992 réponses à ce sujet

[Reiella]

 I like the icons...  They help clarify if something is just a 'dialog option that is third' or 'way to be jerk bro' option.

[zazei]

David Gaider wrote...

You've always been limited to the delivery we writers intended, as even in DAO the world reacted to that intention and not whatever you made up in your head. We select the possible responses and that's all you get.

While we are talking about writer intentions may be so bold to ask a question? Is the intention that we should mostly follow one path for most of the game or has will it make some sense to switch back and forth? I like the dialog wheel but options isn't really a option if the intention is that we should follow one path most of the time.

It's pretty much my only consern after playing the demo. Otherwise I loved everything you devs put in there, including our options and responses from the NPCs. :happy:

[Pritos]

cabbagesoup wrote...

You have all got to be kidding me. How old are you all 12-20? And when did you start playing games and have you been playing button mashing fighting games all your life. You really think it is the same As DAO? It is clearly over simplified and aim for mindless ADD console gamers (the xbox360 and PS3 generation) and younger people who haven't played any of the older classic PC games with in depth  RPG elements and tactics like Never Winter Nights or Baldur's gate where you have to stop every now and then and think.  Games where you have to make decisions that have consequences which effect your characters outcome and who he becomes and how his story or fate turns out later in the game. That is role playing. In DA2s demo as one has already said here, they are just tones and
what is said is basically the same and so is the outcome throughout. Not to mention there is no conversations they are all just one liners and on with the cuts scenes and boring mindless, fast paced, action combat-which I didn't even have to pause once or think about what I was doing just hit attact over and over- I see why some are asking for an auto attact in the console versions, might as well.

This is a shame to see EA make Bioware take this direction.  They made some really good RPGs with good storys-from what I've seen in the demo I could care less about the characters or where the story is going in this one.

Oh, well its all about money. Though you aren't getting any of mine any more I'm affraid BioWare or should I say EA. (I've played just about all your games including all the expansions for neverwinter nights. Oh, I even like Mass Effect 2 the choices you made though stream lined really had an effect on the game.

Dragon Age origins was very good in my opinion very old school with plenty of complex quality role playing.  

By the way DA2 fans the number is growing for those who will not Pre-order and those who will cancel. Not to mention those who are keeping their pre-orders represent little more than 50% and in reality probably less. I know a number of people who love BioWare games who after playing the demo will skip this one.
I was pretty sure I was going to pre-order-I loved all of BioWares games up until now-now I  can say I won't.

You must think you are so cool...

[Icy Magebane]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Voicing the protagonist ties us to the delivery the writers intended.  This is bad.

You've always been limited to the delivery we writers intended, as even in DAO the world reacted to that intention and not whatever you made up in your head. We select the possible responses and that's all you get.

And, yes, I know you like to imagine your own delivery, and resign any failure of the world to heed that as their misunderstanding, as if they are incapable of understanding communication. So, yes, we no longer allow you to play a character with Asperger's.

Are there drawbacks for that limitation? Sure, just as there are drawbacks for the unvoiced protaganist (see the Landsmeet, for instance, and the address of the soldiers at Denerim as two places in DAO where having a protaganist able to speak would have been a real plus on the design side). If having an unvoiced protaganist is the only way for you to believe you're roleplaying, then this isn't the game for you-- but that doesn't make it not a roleplaying game, or any worse of a design, as there are many people indeed who don't see that as a limitation on their ability to get into character.

And those are the limitations we've chosen to live with this time around. In this case, the benefits are worth the limitations we've given up. And that's all there is to say about it. If the demo didn't convince you that the writers can deliver, then that's all you really need to know, isn't it?

Win.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

You've always been limited to the delivery we writers intended

No, we weren't.  If you were trying to limit us, you didn't succeed.

as even in DAO the world reacted to that intention and not whatever you made up in your head. We select the possible responses and that's all you get.

That doesn't make any sense.  it's not possible for the player to know to what the NPC is reacting.  All we know is that the NPC is reacting.  How the PC interprets that reaction as an element of roleplaying.

And, yes, I know you like to imagine your own delivery, and resign any failure of the world to heed that as their misunderstanding, as if they are incapable of understanding communication. So, yes, we no longer allow you to play a character with Asperger's.

There wasn't any resignation, though.  I simply reacted accordingly.

On some playthroughs of DAO, Alistair's a really together guy.  On others, he's a complete dimwit.  I don't think that sort of diversity is going to remain possible in these games with a voiced PC.

Are there drawbacks for that limitation? Sure, just as there are drawbacks for the unvoiced protaganist (see the Landsmeet, for instance, and the address of the soldiers at Denerim as two places in DAO where having a protaganist able to speak would have been a real plus on the design side).

I don't dispute this.  In fact, I agree.

If having an unvoiced protaganist is the only way for you to believe you're roleplaying, then this isn't the game for you--

It would be unreasonable of me to hold that opinion.

but that doesn't make it not a roleplaying game, or any worse of a design, as there are many people indeed who don't see that as a limitation on their ability to get into character.

And I yearn to understand those people.  So far, I don't think they're doing what they say they're doing, because it doesn't make any sense to me.  How can they be making an in-character decision without knowing what decision it is they're making?

And those are the limitations we've chosen to live with this time around. In this case, the benefits are worth the limitations we've given up. And that's all there is to say about it. If the demo didn't convince you that the writers can deliver, then that's all you really need to know, isn't it?

As I've said several times, I cannot judge the quality of DA2's dialogue system based on the demo because you guys haven't told us what the intent icons mean.

Whether DA2 works at all remains to be seen.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I don't mind it at all. I certainly enjoyed it in Mass Effect, I will say though that I never realized how off putting it would be to replace the neutral dialogue with "funny" dialogue until I played the DA 2 demo.

[Duelingk]

Despite my misgivings however, after seeing the great work that Mass Effect did at pulling off a believable character I am still looking forward to seeing how the main character in DA2 will evolve depending on dialogue. And after playing the demo again and trying out several other dialogue options I am definitely happy that the options are not so linear. Now it does bring up the question just how much the different choices affect things. In mass effect 2 I never chose renegade because the choices were so linearly evil/bad, although the paragon choices could at times be considered only slightly good. Which could lend to grey areas if a renegade character chose to. A good character choosing renegade was usually just out of whack and did not fit.

Modifié par Duelingk, 25 février 2011 - 12:05 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And I yearn to understand those people. .

You won't, because you communicate - and possibly think - differently than they/we do.

I can rationalize your position because it is, as you've described, purely rational.  I don't think you're willing to/capable of empathizing with our approach, because as you've said you believe empathy is a lie.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 25 février 2011 - 12:05 .

[Blastback]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, that's exactly what I want.  I want to fill that shell myself.

I know.  And I'd understand that if the game responded to it or supported it in any perceivable way, but it doesn't.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This I don't get at all.  I never know what the NPCs are going to say in response to the PC in either game.

It's not so much about knowing what they're going to say, but have your selection matter and be responded to.  When you have to imagine your character's intent or tone or delivery, the pre-written NPCs cannot respond to it.  But that's one of those arguments In Exile is better at having with you.  Though I haven't seen him 'round much lately. 

I think the argument would be that for some of us, what happens in our head is as or more important as what happens in the game. 

Take this for example.  I often play characters who have similar "worldy" experiance to Alistair.  I was able to see my Warden acting nervous towards Morrigan regarding their relationship.  I wasn't able to do that with Shepard.  Maybe there was some dialoge options I missed, but none of the romances allowed me to envision that as part of Shepard's personality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pritos wrote...

Not necessarily. Perhaps DAO had more possible responses if we take in consideration that the player could interpret them as he/she wished, thing that is hard/impossible with a VP. However, voicing the protagonist can deliver us a bigger quality, by actually showing the interaction between the protagonist and the NPC, and this makes us know that he is really there, that he have fellings and a conscience, differently than DAO, that in the end were just us imaginating the character.

Whereas, I'd say you already knew if the PC had feelings or a conscience because you'd decided that in advance.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I know.  And I'd understand that if the game responded to it or supported it in any perceivable way, but it doesn't.

I don't really see how it could, given that the player could be imaging anything at all.  There's no way to code for that.

It's not so much about knowing what they're going to say, but have your selection matter and be responded to.  When you have to imagine your character's intent or tone or delivery, the pre-written NPCs cannot respond to it.

But they do respond to it.  You select your dialogue option, and the NPCs respond.  As a player, yes, I know that they're only responding as they were written to, but within the game my character doesn't know this.  From his point of view they're responding to what he said and how he said it, so he'll interepret their responses based on that.

This disconnect you see is a meta-game event, so I don't think it can influence gameplay unless you yourself are metagaming.

But that's one of those arguments In Exile is better at having with you.  Though I haven't seen him 'round much lately.

He popped up yesterday.

[upsettingshorts]

Blastback wrote...

I think the argument would be that for some of us, what happens in our head is as or more important as what happens in the game. 

I get that.  I'd just like for it to be framed as a subjective approach because that's what it is.  Just like mine.  Granted such discussions usually derail into "what is an RPG?"

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This disconnect you see is a meta-game event, so I don't think it can influence gameplay unless you yourself are metagaming..

Only if you're roleplaying a character that would never want to correct himself or clarify his intent to the person he's conversing with when misunderstood.  Because only those make sense given how you roleplay.  I have never roleplayed this character, because I've never met anyone like that.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 25 février 2011 - 12:16 .

[Veracruz]

cabbagesoup wrote...

You have all got to be kidding me. How old are you all 12-20?...

"Horace goes Skiing" was my first game if I remember correctly. 

So what's up with comparing a 1 hour demo with a whole game? Actionish or not?

[Blastback]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Blastback wrote...

I think the argument would be that for some of us, what happens in our head is as or more important as what happens in the game. 

I get that.  I'd just like for it to be framed as a subjective approach because that's what it is.  Just like mine.  Granted such discussions usually derail into "what is an RPG?"

Fair enough.  I agree, there is no right way to play an RPG, it's up to the individual.  The problem is that to my knowledge, there isn't any single system that works for all styles.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This disconnect you see is a meta-game event, so I don't think it can influence gameplay unless you yourself are metagaming..

Only if you're roleplaying a character that would never want to correct himself or clarify his intent to the person he's conversing with when misunderstood.  Because only those make sense given how you roleplay.  I have never roleplayed this character, because I've never met anyone like that.

Based on what he's posted, I imagine that at least some of Sylvius' characters are so socially inept that they don't understand the problem in communication.

Modifié par Blastback, 25 février 2011 - 12:19 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

You've always been limited to the delivery we writers intended

No, we weren't.  If you were trying to limit us, you didn't succeed.

The problem here is that you refuse to separate imagination from a pre-defined game mechanic. Of course the writer's can't see what is going inside your own head.

You are never going to be satisfied with a product unless you understand it's limitations, and more importantly, what those limitations mean in the context of you.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 25 février 2011 - 12:17 .

[upsettingshorts]

Blastback wrote...

Based on what he's posted, I imagine that at least some of Sylvius' characters are so socially inept that they don't understand the problem in communication.

That's a good point, but does he play those characters exclusively?  I'm thinking he does.  But they're not characters I'm really interested in roleplaying, at least not on a consistent basis.

[Satyricon331]

Wow, as someone who played in a style similar to the way Sylvius the Mad did, I found David Gaider's response really offputting. I already appreciated how the loss of that style of roleplaying came with some things in return, but for Gaider to just decide the benefits outweighed the costs - regardless of the individual player's enjoyment - was surprising.  (edit: just to clarify - I appreciate he can assess that for most people they will be, but his declarative went further than that)

Modifié par Satyricon331, 25 février 2011 - 12:24 .

[upsettingshorts]

Satyricon331 wrote...

Wow, as someone who played in a style similar to the way Sylvius the Mad did, I found David Gaider's response really offputting. I already appreciated how the loss of that style of roleplaying came with some things in return, but for Gaider to just decide the benefits outweighed the costs - regardless of the individual player's enjoyment - was surprising.

He's talking to Sylvius the Mad.  This isn't their first rodeo. 

And yeah, they did decide that because that's their perogative - they're the ones making the decisions after all.  You're welcome to disagree, and he said so.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 25 février 2011 - 12:23 .

[stephen1493]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

You've always been limited to the delivery we writers intended

No, we weren't.  If you were trying to limit us, you didn't succeed.

The problem here is that you refuse to separate imagination from a pre-defined game mechanic. Of course the writer's can't see what is going inside your own head.

You are never going to be satisfied with a product unless you understand it's limitations, and more importantly, what those limitations mean in the context of you.

But that limitation arguement doesn't hold if he saw the range of tone as limitless.

Modifié par stephen1493, 25 février 2011 - 12:24 .

[Satyricon331]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
He's talking to Sylvius the Mad.  This isn't their first rodeo. 

Then why respond at all?

[Crackseed]

Personally I like it. I hope we see more options open up as time goes on based on interactions with party members, etc but DA:O gave a deceptive appearance of having "alot" to say when half of the options were just filler that didn't really add anything beyond some fluff to a convo. This is a bit of streamlining, but in a good way w/o sacrificing the RP.

[upsettingshorts]

Satyricon331 wrote...

Then why respond at all?

Why does Sylvius start threads or make posts voicing his opinions?  Don't you think he wants a response?  Or do you just think it's cathartic? I don't want to speak for him, I just don't understand why anyone would be upset with Gaider explaining his position and defending it.  What do you want from him, to apologize for taking part in making a decision your disapprove of?  I mean, honestly, what do you want the developers to say, short of explaining how you're right and they've totally changed their minds.

DG and Sylvius didn't ultimately say anything to each other in this exchange they haven't said before.  Neither have I in my discussions with him in this thread.  And I've only been around a few months, pretty sure those two have been at it for years.

....anyway - it's a tradeoff.  Not dumbing down or appealing to console kiddies or whatever.  It makes implicit third person narratives into explicit ones.  That means that while first person roleplaying like Sylvius and others like him like was possible in previous games, it no longer really is.  People who always approached it from the third person will have less issues, and perhaps - in my case at least - view it as wholesale improvement.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 25 février 2011 - 12:31 .

[HolyAvenger]

Just quickly popping into say that I really liked the intent icons and dialogue wheel from the demo, and the voiced character really worked for me. I'm converted.

[casadechrisso]

No.

[rob_k]

cabbagesoup wrote...

Games where you have to make decisions that have consequences which effect your characters outcome and who he becomes and how his story or fate turns out later in the game. That is role playing. In DA2s demo as one has already said here, they are just tones and
what is said is basically the same and so is the outcome throughout.

Not to mention there is no conversations they are all just one liners and on with the cuts scenes

Disregarding all of the AD insults and the other rubbish for the quote, I take it you've played the game to the end to make an informed decision that dialog choices etc. don't affect how the game's story plays out?

Because you know, the demo is really good for showcasing the consequences of your actionsdue to it only being 20 - 40 or so minutes long and the story's not disjointed or anything, due to jumping to a later mission.

Modifié par rob_k, 25 février 2011 - 12:34 .

[Wulfram]

I certainly appreciated the ability to play a Warden who wasn't always so self assured and confident as voiced protagonists always seem to be. Someone who actually feels a bit taken aback to suddenly be made responsible for saving the world, to be deciding the fate of peoples and making Kings.