@Wrighteous86 said:
@Ghostiet said:
@Wrighteous86:
I'll get to the rest of your post later, since I'm in a hurry, but that screenshot from Planescape Torment is less of an example and more of a manipulation, considering a) that conversation is literally minutes from the end of the game and b) most of it is exposition, with some choices leading to the same answers.
Look at your dialogue choices from Baldur's Gate 2 and yeah, it boils down to roughly the same shit that's in the dialogue wheels of DAII and ME. Ditto in Origins, where some of your dialogue lines are just phrased differently with the exact same outcome and hell, most of the time they are even in the same damn spot - number 1 is almost always the one that advances the conversation, 2 is a rude option, 3 is a nice one, 4 is exposition branch, etcetera.
True, that Torment pic is a bit manipulative. It's mostly exposition that result in the same long-term effect; but that kind of exposition goes a long way towards how someone feels about a game. I feel like Bioware is trying to do the things that The Walking Dead is doing, just doing them poorly. They could learn a lot from Telltale.
(Very vague Walking Dead Ep. 3 spoilers:)
If you've played the game, in Episode 3, you can high-five a character named Duck. It's just one response of many that you can have to him. It has NO effect on the rest of the game, yet it still feels like a meaningful choice because you made the choice and you bonded with that character. While events unfold the same whether or not you high-fived Duck, your choice colors your perception of that character, and his plot line, from that point on. People keep talking about high-fiving Duck, because it became an emotional lynchpin for them.
So, even if that endgame discussion in Planescape Torment really only has 3 results, HOW you get to those 3 results can have vastly different emotional implications, and really change how you react to that scene.
(Let's have a reasonable discussion about this; I'm enjoying this.)
Still not enough time to address that previous one, but this I can give a shot.
I haven't played it, but I already spot a problem - high-fiving Duck works because it's something "tangible". It's an animation, it's actual investment in creating and developing both the player character and an NPC. There's context for it. There is context for most of those conversations in Planescape: Torment and I agree, the way you approach asking a simple question may resonate with the player. Problem is, most games don't do that, so the immersion of "choice" by giving you an epic list of dialogue choices fails at immersing. Dragon Age Origins doesn't do that. Baldur's Gate doesn't do that. I like these games, but they fail at providing that context most of the time - they work best when a scripted event happens. Talking about "RPGs then" this way is reaching. Especially when contrasting it with DAII's dialogue.
Origins is especially painful, since you are given the tools to customize your Warden, you have an option to turn off helmets during conversation and it only serves to break the immersion and remind you that you aren't even controlling a character. You might as well be invisible and spit these lines that don't change anything. It's not jarring in Fallout and Torment considering how these games are written - each encounter is pretty much a novel, because of technical limitations. I dare say that Torment wouldn't work at all in 3D, due to the fact that a lot of the expository narration would be redundant.
Ragging on DAII's dialogue is pointless and stupid, since it succeeds at giving depth to the protagonist while still keeping him as this elastic slate for the player. One of the best gaming experiences of 2011 for me was playing through a particularly devastating scenario with a snarky Hawke - because whenever I went for a "heroic" or "vicious" dialogue choice, I heard that the snarky Hawke is punching through. She didn't turn into a completely different character like Shepard does, who will sound like a paragon of virtue after doing some heinous shit in the course of two scenes because the game operates in a binary way. No, instead of a sudden switch of characterization, I got development. After choosing the "comforting" option, my Hawke said a terrible joke - as a coping mechanism. In Mass Effect, a serial killer would turn into Mother Theresa in the same scenario. In Origins, I would get a close-up of my Warden's dull fucking expression, sucking all the emotions out of that scene.
Dragon Age II is a ton of wasted potential, but not when it comes to the dialogue and the way the game handles the protagonist. The argument for the mute blank slate is something I will never understand. I get when people rag on the pointless use of the dialogue wheel - but when they are talking about Kingdoms of Amalur. In the context of DAII, a game that actually attempts to do something new and interesting with it, it's simply dumb.
I guess in the end, I see the blank slate in the context of DA:O and the DAII style as both effective in different ways. The blank slate suffers a bit in modern cinematic games, but if one invests themselves in it (and I admit, they have to purposely do this, as it is unnatural) that blank slate becomes a projection of your own thoughts and emotions. Where you see a blank slate, I see the concern that I'm feeling, or a wry grin.
I will grant that having your prediliction towards a certain tone affect how Hawke's dialogue is chosen and is delivered was a fantastic advancement for that type of character, and one of the rare, uncomprimised successes in that game. I just wish it had been in Mass Effect, and the silent protagonist was given more of a chance in Dragon Age. Like I said, with the blank slate character, I don't even need them to be "silent". I think the more varied dialogue choices, and multiple possible player characters/origins, could have worked in conjunction with the "tonal precedence" they created for Hawke. It just would've been a shit-ton more work recording dialog for 4 other actors, all doing optimistic, snarky, and grim response for every choice. I just think as we move more towards streamlined and cinematic, we relinquish some ownership, and there is a place for both. I enjoyed thinking that Mass Effect and Dragon Age would be exemplars of both sides of the coin, with Mass Effect being a movie you direct and Dragon Age a novel you engross yourself in. I see why you prefer this way, I just think there are ways to do the created-character justice and not lose the immersion.
Log in to comment