232 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

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?

Why is it bad design? Why must they acknowledge them? If Aveline were oblivious to Hawke's attempts, would that be so unbelievable? I wouldn't know a genuine flirt if it bit me.

If having tone icons is "dumbing down" the dialogue, then it's a dumbing down I can get behind. Tone is meaning, tone is context. Knowing the tone of what my character about to say is far more important than knowing the mere words. I need to know if the line I'm about to say is sincere or sarcastic.

DA2's new 'persuasion' system isn't any less complex than DA:O's either. It may even be more complex, because it requires Hawke to maintain a largely consistent tone, and also takes his/her past actions into account, rather than simply allowing the player to put points into 'conversation winning'.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 mars 2013 - 01:31 .

[Scarlet Rabbi]

obsessedwjpn wrote...

I have to agree with Allan. Korusus and Scarlet Rabbi, please refrain from using insults. Just because you don't feel the game is up to your "standards" does not mean it is dumbed down in any way.

If I'm being condscending it's because I give what I get. When I see a glowing, golden heart icon next to a (romance) dialogue option, that conveys the message, "Hey, dummy, these words mean you want to flirt with the character. Look, we even put a colorful picture so you don't hafta read anything! Your welcome." *Pats head*

And I'm sorry, but an insult directed at the hypothetical masses hardly qualifies as an insult at all. The Bioware forum doesn't allow users to attack or flame others posters, and I've done no such thing. Now if I wounded your feelings by attacking a feature you or other people like, and you take that as a personal insult, well...that's hilarious to be frank. I can do nothing about people who naturally love to play the victim. It seems people go around and actively look for ways to be offended.

And, if I may, placing a picture next to 'dialogue' option, especially when it wasn't there in the previous game, is the epitome of dumbing down. I can't think of a more appropriate example. Now, if you like that kind of thing and/or prefer to call it something other than I do, that's lovely, it would be a dull world if everyone percieved everything the same, no?

And lastly, these 'standards' I have and hold Bioware products by, were implemented into me by them via their art. I've experienced intelligent exellence through them and when I see it literally crumbling before me, I feel compelled to speak on it. Or type.

Modifié par Scarlet Rabbi, 26 mars 2013 - 01:32 .

[Korusus]

Filament wrote...

Korusus wrote...

Romanceable companion + Gold heart = No fail.  If that's not simplification, I don't know what is.

Romance Anders and make a deal with Torpor, gold hearts won't save you there.

Korusus wrote...

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).

I don't think that's how it would be though. I haven't played BG so you'll have to enlighten me, but I take it there were options to be "flirtatious" that she did not respond well to? Those would have heart icons too. It wouldn't be an "I win" button for her. It depends on the character whether taking that tone is effective.

If that were how it played out in DA2 in practice rather than in theory, that's fine.  As it stands that happens with one character who isn't considered romanceable.  In all of the actually romanceable companions the gold heart is the only way to progress the romance, and is the only right way to progress the romance.

Baldur's Gate 2 actually used a flag system that basically scored your responses to the NPC.  What made Viconia particularly difficult is she would respond to different cues differently at different times.  So yes Viconia wouldn't respond well to a flirty tone at times.  But she was still romanceable.  If this were DA2 you would fail at the romance because it was preprogrammed to fail like Aveline.  Aveline will always fail because that's how she is designed.  It's not like there are 3 different "flirty" options for Aveline and one of them will succeed, and it's not like you can ever have a romance with a romanceable companion by picking something other than golden heart.

Theory is one thing, how it actually is applied is another.

Modifié par Korusus, 26 mars 2013 - 01:27 .

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


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.

This is one thing I liked about Alpha Protocol.

Different people reacted differently particular types of responses (and sometimes that depended on teh situation, such as Mina liking humerous responses when you're just bantering, and a more businesslike approach when "on the job")

[Monica21]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Persuade wasn't complicated in Dragon Age. It was trivial, and an "I win" button.

True, but it was something.

Though if I am understanding your complaint, it is more about the entirety of Dragon age being too simple

No, it's really just about DA2 being too simple. Origins obviously wasn't a PnP experience, but it was a massive deviation from a game like Oblivion. The writing and story were excellent, as were the character interactions. 

.... 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.

I know what I'm getting with Dragon Age (for the most part) so I know there won't be character sheets and multiclassing or a PnP experience. What I am hoping for in Inquisition though, is more depth, both for the PC and the NPCs, which is why bringing back the hearts is disappointing.

[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 .

[Korusus]

Filament wrote...

Korusus wrote...

If that were how it played out in DA2 in practice rather than in theory, that's fine.  As it stands that happens with one character who isn't considered romanceable.  In all of the actually romanceable companions the gold heart is the only way to progress the romance, and is the only right way to progress the romance.

Baldur's Gate 2 actually used a flag system that basically scored your responses to the NPC.  What made Viconia particularly difficult is she would respond to different cues differently at different times.  So yes Viconia wouldn't respond well to a flirty tone at times.  But she was still romanceable.  If this were DA2 you would fail at the romance because it was preprogrammed to fail like Aveline.  Aveline will always fail because that's how she is designed.  It's not like there are 3 different "flirty" options for Aveline and one of them will succeed, and it's not like you can ever have a romance with a romanceable companion by picking something other than golden heart.

Theory is one thing, how it actually is applied is another.

Or they could make it so that some heart icons, sometimes, lead to failure. It's not the kind of theory that is impracticable, just one that hasn't been done yet.

Very true.  Imagine a companion you could only romance by not selecting the flirty tone.  A Viconia for example.  Add in the golden heart to the equation.  Uh oh...now you have cognitive dissonance which leads to frustration which leads to unhappy players.  BioWare will never do something like that.  Already, in a span of moments, the golden heart icon has ruined a perfectly plausable romance.  BioWare is not brave enough to do something like that anymore.  And as always I stand ready to be pleasantly surprised.

[Monica21]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Well it's up to Gaider and company to try to convince you otherwise.

Well, Gaider and company aren't rushing this out in a year, so, fingers crossed, right? 

[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)

[Monica21]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

And I'm happy about this. I'm also not trying to be a jerk, even if it seems that way. I can't see me not buying Inquisition right now (at least once the specs are released and I know what kind of computer I'll need to have) but one of the things I enjoy the most about RPGs is the dialogue. I fall in love with well-written characters and get excited when my own character is allowed to be just as expressive and intelligent.

When I see hearts, green, purple and red as "dialogue" options I get disappointed, not only because I just don't know what my character is going to say, but because it's not really a dialogue option. It's a picture of what the dialogue might be, and even then I might be happy or surprised or groan. I know I'm not going to get what I would consider "true" dialogue options in Dragon Age games anymore, but I'm hopeful for better options.

[Direwolf0294]

I think DA2 didn't do a good job of conveying how it worked to the player. Without knowledge gained after I'd finished the game and headed to the forums, I had no idea dominant tone was even a thing or that Avelin could not be romanced. Going into DA3, I hope they do a better job of letting people know exactly how it is the game works. That a heart icon doesn automatically equal a romance with the character and so on.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

And this is where Sylvius would say that better documentation or explanations in game would be more valuable to players in nearly every aspect.

[Direwolf0294]

Foshizzlin wrote...

But finding out those things is part of the fun. People who tried to romance Aveline found out they couldn't. I'd prefer the game throw me for loops than hold my hand through it.

I feel that sort of loop throwing should come from developers intent and the story, not through poorly explained game mechanics. If a game is messing with your mind because you don't understand how the game's meant to be played, I think the games done something wrong. If the game messes with your mind through an excellent narrative or game mechanics that you understand but are just really trippy then the game has done something right.

Going into DA3, I'd like to see more of the latter, less of the former. I should be thrown for a loop becaues the developers intended to throw me for a loop, not because they poorly communicated a feture of the game.

[Direwolf0294]

Foshizzlin wrote...

Why would you like it to be spelled out blatantly that you couldn't romance Aveline? Or others like that? It's only realistic that not everyone is going to go for the PC, that shouldn't be considered a "poor mechanic".

You're missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying there shouldn't be characters you can flirt with that don't return the affection, I'm saying that it was poorly communicated that the heart icon didn't automatically equal a romance with a character.

People were thrown not because the idea of someone not returning Hawke's affection didn't make sense, but because up until that point the idea of heart = guaranteed romance with a charcter had been drilled into their minds. It wasn't a tone Hawke took, it was a way to flag a romance for the character. BioWare needs to avoid such confusion in future games. 

[Hazegurl]

The dialogue choices in Origins, while many, was not perfect. I want to convince someone of something, just spend points on coercion and use anything that says persuade. Want to intimidate, just pick any dialogue with the word (intimidate) in it. Whether it fits your personality or not, you can just be mad and win the day. Are people really going to argue that this wasn't some form of "dumbing down" (Since the game telling you what the dialogue does is considered dumbing down).

The heart icon is just flirtations. That's the way I have always seen them when I'm not directly in a romance with someone. It's no "I win" icon. I flirted with Fenris and Isabella but took my flirtations with her too far. I thought I could just dump her and move on to Fenris like in Origins. Flirted my butt off and got no where with him.

[New Display Name]

I've read a lot of times people on this forum getting into romances they didn't want to. These weren't illiterate people, by the way. It's probably a combination of bugs and just trying to be friendly to the character. People have different ways of flirting, and while it's OK for another character to get the wrong message, they should make clear the dialog choices in which the player character's intent is to flirt or start a relationship.

Because of ambiguity, accidentally getting in a romance, and the division between casual flirting and something actually serious, they should also make sure that you get the opportunity to clarify before the romance could start that it was nothing serious. That seems to be one of the problems, even if you are given the ability to break things off, the game still assumed that the PC wanted it in the first place.

[KiwiQuiche]

I admit, the ninjamances in Bioware games are kinda funny. But yeah, I did dislike how you try and be nice to someone and they get all love-bug to you. Like with Kaidan, when my Femshep was trying to be kind to him and he took it as a come on.
"I'm getting some mixed signals from you, Commander. And a bit of static."
But it does kinda tie into real-life; some people take kindness/wanting to spend lots of time with you as a display of romantic interest.
However in ME2 it got even worse, since you were basically shut off from your friends if you didn't try to romance them, which kinda sucked.

I found DA:O was better with that, since you can still have long convos with your companions regardless of status; I really enjoyed befriending Morrigan with a male Warden.

With DA2 the heart did help for people who can't read. Though I noticed with Bioware games you tend to be a douche when trying to reject people. I wish I could let Anders and Liara down gently. Instead the PC acts like a dick.

I wouldn't mind improvement with that.

[In Exile]

HolyAvenger wrote...

I don't understand ninjamancers. The game gives you a pretty clear idea you're heading into a romance.

There are some dialogue options in DA:O that you can read as friendly rather than flirty, especially with PC of the same-sex as the NPC.

Plaintiff wrote...
Not being into women myself, I wouldn't
know, so I'm forced to ask: is there some unwritten rule that says only
girlfriends are allowed to be beautiful and every other woman in the
world is a lumpy bag of garbage with a fish head?

At least with an aquitance, commenting on physical attractiveness (unless the context suggests otherwise) is typically a statement of attraction.

Spedfrom wrote...
I'm gay myself and most of the time I
roleplay gay characters (let's see who I end up with in ME3, the choices
seem interesting )

Pick Steve. And then get the Citadel DLC. Steve rocks.

Monica21 wrote...a
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."

It doesn't always lead to sex. It just means that *you* want to flirt with them. Given the ninjamance complaints, I can see why Bioware wants to let players trigger the relationship, however.

You can still fail, though (see e.g. Aveline).

Korusus wrote...
What I love about Dragon Age: Origins lack of
icons is the fact that just because you say something (much as in real
life) you cannot predict someone's response to that (much as in real
life).

Then you're bad at real life. Most of the time, people's reactions are totally predictable. Especially if you know them well.

And (as in real life) you can't always gauge what is going to
make someone attracted to you.  Sometimes you don't necessarily have to
be trying.  Dragon Age: Origins "ninjamancing" always felt more like
that to me.  And yes, it does sometimes happen that you have that
awkwardness of "Oh, I'm not really attracted to you...sorry."

In real life, people can assume that you're into them when you're not. But unless they're crazy, they don't assume you're in relationships with them and accuse you of cheating when you've just had pleasant chats.