35 réponses à ce sujet

[pianomaestra]

I know the conversation wheel has been talked about to death, but hopefully this is a relatively new angle to discuss.

I generally didn't have a problem with the wheel and dominant personality system, but there was one aspect of it that did bother me a little--it seemed, at times, to tie personal beliefs (or political ones) with personality. For example, I think only an aggressive Hawke could be properly anti-Qunari. There were also times--like the conversations with Anders--where a personality tone would equal politica/personal belief. For example: aggressive=mages need to be contained, and diplomatic tone would generally be supportive of mages. I may be remembering incorrectly, of course (it's been a while since I've done a runthrough), but that's the impression I got.

A change I'd like to see to the system would be detaching personal/political opinions from personality tone. For example, allow for a aggressive player to be an adamant mage supporter, and so forth.

[Avaflame]

I THINK (also, been awhile) but it was possible a little, it was just depending on who you were talking to. Say, if Anders was talking 'kill templars' pro mage would be diplomatic, pro templar would be aggressive. Alternatively if it was Fenris talking, then pro mage would be aggressive and so on.

But I agree with you, in a perfect world we could agree with Anders saying 'I won't stop until every last templar's skin has melted into his armour' rather than 'Mages don't deserve their treatment'. But in a perfect world, we just decide what to say and hear the PC say it in whatever voice we want and have the NPC react to it naturally (and be romancible). Until then however, it probably makes sense to have the affirmative response as diplomatic and negative as aggressive, because that makes more sense than '$#&% you Anders, I agree!'

[Blackrising]

I agree. It was almost impossible to roleplay an aggressive character that supported mages, not without getting an emotional wipslash from alternting between diplomatic and aggressive tone.

Anders: "Hey, Hawke."
Hawke: "What the f*** do you want? I'm busy."
Anders: "We have to save these mages!"
Hawke: "Yes, you are absolutely right. We need to give mages the freedom they deserve. No longer shall they be slaves to the whims of men."

[silentassassin264]

It was quite possible to be an aggressive mage supporter. The key to it is is to pay attention to what is being said. Sure you may want to just press the aggressive button but the thing is, your personality is determined by you overall choices, not each individual one. If you are sympathetic to Anders' cause, then you would likely answer diplomatic if he asks you for help and then aggressive that it is time to kill templars. Your overall personality isn't going to change if you are for the most part a trollhawke but occasionally are aggressive or diplomatic. Play who you want to be on all those important plotish things and hammer away on desired personality for all the neutral/tone doesn't matter dialogue.

[Plaintiff]

I'm curious. How do you agree with someone aggressively?

[jillabender]

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm curious. How do you agree with someone aggressively?

Well, I suppose you could agree with someone reluctantly, and express that agreement in an abrasive way, along the lines of: "Fine, you've convinced me – but don't think this means that I like you!"

Modifié par jillabender, 27 novembre 2012 - 03:25 .

[Xilizhra]

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm curious. How do you agree with someone aggressively?

You can actually do it with Anders several times, many of them centered around Dissent.

[Auintus]

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm curious. How do you agree with someone aggressively?

"You are absolutely right, Anders! Every templar must burn for their crimes against mages!"
versus
"The mages should be free, yes, but we needn't kill every templar we meet."
Also
"No way! Mages are a threat to us all and must be locked up so protect the rest of us."
versus
"Anders, the templars have good reasons for what they do."

[iOnlySignIn]

Xilizhra wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm curious. How do you agree with someone aggressively?

You can actually do it with Anders several times, many of them centered around Dissent.

I like those options very much. Political power (and personal freedom) grows out of the flames of a Fireball.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 27 novembre 2012 - 03:31 .

[Fortlowe]

jillabender wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm curious. How do you agree with someone aggressively?

Well, I suppose you could agree with someone reluctantly, and express that agreement in an abrasive way, along the lines of: "Fine, you've convinced me – but don't think this means that I like you!"

Jilla is being he usual friendly self. Let me illustrate what she means:

Shady NPC: :oI am all that was keeping the veil from completely collapsing. I don't know how to stop it now!

Inquisitor: <_
NPC: NO! I...I have an idea!

Inquisitor: Then it had better be a good one.

[jillabender]

Fortlowe wrote...

jillabender wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm curious. How do you agree with someone aggressively?

Well, I suppose you could agree with someone reluctantly, and express that agreement in an abrasive way, along the lines of: "Fine, you've convinced me – but don't think this means that I like you!"

Jilla is being her usual friendly self. Let me illustrate what she means:

Shady NPC: :oI am all that was keeping the veil from completely collapsing. I don't know how to stop it now!

Inquisitor: <_
NPC: NO! I...I have an idea!

Inquisitor: Then it had better be a good one.

Haha, very well put! Intimidation is indeed a very efficient way of arriving at a "reluctant agreement!"

Modifié par jillabender, 27 novembre 2012 - 04:20 .

[Foolsfolly]

Blackrising wrote...

I agree. It was almost impossible to roleplay an aggressive character that supported mages, not without getting an emotional wipslash from alternting between diplomatic and aggressive tone.

Anders: "Hey, Hawke."
Hawke: "What the f*** do you want? I'm busy."
Anders: "We have to save these mages!"
Hawke: "Yes, you are absolutely right. We need to give mages the freedom they deserve. No longer shall they be slaves to the whims of men."

I don't feel that was enough of a whiplash example. It read like Hawke was busy and then Anders got Hawke's attention with a topic important to them.

[labargegrrrl]

pianomaestra wrote...

I know the conversation wheel has been talked about to death, but hopefully this is a relatively new angle to discuss.

I generally didn't have a problem with the wheel and dominant personality system, but there was one aspect of it that did bother me a little--it seemed, at times, to tie personal beliefs (or political ones) with personality. For example, I think only an aggressive Hawke could be properly anti-Qunari. There were also times--like the conversations with Anders--where a personality tone would equal politica/personal belief. For example: aggressive=mages need to be contained, and diplomatic tone would generally be supportive of mages. I may be remembering incorrectly, of course (it's been a while since I've done a runthrough), but that's the impression I got.

A change I'd like to see to the system would be detaching personal/political opinions from personality tone. For example, allow for a aggressive player to be an adamant mage supporter, and so forth.

i've actually talked about this a lot (like, a LOT) in other threads.  b/c you're right, every tone seemed to have biases built into them.  only instead of divorcing personality from opinion, i think they should offer two opinions in each personality tone.

i should have been able to aggressively tell grace i agreed with her crazy self, as well as accuse her of being a criminal, diplomatically tell merril blood magic wasn't cool, as well as thank her for her help, or just make snide comments about whatever side of a choice/issue i was dealing with, rather than jokes dropping at random.  

if only those personality tones could have had an option on each side of the wheel... 

[CrystaJ]

My favorite Hawke is an aggressive male mage.

He simply pursued pro-mage actions whilst being a prickly but charismatic jerk. It was kind of amusing, since he ended up with 100% friendship with Aveline and Anders (who don't get along with each other) while netting 100% rivalry with Fenris and Merrill (who also don't get along).

I guess if there was an "side with the oppressors" choice, it would naturally be the aggressive response when the question is posed to you, but you don't have to take it. There's plenty of other questions that go the other way, too: like when given the choice to kill Thrask, I think.

Modifié par CrystaJ, 27 novembre 2012 - 05:05 .

[nightscrawl]

labargegrrrl wrote...

i've actually talked about this a lot (like, a LOT) in other threads.  b/c you're right, every tone seemed to have biases built into them.  only instead of divorcing personality from opinion, i think they should offer two opinions in each personality tone.

i should have been able to aggressively tell grace i agreed with her crazy self, as well as accuse her of being a criminal, diplomatically tell merril blood magic wasn't cool, as well as thank her for her help, or just make snide comments about whatever side of a choice/issue i was dealing with, rather than jokes dropping at random.  

if only those personality tones could have had an option on each side of the wheel... 

Yepper, I agree there. These kind of conflicting dialogs are one of the reasons people have suggested multiple bars that track multiple things. I think that's getting a bit carried away though. How many bars do we need?

To me, the ideal situation would be to have a positive and negative response for each of the personality tones (example below, ignore lameness). That way, whether you agree or disagree you can still keep the tone and personality that you want to have for your character.

[Insomniak]

I really like this idea. It also addresses a lot of the issues discussed in all those other dialogue wheel threads. Like for the "Polite" thread, you can diplomatically decline here; gives you more choices too - reducing that "over-simplification" feeling people keep raging about.

[labargegrrrl]

nightscrawl wrote...

labargegrrrl wrote...

i've actually talked about this a lot (like, a LOT) in other threads.  b/c you're right, every tone seemed to have biases built into them.  only instead of divorcing personality from opinion, i think they should offer two opinions in each personality tone.

i should have been able to aggressively tell grace i agreed with her crazy self, as well as accuse her of being a criminal, diplomatically tell merril blood magic wasn't cool, as well as thank her for her help, or just make snide comments about whatever side of a choice/issue i was dealing with, rather than jokes dropping at random.  

if only those personality tones could have had an option on each side of the wheel... 

Yepper, I agree there. These kind of conflicting dialogs are one of the reasons people have suggested multiple bars that track multiple things. I think that's getting a bit carried away though. How many bars do we need?

To me, the ideal situation would be to have a positive and negative response for each of the personality tones (example below, ignore lameness). That way, whether you agree or disagree you can still keep the tone and personality that you want to have for your character.

^ this.  sooooo much this!  ty for illustrating the point. 

[nightscrawl]

javajedi217 wrote...

I really like this idea. It also addresses a lot of the issues discussed in all those other dialogue wheel threads. Like for the "Polite" thread, you can diplomatically decline here; gives you more choices too - reducing that "over-simplification" feeling people keep raging about.

Well the problem with this idea is that each of those would be a dialog response. If, like with DAO, they had a hard limit of 6 responses total, that leaves no room for anything else: flirt, bribe/persuasion, consult companion, special plot option, etc.

Unless I have misunderstood and this is only 6 displayed options. So then in that case you would have your 3 tones shown, you click (or mouseover) them, and get your 2 yes/no choices, therefore you only see 2 in addition to any special choices. Also, the issue might be that they don't want the player doing all of that clicking just to see all of the choices -- clicking a tone, reading it, clicking "back," and then looking at the other two, before deciding on a final choice can involve as many as 7 mouse clicks for one damn dialog option, which seems extreme.

In this thread is some interesting dev discussion about dialog structure.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 27 novembre 2012 - 06:13 .

[Fredward]

This could use some work, yes. It's why I always played a sarcastic/humorous Hawke because when they weren't joking about everything their answers were very neutral anyway.

[esper]

nightscrawl wrote...

javajedi217 wrote...

I really like this idea. It also addresses a lot of the issues discussed in all those other dialogue wheel threads. Like for the "Polite" thread, you can diplomatically decline here; gives you more choices too - reducing that "over-simplification" feeling people keep raging about.

Well the problem with this idea is that each of those would be a dialog response. If, like with DAO, they had a hard limit of 6 responses total, that leaves no room for anything else: flirt, bribe/persuasion, consult companion, special plot option, etc.

Unless I have misunderstood and this is only 6 displayed options. So then in that case you would have your 3 tones shown, you click (or mouseover) them, and get your 2 yes/no choices, therefore you only see 2 in addition to any special choices. Also, the issue might be that they don't want the player doing all of that clicking just to see all of the choices -- clicking a tone, reading it, clicking "back," and then looking at the other two, before deciding on a final choice can involve as many as 7 mouse clicks for one damn dialog option, which seems extreme.

In this thread is some interesting dev discussion about dialog structure.

I am pretty sure that Gaider stated somewhere that the wheel is not hard coded to 6.
They could place extra choices on the north/south pole.

[pianomaestra]

I don't think adding more options would be necessary--there were times in DA2 where you were allowed to express opinion that were handled with "choice" icons (the road-type icons). Like the conversation with Fenris when you first entered the gallows with him. That's all I'm really looking for--when asked to express opinion, instead of offering the range of biases through personality tones, offer them as neutral choices. DA2 did this to an extent, but I'm hoping DA3 will expand on it.

[Swagger7]

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm curious. How do you agree with someone aggressively?

NPC:  We need to stop the greedy landlord and his men from taking all our grain. 

PC:  Of course, and after we stop them, kill 'em and loot the bodies! 


NPC: 

[JWvonGoethe]

Most of the quotes being used here to back up this argument seem to be made up...

That said, I do like the graphic posted by nightscrawl. Having a yes or no response for each tone wouldn't seem too appealing to me in principle, but seeing it mocked up was pretty convincing.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 29 novembre 2012 - 03:45 .

[lothvamp]

pianomaestra wrote...

I don't think adding more options would be necessary--there were times in DA2 where you were allowed to express opinion that were handled with "choice" icons (the road-type icons). Like the conversation with Fenris when you first entered the gallows with him. That's all I'm really looking for--when asked to express opinion, instead of offering the range of biases through personality tones, offer them as neutral choices. DA2 did this to an extent, but I'm hoping DA3 will expand on it.

I like this idea.  You could get the basic concepts of  Agree, Disagree, Neutral and have them delivered in a way that reflects your personality choice.

EDIT:  Of course that takes away from the roleplayability of changing up your tone.  Even the most laid-back joker gets pissed every once in awhile and just has to go for the aggressive option (Or when you're playing through as Diplomatic/Aggressive, some of Sarcastic lines are just impossible to skip).

Modifié par lothvamp, 29 novembre 2012 - 10:26 .

[cowoline]

To me it seems that your actions(rivalry/friendship) gives you the options. At least with Anders from a certain point on. When you accept the "dissent" quest aggressive Hawke is actually supportive of Anders, where diplomatic Hawke tries to calm him and snarky Hawke outright tells him he has lost it.

You also get the option to disagree and be diplomatic once you are on rivalry path. But I agree it would be nice to have a wider option. Or a check box that says:

[X] pro mage
[/] pro templar.

But that picture further up would be nice as well:)