I really didn't run into any trouble role-playing what I wanted to role play.

Maybe that's because I didn't have lofty expectations of wanting to b*tch slap all the characters who annoyed my character, or the like.

I love people who are snotty about "role playing" and then disparage the way others want to role play. It is beautiful and tragic but says so very much.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Narreneth wrote...
What is your deal?  Are you utterly incapable of not resulting to **** like that?  Every other post you're trying to set yourself apart as some kind of supreme being because you choose to "roleplay" in a video game differently from other people.

I've played through the game a great deal of times myself.  Not everytime do I have a character where I feel I want to "**** slap" any character let alone everyone that annoys me.  I also managed to have multiple personalities for my different characters otuside of the "this is the good guy, this is the bad guy" stuff.  And guess what?  I did it within the paramters provided without imagining that every line meant something it did not.  Does that make my way better?  No.  Does it make it worse?  No again.  There's no reason to assume that your way is the only way of doing something. 

You've already written me off as pretentious in your mind, so that perception is coloring your interpretation of every post I make.

I never said my way is the only way. I never said it was the "best" way. But it's the way I find the most enjoyment. And this topic was me expressing my concerns. Feel free to disagree, but don't go and call me pretentious and act like I'm insulting you because I argue back.

We've been over this quite a lot, and explaining it any more would delve into serious repetition.

[Fraevar]

Sidney wrote...

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

I played through DAO numerous times, with quite a few different personalities and I really didn't run into any trouble role-playing what I wanted to role play.

Maybe that's because I didn't have lofty expectations of wanting to b*tch slap all the characters who annoyed my character, or the like.

I love people who are snotty about "role playing" and then disparage the way others want to role play. It is beautiful and tragic but says so very much.

True, but come now - the ability to physically abuse every single character you don't like? This is supposed to be a game, not some violent-aggression simulator. In fact I remember when someone posted the "slap Morrigan" mod and Gaider came out and was outright offended by it, especially because the author of said mod said his sole reason for making it was something along the lines of: "Don't like her, thinks she's a **** - now I can treat her like she deserves."

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Sidney wrote...

I love people who are snotty about "role playing" and then disparage the way others want to role play. It is beautiful and tragic but says so very much.

I was making a very simple statement. I did not want to slap Isolde around, so I never ran into that issue. I merely extended that simple fact to other parts of the game, saying my expectations in role-playing were not so specific.

This argument has been about specificity for quite a while.

[the_one_54321]

I wanted to slap Morrigan because she has nothing of value to add by speaking. At least, not in the objective sense. She was entertaining as a character. The kind you love to hate.

[SDNcN]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

True, but come now - the ability to physically abuse every single character you don't like? This is supposed to be a game, not some violent-aggression simulator. In fact I remember when someone posted the "slap Morrigan" mod and Gaider came out and was outright offended by it, especially because the author of said mod said his sole reason for making it was something along the lines of: "Don't like her, thinks she's a **** - now I can treat her like she deserves."

This reminds me of a player review of DA:O in which the reviewer said the game was horrible for roleplaying solely due to him not being able to murder everyone like in Fallout 2. "If I want to play chaotic stupid it is my choice! Don't limit me @$%^ it!"

Modifié par SDNcN, 16 juillet 2010 - 10:00 .

[Zayle79]

Narreneth wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

Sidney wrote...
...snip...

The situations you posted and your reactions to them are great examples of what Myst was trying to say earlier.  You are missing the whole point of it being a role-playing experience and instead wanting the game to feed you all the subtleties and emotions like you're watching a movie.

Take your first example with Leliana.  If I was that character and used the "I love shoes" response I wouldn't have seen it as the game misinterpreting my response or having the characters behave in a way out of synch with my intentions.  It would have simply been another example of Leliana acting like a doofus and reinforcing my characters opinion of her as my sarcasm went completely over her head.

If you have a voiced PC though, that never becomes an issue.  You have no option in the tone of a response, everything is predetermined for you.

Personally the VO isn't a big deal to me.  I think there are larger issues with the direction of DA2, but I understand what Myst is trying to say.

If that's the case then you can roleplay your way out of any situation.  The thing is, you're applying elements from tabletop roleplaying to video game roleplaying.  If you want a world that is really there for you with no limitations, you should be looking for a group of friends to get together and roll some dice on the weekends.  In a game where there are parameters it doesn't matter if you "roleplay" a tone and then "roleplay" the response the person gives you as them misinterpreting you.  What is really going on is yourself misinterpreting the intent of the option in the game.

If you're in a university class taking a multiple choice final and choose A over B when B is the correct answer, your intent doesn't matter, nor does assuming the test misinterpreted what you meant.  You got it wrong.  Parameters define the actual possibility. 

You can roleplay with the parameters given in Dragon Age.  If you were to select the option that says "I love shoes" and Leliana goes for it, and that isn't what you meant by it:  pick the one that is sarcastic that doesn't say "I love shoes."  Her reaction will be the same.  The game will treat it the same.  DA:O may be a single player experience, but it is not so open-ended that your intent shapes the world.

Yes, that's entirely true.  However, when I "misinterpret" an NPC's response to something I say, I'm doing it on purpose.  It helps to make my character the character I see in my mind's eye.  BioWare games always allow the player to create a wide variety of characters who behave in a variety of different ways.  However, with an open mind and a pint (not much at all is needed) of imagination, you can create or recreate just about any kind of personality.

Even if  the game doesn't recognize this, actually roleplaying can make a BioWare game -- or Bethesda game, and with a broad mind, an action game -- more enjoyable.  But DA2 is NOT (or, rather, should not be) an action game.  It's an RPG.  So why should it take away what allows us to play roles?

[Narreneth]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Narreneth wrote...
What is your deal?  Are you utterly incapable of not resulting to **** like that?  Every other post you're trying to set yourself apart as some kind of supreme being because you choose to "roleplay" in a video game differently from other people.

I've played through the game a great deal of times myself.  Not everytime do I have a character where I feel I want to "**** slap" any character let alone everyone that annoys me.  I also managed to have multiple personalities for my different characters otuside of the "this is the good guy, this is the bad guy" stuff.  And guess what?  I did it within the paramters provided without imagining that every line meant something it did not.  Does that make my way better?  No.  Does it make it worse?  No again.  There's no reason to assume that your way is the only way of doing something. 

You've already written me off as pretentious in your mind, so that perception is coloring your interpretation of every post I make.

I never said my way is the only way. I never said it was the "best" way. But it's the way I find the most enjoyment. And this topic was me expressing my concerns. Feel free to disagree, but don't go and call me pretentious and act like I'm insulting you because I argue back.

We've been over this quite a lot, and explaining it any more would delve into serious repetition.

Don't give me that.  Your exact wording was very deliberately snotty. "Maybe that's because I didn't have the lofty expectation of **** slapping everyone that irritated my character"

When I was referring to the way you roleplay and your concerns with Voice acting I didn't say "I'm fine with the VO work, but maybe that's because I don't have the lofty expectation of being able to make every line mean something it doesn't"  I can respect your viewpoint without making veiled remarks.  You claim you aren't being insulting, but the comment you made by its very nature was very insulting.  The first part of the post was just fine.  It's the text I bolded I take issue with.  The tone was deliberate and unnecessary.

[Sidney]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...
True, but come now - the ability to physically abuse every single character you don't like? This is supposed to be a game, not some violent-aggression simulator. In fact I remember when someone posted the "slap Morrigan" mod and Gaider came out and was outright offended by it, especially because the author of said mod said his sole reason for making it was something along the lines of: "Don't like her, thinks she's a **** - now I can treat her like she deserves."

No but why can't I slap Isolde? I'd kill for a Renegade Interrupt with her, for example to borrow an ME2 term. Your character might be just that sort of person and my Elven warrior surely was.

Still, if you listen to the FO-loyalist (and the old school not the kinder-gentler FO3) Bioware games always limit you because unlike in FO2 for example you can't just walk in shoot up any random village.. That is, to phrase someone from earlier, fewer choices. That limiter also doesn't bother me becauase,  as you said, this isn't a sociopath simulator but some folks are deeply devoted to playing the sociopath apparently. I'm sure you'll see a number of "More evil" options threads popup in the DAO 2 forums over the next few months of these people.

We all accept the limits of choice in the game and for me at least my realization is that there are basically infinite choices of actions and dialog if I was interacting in a table-top game. Any game limits those choices so dramatically that the difference in "choice" between on or the other system is functionally immaterial because the percentages have gotten so small of choices vs the real world.

[Narreneth]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

I played through DAO numerous times, with quite a few different personalities and I really didn't run into any trouble role-playing what I wanted to role play.

Maybe that's because I didn't have lofty expectations of wanting to b*tch slap all the characters who annoyed my character, or the like.

I love people who are snotty about "role playing" and then disparage the way others want to role play. It is beautiful and tragic but says so very much.

True, but come now - the ability to physically abuse every single character you don't like? This is supposed to be a game, not some violent-aggression simulator. In fact I remember when someone posted the "slap Morrigan" mod and Gaider came out and was outright offended by it, especially because the author of said mod said his sole reason for making it was something along the lines of: "Don't like her, thinks she's a **** - now I can treat her like she deserves."

No one has even mentioned being able to physically abuse every single character they don't like.  Ever.  Not once.  No one even insinuated that being a good idea.  Ever.  Not once.  (in this topic)  So whatever point it was you were trying to make based around that idea is completely void.

[Fraevar]

SDNcN wrote...

This reminds me of a player review of DA:O in which the reviewer said the game was horrible for roleplaying solely due to him not being able to murder everyone like in Fallout 2. "If I want to play chaotic stupid it is my choice! Don't limit me @$%^ it!"

And thus I think we're arriving at what I think is the core of this debate. Finding a balance. Mystranna is worried that DA2 is going too much in the direction of ME2, which he/she didn't care for (nor did I, I think ME2 could/should have been much more than it was). Some others like ME2 and want to see elements from it in other games. Hopefully BioWare do read these threads and realize that there is a balancing act to be done and more importantly that people on one platform do not want the same as people on another, and thus one platform's technical/demographic weaknesses shouldn't be automatically translated to another platform.

Or to put it another way. Don't give me a console game that simply runs on a PC(ME2). Give me a PC game and give console owners a console game. If that means the two builds having different system and narrative design - well BioWare - at this point, I think you owe that to the longtime PC fans who allowed your company to get this far. Is it more work? Quite likely. Would you perhaps end up in a situation where you should delay the release to make the PC version work properly? More than probable. Should you do this and defy EA's quarterly statement? Well you did it the other way around for DA:O so honestly - yes. Find the will to differentiate your games again, BioWare and making the extra effort for that. It's the right (profitable/fanbase supporting) choice.

Narreneth wrote...

No one has even mentioned being
able to physically abuse every single character they don't like.  Ever. 
Not once.  No one even insinuated that being a good idea.  Ever.  Not
once.  (in this topic)  So whatever point it was you were trying to make
based around that idea is completely void.

I wasn't making any "point" asides from agreeing that you cannot simply give *everyone* *everything* they want. Because at some point that crosses into sheer lunacy. (or it very well can.)

Modifié par Delerius_Jedi, 16 juillet 2010 - 10:12 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Narreneth wrote...
Don't give me that.  Your exact wording was very deliberately snotty. "Maybe that's because I didn't have the lofty expectation of **** slapping everyone that irritated my character"

When I was referring to the way you roleplay and your concerns with Voice acting I didn't say "I'm fine with the VO work, but maybe that's because I don't have the lofty expectation of being able to make every line mean something it doesn't"  I can respect your viewpoint without making veiled remarks.  You claim you aren't being insulting, but the comment you made by its very nature was very insulting.  The first part of the post was just fine.  It's the text I bolded I take issue with.  The tone was deliberate and unnecessary.

If you were insulted then you clearly misinterpreted the tone. Maybe because you've done nothing but say I'm pretentious while trying to find insults in everything I say.

But, anyways, let's analyze this:
"I'm fine with the VO work, but maybe that's because I don't have the
lofty expectation of being able to make every line mean something it
doesn't"

If you had said that I would have argued that it made no sense. My Shepard saying she wants to talk to Jacob is not an inherently flirty line. Expecting the VO to read it a non-flirty fashion is not "lofty expectations". Expecting to be able to punch Jacob, though, yeah, that would be lofty.

My statement was not "by its very nature" insulting. You chose to find insult in it when there really wasn't an insult there.

[Narreneth]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

SDNcN wrote...

This reminds me of a player review of DA:O in which the reviewer said the game was horrible for roleplaying solely due to him not being able to murder everyone like in Fallout 2. "If I want to play chaotic stupid it is my choice! Don't limit me @$%^ it!"

And thus I think we're arriving at what I think is the core of this debate. Finding a balance. Mystranna is worried that DA2 is going too much in the direction of ME2, which he/she didn't care for (nor did I, I think ME2 could/should have been much more than it was). Some others like ME2 and want to see elements from it in other games. Hopefully BioWare do read these threads and realize that there is a balancing act to be done and more importantly that people on one platform do not want the same as people on another, and thus one platform's technical/demographic weaknesses shouldn't be automatically translated to another platform.

Or to put it another way. Don't give me a console game that simply runs on a PC(ME2). Give me a PC game and give console owners a console game. If that means the two builds having different system and narrative design - well BioWare - at this point, I think you owe that to the longtime PC fans who allowed your company to get this far. Is it more work? Quite likely. Would you perhaps end up in a situation where you should delay the release to make the PC version work properly? More than probable. Should you do this and defy EA's quarterly statement? Well you did it the other way around for DA:O so honestly - yes. Find the will to differentiate your games again, BioWare and making the extra effort for that. It's the right (profitable/fanbase supporting) choice.

Narreneth wrote...

No one has even mentioned being
able to physically abuse every single character they don't like.  Ever. 
Not once.  No one even insinuated that being a good idea.  Ever.  Not
once.  (in this topic)  So whatever point it was you were trying to make
based around that idea is completely void.

I wasn't making any "point" asides from agreeing that you cannot simply give *everyone* *everything* they want. Because at some point that crosses into sheer lunacy. (or it very well can.)

Yes I'm aware you can't give everyone everything all the time.  The point is, though, that concept was taken from me saying that the game limits you by its very nature and there are situations that you can't get out of even with imagining a line means something else.  I gave the example of wanting to be able to tell Lady Isolde to shut the **** up when she was acting hysterical, which apparently translates into me  having the "lofty expectation" wanting to **** slap everyone that annoys my character when the purpose of the example was not to complain about not having the option but to simply point out that sometimes one doesn't exist and you just go with it or you turn the game off and you don't.  I wasn't upset I couldn't tell her to shut up.  Just would have been nice on a couple of my characters that I built that would have.

[Fraevar]

Sidney wrote...

No but why can't I slap Isolde? I'd kill for a Renegade Interrupt with her, for example to borrow an ME2 term. Your character might be just that sort of person and my Elven warrior surely was.

Still, if you listen to the FO-loyalist (and the old school not the kinder-gentler FO3) Bioware games always limit you because unlike in FO2 for example you can't just walk in shoot up any random village.. That is, to phrase someone from earlier, fewer choices. That limiter also doesn't bother me becauase,  as you said, this isn't a sociopath simulator but some folks are deeply devoted to playing the sociopath apparently. I'm sure you'll see a number of "More evil" options threads popup in the DAO 2 forums over the next few months of these people.

We all accept the limits of choice in the game and for me at least my realization is that there are basically infinite choices of actions and dialog if I was interacting in a table-top game. Any game limits those choices so dramatically that the difference in "choice" between on or the other system is functionally immaterial because the percentages have gotten so small of choices vs the real world.

True, but within the lore of the DA setting you could argue that it wasn't your place to slap Isolde, since she's a noblewoman, if anything it would be Teagan's responsibility (and he won't do it because he loves his brother).

As for your point on accepting limits of choice, I actually agree - but the trick there comes in the form of how that limit is imposed. If it's organic, like lore or plot based then I'm fine with it, but it becomes a problem when it originates elsewhere, like in the animations or the VO performance. There were times in ME2 where I really wanted Shepard to give someone a pat on the back and sound just a little bit encouraging and positive. I couldn't do either - the first because BioWare never scripted it visually and the second because they don't allow Mark Meer to put any emotion other than gruff/angry into his performance. And because of the VO, I can't even act like Shepard did it anyway.

[Addai]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Limitations= bad
 
More limitations= more bad
Why is that not obvious??  Not trying to be a snit, but I feel like I've had this conversation a dozen times now.

Limitations on whom? On the player or on the writers? It's a trade off. You take the good with the bad whichever direction you go.
In this case, I support diversity, because diversity is always a good thing in general. We don't really need more pre-determined characters. But that doesn't make it definitively bad. It could quite easily be awesome.

A whole lot more people around here need to become accustomed with the addendum "In My Opinion." Since there isn't really anything that is objectively bad. Just different.

On the player.

The poster I was responding to and I had already agreed that limitations are bad.  I was pointing out that since he thinks that way, more limitations should seem like a bad thing.  "IMO" was superfluous.

[Narreneth]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Narreneth wrote...
Don't give me that.  Your exact wording was very deliberately snotty. "Maybe that's because I didn't have the lofty expectation of **** slapping everyone that irritated my character"

When I was referring to the way you roleplay and your concerns with Voice acting I didn't say "I'm fine with the VO work, but maybe that's because I don't have the lofty expectation of being able to make every line mean something it doesn't"  I can respect your viewpoint without making veiled remarks.  You claim you aren't being insulting, but the comment you made by its very nature was very insulting.  The first part of the post was just fine.  It's the text I bolded I take issue with.  The tone was deliberate and unnecessary.

If you were insulted then you clearly misinterpreted the tone. Maybe because you've done nothing but say I'm pretentious while trying to find insults in everything I say.

But, anyways, let's analyze this:
"I'm fine with the VO work, but maybe that's because I don't have the
lofty expectation of being able to make every line mean something it
doesn't"

If you had said that I would have argued that it made no sense. My Shepard saying she wants to talk to Jacob is not an inherently flirty line. Expecting the VO to read it a non-flirty fashion is not "lofty expectations". Expecting to be able to punch Jacob, though, yeah, that would be lofty.

My statement was not "by its very nature" insulting. You chose to find insult in it when there really wasn't an insult there.

I said you were pretentious once.  And in the same post went on to say I am also pretentious and that it's okay to be a little pretentious.  I'm sorry if you're going to dwell on that, but I left it behind awhile ago.  And again, I've found insult with waht you've said only twice.  And only when you were being insulting. 

"I'm more interested in just talking for a bit" is not an inherently flirty line either.  Yes, the inflection in Hale's voice is there, but that is simply an oversight in not taking it out.  You're more than able to tell him you aren't interested in that kind of thing and it won't be brought up again but "I'm more interested in talking for a bit" still has the same inflection.  The line itself isn't always supposed to come off as flirty.

[Narreneth]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

Sidney wrote...

No but why can't I slap Isolde? I'd kill for a Renegade Interrupt with her, for example to borrow an ME2 term. Your character might be just that sort of person and my Elven warrior surely was.

Still, if you listen to the FO-loyalist (and the old school not the kinder-gentler FO3) Bioware games always limit you because unlike in FO2 for example you can't just walk in shoot up any random village.. That is, to phrase someone from earlier, fewer choices. That limiter also doesn't bother me becauase,  as you said, this isn't a sociopath simulator but some folks are deeply devoted to playing the sociopath apparently. I'm sure you'll see a number of "More evil" options threads popup in the DAO 2 forums over the next few months of these people.

We all accept the limits of choice in the game and for me at least my realization is that there are basically infinite choices of actions and dialog if I was interacting in a table-top game. Any game limits those choices so dramatically that the difference in "choice" between on or the other system is functionally immaterial because the percentages have gotten so small of choices vs the real world.

True, but within the lore of the DA setting you could argue that it wasn't your place to slap Isolde, since she's a noblewoman, if anything it would be Teagan's responsibility (and he won't do it because he loves his brother).

If you're really roleplaying you could slap her regardless of whether it's your place or not.  If your character doesn't follow the social code, your character doesn't follow the social code.

That said I really just wanted to tell her to shut up and be insulting to her in my case. 

[Fraevar]

Narreneth wrote...
Yes I'm aware you can't give everyone everything all the time.  The point is, though, that concept was taken from me saying that the game limits you by its very nature and there are situations that you can't get out of even with imagining a line means something else.  I gave the example of wanting to be able to tell Lady Isolde to shut the **** up when she was acting hysterical, which apparently translates into me  having the "lofty expectation" wanting to **** slap everyone that annoys my character when the purpose of the example was not to complain about not having the option but to simply point out that sometimes one doesn't exist and you just go with it or you turn the game off and you don't.  I wasn't upset I couldn't tell her to shut up.  Just would have been nice on a couple of my characters that I built that would have.

True but again - think about how the game would have been if they had actually put in a [slap] option for every character who gets out of it in DA:O - Shianni, Isolde, Tower Guard, Cullen after you kill Uldred and so on. After the first two, the game would suddenly have become a parody of itself and thus you can't offer that particular option all the time. Sidney mentioned the ME2 interrupts and for all my gripes about ME2, I will say that those were done right - not because of their number but because most (at least the Paragon ones) were different. The Renegade ones sadly always defaulted to physical violence, but the Paragon ones were diverse and really contextual. But that's also my point - most Renegade actions in ME2 has Shepard beating someone up and to me it just becomes the bad kind of comical - something trying to be über cool and ending up trying way too hard - sort of like Roland Emmerich's "Independence Day" after the first act.

Narreneth wrote...
That said I really just wanted to tell her to shut up and be insulting
to her in my case. 

Well you should have said that before I started pulling out all the stops on the arguments

Modifié par Delerius_Jedi, 16 juillet 2010 - 10:26 .