105 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphim24]

Passive Aggressiveness should be defined according to common-sense interpretations, obviously, I feel there should be a verbal push and peaceful political movement to have it punished in real life as well, for the purposes of this discussion game I would like to see progress in this respect simply in a game theoretic context.

 

I got the idea from a thread in TESO which discussed the possibility of negative repercussions for passive aggressive behavior, such as, if people are deliberately choosing the wrong responses, being contrarian, these sorts of things, the NPC might not give them a quest, might give them a lower reward, or just might not even talk to them anymore.

 

You can die to bullets and and everything else in a video game, why not die on your own obstinate pride?

 

Of course, the possibility for implementations are limitless, as are punishments and such for that kind of thing, so I think it would be cool if in MEA we get some kind of tool or gimmick, akin to the "Renegade options" but just for more than just the typical thing. I would like to see these things go further, even micro amounts of passive aggression could be taken seriously and hinder your ability to complete the game.

 

If you for instance insist on it too much in conversation with certain NPCs, or on quests, as stated you can no longer complete the game, perhaps build up a meter, you are simply rendered unfit for duty by the high command and such, and your character is terminated.

 

It could also be as small as  I said less monetary reward for the quest and stuff like that, I think it would be great to incentivize non-whininess or otherwise being an annoying loser.

[Xerxes52]

Like constantly disconnecting on the council in ME1? Yeah, that might be interesting if there were consequences for acting like an a-hole to people, especially when dealing with your bosses or quest givers.

[The Night Haunter]

I'm always a fan of when Dialogue is as dangerous as combat. Answer wrong and you die!

Just because a certain response means the game can't progress doesn't mean you should be able to make that response. It just leads to a game over screen

[Hammerstorm]

Then I want the game to punish the naive to. Those that only pick the "nice and good" option because it is "right".

 

(Ps. I am guilty of that sometimes so I think it would make it more interesting)

[Xerxes52]

Then I want the game to punish the naive to. Those that only pick the "nice and good" option because it is "right".

 

(Ps. I am guilty of that sometimes so I think it would make it more interesting)

 

Good idea as well. That reminds me of the one asari mercenary in ME2. She plays innocent at first, but it turns out she's actually the murderer.

[SofaJockey]

... I think it would be great to incentivize non-whininess or otherwise being an annoying loser.

 

Does this work for forums? ... 

[SolNebula]

Can we instead get rewarded for active aggressiveness? Like shooting people questioning us and get things done the old fashioned way.

[iM3GTR]

Like constantly disconnecting on the council in ME1?

You know it!

[Arcian]

Like constantly disconnecting on the council in ME1?

I dunno, this seemed more active agressive to me.

Can we instead get rewarded for active aggressiveness? Like shooting people questioning us and get things done the old fashioned way.

That's not how people got things done the old fashioned way, in fact that has never been a way people have got things done. Shooting people only get things dead.

[nfi42]

So how would this be achieved in game?

 

Would it be something like if I don't do the quests you give me,  then you won't give me any more quests?

 

Or maybe something more serious.  Quest giver takes all my money? shoots me? or Game Over?

 

This has potential.  or not.

[The Hierophant]

That's not how people got things done the old fashioned way, in fact that has never been a way people have got things done. Shooting people only get things dead.

It's partly true for America in ye olden times.

[Draining Dragon]

I dunno, this seemed more active agressive to me.

That's not how people got things done the old fashioned way, in fact that has never been a way people have got things done. Shooting people only get things dead.

Isn't killing someone "getting things done?"

[Monk]

I dunno, this seemed more active agressive to me.

Spoiler

That's not how people got things done the old fashioned way, in fact that has never been a way people have got things done. Shooting people only get things dead.

 

Active aggression would be more like threatening them versus not dealing with them via disconnecting them.

 

 

I think this definitely has a place in MEA since we are suppose to be playing nice with the Andromeda species to find a place for the MW species, and being overly passive aggressive only gets the PC labeled an ******* and a liability to the Ai. I agree similiar punishment should befitt the goody-to-shoe who doesn't make the Initiative priority one.

[Zatche]

Active aggression would be more like threatening them versus not dealing with them via disconnecting them.

 

I think this definitely has a place in MEA since we are suppose to be playing nice with the Andromeda species to find a place for the MW species, and being overly passive aggressive only gets the PC labeled an ******* and a liability to the Ai. I agree similiar punishment should befitt the goody-to-shoe who doesn't make the Initiative priority one.

 

Hanging up on someone, especially the people you take orders from, in the middle of a conversation is active aggression. It was a direct way of saying, "I don't care what you think. I'm going to do what I want."

 

Passive aggressive would be, "Okay, I'll follow your orders. We'll probably all die, but whatever you think is best."

[Wulfram]

I agree that foolish dialogue choices and gratuitous jerkishness should sometimes have consequences, but this shouldn't translate into "always pick the nice dialogue". Sometimes being super nice and accomodating should mean that people just don't see much need to give you a reward, or don't take your objections seriously.

[mrjack]

On the whole people don't want to be punished for the way they RP their character. I'm normally "super nice guy" so it wouldn't affect me but i know there are some people who must be ars-holes to everyone (even if they are not like that in real life).

 

Saying that though, It's a small thing, but in FO4, when you first meet Crazy Myrna (trader) and you joke about being a synth (which she hates), she will refuse to do business with you until you pass a medium persuasion check to convince her you are human. A lot of the "sarcastic" responses in FO4 are hilarious but they do get you in trouble sometimes and people don't just ignore it; they will get really irate if you make a joke at an inappropriate time.

 

Also, If you're really rude to people when you first meet them, they might decide not to talk to you (and give you a quest) until you apologize.

 

FO4 is far from perfect but these little things add to the authenticity of the game I think. I hope they do something similar in MEA.

[The Twilight God]

Passive aggressive or not. They will give me the damn quest or I will end them... slowly and quite painfully. I do not F around. I'm not to be trifled with.

[Linkenski]

Like constantly disconnecting on the council in ME1? Yeah, that might be interesting if there were consequences for acting like an a-hole to people, especially when dealing with your bosses or quest givers.

I don't like it when they try to make the tone too serious. Allow us to have some fun, man.

[TheJediSaint]

Active aggression should be rewarded.

[Arcian]

Isn't killing someone "getting things done?"

Things aren't "done" when they're shot dead. Assuming they're shot dead for the purposes of eating, they're not "done" until you've skinned, cleaned, seasoned and cooked the carcass.

In fact, shooting things has a tendency to make things undone, you know, like when the peace prior to World War 1 was undone by Archie Duke shooting an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.

[AlanC9]

I'm going to stand squarely with the OP on this one. Players should have lots of ways to fail, and this should be one.

[Seraphim24]

I'm going to stand squarely with the OP on this one. Players should have lots of ways to fail, and this should be one.

 

Thank you Alan. =-)

 

Implementation could be highly tricky... or not.... a simple scenario is just your garden variety passive aggression.

 

Disconnecting the council is a good instance, the repercussions simply being that the council deducts pay, subtracts a mission, deprives you of a good weapon, etc.

 

I think in a more video gamey context, people often engage in passive-aggressive behavior that people might not construe as such, but arguably finding a more complicated way to avoid using a "good" character that you don't like, but then having the other character prove better that you didn't select due to just passive aggressively not liking them be an easier, better route or something.

 

In severe ways, the other route would literally lead to death perhaps... in order words coercing characters to "meet their passive aggression in the field."

 

I think honestly this is just the initial idea, the possibilities are limitless and go a good ways towards showing how people can be hurt in more ways than just physical.

 

One thing though is oftentimes I see passive-aggressiveness in video games already, but players are determined to "avoid it" and are willing to take losses in order to go their own way. So, an important idea would be making it so it's kind of you have no "out" sort of option.

 

The key would be making it track highly passive aggressive behavior and not "just pick nice because nice" and stuff like that. That relies heavily on what people interpret as passive aggressive, but I believe the Bioware... people... can be fairly adept at noticing large strains of it.

[KirkyX]

As someone who pretty much always mainlines sarky Hawke in DA2... Nah? I mean, I actually really like the idea of characters reacting in more developed/potentially extreme ways to the things you say and do - like, someone taking you for a ride 'cause you're too nice, or getting so pissed at you that they refuse to help/require extra incentive - but none of that should be about 'punishing' the player. 

 

If anything, it's about rewarding the player for roleplaying differently by having the world react in more substantial ways - both positive and negative - to their choices. That's not to say that we should always get our way - quite the opposite, in fact; I'd prefer it if more games subverted the idea of players pretty much always ultimately getting their way, as DA2 tried to - but the devs shouldn't seek to 'punish' any style of roleplaying specifically.

[Fredward]

Oh my god no, I want to be LESS uptight not more. If people got so miffed I'd want a way to do their quest anyway by bypassing them or something. Punishing me by having me miss content for not being a boy scout sounds awful. I wouldn't mind being given a smaller reward tho, just don't deny me content.

[nfi42]

I just don't see the point in creating all this extra dialog

 

One thing though is oftentimes I see passive-aggressiveness in video games already, but players are determined to "avoid it" and are willing to take losses in order to go their own way. So, an important idea would be making it so it's kind of you have no "out" sort of option.

 

 

Have you got an example? 

 

Why do you want to force options on a player? 

 

Anyway,  I really don't see the point.  Why include mechanisms to punish passive aggressive behavior as opposed any number of character flaws that people have.