459 réponses à ce sujet

[ipgd]

leonia42 wrote...

I don't think anyone is comparing it to the D&D alignment system..

You started off with your humourous neutral concept now others are chiming in with other variations.

As I said before, it's a shame the dominant personality thing didn't work out so well. And wow, you have to be aggressive to side with Peatrice? Now this is eerily starting to sound like the Paragon/Renegade system (and all its flaws) from ME. I thought one of the better things about the personality system in DA is that it DIDN'T fall into all the same traps that P/R system did but guess I was wrong.

That's the only big choice that's really tied to it, I think (it lets you persuade down Varnell where he would normally just turn on you). The rest are just used in really minor sidequests.

[Leonia]

ipgd wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

I personally think the dialouge wheel is impossible of applying DnD alignments to. You cannot be Chaotic Neutral, True Neutral, Lawful Neutral and such. There is only one sort of Neutral, one sort of Good, and one sort of Evil to choose from the wheel.

Are alignments really broken down to individual choices? I was under the impression that alignments are the cumulative result of all of your choices. Even with just three basic options you are not constrained to pick any of them consistently.

On the flip side, many ME players (myself included) tended to pick one tone over all others because we are conditioned to do so due to ME2's mechanics. It's also why some people had a hard time dealing with the friendship/rivalry system and thinking rivalry=bad. Not really Bioware's fault but I did notice it on my first playthrough that I almost always went with sarcastic options because I didn't know if later I would go "I wish I had enough sarcastic points to persuade this dude.."

ipgd wrote...

That's the only big choice that's really tied to it, I think (it lets you persuade down Varnell where he would
normally just turn on you). The rest are just used in really minor sidequests.

Ah, I see. Still, it seems silly to tie one tone into such a big choice as that.

Modifié par leonia42, 01 juin 2011 - 04:30 .

[Ryzaki]

leonia42 wrote...

On the flip side, many ME players (myself included) tended to pick one tone over all others because we are conditioned to do so due to ME2's mechanics. It's also why some people had a hard time dealing with the friendship/rivalry system and thinking rivalry=bad. Not really Bioware's fault but I did notice it on my first playthrough that I almost always went with sarcastic options because I didn't know if later I would go "I wish I had enough sarcastic points to persuade this dude.."

I admit I did pick just diplomatic on my first playthrough. Though I had wanted to rival a few people from the jump (and trying to not rival them ended up with me getting frustrated and going nowhere) so I knew rivalry =/= bad. 

Ah, I see. Still, it seems silly to tie one tone into such a big choice as that.

 

It was. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

leonia42 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

That's the only big choice that's really tied to it, I think (it lets you persuade down Varnell where he would
normally just turn on you). The rest are just used in really minor sidequests.

Ah, I see. Still, it seems silly to tie one tone into such a big choice as that.

Even "minor" sidequests should be optimized to reflect Hawke's personality. Some side quests can sometimes provide more insight than main quests.

But yea, I dont' see how they can muster the resources to adequately optimize the system. At least not when they have very short development time.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 juin 2011 - 04:34 .

[ipgd]

leonia42 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

I personally think the dialouge wheel is impossible of applying DnD alignments to. You cannot be Chaotic Neutral, True Neutral, Lawful Neutral and such. There is only one sort of Neutral, one sort of Good, and one sort of Evil to choose from the wheel.

Are alignments really broken down to individual choices? I was under the impression that alignments are the cumulative result of all of your choices. Even with just three basic options you are not constrained to pick any of them consistently.

On the flip side, many ME players (myself included) tended to pick one tone over all others because we are conditioned to do so due to ME2's mechanics. It's also why some people had a hard time dealing with the friendship/rivalry system and thinking rivalry=bad. Not really Bioware's fault but I did notice it on my first playthrough that I almost always went with sarcastic options because I didn't know if later I would go "I wish I had enough sarcastic points to persuade this dude.."

I kind of hate the Paragon/Renegade system with a passion because of that, but the DA2 personality system did a pretty decent job of not falling into those traps aside from that one thing. Most of the time, I could safely ignore it and pick the options I want without having to metagame/cheat points.

Alistairlover94 wrote...

I only wish that they would let you side with Petrice even if you weren't an aggresive Hawke. Having to be agressive to side wth her makes absolutely no sense to me. A good Hawke might side with Petrice simply because she feels the Qunari are a threat to her religion(if you're RP'ing an Andrastian Hawke).

Siding her isn't tied to the personality, per se. It lets you stop Varnell from turning on you, which later allows you to side with Petrice. That's not a choice I think should have been tied to the personality system at all, but eh.

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

That's the only big choice that's really tied to it, I think (it lets you persuade down Varnell where he would normally just turn on you). The rest are just used in really minor sidequests.

I don't think the "really minor sidequests" excuse makes it any better, really. On the flipside if they're only really minor sidequests, what harm would there be in not tying these extra options down to the dominant personality requirement?

[Leonia]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

That's the only big choice that's really tied to it, I think (it lets you persuade down Varnell where he would
normally just turn on you). The rest are just used in really minor sidequests.

Ah, I see. Still, it seems silly to tie one tone into such a big choice as that.

Even "minor" sidequests should be optimized to reflect Hawke's personality. Some side quests can sometimes provide more insight than main quests.

But yea, I dont' see how they can muster the resources to adequately optimize the system. At least not when they have very short development time.

Hey they still haven't mustered up the resources to get away from the clunky system in ME and they're on the third game already.. not exactly the same, kind of apples and oranges, but.. yeah. A morality/personality system is NOT an easy thing to scrap and overhaul.

I would have liked more cosmetic personality lines, not ones that affected decisions directly so much. But that's wishful thinking, like a lot of things. I fear we're getting away from the atheist thread topic though.

[Ariella]

Okay, why would Hawke be atheist? I agree with Gaider in it doesn't make sense for the setting. People really didn't start doubting the existence of God until the late 1800s/early half of the 1900s in real life history, and much of that doubt was caused by the introduction of evolution/relativity/and psychiatry to the world giving a shade of grey to what was once black and white to people.

Then World War 1 came and really screwed things up because evil stopped looking like evil. It was hard to tell who was right and who was wrong since both sides did terrible things, and most of the time those things were perpetrated by people who looked like (and were)
bureaucrats. And the aftermath of WW1 was enough to shake anyone's faith.

Things like this haven't happened yet in the Thedas timeline. If anything, we're on the very verge of a true meltdown in the Chantry, but even that would not be enough to shake societal norms which tend to believe in the Maker and Andraste. For that to happen, there's going to need to be a disproof of at least one of the legends surrounding the Maker. I think the most likely is finding out where the Darkspawn really came from.

[ipgd]

tmp7704 wrote...

I don't think the "really minor sidequests" excuse makes it any better, really. On the flipside if they're only really minor sidequests, what harm would there be in not tying these extra options down to the dominant personality requirement?

I'm not saying it makes it better, just that things like getting Maraas to help you fight the Tal-Vashoth doesn't matter at all and is just a cute little bonus for your personality choice, whereas the ability to support Petrice actually affects the story. I don't mind the former because it doesn't make me feel like I need to metagame just to get the quest outcome I want.

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

I'm not saying it makes it better, just that things like getting Maraas to help you fight the Tal-Vashoth doesn't matter at all and is just a cute little bonus for your personality choice

I guess i'm rather wary of it and would prefer these cute little bonuses weren't there at all, because i tend to view it as test bed for extended use in the sequels -- i think they're there to gauge the player's reaction. Similar how number of things in the DAO DLCs were tests for incoming DA2 release.

[ipgd]

tmp7704 wrote...

I guess i'm rather wary of it and would prefer these cute little bonuses weren't there at all, because i tend to view it as test bed for extended use in the sequels -- i think they're there to gauge the player's reaction. Similar how number of things in the DAO DLCs were tests for incoming DA2 release.

Considering they did tie it to one major choice and nobody seems to like that, I'd assume they wouldn't take it much further. The only thing I'd worry about is more inconsequential side quest bonuses, which I could not care about less.

[Leonia]

But I wonder how many people noticed they tied it into that one major quest?

[Ryzaki]

leonia42 wrote...

But I wonder how many people noticed they tied it into that one major quest?

 

I don't suspect most people even know you can side with Petrice. 

Edit: These forums being an obvious exception. I didn't know it until I rolled a aggressive Hawke and that was *after* my diplomatic/snarky playthroughs. And most people only play the game once. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 juin 2011 - 04:55 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

But I wonder how many people noticed they tied it into that one major quest?

 

I don't suspect many people even know you can side with Petrice. 

I only discovered it recently myself.

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

But I wonder how many people noticed they tied it into that one major quest?

 

I don't suspect many people even know you can side with Petrice. 

I only discovered it recently myself.

 

Were you told or did you playthrough it?

I have to admit it as awesome finding out during gameplay. The Arishok's reaction and the whole staredown contest the two of them had sent a shiver of anticipation down my spine. That's what I should've felt with Meredith/Orsino. Alas. 

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

Considering they did tie it to one major choice and nobody seems to like that, I'd assume they wouldn't take it much further.

I'm not as optimistic because there was lot of outcry against the companion conversation model used in the Awakening too, and we still got pretty much that in DA2...

[ipgd]

leonia42 wrote...

But I wonder how many people noticed they tied it into that one major quest?

I only figured it out after about two months of reading the forums. Still, they do have metrics, which would also suggest it's unwise to invest resources into a choice that will only be available to be a very small section of the playerbase.

[LobselVith8]

Ariella wrote...

Okay, why would Hawke be atheist? I agree with Gaider in it doesn't make sense for the setting. People really didn't start doubting the existence of God until the late 1800s/early half of the 1900s in real life history, and much of that doubt was caused by the introduction of evolution/relativity/and psychiatry to the world giving a shade of grey to what was once black and white to people.

Because atheism has existed for centuries, including long before medieval England (which seems to be what Ferelden is based on). It's not like it would be a new concept to have the protagonist say they aren't religious - Nevarine could say he believed in the gods, or that he was a self-made hero, for instance.

Ariella wrote...

Then World War 1 came and really screwed things up because evil stopped looking like evil. It was hard to tell who was right and who was wrong since both sides did terrible things, and most of the time those things were perpetrated by people who looked like (and were)
bureaucrats. And the aftermath of WW1 was enough to shake anyone's faith.

Atheism predates the medieval period that Ferelden is loosely based on.

Ariella wrote...

Things like this haven't happened yet in the Thedas timeline.

Morrigan clearly says she doesn't believe in the Maker, and Aveline says she doesn't believe in the Chant. 

Ariella wrote...

If anything, we're on the very verge of a true meltdown in the Chantry, but even that would not be enough to shake societal norms which tend to believe in the Maker and Andraste. For that to happen, there's going to need to be a disproof of at least one of the legends surrounding the Maker. I think the most likely is finding out where the Darkspawn really came from.

There's no reason Hawke couldn't be an atheist in this time period, regardless of the Chantry's status.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 01 juin 2011 - 05:04 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

But I wonder how many people noticed they tied it into that one major quest?

 

I don't suspect many people even know you can side with Petrice. 

I only discovered it recently myself.

 

Were you told or did you playthrough it?

I can't bare to play the game twice.
I was told.

[ipgd]

tmp7704 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Considering they did tie it to one major choice and nobody seems to like that, I'd assume they wouldn't take it much further.

I'm not as optimistic because there was lot of outcry against the companion conversation model used in the Awakening too, and we still got pretty much that in DA2...

I thought that outcry was more about having to drag their asses out to butt**** nowhere just to be able to talk to them, which wasn't really a problem in DA2.

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

But I wonder how many people noticed they tied it into that one major quest?

 

I don't suspect many people even know you can side with Petrice. 

I only discovered it recently myself.

 

Were you told or did you playthrough it?

I can't bare to play the game twice.
I was told.

 

You should play it KoP. 

It's one of the only Crowning Moments of Awesome in the game (when you staredown the Arishok) you can feel the tension. Its a delicious scene. 

[Aesieru]

Blasphemy is a big... no no when the world is controlled by religion... people wouldn't be open like that just like an Atheist wouldn't be open with it during the crusades.

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

I only figured it out after about two months of reading the forums. Still, they do have metrics, which would also suggest it's unwise to invest resources into a choice that will only be available to be a very small section of the playerbase.

Since it's tied to a personality, doesn't that mean it's potentially available to ~1/3rd of the players? It may be something that isn't talked about much (because people either don't see it in their game or --when they do see it-- they have no reason to think it's something the others don't get to see as well and as such it's not worth making excited posts about) but that doesn't mean it's not utilized to larger extent than it'd appear on the forums.

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

I thought that outcry was more about having to drag their asses out to butt**** nowhere just to be able to talk to them, which wasn't really a problem in DA2.

That was part of it, and i don't think it's really removed in DA2 -- you still need to take the companion with you on certain quests so when you make your choices they can react with approval/disapproval and unlock the friendship/rivalry dialogues available in the "base".

Modifié par tmp7704, 01 juin 2011 - 05:09 .