9 réponses à ce sujet

[Wolfva2]

I try to be a nice guy in games.  It's easier there.  Anyways, imagine my surprise when I'm just chatting with Zhevran and suddenly...BAM!  He thinks we're in a relationship.  Huh?  When did THAT happen?!?  I know I didn't get into Oghrens stash of brew!  Or, in ME, I'm just chatting with Liarra, next thing I know I'm embracing eternity.  Take Jack; poor girl.  Seriously messed up, I just want to help her.  But the only way to get her to lower her defenses, to see that not everyone is trying to get something from her...is to get something from her.

What ever happened to just being friends?  Why does it have to devolve into sex?  Jack doesn't need someone to bang her to show she can trust someone; heck, this is a multiple gang rape victim, the last thing she equates sex with is intimacy!  I'd say she needed the exact OPPOSITE.  Someone who was there for her, without conditions.  Who wasn't trying to get into her pants.  But nope.  It's either convince her you care with your mighty Shepards Crook or she sits in the cargo hold alone.

I think it'd be nice if we had a 3rd option to go along with "romance" (ie, bang like bunnies.  Let's face it, it's not really romance; where are the candles, rose petals, and Isaac Hayes music?) or "whatever, friends, yeah, now shut up and sit in your corner of the camp until I'm ready to talk to you" options.

I would find it hilarious as all get out if there was a random chance for your prospective love interest to say, "I'm so glad we're JUST FRIENDS!" with a little hug and a kiss on the cheek.  You know, for that added realism <G>.

[Mary Kirby]

Lines that lead to romance in DA2 and Inquisition are marked with different icons. Don't click the hearts, and you will avoid accidental romances.

[Allan Schumacher]

There's a correct way, and an incorrect way, to register your disappointment.

Insulting the intelligence of people that want different things than you is not the way.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 25 mars 2013 - 11:27 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Both are a problem really. You can't have one without the other.

Yes you can, as evidenced by Aveline (as pointed out earlier).

I see what you're saying about Aveline in the sense that she shoots you down, but I think that's the exception that proves the rule. If it's a romanceable NPC and you have a golden heart, as long as you hit the golden heart it's like hitting an "I Win" button.

That phrase gets misused so much that it's quickly becoming one of my larger pet peeves on the Internet.

http://en.wikipedia....proves_the_rule

"The exception [that] proves the rule" is a frequently misused English phrase. The original meaning of this phrase is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule).

Aveline is the exception that undermines your argument entirely. The issue you have is how we use the icons. Icons exist purely to provide extra insight into how the line will be delivered. That you're diplomatic does not mean that you will be well received. That you are aggressive does not mean that it will lead to a fight (nevermind we're reevaluating how we go forward with this).

If you find that the icons can only exist as metaknowledge for how the game reacts to your choices, that's an issue for how we've created our content (that is, we don't deviate how the NPC reacts). This has nothing to do with the presence of an icon.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think the problem here was that Aveline was one of the few exceptions where a heart icon was available to a non-LI.

As far as I can remember she's the only one (Varric might have one too). But that's not an issue with the presence of an icon. It's an issue for how we create our content.

Now we could heart it up like crazy all over the place and have the various NPCs deny the player all the time. I don't know if it helps the situation a whole lot (I'd be content with one per party member, however, and have that party member

I think the other problem people have is that, in an attempt to strengthen their argument (whether for or against the wheel) is how they always compare how "realistic" the choice they pick is. They then cite off a list of examples (whether hypothetical or real) to illustrate this. It happens in this thread.

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I don't really find either perspective to be particularly realistic. And I never have. Personally, I don't find one to be superior than the other in most cases. Other people disagree and they have their reasons why.

Once I start hearing an implication that one of these groups is of lesser intelligence (which is unavoidable once the features get equated to being "dumbed down" representations), I start to get really frustrated.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 26 mars 2013 - 12:46 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Unless you tried to romance Aveline, though, I'd say that it would be fair to think - without any out of game knowledge - she was romanceable, based on the hearts being there and the fact that all the other hearts lead to romance. (Did Varric dialogue have hearts? I can't recall. I don't think so.)

...

Edit: My point being - even though the heart is for intent, it still can be (fairly, IMO) interpreted as heart = progress romance in DA2.

That may be, but if alternatives do exist, I can't prevent people from utilizing the hasty generalization logical fallacy. If someone feels that "Presence of a heart icon definitively means romance" then their conclusion is still wrong.

For myself, the heart is equivalent to "[Flirt]" that existed in a multitude of "full text" style games.

Why even have dialogue? Just have symbols. Click the happy face, the meany face or the heart.

Alpha Protocol probably has the best conversation system (and conversation reactivity) in a game that I have ever seen, and all it shows is typically single word for every response. And has a timer!!

[Allan Schumacher]

Okay then, games aren't being "dumbed down" but they're certainly being made more simple. Click the heart. Click purple. Let's forget about character sheets and multiclassing and here's your warrior, rogue, and mage. That's what frustrates me. It's the lack of options. It's the inability to characterize my character through the use of dialogue. NWN2 isn't the best example, but it's the most recent example I have. During a trial I had multiple ways of using Diplomacy, Bluff, and Taunt in addition to regular dialogue choices. Why can't I persuade anymore? What does your target demographic dislike so much about putting points into speech options? This is why people think games are dumbed down. Everything is much, much simpler than it should be.

This is an issue with different rulesets and styles of gameplay.

Persuade wasn't complicated in Dragon Age. It was trivial, and an "I win" button. Instead of having explicit points in an "I win" button like persuade, we tried doing something different (the dominant tone) which wasn't as well received. (a similar system was also used in The Witcher 2, though it had some differences and allowed the player to become good at all three of Intimdiate, Persuade, and Axii sign)

Though if I am understanding your complaint, it is more about the entirety of Dragon age being too simple.... At this point I don't really have much to respond with. It is what it is and if you're hoping for things like multiclassing, character sheets, and in general a more PnP play experience, I see it as something that Dragon Age never really sought to provide.

Tangentially, you may get more of these types of games from smaller studios leveraging things like Kickstarter.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 26 mars 2013 - 01:19 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Clearly, from the 3rd sentence, the person has seen an adult before and knows they generally live in towns. So why would he think there are no adult residents there? If I were making that conclusion about a town, it might be wrong, but it wouldn't be hasty.

It's a hasty generalization if that's the conclusion he draws from seeing only children in town. There are likely other influences (such as the ones you put forth) that will probably prevent him from making that hasty generalization.

As for "it would be wrong," that's true. Hasty generalizations often are and are proven so by having a single instance occur that goes against the claim (at which point, the hasty generalization becomes evident).

[Allan Schumacher]

Well it's up to us to try to convince you otherwise.


EDIT: changed to "us" since technically that's more the case.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 26 mars 2013 - 01:35 .

[Allan Schumacher]

The game's schedule is definitely longer (and as I changed it to, it's more "us" than just "Gaider and company" really)