833 réponses à ce sujet

[Green Monster]

Either give me a compelling fixed protagonist (voiced or otherwise) or let me truly control my character (ala Sylvius). I can enjoy either type of game just don't go for half measures. I felt like DAII was trying create a hybrid and I thought it did not work well at all. Sort like kissing a sibling. All the right elements are in place but it does not "work".

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Think of it less as a responsibility and more of a suggestion. I mean... it isn't your responsibility to put the game in the console and turn it on either, but you probably won't get much enjoyment out of it if you don't at least put in some effort.

Its not my responsibility to put the game in the console... or buy it all, for that matter.

Do you expect the game to install itself and play itself for you or something? You have to put in the effort to install and start it, or it won't do anything for you at all.

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


Gee, that's weird. I thought *I* was the one shelling out $60 to play a game, not the other way around. Saying anything is a player's "responsibility" in order for them to enjoy a game is a fundamentally flawed concept.

There is a tact agreement between the author of a work and its audience, and each side has a responsibility to the other.

I don't care if you paid sixty dollars, six hundred dollars, or bought it from a man in Chechnya for four rubles, all games make demands of their players, and if those players are unable to meet those demands, it's not the game's fault.

No one here is a hideously scarred immortal. If someone picks up Planescape: Torment and are unable to empathize with a hideously scarred immortal or role-play one, that is not because Black Isle Studios has erred, it's because that player cannot meet the obligations of that game.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 22 mars 2012 - 03:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I think it's up to the players to put themselves in the mind of another.

This is exactly right.  This is what roleplaying is.

I will object very loudly to games that don't let me do that, but as long as there's not some sort of mechanical barrier to my immersing myself in my character (in other words, having my own personality completely subsumed by theirs), then any lack of investment on my part is entirely my problem.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 mars 2012 - 04:12 .

[kcwME]

So, I have no idea if this is the right place to stick this but I figure I'll just post it and run. Just a minor suggestion about auto-dialogue and the tone tracking. Gaider, are you still there....? *crickets chirp*



Character-specific tracking for the Protagonist’s dominant tone.


The Problem: Tracking just one tone doesn’t leave room for diverse PC relationships.

I was doing an “aggressive” Hawke who only liked those in her inner circle. She considered Isabela in that circle and regularly chose the “sarcastic” tone when interacting with her. However, in one conversation things went awry. Isabela offered to go drinking and I was all prepared for the wheel to come up so I could gladly accept. But instead my Hawke auto-dialogued a scathing no and I got +5 Rivalry points.



The Suggestion: Track the overall tone, but when talking to important, repeat characters—track it separately.

So I can have an overall “aggressive” tone but have a “sarcastic” tone specifically at Isabela. Or be a saint most of the time but a jerk to my sister. That way I’m not blindsided when the need for auto-dialogue arises. Of course, you wouldn’t do this for everyone but for the Companion characters this would be really nice.

Though it really comes down to how much auto-dialogue DA3 will have. If it’s minimal then there really isn’t much need for this. But if things are going to be increasingly cinematic and scripted, then this would be awesome. Just my $.02.



-Edited for formatting and prettiness-

Modifié par kcwME, 22 mars 2012 - 04:44 .

[Alli42]

I made the decision to cancel my ME3 preorder.  This wasn't because I found out about the endings before release.  It was because I found out about the auto-dialogue.  Auto-dialogue is an absolute deal-breaker for me.  I don't even like the kind of back and forth type conversations DA2 had.  My character should never say or do anything that I don't I have any control over.  At that point, it is no longer my character.

I do strongly prefer a silent PC.  However, if Bioware is insistant on a voiced PC and dialogue wheel, may I suggest looking at how TOR has done it?   This is probably the first game with a voiced PC that I have played that really feels like MY character.  The wheel there is simplified.  There is no "color-coding", such as the nice/snarky/mean for every conversation in DA2.  There are just three different responses to the question/situation at hand which can vary depending on what that situation is.  So you might have nice/snarky/mean for one line of dialogue, and mean/bored/neutral for the next.  There's more freedom when the dialogue isn't being shoved into the same three boxes for every single situation.  And without any auto-dialogue, or dominant personality system, my Sith is free to be nice to her friends, disrepectful to her master, arrogant towards her subordinates, and needlessly cruel to her enemies.  Even beyond that.  She can be needlessly cruel to the enemies she sees as weak, and give passing respect to the enemies she feels deserves it.  The DA2 personality system can't handle that kind of character complexity.  When I played, Sarcastic!Hawke was just a little snot to everyone.

Still, the TOR wheel has some of the worst paraphrasing I've seen yet.  This could be easily be solved with some kind of hover over and the full line appears type of system.  I don't know why Bioware is so resistant to this idea.  It seems like the closest thing to a win/win for those who just want to quickly pick a line of dialogue, and those of us who like to put lots of thought into what our character would say in such an instance.

Now, back to lurking...

[Rurik948]

Speaking about combination of Auto/input style dialogs, I can't help but mention two games where in, my opinion, this system has been brilliantly implemented.

1 The Witcher 2. As you remember, A lot of auto-dialogs. The player can choose only an approach. The outcomes of some quests depend on the approach the player has chosen (like drunk Oldren quest). Still there are social skills which can be used and developed (Aard Sign, intimidation). Only in some situations like romances and plot milestones, which require Gerald's emotional state clarifications the system is switched to direct player input. Did the player feel kicked out of the story? I didn't.

2 Deus Ex. Human Revolution. Also mostly auto-dialoged. There are still moments, mainly interrogations and hostage rescues, where the player inputs can directly influence the outcomes. They even created a perk which simplifies this type of communication.

In both games the dev team desicions whether to use an auto or player input systems depends solely on the created situation.

I would personally prefer Dragon Age.Origin, Fallout New Vegas, Dragon Age 2 and everything where I have a chance to create my protagonist "statement by statement", whether it is voiced or not, but unfortunately this time seems to be over. But there are still good and even excellent solutions provided the RPG part is not overlooked.
Still I don't to make any doom-style statements as I am sure a lot of people would be happy if Bioware recreates Dragon Age 2 dialog system in the third part.

Modifié par Rurik948, 22 mars 2012 - 06:58 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

No, DA:O failed miserably at this. It was incoherent, because the box you are put into (the Origin) doesn't connect to the box you are actually in the entire game (the Warden).

There is no motivation that flows naturally from most Origins to be a Warden. At best, you get some that give you a reason to go with Duncan - but many don't even have that.

DAO makes no effort at all to tell you about your character.  Defining your character is your job.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

In Exile wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
One of the things DA:O did right was that it put it's major restrictions on characterisation fairly early - OK, you're a Warden, and you're going to stick around fight the blight - whereas DA2 seemed to corral you into doing each of it's main quests seperately.

No, DA:O failed miserably at this. It was incoherent, because the box you are put into (the Origin) doesn't connect to the box you are actually in the entire game (the Warden).

There is no motivation that flows naturally from most Origins to be a Warden. At best, you get some that give you a reason to go with Duncan - but many don't even have that.

I wouldn't say miserably, but that's kinda true, at least regarding being a Warden. It was hard to find a motivation to so feverishly devote yourself to the Grey Wardens, to varying degrees depending on Origin. The human would definitely not priorotise it above finding big bro and assailing Nigel Thornberry at least. I tried to be sulkily doing things but there weren't much sulky dialogue.

Not to say I prefer DA2 in any way however, and it was mainly a writing problem.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Green Monster wrote...

Sort like kissing a sibling. All the right elements are in place but it does not "work".

Ohh maybe it'll be better on the second try.

I get what you mean though if the character is supposed to be "me" then that ho ought not speak out of turn, but if it's not then go nuts.

[RedSonia]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
One of the things DA:O did right was that it put it's major restrictions on characterisation fairly early - OK, you're a Warden, and you're going to stick around fight the blight - whereas DA2 seemed to corral you into doing each of it's main quests seperately.

No, DA:O failed miserably at this. It was incoherent, because the box you are put into (the Origin) doesn't connect to the box you are actually in the entire game (the Warden).

There is no motivation that flows naturally from most Origins to be a Warden. At best, you get some that give you a reason to go with Duncan - but many don't even have that.

I wouldn't say miserably, but that's kinda true, at least regarding being a Warden. It was hard to find a motivation to so feverishly devote yourself to the Grey Wardens, to varying degrees depending on Origin. The human would definitely not priorotise it above finding big bro and assailing Nigel Thornberry at least. I tried to be sulkily doing things but there weren't much sulky dialogue.

Not to say I prefer DA2 in any way however, and it was mainly a writing problem.

I disagree. Except maybe in the noble Dwarf origin, in which the character doesn't commit to be a Grey Warden anywhere, in all the Origins the circumstances force him to become a Grey Warden: Either he/she is conscripted to save his/her life (City Elf, Common Dwarf or Mage), he has to fullfill his father's promise (Human noble) or it is the only way to save his life from the Taint (Dalish elf). The motivation to do so is an RP issue and the game allows you to RP that way. You can either be grateful and devoted to the Grey Wardens, or hate Duncan because of his selfishness and do what it is your duty reluctantly like my Warden did. I think it was much better written and guided than in DA2, and definitely the way dialogs were handled (IMHO the not-voiced options made it even more believable, but I know that's an useless point now) helped me to imagine my Warden acting that way. On the other way, I'm still wondering why Hawke does and says half of the things he does, motivation wise.

[Ponendus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO makes no effort at all to tell you about your character.  Defining your character is your job.

I really see this as the truth. It is the ideal way to play an RPG. Let me define my own character, and the game developers craft the world to let me inhabit it, or react to me.

DAO did that quite well. DA2 didn't do that at all.

[AkiKishi]

Ponendus wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO makes no effort at all to tell you about your character.  Defining your character is your job.

I really see this as the truth. It is the ideal way to play an RPG. Let me define my own character, and the game developers craft the world to let me inhabit it, or react to me.

DAO did that quite well. DA2 didn't do that at all.

For a RPGer less is more. But you also can't expect someone to pay money to "work". The way I see it either Bioware take a risk on a silent protagonist and go for a less "cinematic" game. Or they push the cinematic angle to the max and take more control over the chraracter, allowing the player to choose the "route" through the game but having the character handle the interactions automatically.

As things stand I don't really see an approach that can cover all the bases.

[Wulfram]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

I wouldn't say miserably, but that's kinda true, at least regarding being a Warden. It was hard to find a motivation to so feverishly devote yourself to the Grey Wardens, to varying degrees depending on Origin. The human would definitely not priorotise it above finding big bro and assailing Nigel Thornberry at least. I tried to be sulkily doing things but there weren't much sulky dialogue.

Not to say I prefer DA2 in any way however, and it was mainly a writing problem.

Origins had no requirement that you devote yourself to the wardens, feverishly or otherwise.  Only that you you try to save Ferelden.

In fact, most of the things you can say you're going to do after the game - taking a noble title, becoming chancellor, returning to Orzammar or just going travelling - effectively amount to your character telling the Wardens to go screw themselves.

[girininjoo]

DadeLeviathan wrote...

This. A million times this. I can tolerate auto-dialogues in a game like Mass Effect, but having it i a "pure" RPG like Dragon Age makes my skin crawl. I am under no illusion that Bioware will ever go back to the original method of the unvoiced PC. That's unfortunate, but still most likely a fact.

But please, for the love of god, at least do the best to make the PC of Dragon Age 3 our character, and not just someone we get to control every once in a while. In Dragon Age: origins, you play through your story. In Dragon Age 2, you play through Hawke's story, and that is where the game failed in my humble opinion. While such a story is not bad and can even be done in a way where you play your Hawke, it still doesn't offer even remotely the same level of depth and immersion as Dragon Age: Origins did. 

I don't care if you need to take five years to make Dragon Age 3. Just please do your best to capture the magic that made Dragon Age: origins so great. 

I completely and fully agree. I preferred the unvoiced PC for the simple reason that when reading the lines I "hear" my OWN voice (although not reading it loud), while hearing someone else speak my character's lines dissociates me from the character. I actually started to dislike Hawke even though the voice acting was good. Well that, and the annoying name. Seriously, which woman (I'm female) wants to be called Hawke all the time, you predetermine the kind of character with such a name, I hated that, but that's another topic altogether.

[AkiKishi]

Wulfram wrote...

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

I wouldn't say miserably, but that's kinda true, at least regarding being a Warden. It was hard to find a motivation to so feverishly devote yourself to the Grey Wardens, to varying degrees depending on Origin. The human would definitely not priorotise it above finding big bro and assailing Nigel Thornberry at least. I tried to be sulkily doing things but there weren't much sulky dialogue.

Not to say I prefer DA2 in any way however, and it was mainly a writing problem.

Origins had no requirement that you devote yourself to the wardens, feverishly or otherwise.  Only that you you try to save Ferelden.

In fact, most of the things you can say you're going to do after the game - taking a noble title, becoming chancellor, returning to Orzammar or just going travelling - effectively amount to your character telling the Wardens to go screw themselves.

One of the best things I found about Origins was how different Origins gave you different insights into the world and changed how you played the game. My Human Noble embraced the sacrifice with gusto, my City Elf let someone else take hit. Each Origin led to a very different game experience. Granted most of the creation was in my head, but the game allowed it to happen.
In DA2 Hawke is Hawke. I can make him diplomatic, snarky or a dick, but he's still going to be Hawke. In which case I'd really not have to bother being Hawke I'd rather direct things.
The only time I've found any sort of point in roleplaying a pre-generated character is in something like PST where the characters amnesia puts them on the same footing as the player.

[Wulfram]

One idea for tone selection for action choices that I've had

Offer the option of using the default tone for that option, or substituting your current Dominant tone.  Basically a way of offering a bit more choice, while not having to cram in 3 options for every choice.

Still not going to be practical if there are loads of choices available, but if there are 2 action choices it seems like it would fit well, and 3 could more or less work.

Modifié par Wulfram, 22 mars 2012 - 11:13 .

[KennethAFTopp]

I know it would be hard for dialogue interactions to progress but a Laconic, Clint Eastwood like option would be fantastic.

[Pasquale1234]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Ponendus wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO makes no effort at all to tell you about your character.  Defining your character is your job.

I really see this as the truth. It is the ideal way to play an RPG. Let me define my own character, and the game developers craft the world to let me inhabit it, or react to me.

DAO did that quite well. DA2 didn't do that at all.

For a RPGer less is more. But you also can't expect someone to pay money to "work".

Any type of gameplay requires some effort on the part of the player.

The way I see it either Bioware take a risk on a silent protagonist and go for a less "cinematic" game. Or they push the cinematic angle to the max and take more control over the chraracter, allowing the player to choose the "route" through the game but having the character handle the interactions automatically.

They took the risk of moving away from a non-voiced protag, less cinematic, greater roleplaying freedom in going from DAO to DA2, and the results are in.  DA2 only sold about half as many copies, and a not-insignificant number of the people who purchased it will jump ship if they don't change some things for the next installment.  It is certainly possible that the next game will find more traction and attract its target audience if they continue in this direction - then again, it might not.

As things stand I don't really see an approach that can cover all the bases.

I think they need to decide whether they want to make an RPG with a player-defined protag (ala DAO) or an action game with a pre-defined protag and some RPG elements (ala ME).  This in-between stuff isn't really satisfying either audience.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 22 mars 2012 - 01:47 .

[Pasquale1234]

Wulfram wrote...

One idea for tone selection for action choices that I've had

Offer the option of using the default tone for that option, or substituting your current Dominant tone.  Basically a way of offering a bit more choice, while not having to cram in 3 options for every choice.

Still not going to be practical if there are loads of choices available, but if there are 2 action choices it seems like it would fit well, and 3 could more or less work.

It is an interesting idea - but the problem I see with categorizing everything by tone is that it ignores content.  Even if your character delivers the lines in the desired tones, it doesn't always mean that the content of what they say will be in character.  Personally, I would rather choose the actual content of what the character will say.

Maybe a dominant worldview would have been more appropriate for DA2 - mage supporter, templar supporter, neutral.  Even that would have been imperfect, because you can support mages in general but still not agree with the actions of a certain rebellious mage.  Ditto certain templars.

It's just really hard (impossible) to represent all of the various permutations of character into neat little buckets.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 22 mars 2012 - 02:02 .

[DarkAmaranth1966]

Perhaps if they take say the first 3 choices to set the pc personality, or let us decide that at the start, then the remaining choices are more personality based. That would be more work for them but, manageable since there could be 3-4 personality types and, then 3-4 sets of choices based on those types.

[Cyr8]

From what I can gather from the comments from the users and the replies by David Gaider, it seems like people are asking for the changes they want while David is basically defending the choices that were made in Dragon Age II.

[David Gaider]

kcwME wrote...
Character-specific tracking for the Protagonist’s dominant tone.


The Problem: Tracking just one tone doesn’t leave room for diverse PC relationships.

I was doing an “aggressive” Hawke who only liked those in her inner circle. She considered Isabela in that circle and regularly chose the “sarcastic” tone when interacting with her. However, in one conversation things went awry. Isabela offered to go drinking and I was all prepared for the wheel to come up so I could gladly accept. But instead my Hawke auto-dialogued a scathing no and I got +5 Rivalry points.



The Suggestion: Track the overall tone, but when talking to important, repeat characters—track it separately.

So I can have an overall “aggressive” tone but have a “sarcastic” tone specifically at Isabela. Or be a saint most of the time but a jerk to my sister. That way I’m not blindsided when the need for auto-dialogue arises. Of course, you wouldn’t do this for everyone but for the Companion characters this would be really nice.

Though it really comes down to how much auto-dialogue DA3 will have. If it’s minimal then there really isn’t much need for this. But if things are going to be increasingly cinematic and scripted, then this would be awesome. Just my $.02.

Just a comment on this, as this suggestion was mentioned before in the thread (I think-- I've lost the ability to follow every post here, by now):

The auto-dialogue will be minimal in the future, as you mention. So it's possibly a moot point. Regardless, character-specific tracking of tone is problematic anyhow. Why? Because the people that it would potentially to appease (ie. those who have issues with the points at which tone is assumed, minimal or not) would still have a problem with this because they'd have no more visibility into what tone was being used towards those characters than before.

Example: Anders did some things I didn't like in a plot, and thus I responded to him aggressively. This tipped me over into being aggressive towards Anders (I don't talk to him, much), and thus the next time I speak with him there's some aggressive-toned dialogue-- even though, in my mind, I'm no longer mad at himand I've been picking humorous choices elsewhere and had no idea that picking those options with Anders earlier would change anything.

So, for the person who's already over-thinking this and desires more micro-management of their character's dialogue (which they're not getting by the mere existence of auto-dialogue), this doesn't actually address their issue. And that's ignoring the fact that implementing such a system would make a level designer's black little heart shrivel.

Modifié par David Gaider, 22 mars 2012 - 03:06 .

[AkiKishi]

Cyr8 wrote...

From what I can gather from the comments from the users and the replies by David Gaider, it seems like people are asking for the changes they want while David is basically defending the choices that were made in Dragon Age II.

I expect most of the people here want silent protagonist with character generation. I'm an either or kind of player. Either I want full freedom, or I want the characters to take care of things themselves most of the time (not quite Final Fantasy, more like Suikoden).

Where as I think most of the other people here are looking to minimise the impact of a voiced pre-selected character. I'm not at all opposed to such a character as long as the game does require me to be responsible for them. BIt like in ME3's action mode. Once my Shepard was "lost" because of autodialogue I was much happier just watching the show rather than trying to drive a round peg into a square hole.