447 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Considering Sketch says "don't hang out with storytellers. Never know what they'll say." I bet Bioware placed that quest in there just as a last resort.

"Varric lied! Hawke actually did investigate Leandra's death! Varric just thinks Hawke is an enormous putz and wants to make him seem that way!"

So Hawke was really a proactive and intelligent character, he was simply smeared by Varric? Jealous over Merrill's affections for Hawke, perhaps?

that's the only thing that makes sense.

Wait, why was Varric away from Bianca when he was telling Cassandra the tale?! Is there even a Bianca?!

[Zanallen]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Genly wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
You just described they way it works with DA2 in a nutshell.

I honestly haven't noticed that. Even when you consider an obviously poor (and funny hehe) example of the paraphrasing ("I'm a mage" -> "I have mage friends"), the end resultlng meaning is the same. Even if it completely destroys my sense of roleplaying , Anders will still like me, NPC should know I support mages and not his ideas, etc.

So, the paraphrasing icon wheel doesn't function as well as the literal written line responses in Origins?

No. He said that the paraphrasing doesn't work. It tone icon works just fine.

[erynnar]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

@Ery: No. Your sig should be "I want to be a dragon".

How about "I wan't to be a dragon," but "I'm hungry," because "I'm a mage!"

[Tommy6860]

Genly wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

So, the paraphrasing icon wheel doesn't function as well as the literal written line responses in Origins?

For purely roleplaying reasons, it does not. But in the context in dave's post you were replying too, your mileage may vary, as I posted here...

It was more a rhetorical question on my part in the context of how he replied to my reply to Dave. I just found it an oddity that while Morroian was seemingly expressing a preference for DA2's VO and paraphrasing, that somehow Origin's style still works better as he indicated DA2's was broken, hmm, go figure.

[LobselVith8]

Mr.House wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David says nearly everything I would want him to say in this interview. He agrees that the game's story is more the player's story than it is the writer's story.

Given how linear the story is, and how little control the player had over Hawke's personality, is it really the "player's story"? I don't think it's the "player's story" to have a reactive protagonist who does nothing and who we have little control over when his religious beliefs and his perceptions are being dictated to us.

What game where you playing? Hawkes personality was one of the few things YOU DID have control of.

I didn't have control over Hawke being Andrastian, I didn't have control when Hawke spoke dialogue lines that I had no control over, I didn't have control when I chose specific dialogue options and Hawke said something that was entirely different.

[Zanallen]

Genly wrote...

We shouldn't be able to have full control on the reactions
of NPCs/companions anyway. The problem, as I see it, happens when an
unexpected companion's response was caused because he misinterpreted it,
not because of his own personality/plot/etc.

For example, let's say for DA:O style,
you have to choose a text line to say something to Anders, then you
pick one that you intend to be a joke. But instead the game "chooses"
for you a serious tone, making Anders angry and you lose friendship.
Now, let's say you say that same thing to Aveline: even if she knows
you're joking, she might react badly anyway. In both cases, their
responses were "unexpected", but in the first case, it was a flaw of the
"system",

Now
how much that happened in DA:O? Maybe once or twice with me, but I
always play the good, hero option anyway. While with the DA2 icons,
you always know at least your tone, which should impact the
NPCs/companions' view of your character.

This. This is the reason I enjoy the tone icons. The game's dialogue comes with a set tone, whether you recognize it or not. The game doesn't care how you "roleplay" the tone of your responses. It ignores it and uses the predefined tone inherent with the writer's intent.

[Tommy6860]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Genly wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

So, the paraphrasing icon wheel doesn't function as well as the literal written line responses in Origins?

For purely roleplaying reasons, it does not. But in the context in dave's post you were replying too, your mileage may vary, as I posted here...

Genly wrote...

We shouldn't be able to have full control on the reactions
of NPCs/companions anyway. The problem, as I see it, happens when an
unexpected companion's response was caused because he misinterpreted it,
not because of his own personality/plot/etc.

For example, let's say for DA:O style,
you have to choose a text line to say something to Anders, then you
pick one that you intend to be a joke. But instead the game "chooses"
for you a serious tone, making Anders angry and you lose friendship.
Now, let's say you say that same thing to Aveline: even if she knows
you're joking, she might react badly anyway. In both cases, their
responses were "unexpected", but in the first case, it was a flaw of the
"system",

Now
how much that happened in DA:O? Maybe once or twice with me, but I
always play the good, hero option anyway. While with the DA2 icons,
you always know at least your tone, which should impact the
NPCs/companions' view of your character.

the tones definitely helped establish a character's preconception towards Hawke. There was one instance with Carver where you could make a joke and he goes "Sure. Make light, that's all you ever do."

Now I know that's a response that doesn't require you to always pick the sarcastic option, but.... hmmm......... how do I phrase this. Sorry my brain's not working well today, but I think people might know what I'm trying to convey.

I agree with this example and for that one instance, it was fitting and worked. But, such as it is, there are far too few examples that really conveys the responses appropriately in the game.

[erynnar]

Zanallen wrote...

Genly wrote...

We shouldn't be able to have full control on the reactions
of NPCs/companions anyway. The problem, as I see it, happens when an
unexpected companion's response was caused because he misinterpreted it,
not because of his own personality/plot/etc.

For example, let's say for DA:O style,
you have to choose a text line to say something to Anders, then you
pick one that you intend to be a joke. But instead the game "chooses"
for you a serious tone, making Anders angry and you lose friendship.
Now, let's say you say that same thing to Aveline: even if she knows
you're joking, she might react badly anyway. In both cases, their
responses were "unexpected", but in the first case, it was a flaw of the
"system",

Now
how much that happened in DA:O? Maybe once or twice with me, but I
always play the good, hero option anyway. While with the DA2 icons,
you always know at least your tone, which should impact the
NPCs/companions' view of your character.

This. This is the reason I enjoy the tone icons. The game's dialogue comes with a set tone, whether you recognize it or not. The game doesn't care how you "roleplay" the tone of your responses. It ignores it and uses the predefined tone inherent with the writer's intent.

I am playing DAO now, and I don't always have NPC's reacting in any weird way from what I choose from the list. Unlike DA2 where the NPC's may not react strangely to Hawke's "tone" but I sure as hell do. And for the record, my hubby played Douchwall of Kirkwall and the aggressive options are not always aggressive. In fact, one I chose as snarky was more aggressive and garned me a very mad NPC. 

I have had more unpleasant surprises in DA2 than I ever had in DAO, not even in my first playthrough. And sorry, but Hawke being snarky or douchey or happy happy in a cut away is not doing it for me in making Hawke my character. It's weak broth.

Modifié par erynnar, 01 juin 2011 - 01:02 .

[TEWR]

I would've liked to make Hawke an atheist. Right now I'm roleplaying Damaeus Cousland as an atheist because he was actually given the option to tell Mother Mallol in Castle Cousland that he doesn't believe in the Maker.

That.... actually made me happy when I found it out.

Little choices on a character mean so much in the grand scheme of things.

[Aesieru]

Well... when you got the Urn of Sacred Ashes, there was really no way you could be Atheist anymore... unless of course you were either ignorant, denialistic, or my personal favorite, a proponent that it was ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, and thus a conspiracy.

[_Aine_]

Zanallen wrote...

This. This is the reason I enjoy the tone icons. The game's dialogue comes with a set tone, whether you recognize it or not. The game doesn't care how you "roleplay" the tone of your responses. It ignores it and uses the predefined tone inherent with the writer's intent.

I agree, I liked how it allowed us to convey our tone and shape our personalities with it.   But as for what I highlighted above, that very thing is the opposite of what I want it to do:  I would love it if  the world CARED about my tone and choices.  To be more reactive to choices of character(profession),  aggressive stance (killing, etc),  overall bank of alignment of choices, etc.    I want it to better recognise how I have touched the world.  

Modifié par shantisands, 01 juin 2011 - 12:45 .

[Zanallen]

Aesieru wrote...

Well... when you got the Urn of Sacred Ashes, there was really no way you could be Atheist anymore... unless of course you were either ignorant, denialistic, or my personal favorite, a proponent that it was ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, and thus a conspiracy.

Ohgren believes that the apparent powers of the ashes is from long exposure to the high amount of lyrium in the walls of the cave. A weak veil could also explain the ghosts and other strange encounters.

[LobselVith8]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I hate to call David out like this but...

If you write with a single path and protagonist in mind, then those other paths will only ever feel like “extras” and you will lose the narrative thread as soon as the player deviates from the one you intended.

That's exactly how I feel about the ending of DA2. It feels like the 'correct' choice is the Templars only because then the Orisino transformation makes sense, and then Meredith's idol induced lunacy causes her to attack. It has a sense of logical flow that the Mage ending lacks.

Isn't Meredith's reaction to a pro-templar Hawke the same as Orsino's reaction to a pro-mage Hawke?

Foolsfolly wrote...

There's also that Grace mission and agreeing to hunt Blood Mages for Meredith which both make more sense if you're a pro-Templar character.

True, "Best Served Cold" didn't really make any sense as a pro-mage Hawke, and I wasn't convinced by the threat in "On the Loose" even as an apostate Hawke. Why would a pro-mage Hawke even hear Meredith out?

Foolsfolly wrote...

All in all, that last act makes more sense (to me at least) as a Pro-Templar. It felt like that was the intended path.

Really? I had the opposite reaction, because I can never rationalize siding with Meredith at the end of DA2.

[Aesieru]

Except they were invulnerable... and that magic platforms appeared randomly... and that it was able to fight off a dragon and an entire cult just by its mere presence... and its ability to read your mind and foretell your darkest secrets... and the fact it had all of Andrastia's encounters in a convenient pair of columns to communicate with.

Being denialistic of all that would really require some sheer stupidity or a recent localized-in-brain-region-of-logic lobotomy.

[TEWR]

It's a wastebin with the ashes of charred woman from a long time ago housed inside a mountain surrounded by lyrium.


And Dameaus hasn't gotten there yet. He's still in Ostagar. I've been really busy and haven't been able to play video games as much. Most of my time is either spent doing stuff around the house, working, or being on here partaking in intellectual discussions*


*when they actually pop up and aren't just "You're wrong. I'm right." type of things.


The Guardian is the one thing I can't explain though.

[Aesieru]

Rationalization comes from the fact that your choosing who will die in terms of the mages, and being able to try to help out the innocent ones as best you can and turn a few of the templars mindsets to something more positive... all from the inside of the organization... would result in the least deaths... plus you did keep encountering crazy mages who only ever turned out to be crazy.

[TEWR]

it's still hard to condemn the entire Circle for an act it had nothing to do with because you kept meeting crazy mages and you killed said crazy mages, most of whom were apostates

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 01 juin 2011 - 12:56 .

[Aesieru]

No not condemning them, but realizing in Act 2 that you're trying to help, but that all the rebellion in the circle isn't really contributing to fixing things, so to kind of just take things easy and play nice for a bit is the best choice, but then Act 3 comes because the mages respond to the templar leaders over-excitement and... well bad things happen.

Who threw the first stone is still something that I'm unaware of... it could really be either side.

---

Plus, in my playthrough as a logical player who wanted to side with the mages... things didn't go that way because unfortunately all the mages I met either tried to kill me, or tried to kill anyone related to anything I was dealing with and was giving a very bad impression and I feared that it would draw out people looking for them and have them target me, so I had to be more careful but I realized to truly be PRO-MAGE and also a good person, I had to join the Templars.. or at least try to work from within to discredit them while fixing things up.

My goal quickly became becoming the Vicount so I could enact some real change quickly.

Modifié par Aesieru, 01 juin 2011 - 12:59 .

[TEWR]

Also I think all of the religions in Thedas are true. Andrastian beliefs, Dalish beliefs, the belief in the Stone and her power, the Qun.


All seem to have some level of truth in them, which fits in with my viewpoint of our world's religions. That they're all the same but with different aspects.

[TEWR]

Aesieru wrote...

No not condemning them, but realizing in Act 2 that you're trying to help, but that all the rebellion in the circle isn't really contributing to fixing things, so to kind of just take things easy and play nice for a bit is the best choice, but then Act 3 comes because the mages respond to the templar leaders over-excitement and... well bad things happen.

Who threw the first stone is still something that I'm unaware of... it could really be either side.

I'd say Meredith was to blame at the beginning of Act 1 because she had a very personal and deep seated hatred of mages caused by personal trauma

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I disagree.  If you didn't think silent protagonists were lifeless and empty then, then you shouldn't think that now.

But preferences can re-align if you discover new things.