105 réponses à ce sujet

[Memengwa]

Dalyaria wrote...

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.

The game was never marketed as having good/evil choices. It was actually marketed as NOT having good/evil choices but "gray" choices. And choices with consequences.

[Inhuman one]

Its funny though how that is presented as something revolutionairy while if you think of it, every choice always had a consequence in a videogame.



Be it saving the special balls to eat up the ghosts later in pac man, or going for them right away, using a shotgun or a rifle in Halo, or siding with either the wookies or the slavers in KOTOR.



Its hardly anything to boast about anymore, especially not for Bioware since this is standard stuff for Bioware, they might as well boast about getting to travel with companions, the good voice acting, and getting to visit all kinds of locations in the order you choose to do them.



Thats the stuff that never changes in any Bioware game. Well at first the voice acting was limited of course, but even the soundsets of Neverwinter Nights are of high quality, you can hear the emotion in it.



If they want to sell their game its better to focus on what is new. Few things are truly new in Dragon Age however. The combat isnt really doing anything new, its all things we saw often in other games, and also in bioware games.



Combat animations and tactics are improved yes, but I do think that the entire Dragon Age campaign could be made with the Neverwinter Nights toolset as well.

[robertthebard]

Dalyaria wrote... 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.

I've seen lots of simple explanations that make perfect sense against your initial assertion, and yet, this quote from page 4 of the discussion. So you see, while they made perfect sense to me, they didn't to you. How are NPC interactions any different from what we're doing here? It's interesting to note here that it's not one person or the other is stupid. It's that some believe this way, others that way, and apparently we've been unable to achieve a middle ground, so far. I see NPC interactions the same way, only I can bribe them to stick with me, if not to agree with my decisions. To me, this is the very definition of immersion. If I save Redcliffe with certain party members in group, I'll take a hit for accepting the quest. If I choose to leave them to their fate, I'll take a hit from other party members. That's the way it goes. Personally, if they are disagreeing with me, and the option is there, I choose "Because I said so". Whether I wanted to be the leader of this band of misfits or not, I am, and guess what, they are either going to follow my lead, or leave. Hell, there's even an option for you to kick them to the curb in dialogs. I haven't used that yet, but there may come a time where I will.

[dapatoumba]

I must say i like this new influence system ! especially the "bribe" with gifts which as far as i know is an originality in pc rpg games , also makes you more familiar with your characters , what they like what they don't i enjoyed finding all these cool looking gifts.



However an option "persuade" or even better "intimidate" for convincing evil-neutral / evil characters that doing a good thing because of the loot or the reward should be there for someone playing an evil character



You can do this in some parts of the game e.g when persuading Morrigan tha destroying the Anvil Of Void is better since she wouldn like to be a golem either reducing the negative impact to -1 instead of -10 however this should be an option in all of the good/evil quests

[Dalyaria]

Memengwa wrote...

The game was never marketed as having good/evil choices. It was actually marketed as NOT having good/evil choices but "gray" choices. And choices with consequences.

To quote David Gaider, the lead writer: http://old.dragonage...ngle/1178317140

"We don't have alignment in DA, so it's not even a consideration. I don't write my dialogue trying to think, "is this a good evil option?" Instead we focus on what the logical options are for any given situation and try to keep in ming what someone who is altruistic might think to do and what someone might do if they didn't care about the morality of the situation. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But we leave the motivations up to you the player."

It's really a matter of definitions. For me, evil is about not caring about the morals, but caring about the rewards. And this is exactly one of the things that he presents as a choice in the game.

I guess one can argue that all the characters have their own personalities, and there are no companions who seek rewards in the manner of gold or other possessions. So what is the point of presenting this choice, then, if your own character is the only one of your party of adventurers who agrees with it? Should you take that choice, you lose the rewards you get from having a good approval score with various characters, making your immoral, reward-motivated character actually weaker when compared to the characters who have altruistic motives. Having your party members demand you to refuse quests is not the kind of "evil" I'm looking for. If this was the very epitome of evil, there would be no point to play anything but the main quest in the game at all.

dapatoumba wrote...

However an option "persuade" or even better "intimidate" for convincing evil-neutral / evil characters that doing a good thing because of the loot or the reward should be there for someone playing an evil character

You can do this in some parts of the game e.g when persuading Morrigan tha destroying the xxxxx xx xxxx is better since she wouldn like to be a golem either reducing the negative impact to -1 instead of -10 however this should be an option in all of the good/evil quests

I completely agree.

[Inhuman one]

It is a shame that all companions are kind of stuck in their stereotype personality and are not allowed to change or show much development over time, and when they do the player hardly has any effect on it.