Wulfram wrote...
My definition of help includes "defend you if attacked" but doesn't necessarily include "hunt him down and kill him". One is murder, and one isn't.
Saibh wrote...
Wulfram wrote...
My definition of help includes "defend you if attacked" but doesn't necessarily include "hunt him down and kill him". One is murder, and one isn't.
The point of what you're trying to do is to help defend Isabela if the duel goes wrong.
You promised to help with the slaver.
You did not say "Oh, well, after he betrays you, I'll defend myself and leave".
Wulfram wrote...
There was nothing stopping Isabela from leaving herself. She chose to go to the Chantry because she wanted him dead. That is not defence.
Mr.Kusy wrote...
The choices aren't clear at all. What's the diffrence between making a joke and cheering someone up here? Both have the same icon and you would have to be a retard to joke when someone is bleeding out in front of you or your brother just died.
Here's my complaint (which I'm sure you already know).David Gaider wrote...
This is exactly the case.Clonedzero wrote...
in all honesty, its not that different from what origins was like. its just not all listed out.
(nice continue option)
(snarky continue dialogue option)
(mean continue dialogue option)
(ask clarifying question dialogue option #1 i.e investigate)
(ask clarifying question dialogue option #2 i.e investigate)
(ask clarifying question dialogue option #3 i.e investigate)
(stab the dude dialogue option)
its just presented in a wheel this time.
In Origins we had instances of these kinds of "personality" hubs, as outlined above, where it's more about how you're saying something that making actual decisions on what to do. They, too, had the same three basic options-- something we've done in variations since Baldur's Gate.
Then there are "choice" hubs where you are deciding what to do, and there are no icons except for those actions that need clarification on the intent, such as "this will lead to combat" and "this is asking for money".
Again, no different than in Origins.
If the intent from someone is to imply that moving the investigate options into a seperate wheel (rather than having them as part of the main list, as in Origins) or adding an icon to clarify tone (which, no, was not self-evident to everyone who played Origins) somehow makes it simpler rather than different from Origins is very much missing the point.
Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 24 février 2011 - 07:11 .
Galad22 wrote...
David Gaider wrote...
This is exactly the case.
In Origins we had instances of these kinds of "personality" hubs, as outlined above, where it's more about how you're saying something that making actual decisions on what to do. They, too, had the same three basic options-- something we've done in variations since Baldur's Gate.
Then there are "choice" hubs where you are deciding what to do, and there are no icons except for those actions that need clarification on the intent, such as "this will lead to combat" and "this is asking for money".
Again, no different than in Origins.
If the intent from someone is to imply that moving the investigate options into a seperate wheel (rather than having them as part of the main list, as in Origins) or adding an icon to clarify tone (which, no, was not self-evident to everyone who played Origins) somehow makes it simpler rather than different from Origins is very much missing the point.
You may not like that the layout is different from Origins, but it's truly not as different as some people seem to want everyone to believe. Not liking something doesn't make it "for dumb people", which is the implication that some people keep making. Which is too bad, as I'd hate for someone's love of Origins-- a sentiment I share-- predispose them to disliking something based only on the fact that it's not Origins.
It is not as I said, if you can't know what you are saying you aren't really roleplaying anything, but playing as someone else. This is the problem.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Here's my complaint (which I'm sure you already know).
In DAO, those initial three options - nice, snarky, and mean - weren't necessarily nice, snarky, or mean. The player could choose those lines and intend them however he wanted. I might choose a line that you'd written as sarcastic but if my character was socially inept he might actually deliver the line earnestly, only to have the NPC misinterpret him and he'd get embarrassed and just stop talking.
These sorts of roleplaying experiences are no longer available with the wheel and icon because we need to accept the intent icons to have any idea what the actual line is going to say.
This is the problem. The paraphrase system relies on the player wanting his character to deliver the line as the writer intended that line to be delivered, whereas the full-text dialogue systems required no such thing.
Mr.Kusy wrote...
What troubles me the most is that BioWare seems to unify their games. They slowly remove diversity as I see it, next 4 installments of both universes and Dragon Age games will be exacly the same as Mass Effect games just in a diffrent lore.
How can you say that? I clearly did have the choice. I could intend a line however I wanted. It worked brilliantly.Saibh wrote...
Sylvius, every time you bring this up, it comes down to you pretending your ever had the choice. You didn't.
Yes it does. How the game actually worked was to accommodate deeper and more involved roleplaying. That most players didn't take advantage or that, or that the writers didn't even intend it, makes no difference to whether it was actually there.Just because your vision of how the game works does not interfere with how the writers intended it to be played doesn't mean that you are right in thinking something is being taken away.
I fail to see how this is at all relevant.Characters always react a specific way to specific lines. You can't change that.
Just as you pretend that they are right. What makes your way more accurate?You simply pretend that they can be wrong.
Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 24 février 2011 - 07:19 .
You missed NWN. And while single-player NWN was arguably a lot like KotOR, NWN's core feature wasn't the single-player game.AlanC9 wrote...
KotOR was different from anything Bio had ever done before. Jade Empire was too. Mass Effect was different as well, and the sequel went even further. DAO was a throwback to an earlier style.
Saibh wrote...
Uh, no he was trying to get her killed. You know, assassinate her?
Regardless, how she chooses to handle it isn't the point: you agreed to help her, and if she wants to go kill the slaver, then you already said you'd help.
Don't want to help her, don't promise to do it.
JohnstonMR wrote...
You may have missed something--you're on a computer (or a console). Computer RPGs have NEVER been about "roleplaying" more than "playing as someone else." Even in BG and BG2, you choose from a set list of options the writers gave you--at NO TIME in the game can you just say what you want.
In BG2, when you first talk to Minsc, there are three choices of response about Boo, his hamster. NONE of those choices was what I wanted to say, which was "You have a space hamster! That's awesome!" You could either insult him or brush it aside. That's not "roleplaying" in the classic sense, it's playing as another character and choosing his responses.
True roleplaying, in the sense you mean it, happens at a table or a LARP event, with real people playing all the characters. It doesn't happen even in the best Computer RPGs.
Guest_Puddi III_*
Well, to a certain extent I have to agree with Sylvius. The silent PC allows for a greater illusion of character control. Like in Syl's example, of his character saying the sarcastic line but actually in his mind doing it because he's socially inept, you can interpret the set NPC response to be a misunderstanding. It's an illusion of control so to speak, but that freedom is what attracts some folks to the games. And it is being lost.Saibh wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Here's my complaint (which I'm sure you already know).
In DAO, those initial three options - nice, snarky, and mean - weren't necessarily nice, snarky, or mean. The player could choose those lines and intend them however he wanted. I might choose a line that you'd written as sarcastic but if my character was socially inept he might actually deliver the line earnestly, only to have the NPC misinterpret him and he'd get embarrassed and just stop talking.
These sorts of roleplaying experiences are no longer available with the wheel and icon because we need to accept the intent icons to have any idea what the actual line is going to say.
This is the problem. The paraphrase system relies on the player wanting his character to deliver the line as the writer intended that line to be delivered, whereas the full-text dialogue systems required no such thing.
Sylvius, every time you bring this up, it comes down to you pretending your ever had the choice. You didn't. Just because your vision of how the game works does not interfere with how the writers intended it to be played doesn't mean that you are right in thinking something is being taken away.
Characters always react a specific way to specific lines. You can't change that. You simply pretend that they can be wrong. But you're making your own rules, not abiding by what they already set down. And, I know, you think you should be free to make your own, but they are not making your game, they are making their game.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How can you say that? I clearly did have the choice. I could intend a line however I wanted. It worked brilliantly.
Why do you think it didn't? What evidence could you possibly have?
And it's because the writers clearly didn't intend it that I need to come here and jump up and down pointing it out. They were accommodating an entire playstyle seemingly without knowing it. If no one ever tells them, then they might throw it away without ever noticing.
Just as you pretend that they are right. What makes your way more accurate?
When the user is able to do things that the developer does not intend, then we typically call that a bug or a glitch. You have been able to skate by, enjoying this "feature" for quite a while, but eventually bugs and glitches are fixed.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is the problem. The paraphrase system relies on the player wanting his character to deliver the line as the writer intended that line to be delivered, whereas the full-text dialogue systems required no such thing.
Don't make me drag the "Death of the Author" movment out.Saibh wrote...
Because the writers--the people who made the game--had an intention. Their word is greater than yours.
Wulfram wrote...
Sure, and Hawke helped her avoid his assassins. Then she decides to assassinate him. A sensible thing to do, no doubt, but in no way can your agreement to this be presumed.
Nowhere in what we are shown in the demo did we promise to help Isabela hunt him down and kill him.
An agreement to help someone out in a matter does not mean that you
are bound to unquestioningly follow their orders from then on.
It's not an illusion. I actually get to decide how my character delivers each line, and with the full text options I also have more control over what it is he says.Blastback wrote...
]Well, to a certain extent I have to agree with Sylvius. The silent PC allows for a greater illusion of character control. Like in Syl's example, of his character saying the sarcastic line but actually in his mind doing it because he's socially inept, you can interpret the set NPC response to be a misunderstanding. It's an illusion of control so to speak, but that freedom is what attracts some folks to the games. And it is being lost.
But if I interpret it
Modifié par Melness, 24 février 2011 - 07:33 .
Well, I'm trying to find a middle ground that both sides can understand and accept as valid.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It's not an illusion. I actually get to decide how my character delivers each line, and with the full text options I also have more control over what it is he says.Blastback wrote...
]Well, to a certain extent I have to agree with Sylvius. The silent PC allows for a greater illusion of character control. Like in Syl's example, of his character saying the sarcastic line but actually in his mind doing it because he's socially inept, you can interpret the set NPC response to be a misunderstanding. It's an illusion of control so to speak, but that freedom is what attracts some folks to the games. And it is being lost.
There's a moment in DAO where the Warden is given an option to make a really cheesy pass at Leliana. Some players interpreted that as a joke, and that interpretation leads to Leliana's response making perfect sense (she laughs and says "Eww"). But if I interpret it as a genuine attempt to flirt with her, then her reaction still makes perfect sense. But her laughter now sounds more nervous, because one would expect nervous laughter rather than amused laughter following a clumsy pick-up line.
Retour en haut