Dragon Age: Inquisition Pre-Release Thread

[~RAGING BONER~]

So it's a single page then. Figures it would fit in a envelope.

you shouldn't need more than a post-it note to write "everything is fuckable".

 

[DragoFireheart]

So it's a single page then. Figures it would fit in a envelope.

you shouldn't need more than a post-it note to write "everything is fuckable".

It's probably a naked picture of Helper.

 

[RPGMaster]

Gaider is such a condescending, self-righteous, bitter passive-aggressive tosser.

It also looks like he has a massive tumor on his neck. He should get that checked out.

 

[Lhynn]

Gaider is such a condescending, self-righteous, bitter passive-aggressive tosser.

It also looks like he has a massive tumor on his neck. He should get that checked out.

People that cant handle success often are. And no, he shouldnt, he should let it be, follow its course.

 

[Stainless Veteran]

The point is, you don't need so many answers with personality type dialogue system. There is nothing in the whole fucking world that can't be summed up in to either friendly/diplomatic, sarcastic/ironic/humorous or agressive/straightforward answer.

Fuck you.
Fuck you.
Fuck you.

More like

 

[Durante]

The point is, you don't need so many answers with personality type dialogue system. There is nothing in the whole fucking world that can't be summed up in to either friendly/diplomatic, sarcastic/ironic/humorous or agressive/straightforward answer.

Of all the inane shit I read here, this is what finally made me sign up. Thanks I guess.

Now tell me how you do this in a dialogue wheel, with or without a personality system:

 

[eremita]

Well, I simply don't agree with you. Human beings have more or less fixed temperament, expressions and reaction patters when dealing with others. The fact that you can control yourself when talking to your boss has nothing to do with it. It's more likely you're not entirely expressing yourself, but certainly not denying or even contradict yourself. Well, at least doing it convincigly unless you're fucking psycho, first class actor, spy or whatever- see below.

You said it yourself, just with a extreme example. you only have to know how to put on a mask, and how well you do it is determined by how much you do it.

You are not the same person when you are: trying to talk to the girl you like; the woman youve been living half your life with; your son; the man you hate; your boss; your best friend and a huge list of etcs.
You act differently according to the situation, and your skill facing that situation depends on your wisdom, the confidence you have in yourself, the experience you have with those types of situations, and how flexible you are. If you are completly transparent, which you fucking arent, unless you are a child, then you you either have not fully developed or have attained enlightment.

Your skill facing those situations is not fucking determined by how good or bad youve been, you TWAT.

How fucking naive/idiotic can you be to even argue this?

PS: in AP you are not playing james bond, not always, thats one of the templates tho.

Naah, now you're just paraphrasing the same shit all over again with some nonsense on top of it I've never said: "Your skill facing those situations is not fucking determined by how good or bad youve been, you TWAT". Being direct or agrresive doesn't make you bad or good you CUNT.

That extreme example is exactly the thing which makes it believable and distinguish normal human being from some spy James Bond shit that belongs to games like Alpha Protocol. Sorry, you may hide from your new girlfriend that you're sensitive pussy or agrresive dick but that's not gonna make you fucking Jim Carrey. If you're actually a nice guy I don't expect from your co-workers telling me you're aggresive dictator who makes everyone shit their pants. What's the fucking point of that anyway?? You're the one who is extreme here: not being yourself =/= different person in different situations, you're maybe more subtle or more trying but thats it. I simply don't believe your experience with people unless you live in a madhouse... DA2 lets you react/act differently in majority of time but in few critical situations the NPC just won't believe you being a bad-ass when you actually are white knight... And I'm fine with that because I'm not in Alpha Protocol, where pretending, bluffing etc in conversations is one of the main pillar of the game.

You should probably read that shit from wiki again I posted here because you're missing the point. The idea is to make a consistent character in adventurous traditional fantasy tale (with focus on group chatter and shit), where you fit the group of comrades as a leader and future champion, not making you some grey characterless manipulator who changes his face every single time. In the end, there's no point to such shenanigans in game like that. Now go fuck yourself, I'm done.

 

[Lhynn]

How does being a good guy make a dude any less scary when he losses it? a dude that is armed with a giant battlehammer and that has killed more people before breakfast that the whole guard combined, ever. That was last seen shoving that said weapon on a dragons asshole just because he wanted to make some extra money on the side.
You dont make any fucking sense, all you are saying are fluff words that dont apply in any kind of interaction given those circumstances.

Being consistent does not mean being predictable, there are as many personalities as people have been born into this world, people act differently under different circumstances based on said personality and experiences.

 

[Gurkog]

Longer fights with smaller numbers of opponents.... more hp bloat confirmed.

 

[Shadenuat]

Being consistent does not mean being predictable, there are as many personalities as people have been born into this world, people act differently under different circumstances based on said personality and experiences.

I think a better argument would be that roleplaying is player's privilege, it's the player who should choose how consistent his character is and what he says, for that he must have all the options for him all the time. Being kind doesn't mean you can't pass a "suave" check. DA2 system is bullshit, really. It tries to shackle roleplaying in obscure dialogue skills, e.g only nice character being able to roll with diplomacy. It's crap.

Now tell me how you do this in a dialogue wheel, with or without a personality system:

Dialogue wheel is useless for any complex dialogue where player and NPC interchange long sentences or complex topics. It can't handle most puzzles or text quests, interesting or just long-winded speeches. It suits bioware because they don't do those anymore.
Text, as good writing, is not their important narrative tool, it's cutscenes and VO. I think that by relying on that so much their writing suffered too. It's not as consistent as it have been, more like little chunks here and there, short, edgy phrases. I am not talking about plot or characters here, but about the language and it's form Bio uses now. Instead of being remembered for something like Ellisime's speech to Irenicus, they are now "sailing like sex" & "I want to be a dragon" folk.

 

[Night Goat]

I simply don't believe your experience with people unless you live in a madhouse...

It's the Codex. How many of us don't live in a madhouse?

 

[undecaf]

Yet another Codex favorite game in the cooking by the Codex favorite dev.

 

[Borelli]

I have an idea to improve the dialogue wheel. Add a fourth option - a fart. So now you can answer with polite, sarcastic, angry or you can fart without saying anything. That way you instead of an epic fantasy adventure involving deep moral conflict between mages and templars you can roleplay a silent Hawke with flatulence problems. Fart comedy is seriously underrepresented in videogame media.

 

[Rivmusique]

Not for long: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/south-park-the-stick-of-truth.67128/page-31

 

[eremita]

Well, I simply don't agree with you. Human beings have more or less fixed temperament, expressions and reaction patters when dealing with others. The fact that you can control yourself when talking to your boss has nothing to do with it. It's more likely you're not entirely expressing yourself, but certainly not denying or even contradict yourself. Well, at least doing it convincigly unless you're fucking psycho, first class actor, spy or whatever- see below.

You said it yourself, just with a extreme example. you only have to know how to put on a mask, and how well you do it is determined by how much you do it.

You are not the same person when you are: trying to talk to the girl you like; the woman youve been living half your life with; your son; the man you hate; your boss; your best friend and a huge list of etcs.
You act differently according to the situation, and your skill facing that situation depends on your wisdom, the confidence you have in yourself, the experience you have with those types of situations, and how flexible you are. If you are completly transparent, which you fucking arent, unless you are a child, then you you either have not fully developed or have attained enlightment.

Your skill facing those situations is not fucking determined by how good or bad youve been, you TWAT.

How fucking naive/idiotic can you be to even argue this?

PS: in AP you are not playing james bond, not always, thats one of the templates tho.

Why are you still bitching about good or bad?! Being direct or bad-ass doesn't make you good/bad guy. John McClane is good guy yet If he tried to act like sweet white knight, he would be awkward as fuck. What is nonsensical about that?

Yeaah, lots of personalities won't change the fuck that there is limited amount of reactions. That game is not forcing your whole complex personality, but rather your attitude (why are you reacting edgily is up to you, that is where you role-play, but that still won't change the fact from NPC perspective you've got particular attitude). But I already said that...

Being consistent does not mean being predictable, there are as many personalities as people have been born into this world, people act differently under different circumstances based on said personality and experiences.

I think a better argument would be that roleplaying is player's privilege, it's the player who should choose how consistent his character is and what he says, for that he must have all the options for him all the time. Being kind doesn't mean you can't pass a "suave" check. DA2 system is bullshit, really. It tries to shackle roleplaying in obscure dialogue skills, e.g only nice character being able to roll with diplomacy. It's crap.

I respect that and I don't mind it, yet I find the idea of game mechanics punishing player for being inconsistent interesting... There is no should. It's a specific design philosophy and all i care about is how it's executed. Also, how do you feel about persuasion - "win button"?

The point is, you don't need so many answers with personality type dialogue system. There is nothing in the whole fucking world that can't be summed up in to either friendly/diplomatic, sarcastic/ironic/humorous or agressive/straightforward answer.

Of all the inane shit I read here, this is what finally made me sign up. Thanks I guess.

Now tell me how you do this in a dialogue wheel, with or without a personality system:

Awwww, thats so nice of you to say. You're fucking welcome! Also, your entire post is Straw man. The idea about attitude has nothing to do with dialogue wheel, paraphrasing, minimalistic conversations etc. The reasons behind those is that Bioware wants voice-over, movie feel and shit like that. All I'm saying is that every fucking reaction in the world can be formalize as riendly/diplomatic, sarcastic/ironic/humorous or agressive/straightforward answer. I don't give shit if you display your answers as dialogue wheel or christmas tree and I don't give a shit If you write answers as long sentences or key words. Can we talk about that idea?

 

[Roguey]

Now tell me how you do this in a dialogue wheel, with or without a personality system:

Those are pretty much just D&D alignments.

Longer fights with smaller numbers of opponents.... more hp bloat confirmed.

More HP/missing/damage reduction is required for battles to be tactical, otherwise it's a blitz.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Durante
You are the modder who made the DSfix right?

Now tell me how you do this in a dialogue wheel, with or without a personality system:

Those are pretty much just D&D alignments.

That still doesn't explain how to represent them on popamole dialogue wheelchair

 

[Lhynn]

Why are you still bitching about good or bad?! Being direct or bad-ass doesn't make you good/bad guy. John McClane is good guy yet If he tried to act like sweet white knight, he would be awkward as fuck. What is nonsensical about that?
All I'm saying is that every fucking reaction in the world can be formalize as riendly/diplomatic, sarcastic/ironic/humorous or agressive/straightforward answer.

No all you are saying is that your attitude in past conversations with other people have influence on your success or failure in your current conversation depending if you take the same aproach you did before, but on an entirely different conversation about a entirely different subject. Which is insane.
You are also saying that only a psychopath or an actor would try different aproachs on one or several conversations because its not "consistent".
Also separating friendly from agressive as if youve never callled a friend a cunt when they did something stupid, or in another context diplomatic from humorous to diplomatic again when theres people trying to break the ice on a bussiness meeting or during a speech everywhere.
You are putting the whole range of human emotions in 8 different aproachs divided into 3 groups aislated from eachother.
And you have the nerve to defend it with somewhat decent argumentation that cannot resist any kind of analisys, which makes me think that either you are an educated retard, a literate dumbfuck or just a troll.

And now you hide behind the shield of design philosophy asi it makes the notion of it reflecting real life in any meaningful way ANY less stupid.

PS: if i talked about good or bad in the past was because a) you brought it up or b) it simplified the concept with a binary response to make it easier to understand and get a grasp of it.
PS2: shit, i forgot the namecalling, you sir, are a fucking idiot.

 

[Declinator]

The point is, you don't need so many answers with personality type dialogue system. There is nothing in the whole fucking world that can't be summed up in to either friendly/diplomatic, sarcastic/ironic/humorous or agressive/straightforward answer.

Of all the inane shit I read here, this is what finally made me sign up. Thanks I guess.

Now tell me how you do this in a dialogue wheel, with or without a personality system:

Awwww, thats so nice of you to say. You're fucking welcome! Also, your entire post is Straw man. The idea about attitude has nothing to do with dialogue wheel, paraphrasing, minimalistic conversations etc. The reasons behind those is that Bioware wants voice-over, movie feel and shit like that. All I'm saying is that every fucking reaction in the world can be formalize as riendly/diplomatic, sarcastic/ironic/humorous or agressive/straightforward answer. I don't give shit if you display your answers as dialogue wheel or christmas tree and I don't give a shit If you write answers as long sentences or key words. Can we talk about that idea?

What about seductive? Or is that considered to be in the friendly/diplomatic category How about a deliberately mysterious answer? Again friendly/diplomatic? Or how would you categorize an ambivalent/indecisive answer? Egging someone on/discouraging someone? How about simply lying about something? I'd be hard-pressed to consider that friendly/diplomatic or aggressive/straightforward and it's certainly not always humoristic either.

Aggressive/straightforward...this is one of the worst things about Mass Effect. I just wanted Shepard to say something and he starts throwing people around.

What if you want the honest asshole option? As in you tell it like it is even if it makes everyone feel like shit. That is not equal to throwing a temper tantrum. Or if you want to threaten coldly instead of yell/point with a gun?

Or do you mean that you could have several options from the same category but that they would all still fit in your categories? If so, what is the use of your categories anyway?

I hope you don't mean a system where the dialogue options would really be just "friendly/diplomatic", "sarcastic/ironic/humorous" or "agressive/straightforward" because that would be an abomination of a system.

No all you are saying is that your attitude in past conversations with other people have influence on your success or failure in your current conversation depending if you take the same aproach you did before, but on an entirely different conversation about a entirely different subject. Which is insane.
You are also saying that only a psychopath or an actor would try different aproachs on one or several conversations because its not "consistent".
Also separating friendly from agressive as if youve never callled a friend a cunt when they did something stupid, or in another context diplomatic from humorous to diplomatic again when theres people trying to break the ice on a bussiness meeting or during a speech everywhere.
You are putting the whole range of human emotions in 8 different aproachs divided into 3 groups aislated from eachother.
And you have the nerve to defend it with somewhat decent argumentation that cannot resist any kind of analisys, which makes me think that either you are an educated retard, a literate dumbfuck or just a troll.

While I am no advocate of eremita's ideas I think you have misunderstood some parts of what he said.

As I understood it, eremita is basically saying that, for example, a fundamentally shy person can never pull of suave ladykiller. This may or may not be true (though with training such a person should be able to do it) but the truth is that the options I pick in dialogue are ones that I may not have meant the way the program would then understand them or I could have just thought of them as lies/acting and now the program acts as though it has unraveled the secrets of my personality. This is in my opinion would be the most serious annoyance that would result from such a system.

I don't think eremita meant that you would be forced to be inside the same category of dialogue for the whole conversation or to be forced to react the same way to the same people every time. Rather he is saying that if being aggressive to your friend is just not in your personality, you would be unable to choose/be unable to succeed with the aggressive option when dealing with your friend. This "personality" is what would be decided by your early game dialogue, I guess.

 

[eremita]

What about seductive? Or is that considered to be in the friendly/diplomatic category How about a deliberately mysterious answer? Again friendly/diplomatic? Or how would you categorize an ambivalent/indecisive answer? Egging someone on/discouraging someone? How about simply lying about something? I'd be hard-pressed to consider that friendly/diplomatic or aggressive/straightforward and it's certainly not always humoristic either.

Aggressive/straightforward...this is one of the worst things about Mass Effect. I just wanted Shepard to say something and he starts throwing people around.

What if you want the honest asshole option? As in you tell it like it is even if it makes everyone feel like shit. That is not equal to throwing a temper tantrum. Or if you want to threaten coldly instead of yell/point with a gun?

Or do you mean that you could have several options from the same category but that they would all still fit in your categories? If so, what is the use of your categories anyway?

I hope you don't mean a system where the dialogue options would really be just "friendly/diplomatic", "sarcastic/ironic/humorous" or "agressive/straightforward" because that would be an abomination of a system.

First, i'm gonna write down how DA2 aproach this (to be fair) - viz: http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Dialogue_wheel: 1. category: diplomatic/helpful 2. category: humorous/charming 3. category: aggresive/direct. Then, there are special cases: a) yes/no b) Choice c) Flirt d) lie e) investigate (but a-d could be all called "choice" I guess). As has been stated before (two pages back I think), we have to distinguish emotional reaction/attitude in running conversation and choice itself.

I would say that seductive is rather ambiguous word from our perspective. You mean charming? Well, then it's 2. category. You mean flirtation? Then it's a choice. Deliberately mysterious answer IS type of answer in regards of syntax, not type of attitude reaction as I feel it (this is hard to explain and my english sucks, sorry, but I hope you get it): Is there a fixed meaning to your mysterious answer or is it purposely ambivalent/nonsensical? If there is a fixed meaning, than this answer can be formulated clearly. Once it's clearly formulated, then you can decide if it's 1.,2. or 3. category (so in other cases it's syntax vs semtantics problem, altough we're discussing "tone"). Or is it purposely mysteruous/nonsensical? Why? And how is that different from lie/bluff or not stating a point at all?? Also, if that's the case, you owe me an explanation how could you make a game, where player is making no sense/his answer is not clear/he's not making a stand at all. Well, we've got malkavians in Vampire but that is pretty unique experience and it fits the setting. Discouraging is interesting I'll give you that. In regards of DA2 Helpfull/friendly is clearly 1. category but being direct does not necessarily mean that you're discouraging someone. I would personally make it a part of choice, but it clearly stands opposed to helpfull, which is characterized as attitude. But from different perspective, there's possible line: 1) helpfull/cheering 2) sarcastic/ironic 3) discouraging/bitter/grumpy. Can you see that "degressive" line? But, frankly I'm not sure about this one. Honest asshole = direct - 3. category.

As I understood it, eremita is basically saying that, for example, a fundamentally shy person can never pull of suave ladykiller. This may or may not be true (though with training such a person should be able to do it) but the truth is that the options I pick in dialogue are ones that I may not have meant the way the program would then understand them or I could have just thought of them as lies/acting and now the program acts as though it has unraveled the secrets of my personality. This is in my opinion would be the most serious annoyance that would result from such a system.

You get it. Also, there has to be some way how make content of the choice clear (DA2 has marks).

I don't think eremita meant that you would be forced to be inside the same category of dialogue for the whole conversation or to be forced to react the same way to the same people every time. Rather he is saying that if being aggressive to your friend is just not in your personality, you would be unable to choose/be unable to succeed with the aggressive option when dealing with your friend. This "personality" is what would be decided by your early game dialogue, I guess.

I would never took choice away from player, so no unable to choose but certainly yes to unable to succed. So, in certain circumstances, you wouldn't be convincing. Yes, look at the link, the personality is "fixed" and then it takes twice amount of different reaction.

PS2: shit, i forgot the namecalling, you sir, are a fucking idiot.

Why, thank you, kind sir!

 

[Lhynn]

[While I am no advocate of eremita's ideas I think you have misunderstood some parts of what he said.
As I understood it, eremita is basically saying that, for example, a fundamentally shy person can never pull of suave ladykiller. This may or may not be true (though with training such a person should be able to do it) but the truth is that the options I pick in dialogue are ones that I may not have meant the way the program would then understand them or I could have just thought of them as lies/acting and now the program acts as though it has unraveled the secrets of my personality. This is in my opinion would be the most serious annoyance that would result from such a system.

I don't think eremita meant that you would be forced to be inside the same category of dialogue for the whole conversation or to be forced to react the same way to the same people every time. Rather he is saying that if being aggressive to your friend is just not in your personality, you would be unable to choose/be unable to succeed with the aggressive option when dealing with your friend. This "personality" is what would be decided by your early game dialogue, I guess.

Why cant you be shy and a lady killer at the same time i ask.?
Why cant you be gentle and temperamental?
Why does one thing influence the other when it really shouldnt be so?

The system is arbitrary and stupid, it has no merits, because the dev is deciding on its own than a kind guy doesnt have in in himself to fuck things over if someone gets on his nerves. it is one of the most shallow and unserviceable systems under the guise of something indepth that ive seen. and im calling anyones bullshit when praising it.

Now the system wouldnt be so offensive if the game wasnt so linear.

If you could, lets say, kill meredith on act1/2 because she wasnt making any sense and because hey, its just one more kill today, then i wouldnt mind so much, but they railroad you without giving you any choice or input and then they judge you based on the answers you did give. The game also "rewards" selecting the same choice over and over again, not rewarding consistency but penalizing you for trying to be different than the archtypical boy scout/prick/cunt.

It is fucking bullshit

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

eremita cannot into nuance.

post Lhynn . bioware specializes in butchering any scope of roleplaying now. but fanboys gonna fanboy.

EDIT: WTF is with these shitty red smilieys. Contrast is so low, i have to squint at this shit to make out which smiley it is.

 

[Ninjerk]

I think it's Zed's brainchild.

 

[Stainless Veteran]

Is this smiley supposed to be a monocled troll? It looks like a cat with monocle.

 

[Durante]

Durante
You are the modder who made the DSfix right?

Yes.

First, i'm gonna write down how DA2 aproach this (to be fair) - viz: http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Dialogue_wheel: 1. category: diplomatic/helpful 2. category: humorous/charming 3. category: aggresive/direct. Then, there are special cases: a) yes/no b) Choice c) Flirt d) lie e) investigate (but a-d could be all called "choice" I guess). As has been stated before (two pages back I think), we have to distinguish emotional reaction/attitude in running conversation and choice itself. [lengthy explanation]

If we divorce the concept of having different character personality traits (and choices influencing and influenced by these traits) from the restrictions imposed by the dialogue wheel, then wouldn't it make sense to have every possible answer be equally influenced by and offer an equal amount of "flavour" (diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive) choice? I don't really see the point of distinction between what you call "choice" choices and "category" choices, or the need for them.