1079 réponses à ce sujet

[acare84]

Cool preview, can't wait for the game.

[Alet]

What I meant was that I wanted the ability to deliver that line truthfully -- possibly an influence/persuasion check would work here, Sten could disapprove and I could tell him "no, really" . . . or the influence lost could be reversed on completion of the rescue quest. Hardly a game-breaker for me (particularly since I don't like to have Sten in my party, generally) but it was what came to mind as the most prominent example of "man it would have been great to know if this line is supposed to be a lie or not."



There is the argument that it's up to you to decide if your character is lying or not, which I generally support. But on the other hand, I like the idea of persuasion check on lying. Not everyone who is inclined to lie often is actually good at lying, and I like seeing that reflected somewhere.

[Graunt]

Alet wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I think we even debated this on the DA:O forum once, but it was mainly about the [lying] tag.

Oh man, I hated the lack of a [lying] tag in DAO.  There's one instance in Redcliffe where Sten disapproves because you tell the smith that you'll find his daughter -- yeah, some of my characters were just saying what they needed to say to get him to work, but some were being completely genuine, and presumably would have tried to break into the castle another way had Teagan not given you the key to the secret tunnel.  And then you never got a retraction from Sten on returning the daughter safely.  Grumble grumble.  [/sidetrack]

Did they simply patch in the Lie tags later?  Because I know for a fact that on my current playthrough they've popped up on multiple occasions.  As a Mage, after helping Jowan in your origin there's a line if you took a particular item, and then again with the Redcliffe smith are just the immediate two I can place.  Then again, I always take at least one rank of coercion if that has anything to do with whether or not they appear.  Unless people are just wishing there were even more lie tags available to specific options?

Modifié par Graunt, 28 décembre 2010 - 01:59 .

[In Exile]

[Lie] tags appear sometimes, but I think that poster is talking about times when lying might have made sense but wasn't an option in the same way.

[Sidney]

Have to say if they'd just offer an option to ignore junk I'd be pretty happy with directions so far based on the more recent previews. The visuals still are an artistic choice I'm not 100% sold on but the changes and adaptations from the first game all seem positive.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Right, but this is a major problem with silent VO too. Which is why prior to PC VO I was adamant about [lying], [sarcasm] and [joking] tags.

And I was just as adamant that those tags restricted roleplaying unless they were always present.

[Aggie Punbot]

Wait, just so I've got this straight: if I play a warrior or a rogue, Carver will always die and if I play a mage, Bethany will die? But...but...rogue is my favorite class and I don't want my little brother to die.

*prays fervently to all gods in existence that the Toolset will be functional for DA2 so modders can fix this in the future*

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

That's just a belief though. That isn't a personality trait.  A personality trait is like an immutable impulse or motivation.

Let's put it this way: a person might believe they need to be outgoing, but an extraverted person feels the need to be outgoing. 

It's player's belief/intent about their character. It does translate into character's actual personality trait, if it's possible to speak of such thing. I put it this way because technically the character doesn't have any traits, being a virtual construct in the first place.

Using the other way you put it -- the player might believe their character needs to be outgoing because they envision their character to be extraverted.

This does not explain why some people do not perceive such PC as lacking.

Yes it does.

I don't see how it does. You have said "In visual medium, people want equivalent presentation of all things. So the mere fact that the PC is not represented in the same medium as the rest of the NPCs makes the PC seem lacking."

I don't even see acknowledgement that not everyone considers such PC lacking. Instead, it reads like a claim that people universally do find such PC lacking.

There is a difference, sure. But the conclusion you are trying to draw in either case isn't, which is "swimming doesn't suck".

No, this is not conclusion i'm trying to draw. I'm not questioning the conclusion, i'm questioning the premise, purely on grounds that going around saying "people can't swim" propagates information that's simply false.

If it was changed to the more accurate "swimming sucks because i can't swim" then i really couldn't care less about that statement, because i don't give a damn about how individuals feel about swimming. That's just opinions, after all.

Modifié par tmp7704, 28 décembre 2010 - 06:12 .

[tmp7704]

TS2Aggie wrote...

Wait, just so I've got this straight: if I play a warrior or a rogue, Carver will always die and if I play a mage, Bethany will die? But...but...rogue is my favorite class and I don't want my little brother to die.

Think we don't exactly know if either of them is actually forced to die. One of them isn't going to be available as companion*, but maybe he/she just settles in Kirkwall at the end of the prologue, or smth.

*) for that matter we don't know if the other is going to be available as full-time companion, either.

Modifié par tmp7704, 28 décembre 2010 - 06:16 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
It's player's belief/intent about their character. It does translate into character's actual personality trait, if it's possible to speak of such thing. I put it this way because technically the character doesn't have any traits, being a virtual construct in the first place.

This is a major difference between us, because I certainly consider the character (insofar as dialogue is concerned) a person in their own right. That I act in their role for the purpose of the conversaton doesn't make them some half-finished entity.

Using the other way you put it -- the player might believe their character needs to be outgoing because they envision their character to be extraverted.

That comes back to thinking the player should directly control behaviour instead of personality. Which is what I said to start:

Which, of course, you had lots of control over. The issue isn't
personality but what you think makes up that personality and what makes
you feel like you are in control of it. That's at the centre of all
these what is an RPG debate. But that isn't something we should go on in
this thread.

You feel that you are not in control of your character unless you dictate the specific behaviour and the specific way that behaviour is undertaken.

So to you extraversion has to be outgoing. To me, extraversion can be any of the things that typically define extraversion, including being outgoing, focused on social dominance, motivated to maintain social relationships, etc.

I don't see how it does. You have said "In visual medium, people want equivalent presentation of all things. So the mere fact that the PC is not represented in the same medium as the rest of the NPCs makes the PC seem lacking."

I don't even see acknowledgement that not everyone considers such PC lacking. Instead, it reads like a claim that people universally do find such PC lacking.

It was very obviously implied we are speaking about the subset of people that would make the claim "Silent PCs area dead and empty." This was what our entire conversation is about? Why would I need to explicitly point out the subset?

No, this is not conclusion i'm trying to draw. I'm not questioning the conclusion, i'm questioning the premise, purely on grounds that going around saying "people can't swim" propagates information that's simply false.

If you challenge a premise, you challenge the conclusion that premise supports. You are de facto questioning this conclusion.

More importantly, no one said "silent PC is always and to everyone dead and empty." If this is what you're arguing against, I have no idea where you got this from. 

This statement relates only to our experience (the subset that believes this) and your apparent insistence that we are wrong about the reason we do not like a silent PC and it must involve an inability to imagine at least on the part of some.

If it was changed to the more accurate "swimming sucks because i can't swim" then i really couldn't care less about that statement, because i don't give a damn about how individuals feel about swimming. That's just opinions, after all.

Except you do, and now you're backpedaling. Because you started this entire debating by saying, no, people who claim silent PCs are dead and empty for them are wrong because a limitation of their imagination.

Do I need to quote you on this?

Modifié par In Exile, 28 décembre 2010 - 06:57 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

To me, extraversion can be any of the things that typically define extraversion, including being outgoing, focused on social dominance, motivated to maintain social relationships, etc.

So... outgoing, bullying, or clingy.

You're not selling me on extraverts.

[Aggie Punbot]

tmp7704 wrote...

TS2Aggie wrote...

Wait, just so I've got this straight: if I play a warrior or a rogue, Carver will always die and if I play a mage, Bethany will die? But...but...rogue is my favorite class and I don't want my little brother to die.

Think we don't exactly know if either of them is actually forced to die. One of them isn't going to be available as companion*, but maybe he/she just settles in Kirkwall at the end of the prologue, or smth.

*) for that matter we don't know if the other is going to be available as full-time companion, either.

I hope that's true. I don't mind if they're not permanent companions but having a sibling die just because they happen to be too similar to your PC is just kind of...saddening. It has too much of a Harry Potteresque 'Kill the spare' vibe to it.

[Aggie Punbot]

*double post*

Modifié par TS2Aggie, 28 décembre 2010 - 10:59 .

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Right, but this is a major problem with silent VO too. Which is why prior to PC VO I was adamant about [lying], [sarcasm] and [joking] tags.

And I was just as adamant that those tags restricted roleplaying unless they were always present.

I still maintain the best way to go about it is to have a silent protagonist, and have a dropdown list that let you chose an emotion or context (angry, sad, lying, whatever), and then choose a line separately, and all emotions/contexts would be available for every line.

This would probably work even better with silent NPCs as well, as the voice-acting budget could then be spent on more dialogue responses that could be contextual to the emotion/context you chose.

Something like:

[Dropdown] 1. Something or other.
                    2. Something else
                    3. Some third thing.

[Addai]

TS2Aggie wrote...

I hope that's true. I don't mind if they're not permanent companions but having a sibling die just because they happen to be too similar to your PC is just kind of...saddening. It has too much of a Harry Potteresque 'Kill the spare' vibe to it.

The writers are hinting that it is for story purposes, e.g. something that requires one sibling to be a mage and the other a non-mage.

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

Addai67 wrote...

TS2Aggie wrote...

I hope that's true. I don't mind if they're not permanent companions but having a sibling die just because they happen to be too similar to your PC is just kind of...saddening. It has too much of a Harry Potteresque 'Kill the spare' vibe to it.

The writers are hinting that it is for story purposes, e.g. something that requires one sibling to be a mage and the other a non-mage.

There is nothing I am basing this on but I bet it has something to do with Hawke's father. I could see something like a magical legacy kind of deal which to make it more unique is either Bethany or Hawke (being a mage).

[Graunt]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Right, but this is a major problem with silent VO too. Which is why prior to PC VO I was adamant about [lying], [sarcasm] and [joking] tags.

And I was just as adamant that those tags restricted roleplaying unless they were always present.

I still maintain the best way to go about it is to have a silent protagonist, and have a dropdown list that let you chose an emotion or context (angry, sad, lying, whatever), and then choose a line separately, and all emotions/contexts would be available for every line.

This would probably work even better with silent NPCs as well, as the voice-acting budget could then be spent on more dialogue responses that could be contextual to the emotion/context you chose.

Something like:

[Dropdown] 1. Something or other.
                    2. Something else
                    3. Some third thing.

Am I the only one having Breath of Fire flashbacks?  That game had all kinds of floating "emoticons" above a characters head...

Addai67 wrote...
The writers are hinting that it is for story
purposes, e.g. something that requires one sibling to be a mage and the
other a non-mage.

This just makes me think that it has to do with one or two specific encounters that require a Mage.  If that's the case, then that also means you are not going to be able to have free reign on your party makeup at all times.  Similar situations happened in Origins, but they were infrequent.

Modifié par Graunt, 29 décembre 2010 - 08:27 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Addai67 wrote...

The writers are hinting that it is for story purposes, e.g. something that requires one sibling to be a mage and the other a non-mage.

This could work, or it could be really annoying, depending how it's done.

[Dave of Canada]

I'm still taking the forcing-a-mage thing as involving yourself in the role of the same-class sibling.

Imagine you're playing a Rogue and Templars come to your house and take Bethany away as an apostate, you're then planning to free her with everybody else from the Circle or whatever. Now imagine that same scene but with you as a Mage, you're taken away and now Carver is the one planning to break you out.

This "scene" wouldn't work if they took Bethany / Hawke or there was no mage at all.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 29 décembre 2010 - 07:06 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
So... outgoing, bullying, or clingy.

You're not selling me on extraverts.

Your definition of bullying and clingy are wrong. Social dominance doesn't mean bullying, because it doesn't have to translate into any kind of purposeful intimidation or persecution. And investing in social relationships isn't being clingy - no more than not investing makes you a recluse.

Vaeliorin wrote...
I still maintain the best way to go about
it is to have a silent protagonist, and have a dropdown list that let
you chose an emotion or context (angry, sad, lying, whatever), and then
choose a line separately, and all emotions/contexts would be available
for every line.

This would probably work even better with silent
NPCs as well, as the voice-acting budget could then be spent on more
dialogue responses that could be contextual to the emotion/context you
chose.

Something like:

[Dropdown] 1. Something or other.
                   
2. Something else
                    3. Some third thing.

This goes toward combinatorial explosion quite quickly. With 3 emotional options and 3 choices, you already have 9 possibilities. This either means you have characters act the same independent of what you say (which is the silent VO problem of imagining the intent of the line only worse, because now you've got direct evidence that the NPCs are mentally incompetent and you have no option of correcting them) or you've dramatically increased the cost/conversation to execute.

This kind of system won't be viable because it isn't cost justified. It's on par with multiple PC voices.

Modifié par In Exile, 29 décembre 2010 - 07:06 .

[Xewaka]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Imagine you're playing a Rogue and Templars come to your house and take Bethany away as an apostate, you're then planning to free her with everybody else from the Circle or whatever. Now imagine that same scene but with you as a Mage, you're taken away and now Carver is the one planning to break you out.
This "scene" wouldn't work if they took Bethany / Hawke or there was no mage at all.

I'd say "there from a magic capable line! They must be sorcerers!" would be justification enough to the most fanatical Templars. And then you'd have another path, trying to make the reasonable ones stop the fanatics before they get too overboard, and making the Templars owe you for helping keep themselves in check.

However, if Hawke is taken into custody, we get another prison break. The Broma Brothers return!

Modifié par Xewaka, 30 décembre 2010 - 03:24 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Your definition of bullying and clingy are wrong. Social dominance doesn't mean bullying, because it doesn't have to translate into any kind of purposeful intimidation or persecution. And investing in social relationships isn't being clingy - no more than not investing makes you a recluse.

I'll give you clingy, but I think I'm right to equate socially dominant behaviour with bullying.  People with social anxiety will flee socially dominant behaviour.  Only the absence of that behaviour allows the socially anxious to be at all comfortable taking part in a group setting.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'll give you clingy, but I think I'm right to equate socially dominant behaviour with bullying.  People with social anxiety will flee socially dominant behaviour.  Only the absence of that behaviour allows the socially anxious to be at all comfortable taking part in a group setting.

An environment that isn't conductive to a socially anxious person =! bullying.

Bullying is targeted aggression toward an individual for the purpose of exlusion. A socially dominant person isn't targeting anyone, any more than a sociall anxious person is. It's just a default form of expression.

There is an associated hostility with bullying that your definition doesn't capture at all.

[CoarseDragon]

I like the sound of crafting. Can't wait.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

An environment that isn't conductive to a socially anxious person =! bullying.

Bullying is targeted aggression toward an individual for the purpose of exlusion. A socially dominant person isn't targeting anyone, any more than a sociall anxious person is. It's just a default form of expression.

There is an associated hostility with bullying that your definition doesn't capture at all.

It's behaviour that can reasonably be expected to exclude people if they are present.  This standard is consistently applied with other forms of socially inacceptable behaviour.  Just because you don't mean to offend or exclude people doesn't make the behaviour any less offensive or exclusive.