833 réponses à ce sujet

[Joy Divison]

Adanu wrote...

So now giving your PC a consistent personality is a bad thing? Interesting...

It was never a good thing.

[AkiKishi]

Adanu wrote...

So now giving your PC a consistent personality is a bad thing? Interesting...

Generally yes because if my PC is anything like me my "personality" will change depending on the situation. That's of course if you are shooting for a roleplaying game in the traditional sense. Otherwise, the more complete the personality the better.

[Meris]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Otherwise, the more complete the personality the better.

That's the case with every protagonist, the question is who completes the character's beliefs and personality. The player or the DM (BioWare)?

That's one reason why many people believe the Warden was soulless - they never really created a character in DA:O, instead, expected a pre-defined protagonist.

Modifié par Meris, 26 mars 2012 - 02:26 .

[Sutekh]

Adanu wrote...

So now giving your PC a consistent personality is a bad thing? Interesting...

No, it's not a bad thing. But "consistent" isn't linear and unchanging, and if [general] you keep choosing the same tone for consistency's sake, you end up with a very monolithic Hawke. This being worsened by the fact the story spans seven years, said years being full of life-changing events for Hawke and by the use of colors as tone indicators, which leads people to simplify the underlying emotions in "Good / Funny / Evil".

That's why auto-dialogs are Not-A-Good-Thing, because being out of the player's control, it prevents us from adding nuance.

This said, and more importantly, the tone doesn't address the personality (what's under the mind's hood) so much that it addresses the attitude (what is shown to the world). It certainly doesn't touch the motivations which are still left to the player (by the tone, the plot is another story).

It can help flesh out the personality in a cosmetic way, give life to the character, make it more "real" and integral part of the world, which is why I very much like it along with the VA.

Modifié par Sutekh, 26 mars 2012 - 03:19 .

[Adanu]

Joy Divison wrote...

Adanu wrote...

So now giving your PC a consistent personality is a bad thing? Interesting...

It was never a good thing.

IT was a good thing for me and for a good story for BIoware. So again, subjective.

[wsandista]

Adanu wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Adanu wrote...

So now giving your PC a consistent personality is a bad thing? Interesting...

It was never a good thing.

IT was a good thing for me and for a good story for BIoware. So again, subjective.

It was not good for me when Hawke would say something that the character I was trying to build would not have. There is a difference between a consistent personality and a monotone personality.

[Dessalines]

I played Fallout, Oblivion, then Dragon Ages: Origin. When I finally played Dragon Age:2, then mass effect 2, and realze auto voice is so much better. i think the voice makes it real. I am sorry, but all the others game you are reading script which does not my reflect what I would actually say in that situation, so I actually feel I have less controll in the situation.

Really, it does not destroy the game.  What if they had an option that could turn autodialogs off? Would that make everyone happy?

Modifié par Dessalines, 26 mars 2012 - 04:32 .

[Meris]

Dessalines wrote...

i think the voice makes it real.

Auto-dialogue, I believe, isn't the matter of having a voice or not. Its the character speaking without your input.

[Maria Caliban]

Wulfram wrote...

Diplomatic Hawke in particular has a tendency to be rather too goody goody. Almost to the point of self parody.

I loved diplomatic Hawke. The thing about diplomacy is that it's not a reflection of what you truly think and feel. If she was too 'goody-goody,' it's easy enough to believe she'd have loved to chuck whomever she was dealing with into a vat of oil and set it on fire.

[Meris]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Diplomatic Hawke in particular has a tendency to be rather too goody goody. Almost to the point of self parody.

I loved diplomatic Hawke. The thing about diplomacy is that it's not a reflection of what you truly think and feel. If she was too 'goody-goody,' it's easy enough to believe she'd have loved to chuck whomever she was dealing with into a vat of oil and set it on fire.

I also tend to play diplomatic characters, thankfully we always had such a choice in Dragon Age. But in my experience often the spoken dialogue will actually tell you why you're being diplomatic, sometimes even making it explicit that blue-hawke is being diplomatic because he's goody goody - making it hard to believe that he/she would have loved to chuck whomever she was dealing with into a pot of oil and set it on fire.

Modifié par Meris, 26 mars 2012 - 04:50 .

[Kail Ashton]

Just stick with the personality dialogue and everyone wins, still get the illusion of choice for those creatures that can't play a game that doesn't let them escape from their generic lives in fantasy wonderland & the rest of us can continue to enjoy the inapropiate joking responses (or just use that, who really used the other two anyway?)

[Sylvius the Mad]

Adanu wrote...

So now giving your PC a consistent personality is a bad thing? Interesting...

If it's a personality I didn't choose, yes, it's a very bad thing.

[Joy Divison]

Adanu wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Adanu wrote...

So now giving your PC a consistent personality is a bad thing? Interesting...

It was never a good thing.

IT was a good thing for me and for a good story for BIoware. So again, subjective.

You seem to get rather annoyed when people on this forum speak for you.  I think you can objectively understand why it's a bad thing to have Bioware put words in the mouth of our characters.

And, yes, it's "my" character.

[Maria Caliban]

Joy Divison wrote...

Adanu wrote...

So now giving your PC a consistent personality is a bad thing? Interesting...

It was never a good thing.

Rather, if you don't view your PC as consistent, it's a bad thing. If you do view your PC as consistent, it's a good thing.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Dragon Age II did autodialogues about as "right" as they could be done, really. The dialogue Hawke spoke was always determined by the player's chosen personality temperament: an aggressive Hawke will be predominantly aggressive, a whimsical one will be sarcastic, an honorable one concerned and caring. This works for the game because unlike ME3, there's still plenty of dialogue choice; the autodialogue occurs sparsely during actual conversation and mainly during banter moments during gameplay.

Mass Effect 3 is a case of too much, without all the good points to redeem the negatives. Its dialogue wheel didn't give players nearly enough choice, didn't even appear nearly as often as it should have, and even lacked all those helpful little emblems that let you know when (for example) you're being an arse or flirting or trying to be diplomatic or asking one of your party members for input.

[esper]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Diplomatic Hawke in particular has a tendency to be rather too goody goody. Almost to the point of self parody.

I loved diplomatic Hawke. The thing about diplomacy is that it's not a reflection of what you truly think and feel. If she was too 'goody-goody,' it's easy enough to believe she'd have loved to chuck whomever she was dealing with into a vat of oil and set it on fire.

That was pretty much how my 'diplomatic' Hawke felt, and the good thing was that since you weren't gaining points in a tone like in ME, the game allowed me to roleplay that the polite and calm facade was cracking and she got more and more agressive, but this is also why the final speech must not be autodialoged. It did irritated me to hear Hawke say: We never asked for this', when she very much asked for it and the agressive dialog would have been better there.

[Wulfram]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I loved diplomatic Hawke. The thing about diplomacy is that it's not a reflection of what you truly think and feel. If she was too 'goody-goody,' it's easy enough to believe she'd have loved to chuck whomever she was dealing with into a vat of oil and set it on fire.

A fun interpretation, but that only works if you want your character to be insincere.

(Plus, Diplo Hawke sucks at lying.  If you want to be able to lie well, you need to be snarky apparently)

[esper]

Wulfram wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I loved diplomatic Hawke. The thing about diplomacy is that it's not a reflection of what you truly think and feel. If she was too 'goody-goody,' it's easy enough to believe she'd have loved to chuck whomever she was dealing with into a vat of oil and set it on fire.

A fun interpretation, but that only works if you want your character to be insincere.

(Plus, Diplo Hawke sucks at lying.  If you want to be able to lie well, you need to be snarky apparently)

Not necessarily. My 'diplo' Hawke was simpy being polite and had been taught to never draw attention to herself by throwing a temper tantrum no matter how mad she was. She certainly wasn't a goody goody two shoes, just calm and hard to visibly anger. And again da2 had the good example of not having to pick the same coloured option in every dialog, unlike ME. I would honestly rather have the five tier autosolve thing than ME's style of having to pick the same options constentatly or you lose out.

[wsandista]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Dragon Age II did autodialogues about as "right" as they could be done, really. The dialogue Hawke spoke was always determined by the player's chosen personality temperament: an aggressive Hawke will be predominantly aggressive, a whimsical one will be sarcastic, an honorable one concerned and caring. This works for the game because unlike ME3, there's still plenty of dialogue choice; the autodialogue occurs sparsely during actual conversation and mainly during banter moments during gameplay.

Mass Effect 3 is a case of too much, without all the good points to redeem the negatives. Its dialogue wheel didn't give players nearly enough choice, didn't even appear nearly as often as it should have, and even lacked all those helpful little emblems that let you know when (for example) you're being an arse or flirting or trying to be diplomatic or asking one of your party members for input.

ANY autodialogue is too much autodialogue. The PC should NEVER do anything that the player does not choose to do(unless under the effects of dominate or similar spell).

[Sightness]

David i would like you ask you if there's going to be the "persuade" dialog option i DA3? It's something that me and alot of kotor/origins prob feel is key when you're interacting with other characters. DA2 had none of this as i am aware of, please take the time to respond

[Sylvianus]

What I liked with M3, it is that now thanks to the reputation system, we can choose either the renegade or parangon option whenever we want ( to convince ), without worrying about the effectiveness of the path taken, which forces us to stay for one-dimensional morality and behavior.

I hope the same for DA3. No more M2 system or something close.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 27 mars 2012 - 02:22 .

[ReshyShira]

Sylvianus wrote...

What I liked with M3, it is that now thanks to the reputation system, we can choose either the renegade or parangon option whenever we want ( to convince ), without worrying about the effectiveness of the path taken, which forces us to stay for one-dimensional morality and behavior.

I hope the same for DA3. No more M2 system or something close.

How about going back to DA:O where there is no morality but your own, no artibary stances or the such.  I found the system in DA2 to be too much like mass effect.  I like mass effect, but I don't play dragon age for the same reason as mass effect.

[Sylvianus]

Well, it would be the best thing for me. But I feel they don't want to go back to dragon age origin in this area.They are just going to improve their system with the wheel...

[Sharn01]

David Gaider wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Though I guess I shouldn't get carried away and assume that this implies a reduction in the dominant tone dialogue which we saw in DA2?

We're still playing with exactly what we're going to do on this front, and with the use of the wheel in general, but no-- I wouldn't make that assumption. If you have suggestions on the use of tone, or the use of the dominant tone in particular, I'd like to hear them.

If, however, one's suggestion is "present the dialogue exactly as you did in DAO", then I'm afraid that's not really in the cards. I'm not going to display the full line of dialogue in a voiced-PC system. There are, however, alternatives to the way we did it in DA2.

Is it possible that the dialogue wheel could actually contain some of the words that will actually be used, it may cut down on some of the surprises,? I would like the ability to hover over it to see the full line myself, but I realize I would be asking for something you have no intention of giving.

I would also like the personality chosen to not reflect personal beliefs for the players, just because I choose to play someone nice does not mean I support the chantry, believe in the maker, and think that blood magic is responsible for all the evils in the world.  These and other similer choices should be made by the player on a case by case basis.

Modifié par Sharn01, 27 mars 2012 - 04:41 .

[ImperatorMortis]

No auto dialogue please. If I MUST deal with a voiced protagonist at least let him talk only when I tell him too.