778 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

For the record, I like the stoic PC face. I tend to play stoic characters, so I'd like my character to appear stoic.

[Wulfram]

If you picked the right preset, then the "blank" expression could be kind of cool.

Alla Cousland always had this friendly little half-smile. That's how you knew not to mess with her.

[jillabender]

Wulfram wrote…

If you picked the right preset, then the "blank" expression could be kind of cool.

Alla Cousland always had this friendly little half-smile. That's how you knew not to mess with her.

I agree – I enjoy playing around with my DA:O characters to give them a fitting expression, which is part of why I don't mind too much if there's occasionally a shot of my character that feels a bit off. While I agree with DahliaLynn about the drawbacks of DA:O's approach to cinematics, I find that the benefits consistently outweigh the drawbacks for me.

Modifié par jillabender, 10 juillet 2012 - 10:52 .

[Realmzmaster]

The blank faced warden is not a problem for me. I have a problem when everyone else is talking and my character cannot except in my head. I prefer that no NPCs talked. Instead just use speech bubbles to show what the NPC wishes to say. It works that way in Drakensang No one speaks. Just music and sound effects with an occasional battlecry.

I like the voiced protagonist in DA2 because I can now hear my character aloud instead of just in my head. No saying the lines out loud in my voice does not work the same way. I played enough cRPGs where I speak the lines in my head or aloud.

The VO simply does not bother me as it does some. But that is me YYMV.

[DahliaLynn]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The blank faced warden is not a problem for me. I have a problem when everyone else is talking and my character cannot except in my head. I prefer that no NPCs talked. Instead just use speech bubbles to show what the NPC wishes to say. It works that way in Drakensang No one speaks. Just music and sound effects with an occasional battlecry.
.

I agree, the NPC's bantering as if the Warden wasn't there definitely felt strange which was one of the game's drawbacks.  In an attempt to fix this, in DA2 Hawke replies on his/her own, leaving you to watch the show from the sidelines. DA2's version makes better sense of course, it just means I get to watch the PC more than be them.

I agree with Jillabender,  DA:O's postives far outweigh it's negatives.

I would never take away voiced NPCs. This is what gave life to DA:O, and I enjoyed it because they were speaking to me

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 10 juillet 2012 - 11:18 .

[jillabender]

DahliaLynn wrote…

I would never take away voiced NPCs. This is what gave life to DA:O, and I enjoyed it because they were speaking to me

I enjoy some RPGs, like Avernum, that have no voice acting at all, but I'm also glad that DA:O features the amazing voice acting that it does – it's one of my favourite things about the game. And the voice acting in DA2 is one of the main things that I enjoyed about the game despite its shortcomings.

Modifié par jillabender, 11 juillet 2012 - 12:11 .

[Direwolf0294]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Its better to have a blank slate with a story that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

No disagreement here!

When discussing what makes a player feel like they have ownership of the character, this thread did remind me that many feel like Shepard is "their Shepard" in Mass Effect, in spite of voiced characters, cinematics, and even the dialogue wheel.

Obviously there's a divide somewhere. I find that interesting. Where is it? What allows some player that takes a character like Shepard and still feel as though it's the player's story, whereas another feels its too much of a pregen and a hurdle they must overcome in order to enjoy the game?

I'd say it probably has something to do with Shepard being awesome and a complete baddass and that people are happy to accept that sort of character as their character while Hawke, while not a terrible character, didn't really feel all that awesome or even relevant to the games plot.

[jillabender]

Direwolf0294 wrote…

I'd say it probably has something to do with Shepard being awesome and a complete baddass and that people are happy to accept that sort of character as their character while Hawke, while not a terrible character, didn't really feel all that awesome or even relevant to the games plot.

I'd have to agree that's at least part of it – Hawke, while fun, wasn't the most interesting character Bioware could have come up with, and felt peripheral to the central conflict of the story. That's part of why I'm enjoying Mass Effect more than I enjoyed DA2.

Modifié par jillabender, 10 juillet 2012 - 11:22 .

[philippe willaume]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Its better to have a blank slate with a story that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

No disagreement here!

When discussing what makes a player feel like they have ownership of the character, this thread did remind me that many feel like Shepard is "their Shepard" in Mass Effect, in spite of voiced characters, cinematics, and even the dialogue wheel.

Obviously there's a divide somewhere. I find that interesting. Where is it? What allows some player that takes a character like Shepard and still feel as though it's the player's story, whereas another feels its too much of a pregen and a hurdle they must overcome in order to enjoy the game?

It will vary for each individual but it is the per-equation of affecting the story/story involvement and character customisation.
We all values story and char customisation differently but ultimately it is both elements that makes the char our own.
 
What makes Sheppard , geralt or the warden mine character wise is It is that I can be successful developing my style of play i.e.
What kit and weapons I use and when I use them
The char is developed in the way I want it to be for the role I want to play and the game play support it
 
The decision maters and influences the story so that the story becomes the one of that character.
How you treat the companion and how the react actually matter in how the story evolves.
You decision affect how the world sees you
 
ME , the witcher or DA:0 did not get all of those but there was enough to buy me in
 
But skyrim or DA:2  fails enough on most of them that it makes the experienc bland. and when i say fail  by that I mean the do have it but it only superficially.
 
IE my vanguard berserker reaper Hawke is the same as every one else gear, stat and the I play it.
 
Companion even though better design and having better personal quest ultimately don’t mater. They will always finish their poxy animation before doing what you ask and you can’t really ****** them off and ultimately the do not have that much effect on combat so don’t really mater who you bring with you.
 
You blatantly side with the mages or templar and Orsino don’t give a monkey and Meredith could not careless. You end up being the beacon of hope for mage/templar. Well there was delay in firing up because the magesand people of Kictkwall sure did not see the light during all the game.
 
Or in Skyrim you can offend people and then they don’t talk to you. Fun for five minutes and then you go back picking herbs and metal for potions and armour, like the rest of the warrior population players
 
Phil

[schalafi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think theres a difference between "my story" and feeling as if it were myself as the character. All stories I play, Shephard or the Warden were my own stories. Whether or not I play actor or director shouldn't really change that since it is I who is making the decisions. The question is, is it me? or is it the character I control? The more I feel I am the character, (as in the first person focus of DA:O) the more personal it is and I think the line between "my story" and "I'm actually the hero" is a bit gray in most discussions.

Now I'm wondering if we're discussing the same thing.

I can project myself onto Shepard, but I do agree that at no point do I consider myself to actually be the hero.

Is the failing for you that you cannot sufficiently place yourself as the protagonist? (just trying to reconcile all the different perspectives).

It sounds like some players lose themselves in the character they're playing, and some view the character just as the pc, and don't really connect emotionally. I find I can connect with my protagonists as if they were real people while I'm playing, but I don't consider them me.

I don't know if that made any sense at all...it's hard to explain.

I  have to amend that statement a little, There were times when facial expressions of the pc, and the npc's really had me identifying with them more than I ever could in Origins. I really like to see my pc's face, not her back. Like in DA2 whan a certain npc was explaining what Sela Petrae was, I was actually making the same face as my Hawke.

Modifié par schalafi, 11 juillet 2012 - 12:15 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

DahliaLynn wrote...

I agree, the NPC's bantering as if the Warden wasn't there definitely felt strange which was one of the game's drawbacks.  In an attempt to fix this, in DA2 Hawke replies on his/her own, leaving you to watch the show from the sidelines. DA2's version makes better sense of course, it just means I get to watch the PC more than be them.

DA2's version makes more sense for some characters.

DAO forced us to play a PC who didn't take part in the banter.

DA2 forces us to play a PC who takes part in the banter in a very specific way.

If DA2 merely forced to us to take part in the banter, but let us control Hawke's lines during it, then I'd say it was an equivalent trade-off.  But it doesn't.  DA2 is far more restrictive with regard to banter involvement than DAO was.

[DahliaLynn]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DahliaLynn wrote...

I agree, the NPC's bantering as if the Warden wasn't there definitely felt strange which was one of the game's drawbacks.  In an attempt to fix this, in DA2 Hawke replies on his/her own, leaving you to watch the show from the sidelines. DA2's version makes better sense of course, it just means I get to watch the PC more than be them.

DA2's version makes more sense for some characters.

DAO forced us to play a PC who didn't take part in the banter.

DA2 forces us to play a PC who takes part in the banter in a very specific way.

If DA2 merely forced to us to take part in the banter, but let us control Hawke's lines during it, then I'd say it was an equivalent trade-off.  But it doesn't.  DA2 is far more restrictive with regard to banter involvement than DAO was.

It actually would be incredibly cool if in either game we would get a popup mini screen allowing us to select a dialogue option as we moved along freely, with the NPC's reacting accordingly, without actualy triggering a conversation cutscene for this type of convo.

If you happen to come across a fight at that particular moment, the exchange would stop momentarily and resume once the battle was done. Oh, that would be fun

[rapscallioness]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm a bit confused then.

Is the issue cinematics, or is the issue maintaining control over the player character while they're going on? (I consider both Half-Life's to be very cinematic games. Both are also games I highly regard)

For me the issue is the bolded. I know this is DA forum, but in ME3 Shepard got away from me..alot. You click one line, and Shepard spoke paragraphs. It bothered. It was unexpected, and unwelcome. I want to be a part of the story. The game. ME3 cut me out, alot. I do not want to see that continue.

[DreGregoire]

DahliaLynn wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The blank faced warden is not a problem for me. 
.

DA2 Hawke replies on his/her own, leaving you to watch the show from the sidelines.

I would never take away voiced NPCs. This is what gave life to DA:O, and I enjoyed it because they were speaking to me

DahliaLynn wrote...

It actually would be incredibly cool if in either game we would get a popup mini screen allowing us to select a dialogue option as we moved along freely, with the NPC's reacting accordingly, without actualy triggering a conversation cutscene for this type of convo.

If you happen to come across a fight at that particular moment, the exchange would stop momentarily and resume once the battle was done. Oh, that would be fun

I didn't mind the conversations that didn't include me in DAO, but it would be nice to be able to comment occassionally. If we had the option to pick a comment I would prefer an option to say nothing as well. I loved the bantering in DAO where the companion's pretended that the PC couldn't hear them, it gave the illusion of easedropping. I don't feel it's necessary to be involved in interactions between my companions all the time but I didn't really enjoy my Hawke deciding what to say based on which of the three personalities types I used the most.

Modifié par DreGregoire, 11 juillet 2012 - 12:59 .

[Cultist]

BG2 handled party banter just fine - companion initiated a conversation and you can choose different dialogues as you wish, no problem at all. Dragon Age 2 - you were stripped of ALL control of what hawke will answer in that banter. That's like new step for autodialogues.

[AmstradHero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
I didn't think I would like timers, but in the context of a voiced protagonist, especially with a tone/intent dialogue selection, they enhance the cinematic presentation and flow of the game and dialogue in a way that non-timed games can't.

If the cinematic presentation ever interferes with the player's ability to control his character, the cinematic presentation needs to give way.

It doesn't interfere. It forces you to take control of your vision of the character.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't want to metagame, but I also don't want to be rushed when making decisions.  Usually I make decisions very quickly in the game, but if a set of dialogue options arises where none of them appear to suit my character at first glance, I the need to go through a fairly laborious process of working out what possible state of mind my character could have that would render one of those options sensical.

And herein is the difference between an intent wheel and a dialogue wheel. You, as a roleplayer, should always be able to (quickly) decide what your character would intend. That's part of the concept of the role. Under the pressure of the real situation, you as the character have to decide the decision you would make with the given definition of the character you're playing. That is the true essence of roleplaying, because you're taking your established knowledge of the character and persona that you've created and are applying it immediately.

If you play a table top RPG and sit there for ages agonizing over a decision, other players will (rightfully) get annoyed. It is up to the player to make that decision.

Furthermore, you seem to imply that there is a "wrong" decision, which is completely counter to the concept of roleplaying and character development. There is no "wrong" decision - you just explored and developed your character in a way you couldn't have foreseen. You can't really get a more "pure" form of roleplaying than that. You've actually shown what your character does when the chips are truly down. Character development of the player's character? Wow, that sounds like real writing principles applied to the player's own imagination! That's brilliant in my book.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Furthermore, if you're truly roleplaying a character, and you can't make the decision of what to do in what would be considered "real" conversation time, then I'd contend that you don't actually have a clear picture of the personality of the character you're playing.

Except for that example I just mentioned.

For the reasons stated above, I emphatically and wholeheartedly disagree. Either you know your character intimately, or you've developed their persona a little more.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Real people make quick decisions and hold real, flowing conversations every day.

Yes, but real people aren't choosing from among a finite set of pre-written dialogue options.  Your conversations would not be as fast and free-flowing if I got to decide what you were allowed to say.

Again, this is where the intent/tone works better. You know the emotional response/approach the character would take, and the (unknown) words fulfil that approach. Yes, I know you'll argue that you end up saying something you didn't intend - but actually, this fits your previously stated approach to roleplaying. You select a particular intent, which provides a line of dialogue to which the other NPC can react accordingly, which may not be how you envision. In this case, the words are the delivery mechanism, but you as the player have chosen your intent.

[rapscallioness]

But BW can keep the clunky combat and blank stare PC. I don't want that part back....

[Gibb_Shepard]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Its better to have a blank slate with a story that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

Obviously there's a divide somewhere. I find that interesting. Where is it? What allows some player that takes a character like Shepard and still feel as though it's the player's story, whereas another feels its too much of a pregen and a hurdle they must overcome in order to enjoy the game?

I personaally think it's not pre gen enough. I felt I had more control of Geralt than  I did Hawke.  Hawke is just such an inconsistent character, and I think that's solely due to the dialogu system. If you're not prepared to stick with one "tone" throughout the entirety of the game, the character just sounds ridiculously inconsistent. I can't play inconsistent characters.
I would prefer a defined attitude, which has been present with every voiced RPG other than DA2. Being able to choose "yes", "no"', or "maybe" without having to commit to being gratuitously snarky or ridiculously aggressive would work wonders for character consistency.

[rapscallioness]

One tone? No, please. I'm soooo tired of monotone PC's.

[Gibb_Shepard]

rapscallioness wrote...

One tone? No, please. I'm soooo tired of monotone PC's.

There is a reason every other voiced RPG had it in place before DA2. Associating an attitude to each response is ridiculous, and causes terrible inconsistencies within the character itself.

Attitudes should be contextual, and not associated with a particular dialogue option all the time. In DA2, choosing a neutral response always ends in being sarcastic. Choosing to not hell someone always ends with your character biting their head off. It's a terrible system if one wants to maintain character consistency. It needs a lot of work.

[AkiKishi]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

One tone? No, please. I'm soooo tired of monotone PC's.

There is a reason every other voiced RPG had it in place before DA2. Associating an attitude to each response is ridiculous, and causes terrible inconsistencies within the character itself.

Attitudes should be contextual, and not associated with a particular dialogue option all the time. In DA2, choosing a neutral response always ends in being sarcastic. Choosing to not hell someone always ends with your character biting their head off. It's a terrible system if one wants to maintain character consistency. It needs a lot of work.

AP uses attitude - it works.
HR uses intent - it works.
TW2 uses paraphrase on its own - it works.

In every case it's dialogue written for a specific character in a specific situation. Where as altering the tones in DA2 leaves you sounding like some sort of multiple personality disorder.

[philippe willaume]

AmstradHero wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
I didn't think I would like timers, but in the context of a voiced protagonist, especially with a tone/intent dialogue selection, they enhance the cinematic presentation and flow of the game and dialogue in a way that non-timed games can't.

If the cinematic presentation ever interferes with the player's ability to control his character, the cinematic presentation needs to give way.

It doesn't interfere. It forces you to take control of your vision of the character.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't want to metagame, but I also don't want to be rushed when making decisions.  Usually I make decisions very quickly in the game, but if a set of dialogue options arises where none of them appear to suit my character at first glance, I the need to go through a fairly laborious process of working out what possible state of mind my character could have that would render one of those options sensical.

And herein is the difference between an intent wheel and a dialogue wheel. You, as a roleplayer, should always be able to (quickly) decide what your character would intend. That's part of the concept of the role. Under the pressure of the real situation, you as the character have to decide the decision you would make with the given definition of the character you're playing. That is the true essence of roleplaying, because you're taking your established knowledge of the character and persona that you've created and are applying it immediately.

If you play a table top RPG and sit there for ages agonizing over a decision, other players will (rightfully) get annoyed. It is up to the player to make that decision.

Furthermore, you seem to imply that there is a "wrong" decision, which is completely counter to the concept of roleplaying and character development. There is no "wrong" decision - you just explored and developed your character in a way you couldn't have foreseen. You can't really get a more "pure" form of roleplaying than that. You've actually shown what your character does when the chips are truly down. Character development of the player's character? Wow, that sounds like real writing principles applied to the player's own imagination! That's brilliant in my book.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Furthermore, if you're truly roleplaying a character, and you can't make the decision of what to do in what would be considered "real" conversation time, then I'd contend that you don't actually have a clear picture of the personality of the character you're playing.

Except for that example I just mentioned.

For the reasons stated above, I emphatically and wholeheartedly disagree. Either you know your character intimately, or you've developed their persona a little more.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Real people make quick decisions and hold real, flowing conversations every day.

Yes, but real people aren't choosing from among a finite set of pre-written dialogue options.  Your conversations would not be as fast and free-flowing if I got to decide what you were allowed to say.

Again, this is where the intent/tone works better. You know the emotional response/approach the character would take, and the (unknown) words fulfil that approach. Yes, I know you'll argue that you end up saying something you didn't intend - but actually, this fits your previously stated approach to roleplaying. You select a particular intent, which provides a line of dialogue to which the other NPC can react accordingly, which may not be how you envision. In this case, the words are the delivery mechanism, but you as the player have chosen your intent.

hello

I think that you are missing Sylivius point though.
I liked the dialogue wheel, because i did not have the "bugger i did not think i was going to say it like that" that i had in DA:0.
That being said the issue; I think is with the fact that in DA2 you are de facto choosing how it will be received by the interlocutor rather than how you intend to say it. I.e. you can almost always guaranty the result

what the dialogue in DA:O had was an uncertainty of the effect. That did not came from the tone, that came from how well it was received by the interlocutor.
 
If you cumulates that with the sparser dialogue opportunities you have the feeling that if you played the end of Army of darkness, in DA: you would be able to pick all the dialogs lines in.
DA:2 you get to pick up “I though about staying” at the start of the commercial ending  shop scene
And “hail to the kind, baby” at the end
 
It is ok to have dialogue like ME3 for normal conversation, but companion conversation or storyline conversation should have more options. Ie in ME if you can have 2-3 choices + the paragon and renegade option. You can do the same in DA:3. as well .
As well important conversation should have more depth. of the effect. That did not came from the tone that came from how well it was recieved by the interlocutor.
Phil

[Gibb_Shepard]

BobSmith101 



AP uses attitude - it works.
HR uses intent - it works.
TW2 uses paraphrase on its own - it works.

In every case it's dialogue written for a specific character in a specific situation. Where as altering the tones in DA2 leaves you sounding like some sort of multiple personality disorder.

Exactly. The fact that the tones are associated with simple yes and no dialogue options it terrible. Want to say something contrary to the other persons opinions? MAKE SURE YOU TAKE THEIR HEAD OFF WHILE YOU'RE DOING IT. Want to remain neutral in a particular situation? MAKE SURE YOU MAKE A JOKE ABOUT ANIMAL FONDLING.

This is seriously my absolute number 1 problem with this game.

[AmstradHero]

philippe willaume wrote...
hello

I think that you are missing Sylivius point though.
I liked the dialogue wheel, because i did not have the "bugger i did not think i was going to say it like that" that i had in DA:0.
That being said the issue; I think is with the fact that in DA2 you are de facto choosing how it will be received by the interlocutor rather than how you intend to say it. I.e. you can almost always guaranty the result

Then that's a failing of the writing and characterisation rather than the system itself. In Alpha Protocol, which is what I'm citing as these examples, you can dictate your intent, but you cannot know how that will be received. To argue that there is no intent in the DA:O is a fallacy, and I've argued this point with Sylvius before.

It is a fact that (BioWare) games order their responses from "nice at top" to "bad at bottom". It's been this way since the original Baldur's Gate, and persists to this day. Top responses are reconciliatory, whereas bottom responses are aggressive. There is how it is intended by the authors because it provides a consistent guide for the player on the character's delivery/intent when no other means exists to do this. The interpretation of NPC of these lines is indicative of this.

philippe willaume wrote...
what the dialogue in DA:O had was an uncertainty of the effect. That did not came from the tone, that came from how well it was received by the interlocutor.

Again, this is not an inherent result of the dialogue system, but as a result of the writing of the individual games. It should be entirely possible for characters to respond appropriately to different tonal decisions based on their character. Arguably this does occur to some degree - Isabela certainly favours a snarky character over a goody-two-shoes or a warmonger. Sylvius's issues with the DA2 dialogue stem from an inbuilt bias and personal perception of the unvoiced protagonist that does not actually match with the reality of the intent of the writers, and this can be seen through the reactions of NPCs to the dialogue choices.

philippe willaume wrote...
If you cumulates that with the sparser dialogue opportunities you have the feeling that if you played the end of Army of darkness, in DA: you would be able to pick all the dialogs lines in.
DA:2 you get to pick up “I though about staying” at the start of the commercial ending  shop scene
And “hail to the kind, baby” at the end

This is an issue of auto-dialogue not based on a player response or tonal input, which is a completely separate issue. Do not confuse the two.

I've left out some of your points here because I couldn't actually understand the point you were trying to make, but it's very important not to confuse the various issues at play here. There are a lot variables involved when it comes to dialogue, but Sylvius's argument comes from a very strict and exacting ideal that has never actually existed in a real game.

[Fallstar]

Agreed with the 'tone' problem. Being restricted to the 6 tones plus investigation options was annoying, especially when I wanted to be charming for example, but there was a funny option in it's place. Or if I wanted to get straight to the point but instead I have the angry option to bite someone's head off. If we're limited to the 6 tones, at least give us those 6 tones all of the time.