67 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

There are a few times where you're given a choice dialog or whatever, where all the three options have that those three arrows as their symbol, but it's few and far between it seems.

Those were also the occasions where I found the voice least suited by character design.

*sigh* I really do need to stop complaining about voiced protags, don't I.

Never.  If we stop complaining, they'll think we've accepted it.

[FieryDove]

nightscrawl wrote...

However, I will say that part of the reason for these feelings were the time jumps and the limited conversation opportunities with the companions, most of which revolved around their quests, so of course the talk would be mostly about them.

This brings up a good point. Also I think since the companion dialogue was sort of cut in half each play-through. There was as much as DAO it has been said but it was divided up friendship/rivalry. I only rivaled two characters myself but rivaly seemed much the same. "The companions issue" quest, whatever was always presesnt. Just a bit more...forcefully said.

I really liked Varric seeming like he was really curious/cared asking what Hawke's plans were. Little touches like that go a long way. imho

Modifié par FieryDove, 04 janvier 2013 - 07:02 .

[BubbleDncr]

Yep, I like it a lot when other characters ask me about what my motivations are, what I want, etc. It is probably why I feel all my Wardens are more developed than my Hawkes - at least IN game. In my head, my Hawkes are equally as developed, they just don't get to express it to other characters.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Regardless, in DA:O, I felt like Wynne actually cared about what I thought. I thought Leliana was actually curious about my upbringing and history. I felt like the crazy Mad Hermit was a creepster for wanting to know personal details about my past. Because they weren't just referencing a past event that was outlined in my origin, but were actually asking questions I, as the player, often had no backstory or ability to answer. So we were forced to dig into how we imagined our character and choose a response accordingly. There was no diplomatic/snarky/aggressive option on this - we had to conjure our actual feelings, not stick to a defined script of who our character was already made out to be.

That's not true. Talking with Wynne you get to mock her about Griffins, you can chastize Leliana quite aggresively as an elf for her views, you can chew out Alistair for comments about your family as an HN ...

This type of connection to the companions made me feel like they WERE my Warden's friends. Because instead of hanging out with my character killing people all the time and then talking only about themselves, they actually asked pretty probing questions about my character, as a person. Which made me feel like the friendship was much more of a two-way street.

You can have conversations to this effect with Aveline, I believe. Though she's more interested in your morality.

That being said, some players (who like mysterious stranger backgrounds) hate options like these, because the pre-define the PC, unless there is an F-off option.

[Sir JK]

I agree Fast Jimmy, these sort of things are quite important. While I'd like some of the things these sort of questions give an answer to to be brought up again and "challenged" in the story, I think these sort of topics are very important as well.
The topics where we explain how we feel we fit into the world, how we view and just plain how we are feeling today. Not everything is about the grand quest or the end of the world. Sometimes I just want my character to express his admiration of a beautiful painting to his friends... or perhaps derison.

[In Exile]

nightscrawl wrote...
To me, one of the most meaningful conversations in DAO was one with Wynne about what it means to be a Grey Warden. Yes, true to her nature, she used it to impart a lesson, but the options were such that with that one conversation you could basically state your purpose for the entire game. It had no consequence whatsoever, but I thought it was fantastic.

This isn't a response per se - it's more a counter-point. But consider this: Wynne's conversation was very limited. Becuase the only options were "It means [x] to be a Grey Warden to me ..." and there was no "I don't consider myself a GW, and I'm doing to this for the sake of Ferelden, not a kidnapper [who made me watch my parents die]" option. Put another way, these types of choices are also restrctive -  because they force a character concept on you.

Which works quite well if you have it - but not very well at all if you don't.

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I don't feel that way. You define the tone of your character, but not your character as a person. The tones are usually three different ways to say one thing, which is restrictive, or  three different things--all with a particular tone tied to each opinion. What if I want to disaree with someone without sounding like I'm going to stab them? I'm restricted. I can't develop my character as purely, I'm forced into either playing a character who, within the context of the game, sounds bi-polar, or succumb and hit top right every time do be consistent within the game-world.

There are a few times where you're given a choice dialog or whatever, where all the three options have that those three arrows as their symbol, but it's few and far between it seems.

*sigh* I really do need to stop complaining about voiced protags, don't I.

This wasn't at all different in DA:O - whenever you disagreed with someone, the option was always aggressive. It was written to be aggresive. That you wanted to pretend it wasn't aggressive wasn't at all a feature of the game, especially since even the NPCs react to it as if it were aggressive.

Bioware doesn't do polite disagreement, except in rare instances.

[Swagger7]

I support the OP. Those little conversation choices are great for roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

This wasn't at all different in DA:O - whenever you disagreed with someone, the option was always aggressive. It was written to be aggresive. That you wanted to pretend it wasn't aggressive wasn't at all a feature of the game, especially since even the NPCs react to it as if it were aggressive.

You are pretending that it was aggressive to exactly the same degree than I am pretending it wasn't.

If someone reacts strongly to what I said, that doesn't mean I was aggressive.  It could mean that they didn't enjoy my gentle mockery.  It could mean that they're offended by my pedantry in the face of danger.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

That being said, some players (who like mysterious stranger backgrounds) hate options like these, because the pre-define the PC, unless there is an F-off option.

In the silent protagonist games there usually were evasive options, not to mention the possibility of lying.

[Homebound]

Theres a lot of inconsequential choices in ALL videogames, except it tends to be meta. For example, do you do this quest? Do you talk to this crew member? etc. All very inconsequential but plays out what you requests.

[Fast Jimmy]

If someone reacts strongly to what I said, that doesn't mean I was aggressive.  It could mean that they didn't enjoy my gentle mockery.  It could mean that they're offended by my pedantry in the face of danger.

It could mean that the thing you suggested hit a sensitive nerve that in no way was aggressive.

Earlier this week, I made a suggestion to a client in a very polite, diplomatic tone that, unbeknownst to me, was a very touchy subject due to internal corporate politics. The client was quite aggressive, terse and stand offish by my suggestion (they basically told me it wasn't any of my business - even though they had contacted me to fix a problem they had - and said to buzz off), despite my completely innocent comment and my very nice, polite tone.

People will act in ways you don't expect on a regular basis. Just because you are aggressive, nice, funny, stoic, calm, wild, scary or pathetic... you can't guarantee someone's response to anything you have said just because you talked to them in a certain manner.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 04 janvier 2013 - 09:21 .

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I don't agree. There were instances where I disagreed that the NPC most definitely did not react as if it were aggressive. In fact, when I was playing I came to the opposite conclusion: when I said something that was clearly, in text, an aggressive thing, the NPCs responded like it was conversational.

Please do, because that isn't my recollection.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
In the silent protagonist games there usually were evasive options, not to mention the possibility of lying.

There is always the possibility of lying. You can just say that anything a PC says that disagrees with your headcannon is a lie. 

Fast Jimmy ...
People will act in ways you don't expect on a regular basis. Just
because you are aggressive, nice, funny, stoic, calm, wild, scary or
pathetic... you can't guarantee someone's response to anything you have
said just because you talked to them in a certain manner.

Of course, but that's not what I said. What I said was that in DA:O, there is no evidence that the line wasn't taken to be aggressive, other than the context and the reaction of the NPC. And, from what I recall of DA:O, most likes are written (and taken) to be aggressive, when there is a disagreement at issue.

Because, while we're at it, you can't break down tone into something like funny or aggressive, because you can always be both.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

There is always the possibility of lying. You can just say that anything a PC says that disagrees with your headcannon is a lie. 

Of course.  I was referring to the silent protagonist games specifically with regard to the evasive options.  Those options may well exist in the voiced protagonist games, as well, but the player can't see them.

The difficulty with the lying explanation in the voiced protagonist games is that you don't know what lie you're going to tell.  As such, the reason you told that specific lie is unknown to you.  When a person lies, he lies in an attempt to produce specific opinions in his audience, but if the content of the lie is unknown to the speaker then the speaker cannot reasonably have cause to utter it.

Of course, but that's not what I said. What I said was that in DA:O, there is no evidence that the line wasn't taken to be aggressive, other than the context and the reaction of the NPC.

I would argue that there is no conclusive evidence (the only evidence that matters) that the line was taken to be aggressive, either.  With regard to the PC's tone in DAO, we're operating from a position of complete uncertainty.

[nightscrawl]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I wonder if the paraphrase system is what keeps Jimmy from recognising these events in DA2. Since the player doesn't actually get to choose Hawke's responses, the extent to which the player can express his character's design through them is severely limited.

I don't think so. You either have choices that are inconsequential, such as telling Varric what your reaction to the ogre was, or you don't. The three personality responses to Varric's question were all paraphrased and were within the DA2 system of dialog.

If anything, I think the personality choices, and not the paraphrases, is what might make people not recognize these events, specifically in relation to the icons. In DAO we had a list, and as has been mentioned in other threads, the list does provide personality variation as well as investigative options. While we might say something in our head in DAO in a nice, snarky, or aggressive way, we cannot determine how the companion will react. Most of the time, the companion's response is reflective of what the writer's intent for the line be, regardless of what the player thought when clicking on it.

Other than one dialog with Anders in Act 3 -- and this is a rival Anders who was starting to lose it anyway -- I can't think of any companion's responses that didn't fit with the tone icon (ie they were pleased with a blue choice and upset with a red choice).

A strong DAO example for me is when Alistair first informs you of his parentage. You can say, "So... you're not just a bastard, but a royal bastard?" To me this is not a nice thing to say, nor is it something that I would say. However, it is the writer's intent that the line be humorous, and Alistair takes it as such, the result being that you get approval points and an amused response by him.

You as the player might have certain intent when clicking the line, but the writer's intent is already pre-recorded in the game.

[In Exile]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Of course.  I was referring to the silent protagonist games specifically with regard to the evasive options.  Those options may well exist in the voiced protagonist games, as well, but the player can't see them. [/quote]

What I mean is, there is no problem with assuming the protagonist is lying.

[quote]The difficulty with the lying explanation in the voiced protagonist games is that you don't know what lie you're going to tell.[/quote]

That's a problem with paraphrases, not the VO. And I don't disagree with you here.

[quote]As such, the reason you told that specific lie is unknown to you.  When a person lies, he lies in an attempt to produce specific opinions in his audience, but if the content of the lie is unknown to the speaker then the speaker cannot reasonably have cause to utter it. [/quote]

But I do disagree with you here. Because without more information that a list dialogue system gives (like tone and intention) it is very difficult to lie (without context on what you are lying about).

[quoteI would argue that there is no conclusive evidence (the only evidence that matters) that the line was taken to be aggressive, either.  With regard to the PC's tone in DAO, we're operating from a position of complete uncertainty.[/quote]

Conclusive evidence is impossible. That's the whole point of ... well, absolutely everything we do when we interact with reality ever. Everything I've ever studied - from the physics, to life sciences, to cognitive science, and now to law, is that these are all disciplines that effectively trade in different kinds of uncertainty.

[In Exile]

nightscrawl wrote...
A strong DAO example for me is when Alistair first informs you of his parentage. You can say, "So... you're not just a bastard, but a royal bastard?" To me this is not a nice thing to say, nor is it something that I would say. However, it is the writer's intent that the line be humorous, and Alistair takes it as such, the result being that you get approval points and an amused response by him.

See, to me, that's clearly a sarcastic line. I couldn't help but read it any other way - but that's because I'm a sarcastic jokester. And so to me, many lines are very strongly evocative of sarcasm, while they would not be to most others.

I say this because it just ocurs to me that this is another level of silent VO I never realized is a real issue: that the ambiguity in the dialogue is sometimes not evident based on the personality of the player. Making it even harder to tell what effect a line of dialogue will have.

[Alexander1136]

Swagger7 wrote...

I support the OP. Those little conversation choices are great for roleplaying.

+1

[Celene II]

If it effects nothing and is never referenced in the future then its a waste of time. Just a forgetten question that meant nothing to anything.

[XX-Pyro]

Celene II wrote...

If it effects nothing and is never referenced in the future then its a waste of time. Just a forgetten question that meant nothing to anything.

So essentially playing DAO was 95% a waste of time? You probably don't play many games. 

Either way I agree and disagree with the OP. I agree there needs to be more, but there was no difference from DAO to DA2 in my eyes in this department. They did it differently for sure, but to me I saw the same general result.

[HurricaneGinger]

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

While I do love some of DA2's characters, after playing through it for the billionth time I have also come to realize that when I talk with them they only talk about themselves. Sure Fenris asks you why you haven't returned home, and Varric asks you a few questions to get his story straight, but we don't have many ways to express ourselves. Hawke has a codex entry, and that was the only way we could understand our character - we were stuck with this one explaination. We had no way to expand on that. We could pick Hawke's personality, but that was it.

It seemed any back-and-forth between DA2's characters and Hawke took place off screen. For example: when you first recruit Anders and if you should have Carver in the party, the mage says "your brother/sister said Bethany was a good person". One of my Hawkes would have NEVER disclosed that information to Anders so soon. While out of character, it also felt like Bioware did not take the time to let us get to know Hawke, or expand on him or her. BioWare set the backstory, and we were stuck.

I'm one of the few people who actually liked DA2, but the above was one of the problems with the game.

I fell in love with these games because I could literally create a character out of thin air, give them vices, graces; I could make them snarky, or just plain mean. DAO gave me that opportunity, and it was a writer's paradise. DA2 made me feel a bit blocked in that regard.

[rapscallioness]

Olwaye wrote...

It seems a lot of us would like to have the DA:O conversations with the companions back.

You could talk about a lot of these inconsequential things at camp, or while traveling, I particularly remeber being able to ask Leliana if she knew something about the place you were in, and she could tell you the story of the place if she knew it.
Or you could ask for a kiss from your LI anywhere, with the other party members reacting.
It did made the game feel deeper, and allowed those of us who like to create a full backstory for their characters to do so, while letting those who prefer the more technical, tactical aspect of the game carry on playing without having to bother too much about characterisation.

I already missed the ability to start a conversation with a companion anywhere in Awakening.

It was, for me, one of the best features in DA:O and one I would have liked becoming a trademark of the franchise.

yeah. i really liked that, too.

And they asked you direct questions. how you felt abt. whatever it was you were talking abt. a great way to get to know your companions better. their histories.

[Ponendus]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

 I personally didn't like some of the companions and one of the reasons is this - they were self absorbed to the maximum. I don't feel like they asked me questions about my past, about how I felt about things or about my dreams of the future (outside of the ability to profess staying with your respective LI for all time, of course). I'm not saying those types of conversations never happened in DA2, but to my mind, none of them ever really stood out.

This is an excellent point Jimmy and I totally agree with you that DAO had companions that appeared to be more interested in the PC.

I suppose the only risk is that if BioWare gives us a set number of responses to 'where did you come from?' for example, it means we risk limiting ourselves to those choices - unless we lie which is in itself a character limit (what is my PC is not a liar?). There are other questions where this wouldn't matter so much, but it's just a thought.