32 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

The worst offender/flaw in this system is character moral compass being twisted out of character.

If I play a lawful evil character...

My first playthrough of every game is with a Lawful Evil character. In DA2, it didn't work at all.

[mopotter]

I don't need to know exactly what they are going to say.  I would like to know if it's going to be polite, rude, sarcastic and I definitely want different lines for different choices.    

Polite - yes, I'd be happy to assist in killing that ____.  No, I will not participate in this killing.  

Sarcastic - Of course, killing ____ is soo much fun,  Not.

Rude - go jump of a cliff and maybe you'll land on it.    

 

As you can see, dialogue is not my strong point.  But I find it much more fun not knowing exactly what they will say and being entertained by it and by how they say it.  The only time i had a problem with this was in ME2 when Fem Shepard talked to Jacob for the first time and well it was just wrong on so many levels.  

[PsychoBlonde]

I suggested something similar, but it never occurred to me to have the paraphrases written first.

I thought the dialogue would be written first, and then the paraphrases could be written by a different person, with the lines provided out of order and out of context so as to prevent them from expecting players to rely on context to interpret them.

But I like your idea better. Writing the paraphrases first is an excellent idea.

 

 

Could be.  I generally find it easier to expand from an outline than to condense from a fully-realized version.  Everybody may not be the same in this way, but it works for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As you can see, dialogue is not my strong point. But I find it much more fun not knowing exactly what they will say and being entertained by it and by how they say it.

I inhabit my characters. Not knowing what they will say is like not knowing what I will say.

[In Exile]

My first playthrough of every game is with a Lawful Evil character. In DA2, it didn't work at all.

 

I find it very difficult to have Lawful Evil work in a game. DA:O did it well. ME at least in theory allowed for it (ME3 totally failed), though I might quibble with the interpretation. Lawful evil cannot work, IMO, without neutral dialogue options. 

 

That being said, I actually thought BG1 was the closest to success (by accident)... except for the fact that Bhaalspawn powers were tied to reputation and gained through a reputation appropriate narration. BG at least divorced alignment from actions, so I could be Lawful Evil with a heroic reputation (so a Villain with good publicity). 

[PsychoBlonde]

BG at least divorced alignment from actions, so I could be Lawful Evil with a heroic reputation (so a Villain with good publicity). 

 

Do you mean, because it let you buy +reputation from temples, or because it gave you dialog options that let you perform "good" acts for "evil" reasons?  If the latter, you have an interesting conundrum--if someone DOES good, regardless of their rationale, by what standard do you declare that they're "actually" evil?

 

One thing that kind of bugged me in DA2 on my Aggressive playthrough (which I otherwise quite enjoyed) was when I'd go to Investigate options and the tone would shift instantly from "GRR I'M FIERCE GRR!" to "so, tell me about your problems, I'm listening".  Suddenly now I'm a good listener?  2 seconds ago I was peeved at these screwups.  It's a problem with having the Investigate options divorced from the Tone options.  Ideally you'd want to be able to ask those questions in a way that reflects your opinion of the situation:  "Are you sure so-and-so is a Blood Mage?" is very different from "So you caught him using Blood Magic on someone?"  The first one is doubtful and wants more details before jumping to a conclusion.  The second one knows he's guilty and just wants the specifics so they can make use of it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Do you mean, because it let you buy +reputation from temples, or because it gave you dialog options that let you perform "good" acts for "evil" reasons? If the latter, you have an interesting conundrum--if someone DOES good, regardless of their rationale, by what standard do you declare that they're "actually" evil?

Their motives. Which, of course, the game can't ever know.

Whenever the game tries to know, the game fails.

One thing that kind of bugged me in DA2 on my Aggressive playthrough (which I otherwise quite enjoyed) was when I'd go to Investigate options and the tone would shift instantly from "GRR I'M FIERCE GRR!" to "so, tell me about your problems, I'm listening". Suddenly now I'm a good listener? 2 seconds ago I was peeved at these screwups. It's a problem with having the Investigate options divorced from the Tone options.

And yet, having them tied together caused similar problems. My attempt at a Lawful Evil Hawke was generally abrupt at the people around him he perceived as idiots (like Carver), but then when he met some nice people who treated him fairly and minded their own business, he screamed at them like a lunatic in response to politely phrased questions.

Ideally you'd want to be able to ask those questions in a way that reflects your opinion of the situation: "Are you sure so-and-so is a Blood Mage?" is very different from "So you caught him using Blood Magic on someone?" The first one is doubtful and wants more details before jumping to a conclusion. The second one knows he's guilty and just wants the specifics so they can make use of it.

And this is something I think the silent protagonist does extremely well.

[In Exile]

Do you mean, because it let you buy +reputation from temples, or because it gave you dialog options that let you perform "good" acts for "evil" reasons?  If the latter, you have an interesting conundrum--if someone DOES good, regardless of their rationale, by what standard do you declare that they're "actually" evil?

 

Neither. I was just contrasting it with, say, NWN2 were being nice to people shifted your alignment from Evil to Good. In BG, you could be evil while still being nice to people. Basically, you'd just be a sociopath (most of whom are really good at using social rules/convention to get ahead). 

 

One thing that kind of bugged me in DA2 on my Aggressive playthrough (which I otherwise quite enjoyed) was when I'd go to Investigate options and the tone would shift instantly from "GRR I'M FIERCE GRR!" to "so, tell me about your problems, I'm listening".  Suddenly now I'm a good listener?  2 seconds ago I was peeved at these screwups.  It's a problem with having the Investigate options divorced from the Tone options.  Ideally you'd want to be able to ask those questions in a way that reflects your opinion of the situation:  "Are you sure so-and-so is a Blood Mage?" is very different from "So you caught him using Blood Magic on someone?"  The first one is doubtful and wants more details before jumping to a conclusion.  The second one knows he's guilty and just wants the specifics so they can make use of it.

 

Tone options only work when you're just picking between the tone. DA2 used tone in every situation and that made it bizzare. It was similar when you were sarcastic, because the sarcastic options tended to really strongly relate to how the last "main" statement of the NPC was worded. So Hawke would often make a completely strange quip that didn't flow in conversation at all.