In Exile wrote...
I agree. Although I think DA2 actually gives you the opportunity to play a character who defers to others better than DA:O, in the sense that Hawke needn't ever be a leader at all.
A great scene (and one that shows how this approach can work) is with finding the missing qunari in Act II. If you have Aveline and Varric with you in the party, the following happens at the Hanged Man:
Varric: Joking comment that starts the conversation:
Hawke: Points out Aveline is there
Aveline: Takes charge of the stuation and finds out the neeeded information.
Hawke is essentially superflous.
That sounds terrific. That's exactly the sort of character I enjoyed playing most in DAO, but sadly that character is, I think, wholly incompatible with the voice-actor they chose for Hawke. He just doesn't sound like a guy who isn't sure of himself and wants to follow rather than lead. But (based on your example) he does apparently behave like that.
It's no different than not having a combat skill. It is a reflection of what the player can understand. To be able to say a thing that is diplomatic in a way that is received diplomatically, there is a need for some skill for diplomacy. I think we need coherence between combat skills and non-combat skills. Most RPGs have then function in different ways at their core, and I think that takes away from the experience.
I'll agree the two systems should function similarly, but I also don't think the combat system should work as it does.
One of BG's bigger failings was its prohibition against equipping weapons with which your class could not gain proficiency. Single-class wizards couldn't equip swords. But this design - this
bad design - is something BioWare has kept using game after game. Just as I would like to be able to choose any of the dialogue options the game contains for that decision hub, regardless of whether my character's skils would allow hom to speak that line effectively, I would also like to be able to use weapons and even weapon techniques with which my character has no skill. Why not let me try Whirlwind, even if its chance of success is tiny, and its chance of catastrophic failure is great?
The answer seems to be that BioWare doesn't want my character to fail. And I object to that.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
On point 2, you can have a reactive player while having a customisable character, as long as the reaction is to characters that are not customised. A good example of this would be something like NWN or KotOR, where the background of your character is entirely up to you, and he can have whatever motives based on that background you would like, but that background is largely irrelevant to the game's narrative. That's cusomisation without sacrificing reactivity.
Reactivity is more than just a reaction - it has to at the very least be logical. If you and I - for different motives, reasons and behaviours, have the game react to us in an identical manner, then it is not reactive at all. Rather, it asks us to invent reasons for the reaction.
Oops. That was supposed to say "
as long as the reaction is to characteristics that are not customised."
That said, I think the game always asjks us to invent the reasons for any reaction if we want to know it. Since we can't read the NPCs minds, we don't know why they reacted as they did, so if we want that information we always have to make it up. That's as true in ME2 as it is in NWN.
Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 15 juillet 2011 - 10:26 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
) and a few armors and weapons), must have - in this case ME - a decent skillsystem, weapons, armors and of course decisions, choices etc. to make. ME1 was just fine, but ME2 is just a pseudo shooter. Even the thermo magazines a pretty unrealistic, especially considering ME1. And then the castrated skilltree. It was was a huge shock for me when I played ME2 for the first time.
