650 réponses à ce sujet

[Zanallen]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

It's immersion-breaking to think that an NPC might misinterpret your statement?

Sorry, I'm with Sylvius here.

No, it is immersion breaking to think the character is saying something one way, but have the game register it a particular way no matter what. No matter how you interpret a dialogue choice, no matter what tone or intent you want to give it, the game will only give you the response tied to that option; a response written with a specific tone/intent in mind. As such, the way you want your character to say something has no bearing on the game. You have to work within the dialogue choices and implied intents already written within the game. It in no way allows for 6^nth dialogue choices.

[Morroian]

Luke Barrett wrote...

Somewhat related question:

Could this frustration with the voiced protaganist be somewhat alleviated if we were more specific with our chat options? My understanding of some of the issues with this is that the paraphrase text (the small text you pick from the wheel) wasn't closely related enough to what Hawke actually said. Would this be less of a problem if we were much more stringent with the paraphased text relative to what is actually said? This is much easier to accomplish than completely reinventing the wheel (I love when puns just appear by accident!)

It didn't bother me but you should be trying to get the paraphrase as close as possible to the spoken line. And while I personally wouldn't use it you really should add the option of having a subtitle of the complete spoken line when the paraphrase is highlighted for those who do want the option.

[LadyJaneGrey]

Luke Barrett wrote...
...
obviously in the future we can, as I implied, be much more stringent on exactly how spot on the paraphrases are for mood and intent in hopes that we greatly reduce this divide that players are feeling.

Sounds good.  

[Morroian]

Zanallen wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

It's immersion-breaking to think that an NPC might misinterpret your statement?

Sorry, I'm with Sylvius here.

No, it is immersion breaking to think the character is saying something one way, but have the game register it a particular way no matter what. 

I agree with this it broke my immersion several times in DAO.

[In Exile]

Luke Barrett wrote...
That is most obviously the intent but through numerous amounts of reiteration it sometimes gets skewed and it would then be QAs job to point out any obvious discrepencies that have occured (or that could be interpreted differently than intended by the writer). Now, this does happen but obviously in the future we can, as I implied, be much more stringent on exactly how spot on the paraphrases are for mood and intent in hopes that we greatly reduce this divide that players are feeling.

Sylvius makes a very good point about the sentence grammar matching up. If the paraphrase is a question (e.g. ''What are you doing?'') Hawke shouldn't declare (e.g. ''Let go of that!'').

I remember that David Gaidner mentioned at one point that the paraphrase never recycles any word from the spoken line. I think that principle needs to be abandoned. For example:

P: (Diplomatic): Let's compromise.
S: I'm sure we can both come to some agreement.

Versus:

P: (Diplomatic): Let's compromise.
S: I think there is a compromise that works.

This is written on the fly, so the lines themselves may well be poor, but the idea is that a close match would need to involve some relation to what the PC will end up saying.

[In Exile]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

It's immersion-breaking to think that an NPC might misinterpret your statement?

Sorry, I'm with Sylvius here.

It's immersion-breaking for an NPC to misinterpet your statements wildly and then for you to not be able to correct them.

If you misunderstand me, I can correct you. This is impossible in a game. So just in virtue of that, ambiguous dialogue can't be possible.

[element eater]

@Luke Barret
yes the paraphrasing is horrible you end up simply selecting dialogue via the emotion indicator rather than by what hawke will say while the system may not be perfect allowing you to see more or less the exact sentence would be a definite improvement.

My problem with the ambient conversation is while its a nice idea it often just makes me feel locked into a certain character type, although I don't really see a way around this suppose its just another problem of a voiced pc

ultimately though i'm with sylvius in that I much prefer a mute pc, the pros far outweigh the cons as far as i'm concerned.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Luke Barrett wrote...

Somewhat related question:

Could this frustration with the voiced protaganist be somewhat alleviated if we were more specific with our chat options? My understanding of some of the issues with this is that the paraphrase text (the small text you pick from the wheel) wasn't closely related enough to what Hawke actually said. Would this be less of a problem if we were much more stringent with the paraphased text relative to what is actually said? This is much easier to accomplish than completely reinventing the wheel (I love when puns just appear by accident!)

As one of the few idiots who actually save-reloaded every single conversation in the Mass Effect games to make sure my 'canon' Shepard actually said what I wanted him to, and taking that habit with me to DA2 , I can honestly say that there is nothing wrong with the paraphrased texts in your game. In both Mass Effects, I often found that Shepard didn't quite say what I meant him to say on the first go, whereas I don't remember any such incident in DA2.

The emotion indicator also added a lot to the dialogue wheel.

Also, what I'd personally like to see in the series instead of several different Origin stories leading into one main plotline, is one fixed Origin leading into multiple mid- and endgame situations, preferably with the player character being acknowledged as such. Par example, instead of Hawke being forced to become the 'Champion of Kirkwall', he or she would also be able to become other relevant things.

Kind of like how Origins' epilogue worked, but then much earlier plotwise and implemented in such a way that it feels like the path you're taking your character into really is unique.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 25 mai 2011 - 01:34 .

[Alodar]

Luke Barrett wrote...

Somewhat related question:

Could this frustration with the voiced protaganist be somewhat alleviated if we were more specific with our chat options? My understanding of some of the issues with this is that the paraphrase text (the small text you pick from the wheel) wasn't closely related enough to what Hawke actually said. Would this be less of a problem if we were much more stringent with the paraphased text relative to what is actually said? This is much easier to accomplish than completely reinventing the wheel (I love when puns just appear by accident!)

My optimal solution would be the option to see what your character was about to say next. (As the text already exists for subtitles it wouldn't be terribly expensive to implement -- right click on a dialogue option and the subtitle for the next line of dialogue shows up where subtitles normally go -- no special GUI, text already exists, no special QA other than the right click system.)

I played this game as sarcastic Hawke and I was quite entertained by sarcastic Hawke -- however sarcastic Hawke was never my character. I really never knew what Hawke was about to say or do.

Knowing in advance how much money you were about to give someone would help a lot too. I didn't want to pay 15 gold for weapons for miners or give some urchin 5 gold at a time where that was a ton of money. However I never knew what Hawke was going to do, whether giving money or taking an action -- not knowing made it impossible for me to think of Hawke as my character.

I absolutely loved the writing in Dragon Age 2, I loved the characters, Aveline is probably one of my favourite characters ever, but I felt no emotional attachment for Hawke.  I never felt like I was roleplaying -- it felt like I was role-watching.

Alodar

[tmp7704]

David Gaider wrote...

Explain to me, then, how the story would have worked with Hawke and his siblings as dwarves-- and thus none of them having magic?

Would it be in practice any different from the case where Hawke is a mage and the remaining sibling isn't? Since the mage Hawke can waltz through entire game without it ever becoming an issue. Oh wait, i guess Meredith would then need a different hook to force things her way if you dare to say "no" to her. But that's easily fixed removing the option to say that "no" in the first place; it's not like it has any actual effect on the outcome. So unless we'd want to get really technical how "the story wouldn't have worked" without that one small change... well.
 

Or elves, and thus altering the nature of th family in Kirkwall they come from? Unless your solution is that Hawke was adopted, having an elven or dwarven protaganist affects many other elements aside simply who the protaganist is

Similarly to the above, does Hawke's Kirkwall heritage ever matter? You get one quest to "establish your rights" and a house upgrade, but would it play any different if the family was simply wealthy? The game shows explicitly that it's possible for non-humans to have a property in the Hightown. Heck, it's apparently possible for a poor elf to live there for years, with no one noticing and/or giving a damn.

I suppose that can be used to declare triumphantly "oh, but then it'd be a different story!" and from certain point of view it'd be correct. But on the other hand if that aspect of the background never actually matters, it becomes a question whether such pointless bit of the protagonist's background is worth sacrificing player's customization over?

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Would it be in practice any different from the case where Hawke is a mage and the remaining sibling isn't? Since the mage Hawke can waltz through entire game without it ever becoming an issue. Oh wait, i guess Meredith would then need a different hook to force things her way if you dare to say "no" to her. But that's easily fixed removing the option to say that "no" in the first place; it's not like it has any actual effect on the outcome. So unless we'd want to get really technical how "the story wouldn't have worked" without that one small change... well.

I'm not sure if using a terribly failed implementation works as justification for Bioware trying to tackle more plot reactvity. Bioware certainly didn't do much of anything to make the mage playthrough feel different... but how would doing the same for the elves or dwarves make it different?

Similarly to the above, does Hawke's Kirkwall heritage ever matter? You get one quest to "establish your rights" and a house upgrade, but would it play any different if the family was simply wealthy? The game shows explicitly that it's possible for non-humans to have a property in the Hightown. Heck, it's apparently possible for a poor elf to live there for years, with no one noticing and/or giving a damn.

This goes right back to Bioware totally failing at making their plot reactive. Why not just make Hawke a qunari while we're at it?

I suppose that can be used to declare triumphantly "oh, but then it'd be a different story!" and from certain point of view it'd be correct. But on the other hand if that aspect of the background never actually matters, it becomes a question whether such pointless bit of the protagonist's background is worth sacrificing player's customization over?

The background does matter, though. The game just can't acknowledge it. In Origins, it doesn't actually matter (lore wise) that the PC is any of the races of Thedas. That's what the Wardens are. But if the story was about becoming King of Ferelden during the Blight... suddenly it would be incoherent for the PC to be anything but a human. DA2 is the same way. As its written, Hawke's background should matter.

That DA2 failed to make it matter, again, is not the issue.

[tmp7704]

Luke Barrett wrote...

Somewhat related question:

Could this frustration with the voiced protaganist be somewhat alleviated if we were more specific with our chat options? My understanding of some of the issues with this is that the paraphrase text (the small text you pick from the wheel) wasn't closely related enough to what Hawke actually said. Would this be less of a problem if we were much more stringent with the paraphased text relative to what is actually said? This is much easier to accomplish than completely reinventing the wheel (I love when puns just appear by accident!)

I would like to say it's something that'd indeed address the issue.
 
But i have to admit that when i was playing the game the "intent icons" were largely overriding my perception of offered dialogue choices, to the point where i'd nearly ignore the actual written paraphrases. The icons were sitting there, glaring at me with their oh-so-helpful "this is the love and peace option", "this is the violent **** option" and --usually left by way of elimination because i was rarely interested in my character being either-- "this is the snarky douchebag option". And because of their presence the text very much didn't matter.

I realize this is largely psychological effect and the intended options could well be much closer to one another in the intended tone. But that's how the DA2 system worked out for me. And i estimate that as long as the icons are there --helpful as the are-- they render the text irrelevant, even if it presented th choices verbatim.

[TEWR]

Luke Barrett wrote...

Somewhat related question:

Could this frustration with the voiced protaganist be somewhat alleviated if we were more specific with our chat options? My understanding of some of the issues with this is that the paraphrase text (the small text you pick from the wheel) wasn't closely related enough to what Hawke actually said. Would this be less of a problem if we were much more stringent with the paraphased text relative to what is actually said? This is much easier to accomplish than completely reinventing the wheel (I love when puns just appear by accident!)

I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but what I would prefer is something like this at the very least.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The only way I'll ever like the wheel is if what I pick is included in what I say. Example:

*pick "I'm a mage"

"I'm a mage you know, and so are some of my friends."


something along those lines

[TEWR]

tmp7704 wrote...

Luke Barrett wrote...

Somewhat related question:

Could this frustration with the voiced protaganist be somewhat alleviated if we were more specific with our chat options? My understanding of some of the issues with this is that the paraphrase text (the small text you pick from the wheel) wasn't closely related enough to what Hawke actually said. Would this be less of a problem if we were much more stringent with the paraphased text relative to what is actually said? This is much easier to accomplish than completely reinventing the wheel (I love when puns just appear by accident!)

I would like to say it's something that'd indeed address the issue.
 
But i have to admit that when i was playing the game the "intent icons" were largely overriding my perception of offered dialogue choices, to the point where i'd nearly ignore the actual written paraphrases. The icons were sitting there, glaring at me with their oh-so-helpful "this is the love and peace option", "this is the violent **** option" and --usually left by way of elimination because i was rarely interested in my character being either-- "this is the snarky douchebag option". And because of their presence the text very much didn't matter.

I realize this is largely psychological effect and the intended options could well be much closer to one another in the intended tone. But that's how the DA2 system worked out for me. And i estimate that as long as the icons are there --helpful as the are-- they render the text irrelevant, even if it presented th choices verbatim.

I like them because even in Origins you could tell what the intent of your choices were (see meeting King Cailan as an example). So I welcome them here. It really hasn't changed much for me.

As for the bolded, it's sometimes a violent tone, but usually you're just being direct and to the point.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 25 mai 2011 - 05:45 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

I'm not sure if using a terribly failed implementation works as justification for Bioware trying to tackle more plot reactvity.

I don't think it's supposed to be justification of anything, it's simple answer to a question. Mr.Gaider asked how the plot of this particular game could've possibly worked with the player being a dwarf or an elf. So my answer was, it'd work (nearly) perfectly well.

Sure, it's very much due to the plot in question failing to utilize these supposedly precious elements of the background/settings. But that's really not my problem.

This goes right back to Bioware totally failing at making their plot reactive. Why not just make Hawke a qunari while we're at it?

Yes. But since the plot isn't reactive why should i act as if it was? It isn't, and consequently the game can work just as well with the protagonist of any race.

The background does matter, though. The game just can't acknowledge it.

I was talking specifically about the part of background that's Hawke's nobility, since supposedly that's what rules out the option of family being elves. Yet it seems to have no impact on the game, and isn't some sort of a crucial point which would turn the whole thing upside down if it was removed. Granted, it wouldn't then be a story of "a noble named Hawke" but it just brings us back to question if Hawke being a noble actually adds anything to the game, and if it's worth the trade-off of limited customization.

[tmp7704]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

As for the bolded, it's sometimes a violent tone, but usually you're just being direct and to the point.

Yes; but i can't help that the combination of the icon and the red background creates in my mind the expectation i've described. That's the actual problem -- i know what the icons are supposed to signify, but there's subconscious reaction to their specific shapes and colours, which i have little control over.

But even if my expectation was matching exactly what the icons are supposed to signify, it wouldn't really change the main point -- which was, their very presence made the text obsolete for me.

edit: This could be because these dialogues are overall very simplistic -- you know the blue option will make you try to get along, the red option is going to cause some conflict (or be the "my way or highway" approach) and the purple option is the middle ground that won't really cause anything. So as long as they're marked you don't really have to read the paraphrases in order to tell what you're going to get.

Modifié par tmp7704, 25 mai 2011 - 06:24 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zanallen wrote...

It matters because it makes your particular interpretation invalid. The game doesn't recognize it. It does, however, recognize the intent of the line as it was written. The "if" has an implied intent that matches the "then" reponse. There will be instances where your intent/tone doesn't match the implied intent/tone and thus the response will be completely odd. Now, while you can never tell what a person will say in response to your comments, it is offputting when you expect the tone/intent to be one way and the game registers it completely different so the NPC's response is out of line.

You're placing too much weight on the parts of the game that don't matter: the parts the PC can't see.

The PC says something, and the NPC reacts.  The only way you can actually see a disconnect between the two is if you're aware that there is supposed to be some sort of relationship, and that's not an in-character observation.

You're letting your tendency to metagame ruin your gameplay.  And since designing the game around preventing that ruins my gameplay, I don't want them to try.

Luke Barrett wrote...

That is most obviously the intent but through numerous amounts of reiteration it sometimes gets skewed and it would then be QAs job to point out any obvious discrepencies that have occured (or that could be interpreted differently than intended by the writer). Now, this does happen but obviously in the future we can, as I implied, be much more stringent on exactly how spot on the paraphrases are for mood and intent in hopes that we greatly reduce this divide that players are feeling.

Of course.  I should have phrased that differently.  I'm sorry.

I've made the suggestion before that the way to get the paraphrases to match the corresponding dialogue is to have the parahrases written entirely without context.  That way they'll mirror the line's literal content, and thus not be bound by the writer's (or anyone's) interpretation of how the conversation is going, or what role the line plays within the narrative.

The paraphrases should represent as well as possible what the line actually says--its literal content--in order to allow the player to make an informed choice even if the player completely disagrees with the writer as to what the PC is trying to achieve by uttering that line.  Ideally, those differences of opinion won't matter, but that can't happen as long as an understanding of the writers' intent is required in order to interpret the paraphrases.

edit: I can offer examples if you'd like.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 25 mai 2011 - 07:01 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

I agree with this it broke my immersion several times in DAO.

That's demonstrably impossible.  Since you can't even notice the problem without some awareness of the game's design, you must not have been immersed in the first place.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius makes a very good point about the sentence grammar matching up. If the paraphrase is a question (e.g. ''What are you doing?'') Hawke shouldn't declare (e.g. ''Let go of that!'').

I remember that David Gaidner mentioned at one point that the paraphrase never recycles any word from the spoken line. I think that principle needs to be abandoned. For example:

P: (Diplomatic): Let's compromise.
S: I'm sure we can both come to some agreement.

Versus:

P: (Diplomatic): Let's compromise.
S: I think there is a compromise that works.

This is written on the fly, so the lines themselves may well be poor, but the idea is that a close match would need to involve some relation to what the PC will end up saying.

An example I've used before is:

P: Then what happened?
S: I'll bet he didn't like that.

Within the flow of the conversation, both lines might perform exactly the same narrative function, but that's not how the player chooses lines.  The player chooses a line in the absence of any knowledge about the rest of the conversation, so if he chooses to ask a question all the game can know is that the player chose to ask a question.  The player didn't choose to voice conjecture about someone's opinion of an event.  The player chose to ask a question.

Those are very different things.  In a game like DAO, the question dialogue options serve a very useful purpose in that they allow the player to delay the making of any decisions.  Since you're never telling someone what you're going to do, or what you've learned, by asking a question, a question serves the role of a delaying tactic.  Not knowing where the questions are removes that as a conversational option.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
I don't think it's supposed to be justification of anything, it's simple answer to a question. Mr.Gaider asked how the plot of this particular game could've possibly worked with the player being a dwarf or an elf. So my answer was, it'd work (nearly) perfectly well.

My point, though, is that the mage implementation didn't work at all. It effectively broke the plot. Why would following this be any sort of good idea?

Sure, it's very much due to the plot in question failing to utilize these supposedly precious elements of the background/settings. But that's really not my problem.

But it's the just problem. It won't work with the plot. Hawke being a mage doesn't really work with the plot. That Bioware let this poorly implemented plot-point into the game doesn't mean Bioware should have even more poorly implemented plot points.

Yes. But since the plot isn't reactive why should i act as if it was? It isn't, and consequently the game can work just as well with the protagonist of any race.

No, it doesn't. It works very well with a non-mage human Hawke. All the other implementations are bad. Including mage Hawke, that happens to be in the game.

I was talking specifically about the part of background that's Hawke's nobility, since supposedly that's what rules out the option of family being elves. Yet it seems to have no impact on the game, and isn't some sort of a crucial point which would turn the whole thing upside down if it was removed. Granted, it wouldn't then be a story of "a noble named Hawke" but it just brings us back to question if Hawke being a noble actually adds anything to the game, and if it's worth the trade-off of limited customization.

I think prejudice still rules out the elves. You'd run into mage Hawke all over again.

[Xewaka]

Luke Barrett wrote...
Somewhat related question:
Could this frustration with the voiced protaganist be somewhat alleviated if we were more specific with our chat options? My understanding of some of the issues with this is that the paraphrase text (the small text you pick from the wheel) wasn't closely related enough to what Hawke actually said. Would this be less of a problem if we were much more stringent with the paraphased text relative to what is actually said? This is much easier to accomplish than completely reinventing the wheel (I love when puns just appear by accident!)

The problem with paraphrases is that, due to their letter restricted nature, can never match the amount of information presented to the player if the full line is offered. Therefore, no matter how stringent to the full line they are, they will always offer less information on how the character will add. This is specially problematic if you want your character to withhold information, as you don't know which dialogue will forward said information and which dialogue won't.
I understand that, allegedly, there were subvocalization issues among the focus test groups that came with having the full line as choice repeated as voice over. It's been suggested by certain forumites in the past (including me) that a solution of compromise would be to keep the paraphrases, but a holdover on a choice would reveal the associated line subtitle, thus allowing those with subvocalization issues to guess based on the paraphrases and still allow for making informed choices for those who want to know what the character will say.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Luke Barrett wrote...

Somewhat related question:

Could this frustration with the voiced protaganist be somewhat alleviated if we were more specific with our chat options? My understanding of some of the issues with this is that the paraphrase text (the small text you pick from the wheel) wasn't closely related enough to what Hawke actually said. Would this be less of a problem if we were much more stringent with the paraphased text relative to what is actually said? This is much easier to accomplish than completely reinventing the wheel (I love when puns just appear by accident!)

How hard would it be to add a popup which contains the complete first sentence hovering the paraphrase? That one would be available in the localized subtitles anyway. It would feel much like the DA:O system that way. Perhaps make that optional for those who still want surprises?

Another one... I think that the idea was that there is a system at work which figures out what kind of responses you have selected earlier and based on that selects an intonation or somewhat different cosmetic response. I have completed the game several times and it is hard to see it at work. If it is implemented then I could do without that system completely. I rather have a system which recognizes the PC's class (warrior, rogue or mage), role (mage or blood mage, archer, etc.), and side (mages, templars, or DA3's story equivalent) instead. I hope you know what I am trying to say here. Such a system would prevent a lot of immersion breaking dialogue, like not being recognized as a (blood) mage and responding instead like you were a rogue or a warrior, etc.

And a last one... The dialogue sometimes feels artificial or a like a rationalization, because story or quest lines keep folding back. For an example: DA2 could be improved if you follow a given side (mages or templars) and not be confronted with the opposite side's quests. It doesn't make sense and no logic in Thedas can make that a believable reality for me. So, I rather have branching story lines. That will at least avoid some dialogue problems and make replay more fun.

(Edited several times for clearity.)

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 25 mai 2011 - 10:21 .

[Lady Olivia]

tmp7704 wrote...
 
But i have to admit that when i was playing the game the "intent icons" were largely overriding my perception of offered dialogue choices, to the point where i'd nearly ignore the actual written paraphrases. The icons were sitting there, glaring at me with their oh-so-helpful "this is the love and peace option", "this is the violent **** option" and --usually left by way of elimination because i was rarely interested in my character being either-- "this is the snarky douchebag option". And because of their presence the text very much didn't matter.

I had the same experience. I'd go either with icons only, or with much shorter, simpler, more closely related paraphrases without icons. I also agree that avoiding repetition between options and voice overs is a bit silly. Repetition would make mismatching less likely.

To answer the OP, I love the idea of a voiced protagonist. Gives substance to the character and makes the dialog flow more naturally. With a silent PC, "dialog" is more of a monologue delivered by the NPC and directed by the PC.

Luke Barrett wrote...
We should just support a usb microphone and let you pick an emotion and say whatever you want . The endless amount of comical/nsfw youtube videos alone would be worth the extra work!

The ideal solution.

[RussianSpy27]

Luke Barrett wrote...

Somewhat related question:

Could this frustration with the voiced protaganist be somewhat alleviated if we were more specific with our chat options? My understanding of some of the issues with this is that the paraphrase text (the small text you pick from the wheel) wasn't closely related enough to what Hawke actually said. Would this be less of a problem if we were much more stringent with the paraphased text relative to what is actually said? This is much easier to accomplish than completely reinventing the wheel (I love when puns just appear by accident!)

In my opinion, the problem with the voiced character is exactly the limitation that comes with it in a game where budget is limited: 

1) It's costly and hence only one character (doesn't matter if it's ONLY human or not , it's just ONE character)

2) Silent PC = more character options (once again, race is not the main issue, quantity of characters is) and more written dialogue options. 

What I'm saying is self-evident. Points one and two have been advertised before DA:O's release as strong points and everyone agrees that having one voiced PC was a financial decision given the limited resources and the desire for a more cinematic experience. So it was, but such is the price to be paid regarding options. 

I belong to the camp of fans who'd take the silent protagonist with more dialogue and more characters over voiced one any day, but it's just my opinion. 

[What?]

Though I wouldn't mind a voiced protagonist in the style of Witcher 1 (pick a sentence, character speaks exact sentence), I'd still prefer a silent hero. I'm not really down with this paraphrase system. Also, I'd prefer having more customization options open; I liked choosing race in Origins. It was neat, seeing NPCs react in some degree to your race. Like Leliana and her Dalish bits, or Cousland and his heated exchange with Howe. Or even the smaller pieces, like when Morrigan asks you about the Dalish (if you're playing that origin) and their magic, or Wynne exclaiming surprise to a Cousland and calling you 'my lord/lady'. It was little things like that that augmented the immersion for me.

Modifié par VictorianTrash, 25 mai 2011 - 10:08 .