100 réponses à ce sujet

[DarkDragon777]

No.

[PsychoBlonde]

cJohnOne wrote...
Do you have to be Snarky in the game?  What Is a Neutral option?  I get confused.  Maybe you can help me out!

I know some people hated it with the white-hot heat of 10,000 suns, but I actually really liked Sarcastic Hawke.  Well . . . at least 95% of the time, anyway.  A couple of the lines were incredibad (such as the reaction line to Shamus' death).  But I kinda see that as my own fault for always wanting to know what the purple option was before I considered picking any of the others.  I tend to retro-RP . . . see what the option is, and if I like it/it's okay, I go with it.  If I REALLY hate it, I load the game and try one of the others.  Unless my last save is like 30 minutes back.

This, btw, is also why I have serious antipathy toward situations where you *can't* save the hostages or similar, because I wind up going back and trying every. single. option. and. combination. of. options. until I either save them or wind up cursing at the GM fiat.

That being said I wouldn't mind if they wanted to add a FOURTH tone.  Or, you know what they COULD do?  Add a fourth option that's just *silence*, maybe with a facial expression based off your dominant tone.  So you can have the option to NOT say anything if you HATE all the lines, and the NPC can just go on and say whatever.

Actually, you know, that could be a REALLY AWESOME IDEA.  It would require no extra voice work and it'd be an out for people who occasionally ZOMG HATE THE OPTIONS.

[Chiramu]

There's too many "witty" remarks in Dragon Age imo :<. That's the only reason I hate the "witty" Hawke :<. Why can't Hawke's lines be delivered out of timing or something? Most of us won't be able to deliver a perfectly witty line in the right situation.

There needs to be a normal Hawke, that has a sense of humour but bloody knows when to take things seriously.

[Arthur Cousland]

I mostly go with sarcastic responses, unless the choice would appear inappropriate, in which I go diplomatic. I prefer to rp a Hawke who has a sense of humor, though not an insensitive a**hole.

[Renmiri1]

Oh sarcastic Hawke has some replies that are pure win!

[coles4971]

Like the one where the Viscount's son has just died.

OH HAWKE YOU SO FUNNY.

[cJohnOne]

Although I've been known to like Sarcastic Hawke I think it should be something lilke: good, evil and neutral.

Neutral catches all things that aren't good nor evil.

Would this system work? I imagine a lot of things would work if they set out to do it.

[Demx]

cJohnOne wrote...

Although I've been known to like Sarcastic Hawke I think it should be something lilke: good, evil and neutral.

Neutral catches all things that aren't good nor evil.

Would this system work? I imagine a lot of things would work if they set out to do it.

The only problem is that Bioware says there are no good/evil options. It's all grey.

[Sylvianus]

Wulfram wrote...

It was very annoying when the non-commital neutral option had to be a stupid joke because it was the sarcastic option.

Neutral is valuable as a "get out" option - something relatively inoffensive that almost every character can take when the other options don't fit. Diplomatic could approach it, but was too often either agreeing with the other, or just plain goody-goody.

ME1 did a decent job by making it effectively the professional, no nonsense, soldierly option, but unfortunately it mostly lapsed into generic blandness for ME2 and was then scrapped in ME3.

This.

[Uccio]

No. Most of the times sarcastic is douche, not good.

[Fredward]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! You can never have too much sarcasm. My Hawke totally used it as a defense mechanism to hide the pain she feels inside. One of the few times she showed her true feeling where when her mother died -sniffle-.

But yeah I don't want neutral if it's either pacifying or robotic, true the dialogue for sarcastic/funny could use some work, I rarely even smiled, but the expansions DID improve on that. Lulz spit mages.

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 31 août 2012 - 08:18 .

[deatharmonic]

I hate being bottlenecked into being sarcastic just because I don't want to be diplomatic or angry. It makes no sense at all, not everything I say needs to have an emotional tone attached to it.

[thats1evildude]

I don't know why people have such a bias against the diplomatic dialogue options. Most of the time it's just straight talk.

Mascha: Please! Can you help me? My brother …
DiploHawke: What happened to your brother?

I don't know how you could possibly get "OMG HAWKE IS SUCH A DOORMAT" from that.

Anyways, I never stick to one set of dialogue options anyway. I throw out plenty of sarcastic and aggressive responses — it's whatever fits the situation.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 31 août 2012 - 08:51 .

[gangly369]

I loved my sarcastic Hawke. Hilarious dialogue, and I felt the VA was well done

[JohnCena94]

coles4971 wrote...

I'd rather neutral. Making a sarcastic personality means there has to be a sarcastic response in all situations which just ends up in some really poor jokes. Oh, Viscount your son died? herpderp at least the day can't get any worse, it's pretty late now TROLOLOLOLOL.

EXACTLY! That is the one bad thing about the tones. My Hawke liked to joke, but the charcter I was RP wouldn't joke when moments like that occured, it makes it awkward.

[Renmiri1]

No one ever said you had to take ALL the sarcastic options. You just have to take a majority of them. It's not the Paragon / Rebel ME system.

[Plaintiff]

I think sarcastic dialogue is VASTLY preferable to "neutral", whatever the hell that means. I'd rather my character try to be witty (even if he fails), than simply have no personality at all.

Neutral is just... nothing.

[Plaintiff]

Chiramu wrote...

There's too many "witty" remarks in Dragon Age imo :<. That's the only reason I hate the "witty" Hawke :<. Why can't Hawke's lines be delivered out of timing or something? Most of us won't be able to deliver a perfectly witty line in the right situation.

There needs to be a normal Hawke, that has a sense of humour but bloody knows when to take things seriously.

You have the power to choose if and when Hawke takes things seriously. If you took the sarcastic option even though you felt it was inappropriate, then that's on you, the player.

[cJohnOne]

Hmmm.. Sarcastic takes up alot of your dialogue resources that could be used for greater choice in different role playing personalities. Not to mention it must be difficult to come up snarky answers all the time. Or if you snarky you can't be something else in the game.

[Parmida]

I actually loved Troll personality.I know that he's an ass sometimes but I loved it. I think it's a troll personality more than sarcastic. most of his responses made me just bust a kidney laughing.
I really hope that they give that option again in DA3.

[cJohnOne]

Maybe I just disagree with the personalities choosen on the dialogue wheel especially sarcastic and aggressive. I don't mind diplamatic except that it is boring.

[luciferslight]

Plaintiff wrote...

I think sarcastic dialogue is VASTLY preferable to "neutral", whatever the hell that means. I'd rather my character try to be witty (even if he fails), than simply have no personality at all.

Neutral is just... nothing.

you're right, neutral is nothing...I always choose the sarcastic/charming options mainly becuase they actually have some oomph behind them....Personality etc....

[Gibb_Shepard]

Plaintiff wrote...

I think sarcastic dialogue is VASTLY preferable to "neutral", whatever the hell that means. I'd rather my character try to be witty (even if he fails), than simply have no personality at all.

Neutral is just... nothing.

You have a temperemental blood mage on the right, a zealous Templar with a 2H sword on the left, and your choices are:

1. Templars are oppressive pieces of ****!
2. Mages are crazy devil spawn!
3. LOLZ! Have i ever told you guys how much i like kittens?

Any character, at least with a half a brain, would refuse to take sides; a NUETRAL stance. But no, the character has to be a completely inappropriate dunce. This is a problem, and it needs fixing.

[Plaintiff]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I think sarcastic dialogue is VASTLY preferable to "neutral", whatever the hell that means. I'd rather my character try to be witty (even if he fails), than simply have no personality at all.

Neutral is just... nothing.

You have a temperemental blood mage on the right, a zealous Templar with a 2H sword on the left, and your choices are:

1. Templars are oppressive pieces of ****!
2. Mages are crazy devil spawn!
3. LOLZ! Have i ever told you guys how much i like kittens?

Any character, at least with a half a brain, would refuse to take sides; a NUETRAL stance. But no, the character has to be a completely inappropriate dunce. This is a problem, and it needs fixing.

Except that's not how dialogue worked in DA2 at all. In the vast majority of cases, "Yes/No" dialogue was signified by a green tick or a red 'x', or a squiggly-arrow-thing, and the emotional tone of your acceptance or refusal was predetermined by your personality, which was established by earlier dialogue choices.

So yeah.

And in a game based largely on making complex moral choices, giving players an easy out through a "neutral" option just cheapens the entire experience.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 01 septembre 2012 - 08:23 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Plaintiff wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I think sarcastic dialogue is VASTLY preferable to "neutral", whatever the hell that means. I'd rather my character try to be witty (even if he fails), than simply have no personality at all.

Neutral is just... nothing.

You have a temperemental blood mage on the right, a zealous Templar with a 2H sword on the left, and your choices are:

1. Templars are oppressive pieces of ****!
2. Mages are crazy devil spawn!
3. LOLZ! Have i ever told you guys how much i like kittens?

Any character, at least with a half a brain, would refuse to take sides; a NUETRAL stance. But no, the character has to be a completely inappropriate dunce. This is a problem, and it needs fixing.

Except that's not how dialogue worked in DA2 at all. In the vast majority of cases, "Yes/No" dialogue was signified by a green tick or a red 'x', or a squiggly-arrow-thing, and the emotional tone of your acceptance or refusal was predetermined by your personality, which was established by earlier dialogue choices.

So yeah.

And in a game based largely on making complex moral choices, giving players an easy out through a "neutral" option just cheapens the entire experience.

It was an exaggerated example. The point still stands for less important situations. Even in situations where you have the choice of comforting someone, telling them to harden up or making fun of their hairstyle, a stoic indifferent option should be present. The sarcastic option is already the indifferent one, it's just not how i want my character to act. When you;re sarcastic, you're sarcastic. When you're indifferent, it can be for many, MANY more reasons. It doesn't solidify your character into one personality trait, unlike the sarcastic option. The sarcastic option should honestly only be a contextual one, and should be replaced by a stoic neutral option as a main stay.

And in major decisions, i agree that neutrality is a hindrance. But we were talking about the dialogue system, not the choice and consequence system.

And morally complex choices in DA2? lolz.