232 réponses à ce sujet

[iOnlySignIn]

Because the target audience of these games are horny 14 year olds who cannot get sex in any other shape or form.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 26 mars 2013 - 05:43 .

[Blackrising]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Because the target audience of these games are horny 14 year olds who cannot get sex in any other shape or form.

This is an outrageous accusation and I will not stand for it!

I'm not fourteen.

Modifié par Blackrising, 26 mars 2013 - 05:44 .

[HolyAvenger]

EntropicAngel wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

Why not just, I dunno, RP your way through it. If I'm playing Douchebag Hawke, yeah then I try hitting that asap. If playing NiceHawke, just sympathy, no flirting. If the latter doesn't result in a romance in that PT, so be it. 

Because there's more to playing a game than just role-playing.

 

Shouldn't be roleplaying in a roleplaying game. Got it.

[HolyAvenger]

syllogi wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

syllogi wrote...
I chose those lines, and would have continued to assume that that was the "correct" way to play the romances, if I hadn't read these forums and learned differently.

 

Why not just, I dunno, RP your way through it. If I'm playing Douchebag Hawke, yeah then I try hitting that asap. If playing NiceHawke, just sympathy, no flirting. If the latter doesn't result in a romance in that PT, so be it. 

Sometimes I do do that, and I enjoy roleplaying characters in different ways...but I also like to see as much content as possible, unless I do something like let Isabela run away forever and don't realize until mid Act 3 that she's never coming back.  I don't mind spoilers at all, but I'm not sitting around with a strategy guide.  So if I think I have to choose the heart icons to not lock out the Anders romance, I will click the icons, no matter how OOC the lines.

Obviously, I learned my lesson, and in DA3 I won't make that assumption, but I'm sure many others would.  And if the flirts in Act 1 didn't "count" towards the romances, why did we need them at all?  It took me out of the story and made me want to metagame, the way sparklies over a bunch of dead corpses would.  I can't be the only one who is incapable of moving forward without looting every single corpse, at the end of every single fight.

 

I guess that's where we differ. I'm happy to make up for the content I miss in future PTs or via youtube or whatever, but I like simply RPing a character and tend not to go OOC. 

[Siibi]

There's no "BAM romance!" in any of the games, sure a character may flirt with you once but if you say "no, let's be friends" they don't pursue anything with you.

[Wulfram]

Siibi wrote...

There's no "BAM romance!" in any of the games, sure a character may flirt with you once but if you say "no, let's be friends" they don't pursue anything with you.

DA:O could go straight from the player selecting a minor seeming compliment to "You need to choose between me and Alistair!" if you picked a romance starter while you had a lot of approval.  Awkward.

[AshedMan]

I had the same problem as the OP! When playing DA2, I pay more attention to the actual text than to the little icons. When one reads like a nice kind-hearted response that I would say were I in that situation, I pick it. All of a sudden I'm in male-to-male relationships and getting hit on left and right by the same sex!

No thanks.

[Kidd]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Point being, if you choose the picture of Nietzche (for lack of a better word), you'd be in the romance. It is a big bonus to the Morrigan romance approval arc. So Mary Kirby's line of "don't click the heart icon, you won't be in a romance" would seem to indicate that the way Morrigan's romance was written would be mechanically difficult, if not impossible, to have in such a system.

Not at all, you'd just have to flirt with her a single time to activate her romance at all. Such as, say, telling her the present is a beautiful bauble for a beautiful lady.

It suits you.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 26 mars 2013 - 08:42 .

[Hazegurl]

Wulfram wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Yes, because if you're spending skill points in Coercion then you're sacrificing skill points in something else.

Not much of a sacrifice in DA:O.  You can always get your companions to grab the crafting skills

And a successful Intimidate roll was based on the character's Strength, so a Rogue or Mage could easily fail it.

Which was stupid.  I can blow up things with my mind, why does it matter how much I can benchpress?

Pretty much this. I can still spend all my skills points on Coercion and still fill up combat training, then build up crafting on my companions. Did it all the time and never once considered it a sacrifice.

I never knew intimidate had anything to do with class. I've usually played mages and didn't even notice a difference, but then again I don't think I picked that option a lot. But I agree, if I can set people on fire with my mind. I should be able to intimidate people. I prefer the personality persuasion in DA2. If you are a funny or nice guy, you shouldn't be able to pull a knife on someone and get them to do what you want.

[Kidd]

Hazegurl wrote...

I never knew intimidate had anything to do with class. I've usually played mages and didn't even notice a difference, but then again I don't think I picked that option a lot.

If you picked up Master Coercion (who didn't?) you had a +100 Strength and +100 Cunning bonus while in dialogue mode anyway. Effectively there was not a single dialogue check you could not meet.

Can't decide if I think the bonus being larger than the highest difficulty in the game is good or not. On one hand, it means you truly are a master and can do anything and need not waste your attribute points at all. But on the other hand, it really is a one-size-fits-all "I win"-button.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 26 mars 2013 - 08:55 .

[Lord Issa]

Would anyone else like to see a Coercion skill that doesn't always work? I think that the issue with DA:O was that literally anyone was putty in the Warden's hands. It would force the player to consider the situation more deeply. For example:

Greedy merchant scamming people. Can use coercion to persuade him to back off.

Grieving father has a powerful ring that is the last memento of his daughter. He punches you in the face if you try and persuade him to part with it, no matter how silver-tongued you are.

In short, I would like to see the return of persuasion on the condition that it's actual, failable, persuasion rather than mind control.

[Sarcastic Tasha]

I didn't really think there were problems with accidentally getting into a romance with a character but I do think that sometimes being just friends meant missing out on getting to know that character. Some people might say that's good because it gets you to replay the game which I sort of agree with but on the other hand its just nice to have a really good friendship with a character. ME3 had really nice friendships with Garrus and Liara but with Ashley I thought they really dropped the ball. Ash and FemShep could go from being BFFs in ME1, chatting about Ashley's sisters and such to hardly speaking in ME3 (not sure how good the Ashley romance was though in ME3 mind you because I never play BroShep). Isabela had a similar problem in DA2, if Hawke gets into a relationship with her she opens up a lot more, tells Hawke more about her past and Hawke gets to see another side of her. Maybe this was intentional, that Isabela will only open up to Hawke because she's falling in love with her, which I suppose is fair enough. But I dunno I think its a bit silly to assume someone will only share things about him or herself with someone he or she is shagging. There are plenty of people who are more likely to share things with a best friend as opposed to a boyfriend or girlfriend.

[Sainthood85]

I think the main issue with Anders in DA2 was that there was no 'polite' let down option.

You could only get in his face and be rude about it, there wasn't a "Im flattered, really, but I don't think it would work out between us. I'm not really into those sorts of things =/"

[HolyAvenger]

EntropicAngel wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Because there's more to playing a game than just role-playing.

 

Shouldn't be roleplaying in a roleplaying game. Got it.

I don't think you understand my statement.

I did not say, "there shouldn't be roleplaying" as you're implying. I didn't even say it was bad. I merely said that there's more--that is, that people play games for more than just role-playing reasons.

 
I agree, but I'm not a fan of dumbing down or removing the role play experience in a RPG to accomodate those people. 

[hazarkazra]

HolyAvenger wrote...
I agree, but I'm not a fan of dumbing down or removing the role play experience in a RPG to accomodate those people. 

Out of curiosity, what do you considering dumbing down or removing the role play experience?

[HolyAvenger]

hazarkazra wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...
I agree, but I'm not a fan of dumbing down or removing the role play experience in a RPG to accomodate those people. 

Out of curiosity, what do you considering dumbing down or removing the role play experience?

 

Use 'heart' button to indicate every single romantic line of dialogue instead of just initiations. Clearly indicate to the player how an NPC will react to their tone or words (allowing them to metagame) etc.

[bmwcrazy]

AshedMan wrote...

I had the same problem as the OP! When playing DA2, I pay more attention to the actual text than to the little icons. When one reads like a nice kind-hearted response that I would say were I in that situation, I pick it. All of a sudden I'm in male-to-male relationships and getting hit on left and right by the same sex!

No thanks.

Hahaha...

If the conversations in real life worked like the ones in Bioware's games, with the way I talk I'd end up sleeping with everyone I know. 

Only if it was that easy...

[New Display Name]

If there's going to be a speech skill, think I'd like to see a mix of requirements for persuasion checks. It would check the player's speech/etc score and something else, like how you treated the npc beforehand or your PC's reputation. If you have a high enough speech skill, you can bypass some or all of the other requirements, but not always.

[Renmiri1]

Sainthood85 wrote...

I think the main issue with Anders in DA2 was that there was no 'polite' let down option.

You could only get in his face and be rude about it, there wasn't a "Im flattered, really, but I don't think it would work out between us. I'm not really into those sorts of things =/"

Oi..

He survives unscathed. Anders is tougher then he looks. And the measly 10 points you lose when you reject him can be regained 10 times over just on act 1.

I know a lot of males can get pretty touchy with a mild rejection but the guy is an adult npc in a game and will get over it easily. Trust me. It is no big deal.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 27 mars 2013 - 12:37 .

[Plaintiff]

Monica21 wrote...
Yes, because if you're spending skill points in Coercion then you're sacrificing skill points in something else. And a successful Intimidate roll was based on the character's Strength, so a Rogue or Mage could easily fail it. And this is true for a lot of RPGs. D&D 3.5 (I think) had skill points in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Taunt. Just because the game tells you what the line does, doesn't mean you'll succeed.

And a successful Intimidate in DA2 is based on how many points you put into the 'Aggressive' tone.

You disagree with the cosmetic difference, but the mechanics are essentially the same. Instead of one Coercion stat, you have three.

Edited to add: An example of the failure of any kind of persuasion option is the inability to successfully Intimidate if your dominant tone is anything other than aggressive. I could be a warrior in full plate with 48 strength and fail to Intimidate if I play a purple Hawke. That's kind of silly. This guy doesn't know me, and I'm decked out in weapons with three friends behind me and I can't get this idiot at the docks to show me a document? Come on, now.

"I'm decked out with weapons and have three friends behind me, but I can't intimidate this guy because I didn't put enough points in coercion and strength? Come on, now."

The way DA:O handles it doesn't make any more sense than DA2 does.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 mars 2013 - 12:47 .

[jillabender]

Plaintiff wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
Yes, because if you're spending skill points in Coercion then you're sacrificing skill points in something else. And a successful Intimidate roll was based on the character's Strength, so a Rogue or Mage could easily fail it. And this is true for a lot of RPGs. D&D 3.5 (I think) had skill points in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Taunt. Just because the game tells you what the line does, doesn't mean you'll succeed.

And a successful Intimidate in DA2 is based on how many points you put into the 'Aggressive' tone.

You disagree with the cosmetic difference, but the mechanics are essentially the same. Instead of one Coercion stat, you have three.

Edited to add: An example of the failure of any kind of persuasion option is the inability to successfully Intimidate if your dominant tone is anything other than aggressive. I could be a warrior in full plate with 48 strength and fail to Intimidate if I play a purple Hawke. That's kind of silly. This guy doesn't know me, and I'm decked out in weapons with three friends behind me and I can't get this idiot at the docks to show me a document? Come on, now.

"I'm decked out with weapons and have three friends behind me, but I can't intimidate this guy because I didn't put enough points in coercion and strength? Come on, now."

The way DA:O handles it doesn't make any more sense than DA2 does.

I agree that the mechanics when it comes to persuasion and intimidation in DA2 aren't, in essence, all that different from DA:O's.

I would add, though, that it's not necessary, for example, to choose aggressive choices all the time in DA2 in order to have access to the aggressive-specific intimidation choices and to have them be successful - all that's necessary is for your character to have an aggressive dominant tone. (I realize that's not really what you were talking about - I only bring it up because some people have the misconception that unless you stick with one tone consistently thoughout the game, you won't be able to use any of the tone-specific persuasion or intimidation choices.)

For example, having an aggressive dominant tone will give a character access to the intimidation options that are specific to that tone, but choosing all the aggressive responses all the time isn't necessary and won't make those options more effective.

Of course, if you shifted to choosing, for example, more diplomatic responses later in the game, your character's dominant tone would shift, altering which persuasion options are available. (At least, that's what I remember Upsettingshorts saying a while back, and I take his word for it, because he seemed to know what he was talking about).

Modifié par jillabender, 27 mars 2013 - 01:49 .

[Monica21]

Plaintiff wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
Yes, because if you're spending skill points in Coercion then you're sacrificing skill points in something else. And a successful Intimidate roll was based on the character's Strength, so a Rogue or Mage could easily fail it. And this is true for a lot of RPGs. D&D 3.5 (I think) had skill points in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Taunt. Just because the game tells you what the line does, doesn't mean you'll succeed.

And a successful Intimidate in DA2 is based on how many points you put into the 'Aggressive' tone.

You disagree with the cosmetic difference, but the mechanics are essentially the same. Instead of one Coercion stat, you have three.

Edited to add: An example of the failure of any kind of persuasion option is the inability to successfully Intimidate if your dominant tone is anything other than aggressive. I could be a warrior in full plate with 48 strength and fail to Intimidate if I play a purple Hawke. That's kind of silly. This guy doesn't know me, and I'm decked out in weapons with three friends behind me and I can't get this idiot at the docks to show me a document? Come on, now.

"I'm decked out with weapons and have three friends behind me, but I can't intimidate this guy because I didn't put enough points in coercion and strength? Come on, now."

The way DA:O handles it doesn't make any more sense than DA2 does.

Point taken. I still say there need to be better mechanics around any kind of successful speech roll though. At the very least, Origins at least felt like it was a reasonable mechanic and DA2 didn't, which may have simply been a result of the situations in which the mechanic was used.

Modifié par Monica21, 27 mars 2013 - 03:01 .

[HolyAvenger]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Sainthood85 wrote...

I think the main issue with Anders in DA2 was that there was no 'polite' let down option.

You could only get in his face and be rude about it, there wasn't a "Im flattered, really, but I don't think it would work out between us. I'm not really into those sorts of things =/"

Oi..

He survives unscathed. Anders is tougher then he looks. And the measly 10 points you lose when you reject him can be regained 10 times over just on act 1.

 

I agree. I don't see how people can get so cut up about rejecting Anders like the game does.

I guess my dislike for Anders colours my views though. I really wanted "Run-him-through-with-your-sword" option at the end of Act 2:innocent: