833 réponses à ce sujet

[hoorayforicecream]

Meris wrote...

In all sincerity, I can only see three ways for autodialogue to make sense with your character.

A)You're contempt with playing a character that is more BioWare's than yours.

B)You weren't very creative with your character to begin with.

C)A miracle happened and you managed to make a character that is exactly the same as BioWare's Hawke.

I'd say that it's me being able to play a character within the constraints given to me. I was constrained in Baldur's Gate, DAO, SWTOR, DA2, The Witcher 2, Persona 4, and practically every other RPG I've ever played. The list and scope of constraints might differ from game to game, but there will always be constraints. I've never played a game where I cannot abide the character given to me to play. I've given up on games because the gameplay wasn't fun, or the interface was bad, or the content didn't appeal, but never because I couldn't play a character concept that I wanted and couldn't make.

You think that the character is more Bioware's than mine, and that that's a bad thing. I think that I have an easier time making a character mine than you do, and that that's a sad thing.

[AkiKishi]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm not following your argument.

It's not really an arguement. I'd prefer a first person roleplaying game,but if Bioware is commited to third person then I want the best third person game they can make , not a watered down attempt to placate people who want first person no matter what.

[Meris]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You think that the character is more Bioware's than mine, and that that's a bad thing. I think that I have an easier time making a character mine than you do, and that that's a sad thing.

Every CRPG has been a work of co-authorship and neither I nor anyone has ever said that the Silent Protagonist releases us from cooperating with the authors (without, you know, making fan fiction). There are always constraints and we work within them. We know our characters are going to save Ferelden from the Blight so we might as well as make a character that has a motivation to do so. BioWare do the same thing, they know Hawke will do whatever he does after Act2 so they create a character that has (kind of) motivation to do so for us.

As far as I'm concerned the voice over adds even more roleplaying constraints (takes away freedom of interpretation of motivation, limits avaiable voices, limits mannerisms and so on) as well budgetary concerns (as per BioWare itself) which, I believe, greatly limits the game's design. All this for the sake of a improved graphic experience.

From my point of view Hawke isn't our character to create, merely direct and not only for the reasons above but also because of paraphrasing. Paraphrasing keeps you from knowing what your character is going to do or say, creating a gap between avatar and player. Curiously though you see this gap as evidence that the game's design conforms to character creation when what most likely happened to you is that BioWare's version of Blue/Purple/Red Hawke conforms to your version of Hawke. Or even that you didn't really create a Hawke (short of tweaking appearance) early on and, grew up to know BioWare's version of Hawke and made it yours.

I never had any difficulties making a character.

Modifié par Meris, 24 mars 2012 - 07:14 .

[upsettingshorts]

Wait, you didn't play DA2's Hawke rigidly conforming to only selecting Direct/Diplomatic/Sarcastic each time only for the sake of it did you? Like say you might with Shepard and Paragon/Renegade?

[Meris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Wait, you didn't play DA2's Hawke rigidly conforming to only selecting Direct/Diplomatic/Sarcastic each time only for the sake of it did you? Like say you might with Shepard and Paragon/Renegade?

Certainly not. But often when I pick A, B or C I'm told why I picked A, B or C by Hawke himself.

Modifié par Meris, 24 mars 2012 - 07:16 .

[adlocutio]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

I'm sorry, but you didn't understand what was written. It's ok, though, it's a subtle difference that many don't seem to grasp.  I said exploration wasn't the kind of roleplaying you prefer. I didn't say you didn't like exploration. There's a difference. Exploring to gain achievements, to explore every corner of the world, or because you, the player, want to see something, or get a different perspective most certainly is not roleplaying by any possible definition.

If, however, exploration is character driven, it is, and always will be roleplaying. By definition. There can be no argument.

Example: I'm playing Skyrim and I climb a mountain because I the player want to see what the world looks like from the throat of the world: Not Roleplaying

I'm playing Skyrim and my character needs to get to the throat of the world to find out what it means to be dovahkin, or my character is heroic and wants to find damsels to rescue, or my character is hungry and wants to find an animal to kill and eat, or my character is a mage and needs ingredients....etc: Always Roleplaying.

I never said you didn't enjoy exploration, just that it seemed you didn't enjoy it for roleplaying reasons.

Lastly, just because you can skip exploration doesn't mean it's not a great or important part of the game. You can skip dialogue in Dragon Age, too.

Since our conversation has taken this so far off-topic, please PM if you want to keep talking.

Now, since I havent contributed much to the topic, I'll say this: As a gamer, I abhor the reduction of roleplaying to some dialogue and narrative choices. As a gamer, I want to define my protagonist in toto, without having to constantly readjust my character concept, like Shadow of Light Dragon said, or just start over with a new character like Sylvius said. It takes me out of the game and reduces replay value, and autodialogue is one of the worst offenders.

However, were I an investor in EA (and I'm not, for purely fiscal reasons) I would encourage Bioware to make Dragon Age as much like Mass Effect as possible, right down to using the same engine.  Clearly there's a successful formula there, and the formula which sells the most units is always the right one.  I think we'd find, also, that if Bioware were to do that, and stop calling it an RPG, and stop raising RPG expectations, the fans would move on to acceptance of this trend as inevitable.

[hoorayforicecream]

Meris wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Wait, you didn't play DA2's Hawke rigidly conforming to only selecting Direct/Diplomatic/Sarcastic each time only for the sake of it did you? Like say you might with Shepard and Paragon/Renegade?

Certainly not. But often when I pick A, B or C I'm told why I picked A, B or C by Hawke himself.

I had a fundamentally different experience. I chose A, B, or C, and then I saw a result. Hawke never told me why I chose it, I made those decisions because I felt it was in line with my Hawke's personality.

[Meris]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I had a fundamentally different experience. I chose A, B, or C, and then I saw a result. Hawke never told me why I chose it, I made those decisions because I felt it was in line with my Hawke's personality.

Interesting isn't it? You made a choice and then you saw Hawke act and it made sense for Hawke. I wonder why, but my theory remains that you believe a BioWare character is yours, especially since you told me that when you didn't make any choice it sill made perfect sense with 'your' Hawke's personality.

Modifié par Meris, 24 mars 2012 - 07:29 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Meris wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I had a fundamentally different experience. I chose A, B, or C, and then I saw a result. Hawke never told me why I chose it, I made those decisions because I felt it was in line with my Hawke's personality.

Interesting isn't it? You made a choice and then you saw Hawke act and it made sense for Hawke.

She acted the way I expected her to based on the choice I made. I don't see how this is her telling me why I chose it. I see this as her behaving how I chose for her to behave.

[Meris]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Meris wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I had a fundamentally different experience. I chose A, B, or C, and then I saw a result. Hawke never told me why I chose it, I made those decisions because I felt it was in line with my Hawke's personality.

Interesting isn't it? You made a choice and then you saw Hawke act and it made sense for Hawke.

She acted the way I expected her to based on the choice I made. I don't see how this is her telling me why I chose it. I see this as her behaving how I chose for her to behave.

The only choice you make in Dragon Age 2's dialogue is about Tone, not Content. This is hardly enough information for you to expect exactly what happened after your 'choice'.

This brings me to what made me start this discussion with you: how did you expect exactly what Hawke said during auto-dialogue without your previous input? All you knew before those banters was your dominant tone.

Modifié par Meris, 24 mars 2012 - 07:51 .

[upsettingshorts]

Since we can't manually input the content of our responses as they're all prewritten, all we've ever done is select tone and intent from prewritten content.  If the content ever - in any game - specifically matched what I wanted my character to say I viewed it as a damn miracle because it almost never happened. Options that covered the gist of my intent with the right tone on the other hand?  Just as common with a voiced protagonist as an unvoiced one.

See what I keep saying about the uselessness of trying to engage each other on our own terms? It. Doesn't. Work.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2012 - 08:00 .

[IntoTheDarkness]

auto
pro: a personality given to the protagonist as he/she speaks more
cons: no rpg

manual
pro: rpg element
cons: the protagonist lines are too short, hardly displays any consistant personality




blend the two for the best.

Keep the manual dialogue selection BUT try to improve upon the 'personality' feature introduced in DA2.

Modifié par IntoTheDarkness, 24 mars 2012 - 08:15 .

[Meris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Seeing as we can't manually input the content of our responses, all we've ever done is select tone/intent.

See what I keep saying about the uselessness of trying to engage each other on our own terms? It. Doesn't. Work.

The issue with paraphrasing is concrete enough that you don't have to like both methods of PC presentation equally to see it. The bolded part has nothing to do with anything, no one has ever asked to manually input your own dialogue.

In both games your dialogue choices have both Tone and Content linked to them and both games have a problem. Dragon Age: Origin's tone was conveyed through the words themselves and occasionally that wasn't done well - see: Leliana's stealth romance with female characters; In Dragon Age II the voice over elaborates further on the Content of your choice, attempting to stay true to its meaning - and often failing. Regardless though, you're still oblivious to what exactly your character is going to say and that's simply not right. There can be no such gaps between the PC and the player.

In short, your Hawke might be Agressive at a given point but the way its worded has a great chance to be out of character for your interpretation of Hawke. Especially if you didn't even know how Hawke would voice his/her intent.

[Joy Divison]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Meris wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Wait, you didn't play DA2's Hawke rigidly conforming to only selecting Direct/Diplomatic/Sarcastic each time only for the sake of it did you? Like say you might with Shepard and Paragon/Renegade?

Certainly not. But often when I pick A, B or C I'm told why I picked A, B or C by Hawke himself.

I had a fundamentally different experience. I chose A, B, or C, and then I saw a result. Hawke never told me why I chose it, I made those decisions because I felt it was in line with my Hawke's personality.

Always?  To use Sylvus's famous (to me anyway) example of Hawke's encounter with Danzig, he chose to let the slaver go because that was in line with his Hawke's desire, but on screen Hawke sneered at the "slaver" and made a not-so-veiled threat which was *not* Sylvus's desire.

Hawke may not be telling you why you choose that option, but he is telling you Hawke's mindset and feelings toward Danzig which to me sounds in line with Meris's issue.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 24 mars 2012 - 08:16 .

[upsettingshorts]

Meris wrote...

The issue with paraphrasing is concrete enough that you don't have to like both methods of PC presentation equally to see it. The bolded part has nothing to do with anything, no one has ever asked to manually input your own dialogue.

It has everything to do with it because that's the only way I'd consider myself having really chosen the content of a response.

See what I keep saying about the uselessness of trying to engage each other on our own terms? It. Doesn't. Work. 

Meris wrote... 

Dragon Age: Origin's tone was conveyed through the words themselves and occasionally that wasn't done well

We can agree on that.

Meris wrote...  

In Dragon Age II the voice over elaborates further on the Content of your choice, attempting to stay true to its meaning - and often failing. Regardless though, you're still oblivious to what exactly your character is going to say

But is "obliviousness" as much of a problem if you never particularly felt you had much control over the content of the line in the first place?  If you never felt you had control, why take issue with the loss of it?

That's also taking for granted that everyone is equally poor or inconsistently successful at predicting the outcome of a particular paraphrase.  It also takes for granted that paraphrases can't be improved in terms of conveying information in the future, which I believe they can, especially if BioWare drops its "no words used in the paraphrase that will be used in the full line" house rule.

Meris wrote...   

There can be no such gaps between the PC and the player.

Such gaps have always existed and will continue to exist because games are inherently limited in just that way.

See what I keep saying about the uselessness of trying to engage each other on our own terms? It. Doesn't. Work.  

I understand repeating myself on that note is probably getting irritating but it keeps being applicable.

Meris wrote...    

In short, your Hawke might be Agressive at a given point but the way its worded has a great chance to be out of character for your interpretation of Hawke. Especially if you didn't even know how Hawke would voice his/her intent.

It doesn't happen any more often in my experience with a voiced character versus an unvoiced one.  Try telling Wynne you hated being conscripted into the Wardens and have resented every second since Duncan blackmailed you into service.  You can't, because it's not an option.  

That's an extreme example, but cRPGs break (or bend) characters all the time because they are inherently limited.  There is no human dungeonmaster to respond dynamically to your choice.

The difference is I've been working with and acknowledging such limitations for years now, so if a voiced protagonist does it because he says something I don't expect or am not given an option I'd like to take, I'm used to having to deal with the same issue with an unvoiced one, and adapt accordingly.  It's nothing new for me, but from what I understand it's a radical departure for some.

And around and around we go.

Joy Divison wrote...


Always?  To use Sylvus's famous (to me anyway) example of Hawke's encounter with Danzig, he chose to let the slaver go because that was in line with his Hawke's desire, but on screen Hawke sneered at the "slaver" and made a not-so-veiled threat which was *not* Sylvus's desire.

Hawke may not be telling you why you choose that option, but he is telling you Hawke's mindset and feelings toward Danzig which to me sounds in line with Meris's issue.

See comment above on Wynne.

See the equally famous (to me anyway) In Exile example of how you simply cannot play Dragon Age: Origins unless your character loves both the Grey Wardens and Ferelden. 

None of this is new.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2012 - 08:24 .

[Meris]

But is "obliviousness" as much of a problem if you never particularly felt you had much control over the content of the line in the first place?

/sigh Again... I'm not talking about control, I'm talking about actually knowing what you're saying. Actually knowing the content.

Knowing your choices =/= Choosing whatever you want

It doesn't happen any more often in my experience with a voiced character versus an unvoiced one. Try telling Wynne you hated being conscripted into the Wardens and have resented every second since Duncan blackmailed you into service. You can't, because it's not an option.

I don't remember if you can't show your discontent over this issue to Wynne, but you can to Alistair.

That's an extreme example, but cRPGs break (or bend) characters all the time because they are inherently limited.

See the equally famous (to me anyway) In Exile example of how you simply cannot play Dragon Age: Origins unless your character loves both the Grey Wardens and Ferelden.  

Again, I never claimed that there we no constraints before, but there were far less. And though you cannot flee from Ferelden you don't actually have to like your part in the Grey Wardens or do a very good/selfless job at it - that's already much more freedom than voice over could have ever given us.

Modifié par Meris, 24 mars 2012 - 08:25 .

[AkiKishi]

Joy Divison wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Meris wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Wait, you didn't play DA2's Hawke rigidly conforming to only selecting Direct/Diplomatic/Sarcastic each time only for the sake of it did you? Like say you might with Shepard and Paragon/Renegade?

Certainly not. But often when I pick A, B or C I'm told why I picked A, B or C by Hawke himself.

I had a fundamentally different experience. I chose A, B, or C, and then I saw a result. Hawke never told me why I chose it, I made those decisions because I felt it was in line with my Hawke's personality.

Always?  To use Sylvus's famous (to me anyway) example of Hawke's encounter with Danzig, he chose to let the slaver go because that was in line with his Hawke's desire, but on screen Hawke sneered at the "slaver" and made a not-so-veiled threat which was *not* Sylvus's desire.

Hawke may not be telling you why you choose that option, but he is telling you Hawke's mindset and feelings toward Danzig which to me sounds in line with Meris's issue.

I would say there was very little point roleplaying a pre-generated character. The only time that worked was when said character had amnesia and player and character were on the same page.
For example in ME3 you get introduced to a character you don't know, but the character obviously does. In ME2 Talis romance ,Shepard sees her face, you do not. In DA2 Hawke meets people from the time skip that the player is completely unaware of.

Now this is not the same as having to include characters into a background as was the case in DA. But places where it's made very clear that you are not the character in question , rather a director or puppet master.

As much as you may want to make a pre-gen character "yours" the character will always react in an unexpected fashion. The more the character is fleshed out, the more this disconect will become. It's not a good or a bad thing, it's just a different approach. One more suited to a cinematic medium than one that goes back to PnP.

[Pasquale1234]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

This old fans/new fans dichotomy needs to die, it's a transparent ploy to undermine those with different preferences by othering them into a fictional out-group that can be easily and casually dismissed.

There are old fans who like the VO, there are new fans who hate VO.
There are new fans that prefer full text, there are old fans that think it's stale.

Old fans/new fans are your words, not mine.

And in a later post, you indicate:

Upsettingshorts wrote...

See what I keep saying about the uselessness of trying to engage each other on our own terms? It. Doesn't. Work.

Upsettingshorts wrote..

It is a 3rd person vs. 1st person gamer dichotomy.  To a 3rd person gamer there is not and never has been a "
180° spin," and features like the voiceover are natural if not obvious evolutions.  To a 1st person gamer they are, as you imply, a surprising change in direction that is a direct obstacle to enjoyment.  The playstyles are no longer compatible as they were in an era when full voiceovers and cinematics were not possible given technological limitations.  Now that they are, there is a clear dividing line between features that support one playstyle to the detriment of the other.

The "180° spin" came directly from a year-old Mike Laidlaw interview:

www.gamespot.com/features/dragon-age-ii-final-thoughts-6305575/

I think the big key is to not adjust 180 degrees again, because we've done this. I think, as a team, we're quite happy with what we've done with Dragon Age II, and this is establishing a solid foundation that keeps a lot, in fact almost everything I want to keep about Origins, but still has tons of room to grow and, frankly, a more viable future for the franchise. It's one that's more sustainable because we brought the world to a place that's inherently more interesting than "Yay, we beat the Blight. Good for us!"

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 24 mars 2012 - 08:28 .

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
It doesn't happen any more often in my experience with a voiced character versus an unvoiced one.  Try telling Wynne you hated being conscripted into the Wardens and have resented every second since Duncan blackmailed you into service.  You can't, because it's not an option.  

Joy Divison wrote...
Always?  To use Sylvus's famous (to me anyway) example of Hawke's encounter with Danzig, he chose to let the slaver go because that was in line with his Hawke's desire, but on screen Hawke sneered at the "slaver" and made a not-so-veiled threat which was *not* Sylvus's desire.

See comment above on Wynne.

The main difference, and this is a point which you cannot dispute, is that thanks to the full line showing the whole content of the dialogue, you can adapt and rationalize BEFORE the dialogue happens, and come to an in-character decision. This is not true when the character's actual line is never known until after the choice is made.
Content matters.

[upsettingshorts]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Old fans/new fans are your words, not mine.

This is not my first rodeo.

"Old fans/new fans" is as common as hyperbole on the BSN when it comes to Dragon Age 2's direction.

Pasquale1234 wrote... 

The "180° spin" came directly from a year-old Mike Laidlaw interview:

www.gamespot.com/features/dragon-age-ii-final-thoughts-6305575/

I think the big key is to not adjust 180 degrees again, because we've done this. I think, as a team, we're quite happy with what we've done with Dragon Age II, and this is establishing a solid foundation that keeps a lot, in fact almost everything I want to keep about Origins, but still has tons of room to grow and, frankly, a more viable future for the franchise. It's one that's more sustainable because we brought the world to a place that's inherently more interesting than "Yay, we beat the Blight. Good for us!"

And what do you think he's talking about there?  And why do you think what Laidlaw says has anything to do with how 3rd person gamers feel as players in response to features?

Xewaka wrote...

The main difference, and this is a point which you cannot dispute, is that thanks to the full line showing the whole content of the dialogue, you can adapt and rationalize BEFORE the dialogue happens, and come to an in-character decision. This is not true when the character's actual line is never known until after the choice is made.
Content matters.

I can dispute that it's a problem inherent to VO or paraphrases.

I'm in the "it's an issue of execution, not concept" camp on that one, and you know that too.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2012 - 08:35 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Joy Divison wrote...

Always?  To use Sylvus's famous (to me anyway) example of Hawke's encounter with Danzig, he chose to let the slaver go because that was in line with his Hawke's desire, but on screen Hawke sneered at the "slaver" and made a not-so-veiled threat which was *not* Sylvus's desire.

Hawke may not be telling you why you choose that option, but he is telling you Hawke's mindset and feelings toward Danzig which to me sounds in line with Meris's issue.

I'm all for greater clarity in the decisions made. I'm the one who suggested the rewind feature a little earlier in this thread, the sole purpose of which is to provide a systematic means of avoiding situations like this. The content designers are human. Sometimes there are bugs, sometimes things aren't written clearly, and they should (in theory) go back and fix the problems such as the Danzig (and Wynne) examples previously mentioned so as not to make them bad. But that doesn't mean the whole system is broken, it just means that there are mistakes that can and do sneak in. This problem can (and does) occur, regardless of whether it is a first or third person game, and (as such) is irrelevant to the discussion of first vs third person gaming preference.

[Meris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Old fans/new fans are your words, not mine.

This is not my first rodeo.

"Old fans/new fans" is as common as hyperbole on the BSN when it comes to Dragon Age 2's direction.

But according to you the playstyles are no longer compatible because a Silent Protagonist is sub-par for those who prefer a 'third person perspective' style of roleplaying, making Dragon Age: Origins a sub-par experience for advocates of voice acting.

Considering that there were already games that conformed to voice acting as a gaming niche (Mass Effect), its not a terrible leap of logic to assume many players who today form the 'pro voice base' are new to the franchise, while most of the other half are older. After all, BioWare itself made the design decision of DAII to attract new players to the franchise.

I can dispute that it's a problem inherent to VO or paraphrases.

I'm in the "it's an issue of execution, not concept" camp on that one, and you know that too. 

Its Mike Laidlaw's belief that its boring to hear your character saying the same thing you read earlier. So as far as Lead Design goes, its a problem with concept.

Modifié par Meris, 24 mars 2012 - 08:38 .

[Joy Divison]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

See comment above on Wynne.

See the equally famous (to me anyway) In Exile example of how you simply cannot play Dragon Age: Origins unless your character loves both the Grey Wardens and Ferelden. 

None of this is new.

Well, I can't have that conversation with the hag Wynne because in my games she never does make it out of the Circle Tower


I think Sylvus's example is more famous and apt because I don't entirely accept In Exile's premise.  My DE loved neither the GWs nor Ferelden but did save the world because she saw the opportunity of the Blight: to get rich, have lots of sex, kill people who wronged her, have more sex, get famous, and, maybe in the end if she just happened to succeed, have some say in the Ferelden's political make-up and the status of the Dalish.  You might call that rationalization, and to a certain degree it is, but it is a very easy one to make - which is ultimately the issue here.  You and Hoorayforicecream (that's a brilliant screenname btw) have an easier time accepting the game's limitations it imposes on what the protagonist can do than Mervis and Sylvus.

Since it comes down to two different play styles and expectations where I am not sure there is a right answer, I think the best course is to not so subtlely suggest to Bioware they can avoid many of these issues by giving us more options than saint/snarky/jerk limited framework.  Yes, spend more money and development to make a game where I actually have the option to play a dynamic character.

With Danzig, I should be able to tell him:

1) Die murder is fun!
2) You're under arrest
3) We're cool, I've got what I came for
4) You can leave if you gimme all your treasure
5) You deserve to die
6) Can I get a cut for tips on slaving opportunites?
7) If I ever see you here again, you die
Etc.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 24 mars 2012 - 08:43 .

[upsettingshorts]

Meris wrote...

But according to you the playstyles are no longer compatible because a Silent Protagonist is sub-par for those who prefer a 'third person perspective' style of roleplaying, making Dragon Age: Origins a sub-par experience for advocates of voice acting.

I'm getting tired of explaining simple things so this will be my last post in this line of discussion.  

Just because new fan/old fan is a ****ty explanation for why DA2 is polarizing doesn't mean it's never true.  There are old fans who got off the BioWare train before Dragon Age 2, as well.  You'll find many of them over at RPG Codex.  Fans come and go all the time for different reasons.

DA2 drove a wedge into the fanbase not because new fans piled up outside the door overnight, but because it decisively exposed the difference in approaches.  

Your transparent attempts to portray this playstyle as invalid are also not working, by the way.

Meris wrote... 

After all, BioWare itself made the design decision of DAII to attract new players to the franchise.

Probably because they think it makes a better game that takes advantage of the medium.  I can't think of a developer who isn't always looking to attract new players with each installment.

Meris wrote...  

Its Mike Laidlaw's belief that its boring to hear your character saying the same thing you read earlier. So as far as Lead Design goes, its a problem with concept.

It is boring.  Also annoyingly repetitive.  But that just might be Mike and I.  The concept that Laidlaw's quote is calling problematic is full line + voice over.  The concept I said wasn't problematic was paraphrase + voice over.  

Look through the forums, you'll find plenty of people who otherwise disliked how Mass Effect and Dragon Age did them but laud Deus Ex: Human Revolution's approach to paraphrases.  You'll find plenty more who won't accept them in any form, too.  But the fact that there remain lots of folks who could be won over by improved execution proves the point.

Hence my "it's execution" position on parahrases. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2012 - 08:49 .

[AkiKishi]

Joy Divison wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

See comment above on Wynne.

See the equally famous (to me anyway) In Exile example of how you simply cannot play Dragon Age: Origins unless your character loves both the Grey Wardens and Ferelden. 

None of this is new.

Well, I can't have that conversation with the hag Wynne because in my games she never does make it out of the Circle Tower


I think Sylvus's example is more famous and apt because I don't entirely accept In Exile's premise.  My DE loved neither the GWs nor Ferelden but did save the world because she saw the opportunity of the Blight: to get rich, have lots of sex, kill people who wronged her, have more sex, get famous, and, maybe in the end if she just happened to succeed, have some say in the Ferelden's political make-up and the status of the Dalish.  You might call that rationalization, and to a certain degree it is, but it is a very easy one to make - which is ultimately the issue here.  You and Hoorayforicecream (that's a brilliant screenname btw) have an easier time accepting the game's limitations it imposes on what the protagonist can do than Mervis and Sylvus.

Since it comes down to two different play styles and expectations where I am not sure there is a right answer, I think the best course is to not so subtlely suggest to Bioware they can avoid many of these issues by giving us more options than saint/snarky/jerk limited framework.  Yes, spend more money and development to make a game where I actually have the option to play a dynamic character.

With Danzig, I should be able to tell him:

1) Die murder is fun!
2) You're under arrest
3) We're cool, I've got what I came for
4) You can leave if you gimme all your treasure
5) You deserve to die
6) Can I get a cut for tips on slaving opportunites?
7) If I ever see you here again, you die
Etc.

As nice as that would be, it's completely impractical.