Holy ... okay, wow, yes, that's absolutely unacceptable. But putting aside issues of player control, that's unacceptable because of the sexism.
Messed up, yes. But sexist? Hardly. If you took this exact scenario and just flipped the sexes (Hawke's aunt instead of uncle, male Isabella), would that still be sexist? Somehow I get the feeling that you only declare it sexist because it's being done to a female.
Messed up, yes. But sexist? Hardly. If you took this exact scenario and just flipped the sexes (Hawke's aunt instead of uncle, male Isabella), would that still be sexist? Somehow I get the feeling that you only declare it sexist because it's being done to a female.
it does only happen if a female hawke is romancing isabella... personally think they were going for a cheap girl on girl is hot joke.
In both cases, there was no meaningful relationship between the information presented and the outcome. That's an equivalent level of control.
That's false. There was a "meaningful" relationship. You don't want a meaningful relationship. You want absolutely predictability according to your subjective standard. I could - and so could others - generally predict what the paraphrase + icon will lead to in terms of statements and consequences, but it is impossible to do that with an option labelled "Fenris".
Messed up, yes. But sexist? Hardly. If you took this exact scenario and just flipped the sexes (Hawke's aunt instead of uncle, male Isabella), would that still be sexist? Somehow I get the feeling that you only declare it sexist because it's being done to a female.
It would still be sexist, but what makes it sexist would be different. In your hypothetical, it would be that somehow men would always want to accept sexual attention.
It would still be sexist, but what makes it sexist would be different. In your hypothetical, it would be that somehow men would always want to accept sexual attention.
You mean that men can't be sexually harassed, because harassment to a man is just "sexual attention". It's not that it's harassment, no, it's just that it's unwanted (last 2 sentences were sarcasm by the way). Wait, couldn't you apply this to the Isabella thing? Why, it seems you can indeed. So either you have a sexist double standard, or it's not sexist in the first place.
It would still be sexist if an aunt character was making unwanted sexual comments towards a male Isabela.
I'd prefer we move away from this tangent now (same with the dialogue wheel tone/paraphrase stuff)
It would still be sexist if an aunt character was making unwanted sexual comments towards a male Isabela.
I'd prefer we move away from this tangent now (same with the dialogue wheel tone/paraphrase stuff)
The aunt would be sexist, but to say the scenario itself is doesn't make any sense for either scenarios.
If you wish to continue this conversation with me please move it to PM. Thanks.
Isabela genuinely asks you to talk to Gamlen because he's sexually harassing her and it's upsetting her. Hawke just laughs in her face and tells her she usually likes that stuff.
As my Hawke was romancing Isabela it was...disturbing.
Wow, wtf...I am so glad that I've never heard this in my playthroughs, because that would really irk the hell out of me.
It was bad enough to not be able to respond to Gamlen's referring to Isabela as a "pirate ****". I'd probably hit him with his wallop mallet.
That's false. There was a "meaningful" relationship. You don't want a meaningful relationship. You want absolutely predictability according to your subjective standard. I could - and so could others - generally predict what the paraphrase + icon will lead to in terms of statements and consequences, but it is impossible to do that with an option labelled "Fenris".
The label "Fenris" points us to the character Fenris. We can expect that line to conform to what we know of that character.
I found that I was better at predicting what the companions would do (particularly Aveline) than I was at predicting what Hawke would do, because I had a generally better understanding of what they were like. Hawke was apparently a complete mystery to me.
Furthermore, if there had been a meaningful relationship, then someone could define that relationship. I want to know by what mechanism I can predict (even generally) what the paraphrase+icon will lead to in terms of statements (not consequences - that information shouldn't be available). I've asked for that many times, and no such definition has been forthcoming.
edit: Sorry, Allan, didn't see your post.
edit: Sorry, Allan, didn't see your post.
No worries.
To be honest I'm actually fine with the post as it relates to companion conversations. The pros/cons of the tone wheel in its specifics is more what I didn't want to go down since it's a common enough topic as is and can easily derail threads.
The label "Fenris" points us to the character Fenris. We can expect that line to conform to what we know of that character.
I found that I was better at predicting what the companions would do (particularly Aveline) than I was at predicting what Hawke would do, because I had a generally better understanding of what they were like. Hawke was apparently a complete mystery to me.
Focusing on this branch of the post alone (to stay on topic), I find I could not predict this action with enough specificity, because it was more like an interrupt in ME2-ME3 rather than a dialogue choice. Sometimes, the NPC would make a comment. That might be predictable - for example, Aveline would say guard-captain-y things. That didn't bother me. But it wasn't always clear to whom this action was directed towards, or whether it would be persuasive or Inquisitive. Fenris with Flemeth, for example, just involves him asking her a question.
Focusing on this branch of the post alone (to stay on topic), I find I could not predict this action with enough specificity, because it was more like an interrupt in ME2-ME3 rather than a dialogue choice. Sometimes, the NPC would make a comment. That might be predictable - for example, Aveline would say guard-captain-y things. That didn't bother me. But it wasn't always clear to whom this action was directed towards, or whether it would be persuasive or Inquisitive. Fenris with Flemeth, for example, just involves him asking her a question.
Since that's exactly the problem I had with the rest of the dialogue, I perceived no difference.
Since that's exactly the problem I had with the rest of the dialogue, I perceived no difference.
not to be rude but thats because you seem to be used to doing mental gymnastics to make a line mean what ever you want it to.
not trying to figure out with few clues what a line actually means.
those are two rather different skill sets, you'd have to stop doing the former to learn the latter.
I have zero problems figuring generally what will be said/done in da 2.
The gameplay should be the same. In each case, you're trying to determine what the line can mean and what the line can't mean, and then choosing the option that presents the best meaning option.not to be rude but thats because you seem to be used to doing mental gymnastics to make a line mean what ever you want it to.
not trying to figure out with few clues what a line actually means.
those are two rather different skill sets, you'd have to stop doing the former to learn the latter.
I have zero problems figuring generally what will be said/done in da 2.
The gameplay should be the same. In each case, you're trying to determine what the line can mean and what the line can't mean, and then choosing the option that presents the best meaning option.
My difficulty with DA2 isn't that the ranges are different, but that I'm given much less information about those ranges.
I would love to be able to choose both PC and companion responses on equal footing, and I think DA2 gave me that. All that's left now is to restore the level of information available in DAO while maintaining DA2's equal footing.
I'm sorry but I'm beginning to think we played two very different games.
I'm sorry but I'm beginning to think we played two very different games.
We played it in very different ways.
That diversity of playstyles used to be supported. Why isn't it now?
We played it in very different ways.
That diversity of playstyles used to be supported. Why isn't it now?
I think that the problems isn't that they aren't supported, it's they never were in the first place and it's just now starting to reach the point where it can't be ignored or missed.
Wow, wtf...I am so glad that I've never heard this in my playthroughs, because that would really irk the hell out of me.
It was bad enough to not be able to respond to Gamlen's referring to Isabela as a "pirate ****". I'd probably hit him with his wallop mallet.
Sarcastic Hawke at it's finest. Feed sick, help hungry, pet poor on the head.
i want the interjection to return too. da2 Favorite was Varric shooting the blood mage forget his name. But afterward Hawke looks at him, he simply What?! you were going to do it anyway. I bout fell out my chair laughing. Cause it was the truth
Well, it looks like I missed this conversation, but I would like NPC's to take part in conversations more often. To have them sit quietly in the background negates the illusion that they are actual people, with motivations of their own.
i want the interjection to return too. da2 Favorite was Varric shooting the blood mage forget his name. But afterward Hawke looks at him, he simply What?! you were going to do it anyway. I bout fell out my chair laughing. Cause it was the truth
That was a great scene. #2 was Varric shooting that demon after the Rock Wraith battle if you made a deal with it.
I liked how this worked in DA2, because it was a step toward letting us control all of the characters in conversations. That's something I've been requesting for some time.
I would like also them to interject even without the player choosing it. Like they did in DAO - the companions would jump in to give advice in the middle of conversations, and the PC could then choose to follow that advice or not.
Hmm, what exactly do you mean by that? Being able to control our companions in conversations would be a terrible idea IMO. The interjections in DA2 were great and I would like it very much if they returned, but our companions are independent characters and therefore should act like independent characters as much as possible.
In ME there was this one scene where Wrex killed Fist(?) if he was in your party because that was the job he was paid for. That was totally "in" character and a great way to indroduce Wrex as what he was: A tough mercenary you should not mess with. That was a big moment for Wrex' characterisation and something I'd love to see in Inquisition.
I hated that scene with Wrex.
ME 1 didn't have the interrupts, but if they did, it would have been far better if Wrex attempts to shoot him and Shepard could have intervened with one.
Hmm, what exactly do you mean by that? Being able to control our companions in conversations would be a terrible idea IMO. The interjections in DA2 were great and I would like it very much if they returned, but our companions are independent characters and therefore should act like independent characters as much as possible.
In ME there was this one scene where Wrex killed Fist(?) if he was in your party because that was the job he was paid for. That was totally "in" character and a great way to indroduce Wrex as what he was: A tough mercenary you should not mess with. That was a big moment for Wrex' characterisation and something I'd love to see in Inquisition.
Planescape: Torment has some interesting moments like that that I think are pretty magnificently done as well!
Retour en haut