833 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Genshie wrote...

Filament wrote...

jackofalltrades456 wrote...

The one thing that makes me sad about a voice protagonist is that we'll probably only have humans playable again. If they were to make the Origins races playable that would mean they would need at least six voice actors to voice all of them.

Again, not necessarily true, for instance Gorim and Spike Spiegel (Cowboy Bebop) are voiced by the same VA (Steve Blum) with very little inflection added to Blum's voice (Irving and Oghren are also Steve Blum, with added age/gruffness).

Voices are a non-issue period for Bioware. I give example A. being Star Wars Old Republic which had not just different races but different personality voices as well for your created character.

DA3 is not going to have anywhere close to TORs budget so it's very much an issue.

[AkiKishi]

Merci357 wrote...

My problem with the voiced protagonist in BW games is that it's neither an empty vessel to be filled by me, like the Courier or the Dragonborn, nor it's a predefined character like Adam Jensen, Michael Thorton or Geralt of Riva.

However, DA2 was a step in the later direction. ME3 had it overdone with it's auto dialogue, but I loved in DA2 that Hawke wasn't detached from the party, she actively engaged in party banter, something I don't want to see go away entirely. Maybe prompt the player to engage in banter is possible via a QTE event, I've no idea. But since a voiced protagonist is already set in stone regarding DA3, you might want to use it's strong points, not combat it's weaknesses.

Either or works for me, but not the "middle ground". If I'm in roleplaying mode then I want to roleplay, if I'm in movie watching mode then I want to watch the best characters possible on screen.
I'll take either the Warden, or Adam Jensen but Hawke was lacking on both counts. Any attempt to make the voiced character of DA3 an "empty vessel" by making it generic and not making full use of the cinematic medium would be a counterproductive.

[nightscrawl]

I suppose I'll really have to keep up with the forum now. I had no idea about this informative thread, and it's only three days old! I'll start this off by saying that I did enjoy the voiced PC and look forward to more in the future. However, the main issues I have are with the dialogue wheel and how it can be fine tuned so that more people get a greater enjoyment out of it (more here).

David Gaider wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
More non-personality icons would be nice, I felt certain scenes (Leandra scene comes to mind) could've benefitted greatly from angry / happy / sad tones rather than putting it on Diplomatic / Sarcastic and Aggressive.

Funny you mention this, because we were having this discussion just the other day-- identifying that sometimes a "reaction" or an "emotion" is necessary, as opposed to a "tone". Needs to be context-sensitive, but the Leandra scene you mention did come up as an example.

I agree with this 100%! Sometimes when I wanted a serious response, I would pick the red gavel/direct icon and that gave me what I thought was appropriate, especially as a sarcastic Hawke who knows when the situation calls for seriousness. Many times though the only red icon is the fist/aggressive, so I don't want to pick that and was forced to use blue if I want to only be serious for one dialogue responses.

One issue with auto-dialogues is that it takes into account your dominant personality, so if you are sarcastic personality, having a serious conversation about someone who has died or was murdered you sound like a total ass and have no control over it. Unfortunately I can't give a specific example.

I'll add that I thought more NPC response should have been given to your flippant or aggressive remarks. One hilarious/horrifying example was after showing Emeric the bones, the sarcastic response is something about boneless corpses flopping around. Emeric was so pissed! I really felt bad for having said it. Another situation is making a comment to Aveline and she says "I don't think I've asked to be made the butt of your jokes," to which Hawke simply replies "Donnic." It's an amusing scene that revolves around real responses to your tone. Most of the time the NPCs soldier on with their scripted dialogue regardless of what you say or how you say it, which I found unfortunate.

David Gaider wrote...

Let me be frank: there is no solution which will be the catch-all that satisfies everyone. Ideally we could look at some options where the player can set preferences (the dreaded toggle), but that's not going to be an option where we are writing two or three versions of the paraphrase for every single response in the game. That would be mind-boggling. There is a point where we're going to have to pick a route and try to implement it in the best way we can.

Again, this is something that we'll have to eventually show to convey our meaning, but we've some options. They all have their benefits and drawbacks-- and, yes, I agree not everyone is going to like them all equally, but then again y'all are hardly interchangeable.

Why is it "the dreaded toggle"? Using DA2 as an example, let's say that we have a 2-3 versions of the line to go along with the personalities and all the the choices -- there of course is also a more neutral tone I've noticed during the interrogative scenes where you are going through all of the (?) icons -- so there can be up to 9 different spoken line options for any given dialogue sequence. However, there is still an actor there who is reading the lines. They are written down somewhere. Why can't there be a mouseover bubble? (Btw when I refer to these mouseover bubbles, I envision something similar to the party banter subtitle bubbles you can turn on in the options, which I eventually did so as to not miss anything.)

Is it a technical issue of having the personality option calling the correct text line to go with the right paraphrase? If so, I agree that seems like a lot of steps for a simple line of dialogue, only a portion of which will even be seen by any given player. I do understand the problem of UI crowding and screen real estate though. Having a conversation with someone that is covered by text bubbles doesn't sound great, BUT a mouseover + a delay seems reasonable, since it gives the player control and guards against accidental mouse moving.

David Gaider wrote...

Let's say I have the option where the text pops up after a delay, providing you the full line of what follows. What if the actual meaning of that line is conveyed via emotion or gesture? That's often the case, and indeed we'd like to do that more and not less. You could also be seeing the first line of an exchange, as opposed to getting the gist of the entire exchange from it. So you'd be seeing something that could still not be the improvement you think it is, as the PC's dialogue is not written the same as DAO's was.

A person's physical gesture and facial expression doesn't need to be written out because we can see them. Hawke had a few moments which were quite humorous. However, that doesn't really relate to clicking a paraphrase and saying something completely unrelated to the paraphrase, which I think is that main problem people have. I really feel that if everything about DA2's dialogue system was the same: personality, tone, icons, all of it, but people had 100% assurance of what would come out of Hawke's mouth, even if there weren't happy with all of the options (I wasn't happy with some of DAO's options either, but you [the writers] can't think for everyone), there would not be such negativity about it.

David Gaider wrote...

I'm not certain how well that would work. We could turn off the VO, but not the cinematics involved... so it would result in a weird pantomime (reading the VO via subtitles, I suppose). There's an element that would definitely be missed, considering what we write changes when we know at least part of the meaning is conveyed via the voice acting.

I mentioned this same thing in some other thread. I imagine it would look quite comical, seeing your PC's mouth move and not hear anything, while at the same time enjoying the VO work of all of the NPCs. One thing that people forget when thinking of DAO and remembering how that played with a silent PC is that for the most part conversations were done in first-person perspective, looking over your Warden's shoulder. So there was nothing odd about not seeing your character physically responding to the conversation because of the camera placement. Since DA2 (and I imagine later games) has fully scripted scenes with involved camera work (Fenris pacing comes to mind), it doesn't allow for a fixed camera like DAO had, which helped the silent protagonist immensely.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 23 mars 2012 - 11:03 .

[nightscrawl]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

So how about a 'rewind to last choice' feature instead? If you make a choice that jars you out of it, back it up and pick something else.

They already dislike that people reload to make different choices, so I doubt they would put in something like this. Besides, that's a band-aid over a compound fracture. The solution is to re-design it in such a way that most people will be pleased or at least satisfied, rather than just give people a tool to overlook the problem.

[jackofalltrades456]

All this talk about dialogue makes me curious about one thing: what's going to happen with persuasion? Persuasion has always been my strongest area in almost every rpg I've ever played, and I've played a lot of rpgs. I always make sure my character has maxed out persuasion as i felt it always gives you the best endings in many areas of the game I didn't like how limited it was in Dragon age 2 and have been hoping for the return of the traditional point based, persuasion system in Dragon Age 3.

I just was wondering where the devs stand on this since they haven't said much about.

[hoorayforicecream]

nightscrawl wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

So how about a 'rewind to last choice' feature instead? If you make a choice that jars you out of it, back it up and pick something else.

They already dislike that people reload to make different choices, so I doubt they would put in something like this. Besides, that's a band-aid over a compound fracture. The solution is to re-design it in such a way that most people will be pleased or at least satisfied, rather than just give people a tool to overlook the problem.

I'd like to see a source for that first statement. I've never seen any of the devs say they dislike people reloading to make different choices.

Regarding the system, I think you're wrong... after engineering game systems myself to try to account for the 90%, 99%, 99.9% of the situations, I guarantee you that there will always be those outlier situations in the game that stick out like sore thumbs, and the less they actually appear, the more glaring they will feel. The only way to not make that mistake is to give the player complete transparency for what the character will do, say, and intend, and that just isn't feasible to do for every decision in the game.

Have you tried playing SWTOR? The ability to cancel and redo conversations is immensely helpful. After playing it, then returning to ME2 and DA2, I find myself pressing the escape button mid-conversation wishing it worked.

[Joy Divison]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

So how about a 'rewind to last choice' feature instead? If you make a choice that jars you out of it, back it up and pick something else.

They already dislike that people reload to make different choices, so I doubt they would put in something like this. Besides, that's a band-aid over a compound fracture. The solution is to re-design it in such a way that most people will be pleased or at least satisfied, rather than just give people a tool to overlook the problem.

I'd like to see a source for that first statement. I've never seen any of the devs say they dislike people reloading to make different choices.

Regarding the system, I think you're wrong... after engineering game systems myself to try to account for the 90%, 99%, 99.9% of the situations, I guarantee you that there will always be those outlier situations in the game that stick out like sore thumbs, and the less they actually appear, the more glaring they will feel. The only way to not make that mistake is to give the player complete transparency for what the character will do, say, and intend, and that just isn't feasible to do for every decision in the game.

Have you tried playing SWTOR? The ability to cancel and redo conversations is immensely helpful. After playing it, then returning to ME2 and DA2, I find myself pressing the escape button mid-conversation wishing it worked.

IIRC, didn't they get rid of the opportunity to save Hawke's mother bc/ the beta testers would often reload to get the "correct" or best ending?

My opinion here.  I think it is safe we ALL at some point reloaded a game because we weren;t comfortable with a dialogue option we picked.  Hell, there have been times I did it even though there were no mechanical or even story-based consequences.  I get it.  I still would be uncomfortable with the "rewind" feature bc/ then the temptation to have the "correct" and perfect play though is just a button away rather than the annoying process of reloading. 

[hoorayforicecream]

Joy Divison wrote...

IIRC, didn't they get rid of the opportunity to save Hawke's mother bc/ the beta testers would often reload to get the "correct" or best ending?

No. Testers tried a lot of combinations to see if it were possible, but the actual implementation never actually passed the planning stage.

My opinion here.  I think it is safe we ALL at some point reloaded a game because we weren;t comfortable with a dialogue option we picked.  Hell, there have been times I did it even though there were no mechanical or even story-based consequences.  I get it.  I still would be uncomfortable with the "rewind" feature bc/ then the temptation to have the "correct" and perfect play though is just a button away rather than the annoying process of reloading. 

What's wrong with making it easier for the player to choose the path they want?

[schalafi]

I don't advocate reloading every 5 minutes; just when you aren't sure what the paraphrase will actually make you say; also, in my case, I've learned to do it because Varric and Isabela often fail to warn me about a trap until I've stepped on it. That's why I usually quick save when entering a new area.

I know, this is a trial and error solution, which I really wish I didn't have to use, but until there is some way for the voiced dialogue to more accurately comment on a situation, I don't know any other way of dealing with it. Yet in spite of it's drawbacks, I wouldn't want to go back to written dialogue. I've made some unfortunate choices with that too.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Not unless we're willing to change our characters' inner workings to fit into the game's mold. That's the sort of rationalisation I mean -- being a little flexible.

That would require we then go back and replay the entire game to ensure consistency with our new design.

Believe me when I say I don't consider it to be the ideal solution, or even a solution at all, I suppose , but even without autodialogue we're faced with inconsistency we have to deal with somehow.

I'm particularly minded of a conversation with Alistair in DA:O, just after he's met his sister and he's talking to the PC about it. There are five options to respond to him with, but, for my first game at least, none of them were what my character wanted to say. So I had to settle, be a little flexible. I wasn't entirely happy, but DA:O was pretty generous with its dialogue choices so I could easily forgive it. Besides, even with a hundred choices they'll never cover everything. Not even 'Hello'.

I don't need to choose what to say from a blank slate.  I'm happy to select from a list.  But I need to know what's on the list to ensure that the option I pick is consistent with my character design.

In any given moment in a conversation, there are a wide variety of things my character might say.  As long as one of the dialogue options offered falls within that group, then I'm happy with that dialogue event.

But with autodialogue, I'm not given a chance to vet the line.  I can't exclude those lines which are not things my character might say.  That's the problem with autodialogue.

That's also the problem with the paraphrases.

I do tend to do a lot of save/reloads on my first game to try and see as much as I can, then save the RP for the second game. I've recently decided I find it easier to see what the parametres of modern cRPGs are, what the wriggle room is, then tailor-create a character that won't be confounded by the system. That worked pretty well for my Angry Apostate in DA2, until her viscount-by-achievement was, IIRC, stated to be non-story related/unintended. Even when you play by the rules you get frustrated.

I play a standard character for my first run through pretty much every game.  I know him extremely well, so I don't need to spend too much time worrying about whether I'm roleplaying him consistently.  As such, I can experience the game's content more easily, and this allows me to learn what I need to learn for future playthroughs.

But as soon as BioWare started voicing the PC, they broke my default character.

Even DA:O wasn't perfect. My first character, a Cousland, wanted to defend Ser Jory at the Joining as he was a knight of Highever. Feudal obligations and all that. The game wouldn't allow it. So, shocked by the flagrant murder, she wanted to throw the Cup in Duncan's face or otherwise refuse to drink. Couldn't do that either. So I had to change my character concept.

When faced with that sort of broken character, I typically start over with a new one.  I cannot continue froward from that point, because the choices my character made previously would no longer be consistent with her design.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Joy Divison wrote...

I still would be uncomfortable with the "rewind" feature bc/ then the temptation to have the "correct" and perfect play though is just a button away rather than the annoying process of reloading. 

I would love a rewind feature.  A rewind feature might be enough to make a voice+paraphrase system palatable for me.

[adlocutio]

Maria Caliban wrote...

My issue here is that it's 'self-made.'

Exploration is great and adds to the weight of the world, but it's not role-playing. Likewise, I can write fan-fiction about my Skyrim PC that's a self-made narrative. In fact, when I do PnP games, I often write out back-stories for my characters, reactions to in-game events, or simple day-to-day stuff that doesn't make it into the game proper.

It's great supplemental material and improves the experience, but to me, role-playing demands a certain level of interactivity.

It's awesome that Skyrim lets me murder someone, strip them naked, and drag their body through the streets, but if no one react to that, it's not role-playing.

Exploration is role-playing the same way combat is role-playing.  It's behaving in-character. Whether the game is designed to react to my role-playing in every aspect is utterly irrelevant.  Of course it makes for a better experience, but doesn't affect my ability to role-play at all.  Deciding the character's motivation for a behavior is essential role-play.  Should the world react to my motivations? Maybe.  Does it stop being role-playing if it doesn't? Of course not.

[adlocutio]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
RP, at it's most basic level, is you pretending to be someone else. Without interactivity though, that's RP at its most simplistic.

Interactivity does enhance roleplay, but cRPGs will always be limited in that way. However, roleplaying is not lessened at all when your character is climbing a mountain or crossing a river in Skyrim. Everything about why your character does what they do is roleplay.  Imagination is the point. I get that you don't seem to like that kind of roleplay, though.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Complex RP is about interacting with other characters, be they controlled by other people or a computer. If the narrative only exists in your own head that's...well, daydreaming. It can form a part of RP, it can support RP, but at some point you need other characters to interact with and challenge you...characters who you don't control. Otherwise you're just talking to yourself.

The best RP, IMO, is where the interactivity leads to realistic reactions. That's the bit cRPGs will always be working on, I think, as AI has a long way to go.

One can roleplay a person in isolation. It doesn't necessarily lessen the experience.  It seems to me not that you and Maria are arguing that exploration or behaving without specific reactions to the behavior isn't roleplay, but rather isn't the type of roleplay you enjoy most.  I have no problem with that.  But exploration, combat, or isolation present some engaging roleplaying opportunities, in my opinion, and when I hear people suggest that those things aren't roleplaying at all.... well that's what makes me suggest they don't really know what roleplaying is.

Maria Caliban wrote...
I have fudged dice-rolls. I see that as my adjusting to problems in the game system.

This exactly. There is no perfect system.

Maria Caliban wrote...
To be sure, I wasn't criticizing Skyrim or calling it less of an RPG.

No, but you said:

Maria Caliban wrote...
Exploration is great and adds to the weight of the world, but it's not role-playing.

Since exploration is a great part of Skyrim, it implies you think that much of Skyrim isn't roleplaying. I think it is, just not the kind of roleplaying you prefer. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I think that's a bad rule. I strongly oppose any segregation of gameplay and narrative.

In general I agree, but rule zero is sometimes the only way to keep playing the game. Of course that means the game is broken, but there is no simulationist system which allows the narrative to continue if you get a disastrous roll. cRPGs let you reload. That is the same kind of segregation, but it's absolutely necessary to let you keep playing the game.  Rule zero is the same.

Modifié par adlocutio, 23 mars 2012 - 06:14 .

[Huntress]

Koire wrote...

I think I disagree. I liked how it was handled in DA2 (lines depending on your personality).

I agree with you!  it would be hard to keep track of the amount of clicking for every sentence..
I don't see me  reading and then press the bottom to hear my character say the same thing I just read..

Anyway personality lines is a very good idea.
sarcastic hawke: ..We are getting out and am buying when we do:lol::lol:  +1000 epic points.
Diplomatic Hawke: ...Sometimes just have to  stand:wub:+120 pure epic.

Not sure what the third option but here it goes:

And when i catch sebastian neither the Maker nor Andraste will recognize him! in the background: CHEERS and tears of joy:O:lol: ROFFL..

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Exploration is great and adds to the weight of the world, but it's not role-playing.

I disagree.  Everything that happens in a roleplaying game is roleplaying.  inventory management is roleplaying.

adlocutio wrote...

In general I agree, but rule zero is sometimes the only way to keep playing the game.

If you break the game, you're not playing it anymore.  Once you break the game you're not playing a different game, and you've rendered meaningless everything that happened within the game before you broke it.

Of course that means the game is broken, but there is no simulationist system which allows the narrative to continue if you get a disastrous roll.

If the characters die, the narrative is over.  There is nothing left to continue.

cRPGs let you reload. That is the same kind of segregation, but it's absolutely necessary to let you keep playing the game.  Rule zero is the same.

No, it isn't.  Reloading is neither gameplay nor story.  Reloading is on the other side of the game/metagame dichotomy.  Game/metagame segregation is absolutely necessary.

[adlocutio]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
 Reloading is neither gameplay nor story.  Reloading is on the other side of the game/metagame dichotomy.  Game/metagame segregation is absolutely necessary.

Rule zero is a metagame solution to an in-game problem. Reloading is a metagame solution to a game-over problem. They both are externally imposed to allow the narrative to continue. In this aspect, the differences are irrelevant. Rule zero can be used for other things... but that's not why I would use it, and that's outside the range of my arguement.

Addendum: To be clear, rule zero would actually allow a reload for pnp. In other words, if your character dies, you could restart the battle so the narrative can continue.  There is effectively no difference between this application of rule zero and a reload screen.

Modifié par adlocutio, 23 mars 2012 - 08:07 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

adlocutio wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
 Reloading is neither gameplay nor story.  Reloading is on the other side of the game/metagame dichotomy.  Game/metagame segregation is absolutely necessary.

Rule zero is a metagame solution to an in-game problem. Reloading is a metagame solution to a game-over problem. They both are externally imposed to allow the narrative to continue. In this aspect, the differences are irrelevant. Rule zero can be used for other things... but that's not why I would use it, and that's outside the range of my arguement.

Addendum: To be clear, rule zero would actually allow a reload for pnp. In other words, if your character dies, you could restart the battle so the narrative can continue.  There is effectively no difference between this application of rule zero and a reload screen.

But you're inconveniencing the other players that way.

In a CRPG, reloading doesn't disrupt anyone's game, because the only player has seen his game end.  In a tabletop game, the other players haven't died.

If you only used Rule Zero to overcome full party wipes, that would be better, but even a full-party wipe can be a catalyst for another adventure (with new characters).  If the villain of the story has just acquired a bunch of handy magical loot from the dead adventurers, he'll now be that much more effective at implementing his dastardly plan.

Any implementation of Rule Zero would need to consent of all the players in order to be relevantly similar to reloading.

[adlocutio]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But you're inconveniencing the other players that way.

If you only used Rule Zero to overcome full party wipes, that would be better, but even a full-party wipe can be a catalyst for another adventure (with new characters).  If the villain of the story has just acquired a bunch of handy magical loot from the dead adventurers, he'll now be that much more effective at implementing his dastardly plan.

Any implementation of Rule Zero would need to consent of all the players in order to be relevantly similar to reloading.

Agree completely. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. 

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Even DA:O wasn't perfect. My first character, a Cousland, wanted to defend Ser Jory at the Joining as he was a knight of Highever. Feudal obligations and all that. The game wouldn't allow it. So, shocked by the flagrant murder, she wanted to throw the Cup in Duncan's face or otherwise refuse to drink. Couldn't do that either. So I had to change my character concept.

When faced with that sort of broken character, I typically start over with a new one.  I cannot continue froward from that point, because the choices my character made previously would no longer be consistent with her design.

You are a far more extreme RPer than I, in that case. I'd find that sort of rigidity in a cRPG ultimately frustrating, and learned to roll with certain things a long time ago in the spirit of simply 'progressing the game'.

Though, of course, I'll still speak up if I think the spirit of that game is being twisted.

adlocutio wrote...

Interactivity does enhance roleplay, but cRPGs will always be limited in that way. However, roleplaying is not lessened at all when your character is climbing a mountain or crossing a river in Skyrim. Everything about why your character does what they do is roleplay.  Imagination is the point. I get that you don't seem to like that kind of roleplay, though.

I didn't say I don't like it. But it gets old after a while. I've got Skyrim. I love exploring and seeing new things and chasing butterflies. I've admired the night sky and the utmost depths of the land. Travel is awesome, picking herbs and mining ore is cool, but there's very little mental engagement in those activities. I can be dazzled by a waterfall or trying to shield my face against blasts of snowy wind, sure, that's roleplay...but it's solitary, and ultimately lonely.

I love imagination. I'm a writer. I could spin a tale of what my lizardy rogue does while roaming across the plains with her faithful hound, but there comes a point when I expect an RPG to provide more mental stimulation than combat and a gorgeous backdrop for my imagination to run wild in. That'd be why I don't consider games like Diablo to be true RPGs. I can roleplay within them, but the game's just serving as a non-reactive stage.

One can roleplay a person in isolation. It doesn't necessarily lessen the experience.  It seems to me not that you and Maria are arguing that exploration or behaving without specific reactions to the behavior isn't roleplay, but rather isn't the type of roleplay you enjoy most.  I have no problem with that.  But exploration, combat, or isolation present some engaging roleplaying opportunities, in my opinion, and when I hear people suggest that those things aren't roleplaying at all.... well that's what makes me suggest they don't really know what roleplaying is.

Like I said previously, I consider exploration and isolated roleplay to be simplistic, not invalid. It has its place, I don't dislike it, there are times when I prefer it to RP with other characters and seek it out. But for me, per my Diablo comment above, a game needs more than solitary experiences to be a true RPG. If it lets your imagination do all of the work then I might as well call Tetris an RPG.

Since this has gone off-topic again, that'll be my last post on ye olde topic of what makes an RPG.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 24 mars 2012 - 12:39 .

[Imrahil_]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I play a standard character for my first run through pretty much every game.  I know him extremely well, so I don't need to spend too much time worrying about whether I'm roleplaying him consistently.  As such, I can experience the game's content more easily, and this allows me to learn what I need to learn for future playthroughs.

But as soon as BioWare started voicing the PC, they broke my default character.

Same here.  Pretty much every cRPG I play, on the first time through, I play more-or-less the same character.  After my first run through, I play different characters, with different personalities.  But with voiced PC's, I can't play *my* character ever, not even the first time.  With auto-dialogue, I *really* can't play my character, 'cause he starts saying stuff I don't want him to.

I enjoyed TW2, because I knew going in that I was playing Geralt.  I knew I wasn't playing my character going in.  Even given that, even given TW2's excellent branching storyline, I couldn't complete a second playthrough.  Started it.  Didn't finish it.

I still haven't seen Iorveth's path, because Geralt was the same guy my second time.  I couldn't muster the enthusiasm to go through all of Flotsam in order to pick a different choice.  Because all of Flotsam, & everything leading up to the end of Flotsam, was with the same character.  Pretty much.

TW2 was a great game, don't get me wrong.  Highly enjoyable once.  Once.  But ultimately I don't enjoy playing someone else's character.  I want to play my character.  DA:O let me do that.  If I can't do that, let me know upfront & provide a great story with a fixed character, not an amorphous blob character who's neither mine nor the story's.  It sounds more & more like DAIII won't let me play my character & is only going to be another amorphous blob.  DA:O > TW2 > DAII/III, from what I'm hearing.

[Rurik948]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

TW2 was a great game, don't get me wrong.  Highly enjoyable once.  Once.  But ultimately I don't enjoy playing someone else's character.  I want to play my character.  DA:O let me do that.  If I can't do that, let me know upfront & provide a great story with a fixed character, not an amorphous blob character who's neither mine nor the story's.  It sounds more & more like DAIII won't let me play my character & is only going to be another amorphous blob.  DA:O > TW2 > DAII/III, from what I'm hearing.

By default Gerald has many restrictions inherited from Sapkovsky's novels.  And this provides a lots of guidlines for both CD-Project, and players, who have red the novels.  For example, while playting the first and the second Witcher and facing the moral choices (like for example whether to protect Abigail or let the villagers burn her in exchange for a Visima pass) I feel Gerald could be detached, ironic, sharp-tunged, might not have a "pleasant" type of personality, but still he can't be evil, because it will just ruin the very idea of this character.  

[dragonfire100]

Agreed even though i love DA2 picking what opition you want with voice i feel this series should be dragon age not mass effect again i just think dragon age should do its own thing but i still loved DA2 though.

[Maria Caliban]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...


I have fudged dice-rolls. I see that as my adjusting to problems in the game system.

Exalted is a good example of this. On a lucky hit, a mortal with a mallet can one-shot kill a demigod. It's not what the designers intended, it's the opposite of what they desired, but they're better at designing settings, characters, and cool powers than they are combat systems.

The combat system is an aspect of the setting.

Then it's an aspect of the setting that's poorly designed and contradicts other aspects that are well-designed. As such, I'm comfortable ignoring it at times.

adlocutio wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Exploration is great and adds to the weight of the world, but it's not role-playing.

Since exploration is a great part of Skyrim, it implies you think that much of Skyrim isn't roleplaying. I think it is, just not the kind of roleplaying you prefer. 

1. Exploration is as much part of Skyrim as you prefer. That's like telling someone that combat is a 'great part' of Deus Ex when you can skip the majority of it.

2. Yes, I think much of Skyrim isn't role-playing. As I said, though, that's not an implication that Skyrim is lesser in some way than BioWare's games.

3. In World of Warcraft, I managed to get the achievement for exploring every zone in vanilla and the two expansions. In Fallout: NV, I got 'Master of the Mojave' before even reaching Las Vegas. In Skyrim, I had explored over a hundred locations before hitting High Hrothgar.

The idea that I don't think exploration is role-playing because I don't enjoy or appreciate exploration +is incorrect.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 24 mars 2012 - 03:54 .

[Joy Divison]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

IIRC, didn't they get rid of the opportunity to save Hawke's mother bc/ the beta testers would often reload to get the "correct" or best ending?

No. Testers tried a lot of combinations to see if it were possible, but the actual implementation never actually passed the planning stage.

My opinion here.  I think it is safe we ALL at some point reloaded a game because we weren;t comfortable with a dialogue option we picked.  Hell, there have been times I did it even though there were no mechanical or even story-based consequences.  I get it.  I still would be uncomfortable with the "rewind" feature bc/ then the temptation to have the "correct" and perfect play though is just a button away rather than the annoying process of reloading. 

What's wrong with making it easier for the player to choose the path they want?

But they were thinking of being able to save Hawke's mother and people were still reloading bc/ they thought they could and wanted the perfect ending...that's why they scrapped it, right?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with a rewind or undo button.  I'd be uncomfortable with it bc/ it could be used in all dialogues, not just for the path they want (why can't the game communicate clearly here again?), but a failed persuasion/intimidate check, or a "well I wanted to pick that action but I didn;t know the guards would arrest me" type choice, etc.

In general most games dont have a "redo" button and I think that's a good thing.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 24 mars 2012 - 03:50 .

[johook213]

I've never played ME so I'm not sure what we are talking about, but I would like to say that I prefer the DAII dialogue wheel over DA:O list. I loved my sarcastic Hawke. =)