189 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

EscherEnigma wrote...

... it's realism to think that the things you've thought of in a few minutes/hours/days never crossed the minds of the developers who had months to think about it?

No, it's realism to accept that no single system which follows certain rules without taking user's feedback is going to fit the preferences of every user and every time. And that the developers are quite ok with that, since they're ok with it in other places where the dominant personality is applied.

A most simple example: Hawke's dominant personality is "firm". Party banter happens. Player A would prefer his/her Hawke to join it and act nice. Player B would prefer Hawke to join it but be firm. Player C would prefer Hawke to stay out of it. How's your game supposed to automatically deduce the preference of each of these players and match it?

It can't, that's all there's to it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Right. If my Hawke has decided that it's best to stay out of intra-party arguments (perhaps that's just his management style), having him suddenly intervene would be really irritating.

[MadLaughter]

Who had this topic as "The next opportunity Chris Priestly will take to insult his company's fanbase and pretend he was just being snarky" in the pool? Anyone?

[Pitrus]

MadLaughter wrote...

Who had this topic as "The next opportunity Chris Priestly will take to insult his company's fanbase and pretend he was just being snarky" in the pool? Anyone?

If I was in both pools, do I get a prize?

Sylvius wrote...

In Origins, the banter didn't include the Warden, so whether I had
control over it didn't matter.

I really don't get the obsession with a silent protagonist as long as it's not actually part of their personality (e.g. Link from Legend of Zelda). Ever heard how "silence speaks louder than words"? 

Say my Warden was the worlds biggest ass, why wouldn't he drop snarky comments during the banter? This is of course assuming that the game adapts Hawke's banter to the way he's been acting in general.

Modifié par Pitrus, 07 mars 2011 - 12:11 .

[magicwins]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Who had this topic as "The next thing that Sylvius will take offense to as ruining his game" in the pool? Anyone?

LOL . Nice to see the dev team have a sense of humour about this.

[Chris Priestly]

MadLaughter wrote...

Who had this topic as "The next opportunity Chris Priestly will take to insult his company's fanbase and pretend he was just being snarky" in the pool? Anyone?

Snarky? Moi?

Just because Sylvius hears a rather vague detail (and I expressly kept it vague to allow players to experience it for themselves) and LEAPS to the far end of catastophe instead of waiting to see it in game once again assuming we are ruining a game he has not even played yet and I poke fun at him for it...

ok, maybe a little snarky.

[MadLaughter]

It's okay, Priestley. At least you didn't call the fanbase idiots, like Mr. Gaider did.

Modifié par MadLaughter, 07 mars 2011 - 12:26 .

[scootermcgaffin]

Oh, Sylvius. You are a treasure. Never change.

[mesmerizedish]

Chris Priestly wrote...

MadLaughter wrote...

Who had this topic as "The next opportunity Chris Priestly will take to insult his company's fanbase and pretend he was just being snarky" in the pool? Anyone?

Snarky? Moi?

Just because Sylvius hears a rather vague detail (and I expressly kept it vague to allow players to experience it for themselves) and LEAPS to the far end of catastophe instead of waiting to see it in game once again assuming we are ruining a game he has not even played yet and I poke fun at him for it...

ok, maybe a little snarky.

I'm 100% that any snark the devs direct at Sylvius is loving snark <3

[TheRealJayDee]

Chris Priestly wrote...

MadLaughter wrote...

Who had this topic as "The next opportunity Chris Priestly will take to insult his company's fanbase and pretend he was just being snarky" in the pool? Anyone?

Snarky? Moi?

Just because Sylvius hears a rather vague detail (and I expressly kept it vague to allow players to experience it for themselves) and LEAPS to the far end of catastophe instead of waiting to see it in game once again assuming we are ruining a game he has not even played yet and I poke fun at him for it...

ok, maybe a little snarky.

Asking "How am I supposed to construct a coherent personality for Hawke if he speaks or acts without my explicit direction?" is LEAPING  to the far end of catastophe and assuming the game is ruined? 

Okay...

[-Skorpious-]

If Hawke speaks during party banter, hopefully his tone/comments are tied to his personality type. Of course, I would prefer if Hawke remained silent, but at the same time I can't judge a feature I haven't personally witnessed myself yet. =p

[falconlord5]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

MadLaughter wrote...

Who had this topic as "The next opportunity Chris Priestly will take to insult his company's fanbase and pretend he was just being snarky" in the pool? Anyone?

Snarky? Moi?

Just because Sylvius hears a rather vague detail (and I expressly kept it vague to allow players to experience it for themselves) and LEAPS to the far end of catastophe instead of waiting to see it in game once again assuming we are ruining a game he has not even played yet and I poke fun at him for it...

ok, maybe a little snarky.

Asking "How am I supposed to construct a coherent personality for Hawke if he speaks or acts without my explicit direction?" is LEAPING  to the far end of catastophe and assuming the game is ruined? 

Okay...

This is pretty tame for Syl. Normally he more than lives up to his name.

[Merced652]

Elfman wrote...

Well from the one conversation I've heard, Aveline looks set out to become the next Wynne. Nothing to do with anything, but still.

I don't want Hawke to participate in conversations because, what if my Hawke says something out of character for him/her? I'd hate that. Unless it's like a running joke with the companions.

lol why u tryin to rp bro?

[Chris Priestly]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Asking "How am I supposed to construct a coherent personality for Hawke if he speaks or acts without my explicit direction?" is LEAPING  to the far end of catastophe and assuming the game is ruined? 

Okay...

Not knowing any details of the actual mechanic and seemingly basing bad conjecture off it? Yes, thats pretty much leaping.

[TJPags]

All I want to know is - will there be a discussion between Isabela and Anders regarding their memories of the Warden?

You know, comparing opinions on the Wardens assets?

[Icy Magebane]

Hm... after reading this, it actually does present a legitimate concern. I wanted Hawke to be aggressive towards pretty much everyone associated with the Chantry, and bully his way through life to get whatever he wants. On the other hand, I wanted him to be nice to his companions... but even so, if there are companions that I don't like, I want to be rude to them... the dominant personality is an interesting idea, but it does seem to have some flaws. I don't understand how it can predict the motivations behind each dialogue choice, one of the most basic principles of human communication.

That said, this is the first time this kind of system has been attempted, right? I mean, it's a prototype. There are going to be flaws. Overall, I like the idea of the "tone" system, but understandably, it is not perfect. If they decide to go with this in DA3 or a different game, I'm sure it will be more refined with each incarnation.

[Icy Magebane]

TJPags wrote...

All I want to know is - will there be a discussion between Isabela and Anders regarding their memories of the Warden?

You know, comparing opinions on the Wardens assets?

Hmph... I'm starting to regret that night at the Pearl... >.>

[EscherEnigma]

If you're going through with a dalish warden as the history, then Merrill could join in the banter with Isabella and Anders...

[Me_]

At least have something to complain about before you complain.

Can you name any instances in DA2 where the banter presents a problem, or are you just making mad assumptions?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Faith is irrational.

Ironic, considering how you cling desperately to your faith in pessimism.

Modifié par Me , 07 mars 2011 - 12:37 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Not knowing any details of the actual mechanic and seemingly basing bad conjecture off it? Yes, thats pretty much leaping.

I wasn't offering any conjecture.  I was asking a question, which no one from BioWare (and I've asked similar questions before) has made any real attempt to answer.

Many possible failings of the paraphrase system and the dominant personality tracking have been laid out here.  We cannot use those systems with confidence if we cannot expect them to function effectively.

I don't jump to conclusions, Chris.  You know me better than that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MadLaughter wrote...

It's okay, Priestley. At least you didn't call the fanbase idiots, like Mr. Gaider did.

David didn't call the fanbase idiots.

He called people idiots.

[Me_]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Not knowing any details of the actual mechanic and seemingly basing bad conjecture off it? Yes, thats pretty much leaping.

I wasn't offering any conjecture.  I was asking a question, which no one from BioWare (and I've asked similar questions before) has made any real attempt to answer.

Many possible failings of the paraphrase system and the dominant personality tracking have been laid out here.  We cannot use those systems with confidence if we cannot expect them to function effectively.

I don't jump to conclusions, Chris.  You know me better than that.

Anyone who reads the forums knows you jump to conclusions. You don't do anything but jump to conclusions and whine.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Which can easily lead to situations like your Hawke snapping at companions during the banter because you'd happened to take hard line while talking with completely different NPCs a while earlier in the same game act, which the game dutifully recorded as your "dominant personality".

Faith has nothing to do with it. The system has certain limitations and it's ok to recognize them.

That essentially undercuts the problem with the idea that people have a universal "dominant personality" at all. This used to be a common view in psychology ages ago, but it's long since been discounted. The situation matters. We have dominant situational personalities, but that's not the sake as one dominat generalizable mindset.

Still, I think DA2 is a good step toward building a framework for how a game could track the internal state of the character across the game. I think a personality system is good. It needs more complexity. A good parallel is what faction reputation offers as an advantage over a universal reputation bar. DA3 ought to carry over faction reputation (and include each party NPC as a "faction" in terms of how the game keeps score) so this way we can have a more varied personality.

[AngelicMachinery]

Merced652 wrote...

Elfman wrote...

Well from the one conversation I've heard, Aveline looks set out to become the next Wynne. Nothing to do with anything, but still.

I don't want Hawke to participate in conversations because, what if my Hawke says something out of character for him/her? I'd hate that. Unless it's like a running joke with the companions.

lol why u tryin to rp bro?

Can't tell if serious.

[Merced652]

In Exile wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
Which can easily lead to situations like your Hawke snapping at companions during the banter because you'd happened to take hard line while talking with completely different NPCs a while earlier in the same game act, which the game dutifully recorded as your "dominant personality".

Faith has nothing to do with it. The system has certain limitations and it's ok to recognize them.

That essentially undercuts the problem with the idea that people have a universal "dominant personality" at all. This used to be a common view in psychology ages ago, but it's long since been discounted. The situation matters. We have dominant situational personalities, but that's not the sake as one dominat generalizable mindset.

Still, I think DA2 is a good step toward building a framework for how a game could track the internal state of the character across the game. I think a personality system is good. It needs more complexity. A good parallel is what faction reputation offers as an advantage over a universal reputation bar. DA3 ought to carry over faction reputation (and include each party NPC as a "faction" in terms of how the game keeps score) so this way we can have a more varied personality.

I'm not sure how using faction based decisions to influence personality is really an upgrade. There were times in origins where i took out all the werewovles then turned on zathrian immediately after. Or times where i saved the mages solely because i needed wynne as a healer but otherwise despised mages who submitted to their imprisonment. I think its way too complex to even attempt which is subsequently why i prefer a silent protag. That is of course if the writers ever deign to write them in way that apparently allows for roleplay since we've apparently been doing it wrong for 10 years.

Modifié par Merced652, 07 mars 2011 - 12:45 .