This could make for some dramatic scenes in the game. If your Hawke was a mage lover and a mage did something horrible to a loved one then you could have a sceen where you could make a dramatic switch and have your character hate mages now (and actually have a character arc). Or if something really bad happens and you are religious, you could now have a crisis of faith and choose to hate the maker. It brings up some interesting roleplaying options.
There is also the problem of Hawke not wanting to get flagged for a dialouge choice made to appease companions rather than being something Hawke actually believes in. This would be no problem with the handy dandy "bluff button" in the middle of the dialouge wheel. Press it then pick your dialouge option and the game flags it as a bluff. It won't flag it as part of your core personality but it will flag it as a bluff to a particular character and track it, noting that you are saying this dialouge not because it is part of your core personality but because you want a desired result from saying this dialouge to a certain character. So if you continually bluff the same character and pick options that the character will like then the game flags that you want to be nice to this character despite your core personality being an ****. Or it could even go vice versa, you could be nice but want to antagonize a certain party member for some reason. So even though your character may be a complete jerk, it will use what would have been the "nice" dialouge on this certain character. Excessively using the bluff button may also be a personality option all of it's own, and "bluffer" could be your personality. You could also put non combat abilities back in to include the persuasion talent. This would make your character have to do a bluff roll which is countered by the person you are trying to bluff. A failed role would give you the opposite effect of the choice you picked. It would also be much harder to bluff Isabella or Verric than say Merrill in this system.
So what does everyone think? Am I off base on this or do we think we can still roleplay with a fully voiced avatar with a system like this?
Edit: To avoid confusion I'll point out that my post is working under the assumption that in Origins many people liked the voiceless avatar because they could imagine themselves what the avatar was saying when they picked a response. I think those people feel restricted with Hawke voicing their responses. While I sympathize with this view as it is one that I share myself, I also don't think that we'll be returning to the voiceless avatar any time soon. I think that we can have a voiced avatar, with the restrictions that having a voiced avatar brings, yet still give people many options to feel like they are in control of that voiced avatar's personality. The other assumption I am making is that choice makes people feel like they are in control. In Origin's we had several choices that significantly impacted the game world (werewolves vs. elves/ saving or abandoning Redcliff, etc.) I think that if we brought that same level of choice to Hawke's personality that we can satisfy the roleplayers that feel left out by the restrictions of having Hawke voice their responses.
Modifié par Hatchetman77, 14 avril 2011 - 03:58 .
Retour en haut
