43 réponses à ce sujet

[Laughing_Man]

I care the most about 1, and I agree whole-heartedly.

First rule of a game that wants to call itself some RPG varient, should be to let the player choose his character.

Some constraints are logical and acceptable in a story driven game, but certainly not hijacking the control away, that's annoying, and annoyance generally detracts from the overall enjoyment and replayability a game has.
At least for me.

As for exploration and control over companions outfits, I care, but alot less.
(why should you even have control over what should be a companion's decision anyway?)

Modifié par TheRedVipress, 09 décembre 2013 - 05:39 .

[David7204]

Ieldra2 wrote...

For people not interested in player agency they wouldn't, of course.

Wow. I expected better than this out of you. 'Disagree with me, you hate role-playing'?

It seems I was mistaken.

Modifié par David7204, 09 décembre 2013 - 08:12 .

[MrMrPendragon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

(2) Talk to my companions at any time. It doesn't really matter if I can exhaust the options currently available fast or not. It only matters that there are some things I can talk about at any time, even if I only get a repeat of options after a while.

This, to me, is the top priority when it comes to companions/party members.


The supporting characters are a big part of the game. It's difficult to actually think about them more than just infantry you can use, when you can't really engage in conversations with them. In DA2 they threw everything at party banter, which doesn't even happen often enough to really get a feel on their personality.

I want it to be like Origins + more. It's feels really unfulfilling when all they say when you talk to them is "We should move on" or "Right behind you". 

I am praying that they take off the restrictions they had before, which I don't understand why those had to exist in the first place.

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
For people not interested in player agency they wouldn't, of course.

Wow. I expected better than this out of you. 'Disagree with me, you hate role-playing'?

It seems I was mistaken.

I can only conclude that if you disagree with being able to freely express character traits or not, that roleplaying isn't important to you. This is the essence of roleplaying, really. Anything else is just cosmetics.

[David7204]

Then you apparently aren't thinking very hard. Have you considered that role-playing is not a free lunch? That sometimes it requires the sacrifice of other elements? And that while that sacrifice is often a worthwhile price, it sure as hell isn't always.

Revisiting areas? Repeating the same dialogue with characters? No, that is not the 'essence' of roleplaying.

Shall we talk about the sacrifices of these particular suggestions?

Modifié par David7204, 09 décembre 2013 - 09:28 .

[Estelindis]

David7204 wrote...

Revisiting areas? Repeating the same dialogue with characters? No, that is not the 'essence' of roleplaying.

Shall we talk about the sacrifices of these particular suggestions?

In fairness, different people have different ideas of what constitutes the "essence" of roleplaying.  My experience of past discussions here on the forum is that they've quickly become acrimonious and veered off-topic.  I'm not going to comment on what is and isn't roleplaying according to some grand universal standard.  But I think it's easy to imagine someone choosing to revisit an area for roleplaying reasons, e.g. looking for someone or something important to them, knowing in their heart they're unlikely to find what/who they seek but needing to try anyway.

[N7recruit]

For Me #1 is my primary concern, although David Gaider has Stated before that we will have roughly the same amount of control over our PC as in the previous DA games & seeing as I personally found both those games far better Role-playing experiences than the any of the Mass Effect games I'm not Loosing my **** just yet.

If I can find the post he made I'll post it here as well, but also there was an awesome interview he did a while back with Koobismo Here is the link:


Go to 50:44 for the Good Stuff about the Player Character Specifically. Golden Stuff

Modifié par N7recruit, 09 décembre 2013 - 10:06 .

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I did think Mass Effect 3 featured a few too many instances when expressing emotional choices with Shepard was too limited. But frankly I don't think that a Shepard that doesn't care about anything going on would have made any sense. So the fact that they didn't include that option with Thessia or Palaven doesn't bother me.

Shepard always had more definition than most PCs up to that point.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 09 décembre 2013 - 10:13 .

[The Elder King]

David7204 wrote...

Then you apparently aren't thinking very hard. Have you considered that role-playing is not a free lunch? That sometimes it requires the sacrifice of other elements? And that while that sacrifice is often a worthwhile price, it sure as hell isn't always.

Revisiting areas? Repeating the same dialogue with characters? No, that is not the 'essence' of roleplaying.

Shall we talk about the sacrifices of these particular suggestions?

I think that Ieldra is talking about point 1) in regards of you not considering important roleplaying, not all the points in his/her OP. 

Modifié par hhh89, 09 décembre 2013 - 10:20 .

[Angrywolves]

There's a video where Cameron Lee talks about freedom. If true, maybe there won't be all those restrictions the OP is lamenting. Pretty obvious too that companions can turn on you and either leave or try to kill you in DAI, so that ups the danger and increases the incentive to make good choices.

[Jorji Costava]

In response to the OP, I agree especially with points (1) and (3). I (3) especially because I like the idea that the life goes on in the various parts of the game world even after the major plot points in those areas have been wrapped up. I can understand an area being closed off if it existed for no other reason than combat and if you've wiped out all the monsters there, but even then, I'd prefer for there to be fewer of these areas in general, and I can also imagine that some would like to use them for level grinding. Not my preference, but I don't see any particular reason to cut that option off from anyone else.

In regards to (1), one thing I think is almost as important as player agency is the agency of the NPC's. So for instance, I'd like less situations involving followers who are totally up for a romance with the PC no matter what the PC has done in game, and less situations involving madness/possession which deprive characters of agency so that they can be used as mooks regardless of the PC's motives or affiliation. Truth be told, I think DA:O was as good as any recent Bioware game in giving the followers especially their own agendas, initiative, etc., so I'm still reasonably optimistic on this point.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

I would rather only be able to talk to my companions when they had something to say, then talk to them at any time and realize they have nothing to say ever.

Also, I feel like the companion interaction was improved in Me3 rather then a step backwards, in that the characters no longer were bound to one set in stone location at all times always, like a bunch of manequins. It felt more like the crew were actual people who would go and do their own things, which was always cool to find out when they interacted with eachother back at the homebase and not just on the road all the time.

There is further room for improvement, but it's not all just gloom and doom and things going boom with the changes.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

Also the dev team has stated that you'll encounter some areas where you'll need to be a higher level in order to tackle, and that running away may be necessary during these times.

It would suggest that areas will be able to be revisited.

[Ieldra]

hhh89 wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Then you apparently aren't thinking very hard. Have you considered that role-playing is not a free lunch? That sometimes it requires the sacrifice of other elements? And that while that sacrifice is often a worthwhile price, it sure as hell isn't always.

Revisiting areas? Repeating the same dialogue with characters? No, that is not the 'essence' of roleplaying.

Shall we talk about the sacrifices of these particular suggestions?

I think that Ieldra is talking about point 1) in regards of you not considering important roleplaying, not all the points in his/her OP.

Exactly. I can understand why someone wouldn't consider the other points important, but (1) *is* essential.

[Ninja Stan]

Let's please keep this discussion civil and related to DAI. If it becomes a "what is and is not role-playing?" discussion, it will be locked. Thank you.

[Ieldra]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...
I would rather only be able to talk to my companions when they had something to say, then talk to them at any time and realize they have nothing to say ever.

Character interaction used to have repeatable options. I would like to see a return of that. Sometimes there's information available from an NPC which I forgot, or just want to hear again to see if I forgot. I also think it's desirable to have some of the time/plot-dependent conversations repeatable. Yes, it may only be exposition, but exposition is important, too, not just personal drama. Not everything has to follow the movie model where you can only have a scene once because it's part of a linear story and repeating things makes no sense because of personal drama inextricably linked to the exposition.

Kingdoms of Amalur did that right, too. They had a dialogue wheel for one-time decisions, but there was also an option list where you could ask about topics the character knew something about. These were all repeatable, and the result was context-sensitive to the plot if necessary.

Also, I feel like the companion interaction was improved in Me3 rather then a step backwards, in that the characters no longer were bound to one set in stone location at all times always, like a bunch of manequins. It felt more like the crew were actual people who would go and do their own things, which was always cool to find out when they interacted with eachother back at the homebase and not just on the road all the time.

That made more in-depth interaction between NPCs possible, and I liked that. It may not be feasible depending on what your home base is, but I'd like to see it in DAI where possible. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 décembre 2013 - 01:52 .

[Medhia Nox]

For myself - these fall under the category of "Yeah, as far and as much as they're willing to go." - but this isn't real roleplaying(sigh, "to me"), and I will never expect it to be.

The more a game is designed to emulate roleplaying - the longer it will take to make and the more prone it will be to bugs.

Modern games "tell" me too much - so I hardly play them for a roleplaying experience.

I enjoy Bioshock, X-Com, Civilization or Starcraft as much as any RPG and I "roleplay" in them as well. Sometimes - far more than I do in video game RPGs that dictate too much (and I haven't played a modern one that doesn't - (again - sigh "to me")

[Star fury]

Casuals don't like complexity. Be it freedom where to go, what your protagonist can say and even a sophisticated combat mechanic.

[Ieldra]

Star fury wrote...
Casuals don't like complexity. Be it freedom where to go, what your protagonist can say and even a sophisticated combat mechanic.

That's an overgeneralization I don't believe in. Anyway, those who don't like it can ignore it. Go only where the main plot leads you and don't speak with potential givers of sidequests, never use the options on the left side of the dialogue wheel and only use standard attacks.

But I'm reasonably sure the majority of players will not do that. They may not utilize all the complexity the game has to offer, but they'll be curious enough for one aspect.