Do you prefer Paragon/Renegade dialogue or DAI-esque dialogue?

I did not play Inquisition, but I like the Paragon/renegade or any other LS/DS system more than DA2 dialogue system. I also love the additional changes in appearance that goes with it, the glows or scarring etc. I feel that the DS/LS that overlays over a specific character personality is great. People go on and on about how Hawke is funny in his purple options, but well, I did not really find him all that funny...

I like SWTOR Smuggler for a light-hearted approach to everything and goofy cut-scenes more, and the SWTOR Bounty Hunters tough/sarcastic/bad-ass guy responses and voice way more. But both Smuggler and BH had plenty of DS/LS choices. Perfect! But, of course, SWTOR had 8 protagonists that each had its different personality and a totally different story, not just one, and there will never be a game like that ever again...

Where is the option for a KotOR/DAO style system?

I prefer to know exactly what my character is saying and not some short, often misleading summary. No amount of emotion icons will make it any better.

I actually thought the renegade/paragon system was fun because it was the epitome of character customization. Game choices like choosing to save or destroy the base had no discernible impact. Everyone had the exact same choices available to them in romances so things were pretty equal there for players. But dialogue or scenarios that only a renegade or a paragon could unlock? That's where players shined because they discovered a conversations that others wouldn't normally get due to their morality meter. It's like choosing to play a non-human in Dragon Age. You get access to different conversations and people really like that kind of nuance.

There was a real danger of trying to get points high enough to unlock certain encounters. I wasn't ever interested in Morinth, but I did want to have the option available to me so I found myself changing responses here and there to influence the score so it wouldn't be grayed out when I did the loyalty mission. I realized it was not a good system when I deviated from my character's roleplay for game mechanics. I liked the overall idea of the morality meter, but the execution needed work.

Intended, yes.Delivered....

Disagree you are completely limited by the lack of breadth of the implementation of the inquisition system. you can't will away the extreme restrictions.

My only issue with this approach is you essentially had to headcanon your way through DAI in order to justfiy its lack of character development. You cannot deny that Shepard definitely evolved over the course of the Trilogy. We may have had less player agency because of it, but he/she did evolve and grow.

I never felt as if my Inquisitor evolved. I merely picked choices I liked and that was the extent of it. There was never really a growing period and oftentimes it was actually other characters that were growing because of lessons they apparently learned from my Inquisitor. Solas is a perfect example who even outright thanks you (depending on your choices) if you show him another perspective on life. Wait, I was supposed to be that random guy that accidentally touched the Orb at the beginning of the game. Now I'm providing valuable lessons to an elven god?

I agree that if you already create an established character for yourself, DAI will work. The problem is I didn't want to already be established. Even DAO and DAII handled this better as you really started from nothing and became something throughout the course of the game. Sure, you become the "Herald of Andraste" and the "Inquisitor," but it felt hastily tacked on or even worse, I really didn't deserve it. You don't even get to provide an opinion on whether you want to be the Inquisitor or not. You are just thrust into the position, yet the advisors are actually running the organization anyway.

Emphasis on the bland part. I found the dialogue for the inquisitor to be terribly dull most of the time. I didn't find "humorous" lines to be very humorous and the aggressive options aren't what I'd call aggressive. And don't get me started on the delivery. I felt like none of the VA's emoted 80% of the time. Granted this is a personal opinion and could be attributed more to the writing/voice acting rather than the dialogue system in general. 

This is an interesting idea and I would be like something akin to that, but I'm not sure if it would work with MEA's new or should I say potentially non-existent class system.

And I loved me some sarcastic Hawke, but I also really enjoyed aggressive Hawke and even diplomatic Hawke had some excellent lines in DA2.

This is how I usually play too. I liked that aspect of DAI's dialogue system. And while I really enjoyed the system in DA2 with Hawke, there were times when Hawke would "take the wheel" so to speak and based on how many times I had selected a sarcastic response in the past Hawke would automatically say something highly inappropriate at the most inopportune times. So while I thought the writing for the character of Hawke was much better overall than the writing for the inquisitor, I really appreciated the fact that the inquisitor didn't haul off and start saying something nasty without my input during an emotionally delicate scene... Or maybe they did, but the dialogue was so bland overall that it just wasn't as noticeable...hm

paragon renegade of course! more fluid, mature, lot more fun, lots of options
DAI system was too hand-holding, is for little kids, not for this kind of games

Yeah I'm not saying it's the system itself but the implementation of the system. if the walls of characterisation are so tightly defined, bland and muted then allowing variants within that is rather meaningless.


yeah dominant tone wasn't perfect but I can see the intent to have auto-dialogue at least be in some way reactive to player characterisation.

I never felt my Inquisitor deserved anything. Especially after the talk with the Divine in the Fade, it was never anything more than bad luck and inconvenient circumstances.

If I have to do most of the character development myself instead of the game, that's a problem in my eyes. That was never the case in any previous BioWare game. DAI is the only game where I felt my Inquisitor was a blank slate and remained a blank slate for the duration of the game.

The difference is Shepard wasn't a nobody that BioWare had to develop into somebody. Shepard was already established by BioWare before we played ME1 and we got to alter some of his backstory and attributes. He was already a War Hero, already N7, already one of humanity's best soldiers, thus becoming a Spectre wasn't that unreasonable or farfetched, regardless of your Shepard's personality.

It's simply a difference in opinion then. If my Inquisitor had any growth, it was very minor. Ironically enough, I felt my Hero of Ferelden and Hawke actually grew more based on what they were doing in Inquisition. The Inquisitor, to me, just felt like an empty canvas that would ask all these questions but never actually learn from them. I still enjoyed DAI as a game, but the Inquisitor is easily the worst protagonist I've ever played in a BioWare game.

The DAI dialogue system is ideal, but it has to be executed well. I did not see great execution in DAI.

I'm not referring specifically to the duration, but rather the types of choices and consequences you could make. You only had paragon and renegade. Thus, BioWare was able to make two extremes with typically stark differences that really could build and define your own character (not to mention these choices would compound on each other). Even in ME1, alone, there were plenty of moral dilemmas and major choices that could be made that would shape the game.

As far as DAI, I never got the impression my Inquisitor was qualified. I certainly never felt he was a BAMF. He was a guy that was at the wrong place at the wrong time. The only thing he had that nobody else had was the fact that all my choices made him a decent person, so everybody liked him because he wasn't a power-hungry, ruthless dictator. The problem with that is my character didn't grow to be nice. He was always nice simply because those were choices I picked.

Why you got your power is completely irrelevant. What matters is that you lead the Inquisition to stop someone from taking over the world. How do you not deserve that power when you use it the way the Inquisitor does? You build up the organization to the point where it becomes a major power in Thedas. I'm trying to take personal taste into account here, but what you're saying is just contradictory to what happens in the game. 

Then you're better off playing a game where you play as a predefined character, like Witcher. Dragon Age is not for you. Literally the main draw to western RPGs is the ability to control most, if not every, aspect of your character, from appearance, to personality, to backstory, etc. 

The Inquisitor also has a myriad of pre-established backstories that other characters mention far more frequently than anyone ever did in Mass Effect. You were at the Conclave for whatever reason you chose in the game, and you obtained the Anchor by being there. How is that far fetched? The game literally gives you like 5 different reasons to have been there. 

What you're asking for is completely black-and-white moral options and for the game to hand you your entire character arc on a silver platter. I have no idea how you can be literally asking for less choice and freedom. Unless you really just want an entirely scripted game, in which case, by all means, play Uncharted, or Metal Gear, or Assassin's Creed, or whatever you want. I don't see any reason to make a case for taking away options in the upcoming Mass Effect.