55 réponses à ce sujet

[Nefla]

This isn't about a lack of knowledge. This is about an offensive stereotype. If someone actually had very low IQ, it would not look like the broken caveman speech we see with, say, Thog in Order of the Stick or that they had in, say, Fallout 1-2. 

If a real person can't be unintelligent enough to do the caveman talk or whatever (but a video game character can) then it's not portraying any real people and I don't see a reason to be upset or offended. Even a real person with very low intelligence can look at the character and go "hey, that guy makes me look like a genius " It reminds me of my advertising class in high school where there was this one girl who was over the top in her political correctness and found every presentation offensive. My group did an ad about Vikings and she said their accent was offensive to Vikings...

[In Exile]

If a real person can't be unintelligent enough to do the caveman talk or whatever (but a video game character can) then it's not portraying any real people and I don't see a reason to be upset or offended. Even a real person with very low intelligence can look at the character and go "hey, that guy makes me look like a genius " It reminds me of my advertising class in high school where there was this one girl who was over the top in her political correctness and found every presentation offensive. My group did an ad about Vikings and she said their accent was offensive to Vikings...

 

To me this type of portrayal is like blackface - the very fact of its  being a caricature based around baseless stereotypes is what makes it offensive and why we should avoid its portrayal. I fully support finding ways to implement low Intelligence - or low Charisma, or low anything - statistic characters, but it should be done in a way that actually (1) recognizes how/what intelligence does and (2) avoids a stereotype-filled portrayal of an IRL medical issue. 

[Nefla]

To me this type of portrayal is like blackface - the very fact of its  being a caricature based around baseless stereotypes is what makes it offensive and why we should avoid its portrayal. I fully support finding ways to implement low Intelligence - or low Charisma, or low anything - statistic characters, but it should be done in a way that actually (1) recognizes how/what intelligence does and (2) avoids a stereotype-filled portrayal of an IRL medical issue. 

Wouldn't low charisma portrayals be offensive to you as well then since it could be considered a negative portrayal of someone with a social disorder? My dad is extremely unintelligent and he's never been offended by cavemen on TV, etc...

[efd731]

I really wish people would just accept the slight disconnect between game mechanics and reality and find something actually worthwhile to harp on.

[In Exile]

Wouldn't low charisma portrayals be offensive to you as well then since it could be considered a negative portrayal of someone with a social disorder? My dad is extremely unintelligent and he's never been offended by cavemen on TV, etc...

No. Low charisma is just a dice roll - but you don't get most lines sounding different or people running from you. A low charisma female character won't get a nonstop deluge of incredibly sexist remarks about her appearance.

In this case, the whole joke is this ridiculous perception of what low IQ individuals - clinically past the point of just not being very intelligent and straight into functional deficit - act like. That's why blackface is the proper analogy: the stereotyping is the joke.

[In Exile]

I really wish people would just accept the slight disconnect between game mechanics and reality and find something actually worthwhile to harp on.

It's not a "slight disconnect". It's a ridiculous stereotype with no connection to reality whose only purpose for being in-game is to be a never ending joke, and it has real consequences because most people have no idea what it really means to have a an actual cognitive deficit.

Mechanics should be in-game to provide a worthwhile RP experience.

[Ryzaki]

If a real person can't be unintelligent enough to do the caveman talk or whatever (but a video game character can) then it's not portraying any real people and I don't see a reason to be upset or offended. Even a real person with very low intelligence can look at the character and go "hey, that guy makes me look like a genius " It reminds me of my advertising class in high school where there was this one girl who was over the top in her political correctness and found every presentation offensive. My group did an ad about Vikings and she said their accent was offensive to Vikings...

 

I was doing caveman talk while being fairly intelligent. That's my issue with it. It's not a good feeling being unable to communicate the way everyone else can.

 

I don't know why low int characters can't speak decently but simply be incapable of doing certain solutions to plots that higher int characters can do.

 

Not to mention the hulk speak joke gets really old really fast.

[Jorji Costava]

Sure they have a meaning. It's just a DIFFERENT meaning than in DnD.

 

And more stat points is better anyway, because it better approximates reality. Try drawing a circle by only drawing boxes--only one box won't get you there at all, but 100 will, and 1000 will do even better.

 

Consider data points on a graph, consider video game polygons. It's all better (more realistic) with more smaller, rather than few bigger.

 

This would make perfect sense if you were talking about a stat system like the one found in the Jagged Alliance games, where stats were always some value between 1-99 and didn't increase very much (if at all) during the course of the game. But it's quite a bit different in Dragon Age, where you can start out at around 15 intelligence and finish with 42; so far as the numbers tell you, your character became almost three times as smart as she was prior to the beginning of the adventure, which doesn't seem particularly realistic to me. Of course, I'm not sure that that's what the numbers are actually supposed to suggest, but DA's stat system is so opaque to me that I don't really know one way or the other.

[Paul E Dangerously]

I really wish people would just accept the slight disconnect between game mechanics and reality and find something actually worthwhile to harp on.

 

I'm just amazed how many developers manage to release games these days, with the literal minefield of stuff people get offended by.

[LexXxich]

Low int characters in those RPGs that do such a dialogue penalty have an Int score that is barely above the level required for self awereness. Anything lower is not considered sentient by ruleset. It's a balance mechanism to make having Int as dump stat not as attractive.

[Nefla]

I was doing caveman talk while being fairly intelligent. That's my issue with it. It's not a good feeling being unable to communicate the way everyone else can.

 

I don't know why low int characters can't speak decently but simply be incapable of doing certain solutions to plots that higher int characters can do.

 

Not to mention the hulk speak joke gets really old really fast.

I'm sorry you had to go through that  the thing I like most about playing the low int characters is frustrating and confusing npcs, but if there was a way for the PC to do that on purpose I think it would be agreeable for everyone. Though this whole discussion is moot since DA2 took out any stat based options (and there were never low int type options in DA to begin with) and we haven't heard anything about them being put back in. I do hope that our specializations get brought up a fair amount. I hated in DA2 how everyone turned to Anders for healing stuff and questions when my Hawke was a much better healer :/

[Ryzaki]

I'm sorry you had to go through that  the thing I like most about playing the low int characters is frustrating and confusing npcs, but if there was a way for the PC to do that on purpose I think it would be agreeable for everyone. Though this whole discussion is moot since DA2 took out any stat based options (and there were never low int type options in DA to begin with) and we haven't heard anything about them being put back in. I do hope that our specializations get brought up a fair amount. I hated in DA2 how everyone turned to Anders for healing stuff and questions when my Hawke was a much better healer :/

 

oh yeah I have no problems with NPCs going "wut" but that really doesn't require a speech impediment. We've all heard someone speak just fine but the most facepalm worthy nonsense came out of their mouths. If low int characters were like that I'd love it. XD  (plus that way you get the double take wait what?)

 

YES to specializations though. In DAO instead of my SH mage being asked to help Genitivi he'd ask any other mage or even Leliana before mine. Just...yes ignore the powerful healing mage cause she's the PC.

 

DA2 at least had Merrill turn to Hawke if he/she was a mage so there was something (though Fenris ignoring you were a bloodmage was baffling ) I could see Anders ignoring it cause freeeedooom but Fenris? Da hell. And Merrill should've called a bloodmage or Reaver who rivaled her a hypocrite. Hopefully when DAI says we'll get some attention to specializations they don't mean special mage snowflakes will get recognition and **** everybody else.

[AlanC9]

This would make perfect sense if you were talking about a stat system like the one found in the Jagged Alliance games, where stats were always some value between 1-99 and didn't increase very much (if at all) during the course of the game. But it's quite a bit different in Dragon Age, where you can start out at around 15 intelligence and finish with 42; so far as the numbers tell you, your character became almost three times as smart as she was prior to the beginning of the adventure, which doesn't seem particularly realistic to me. Of course, I'm not sure that that's what the numbers are actually supposed to suggest, but DA's stat system is so opaque to me that I don't really know one way or the other.

 

In practice, this wouldn't matter too much. Bio dynamically generated DCs in NWN based on the character's level, and something like this would work in DAI too. Of course, that just turns the stat check into yet another Red Queen's Race, but that sort of thing's an RPG tradition, right?

[In Exile]

Low int characters in those RPGs that do such a dialogue penalty have an Int score that is barely above the level required for self awereness. Anything lower is not considered sentient by ruleset. It's a balance mechanism to make having Int as dump stat not as attractive.

It's not a good one when people find it fun as a potential play through. It seems to me the right approach is to have more serious penalties to everything, or to have combat competencies have INT floors (e.g. your character is too stupid to learn advanced combat styles, or high level talents).

[Paul E Dangerously]

It's not a good one when people find it fun as a potential play through. It seems to me the right approach is to have more serious penalties to everything, or to have combat competencies have INT floors (e.g. your character is too stupid to learn advanced combat styles, or high level talents).

 

That's partially why I liked Fallout, where a high INT would net you a lot more skill points than it would if you used it as a dump stat.

[In Exile]

That's partially why I liked Fallout, where a high INT would net you a lot more skill points than it would if you used it as a dump stat.

 

I could spend hours gushing about SPECIAL. It's just such a great approach to cRPG rulesets. 

Bioware has been pretty terrible at implementing a good ruleset, as much as their NPCs have been solid and interesting. 

[Tevinter Rose]

Yes! One of the things I loved about Fallout: New Vegas was how your stats (and skills) could open up conversation options. Ex: there was some guy who wasn't doing what I wanted and I had a strength of 10 (max) and the dialogue option was "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my rippling muscles" which intimidated the guy lol. Love things like that

 

Something like that would be awesome, I love the checks for conversations in F:NV 

[Paul E Dangerously]

I could spend hours gushing about SPECIAL. It's just such a great approach to cRPG rulesets. 

Bioware has been pretty terrible at implementing a good ruleset, as much as their NPCs have been solid and interesting. 

 

I've often said Bethesda should just dump the system TES has and convert wholesale over to SPECIAL. You'd tick some people off, granted, but it'd be a vast improvement.

 

And also agree with the second part. I love Dragon Age to pieces, but the psuedo-MMO ruleset does nothing for me. Much too limited, especially as of DA2.

[In Exile]

I've often said Bethesda should just dump the system TES has and convert wholesale over to SPECIAL. You'd tick some people off, granted, but it'd be a vast improvement.

 

And also agree with the second part. I love Dragon Age to pieces, but the psuedo-MMO ruleset does nothing for me. Much too limited, especially as of DA2.

 

I wouldn't even call it a ruleset - it's just combat mechanics. Bioware has never really used the ruleset for RPGs for anything other than combat. Just contrast BG with Fallout or Torment. You can see Bioware simply not using dialogue or out of combat skills at all. 

 

DA:2 is a pretty natural evolution from BG; people just don't appreciate what Bioware wanted to do, versus what was just genre convention at the time. 

[Icy Magebane]

I've often said Bethesda should just dump the system TES has and convert wholesale over to SPECIAL. You'd tick some people off, granted, but it'd be a vast improvement.

Hm... too bad they only listened to the first half of your proposal. 

 

"SPECIAL" is too closely associated with Fallout for me, but I'm sure I'd get over it.  To be fair though, I'd be happy with any attributes at this point (health, stamina, and magicka don't count)...

 

Oh, and I'm also in favor of attribute checks in DAI.  I always liked using Cunning in DAO to get extra info from people or to make a clever response to something that sounded off.

[RPGameRPG]

Since the devs have stated attribute points will not be awarded for leveling up, but will be almost entirely dependant on gear and skill choices having conversation and inter-action options depend on them would unfairly hobble some character creation role choices.

[Silver Souls]

yup I want it

[Phnx]

It makes zero sense. We cannot influence attributes directly, so a class check would be the logical alternative. Different classes, different attributes.

[Lennard Testarossa]

No.

 

It's great in games where your attributes actually define your character, i.e. in a DnD-like system. With an attribute system like in Dragon Age, attribute checks can't be implemented in a sensible way.

 

Attributes in DA are nothing more than modifiers for combat mechanics.