390 réponses à ce sujet

[andocrack]

My biggest gripe with DA2's wheel was the icons - it's a rated M game, and I don't feel like I need to be told that something will be flirty or diplomatic. It's always been fairly obvious which answers will be "good" or "bad" and which ones won't with most characters in non-wheel dialogues, but I feel like the dialogue wheel would've hurt conversations with characters like Morrigan and Sten, who come from very different social backgrounds than your typical red-blue characters.

[In Exile]

This is digging back into the thread to pull out a quote, but I really want to comment on this:

Cstaf wrote...
I think i like the "no investigate" approach better since it feels more like a real conversation with a NPC and not a "im going to interegate this NPC to milk as much information as i can out of him". But i can understand why the other side prefers to have a investigate button though.

How is this at all like a real conversation? If I have 5 questions to ask, unless the other person tells me that they have to leave or don't have time for me, I'm going to ask my 5 questions. The way DA:O handled it was nonsensical, because certain options made questions vanish, but there's no reason why they should. 

[upsettingshorts]

andocrack wrote...

My biggest gripe with DA2's wheel was the icons - it's a rated M game, and I don't feel like I need to be told that something will be flirty or diplomatic. It's always been fairly obvious which answers will be "good" or "bad" and which ones won't with most characters in non-wheel dialogues, but I feel like the dialogue wheel would've hurt conversations with characters like Morrigan and Sten, who come from very different social backgrounds than your typical red-blue characters.

I don't follow, could you elaborate?

[In Exile]

andocrack wrote...

My biggest gripe with DA2's wheel was the icons - it's a rated M game, and I don't feel like I need to be told that something will be flirty or diplomatic.

I agree with you on diplomacy (the lack of exclamation marks or "kill" usually gives it away) but I disagree with you about flirting (and by extension, sarcasm).

Being either flirty or sarcastic is all about wordplay, body-language and tone. A lot of it comes from context. But the game is limited. Context inputs aren't very well conveyed to us (because the game as to respond to a discrete something). And we can't pick the PCs body language in advance.

So all we have left is maybe guessing off the word used (if we don't know tone/intent ahead of time).

It's always been fairly obvious which answers will be "good" or "bad" and which ones won't with most characters in non-wheel dialogues, but I feel like the dialogue wheel would've hurt conversations with characters like Morrigan and Sten, who come from very different social backgrounds than your typical red-blue characters.

Why would it hurt conversations with them?

[Nomen Mendax]

andocrack wrote...

My biggest gripe with DA2's wheel was the icons - it's a rated M game, and I don't feel like I need to be told that something will be flirty or diplomatic. It's always been fairly obvious which answers will be "good" or "bad" and which ones won't with most characters in non-wheel dialogues, but I feel like the dialogue wheel would've hurt conversations with characters like Morrigan and Sten, who come from very different social backgrounds than your typical red-blue characters.

But sometimes paraphrases were indistinguishable except for the icons.  Much of this was a result of the way that DA2 paraphrases were written, but in some cases without the icon you would have been left with 2 or 3 paraphrases that were essentially the same.

I really don't see this is an issue of the game being made simpler (or less mature).

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Jade8aby88 wrote...


A cross between DA: Origins and DA2 would be awesome! In that it's set out in list form, but the character actually voices what is selected.

Obviously that would require more voice-acting work and I wouldn't have thought it possible, but then I played SWTOR and the sheer amount of voice acting that went into that, why couldn't it work with DA3 also?

I must admit that I'm only playing DA: Origins now for the first time. And although I still prefer to have a voiced protagonist. The sheer amount of options it opens up when your dialog options are in list form is amazing!

Plus it's SO much easier to navigate when in list form, as opposed to a dialog wheel.

What do you think?

No, I perfer the dialogue wheel over the list for a voiced protagonist. Bioware tried that with Leliana's Song and IMHO it didn't work very well for it. Kingdoms of Amalur: The Reckoning tried to mix the dialogue wheel and the list with a silent protagonist and it took a lot of fun out the dialogue in the game for me.  

[Nomen Mendax]

In Exile wrote...

This is digging back into the thread to pull out a quote, but I really want to comment on this:

Cstaf wrote...
I think i like the "no investigate" approach better since it feels more like a real conversation with a NPC and not a "im going to interegate this NPC to milk as much information as i can out of him". But i can understand why the other side prefers to have a investigate button though.

How is this at all like a real conversation? If I have 5 questions to ask, unless the other person tells me that they have to leave or don't have time for me, I'm going to ask my 5 questions. The way DA:O handled it was nonsensical, because certain options made questions vanish, but there's no reason why they should. 

I'd forgotten the way DAO sometimes shut you off from conversation options for no apparent reason, and I agree with you that it made no sense.

[jillabender]

David Gaider wrote…

I know that some people just don't like the perceived "mechanical" nature of the interface, or the use of the icons to make the intended tone more explicit (tones which were always present, even in DAO, as that's the way we wrote them). Abandoning the entire style to deliberately go back to a more obscure interface, however, isn't something we're going to entertain... and I personally believe wouldn't actually do what some people seem to believe it would. I do hear the criticism, but don't agree with the diagnosis. In the end, however, I'd rather show what we're doing than discuss it in this manner, so I'll hold off going into detail.

It sounds as though you're saying that when writing DA:O, you approached writing the PC's dialogue options in much the same way that you did in DA2 in terms of tone – with most responses broadly fitting into the categories of "diplomatic," "witty/sarcastic," "aggressive," and "investigative."

If that's indeed what you meant (and feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting), then perhaps it wasn't entirely accurate of me to suggest, as I have on other threads, that the PC's dialogue in DA2 was more limited on its face in terms of tone. From a purely mechanical point of view, I suppose it could be said that adding tone icons didn't in itself change the range of responses available, but only added additional information.

However, I would still say (with complete respect) that from a more subjective point of view, I found the emotional range of responses in DA2 a bit lacking, because having a voiced protagonist kept me from being able to imagine my character delivering a line with a particular shade of diplomatic, sarcastic, or aggressive – or in a way that doesn't quite fit neatly into any of those categories – as I did in DA:O. I find being able to imagine exactly how my character delivers a line to be a powerful tool in terms of stepping into the role of my character, and I couldn't help but miss that in DA2.

I have to admit that my personal preference is to play either a silent PC like the Warden, whose demeanour, personality, and outlook I feel free to define, or a voiced PC with a more pre-defined demeanour and personality like Shepard. In the latter case, I can still feel a sense of agency as a player even though the character has some hard-coded personality traits, because I can take a role in determining how the character grows and changes as a person as a result of the choices he or she makes.

When I'm given a voiced PC like Hawke, whose personality feels a bit more like a blank slate compared to Shepard, I run into difficulty. With Hawke, I don't quite have the flexibility I would need to truly make the character my own, but the character doesn't quite feel established enough to give me clear guidelines for playing him or her.

However, I fully appreciate that there are people who feel very differently, who were able to take Hawke and make him or her their own – it just didn't quite work for me.

That being said, I did have fun playing DA2, and I'm looking forward to seeing what BioWare will do with a voiced protagonist and with the dialogue wheel in DA3. Even if it turns out that the approach they take in DA3 isn't quite what I'd prefer, it won't be the end of the world, because I'll still be playing Baldur's Gate and DA:O for a long time to come.

Modifié par jillabender, 03 octobre 2012 - 02:55 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Agreed. In DA:O, I felt like I was playing the Warden. I could make a character nothing like me, or a character exactly like me, or anything in-between. But when I played Hawke, I felt I was playing a game, and that Hawke was a member of my party who everyone reacted to.

As in, I was directing where the game was going, and how the characters would act or react, but Hawke just felt like another character in the world, not the character I was controlling.

I have gone into detail about why I think this is in the past, but its nothing that hasn't been said before, both elsewhere and in this thread. So I'll just leave that as a problem statement, rather than add my editorial of why I think that is.

[Cultist]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Can you provide sources on this?

No, t'was more than 6 months ago.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Cultist wrote...

Good
old picture of RPG then and NOW have better comparison - actual
dialogue options and three equivalents of "Continue" button. And
dialogue wheel never be able to come even close to that level of
complexity in conversations, limitin us to dumbed down primitive
dialogues with three or, in best case, four options.

This
comparison is disingenuous.  The right, the fact it's deliberately
taken from a bugged out image to mock it aside, offers something to me -
a third person gamer, something the older games of BioWare never could.
 The reactivity, on a micro level, of choosing an angry dialogue option
and seeing my protagonist get angry, and the world around him react to
that anger.

 
Well of course this two pictures cannot be directly compared because
it's a parody! But the parody serves destinguish the main point -
oversimplification of dialogues in DA2 is apalling. And the problem is that DA2 exchanged complexity for reactivity.

What you see in that comparison is far different
from what I see.  The way it is presented, but in the image itself and
in your summary of it, ignores this.  That's why posters like me will
argue 'till we're blue in the face about this and we're accused of being
****s or BDF or what have you.  In your frustration at the existence
failure of old school RPGs, PE aside that is, you are pretending,
typically because you either disbelieve or don't care, other players
with different preferences exist and always have.  They are dismissed as
a new and dumb audience.  It's incorrect, and it's insulting.  So we'll
keep pushing back.

Because other players, more action oriented, is the reason BioWare turned RPG into arcade japanese slasher. And I NEVER ever said that players with different genre preferences are dumb. I said the dialogue wheel and overall simplification is dumbing down the dialogue-conversation system we had. Not every game of every genre should have complex conversations, extensive dialogue trees and so on. Call of Duty or any action game would suffer from unnecessary RPG elements in the same manner DA2 suffered from unnecessary action elements. Everything is good in its place. And when you try to appeal to Call of Duty fans at the cost of RPG fans, you shouldn't be surprised after that very fans refuse to buy your game.  There are many examples of successful merging of genres, but Dragon Age 2 is an example of failed experiment.

I don't look at those images and see complex
vs. dumb.  I see a dialogue layout of a predominantly unvoiced text
based game versus a fully voiced game, with all the pros and cons of
each, not a judgment of what kinds of players prefer either as it would
like to imply.

And as DA2 shoed us, damn lot of consumers prefer unvoiced text based game over a fully voiced one. And the worst part - more than 2 million of consumers refused to buy arcade slasher, pretending to be a RPG.

[upsettingshorts]

That's not terribly surprising, imo.

I read, "I felt like I was playing a game" and "I was directing where the game was going" and my immediate response is, "It's always been that way for me, so I don't see what changed."

The silent protagonist allowed you and I to both play the way we choose. A voiced protagonist does not, and it actively supports my approach at the expense of yours.

Where I often get into actual arguments - the former point is usually agreed upon - is when I assert that BioWare has always been moving, inching perhaps, in this direction and isn't a reflection of any radical departure in approach. That said, some people reach the point at which the game no longer resembles their expectations at one point or another.

[BrowncoatN7]

I prefer a voiced protagonist and the dialogue wheel *dives under cover*

[Nomen Mendax]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Agreed. In DA:O, I felt like I was playing the Warden. I could make a character nothing like me, or a character exactly like me, or anything in-between. But when I played Hawke, I felt I was playing a game, and that Hawke was a member of my party who everyone reacted to.

As in, I was directing where the game was going, and how the characters would act or react, but Hawke just felt like another character in the world, not the character I was controlling.

I have gone into detail about why I think this is in the past, but its nothing that hasn't been said before, both elsewhere and in this thread. So I'll just leave that as a problem statement, rather than add my editorial of why I think that is.

I have a theory (nothing to do with dinosaurs) that paraphrases make this experience worse.  When I pick a paraphrase I have an expectation of (roughly) what the PC is going to say, when they say something other than what I expected then the illusion that I am controlling the PC is damaged.

My theory is that if I could pick the entire line then tonal mismatches (with what I intended) will matter less because I can essentially write it off as the actor getting it wrong.  That isn't something I can do when the actor also says something different from what I intended.

[Nomen Mendax]

lament.ballad wrote...

I prefer a voiced protagonist and the dialogue wheel *dives under cover*

I'm happy for you (not sarcasm).  I think many people do, which is why Bioware are sticking with it.

[jillabender]

lament.ballad wrote...

I prefer a voiced protagonist and the dialogue wheel *dives under cover*

Quick, get out the pitchforks!! (Just kidding! )

Upsettingshorts wrote…

The silent protagonist allowed you and I to both play the way we choose. A voiced protagonist does not, and it actively supports my approach at the expense of yours.

Where I often get into actual arguments – the former point is usually agreed upon – is when I assert that BioWare has always been moving, inching perhaps, in this direction and isn't a reflection of any radical departure in approach. That said, some people reach the point at which the game no longer resembles their expectations at one point or another.

It's certainly true that BioWare took a big step toward a more cinematic approach with DA:O. It might indeed be true that BioWare have intended for a very long time to move their games in a more cinematic direction.

However, I'd still like to think that BioWare see their silent-PC games as representing an achievement in their own right – I think they would be doing themselves a great disservice if they thought of those games as nothing more than stepping-stones on the path to more cinematic games. BioWare have done an exceptional job of writing for silent protagonists, and I would hope that they take pride in that, regardless of what direction they decide to take with their games in the future.

Modifié par jillabender, 03 octobre 2012 - 03:34 .

[upsettingshorts]

Cultist wrote...

But the parody serves destinguish the main point -
oversimplification of dialogues in DA2 is apalling. And the problem is that DA2 exchanged complexity for reactivity.

I'd say we're getting closer to a tenuous agreement here.  

What you call "complexity" I would describe as... and this is a bit clumsy, "imagination opportunities."  By that I mean, when the game does not provide tone in the form of voiceover, you can imagine whatever tone you wished and the game would do little in the way of contradicting you.  

The thing is, these options offer no value to me.  I recognize they offer value to you and many others, but to me the notion of objective complexity as you are using implies a non-subjective number of options.  I do not believe this is the case.

As such, if a game does not react to my choices, including ones as simple as "I want my protagonist to convey anger" then to me it is not an actual choice and therefore doesn't contribute to complexity.  Therefore, a game with a dialogue system in which every option provides a reaction possesses, to me, inherently more options that I can appreciate.

Cultist wrote...

Because other players, more action oriented, is the reason BioWare turned RPG into arcade japanese slasher.

I disagree categorically with this assertion.  If you accept my argument above as broadly true, you can start to see why.

To me, the change from a silent protagonist to a voiced protagonist is not a dramatic change but a natural evolution along lines I expect.

Because others such as yourself have always played cRPGs different from me, your expectations are different and this change is a radical departure that strikes at the very foundation of what you think a cRPG is.

Whereas I see a dialogue layout/voice that better reacts to my choices and not much more.

Cultist wrote...

And I NEVER ever said that players with different genre preferences are dumb. I said the dialogue wheel and overall simplification is dumbing down the dialogue-conversation system we had.

Again I disagree.  I won't deny that they are very different and provide different things and do not dispute that there are good reasons to dislike one system or the other, but my assertion is this:

Silent protagonist/full text:  Provides opportunities to use your imagination to roleplay your character at the expense of optimal reactivity.  Players who value roleplaying freedom over reactivity in their cRPGs appreciate this system.  Those who value reactivity view it as limited.  In much the same way you could call the VO/paraphrases dumb, I could call the silent protagonist/full text approach antiquated and clumsy.

Voices protagonist/paraphrase:  Provides opportunities for characters to react along explicit lines at the expense of limiting the room in which your imagination can play with your character.  Players who value reactivity in their cRPGs appreciate this system as they never saw the point in options not reacted to by the game in the first place.  A common criticism of this is, "But don't you like to use your imagination when roleplaying?"  To that I would answer yes, and that my position on roleplaying is actually so demanding that I've never thought single player cRPGs were any good at it because a scripted game can never be as dynamic as a human DM and should focus on reactivity.  But that's just me personally. 

It comes down to value.  If you value reactivity, a voiced protagonist offers more.  If you do not value it, the addition of a voiced protagonist seems like a cheap ploy, because the appeal of it is not something you can relate to.  Ergo, it must appeal to some other group of people to which you do not belong.  It does, just not in the way the BSN tends to assume.  I for example am certainly not part of any "new" audience or CoD crowd, yet here I am arguing in favor of the voice.

Cultist wrote...

And when you try to appeal to Call of Duty fans at the cost of RPG fans, you shouldn't be surprised after that very fans refuse to buy your game.  

This is entirely derived from a single quote by Fernando Melo where he says CoD players are familiar with experience points and approaching said crowd by explaining RPG mechanics they already use is a smart plan.  The only thing in the original article that implies a grasp at the Call of Duty crowd was the headline, which was written by the website and not BioWare.  Here's where that comes from, this story.

Cultist wrote...

There are many examples of successful merging of genres, but Dragon Age 2 is an example of failed experiment.

If BioWare borrowed from the action genre at all, a point I'm likely to dispute, it wasn't in the dialogue layout so I won't get into it here.

Cultist wrote...

And as DA2 shoed us, damn lot of consumers prefer unvoiced text based game over a fully voiced one. And the worst part - more than 2 million of consumers refused to buy arcade slasher, pretending to be a RPG.

You absolutely cannot know that.  It is impossible to derive a conclusion such as this from sales alone.  As I've demonstrated here, I am in favor of the voiced protagonist.  Yet I have purchased Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, Skyrim, Oblivion, and Dragon Age Origins.  Does that mean that I as a consumer have actively endorsed the superiority of the silent protagonist five times?  No.  It means that the sum of the games parts was, in my estimation, worthy of purchase.  There simply is no way of knowing how many more people made similar evaluations.

There are far too many differences between DAO and DA2 to take their relative sales as indicative of the popularity of any given single feature.  If there were two versions of DA2 released that only differed in the silent protagonist/list vs. voiced protagonist/paraphrase respect, then you could reasonably compare sales and determine which feature is more popular.  As such the signal to noise ratio is far too high to be useful.

In any case, BioWare clearly prefers the approach they are going with now, so it's kind of a moot point anyway.  That's why often when the devs come into these threads they attempt to orient the discussion around making the paraphrase/VO better as opposed to arguing for a return to the silent protagonist/line.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 octobre 2012 - 03:33 .

[upsettingshorts]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

I have a theory (nothing to do with dinosaurs)

I see what you did there.

[NRieh]

It's funny to see how people continue to consider list-dialogue from DAO more "varied" than "wheel-dialogue" from DA2 even after dev posted exact dialogue schemes and explained those two different mechanics. Yes, you could theoretically compare with some oldie-goldie that had huge scroller zone for dialogue options, but people continue to compare with DAO. Imo, it must have something to do with psychology - a bunch of lines presented at a time as a list seems more "varied" than same amount of lines grouped around the wheel.

I'm ok both with wheels and icons. Because one of the most immersive voiced recent games (ME1) used wheel, and it was good enough to feel "personal" and start all that "My Shepard would not do it" ME3 talks.

And sometimes icons are NEEDED to prevent permanent irreversable romance lock out (SWTOR, smuggler+Riggs) or ninjamancing (Leliana...hair, you know....). And it's also good to see the difference between choice (end of talk) and moving further into more options or optional "investigate" lines.

"Diplo-funny-angry" icons had much less sense, and only purpose I see for those - metagame tool to build and change current "personality".

Also for those who hate icons and consider them something "modern" and "cheap" - skill tags like [charm], [persuade], [flirt], [intimidate] exist in dialogues for a long-long time. Yes, I know, that heart icon does not mean charisma+cunning check roll (that's too much to hope for, I'm afraid), but still it gives you idea about your character's possible intentions. I don't see much difference between "[threaten] I kill you all!" and "[red hammer]I kill you all!" or "[flirt]Justice has good taste" or "[<3]Justice has good taste"

And -yes- heart icon does look stupid by "I love you" short line, but better this than some joke about kittens that results in hardcore cut scene followed by black screen. And the most obvious way to solve "icon-haters" problems - make those optional (...icons I mean...not haters...), and let people turn them off in settings. Let them have their surprises.

[garrusfan1]

Personally I loved the dialouge wheel in DA2 where you could choose to do a good response,renegade response, or a smarta** response and I prefer a voiced protagonist. But I understand why people want a non voice one for the reasons OP stated. I guess it is personal preference but I heard they were using a voiced protagonist

[Fast Jimmy]

Nrieh,

The example Mary gave has been discussed earlier, but its problem is the problem of the wheel - it shows us outcomes and intent, not words. In the list format, I don't know if a particular dialogue question will cause the conversation to move forward, to end abruptly, to cause the person to attack or to cause them to fall in love with me.

ME's wheel diminishes that, especially with the Investigate dialogue. I know that anything I say here is totally filler, just more content that story junkies like myself wanna see. It doesn't even NEED separate options, to be honest. There could just be a "Data dump" option in each conversation and the NPC I am talking to could just go through their entire spiel, with my PC auto-dialoguing standard prompt questions. Even if asking these questions opens up later dialogue or options, its STILL flagged as totally safe, totally optional, will not move the conversation forward, will not result in any actions whatsoever.

How many conversations have you had in your life where you knew exactly what topic/question/statement would move the dialog forward, what would cause offense, what would change the subject and what would cause the person in question to lose interest and just wander off? If its more than one, then its not much MORE than one. That is the conversation of a job interview.

DA2 compounded this even further, with the conversation icons, in my opinion. Now, not only do I know what conversation options are totally safe and just provide information and which ones advance the conversation, but NOW I know exactly what these lines will result in. Want to auto-win a romance? Just click the heart. Want to auto-win because you are a mage? Just click the magic star. Want to auto-win because you have Varric in the party? Just click on his picture.

It gets to the point where it is no longer even a dialogue system. It is a outcomes system. It may seem like a trivial difference, but it IS a difference. It encourages meta-gaming through dialogue; instead of thinking "what would my character say" it instead promotes thinking "what do I want the outcome to be", which is, when you dive into it, remarkably different. Communication and dialogue isn't JUST about getting what you want, it is also about expressing yourself. When you just define how you want things to play out, then let a character express how he is feeling (notice, a character - not you as the player expressing how the character feels...), it can sever the feeling of being in a conversation and, instead, just reinforce the fact that you are playing a game. It can make even the best written characters and interactions wooden - not because of the writing or the setup, but the fact that the interface itself pulls you out of the conversation and into the MECHANISM of the conversation.

[Iosev]

Except some people, like myself, enjoy the organization that the dialogue wheel provides. I dislike selecting a response from the list format that abruptly ends the conversation (because of a lack of distinction between investigative and progressive responses) because it pulls me out of the experience and forces me to reload.

I also disagree that the icons like the Heart are "auto-win" particularly when you consider that there are numerous occasions where selecting the heart will not lead to a romance or romantic encounter (e.g., Aveline, Sebastian (as a male, or having flirted with someone else), Variel, Orlanna, etc.), not to mention that there are romances that depend on more than just selecting the Heart Icon, such as in Isabela's romance.  Even trying to lie isn't guaranteed, such as when Hawke tries to lie in front of Merrill during Finders Keepers.

In general, the icons represent the protagonist's intentions, which sometimes relates to the player's desired outcome, but to say that they are simply outcome indicators or outcome-based isn't really true.  Responding diplomatically, sarcastically, or aggresively isn't really outcome-based, for example, which are more about expressing yourself.

Modifié par arcelonious, 03 octobre 2012 - 05:12 .

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

As long as the people who prefer it exist in any significance, this point doesn't carry with it the weight you're implying.

I'm guessing you meant to say my point is valid only as long as there's decent amount of players who would prefer either option, vs overwhelming majority being in favour of one approach.

That is a fair caveat, but i hope you are willing to concede that for this particular situation there isn't much to support that latter possibility, which makes that "as long" pretty theoretical. Additionally, the game already does offer toggles with similar functionality (hiding/displaying damage numbers, e.g) rather than enforce single approach as result of "stylistic choice", and without splitting hair over such "what ifs".

Modifié par tmp7704, 03 octobre 2012 - 04:51 .

[happy_daiz]

lament.ballad wrote...

I prefer a voiced protagonist and the dialogue wheel *dives under cover*

Me too. I just wish the dialogue wheel was more like the one in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. That, imho, is an example of a dialogue wheel done well. It actually shows the first sentence, so it's pretty obvious what to expect.

I think we're all in agreement that the paraphrasing on the DA2 dialogue wheel could have been improved.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 03 octobre 2012 - 04:56 .

[Dragoonlordz]

In the end most of it comes down to preference by individual players, there is nothing wrong in preferring silent to voiced, nothing wrong in preferring list to wheel and vice versa. Remember the biggest selling RPG of past 12 months chose silent list format. While it's success was not solely because of that mechanic it shows people are not put off from using silent list format in modern day RPG's.

The problem for Dragon Age is they made one game that had one set of gameplay mechanics tailored and appealed to the preferences of one side of the fence and then in a sequel changed the format which had a negative effect based on those who got into the franchise based on the prequels game mechanic formats. They just switched to appeal to those who prefer another format not just with dialogue but among many other elements that changed too.

Dragon Age 2 fitted with the preferences of those who prefer ME style dialogue instead of Dragon Age Origins, BG and others games going from first person RP in Origins to third person RP in DA2 which matches ME franchise in format. A limitation of variety in styles and types of games offered to players by merging the formats of two different franchises. In essence they brought in people who preferred one thing and then dropped that in favor of another. If DAO had been done same way as DA2 then this would not have been a problem and vice versa, it is the fact they started one way and dropped it in favor of another that is annoying to a lot of people.

The paraphrasing however is a non preference thing. I do not know anyone who likes picking a choice and having it say something the player never intended, envisioned or wanted.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 03 octobre 2012 - 05:14 .