100 réponses à ce sujet

[cJohnOne]

How about Greedy and Lustful as Personalities? Would you like to see that?

[jwalker]

What bothered a bit about neutral options was sometimes the tone and voice inflexion was too different to any of the other options (nice, sarcastic, aggressive), like you were suddenly participating in a different conversation or that your hawke was a different one. I felt like that specially with all the "investigate" options.

After a few playthroughs, I stopped taking some of those so I wouldn't have such contrast of "mood" in the same conversation.

Modifié par jwalker, 01 septembre 2012 - 04:43 .

[cJohnOne]

cJohnOne wrote...

How about Greedy and Lustful as Personalities? Would you like to see that?

er..  I meant  Treasure Hunter and Scoundrel.

[Fallstar]

There should be neutral or sarcastic options depending on the situation, or indeed have both available at once. They need to get rid of this hard and fast rule they have where every conversation MUST have a Diplomatic/Bendoverbackwards Sarcastic/Charming Direct/Angry option. Give us different options depending on the conversation.

[cJohnOne]

DuskWarden wrote...

There should be neutral or sarcastic options depending on the situation, or indeed have both available at once. They need to get rid of this hard and fast rule they have where every conversation MUST have a Diplomatic/Bendoverbackwards Sarcastic/Charming Direct/Angry option. Give us different options depending on the conversation.

I agree with the point of getting rid of the hard fast options but it would make it messier and not as easy as having the three options.  It would slow down convesations considerably that way.

[Fallstar]

cJohnOne wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

There should be neutral or sarcastic options depending on the situation, or indeed have both available at once. They need to get rid of this hard and fast rule they have where every conversation MUST have a Diplomatic/Bendoverbackwards Sarcastic/Charming Direct/Angry option. Give us different options depending on the conversation.

I agree with the point of getting rid of the hard fast options but it would make it messier and not as easy as having the three options.  It would slow down convesations considerably that way.

If by slow conversations down you mean that conversations would now require more thought than "I'm an angry hawke so select the bottom option every time" then that's hardly a bad thing. If it encourages character development beyond angry - sarcastic -nice then it's a very good thing.

One of the advantages of the silent protagonist is that for many dialogue lines, you could interpret how they sounded for yourself. So you could say things irritably, amicably, respectfully, jokingly etc. That level of complexity has been thrown out of the window in favour of this vastly simplified system we currently have, where Hawke basically uses 7 tones of voice over the course of a 7 year period. Which is obviously ridiculous.

However, that level of complexity is not mutually exclusive with a voiced protagonist. It would be perfectly possible to have the voiced protagonist's dialogue lines read

[Diplomatic] -
[Wistfully] -
[Playfully] -
[Tired] -

Etc.

The tone descriptor should be fit to the line, rather than the other way round.

Finally, if we must only have the six dialogue options, at least give us those six options all of the time. It irritated me no end when I wanted to be direct, but there was an angry option in it's place. Especially problematic was when I wanted to be charming; it seemed that the charming option was the rarest of the 6.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 01 septembre 2012 - 05:40 .

[Renmiri1]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And morally complex choices in DA2? lolz.

????

So you have no trouble deciding if mages or templars are righ at any point in time ? And you agree 100% with all mages decisions or abhor 100% all that they do ?

DAO is pretty Manichaeist  Darkspawn are evil. Period. Archdemon ? 100% evil. No redeeming qualities. Loghain ? Wrong 100% of the time(*).

DA2 is a lot more nunaced and every decision has its pros and cons, morally. That is called complexity in my book.


(*) unless on the last minutes of the game you give him some darkspawn blood to drink and he realizes the blight is real after hearing the Archdemon's calling

Modifié par Renmiri1, 01 septembre 2012 - 05:58 .

[Fallstar]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And morally complex choices in DA2? lolz.

DAO is pretty Manichaeist  Darkspawn are evil. Period. Archdemon ? 100% evil. No redeeming qualities. Loghain ? Wrong 100% of the time(*).

You aren't giving the archdemon enough credit there. Bear in mind the archdemons are originally Old Gods, who become corrupted against their will. They are forced to take the darkspawn blight and become what they do. If someone has absolutely no control over their actions, can you blame them? Things aren't as black and white as you make out.

[coles4971]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And morally complex choices in DA2? lolz.

????

So you have no trouble deciding if mages or templars are righ at any point in time ? And you agree 100% with all mages decisions or abhor 100% all that they do ?

DAO is pretty Manichaeist  Darkspawn are evil. Period. Archdemon ? 100% evil. No redeeming qualities. Loghain ? Wrong 100% of the time(*).

DA2 is a lot more nunaced and every decision has its pros and cons, morally. That is called complexity in my book.


(*) unless on the last minutes of the game you give him some darkspawn blood to drink and he realizes the blight is real after hearing the Archdemon's calling

are you seriously saying Loghain's just some generic bad dude?

He's probably one of the more complex characters Bioware has made. What reason did he even have to believe Grey Wardens were the only ones who could kill the Archdemon anyway? It's not like they just told everyone "yeah, you need us cos we drink their blood"

[garrusfan1]

I loved the sarcastic options

[GodWood]

Renmiri1 wrote...
DAO is pretty Manichaeist  Darkspawn are evil. Period. Archdemon ? 100% evil. No redeeming qualities. Loghain ? Wrong 100% of the time(*).

The hundreds of Loghain debates post-DA:O would disagree with you.

DA2 is a lot more nunaced and every decision has its pros and cons, morally. That is called complexity in my book.

Having everyone be insane is not complexity. Any complexity that existed within the mage/templar subplot already existed in DA:O. All DA2 did was rehash it poorly.

Modifié par GodWood, 02 septembre 2012 - 12:25 .

[cJohnOne]

Scoundrel is more varied than I thought. He can do alot of things: drink, tell jokes, lust, be greedy,tell tales,do battlecries,and lie and be charming. Can you think of any others?

What do you think of the Scoundrel as a dialogue option?

[thats1evildude]

DuskWarden wrote...

You aren't giving the archdemon enough credit there. Bear in mind the archdemons are originally Old Gods, who become corrupted against their will. They are forced to take the darkspawn blight and become what they do. If someone has absolutely no control over their actions, can you blame them? Things aren't as black and white as you make out.

Is it against their will? The Old Gods manipulated the Tevinter magisters into entering the Golden City and their song calls out to the darkspawn. I don't think that they're as unwilling as you believe.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Can't we have a protagonist who is funny without being sarcastic.

[PsychoBlonde]

DinoSteve wrote...

Can't we have a protagonist who is funny without being sarcastic.

Well, this just requires some further questions:

Is it POSSIBLE to be funny without being sarcastic?  I mean, what are the options here?  Flamboyantly Gay?  Dumb and Dumber?  The Pink Panther? Can you think of a single comedy that involves NO sarcasm or irony?  There will be funny moments that aren't sarcastic but you can't sustain that kind of thing as an entire personality tone without turning the protagonist into the comic relief.  Do you really want to play as the adorable sidekick?  *Headscratch*  actually, that might be an interesting writing assignment.

[Uhh.. Jonah]

I loved the sarcastic option. It gave my Hawke character, which sometimes I felt my Shepard lacked. And it fits Dragon Age. Dragon Age is full of humor- MotA, the party banter. Without sarcasm I feel a huge chunk of Dragon is gone. Although, I do feel at times the sarcastic tone is a bit unnecessary. Like when people die and such. But I see a heap load of more pros of this feature than cons.

[Sejborg]

Oh yes. The sarcastic options in Dragon Age 2 are just sooo incredibly funny...

[Wulfram]

I think "Scoundrel" is too much of a personality, rather than being a tone.

[cJohnOne]

Wulfram wrote...

I think "Scoundrel" is too much of a personality, rather than being a tone.

But it has more flavor then say evil.  If you plugged it into the evil slot it would be a better game.  Especailly since a Scoundrel can be evil or good!

[cJohnOne]

What's wrong with being a personality instead of a tone?

[Nomen Mendax]

Why does everytone assume that we can only ever have three options for tone? I don't want the sarcastic tone options replaced by neutral tone options, but I would like the addition of neutral tone options.  There were quite a few occasions where my Hawke didn't want to be overly sympathetic or aggressive but also didn't want to make jokes about a situation.  

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 02 septembre 2012 - 03:13 .

[Wulfram]

cJohnOne wrote...

What's wrong with being a personality instead of a tone?

Personality is something the player should create through their choices, not something that should be done as a pre-packaged bundle.

[cJohnOne]

That's a good point but the dialogue options are so interesting with Soundrel how could you not want him.

Are their more personalities like snow white's Dwarves(grumpy, sleepy, dopey etc.)

[nightscrawl]

Emzamination wrote...

Neutral usually falls under the diplomatic tone

This depends on the conversation really. For instance, on the first flirt opportunity with Anders you have the option of (1) picking the heart and flirting back, (2) blue/nice which is taken by him as a positive/interest, (3) purple which is effectively neutral in this instance, or (4) red and being a total ass. With the neutral/humor option you are neither showing interest or totally rejecting him. This can work for you in a couple of ways: you can avoid the "I'll break your heart" lame dialogue while still having the opportunity to romance him in Act 2 if you pursue it further by flirting, and you have remained a nice person but not shown any interest. In this case, and in some others, it's an example of using humor or being light to avoid a serious conversation or change the subject.

That is the most dramatic example I can think of, but I know there were others instances where purple was neutral as well.

There are degrees of dialogue while picking the different colors. Sometimes blue can be sappy (angel) or tactful (olive branch); purple can be snarky, flippant, callous (mask), or merely light hearted (gem); red can be direct (gavel) and serious or angry for no reason (fist). The lines don't always follow those rules, particularly with gavel vs fist, but it's relatively consistent for the most part.


Back to the topic though, there does need to be a truly "neutral" option. I don't think it should be "Yes, No, or make a joke." More lines that correspond to "you could be right," "you might be wrong," "let me think about it," "I'm not sure this is such a good idea," so on, and so forth, would be a nice addition to dialogue. The neutral options regarding the quests can have the effect of leaving the NPC standing there, waiting for you to return and either reject or accept the quest, acting as an "I don't want to accept the quest at this time" button, since accepting quests can sometimes have the consequence of adding random encounters to maps, being locked to a certain companion, or changing other things you might not want at that time.

Nomen Mendax wrote...

There were quite a few occasions where my Hawke didn't want to be overly sympathetic or aggressive but also didn't want to make jokes about a situation.

Despite what Bioware thinks, this is exactly where the full line would come in handy. There were several occasions where I would go with a tone, usually purple, sometimes red, and be cringing before I pushed it, waiting for some inappropriate remark, and be pleasantly surprised with the result and think "oh that wasn't bad at all." That anxiety could have been avoided completely if we had the full line.

Yes, I know it's useless to harp on it since they don't want to do that. /sigh

Modifié par nightscrawl, 02 septembre 2012 - 05:22 .