276 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

simfamSP wrote...

True the Warden's character development is much deeper than Hawkes. But it doesn't mean Hakwe's is non existant.

Hawke's is very nearly non-existent, because character development during dialogue is denied you.  Origins offers literally thousands of opportunities to express the Warden's personality through dialogue.  DA2 offers that exactly zero times.

Hawke can make relevant choices with regard to actions and some quest outcomes, but those are far less frequent.

[Stoomkal]

I do not reload a thousand times anymore because of slow combat issues...

I reload because my joystick accidentally veered into the wrong dialogue option...

I end up choosing the "mask" and feel like I just hit the "fart button" - really they are the most senseless and unfunny moments.

Gets a reload *every* single time I ever touched it... who the heck thought this smarmy loser was "charming"... if it was a movie he would have to be the second rate comic character at best.

Certainly no James Bond or Oscar Wilde.

Dear GAWD do I miss the variable options of DA:O... sometimes my stern character could be amazingly witty, imagine that!

[Morroian]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Hawke's is very nearly non-existent, because character development during dialogue is denied you.  

Not denied me. I grant that it doesn't suit the way you play but thats hardly universal.

[Sharn01]

Morroian wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Hawke's is very nearly non-existent, because character development during dialogue is denied you.  

Not denied me. I grant that it doesn't suit the way you play but thats hardly universal.

Having a say in how a character developes and being happy with the developement of a character in a story are not the same thing.

[Morroian]

Sharn01 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Hawke's is very nearly non-existent, because character development during dialogue is denied you.  

Not denied me. I grant that it doesn't suit the way you play but thats hardly universal.

Having a say in how a character developes and being happy with the developement of a character in a story are not the same thing.

No they aren't and I found that I was able to develop Hawke better than I was able to develop the Warden. The game style suits me better than DAO, ultimately I would rather more choices affecting the narrative but that didn't stop me from developing 5 very different Hawke's.

[Adrian68b]

Sharn01 and all above: you are pointing to a serious flaw in DA2, indeed. We can speculate hours about what would Kirkwall became without Hawke, in order to estimate the magnitude of his actions. The very sad fact is that the game environment is set to be indifferent to Hawke's actions.
In DAO you could side with Branka (and let her survive), and Golems are added to you army. If not, NO Golems. In DAO-A , the survival/downfall of the Warden fortress (if you choose to rescue Amaranthine) is up to you. In short, the game's Main Plot is responsive regarding your actions.
In DA2 the game environment respond "in mysterious ways". Enemies Among Us is a secondary/side quest, so you can simply reject it. NO difference. In my opinion, Cullen MUST be dead without Hawke's help.
It's one thing not be able to express your personal choice because the game does not let you (ex. negotiating a truce between Orsino and Meredith). It's something else if the game simply ignores your actions.
My suspicion is that Bioware wanted to be innovative, and NPC's capable of independence (ex. Varric regarding Bartrand). But it backfired.

[Bhaal]

simfamSP wrote...

But it's still there. The only thing that Hawke limits you is in terms of personality which there are only three. The Warden lacks words, and thus lacks tone. So when options arise, you can imagine the tone your are setting no? Is that not what you mean?

Expression isn't personality. In DA2 you're not even able to play as an evil mage or a saint like warrior(and these are the most primitive personalities that a rpg should offer). There were moral choices in DA2 here and there yet they are random, momentary and far away from being expressions of your PCs personality or his long term goal.

These "personalities" ,as you call them, aren't personalities at all. %90 percent of the dialogs are different expressions of the same personality. Rest %10 even worst since you're forced to use certain expression. I was role playing an pro-mage yet peaceful apostate and during a scene  i was suppose say something about mage-templar dispute but only agressive option would fit with my Hawke's world view.  Actualy during the one of such moments i forced to choose agressive option and my Hawke said: "We'll kill them all!"(**** you not spartacus)... I was like:blink:.

How could a character be simplified into suave, rude and sarcastic? I could be evil yet suave; or lawful yet sarcastic. There were some lines without this: "kind, funy and maniac" cliché and they were the best. Like the moment Arishok asks your view about Kirkwall and such.

Modifié par Adakutay, 19 septembre 2011 - 11:39 .

[Adrian68b]

It could have been done easily with a two-level dialogue menu:
Choice 1 - vocal expression: calm/funny/aggressive
Choice 2 - reaction type: diplomatic/forceful/selfish

Or any other choices.

[Cyberarmy]

Adakutay wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

But it's still there. The only thing that Hawke limits you is in terms of personality which there are only three. The Warden lacks words, and thus lacks tone. So when options arise, you can imagine the tone your are setting no? Is that not what you mean?

Expression isn't personality. In DA2 you're not even able to play as an evil mage or a saint like warrior(and these are the most primitive personalities that a rpg should offer). There were moral choices in DA2 here and there yet they are random, momentary and far away from being expressions of your PCs personality or his long term goal.

These "personalities" ,as you call them, aren't personalities at all. %90 percent of the dialogs are different expressions of the same personality. Rest %10 even worst since you're forced to use certain expression. I was role playing an pro-mage yet peaceful apostate and during a scene  i was suppose say something about mage-templar dispute but only agressive option would fit with my Hawke's world view.  Actualy during the one of such moments i forced to choose agressive option and my Hawke said: "We'll kill them all!"(**** you not spartacus)... I was like:blink:.

How could a character be simplified into suave, rude and sarcastic? I could be evil yet suave; or lawful yet sarcastic. There were some lines without this: "kind, funy and maniac" cliché and they were the best. Like the moment Arishok asks your view about Kirkwall and such.

Just stop by to say " Excellent post!"

[happy_daiz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

happy_daiz wrote...
Wait, what? 640x480? Are you saying that DA was set up to support that godawful resolution? I have my xbox set at 1080p (equivalent to 1920x1080), supported by my LED HDTV. Are there seriously people still out there using 640x480? Wow. Just wow.

640*480 is a standard definition television.  Many people have such a thing.  My television is standard definition.

But I don't use my TV for gaming.

I'm a snot. I guess I forgot that SDTVs were still out there, my bad. 

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

640*480 is a standard definition television. Many people have such a thing. My television is standard definition.

So when everyone across the globe would own wall-size plasma, we would be able to chat with Dak'kon using five-stroke philosophical paragraphs once again.

For now, the technology for WHITE TEXT ON BLACK SCREEN is just not there.
Technology is a b****. A stupid b****.

Modifié par DamnThoseDisplayNames, 19 septembre 2011 - 01:43 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Hawke's is very nearly non-existent, because character development during dialogue is denied you.

Not denied me.

We've been over this before.  Yes it is denied you, because you cannot know whether the line you're choosing will be consistent with your character's previous choices.

The only way you could roleplay Hawke is if Hawke is insane, so that he doesn't hold any opinion consistently over time, and he himself is unaware what he's going to say, so he'd be constantly reacting to his own speech (rather than pro-actively speaking).

Perhaps you could roleplay a Hawke who has been possessed, and this isn't always in control of his own body.  That would explain away the cutscene behaviour, too.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm much more interested in the PC's thoughts than the PC's emotions, and Origins lets me control the PC's thoughts.

That's all I ask. But DA2 doesn't do it.

[Maconbar]

Bad hair will kill DA:3.

[Sylvius the Mad]

simfamSP wrote...

Oh come on Sylvius, your better than that! I know you take your roleplaying VERY seriously. But the form your talking about is almost non existant.

No it isn't.  Generally, the reason people think it is is because they read the writers' intended tone into the dialogue options even when they're not voiced, so they see far more restrictions in a game like DAO than I do.

When the game gives you the chance to say "Yes." you can know exactly why your character is saying "yes" and what that agreement means to him.  In DA2, you cannot do that, because the line is voiced, so the delivery of the line could well be inconsistent with the intent you had in mind.  Plus, the actual words you speak might bear no resemblance to the paraphrase you selected.

And there's no way to know while you're making the choice.  In response to the question, "Can I go now?", what would you expect "Yes." to mean?  I would have accepted a polite "Of course.", but instead I got a sneering "Get out of my sight!".  What?  How can I roleplay a character when he behaves entirely contrary to my intent?

[Bhaal]

simfamSP wrote...

Good post, yet I tend to disagree. Hawke becomes a different person when you force these expressions. He becomes more agressive, more comical, more neutral in his own way.

In a way you are developing him. And that should be enough. Though I still stick to the fact that he is much less versatile than the Warden in terms of Roleplaying.

Well it's right player develops his Hawke but as i said: it's just his behavior and not who he is.... Since the latest DLC draws nigh i'm playing New Vegas a lot and doing so with a new character with a new skill set. Now i noticed how much the game responds my rp; my actions, my karma, my skills, my stats, my recent choices, hell even my drug addiction. The game goes even further and through the factions lets you role play an ideology for pc.

NV gives me wide enough space to rp and even better many times responds it. Origins had it too because... well it had origins. Despite the main story, which wasn't good at responding your rp, isolated origin stories were brilliant in this aspect; for example dwarf noble origin was allowing the player a wide space: from a pragmatic son of **** to an lawful and dutiful heir. Origins were like a second part of the character sheet which you choose personality and world view.

What DA2 offers can't be enough. Think of BG: when it comes to aligment almost all quest were giving you change to rp your aligment. Not your gender not your class but at least the game was responding your alignment. DA:O was even gone a step further and let you express your class and gender too. Then DA2 steps back to point that even behind from BG's.

Modifié par Adakutay, 19 septembre 2011 - 06:46 .

[LordPaul256]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

Oh come on Sylvius, your better than that! I know you take your roleplaying VERY seriously. But the form your talking about is almost non existant.

No it isn't.  Generally, the reason people think it is is because they read the writers' intended tone into the dialogue options even when they're not voiced, so they see far more restrictions in a game like DAO than I do.

When the game gives you the chance to say "Yes." you can know exactly why your character is saying "yes" and what that agreement means to him.  In DA2, you cannot do that, because the line is voiced, so the delivery of the line could well be inconsistent with the intent you had in mind.  Plus, the actual words you speak might bear no resemblance to the paraphrase you selected.

And there's no way to know while you're making the choice.  In response to the question, "Can I go now?", what would you expect "Yes." to mean?  I would have accepted a polite "Of course.", but instead I got a sneering "Get out of my sight!".  What?  How can I roleplay a character when he behaves entirely contrary to my intent?

That drove me mad.  (No pun intended).

I just finished defeating the Arishock in a 1-on-1 battle, get to a cut scene where I finally get a chance to talk to the two major faction leaders in the game, and Orsino tells me to rise up and take power.  (Also no pun intended).  So, playing a diplomatic mage character who feared the wrath of the Templars, I chose "The people will decide," thinking it would mean that I suggest the people should vote in a new Viscount.  It would be their right, and it would represent the will of the people.  

Instead I am apparently agreeing with Meredith, and saying that the people will remove her from power when they're ready.



That's not at all what I wanted my character to say in that scene!  The worst part is that if I wanted to change that one line of dialogue to better represent my character, y'know - roleplaying, I had to redo the entire Arishock battle then remember my path to that line.  (Yes, that would have been fairly simple given how linear the conversation was, but I still had hope at the time that that wasn't true).  

[culletron1]

LordPaul256 wrote...

That drove me mad.  (No pun intended).

I just finished defeating the Arishock in a 1-on-1 battle, get to a cut scene where I finally get a chance to talk to the two major faction leaders in the game, and Orsino tells me to rise up and take power.  (Also no pun intended).  So, playing a diplomatic mage character who feared the wrath of the Templars, I chose "The people will decide," thinking it would mean that I suggest the people should vote in a new Viscount.  It would be their right, and it would represent the will of the people.  

Instead I am apparently agreeing with Meredith, and saying that the people will remove her from power when they're ready.



That's not at all what I wanted my character to say in that scene!  The worst part is that if I wanted to change that one line of dialogue to better represent my character, y'know - roleplaying, I had to redo the entire Arishock battle then remember my path to that line.  (Yes, that would have been fairly simple given how linear the conversation was, but I still had hope at the time that that wasn't true).  

DA2 did a terrible job of getting accross in the dialog wheel what Hawke was going to say... I guess that is why they had to put in those awful emoticons in the wheel too as it really wasn't clear from the summary what Hawke was going to say

I never felt like that when using the dialog wheel in Mass Effect... 

Like everything else in the game it was probably rushed out

[jbrand2002uk]

simfamSP wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

Oh come on Sylvius, your better than that! I know you take your roleplaying VERY seriously. But the form your talking about is almost non existant.

No it isn't.  Generally, the reason people think it is is because they read the writers' intended tone into the dialogue options even when they're not voiced, so they see far more restrictions in a game like DAO than I do.

When the game gives you the chance to say "Yes." you can know exactly why your character is saying "yes" and what that agreement means to him.  In DA2, you cannot do that, because the line is voiced, so the delivery of the line could well be inconsistent with the intent you had in mind.  Plus, the actual words you speak might bear no resemblance to the paraphrase you selected.

And there's no way to know while you're making the choice.  In response to the question, "Can I go now?", what would you expect "Yes." to mean?  I would have accepted a polite "Of course.", but instead I got a sneering "Get out of my sight!".  What?  How can I roleplay a character when he behaves entirely contrary to my intent?

I see what you mean now. And yes you are correct. Though it's a problem that seems to vary between people. I don't see the point of paraphrase at all tbh, thought you have to admit, the tone icons 'do help' in a way. They atleast give you an indication of what Hawke's intention is behind that paraphrase.

Though in Origins, imagination does allow you to create a tone because of the lack of voice, doesn't the response from the NPC break that immersion to you? Or am I getting you wrong somewhere Sylvius? The text infront of you says 'yes' for example. And you imagine your warden saying it with an infinte amount of intentions, expressions, and emotions behind it. Since he is not voiced that is clearly possible. But the NPC's reaction must have broken immersion for you once or twice no?

That was the big killer for me in Origins the only way to fix it was to turn the volume off so you cant hear the reply and have subtitles on so you can read the reply , but please Sylvus with all due respect stop taking your games so seriously dude its just a game not a matter of life and death the world wont end because one particular games dialogue didnt live up to you overactive imagination.
While I feel sympathetic to your disapointment taking your games way too seriously does no favours for the collective image the mass public has of RPG gamers in general.
Silent protagonists and endless amounts of dreary convo options are the way of the old school RPG and while i used to like the old school RPGs times are a changing but alas i will bow out as this whole DA3 speculation malarkey is getting very old and very tired very quickly like the DA2 bashing thats still persisting.