167 réponses à ce sujet

[Cutlass Jack]

Sister Helen wrote...

I assume the developers removed the 'mass dance-off' function from the Hawke-vs.-Arishok duel.  Removing that function explains the "Let's Dance" comment Hawke tosses off before the duel starts.

This option would have made the end of Act II even better!

Faust1979 wrote...

why no smooth criminal?

Oddly enough, Smooth Criminal did make it into Saint's Row 2, which I just played through recently.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 22 mai 2011 - 02:47 .

[ZeroDragon980]

 If a "mass dance off" was put into DA2 I don't I could keep playing the game because I'd be laughing so much I couldn't hold the controller. *imagines Hawke and 3 of the companions facing off against the Arishok and 3 of his guards just like in You Got Served* LMAO 

I would probably play it a few times more to see it and laugh more. lol

But seriously adding dialog interupts add a certain level spontaneity to a situation. Still would make me go "WTF?" though because I as of now can't see how it would fit with DA3. Then again I'm not one to judge the DA crew in cases like this.  

Edit: I should point out that, I think an interupt if not put in the right spot, is why I would have "WTF" moment.

Modifié par ZeroDragon980, 22 mai 2011 - 12:23 .

[nightcobra]

David Gaider wrote...

Next up - I demand we change the DA franchise into a hip hopera.

If this means a mass dance-off against the final boss, I'm totally down for that.

if DA3 is to be set in Orlais, i wouldn't put it beneath them XD

and yes i believe the set for DA3 to be Orlais if only because it is the HQ of the now crumbling chantry, sandal supposedly going there and the ornate design of the DA3 announcement logo.

[Firefeng]

JohnEpler wrote...

My word is law!

Next up - I demand we change the DA franchise into a hip hopera.

Don't be daft.  The next DA chapter should obviously take after cinema classics like Stomp the Yard, How She Move, and Step Up 2: The Streets.  If my Rogue main character can't say, "Aww, Hell, dawg, YOU GOT SERVED!" after flipping around the battlefield, then I really don't know why Bioware would even make a third Dragon Age.

[Zeevico]

At least one rendition of Thriller must appear in a future Bioware game.

[Dragoonlordz]

What really goes on inside the mages circle behind closed doors, rehabilitation takes many forms...

[tonnactus]

No thanks.In worst cases,like the bloodpack krogan in tuchanka,the game even wanted to force me to make a renegade interrupt...
Otherwise the stupid lizard would talk for minutes.

[JabbaDaHutt30]

David Gaider wrote...

Next up - I demand we change the DA franchise into a hip hopera.

If this means a mass dance-off against the final boss, I'm totally down for that.

Couldn't be any worse than Dragon Age 2's final boss battle.

[FieryDove]

JohnEpler wrote...

I'm a big fan of the interrupt system, personally. I believe you can still implement it without the necessity of attaching it to a Paragon/Renegade sort of meter, though I would agree that you have to be careful about telegraphing them properly and ensuring that the person who uses them has at least some idea what's going to happen.

Nonsense, everyone loves surprises like how the ME games did it. You might grab someone’s collar, punch or stab someone. You never knew it was so exciting!
/sarcasm
I dislike interrupts for the same reason I think the wheel is ebil. I want to choose what my character does and says (within reason) and there was no rhyme or reason to most of it in the ME games. Imho
 

[Drachasor]

FieryDove wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

I'm a big fan of the interrupt system, personally. I believe you can still implement it without the necessity of attaching it to a Paragon/Renegade sort of meter, though I would agree that you have to be careful about telegraphing them properly and ensuring that the person who uses them has at least some idea what's going to happen.

Nonsense, everyone loves surprises like how the ME games did it. You might grab someone’s collar, punch or stab someone. You never knew it was so exciting!
/sarcasm
I dislike interrupts for the same reason I think the wheel is ebil. I want to choose what my character does and says (within reason) and there was no rhyme or reason to most of it in the ME games. Imho
 

The interrupts were typically a bit less coy than the dialogue options -- seriously, it does feel at times like whoever writes the dialogue wheel choices isn't giving a short summary but instead decided they'd give a vague hint as to what you'd say.  The interrupts generally didn't feel that bad, but I think they could benefit from a direct statement about what you will do like "kill him", "grab the weapon", etc (and a pause button would be nice for some gamers).  As long as such statements aren't coy or needlessly vague it would work fine.  Also, don't be afraid of complete sentences, devs, I think everyone can handle reading that!

[JabbaDaHutt30]

FieryDove wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

I'm a big fan of the interrupt system, personally. I believe you can still implement it without the necessity of attaching it to a Paragon/Renegade sort of meter, though I would agree that you have to be careful about telegraphing them properly and ensuring that the person who uses them has at least some idea what's going to happen.

Nonsense, everyone loves surprises like how the ME games did it. You might grab someone’s collar, punch or stab someone. You never knew it was so exciting!
/sarcasm
I dislike interrupts for the same reason I think the wheel is ebil. I want to choose what my character does and says (within reason) and there was no rhyme or reason to most of it in the ME games. Imho
 

ME 2 did it well, actually...

[Drachasor]

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...
ME 2 did it well, actually...

I'd say 90-95% of them were done well.  There were definitely some that were unclear.  It wouldn't have hurt to have a short bit of text indicating the action to be taken ("kill him", "punch him", etc) and sometimes it seems like you could have competing interrupts which would be neat to have in ME3 (again though, that would definitely require a bit of text).

[In Exile]

FieryDove wrote...
I dislike interrupts for the same reason I think the wheel is ebil. I want to choose what my character does and says (within reason) and there was no rhyme or reason to most of it in the ME games. Imho
 

The thing is, silent VO isn't actually any good at that. At least, for me. I'm a naturally sarcastic person, and I tend to always RP characters that are the same (because I find other characters boring). I'm also very active when I speak, and I tend to RP characters who are also active (e.g. always speak for myself).

With silent VO, you have times when other NPCs speak for you. That automatically breaks my character, especially when you can't cut them off and put them in their place. There's also lots of dialogue the game plays straight that I thought was sarcastic. In fact, there's one dialogue in DA:O that the game considers sexual that I considered rather in-your-face mockery.

Worse yet, silent VO usually means a no opinion game, which is terrible. My characters, in virtue of being active, have lots of opinions and often want to offer them. Except (e.g. in DA:O) there are no options to do this. You can't call out Alistair after Redcliffe. You can't justify yourself to Morrigain or Wynne. 

More generally, you are stuck with a voice in an RPG -  the word and intonation that the writers give, based on how the NPCs react. Now, someone like Sylvius will say that it might be a misunderstanding, but I'm going to reply succintly with this: I RP characters that are very talented orators (and if there are skills there, I take them). So in DA:O, my characters with 4 ranks in persuade shouldn't be misunderstood every third sentece. Because that either means my character is broken, or everyone in Thedas is functionally retarded.

Modifié par In Exile, 23 mai 2011 - 07:46 .

[SilentK]

Ohhh... I totally missed this interupt-discussion. I would be very glad to see it in some form in DA3. I'm sure that you will find someway to suit the DA-universe. Not having it tied to morality will be pretty nice. I'm all for it!

[AkiKishi]

I really disliked they static nature of the DA2 cutscenes. Made you feel like much more of a spectator than in ME2.

[Kilshrek]

Oh God.. Doth thou seest what thou hath wrought, Bioware? Now every man and his dog shall want interrupts in their conversations, or we'll just be spectators. Wait, I felt like that all game long..

Thanks for nothing cinematic gaming, evidently the what and the how of a story is about is of lesser concern to how you show a story. We'll be having Michael Bay doing games very soon.

Modifié par Kilshrek, 23 mai 2011 - 11:08 .

[FieryDove]

In Exile wrote...

So in DA:O, my characters with 4 ranks in persuade shouldn't be misunderstood every third sentece. Because that either means my character is broken, or everyone in Thedas is functionally retarded.

You just solved the problem. Everyone is an idiot. in DA2 a mage character really didn't work unless they were. No one except Meredith notices I'm a mage? Really?

I won't get into a VO/non VO debate again. It goes nowhere. Correction, it goes in circles.

I don't like the wheel for several reasons, in DA2 it just seemed even more limited because of tone, and my characters are normally sarcastic as well but there were too many instances the humor/charm option made me scratch my head I just ended up being diplomatic with them all. I don't think that was the game designers intention.

[ZombiePowered]

On the subject of dialogue improvements, I'd also suggest that characters should argue over each other in heated situations. It's weird that in intense arguments (think Meredith vs. Orsino in the beginning of Act III) characters rarely cut each other off, and never talk/shout over one another. It's a little thing, but those kinds of details can really add a layer of believability to conversations.

Modifié par ZombiePowered, 23 mai 2011 - 11:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

The thing is, silent VO isn't actually any good at that. At least, for me. I'm a naturally sarcastic person, and I tend to always RP characters that are the same (because I find other characters boring).

You're probably the best person to ask this.  I've been asking it here and there, and I haven't had a response.

What's the deal with sarcasm?

In nearly every defense of the DA2 dialogue system, sarcasm is brought up as something valuable with the game offers.  No other wide-ranging dialogue traits are used in the same way.  No one trumpets DA2's ability to offer a dismissive or condescending character, or even a sardonic character (which isn't so far removed from sarcastic).

Is sarcasm so popular everyone who carres about this sort of thing sees sarcasm as a necessary mode of expression, or is it that DA2 consistently offers sarcasm as an option, so a defense of sarcasm is the best way to defend DA2?

I don't really see the value of sarcasm, and I'm rarely sarcastic myself (largely because to do so invites misunderstanding, and requires that I make literally false statements), so I don't get why everyone seems so excited by sarcasm.

I'm also very active when I speak, and I tend to RP characters who are also active (e.g. always speak for myself).

What does that mean, though?  Not speaking for yourself doesn't require that you have other people speak for you.  Simply not speaking, which is my preferred avenue, is just as viable.

With silent VO, you have times when other NPCs speak for you.

They speak.  Whether they speak for you is open for debate.

That automatically breaks my character, especially when you can't cut them off and put them in their place.

I'll grant that being unable to say things you must say would break your character, but other characters saying things can't break your character, because their behaviour has nothing to do with your character.

And, as I've mentioned before, I think designing a character that needs to speak his mind all the time is a character wilfully designed to break the game.

There's also lots of dialogue the game plays straight that I thought was sarcastic. In fact, there's one dialogue in DA:O that the game considers sexual that I considered rather in-your-face mockery.

I still think people misunderstanding your mockery makes it more effective as mockery.

Worse yet, silent VO usually means a no opinion game, which is terrible. My characters, in virtue of being active, have lots of opinions and often want to offer them.

Having opinions and voicing those opinions are very different things.  My characters have opinions (a character designed not to have opinions would also, I think, be a character wilfully designed to break the game - even though I think a lack of opinions is a viable real-world stance), but they're generally content to keep those to themselves.  Perhaps they don't seek the approval of those around them, as much.

Except (e.g. in DA:O) there are no options to do this. You can't call out Alistair after Redcliffe. You can't justify yourself to Morrigain or Wynne.

If they have no consequences relative to the authored narrative, I still insist these conversations can take place off-screen.  And you have offered no explanation at all as to why they cannot.

More generally, you are stuck with a voice in an RPG -  the word and intonation that the writers give, based on how the NPCs react. Now, someone like Sylvius will say that it might be a misunderstanding, but I'm going to reply succintly with this: I RP characters that are very talented orators (and if there are skills there, I take them). So in DA:O, my characters with 4 ranks in persuade shouldn't be misunderstood every third sentece. Because that either means my character is broken, or everyone in Thedas is functionally retarded.

I don't really think it's possible to be a "very talented orator" without also having the ability to read people's minds, so I don't think this can be a serious complaint.  You can't make people do or think what you want them to think without learning what it is they want, and individuals are not sufficiently relevantly similar for anyone to do this on a grand scale.  It can't work with all people - and your party members are demonstrably exceptional, so why shouldn't they stand out from the crowd?

If your character is designed around the behaviour of other characters whom you do not control, then you character is- again - wilfully designed to break the game.

[HTTP 404]

I would do all of the funny/sarcastic interrupts for the, how you say, lulz.

but no, there's no need for interrupts. As much as I love mass effect, I would like to see Dragon Age games more distinctive from mass effect.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You're probably the best person to ask this.  I've been asking it here and there, and I haven't had a response.

What's the deal with sarcasm?

In nearly every defense of the DA2 dialogue system, sarcasm is brought up as something valuable with the game offers.  No other wide-ranging dialogue traits are used in the same way.  No one trumpets DA2's ability to offer a dismissive or condescending character, or even a sardonic character (which isn't so far removed from sarcastic).

Is sarcasm so popular everyone who carres about this sort of thing sees sarcasm as a necessary mode of expression, or is it that DA2 consistently offers sarcasm as an option, so a defense of sarcasm is the best way to defend DA2?

I don't really see the value of sarcasm, and I'm rarely sarcastic myself (largely because to do so invites misunderstanding, and requires that I make literally false statements), so I don't get why everyone seems so excited by sarcasm.

At least for me, it's how I envision most characters. If I had to design a character from the ground up, a talkative, act-before-you-think joker would be the sort of person I'd envision.

I don't think sarcasm is so widespread that people praise it because it resonates with them so strongly. It's just that, at some points, mockery is a natural reaction of people. And RPGs never gave you the ability to do that. At least, not in Bioware games. Not in many other games, either. DA:O was the first game that I played where the PC could really be sarcastic (though it was very rare).

I think most praise just comes from the fact that DA2 has it and other games didn't. Any future Bioware games won't get as much praise for it.

Though to be fair, renegade ME options were sometimes sarcastic. But with the paraphrase, the renegade options were the russian roulette option. I'm diplomatic to a fault when I have  a task to acomplish, so it never occured to me, but it turns out I didn't have a problem with the dialogue wheel and paraphrase because I was never tempted to pick renegade options,  and the few times I did (save with the Consort in ME1) it was to be aggressive, and Shepard was.

But I tried a renegade-only playthrough recently in ME to see that content, and it's like a Kinder Surprise Egg. You'll never know what you get with Renegade Shepard.

What does that mean, though?  Not speaking for yourself doesn't require that you have other people speak for you.  Simply not speaking, which is my preferred avenue, is just as viable.

I'm not sure I understand. My characters often have a reaction that they want to have known. Although silence is an option, when there is no dialogue option (and no one speaks), I just write off the silence of my character as the game not offering the option. It's not reasonable to expect infinite opportunities to react, after all.

My objection to other NPCs speaking is that clearly the developers wanted either an elaboration, or reaction, or description (or in the case of Alistair, Duncan or Carth, someone to take charge) and it was given to a character that wasn't mine. Not being able to act in that case breaks my character, like ME forcing you to act (when, for example, Shepard volunteers information you wouldn't) breaks your characters.

They speak.  Whether they speak for you is open for debate.

They speak when the game does not allow me to speak, but my character would. With Duncan, they actually speak when I should, and would, irrespective of the address.

I'll grant that being unable to say things you must say would break your character, but other characters saying things can't break your character, because their behaviour has nothing to do with your character.

And, as I've mentioned before, I think designing a character that needs to speak his mind all the time is a character wilfully designed to break the game.

It's the only character I can make. If I had the choice between a passive PC from the start and not playing the game at all, I'd likely not play the game at all.

I still think people misunderstanding your mockery makes it more effective as mockery.

It really does dependent. There are times when I want the other person to know I am mocking them, because I feel that they are being so ridiculous that merely pointing it out does not go far enough.

Having opinions and voicing those opinions are very different things.  My characters have opinions (a character designed not to have opinions would also, I think, be a character wilfully designed to break the game - even though I think a lack of opinions is a viable real-world stance), but they're generally content to keep those to themselves.  Perhaps they don't seek the approval of those around them, as much

.

It's not about seeking approval. It's about wanting to talk. I talk about myself. It's my way of interacting. I ask questions about people to get to know them, but it is so counter to who I am as a person that I could not feel in control of a character and not offer a thought or opinion in a circumstance.

I tried a DA:O playthrough without opinions. It works. All you need is a character committed to a path she started (to justify why she would stay on after Ostagar). Then, in every choice, just do whatever you agreed to first (e.g. kill Witherfang because you agreed to) or otherwise let characters keep doing what they were doing when you interrupted their conversation.

If they have no consequences relative to the authored narrative, I still insist these conversations can take place off-screen.  And you have offered no explanation at all as to why they cannot.

In DA:O? In-game alignment. It is the literal and divine measure of how much an NPC likes you. But it does not shift. More generally, it would (in the case of Alistair or Wynne) require a resolution where the characters would so strongly change their opinions that it would change the authored narrative.

I've said before: if there is no detectable change in between scenes, you can quite literally imagine anything. Like the scenario I gave where the Warden & co. defeat the Repears and then have their minds wiped and travel backwards in time to the point they started. 

As you do, I acknowleddge that such a thing would be logically possible: but any outcome that I would desire in an interaction would alter the authoered narrative.

I don't really think it's possible to be a "very talented orator" without also having the ability to read people's minds, so I don't think this can be a serious complaint.  You can't make people do or think what you want them to think without learning what it is they want, and individuals are not sufficiently relevantly similar for anyone to do this on a grand scale.  It can't work with all people - and your party members are demonstrably exceptional, so why shouldn't they stand out from the crowd?

Funnily enough, lore-wise, it would be consistent for a bood mage PC to actually literally read the minds of NPCs. I actually had a very different reply to your post, but DA:O does allow for mind-reading (and mind control).

Your argument hinges on the assumption that it is not possible for a person to communicate in such a way that two people understand the same thing. My contention is that it is possible to do so in a way that makes whatever the other person understands indistinguishable in all cases from perfectly understanding each other.

Metaphysically, you'd be right to say it's logically impossible for me to know whether I could ever actually convince someone of anything. But that's not a standard that matters for me. All I care about is behaviour; and it is very much possible to act in such a way that the person acts as if they understand. And my character is the kind of character that speaks in suh a way as to create this as if understanding.

If your character is designed around the behaviour of other characters whom you do not control, then you character is- again - wilfully designed to break the game.

I agree. But I disagree that the character is designed around uncontrollable behaviour.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

At least for me, it's how I envision most characters. If I had to design a character from the ground up, a talkative, act-before-you-think joker would be the sort of person I'd envision.[/quote]
Ahh.  I equate "act-before-you-think" with "idiot", so I wouldn't typically want to play such a character.
[quote]I don't think sarcasm is so widespread that people praise it because it resonates with them so strongly. It's just that, at some points, mockery is a natural reaction of people. And RPGs never gave you the ability to do that. At least, not in Bioware games. Not in many other games, either. DA:O was the first game that I played where the PC could really be sarcastic (though it was very rare).[/quote]
I think most BioWare games have permited mockery.  It was typically quite dry, but that's how I like it.

And perhaps the writers didn't intend those lines to be mockery, but since even the NPC reactions are consistent with dry mockery, the interpretation works even by your needlessly restrictive standards.
[quote]I think most praise just comes from the fact that DA2 has it and other games didn't.[/quote]
As it's not something I value, and it so often occupies 1/3 of the available options, I view it as a negative rather than a positive.  I'd rather we had more dialogue options that actually said something meaningful, regardless of how humourous they are.
[quote]I'm diplomatic to a fault when I have  a task to acomplish,[/quote]
I prefer to be direct when I have a task to accomplish, and DA2 almost never gives Hawke a direct response.  He's either argumentative, simpering, or he makes a joke.

The gavel icon was often direct, but the gavel icon wasn't often available.
[/quote]But I tried a renegade-only playthrough recently in ME to see that content, and it's like a Kinder Surprise Egg. You'll never know what you get with Renegade Shepard. [/quote]
I found that was true with Paragon Shepard in ME2.  trying to be diplomatic in that game was a crap shoot.

Incidentally, did you know that Kinder Eggs are illegal in the US?  Crazy FDA.
[quote]I'm not sure I understand. My characters often have a reaction that they want to have known. Although silence is an option, when there is no dialogue option (and no one speaks), I just write off the silence of my character as the game not offering the option. It's not reasonable to expect infinite opportunities to react, after all.

My objection to other NPCs speaking is that clearly the developers wanted either an elaboration, or reaction, or description (or in the case of Alistair, Duncan or Carth, someone to take charge) and it was given to a character that wasn't mine.[/quote]
I'm confident I don't understand.  What the developers want is a metagame concern.  I don't see how that impacts in-character decision-making at all.

If an NPC asks a question, and someone else responds, then he wasn't asking my character the question.  If I get dialogue options, then he was addressing my character.

Certainly, if an NPC is unambiguously asking a question of the PC, and the PC isn't permitted to respond, then yes, I agree that would break your characters (that would break most characters, I think).  I also don't think that happened much, if at all.

Are you perhaps viewing your character as the spokesperson for the group, and thus you should be able to respond to all queries?
[quote]Not being able to act in that case breaks my character, like ME forcing you to act (when, for example, Shepard volunteers information you wouldn't) breaks your characters.[/quote]
How does that not break your character, though?  If Shepard volunteers information that you want not to divulge, surely that breaks your characters, as well.
[quote]It's the only character I can make. If I had the choice between a passive PC from the start and not playing the game at all, I'd likely not play the game at all. [/quote]
Similarly, if given the choice at the start between playing a character I'm not permitted to control and not playing the game at all, I, all else being equal, would choose not to play the game.
[quote]It really does dependent. There are times when I want the other person to know I am mocking them, because I feel that they are being so ridiculous that merely pointing it out does not go far enough. [/quote]
You engage in mockery for the benefit of others.  I engage in mockery purely for my own benefit.

My way has a higher success rate.
[quote]I tried a DA:O playthrough without opinions. It works. All you need is a character committed to a path she started (to justify why she would stay on after Ostagar). Then, in every choice, just do whatever you agreed to first (e.g. kill Witherfang because you agreed to) or otherwise let characters keep doing what they were doing when you interrupted their conversation. [/quote]
I'd say you just described a polite character, rather than one who doesn't have opinions.  He's a character who keeps his word, but otherwise leaves people be.

I've played that character.  I often play that character.  That's my default first playthrough of nearly every game.
[quote]In DA:O? In-game alignment. It is the literal and divine measure of how much an NPC likes you. But it does not shift. More generally, it would (in the case of Alistair or Wynne) require a resolution where the characters would so strongly change their opinions that it would change the authored narrative.

I've said before: if there is no detectable change in between scenes, you can quite literally imagine anything. Like the scenario I gave where the Warden & co. defeat the Repears and then have their minds wiped and travel backwards in time to the point they started. 

As you do, I acknowleddge that such a thing would be logically possible: but any outcome that I would desire in an interaction would alter the authoered narrative.[/quote]
That's the part I don't get.  I don't understand why it would require a change.  As you just agreed, the opposite is logically possible.  Therefore, the narrative change isn't necessary.  There exists an explanation for the lack of a narrative change pursuant to that off-screen conversation, even including the lack of change in the approval meter (which I'll admit I do tend to ignore, because I'm not sure what it's measuring).

[quote]Your argument hinges on the assumption that it is not possible for a person to communicate in such a way that two people understand the same thing.[/quote]
If I can rephrase that slightly, I don't think it's possible for a person to express himself (communicate, as you put it) in such a way that any two people will necessarily understand the same thing.
[quote]My contention is that it is possible to do so in a way that makes whatever the other person understands indistinguishable in all cases from perfectly understanding each other.

Metaphysically, you'd be right to say it's logically impossible for me to know whether I could ever actually convince someone of anything. But that's not a standard that matters for me. All I care about is behaviour; and it is very much possible to act in such a way that the person acts as if they understand. And my character is the kind of character that speaks in suh a way as to create this as if understanding. [/quote]
I don't think you can even reasonably expect to produce that resultant behaviour, as to do so you would need to have some idea by what mechanism each person's behaviour was produced, and you don't have that.  Especially since they are independent agents who could even choose to randomise their behaviour, which is necessarily unpredictable.

You can't know how people are going to behave based on what you say to them, and as such requiring NPC behaviour in reponse to your PC's statements is completely absurd.
[quote]I agree. But I disagree that the character is designed around uncontrollable behaviour.[/quote]
Hopefully I've just shown you that it is.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 24 mai 2011 - 07:14 .

[In Exile]

FieryDove wrote...

You just solved the problem. Everyone is an idiot. in DA2 a mage character really didn't work unless they were. No one except Meredith notices I'm a mage? Really?

Naw, DA2 loses a lot of the plothole magic if we just assume a particular returning templar from DA:O is functionally retarded. He has the mandatory idiot ball in Act I, and if you go to the Meredith thread in the spoiler section, you can see a video of a very, very ridiculous exchange from Act III.

I don't like the wheel for several reasons, in DA2 it just seemed even more limited because of tone, and my characters are normally sarcastic as well but there were too many instances the humor/charm option made me scratch my head I just ended up being diplomatic with them all. I don't think that was the game designers intention.

I thought the tone provided much more freedom, and it matched up very well with what I wanted to do. But I think it comes down to entirely inconsistent playstyles.

And it's been months since Sylvius and I talked about dialogue. It's like... contractually mandated we discuss this every so often. It wouldn't be the DA forums without it. We've been doing it for years, since before Dragon Age was released.

[Xewaka]

simfamSP wrote...
Maybe for you, but the whole situation becomes much more organic when you suddenly grab hold of your lover and kiss her. It feels very... real.
I don't see how this defects from roleplaying since it's a choice not a forced response. 
I could have definatley used it more than once in DA2. But I agree with you to a point. In important plot points the option should be erased, even if logic dictates it should be used.

How do you know the blinking button that appears for maybe a couple seconds means your character will grab and kiss his/her lover? That's the problem with action interrupts, they simply lack a way to inform the player of wether the action they propose is in-character with how the player wants its character to act. It's the same problem paraphrases have, but magnified.

[In Exile]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Ahh.  I equate "act-before-you-think" with "idiot", so I wouldn't typically want to play such a character. [/quote]

Haha.

I was using that in the colloquial sense of quick to act. Not to suggest an actual lack of thinking.

That being said, you can analyze a situation rapdily and throw yourself in the middle of it without being stupid, though I would wager you'd respond that the behaviour I suggest is in and of itself stupid.

[quote]I think most BioWare games have permited mockery.  It was typically quite dry, but that's how I like it.

And perhaps the writers didn't intend those lines to be mockery, but since even the NPC reactions are consistent with dry mockery, the interpretation works even by your needlessly restrictive standards. [/quote]

DA2 went beyond that, and I think that's what is more in-line with what many players would look for re: sarcasm. At any rate, I think it's just a reaction to a subjective feeling the feature is present moreso than it being well done or a standpoint compared to any other dialogue tone.

[quote]As it's not something I value, and it so often occupies 1/3 of the available options, I view it as a negative rather than a positive.  I'd rather we had more dialogue options that actually said something meaningful, regardless of how humourous they are. [/quote]

Humour is meaningful (not for the player, but for the PC). I have to ask, what do you consider meaningful that humour does not fit?

[quote]I prefer to be direct when I have a task to accomplish, and DA2 almost never gives Hawke a direct response.  He's either argumentative, simpering, or he makes a joke.

The gavel icon was often direct, but the gavel icon wasn't often available.[/quote]

The diplomatic options in DA:O were more sycophant than actually silver-tongued diplomatic.

You know, replaying DA:O, sometimes I feel that speaking to you in person would be a little like speaking to Sten.

[/quote]I found that was true with Paragon Shepard in ME2.  trying to be diplomatic in that game was a crap shoot.

Incidentally, did you know that Kinder Eggs are illegal in the US?  Crazy FDA. [/quote]

Really? I grew up in Eastern Europe, and they were my go-to treat. Found some recently in at Shoppers Drug Mart and was ecstatic.

I found the paragon interrupts in ME2 to be incoherent and unpredictable (though the renegade, being much more narrow to violent psychopath, were at least predictable in the violent psychopath-ness). What was it about the dialogue options themselves that you found unpredictable?

[quote]
I'm confident I don't understand.  What the developers want is a metagame concern.  I don't see how that impacts in-character decision-making at all.

If an NPC asks a question, and someone else responds, then he wasn't asking my character the question.  If I get dialogue options, then he was addressing my character.

Certainly, if an NPC is unambiguously asking a question of the PC, and the PC isn't permitted to respond, then yes, I agree that would break your characters (that would break most characters, I think).  I also don't think that happened much, if at all.

Are you perhaps viewing your character as the spokesperson for the group, and thus you should be able to respond to all queries?[/quote]

Let me clarify. When I mention the developers, it's not to say that their intentions have value in-character. Rather, what I meant was that from a design standpoint, they wanted that topic to be broached (so it was not, as with my lamentation over the lack of an attempted Cousland usurping of the crown at the landsmeet, simply something not implemented) but something the designers chose to allow an NPC to say but not the PC.

To give you an example, the HN in DA:O meets with Cailan. Cailan asks why Papa Cousland is not present. The HN can mentions the father's death in some way. Cailin then addresses his question to Duncan. Now, that's fine. That's Cailan's business.

But the HN can't respond or interject. Duncan is speaking. My characters would interrupt Duncan to - among other things - accuse him of criminal behaviour for abandon the Teyrna and Teyrn to death to make away with a recruit and tell the story himself. 

To respond to your question, it's not that I view the character as the spokesperson (I actually love that in DA2, it made perfect sense for Hawke not to be a leader at all; Hawke only spoke most of the time because it was Hawke who badgered his friends to come along with him). Rather, my characters would simply talk anyway.

Like how other characters can chime in without being prompted when someone is addressing the Warden.

Funnily enough, my characters would interrupt really often. That scene with Duncan is an excellent moment where I would cut off Cailin.

To be honest (and this just came to me) if a game honestly had silent VO and allowed for frequent dialogue interrupts and otherwise let the PC be very active (KoTOR 2 actually does a good job of this at points) then I wouldn't object to silent VO anywhere near as much. In fact, the only thing that would bother me would be a subjective perception of difference, because unlike most, I cannot read with a tone. My reading voice is universal and monotone.

[quote]How does that not break your character, though?  If Shepard volunteers information that you want not to divulge, surely that breaks your characters, as well.[/quote]

I want to volunteer the information most of the time, so I never run into the problem. But ME2 did manage to break my Shepard and get me to the point where I had to debate restarting the game. And that was when Shepard started volunteering he was working for Cereberus.

I eventually came up with a tortured rationalization (Shepard was trying to leave a huge enough trail that the Alliance would catch the Illusive Man), but otherwise I never had the problem.

[quote]Similarly, if given the choice at the start between playing a character I'm not permitted to control and not playing the game at all, I, all else being equal, would choose not to play the game.[/quote]

See what I suggested above about silent VO interrupts. It may be that would be a system that works for us. I'd certainly compromise on the lack of a voice if the PC could be as active as I wanted to. I thought about this playing the Witcher 2, and contrasting how passive Hawke felt overall in DA2 by comparison. The voice was great, and all in all makes me rate the game much, much higher than I would have without it, but I realize that other features are more important to me than just having VO for the PC. And that's havin an active PC. 

[quote]You engage in mockery for the benefit of others.  I engage in mockery purely for my own benefit.

My way has a higher success rate.[/quote]

I engage in communication for the sake of others, too. Your way is also more fun. I do it sometimes. It's great.

[quote]I'd say you just described a polite character, rather than one who doesn't have opinions.  He's a character who keeps his word, but otherwise leaves people be.

I've played that character.  I often play that character.  That's my default first playthrough of nearly every game.[/quote]

Why do you feel the character I described holds an opinion (aside from valuing fidelity)? 

[quote]That's the part I don't get.  I don't understand why it would require a change.  As you just agreed, the opposite is logically possible.  Therefore, the narrative change isn't necessary.  There exists an explanation for the lack of a narrative change pursuant to that off-screen conversation, even including the lack of change in the approval meter (which I'll admit I do tend to ignore, because I'm not sure what it's measuring). [/quote]

Whereas there is a logically possible scenario that covers that, the best way to put it is... there isn't a scenario I can believably construct for my character that would have Alistair act in-character, my character act-in character, and be consistent with no aligment change and no character change for him.

Whereas there are an infinite number of possible states in between any two states, that does not mean any particular state imaginable fits. Infinite != all.

[quote[If I can rephrase that slightly, I don't think it's possible for a person to express himself (communicate, as you put it) in such a way that [i]any[/i] two people will necessarily understand the same thing.[/quote]

I see what you mean.

[quote]I don't think you can even reasonably expect to produce that resultant behaviour, as to do so you would need to have some idea by what mechanism each person's behaviour was produced, and you don't have that.  Especially since they are independent agents who could even choose to randomise their behaviour, which is necessarily unpredictable. [/quote]

Not at all. Behaviour isn't unpredictable; it's... reasonably predictable, to use that phrase. Which is to say that you have a higher than chance sucess rate at predicting it. It's quite honestly a science.

It comes down to what you consider an adequate success rate. Certainly, you could assume that people are entirely incomparable. But that's prima facie false. There are overlapping similarities between people.

[quote]You can't know how people are going to behave based on what you say to them, and as such requiring NPC behaviour in reponse to your PC's statements is completely absurd. [/quote]

But you and I believe know means different things. You think know is binary. I don't.

I can have as reasonable a belief that a person will behave in X way as I can that the sun will rise tomorrow or that electical discharges may be fatal.