105 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraphim24]

^ Because Passive Aggressive people also want to be punished.

[In Exile]

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.

Rather, being super nice and agreeing to help without asking for anything in return should lead to people not offering you anything in return. The issue is that social capital and reciprocity is very real - while some people will selfishly take advantage, pocketing favours and social capital has its own rewards.

Don't get why being nice would lead people to dismiss an objection. That doesn't make much sense. Why would I be more likely to listen to a jerk or bully?

[Wulfram]

Rather, being super nice and agreeing to help without asking for anything in return should lead to people not offering you anything in return. The issue is that social capital and reciprocity is very real - while some people will selfishly take advantage, pocketing favours and social capital has its own rewards.

Don't get why being nice would lead people to dismiss an objection. That doesn't make much sense. Why would I be more likely to listen to a jerk or bully?

Because sometimes being nice can conflict with making your argument with sufficient force, or be confused with a lack of conviction, and lead to people not listening. Particularly if the people you're talking to are busy, or find your point inconvenient to deal with.

[yolobastien6412]

I got a few million extra cancerous cells from reading this post.

[capn233]

On the whole people don't want to be punished for the way they RP their character.

 

This seems pretty accurate to me.  If you just ask if there should be consequences for dialogue choices, a lot of people will probably say yes.  But mostly they want their choices to be rewarded, and the choices they don't like to be punished.

 

ME really didn't even punish choices throughout the trilogy, and yet there were many threads about renegades getting punished.  Perhaps they could have had some more characters be saved via renegade pop up to quiet them.

[Seraphim24]

I got a few million extra cancerous cells from reading this post.

 

Yeah it's kinda lame because it's only for the purposes of the game... what do you think about if we attribute it to forums or the like in future discussions on RL political possibilities? Say, 6 months in state prison for non-contributory posts that are clearly passive aggressive? What do you think?

[Seraphim24]

This seems pretty accurate to me.  If you just ask if there should be consequences for dialogue choices, a lot of people will probably say yes.  But mostly they want their choices to be rewarded, and the choices they don't like to be punished.

 

ME really didn't even punish choices throughout the trilogy, and yet there were many threads about renegades getting punished.  Perhaps they could have had some more characters be saved via renegade pop up to quiet them.

 

That's pretty much Bioware's current strategy, they just weave the sort of "correct" answer in between paragon and renegade dialogue choices most of the time, and have characters call you out if you miss something. I think of those as more attention like though, plus they are sort of neutral as to whether the PA option is rewarded or not.

 

Sometimes, the PA is a rousing joke. I don't care if it's paragon or renegade it can be both really when you think about it, just kind of facile subordination or cheesy offing the other NPC.

[Indigenous]

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.

Give us a mature story with harder choices. Choices that mean something. I think this is what you are really asking for. A lot of what you wrote up there is nonsense, are there any examples of a Bioware game protagonist doing some passive aggressive insisting? I cant remember ever being passive aggressive in a bioware game apart from the modified ending of ME3 where you can let the galaxy burn because bioware didn't do what you wanted them to.

 

A game with surprises. NPCs we think are minor characters turn out to be big players and we treated them like **** early on. It would be an improvement if there were more lying NPCs or NPCs who you have to really suck up to or they won't talk to you. Don't punish anyone for doing anything just give us a good story with ups and downs and many choices.

[TevinterSupremacist]

I am not big on punishing people, from a dev's side. It'd be awfully self righteous and forcing people into some pathways to see more content. Heavily limits rp.

What should happen is different approaches give different types of quests instead of some approaches giving all quests and some less.

[Huge_Beaver]

Sure, as long as they don't kill you ala Witcher 2, that was just silly.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

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.

 

 

I hope they do this as well. Adding jokes that might be funny to Ryder but could come off as mean, inappropriate, and/or even offensive  to some one else, like calling a hanar a jellyfish, or a turian a bird that type of thing, even if Ryder means no offense or even if s/he does mean to be offensive. I mean if you constantly insult a hanar quest giver, then why should that same hanar want to help you or pay you for the quest, if you're constantly being an offensive jerk to it.

[yolobastien6412]

Yeah it's kinda lame because it's only for the purposes of the game... what do you think about if we attribute it to forums or the like in future discussions on RL political possibilities? Say, 6 months in state prison for non-contributory posts that are clearly passive aggressive? What do you think?

Why passive aggressiveness would be punished in a video game is beyond me. IRL you can denounce someone if you don't like their tone. Yes passive agressive people and condescending people are really annoying, but is it really such a topic? I don't really see the problem here. 

Also, don't punish people for playing a certain way, especially in a role playing game (or game with rpg elements)

[In Exile]

Because sometimes being nice can conflict with making your argument with sufficient force, or be confused with a lack of conviction, and lead to people not listening. Particularly if the people you're talking to are busy, or find your point inconvenient to deal with.

I have no idea what you think being nice means, but it certainly has absolutely no connection with how forceful you are or even how loud you are - these are totally different character traits. Nice is not the same as meek - and you can be softspoken while being a jerk ass.

[AlanC9]

This seems pretty accurate to me.  If you just ask if there should be consequences for dialogue choices, a lot of people will probably say yes.  But mostly they want their choices to be rewarded, and the choices they don't like to be punished.

Right. There's nothing wrong with CRPGs that couldn't be fixed by firing the current fans and appointing new ones.

[Mcfly616]

The consequences to choices need to be less transparent all together. It was far too easy to go through the trilogy seeing the options on the dialogue wheel and simply choosing the "right" choice. I'd like to see a lot more seemingly irrelevant choices and/or dialogue options come back to bite us or benefit us much later on in the campaign, to the point where we've nearly forgotten the particular choice/dialogue option only to be reminded of it when its repercussions are revealed.

[Armass81]

I would love if the game had a moment:

 

"Will you help us save the colony?"

 

"No"

 

"BUT THOU MUST!"

 

[fizzypop]

Here is the thing if you want that punished then you would also have to punish being absurdly nice even when its obvious no real human would react that way. Heck, why not punish players for picking any options except the most realistic option in each "decision" that way there would really only be one "right way" to play all others would lead to terrible down fall. That's essentially what people are asking for when they ask for things like this. To reward their style of gameplay over another's which will only ****** off the other camp and have them asking for the same thing....then you end up.....with well a shitty game.

How about we reward players for their style of gameplay instead? Just allow all options to have their own rewards and set of consequences? One not being good or bad, but simply different? I would rather see that then this whole "punishment" idea which really just hampers people's gameplay and replay value. You don't like passive aggressive options? Don't choose them. Don't like good options? Don't choose them! Don't like evil options? Don't choose them! Sharing is caring guys!

[kalikilic]

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.

yea but taking away content as a consequence (OP said NPC not giving you a quest as a consequence) is not the way to do this. 

[omgodzilla]

This would only be acceptable if overly-nice, and naive, paragon options were punished as well. Otherwise, its only renegade players getting screwed over. Also, consequences should not mean getting less content than players who picked the "right" option. That's just lame. 

[kalikilic]

^ a valid point in addition to my own.

[Remix-General Aetius]

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.

 

Or until you eat their liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti........

 

[Who Knows]

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

No that sucks. That's basically saying that there are wrong choices.

[omgodzilla]

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.

 

 

Killing millions of Axis soldiers worked out pretty well for the US and USSR in world war 2. Hell, it turned them into superpowers. How is that not getting things done? Yes, killing people can create chaos. But it can also bring an end to chaos. It swings both ways. 

[AlanC9]

No that sucks. That's basically saying that there are wrong choices.

What sucks about that?

[Who Knows]

What sucks about that?

Having choices that invariably lead to a game over hurts roleplaying, IMO.