159 réponses à ce sujet

[abnocte]

StanojeZ wrote...

You are not, nor will you ever be, your character.

Of course the player will never be his/her character, but the character should be what the player wants he/she to be.
If the player can't do that then we aren't playing a RPG anymore.


Also I fail to see how reading a line in advance has anything to do with it being funny, I have laughed my ass of plenty of times with Bioware's previous titles.

And as someone else said elsewhere here in the forums, not knowing what your character is going to say is the same as ordering your character to attack and not knowing which attacks s/he is going to perform.

[StanojeZ]

abnocte wrote...

Of course the player will never be his/her character, but the character should be what the player wants he/she to be.
If the player can't do that then we aren't playing a RPG anymore.

I don't think that definition of RPG makes sense. I can imagine myriad ways for Hawke or the Warden to be that are not met, cannot ever be met, by the games. That doesn't stop them being RPGs.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rojahar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The character is allowed to display emotion.  he just doesn't do it on screen.

Why don't we take away dialog options completely, no text at all, and just have nodding your head in agreement, disagreement, or however you wish to interpret the nod, with the dialog being whatever your imagination inserts?

It would be difficult for the writers to write NPC reactions with so little information.  Your proposal would ruin the game for a great many players.

[Sylvius the Mad]

StanojeZ wrote...

abnocte wrote...

Of course the player will never be his/her character, but the character should be what the player wants he/she to be.
If the player can't do that then we aren't playing a RPG anymore.

I don't think that definition of RPG makes sense. I can imagine myriad ways for Hawke or the Warden to be that are not met, cannot ever be met, by the games. That doesn't stop them being RPGs.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here?

But there are ways for the player to design the Warden such that the Warden can be the character the player wants him to be.

This is impossible in DA2 unless the player happens to design one of the very specific characters the writers already devised.

No one is claiming that the game should accommodate any character design.  But the game should accommodate some characters designed by the players, rather than just being the character designed by the writers.

[MerinTB]

StanojeZ wrote...

abnocte wrote...

Of course the player will never be his/her character, but the character should be what the player wants he/she to be.
If the player can't do that then we aren't playing a RPG anymore.

I don't think that definition of RPG makes sense. I can imagine myriad ways for Hawke or the Warden to be that are not met, cannot ever be met, by the games. That doesn't stop them being RPGs.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here?

For many, many people an RPG is a game where they get to "create" a character, whether from scratch with a character creation system or via choices in game that shape the character.

Not having unlimited options does not dismiss having options.  You can't play a Jedi in D&D, nor can you play a vampire in a Robotech campaign... but those limitations do not mean you are not creating your character.

Just because you can imagine unavailable choices doesn't mean that the existing choices are meaningless.  This is special pleading and moving the goal post.

Any game system has rules and guidelines.  More so with cRPGS than tabletop, sure.  But being able to control and shape your character is pretty core to almost any definition of what makes a game an RPG.

If you have a different definition of RPG that doesn't include player control of their character I think you'd find yourself in the minority.

[maxernst]

MerinTB wrote...

StanojeZ wrote...

abnocte wrote...

Of course the player will never be his/her character, but the character should be what the player wants he/she to be.
If the player can't do that then we aren't playing a RPG anymore.

I don't think that definition of RPG makes sense. I can imagine myriad ways for Hawke or the Warden to be that are not met, cannot ever be met, by the games. That doesn't stop them being RPGs.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here?

For many, many people an RPG is a game where they get to "create" a character, whether from scratch with a character creation system or via choices in game that shape the character.

Not having unlimited options does not dismiss having options.  You can't play a Jedi in D&D, nor can you play a vampire in a Robotech campaign... but those limitations do not mean you are not creating your character.

Just because you can imagine unavailable choices doesn't mean that the existing choices are meaningless.  This is special pleading and moving the goal post.

Any game system has rules and guidelines.  More so with cRPGS than tabletop, sure.  But being able to control and shape your character is pretty core to almost any definition of what makes a game an RPG.

If you have a different definition of RPG that doesn't include player control of their character I think you'd find yourself in the minority.

I think part of the reason this is such a divisive issue is that there's an entire school of CRPG's (the JRPG) which really doesn't have anything substantive in common with the tabletop RPG.  JRPG's are more akin to Western Adventure games, only with more combat and levelling which--in my eyes--are trappings commonly associated with RPG's but not fundamental to the genre.

[Persephone]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

StanojeZ wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Hold on - you're meant to make YOURSELF laugh? Your point is perfect - is summasies exactly why paraphrasing is BAD. If your character is surprising you with what he/she says, how could you possibly be connected to them?

You are not, nor will you ever be, your character.

Says who? This is, after all, a role-playing game. Sure - your dialogue choices are limited but I still felt way more connected to the Warden than to Hawke, as did the majority of the people on these forums, if polls are anything to go by.

Good for them. To me, the Warden comes across like a mindless drone and, at his worst, like a sociopath. (Head canon is no excuse for the utter lack of emotional realism)  Never mind the "Doh!" expression and the O_o expression being all you'll get out of them. My Warden can be "funny" throughout the game, Leliana will still always call her severe. (Just one example) You can be an utter monster, yet spam some gifts and boom, everybody speaks of your honor, kindness, goodness...and forget (!) all the nasty things you did to them or others. Yes, great immersion and roleplaying there.

While the above may be VERY harsh re: DAO (Which I still love), the idea of its protagonist having any character development outside headcanon is just not true. Because the Warden has no character development, no matter the situation they end up in. And NPCs do not REACT to headcanon either, with many responses being exactly the same, no matter which option is picked in dialogue. RPGs are supposed to be reactive to the protagonist as a whole, not just to clicks. DAO is not.

[FieryDove]

Persephone wrote...

Good for them. To me, the Warden comes across like a mindless drone and, at his worst, like a sociopath. (Head canon is no excuse for the utter lack of emotional realism)  Never mind the "Doh!" expression and the O_o expression being all you'll get out of them. My Warden can be "funny" throughout the game, Leliana will still always call her severe. (Just one example) You can be an utter monster, yet spam some gifts and boom, everybody speaks of your honor, kindness, goodness...and forget (!) all the nasty things you did to them or others. Yes, great immersion and roleplaying there.

And so I can be super nasty to all my companions in DA2 but because how rivalry/friendship works, they will stay by my side and respect me?  if you think that is better than gift spam.

If they had thought it was worthwhile they would have added expressions to ths warden in DAO. (Wish they had to avoid all these complaints). They did in JE and they were mute PC's. (except combat)

[Persephone]

FieryDove wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Good for them. To me, the Warden comes across like a mindless drone and, at his worst, like a sociopath. (Head canon is no excuse for the utter lack of emotional realism)  Never mind the "Doh!" expression and the O_o expression being all you'll get out of them. My Warden can be "funny" throughout the game, Leliana will still always call her severe. (Just one example) You can be an utter monster, yet spam some gifts and boom, everybody speaks of your honor, kindness, goodness...and forget (!) all the nasty things you did to them or others. Yes, great immersion and roleplaying there.

And so I can be super nasty to all my companions in DA2 but because how rivalry/friendship works, they will stay by my side and respect me?  if you think that is better than gift spam.

Only that's not how that system works in its entirety. I sure lost quite a few companions in several playthroughs. Never mind that each side of the system has its own branch, rather than just ignoring anything you say or do. They REACT to that.

[abnocte]

@StanojeZ 

Sorry for not being clear in my post, I was in a hurry.
What I meant is perfectly explained by Sylvius and MerinTB some posts above.  

Persephone wrote...
Good for them. To me, the Warden comes across like a mindless drone and, at his worst, like a sociopath. (Head canon is no excuse for the utter lack of emotional realism) Never mind the "Doh!" expression and the O_o expression being all you'll get out of them. My Warden can be "funny" throughout the game, Leliana will still always call her severe. (Just one example) You can be an utter monster, yet spam some gifts and boom, everybody speaks of your honor, kindness, goodness...and forget (!) all the nasty things you did to them or others. Yes, great immersion and roleplaying there.

DA:O approval system was faulty to begin with, and spoiling it with your Warden is nothing but metagaming, ( unless you desinged him/her to be the kind of person that buys others people approval like that ).

Besides plot gifts I rarely used them. And using them just to boost the characters seemed pretty meaningless to me, and way too gamey.

Modifié par abnocte, 21 novembre 2011 - 06:54 .

[Sylvianus]

The gifts were useless, but they did not affect the story or the romance, deeper than those of DA2. It wasn't really relevant, but it is" a minor feature. " There is a big exaggeration that is made, knowing that I haven't really used the gift either and yet it was  not the big mess you describe.

The romance without the gifts are still effective, and the characters can still disapprove you. And you can give up Allistair, to kill Leliana and Wynne, Morrigan can leave, etc etc....

Yes, DAo = great roleplay, better than DA2 in this area. The snarky tone about roleplay is utterly strange, if we compare DAO and DA2, about dialogue interactions, choices, companion interactions, consequences, etc .

Modifié par Sylvianus, 21 novembre 2011 - 07:10 .

[Persephone]

Sylvianus wrote...

Yes, DAo = great roleplay, better than DA2 in this area. The snarky tone about roleplay is utterly strange, if we compare DAO and DA2, about dialogue interactions, choices, companion interactions, consequences, etc .

Two in italics: I much prefer DAII there. Consequences in DAO are meh (Epilogue slides...really? What is this, an MS Dos game?), those of DAII I cannot discuss, as I haven't seen them yet. I suspect Exalted March might shed some light on that. As for choices, Recruit A or B scheme lost its charm rather quickly in my case.

If one wishes to pick things apart, there is plenty to be found in DAO from where I am coming from.

Modifié par Persephone, 21 novembre 2011 - 07:37 .

[Sylvianus]

In two lines, you do not say much. The only thing I understood, was : Meh, I cannot discuss, I suspect, lost its charm. I much prefer DAII there.

Anyways, no problems, if you don't like DAO. Simply the gifts... wouldn't be really... what could ruin DAO in my opinion. It is just a minor feature, if such a small thing bother you so much, Many things won't be fine for you.

I agree that said that the DA2 system is better in this area and this improvement is welcomed.

[maxernst]

Persephone wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Good for them. To me, the Warden comes across like a mindless drone and, at his worst, like a sociopath. (Head canon is no excuse for the utter lack of emotional realism)  Never mind the "Doh!" expression and the O_o expression being all you'll get out of them. My Warden can be "funny" throughout the game, Leliana will still always call her severe. (Just one example) You can be an utter monster, yet spam some gifts and boom, everybody speaks of your honor, kindness, goodness...and forget (!) all the nasty things you did to them or others. Yes, great immersion and roleplaying there.

And so I can be super nasty to all my companions in DA2 but because how rivalry/friendship works, they will stay by my side and respect me?  if you think that is better than gift spam.

Only that's not how that system works in its entirety. I sure lost quite a few companions in several playthroughs. Never mind that each side of the system has its own branch, rather than just ignoring anything you say or do. They REACT to that.

Which means I lose half my companions if I don't want to be either completely in agreement with them or completely at odds with them.  You can be downright abusive to them and they'll stand by you, but try and take a middle stance and they'll abandon you. 

[Eudaemonium]

Persephone wrote...

Consequences in DAO are meh (Epilogue slides...really? What is this, an MS Dos game?), those of DAII I cannot discuss, as I haven't seen them yet. I suspect Exalted March might shed some light on that. As for choices, Recruit A or B scheme lost its charm rather quickly in my case.

DA2's 'Epilogue Slides' happen within the game in the form of the letters Hawke gets sent. It is here that we hear about the various consequences to little decisions, such as what happens to Ella, Feynriel, the Harrowmont guy, the kid in Athenril's Loose Ends, etc. These are the things that in DAO would have been told to the player in epilogue slides. The system is presumably  intended to be more immersive, whether it succeeded is of course up to you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I like epilogue slides. They offer an enjoyment denouement.

[Firky]

I liked the epilogue slides too.

Since playing a bit of Skyrim, I've been thinking about the non-voiced protagonist, roleplaying etc. A guy I work with commented that my Skyrim character seems "very sad" and I think he's right. I often make her sit on a chair so she can just look at the view. Also, being silent and doing (a LOT) of silent running between locations (I refuse to use fast travel) she's kind of developed that personality. The fact that her written lines are also very basic probably helps your imagination run with whatever character you have going. I could easily imagine any of my character's simple dialogue being spoken as "sad." There's no distinct personality in different responses or anything like that, all responses could be anything. Roleplaying (in Skyrim) comes from engaging with gameplay, not choosing the line you speak.

I've never really thought of DAII as an RPG, more like an interactive story. I don't mind that Hawke(s) have personalities, clever dialogue etc. I also don't really see the value in it, when very simple, non-voiced protagonist can be highly evocative with the right presentation.

[maxernst]

Eudaemonium wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Consequences in DAO are meh (Epilogue slides...really? What is this, an MS Dos game?), those of DAII I cannot discuss, as I haven't seen them yet. I suspect Exalted March might shed some light on that. As for choices, Recruit A or B scheme lost its charm rather quickly in my case.

DA2's 'Epilogue Slides' happen within the game in the form of the letters Hawke gets sent. It is here that we hear about the various consequences to little decisions, such as what happens to Ella, Feynriel, the Harrowmont guy, the kid in Athenril's Loose Ends, etc. These are the things that in DAO would have been told to the player in epilogue slides. The system is presumably  intended to be more immersive, whether it succeeded is of course up to you.

I liked the letters for minor quests, but the real problem with DA2 is the lack of consequences in the main story. 
All Hawke's friends (except his loved one if he had one) desert him and he disappears.  Nothing Hawke does affects his story's outcome except his romance.  He gets to be viscount for a while if he sides with the Templars, but there's no indication that his time as viscount changes anything.

Whereas the warden can end DA:O
1) Dead
2) Married to the King/Queen of Ferelden
3) Alistair's mistress
4) Next in line for the throne in Orzammar
5) Warden Commander
6) Teyrn of Gwaren
7) Bann of the Alienage
8 Traveling with Leliana
9) Travelling with Sten

There may be more I've forgotten about, but the point is, you have the opportunity to make choices that affect your Warden's future.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Firky wrote...

I've never really thought of DAII as an RPG, more like an interactive story. .

That's probably accurate.

Unfortunately, I don't want to play an interactive story.  I want to roleplay.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Mm. Fair point. If they're going for interactive story or a game with mere 'RPG elements' I have absolutely no problem with keeping the PC voiced, paraphrased and occasionally saying/doing things I have no say in.

But I want to roleplay too.

[Firky]

Well, I think voiced protagonist is entirely consistent with a medium of interactive storytelling. And I think this was clearly where they were heading with DAII, definitely pre-release. Now? Not sure. But voiced protagonist probably doesn't necessarily have to kill roleplaying. Not entirely, anyway.

On the one hand, yes, my Skyrim character is incredibly sad, and her very generic, silent lines can be interpreted in many, many ways that support any roleplaying experience. But, she's also sad because she runs a lot and sits on chairs. And has a backpack full of dead livestock and shoes. And wields destructive magic.

Consider the Witcher 2. Geralt is voiced and he's just Geralt. You can be the Geralt who saves the burning women or the Geralt who lets them burn, but he's largely just himself. In a narrative sense, I might say that it's more of an interactive choose your own adventure. You're roleplaying what he does rather than who he is.

But, at the same time, through engaging with different aspects of gameplay, you can be Geralt the alchemist, Geralt the swordsman, Geralt the guy with the signs, or Geralt the monster hunter. You can be Geralt the guy with the backpack full of pink cloth or Geralt, collector of books.

In DAII, Hawke was the guy with the family, the Champion etc. In my games, he/she was a tactician, because I micromanaged the party, but that was about it. He/she had a diplomatic and a ruthless variation. There wasn't much about the gameplay that engaged me with actual roleplaying, but I still loved the story. I don't think the lack of roleplaying is entirely down to voiced protagonist, if a voiced protagonist can engage in gameplay in lots of ways.

(Don't get me wrong, I like roleplaying too, but I do like what they achieved in DAII.)

[Lynata]

My abilities to choose an action for my character are unfortunately, yet necessarily limited by the game being a pre-scripted play. There simply isn't a way for the writers to foresee and include anything we might want to do, or how we would like to word our characters' dialogues. With this limitation already in place, it becomes rather easy for me to accept the paraphrasing. I just don't feel like I am loosing much, but I am gaining a lot - namely an increased enjoyment of a more fluid dialogue. I can fully understand and share the OP's opinion regarding the lines "not being as funny" if you read them beforehand.

I do not see a lot of sense in knowing the -exact- wording beforehand when I am still being pressed into actions and responses that may not be how I would have wanted my character to handle things, yet there's just no other way to do it in a computer game. Unlimited freedom is something you can only have when interacting with other player characters and/or a human GM, for example by playing the Dragon Age pen&paper RPG (which I can only recommend to try!). The "interactive movie" aspect of DA2 is present in any computer game, Bioware simply refined their delivery.

That said, I will also point out that I believe that a few lines were not just paraphrased but actually a bit misleading, or could have easily included a bit more information that I'd have deemed necessary (such as the amount of gold you spend in that one instance when bribing the dock guy - sheesh, if I'd have known the price beforehand) ...

For DA3, I will also wish for my choices to have more (or actual) consequences, which isn't really the topic of this thread, but a closely related issue. As far as the epilogue sliders are considered, I'd like to have those back as well. They were a neat closing element to the story, I think.

Modifié par Lynata, 22 novembre 2011 - 01:25 .

[Persephone]

maxernst wrote...

Persephone wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Good for them. To me, the Warden comes across like a mindless drone and, at his worst, like a sociopath. (Head canon is no excuse for the utter lack of emotional realism)  Never mind the "Doh!" expression and the O_o expression being all you'll get out of them. My Warden can be "funny" throughout the game, Leliana will still always call her severe. (Just one example) You can be an utter monster, yet spam some gifts and boom, everybody speaks of your honor, kindness, goodness...and forget (!) all the nasty things you did to them or others. Yes, great immersion and roleplaying there.

And so I can be super nasty to all my companions in DA2 but because how rivalry/friendship works, they will stay by my side and respect me?  if you think that is better than gift spam.

Only that's not how that system works in its entirety. I sure lost quite a few companions in several playthroughs. Never mind that each side of the system has its own branch, rather than just ignoring anything you say or do. They REACT to that.

Which means I lose half my companions if I don't want to be either completely in agreement with them or completely at odds with them.  You can be downright abusive to them and they'll stand by you, but try and take a middle stance and they'll abandon you. 

Maybe they like people who take a stand rather than choosing the middle ground or ignoring them. Not all of them abandon you either way. And I've been a peacemaker between the mages and templars in my first playthrough and lost neither Fenris NOR Anders. There is more to it than what you say to them, but also what you DO.

[Killjoy Cutter]

StanojeZ wrote...

Or as dramatic, or as sad.

That's why paraphrasing dialoge choices is better than writing them out fully - it undercuts the actual delivery, which is where the emotion happens. No paraphrasing means no surprise. And without surprise, there won't be a lot of humor.

One of the FIRST things I'd change in DA2 is the way you have to take a wild guess at what will come out of Hawke's mouth and then cross your fingers about half the time. 

Not only is the paraphrasing generally not a good idea, the paraphrased line all too often has no relationship to the line actually delivered. 

"Surprise" and "impact" are red herrings.

[maxernst]

Persephone wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Persephone wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Good for them. To me, the Warden comes across like a mindless drone and, at his worst, like a sociopath. (Head canon is no excuse for the utter lack of emotional realism)  Never mind the "Doh!" expression and the O_o expression being all you'll get out of them. My Warden can be "funny" throughout the game, Leliana will still always call her severe. (Just one example) You can be an utter monster, yet spam some gifts and boom, everybody speaks of your honor, kindness, goodness...and forget (!) all the nasty things you did to them or others. Yes, great immersion and roleplaying there.

And so I can be super nasty to all my companions in DA2 but because how rivalry/friendship works, they will stay by my side and respect me?  if you think that is better than gift spam.

Only that's not how that system works in its entirety. I sure lost quite a few companions in several playthroughs. Never mind that each side of the system has its own branch, rather than just ignoring anything you say or do. They REACT to that.

Which means I lose half my companions if I don't want to be either completely in agreement with them or completely at odds with them.  You can be downright abusive to them and they'll stand by you, but try and take a middle stance and they'll abandon you. 

Maybe they like people who take a stand rather than choosing the middle ground or ignoring them. Not all of them abandon you either way. And I've been a peacemaker between the mages and templars in my first playthrough and lost neither Fenris NOR Anders. There is more to it than what you say to them, but also what you DO.

What stand?  The game doesn't allow Hawke to take a stand.  You're forced to help Meredith, forced to help Anders, forced to help Petrice, forced to help the Arishok.  It's impossible to play a Hawke who makes a consistent stand.   I just don't think it makes sense for Anders to prefer a Hawke that is totally pro-Templar to one that actually favors more freedom for mages but thinks that becoming an abomination is a bad idea.  And it makes far more sense for Isabela to come back if you've refused to help her consistently.   Of course, it's possible to keep everybody if you metagame, but I refuse to bring Fenris along on quests where I'm planning to help mages just so that I can push his rivalry button. I simply find the rivalry relationships incomprehensible.  It's completely irrational for the characters to hang around a Hawke that treats them badly and repeatedly makes them do things that go against their core beliefs.  Sure, Hawke has done them some favors, but not enough for them to repeatedly risk their lives in a cause they don't believe in.