5 réponses à ce sujet

[Void-Creature]

It's time to re-think what dialogue choices mean to Bioware games. At present, choosing how you go through a conversation has only one tangible benefit: party affection. In previous games this was rewarded with stat improvement. In Inquisition it is potentially punished by losing the companion. As a result, the most effective way to play is to find the dialogue option that nets the greatest approval gain. There are internet guides written about this.

 

What results, however, is a detriment to a role-playing experience. By choosing whatever option nets the greatest approval gain, not only is the satisfaction of role-playing a distinct personality removed, it provides what could be interpreted as a "correct" answer in a game that is supposed to be morally ambiguous. If you want to view the scattered responses this creates as a kind of role-playing, then all it accomplishes is to project our protagonist as a wimp who caters to his follower's preconceptions.

 

While I don't think there should ever be a Paragon/Renegade system in Dragon Age, as that binary morality doesn't fit the setting, I would like to see some kind of reward system for dialogue options chosen. In DA:2, only a forceful personality could threaten the dock worker in Act 1 about where the Orlesian cargo was stored, whereas only a witty personality could convince those guarding it to leave their posts. This kind of tangible reward to role-playing a certain personality type makes each dialogue choice you make much more meaningful.

 

I think our advisors categorized the different tactics best. Diplomacy for Josephine, Subterfuge for Leliana, and Force for Cullen. These three approaches worked marvelously for variety on the war table, as the advisor you picked most would define the Inquisition's reputation in the epilogue. I would like to see a similar approach taken with our dialogue choices, but with gameplay benefits. Doing so would make the role-playing aspect of the game much more meaningful.

[Andraste_Reborn]

As you say, I'd hate to see a binary morality system in a DA game - but I think something like the Reputation system in Pillars of Eternity could work.

 

You can gain or lose rep with the various different places and factions, but also get a reputation for particular types of behaviour that opens up or closes off options. (I think there are ten in total - Benevolent, Cruel, Clever, Stoic, Passionate, Rational, Agressive, Diplomatic, Honest, Dishonest - but my first character never got any visible points in Cruel so maybe I missed another one.)

[Innsmouth Dweller]

2pt PoE. i've slaughtered everyone in prologue and the game recognized it, i'm amazed 

 

anyway, personalities from DA2 were pretty good idea, too bad the choice was limited to 3 and it came with autodialogue (in PoE dispositions can be used as normal stat tests but you can still choose not to pick those options, reputations also affect NPC's reaction to you and they can be mixed - you can be a... merciful brutal). still... DAI's RP capabilities are bland in comparison.

companions are nice touch but they are just a background to the story and PC, approval rating popup should be optional so it won't affect the RP in any way

[In Exile]

The disposition reputations themselves in POE have no actual effect as far as I can tell beside flavour dialogue.

The faction reputation only works if there are actual factions to cater. I agree that the mechanic is good but I think it's good when the developers feature the factions. Like if every zone had a microcosm of the choice you would face and that reputation was essential to (1) getting a faction to side with you and (2) getting them to listen to you e.g. for an ideal outcome to their quest (e.g. some mages side with the Venatori unless you have high rep or persuade) then we'd get more and better RP. It would also connect the zones to the MQ because the quests would be about reputation AND power.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

i think the dispositions come to life in a3 mostly, i'm not sure if they really affect something more than dialogue (i just started 2nd pt) - even if they don't, i'm all for dialogue flavour - it's one of the core features of RP imho

 

EDIT: i think TW3 will introduce some interesting group mechanics. something to look forward to, i guess.

[MaxQuartiroli]

What results, however, is a detriment to a role-playing experience. By choosing whatever option nets the greatest approval gain, not only is the satisfaction of role-playing a distinct personality removed, it provides what could be interpreted as a "correct" answer in a game that is supposed to be morally ambiguous. If you want to view the scattered responses this creates as a kind of role-playing, then all it accomplishes is to project our protagonist as a wimp who caters to his follower's preconceptions.

 

I think that the best approach is just.... to not bother! There are other ways to gain approval from your companion, like their fetchquests/personal quests. By doing those I never lost a companion no matter how much he/she disagreed with me. Maybe they weren't ultra-friendly with my Inquisitor but no one ever left me. Judgments also have a great impact on your companion's approval. 

 

I did often what you said in the past, but this time I refused to be amenable with everyone and I decided to give them the answers that I felt appropriate for my inquisitor's behaviours. Let them disagree if they want. Someone loved my inquisitor, someone was a bit cold but I was never hated by anyone. I can guarantee that it is a more satisfactory way to play and it also feel more realistic because it's impossible that so many persons with different (and sometimes also opposite) natures could love you to the same degree.