165 réponses à ce sujet

[Vilegrim]

You do realize that just because you, the player, know Leliana from previous games, and hate her based on that knowledge, your Inquisitor doesn't have that meta-knowledge to judge her with?
Asking for the dialogue to beak the fourth wall and acknowledge that the player behind the screen loathes Leliana with the force of a thousand burning suns sounds just a tad unreasonable to me.

 

 

You can know she is a seeker and a hand of the divine (the later is less likely to be open knowledge I would guess) But knowing she is a seeker would be enough to set some characters off.

[Ninjasplaycardgames2]

Meh, I'll take these over the "Can we torture/rape/etc people?" threads.

Im sure everyone in Thedas will respect the Inquisitor once they learn he/she rapes their prisoners

[frylock23]

Well, whatever I, the player, thinks about Leliana ... my PC may have no idea beyond what our in-game interactions have been who or what she is beyond some shadowy legend stories that may or may not be floating around. Given that, I see no real reasons why my PCs are going to spend the entire game trying to make this GTA: Dragon Age or something similar.

 

Sure, playing the bad guy is sometimes fun, but I like to do it where it's appropriate to the setting and tone of the game. Why play a massive fail game of ME2, for example? There are plenty of games on the market that cater to my need to go out and be a massive a****** to anyone and everyone I meet if I feel like. If that's what I want, I can always go play them. When I'm trying to save the galaxy, or the kingdom as it were, playing the massive d***** just isn't usually going to have really good results.

 

It's not that I don't sometimes pick the hardline or sarcastic options, sometimes you just can't avoid it, but picking them all the time just to see how much of an a** you can be doesn't really float my boat, and I've never understood how that constitutes a playstyle any more than always scrupulously picking the nicety-nice options. It just feels more organic and real if the PC's reactions run a range, and I'm sure there are plenty of places where you get that chance.

[Roamingmachine]

Well, whatever I, the player, thinks about Leliana ... my PC may have no idea beyond what our in-game interactions have been who or what she is beyond some shadowy legend stories that may or may not be floating around. Given that, I see no real reasons why my PCs are going to spend the entire game trying to make this GTA: Dragon Age or something similar.
 
Sure, playing the bad guy is sometimes fun, but I like to do it where it's appropriate to the setting and tone of the game. Why play a massive fail game of ME2, for example? There are plenty of games on the market that cater to my need to go out and be a massive a****** to anyone and everyone I meet if I feel like. If that's what I want, I can always go play them. When I'm trying to save the galaxy, or the kingdom as it were, playing the massive d***** just isn't usually going to have really good results.
 
It's not that I don't sometimes pick the hardline or sarcastic options, sometimes you just can't avoid it, but picking them all the time just to see how much of an a** you can be doesn't really float my boat, and I've never understood how that constitutes a playstyle any more than always scrupulously picking the nicety-nice options. It just feels more organic and real if the PC's reactions run a range, and I'm sure there are plenty of places where you get that chance.

So because you don't understand why someone does it, it shouldn't be an option? Right. Screw it, autodialog and pre-made characters for everyone! Shiny, happy people for shiny happy rpgs! *sigh* It's a dark time indeed when rpg players no longer understand the importance of choice. Whatever, I'm done here.

[DaySeeker]

So because you don't understand why someone does it, it shouldn't be an option? Right. Screw it, autodialog and pre-made characters for everyone! Shiny, happy people for shiny happy rpgs! *sigh* It's a dark time indeed when rpg players no longer understand the importance of choice. Whatever, I'm done here.

 I think you're missing the point. For the story to make sense and work there has to be a credible range of reactions.  Most people don't want to role play a bipolar character, but would like a range of reactions given a situation.  Look at L.A. Noire- weird.  The story of Dragon Age is saving a population of people, one can not do this and be a psychopathic idiot- you'd have no allies and be dead, or someone else would be saving the world.  You can be rough, crass, annoyed, blunt, ruthless, all that fits, nihilistic and sadistic doesn't.

 

Maybe it is the tone I see in posts like this.  Then there is pride some posters take in putting down or destroying what other people care about. Then there is misogyny, racism and homophobia.  Then there is the idea that what makes Bioware games so great is their characters, story. and world.  The characters are well written and complex and the idea that you would kill one on sight because you don't like their accent or their hair.  The story looks for a savior, the world looks to be explored.  Destroy it all seems like such a waste and doesn't fit this game.

[WidePaul]

I'm just gonna say that, for myself I prefer to play "good" characters, on mass effect the worst I could make myself was paragade, mainly paragon, with the occasional renegade interrupt thrown in here and there. I've never been able to play a full "bad" person in any game, I guess I just don't have it in me , but for those of you who want to be bad or jerks, then if the game let's you, why not? It'll only affect you and your outcomes and its not hurting anyone in real life.

[Ivory.]

Why would you want to be? I understand not wanting to be goody little two shoes, I just don't get why people wanna RP as complete ass hats. 

Why would he need to explain how he wants to play?

 

People have different play styles.

[Ivory.]

I'm just gonna say that, for myself I prefer to play "good" characters, on mass effect the worst I could make myself was paragade, mainly paragon, with the occasional renegade interrupt thrown in here and there. I've never been able to play a full "bad" person in any game, I guess I just don't have it in me , but for those of you who want to be bad or jerks, then if the game let's you, why not? It'll only affect you and your outcomes and its not hurting anyone in real life.

This is exactly how I feel tbh

[tmp7704]

They are the ones that need us, not the other way around. It's because we got the key to all the doors, right in our palm. Without us, they can't close that Rift.

It's more of both, I think. They may need you to close the Rift(s) but you aren't going to get anywhere close to these rifts and stay there alive long enough to close them on your own, either. So you need them as well. Thus acting petulant and refusing to cooperate is pretty much cutting off the nose to spite your face.

[budzai]

Meh, I'll take these over the "Can we torture/rape/etc people?" threads. 

I remember a thread where people wanted slaves^^

[cindercatz]

A lot of threads are basically asking for the ability to play a tyrant. I think that's a wholly appropriate choice for a narrative like this if you want to play a villain, basically. Playing a petulant **** though, doesn't really make sense. So I wonder why personally, but hey it's your game. If it allows that characterization, all power.

[Nukekitten]

They are the ones that need us, not the other way around. It's because we got the key to all the doors, right in our palm. Without us, they can't close that Rift.

Mutual need still leaves the possibility that you could be compelled. If you make yourself a real pain to work with, maybe they tie you up and get you addicted to something. Use that leverage to control you. Maybe they don't even need to control you, Dorian seemed to be casting a spell that you were a component in - he just seemed to need your presence. Maybe they break your arms and legs and cart you around in a case to the sites they need rifts closed. Unless you've got The Litany of Adralla on hand, maybe they have a blood mage take control of you - I don't recall entirely how that's meant to work and I'm unsure if closing the rifts requires some active mental component on your part, but - just throwing that out there. They might be pious but they're not necessarily above the occassional dirty deed if you push them.

One of the problems with a character that's omnimalevolent is that the responses to it that might take place in real life are generally unworkable. If your choices keep hurting people, then the obvious move on their part is going to be either to not deal with you or, if they have to or there's some significant reason to, to heavily reduce your ability to make a free choice. If there's no serious threat that they'll succeed in reducing your agency, then you're in a world of cardboard cutouts. However, that runs contrary to good gameplay if all, or most of, your mechanics and content are geared towards enabling a particular class of choice.

In either case; a world of cutouts or a world where the answer is essentially 'you lose'; it seems likely to cripple the experience.

That's more managable in P&P RPGs, where there's some distance that can be had in roleplaying a character with constrained actions. But without creating an entirely different set of game mechanics, I don't see how it would work well in a CRPG.

That's not to say that the occassional evil action can't fit in, that all the party members would object to you deciding not to deal with L at an earlier point perhaps, or that you might find a party that just doesn't care if you're evil to others. However, that's not something that I feel can be adequately judged based on highly abreviated versions of a couple of levels of one dialogue tree.

[Riknas]

Fraid not. Bioware's done with all dialogue options that could be misconstrued as mean. In the next Dragon Age title, there will still be a voiced protagonist, but instead of the traditional set up of Diplomatic, Sarcastic, and Aggressive, there will be Nice, More Nice, and VERY Nice. Everything you say will be entirely encouraging and supportive.

 

In the most dramatic moments, under the temptation of great blood magic, you will have a "not nice" option, where you sound sort of disinterested, without a clear positive inclination. Fortunately, your character is so positive and endearing, you will still be able to pick from the three primary "nice" options. If you choose the "not nice" dialogue, your character will feel terrible about it, and once you are free of the Blood Mage's control you will be forced to try and make amends for your impolite demeanor.

 

And you will like it.

[Gtdef]

I'm skeptical about the the responses too.

 

When Leliana holds Felix, the Inquisitor doesn't have any option to taunt, or not care. She is too compliant/nice.

 

An angry/driven inquisitor certainly wouldn't pick any of these choices. Why would she care to say "be merciful"? Do we know this guy and have a reason to be gentle? It seems to me like the enemy. We have to be nice to our enemies too? Why would the "aggressive" Inquisitor order Leliana to let his son go? Why would she even care since Felix is obviously tainted from something?

 

And it's perfectly fine to want to play a guy that doesn't tolerate failure. We don't know the plot so I don't want to presume, but Leliana says "you are alive!", which points to a major screw up. All the responses are way too friendly. I'd be fine with a "get your gear and move" or something along these lines. She instead has 3 options for small talk.

 

Unless there are mechanics that change the options of the Inquisitor based on her personality or something or there is a very important reason that she was so nice to either Leliana or the mage guy, these responses are totally unacceptable.

[Althix]

But why the hell am I supposed to be nice to these people?

if you didn't noticed yet, "friendship is magic" is rather major doctrine for the last bw games.

 

I like ME1 a lot, because only in this game you can maintain professional relationship with your crew without being punished for this by the game.

In DA2 however, situation is rather silly really. if you say 'yes', you are friends. if you say 'no', you are rivals. rather strange if you look on this from a different angles.

 

However, to answer your question: because you are professional. you should endure people and their behavior if you think that this particular person is useful.

 

However-however, if game imposes to you one character or another, well that is sad really.

However-however-however, as a leader of man and professional chosen one, treating people who fight for common cause with rudeness, and uncalled aggression is a clear sign of some kind of mental disease. Especially if those people actually helping and doing their job well.

 

There is a difference between being ruthless and being an *******.

[The Baconer]

You can be rough, crass, annoyed, blunt, ruthless, all that fits, nihilistic and sadistic doesn't.

 

I disagree, I think those could fit beautifully, but only to a certain extent.

[Althix]

if you have the opportunity to play how you want

[Gtdef]

You have the opportunity to choose your attitude in almost every Bioware game. If they take it away from one of the most ambitious projects to date then this speaks of something different than "it won't fit".

[DaySeeker]

If developers pay attention to some of the selfish people on threads such as this it'll get harder with each game. Might as well make DA:I and other RPGs into straight up Action/Adventure games with auto-dialogue.

 

You're not doing your reading and you're simplifying the argument.  Go back and read the other posts and then consider that no video game RPG let's you say whatever you want.  Kill everything and hate everyone does not fit into the story they are telling.  Even if it did the game would somehow then how to fill the entire range between sociopath tyrant to altruistic paragon, given resource available that won't happen, therefore there needs to be a realistic range of what most people will want to play and what fits the story they are telling.    

 

I'm not going to go over my points or anyone else's again, go read, if you have a specific argument then I'll meet it.  

[DarkKnightHolmes]

If developers pay attention to some of the selfish people on threads such as this it'll get harder with each game. Might as well make DA:I and other RPGs into straight up Action/Adventure games with auto-dialogue.

 

God, you just reminded me of ME3.

 

For some reason, my pro-human renegade Shepard from ME1 is suddenly all friendly with Liara in ME3 and dreams about some random kid when their are way more important people who have died in his life. I get Bioware was trying to show that Shepard can be emotional but forced emotion and auto-dialogue is a big no-no and kills replay value if all your personal avatar in the game act and think the same.

[Paul E Dangerously]

People wanting to be snarky murderhobos? Totally not a surprise.

 

The problem is that this is really hard to make it work. The best I can think of in terms of player options are the original two Fallout games. Or possibly Morrowind, though it had a lot less in the way of player dialogue, since your character didn't really speak all that often. Still, you could be rude to people and kill damn near anyone you like - and screw yourself over in the process.

 

The last part is the most important, really. Let 'em be edgy bastards all they want, but make things appropriately difficult in turn.

[TurretSyndrome]

Mutual need still leaves the possibility that you could be compelled. If you make yourself a real pain to work with, maybe they tie you up and get you addicted to something. Use that leverage to control you. Maybe they don't even need to control you, Dorian seemed to be casting a spell that you were a component in - he just seemed to need your presence. Maybe they break your arms and legs and cart you around in a case to the sites they need rifts closed. Unless you've got The Litany of Adralla on hand, maybe they have a blood mage take control of you - I don't recall entirely how that's meant to work and I'm unsure if closing the rifts requires some active mental component on your part, but - just throwing that out there. They might be pious but they're not necessarily above the occassional dirty deed if you push them.

One of the problems with a character that's omnimalevolent is that the responses to it that might take place in real life are generally unworkable. If your choices keep hurting people, then the obvious move on their part is going to be either to not deal with you or, if they have to or there's some significant reason to, to heavily reduce your ability to make a free choice. If there's no serious threat that they'll succeed in reducing your agency, then you're in a world of cardboard cutouts. However, that runs contrary to good gameplay if all, or most of, your mechanics and content are geared towards enabling a particular class of choice.

 

Sure, they can use me like you described but they don't. You guys keep mentioning real life consequences, and that's where your arguments really fail. You can never know because consequences are always unpredictable in real life. People may even punch you for saying something nice, in the wrong place at the wrong time. The only place you can safely know a consequence is in a game. Both the choices and consequences are decided by the developers, not by what you and I think is right, and definitely not by asking themselves "does this work in real life?" Can we be a douche while still achieving what we're supposed to achieve? Sure, DA:O is living proof. Can we be completely evil and turn things around in favor of our gain by the end? Absolutely, KOTOR is an example for that. 

 

All it takes is initiative by the developers to provide you with such choices. There is always a limit to how far you can take it of course and even that is decided by the developer. This talk of "in real life she would've cut off yor balls and fed them to the dogs for saying that" is utter nonsense. So yes, there can be douchebag responses without characters going crazy about it. Stop trying to bring in real life into the equation, it never works. 

 

Regardless of what people may think, it's been done before and worked just fine, so really, stop trying to come in and say it doesn't work. Whether you feel that it's difficult to craft or you believe it's out of place is irrelevant. I enjoyed such content in previous games and I support to see more of it.

[DaySeeker]

Sure, they can use me like you described but they don't. You guys keep mentioning real life consequences, and that's where your arguments really fail. You can never know because consequences are always unpredictable in real life. People may even punch you for saying something nice, in the wrong place at the wrong time. The only place you can safely know a consequence is in a game. Both the choices and consequences are decided by the developers, not by what you and I think is right, and definitely not by asking themselves "does this work in real life?" Can we be a douche while still achieving what we're supposed to achieve? Sure, DA:O is living proof. Can we be completely evil and turn things around in favor of our gain by the end? Absolutely, KOTOR is an example for that. 

 

All it takes is initiative by the developers to provide you with such choices. There is always a limit to how far you can take it of course and even that is decided by the developer. This talk of "in real life she would've cut off yor balls and fed them to the dogs for saying that" is utter nonsense. So yes, there can be douchebag responses without characters going crazy about it. Stop trying to bring in real life into the equation, it never works. 

 

Regardless of what people may think, it's been done before and worked just fine, so really, stop trying to come in and say it doesn't work. Whether you feel that it's difficult to craft or you believe it's out of place is irrelevant. I enjoyed such content in previous games and I support to see more of it.

 

C'mon, you know that is not true.  Human beings do not act completely randomly.  You can not say there is not a way to know how a character will react to how you treat them or how the world will react to how you treat it.  Psychology exists as a science, characterization exists a a literary device.  We want some "real life" or sense in our games even if they are fantasy.  You know who Leliana is and what she is capable of, Sera and Iron Bull don't seem to take guff from anyone, Dorian has opinions and a worldview, you go against that and they aren't going to react favorably.  Killing them isn't helping your cause even if you don't like Sera's haircut, and killing Sera because you don't like her haircut is not going to inspire confidence in your comrades.  I have heard arguments like that on why people want to kill Zeveren, or why they want to burn down Denerim.  Players do have choices and the ability to role play within a certain framework, but the framework has to be within a range that will include what most players want and what will fit the story being told.  The personal side of this is I've heard misogyny, homophobia, and sadism in threads espousing the right to destroy whatever comes into view, and this is said to other players expressing interest and care in those characters.  Roleplay however you like, but when that attitude is brought into forums it's disgusting, and the glee in describing horrible acts done even to fictional characters is gross.