232 réponses à ce sujet

[fchopin]

Mary Kirby wrote...

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.

Hearts in DA3, terrible, the worst thing you can do to a romance.

[Firky]

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.)

That's what I assumed the first few plays, but I was also bringing the "out of game" knowledge which says that "This BioWare game will probably have lots of romances in it and I can't recall when I've tried to romance someone and failed before - except, like, in BG2 for some of the obvious reasons they didn't work out."

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

Modifié par Firky, 26 mars 2013 - 12:41 .

[Valcutio]

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

Sorry, but if this is the direction the dialogue is taking I can already see this game being as disapponting as DA2. I'd click the sad panda icon right about now.

[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 .

[syllogi]

Zevran: Hello good friend, I would like to give you a massage!

Warden: OKAY

Zevran: Just so we're clear, the massage is sex.

Yeah, I don't see how ninjamancing can happen with Zev. I've had Liara and Leliana both think I'm in a relationship with them, but those were apparently bugs, and I was able to break it off with them before any romance scene.

Honestly, I'm of the "you don't get to complain if you don't read" opinion, and I don't think heart icons are necessary. I know there will always be complaints about this sort of thing, but if the "point of no return" in the relationship is clearly stated in dialogue, that shouldn't be a problem.

[Dominus]

seeing the heart icon pop up made me think i could flirt outrageously an tease ppl

I always took the "Heart" icon more as an intent of flirtation, and not necessarily the "you win the guy/girl/desire demon/sandal/etc." sort of thing that might be one's interpretation. It'll be interesting to see what gameplay-related changes might be added in terms of romance. I recall dave mentioning an interest in adding more unique romances(bittersweet or the like) in terms of the romance budget.

I'm fine/indifferent with the icons.

Modifié par DominusVita, 26 mars 2013 - 12:58 .

[Homebound]

this could b a thing where Bioware can bring back a ConradVerner-esque npc thats infatuated with the main character.

[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!!

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

There's one or two other NPCs that get  heart options.  Not many, though.  I'm not sure about "heart it up like crazy" But some players may like the opportunity to flirt with other NPCs, and yes, maybe other companions.  And maybe get shot down, (or maybe not. always).  

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.

It may not be realistic, but I like having a really obvious flirt option.  That's nothing for or against the wheel.  I just prefer it when it's clear how my character's line will be interpreted.

[Monica21]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Did Aveline even acknowledge any flirting from Hawke? If she did, it was so subtle I missed it. She never turned me down or "denied" me. She just totally ignored it and kept on going. Maybe it was meant to show an oblivious Aveline, but claiming that Aveline was a potential LI who denied Hawke isn't really true. Maybe she was intended to be an LI or unobtainable at one point, but that just sort of got forgotten.

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.

Uh, yeah. The only way to successfully rivalmance Sebastian was to tell him that princes are sexy and then offer to sleep with him without the prospect of marriage. This is a guy who's not struggling with his faith, but rather whether to return to Starkhaven or stay in the Chantry. His position on premarital sex is pretty well established at this point, and the line is not only kind of offensive, but badly written. I felt bad for the voice actress for having to say it. That's unrealistic and I have no idea why it should work, but game mechanics dictate that it does.

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.

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.

Modifié par Monica21, 26 mars 2013 - 01:07 .

[Korusus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Two things: I take that to be a slam on the mechanic BioWare chooses, not the audience (never the audience). Secondly, I failed many times romancing Viconia in Baldur's Gate 2.  The instant you fail at romancing Aveline you know she was never intended to be a romanceable companion.  Romanceable companion + Gold heart = No fail.  If that's not simplification, I don't know what is.

Imagine how much easier it would have been to romance Viconia if every line that progressed the romance had a gold heart next to it. (And once you understand just how absurd that is, then you'll understand my objection to icons).

Modifié par Korusus, 26 mars 2013 - 01:08 .

[Plaintiff]

Monica21 wrote...

Mary Kirby wrote...

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.

I'll throw my lot in with people who aren't fans of the hearts. There are a lot of things you can say to people that end up unintentionally leading them on. The same should be true for conversation trees. It shouldn't be so blatantly obvious that "THIS WILL LEAD TO SEX."

But hearts don't lead to sex for at least two characters where hearts can appear, and using the heart dialogues doesn't actually guarantee sex because you can be locked out of particular romances for other reasons.

All they indicate is that your character is going to attempt to flirt. Just like how Hawke can attempt to be funny with the sarcastic options, but it can fall flat, or in some instances, have an entirely different emotional tone depending on the scene.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 mars 2013 - 01:10 .

[Iakus]

Monica21 wrote...

Did Aveline even acknowledge any flirting from Hawke? If she did, it was so subtle I missed it. She never turned me down or "denied" me. She just totally ignored it and kept on going. Maybe it was meant to show an oblivious Aveline, but claiming that Aveline was a potential LI who denied Hawke isn't really true. Maybe she was intended to be an LI or unobtainable at one point, but that just sort of got forgotten.

if you took every single flirt option in Act 2, she will wrap up her personal quest by giving Hawke a quick kiss and saying something like "it never would have worked, but did you ever think about us getting together?" She never directly reacts to flirt attempts

[Monica21]

Plaintiff wrote...
But hearts don't lead to sex for at least two characters where hearts can appear, and using the heart dialogues doesn't actually guarantee sex because you can be locked out of particular romances for other reasons.

Kind of my point though. The fact that the characters don't acknowledge your flirts is just bad dialogue design. Why are they there?

[Korusus]

iakus wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Did Aveline even acknowledge any flirting from Hawke? If she did, it was so subtle I missed it. She never turned me down or "denied" me. She just totally ignored it and kept on going. Maybe it was meant to show an oblivious Aveline, but claiming that Aveline was a potential LI who denied Hawke isn't really true. Maybe she was intended to be an LI or unobtainable at one point, but that just sort of got forgotten.

if you took every single flirt option in Act 2, she will wrap up her personal quest by giving Hawke a quick kiss and saying something like "it never would have worked, but did you ever think about us getting together?" She never directly reacts to flirt attempts

You can even argue that that is a successful romance considering the character's personality and background.  No sex or relationship, but the romance line is lead to a conclusion by following the golden heart trail.

[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 .

[Firky]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I tend to get completely lost when people start talking about fallacies and strawmen etc. But that link is very easy to understand.

I think this is the most interesting thing, though. "A person travels through a town for the first time. He sees 10 people,
all of them children. The person then concludes that there are no adult
residents in the town." 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.

Probably getting off topic, though. For the record, I'm not really sure about the heart icon, but I did like that you could choose it with Aveline and get knocked back. Mixing up systems and how they work is always good, IMO.

[Iakus]

Monica21 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
But hearts don't lead to sex for at least two characters where hearts can appear, and using the heart dialogues doesn't actually guarantee sex because you can be locked out of particular romances for other reasons.

Kind of my point though. The fact that the characters don't acknowledge your flirts is just bad dialogue design. Why are they there?

In Aveline's case, I think it was for humor, to illustrate how clueless she was about matters of the heart (see what I did there?)

Hawke's flirts get so blatant her cluelessness could hardly be anything else.  

[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).