165 réponses à ce sujet

[cindercatz]

Man, there's only so many tones you can support in any given conversation. Feasibility is the issue. It's not that 'it's bad and I don't like it so it shouldn't exist'; I like playing a few bad apples too. It's 'what are the three most prevalent tones across the most effective range for our story can we feasibly support'? To me, yeah DA:I is different tonally from DA2, but DA2 was a different range from DA:O. It's just what three general tones make the best cross section for this exchange in this game? So like I say, if your preferred characterization is supported, all power, enjoy it. If not, I hope you can get close enough to satisfy. All anybody's debating here is if we agree with the three most prevalent tones they decided on. And really, we haven't seen enough conversation to argue the point yet.

[Medhia_Nox]

Being a nasty dipshit is my fav. 

 

Bioware, why you keeping it from me!?

[Gtdef]

Man, there's only so many tones you can support in any given conversation. Feasibility is the issue. It's not that 'it's bad and I don't like it so it shouldn't exist'; I like playing a few bad apples too. It's 'what are the three most prevalent tones across the most effective range for our story can we feasibly support'? To me, yeah DA:I is different tonally from DA2, but DA2 was a different range from DA:O. It's just what three general tones make the best cross section for this exchange in this game? So like I say, if your preferred characterization is supported, all power, enjoy it. If not, I hope you can get close enough to satisfy. All anybody's debating here is if we agree with the three most prevalent tones they decided on. And really, we haven't seen enough conversation to argue the point yet.

 

The Inquisitor in the demo is VERY limited. She attempts small talk with Leliana, there is no sense of urgency in the choices and later with Felix the only choices are to tell Leliana how to deal with Felix. It's totally uncharacteristic and unrealistic. I mean, who of you here would think that the most important thing to say is "show him mercy", or "Leliana stand down". We are in a dangerous territory, in the same room with the enemy and the only dialogue choices we have is how to deal with the tainted human that looks like a corpse which doesn't matter anyway because Leliana kills him (and I don't think that anyone here would care about him if Leliana didn't disobey the order). The one choice used is good. Give me what I want, I give you your son. Makes sense. She tries to cut a deal even if it fails. Do we need 2 more options that have to deal with Felix? We can have a righteous one "Your son is an abomination and I will show him the only mercy I know" and a very aggressive one, a taunt "when I finish with you you will look the same as your son".

 

Or when we save Leliana, we don't have the option to be strict. I am the boss, if I sent someone to do something important and fails, I'm going to be strict. Certainly there are things that we don't know yet. But the options are "it's ok", "im impressed", and "long story". These 3 options cover only one attitude. You don't get to be strict (I'll deal with your failure later), you don't get to be inquisitive (did you say anything to him?), you don't get to communicate urgency (no time, grab your gear and move). Nothing.

 

You can only behave like a 5 year old. It's just bad writing. Perhaps it's intended that way or it wasn't finished, but come on, how can anyone be satisfied with these options?

[TurretSyndrome]

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.

 

No, there is no way to know how a person will act to what you say or what you do. You can't really predict that if they will just walk away or slash your neck from ear to ear and then walk away, or just stand there and argue with you. It doesn't matter what personalities they have, you cannot predict another person's actions or reactions to your actions.

 

The reason I keep saying that real life doesn't matter is because these characters are not real. In the end, they are just illusions whose actions and reactions are in total control of their creators. This line of argument, where you talk about people's psychologies and personalities has no weight. Every decision we make depends on our mental states at the point of making that decision. Our personalities mostly affect those decisions, sure, but there are innumerable cases where a human being has done something that they never would've done according to their personality. 

 

I'm not arguing with you on the fact that there is a certain range of actions to take to roleplay in the game. Everyone in this thread, even the OP I believe knows this. I am not asking for absurd things like killing Sera for her haircut, you're coming up with such extremities on your own. If there is going to be killing in this game, I don't believe the developers will make it meaningless, especially when it comes to companions and other important characters. The OP and others like me simply wish to play on both sides of the scale rather just good-to-neutral like most people.

 

I never asked the developers to be able to kill Dorian because he's gay or Sera, because she's a lesbian. Has anyone here in this thread ever said they wanted such a thing, that they wanted to kill women because they hate them? Because I highly doubt this thread would remain intact if they did. As I said, you are coming up with the most ridiculous and extreme examples to further your argument. 

 

There may be people who want to kill people or torture people because of the things you mentioned like homophobia, misogyny etc, but they will never get their way. Most people look down on such things if they are included at all in games. I look down on such things. But by rounding up people like that with people like me, you are insulting us. People just want to roleplay an evil character because this is a roleplaying game. If I want to roleplay a character like in DA:O where I can be an insensitive ****** and sleep with Gheyna, I should be able to. Who are you to say no to that and judge me? It's not affecting the narrative at all so why do you care so much? 

 

Nobody is asking for total and utter destruction for the sake of it. Nobody's asking the option to kill homosexuals and torture people. The thread title is "can I atleast be rude?" for ****'s sake, and all you people are up in arms about something that is not there. Sorry, but in the end, this is just self-righteous, ignorant and a biased view that you need to change. As someone else said in this thread, might as well make the game an action-adventure title since you want to obstruct people from traditional role-playing.

[Travie]

Some people will always love playing the anti-hero. A complete ass that everyone hates and loves at the same time. 

[cindercatz]

The Inquisitor in the demo is VERY limited. She attempts small talk with Leliana, there is no sense of urgency in the choices and later with Felix the only choices are to tell Leliana how to deal with Felix. It's totally uncharacteristic and unrealistic. I mean, who of you here would think that the most important thing to say is "show him mercy", or "Leliana stand down". We are in a dangerous territory, in the same room with the enemy and the only dialogue choices we have is how to deal with the tainted human that looks like a corpse which doesn't matter anyway because Leliana kills him (and I don't think that anyone here would care about him if Leliana didn't disobey the order).

 

 

Well, 'give him a merciful death' and 'show him mercy' aren't exactly the same thing. Those choices aren't what the Inquisitor says, anyway, just spiced up versions of 'kill him', 'let him live', and 'bargain'. That's an 'action wheel', not a 'tone wheel'. Beyond that, we haven't really seen enough. The third option is basically 'let's move on', though. Personally, I can't imagine scolding someone that just endured torture to protect you as you remove her chains. Personally, I wouldn't argue if Leli put a knife in my jugular on the spot for that, just saying. Also keep in mind the goal this time is to make all the tones reasonably consistent with a single character, there's no multiple personality effect like DA2. Characterization comes more from the choices you make, like DA:O, and imo that's a good thing. Emotion will definitely be there, or else why mention the 'emotion wheel'? This just wasn't an example of that, I guess. It's pretty down to business.

[Gtdef]

-snip-

 

I agree with this. Even if we can make educated guesses about how someone will react, we can never really know, especially in a game. Even if there is a framework it's not governed by logic and that's why psychology and profiling are a process and not an exact science. It's empirical.

 

The writer is not an expert in human behavior. He has a process to brainstorm ideas (like taking examples from real life situations) and insert them into the story. There are a lot of approaches but sometimes he has to force this characters and behaviors. The best we can hope is that they will has as much consistency as possible.

[Vilegrim]

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.  

 

 

I don't want to kill everything, I want  to be a guy taking advantage of the chaos to get payback on organisations that wronged him, while the world is burning and they are shattered. i.e The PERFECT time to topple them.  Yes I will show all the mercy they have shown...and since worshipping anyone but Andrastre gets you a death sentence (Ask the Dalish) I will take the less extreme 'being in the Chantry Hierarchy makes you my enemy' stance.

[Burricho]

Never minddd

[Gtdef]

Well, 'give him a merciful death' and 'show him mercy' aren't exactly the same thing. Those choices aren't what the Inquisitor says, anyway, just spiced up versions of 'kill him', 'let him live', and 'bargain'. That's an 'action wheel', not a 'tone wheel'. Beyond that, we haven't really seen enough. The third option is basically 'let's move on', though. Personally, I can't imagine scolding someone that just endured torture to protect you as you remove her chains. Personally, I wouldn't argue if Leli put a knife in my jugular on the spot for that, just saying. Also keep in mind the goal this time is to make all the tones reasonably consistent with a single character, there's no multiple personality effect like DA2. Characterization comes more from the choices you make, like DA:O, and imo that's a good thing. Emotion will definitely be there, or else why mention the 'emotion wheel'? This just wasn't an example of that, I guess. It's pretty down to business.

 

Yea sorry about the mix up, I actually wanted to say the "merciful death" but I got carried away.

 

While the options are those that you say, what is even the reason to exist. Why should 2/3 choices focus on Felix when he is clearly irrelevant at the current scene? He can't even talk. He just wants to die or something. That's what I mean by limited. In one scene it's just small talk (like the thing she actually says), in the other it focuses on the irrelevant character. It's too compliant. If I'm forced into this character, I just don't want to play it. Even if there are 3 different choices, they are choices that I don't even care about. I don't care about Felix, let Leliana do whatever, I want to focus on the amulet and be uncompromising. They can have an action wheel for "demand", "negotiate", "taunt/kill his son". That's something that I would care about. The death of his son is an order that Leliana would be proud to follow for at least 2 reasons.

 

Also you can't imagine scolding someone that protected you, but what if she was the reason of the problems? The demo doesn't clarify which is why I try to be as vague as possible. Leliana says "I thought you were dead". She didn't try to protect anything in her captivity. She didn't even know the inq was alive. And that knife thing is nonsense. She is a tired and unarmed person that she won't even feel her hands with the way they were bound. The more likely scenario is that you can scold her as much as you like and if she says anything to punch her in the face. That's totally at the writer's whim.

 

I know this can't be everything I want it to be, but there is a difference between getting what I want and being forced to play the dullest character in existence. Cause if I have to judge from these 2 exchanges, boring is the only word that comes to mind. 

[Gtdef]

Well you do have the option ask her to slit the sons throat, so....

 

Is that what you understood? I don't care about killing him to give him a merciful death. Why would anyone care. I care about killing him for taunting the guy. I care about playing a character that cares about the objective and not random "choice" for.. stuff. I'd be perfectly happy if I couldn't kill him but instead I could threaten that I will. Different things. Different motives. Different philosophy.

[Burricho]

Why are you judging this already? The game hasn't been released. You know nothing about that inquisitor, nothing about the choices they have made up until that point. You don't know if the game changes based on you previous dialogues. And yet you make huge assumptions that "nobody here can be happy with that choice", and nobody cares whether or not leilana disobeys your orders. I certainly do. We don't know whether or not felix plays a big role in the game, so stop making assumptions that he doesn't.

[Gtdef]

Why are you judging this already? The game hasn't been released. You know nothing about that inquisitor, nothing about the choices they have made up until that point. You don't know if the game changes based on you previous dialogues. And yet you make huge assumptions that "nobody here can be happy with that choice", and nobody cares whether or not leilana disobeys your orders. I certainly do. We don't know whether or not felix plays a big role in the game, so stop making assumptions that he doesn't.

 

 

I'm not judging, I'm skeptical as I said on the post you quoted. I'm keeping my assumptions for now unless when someone asks me and I have to explain what I mean. But as a first impression I don't really like the fact that the dialogue doesn't focus on the objective.

[TurretSyndrome]

It might be that the game has very closely-knit choices that one has to pick from. Being forced to picking between options like "You'll pay for this!" and "What have you done?" which are only slightly different is really not the kind of diversity I'm looking for.

 

In DA 2, we were in a similar situation but whatever choice we made, we were just spat in the face later on. This time, I can't help but feel that the choices will just be mostly synonymous as opposed to the much larger range DA:O had. This is really what I'm most concerned about, to be honest, and I think a lot of people that want such options feel the same way. Hopefully those choices in the demo aren't representative of the diversity of all of them in the game. Otherwise, we're just looking at a prettied up version of DA 2 for all the promises made in support of variance in choices.

[Burricho]

You want to know why DAO had more choices? No voice acting.

[cindercatz]

Yea sorry about the mix up, I actually wanted to say the "merciful death" but I got carried away.

 

While the options are those that you say, what is even the reason to exist. Why should 2/3 choices focus on Felix when he is clearly irrelevant at the current scene? He can't even talk. He just wants to die or something. That's what I mean by limited. In one scene it's just small talk (like the thing she actually says), in the other it focuses on the irrelevant character. It's too compliant. If I'm forced into this character, I just don't want to play it. Even if there are 3 different choices, they are choices that I don't even care about. I don't care about Felix, let Leliana do whatever, I want to focus on the amulet and be uncompromising. They can have an action wheel for "demand", "negotiate", "taunt/kill his son". That's something that I would care about. The death of his son is an order that Leliana would be proud to follow for at least 2 reasons.

 

Also you can't imagine scolding someone that protected you, but what if she was the reason of the problems? The demo doesn't clarify which is why I try to be as vague as possible. Leliana says "I thought you were dead". She didn't try to protect anything in her captivity. She didn't even know the inq was alive. And that knife thing is nonsense. She is a tired and unarmed person that she won't even feel her hands with the way they were bound. The more likely scenario is that you can scold her as much as you like and if she says anything to punch her in the face. That's totally at the writer's whim.

 

I know this can't be everything I want it to be, but there is a difference between getting what I want and being forced to play the dullest character in existence. Cause if I have to judge from these 2 exchanges, boring is the only word that comes to mind. 

Why Felix is because Felix is the negotiation. Bad daddy makes it pretty clear his son is kind of the reason he's up to whatever he's up to in the first place, so it's like saying 'good cop', 'bad cop', and 'kill 'em all'. Leli just basically is saying 'no negotiation, sorry, prepare to die'. 

 

There's no reason to assume Leliana caused anything, but we know she refused to talk and didn't break and that she's there on your orders, per commentary, so I think it's reasonable to assume she's at least protecting information pertaining to the inquisition, if not your character personally. Lastly, we see her kill her torturer all by her lonesome as you walk through the door, and pick up a bow and go to work immediately thereafter. I think she could handle a knife. Whether it's realistic or not right at that moment, who knows? We don't even know how long she's been hanging there. Girl's like freakin' Rambo, though.

[Nukekitten]

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.

No, you don't know. Knowledge is not required.

In any individual instance for some randomly selected member of the population in a randomly selected scenario you may not be able to predict with a high degree of confidence how they're going to act. It's for this reason that joking with people you don't know takes a certain degree of recklessness. But socialising is an iterative game, and rarely takes place in randomly selected scenarios with randomly selected members of the population. What's happened to that person, their personality, what situation they're in, these all provide you with more information about how they're likely to act.

You cannot know, but you can assign a probability. Indeed that's all you can do with anything. Probabilities approach but never reach total certainty. That's why we have confidence intervals for scientific studies rather than having knowledge as a binary state. It's possible that I wake up tomorrow and my desk has changed to be made of gold - but it's exceedingly unlikely. Just as it's exceedingly unlikely that a friend you've known for years is going to turn around when you're both relaxing and respond to some innocuous remark by driving a knife into your throat. It happens, but that's not the way to bet.

So, I find the argument that you cannot know, and that thus predicted responses are nonsense, unconvincing. One doesn't have to have a complete model of human behaviour to put bounds on it any more than one has to have a complete model of waveform equations to catch an apple.

I am not saying, and I note words to this effect were in the section of my post you decided to cut out, that you cannot be mean in some instances. I'm saying that if you were mean all the time people would find ways to work around you and that's something that would be extremely difficult to support in the game. That as such you cannot judge, from one instance, that the game as a whole is about your being all hug kittens and love the earth.

You raise the example of the KOTOR games, but how often in them did you get a chance to be a prat to your party members? How often did you get to tell Carth, "I don't care about your pathetic neurosis. I'm a killer, not a therapist. You're a pilot, and there are a million like you without serious mental health issues. Soldier up or get out."

Or the Jedi Council "Well, to be honest, it sounds like it's all your fault. Maybe if you'd provided some support, none of this would have happened."

Even DAO, your chances to be actively mean to party members were tightly constrained. You get moments where you can be quite mean, that's true enough. But it's far from something present in every conversation.

Perhaps we're just interested in playing different kinds of games, and have similarly different interests in where Bioware should be investing their resources. But, if you're judging this as having less choice than DAO or KOTOR based on a couple of levels of a single dialogue tree with a party member... I think you might be taking things a little further than's warranted. (A better argument, from that perspective, it seems to me, would be to look at the degree of choice present in Bioware's other recent games.)

Or maybe not, it's not like I'm promising there is something you'd find enjoyable - I'm just coming down on the 'too soon to say' side of things in that regard.

[Vilegrim]

Perhaps we're just interested in playing different kinds of games, and have similarly different interests in where Bioware should be investing their resources. But, if you're judging this as having less choice than DAO or KOTOR based on a couple of levels of a single dialogue tree with a party member... I think you might be taking things a little further than's warranted. (A better argument, from that perspective, it seems to me, would be to look at the degree of choice present in Bioware's other recent games.)

 

 going by DA2 or ME3 that means 'no meaningful choice, ever'

[Nukekitten]

going by DA2 or ME3 that means 'no meaningful choice, ever'

Mmm, maybe so. DA2 was a bit of a let-down to put it mildly. I suspect they had operational constraints in place there, I can't see - given the length of time DAO was in development how they could have turned a reasonable profit on that one. But yes, that's one of the reasons I'm going to wait to see how the reviews and lets-plays fall here.
 

Or when we save Leliana, we don't have the option to be strict. I am the boss, if I sent someone to do something important and fails, I'm going to be strict.

[...]
 
You can only behave like a 5 year old. It's just bad writing. Perhaps it's intended that way or it wasn't finished, but come on, how can anyone be satisfied with these options?

I don't view being strict with someone who I trust to have done their best to be an adult disposition, nor sending someone I wouldn't trust to do their best as a choice that an adult would have made in the first place.

If they've done their best being strict with them, hurting them, over it doesn't seem to serve a purpose.

If they made an honest mistake, again I don't much see the point.

Really the time to review is back at base over a couple of cups of tea and with a load of paper to graph up what happened and whether there's any way she could do better next time. I don't see the percentage in tearing her down.

Well, unless it's a political percentage. I suppose you might send someone you thought was going to fail hoping they'd die. And then use their failure when they didn't die to suggest they were incompetent and hurt them so that they'd be less likely to develop competence that they might use against you in the future.

But then we're into a round of political trading that would add a ridiculous degree of complexity to the interactions in the game. It would be interesting, mind, but I doubt it would be well-supported.

#

Though I don't disagree with your larger point that there's really only one path with relation to the objective there.

[A.Kazama]

Being a total asinine douche with no consideration to other peoples feelings but your own?

I could go for one run as one of those...

Gotta release the inquisitors tension somehow and a parallel universes inquisitor seems to be the way to do it!

[Gtdef]

Mmm, maybe so. DA2 was a bit of a let-down to put it mildly. I suspect they had operational constraints in place there, I can't see - given the length of time DAO was in development how they could have turned a reasonable profit on that one. But yes, that's one of the reasons I'm going to wait to see how the reviews and lets-plays fall here.
 

I don't view being strict with someone who I trust to have done their best to be an adult disposition, nor sending someone I wouldn't trust to do their best as a choice that an adult would have made in the first place.

If they've done their best being strict with them, hurting them, over it doesn't seem to serve a purpose.

If they made an honest mistake, again I don't much see the point.

Really the time to review is back at base over a couple of cups of tea and with a load of paper to graph up what happened and whether there's any way she could do better next time. I don't see the percentage in tearing her down.

Well, unless it's a political percentage. I suppose you might send someone you thought was going to fail hoping they'd die. And then use their failure when they didn't die to suggest they were incompetent and hurt them so that they'd be less likely to develop competence that they might use against you in the future.

But then we're into a round of political trading that would add a ridiculous degree of complexity to the interactions in the game. It would be interesting, mind, but I doubt it would be well-supported.

#

Though I don't disagree with your larger point that there's really only one path with relation to the objective there.

 

Just to clarify my position,

 

I'm trying to advocate for the more aggressive attitude, that's why I'm sticking to "strict" etc. If it was Leliana's initiative, then "strict" is perfectly fine. She compromised the situation, she has to own it up. Telling her that it's not over it's something that personally I would say in that situation. Perhaps I would be more gentle, like "don't bother with it now, we'll talk later". It really depends. I'm not advocating one dimensional characters, being either too good or too bad. 

 

If we sent her and she failed, then we need to see the report. Which still doesn't get reflected in the options that well. Perhaps it's easy to deduce what happened if you play the game or even know it firsthand. I'm reserving judgement because of this.

 

If we sent her under protest, then an option "you were right" would be the obvious one. The problem is that this situation seems like a major **** up. Not the kind that you go back to drink tea because if you do it means no character progression at all. It's the kind that pushes limits, someone yells, someone cries. Leliana thought we died, she was ready to die to not give any info. You can't even inquire anything. That's pretty much the reason I'm posting in this thread.

 

I'm advocating something that Alpha Protocol does, a character can be more shallow/deflect with humor, professional/understanding or impatient/direct. It's pretty much the same character in all choices. It allows you to be flexible. You try the professional approach, it doesn't work, so you become more direct or more shallow depending on your judgment of others. The protagonist isn't good or evil by what he says or does rather than why he does what he does. If you kill the terrorist because despite anything he says, you firmly believe that letting him go will only end with more innocents dead, then you are a good person. If you kill him because he is a brownboy and speaks funny then you are not. It doesn't have to be reflected in what you verbally communicate. It allows you to keep your reasons personal while dictating your general attitude.

 

In most bioware games it's either hot or cold responses and it promotes sticking with an attitude the whole game. I've seen people complain for ME2 because they want to play renegade but don't want to kill Samara in her loyalty or something. This happens because the game forces you to do it otherwise you won't have enough renegade points to pick the intimidate options later.

 

If there aren't such constraints and the protagonist still isn't flexible then it's a matter of writting quality. And that's my main issue. I understand that it's too early to tell, but I also understand that if I'm wrong, then they seriously picked the worst possible bit of conversation to demonstrate.

[DaySeeker]

I get the impression that BIoware isn't going paragon/renegade for this game and more npc's react to you in regards to specific situations.  I have been in the situation where I make a decision in a game that I view on a specific moral side and the game views it as another, so I get your frustration, but at the same time (and Bioshock 2 kinda drove this home for me) you did what you did, you can justify it how you like, you may attempt to explain it however you like (but you probably can't in a game) but other's will have their own perspective on it, and the action or words themselves have consequences..

 

Leliana in that scene is straight to business, she doesn't whine, blame or complain, she asks if you have weapons and then continues to try to get the job done, and it seems like the job is time dependent, so I don't see what options someone would ant in that situation.

[tmp7704]

I'm not judging, I'm skeptical as I said on the post you quoted. I'm keeping my assumptions for now unless when someone asks me and I have to explain what I mean. But as a first impression I don't really like the fact that the dialogue doesn't focus on the objective.

Lacking context we don't even know what the objective is in that particular scene. So deciding that "the dialogue doesn't focus on the objective" and extrapolating that (and "that" here is literally two dialogue points with only one path shown, each) into "game doesn't allow me to be rude, whyyyyyy BioWare" is... well, that's some really large leaps to very sketchy conclusions.

[Gtdef]

Do I have to rephrase a post 100 times till people understand what "impression" means? I'm discussing the demo, not the game.

[TheKomandorShepard]

I rly hope there will be option to execute leliana for what she did in demo (if she will be still alive) same for any person who does the same or something smiliar.

 

For now it looks bad in terms of rp most of options in some moment all options were being nice and caring what pretty much will kill rp elements if that how game looks.Dialogue options seemed linear and by that i mean there wasn't much difference assuming that you care about someone not mention cutscene with leliana fight where inq seemed concerned about her i hate when in rpg game force care about someone and tell me who i like or who i don't.