180 réponses à ce sujet

[abnocte]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But the non-literal content of those responses is yours alone. The game doesn't provide tone or delivery. The game is entierly unaware of your or your character's intent. Why did he choose to say that thing? Only you know that.
But a system like DA2 that hands intent to you, limiting you to a short list of lines and intent combined is far more restrictive.
Furthermore, without a voiced PC there's no particular reason for you to believe that the dialogue option you choose represents the exact words your character speaks. You could design a character who never ends sentences with prepositions, but that doesn't force you to choose dialogue options that don't end with prepositions. Since the game is unlikely ever to comment on the prepositions specifically, you could do whatever you like with those prepositions.
The dialogue options with a silent PC are no less abstract than the keyword or text-parsing inputs in games ranging from the early Ultimas to TES4. In those games, your character is not walking around shouting single words at people unless you want him to do that), regardless of what the conversation UI elements say.

So...

If DA2 gives you 6 dialog options and each option has a predefined intent ( or voiced in a certain way ), you only get 6 ways to roleplay your character.

If DAO gives you 6 dialog options with no intent ( or voiced in a certain way ), you can put into each line whaterver intent you( the player ) want. So we get 6*n ways to roleplay our character.

Obviously   6*n > 6

I see now that I choose dialog options that I think suit better my character's overall "personality".  That's why I failed to see the huge difference between the wheel and the mute tree. I was already assigning a single intent to each line...and got annoyed each time I wanted to lie and didn't get a [lie] tag in game...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In addition to those times when Hawke speaks without you having had any direct input at all, that he ever speaks contrary to how you would have had him speak, given the option to choose differently, is simply unacceptable. In DAO, the Warden never said anything that you didn't consciously and explicitly elect to have him say. That should be the standard against which all other dialogue systems are judged.
If the PC ever says something you wouldn't have chosen, the game fails the test.

I can agree with that.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I maintain that being able to choose is more important than having those choices acknowledged by the game.

Erm...I think this gave me quite the insight into what you want/expect from a videogame...and can only say that I never looked at a videogame in that way.... as with the [lie] tag I commented above, I expected the game to "be aware" that my character is a liar... 

Well, I learned something new today...  ( if I actually got that right.... )

[abnocte]

BobSmith101 wrote...

abnocte wrote...
Edit: Ok, now that I think about it Hawke talked more than once without me choosing any option...ok, we get a little less "freedom" in roleplaying....

Hawke does a lot of stuff without your input. In a CRPG that's kind of problem.

But it's also the paraphrasing system, not knowing what you will say before you say it. It's very clear that you are an observer not the character.

Even if you can only get a "best fit" in games not intended for one character, it's still better than having no idea what will be said before the line is delivered. It goes from a roleplaying experience, to a movie experience.

I can agree with that.

As I went to bed yesterday thinking about this I realized that my two favorite Shepars are the ones I played after various playthroughs, why? because I already knew word by word what they were going to say, so I could shape their personality better, instead of just thinking If I was going the paragon or renegade route.

Makes me wonder if a wheel that showed the full text would be so awful as developers have commented...

[AkiKishi]

abnocte wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

abnocte wrote...
Edit: Ok, now that I think about it Hawke talked more than once without me choosing any option...ok, we get a little less "freedom" in roleplaying....

Hawke does a lot of stuff without your input. In a CRPG that's kind of problem.

But it's also the paraphrasing system, not knowing what you will say before you say it. It's very clear that you are an observer not the character.

Even if you can only get a "best fit" in games not intended for one character, it's still better than having no idea what will be said before the line is delivered. It goes from a roleplaying experience, to a movie experience.

I can agree with that.

As I went to bed yesterday thinking about this I realized that my two favorite Shepars are the ones I played after various playthroughs, why? because I already knew word by word what they were going to say, so I could shape their personality better, instead of just thinking If I was going the paragon or renegade route.

Makes me wonder if a wheel that showed the full text would be so awful as developers have commented...

I don't think it would be awful, just a bit redundant.

I really miss the voice in cutscenes in DA, but I don't even notice it in choice making. I'm too focused on weighing up dialogue against my characters personality.

Lot's of JRPGs are partly voiced in this way. Not sure it that would work here or not.

[Addai]

Some players certainly do. I always prefer being able to shape my character as much as possible. The spouse, who's an old-time gamer, feels even more strongly about it- he won't play The Witcher because it's a preset character. Shepard and Hawke won't be as real to me as my Wardens. The preset character and dialogue wheel were not an impediment to enjoying the game, but are impediments to replaying.

[Zem_]

abnocte wrote...

So...

If DA2 gives you 6 dialog options and each option has a predefined intent ( or voiced in a certain way ), you only get 6 ways to roleplay your character.

If DAO gives you 6 dialog options with no intent ( or voiced in a certain way ), you can put into each line whaterver intent you( the player ) want. So we get 6*n ways to roleplay our character.

No.  This is simply not the case.  Say for example the line of dialogue is, "Yes.  Attacking them now would be a great idea!"   As you can imagine, this line is saying two completely different things if read sarcastically vs. sincerely.  The choice however, is NOT yours.  This line is one or the other and the NPC you're talking to is pre-programmed to take it one of those two ways.  The only difference between this and what we have in DA2 is the lack of an icon TELLING you which way the line will be received.

So while you can imagine your character speaks with a particular voice quality (has a lisp, rolls the r's, sounds like an Orlesian... whatever) you in no way have more choices as to your actual meaning because this is defined by how the listener reacts.

So yes, you lose the above ability to imagine how your character sounds, but to me this is a fairly superficial thing if it has nothing to do with adding any REAL choices.  In exchange you get a character that can actually speak in cutscenes and has a name people can use when referring to you instead of just calling you "Warden" all the time.  Which one you value more is of course up to you.

[tiernanls]

i think were all just spoiled a bit when it comes to certain rpg's these days. on the consoles kotor blew it open for me followed by oblivion. what did we have before that? the unending sea of final fantasies that were more akin to reading a book. seeing how far they can take how your choices effect the outcome of the game is of course desirable. but at the end of the day i much prefer the rpg options available to me now as opposed to the ones available to me 10-15 yrs ago. its getting much much better. and like a previous poster mentioned.... the more playthroughs you do the more you are able to shape the player into exactly what you want to get the specific experience you are looking for. there is still room to grow, but i would take anything bioware puts out over anything square puts out any day of the week.

[Morroian]

abnocte wrote...

So...

If DA2 gives you 6 dialog options and each option has a predefined intent ( or voiced in a certain way ), you only get 6 ways to roleplay your character.

If DAO gives you 6 dialog options with no intent ( or voiced in a certain way ), you can put into each line whaterver intent you( the player ) want. So we get 6*n ways to roleplay our character.

Problem with that is the other characters then respond in a certain way that makes it clear my intent was incorrect. That breaks immersion for me and did quite a few times in DAO. Sylvius would say he factors the response into his world view but not everyone plays like that especially when we're given rewards for trying to increase friendship/rivalry.

Modifié par Morroian, 01 avril 2011 - 09:43 .

[fn_outlaw]

tiernanls wrote...

i think were all just spoiled a bit when it comes to certain rpg's these days. on the consoles kotor blew it open for me followed by oblivion. what did we have before that? the unending sea of final fantasies that were more akin to reading a book. seeing how far they can take how your choices effect the outcome of the game is of course desirable. but at the end of the day i much prefer the rpg options available to me now as opposed to the ones available to me 10-15 yrs ago. its getting much much better. and like a previous poster mentioned.... the more playthroughs you do the more you are able to shape the player into exactly what you want to get the specific experience you are looking for. there is still room to grow, but i would take anything bioware puts out over anything square puts out any day of the week.

Spoiled or not, the price of games keeps raising.  IMO, the bar should justly be raised.  To say, we're spoiled, suggests that we're 'given' something, but we're not.  We pay them to make a game.  Just because what we had before sucked in comparison, doesn't mean we should lower the bar.  I'm not desolate or anything, but I work hard for the little I make and would rather not waste it....

[Aireoth]

tiernanls wrote...

i think were all just spoiled a bit when it comes to certain rpg's these days. on the consoles kotor blew it open for me followed by oblivion. what did we have before that? the unending sea of final fantasies that were more akin to reading a book. seeing how far they can take how your choices effect the outcome of the game is of course desirable. but at the end of the day i much prefer the rpg options available to me now as opposed to the ones available to me 10-15 yrs ago. its getting much much better. and like a previous poster mentioned.... the more playthroughs you do the more you are able to shape the player into exactly what you want to get the specific experience you are looking for. there is still room to grow, but i would take anything bioware puts out over anything square puts out any day of the week.

I don't think we are spoiled these days, I do think that graphics have improved dramatically helping the masses get more into the game. Going back to the classics, such as Fallout 1 & 2, they where every bit as deep RPG wise as any of today's offerings. Going back further there are superb games such as Wasteland, Mega Traveller 2, Albion, and to be honest the list goes on for a bit. Yes the UI in many of those games suffers, but thats where the real improvement has been made, in many of the other areas we have actually taken a step backwards. 

[abnocte]

Zem_ wrote...

No.  This is simply not the case.  Say for example the line of dialogue is, "Yes.  Attacking them now would be a great idea!"   As you can imagine, this line is saying two completely different things if read sarcastically vs. sincerely.  The choice however, is NOT yours.  This line is one or the other and the NPC you're talking to is pre-programmed to take it one of those two ways.  The only difference between this and what we have in DA2 is the lack of an icon TELLING you which way the line will be received.

So while you can imagine your character speaks with a particular voice quality (has a lisp, rolls the r's, sounds like an Orlesian... whatever) you in no way have more choices as to your actual meaning because this is defined by how the listener reacts.

So yes, you lose the above ability to imagine how your character sounds, but to me this is a fairly superficial thing if it has nothing to do with adding any REAL choices.  In exchange you get a character that can actually speak in cutscenes and has a name people can use when referring to you instead of just calling you "Warden" all the time.  Which one you value more is of course up to you.

I was just stating what, for what I understood, Sylvius was trying to explain to me. 

I, like you, expect the game to react to the literal meaning of the sentence I pick. So I didn't understood what was the huge difference between the tree and the wheel.

But while both games can react the same to a given sentence, with the mute tree the intent of the player is never overriden, with the wheel they already tell you what the intent is.

Not sure I'm making any sense...

Morroian wrote...

Problem with that is the other characters then respond in a certain way that makes it clear my intent was incorrect. That breaks immersion for me and did quite a few times in DAO.

More than once in real life I said something with a sarcastic intent, yet the person I was talking to though I was serious, that doesn't mean my intent was incorrect.

Morroian wrote...

Sylvius would say he factors the response into his world view but not everyone plays like that especially when we're given rewards for trying to increase friendship/rivalry. 

And that's why I said that I never looked at videogames the way he does, because I don't do it either. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a point given his prespective...

Modifié par abnocte, 01 avril 2011 - 10:27 .

[fn_outlaw]

If you think about it, and how often it actually happens IRL, Sylvius's view is a little more realistic.

IRL conversations are all about interpretation. If the person you're talking to takes it the wrong way, then you might have to back track and try another route. I've had some time to consider Silvius's perspective and I've realized that I actually play similarly. In Origins, I would interpret what I thought the dialogue options were and how I would say them and, on occasion would be disappointed/shocked at how the NPC responded, based off of my interpretation was. My experience would thusly be different in DA2, simply because the dialogue wheel/Hawk's delivery ensures that it cannot be otherwise interpreted.

I realize that it made it a little more interesting to have to pick my choices carefully and I've always enjoyed a consequence for saying the wrong thing...IMO...

[tiernanls]

fn_outlaw wrote...

tiernanls wrote...

i think were all just spoiled a bit when it comes to certain rpg's these days. on the consoles kotor blew it open for me followed by oblivion. what did we have before that? the unending sea of final fantasies that were more akin to reading a book. seeing how far they can take how your choices effect the outcome of the game is of course desirable. but at the end of the day i much prefer the rpg options available to me now as opposed to the ones available to me 10-15 yrs ago. its getting much much better. and like a previous poster mentioned.... the more playthroughs you do the more you are able to shape the player into exactly what you want to get the specific experience you are looking for. there is still room to grow, but i would take anything bioware puts out over anything square puts out any day of the week.

Spoiled or not, the price of games keeps raising.  IMO, the bar should justly be raised.  To say, we're spoiled, suggests that we're 'given' something, but we're not.  We pay them to make a game.  Just because what we had before sucked in comparison, doesn't mean we should lower the bar.  I'm not desolate or anything, but I work hard for the little I make and would rather not waste it....

game prices have not raised all that greatly when you adjust for inflation.  its not like every sequel costs 5 bucks more than the last one.  every next-gen game costs 60 bucks.  period.  thats only 10 bucks more than the the last gen.  and often the cpu iteration is 10 bucks cheaper.  couple this with the FACT that the cost of game development has skyrocketed way beyond the proportional increases of the price of each new generation.  games on the nes were still 40-50 bucks brand new, and it was much cheaper to develop back then.  now the cost of developing the game often is equivalent to the cost of making a huge blockbuster movie, and they often reap half the profits a movie does.  so when you say the bar should be raised i would suggest that the bar has been raised by the developers themselves.  they have constantly pushed the envelop of what we all believed to be possible and its seems to me that 10-15 years ago we would be thrilled at the advancements in the technology and coding, and now its kind of like its never good enough.  every board has hoardes of people showing up in droves to bash said new game because it doesnt perfectly represent that which pops in their head when they read a book or fantasize themselves. 

and your perception of what you are paying for is just completely wrong.  YOU are not paying them to make anything.  the development costs of every game are paid by the developers or their distributors alone.  you risk nothing if they make a crappy game and no one buys it.  they do.  how you feel about it one way or the other should matter very little as pertaining to the actual content.  of course its a game, and it has to function, and it has to be playable, but as far as content?  the last thing i want is for any person in any artistic medium to give any kind of rats ass about what the public wants them to do.  i liken game content to writing a book, or writing music.  i want the artist to do whats in their hearts to do.  they are the creative outlet not us.  of course im sure they hope we like it, but i also hope they are not making a game with trying to please specific ideologies in mind.  if you like it great.  well make more.  if you dont like it well... dont buy it. 

if your chief concern really is whether or not you are wasting your hard earned income than the solution is simple.  there is not any major complaint ive heard one way or the other that couldnt have been gleamed from playing the demo.  if you absolutely did not like the demo, than i would suggest your wasted money is on you.  if youre truly concerned about preserving the value of your specific dollar you should do the proper research involved with helping you come to the simple conclusion of whether you would or would not like the game.  if you do that and take a chance well...  you took the chance.  its on you. 

[tiernanls]

Aireoth wrote...

tiernanls wrote...

i think were all just spoiled a bit when it comes to certain rpg's these days. on the consoles kotor blew it open for me followed by oblivion. what did we have before that? the unending sea of final fantasies that were more akin to reading a book. seeing how far they can take how your choices effect the outcome of the game is of course desirable. but at the end of the day i much prefer the rpg options available to me now as opposed to the ones available to me 10-15 yrs ago. its getting much much better. and like a previous poster mentioned.... the more playthroughs you do the more you are able to shape the player into exactly what you want to get the specific experience you are looking for. there is still room to grow, but i would take anything bioware puts out over anything square puts out any day of the week.

I don't think we are spoiled these days, I do think that graphics have improved dramatically helping the masses get more into the game. Going back to the classics, such as Fallout 1 & 2, they where every bit as deep RPG wise as any of today's offerings. Going back further there are superb games such as Wasteland, Mega Traveller 2, Albion, and to be honest the list goes on for a bit. Yes the UI in many of those games suffers, but thats where the real improvement has been made, in many of the other areas we have actually taken a step backwards. 

stuff like this is in the eye of the beholder.  i didnt particularly love either fallout one or two.  i liked them well enough to play 3, and 3 was amazing imo.  just like the transition of the elder scrolls series into oblivion.  oblivion was a huge leap if you ask me.  and when bioware did kotor it was another huge leap imo.  culminating that leap into mass effect.  but thats just me.  i play a game like oblivion or mass effect and i think "this is what an rpg is supposed to be.  all others now pale in comparison".  but again, thats just me. 

[TheJist]

tiernanls wrote...

Aireoth wrote...

tiernanls wrote...

i think were all just spoiled a bit when it comes to certain rpg's these days. on the consoles kotor blew it open for me followed by oblivion. what did we have before that? the unending sea of final fantasies that were more akin to reading a book. seeing how far they can take how your choices effect the outcome of the game is of course desirable. but at the end of the day i much prefer the rpg options available to me now as opposed to the ones available to me 10-15 yrs ago. its getting much much better. and like a previous poster mentioned.... the more playthroughs you do the more you are able to shape the player into exactly what you want to get the specific experience you are looking for. there is still room to grow, but i would take anything bioware puts out over anything square puts out any day of the week.

I don't think we are spoiled these days, I do think that graphics have improved dramatically helping the masses get more into the game. Going back to the classics, such as Fallout 1 & 2, they where every bit as deep RPG wise as any of today's offerings. Going back further there are superb games such as Wasteland, Mega Traveller 2, Albion, and to be honest the list goes on for a bit. Yes the UI in many of those games suffers, but thats where the real improvement has been made, in many of the other areas we have actually taken a step backwards. 

stuff like this is in the eye of the beholder.  i didnt particularly love either fallout one or two.  i liked them well enough to play 3, and 3 was amazing imo.  just like the transition of the elder scrolls series into oblivion.  oblivion was a huge leap if you ask me.  and when bioware did kotor it was another huge leap imo.  culminating that leap into mass effect.  but thats just me.  i play a game like oblivion or mass effect and i think "this is what an rpg is supposed to be.  all others now pale in comparison".  but again, thats just me. 

I weep for my gaming future if this is the majority opinion.

[fn_outlaw]

tiernanls wrote...

game prices have not raised all that greatly when you adjust for inflation.  its not like every sequel costs 5 bucks more than the last one.  every next-gen game costs 60 bucks.  period.  thats only 10 bucks more than the the last gen.  and often the cpu iteration is 10 bucks cheaper.  couple this with the FACT that the cost of game development has skyrocketed way beyond the proportional increases of the price of each new generation.  games on the nes were still 40-50 bucks brand new, and it was much cheaper to develop back then.  now the cost of developing the game often is equivalent to the cost of making a huge blockbuster movie, and they often reap half the profits a movie does.  so when you say the bar should be raised i would suggest that the bar has been raised by the developers themselves.  they have constantly pushed the envelop of what we all believed to be possible and its seems to me that 10-15 years ago we would be thrilled at the advancements in the technology and coding, and now its kind of like its never good enough.  every board has hoardes of people showing up in droves to bash said new game because it doesnt perfectly represent that which pops in their head when they read a book or fantasize themselves. 

and your perception of what you are paying for is just completely wrong.  YOU are not paying them to make anything.  the development costs of every game are paid by the developers or their distributors alone.  you risk nothing if they make a crappy game and no one buys it.  they do.  how you feel about it one way or the other should matter very little as pertaining to the actual content.  of course its a game, and it has to function, and it has to be playable, but as far as content?  the last thing i want is for any person in any artistic medium to give any kind of rats ass about what the public wants them to do.  i liken game content to writing a book, or writing music.  i want the artist to do whats in their hearts to do.  they are the creative outlet not us.  of course im sure they hope we like it, but i also hope they are not making a game with trying to please specific ideologies in mind.  if you like it great.  well make more.  if you dont like it well... dont buy it. 

if your chief concern really is whether or not you are wasting your hard earned income than the solution is simple.  there is not any major complaint ive heard one way or the other that couldnt have been gleamed from playing the demo.  if you absolutely did not like the demo, than i would suggest your wasted money is on you.  if youre truly concerned about preserving the value of your specific dollar you should do the proper research involved with helping you come to the simple conclusion of whether you would or would not like the game.  if you do that and take a chance well...  you took the chance.  its on you. 

0.0 Addressing this wall of text...amazing that my initial response was but barely a paragraph....

I won't pretend to be an economist and suggest a counter-arguement, but this table should demonstrate the 'inflation' of the US Dollar over the past three years. I didn't see prices drop when inflation dropped....

To further my point, since you used technology in your example, I'll use it in mine as well. Because it makes people's jobs easier.

Next...lets see....yep, games don't quite make as much as movies...but, let's consider the COST of making a movie vs. a video game. I doubt Mark Meer makes as much as a hollywood actor...so, there's that...

Before I move on, I'm going to correct your English. It isn't possible for one's perception to be wrong. Perception is interpretation. Saying my perception is wrong is like saying my opinion is wrong...
I believe the word you're looking for is: conception, which infers understanding.

That said: I'm buying a non-returnable product. My perception is: it's going to be a video game. A decent game, if I don't know the company making it, a good game (debatable at this point)if it's done by Bioware. I'm paying for something that I expect to be worthy of Bioware's reputation. You'll have to forgive me, if IMO, the game is not up to snuff...unless my perception is invalid because it's wrong...(see what I did there?)
I don't care what they do with the game.

Lastly, what demo did you play? There is a laundry list of problems in the main game that were not present in the demo. Let's start with the recycled dungeons. Did your demo have those in it? Mine didn't. Hmph...what else...well, there's the bugs...black screen bugs, release date bugs (the software designed to check the release date)...and that's not mentioning broken quests in the game. Yep, paid $40 bucks for Super Mario World, but it worked. Could play it from start to finish without any issues....

Since none of the above are listed on the game box, I find your arguement of "don't buy" invalid. I have no choice but to wait for a patch, since I live in the great USA, where we can't return PC games....

[tiernanls]

fn_outlaw wrote...

tiernanls wrote...

game prices have not raised all that greatly when you adjust for inflation.  its not like every sequel costs 5 bucks more than the last one.  every next-gen game costs 60 bucks.  period.  thats only 10 bucks more than the the last gen.  and often the cpu iteration is 10 bucks cheaper.  couple this with the FACT that the cost of game development has skyrocketed way beyond the proportional increases of the price of each new generation.  games on the nes were still 40-50 bucks brand new, and it was much cheaper to develop back then.  now the cost of developing the game often is equivalent to the cost of making a huge blockbuster movie, and they often reap half the profits a movie does.  so when you say the bar should be raised i would suggest that the bar has been raised by the developers themselves.  they have constantly pushed the envelop of what we all believed to be possible and its seems to me that 10-15 years ago we would be thrilled at the advancements in the technology and coding, and now its kind of like its never good enough.  every board has hoardes of people showing up in droves to bash said new game because it doesnt perfectly represent that which pops in their head when they read a book or fantasize themselves. 

and your perception of what you are paying for is just completely wrong.  YOU are not paying them to make anything.  the development costs of every game are paid by the developers or their distributors alone.  you risk nothing if they make a crappy game and no one buys it.  they do.  how you feel about it one way or the other should matter very little as pertaining to the actual content.  of course its a game, and it has to function, and it has to be playable, but as far as content?  the last thing i want is for any person in any artistic medium to give any kind of rats ass about what the public wants them to do.  i liken game content to writing a book, or writing music.  i want the artist to do whats in their hearts to do.  they are the creative outlet not us.  of course im sure they hope we like it, but i also hope they are not making a game with trying to please specific ideologies in mind.  if you like it great.  well make more.  if you dont like it well... dont buy it. 

if your chief concern really is whether or not you are wasting your hard earned income than the solution is simple.  there is not any major complaint ive heard one way or the other that couldnt have been gleamed from playing the demo.  if you absolutely did not like the demo, than i would suggest your wasted money is on you.  if youre truly concerned about preserving the value of your specific dollar you should do the proper research involved with helping you come to the simple conclusion of whether you would or would not like the game.  if you do that and take a chance well...  you took the chance.  its on you. 

0.0 Addressing this wall of text...amazing that my initial response was but barely a paragraph....

I won't pretend to be an economist and suggest a counter-arguement, but this table should demonstrate the 'inflation' of the US Dollar over the past three years. I didn't see prices drop when inflation dropped....

To further my point, since you used technology in your example, I'll use it in mine as well. Because it makes people's jobs easier.

Next...lets see....yep, games don't quite make as much as movies...but, let's consider the COST of making a movie vs. a video game. I doubt Mark Meer makes as much as a hollywood actor...so, there's that...

Before I move on, I'm going to correct your English. It isn't possible for one's perception to be wrong. Perception is interpretation. Saying my perception is wrong is like saying my opinion is wrong...
I believe the word you're looking for is: conception, which infers understanding.

That said: I'm buying a non-returnable product. My perception is: it's going to be a video game. A decent game, if I don't know the company making it, a good game (debatable at this point)if it's done by Bioware. I'm paying for something that I expect to be worthy of Bioware's reputation. You'll have to forgive me, if IMO, the game is not up to snuff...unless my perception is invalid because it's wrong...(see what I did there?)
I don't care what they do with the game.

Lastly, what demo did you play? There is a laundry list of problems in the main game that were not present in the demo. Let's start with the recycled dungeons. Did your demo have those in it? Mine didn't. Hmph...what else...well, there's the bugs...black screen bugs, release date bugs (the software designed to check the release date)...and that's not mentioning broken quests in the game. Yep, paid $40 bucks for Super Mario World, but it worked. Could play it from start to finish without any issues....

Since none of the above are listed on the game box, I find your arguement of "don't buy" invalid. I have no choice but to wait for a patch, since I live in the great USA, where we can't return PC games....

please stick to your day job and leave policing the english language to those qualified to do so. 



per·cep·tion –noun


1.
the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.
2.
immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception.
3.
the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.
4.
Psychology . a single unified awareness derived from sensory processes while a stimulus is present.
5.
Law . the taking into possession of rents, crops, profits, etc.

pretty clear to me the bolded was its applied usage.



per·ceive –verb (used with object), -ceived, -ceiv·ing.


1.
to become aware of, know
2.
to recognize, discern, envision, or understand: I perceive a note of sarcasm in your voice. This is a nice idea but I perceive difficulties in putting it into practice. , or identify by means of the senses: I perceived an object looming through the mist.



and quite frankly you could argue based off any of the possible usages of perception that anyones "perception" could be wrong.  making my statement that much more accurate.  you claim its impossible for me to say your perception is wrong because its "interpretation".  well what if you are a complete moron?  what if your perception is based on things that arent true or are a result of an isolated childhood.  adam sandler in the waterboy had the perception that his mom invented just about everything.  was it correct?  no.  a person's perception can be, and often is wrong.  most often because it was formed based on belief in false or inaccurate statements.  so yeah.  you arent paying anybody to make anything.  if you were, you would have to share some of the risk if the game tanks.  you dont.  and fyi if youre gonna for the internet grammar police thing (which is the weakest part of any internet argument) its much easier to just go after my absolute refusal to properly capitalize or punctuate anything.  autocorrect in word ruined me a long long time ago. 

and in my opinion the rest of your responses made little to no sense in the context of what i actually said.  you clearly misunderstood or had no desire to understand.  no one on here truly cares about your wasted money but you.  and dear lord why in the hell would argue against infaltion over the past 3 years?  how long have games been 60 bucks (50 for you since youre a pc gamer)????  right.  im not saying they have gone up based on inflation.  i clearly said taht if you account for inflation since the price bracket shifted from 50 to 60 (40-50 for you) than they really havent gone up that much if at all.  your reading comprehension is severely lacking.  ill just leave it at that. 

[tiernanls]

TheJist wrote...

tiernanls wrote...

Aireoth wrote...

tiernanls wrote...

i think were all just spoiled a bit when it comes to certain rpg's these days. on the consoles kotor blew it open for me followed by oblivion. what did we have before that? the unending sea of final fantasies that were more akin to reading a book. seeing how far they can take how your choices effect the outcome of the game is of course desirable. but at the end of the day i much prefer the rpg options available to me now as opposed to the ones available to me 10-15 yrs ago. its getting much much better. and like a previous poster mentioned.... the more playthroughs you do the more you are able to shape the player into exactly what you want to get the specific experience you are looking for. there is still room to grow, but i would take anything bioware puts out over anything square puts out any day of the week.

I don't think we are spoiled these days, I do think that graphics have improved dramatically helping the masses get more into the game. Going back to the classics, such as Fallout 1 & 2, they where every bit as deep RPG wise as any of today's offerings. Going back further there are superb games such as Wasteland, Mega Traveller 2, Albion, and to be honest the list goes on for a bit. Yes the UI in many of those games suffers, but thats where the real improvement has been made, in many of the other areas we have actually taken a step backwards. 

stuff like this is in the eye of the beholder.  i didnt particularly love either fallout one or two.  i liked them well enough to play 3, and 3 was amazing imo.  just like the transition of the elder scrolls series into oblivion.  oblivion was a huge leap if you ask me.  and when bioware did kotor it was another huge leap imo.  culminating that leap into mass effect.  but thats just me.  i play a game like oblivion or mass effect and i think "this is what an rpg is supposed to be.  all others now pale in comparison".  but again, thats just me. 

I weep for my gaming future if this is the majority opinion.

if you weep for your gaming future at all youve got bigger problems than your gaming future. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zem_ wrote...

Are they really "great" swaths?  Maybe Varric is not going into them in detail because nothing of note happened?

But things of note are happening.  he's describing things of note; he's just not going into detail about them.  perhaps they're not relevant to the story he's telling Cassandra, but that doesn't prevent them from being relevant to me.

I wouldn't mind if he didn't describe what happened during those periods, or if his descriptions were more ambiguous, but he's describing things like "rising through the ranks" when we don't get any say in it.

Luckily, the prologue demonstrates told that he's not a reliable narrator, so we're free to believe that he's wrong about what happened during that period.  Except that the subsequent world in which we play behaves as if he was correct.

You say you don't have a problem with the framed narrative, but you're also saying it's impossible to have a game that covers a time period longer than it takes to actually play the game.  Perhaps you allow time to pass during overland travel or while sleeping?  But again, why?

Because I chose to travel that route, so I had some say in what took place.  Similarly, I chose to sleep, so I was in control of my character's behaviour while he was sleeping (and if that sleep is interrupted, I should be handed back control of my character).

Working for Athenril for a year is one thing.  But my character's level of competence and commitment, that's something the game should leave to me.

If someone ran up to you on the street and started talking about how you saved the city from a second invasion of Qunari or something during the missing years, then I'd agree with you.  Otherwise, I don't see how skipping over the "boring" years in DA2 is much different than any other RPG presenting you with a young-adult just starting out as an adventurer rather than demanding you play out your childhood on the farm in the country in real-time until something interesting happens.

Good RPGs don't do that.  Even KotOR, which took a bunch of time out for the PC to learn to be a Jedi, asked the player first if he wanted to do that (the only available option was yes, but at least he was consulted).

The game should not describe the events that took place in those interludes because the game can't know what those events were without depriving the player of agency.

abnocte wrote...

So...

If DA2 gives you 6 dialog options and each option has a predefined intent ( or voiced in a certain way ), you only get 6 ways to roleplay your character.

If DAO gives you 6 dialog options with no intent ( or voiced in a certain way ), you can put into each line whaterver intent you( the player ) want. So we get 6*n ways to roleplay our character.

Obviously   6*n > 6

Exactly.  The DAO system with the unvoiced protagonist offers a potentially infinite number of options.  The DA2 system offers a demonstrably finite number of options (and quite a small finite number--10 maximum).

I see now that I choose dialog options that I think suit better my character's overall "personality".  That's why I failed to see the huge difference between the wheel and the mute tree. I was already assigning a single intent to each line.

Whereas, I'm establishing my character's frame of mind prior to reading the options, so then I already have a tone and delivery plannedwhen I do.  I then choose the words that best express what I want in the tone I've already chosen.

..and got annoyed each time I wanted to lie and didn't get a [lie] tag in game...

Erm...I think this gave me quite the insight into what you want/expect from a videogame...and can only say that I never looked at a videogame in that way.... as with the [lie] tag I commented above, I expected the game to "be aware" that my character is a liar...

I think the [lie] tag is a terrible idea, and I don't ever want to see one.  I don't think the game should know when my character is lying, because there's no way it can credibly react to that knowledge.  The other characters don't know whether I'm lying.  It's possible my character hasn't even decided whether what he is saying is true (particulary if it's a promise of future action), so how can the game know?

Zem_ wrote...

No.  This is simply not the case.  Say for example the line of dialogue is, "Yes.  Attacking them now would be a great idea!"   As you can imagine, this line is saying two completely different things if read sarcastically vs. sincerely.  The choice however, is NOT yours.  This line is one or the other and the NPC you're talking to is pre-programmed to take it one of those two ways.  The only difference between this and what we have in DA2 is the lack of an icon TELLING you which way the line will be received.

No, the icon in DA2 tells you how the line will be received (which is meta-game knowledge, so I wouldn't ever take it into account anyway), but it also tells you how the line will be delivered, and that's something I'd much rather decide for myself.

So while you can imagine your character speaks with a particular voice quality (has a lisp, rolls the r's, sounds like an Orlesian... whatever) you in no way have more choices as to your actual meaning because this is defined by how the listener reacts.

No, you're completely wrong, and I have no idea how you ever came to this conclusion.

Why do you think that what you've said is determined by how someone reacts to it?  That's reverse causation.  What you said comes first, so the subsequent reaction cannot possibly affect what it was you sauid (or how you said it).

How can you think this is happening?  This makes no sense at all.

Morroian wrote...

Problem with that is the other characters then respond in a certain way that makes it clear my intent was incorrect. That breaks immersion for me and did quite a few times in DAO. Sylvius would say he factors the response into his world view but not everyone plays like that especially when we're given rewards for trying to increase friendship/rivalry.

Those rewards need to go away.  I like that the companions' behaviour is affected by how they feel about things, but making those changes obvious net benefits is a bad idea.  I'd much rather that the companions lost something of comparable value when they gain the Friendship or Rivalry bonuses.

As for factoring those responses into my world view, how could anyone not do this?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 avril 2011 - 09:34 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

fn_outlaw wrote...

I won't pretend to be an economist and suggest a counter-arguement, but this table should demonstrate the 'inflation' of the US Dollar over the past three years. I didn't see prices drop when inflation dropped....

First, inflation as measured by CPI isn't really inflation.  That's just the change in prices for consumers, which over the last few years has been muddied considerably by your plummetting housing costs.

Second, what affects the purchasing power of the dollar - actual inflation - is the increase in the money supply, and that's been spiralling out of control in the US for a few years now.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Morroian wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

I haven't yet played an RPG where I could roleplay with a voiced character. In my opinion it doesn't work and it can't work.

It worked for me. IMHO it just comes down to personal preference and the way people play.

Guessing at dialog responses that often don't come close to the words on the dialog wheel is hardly roleplaying.

[Taura-Tierno]

The dialogue options in DA:O didn't give an infinite amounts of intent. Not for the character. You could pick an option an intend something as a player, but every other character's reaction kind of determines in what way that phrase was spoken.

As for the OP: I do enjoy creating my own characters, but I haven't played a CRPG that allows that. They have to be predefined to a great extent to have a good story, or they have to put truly massive resources into actually allowing for a wide array of different backgrounds. The origins in DA:O were fun to play, but they didn't really affect the game that much. And those were still just 6 options. It was hardly "creating your own character". Neither Mass Effect, Kotor 1 or 2 or Baldur's Gate 2 allowed that, either.

I'm fine with how they've done it, in all games. Every way has its pros and cons, and every way fits a certain type of game better than others. They're all CRPG's, though, and you simply cannot create a character of your own in a CRPG. Not truly.

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

It worked for me. IMHO it just comes down to personal preference and the way people play.

Guessing at dialog responses that often don't come close to the words on the dialog wheel is hardly roleplaying.

I've said it before but Hawke has come alive for me as a fully realised character more than any of my wardens did ie. its a matter of personal preference.

[PunchoT]

DTKT wrote...

Create something with your mother, sister and brother. Fallout did something similar. You started as a child in the vault, went through your anniversary, the SPECIAL test and finally when you exit the Vault.  A similar flow could have been used for DAII. It would have helped tremendously with the flow and how attached you are to the NPC's.

Because honestly, I didnt give a damn about my mother or my sister. The comical death scene of your sibling also doesnt help.

Better yet, take out family aspects altogether, unless they would make the game that much better. Seems to me that so far games haven't really been able to pull off the emotiony~feely~touchy part about families. Albeit, Fallout did better than others simply because the family was central to the plot. The "families" in recent games seem only to bog things down. Now, a long lost sibling, parent, or relative are nice to have somewhere, even as a villain.

And yes, I, as a fantasy RPG player, DO prefer to make my own character. In fact, I miss my silent protagonist that could be of any race and background. I prefer to skip out on the familial, preset horse crap because I'd rather see my own character develop in their own way through the game. And whatever happened to the wealth of dialogue options RPG's used to have, like Planescape and Baldur's?

Modifié par PunchoT, 05 avril 2011 - 11:06 .

[22nd MadJack]

I could pretty much guarantee that the quantity of bleating on these forums would decrease in direct proportion to greater choice available at character creation.

Modifié par 22nd MadJack, 05 avril 2011 - 11:18 .

[Bootsykk]

Ponendus wrote...

The thing that confuses me about DA2, is that it uses practically the same formula as Mass Effect, the cinematic, framed narrative, preset protagonist style. There is no doubt that Mass Effect was wildly popular with the RPG crowd and the sci-fi crowd (or at least I think it was).

So, assuming all this negativity on the forums is actually representative of how most people feel about the game, why didn't it work for DA2? Is it because those that are a fan of the 'fantasy' genre prefer to make their own character? Or because they prefer a more open world experience? Is it as simple as that? Does anyone else know why this formula may not have worked as well?

Personally? I actually didn't mind Hawke so much. it really bugged me that I couldn't make my own character, but the immersion through family bonds helped a lot with the transition. I was just annoyed that so little was revealed about Hawke's early life, such as how they reacted to certain events, when carver/hawke rivalry started, why bethany seems closer to hawke than to carver from the very beginning (or at least, imo) etc, etc.