105 réponses à ce sujet

[kelsjet]

Odysseus44 wrote...
Don't forget it's a game. It has strict rules for gift-giving. They emulate real life only to a point.

Companions will always accept gifts, no matter how much they dislike you

This is factually incorrect. Companions will reject many gifts. Your argument fails at its premise.

Furthermore, companions will not maintain 'combat proficiency' if your 'rep' with them falls below a certain threshold. They will, in fact, leave your party, never to return.

[Odysseus44]

kelsjet wrote...

Odysseus44 wrote...
Don't forget it's a game. It has strict rules for gift-giving. They emulate real life only to a point.

Companions will always accept gifts, no matter how much they dislike you

This is factually incorrect. Companions will reject many gifts. Your argument fails at its premise.

Furthermore, companions will not maintain 'combat proficiency' if your 'rep' with them falls below a certain threshold. They will, in fact, leave your party, never to return.

Thank you for correcting me. What I meant was, in my experience, if a gift is appropriate, it will always work, independenlty of the companions state of relationship. If that's not the case, I should experiment a little more.

As for your second point, you're right, but I never said otherwise. I meant is that it's you, the player, that decide what the meaning of the gift giving is. Is it an act of friendship, or do you coldly manipulate the companions so that they keep their stat boosts and don't leave you? It's 2 mouse clicks in all cases.

[TastyLaksa]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

I ran around with Shale, Zevran and Wynne and I don't think any of them ever gave me a +/- approval for accepting any quest, good/bad/otherwise. I think if you want to be goody goody you leave Morrigan and Sten at home, and if you want to be a rascal leave Alistair and Lel at home?

I guess my neutral characters just didn't mind.

I had a bigger problem with no one reacting to my Blood Magic or be able to give the Blood Magic spec to Wynne with no one saying a thing (least of all Wynne herself).

Esp when it's their blood you are draining. I think they are too polite to ask. It's also ironic when a blood mage is hunting down blood mages and there is no option to tell them you are really on their side.

[TastyLaksa]

Inhuman one wrote...

I would like to see it the other way around, they should care about my approval and worry about losing influence with me.

Nobody ever gives me a gift..

I was walking through a door once and sharp metal jaws wrapped lovingly around my legs. Was unable to move from the gratitude i felt.

[RVallant]

I also don't see the logic here. You make a choice and dislike the consequences? That doesn't break immersion, that is immersion. Morrigan moans at me for saving Redcliffe, but that's what she's like. She's at 90+ approval anyway and has been in my party since the start on a good/holier than thou playthrough. Which, shows that it's not that difficult to keep her on your good side even if you do make decisions she disagrees with.



Using the above example, I put her reaction down to her selfish character being unable to see past the choice I was making (ooh matrix ideals). To her it was worthless, a waste of valuable time. But I don't have the selfish character flaw and I'm aware failure to save the town is probably not going to do me any favours with the castle at a later point. That's good writing, it implies and shows her character flaws and is exactly why you're the leader and not her. So she's uppity about it, deal with it - and would explaining the choice even matter?



I'd think it fitting if, having attempted to explain it, she stuck to her view and disapproved double the amount. Because, that's Morrigan, she's her own person and lo and behold anyone dare say anything to her - just look at her conversations with Wynne and Leliana, she rebuffs any advice, explanations or whatever, even when Wynne beats her at her own game she stubbornly sticks to her viewpoint. To me, if you could explain and gain cookie points with Morrigan (and I'd be unimpressed if you could slip a lie in there about any evilness in regards to the above scenario simply because it's a stretch of imagination in any case) it goes against her character and what I'd expect of her from the game. That would be immersion breaking or inconsistant.

[robertthebard]

RVallant wrote...


I also don't see the logic here. You make a choice and dislike the consequences? That doesn't break immersion, that is immersion. Morrigan moans at me for saving Redcliffe, but that's what she's like. She's at 90+ approval anyway and has been in my party since the start on a good/holier than thou playthrough. Which, shows that it's not that difficult to keep her on your good side even if you do make decisions she disagrees with.

Using the above example, I put her reaction down to her selfish character being unable to see past the choice I was making (ooh matrix ideals). To her it was worthless, a waste of valuable time. But I don't have the selfish character flaw and I'm aware failure to save the town is probably not going to do me any favours with the castle at a later point. That's good writing, it implies and shows her character flaws and is exactly why you're the leader and not her. So she's uppity about it, deal with it - and would explaining the choice even matter?

This isn't supposition, this is fact, as can be seen by her dialog in the first cut scene in Redcliffe.  She's a firm believer in a full frontal assault, as can be evidenced by the discussion when you first get to Lothering.  Taking time out of darkspawn crushing to pander to a bunch of villagers that are incapable of defending themselves, in her view, is a waste, as they should be wiped out to make room for people that can.  A philosophy shared by Sten, in case nobody noticed.  The problem is more that people want to try to change the NPC's to suit them, instead of accepting them as they are, and when they can't do that, it "breaks" their immersion.

I'd think it fitting if, having attempted to explain it, she stuck to her view and disapproved double the amount. Because, that's Morrigan, she's her own person and lo and behold anyone dare say anything to her - just look at her conversations with Wynne and Leliana, she rebuffs any advice, explanations or whatever, even when Wynne beats her at her own game she stubbornly sticks to her viewpoint. To me, if you could explain and gain cookie points with Morrigan (and I'd be unimpressed if you could slip a lie in there about any evilness in regards to the above scenario simply because it's a stretch of imagination in any case) it goes against her character and what I'd expect of her from the game. That would be immersion breaking or inconsistant.

I concur.  Take a look at how easy, or hard it is to change the OP's position on the forum regarding this topic, and ask why it should be any easier to change Morrigan's view point of the world.  The party members aren't mindless drones, they have opinions, and beliefs.  When you do something that goes contrary to those, you take a hit, when you do something that agrees with these values, you get a positive hit.  This is the way interpersonal relationships work in life, why should they just be putty to be molded to what a player wants?  I think that, above all else, would break the immersion.

Modifié par robertthebard, 01 décembre 2009 - 04:49 .

[Freddo]

kelsjet wrote...

It was all quite clear really.

Then why don't you see it?

RVallant wrote...

I also don't see the logic here. You make a choice and dislike the consequences?.

No, she dislike the available choices as none suits her character. Which is kinda understandable, in Pen & Paper RPGs you have infinite amount of possible choices but in CRPGs you're very limited to what the game designers given you.

You can't have a fullfledged RPG experience in a CRPG due those limitations, unless you play one of the stereotype character templates they designed the game for.

[Darpaek]

Actually, certain party members do give you gifts...

[Scrobius]

Just wanted to reply to say the initial/original post makes some great points, and I can totally appreciate what the poster is saying, so well done.



I sometimes feel that .. how would you call this, I guess, the 'interactivity' between you and your party members or even other npcs doesn't really deviate much from the tried and tested path of dialogue from most other rpgs. For all the furor of the game prior to release, I was hoping for a bit more innovation perhaps. But perhaps too, something like what I envisage in my mind is too complex to have in a game for every single instance or encounter where you could 'reason' with your party, etc. Less scripted by adding in a tiered redundancy system, or something. I don't know. The gift system was an interesting attempt at something new though.

[MarloMarlo]

Wolfva2 wrote...
Actually, companions don't always accept gifts. Don't believe me? Try giving Morgana a bone sometime.

If she likes you enough, she'll accept your bone when her tent is cold.

Dalyaria wrote...
I think that the gift giving (or should I say bribery) system is much more believable from an evil point of view. If you have people who are trying to gain a lot of personal power via social / material means (evil) vs. people who want to help others because their conscience demands so (good), one would think that giving material gifts for the evil ones and having them approve doesn't necessarily break immersion. However, there are glaring problems with bribing the good guys. I couldn't possibly explain it better than thegreatski has already done here.

Yes, it's like when you want a certain someone to join your ranks and he decides to leave until you bribe him with a barrel full of the blood of innocents, and then he stays.

Wolfva2 wrote...
Now, you ARE right about the suspension of disbelief with gifts. I wouldn't expect Leliana to stick around for long if you're peeing all over the Chantry just because you gave her a nice bauble. But then again, just how much can we expect from a game AI?

If you can accept some dwarf spreading the Chant of Light in Orzammar, you can accept Leliana hanging around some unbeliever. That said, no amount of gifts will stop her from trying to kill you if you do something really bad to one of her holy relics. So, neither of you are right -- big surprise.

Modifié par MarloMarlo, 01 décembre 2009 - 06:27 .

[Templar Vilmon]

Surely the political scene in Washington DC should convince all of us that IRL people will do whatever you want as long as you give them the proper gifts.



In all seriousness, I think the companion system in this game is more thought-out than a lot of previous titles. And I appreciate that you can have nuanced relationships, unlike games like Fallout 3 where you can't have good and evil companions in the same group. That doesn't make sense from a real world perspective: FDR and Churchill were good guys who teemed up with a really bad Stalin to defeat an even worse Hitler. My only complaint is sometimes I don't seem to have an out no matter how high my persuasion level. Case in point - Allistair went from being warm to barely neutral to me after Redcliffe. But I didn't have a choice in how I handled the situation. Surely there should be some way that I could convince him that I did what was necessary, yet I haven't found how to do that.

[mathewgurney]

The answer is a KOTOR-like affection/alignment system, ability to "turn" your comrades, to corrupt or empower them. Kreia whispering her poison into my own ear the whole time, corrupting ME ! Now that was how to do it right, that moral edge to a game is what made me first take notice of the name Bioware, pure n simple.



Sad it is missing from DA:O, corrupting Alistair, enflaming his hate for the chantry and implanting a desire for revenge in him, suggesting he vent his "frustrations" on Leliana, perhaps drugging him with some berserker rage potion and sending him on a post-coital violent rampage thru the local chantry house, fathering children on the unresisting initiate girls. Children which i'll then mutate into horribly strong trolls with my magic and sell to dwarven slavers as miners.



Not happening @.@

The 18 sticker on this game is a joke.

[Dalyaria]

[quote]Sylixe wrote...

To the OP

How is anything you just stated any different than a normal P&P RPG session?  [/quote]

In a P&P RPG session there is complete immersion. Anything that you decide to do can at least be tried. In P&P RPGs you can be as evil or good as you want.

[quote]Volourn wrote...

DA doesn't have an infleunce system. Get out of the NWN2/KOTOR2 mindset. DA has an *approval* system. The system keeps track of how much the npc approve you not how not how much you influence them. It's not complictated. Perhaps, you thoguht you were playing NWN2?

And, it works awesomely. So you cna't get your npcs to agree with you ALL THE TIME? Let me cry ya a river. It's got C&C, it's called personality, it's called the npcs having the ability to form their own opinions, and stand up for what they believe in.

I'd use spoilers to illustrate this but cna't.

Again, DA has an APPROVAL system NOT an INFLUENCE system. There is a very definite difference between the two.[/quote]


I think this is semantics. I don't see any real differences in the two systems. And once again, I don't want to have a state where there is no consequences. I want options to talk to the party members of the benefits of my actions. With a maximum coercion score, there should be at least a far greater number of possible choices to persuade party members, the result which would be to play some of the content provided for "good" players for "evil" reasons. When this wouldn't be possible, I want there to be alternate evil content, e.g. in the form of quests.

At the moment the game feels like it has been primarily designed with the "good" group in mind.

[quote]Inhuman one wrote...

I would like to see it the other way around, they should care about my approval and worry about losing influence with me.

Nobody ever gives me a gift.. [/quote]

Heh, good point If bribery is such a big portion of how the world in DA works, why don't I see more attempts at bribery around the world? Why don't NPCs bribe other NPCs and/or my party members more often? At any point, does e.g. one of the main antagonists of the game send an emissary to bribe the party members to have them join forces with him?

[quote]willsanders84 wrote...

No, I agree Sylixe, creating a game based on an evil storyline just wouldn't work. I confess I haven't played the game, just reading what people have posted on here, but perhaps the good/evil allignment paths are more flexible than I assumed.[/quote]

I disagree. There are many great games created from an evil point of view. Examples include but are not limited to: The Dungeon Keeper -series, The Overlord -series...

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...

[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
I have read from many sources that certain characters become much more compliant after you sleep with them. If this is false, I am glad and also apologize.[/quote]
If you can't even share what you've read on it, let alone your own gameplay experience, you have no business making an argument about it to criticize the game in the first place. Also, C (as a variable) coming after A doesn't mean that C was caused by A and A alone. On top of that, changing a person's entire moral system, the argument you made, is a separate issue from causing someone to be more compliant.[/quote]

Quoting sources is entirely pointless. I can't provide you with a reference to the entire knowledgebase I have acquired in my life, just like you can't either. Considering where I have read the characters becoming more compliant after sex, I simply do not remember. However, in the end everything affects everything. I already apologized for presenting possibly false information, but if you want to continue questioning my intelligence, you are of course free to do so. I would say that personal attacks do not lead to any kind of fruitful discussion.

I think that for a good character to become much more compliant towards evil actions, or vice versa, it requires a drastic change in their moral system. If sex in the game doesn't lead to that, I am happy like I said, for reasons I have stated previously. To reiterate - a computer RPG should not be a simulator of sexual politics.

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...

[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
The gifts also won't make it possible to do quests in evil ways, or they don't help with the breaking of immersion when I'm unable to talk my choices through with an evil character. While giving gifts to alleviate bad feelings can be believable in minor instances, they beget more questions. One example could be: "Who owns the party inventory? How am I able to give certain gifts to certain characters from such an inventory?" In the end, this leads to the thought that I can just strip them naked and send them away...which again somewhat breaks immersion, since they do not complain about the lack of equipment or share in the "loot".[/quote]
How about: how is my character able to think and issue orders while time stands still?  Or, why does everyone wait for an infinite amount of time for me to respond to them in conversatons? Why can I see things from a third-person perspective? Why do we not have to treat blisters in a minigame after doing so much walking? How do we carry around so much gold at a time? Why do certain abilities have different cooldowns from each other? So many pointless questions about "immersion" that you can ask!

And Morrigan tells you what she thinks when she thinks you're wasting the party's gold. It's another opportunity to make her mad by explaining your actions or just telling her that you don't need to explain anything -- you know, stuff that doesn't exist in the game, according to you.[/quote]

I find that the questions about immersion are very relevant in RPGs. I find that the questions you asked are a part of the game (+ the combat) engine. These are necessary abstractions. Questions like "who owns the party inventory?" are valid from the point of view that you are able to give certain items as gifts to your party members. When you find these items - especially when the given items are something very meaningful for the party members - why don't they just comment that the item in question is of such value for them and they want to have it as a private possession? Why do they see you - the protagonist - as their benefactor? I guess one could answer this with the thought that the protagonist, as the party leader, ultimately makes all the important decisions concerning everything. However, then the realistic thing what would happen would be for them to say that they want the item from the collective inventory, and greatly disapprove if they don't get it. Not the other way around.

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...

[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
I agree. And I'm not against consequences at all. Having no consequences for your actions would make them meaningless. It's about presenting these consequences in a believable manner.[/quote]
So, when someone disapproves and likes you less, that's not a consequence? And it's believable that you should be able to sway anyone to whatever position you want and have them like you or merely not like you less for it just because you're very cunning and coercive?[/quote]

I have no problems with characters approving and disapproving of my actions. What I want is to have the possibility to persuade them to see certain quests in a new light that is in accordance with their morals. When this is not possible, I want to be provided with alternate evil content. I don't want to feel that I get to play 60% of the game, while the good players get to play 90%. I don't want to be able to sway anyone to any position I want, but I consider this to be important for the party members, as they are a very essential part of the game.

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...

[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
I agree that not every quest needs to necessarily be open to both good and evil choices. However, when it wouldn't be so, then there should be alternative content provided for the evil players.
[/quote]
And why is that? If you refuse to help a certain blacksmith, why should there be an alternative method of upgrading everyone's armor? Speaking of Redcliffe, have you ever gotten as far as the castle? Because, you know, there's multiple ways to resolve the issue, and only one of them is really all that good. And then there are the elves, and the dwarves, and and the bad things you can do in the mountains. Did you even play this game?[/quote]

I know that there are evil paths in some of the quests. I have now spent about 10 hours playing the game, and I just reached the village of Redcliffe.

Being evil is about far more than being a jerk and refusing to help people. It's about acting for selfish reasons, one of which can be the ability to upgrade armor. A good character, on the other hand, could possibly just refuse rewards when doing quests, or to donate her money to the charity.

If a game is marketed as a game what you can play in both good and/or evil ways, it would be natural to assume that there would be an equal amount of content for those who choose the evil path.

I can illustrate this point with an excellent example Darpaek wrote into his post:

[quote]Darpaek wrote...

No spoilers, but I abandoned a certain town once that HALF MY PARTY at the time wanted me to abandon, and it shut down a huge portion of the game - including making certain quests elsewhere inaccessible, as well.[/quote]


And to continue:

[quote]cheeseslayersmu wrote...

You're roleplaying without believing that party members disapproving of actions they don't agree with makes sense?

How can you role-play if you don't pretend the characters are real people?[/quote]

The problem is that to roleplay, I need a sense of being in a believable world, with believable options. These options are not available for me. Like I've said, I have no problems with characters disagreeing with my choices, but I want to be able to react to it.

[quote]Kaosgirl wrote...

[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
3) The apparent lack of consistency

One of the things I hear the evil characters being portrayed is as pragmatists. Their goal is to save the world from the darkspawn, not to help villagers with their minor troubles. I find that by this philosophy, they are dedicating themselves to a higher - immaterial - purpose. Their motive is essentially "good", at least so far as "good" is generally thought out to be.[/quote]

How so?  You've touched on what they want, not why they want to do it.  And so soon after you admitted yourself that it's the "why" not the "what" that makes one good or evil.

Why do they want to "save the world from darkspawn"?  The obvious answer (to me) is that they want something out of the world, and they're all bright enough to realize the darkspawn won't leave them even scraps.  This isn't a "higher path" or anything - it's just having enough foresight to realize that one subset of Evil Beings is getting in the way of their own Evil plans.

[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
Still, they often like it when I e.g. threaten various villagers. What higher goal does this serve? [/quote]
I guess it could be thought that they dedicate themselves to a "left-hand" philosophy. Might makes right, and others should be able to stand punishment and grow stronger for it.

Or just get the hell out of the way, and show proper deference to their Betters.  If these pathetic villagers can't stand against the tide themselves, then they should grovel before those who do.

[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
But how does this serve with their goal of saving a falling world from the darkspawn, if they really are pragmatists? Why not try to join with the winning side in the first place? [/quote]

Differing goals, differing mindsets.  Even pragmatism (if that's truly the motivating factor here) prefers to side with the underdog than with the side who's concept of "victory" means destroying everything you'd be trying to win.[/quote]

My point was that because they are pragmatists, but still like it when I e.g. threaten the villagers, they ascribe to a "might makes right" -philosophy. The pragmatic, "might makes right" choice would be to try and join the winning side. You are right, however, that they might see it in an even deeper way. It might be difficult or downright impossible to deal with the darkspawn, at least if their goal truly is to destroy the world. However, wouldn't that lead to self-annihilation for the darkspawn? Or would they just retreat to another dimension? I haven't played the game enough to know their plans yet, so I cannot really comment further. Thank you for the intelligent analysis, though

As I see it, the biggest gripe in the lack of consistency is probably the bribery system, as well as characters having seemingly arbitrary disapproval rates to your various acts. Also I don't like being presented with a dialogue choice to persuade characters of the potential personal benefits in an equally random manner. I can admit that, in this light, my original philosophical analysis of #3 isn't after all such a big deal.

[quote]kelsjet wrote...

The OP clearly states (and I quoted the appropriate part in my earlier post), that the thread was about how/why the OP felt constrained in that he could not please everyone. That his "bad" party members were constantly at odds with his "good" members and he felt that no "solution" was being presented to him so that he could satisfy everyone equally, at all times. He then furthered this assertion (rather incorrectly) in saying that because he can't please all party members, his sense of immersion in the world is diminishing.

My point was that you can't please everyone in the real world either, hence, by his own logic, this only adds to the games sense of immersion.

It was all quite clear really.[/quote]

No offense, but you have misunderstood me. I don't mind my bad party members being at odds with my good party members, nor do I really mind that much about the good party members disapproving of my evil actions. I don't mind either not being to able to please everyone at all times. I would like to have options to persuade the good party members to do evil quests, via e.g. explaining to them how I could use the reward to buy orphans some bread, but that is not required as I don't play with good characters. What I want is to be able to persuade evil characters that good quests are worth doing for selfish reasons, or to be provided with alternate evil content. This is how me and my character thinks, but often she is not able to say it. Also I find that this is how intelligent evil people generally act. They're not brutal jerks or violent oafs, but use manipulation and disguise to achieve great personal power.

[quote]Wolfva2 wrote...

I think the problem is people hear 'role play game' and think, "WOW! I can play any type of character I want!" Well, the problem here is you are playing a specific role, a Grey Warden who is tasked with stopping the blight. Now, how would a truly evil person react in this situation? Would he risk life and limb to stop the blight and save the realm? Or would he tell the Gray Wardens to screw themselves, hit them up the arse with a fireball, loot their smouldering corpses, and be on his way to Orlais?[/quote]

You make a good point - he might do exactly that. A point emerges - why is there an option to play an evil character when the game is somewhat pre-set for good characters? I guess this could be seen as an inconsistency, or as the main character looking to stop the darkspawn as they would otherwise destroy the entire world - including the protagonist's capability to fulfill his or her selfish goals.

[quote]Wolfva2 wrote...

You do not get penalized for your choices. Choices have consequences; if you chose to be an insufferable arse then be prepared for the consequences, ie. low approval from those who have taken your guff. Think of it in real life terms. If you talk down to the folks at work, are they going to be happy with you? Of course not. So what, you'll run to the boss and cry about how your co-workers don't like you and should be forced to like you no matter how badly you treat them? That wouldn't make sense.[/quote]

Once again, I do not want to be without consequences. Please see my answers to both Volourn and kelsjet.

[quote]Wolfva2 wrote...

Now, you ARE right about the suspension of disbelief with gifts. I wouldn't expect Leliana to stick around for long if you're peeing all over the Chantry just because you gave her a nice bauble. But then again, just how much can we expect from a game AI?[/quote]

Thank you. I expect a roleplaying game to either not have a feature, or to have a feature that makes sense from a roleplaying perspective. The bribery system in my opinion creates more problems than it solves.

[quote]kelsjet wrote...

(about gift-giving / bribery and good / evil)[/quote]

Odysseus44 covered the issue very well in his answer to you, and I agree with everything that he said.

[quote]kelsjet wrote...

Great (/rollseyes). I look forward with baited breath to clinically dissecting your arguments. It says tons though, that you stay up all night and sleep at 7:21am on a work day. It could be a stretch, but do you think this shades your view on reality and people? I do think so, I'm curious as to what you say though.[/quote]

My personal views on reality / people are something that is not really viable to discuss here, nor do I really wish to publicly go into great depth about my character. I can readily admit that my view of reality and people probably differs quite a bit of the "standard" response. However, me going to sleep at 7:21 am is not the cause of that, it's merely one of the results. Of course, other things affect it as well. If you want to get to know me somewhat better, we can do that privately.

Modifié par Dalyaria, 01 décembre 2009 - 08:28 .

[kelsjet]

Dalyaria wrote...

kelsjet wrote...
....
It was all quite clear really.

No offense, but you have misunderstood me.

Um... are you serious? Misunderstood you? I quoted you and repeated your words verbatim. Here, I'll do it again.

Dalyaria wrote...
I feel like I'm playing a diplomatic meta-game, without consistent solutions (or solutions at all) to the problems.

"Without consistent solutions" and "No solutions at all" are your words, not mine.
So no, the "nyaa you don't understand me" argument doesn't work when someone is quoting you word for word.

Dalyaria wrote...

kelsjet wrote...
(about gift-giving / bribery and good / evil)

Odysseus44 covered the issue very well in his answer to you, and I agree with everything that he said.

Odysseus was proven wrong and later apologized for it. Or are you conveniently leaving that part out? Furthermore, Odysseus wasn't even supporting your claims. He was talking about something very different. Saying "Oh Odysseus answered u so i dont need to say anyfink" will only work if Odysseus was actually talking about what you are talking about.

Dalyaria wrote...
Once again, I do not want to be without consequences. Please see my answers to both Volourn and kelsjet.

This seems to be a pattern with you, its called the "Runabout argument". When someone doesn't have a counterpoint that they can make, they need to resort to "Oh go there and you will see my point" or "Do this and you get your answers" instead of actually providing a counterpoint in the first place. It is a stark sign of someone loosing their position in an discussion.

[reservoirfrog]

AgenTBC wrote...

In fact, contrary to the OPs dumb assertion, I believe 75% of the problems with DAO stem from a conscious decision on Bioware's part to make as much of the game content as possible to as many players as possible in a single playthrough without regard to what kind of character they play or what skills/talents that character has.

Think about it. It's very easy to get high approval from every party member at the same time even if they are never in your party with only 1-2 exceptions. Only very rarely do you open up new dialogue or quest options based upon your attributes or skills. There's like one small unimportant bit of sidequest which requires lockpicking or stealing. The items you get from locked chests or behind locked door is pathetic; ooooh, a crude leather helm! Should I replace my +17 helm of the godslayer with it? Let me think!.

In my tl;dr DAO post-mortem dissection of the game which I am going to post once this forum dies down a little this is my primary hypothesis. The content in DAO isn't too UNaccessible in a single playthrough, it's far, far, far too ACCESSIBLE. Way more content should require certain party members to have been in your party for a long time, the presence of high levels of various skills/talents, or certain attributes to be high.

NWN2 and particularly PST did this pretty well. In DAO you get the same dialogue options whether you are the smartest guy on the planet or dumb as a rock. Rember PST? If your intelligence and wisdom were really, really low you basically couldn't do anything but grunt monosyllables in the dialogue tree. It was AWESOME.

I agree wholeheartedly with this and look forward to reading your post-mortem. The impression I get is that there's a whole load of content at the front end of the game, i.e. the origins. It tapers into a generally linear, identical experience plus or minus some minor flavour in dialogue based on your origin and a couple of side-quests. It seems like ambition really outstripped real-world constraints, with the end of the game feeling like it was rushed to meet publisher deadlines. This is just the way games are these days, we're getting used to fully voiced games now without realising the amount of work devs have to put into character interaction. This is why suspension of disbelief was much easier to achieve in games like BG2, Fallout 2, and... dare I say it, JRPGs like FFXII. When we had to read everything the voices formed in our minds and most of us were perfectly happy with that.

In reference to the OPs comment about the influence system; resource constraints are probably most responsible for companion interactions not enthralling us as much as the ones in old, non-voiced games did. Imagine the thousands of hours of spoken dialogue involved in crafting companion reactions to every quest you undertook. I think that this was the original plan... Lothering is a good example of this; the companions frequently speak their minds, but this kind of content drops off dramatically as the game progresses. Towards the end of the game followers rarely interject or approach you; they're just... along for the ride. I agree with you OP... and I'd like to add that this makes me want to play BG2 again, but with the dragon age engine; just to recapture that sense of depth and wonder that game gave me. But I'm afraid we're the old guard... and we're slowly dying out. 

[Dalyaria]

Kazutoyo wrote...

No, she dislike the available choices as none suits her character. Which is kinda understandable, in Pen & Paper RPGs you have infinite amount of possible choices but in CRPGs you're very limited to what the game designers given you.

You can't have a fullfledged RPG experience in a CRPG due those limitations, unless you play one of the stereotype character templates they designed the game for.

Exactly. What I want is to play a persuasive, intelligent, evil character. Often that is not possible. The stereotypical portrayal of an evil character much too often becomes a violent idiot.

Scrobius wrote...

Just wanted to reply to say the initial/original post makes some great points, and I can totally appreciate what the poster is saying, so well done.

I sometimes feel that .. how would you call this, I guess, the 'interactivity' between you and your party members or even other npcs doesn't really deviate much from the tried and tested path of dialogue from most other rpgs. For all the furor of the game prior to release, I was hoping for a bit more innovation perhaps. But perhaps too, something like what I envisage in my mind is too complex to have in a game for every single instance or encounter where you could 'reason' with your party, etc. Less scripted by adding in a tiered redundancy system, or something. I don't know. The gift system was an interesting attempt at something new though.

Thank you. I can appreciate the designers trying different solutions to problems in games and applaud them for it. Sometimes things work out great, sometimes they fail. Without new innovations all games would always stay the same.

I think at times as well if I am asking too much of the game. In this instance I think not, though. The influence system + the party interactions should lead to more immersion, instead of taking away from it. I am not saying that they do this all the time, but I do get reminded that I'm playing a diplomatical meta-game every time I see notices like "Alistair approves +5 or Morrigan disapproves -12." It's impossible to imagine anymore how the character relationships really are, as you get reminded of the exact effect. It also makes relationships quite one-sided and shallow, governed by numerical values that you are able to constantly see. In other words, you know exactly where you are with the party members, at all times.

You: "Morrigan, we are trying to save the world. We will all perish if we don't manage to do that. Will you teach me your brand of magic?"
Morrigan: "No"
You: "Why not? Do you realize that by me becoming stronger, we have better chances as a group?"
Morrigan: "Because I don't like you enough."
You: "*Sigh*. Alright, have this fancy mirror we found together an hour ago."
Morrigan: "Wow. That thing is really nice!"
You: "Will you teach me now?"
Morrigan: "Sure thing."

Yet another example would be the way RPG merchants work. However, this is an age-old issue, and somewhat agreed upon during the course of many years. Imagine the following situation:

*the party has been hired as the only protectors of a peasant village. The monsters are expected to attack at any second.*
You: "Hey, merchant. Can I have that Sword of Monster Slaying you have there?"
Merchant: "Sure thing. It'll be 68 gold sovereigns."
You: "Do you realize that you will die if we're unable to protect you?"
Merchant: "Yes. I'm terrified!"
You: "Can I have the sword then?"
Merchant: "Of course. It'll be 68 gold sovereigns."
*checking that nobody notices, you strange the merchant. As life escapes from his body, all the items he was selling magically disappear. Exasperatedly, you loot 2 copper coins from his corpse.*

I kinda liked how Morrowind handled this, though. The shop inventories didn't disappear, but were instead held in a nearby locked container which was very difficult to open.

Templar Vilmon wrote...

My only complaint is sometimes I don't seem to have an out no matter how high my persuasion level. Case in point - Allistair went from being warm to barely neutral to me after Redcliffe. But I didn't have a choice in how I handled the situation. Surely there should be some way that I could convince him that I did what was necessary, yet I haven't found how to do that.

I agree. From a roleplaying perspective such an option is required. It would be much better to try and fail, than not being presented the option to try at all.

mathewgurney wrote...

The answer is a KOTOR-like affection/alignment system, ability to "turn" your comrades, to corrupt or empower them. Kreia whispering her poison into my own ear the whole time, corrupting ME ! Now that was how to do it right, that moral edge to a game is what made me first take notice of the name Bioware, pure n simple.

Sad it is missing from DA:O, corrupting Alistair, enflaming his hate for the chantry and implanting a desire for revenge in him, suggesting he vent his "frustrations" on Leliana, perhaps drugging him with some berserker rage potion and sending him on a post-coital violent rampage thru the local chantry house, fathering children on the unresisting initiate girls. Children which i'll then mutate into horribly strong trolls with my magic and sell to dwarven slavers as miners.

Not happening @.@
The 18 sticker on this game is a joke.

Haha! They totally should hire you as the head designer of the evil part of their future RPGs

...did you play KOTOR 1 with an evil character? Remember what you could do to Mission Vao and her best friend, the wookie? It was utterly awesome

[MarloMarlo]

[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
Quoting sources is entirely pointless. I can't provide you with a reference to the entire knowledgebase I have acquired in my life, just like you can't either.[/quote]
We're not talking about the entire knowledgebase you've acquired in your life, or mine. We're talking about particular aspects of a game. If you fail to recognize that you need to be able to base your arguments on something that isn't just your imagination, that they have to be verifiable otherwise you have no business making them, then you fail.

Burden of proof -- look it up.


[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
I would say that personal attacks do not lead to any kind of fruitful discussion.[/quote]
My arguments against you are completely valid and relevant, because your arguments are based in large part on your ignorance and inabiliy (I'm sure in your head it's an unwillingness) to back them up. Am I supposed to ignore the backwards way you're supposedly trying to have a fruitful discussion? And should I expect you or anyone else to extend to me the same courtesy if I decided to counter all of your baseless statements with even more baseless statements paraded around as facts that I refuse to validate?


[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
I think that for a good character to become much more compliant towards evil actions, or vice versa, it requires a drastic change in their moral system. If sex in the game doesn't lead to that, I am happy like I said, for reasons I have stated previously. To reiterate - a computer RPG should not be a simulator of sexual politics.[/quote]
And people with "Dalyaria" as their forum name shouldn't be murderers. See how that works? (Unless you actually are a murderer, then it still works, just differently.) In case you have trouble understanding that, basically, your supposed argument is the equivalent of a loaded question.


[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
I find that the questions about immersion are very relevant in RPGs. I find that the questions you asked are a part of the game (+ the combat) engine. These are necessary abstractions. Questions like "who owns the party inventory?" are valid from the point of view that you are able to give certain items as gifts to your party members.[/quote]
Questions about immersion can be relevant; that doesn't mean they automatically all will be. Or, more importantly, it doesn't mean your questions will be consistant with abstractions you're already willing to accept.


[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
I have no problems with characters approving and disapproving of my actions. What I want is to have the possibility to persuade them to see certain quests in a new light that is in accordance with their morals. When this is not possible, I want to be provided with alternate evil content. I don't want to feel that I get to play 60% of the game, while the good players get to play 90%. I don't want to be able to sway anyone to any position I want, but I consider this to be important for the party members, as they are a very essential part of the game.[/quote]
If you murder someone in real life and get caught, you miss out on a lot of content in life. Doors close to you without new ones that open up and provide an equivalent abundance of experience. What you want isn't consistent with your desire for immersion. (Alternatively, your personal definition of immersion isn't consistent.)

On top of that, the game doesn't block you out of 30 percent of the content for being evil. If it blocks anything out, chances are, you decided not to do it, anyway, so you're only missing what you've decided to miss. That's not you missing out on content because you're roleplaying good or evil, that's you missing out on content because you don't want to do it.


[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
I know that there are evil paths in some of the quests. I have now spent about 10 hours playing the game, and I just reached the village of Redcliffe.[/quote]
So, at what point before Redcliffe and the 10-hour mark did you decide you knew everything you needed to know about Redcliffe and everything else you haven't seen yet to make the kinds of criticisms you've been making against the game that you haven't played through yet.

And what are your thoughts about the combat and dialogue system in Duke Nukem Forever? I for one find that the NPC interactions are very immersive, although the "dollar" system for the strippers is just a rip off of another game that hasn't come out yet and I consequently have never played through. I don't know where I read that, though.


[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
Being evil is about far more than being a jerk and refusing to help people. It's about acting for selfish reasons, one of which can be the ability to upgrade armor. A good character, on the other hand, could possibly just refuse rewards when doing quests, or to donate her money to the charity.[/quote]
Yes, because there's nothing selfish about refusing to help people, right? Your argument is a false dilemma.


[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
If a game is marketed as a game what you can play in both good and/or evil ways, it would be natural to assume that there would be an equal amount of content for those who choose the evil path.[/quote]
It might be natural to make that assumption if your sense of logic is screwed up, but that doesn't make the assumption valid or a smart thing to do. The game doesn't block off any significant, recognizable amount of content, but that's not a vindication of being stupid so much as more fuel for your position's pyre.


[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
I can illustrate this point with an excellent example Darpaek wrote into his post:

[quote]Darpaek wrote...

No spoilers, but I abandoned a certain town once that HALF MY PARTY at the time wanted me to abandon, and it shut down a huge portion of the game - including making certain quests elsewhere inaccessible, as well.[/quote][/quote]
In other words, he decided not to go through content and, consequently, didn't go through the content and there was a believable -- immersive, if you will -- conseqence.

The whole reason half the party didn't want to save the town is because they thought it was a waste of their time. The solution to not wasting time isn't to waste time elsewhere doing something else for the same amount of time. Your reward for being evil for selfish reasons or whatever is the fact that you don't end up wasting your time there. Go get the dwarves to honor their treaty or something if that's a better use of your time.

You guys are idiots if you think there should be different, equivalent content for deciding not to take the time to do something. And wrong again if you think evil people can't do good-ish things to further their goals.


[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
The problem is that to roleplay, I need a sense of being in a believable world, with believable options.[/quote]
Magic is not believable. Of course, neither are you, but I guess that's the kind of world we live in.

You see how I made a (valid) observation about you into a valid argument against your whining? I hope so. I enjoyed it and I hope you appreciate it, too.

 
[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
These options are not available for me. Like I've said, I have no problems with characters disagreeing with my choices, but I want to be able to react to it.[/quote]
Says the guy that said: "I have now spent about 10 hours playing the game, and I just reached the village of Redcliffe."

I already pointed out that you're wrong. And, in a way, so have you, or you've at least told everyone why you should not be considered right.

Modifié par MarloMarlo, 01 décembre 2009 - 09:37 .

[Kaosgirl]

Dalyaria wrote...
No offense, but you have misunderstood me. I don't mind my bad party members being at odds with my good party members, nor do I really mind that much about the good party members disapproving of my evil actions. I don't mind either not being to able to please everyone at all times. I would like to have options to persuade the good party members to do evil quests, via e.g. explaining to them how I could use the reward to buy orphans some bread, but that is not required as I don't play with good characters. What I want is to be able to persuade evil characters that good quests are worth doing for selfish reasons, or to be provided with alternate evil content. This is how me and my character thinks, but often she is not able to say it.

There are inherent limitations to the medium.  Without a sapient DM running the NPC reactions, you can't account for all the possibilities.  

More options could possibly be provided for the conversations, true:  but that would have taken additional development resources, with all the tradeoffs that implies.  And it would still be unlikely to satisfy everyone - which would mean we'd still be having this conversation, just maybe with a different subset of people on each side.

My own solution is to accept the limitations and fill in the gaps on my own.  If I have to 'bribe' someone with a trinket to overcome a disapproval rating, I presume there's more to it than just giving the gift.  I imagine the unspoken discussions and compromises.

Dalyaria wrote...
Also I find that this is how intelligent evil people generally act. They're not brutal jerks or violent oafs, but use manipulation and disguise to achieve great personal power.

Meh.  Some do, some don't.  I don't recall Irenicus doing so, for example.

Dalyaria wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...
I think the problem is people hear 'role play game' and think, "WOW! I can play any type of character I want!" Well, the problem here is you are playing a specific role, a Grey Warden who is tasked with stopping the blight. Now, how would a truly evil person react in this situation? Would he risk life and limb to stop the blight and save the realm? Or would he tell the Gray Wardens to screw themselves, hit them up the arse with a fireball, loot their smouldering corpses, and be on his way to Orlais?

You make a good point - he might do exactly that. A point emerges - why is there an option to play an evil character when the game is somewhat pre-set for good characters? I guess this could be seen as an inconsistency, or as the main character looking to stop the darkspawn as they would otherwise destroy the entire world - including the protagonist's capability to fulfill his or her selfish goals.

There's a fair bit of railroading involved in the process of becoming a Grey Warden, which isn't unheard of even in PnP games.  All of the origins funnel you into the choice of following Duncan as a new recruit or facing some variety of death - with the Dalish one being an odd mirror of an actual PnP game I was involved in.  (Coincidentally, that PnP game involved a predominately evil party as well.)

And once you're a warden, there is a bit of an implied chain around your neck.  Actually, there's a couple if you think about it a bit.

[SheffSteel]

These posts are way too short. If you have a point to make, please expand upon it further, otherwise your readers may not appreciate the amount of thought you put in.

[StupidWiz]

TastyLaksa wrote...

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

I ran around with Shale, Zevran and Wynne and I don't think any of them ever gave me a +/- approval for accepting any quest, good/bad/otherwise. I think if you want to be goody goody you leave Morrigan and Sten at home, and if you want to be a rascal leave Alistair and Lel at home?

I guess my neutral characters just didn't mind.

I had a bigger problem with no one reacting to my Blood Magic or be able to give the Blood Magic spec to Wynne with no one saying a thing (least of all Wynne herself).

Esp when it's their blood you are draining. I think they are too polite to ask. It's also ironic when a blood mage is hunting down blood mages and there is no option to tell them you are really on their side.

I think why BioWare created these inconsistensies is for those who want to experience the power of wicked specializations and stay "good", I think many ppl who play as a good and noble character want at least to experience of boiling your enemies' blood, or sending aura of pain to enemies..

that's just my opinion, pls don't hate me:crying:

[Dalyaria]

Kaosgirl wrote...

There are inherent limitations to the medium.  Without a sapient DM running the NPC reactions, you can't account for all the possibilities.

I completely agree.

Kaosgirl wrote...

More options could possibly be provided for the conversations, true:  but that would have taken additional development resources, with all the tradeoffs that implies.  And it would still be unlikely to satisfy everyone - which would mean we'd still be having this conversation, just maybe with a different subset of people on each side.

This is true. I could say that I want my character to be e.g. a communist, a solipsist, etc. However, while these choices are not available in the game, they were never marketed to be there. The good vs. evil -choice was marketed, so it is also expected to be implemented in a believable manner. Also as a player I expect to get an equal amount of content, no matter which marketed choice I choose.

I do admit, though, that it is unfair of me to make more statements like this, without personally playing through the game at least once. What I have said is based on my experiences until now, as well as what I have read from some other people. I don't expect the actual game mechanics to change, however, no matter how much I play the game. The critique is also about them causing the loss of the feeling of immersion.

Kaosgirl wrote...

My own solution is to accept the limitations and fill in the gaps on my own.  If I have to 'bribe' someone with a trinket to overcome a disapproval rating, I presume there's more to it than just giving the gift.  I imagine the unspoken discussions and compromises.

This is good advice. I guess I will try to see the character interactions more as abstractions instead as direct conversations. When there is no possibility to talk to a companion of a certain instance, I'll imagine the conversation and a failed persuasion attempt in there. This can be hard at times, though, when an explanation would seemingly be simple and make perfect sense.

Kaosgirl wrote...

Dalyaria wrote...
Also I find that this is how intelligent evil people generally act. They're not brutal jerks or violent oafs, but use manipulation and disguise to achieve great personal power.

Meh.  Some do, some don't.  I don't recall Irenicus doing so, for example.

In BG2, Irenicus was already a powerful wizard. The question is: How did he manage to become one? I agree, though, that ultimately there are all kinds of possible ways to play an evil character - intelligent or otherwise. I tried to aim for the stereotype.

Kaosgirl wrote...

There's a fair bit of railroading involved in the process of becoming a Grey Warden, which isn't unheard of even in PnP games.  All of the origins funnel you into the choice of following Duncan as a new recruit or facing some variety of death - with the Dalish one being an odd mirror of an actual PnP game I was involved in.  (Coincidentally, that PnP game involved a predominately evil party as well.)

And once you're a warden, there is a bit of an implied chain around your neck.  Actually, there's a couple if you think about it a bit.

Agreed. It might be politically more viable to stay in Ferelden. There are also certain motives resulting from the various backgrounds, as well as everything that you can imagine, really.

[Sylixe]

[quote]Dalyaria wrote...
To the OP

How is anything you just stated any different than a normal P&P RPG session?  [/quote]

In a P&P RPG session there is complete immersion. Anything that you decide to do can at least be tried. In P&P RPGs you can be as evil or good as you want.
[quote]

Unless your GM is a complete and utter idiot you cannot just do whatever you want without consequences in game.  You also have to decide as a GROUP where and what you will do or you won't be RPGing very long.  If you decide to go against the group you may find yourself without healing or support while playing or even worse no gaming group at all since you don't want to work together.  It's the same in DAO and any other game that has a consequence system.

Modifié par Sylixe, 02 décembre 2009 - 06:49 .

[F-C]

it seems to me for the most part the game is made for you to play at least a neutral to good role. after all the basis of the story is to save the world from the blight and the darkspawn.



in the end this is a video game and it has limitations. its not really meant to be played just any old way you see fit and work perfectly for you. if you want to go outside the normal scope of the game then you will run into issues and limitations.



a video game will never be the same unlimited possibilities that your imagination will have.