168 réponses à ce sujet

[eroeru]

Yeah, but surely there needs to be something more than silliness to make it funny? No?

sighs...

[eroeru]

eroeru wrote...

I understand that this kind of line would work if the main was PLAYING eccentric and unsure in stance, but Hawke stands tall as a brute and mocks whomever is hiding - yet implies that it would be scary if it was a dragon.

Corrected a mistake. I never thought that jokes need seriousness, but you have got to give it some merit via contextual connections, at least in the acting out of the joke. But Hawke stays himself, not exaggerating nor making the situation/joke even a bit interesting.

Modifié par eroeru, 14 juillet 2012 - 06:52 .

[Chun Hei]

l used to play sarcastic Hawke so much that I would meta game the situations where his/her sarcastic choices were too... ****** as opposed to smartass. As time has gone on I have come to view diplomatic Hawke as a bit of a smartass as the diplomatic responses can seem incredibly sarcastic if you do not view your diplomatic Hawke as totally naive.

[rapscallioness]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

Silent PC games are the only games that have been good to you. In your opinion. Your opinion is not God's word.

My opinion aspire's to be Reason's word.  That's even better.

And so, I was right, you do just want a silent PC. You don't care about tone.

I don't care about tone.  That doesn't mean I demand a silent PC, but it does mean that the primary supposed benefit of a voiced PC is something that benefits me not at all, and as such I'm not willing to give up anything in order to get it.

You know, I'm all for not giving up on something that's important to you. But it seems like everytime anyone has anything good to say either about Hawke, or DA2 in general, you pounce.

You're relentless with it. Like a zealot trying to purge the forums of its heretics.

I'm trying to purge not just the forum, but the world, of errors of reasoning.  Just as Socrates said that an unexamined life is not worth living, nor is an unexamined opinion worth holding.  And confirmation bias makes unexamined opinions especially dangerous.

If you're going to express an opinion where I can here it, I'm going to try to ensure that you've given that opinion considerable thought.

But you're not here to compare a Tone of voice option in a game that has a voiced PC. As you said, you don't even want to compare DA2 to other games that are voiced...because they're beneath you, or some such. You want to compare DA2 to your preferred silent PC games.

You say because silent PC games are the only ones that are any good. So, it's not a leap of logic to say that what you're really here to do is not discuss Tone options in games with voiced PC's, but yet again to try and push your preference for silent PC games.

That was not the discussion at hand.

And I know what I like. I don't need you to try and "ensure" anything.  You're purging the world of its errors? Lmao! You're on the level of Socrates now? That's rich. Yet, you don't examine yourself. Your own opinions which you wield in a very high and mighty manner are based on nothing but your own preferences.

You make the assumption that your preferences are best. That they would make a better game. Suffice it to say, I'm glad you're not on the DA dev team.

[rapscallioness]

Annie_Dear wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

It's funny when anti DA2 people use sarcastic dialogue lines in order to ridicule the game, especially when they put the screenshot next to super serious scenes from other videogames for mature grown up adults of age.

What were you thinking, Bioware? Everybody knows humor is for kids!

Yes, joking about a serial killer who's killing women and cutting up the bodies? Hillarious. Cracking jokes after you've seen your younger brother or sister being killed by an oger? Awsome. Sending Isabela with the Qunari, knowing how badly they'll treat her? Lulz.

There's a place and time for humor.

But...you don't have to pick a sarcastic response every time. Cetainly not in those instances. I mean, I didn't.

[eroeru]

I was just trying to make sense why I cannot understand the joke. At all.

But I think I've got it. It has more to do with the voice-actors and the Hawke-character than the line itself. I imagine that line being in text only, DAO for example - and there I would be (mildly) amused. Would pick it even (and would probably imagine my character acting out a "unsure" type of person, with much more charisma than Hawke was capable of )

Modifié par eroeru, 14 juillet 2012 - 07:42 .

[eroeru]

Maclimes wrote...

It's a joke. That's the point. It's not meant to be taken seriously. It's like action stars or comic book characters tossing off a one-liner.

Action stars and such don't fit into the already-set-serious in tone Dragon Age franchise. Unless the game is supposed to be a sort of parody or comment on Origins and Hollywood movies.

Modifié par eroeru, 14 juillet 2012 - 07:55 .

[eroeru]

Filament wrote...

Hawke is "unsure" in that line (at least, in a tongue-in-cheek way). Your "stands tall like a brute" characterization does not mesh with my interpretation of it at all. The actual (m!Hawke) delivery is here, for reference. I thought it worked just fine.

Poor choice of words on my part.
He hardly winks an eye, and if the previous line would have been serious it would seriously break character.

Also, one more thing to put on my list of mis-steps - the animations of the character talking are really unimaginative and unexpressive. Especially when compared to the (over?)expressive VA.

They break immersion. Big-time.

edit: thanks for the link!

Modifié par eroeru, 14 juillet 2012 - 08:21 .

[Fallstar]

rapscallioness wrote...

But...you don't have to pick a sarcastic response every time. Cetainly not in those instances. I mean, I didn't.

I didn't stick to one tone for my Hawke either. Then you get the problem where your character sounds like a completely different person between lines. It is possible that I want to open up in a diplomatic tone of voice, then use the direct options to get straight to the point. Instead I go from sounding like a perfectly reasonable person staight to a raving lunatic. I mean, the hammer option is supposed to be 'direct' but it's delivered in the same tone as the fist 'I DO want to set the world on fire' option. 

If this whole tone thing is going to carry on, they need to separate the tones that currently occupy the same spot on the wheel, and give us each of those tones for every dialogue option. As I've said before, there were times when I wanted to be charming but the sarcastic option was in the way. Or diplomatic, but instead I have to be all yay bunnies. Giving us all 6 options all of the time would be a step forward.

[rapscallioness]

DuskWarden wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

But...you don't have to pick a sarcastic response every time. Cetainly not in those instances. I mean, I didn't.

I didn't stick to one tone for my Hawke either. Then you get the problem where your character sounds like a completely different person between lines. It is possible that I want to open up in a diplomatic tone of voice, then use the direct options to get straight to the point. Instead I go from sounding like a perfectly reasonable person staight to a raving lunatic. I mean, the hammer option is supposed to be 'direct' but it's delivered in the same tone as the fist 'I DO want to set the world on fire' option. 

If this whole tone thing is going to carry on, they need to separate the tones that currently occupy the same spot on the wheel, and give us each of those tones for every dialogue option. As I've said before, there were times when I wanted to be charming but the sarcastic option was in the way. Or diplomatic, but instead I have to be all yay bunnies. Giving us all 6 options all of the time would be a step forward.

Lol..."yay bunnies". This is true, though. The tones do swing wildly. And you end up sounding like a schizo. They need to keep working on it, no doubt. I hope they do continue to work on it, and then implement the concept in a more seamless manner.

We'll see, though. We will see........

[Sylvius the Mad]

rapscallioness wrote...

But you're not here to compare a Tone of voice option in a game that has a voiced PC. As you said, you don't even want to compare DA2 to other games that are voiced...because they're beneath you, or some such. You want to compare DA2 to your preferred silent PC games.

What's the point of comparing DA2 to other voiced PC games when none of those games have achieved by design oobjectives?  What would that comparison do for me.  Yes, all 6 of these games I'm comparing fail.  So what?

I'm interested in making the voiced PC games better, not just wallowing in the same failure game after game.

You say because silent PC games are the only ones that are any good. So, it's not a leap of logic to say that what you're really here to do is not discuss Tone options in games with voiced PC's, but yet again to try and push your preference for silent PC games.

Of course it's a leap.  It's not supported by what I'm saying at all.

Yes, a silent PC would solve my problems pretty much instantly, but since BioWare isn't doing a silent PC right now what would be the point of asking for it?  I'd like to see them do their voiced PC (which they are doing) such that I can still play it the same way I play a silent PC.  Why are you objecting to that?

That was not the discussion at hand.

No one is having the discussion you're accusing me of trying to have.

And I know what I like. I don't need you to try and "ensure" anything.  You're purging the world of its errors? Lmao! You're on the level of Socrates now? That's rich. Yet, you don't examine yourself. Your own opinions which you wield in a very high and mighty manner are based on nothing but your own preferences.

My preference is a desire to roleplay.  I've defined roleplaying very precisely in previous discussions here.  So, yes, if my desire to roleplay in a roleplaying game is irrelevant, then you're right to dismiss me.

Obviously I think the point of roleplaying games is to allow roleplaying.  I've defined roleplaying where everyone can see it, and I've invited criticism of my definition.  My definition stands.  But BioWare's voiced games, so far, have hardly allowed roleplaying at all.

Every position I advance stems logically from my definition of roleplaying.  Logic is not a matter of opinion.  Logic isn't guided by mine or yours or anyone's preferences.  Logic is a system of formal, error-free reasoning.

If you want to criticise my reasoning, please do.  I always want to know where I've made mistakes of logic.

If you want to criticise my initial premise, please do.  But know then that you're calling for roleplaying games that exclude roleplaying as a viable playstyle.

But what you're doing now is criticising me for something I'm not doing, but you're doing it vaguely enough that I have to chase you around in cricles for days in order to point it out.  You are very irriating.

You make the assumption that your preferences are best. That they would make a better game.

They would make a better roleplaying game, in that they would permit more roleplaying on the part of the (role)player.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 15 juillet 2012 - 04:31 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 15 juillet 2012 - 05:48 .

[Uccio]

Sarcastic Hawke was mostly lame, the only time I was amused was when Merrill called his bluff at the docks causing a fight. And thats because Merrill did the same thing my wife does at times when I try to bluff in the real world.

[jbrand2002uk]

Has come to the conclusion that Sylvius, Ukki and eroenu are all in need of a humour transplant or they could be american in either case the humour is mostly dry British humour which requires an actual knowledge of real English not that half baked nonsense the Americans call English

[rapscallioness]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

But you're not here to compare a Tone of voice option in a game that has a voiced PC. As you said, you don't even want to compare DA2 to other games that are voiced...because they're beneath you, or some such. You want to compare DA2 to your preferred silent PC games.

What's the point of comparing DA2 to other voiced PC games when none of those games have achieved by design oobjectives?  What would that comparison do for me.  Yes, all 6 of these games I'm comparing fail.  So what?

I'm interested in making the voiced PC games better, not just wallowing in the same failure game after game.

You say because silent PC games are the only ones that are any good. So, it's not a leap of logic to say that what you're really here to do is not discuss Tone options in games with voiced PC's, but yet again to try and push your preference for silent PC games.

Of course it's a leap.  It's not supported by what I'm saying at all.

Yes, a silent PC would solve my problems pretty much instantly, but since BioWare isn't doing a silent PC right now what would be the point of asking for it?  I'd like to see them do their voiced PC (which they are doing) such that I can still play it the same way I play a silent PC.  Why are you objecting to that?

That was not the discussion at hand.

No one is having the discussion you're accusing me of trying to have.

And I know what I like. I don't need you to try and "ensure" anything.  You're purging the world of its errors? Lmao! You're on the level of Socrates now? That's rich. Yet, you don't examine yourself. Your own opinions which you wield in a very high and mighty manner are based on nothing but your own preferences.

My preference is a desire to roleplay.  I've defined roleplaying very precisely in previous discussions here.  So, yes, if my desire to roleplay in a roleplaying game is irrelevant, then you're right to dismiss me.

Obviously I think the point of roleplaying games is to allow roleplaying.  I've defined roleplaying where everyone can see it, and I've invited criticism of my definition.  My definition stands.  But BioWare's voiced games, so far, have hardly allowed roleplaying at all.

Every position I advance stems logically from my definition of roleplaying.  Logic is not a matter of opinion.  Logic isn't guided by mine or yours or anyone's preferences.  Logic is a system of formal, error-free reasoning.

If you want to criticise my reasoning, please do.  I always want to know where I've made mistakes of logic.

If you want to criticise my initial premise, please do.  But know then that you're calling for roleplaying games that exclude roleplaying as a viable playstyle.

But what you're doing now is criticising me for something I'm not doing, but you're doing it vaguely enough that I have to chase you around in cricles for days in order to point it out.  You are very irriating.

You make the assumption that your preferences are best. That they would make a better game.

They would make a better roleplaying game, in that they would permit more roleplaying on the part of the (role)player.

Okay. No need to get all bold font-y. And definitely no need to chase. There is such a thing as "let it go". Yet, I do take some pleasure in the idea that I irritate you.

The definition of roleplaying...I do believe that's a different thread, or two, or three. I've seen people go round and round on that one. But as soon as you say "my definition of..", it becomes an opinion.  "My definition of..." fill in the blank. Patriotism. Marriage. RPG's.

As far as the OP goes--again-- I say I like the sarcastic option on my voiced PC. It's great fun. I do love the dry wit.

And...I let it go. I release you, Sylvius! *claps hands twice*. Begone! See how easy that is? How freeing?

I'll say this in parting, and I'm being sincere (though I know you're going to snark it up), but I do respect your....passion. Your diligence. And your fairly well thought out logic.

Just please---in the years to come--when you're out saving the world from itself with the Great Sword of Reason, do not let it become yet another dogma. No one has it figured out, and no one ever will. And having questions is always more important than thinking you have all the answers.

That is all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

rapscallioness wrote...

Okay. No need to get all bold font-y. And definitely no need to chase. There is such a thing as "let it go". Yet, I do take some pleasure in the idea that I irritate you.

Irritating me merely for your own pleasure would be malicious behaviour.

I am not accusing you of that.

The definition of roleplaying...I do believe that's a different thread, or two, or three. I've seen people go round and round on that one. But as soon as you say "my definition of..", it becomes an opinion.  "My definition of..." fill in the blank. Patriotism. Marriage. RPG's.

My definition being the one I've put forward.  If you (or anyone) has an alterative definition, let's see it and we can follow the reasoning wherever it leads to see what sort of game it requires.

You establish your premise, you follow the reasoning, and you find your conclusion.  That's how reasonong works.  Far too many people here are starting with their desired conclusion and rationalising backward from there.  That's not helpful.

I'll say this in parting, and I'm being sincere (though I know you're going to snark it up), but I do respect your....passion. Your diligence. And your fairly well thought out logic.

Just please---in the years to come--when you're out saving the world from itself with the Great Sword of Reason, do not let it become yet another dogma. No one has it figured out, and no one ever will. And having questions is always more important than thinking you have all the answers.

I'm not even confident that knowledge of actual things is possible.  The best I've managed so far is knowing the truth of things relative to the truth of other things.  In other words, as far as I can tell only conditional statements have knowable truth values.

To quote Wittgenstein, "At the core of all well-founded belief lies belief that is unfounded."  I suspect I am in no danger of adopting dogma.  The whole point of doing all this careful is to guard against confirmation bias, a well-documented human failing.  But it doesn't happen if I refuse to draw uncertain conclusions in the first place.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Has come to the conclusion that Sylvius, Ukki and eroenu are all in need of a humour transplant or they could be american in either case the humour is mostly dry British humour which requires an actual knowledge of real English not that half baked nonsense the Americans call English

You've clearly made no effort at all to understand my objections to sarcastic Hawke.  Whether he is funny is immaterial.

[eroeru]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Has come to the conclusion that Sylvius, Ukki and eroenu are all in need of a humour transplant or they could be american in either case the humour is mostly dry British humour which requires an actual knowledge of real English not that half baked nonsense the Americans call English

I was the only one in this thread dazzled about the humor. And I arrived somewhere - I think the core problem is in the VA and animation expressiveness.

But are you saying only people with better knowledge about English culture could understand the jokes? Well, you base this on what? Your being English and laughing at it? I would bet most who do think the humour's funny are in fact Americans, and of all different kinds of nationalities and lineages. And although I haven't yet understood what kind of mind-set one needs to enjoy the humor, I'm farily certain it doesn't come down to heritage nor nationality.

Please describe the type of knowledge you claim is needed to understand the jokes. For example, where does this particular kind of humor also appear? I'm dazzled even about how to describe it. It certainly isn't the usual self-ironic sarcasm I've found myself enjoying in Monty Python, Black Books, The Simpsons or whatever other American or English culture-specific example of sarcasm I can think of.
What do you mean under "dry british humor"? Or you mean something like Hugh Laurie shows? I've seen all sorts (and usually enjoy them).


edit: oh and another reason why to hate the "sarcasm" - it's bloody cheery. In a world full of anxiety it's only as believable as Blackadder. Which it shouldn't be. It's Dragon Age. You know, a serious game (and setting)?

Modifié par eroeru, 16 juillet 2012 - 12:18 .

[mad825]

eroeru wrote...
edit: oh and another reason why to hate the "sarcasm" - it's bloody cheery. In a world full of anxiety it's only as believable as Blackadder. Which it shouldn't be. It's Dragon Age. You know, a serious game (and setting)?

As we are being nit picky: it ultimately lacks the original  balance,  DA:O/A has plenty of humour through out the game(s) although it's more of companion-to-companion and companion-to-PC. DA1 and DA2 does force to pick more sensible options during dramatic moments (Sarcasm is replaced with charm in DA2) but if you're after a more dark and gritty game then more power to you, just don't go whining on here.

Edit:

The biggest problem here is how the dialogue is chosen ergo this is more of an argument for Silent VS voice PC. Without sarcasm/charm the whole dialogue responses becomes polarised and thus the protagonist is perceived to be stoic or emotionless.

Modifié par mad825, 16 juillet 2012 - 01:46 .

[eroeru]

^^ The humor followed the more serious atmosphere in DA:O. I was referring to the way DA2 breaks the fourth wall and how Hawke wants to be some sort of super-star.

I'm not whining, I'm expressing myself, and trying to explain certain things to myself in turn.

[FKA_Servo]

I sometimes suspect Sylvius is actually a mid-80s CRPG that has somehow achieved awareness.

I kid, I kid.

eroeru wrote...

edit: oh and another reason why to hate the "sarcasm" - it's bloody cheery. In a world full of anxiety it's only
as believable as Blackadder. Which it shouldn't be. It's Dragon Age. You know, a serious game (and setting)?

I don't see any reason why the "serious" setting means you can't have a little bit of levity. I think sarcastic Hawke was very funny, but I also read sarcastic Hawke's humor as a coping mechanism - which humor often is.

Either way, (personal opinion here, of course) "serious business, time to kill the dragon, stoic stoic stoic" gets monotonous. Humor, well done and artfully applied, is necessary for a good story and setting - I can't think of any fictional world or story that doesn't have some comic relief and benefit from it. DA:O had it in spades. It can be dark humor, it can be goofy, whatever.

Modifié par TommyServo, 16 juillet 2012 - 03:40 .

[eroeru]

^^ Point taken.

As I mentioned, the most of my gripes probably comes from the unnatural (for me at least) voice acting and posture/animations.

[Uccio]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Has come to the conclusion that Sylvius, Ukki and eroenu are all in need of a humour transplant or they could be american in either case the humour is mostly dry British humour which requires an actual knowledge of real English not that half baked nonsense the Americans call English

Well, being finnish myself I can say that english is foreign language to me. therefore yes, I do have sometimes problems in understanding the finer points of english language. However, I can also say that I have allways enjoyed this "dry" british humour, be it Monty Python, League of Gentlemen, Benny Hill Show, Little Britain, Black Adder, Fast Show, The Office or even The Simpsons from the US, in the original language.

But I´m sorry to say though, DA2 doesn´t come close to anything similar.