130 réponses à ce sujet

[Tekman9]

this is much ado about nothing =(

[elearon1]

Tekman9 wrote...

this is much ado about nothing =(

No, no, I've been in that play - it was much better.

[Zem_]

Phantom13NWN2 wrote...

Get rid of the dialogue wheel. Just that the character has a voice breaks immersion from a roleplaying perspective because its not your own voice

And the fact that the character is Hawke and not YOU doesn't?  The Warden and not YOU?  Doesn't look exactly like you (probably).  Doesn't have the same inability to cast magic spells or kill dragons with a sword as you.   How ever do you deal with all these immersion breaking differences between you and Hawke while the mere fact that it doesn't SOUND like you brings it all crashing down?

Fascinating.

secondly, giving the PC a voice takes up a LOT of content, disc space that could be better spend somewhere else, last, the dialogue wheel has so little options, you can be the comedian, the unbelievably nice guy, or the ****, thats it, and if you dont ALWAYS choose the same option in the same conversation, your character ends up sounding like he has multiple personalities, you cant for instance choose the upper choices then choose the bottom choice.

That's not a problem with the wheel.  That's a separate decision to have previous dialogue choices affect personality, something that Bioware has done in many of its games with alignment shifts, paragon/renegade scoring, and dark/light side meters.  The wheel itself is just a different way to present essentially the same set of pre-written responses you had to choose from before.  In fact, it is able to present MORE options than the previous list in DAO that was limited to something like 6 responses (just to avoid filling half the screen with a wall of text).

And as for being the good guy, bad guy, or sarcastic/snarky guy... these are the only choices you ever had.  You just didn't realize it because there wasn't an icon next to those choices.  You people need to stop kidding yourselves that a list of spelled-out canned responses in list form is somehow not as limited as a list of canned responses paraphrased and put on a wheel with icons.  It's just about the same damned thing.

[elearon1]

Zem_ wrote...
You people need to stop kidding yourselves that a list of spelled-out canned responses in list form is somehow not as limited as a list of canned responses paraphrased and put on a wheel with icons.  It's just about the same damned thing.

Less repetitive, though.  I am glad you didn't have to read your entire response, then listen to your character say it out loud ... why would a game need both options?  

[Hatchetman77]

Nightwriter wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...

I always thought the game should have tracked if your character was pro mage or pro templar on top of good/silly/bad.

Except, even as a mage, I remained neutral about the templar/mage issue until the very end of the game, when my hand was forced. Would your idea not inhibit my ability to roleplay a conflicted Hawke who sees fault on both sides of the issue and therefore is not totally pro-mage or totally pro-templar?

You'd still have the option of picking your side at critical junctures, however the dialouge between characters would change between characters, much like it does with the good/bad/smartass options.  When you talk to Meridith for example, she may be able to acknowledge your sensabilities and her dialouge would change accordingly, perhaps even giving you a different set of options than someone with a different sensibility on the issue.  Neutral stances on important topics in the game would have to be implemented as choices on the dialouge wheel (left side center would be a good place for them). 

Nightwriter wrote...
I like your idea about tracking atheism vs faith in the Maker, but again, what about religiously neutral or conflicted Hawkes?

It can be determined by flagging different dialouge options.  For example, I noticed in Origins there are a lot of dialouge options regarding the Maker.  You have the option of saying "Go with the Maker" several times.  Conversations with Leliana also have options to pick your views on faith.  There is a conversation with Wynne at Ostragar where you can acknowledge that many Chantry stories may only be stories. I began thinking that tracking your responses to these questions could give you a pretty good idea where your character stands.  I know I did in my head when I was roleplaying in Origins.  You can express belief in the Maker yet scepticism of the Chantry and their motives in different conversations with different people.  That could affect dialouge options when you talk to the Reverened Mother.  At character creation you may even have the option to set the starting point for these flags so you can create a Hawke with completley different sensabilities than another Hawke (Hawke's views on sexuality may be one of these settable flags as well and the game may acknowledge that, so the game knows that being nice to Anders =/= flirting with him if you pick that you are straight.  However picking the heart options could change that straight sensability and your character started with to become bisexual).

While that may sound a bit complex, it's important to note that only certain NPC's will care about certain sensabilities and different dialouge will only be affected by one or two sensabilities.  Many pieces of choosable dialouge would not be affected by any of them.  Talking to the Reverened Mother in the Chantry may cause the game to pull up a single flag on your character profile of "Maker Views",  replacing dialouge options of a character with faith with dialouge options of a character without faith.  Also, BioWare was famous for using the same response for multiple conversation choices on the dialouge tree in Origins so I don't think that would change under this system as well.  Even so, not all dialouge options on the wheel would change.  I can't imagine the smartass options changing much no matter what your views.  So basically any conversation affected by this would have a couple of extra lines of dialouge per dialouge wheel selection, assuming the selection is even affected at all by the character's beliefs. So continuing our example, now the next part of the conversation with the Reverened Mother may be more about the Chantry which is a completly different flag, and having differing opinions on the two topics would make your character conflicted.  You could have faith in the Maker and not in the Chantry, where dialouge options appear where you tell the Reverened Mother what YOU think Andraste or the Maker would think of a certain situation dispite the Chantry thinking otherwise.  This is opposed by a charcter of faith arguing out of context of the religion (ie. saying "but Reverened Mother, didn't Andraste say....").  Or say you bluffed your views on believing in the maker but firmly support the Chantry.  Now your character supports the Chantry as a social institution and not as a religious institution.  While that may not change any dialouge options, it could be flagged for later when your religious beliefs may be questioned, especially when it is by someone like the guardian of the Sacred Ashes from Origins.   

Nightwriter wrote...
The point is that there are an infinite amount of desirable roleplaying variables and combinations, but the game can't allow you to roleplay all of them.

Well, not really.  There are only a finite number of dialouge options related to issues in the game that can appear in the game.  If no dialouge appears regarding a certain issue then you are free as a player to make up in your own head whatever you think Hawke should believe in.  For issues that are important in the game the dialouge would track them and give you dialouge options as appropriate for the sensabilities of your character while also allowing you an option to flag an option in the opposite direction so you can change your views over time if you flag enough of those options.  Bluffing also gives you a free pass to select dialouge options while not changing your character's views regarding a certain topic.

[Hatchetman77]

Zem_ wrote...
What in the world does ANYTHING you wrote before this last line in your post have to do with a VOICED avatar?   

You're right, I should clarify that a little better.  Many people (myslef included) appreciated the voiceless avatar because you could bascially imagine they were saying whatever you wanted them to say when you picked an option.  The voiced avatar takes that away.  I can see how someone who did not feel the same way could miss this distinction which I though obvious in my post.  Thank you for pointing it out.  My original post has been edited to accomidate those who do not share my viewpoint.

I think a lot of conflict in these forums lately (aside from the blatent trolling) is resulting from people not understanding where the others are coming from. This seems to result in false assumptions being made and ending in useless arguments where people are arguing their false asumptions against the other side's assumptions.  Again, thanks for the helpful comment. 

[88mphSlayer]

in some ways even getting pre-written text for your character to say is much the same as fully voiced - it's a pre-created character with pre-written personalities and responses to everything

so what's my point? maybe Bethesda has it right - and the silent protagonist in an rpg is the only good way to do it with the technological limitations of today's games

i say technological limitations because i think the future of roleplay gaming is basically voiced versions of the old text-based rpg's where you had to ask questions yourself, and the personality of the player character was 1:1 with the player themselves

not to say games like Planescape Torment or The Witcher or Mass Effect are bad rpg's tho, they're great rpg's that just throw you in the shoes of an established voiced protagonist

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 14 avril 2011 - 04:06 .

[Hatchetman77]

88mphSlayer wrote...
i say technological limitations because i think the future of roleplay gaming is basically voiced versions of the old text-based rpg's where you had to ask questions yourself, and the personality of the player character was 1:1 with the player themselves

I completly agree.  I also think that you have to start somewhere with bridging that gap if you ever want to acheive somethiong close to that 1:1 ratio in a fully voiced RPG.

Modifié par Hatchetman77, 14 avril 2011 - 04:17 .

[AkiKishi]

88mphSlayer wrote...
not to say games like Planescape Torment or The Witcher or Mass Effect are bad rpg's tho, they're great rpg's that just throw you in the shoes of an established voiced protagonist

I gave up PC gaming prior to the Witcher. But PST worked because TNO had amnesia, it put player and character in the same place. When TNO wakes up and meets Morte he's just as clueless as you are.

It's not like suddenly being given a family you should have known for years but do not.

[88mphSlayer]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...
i say technological limitations because i think the future of roleplay gaming is basically voiced versions of the old text-based rpg's where you had to ask questions yourself, and the personality of the player character was 1:1 with the player themselves

I completly agree.  I also think that you have to start somewhere with bridging that gap if you ever want to acheive somethiong close to that 1:1 ratio in a fully voiced RPG.

yeah which is why i don't mind that games aren't where they should be right now... i know i didn't complain when 3d games were so blocky and unrefined, i prefer to look at execution of concept than execution itself

[88mphSlayer]

BobSmith101 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...
not to say games like Planescape Torment or The Witcher or Mass Effect are bad rpg's tho, they're great rpg's that just throw you in the shoes of an established voiced protagonist

I gave up PC gaming prior to the Witcher. But PST worked because TNO had amnesia, it put player and character in the same place. When TNO wakes up and meets Morte he's just as clueless as you are.

It's not like suddenly being given a family you should have known for years but do not.

amnesia in rpg's is kind of abused and overused, i think PST using amnesia right has less to do with the concept itself than the excellent writing and pacing that allows you to screw up so often, the problem is when you use amnesia but still need to railroad the player along a certain path

[Irasan]

imho..
A voiced over main character that didnt really say what i wanted to say only made me feel more distanced to him. I understand that it on paper looks really cool to make a game where everyone always have a voice and you dont have to read conversations but in reality it takes away the players imagination that it is him/her that says it. In a RPG imagination play a huge part even in a computer game.

No more voiced main toons! (well... if Bioware just gona start make hack n slash RPGs "Diablo style".. go right ahead)

Modifié par Irasan, 14 avril 2011 - 04:51 .

[Zem_]

Hatchetman77 wrote...
You're right, I should clarify that a little better.  Many people (myslef included) appreciated the voiceless avatar because you could bascially imagine they were saying whatever you wanted them to say when you picked an option.

You can imagine how you SOUND.  You can imagine you used different words to say the same thing.  You CANNOT imagine you actually said something truly different than what is written there because the meaning of those words is set in stone by the script writer and reinforced by how the NPCs you're talking to will react.   If the line is, "I'm going to kill you and eat you!" you cannot imagine your character said, "Can I please have a cup of tea?" instead.

Yet when people argue against the voiced main character they make it sound like this actually impacts freedom of choice somehow.  What I am saying is that this is an illusion.  You have the exact same choices as before.  You are not free to say anything you want because there are at least two sides to every dialogue in the game and the other side is a computer that WILL be following the script... even if you are pretending not to.

[TJSolo]

Zem_ wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...
You're right, I should clarify that a little better.  Many people (myslef included) appreciated the voiceless avatar because you could bascially imagine they were saying whatever you wanted them to say when you picked an option.

You can imagine how you SOUND.  You can imagine you used different words to say the same thing.  You CANNOT imagine you actually said something truly different than what is written there because the meaning of those words is set in stone by the script writer and reinforced by how the NPCs you're talking to will react.   If the line is, "I'm going to kill you and eat you!" you cannot imagine your character said, "Can I please have a cup of tea?" instead.

Yet when people argue against the voiced main character they make it sound like this actually impacts freedom of choice somehow.  What I am saying is that this is an illusion.  You have the exact same choices as before.  You are not free to say anything you want because there are at least two sides to every dialogue in the game and the other side is a computer that WILL be following the script... even if you are pretending not to.

Except the only people interepreting, "I'm going to kill you and eat you!" as "Can I please have a cup of tea?" are the people trying to make absurd points.

An example from DA2 puts Hawke and his/her romance interest face to face with an old flame, Hawke's romantic interest is about to get sexed up for old times sake one of the responses given to the player is "What about me?"
I interpreted that line given the current situation and selected that paraphrased line, what happened after my selection was not what I thought that paraphrasing meant.  

For me there have been many times when what Hawke says and what I interpret from the Wheel just don't match up. The text tree lines from DAO where not scripts with set in stone interpretations.

[simonc4175]

elearon1 wrote...


Less repetitive, though.  I am glad you didn't have to read your entire response, then listen to your character say it out loud ... why would a game need both options?  

A game could need both because some people might not be great a reading or have learning difficulties so have a voiced PC is better for them.

It could be asked why can't a game have both options ?

[AkiKishi]

Zem_ wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...
You're right, I should clarify that a little better.  Many people (myslef included) appreciated the voiceless avatar because you could bascially imagine they were saying whatever you wanted them to say when you picked an option.

You can imagine how you SOUND.  You can imagine you used different words to say the same thing.  You CANNOT imagine you actually said something truly different than what is written there because the meaning of those words is set in stone by the script writer and reinforced by how the NPCs you're talking to will react.   If the line is, "I'm going to kill you and eat you!" you cannot imagine your character said, "Can I please have a cup of tea?" instead.

Yet when people argue against the voiced main character they make it sound like this actually impacts freedom of choice somehow.  What I am saying is that this is an illusion.  You have the exact same choices as before.  You are not free to say anything you want because there are at least two sides to every dialogue in the game and the other side is a computer that WILL be following the script... even if you are pretending not to.

Let me put a different spin on the voiced character and why it's not a good idea. This has nothing to do with roleplaying (well it does indirectly) and more to do with "waste".

Hawke comes in 2 genders. Before you even start the game that's 50% of Hawkes lines wasted in any playthrough.
Then each "node" has 3 choices (it varries but 3 is a good average). That's 2/3rds of every node wasted on any particular playthrough of the game.

If you ever wondered why JRPGs chose the linear route, there it is. I once asked Mr. Epler how many of the 2500 cinematics you would see in one game. The answer was around 800. That's not even 50%

I like the part voiced. In cutscenes you do need a voice, but in conversation not so much.Having someone voice what was already read is what lead to the paraphrase system. Focus groups found that it was redundant to repeat.

[Zem_]

TJSolo wrote...

Except the only people interepreting, "I'm going to kill you and eat you!" as "Can I please have a cup of tea?" are the people trying to make absurd points.

I didn't say anyone was interpreting one as the other.  The point is that you can't.  You can't really say something different than what was written for you.  You can imagine you said, "I'm going to destroy you and feed you to my dog!" instead of "I'm going to kill you and eat you!" and the response will probably still match.  But that's the limit of this wonderful benefit people claim is had by not voicing the main character.

And seriously, do people really do this?  A few of you maybe, but I refuse to believe many out there are playing Origins, reading each line, rewriting it in their heads to mean the same thing but use different words, and then imagining they said that instead.   I mean really?

An example from DA2 puts Hawke and his/her romance interest face to face with an old flame, Hawke's romantic interest is about to get sexed up for old times sake one of the responses given to the player is "What about me?"
I interpreted that line given the current situation and selected that paraphrased line, what happened after my selection was not what I thought that paraphrasing meant. 

Okaay... but this isn't an example of what I was talking about.  This is a complaint about the wheel vs. the list.  Not about voiced vs. not-voiced. 

And it is just one example.  People had similar complaints about picking a relatively harmless looking line of dialogue off the list in Origins and ending up in a romance when they thought they were just saying something polite.  Which is the problem with text.  If poorly written it can be just as ambiguous as a poorly written paraphrase in DA2.

For me there have been many times when what Hawke says and what I interpret from the Wheel just don't match up. The text tree lines from DAO where not scripts with set in stone interpretations.

I just didn't have that problem with the wheel.  Can't honestly recall any, "Whoa!  I didn't mean to say that!" moments.  Not that I knew what words would be spoken, mind.  Just that the line, once delivered, had the meaning I thought it would have when I picked it.  I didn't, for example, need a full line of text to know that trying to be charming with Mom over a particular corpse in the flight from Lothering was probably not entirely appropriate.

And the lines in DAO absolutely were set in stone.  You could not reload, pick the same dialogue option, and get a different result.  Each line had one and only one meaning.

[chelseaisthepan]

I didn't have a problem with it. I liked the voiced PC. Maybe because LadyHawke's voice is lovely to listen to..

[TJSolo]

The point is not not saying something different than what is present on the screen, the point is finding a line that fits the character a player has created.

And seriously, do people really do this? A few of you maybe, but I refuse to believe many out there are playing Origins, reading each line, rewriting it in their heads to mean the same thing but use different words, and then imagining they said that instead. I mean really?

If I don't read each line how the hell will I be able to decide what to pick? I read every option and pick the best one for my character and situation. There have been times when I have picked the same lines for my chaotic neutral Wardens as my lawful good Warden but different intents.

And it is just one example. People had similar complaints about picking a relatively harmless looking line of dialogue off the list in Origins and ending up in a romance when they thought they were just saying something polite. Which is the problem with text. If poorly written it can be just as ambiguous as a poorly written paraphrase in DA2.

That complaint has nothing to do with role playing or lack of control over the player's character.

And the lines in DAO absolutely were set in stone. You could not reload, pick the same dialogue option, and get a different result. Each line had one and only one meaning.

I don't care about getting different reactions from other characters I have no direct control over. The problem is when the character that I created and control does or says things that do not match up with my interpretation of the paraphrasing on the wheel. I am also not talking about the lines themselves, I am talking about their interpretations those are not set in stone and open to interpretation.

[Hatchetman77]

Zem_ wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...
You're right, I should clarify that a little better.  Many people (myslef included) appreciated the voiceless avatar because you could bascially imagine they were saying whatever you wanted them to say when you picked an option.

You can imagine how you SOUND.  You can imagine you used different words to say the same thing.  You CANNOT imagine you actually said something truly different than what is written there because the meaning of those words is set in stone by the script writer and reinforced by how the NPCs you're talking to will react.   If the line is, "I'm going to kill you and eat you!" you cannot imagine your character said, "Can I please have a cup of tea?" instead.

A lot of people roleplay themselves exactly what the character says in their head.  Their roleplay fits the outcome of their choice but the roleplaying the player does is based on the motivation of their character.

So, if you are at the Redcliff questline in Origins and you tell Teagan "No, I won't help you" when he askes for your help against the undead, this could be because... 

1) No I won't help you because what I'm doing is more important but I feel great sympathy for your plight
2) No I won't help you because I just don't care about you
3) No I won't help you because I like to eat babies and I want to see you all die
4) No, I won't help you because I'm a racist elf and I hate humans

...and so on and so fourth... 

So if the line of dialouge that you select is "No I won't help you..." there are still a whole bunch of ways to roleplay that while being consistant with the selected dialouge and outcome.  That all goes down to the character concept that the player has in their head when they create the character. 

When Hawke responds to dialouge there are times when his response to the selected comment shows a motivation that is contrary to the player when they pick the dialouge option.  Many people who play the game find that undesirable and feel that it ruins immersion.  I understand that you are not one of those people and I respect that, but no matter how stupid you think this behavior is there is still a large amount of people who will feel it is important to their RPG experience.  I am proposing that dialouge decisions that are made throughout the game be tracked to compensate for this in an attempt to make Hawke's motivation for doing things consistant with the player's.  It is already done in a limited way in response to your good/smartass/badass selections on the dialouge wheel, I'm just seeing if people feel that expanding on that concept could help bridge the gap between the fact that the fully voiced avatar is probably not going away and the feeling that many have regarding the fully voiced avatar limiting their roleplay experience. 

Modifié par Hatchetman77, 14 avril 2011 - 09:11 .

[Zem_]

TJSolo wrote...
The point is not not saying something different than what is present on the screen, the point is finding a line that fits the character a player has created.

Perhaps that is your point, but that is not the point I was discussing and to which you are replying.   Follow this discussion backwards and you'll see where I quoted Hatchetman as saying an advantage of not being voiced is that you can imagine your character saying whatever you want them to say. 

And the lines in DAO absolutely were set in stone. You could not reload, pick the same dialogue option, and get a different result. Each line had one and only one meaning.

I don't care about getting different reactions from other characters I have no direct control over. The problem is when the character that I created and control does or says things that do not match up with my interpretation of the paraphrasing on the wheel. I am also not talking about the lines themselves, I am talking about their interpretations those are not set in stone and open to interpretation.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point here.  It looks to me like you're trying to say the wheel in DA2 does not leave things open to interpretation but the list of pre-written dialogue choices in DAO does.   This I simply do not understand.  If a line in DAO is meant by the script-writer to be aggressive and start a fight, it will always start that fight.  You do not have the option to speak that line in any less threatening a tone than was intended by the writer.  It has only one meaning.  The wheel makes this explicit by tagging it with an icon the tells you it is aggressive, which it must do because it's only giving you a couple words to describe the line rather than the whole line itself. 

EITHER way, the line only means one thing.  Your reason for choosing the line does not change things nor does either system prevent you from having different reasons for choosing the same response.    So... still not seeing the significant roleplaying advantage to not having spoken lines of text when the script is still pre-written either way.

[JasmoVT]

I read something like this and I think, yeah it would be great to have rpgs with 100's or even thousands of story branches but then how many folks would be will to pay the $800 price tag such a game would have to carry.

[The Ole Ultra Violence]

Yeah, I think this could work. There are other things to think about as well.

I'd like there to be, say, an apathy button. No matter what, the game seems to fail to grasp that sometimes, I just don't give a ****.

Maybe you could have some sort of feature that allowed you to specify if you were picking an option because you felt strongly about it, or doing it grudgingly because you see no other option(That would have made the death of a certain character from DA2 more powerful, being able to make the decision but feel like **** about it).

On that note, there should also be an option for doing what you're doing on a whim, or because it's convenient, without feeling strongly one way or the other.

Another thing that would be helpful would be if, well... if Hawkes character was better written. My biggest problem with Hawke(And Sheppard as well on that note), is that s/he's a huge Marty/Marry Stu/Sue

No matter what you do, everything that Hawke does is played as being perfectly consistent and rational, the only mistakes s/he makes being completely out of his/her control. Hawke is never shown as conflicted or insecure, almost all your companions will, at some point, admit to Hawke being right about everything, whilst in Origins, it was quite possible for them to despise you, or feel nothing either way by the end of the game. Not only does this make Hawkes character bland as cardboard, but it makes me feel like it doesn't matter what I say or do, I could just click the Paragon(Because that's what it is) option in every conversation and everyone will love me forever because I'm perfect.

It's like the developers thought that the player would throw a tantrum if their masturbatory delusion of grandeur was interrupted with silly things like character arcs or depth. I say, stop making Hawke perfect, hell, make it an option for him/her to be a complete moron.

You could have some other systems in the background to measure other aspects of personality(Like the OP suggested) by giving us options that might juts plain screw us over. Why just leave it to chance, why not give us a time limit whenever we have to convince somebody of something, with a skill or stat that will give us some sort of advantage.

You could have different dialouge options peppered throughout the game that could be labeled as something like "Persuasive, Wise or Intimidating", and whenever you pick one your "Stat" in that area will increase, then when a situation that requires debate presents itself, some of the options will work better for different characters or subjects. For example, Isabella might be easier to persuade, and it would be easier to use wisdom to convince her that one course of action made more sense since she's primarily concerned with survival(And big... boats), but she'd be harder to intimidate because she's used to people trying to hurt or scare her.

You don't even have to make the stats visible, just alert us whenever we say something with the corresponding stat that it's increased a bit. You could also stack it, so that later decisions that require a higher score in one area will lend more of a bonus to that stat.

By the end of the game, Hawke might be a manipulative psycho that everybody loves, but only because he plays with their emotions, or an honest and principled but feared and hated extremist, who keeps his less then virtuous allies in line simply through the fear of death. Or maybe he doesn't believe in trying to change people, and everyone juts kind of accepts him... and maybe he's just a moron, because we didn't ever bother to make him solve his problems with his brain. The fact is, that no matter what, you're going to end up showing favoritism towards someone, so don't loaf around in the middle and try to make every possible Hawke perfect to please as many as you can. If you make it possible to screw up, people will feel more accomplished and confident in their character when they don't, that's why persuasion is more satisfying in Origins, because you have to work to make your character charismatic, you really do feel like your character is a master manipulator when your persuasion stat is high enough to sway a demon. What I'm saying is, why not make the character development part of the game more like a GAME and less like a FILM?

Modifié par The Ole Ultra Violence, 14 avril 2011 - 09:42 .

[TJSolo]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point here. It looks to me like you're trying to say the wheel in DA2 does not leave things open to interpretation but the list of pre-written dialogue choices in DAO does. This I simply do not understand. If a line in DAO is meant by the script-writer to be aggressive and start a fight, it will always start that fight. You do not have the option to speak that line in any less threatening a tone than was intended by the writer. It has only one meaning. The wheel makes this explicit by tagging it with an icon the tells you it is aggressive, which it must do because it's only giving you a couple words to describe the line rather than the whole line itself.

Like I said, How a character that is not the one I am playing reacts does not affect how I role play my character.
Sure there are a lot of tone setting Lucky Charms in the Wheel but there are also general responses that don't have indicated tones( like exclusive options, questions, consent, and refusal) but if there was only tone indicators that would eliminate the issues that come from having paraphrases on the Wheel.

EITHER way, the line only means one thing. Your reason for choosing the line does not change things nor does either system prevent you from having different reasons for choosing the same response. So... still not seeing the significant roleplaying advantage to not having spoken lines of text when the script is still pre-written either way.

I can pick lines in DAO with an informed decision to fit the design of my character. I cannot make an equally informed selection in DA2. You have already expressed bewilderment at the thought of some people reading the dialogue options while they role play in Origins, it is only natural that you will not be able to see the advantage of it. Role playing a character is more interactive than waiting to see what is going to come out of Hawke's mouth. Watching Hawke talk is more like watching another character talk or watching a TV Show because what is going to be said is unknown to the person watching in both cases.

Modifié par TJSolo, 14 avril 2011 - 09:51 .

[Zem_]

Hatchetman77 wrote...
When Hawke responds to dialouge there are times when his response to the selected comment shows a motivation that is contrary to the player when they pick the dialouge option.  Many people who play the game find that undesirable and feel that it ruins immersion.  I understand that you are not one of those people and I respect that, but no matter how stupid you think this behavior is there is still a large amount of people who will feel it is important to their RPG experience.

I think you miss my point.  I'm not talking about intent.  I'm talking about meaning.  The line only has one meaning and that is the meaning assigned by the script writer.  You can imagine all sorts of reasons for giving a particular line but you can't change how it is received, which also means you can't change how it's delivered by you unless explicitly given that option.  If the only choice the scriptwriter in DAO gives you is the angry refusal to Teagan's request then you can't pretend you are reluctantly declining.  Not if he reacts like you just told him what to go do with himself.

The reason I replied to your OP the way I did is that I did not, and still do not see how voicing the main character has any bearing on what your character is really saying.  You can't decide in either case how the line will be delivered.  Being unable to HEAR it does not give you the freedom to imagine you said it in a different tone of voice than that which is obvious from the reaction of the character who hears it.  And because DAO only gave you text, they were usually fairly explicit in the writing about tone, as I recall. 

I am proposing that dialouge decisions that are made throughout the game be tracked to compensate for this in an attempt to make Hawke's motivation for doing things consistant with the player's.  It is already done in a limited way in response to your good/smartass/badass selections on the dialouge wheel, I'm just seeing if people feel that expanding on that concept could help bridge the gap between the fact that the fully voiced avatar is probably not going away and the feeling that many have regarding the fully voiced avatar limiting their roleplay experience.

To me it really just matters how the NPC reacts because it does me no good to have a line like "No I won't help you" and then imagine my motivation is "because you're a filthy elf-hating human!"   If I can't convey that hatred in a way he reacts to then what difference does it make?  It would seem more immersion-breaking to me to imagine I just told him no in a very nasty way and then he responds with a friendly, "Well, I comlpetely understand!  You're a busy world-saving hero.  Hope you reconsider though!  Stop by sometime for tea and crumpets won't you?"

Nor do I really like personality-tracking.  I'd prefer to be able to choose the tone of EACH conversation through my responses such that when I get to the yes/no decision it's clear why and the line I'm allowed to say is appropriately written to convey that attitude.  This again doesn't depend on voiced or not voiced.  It depends on being given the choice to pick that line from the list of available lines... at all.