41 réponses à ce sujet

[FadelessRipley]

 I  see your point, it wouldn't  nesscarily have to be race restricted. I get what your saying about the pre-set backgrounds, but that would not really set a personality as such. Oh and thank you for  such a polite response

Politeness isn't fatal, contrary to popular internet belief.   

 

Hmm, I see your point. Guess I'm mixing two separate things up. While a more relatable personality would be great, I'd like some sort of backstory to make them more relatable as well. They could do both...? Separate backgrounds for different races, with the same say 3 personality branches? 

[wright1978]

I personally want more of a balance in between the two. I liked that Inquisitor wasn't beset by auto-dialogue or dominant tone auto-dialogue but felt they went too far in terms of neutralising the dialogue tone. So yeah i would like a return of the slightly broader flavours such as DA2's diplomatic/Sarcastic/Aggressive. As with much else DAI felt like the good things about DA2 were dropped, whilst anything that had a DAO vibe returned, no matter whether it was good or not.

[AWTEW]

Politeness isn't fatal, contrary to popular internet belief.   
 
Hmm, I see your point. Guess I'm mixing two separate things up. While a more relatable personality would be great, I'd like some sort of backstory to make them more relatable as well. They could do both...? Separate backgrounds for different races, with the same say 3 personality branches?

Yeah, thats true.A back story could work with 3 personalities.  

I personally want more of a balance in between the two. I liked that Inquisitor wasn't beset by auto-dialogue or dominant tone auto-dialogue but felt they went too far in terms of neutralising the dialogue tone. So yeah i would like a return of the slightly broader flavours such as DA2's diplomatic/Sarcastic/Aggressive. As with much else DAI felt like the good things about DA2 were dropped, whilst anything that had a DAO vibe returned, no matter whether it was good or not.

I didn't mind the auto-dialouge, or the dominant tone auto dialouge so much. But I can see why others wouldent, and ill admit sometimes it could be a bit jarring. There were some pros to the dominent tone, like how it changed up some cutscenes.

I guess, i missed the personality system the most, and that was my biggest disappointment with DAI along with the lack of story.

[Cz-99]

I really enjoyed the HoF-style. Sure he had no voice (story-wise), but they made up for it by giving you a lot of different responses. That being said, I really liked Hawke. I'm a fan of the VA they chose for 'em, the writing was great, and I had a lotta good laughs playing sarcastic Hawke. The Inquisitor was... Decent. Kind of a mix of the two, but because it's a mix (IMO) you don't get the great writing nor the big variation in reply choices. 

 

Ideally, I'd like to see an adaptive system. By that I mean that the game starts off by giving you several different responses (each having a type) and based on what you choose the game shapes itself giving you more options similar to what you chose before. For example, if it recognizes that you choose straight-forward responses all the time, it'll start giving you those more than any other. If instead you mainly choose silly and/or rude replies, it gives you those in turn. This way you mould your character's personality through the dialogue that you pick. I think something like this could be possible with a voiceless protagonist, but the issue comes in if you try giving said protagonist a VA. That'd be an unrealistic amount of lines for the VA to perform, and DA games already have a lot of voice-acting to begin with. Yet, having a VA - especially a good one - adds to the game I think, even though I was okay with my mute Warden. So overall it's a fantasy-system that wouldn't work one way or another, but it's the product of not being able to decide which style and system I like more. 

[AWTEW]

I really enjoyed the HoF-style. Sure he had no voice (story-wise), but they made up for it by giving you a lot of different responses. That being said, I really liked Hawke. I'm a fan of the VA they chose for 'em, the writing was great, and I had a lotta good laughs playing sarcastic Hawke. The Inquisitor was... Decent. Kind of a mix of the two, but because it's a mix (IMO) you don't get the great writing nor the big variation in reply choices. 
 
Ideally, I'd like to see an adaptive system. By that I mean that the game starts off by giving you several different responses (each having a type) and based on what you choose the game shapes itself giving you more options similar to what you chose before. For example, if it recognizes that you choose straight-forward responses all the time, it'll start giving you those more than any other. If instead you mainly choose silly and/or rude replies, it gives you those in turn. This way you mould your character's personality through the dialogue that you pick. I think something like this could be possible with a voiceless protagonist, but the issue comes in if you try giving said protagonist a VA. That'd be an unrealistic amount of lines for the VA to perform, and DA games already have a lot of voice-acting to begin with. Yet, having a VA - especially a good one - adds to the game I think, even though I was okay with my mute Warden. So overall it's a fantasy-system that wouldn't work one way or another, but it's the product of not being able to decide which style and system I like more.

This could work, but the expense in VA voicewotk would be huge. And now that they have put four voices in the game, people will expect it in the next. It is a really great idea though!

[AresKeith]

I personally want more of a balance in between the two. I liked that Inquisitor wasn't beset by auto-dialogue or dominant tone auto-dialogue but felt they went too far in terms of neutralising the dialogue tone. So yeah i would like a return of the slightly broader flavours such as DA2's diplomatic/Sarcastic/Aggressive. As with much else DAI felt like the good things about DA2 were dropped, whilst anything that had a DAO vibe returned, no matter whether it was good or not.

 

I do hope they approve on that with the "tone wheel"

[Battlebloodmage]

Inquisitor is pretty boring. Everything he said is pretty neutral. I know that they want to do it for player agency, but it's more or less the same as silent protagonist in a way since what they said don't convey strong, meaningful things.I hope we get more Citadel Shepard and DA2 Hawke.

[trevelyan_shep]

I don't want to play another Hawke type character. I didn't like how the dialogue options were, either. I also didn't appreciate only being able to play a human. As someone who loves playing as elves I want to be able to have that choice. For me, I like DA:O as well as Inquisition in the way of their dialogue options. I don't want to feel completely restricted with what I can do with my own character.

[AWTEW]

I don't want to play another Hawke type character. I didn't like how the dialogue options were, either. I also didn't appreciate only being able to play a human. As someone who loves playing as elves I want to be able to have that choice. For me, I like DA:O as well as Inquisition in the way of their dialogue options. I don't want to feel completely restricted with what I can do with my own character.

 

Fair enough, but there're people that do want to play a Hawke like character. The OP, was about an option to play as a Hawke like character. For example, If they are going to have four voice's, at least two of those could use a 3-personality system. The other two voices, can be neutral, for the people who prefer to completely head-cannon.

Inquisitor is pretty boring. Everything he said is pretty neutral. I know that they want to do it for player agency, but it's more or less the same as silent protagonist in a way since what they said don't convey strong, meaningful things.I hope we get more Citadel Shepard and DA2 Hawke.

 

Off topic: But your avatar has one of the best DW move-sets, ever.

[Terodil]

Full support from me if the general gist of this thread is to give the main character personality, in fact, any sort of personality. Like many in this thread, I could never relate to my Inquisitor, and that was one of the biggest problems I had with DA:I. (Although I'd consider the protagonist's personality as established via dialogues part of the overarching problem of allowing diverse decisions and gameplay, e.g. playing an evil or just ruthless Inquisitor.)

 

I honestly don't mind how they do this in the future. If the "3-personality-split" returns, it's better than the "0-personality" we have now. And more choices are always good, so I wouldn't be averse to DA:O style conversations either. The difference between those two options really comes down to taste and I myself cannot make up my mind. While DA:O allowed more fine-tuning, Hawke (with her awesome voice actress) was a lot of fun and very well done in DA:KW, so much so that I didn't really miss the fine-tuning DA:O provided. I'll never forget that awesome surprise monologue sarcastic Hawke had in Hightown.

 

As a small aside and not entirely on-topic: DA:I had far too little humour. Well DA:I almost feels like it has been made tranquil altogether, but humour as a relief from the doom-and-gloom is actually required for, not detrimental to, a feeling of urgency (you cannot maintain one tension arc for 120 hours. It's like a piece of music that's only played on fortissimo. It gets boring and in the end, a few passages on piano would have helped a lot.) I may be particularly bitter about this since I feel BW mutilated beloved characters from before, with good dramatic reason (e.g. Leliana) or without (Varric).

[Winged Silver]

The thing is, I think with the Inquisitor they tried to have threeish personalities (I found that the top option was often more altruistic, whereas the lower one went towards a more aggressive approach) for each dialog wheel set (sometimes more). However, the options presented often weren't very distinctive from each other (this is from my 2.5 play throuh's experience - I know I haven't seen everything). Additionally, they decided against the 'emotion' icons for some of the general dialog. I think that makes sense for decision points, but for general chatter, having a sense of how your character is going to say something is really important. I definitely had moments where I cringed at my Inquisitor's choice of words/presentation. 

 

To bring it back, I'd like to have some clearly set 'personality' dialog options as well. I think one can still roleplay with that, as all it would require is picking the option that makes sense for that character at that time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I prefer the voiced protagonist , it makes my character feel included in the world , the voiceless one makes me feel like im standing outside the world looking in.

Standing outside the world looking in Is how I think the world works. Each person lives in his own head, and the silent protagonist does a better job of modeling that.

[In Exile]

The only difference between the Inquisitor and Hawke was that the Inquisitor had more toned down aggression options (every bottom left-option did not mean rave and froth like a loon) and less Joss Whedon quips via the humour options (which, while I like, is a big YMMV). As much as I miss the Whedon quips, being able to freely pick between the dialogue options without having my PC sound like he or she just dropped their meds is a big plus.

 

Standing outside the world looking in Is how I think the world works. Each person lives in his own head, and the silent protagonist does a better job of modeling that.

 

As we've discussed, even if we were to agree on that, the silent protagonist still has fundamental limits when it comes to portrayal of characters as active figures in their own plot in a 3D, voiced world.

As, for example, BG2, PT:ST and (now) POE show (btw, have you had a chance to play the game? PM me if so; would be very interest in your thoughts) can have an active protagonist because choosing to be active (vs. passive) can just turn on dialogue choices, and the "depiction" can be done via writing.

 

In 3D games that's not possible, even with a game that isn't really cinematic (KoTOR wasn't cinematic beyond using a particular camera angle, but it gave a lot of speech to NPCs rather than the PC, making Bastilla and Carth agents rather than the PC).

[Sylvius the Mad]

The only difference between the Inquisitor and Hawke was that the Inquisitor had more toned down aggression options (every bottom left-option did not mean rave and froth like a loon) and less Joss Whedon quips via the humour options (which, while I like, is a big YMMV). As much as I miss the Whedon quips, being able to freely pick between the dialogue options without having my PC sound like he or she just dropped their meds is a big plus.

I like the quips as well, but the trouble with humour is that it's harder to paraphrase in a way that maintains player agency.

I objected to the humour in DA2 only because I couldn't tell what it was going to say. I stuck with the Aggressive options because their paraphrases were clearer.

The move toward more matter-of-fact dialogue options is, I think, largely responsible for the improvement in paraphrase quality.

If the writers could figure out how to make jokes without hiding the meaning from us, I'd like the jokes more. I want to know what joke I'm going to make before I make it

As we've discussed, even if we were to agree on that, the silent protagonist still has fundamental limits when it comes to portrayal of characters as active figures in their own plot in a 3D, voiced world.
As, for example, BG2, PT:ST and (now) POE show (btw, have you had a chance to play the game? PM me if so; would be very interest in your thoughts) can have an active protagonist because choosing to be active (vs. passive) can just turn on dialogue choices, and the "depiction" can be done via writing.

I installed it yesterday. I haven't played it yet.

In 3D games that's not possible, even with a game that isn't really cinematic (KoTOR wasn't cinematic beyond using a particular camera angle, but it gave a lot of speech to NPCs rather than the PC, making Bastilla and Carth agents rather than the PC).

This is the part I don't accept. There's no reason why we can't have that level of agency in a 3D game. Yes, the 3D games we've seen don't offer that, but doesn't mean they can't. All it would need is the acceptance of some level of disconnect between what we see on screen and what's actually happening, much as we nearly always see in melee combat. The only game I can think of that doesn't do that with combat is NWN (it accurately models hits and misses).

Also, I like playing less active characters. Inaction should be a valid option most of the time (this is my biggest complaint with Skyrim - nothing at all happens unless I do it).

[In Exile]

I like the quips as well, but the trouble with humour is that it's harder to paraphrase in a way that maintains player agency.

I objected to the humour in DA2 only because I couldn't tell what it was going to say. I stuck with the Aggressive options because their paraphrases were clearer.

The move toward more matter-of-fact dialogue options is, I think, largely responsible for the improvement in paraphrase quality.

 

I don't really find the dialogue as devoid of character as most find it. It's more subdued, sure, but part of that is that Bioware sort of "spread" the personality around. The Inquisitor is as likely to quib via the top-right or bottom-right, and while confrontation/agreement tends to be mapped on the top-right and bottom-right respectively, that doesn't actually tie in with aggression.

 

It's well done overall.

 

 

Also, I like playing less active characters. Inaction should be a valid option most of the time (this is my biggest complaint with Skyrim - nothing at all happens unless I do it).

This is the part I don't accept. There's no reason why we can't have that level of agency in a 3D game. Yes, the 3D games we've seen don't offer that, but doesn't mean they can't. All it would need is the acceptance of some level of disconnect between what we see on screen and what's actually happening, much as we nearly always see in melee combat. The only game I can think of that doesn't do that with combat is NWN (it accurately models hits and misses).

 

The fundamental problem with incorporating agency into a 3D game seems to me that the scene can't develop without a very substantial form of disconnect. It's inconsistent with the cinematic approach scenes use to portray dramatic moments. I don't think people will accept the disconnect as readily as we do with combat, and even with combat lots of people don't accept quite a substantial degree of disconnect (see complaints about the use of RNG even in turn-based tactical combat like XCOM:EU, where RNG is necessary).

[Sylvius the Mad]

The fundamental problem with incorporating agency into a 3D game seems to me that the scene can't develop without a very substantial form of disconnect. It's inconsistent with the cinematic approach scenes use to portray dramatic moments.

We should sacrifice the cinematics before we sacrifice the player agency.

I don't see why a game like DAI couldn't handle this in exactly the same way as PST did.

I don't think people will accept the disconnect as readily as we do with combat, and even with combat lots of people don't accept quite a substantial degree of disconnect (see complaints about the use of RNG even in turn-based tactical combat like XCOM:EU, where RNG is necessary).

Unless we want the combat to be deterministic, RNG is always necessary.

[StarlaBlaise]

I really missed my Hawke. Playing DA2 had been a joy for the 1st time, course I laughed so much, my neighbors most probably heard everything. And every playthrough is still the best, compared to DA:O or DA:I. I thought the reason for this was an actual voice for the protagonist, but having it is not enough. Inquisitor has a personality of a wet tissue no matter which response you choose.

I prefer to play as someone with personality. With Inquisitor he/she is either a good person, who wants to save the world or reluctant to do it, but still does. So it's either "a" or slightly changed "b". Hawke with his/her 3 personalities had more options to roleplay.