298 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

I understand it is not the case for all players since everyone does not try to roleplay a character which is molded outside of the game.

I think it's more of an issue of how people actually do their roleplaying. That I don't need the full line doesn't mean I do not know how to roleplay a character that is molded outside the game. Most of my characters are.

[eroeru]

I suspect what people have in mind with "real" role-playing is a (higher) degree of involving one's imagination.

I can role-play Sherlock Holmes for example as I can with Hawke. But that's not role-play in the classical, DnD sense.

[Cimeas]

What it comes down to (from what I've read), is that sylvius wants Bioware to make a world, and then let you do whatever you want in it. Just a world, some trees, some towns, some lore, and then Sylvius will create his own fan-fiction adventure in that world. Well that's what Skyrim is for.

DA is about telling a story that you can influence. Hawke always becomes a champion, Shepard always kills Sovereign (if you complete the games of course), but whether they were male or female, who they romanced, whether they were nice or mean, funny or humorless, THAT is what you get to decide.

Modifié par Cimeas, 16 septembre 2012 - 12:05 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Cimeas wrote...
DA is about telling a story that you can influence.

Which is not true for DA 2. You can't influence anything others than the companions.  The world is already at the brink of war. Every single events outside companions personal quest will be unfolded regardless of what you do. 
You're not even required to play DA 2 and still Hakwe can play on his/her own like the three years time skip, making friends, opening bank accounts, involve himself/herself with prince of Starkhaven etc..   

Cimeas wrote...

Hawke always becomes a champion,

and BioWare's character.

Cimeas wrote...

Shepard always kills Sovereign (if you complete the games of course),

Not in my game. Sheppard resign after ME 2. He never returns to ME 3. Hence, The reapers win and the entire civilization is destroyed.

Cimeas wrote...


but whether they were male or female, who they romanced, whether they were nice or mean, funny or humorless, THAT is what you get to decide.

And why would I pick one of those 3 personality traits? How would deciding BioWare's blue or red or purple Hawke suppose to help me roleplay my character? As far as I concern, regardless they were mean, funny or humorless, Hawke always be a goody-goody friendly character and an errand boy who will gladly help people you don't even know.  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 16 septembre 2012 - 12:42 .

[RedArmyShogun]

Oh look more D&D fan boy Q_Q ing

[Cimeas]

If you can't roleplay your character within Bioware's archetypes, then their games are not for you. Evidently millions of players *can*.

I don't mind more choices, I welcome them. But I don't want to lose good graphics, animations and voice acting to get there.

[Lotion Soronarr]

simfamSP wrote...
If that was true, the narrative as a whole would suffer. The Warden is not aware of Loghain's internal conflict, and it remains so as long as the player suits him to that role. Even when playing tabletop the player is aware of certain things that the character isn't: it is vital to the narrative and setting.

In DA's case, the telling and the creation of a narrative co-exist rather peacefully, as long as the player doesn't allow the overall narrative interfere with his/her character.

ETA: Just a side note, please explain if this is your personal preference, or if it is how you feel about the way a narrative is told in RPGs. Because if it's the former then there is no need for this discussion, no?

You know, there are many ways to deliver information to the player (or player character).
A pure plot dump is not a really good one...

[Shadow Fox]

Quething wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
I never had a problem with it as I knew it was a balancing act by the developers If you're a squishy Mage you get Carver as a free  tank/damage dealer for the first act or as a Warrior/Rogue you get Bethaney to help writtle down enemy numbers or act as a healer/buffer or maybe I just don't expect to be able to control every aspect of a video game's narrative.

... and if anyone were insisting that players should be able to control everything, that might be a relevant statement.

However, people are actually discussing whether the choices that are available to us already are sufficient in number, are actually choices at all, or actually "meaningful" if they are (with perhaps a side tangent about what meaningful even means in this context), and whether they achieve BioWare's goal in terms of player response, and indeed what BioWare's goal in terms of player response might be. So your random boasting that you're capable of sane expectations for a video game seems a bit off-topic, and an oddly unfitting response to my own post, which you quote despite not actually responding to.

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Another issue I have with cutscenes is the game "cheating". The obvious example of this is the death of your sibling, which I really disliked. The game ignores its own rules for dealing with combat and kills a companion. It basically tells you as a player that your actions in-game don't matter because the game is going to tell the story it wants. How come when I fight the ogre I have HP and can use skills and healing potions but when Carver/Bethany runs at it he/she dies instantly? There are a couple of other occasions when the game does the same thing and its something I'd like Bioware to avoid in the future.

As far as I'm concerned the game can do what it want when the PC is off-screen but anything else should follow the rules, so the PC should get a chance to do something, whether its acting in a conversation or going into combat.

I'm okay with this, because it's combat itself that's the gameplay convention I'm overlooking in order to enjoy the story. I don't assume my characters are superhuman freaks of nature who can conjure six thousand bolts out of thin air and fire them all in the space of three seconds, or keep fighting with arrows sticking out of their necks without even appearing to notice. It doesn't make sense. But it does make things fun in a way that ending the game the very first time your PC gets hit by an enemy sword would not.

The problem for me is that the cutscene has to be believable. When the ogre smashes Hawke's sibling... where is Hawke? It's a long cutscene. They were standing all of four feet apart when the scene started. It's not even about why Hawke didn't get to her sibling in time, it's that Hawke should have been in-frame already when the scene started. If she jumps forward with a fireball or a dagger and tries to stop the ogre but fails, fine. But it's impossible to feel like the cutscene is actually happening in the gameworld when Hawke doesn't even try to intervene despite being in a position to do so and having both means and time.

(Well, it makes sense by the end of the game, when you realize that Not Doing Jack is Hawke's entire raison d'etre, but in the moment it's pretty immersion-violating.)

Having read through this thread that's exactly what some people were doing and yes I did respond to your point the complaining about Bethany/Carver and did it ever accure to you that Hawke might have expected their sibling to run and  not try  to be a hero and  do something stupid and was too late to stop them you know something that happens IRL all the time and why is it Hawke's sole responsiblity why didn't the other sibling,Leandra or Aveline do something?

[Foolsfolly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Well, you could try to work from the DA:O base rather just scrapping it and going for Mass Effect, but with less player control.

(At least Mass Effect gave you some control over your speech)

IMO adding a dialogue wheel is adding to the DA:O base, is it not? (Behind the scenes the engine treats conversations virtually the same in both games, with DA2 having improvements in the ease of rapid scene development and other little tweaks that we saw).

As an anecdote, the most frequent "complaint" (and they all said it was a minor one) with DAO amongst my friends was why we regressed in terms of how we presented the player in conversations. There ARE people that felt the lack of VO and dialogue wheel (especially among console players) was a let down in the game.

So is adding the wheel truly a "scrapping" of the (IMO already heavily cinematic) system of DAO?

I will admit when I first started DA:O and was still creating the character I came to the 'Voice' section and was excited. "Holy ****! I can choose a voice!"

I cycled through them picked the one I liked the most... and then was promptly disappointed when I found out that my voice choice only changed battle shouts and lock picking successes.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Cimeas wrote...

If you can't roleplay your character within Bioware's archetypes, then their games are not for you.

What BioWare's archetypes are you talking about? Baldur Gate and Neverwinter Nights D&D Edition or KoTor or Cinematic Action Game with RPG Element like ME 2 and DA 2? Because all this "BioWare's archetypes" are different from each other. We see silent protagonist and blank slate character in Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age origins. Is that the kind of Archtype are you talking about? Or the 180 degree turn of Cinematic Action game with RPG element like DA 2, ME 2 and ME 3?

Cimeas wrote...
Evidently millions of players *can*.

You mean about 2 million players *can*? That's a very small number compare to let say, Skyrim? Mostly JRPG fans, I guess since they have nowhere  to go after the stagnation of SquareEnix's Final Fantasy. /sarcasm

Cimeas wrote...
I don't mind more choices, I welcome them. But I don't want to lose good graphics, animations and voice acting to get there.

Good graphic, animation and voice acting can be easily found in non roleplaying games like Koei's Samurai Warrior or Dynasy Warriors.I play and enjoy those kind of games too. I also enjoy cinematic animated movie too like Final Fantasy The Sprit Within. It's pure movie with no gameplay. But why would I care for all those things in a RPG like BioWare's games?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 16 septembre 2012 - 06:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Imperial Sentinel Arian wrote...

I think the retreat of a big army is observable from a high tower.

If he and Alistair were unconscious atm, Morrigan and her mother should have told them about that occurrence. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie]

Morrigan does tell them.  The Warden asks what happened with the battle, and Morrigan says Loghain retreated while the King's forces were slaughtered.

I'm saying that without the cutscene there's little or no reason for the player to believe her, and I think doubting Morrigan's story would make for a better game.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think it's more of an issue of how people actually do their roleplaying. That I don't need the full line doesn't mean I do not know how to roleplay a character that is molded outside the game. Most of my characters are.

Maybe you, then, can answer the question I've been asking basically everyone for over a year:

How do you choose among dialogue options when you can't tell which options will contradict your character design?

Cimeas wrote...

What it comes down to (from what I've read), is that sylvius wants Bioware to make a world, and then let you do whatever you want in it. Just a world, some trees, some towns, some lore, and then Sylvius will create his own fan-fiction adventure in that world. Well that's what Skyrim is for.

That's both not an accurate description of my position, and poor advice.  As I've said before, BioWare's pre-voice
games were better at allowing me roleplaying freedom that Bethesda's games ever have been (with the possible exception of Fallout 3).

The world BioWare creates includes events, like those you would describe as "the story".  BioWare's error, of late, is in forcing the PC to play a specific role in that story.  I have no objection to the PC being forced to play some
role in BioWare's story, as their stories are typically large enough to accommodate a wide variety of character designs, but with their voiced games they are now forcing the PC to play exactly one role, and that role is of BioWare's choosing.

That's where BioWare has gone wrong.

DA is about telling a story that you can influence.

That's what BioWare's games have always been, but now with DA2 you can influence only a very small amount, and you're not allowed to play a character of your own design while you do it.

simfamSP wrote...

If that was true, the narrative as a whole would suffer. The Warden is not aware of Loghain's internal conflict, and it remains so as long as the player suits him to that role. Even when playing tabletop the player is aware of certain things that the character isn't: it is vital to the narrative and setting.

The narrative that matters is the PC's internal development (something over which BioWare can't ever really have control).  Being given information not available to the PC gets in the way of that.

And I would disagree this is done in tabletop.  In tabletop, metagaming negatively impacts not just the player who does it, but everyone else involved in the game.  It's even more important to keep this sort of information away from the players in a tabletop game.

In DA's case, the telling and the creation of a narrative co-exist rather peacefully, as long as the player doesn't allow the overall narrative interfere with his/her character.

ETA: Just a side note, please explain if this is your personal preference, or if it is how you feel about the way a narrative is told in RPGs. Because if it's the former then there is no need for this discussion, no?

I think its imperative that RPGs not go out of their way to spoil the story for the player, and that's exactly what these cutscenes do.  By telling us of Loghain's internal struggle in advance, it allows the player to determine, in advance, how the Warden will respond.  That's almost guaranteed to produce a less genuine reaction from the PC than if the player hadn't known about those details until the very moment they became relevant.

Loghain's internal struggles are irrelevant to the story until the Warden learns of them, so there's no benefit at all to revealing them in advance.

This isn't like reading a book where we can jump around from one character's perspective to another, because the book is already written and the readers's perception of these characters won't change their behaviour.  In a roleplaying game, limiting the player's perception to that of his characters is vital to limit inadvertant metgaming.  Yes, we can all avoid intentional metagaming ourselves, but I doubt any of us have the ability to unring that bell once we know.

Look at Bhelen and Harrowmont.  There's very little reason to choose between them from the Warden's point of view, but with the benefit of hindsight there is very much reason to choose between them.  Would a player always be able to ignore that information if he had had it in advance, and thus had never experienced that choice without having any particular reason to choose one side over the other?  Or would he delude himself and rationalise his choice?  I'm reasonably certain it is the latter.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 16 septembre 2012 - 10:35 .

[Allan Schumacher]

How do you choose among dialogue options when you can't tell which options will contradict your character design?

I've always chosen my lines based on intent. Hence the wheel vs. full line tells me virtually the same thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

How do you choose among dialogue options when you can't tell which options will contradict your character design?

I've always chosen my lines based on intent. Hence the wheel vs. full line tells me virtually the same thing.

I don't really understand what that means.

I tend to chose lines based on whether they're compatible with the character I've designed.  In a silent PC game, this is easy, because there's almost always some way to deliver one of the available that lines that suits my character.

With the paraphrases, I can't tell whether the lines will break my character, so I'm left guessing.

How does choosing based on intent work?  I honestly don't get it.  Perhaps an example would help.

And I'm just asking Allan.  Many people have said they choose based on intent, and I don't understand what that means.  Anyone who chooses lines based on intent could potentially answer this.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I've always chosen my lines based on intent. Hence the wheel vs. full line tells me virtually the same thing.

I don't really understand what that means.

I tend to chose lines based on whether they're compatible with the character I've designed.  In a silent PC game, this is easy, because there's almost always some way to deliver one of the available that lines that suits my character.

With the paraphrases, I can't tell whether the lines will break my character, so I'm left guessing.

How does choosing based on intent work?  I honestly don't get it.  Perhaps an example would help.

And I'm just asking Allan.  Many people have said they choose based on intent, and I don't understand what that means.  Anyone who chooses lines based on intent could potentially answer this.

I'm not Allan - but I hope you forgive me.

I understand chosing based on intent.  It's giving up a bunch of control of your character (something you are loathe to do, and that is probably exactly where you cannot understand it), and I do it as an acknowledgment of the type of game I am playing and how it was designed to be played.

Intent is picking the "kind, smarmy or rude" angle in DA2, for example.  You are going the same way, more or less, but you get to pick how benevolent or beligerent you are about going that way.

It's a kind of role-playing - not my preferred, and not what you want, Sylvius, I know.

You are shaping the game's character, not controlling your own.  Choosing intent is giving a mood or direction to your character's dialog, not actually choosing what words they will say or (sometimes) even what answer they are actually giving.

Again, I think you aren't getting it because it strays outside of what you want to do in a role-playing game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That seems to match the disposition of the tone icons in DA2, but people say they played the same way in DAO.

So how would you choose dialogue based on intent in DAO? There's no indication of intent in DAO beyond the literal content of the lines.

I'm not looking to understand why someone would play this way - I'm looking to understand the mechanics of how it is done.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't really understand what that means.

I tend to chose lines based on whether they're compatible with the character I've designed.  In a silent PC game, this is easy, because there's almost always some way to deliver one of the available that lines that suits my character.

With the paraphrases, I can't tell whether the lines will break my character, so I'm left guessing.

How does choosing based on intent work?  I honestly don't get it.  Perhaps an example would help.

And I'm just asking Allan.  Many people have said they choose based on intent, and I don't understand what that means.  Anyone who chooses lines based on intent could potentially answer this.

Say an NPC just betrayed my character, and upon being informed I get the full lines of dialogue such as:

1) I understand.  You did what you had to do.
2) I'm willing to let it go.  This time....
3) You will pay for what you did (Kill)

There's two ways I can do this.  Before reading my responses I can decide "How is my character feeling."  If I decide "pissed off" I will choose option 3.  Alternatively, I can look at the 3 options and decide "which of these options seems most appropriate for my character?"  (I do this the most)

If I were to use a dialogue wheel, the responses could be like this:

1) I understand.
2) I'm not impressed.
3) You will pay!

Now, option 3 is one where I can understand some people going 'Whoa whoa whoa, I didn't mean to kill him!" which is where an icon that depicts "I will kill this NPC" works for me.


There are times that I go "Hmmm, that wasn't quite what I expected" with the dialogue wheel just as there are times I go "lol evidently my character said that differently than I expected" with full lines.  It's a wash, and I find both cases are about equivalently rare.

[Merlex]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

If you can't roleplay your character within Bioware's archetypes, then their games are not for you.

What BioWare's archetypes are you talking about? Baldur Gate and Neverwinter Nights D&D Edition or KoTor or Cinematic Action Game with RPG Element like ME 2 and DA 2? Because all this "BioWare's archetypes" are different from each other. We see silent protagonist and blank slate character in Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age origins. Is that the kind of Archtype are you talking about? Or the 180 degree turn of Cinematic Action game with RPG element like DA 2, ME 2 and ME 3?

NWN's dialogue choices were not any more varied than DA2. You basically had three choices, and sometimes investigative options. The big difference is the paraphrasing, which sucks imo. The voice breaks it for some people as well, because it doesn't sound the way they imagined it in their heads. Sometimehappened for me as well.

***NWN SPOILER***
You were still led to the same outcomes no matter your choices. You still had to gather the items for the cure, bring Dester back, find the Words of Power, go to the enemy city, and Aribeth still dies, ect, ect, ect.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Cimeas wrote...
I don't mind more choices, I welcome them. But I don't want to lose good graphics, animations and voice acting to get there.

Good graphic, animation and voice acting can be easily found in non roleplaying games like Koei's Samurai Warrior or Dynasy Warriors.I play and enjoy those kind of games too. I also enjoy cinematic animated movie too like Final Fantasy The Sprit Within. It's pure movie with no gameplay. But why would I care for all those things in a RPG like BioWare's games?

Graphics shouldn't have anything to do with player agency, but the over use of cimematic cut scenes does. But i like cut scenes. I enjoyed watching Dester burn, felt sorry for Aribeth at her lover's grave.

I was surprised when i first entered the bonepit. DA2 does use way too many of them though.

Modifié par Merlex, 17 septembre 2012 - 12:33 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Allan, the way I can see the line having a different outcome than I expected, however, is that my line was misinterpreted. If I say 'I'm willing to let it go, this time' and the NPC reacts like I just threatened him and gets angry, as opposed to the more thankful response I had intended for my mercy, then I can assume the character misstook my kindness for weakness.

If I chose 'Im not impressed' with the dialogue wheel, and my character says 'You're lucky I don't cut you down where you stand!' I would be extremely confused. In that case, my character says a line I didn't, at all, intend.

In the first example, I can assume NLC miscommunication - something normal and common between humans. In the second example, the character I am playing is now the one who is reacting in a way I didn't expect - essentially, I am miscommunicating with my character. It's hard to roleplay someone you can't always communicate your intent to.

I realize it seems like semantics when discussing it like this, but when I am playing a game, I feel like saying 'whoops, the NPC didn't take that line like I had anticipated.' With the voiced PC and wheel, I feel like saying 'Hawke, that's not what I wants you to do.' Which makes the character I am playing as not me, not in my control, as someone who is outside y control.

And regardless of how often it happens, the fear it introduces is problem enough. If it happens once, the illusion is dispelled and I am wary of being surprised again in the future. Again, the first option is able to hold that illusion together without any work from me. The second breaks it and needs to try and bandage he illusion in every conversation afterwards, as I am now bracing for it to happen every time I select a conversation option.

[Allan Schumacher]

Eh, I'm dropping out of this conversation as it's already been beaten to death.

I was asked for an explanation and I gave it. I've already stated why "well he just misinterpreted it" doesn't work for me in other posts. It's just as jarring.

[Nomen Mendax]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Say an NPC just betrayed my character, and upon being informed I get the full lines of dialogue such as:

1) I understand.  You did what you had to do.
2) I'm willing to let it go.  This time....
3) You will pay for what you did (Kill)

There's two ways I can do this.  Before reading my responses I can decide "How is my character feeling."  If I decide "pissed off" I will choose option 3.  Alternatively, I can look at the 3 options and decide "which of these options seems most appropriate for my character?"  (I do this the most)

If I were to use a dialogue wheel, the responses could be like this:

1) I understand.
2) I'm not impressed.
3) You will pay!

Now, option 3 is one where I can understand some people going 'Whoa whoa whoa, I didn't mean to kill him!" which is where an icon that depicts "I will kill this NPC" works for me.


There are times that I go "Hmmm, that wasn't quite what I expected" with the dialogue wheel just as there are times I go "lol evidently my character said that differently than I expected" with full lines.  It's a wash, and I find both cases are about equivalently rare.

The problem I have with this is that all too often in DA2 the paraphase doesn't give me enough information about the full response.

To give one concrete example at one point after one of my companions (let's call him/her x) killed someone I chose the paraphrase:

She deserved it

Which my PC feels that she did because she had just sacrificed her servants to gain power (to stop us killing her which, by the way, I thought was a nice bit of writing).  My character's full response was, and as I don't have a perfect memory I'm paraphrasing here:

She deserved it because of the way she treated you

And here's the problem, my PC finds x to be somewhat irritating and self-absorbed and certainly felt that the very recent murder of numerous servants was a much more pressing reason for not caring about the death of the villain than her inhumanity to x in the past.

To a greater or a lesser extent this happens a lot in DA2.  Clearly this doesn't bother a lot of people, but it does annoy me and takes me out of the game.  Thinking about it, when I select a response I am already imagining what my character is saying*, discovering that I'm wrong breaks the illusion that it is my character. 

*By which I mean the meaning of the dialogue, not the exact words.

[edit] One of the problems is that making concise paraphrases is hard (I wouldn't want to have to do it), and once you add in the (absurd, in my opinion) restriction that the paraphrase can't use the same words as the full dialogue it becomes much, much harder.  One other point, if the full response is <abc> because <xyz>, please paraphrase both abc and xyz; DA2 had a habit of just paraphrasing abc and then surprising me with xyz. [/edit]

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 17 septembre 2012 - 01:04 .

[Terror_K]

BioWare have definitely become too focused on cinematics lately to the point where player agency has suffered. ME3's massive amounts of auto-dialogue and lack of dialogue choices alone are proof of this. Then there's things like the silent protagonist being slaughtered in Dragon Age largely due to cinematic flow.

Cinematic cut-scenes and design should be used to enhance the game, not control it and not dictate player control. This is why it's pretty damn clear BioWare don't want to make RPGs any more and just want cinematic action games. They want to tell their story in their way and not have players interfere too much, and they want the character to be theirs more than ours. ME3 and DA2 had the worse player-agency of all, especially in ME3 where Shepard didn't even feel like mine at all any more, and the gaps between my various Shepards were closed to near-on non-existent. And the amount of times Patrick Weekes or some other ME3 developer responded with criticism towards the auto-dialogue and lack of choices with something along the lines of "we liked the improved cinematic flow" is very telling.

I agree that DAO found the right balance. Plenty of choices and a character that was still mine, yet decent cinematic design as well. BioWare's direction as of late has gone too far in several directions (e.g. simplicity over depth) and its reliance and cinematic flow and design has began to cripple the roleplaying side of things. A feature that should be used to merely add to the gameplay has taken control and precedence and the games have suffered for it. What we have here is the tail wagging the dog in a sense.

[Mr Fixit]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And regardless of how often it happens, the fear it introduces is problem enough. If it happens once, the illusion is dispelled and I am wary of being surprised again in the future. Again, the first option is able to hold that illusion together without any work from me. The second breaks it and needs to try and bandage he illusion in every conversation afterwards, as I am now bracing for it to happen every time I select a conversation option.

This is an interesting point to make. The uncertainty (and player insecurity) that accompanies each dialogue choice does tend to separate the player from his character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Say an NPC just betrayed my character, and upon being informed I get the full lines of dialogue such as:

1) I understand.  You did what you had to do.
2) I'm willing to let it go.  This time....
3) You will pay for what you did (Kill)

There's two ways I can do this.  Before reading my responses I can decide "How is my character feeling."  If I decide "pissed off" I will choose option 3.  Alternatively, I can look at the 3 options and decide "which of these options seems most appropriate for my character?"  (I do this the most)

I do the former almost exclusively.  Incidentally, this is why I think it's pointless of BioWare to want to control the pacing of dialogue, as this step wherein I determine how my character feels about what was just said to him can take as much as a minute.

If I were to use a dialogue wheel, the responses could be like this:

1) I understand.
2) I'm not impressed.
3) You will pay!

Now, option 3 is one where I can understand some people going 'Whoa whoa whoa, I didn't mean to kill him!" which is where an icon that depicts "I will kill this NPC" works for me.

Here, I think, is where the cinematic approach is vastly worse than the old style.  A common complaint about the unvoiced games was that the consequences (and even the NPC responses) were sometimes identical regardless of which optiopn was chosen.  But here, with these three options, that would work really well.  Imagine if these were the full text options of a silent PC.  "You will pay!" could be an empty threat - still delivered menacingly, but with no intent behind it.  But because the action is how tied directly to the dialogue selection, that option is now denied us.

Anyway, that's not what we were talking about.  Forgive the digression.

There are times that I go "Hmmm, that wasn't quite what I expected" with the dialogue wheel just as there are times I go "lol evidently my character said that differently than I expected" with full lines.  It's a wash, and I find both cases are about equivalently rare.

I find that Hawke's words are significantly off-message about 80% of the time.  Literally one in five wheel events doesn't make me grimace.

This perhaps could have been improved with better documentation of the tone icons.  Please document future games more thoroughly than you did DA2.