Dialogue Mechanics thread

I think Legion even said so... then again, Geth are all linked, so it was a given.

I always thought she just happened to be near Legion when she noticed him scanning her omni tool... she had no doubt he would send that data back to the Geth, though. So, yea, he didn't outright say it, but the didn't deny it either...

Beats me... maybe he did scan the whole ship from his "cell", and she happened to notice when he got to her omni tool?

On topic: Such an option might be there, if BW want's it... which is unlikely, since getting rid of major character in the middle of the game is something they usually don't do, and that goes double for a purely player driven choice.

The Inquisitor had the option to get rid of Sera in the game. I don't see why Ryder wouldn't be able to do the same.

You'd probably have to pass it by your superiors first.  Which they should (but not necessarily *see below) accept given its your squad, but the dismissal mechanic in this game should probably involve talking to the superiors.

*if that squad member is important politically or such, they may be inclined to order you to just deal with it.

I would agree if it's the superiors who put the squadmates on the roster, but if Ryder chose a squadmate to join, I don't see a problem with him/her getting rid of that squadmate later in the game for whatever reason.

Yeah, I agree.  The caveat, of course, being if the squadmate that Ryder chose to join somehow becomes a person-of-interest to your superiors.  But in general, yeah

I dunno, I think you overestimate the potential impact some form of "superior" will have on Ryder as a character. BW is known for putting their main characters into some form of special, "free agent" position, which usually makes them not directly adherent to any one authority. In that regard, the "Pathfinder" will not be too different from a Specter or and the Inquisitor.

The difference being that Shepard was already somebody of note, and the Inquisitor became head honcho.  Ryder shouldn't be anywhere near that important, either officially or otherwise by the time they became the Pathfinder (frankly I'm struggling to understand why they would pick the child of the old Pathfinder to replace him - there must be dozens of other candidates), and the Pathfinder is not the Inquisitor.  Remember, even in ME, the Council didn't give even Shepard carte blanche.  Realistically, Ryder power position vis-a-vis the AI leadership is a lot more lopsided in their favour than Shepards is with the council.

But yes, given BW there's a chance they'll make Ryder a free agent for the sake of player choice, though I wish they didn't do this.

Okay by which standard? They're even lousy compared to Dragon Age: Inquisition, which had some of the worst facial animation I've ever seen in a game.

Revisiting the dialogue wheel (bye bye Paragon/Renegade) discussion because of this interesting discussion by JAHBU:



And referencing Shinobi's NeoGaf post: www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=223412495&postcount=1

• No more Paragon/Renegade system
• They want more nuance and subtlety and giving the player more opportunity to express themselves
• You can agree or disagree with someone without being punished or cornered into a paragon or renegade choice
• Dialogue option tones: heart, head, professional and casual.
• These don't affect you or sway a meter one way or another, rather they allow you freedom without worrying about unintended consequences
• Narrative actions" (previously "interrupts) return but rather than giving a "red"=bad or "blue"=good choice, it can say "shoot", leaving more ambiguity to your choice
• Decisions aren't necessarily obvious "right" or "wrong", there are pros and cons to each and you'll just have to play the game the way you want
• Dialogue choices can be best described as head, heart, professional, casual, reminiscent of Alpha Protocol.
• Choices are still made and have impact, but the measuring is blurrier. Less rooted in the old binary stat measuring systems derived from KOTOR.
• Interrupts now called "narrative interactions", aimed at clearly identifying the action. Example given: "shoot" interrupt in hostage situation, indicating shooting the hostage-taker. Less ambiguity if it's a renegade/paragon choice, it's just a choice.

The discussion often arises of BioWare not letting people play as evil, but allowing people to play as aggressive, or even as an ass.

I forget who did the 'Assquisitor' run now ahead of DAI...

It will be interesting to see how nuanced the dialogue choices are.

I'm on the fence about this... since I think it could possibly mean that it just won't matter how we develop the character.  That is, there will be no impact on the game whether or not the character is totally a Mary Sue or completely evil.  Which, for me, really takes much of the interest out of being able to develop a broader range of characterizations away.  However, as ever, I'll just wait to see what Bioware actually does with it before getting on any sort of high horse over it.  They seem to have some sort of plan in mind that does involve impactful choices... so, we'll just hold our breath for now.