Yeah, remember in the character creation how you could select from a list of voice types? And depending on that, the Warden would make various comments when you encountered enemies, or kept pressing the X(or cross system equivalent) buttons.
That technically counts as auto-dialogue that the player has no control over.
People Forget That The Warden Had Auto-Dialogue As Well.
Débuté par
WhiteKnyght
, avril 09 2012 04:32
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 04:36
Eyeofanger
-
- Members
- 97 messages
Too bad they did not give the warden a voice he could use when talking to the npc's
#3
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 04:41
eroeru
-
- Members
- 3 269 messages
That's not the point in any of the criticisms.
In DA:O criticisms there wasn't such a complaint (about the dialogue and what-not), in DA2 criticism there is. Now why is that? Don't people know what they don't like? Of course they do.
"Technicalities" don't have any importance in criticisms, so please, people, stop arguing that something DA2 and Origins were "technically the same". They were different in every way, because they were different as a whole - and were taken as such. Now when DA2's (different) implementations felt as a problem, then you cannot argue. They were a problem. (for these honest critics).
(though I agree that the main thing that's actually wrong with DA2 isn't that it had auto-dialogue - it's rather the voiced PC, lack of player agency/involvement and the Mass-Effectized diraction as a wholel)
In DA:O criticisms there wasn't such a complaint (about the dialogue and what-not), in DA2 criticism there is. Now why is that? Don't people know what they don't like? Of course they do.
"Technicalities" don't have any importance in criticisms, so please, people, stop arguing that something DA2 and Origins were "technically the same". They were different in every way, because they were different as a whole - and were taken as such. Now when DA2's (different) implementations felt as a problem, then you cannot argue. They were a problem. (for these honest critics).
(though I agree that the main thing that's actually wrong with DA2 isn't that it had auto-dialogue - it's rather the voiced PC, lack of player agency/involvement and the Mass-Effectized diraction as a wholel)
#4
Guest_Faerunner_*
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 06:06
Guest_Faerunner_*
Guest_Faerunner_*
-
- Guests
True, but we also had half a dozen voice types to choose from, different accents to reflect different races and backgrounds, different attitudes and personality implications to fit with how we saw our character, silence during conversations so we could imagine how our characters delivered a line instead of having the line delivered for us, etc.
The key words here are "different choices." We had lots of those in Origins, but little to none in DA2.
The key words here are "different choices." We had lots of those in Origins, but little to none in DA2.
#5
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 06:33
Korusus
-
- Members
- 616 messages
The Grey Nayr wrote...
That technically counts as auto-dialogue that the player has no control over.
No. That's automonologue.
Dialogue requires there to be a conversation between at least 2 people. Automonologue is fine. Autodialogue is intolerable.
The difference is dialogue presents choices, and auto-dialogue removes those choices leaving the player to watch an extended cutscene of conversation they have no control over which since that's really the only thing that makes BioWare games unique these days seems kind of... dumb.
Modifié par Korusus, 09 avril 2012 - 06:35 .
#6
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 07:15
eroeru
-
- Members
- 3 269 messages
Korusus wrote...
The Grey Nayr wrote...
That technically counts as auto-dialogue that the player has no control over.
No. That's automonologue.
Dialogue requires there to be a conversation between at least 2 people. Automonologue is fine. Autodialogue is intolerable.
The difference is dialogue presents choices, and auto-dialogue removes those choices leaving the player to watch an extended cutscene of conversation they have no control over which since that's really the only thing that makes BioWare games unique these days seems kind of... dumb.
Very well said.
#7
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 08:00
DeathScepter
-
- Members
- 5 528 messages
*facepalm due to the stupidity of this thread*
#8
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 08:14
Eternal Phoenix
-
- Members
- 8 471 messages
DeathScepter wrote...
*facepalm due to the stupidity of this thread*
/thread
#9
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 08:14
WhiteKnyght
-
- Members
- 3 755 messages
eroeru wrote...
That's not the point in any of the criticisms.
In DA:O criticisms there wasn't such a complaint (about the dialogue and what-not), in DA2 criticism there is. Now why is that? Don't people know what they don't like? Of course they do.
"Technicalities" don't have any importance in criticisms, so please, people, stop arguing that something DA2 and Origins were "technically the same". They were different in every way, because they were different as a whole - and were taken as such. Now when DA2's (different) implementations felt as a problem, then you cannot argue. They were a problem. (for these honest critics).
(though I agree that the main thing that's actually wrong with DA2 isn't that it had auto-dialogue - it's rather the voiced PC, lack of player agency/involvement and the Mass-Effectized diraction as a wholel)
Dragon Age II is set in the same world and has the same history. The devs have made it very lear that the game series is about Thedas and the events happening within it, not about any certain characters. Although old characters make appearances and have important roles..
The biggest complaints I've seen always boil down to them not liking the fact that DAII isn't just a rehash of Origins' plot and gameplay. You got your Origins sequel in Awakening. DAII is allowed to be different.
The map reusage, thats an issue worth notice, but the funny thing is that Origins did it too, they were just a little better at hiding it.
The Tower of Ishal used the same map as the Circle Tower but with minor difference and different decoration. The room where you fight the Ogre is a reuse of the Harrowing Chamber. And the tunnel under the tower in Return to Ostagar is the ruin from the Dalish Elf Origin. And several of the random encounters all used the same map but just sectioned off areas and started you off in different areas to cause a sense of misdirection. If you beat the game and elect to keep playing to do DLC, you'll start off at a location referred to as "On the road" in the map. It's actually the entire map used for random encounters and is completely open to explore(you just gotta know how to nagivate it.)
Not to mention several sections of the maps from Awakening were used in The Golems of Amgarrak and Leliana's Song.
Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 09 avril 2012 - 08:16 .
#10
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 08:40
eroeru
-
- Members
- 3 269 messages
The Grey Nayr wrote...
The biggest complaints I've seen always boil down to them not liking the fact that DAII isn't just a rehash of Origins' plot and gameplay. You got your Origins sequel in Awakening. DAII is allowed to be different.
It does not boil down to that, as we've seen from comments that actually analyze the substantial content of the games - and say that "this-and-this, we don't like". Now, answering to these comments, you either need to be very specific and try lots to follow them (in order to bring out any bias or shortcomings of the writer - for a positive, dialectic outcome), and/or give these critics the right to not like it, not commenting in response.
DAII is allowed to be different. Also by the critics. Don't try to figure out why they felt bad about the game (they did, in fact, feel bad, you know - and I haven't yet seen the argument of "it's bad because it's different" - it's HOW it's different that's meaningful), if you're absolutely adamant on your own opinion. If you arbitrarily boil down all criticisms to an unmeaningful notion, you seem to imply your superiority. Don't.
#11
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 11:18
Korusus
-
- Members
- 616 messages
The Grey Nayr wrote...
The map reusage, thats an issue worth notice, but the funny thing is that Origins did it too, they were just a little better at hiding it.
The Tower of Ishal used the same map as the Circle Tower but with minor difference and different decoration. The room where you fight the Ogre is a reuse of the Harrowing Chamber. And the tunnel under the tower in Return to Ostagar is the ruin from the Dalish Elf Origin. And several of the random encounters all used the same map but just sectioned off areas and started you off in different areas to cause a sense of misdirection. If you beat the game and elect to keep playing to do DLC, you'll start off at a location referred to as "On the road" in the map. It's actually the entire map used for random encounters and is completely open to explore(you just gotta know how to nagivate it.
This is true and not true at the same time. Yes the tower is the same tower used in the Circle Tower as Ostagar. But if it were DA2 everything about the two towers would be identical, every piece of furniture, every misellaneous item, etc. In DA:O while they may be the same building, they feel fundamentally different. Obviously reuse of assets is something that will never go away, but how the level designer approaches it makes a huge difference. If all they do is hit Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V well that's a problem. Bethesda addressed that same problem from Oblivion where most dungeons were fundamentally the same, to Skyrim going from having a single dungeon designer for Oblivion to EIGHT dungeon designers in Skyrim for fewer dungeons. That makes a huge difference, even though they're reusing assets they're doing in a way that is creative and maintains the illusion (mostly).
