phaonica wrote...
You said that in DAO, "you very rarely did anything more than make blunt and short statements. There wasn't a thing to respond to most of the time," which I read as meaning that because of the text statements, the NPCs had very little to go on in order to make their response and thus validate the PCs personality. Thus, when the PC is unvoiced, the PC has no personality because a validating response is not possible. I argued that PCs don't *have* to be voiced in order to illicit a validating response. I think that a voiced PC is preferable for a pre-defined character (like Geralt), I prefer create-your-own characters (such as in the Elder Scrolls series) to be unvoiced and to use some other kind of indicator for tone.
Thank you for clarifying.
The interpretation is partly correct, in the sense that the conclusion drawn is right. In DA:O, it was not that NPCs had little to go on in response - it's that the statements themselves were not things that had very much content to them. The serious problem with DA:O is the paucity of the dialogue.
When we move to dialogue that has flavour and tone (e.g Fallout, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines), you gain reactivity in the dialogue because the dialogue starts to be lively. You feel more than the statements are coming from a person as opposed to an automaton.
But we still aren't at the stage where we have reactive dialogue on our hands, because the PC is still very much a thing that interacts with the environment. You have lines to use with NPCs, and you can choose between quests, but you can't speak
about yourself or about
your beliefs. An RPG is genuinely reactive to the personality you choose only when the game provides you a vehicle for expressing it in-game, and then reacts to that expression.
In an earlier post, you said: "for Bioware the meaning of the choice is the in-character decision you made, not the actual consequence of it." I said that for me, the meaning of the choice is the consequence because the consequence is what serves to validate the choice. You agreed, but questioned if I was considering follow up dialog to be a consequence that sufficiently validates the choice. I would say that follow up dialog is a sufficient validating consequence in a conversation, however that in DA2 there was a disappointing lack of validating consequences for choices that could affect the game's plot and the conflict.
Thanks for clarifying. Here is what you originally said:
"Without consequences, the personality you've built for your character is meaningless.
I clicked the snarky dialog option, so that means my character is snarky. But if no one *responds* to my snarkiness, then the character still exists in a void."
Since the example you gave was the dialogue (particularly the personality tracking) I thought you were talking about consequence with regard to dialogue alone, not with choice in general.
To respond, yes, I agree with you entirely on DA2's response to plot and conflict choices. I would go further than you and say that DA2 did not just fail to validate; it actively tried to work around choices you made via circumstances falling the right way. The problem with that design is that it soon starts to feel contrived.
Maybe any Warden could have done what our Warden did.
Actually, I think anyone could have done what the Warden did, so long as that person either had the treaties and pretended to be a Warden, or just had proof of the Blight and was sufficiently persuasive. You had to save Riordan in the course of saving Ferelden, and even if you weren't a Warden, Riordan could make you one then to kill the archdemon.
However if NO ONE had taken that role, if no one had gathered the armies, if no one had intervened with the dwarven civil war, if no one had dealt with the crisis in the Circle, if no one had rescued Eamon, etc, the story would have been significantly different.
Just to quibble over details (I agree with you on the substance of what you're saying here) someone would have dealt with the Circle. The mages called for the Right of Annulment, and Wynne would have tried to venture out alone. Whether Wynne alone would be enough to hold off Uldred while the templars marched in and killed everything is up in the air, but I think the Circle would have resolved itself. And Orzammar was just a civil war; someone would have won.
On the other hand, the only role I can think of that would have affected the story significantly in DA2 that Hawke played a part in was preventing the Qunari takeover. That role needed to be filled, however Hawke didn't have any other role that I can think of that drastcially affected the plot.
Without Hawke in Act II, Meredith would have likely saved the city alone.That would have given her much more power and leeway, and instead of the triumverate we see in Act III, Meredith and Orsino may have come to blows much earlier, without Anders getting involved. In fact, it's not clear that the Deep Roads expedition could have succeed without Hawke & Hawke's companions, or that Varric & Bartrand could have even gotten it off the ground. Without the expedition, things change drastically.
I don't think Hawke is as crucial as the Warden, but Hawke was a catalyst with the idol and with the fact Hawke became Champion.
I haven't played Bloodlines, but what I'm getting from this is that 1) the PCs side of the conversation doesn't have to be voiced in order to get across personality and intent, that it can be done in text, for example with fonts, icons, indicators, and good writing; and 2) the only way for the PC to be "meaningfully RP'ed" is if the PC's actions are referenced or addressed.
With that in mind, I think the unvoiced PC dialog in DAO was mostly fine the way it was.
Once you have fonts, indicators, and good writing (i.e. personality and flavour in the dialogue) you
already have a fixed tone. Adding a voice just brings the character to life. It is the same thing as voicing NPCs.
Just out of curiosity, @Exile, what games have you played that, in your opinion, *do* allow for "meaningful RP"?
I get asked this a lot, but I don't think there's an RPG on the market yet that did everything well. TW2 did story consequences right, but totally failed customization. TW1 did "time" choices (e.g. Act I choice affects Act IV) but again, flopped customization. I think New Vegas handled factions well, but failed everywhere else. I've yet to see dialogue done right yet, but DA2 was closer than most games.
Retour en haut
.
