447 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

tmp7704 wrote...

highcastle wrote...

Where it differs from ME is that you're penalized in ME for varying personalities. DA2 rewards you no matter what. Whichever dialogue choice you happen to favor more, that's the one you get the bonuses for.

It doesn't reward you "no matter what"..

Somewhat unrelated, but just like renegade / paragon, friendship / rivalry does not reward you if you are moderate and do not maximize either. Except you might lose more than in ME, because you have an entire skill tree for companions that remains locked.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 juin 2011 - 05:55 .

[highcastle]

tmp7704 wrote...

It seems we did play different games indeed, because my Carver survived the Deep Roads (almost) fine and that "almost" got pretty much universally ignored until the very end of the game where Carver brings it up himself. My Bethany was squished early and the only people who mentioned that was the family members who did it once or twice each.

I'll concede that the initial sibling's death doesn't get as many callbacks as it could. But if the latter sibling dies (at this point I guess we're stumbling into spoiler territory, sorry), it gets referenced continuously. And Carver surviving definitely gets more mentions as a warden than a templar, but in both branches, the mentions are there.

It's a personal difference here i guess, but the idea that i'd feel inclined to question a friend how they feel after exacting long-planned revenge feels just odd to me. Like something from a talk show maybe. "Tonight, we welcome Protagonist Cousland who has just managed to kill sworn enemy. Tell us all, how did that feel, Protagonist?" It's just so... navel-gazing

You call it navel-gazing, but to me that's roleplaying. It's not about the act of killing Howe, it's about how Cousland feels about it. And if no one asks him, "Do you have closure?" or "How do you feel?" than how do we know how he feels? Does he have that closure? Has he realized that one more death doesn't change anything, that it doesn't bring back his family? We don't know because the game refuses to address it. 

DA2, on the other hand, after All That Remains, allows even mage-supporting Hawkes to question the core of their beliefs. This focus on introspection and shifting perceptions is what really attracts me to the game. And it's what I'd like to see more of.

[KnightofPhoenix]

highcastle wrote...
You call it navel-gazing, but to me that's roleplaying. It's not about the act of killing Howe, it's about how Cousland feels about it. And if no one asks him, "Do you have closure?" or "How do you feel?" than how do we know how he feels? Does he have that closure? Has he realized that one more death doesn't change anything, that it doesn't bring back his family? We don't know because the game refuses to address it. 

You do know if you're defining his character. The game just doesn't give you an opportunity to express it.

Which I agree, is a flaw. I think someone should have asked the Warden, and allow the Warden to say "I don't want to talk about it", if he feels it's navel gazing.

[highcastle]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

highcastle wrote...
You call it navel-gazing, but to me that's roleplaying. It's not about the act of killing Howe, it's about how Cousland feels about it. And if no one asks him, "Do you have closure?" or "How do you feel?" than how do we know how he feels? Does he have that closure? Has he realized that one more death doesn't change anything, that it doesn't bring back his family? We don't know because the game refuses to address it. 

You do know if you're defining his character. The game just doesn't give you an opportunity to express it.

Which I agree, is a flaw. I think someone should have asked the Warden, and allow the Warden to say "I don't want to talk about it", if he feels it's navel gazing.

But how much does that definition mean if it's not expressed at all in game? We're talking about reactivity to the protagonist's emotions here. DA2 had it, DAO did not to nearly the same degree.

[tmp7704]

Master Shiori wrote...

Sure, you got dialogue and options at certain points in the story that were specific to your origin, but your companions never bothered to simply ask how you're doing and whether or not you had problems that need to be voiced.

But do they, in DA2? (aside from the death thing)

I only remember one such instance -- after the time lapse you "catch up" with Varric which boils down to Varric asking "You cool, Hawke?" and me getting options to tell him "Yes, i'm doing well, thank you", "Yah i'm cool, lol" and "I'm fine, quit bothering me." Which.. well, i wouldn't really call an improvement to the point where it'd set both games apart.

[KnightofPhoenix]

highcastle wrote...
But how much does that definition mean if it's not expressed at all in game? We're talking about reactivity to the protagonist's emotions here. DA2 had it, DAO did not to nearly the same degree.

Asking about the PC's feelings is not reactivity if they do not react that differently depending on the answer imo. As such, I did not feel DA2 provided that much reactivity either. Companions just asked more pertinent questions. Which is easier considering that the Warden has 6 different Origins.

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Somewhat unrelated, but just like renegade / paragon, friendship / rivalry does not reward you if you are moderate and do not maximize either. Except you might lose more than in ME, because you have an entire skill tree for companions that remains locked.

The skill tree isn't locked, just the passive bonus.

Friendship/rivalry only really punishes you if you deliberately try to metagame a relationship contrary to the stances you actually take in the game.

[Aaleel]

And I couldn't really get into the family moments because the events that lead to them were so farfetched. My sibling was a Warden.

A warden who just happen to keep coming from miles away and ending up in the middle of events they had no idea would be going, and then having duties that weren't important before they came but are so important they have to leave right away. It was just so forced I could not even get into it.

Then the whole thing of rogue templars and mages knowing where the Wardens would be and tracking them down to get my sibling. It was all just absurd.

[hoorayforicecream]

tmp7704 wrote...

Master Shiori wrote...

Sure, you got dialogue and options at certain points in the story that were specific to your origin, but your companions never bothered to simply ask how you're doing and whether or not you had problems that need to be voiced.

But do they, in DA2? (aside from the death thing)

I only remember one such instance -- after the time lapse you "catch up" with Varric which boils down to Varric asking "You cool, Hawke?" and me getting options to tell him "Yes, i'm doing well, thank you", "Yah i'm cool, lol" and "I'm fine, quit bothering me." Which.. well, i wouldn't really call an improvement to the point where it'd set both games apart.

There's also Isabela's romance commentary, Varric's (bugged) romance commentary, and early Act 2 Leandra.

[Merilsell]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I can't relate to him at all, nor can I respect him, nor do I like him. As such, playing as him brings me a good deal of displeasure.

This. And indifference toward his/her fate and character in a whole. *shrugs*

[tmp7704]

highcastle wrote...

And Carver surviving definitely gets more mentions as a warden than a templar, but in both branches, the mentions are there.

My Carver was a warden. I honestly don't remember a single instance of that being mentioned by someone other than Carver himself. Either the mentions were few or so minuscule they completely failed to register for me. Or both?

You call it navel-gazing, but to me that's roleplaying. It's not about the act of killing Howe, it's about how Cousland feels about it. And if no one asks him, "Do you have closure?" or "How do you feel?" than how do we know how he feels?

Considering you are the person who is supposed to be Cousland's mind, how can you not know how he/she feels?

[xkg]

Satyricon331 wrote...

Doltish site logging me out!   It should auto-save your drafts to your account if it's going to keep having such problems.

Yea lol that's horrible - just hit CTRL-A, CTRL-C before submiting your post. If you get logged off you can just paste it after relogging 

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Somewhat unrelated, but just like renegade / paragon, friendship / rivalry does not reward you if you are moderate and do not maximize either. Except you might lose more than in ME, because you have an entire skill tree for companions that remains locked.

The skill tree isn't locked, just the passive bonus.

Friendship/rivalry only really punishes you if you deliberately try to metagame a relationship contrary to the stances you actually take in the game.

Yes you're right, only the passive bonus.

And what if the stance you want to take is that of complete neutrality and / or indifference, that you don't really want to make friends or rivals of companions? So the game doesn't reward you no matter what you do.

Which is not a flaw in and of itself, I've always said PCs should be punished and rewarded adequately for their choices and what they say. Just so long as it's equitable.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 juin 2011 - 06:06 .

[highcastle]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

highcastle wrote...
But how much does that definition mean if it's not expressed at all in game? We're talking about reactivity to the protagonist's emotions here. DA2 had it, DAO did not to nearly the same degree.

Asking about the PC's feelings is not reactivity if they do not react that differently depending on the answer imo. As such, I did not feel DA2 provided that much reactivity either. Companions just asked more pertinent questions. Which is easier considering that the Warden has 6 different Origins.

They do react differently depending on the answer. This shows Anders consoling Hawke in Act 2, all dialogue choices by Hawke, and all different reactions depending on those responses. Where is the lack of reactivity?

[ipgd]

tmp7704 wrote...

Considering you are the person who is supposed to be Cousland's mind, how can you not know how he/she feels?

Because the game gives me no reason to care. No one else in the world does, so why should I?

[Satyricon331]

xkg wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...
Doltish site logging me out!   It should auto-save your drafts to your account if it's going to keep having such problems.

Yea lol that's horrible - just hit CTRL-A, CTRL-C before submiting your post. If you get logged off you can just paste it after relogging 

Yep!  I manage to remember nearly every time... except the one time it's important.  

The site has malice, I say!

[tmp7704]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

There's also Isabela's romance commentary, Varric's (bugged) romance commentary, and early Act 2 Leandra.

I didn't romance Isabela (we agreed to keep it at casual sex level) or anyone else for this matter, so also didn't get Varric's commentary. That would leave Leandra which could have happened, i'm not 100% sure it didn't. So overall... two mentions in entire game for me. Really, still not much difference from DAO

[highcastle]

tmp7704 wrote...

highcastle wrote...

And Carver surviving definitely gets more mentions as a warden than a templar, but in both branches, the mentions are there.

My Carver was a warden. I honestly don't remember a single instance of that being mentioned by someone other than Carver himself. Either the mentions were few or so minuscule they completely failed to register for me. Or both?

Gamlen, Varric, and Anders have snippets about Carver being in the wardens that I can recall at present. Plus, you interact with Carver in Act 2 and three times in Act 3. There are also letters from him, reminding you of his presence.

You call it navel-gazing, but to me that's roleplaying. It's not about the act of killing Howe, it's about how Cousland feels about it. And if no one asks him, "Do you have closure?" or "How do you feel?" than how do we know how he feels?

Considering you are the person who is supposed to be Cousland's mind, how can you not know how he/she feels?

I do know how Cousland feels. But the game refuses to acknowledge it and that's sort of my point. It doesn't matter if the game tells me it doesn't matter. But when the game's characters go out of their way to ask my feelings, then those emotions become valid and I have a legitimate opportunity to reflect them.

[KnightofPhoenix]

highcastle wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

highcastle wrote...
But how much does that definition mean if it's not expressed at all in game? We're talking about reactivity to the protagonist's emotions here. DA2 had it, DAO did not to nearly the same degree.

Asking about the PC's feelings is not reactivity if they do not react that differently depending on the answer imo. As such, I did not feel DA2 provided that much reactivity either. Companions just asked more pertinent questions. Which is easier considering that the Warden has 6 different Origins.

They do react differently depending on the answer. This shows Anders consoling Hawke in Act 2, all dialogue choices by Hawke, and all different reactions depending on those responses. Where is the lack of reactivity?

But that's superficial and only confined to that one scene (and it ends exactly the same).

Ideally, you saying that the Templars might be right should have made Anders more suspicious of you, for example.

I am not saying that the scene was bad or not adequate. It was, and I appreciated the fact that the LI seemed to care. But it didn't go far enough for me to think that DA2 made a breakthrough vis-a-vis reactivity that it sets it wholly apart from Origins (which had similar things).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 juin 2011 - 06:10 .

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

Because the game gives me no reason to care. No one else in the world does, so why should I?

Let me get it straight, you're asking "why should i role-play my character while playing an RPG."?

I may as well ask in return why play the game in the first place, then?

[ItsTheTruth]

Hawke is the lamest character in fiction history. Remember that cutscene when Hawke enters his new mansion and dresses in silk pajama, a satisfied grin on his face? I think that was about 2 minutes after his sister died too.

That is the moment I started wishing Hawke could die an horrible death in the game.

Modifié par ItsTheTruth, 05 juin 2011 - 06:12 .

[syllogi]

Although I don't mind being restricted to playing as human, or the voice acting, but Hawke, as far as the story went, was the least interesting character. I could not get into role playing her, it's pretty much canon that Hawke is a self absorbed moron. If I could have had more ways to solve problems, been given more chances to actually ask questions instead of blithely going along with some spectacularly bad plans, and wasn't completely railroaded in general, then MAYBE I would care whether Hawke lived or died.

At the moment, I *really* hope he/she isn't the protagonist of the next game.

[ipgd]

tmp7704 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Because the game gives me no reason to care. No one else in the world does, so why should I?

Let me get it straight, you're asking "why should i role-play my character while playing an RPG."?

I may as well ask in return why play the game in the first place, then?

Like I said before.

Unless my character is given opportunities to establish himself as an actual character, his desires aren't going to win over my desire to metagame and substitute that lack of characterization with my own motivations. There were a few moments in DAO where I was able to divine the emotional response of my Warden as a character, but for the most part, he just seemed like a non-entity and a vehicle for my own actions.

[highcastle]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

highcastle wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

highcastle wrote...
But how much does that definition mean if it's not expressed at all in game? We're talking about reactivity to the protagonist's emotions here. DA2 had it, DAO did not to nearly the same degree.

Asking about the PC's feelings is not reactivity if they do not react that differently depending on the answer imo. As such, I did not feel DA2 provided that much reactivity either. Companions just asked more pertinent questions. Which is easier considering that the Warden has 6 different Origins.

They do react differently depending on the answer. This shows Anders consoling Hawke in Act 2, all dialogue choices by Hawke, and all different reactions depending on those responses. Where is the lack of reactivity?

But that's superficial and only confined to that one scene (and it ends exactly the same).

Ideally, you saying that the Templars might be right should have made Anders more suspicious of you, for example.

I am not saying that the scene was bad or not adequate. It was, and I appreciated the fact that the LI seemed to care. But it didn't go far enough for me to think that DA2 made a breakthrough vis-a-vis reactivity that it sets it wholly apart from Origins (which had similar things).

Saying it's superficial is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that it was not. And it does not end the same way. He can stay and comfort you or he can leave if you want him to. Hey look, it's one of those choice things everyone keeps saying are lacking in this game (perhaps because they're overlooking choices like these)? 

Nor did I find it shallow. This is precisely the sort of moment I wanted to see in DAO. When I killed Howe, I wanted my LI to ask me how I was feeling. It would have provided some form of emotional connection or resonance.

Now, I won't say DA2 is the pinacle of emotional reactivity. I think we can do better in the future. But in comparison to the Warden, yes, Hawke's emotions matter more to the story line. Hawke emoted. People reacted. The Warden could make attempts to emote which generally fell flat due to lack of body language and facial expressions and perhaps even *gasp* VA. And in the end, no one seemed to care one way or another.