81 réponses à ce sujet

[Jzadek72]

People have a lot of grievances with Dragon Age 2, and here's my big one (other than the wave composition in combat) - profiling Hawke as either Jesus, Hannibal Lecter or Blackadder. It was a smart system, and there were some very nice touches in it, such as people suggesting that Funny!Hawke uses humour as a defence mechanism, but in the end, it leaves no room for complexity in the character - you're either nice, evil or snarky. That's it, that's who you are.

I tried to play an aggressive jerk with a heart of gold. It's not a particularly complex archetype, but the system couldn't handle it - that heart disappeared very quickly when my Hawke started to display serious symptoms of psychopathy. It certainly wouldn't handle the harsh, yet idealistic city elf who ultimately struggled to do what was needed to be done when push came to shove, or my quiet, kind and surprisingly ruthless mage with no time for anything spiritual or artistic. In the end, I couldn't bring myself to care about Hawke the way I cared about my Wardens, or Shepard, simply because she didn't feel at all like I had any agency over who she was.

Frankly, an RPG should allow you to roleplay a character far better than three simplistic types. I'm not asking for Origin's complexity, I know that the voiced protagonist has it's drawbacks and that one of them is going to be a cut down in quantity in exchange for a more cinematic game; but it still shouldn't prevent me from playing a character who is my character. Please, let us pick our dialogue and work out our personality ourselves rather than letting a pre-set system decide it. 

Modifié par Jzadek72, 23 octobre 2012 - 02:00 .

[ImperatorMortis]

Thank you. I'm tired of Mass Effect, and DA 2 making me play an essentially preset character. I wanna be my own dude, that is kind of the point of RPG's right?

[Rawgrim]

ImperatorMortis wrote...

Thank you. I'm tired of Mass Effect, and DA 2 making me play an essentially preset character. I wanna be my own dude, that is kind of the point of RPG's right?

This. Why even call it an rpg if you don\\ t get to roleplay? I`d probably buy it, and be more accepting of it, if it was called an action-adventure.

[David7204]

What the hell do you think a game is, exactly?

By its very definition, it's a "pre-set system."

Every video game in existence is a pre-set system. Every video game that will ever exist is a pre-set system.

There is a limited number of possible ways the character can react. Limited. Do you understand that? 

Modifié par David7204, 23 octobre 2012 - 02:02 .

[Jzadek72]

David7204 wrote...

What the hell do you think a game is, exactly?

By its very definition, it's a "pre-set system."

Every video game in existence is a pre-set system. Every video game that will ever exist is a pre-set system.

There is a limited number of possible ways the character can react. Limited. Do you understand that? 

Did you even read the OP?

Limited, yes. Dragon Age Origins was limited, for instance. Mass Effect, even moreso. But still, I could choose what I did everytime, and why I was doing it. I could choose the 'evil' option of siding with the Dalish Elf Guardian in DA:O, but supporting Caridin even at the cost of the war effort because I was an elven nationalist, for instance. Another person could have done that because they were incredibly ruthless, but the thought of their soul being trapped in a golem was too disgusting, even for them. 

In DA2, I'm limited to three personalities. Three. Not only does it often make decisions for me, it tells me WHY I'm going it. I'm the player, this is an RPG. I'm the one who decides why. The key is to write it with a certain level of blank slate in there, so the player can make the personality, and to never restrict dialogue so that jerk Hawke with a heart of gold laughs while killing someone when they were supposed to be reluctant. If they'd been good Hawke they could have been, but that option was closed to me.

[Rawgrim]

David7204 wrote...

What the hell do you think a game is, exactly?

By its very definition, it's a "pre-set system."

Every video game in existence is a pre-set system. Every video game that will ever exist is a pre-set system.

There is a limited number of possible ways the character can react. Limited. Do you understand that? 

Odd that every other rpg lets you develop your character in an array of ways, and choices you make in game affects the story. Not possible in DA2.

[ImperatorMortis]

Jzadek72 wrote...

Did you even read the OP?

Limited, yes. Dragon Age Origins was limited, for instance. Mass Effect, even moreso. But still, I could choose what I did everytime, and why I was doing it. I could choose the 'evil' option of siding with the Dalish Elf Guardian in DA:O, but supporting Caridin even at the cost of the war effort because I was an elven nationalist, for instance. Another person could have done that because they were incredibly ruthless, but the thought of their soul being trapped in a golem was too disgusting, even for them. 

Exactly this.

Jzadek72 wrote...
In DA2, I'm limited to three personalities. Three. Not only does it often make decisions for me, it tells me WHY I'm going it. I'm the player, this is an RPG. I'm the one who decides why. The key is to write it with a certain level of blank slate in there, so the player can make the personality, and to never restrict dialogue so that jerk Hawke with a heart of gold laughs while killing someone when they were supposed to be reluctant. If they'd been good Hawke they could have been, but that option was closed to me.

Also the personality types in DA2 were more often than not just a means to the same exact end. 

Your choices were mostly limited to.

A. Say yes in a kind, and polite manner.
B. Say yes in a snarky/unfunny manner.
C. Say yes in a grouchy manner. 
D. Inquire about the subject, then choose A, B, or C. 

Modifié par ImperatorMortis, 23 octobre 2012 - 02:13 .

[Palipride47]

David7204 wrote...

What the hell do you think a game is, exactly?

By its very definition, it's a "pre-set system."

Every video game in existence is a pre-set system. Every video game that will ever exist is a pre-set system.

There is a limited number of possible ways the character can react. Limited. Do you understand that? 

But with silent protag, how YOU say it (not how others reacted, whole other story) is formulated in your head and can fit an archtype. And they don't "stack" so that you can "only be" that way by the end of the game......

I get the point. They aren't getting rid of the wheel or voices, and l do like them.

My problems are:
1.  After a certain number of specific dialogue choices, Hawke's personality is effectively crystallized.

2. Only certain personalities don't merely get a different way to finsh a quest or a different option, but ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE LOCKED OUT, requiring you to change your personality to unlock it (like siding with Varnell successfully, whihc is a pretty big plot point divergence that 2/3rds of people miss out on)

3. You cannot "disagree diplomatically" or "agree aggressively." This does affect friendship/ rivalry a bit (trying friendmancing Anders with aggressive responses)

4. (VO's fault, but still) Some VO's chose to really "express" the personalities through the lines, making a ManHawke sound psychotic if not picking red, red, red or green, green, green.

[Palipride47]

ImperatorMortis wrote...

Also the personality types in DA2 were more often than not just a means to the same exact end. 

Your choices were mostly limited to.

A. Say yes in a kind, and polite manner.
B. Say yes in a snarky/unfunny manner.
C. Say yes in a grouchy manner. 
D. Inquire about the subject, then choose A, B, or C. 

Funny, that annoyed me less than

A. Say yes only
B. Snide comment
C. Say no only

And you sounded psychotic when you deviated from your "crystallized" one

Modifié par Palipride47, 23 octobre 2012 - 02:17 .

[Tokion]

I loved the DA2 personality system on how some options are only available to certain personalities, and sometimes you got to bite the bullet knowing your Hawke cannot talk it's way out of a situation because he is not aggressive enough highlights the consequences of how you build your Hawke's personality.

I only wish they expand on the DA2 personality system by introducing some kind of hybrid personality system, which lets the player be 80% funny and 20% aggressive etc. Then we can customize our personality even more. They did this really well in Mass Effect 2 with the Paragon/Renegade system, and I believe DA3 could do it better by introducing more personalities. My *Paragade* Shepard took no crap from the bad guys and is also an excellent diplomat.

[ImperatorMortis]

Palipride47 wrote...

ImperatorMortis wrote...

Also the personality types in DA2 were more often than not just a means to the same exact end. 

Your choices were mostly limited to.

A. Say yes in a kind, and polite manner.
B. Say yes in a snarky/unfunny manner.
C. Say yes in a grouchy manner. 
D. Inquire about the subject, then choose A, B, or C. 

Funny, that annoyed me less than

A. Say yes only
B. Snide comment
C. Say no only

And you sounded psychotic when you deviated from your "crystallized" one

I agree. I'm also baffled that there is no option to say no to something without sounding like an ass. And I hate that I sounded bipolar half the time. 

I coud be saying something nicely or making a joke on one comment, then on the next comment I could sound angry for no disernable reason. 

Dragon Age 2 isn't about Mages vs Templars. Its about Hawke dealing with his/her multiple personalities. 

Modifié par ImperatorMortis, 23 octobre 2012 - 03:04 .

[Hey]

I haven't played any games that allowed for this. It's a worthy goal tho.

[Jzadek72]

Tokion wrote...

I loved the DA2 personality system on how some options are only available to certain personalities, and sometimes you got to bite the bullet knowing your Hawke cannot talk it's way out of a situation because he is not aggressive enough highlights the consequences of how you build your Hawke's personality.

There shouldn't be consequences. Hawke should be allowed to be a person, not shoehorned in to those three options. Why shouldn't a nice Hawke sometimes lose it? I'd like to think I'm not an angry person, but if I was confronted with some of the things Hawke is, I'd go ballistic. Hawke should be able to too. Aggressiveness is not a meter you build up, it's a character trait. 

For instance, in ME1, my Shepard told the council they could kiss her ass. She did this because I'd constructed her to be quite anti-authoritarian, not because she was racist. This choice was reflected in the way I'd built her personality - I'd act similarly toward Alliance people, but was courteous to aliens and in the end, I saved the Council. If that was DA2, I'd have been forced to be a horrendous racist and instituted a human-centric council without any will of my own.

[Palipride47]

Tokion wrote...

I loved the DA2 personality system on how some options are only available to certain personalities, and sometimes you got to bite the bullet knowing your Hawke cannot talk it's way out of a situation because he is not aggressive enough highlights the consequences of how you build your Hawke's personality.

I only wish they expand on the DA2 personality system by introducing some kind of hybrid personality system, which lets the player be 80% funny and 20% aggressive etc. Then we can customize our personality even more. They did this really well in Mass Effect 2 with the Paragon/Renegade system, and I believe DA3 could do it better by introducing more personalities. My *Paragade* Shepard took no crap from the bad guys and is also an excellent diplomat.

Don't get me wrong, I liked that 4 skill points in Persuasion =/= Jedi anymore.

I like that I can't blackmail anyone without being Aggro Ass. 
BUT
I don't like that I can't side with Petrice without being Aggro Ass.

What I also don't like is that Aggro Hawke "got the most" when it came to personality = changing the plot.

http://dragonage.wik...Special_choices

Modifié par Palipride47, 23 octobre 2012 - 03:13 .

[JWvonGoethe]

In DA2, Bioware did some really clever things to subvert common fantasy tropes. The game started off by showing Hawke as a legendary heroic warrior in the prelude, but then, by way of a framed narrative device, showed that the storyteller, Varric, had been exaggerating Hawke's abilities. They then showed us the true, fumbling everyman that Hawke really was. By the end game, it was made apparent that Hawke's true heroic virtue was that he was just a more than capable fighter who happened to stumble accidentally into the right place at the right time.

The problem is... it is kind of difficult to know how to roleplay as a deconstruction of the heroic archetype.

[Pauravi]

Jzadek72 wrote...

I'm not asking for Origin's complexity

Origins wasn't complex at all.  In fact it had basically the same 3 types of responses.
You almost always had the 1. "Nice guy" response, 2. "Neutral / funny" response, and 3. "Mean / callous" response, plus sometimes anywhere from 1-3 question responses.

The only difference was that you had to read it instead of hear it, and with the dialogue wheel they moved the couple "question" responses to a separate place so that it would be less ambiguous which responses would end the conversation.  But the actual number and type of interactions in Origins were NOT any more numerous or complex.
 

Jzadek72 wrote...

but it still shouldn't prevent me from playing a character who is my character. Please, let us pick our dialogue

What do you mean by "pick our dialogue"?
There is no such game as the one that lets you choose whatever dialogue you want.  Origins certainly didn't do it.


Maybe in Origins you could imagine the tone of voice you want to think you're speaking in, but even that doesn't really work because it is limited by the way the other character responds.  For instance, I would sometimes choose a response that I thought was friendly or neutral, and the other person would be offended.  This makes the dialogue I imagined my character having suddenly not fit at all with what is going on on-screen, and it only makes sense if I re-interpret what the words I clicked on may have meant.  Having an UNvoiced protagonist does not suddenly open every possible dialogue option you can imagine, it only makes the protagonist a less forceful character.

Look, I understand the desire to be able to shape your character in whatever way you want, but if you are really okay with simply imagining all your interactions, go pick up a pen-and-paper game.  That's what I do.  Video games are simply not a medium that will ever provide infinite possibilities (at least not until we invent a decent AI or VI).

Perhaps part of what you want can be addressed if the writers are careful not to ascribe particular motivations to your character in the dialogue (I didn't really notice this happening TBH), but this is not a problem with the voiced protagonist or even the dialogue wheel.  Even when you have no voice, and even when they type out every word in each response, the words can be ambiguous and the other voices betray your imagination.  These limitless possibilities just don't exist.

Modifié par Pauravi, 23 octobre 2012 - 04:34 .

[JWvonGoethe]

Pauravi - Jzadek72 explicitly stated in their opening post that he/she liked Shepard's dialogue in Mass Effect. So having a voiced protagonist in DA2 was clearly not the issue here.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 23 octobre 2012 - 04:49 .

[Vandicus]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

Pauravi - Jzadek72 explicitly stated in his/her opening post that he/she liked Shepard's dialogue in Mass Effect. So the voiced protagonist feature was clearly not an issue in Jzadek's opinion.

According to the writers the Origin dialog was written in virtually the same way(three primary attitudes). It not being voiced seemingly allowed it to escape the OP's notice.

This might indicate something more along the lines of the ME writers doing their dialog better in that choosing the various options did not seem as unnatural as it did to the OP in DA2. 

[Pauravi]

Jzadek72 wrote...

For instance, in ME1, my Shepard told the council they could kiss her ass. She did this because I'd constructed her to be quite anti-authoritarian, not because she was racist. This choice was reflected in the way I'd built her personality - I'd act similarly toward Alliance people, but was courteous to aliens and in the end, I saved the Council. If that was DA2, I'd have been forced to be a horrendous racist and instituted a human-centric council without any will of my own.

Ah, I see what you're getting at now -- the whole aggressive Hawke / funny Hawke thing.
Yeah I can get behind that, at least to some degree.

I do see where BioWare was coming from.  If you're an honest do-gooder in 95% of your responses, are you really going to be able to be the sort of person who can suddenly lie convincingly?  Perhaps not.  If you're a gentle diplomat 90% of the time, is your personality really forceful enough to successfully intimidate someone?  Seems unlikely.

At the same time, though, you're right about them sometimes ascribing motivations for particular responses that I wouldn't agree with, and limiting the ability to make a particular game-changing decision to certain personality types may or may not be fair or realistic (depending on how it has to be done).

I don't entirely disagree with the reasoning behind their approach in DA2, but I do agree with you in principle.  I hope BioWare uses a lighter, less restrictive touch when determining how convincing our character is at certain types of dialogues or what sorts of changes they'd be able to engender in the game world.

[JWvonGoethe]

Vandicus wrote...

JWvonGoethe wrote...

Pauravi - Jzadek72 explicitly stated in his/her opening post that he/she liked Shepard's dialogue in Mass Effect. So the voiced protagonist feature was clearly not an issue in Jzadek's opinion.

According to the writers the Origin dialog was written in virtually the same way(three primary attitudes). It not being voiced seemingly allowed it to escape the OP's notice.

This might indicate something more along the lines of the ME writers doing their dialog better in that choosing the various options did not seem as unnatural as it did to the OP in DA2. 

Ah OK looks like I might have missed the point Pauvari was making here then.

I've certainly used ME1 as an example myself to illustrate a voiced PC I prefered over DA2, mainly for the reason you outline.

[Palipride47]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

In DA2, Bioware did some really clever things to subvert common fantasy tropes. The game started off by showing Hawke as a legendary heroic warrior in the prelude, but then, by way of a framed narrative device, showed that the storyteller, Varric, had been exaggerating Hawke's abilities. They then showed us the true, fumbling everyman that Hawke really was. By the end game, it was made apparent that Hawke's true heroic virtue was that he was just a more than capable fighter who happened to stumble accidentally into the right place at the right time.

The problem is... it is kind of difficult to know how to roleplay as a deconstruction of the heroic archetype.

Hehe, I got mad when I played DA2 like DAO. It really takes a whole different "mindset" in how someone plays a video game. When I took another perspective, it really grew on me to the point where I defend DA2 a bit. It is clever, honestly, and I appreciate what they did now. I certainly didn't on the first playthrough though 


I think the problem is that one mindset (old school RPG, pen-and-paper types- A) got spurned by DA2, and DA2 was a great game for people of a different mindset (the ME2 types - , and now both are terrifed they will "lose" to the other side (A will lose AGAIN to B, and B will ignored to "pander" to A).


People who like both (like me, who tends to roll more "old-school", and cite problems with both games) feel weird. 


And either way, Bioware is f*cked if they don't keep the balance between the two sets of fans they accidently created. 

[Scarlet Rabbi]

Great post, Jzadek72.

[Pauravi]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

Pauravi - Jzadek72 explicitly stated in their opening post that he/she liked Shepard's dialogue in Mass Effect. So having a voiced protagonist in DA2 was clearly not the issue here.

You're right, I did miss the mention of Shepard, although I was mostly responding to the comparison of DA2 to Origins, which really seem very similar in dialogue structure to me.

Having seen the subsequent comments on Shepard, though, I'll say that I do agree in principle.  It is very difficult -- impossible, really -- to provide a sense of true free agency in a game that is necessarily characterized by a limited number of choices.  However, it can be done better than it was in DA2, and in fact BioWare themselves have done it better.

[Orian Tabris]

Jzadek72 wrote...

People have a lot of grievances with Dragon Age 2, and here's my big one (other than the wave composition in combat) - profiling Hawke as either Jesus, Hannibal Lecter or Blackadder. It was a smart system, and there were some very nice touches in it, such as people suggesting that Funny!Hawke uses humour as a defence mechanism, but in the end, it leaves no room for complexity in the character - you're either nice, evil or snarky. That's it, that's who you are.

Frankly, an RPG should allow you to roleplay a character far better than three simplistic types. I'm not asking for Origin's complexity, I know that the voiced protagonist has it's drawbacks and that one of them is going to be a cut down in quantity in exchange for a more cinematic game; but it still shouldn't prevent me from playing a character who is my character. Please, let us pick our dialogue and work out our personality ourselves rather than letting a pre-set system decide it. 

I absolutely agree with this.

The best way to make your character your own in DA2, is to choose a personality, then choose an option as a secondary personality or choose the others depending on the situation, but even then, Hawke's unique characteristics leave a lot to be desired. With this, it becomes more about what would someone of that demeanour would say, rather than what that specific person would say. Of course, it's usually not what the player expects anyway, since the paraphrases are so misleading.

[JWvonGoethe]

Palipride, thanks for the thoughtful response.

I agree, I think Origins was the traditional classic RPG, whereas DA2 was the experimental one. I'm not sure it was an entirely successful experiment, however. The prologue from DA2 that I mentioned, for instance, was a really strong idea in principal to demonstrate that Hawke was not going to be a typical superhuman fantasy hero. But it was a bit weird that it could potentially transpire that Varric was not only lying about Hawke's prowess in battle, but also, depending on your choices in the character creation, that Varric may also have been lying about Hawke's skin colour and gender. Which made Varric seem a bit racist and sexist - obviously not the writer's intention!

Hopefully DA3 can find a happy medium between the two games (without letting the conceptual stuff get in the way too much.)

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 23 octobre 2012 - 05:16 .