436 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

Zjarcal wrote...
Well, different strokes obviously, but that illusion was never broken for me.

Nevertheless, the option many people have mentioned about having the full line show up if you highlight the paraphrase for a certain amount of time seems like a fair solution to me.

Yeah, that would be better, but I'd still find it annoying if you had to hover over everyone instead of just having all the full text readily visible. Cause thats a big reason why I like the full text responses in games- you can see every possible response at once and evaluate which one is best. So you're seeing the entirety of the PC's possible response right away and hell, you can appreciate all the writing that way too. I mean, there were definitely lines I didn't have my PC pick in DAO but I could appreciate them and remember them for some future playthrough since I was able to see all of them and not have the paraphrase obfuscating things.


I just find the paraphrases worthless. Even if BioWare is aiming for more cinematic dialogue, they should adopt Alpha Protocol's dialogue system as it works far better if you're trying to create a flowing, cinematic experience. DA2's is just an awkward middle ground  IMO.

[Nighteye2]

Zanallen wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
If they were going to do a full line they would most likely get rid of paraphrases all together and just leave the icons rather than implementing the dreaded toggle.

Eh, the reason they use the paraphrase system is due to negative feedback concerning the repetitiveness of reading the line and then having the same line recited back to you. There are also dialogue length issues when using the wheel. I have suggested that, when the player hovers over an option for a few seconds, the full dialogue line appears in the same chatbox that houses the last NPC line or perhaps just under the wheel in a second chatbox. People who hate the repetitiveness and don't mind not knowing the full line will be happy and so will people who don't mind repetitiveness, but what to know the full line. It solves both issues and would only take a little more effort on Bioware's behalf.

They should just remove the dialogue wheel from the PC version entirely, and go back to the DA:O dialogue tree system. Keep the dialogue wheel console-only, where it belongs.

[Zanallen]

Nighteye2 wrote...

They should just remove the dialogue wheel from the PC version entirely, and go back to the DA:O dialogue tree system. Keep the dialogue wheel console-only, where it belongs.

What are you talking about? There is nothing inherently "console" about the wheel and nothing "PC" about the list. They are just different ways to present the same thing. Both KotOR and Jade Empire, both console-first RPGs, used the list system.

[MerinTB]

Zanallen wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

They should just remove the dialogue wheel from the PC version entirely, and go back to the DA:O dialogue tree system. Keep the dialogue wheel console-only, where it belongs.

What are you talking about? There is nothing inherently "console" about the wheel and nothing "PC" about the list. They are just different ways to present the same thing. Both KotOR and Jade Empire, both console-first RPGs, used the list system.

KotOR was originally being developed as a PC game.  And KotOR and Jade Empire came out of a certain tradition.

By the time Mass Effect rolled around, and Mass Effect was never intended to be a PC game, the scrolling up and down with a controller was considered (by many) to be awkward.

Using the analog sticks, navigating a wheel for conversations like in ME and DA2 is much easier on a console.

It absolutely does have something to do with console controllers.

[addiction21]

MerinTB wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

They should just remove the dialogue wheel from the PC version entirely, and go back to the DA:O dialogue tree system. Keep the dialogue wheel console-only, where it belongs.

What are you talking about? There is nothing inherently "console" about the wheel and nothing "PC" about the list. They are just different ways to present the same thing. Both KotOR and Jade Empire, both console-first RPGs, used the list system.

KotOR was originally being developed as a PC game.  And KotOR and Jade Empire came out of a certain tradition.

By the time Mass Effect rolled around, and Mass Effect was never intended to be a PC game, the scrolling up and down with a controller was considered (by many) to be awkward.

Using the analog sticks, navigating a wheel for conversations like in ME and DA2 is much easier on a console.

It absolutely does have something to do with console controllers.

*looks at his Xbox controller*
Yup theres a D-pad there.
Damn youngins too lazy to move their thumb a half inch to the left!!!

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

Because the intent and the actual line are two different things. If the intent is to say a nice thing, then it doesn't matter (in theory) what that nice thing actually IS, necessarily. I'm not saying it works 100% of the time, but there is a purpose for it.

But a person, when speaking, doesn't decide to say something nice and then speak without knowing what the nice thing is.

A person attempts to be nice by using a particular sequence of words.  Whether they chose the right words is a different question, but each person might select different words to try to achieve the same result (being nice).

The paraphrase system forces us all to be exacty the same nice person, but worse, we don't get to know which nice person that is until after the fact.

For example, if you want to be confrontational to an NPC who is disparaging Fereldens, you could say "Hey! I'm a Ferelden!" or "Watch your mouth!" and they both serve the same purpose. Yes, it's a significant loss of detail, but in most cases, that level of precision isn't necessary, even if some people would prefer to have it anyway.

If I'm trying to keep that I'm Fereldan a secret, that's a very important detail.

I think the DAO style of dialogue matches real-world dialogue better.  DAO's system is now conversations actually work.  DA2's system is a collection of seemingly random behaviour that should only occur within mental health faclities.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 novembre 2011 - 12:13 .

[Riknas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If I'm trying to keep that I'm Fereldan a secret, that's a very important detail.

I think the DAO style of dialogue matches real-world dialogue better.  DAO's system is now conversations actually work.  DA2's system is a collection of seemingly random behaviour that should only occur within mental health faclities.

Your sense of the dramatic is noted (as it always is). Although the words may not always go exactly as we want it to be, the meaning remains the same. Indeed, if you find yourself baffled by every dialogue choice you picked there is something seriously wrong and it is not the dialogue. Really, this is just another argument as to why you don't personally like protagonists, because you wanted another dialogue option.

The match is always coherent, and unlike the dialogue in DAO which consisted of a mute who very occasionally had facial expression, genuine discussion takes place instead of one person talking a great deal while you might interject a sentence.

Just as this is a plausible issue in DA2, it was just the same in Dragon Age where what you wanted to say simply wasn't on the list. Indeed, I remember playing a dwarf walking in on the desire demon. "What in Andraste's name is going on here?"  is one of the choices. Even so, I figured it would have been nice to have said, "By the Stone, what is this?!" 

It is a reality of any form of gaming (Which it is), like it or not. Even then, because we are no longer plagued by dialogue choices that did not register differently than two others, I consider myself greatly relieved that we are only given options that have an actual acknowledgement in dialogue.

Modifié par Riknas, 07 novembre 2011 - 12:32 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Riknas wrote...

The match is always coherent,

LoL... no.


Or, to use an example from ME2... "I want you Thane."

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 07 novembre 2011 - 12:28 .

[Riknas]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
LoL... no.

You're being deliberately difficult. While it is not always exactly how we want it to be, at no point does picking, "He Won't Be Alone," (Charm) in DA2 tdoes the voice actor say, "By god, the fish was BIG!" It makes sense. You just don't like it.

Modifié par Riknas, 07 novembre 2011 - 12:35 .

[upsettingshorts]

"I want you Thane" was corrected in DA2 with the tone icon.

Because people were critical of more subtle paraphrasing leading to ninjamancing.

Let no-one accuse BioWare of not trying to improve their paraphrasing/dialogue wheel.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Riknas wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
LoL... no.

You're being deliberately difficult. While it is not always exactly how we want it to be, at no point does picking, "He Won't Be Alone," (Charm) in DA2 tdoes the voice actor say, "By god, the fish was BIG!" It makes sense. You just don't like it.

No, there are times in ME2 and DA2 when the paraphrasing and the actual line say something completely different. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 07 novembre 2011 - 12:46 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

"I want you Thane" was corrected in DA2 with the tone icon.

Because people were critical of more subtle paraphrasing leading to ninjamancing.

Let no-one accuse BioWare of not trying to improve their paraphrasing/dialogue wheel.

LoL.  The heart icon doesn't mean a damn thing when the paraphrased choice is "I want you Thane" and the spoken lines are completely different.   At that point, it's useless.  There's so, so much more to what a character says than "this is the line for romance", "this is the line for funny", and so on. 

"Ninjamancing" has nothing to do with that line, BTW, what FemShep actually says is far more subtle than the "bend me over this table and lizard me" implied by the paraphrasing on the wheel. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 07 novembre 2011 - 12:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riknas wrote...

Your sense of the dramatic is noted (as it always is). Although the words may not always go exactly as we want it to be, the meaning remains the same.

In response to the question, "Can I go now?" I selected Yes (the other option was No, with an attack icon - I didn't want to kill the guy, so I chose the other option).

What do you think Hawke would say there?  Only if you expected Hawke to seethe with scorn and derision, and sneer "Get out of my sight" or something like it was the meaning anything like what you wanted it to be.

The match is always coherent

See my above example.

and unlike the dialogue in DAO which consisted of a mute who very occasionally had facial expression, genuine discussion takes place instead of one person talking a great deal while you might interject a sentence.

But that created a very important and realistic divide between the characters I am not controlling and the character I am.  In the real world, I have mountains of information about the goings-on inside the head of the person I control (me), whereas the people around me I know only through their behavior.  Their thoughts are a mystery to me.

DA2's approach reduces Hawke to the level of "other".  I cannot know him except by his actions, because his thoughts are denied me.  If I knew his thoughts, I would know what he was going to say, and his remarks would never be completely at odds with my expectations.

Since they often were, Hawke's mind is therefore closed to me, and he's no more my character than Alistair was in DAO.

Just as this is a plausible issue in DA2, it was just the same in Dragon Age where what you wanted to say simply wasn't on the list. Indeed, I remember playing a dwarf walking in on the desire demon. "What in Andraste's name is going on here?"  is one of the choices. Even so, I figured it would have been nice to have said, "By the Stone, what is this?!"

Two problems.  First, with the PC unvoiced there's no reason for you to believe that the line you choose is delivered exactly as written.  If you'd like to edit it to say "By the stone", you can do that.

Second, while you're correct the DAO has the problem of not offering every line a player might want, DA2 is certainly no better in this regard.  You're pointing out a failing of DAO that isn't relevant to a discussion of DA2, as DA2 fails in the same way (and, I would argue, considerably worse by not letting the player see even what his limited options are).

It is a reality of any form of gaming (Which it is), like it or not. Even then, because we are no longer plagued by dialogue choices that did not register differently than two others, I consider myself greatly relieved that we are only given options that have an actual acknowledgement in dialogue.

Why does it matter if two seemingly different dialgue options produce the same result from NPCs?  Within the game's reality, you can't know that's happening because you only chose one of them.

This complaint is meaningless.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riknas wrote...

You're being deliberately difficult. While it is not always exactly how we want it to be, at no point does picking, "He Won't Be Alone," (Charm) in DA2 tdoes the voice actor say, "By god, the fish was BIG!" It makes sense. You just don't like it.

You can only see that it makes sense after you've heard the line, and it might not make sense in combination with the reason you chose that specific paraphrase option.

Tghat's the problem.  Because you cannot predict what the line will be, you cannot know whether it will match the paraphrase in a way that is consistent with your character's motives.

The only way to make the DA2 paraphrase work in the way you describe is to allow the game to tell you what Hawke's motives are rather than you being in control of them.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why does it matter if two seemingly different dialgue options produce the same result from NPCs?  Within the game's reality, you can't know that's happening because you only chose one of them.

This complaint is meaningless.

Plus, it allows the PC to say two different things.  Wow, what a concept, the player gets more choices.  Funny how this is a bad thing to some people... 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Plus, it allows the PC to say two different things.  Wow, what a concept, the player gets more choices.  Funny how this is a bad thing to some people... 

That's the argument I typically use, but it doesn't seem to get through to people, so I'm trying something different.

[Zanallen]

MerinTB wrote...

KotOR was originally being developed as a PC game.  And KotOR and Jade Empire came out of a certain tradition.

By the time Mass Effect rolled around, and Mass Effect was never intended to be a PC game, the scrolling up and down with a controller was considered (by many) to be awkward.

Using the analog sticks, navigating a wheel for conversations like in ME and DA2 is much easier on a console.

It absolutely does have something to do with console controllers.

KotOR came out on the X-Box five months before the PC release. How does that follow with it being originally planned as a PC game? Besides, Mass Effect comes from the same "certain tradition" as those other games. If anything, I would say that Jade Empire is even further from the tradition than Mass Effect.

How is scrolling up and down with the controller awkward? I've been doing it in every game for consoles since forever. Hell, Pong requires you to scroll up and down with the controller. That argument makes no sense.

It absolutely doesn't have anything to do with the console controllers.

[Riknas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
What do you think Hawke would
say there?  Only if you expected Hawke to seethe with scorn and
derision, and sneer "Get out of my sight" or something like it was the
meaning anything like what you wanted it to be.

The match is always coherent

See my above example.

Nonsense, the example has nothing to do with my statement. It is coherent. It makes perfect sense, it's just not what you wanted specifically. Just the same, it's impossible to accomodate perfectly, at best it means we should add more dialogue options when we can, at worst your argument is irrelevant. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But that created a very important and realistic divide between the
characters I am not controlling and the character I am.  In the real
world, I have mountains of information about the goings-on inside the
head of the person I control (me), whereas the people around me I know
only through their behavior.  Their thoughts are a mystery to me

This is a logical fallacy. If an RPG was best to fit your needs, you'd be able to have whatever facial expression you'd like. By having a blank expression (Or one at all) it is deciding for me that I have next to nothing to say, most people are not mindless automatons. Perhaps you have no expression when someone talks to you, but I try to accomodate different people accordingly.

You are playing a person, first and foremost, someone part of this story, not detached from it. If there is true role playing going on, I am playing someone in this story, a living being, not some soulless otherworldly entity. The blank expression clearly detracts from that.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
...
While you're correct the DAO has the problem of not offering every line
a player might want, DA2 is certainly no better in this regard.  You're
pointing out a failing of DAO that isn't relevant to a discussion of
DA2, as DA2 fails in the same way (and, I would argue, considerably
worse by not letting the player see even what his limited options are).

Pay attention to the full argument, you clearly quote my next paragraph and should understand how it ties in regards to the idea of the choice "illusion". The idea is that you're defending something that can not be perfectly catered to. If I have to pretend the line was something else, you could just as easily do the same with any other dialogue choice, plug your ears and ignore it.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
...
This complaint is meaningless.

This is also to you, KillJoy.

To you it's meaningless perhaps, but I could say the same of yours. The entire idea is the illusion. These are lines that are not really there, and I know they aren't, no more than I can say, "Monkey Feet!" instead of, "By the stone!" Indeed, I could go around pretending my character is schizophrenic and just edit every single dialogue choice I have and assume that everyone else is just feeling bad for me and trying to carry out a normal conversation. I think we both realize this is absurd.

The entire idea is we are removing the illusion. Up to that point, the game may as well have been 'lying' to me with those dialogue choices, because they don't matter, and will never be acknowledged, so why is it even there? Give me choice or don't. Bioware has been criticized repeatedly for the illusion of choice, and now they're done fooling you, now it's using the actual choices.

Also Killjoy: We're discussing DA2, you can quote Mass Effect all you'd like, but that doesn't help your actual argument.

Edit: Needing to *snip* choices to avoid unsightly post size

Modifié par Riknas, 07 novembre 2011 - 02:58 .

[addiction21]

simfamSP wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

"I want you Thane" was corrected in DA2 with the tone icon.

Because people were critical of more subtle paraphrasing leading to ninjamancing.

Let no-one accuse BioWare of not trying to improve their paraphrasing/dialogue wheel.

Finally! Someone with reason! 

Angrypants is one of the most reasonable people around here. So is Sylviaus but his views are a little out there.

Zanallen wrote...

KotOR came out on the X-Box five months before the PC release.

It was go do some digging. Just because it didnt happen that way does not mean it was wanted to happen that way orginally

Zanallen wrote...

How is scrolling up and down with the controller awkward? I've been doing it in every game for consoles since forever. Hell, Pong requires you to scroll up and down with the controller. That argument makes no sense.

It absolutely doesn't have anything to do with the console controllers.

Go look up the difference between D-pads (digital) like the keys on your keyboard and a analog. Hence my little joke some time ago.

I can try and save you some time. The D-pad or your keyboard is digital. Push a button and it happens. One keystrok one action. Thats why in Mario Brothers you only move one speed while holding right. Thats why in many PC games you can either move or run and only run ion angles with the keys.
Analog is always on. Its always giving that controll information. Thats why you can go from a slow walk to walking, to jogging, to running to sprinting with varying degrees of how far you push that stick.
Thats where the problem comes in with using analog controll methods with a list. Its just sloppy. That dialogue wheel is a much smoother manner in which to implement the dialogues and that is because of how analog has become a major factor into gaming.

[Glorfindel709]

My big problem with the voiced PC with paraphrasing is this;

Set the scene, an estate outside of Kirkwall. A thief has entered, intent on making off with a fine sword made for the Lord of the estate. I, the noble warrior of virtue that I am, intend to stop him. Confronting the fiend, I am given the choice near the end of the dialogue: "Fine, I'll let you go." or "No."

Being the virtuous warrior that I am, I select "No", expecting to tell the bandit to drop the weapon and surrender himself. My warrior instead launches into a short soliloquy about the virtues of an honest days work and brutally eviscerates the thief.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Was that a situation? No. But have similar instances happened in DA2? Yes. One or two worded paraphrases led to full speeches. Simple "No." statements led into a brutal murder.

The silent with full dialogue allows me as the Roleplayer to know what my character is saying and the ramifications therein. The paraphrase leaves me guessing, and thus breaks the immersion.

[MerinTB]

Zanallen wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
KotOR was originally being developed as a PC game.  And KotOR and Jade Empire came out of a certain tradition.

By the time Mass Effect rolled around, and Mass Effect was never intended to be a PC game, the scrolling up and down with a controller was considered (by many) to be awkward.

Using the analog sticks, navigating a wheel for conversations like in ME and DA2 is much easier on a console.

It absolutely does have something to do with console controllers.

KotOR came out on the X-Box five months before the PC release. How does that follow with it being originally planned as a PC game?

"BioWare has announced that it will be partnering with LucasArts to create a Star Wars role-playing game for the PC, and next-generation console systems. While details are incredibly slim on the RPG, to be released in 2002, we do know that it will take place four thousand years before Star Wars: Episode I, and will focus on the struggle between the Jedi and the evil Sith. At this point, BioWare has only said that the game is a "traditional RPG." As the game is in the infancy of its design stage, the company hasn't even decided on whether the game will be 2D or 3D at this point; but one look at Baldur's Gate II or MDK 2
will prove that the company can easily handle either perspective. As for what next-generation systems are planned for the title, a spokesman for the company wouldn't confirm specific systems, only to say that they
haven't "ruled anything out" at this point." - http://pc.ign.com/ar...2/082553p1.html

They knew they were making a PC RPG from the get go, but also wanted to expand their customer base to include the growing console gaming market.  It was ALWAYS going to be a PC game, but initially it wasn't guaranteed to be on any specific console.

And that's just the quickest article from the relevant time period I could find.

How is scrolling up and down with the controller awkward? I've been doing it in every game for consoles since forever. Hell, Pong requires you to scroll up and down with the controller. That argument makes no sense.

It absolutely doesn't have anything to do with the console controllers.

I don't personally think it's awkward, but gamers have complained such and the wheel is considered to be "easier" for analog sticks.

All that I, personally, believe about that is that the wheel is easier for analog sticks than it is for a mouse!

There were wheels in PC only games (ToEE, NWN) and I hated them then, too - I don't know WHY they were ever considered convenient or easy or a good idea.

I didn't make the decision - and right now, despite having read this EVERWHERE years ago, I can only find a couple "articles" on the web about this -

"The Circle Menu is a control system featured in Halo Wars.[1] It is used almost for everything such as constructing units, vehicles and buildings. The player can navigate through the Circle Menu via the Analog stick, to select whatever they so choose.[2]
It was designed by the Ensemble Studios in order to solve the problem of cumbersome RTS controls on the console. On PC, the player has the ability to use mouse and keyboard at the same time, which makes multitasking easy (it also allows for a great deal of keyboard combinations, which improves the ability to control the interface and the field of battle). The Ensemble studios solved the problem by creating a fast and easy to control mechanism, the Circle Menu.
The menu can contain up to 8 "articles", with units being on the right side and upgrades for them on the left. Additional information (such as cost, name) is displayed in the middle of the circle, with general
information on the unit or upgrade currently chosen on the far right beyond the menu itself.
The Circle Menu is very innovative and truly enriched the RTS genre on the consoles and proved that RTS games can be easily and fluently controlled, even if we only use the controller." - http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Circle_Menu

"Radial Menus are menus that appear in a circular pattern to display the options the player has.

Radial menus tend to appear mostly in console games, in genres with traditionally heavy menus such as strategy or RPG. The radial menu, used in conjunction with the analogue stick, allows quick access to a large number of menu options with a small number of button presses. " - http://www.giantbomb...al-menu/92-737/

Modifié par MerinTB, 07 novembre 2011 - 04:08 .

[Zanallen]

Still seems odd to me. For example, most JRPGs now use list systems. However, Secret of Mana (Recall that the SNES didn't have an analog stick) used a radial menu. This in not a difficulty that I have ever encountered. I guess some people just suck at using a controller.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riknas wrote...

Nonsense, the example has nothing to do with my statement. It is coherent. It makes perfect sense, it's just not what you wanted specifically.

It only makes sense if you ignore my intent in selecting the line.

My intent has to matter, because I'm the one making the choice.  I have to know why Hawke is going to let the slaver live in order to know that Hawke is going to let the slaver live.  If the spoken line then contradicts my intent (as it did), then my justification for selecting the line is no longer valid, and it's possible now that I should have selected the other option.

And this further ignores the possibility that a spoken line might contradict my justification for selecting some previous line at any earler point in the game.  If I select a dialogue option for reason A, but then 2 hours later some spoken line contradicts reason A, how can I fix that?  How can any player fix that?

Just the same, it's impossible to accomodate perfectly, at best it means we should add more dialogue options when we can, at worst your argument is irrelevant. 

Impossible to accommodate perfectly does not equal impossible to accommodate better.  DAO did it vastly better.

This is a logical fallacy. If an RPG was best to fit your needs, you'd be able to have whatever facial expression you'd like. By having a blank expression (Or one at all) it is deciding for me that I have next to nothing to say, most people are not mindless automatons. Perhaps you have no expression when someone talks to you, but I try to accomodate different people accordingly.

They could accommodate that simply by not showing the PC's face (as they mostly don't during DAO's conversations - the Warden's face is usually only visible during cutscenes, and of course never while he is speaking).

I'll agree that ever showing the wrong expression is a problem.  DAO does do it sometimes.  DA2 does it far more often.

Pay attention to the full argument, you clearly quote my next paragraph and should understand how it ties in regards to the idea of the choice "illusion". The idea is that you're defending something that can not be perfectly catered to. If I have to pretend the line was something else, you could just as easily do the same with any other dialogue choice, plug your ears and ignore it.

At no point have I suggested you disregard any explicit in-game content.  If you see a character say something, then he says that.  If you see a character do something, then he does that.

But the DAO dialogue options never appear in the game world.  They exist only an UI elements.

The solution you suggest renders the entire game pointless, as I could acheive the same result by simply writing fiction.

To you it's meaningless perhaps, but I could say the same of yours. The entire idea is the illusion. These are lines that are not really there, and I know they aren't, no more than I can say, "Monkey Feet!" instead of, "By the stone!" Indeed, I could go around pretending my character is schizophrenic and just edit every single dialogue choice I have and assume that everyone else is just feeling bad for me and trying to carry out a normal conversation. I think we both realize this is absurd.

The entire idea is we are removing the illusion. Up to that point, the game may as well have been 'lying' to me with those dialogue choices, because they don't matter, and will never be acknowledged, so why is it even there? Give me choice or don't. Bioware has been criticized repeatedly for the illusion of choice, and now they're done fooling you, now it's using the actual choices.

No, they removed the illusion of choice and instead gave us no choices at all.  Hawke acts without our input.  Hawke speaks without our input.  We literally never get to choose what he says.

The point you're trying to make actually undercuts your argument, because neither game givesy ou choces as you define them, but at least DAO offered the illusion.

However, I deny that DAO doesn't offer choices.  DAO offers you the option to say different things, and deliver them with whatever tone you like.  DA2 offers only an ill-defined choice of tone, and that's all.