81 réponses à ce sujet

[Raikas]

 

google_calasade wrote...

I got absolutely no sense at any time that I defined Hawk's personality or that he was "my" character. I've struggled in comparing that experience with the Witcher games, because Geralt always seemed mine and they're both predefined PCs. I'm not sure if the discrepancy is because the Witcher games offer more roleplaying or that I found Hawk entirely uninteresting or because of the dialogue wheel. Maybe it was because DA 2 was at best an average game and at worst one of the more miserable I have ever played. The fact so little decisions in DA 2 mattered may have a lot to do with it as well. Probably all of those reasons.

That said, I really liked how you were able to more fully define the Warden's personality. DA:O was pretty good in that regard.

That's really interesting regarding DA2 vs. The Witcher, because while I totally see where you're coming from, my feeling is exactly the opposite. 

I feel like in the The Witcher I have the ability to effect the world in hugely dramatic ways but that regardless of what I do Geralt is always Geralt (the events would change, but I was always living them through the same person).  In DA2, most of the same things happen regardless of my choices, but I do feel like my snarky mage Hawke is not the same person as my aggressive warrior Hawke - for me, those little personal changes to the relationships and to the family history really worked to convince me that I was experiencing the same events with a very different person.

That said, I like the ideas mentioned above about adding to the personality by adding faction or character-specific settings - making it even more developed could only make it better.

[Raikas]

sorry, random double-post

Modifié par Hervoyl, 23 octobre 2012 - 05:46 .

[Foolsfolly]

I can't agree with the OP. Origins and DA2 were exactly the same in their limits. You were either goodie-goodie, a ******, and occasionally made stupid jokes (I love trolling Wynne about griffons). In fact if DA2 added anything was just more humorous dialogue. And in fact, Sarcastic Hawke was my favorite Hawke.

That said the personality system doesn't limit you. Yes you can only get the elf/werewolf situation resolved peacefully if you're a diplomatic Hawke. But doesn't that make sense? It's a cycle of violence and hatred. What the odds of that being resolved peacefully anyway? But the game doesn't force you to do anything.

In fact each act opens by nearly restarting your Personality. This is for the player to decide if Hawke has changed between acts like a Funny Hawke becoming more hardened and aggressive after the Deep Roads claimed their last sibling. Or an aggressive Hawke becoming more diplomatic and stately upon becoming Champion. Or an aggressive Hawke changing to Funny once they become a noble because they finally aren't living hand-to-mouth or on the run and can relax.

Even then at any point in any conversation at any plot point you can go for any option you want. And many (although not all) diplomatic personality options allow similar outcomes if you have Varric with you to speak on your behalf.

In the end you have a system that's remarkable similar to DA:O. The only thing really decided by the personality system is the auto-dialogue which will happen with voiced PCs. And this was based on player choices and rewarded you for replaying (hearing new scenes based on your personality).

I just can't help but think this is superior to DA:O. It's more reactive to how you play Hawke.

[Rune-Chan]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I just can't help but think this is superior to DA:O. It's more reactive to how you play Hawke.

It is a false reaction.

I am friendly to victims, Merril and other people who I think deserve it.
I am a joker with Varric and Isabela because that's the kind of people they are.
I am angry with Carver, Gamlen and people who complain at me because they deserve it.

The game then chooses whatever I do the most, and assumes thats the "kind of person that I am", which leads to my character being the completely wrong tone from what it'd be if I had chosen the option.

If they want to go down that route they may as well ask you to pick a personality type and have all the dialogue fixed like it. At least it'd be consistent.

Modifié par Machines Are Us, 23 octobre 2012 - 06:12 .

[Foolsfolly]

Machines Are Us wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

I just can't help but think this is superior to DA:O. It's more reactive to how you play Hawke.

It is a false reaction.

I am friendly to victims, Merril and other people who I think deserve it.
I am a joker with Varric and Isabela because that's the kind of people they are.
I am angry with Carver, Gamlen and people who complain at me because they deserve it.

The game then chooses whatever I do the most, and assumes thats the "kind of person that I am", which leads to my character being the completely wrong tone from what it'd be if I had chosen the option.

If they want to go down that route they may as well ask you to pick a personality type and have all the dialogue fixed like it. At least it'd be consistent.

So which is dominate? I mean ****s always think they're right, put-upon, and generally the victim of something. But if they're an **** to most people they're an ****. Likewise if you're friendly to most people you're a friendly person regardless of how you behave to certain people.

And sure there's a chance you have a 32% Friendly, 32% Funny, and 36% Aggressive and then be upset that you're Hawke defaults to Aggressive due to a 4% difference. But I'll tell you this you still chose it.

The alternative is to just make a default personality ala Shepard or Geralt or Agent Thornton which usually means they're largely personality-less in auto-dialogue situations. Hawke truly reacts to how you play that character. And that makes it more reactive.

Fact.

EDIT:

And setting a personality via menu option at the beginning of the game also restricts player choice. Now your character is static throughout the game. I get the feeling most people pick a 'Always this Personality' Hawke but I really enjoy being able to change and evolve the character throughout the game. It's something I hope BioWare continues to do in the series.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 23 octobre 2012 - 06:28 .

[Iosev]

I am in agreement with Foolsfolly. I would rather see a dominant tone (that is based on the sum of your decisions) rather than no dominant tone at all (nor would I like to see a default tone). While I would love to see the protagonist use different dominant tones with different characters (such as what people do in real-life conversations), I have to wonder how difficult that would be to implement in a game.

[DreamwareStudio]

Hervoyl wrote...

 

google_calasade wrote...

I got absolutely no sense at any time that I defined Hawk's personality or that he was "my" character. I've struggled in comparing that experience with the Witcher games, because Geralt always seemed mine and they're both predefined PCs. I'm not sure if the discrepancy is because the Witcher games offer more roleplaying or that I found Hawk entirely uninteresting or because of the dialogue wheel. Maybe it was because DA 2 was at best an average game and at worst one of the more miserable I have ever played. The fact so little decisions in DA 2 mattered may have a lot to do with it as well. Probably all of those reasons.

That said, I really liked how you were able to more fully define the Warden's personality. DA:O was pretty good in that regard.

That's really interesting regarding DA2 vs. The Witcher, because while I totally see where you're coming from, my feeling is exactly the opposite. 

I feel like in the The Witcher I have the ability to effect the world in hugely dramatic ways but that regardless of what I do Geralt is always Geralt (the events would change, but I was always living them through the same person).  In DA2, most of the same things happen regardless of my choices, but I do feel like my snarky mage Hawke is not the same person as my aggressive warrior Hawke - for me, those little personal changes to the relationships and to the family history really worked to convince me that I was experiencing the same events with a very different person.

That said, I like the ideas mentioned above about adding to the personality by adding faction or character-specific settings - making it even more developed could only make it better.

After some thought, I decided it's because of immersion. The personality changes you can effect with Hawke or Geralt are not all that different, but with DA 2, there is no immersion for me. I guess for me it comes down to there's no way to get into the character without getting into the game.

[Medhia Nox]

I have more of a problem with the Dialogue text being different than what is said.

I'd even be happier if they just put:

1) Says something Happy

2) Says something Sad

Which I wouldn't like at all - but it's better than reading something, choosing it, and having the voice actor say something that doesn't feel similar at all.

Of course - I want a silent protagonist - because a voice one is just one more act of theft upon on imagination.

[Rune-Chan]

Foolsfolly wrote...
So which is dominate? I mean ****s always think they're right, put-upon, and generally the victim of something. But if they're an **** to most people they're an ****. Likewise if you're friendly to most people you're a friendly person regardless of how you behave to certain people.

And sure there's a chance you have a 32% Friendly, 32% Funny, and 36% Aggressive and then be upset that you're Hawke defaults to Aggressive due to a 4% difference. But I'll tell you this you still chose it.

The alternative is to just make a default personality ala Shepard or Geralt or Agent Thornton which usually means they're largely personality-less in auto-dialogue situations. Hawke truly reacts to how you play that character. And that makes it more reactive.

Fact.

EDIT:

And setting a personality via menu option at the beginning of the game also restricts player choice. Now your character is static throughout the game. I get the feeling most people pick a 'Always this Personality' Hawke but I really enjoy being able to change and evolve the character throughout the game. It's something I hope BioWare continues to do in the series.

None of them are dominant, that's my point. My character is not any one of them. They have a different attitude depending on who they talk to, they are not by default angry, helpful or snarky. It depends on the situation. The game on the other hand picks the most common and assumes that what you are by default.

If you are suggesting that a person who is nice to nice people and nasty to nasty people is bad simply because they come across more of those types of people, then that's a foolish argument. The idea that people are inherently good or bad is a completely made up concept. People are varied and adaptive, not black and white.

That's like saying that Hawke is  a nasty person because the amount of people that they kill. You can't just divide people up like that, people are not that simple. Context matters.

I was also not suggesting a predetermined personality was a good thing. I was saying that they may as well go that route for the sake of consistency, rather than have the game decide that my character is always a sarcastic person, even in serious situations, just because I am sarcastic in all of the non-serious ones.

Nor do I like auto-dialogue. I do not think it should exist unless absolutely necessary.

Modifié par Machines Are Us, 23 octobre 2012 - 07:32 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Machines Are Us wrote...

None of them are dominant, that's my point. My character is not any one of them. They have a different attitude depending on who they talk to, they are not by default angry, helpful or snarky. It depends on the situation. The game on the other hand picks the most common and assumes that what you are by default.

If you are suggesting that a person who is nice to nice people and nasty to nasty people is bad simply because they come across more of those types of people, then that's a foolish argument. The idea that people are inherently good or bad is a completely made up concept. People are varied and adaptive, not black and white.

That's like saying that Hawke is  a nasty person because the amount of people that they kill. You can't just divide people up like that, people are not that simple. Context matters.

I was also not suggesting a predetermined personality was a good thing. I was saying that they may as well go that route for the sake of consistency, rather than have the game decide that my character is always a sarcastic person, even in serious situations, just because I am sarcastic in all of the non-serious ones.

Nor do I like auto-dialogue. I do not think it should exist unless absolutely necessary.

Agreed, no situation or person is black-and-white. That is one reason why I like the Witcher games so much. There is no right or wrong morality really. There are only choices.

Modifié par google_calasade, 23 octobre 2012 - 07:38 .

[vortex216]

esper wrote...

vortex216 wrote...



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.


wrong. i just finished my 15th playthrough. he was direct, blunt and a little insensitive, but in the end he did what he thought was best. he was extremely biased to his own people (dalish) and took a long time to get used to human society. if you broke past his "wall", you could see his softer side...breifley. He was stubborn and a bit snarky at times, but all in all he was a good person. Try making that in dragon age 2!

Already did. She is blunt and sometimes a bit rude and have no sense of humor what so ever so, but always do the best she can to help and protect as many people as possible (even if she is a bit biased to mages). Is is simply really, I am in the middle of Mark and currently debating with myself wherever Tallis have made a good enough cause for her case for this characther to believe that innocent lives are really on the line.

wrong, blunt/direct hawkes in that came are dsdrespectful, arrogant toilet-brains. the dimplomatic hawke is just an uptight, know-it-all fart-finger. thats why i only click on snarky/ sarcastic hawke. his jokes may be cheesey, but at least he's not a jerk or a ******.

[Pinely]

Just chiming in to say that I played a highly aggressive Mage Hawke that still did the "good" thing. Dragon Age 2's decisions are (as far as I know) separated from the 3 dialog tones. Making a choice, like what to do with Ser Wesley, has no relation to the 3 dialog categories. You can advocate any of the options without it affecting your characters personality and you are free to alter your personality choice depending on the situation. Its just like Origins in that regard.

And the "auto-attitude" is really just flavoring. I've never had my character judged based on something that was determined by my predominant choice, rather friendship/rivalry is based on the choices that I actually make. So, there isn't some mechanism that prevents you from creating a harsh, yet idealistic character that's determined to do whatever it takes.

As noted, the dialog systems are virtually identical in DA2 and Origins, so I think the OP's actual issue is related to adding additional meaning or intention to dialog choices beyond the scope of the developer's intent. This is a common problem when transitioning from non-spoken to spoken protagonists, the player loses agency over how they interpret the dialog, instead being held to the developer's interpretation and intention. The same options are present, but hearing the dialog removes the ability to interpret it a different way. I'm okay with that because this because developers design NPC reactions based on their intentions and interpretation, not ones that the player develops on the fly. Its frustrating to miss a funny dialog option because you interpreted it as serious.

[Palipride47]

I need to sticky this, I keep saying the same things.....

A. The difference, I think, when we say DA2 is limiting is not that the STRUCTURE is more limited (it is actually expanded, there is more "stuff") but the DELIVERY is, by virtue of the fact that you do not "roleplay it" anymore. Any sublety, nuance, whatever you want that line to mean, has been taken from you, and given to the writers and the VOs


B. From Wiki (full explanations:http://dragonage.wik.../Dialogue_wheel):

The very first dialogue choice you make sets Hawke's initial personality. Note that this is the dialogue choice made during the introduction sequence, that will occur after class and gender are chosen, but before Hawke's appearance, portrait, the events of Dragon Age: Origins and the game difficulty are set..... As you keep choosing similar options at the dialogue wheel, they "stack"......
..... After a certain number of specific dialogue choices, Hawke's personality is effectively crystallized.

At the start of each Act, Hawke retains his or her established personality, but the "stack" of the previous personality choices is reduced. This gives you a window of opportunity to change your dominant tone.

~~~~~~~

That was the most annoying thing for me. Otherwise, I honestly liked the wheel and voiced protagonist. 

That, and the "difference" between one choice vs other in "tone" (the "multiple personalities" effect, but that is the problem with the VO, not the writers)

I DO NOT like that some plot lines (Varnell) are closed to everyone but certain tone Hawkes.

I DO  like that I cannot threaten/persuade everyone through 4 skills spent on Jedi mind tricks, so I have to find another way to complete a certain quest (i.e. Gascard will always turn on Snarky Hawke, and that is fine) 

I DO NOT like that I cannot express disagreement with a companion (i.e. Merrill and her blood magic) without choosing Aggressive lines (which are pretty abusive) 

I DO like "icons" that clarify "intention" (like the "heart" icons that get referred to unfairly as "romance win" buttons. Those buttons don't win me Varric or Aveline )

I DO NOT like that Aggro Hawke gets more "plot change options" than everyone else.

Modifié par Palipride47, 24 octobre 2012 - 04:15 .

[Hatchetman77]

I actually like the system and think if more things were tracked instead of just good/smartass/evil then it could be a great tool in letting characters pick their own personality.  What if it tracked responses like saying you're religious.  Then you may get slightly different dialouge when you talk with religious characters.  Plus it should track responses to characters individually.  I had an evil Hawke who despite his evilness, always picked sarcastic responses to Isabella.  I think it would be cool if it tracked responses to different characters differently, so I wouldn't tell Isabella to **** off in the bar when she tried to get me to buy her a drink.

[Palipride47]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

I actually like the system and think if more things were tracked instead of just good/smartass/evil then it could be a great tool in letting characters pick their own personality.  What if it tracked responses like saying you're religious.  Then you may get slightly different dialouge when you talk with religious characters.  Plus it should track responses to characters individually.  I had an evil Hawke who despite his evilness, always picked sarcastic responses to Isabella. I think it would be cool if it tracked responses to different characters differently, so I wouldn't tell Isabella to **** off in the bar when she tried to get me to buy her a drink.

If it did that, and so basically was more intuitive or intelligent, then I wouldn't mind the tracking as much. I get that 99.89% sarcastic pretty much means sarcastic, but getting shut out of that .11% other is kinda annoying. 

[Hatchetman77]

Rojahar wrote...

Their implementation just needs work, so that you can get away with mixing things and more nuance. Overall, the idea of the game acknowledging and responding to the way you choose to talk (making jokes, being aggressive, etc.) wasn't a bad idea.

A lot of things in these games suffer from similar issues. How come someone can be madly in love with you, but once you end a romance, they act like you were always just buddies? How come if I follow the friendship path for half the game with say... Anders, then my character has a change of heart on the Mage/Templar issue for example, and I max rival him, he says things like "We've never gotten along..." instead of "We used to be friends! What happened to you?"

These are rhetorical questions. I hope you get the idea. Like friendship/rivalry, its not a bad idea, Bioware just needs to expand the depth and width of their implementation of it.

I hope BioWare realises that this could be an absolutly huge innovation in RPGs if they're willing to put the effort into this.

[Palipride47]

Rojahar wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Their implementation just needs work, so that you can get away with mixing things and more nuance. Overall, the idea of the game acknowledging and responding to the way you choose to talk (making jokes, being aggressive, etc.) wasn't a bad idea.

A lot of things in these games suffer from similar issues. How come someone can be madly in love with you, but once you end a romance, they act like you were always just buddies? How come if I follow the friendship path for half the game with say... Anders, then my character has a change of heart on the Mage/Templar issue for example, and I max rival him, he says things like "We've never gotten along..." instead of "We used to be friends! What happened to you?"

These are rhetorical questions. I hope you get the idea. Like friendship/rivalry, its not a bad idea, Bioware just needs to expand the depth and width of their implementation of it.

I hope BioWare realises that this could be an absolutly huge innovation in RPGs if they're willing to put the effort into this.

Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, they said they'd be scrapping the friendship/rivalry and going back to approval/disapproval because of those issue. As I mentioned, if they simply in extra effort, they could solve those issues and make something really amazing, but sadly its looking like they'd rather just not do it at all. I can still hope maybe we'll end up with more detailed recognition of choices one day.

YESSS!!! THEY COULD DO THAT AND IT WOULD BE......awwwwww.......

Maybe the approval/disapproval will be more "nuanced" as well. I actually did like that party members acted differently and spoke differently to you besides "I hate you," with f/r and that I didn't have to tell Wynne I lurve the Circle and Morrigan that I hate it to keep everyone happy.  

[Hatchetman77]

Rojahar wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Their implementation just needs work, so that you can get away with mixing things and more nuance. Overall, the idea of the game acknowledging and responding to the way you choose to talk (making jokes, being aggressive, etc.) wasn't a bad idea.

A lot of things in these games suffer from similar issues. How come someone can be madly in love with you, but once you end a romance, they act like you were always just buddies? How come if I follow the friendship path for half the game with say... Anders, then my character has a change of heart on the Mage/Templar issue for example, and I max rival him, he says things like "We've never gotten along..." instead of "We used to be friends! What happened to you?"

These are rhetorical questions. I hope you get the idea. Like friendship/rivalry, its not a bad idea, Bioware just needs to expand the depth and width of their implementation of it.

I hope BioWare realises that this could be an absolutly huge innovation in RPGs if they're willing to put the effort into this.

Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, they said they'd be scrapping the friendship/rivalry and going back to approval/disapproval because of those issue. As I mentioned, if they simply in extra effort, they could solve those issues and make something really amazing, but sadly its looking like they'd rather just not do it at all. I can still hope maybe we'll end up with more detailed recognition of choices one day.

BioWare's biggest problem right now is that they seem content to follow trends and not set them.  It cost them huge with TOR when they decided to make a WoW clone instead of showing some innovation like GW2 did.  Sometime playing it safe is the riskiest move you can make.

[TNT1991]

Arppis wrote...

As long as there is the snarky/humorious choices, I'm game...

 

[Palipride47]

Rojahar wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

YESSS!!! THEY COULD DO THAT AND IT WOULD BE......awwwwww.......

Maybe the approval/disapproval will be more "nuanced" as well. I actually did like that party members acted differently and spoke differently to you besides "I hate you," with f/r and that I didn't have to tell Wynne I lurve the Circle and Morrigan that I hate it to keep everyone happy.  

Would be interesting to even have little things like that be acknowledged. In DA2, they accuse sarcastic Hawke of using humor as a defense mechanism. Perhaps if it often seems you always say what people want to hear, even when you seem to support two opposing views, to have a companion call you out. "I thought you hated the Chantry. What turned you around?" and you could legitimately choose some options where you say you've had a change of heart or maybe an option where you kind of glare or wink, like "Play along! I'm softening this chump up!" or perhaps at camp/wherever, a companion criticizes/admires your brand of diplomacy.

@ bolded, that's how I jusitfy my autodialogue  since I always play Snarky Hawke. Diplomatic Hawke was too...sweet and saccahrine and "let's help everyone" and aggro Hawke was just an ass. (my opinion)

Ha, the only time anyone ever pointed out contradictions in convos was when you were cheating on them.

I think they improved some things and really dropped the ball with others.

I think the friend/rivalry system was great in that you could talk and act consistently, and companion attitudes would reflect how they thought, and you didn't need to reorganize youir party because if you accept a kiss from a tavern girl for -3 and now you are at crisis point, Morrigan gets fed up and leaves.

At least in DAO, when you said something nasty, or did something horrible (to them), it swung 180 in a bad way, like how you could be +100 with Leliana, but she tries to kill you the minute you destroy the Ashes. That did happen with Merrill's aruli'hom (whatever, that carving thing) quest, and that was great. She should basically hate you after that, even with 85% Friendship.

But then in DA2, you friendmance, I dunno, Anders or something, do the love scene bit, then kick him out of your house and tell him he sucked in bed....No rivalry points, and all was well, he didn't hate me? Considering he confessed his love and I basically used him?!  whaaaa?!

Modifié par Palipride47, 24 octobre 2012 - 06:09 .