323 réponses à ce sujet

[hoorayforicecream]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I don't think it is about conversations being required or necessary or the danger of characters being obscured by some camera angle. It is about leaving them out because it requires less voice acting and thus is cheaper to produce.

*sigh*

You can sigh until you are blue. That and the post you linked does not invalidate my opinion.

Take a look at this and tell me it doesn't completely change the viewer's feelings about the scene in question. The obscured camera angles and clipping issues are often so jarring that the viewer is completely broken out of any immersion. You might not think so, but I assure you that many players will.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 25 avril 2011 - 12:30 .

[Blastback]

Okay, I have an idea.  Let the companions have thier own home/base/whatever.  But have another location like a tavern or something that functions as a central hub like the Party Camp or Ebon Hawk where all your companions will be present.  Let the quest specific dialoges be done in the companion's home, but have more, anytime you want to talk dialouge avalible at the hub location.  Sort of combine the party camp atmosphere with the dialoge system from DA2. 

[jds1bio]

Catching up quickly with the thread:

In DA:O I was too busy being amazed at just how much companion dialogue there was, to think about if, where, and why the conversations might or might not be appropriate. In my first DA2 playthrough, I was impressed by the subtleties in the companion banter and the changes in Hawke's tone. In my second DA2 playthrough, I was even more impressed by the variations in results based on how you treated your companions. But by the third act of my second playthrough, that's when the subtleties began to add up in my mind and the thinking about this experience began. While we may be so conditioned by other creative works to take certain things like staging for granted, we may also need to play future games more than once to appreciate the subtleties and perhaps the "grand plan" behind them. We readily do this with the combat mechanics of many games, but we may need to be more open to doing this with games like DA2 rather than taking the conversation aspect at the face value of only one playthrough.

The unpaused game experience is an intriguing one. But I think this is an experience that can potentially compete with the gameplay aspect. Is it fair for a player to happen upon a conversation in a certain place on a map during active gameplay? Well, considering that we use this same mechanic to bring our parties in contact with combat, I think it is fair. The subtlety that may be lost on the player is the particular reason for interruption. Perhaps the party walks by a building with a sign on it that reminds a companion of their past association with a secret order. That companion would start up a "I've been meaning to talk to you about something..." conversation. What does the player do? Keep walking? That would be considered perhaps rude, and could the companion react to such an action? Or does the player walk and talk, perhaps running out of time before arriving at a hideout that they were tasked with clearing out? How and where does the conversation conclude, is a "let's discuss this later" a valid option? And would the player be able to know the trigger that gave the companion the impetus to begin a conversation? Without specific words from the companion, a directed camera coupled with a stoppage in the action may be necessary to show this. Otherwise a conversation that is "rescheduled for a later time" through an unpaused gameplay mechanic may not convey the same level of drama.

[AngryFrozenWater]

RagingCyclone wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I don't think it is about conversations being required or necessary or the danger of characters being obscured by some camera angle. It is about leaving them out because it requires less voice acting and thus is cheaper to produce. DA2 breaths this kind of economic thought throughout the game. Simplified game mechanics, simplified user interface, cut and paste environments and less content are all designed to allow a more economic development cycle and are certainly not designed to improve the gaming experience. Mix that with some telemetry numbers and marketing and you'll end up with DA2.

All of these are reasons I am already bored with the game. I doubt I will play it again since in three plays I've seen all I care to see. It's definitely not conducive to really making a replayable game.  Plus the dialogue makes for shallower more hollow companions.  Yes, there may be the same amount of dialogue lines, but the old adage of quality vs quantity applies to DA2. Just because the numbers are the same, the depth isn't there.  And while I am a member of a private group where a lot like Fenris, I find him extremely one dimensional.  In this group it makes for some interesting debates, but overall that particular character seems lacking.  And he's one of the more fleshed out characters.

I agree. You mentioned Fenris. My favorite character is... drumroll... The grand cleric. Hehe. She has more depth than the average character, because the game allows you to talk to her after some events (even if she has no quest icon above her head). It doesn't change the story line and thus she remains static, but you'll get some extra background info on various topics. Probably the Sebastian DLC gave her more attention. No problems with obscured characters because of camera angles here. I wish that more characters were portrayed like her. And maybe sprinked with some "shape the world" sauce that we never got.

[In Exile]

Blastback wrote...

Okay, I have an idea.  Let the companions have thier own home/base/whatever.  But have another location like a tavern or something that functions as a central hub like the Party Camp or Ebon Hawk where all your companions will be present.  Let the quest specific dialoges be done in the companion's home, but have more, anytime you want to talk dialouge avalible at the hub location.  Sort of combine the party camp atmosphere with the dialoge system from DA2. 

I think that's only worthwhile if you think everyone being in the same place matters. I'm actually against the idea if the game doesn't explicitly require everyone to travel toghether. But I think you can just recycle camera options like ME did; that way you had your ability to speak whenver BUT you only got new dialogue after certain points.

I'd also divorce companion quests from the main quest. Depending on how you pay you could exhaust companion stuff too slow or too fast.

[hoorayforicecream]

In Exile wrote...

I think that's only worthwhile if you think everyone being in the same place matters. I'm actually against the idea if the game doesn't explicitly require everyone to travel toghether. But I think you can just recycle camera options like ME did; that way you had your ability to speak whenver BUT you only got new dialogue after certain points.

I'd also divorce companion quests from the main quest. Depending on how you pay you could exhaust companion stuff too slow or too fast.

I actually found that the companion quests heavily codependent with the main quests made them feel much more important to the game and the story progression. If the companion quests are excised from the game's critical path, it really makes the companions themselves feel significantly more superfluous.

[Blastback]

In Exile wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Okay, I have an idea.  Let the companions have thier own home/base/whatever.  But have another location like a tavern or something that functions as a central hub like the Party Camp or Ebon Hawk where all your companions will be present.  Let the quest specific dialoges be done in the companion's home, but have more, anytime you want to talk dialouge avalible at the hub location.  Sort of combine the party camp atmosphere with the dialoge system from DA2. 

I think that's only worthwhile if you think everyone being in the same place matters. I'm actually against the idea if the game doesn't explicitly require everyone to travel toghether. But I think you can just recycle camera options like ME did; that way you had your ability to speak whenver BUT you only got new dialogue after certain points.

I'd also divorce companion quests from the main quest. Depending on how you pay you could exhaust companion stuff too slow or too fast.

That'd work .  Ideally you'd have companion dialogues that where
releated to various quests, but I'd like to see more just "getting to
know you" dialogues.  That's something that DA2 felt like it lacked. 
All the conversations felt like they were soley related to the
character's one or two specific issues and their quests. I missed
haveing conversations where it felt like two friends just chating.

Modifié par Blastback, 25 avril 2011 - 12:49 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I don't think it is about conversations being required or necessary or the danger of characters being obscured by some camera angle. It is about leaving them out because it requires less voice acting and thus is cheaper to produce.

*sigh*

You can sigh until you are blue. That and the post you linked does not invalidate my opinion.

Take a look at this and tell me it doesn't completely change the viewer's feelings about the scene in question. The obscured camera angles and clipping issues are often so jarring that the viewer is completely broken out of any immersion. You might not think so, but I assure you that many players will.

Well... Everything clips in the game. The hair of my last character clips with her right ear. Should we take out the ears? Or should we go all bald? It has nothing to do with that.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 25 avril 2011 - 12:49 .

[Dave of Canada]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Well... Everything clips in the game. The hair of my last character clips with her right ear. Should we take out the ears? Or should we go all bald? It has nothing to do with that.

Does the hair clipping in the ear ruin conversations, your character and whatever else?

[hoorayforicecream]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Well... Everything clips in the game. The hair of my last character clips with her right ear. Should we take out the ears? Or should we go all bald? It has nothing to do with that.

There's a big difference between slight clipping issues like fingers and locks of hair, and the possibility of geometry or entities that completely obscure the main focus of a plot-relevant conversation for an extended period of time. If you can't discern that difference, then I don't know how to explain it to you.

[Ollymandias]

I found it alienating that Hawke could only talk to his companions when they wanted something or had something to talk about. On the other hand though, it looks like Isabella is over at Fenris’ horrible hightown squat all the time to chat away about anything she likes, and she invites Merrill out of her seclusion to be sociable at the Hanged Man. Varric hangs out with Anders sometimes, and pesters Aveline too. Isabella talks to Aveline about her wedding that happened in the three year interlude and I’m like “Whoa! Hold up, hold up! There was a wedding? Why wasn’t I invited via cut scene!?” but Isabella and Aveline just keep talking blithely away like Hawke isn’t even there...

Other posters have mentioned how they had issues they wanted to discuss with their companions, be it Fenris walking out after Hawke got it on with him, or Anders being extremely shifty in Act 3. I’d have loved trying to cajole the Bianca story out of Varric too (and failing, but trying valiantly nevertheless!)

I loved sitting down for storytime with Leliana, and having Zevran tell my Warden about his various sexcapades and antics. I loved taking Sten on a Walking Tour of Ferelden and being a cultural ambassador for him (Ooh, this is a nice church! I bet I should show Sten how nice Fereldan architecture can be!), seeing what questions and impressions he came up with about the various places I took him. I even loved it when Alistair sidled over to my Warden and initiated a “let’s have shameless gossip session about the rest of the party, Warden Best Friend”. I missed being able to ask Isabela about her past adventures as a pirate captain, and Anders about his escape attempts, Merrill about other old Dalish traditions, and Aveline about her honeymoon. That the other characters can ask about these things but Hawke can’t makes me feel like, well, his friends don’t like him very much. Maybe it’s because he makes smarmy wisecracks all the time and thinks he’s a bit funnier than he is (I liked that, by the way.).

Additionally, I felt that while Carver was quite well sketched out as an impulsive and insecure younger brother who was desperate to prove himself, that Mother and Bethany were thinly depicted as lovely sweet sister and mum who has had a hard life. I’d have enjoyed being able to do a quest in Act 2 for mum, or have a conversation or two about how she met dad or what she does in the daytime while Hawke is out doing fetch quests. It would have helped make us more attached to her as a specific character rather than a generic mum. Although... maybe the lack of conversation or quest in Act 2 was supposed to make the player feel guilty for not being more involved in her life and that neglect as complicit in her death...

The exposition which was there was quite nice. For example, being able to ask Fenris about the Tevinter Imperium as a reward for finding the Blade of Mercy was great. But it was six or seven years after Hawke had met the guy, and suddenly turning round and saying, “Hey, hey guy! You’re from somewhere, aren’t you? You mentioned you were from somewhere? Tell me about that place!” If we were meant to feel as though Hawke interacted with his friends offscreen between acts, that really blew that suspension of disbelief out of the air. It should be one of the first things you can ask about! Getting the Dalish story as a reward for giving Merrill her little present (Sylvanwood Ring? Can’t remember) was lovely too. Developers, storytime is great. Whenever I found a gift item, I was giddy because I knew that by wading through yards of those Torn Trousers and Moth-Eaten Scarves, and boots nobody could ever wear because Hawke wasn't that class, I had finally struck gold and would unlock a conversation- much better than “Sorry I led you on then dumped you, Leliana. Here’s some jewelery to make you like me again.”

On the other hand, I absolutely adored the Friendship/Rivalry system. I am on my second playthrough and while the quests themselves don’t change so much on replay (act 3 finale is the same, pretty much, for Templar and Mage sympathizers) the difference in the relationships between Hawke and her friends is brilliant. Seeing a different side of Merrill, (she called me a SHEM!? Whoa, little lady! Who would have thought it of you!) and seeing Fenris actually smile for once, and Anders turn blue and echoey more often etc is lovely. Two thumbs up.

I’m going to buy DA3 whether or not the protagonist gets to have any agency in conversing with his friends. (Also whether or not I get to equip all my friends in one go instead of switching out party members then loading screen to mansion to access stash then loading screen to hanged man to equip stuff from stash on friends )I’ll play it, and enjoy 40 hours of gameplay, (and I’ll be grateful) but it would be more enjoyable if some of the things that worked so well in Origins to forge connections between the player and the companions came back along with the things that worked really well in DA2.

Modifié par Ollymandias, 25 avril 2011 - 12:58 .

[jds1bio]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I don't think it is about conversations being required or necessary or the danger of characters being obscured by some camera angle. It is about leaving them out because it requires less voice acting and thus is cheaper to produce.

*sigh*

You can sigh until you are blue. That and the post you linked does not invalidate my opinion.

Take a look at this and tell me it doesn't completely change the viewer's feelings about the scene in question. The obscured camera angles and clipping issues are often so jarring that the viewer is completely broken out of any immersion. You might not think so, but I assure you that many players will.

Well... Everything clips in the game. The hair of my last character clips with her right ear. Should we take out the ears? Or should we go all bald? It has nothing to do with that.

Leaving something out because it can't be pulled off technically is something that happens all the time, and not just with games.  But is a solution, like staring at Anders throughout the entire conversation without changing camera angles, really any more immersive?  Sometimes technical limitations lead to creative solutions that add an artistic style to a creative work.  During the conversation, they could focus on the speaker's hands, perhaps animated to indicate nervousness or impatience.  Or focus on their eyes, perhaps animated to indicate contempt or despair.  But these solutions require more animation and less reliance on an automated camera.

[fchopin]

David Gaider wrote...

Now, I know the response from some people would be "then do away with cinematics"... but that's not in the cards. It's a stylistic decision, and the best we can do is figure out how to work with it. I don't know that I would want to split every follower up into their own home like in DA2 again-- that turned out to be problematic on several levels-- but conversations that can simply occur anywhere, other than the most basic sort, are unlikely. Player-initiated dialogue that is unscripted (ie. can happen at any time, rather than anywhere) is far more feasible.

Even then, of course, it's a matter of give-and-take. Adding more dialogue in one place means it must come from somewhere else. When I've said previously that we can't do both, what I mean is we cannot simply take the system in DA2 and add in a bunch of new dialogue to happen at multiple other junctures. While I could indeed imagine that would be ideal-- heck, if it were up to me I'd have conversations possible every time you turned around-- it's an ideal that's never going to happen.

Then please remove the cinematics for dialogue as it's impossible for me to get immersed with dialogue or companions, use cinematics in other ways but not in this, dialogue is very important for role playing.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Dave of Canada wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Well... Everything clips in the game. The hair of my last character clips with her right ear. Should we take out the ears? Or should we go all bald? It has nothing to do with that.

Does the hair clipping in the ear ruin conversations, your character and whatever else?

Of course it has a negative effect on immersion. Why do you need to ask the obvious? My original point (now hidden because of selective quoting) had to do with less voice acting is more economic. If you want to talk about that then OK. If not then I have nothing to say to you.

[hoorayforicecream]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Of course it has a negative effect on immersion. Why do you need to ask the obvious? My original point (now hidden because of selective quoting) had to do with less voice acting is more economic. If you want to talk about that then OK. If not then I have nothing to say to you.

I don't believe anybody has ever brought up less voice acting as a cost-saving measure. The closest I've ever seen to that is the reason why they cast Adam Howden as Anders instead of Greg Ellis, and that was because Greg Ellis was unavailable for such a large role, so they brought him back to reprise Cullen in order to get what they could.

Where did anyone say anything about less voice acting as a cost-saving measure? 

[tmp7704]

David Gaider wrote...

When someone says "this is the way I felt", I'll pay attention. When they move onto "and this is why", I'm a little more skeptical. They may be right, at least for them, but more often what I see is people making a comparison to something they thought was better and assuming anything that's different must be the cause. I doubt it's that easy.

(..)

And while I don't think agency is really the issue -- there are lots of games, some of which we've even made, where a player has no agency at all in the relationships and yet feels connected -- I do think there's something to be said about a player feeling better acquainted with their follower.

Just wondering, due to these two bits -- when you base your assessment that the agency "isn't really the issue" because it's not present in some other games and yet these games worked, do you consider the possibility you're falling into quite the same trap you're warning against here... and that is, making comparisons to something else and assuming that just because something worked there then as long as it's the same, the reaction is given to be similar?

Maybe in these other games things work in spite of lack of agency, and due to some other factors which either managed to outweight it or provided illusion of one. And without providing these other, missing factors maybe this lack of agency that isn't supposed to really be the issue... becomes simply unbearable.

[AngryFrozenWater]

jds1bio wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I don't think it is about conversations being required or necessary or the danger of characters being obscured by some camera angle. It is about leaving them out because it requires less voice acting and thus is cheaper to produce.

*sigh*

You can sigh until you are blue. That and the post you linked does not invalidate my opinion.

Take a look at this and tell me it doesn't completely change the viewer's feelings about the scene in question. The obscured camera angles and clipping issues are often so jarring that the viewer is completely broken out of any immersion. You might not think so, but I assure you that many players will.

Well... Everything clips in the game. The hair of my last character clips with her right ear. Should we take out the ears? Or should we go all bald? It has nothing to do with that.

Leaving something out because it can't be pulled off technically is something that happens all the time, and not just with games.  But is a solution, like staring at Anders throughout the entire conversation without changing camera angles, really any more immersive?  Sometimes technical limitations lead to creative solutions that add an artistic style to a creative work.  During the conversation, they could focus on the speaker's hands, perhaps animated to indicate nervousness or impatience.  Or focus on their eyes, perhaps animated to indicate contempt or despair.  But these solutions require more animation and less reliance on an automated camera.

Exactly. Instead of finding reasons not to do something one should focus on solving the problem. But because of economic reasons BW doesn't do that. Even in simple cases. You can reproduce this at any time: There is party banter and a fight starts. The banter continues during the fight. Simply stopping the banter the moment the fight starts is a solution I can live with. But no... That requires extra work and thus the banter continues and breaks immersion even more. The whole game breaths this way of thinking: Simplication because it is more economic and not because it more immersive.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 25 avril 2011 - 01:21 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Of course it has a negative effect on immersion. Why do you need to ask the obvious? My original point (now hidden because of selective quoting) had to do with less voice acting is more economic. If you want to talk about that then OK. If not then I have nothing to say to you.

I don't believe anybody has ever brought up less voice acting as a cost-saving measure. The closest I've ever seen to that is the reason why they cast Adam Howden as Anders instead of Greg Ellis, and that was because Greg Ellis was unavailable for such a large role, so they brought him back to reprise Cullen in order to get what they could.

Where did anyone say anything about less voice acting as a cost-saving measure?

I did. That was the point, wasn't it? Why do you need to ask the obvious as well? Didn't I tell you that in the post you quoted?

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 25 avril 2011 - 01:26 .

[hoorayforicecream]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I did. That was the point, wasn't it? Why do you need to ask the obvious as well? Didn't I tell you that in the post you quoted?

I am pretty sure that you're wrong about less voice acting (and the whole streamlining/simplification of gameplay) being cost-saving measures. I'm also pretty sure that you're the only one here who thinks that it is an economics issue.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Origins didn't provide any development for any companions beside Alistair and Leliana, as I said in my edit. The relationship with the Warden changes.. but so does the relationship with Hawke in DA2.

* Morrigan potentially gains the first friend in her entire life, and realizes what it means to have one.
* Oghren moves on from pining after his missing wife, and starts a relationship with another woman.
* Zevran learns to trust another person enough to open his heart to them, and/or breaks from his dependency/servitude with the Crows.
* Wynne reconciles with her first student she thought she'd failed, the idea which haunted her entire life.
* Sten learns that people can succesfully operate without performing what's judged to be their predestined role, which basically goes against the very foundation of his mindset.

You can remove the Warden from the view at this point as you suggest, and these changes to the personalities will persist. So, plenty of character development there left, right and centre, i'd say.

Modifié par tmp7704, 25 avril 2011 - 01:38 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I did. That was the point, wasn't it? Why do you need to ask the obvious as well? Didn't I tell you that in the post you quoted?

I am pretty sure that you're wrong about less voice acting (and the whole streamlining/simplification of gameplay) being cost-saving measures. I'm also pretty sure that you're the only one here who thinks that it is an economics issue.

That fine with me (even if you don't give any other reason than being sure). It is the whole atmosphere of the game that gives me the impression that this is very likely. I just repost what makes me think that way and expand on it after that...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I don't think it is about conversations being required or necessary or the danger of characters being obscured by some camera angle. It is about leaving them out because it requires less voice acting and thus is cheaper to produce. DA2 breaths this kind of economic thought throughout the game. Simplified game mechanics, simplified user interface, cut and paste environments and less content are all designed to allow a more economic development cycle and are certainly not designed to improve the gaming experience. Mix that with some telemetry numbers and marketing and you'll end up with DA2.

An extreme example is the Arrival DLC. You had no companions there and was devoid of every RPG element usually found in ME2. And it saved voice acting for dialogue bewteen the PC and companions. The same was true for the various DA:O DLCs. Instead of using the regular companions you were given some that you had never seen before. These required less expensive voice actors. The Leliana DLC is another great example. Play as Leliana and you won't need the conversations between her and the PC. So, it doesn't come as a surprise to me that DA2 had less conversations with companions. It's just like all other solutions described above. It is just cheaper to have less voice acting.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 25 avril 2011 - 01:51 .

[Maria Caliban]

fchopin wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Now, I know the response from some people would be "then do away with cinematics"... but that's not in the cards. It's a stylistic decision, and the best we can do is figure out how to work with it. I don't know that I would want to split every follower up into their own home like in DA2 again-- that turned out to be problematic on several levels-- but conversations that can simply occur anywhere, other than the most basic sort, are unlikely. Player-initiated dialogue that is unscripted (ie. can happen at any time, rather than anywhere) is far more feasible.

Even then, of course, it's a matter of give-and-take. Adding more dialogue in one place means it must come from somewhere else. When I've said previously that we can't do both, what I mean is we cannot simply take the system in DA2 and add in a bunch of new dialogue to happen at multiple other junctures. While I could indeed imagine that would be ideal-- heck, if it were up to me I'd have conversations possible every time you turned around-- it's an ideal that's never going to happen.

Then please remove the cinematics for dialogue as it's impossible for me to get immersed with dialogue or companions, use cinematics in other ways but not in this, dialogue is very important for role playing.

No.

[fchopin]

Maria Caliban wrote...

fchopin wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Now, I know the response from some people would be "then do away with cinematics"... but that's not in the cards. It's a stylistic decision, and the best we can do is figure out how to work with it. I don't know that I would want to split every follower up into their own home like in DA2 again-- that turned out to be problematic on several levels-- but conversations that can simply occur anywhere, other than the most basic sort, are unlikely. Player-initiated dialogue that is unscripted (ie. can happen at any time, rather than anywhere) is far more feasible.

Even then, of course, it's a matter of give-and-take. Adding more dialogue in one place means it must come from somewhere else. When I've said previously that we can't do both, what I mean is we cannot simply take the system in DA2 and add in a bunch of new dialogue to happen at multiple other junctures. While I could indeed imagine that would be ideal-- heck, if it were up to me I'd have conversations possible every time you turned around-- it's an ideal that's never going to happen.

Then please remove the cinematics for dialogue as it's impossible for me to get immersed with dialogue or companions, use cinematics in other ways but not in this, dialogue is very important for role playing.

No.

Yes.

Modifié par fchopin, 25 avril 2011 - 02:36 .

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
And without Hawke's potential influence, Isabela would steal back her relic and be as shallow and flighty as day one of the game.  What changes there?

I didn't mean to sound like I was discount the Warden. Rather, I meant that they aren't different at the end of it. Morrigain is still the same Morrigain you meet in the Wilds, but Isabella isn't still the same Isabella you met in the pearl.

If the Warden has befriended her, she is significantly different.  Considering where she started, acknowledging one true friend or love and doing something (the DR) out of selflessness as much as her own motive is huge. 

My point is that Zevran at the start of DA:O (sans romance) isn't very different than Zevran at the end of DA:O. There's a personal ephinany of sorts, but you don't have any kind of change. Zevran at the end of DA:O would still do the same things Zevran at the start would. Aside from workign with the Crows, that is, and Zevran already had doubts about that bit.

Again, I disagree.  He wants to do something with more purpose and has broken free of the Crows both mentally and in actuality.

Alistair doesn't change all that much even with hardening.  If you're going to discount everything but major orientation changes, you're really only left with Leliana.

[Addai]

fchopin wrote...

Then please remove the cinematics for dialogue as it's impossible for me to get immersed with dialogue or companions, use cinematics in other ways but not in this, dialogue is very important for role playing.

Good luck with that.    This is what Bioware wants to do with their games.  I agree with you, however.  I think no matter what they do with the NPCs, as long as I'm pulled out of acting as my own character by having to watch her as though she's another NPC, I'm going to be disconnected from the game.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 avril 2011 - 02:39 .