67 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Filament wrote...

I feel like there are different kinds of "inconsequential choices," and you are referring more specifically to what could be called "expository choices."

There was some thought about using a different word in the title. The idea was to juxtapose Inconsequential next to Choices, since Choice and Consequence (good ole' C&C) are always a much toted combo here on the BSN. Ultimately, this was designed to engage interest, but I can see how pre-release information could give the wrong impression. I'll circle with the Marketing department and reiterate a different policy next time.

There are also inconsequential choices that don't serve much purpose except to help define or express your character's personality. Which would be the vast majority of them, and which I think are also valid from a roleplaying point of view.

While the DA games have many choices that don't matter, I am not of the mind that they SHOULDN'T matter. Whether or not you play as a mage in DA2, for example, should matter to the story more than it does (who can forget the immortal "Mages aren't people like us" line?). Your dominant tone should matter more than it does (although I am personally not a huge fan of what the dominant tone results in). Pretty much every major plot decision that wasn't really wrapped up or addressed within the game (and left to the Save Import system to give any finish in future games) should matter more - as I don't think in the Save Import's hands they stand much of a chance for follow through.

I am not advocating that all choices should be inconsequential except to develop our character. But I AM saying there should be a good amount of instances to give, as you call, expositionary response/choices. And not just to companions - the Mad Hermit in DA:O asks some pretty personal questions and, mad though he is, our character has to decide how to respond to him. 

Limiting all choices like this to our companions, after all, makes us wholly dependent on them, which is not neccesarily a great thing.

[Starfang]

Alexander1136 wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

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

+1

+1. Wait... +2? I don't know how the + system works... 

Point is, I agree! 

[Fallstar]

I'm going to go with inconsequential choices as being choices which have no effect on plot or companion relationships, and exist purely to define your character. A (controversial) example would be expressing your character's faith (or lack of it) in DAO. It didn't actually change anything, and just let you express that character within the game world.

I definitely support there being more of these kind of things in DA3.

[Atlanth]

Good post, OP. I fully agree. When I played as a Dalish elf, I could tell the Chantry sister in Ostagar to stuff it with her Maker or admonish Leliana about her views on elves. It was nice to be able to play an openly hostile elf or one who is open to humans and their views. It made the character a bit more mine.

As for the companions...I always felt as if DA2's companions did not have such a depth to them like DAO's companions had. With Anders it was always "All the world discriminates against me!" and with Fenris it was always "I hate all mages! Rage! Rage! Rage! See my tortured past!". That is all fine and dandy at first, but I kind of hoped that there would be something...more.

Take Alistair or Morrigan as a comparison. You could actually change the former, harden him, find out that he's actually a pretty deep kind of guy and not just a joker. Or Morrigan...yes, she's out for herself, but she can wind up liking you, as a sister or something more. So when these companions ask you about yourself, it seems as if they're actually interested in what you say. In DA2 it was all about me, me, me for your companions.

Perhaps I'm wrong...I don't know. But I missed this kind of depth in DA2. I hope they bring it back in DA3.

[Cigne]

I've been trying to picture the differences (to me) between conversations in DAO and DA2, and two things stand out.

With the exception of Sten and Dog, there's a 'wary look' reaction shot as in 'Why are you asking me this?'. In DA2 all I recall are the NPC's approaching the PC, not Hawke initiating the questioning.

In DAO most of the non-plot conversations were in camp, while in DA2 they were in town. There's something different about sitting in a bar, with music and chatter in the backgroung, from sitting (okay, standing) aroung a campfire.

Both games had moments for the player to define the PC, but think Origins had more of them.

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Last evening I tried to find a conversation that involved very clear yes/no option, but I was unsuccessful--I copy over my save games, so by the end of the game I've got about one save that's NOT already in Fort Draken. And I don't have any games I'm currently playing in DA:O at the moment. Thus I cannot substantiate my claim that the "no" options were not aggressive (or rather, refute yours that they were).

I have to apologize - I misunderstood. I didn't think you meant something as narrow as "yes/no". I thought you were talking more generally, about choices to disagree with the NPCs.

I did, however, manage to find a couple of instances where the PC is saying clearly antagonistic things to people and they do not respond to them hardly at all, and never respond as if it were aggression.

Wouldn't that be more of a case of Bioware not implementing any kind of reactivity to your choice?

A couple of times talking to Wynne, for instance when she asks about abominations, or when she tells how she came to the circle. Both times I picked the most aggessive options (options condemning anything to do with spirit possession in the first, and all anti-mage options in the second). Both times she did not decrease in approval.

I think approval matters less than reaction - but I take it that Wynne did not react at all?

Modifié par In Exile, 05 janvier 2013 - 08:18 .

[In Exile]

Atlanth wrote...
Take Alistair or Morrigan as a comparison. You could actually change the former, harden him, find out that he's actually a pretty deep kind of guy and not just a joker.

The point of F/R is that you can do this with all of the characters. But that's why they're a one-note - like Leliana's chartacter revolving quite strongly around the Chantry, and Alistair's character is all about how he wants to run away from leadership unless you convine him not to.

The real issue is that we're getting less conversations overall.

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

Well I rend to play my characters as myself, people who deflect with humor. So a question like "What to you does it mean to be a Grey Warden?" (as others have stated as an example) I would like to say something like "Well I was promised money but that didn't happen so I guess I will see if any ladies find grey wardens sexy." (Doesn't have to be exactly like that) and than maybe with them insisting an answer I finally do answer.

Buts thats just the kind I would like. Overall I agree with the OP. Even in Mass Effect 2 when talking with Grunt about constantly fighting you can tell him how you can't keep doing this forever or another option I don't recall at the moment.

Modifié par SpEcIaLRyAn, 05 janvier 2013 - 08:37 .

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Initially, yes. I felt that no was pretty much restricted to the aggresive option in Da ][.

It wasn't aggressive, technically, it was "direct". But you're totally right. There is a difference in how Hawke delivers the line, however.

Well, you could say it was that, or you could say it was because there wasn't a tone there. Both are likely valid.

In that case, though, it's like hitting a sore spot for a character. I find it hard to believe even if you're as polite as can be, if you say something like "Mages are subhuman, and they should be enslaved and have their tongues cut out! I'm really hoping you'll be cool when I do all that after the Blight, Wynne?" that she should react a bit to it.

Correct. Except for one time, when she went to tell a story about the Grey Wardens, and my Warden said, "Does it have griffons in it?" She replied:

"Maker, it's like talking to a child!"

GW: "Does it have griffons in it or not?"

Wynne: "Yes." *tells story*

That was by far my favourite conversation with her, and totally how IRL I would troll someone.

[dragonflight288]

Very nice. I only read the original post.

Since we know that the voiced actor isn't going away, I was thinking of things to help out with this.

Instead of only being able to talk to our companions when we're far enough along in their companion story-line or in their home or at camp, it would be nice if we could talk to them whenever we'd like (like in Origins.)

We also do not need marks to tell us the tone. Let the dominant one be the overall tone, but instead of the paraphrasing be all greyed out instead of an emotion symbol, to show we are answering the question, and how we played leading up to it changes how we answer the question while still giving the same information.

Say we are sarcastic or charming, we may make a comment about our past in a lighthearted manner, whereas if we're more aggressive, we may be incredibly blunt.

[Estelindis]

Jimmy, I agree with your original post. It's all very well said. Choices don't always have to have grand, overarching consequences. Sometimes it's nice to have something come up in the here and now and never be mentioned again. Actually this does have a consequence in a sense, but it's in terms of how you feel about the character you interacted with. ;-) I got a sense that Wynne cared about my Warden from the conversations you mentioned and this persisted through the rest of the game without Bioware having to spend any further zots on the matter. :-)

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Well it was the conversation where she says she set the boy's hair on fire and she was sent to the Circle. You can try it yourself, sometime. I will say that none of the conversation choices were that...cruel. or insane.

Yeah, that was a totally absurd example. My point was just that there is a threshold were polite delivery should matter, and it seems to me comments like that should set Wynne off. But I'm going to see if I have a save around there. It should be one of her early tell me about the circle questions?

[Celene II]

XX-Pyro wrote...


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.

When you were playing DAO you hoped or had reason to believe those conversations would effect the future. At least I had hope that something would come from every encounter

Why set it up from the beginning that its just a waste of time.

[Amirit]

Beautifully said and true in every word, Fast Jimmy. So hope you will be heard.