189 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Me wrote...

Anyone who reads the forums knows you jump to conclusions.

I invite you to find a single example.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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.

To do this well, the system would need an incredible amount of complexity, and probably ask the player a bunch of questions right at the start of the game.  Or build a sort of personality test into the opening tutorial.

In Lothering, there's an encounter with a merchant surrounded by angry townsfolk and Chantry members.  The first time I found it, my character drove off the crowd as soon as he was asked.  I chose this because my mage character, who opposed the oppression of mages, was a strong proponent of individual liberty and property rights.  So that's why he sided with the merchant.  How could we design the game such that it would be able to tell the difference between my doing somehing for principled reasons and someone else doing exactly the same thing out of greed (the merchant did offer to pay the Warden, if you'll recall).

I recognise this is actually a poor example, is it was an action hub as opposed to a personality hub, but the point I'm trying to make is that the reasons we do things are many and varied.  I still think the best way to allow the player to maintain the coherence of the PC is to give the player direct control of the PC as much as possible.  Giving the player control should be their number one objective after maintaining the coherence of the setting.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I still think the best way to allow the player to maintain the coherence of the PC is to give the player direct control of the PC as much as possible.  Giving the player control should be their number one objective after maintaining the coherence of the setting.

Rather long time ago when this subject of party banter and the conversations in general in the Awakening popped up, i've suggested doing a form of "banter interrupt" opportunity given to the player. Similar how the cutscene/dialogue interrupts work in ME2, that'd provide the player with option to cut in, and allow to select the actual manner of said cutting in.

[AnnaIntoxication]

Pitrus 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?

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.

Hawke isn't a warden. Js

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

Rather long time ago when this subject of party banter and the conversations in general in the Awakening popped up, i've suggested doing a form of "banter interrupt" opportunity given to the player. Similar how the cutscene/dialogue interrupts work in ME2, that'd provide the player with option to cut in, and allow to select the actual manner of said cutting in.

While that would be better than wholly involuntary banter, the ME2-style interrupts suffer the same uncertainty problem as the paraphrase system does, but worse.

[KratosAuron]

tmp7704 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I still think the best way to allow the player to maintain the coherence of the PC is to give the player direct control of the PC as much as possible.  Giving the player control should be their number one objective after maintaining the coherence of the setting.

Rather long time ago when this subject of party banter and the conversations in general in the Awakening popped up, i've suggested doing a form of "banter interrupt" opportunity given to the player. Similar how the cutscene/dialogue interrupts work in ME2, that'd provide the player with option to cut in, and allow to select the actual manner of said cutting in.

Why not just have the different emotions pop up with a corredponding button to press as they talk like Heavy Rain

cause that wouldnt get annoying at all  

[DadeLeviathan]

I think the problem with party banter involving the player is if you want it to occur in real time you either have to go the current route, or go the route of the dreaded quick time event. The only other way to do them is how they were done in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 in which instead of being real time banter, it is scripted dialogue sequences. There's really pros and cons to either.

[Adhin]

@Merced: I think he means not in your 'actions' to them but in the tone you pick, its 2 wildly seperat things in DA2 this time. Your actions do not determine you dominant tone. And plenty of things you pick in a conversation are outside of that as well.

So for instance if your character generally hates mages, and everytime you've talked to mages you've been aggressive where as, the rest of the time your nice. It would make sense for them to track personality not just in the general sense, but in a few other factors in relation to said NPC 'type' or faction.

Ultimately it wouldn't require anymore dialog, it would just be a bit more complex in how it keeps track of stuff, and how it decides which line to deliver when your doing an action, or ending a conversation where you don't have a tone choice.

So ultimately it would keep track of the dominant personality like it does now, which determines general responses like that and combat dialog. And it would use that majority of the time but faction ones could supersede it due to how you treat them.

I think it could work and would be a natural evolution with out requiring extra lines of dialog in future games, as they would already be present there for the 'dominant' personality thing. Though there would have to be some kind of base threshold before it uses it over the base-dominant.

-edit-
Oh and to be on topic, I'm fine not having control as when hawke is involved, as they've said, wont be a full blown conversation. He'll basically comment here and there, in minor things to end the whole back and forth banter. That being, if they're specifically talking about Hawke, he/she may just pop in with a 'I can hear you, you know?'.

They're probably all in the realm of normal conversation lines where you wouldn't of had controle over what to say anyways where it uses dominant tone stuff. As for the wanting the Illusion of total controle... you never really do. You have limited controle in what direction to take things but you don't have controle over the writers, who ultimately, write all the dialog. Hawke is ultimately there character we get to customize how we like it (with in reason).

That's one area I've never agreed with Mr. Mad on. But he took the 'the writers are obviously wrong' approach and made up his own thing when playing DAO. Which it hink kinda says it all about how side of the arguement. Guy talks about things being irrational when he takes a blind view on his own irrational bahavior towards games. It makes sense, if you don't think about it.

Modifié par Adhin, 07 mars 2011 - 10:05 .

[Adhin]

@DadeLeviathan: And in BG2 half the time, your character wasn't even involved. It just amounted to hitting continue heh. I personally like the real time though, I dislike it when they get forcibly interrupted by other stuff accidentally. Why I usually stop immediately to hear it all the way through.

[panamakira]

I'm going to stop assuming anything until I play the game and THEN I will come here and complain. It just doesn't make sense otherwise.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

While that would be better than wholly involuntary banter, the ME2-style interrupts suffer the same uncertainty problem as the paraphrase system does, but worse.

Not really if the "interrupt" opened regular dialogue page when activated, i'd think?

[Sanguinerin]

A player still didn't have complete control with the silent warden, either.

What if my character was a loyal friend, but one who can't break the rules? My mage can't say "no" to Jowan. He also can't turn in his friend to Irving, either. He can't go behind Jowan's back with Irving. He can't just sit in his room and pretend none of these plans are happening and go about his merry way living a life in a blissful tower.

What if my character would rather die before becoming a warden? My Dalish elf can't say "no" to leaving his clan and refuse outright to leave with Duncan or any other road between the tribe's location and Ostagar. My character can't pull a sword next to Jory and hopefully overtake Duncan in a 2v1 or 2v2 fight if Alistair jumped in.

If you want 100% control, you either have to make your own game or find someone willing to not block you from any limitations. You still don't have 100% control in Morrowind, for example. If you want to be the robot king from space, you're still blocked by the limitations of races.

So saying that you want 100% control is something you just won't have the way I see it. You may have found origins that you liked in DAO and options that you preferred to take in conversations, but you still never had 100% control. My opinion? I'm perfectly fine with this. I love the characters that I create, and I love the directions the developers take them. I don't need 100% control in DA2. No one had it in Origins, so it isn't necessary in DA2 either.

Now to be a bit on-topic, I loved party banter and I look forward to hearing my Hawke join in. Can't wait until tomorrow!

Modifié par HallowedWarden, 07 mars 2011 - 05:07 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

Not really if the "interrupt" opened regular dialogue page when activated, i'd think?

True.  That sounds like a really good idea.

[Sylvius the Mad]

HallowedWarden wrote...

A player still didn't have complete control with the silent warden, either.

What if my character was a loyal friend, but one who can't break the rules? My mage can't say "no" to Jowan. He also can't turn in his friend to Irving, either. He can't go behind Jowan's back with Irving. He can't just sit in his room and pretend none of these plans are happening and go about his merry way living a life in a blissful tower.

What if my character would rather die before becoming a warden? My Dalish elf can't say "no" to leaving his clan and refuse outright to leave with Duncan or any other road between the tribe's location and Ostagar. My character can't pull a sword next to Jory and hopefully overtake Duncan in a 2v1 or 2v2 fight if Alistair jumped in.

If you want 100% control, you either have to make your own game or find someone willing to not block you from any limitations. You still don't have 100% control in Morrowind, for example. If you want to be the robot king from space, you're still blocked by the limitations of races.

So saying that you want 100% control is something you just won't have the way I see it. You may have found origins that you liked in DAO and options that you preferred to take in conversations, but you still never had 100% control. My opinion? I'm perfectly fine with this. I love the characters that I create, and I love the directions the developers take them. I don't need 100% control in DA2. No one had it in Origins, so it isn't necessary in DA2 either.

A I've alrady explained, DAO gave us 100% control within a limited range of possible behaviour.  But everything we did was something we chose to do.

This involuntary party banter system denies us that.  Just as the paraphrase system does.

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A I've alrady explained, DAO gave us 100% control within a limited range of possible behaviour.  But everything we did was something we chose to do.

This involuntary party banter system denies us that.  Just as the paraphrase system does.

While I think your issue with the paraphrasing borders on the absurd, I'm actually 100% with you on this party banter. If my character is going to be involved in a conversation, I, as a player, want to be an active participant in deciding what direction that conversation takes.

[Mad Method]

Me wrote...

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

I've been here a while and what I've seen is that Sylvius discusses possibilities and consequences and concerns. In your warped mind, that might amount to jumping to conclusions.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I recognise this is actually a poor example, is it was an action hub as opposed to a personality hub, but the point I'm trying to make is that the reasons we do things are many and varied.  I still think the best way to allow the player to maintain the coherence of the PC is to give the player direct control of the PC as much as possible.  Giving the player control should be their number one objective after maintaining the coherence of the setting.

So long as the PC is a player-defined character, yes. DAO wasn't very pleasant in this regard either. Pressure to make this a "darker" fantasy caused Bioware to construct false dichotomies where perfectly good decisions were either conveniently absent or otherwise framed with the wrong reasons.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A I've alrady explained, DAO gave us 100% control within a limited range of possible behaviour.  But everything we did was something we chose to do.

This involuntary party banter system denies us that.  Just as the paraphrase system does.

While I think your issue with the paraphrasing borders on the absurd, I'm actually 100% with you on this party banter. If my character is going to be involved in a conversation, I, as a player, want to be an active participant in deciding what direction that conversation takes.

I agree with the paraphrase complaint. You don't get to choose what your character says. You get to "guide" what they say and sometimes not even that because Bioware seems fond of taking the ball and running with it in some direction without further input. It gives you unpleasant experiences like turning "so why am I not being paid?" into a combat segment because apparently your character didn't really ask but threaten violence.

Modifié par Mad Method, 07 mars 2011 - 05:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mad Method wrote...

So long as the PC is a player-defined character, yes.

I don't see how the player could possibly maintain a coherent personality for his character without having designed it himself.

[Mad Method]

Sylvius, I find that it is usually the predefined characters who have more coherent personalities.

[mesmerizedish]

Mad Method wrote...

Sylvius, I find that it is usually the predefined characters who have more coherent personalities.

Ideally, the PC is predefined. By the player.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mad Method wrote...

Sylvius, I find that it is usually the predefined characters who have more coherent personalities.

Wait, what?

If you defined the character, then his personality is as coherent as you want to make it.

If you didn't define the character, then the only way for the writers to maintain a coherent personality for him is not to let you make any decisions for him (this is basically how ME worked).

You basically can't play a coherent character unless you designed it, as the way coherence is maintained for pre-gen characters is by not letting you control them.

[bill4747bill]

Solution that would perhaps please Sylvius:

A toggle for 'Hawke Banter Involvement'

Options are good, right?

[Mad Method]

Sylvius, if you defined the character, then his personality is as coherent as you have freedom for within the confines of the game. Lets say this is an adventure game: Your pacifist isn't going to do well if your choices become either assassinate an opponent or accept a duel while talking things out or diplomatic pressure are not listed as options. This hurts the coherence of your character as soon as you make a choice.

If you didn't define the character, then either the decisions are, yes, made for you or you simply are allowed decisions, but you don't get to determine your character's personality and reasons with them.

Modifié par Mad Method, 07 mars 2011 - 06:16 .

[mesmerizedish]

bill4747bill wrote...

Solution that would perhaps please Sylvius:

A toggle for 'Hawke Banter Involvement'

Options are good, right?

Options suck, but toggles fix everything

[Ignoble Fat Man]

Sylvius is a troll. He does jump to conclusions. Notice his lack of question marks as an example of making statements and not asking questions. Sometimes he does try to make his statements questions but obviously is drawing conclusions before getting answers.

DA2 is a game not a life simulator.

[mesmerizedish]

Ignoble Fat Man wrote...

Sylvius is a troll. He does jump to conclusions. Notice his lack of question marks as an example of making statements and not asking questions. Sometimes he does try to make his statements questions but obviously is drawing conclusions before getting answers.

DA2 is a game not a life simulator.

Sylvius is not a troll. I hate it when people say that. Just because he's unreasonable in his refusal to compromise what he sees as the lifeblood of CRPGs doesn't mean he's a troll.