206 réponses à ce sujet

[Chuvvy]

MistySun wrote...

I read somewhere that Bioware have said they're removing camp conversation and future games will be more like the Awakening system.
 

[dan107]

soteria wrote...
You're making it sound a lot more ridiculous than it actually was, and clicking on objects to trigger a convo makes decent sense if you think of the alternatives.  Say you want to trigger an optional dialogue for someone in a specific area or about a specific object.  You could have the conversation just pop up, but then it's no longer optional, and could be annoying since the player loses control.  You could have a companion's dialogue tree change in different areas, but then you're stuck trying to talk to everyone in every area to see if they have something to say.  I don't want that.  You could have people audibly comment when they see something to let you know they want to talk about something in the area, but what if you walk on for a little while before starting the conversation?  Then you could have your companion talking about a statue that's not there anymore.

Really, when you get down to it, making this argument based on the ridiculous is just complaining about what part of the screen you click on to start conversations.  I may as well say I hate the targetting systems for aoe spells because "Why would I cast a fireball at the GROUND?  I'm trying to kill the people, not the ground."  Of course, the targetting system doesn't involve trying to kill the ground any more than the Awakening dialogue system involves talking to trees and boats, as is so often claimed.

Short version:  complaining about what part of the screen you click on seems silly to me.  It's such a trivial issue.

Is there a complaint about the concept of talking to companions about things they see in the game world?

QFT. A rare voice of reason.

[frostajulie]

asaiasai wrote...

I have been thinking about this since i first played awakenings. I too am not completely happy with the A conversation system because it seems to lack life. The biggest hurdle to any conversation system is how to animate the inanimate. Machines do what they do over and over again because that is what they were made to do, people on the other hand sometimes can not explain why they do what they do. The major difference is spontinaity and that i think is how you can resolve the conversation system.

If at party camp the characters are milling around, talking amongst themselves, tending fire, cooking dinner, mending thier armor, sharing a bottle, they appear to be interacting amongst themselves but they are in fact interacting with the player, just not directly. They could still reveal thier desires, and thier feelings about the previous game events, and the course of action the PC took. Let the NPCs pull the character into a conversation more than currently, for example as you walk by a tree in Amaranthine the PC is pulled into a conversation with Velena or Anders. To make it a requirement that i as the PC must initiate every conversation is what drains the life from the conversation. Another example is that as i am running in Denerim i hear Leliana and Morrigan having the dress conversation and Leliana que cut scene drags me onto the middle and the group is now waiting on me to give one of several dialog options that have popped up. The most important thing is that as a player i should not always get the opportinuty to be dragged into a conversation, there could be factors involved like the standard approval system currently in place. This would decide, based upon the approval of the conversationalists if your going to be pulled into it or not.

Another layer could be that you do not get your approval/disapproval points at the time you decide the course of action, you would have to follow up with the party members later to discern thier feelings, probably at camp. In the above example (dress) if pulled in the conversation then you would be given your approval/disapproval points right then, if not you would have to have a follow up conversation with the participants at camp. Later at camp you might have Morrigan ask you if a red dress would make her ass look big, to which depending on what the player wants, they could answer no it is not the dress that makes your ass look big, it is your ass that makes your ass look big, at which time the PC would earn thier points.

Consider the NPCs developing relationships amongst themselves, Morrigan and Sten after surviving one tough mission suddenly feel the passion and they are not sitting around the fire and as you look over you see 4 feet protruding from Morrigan's tent. Later you might see them sitting around the fire yelling Eskimo kisses and rubbing noses, creeping out the other party members about as much as i am sure i just creeped everybody out here.

Interaction not always with the player, not always at the player's behest, and like living breathing folks not always with a good reason. Every conversation should provide the player with insight on the character. The conversation system in DAO works but i do agree, that after 17 plays it does feel like a laundry list as i sort the conversations to get Leliana to tell me about shoes so i can give her the Blue Satin shoes i grabbed from old Tegrin 4 hours ago.

Consider making lets say 30 different conversation plot points for each character, and then in the interest of replayability, the computer would do a random pick of say 10. Using the dress conversation, the player would have influence on the gifts. If say they instead of telling Morrigan her ass is big, could instead tell her that she would like very nice in a red velvet dress, and then buy her one later in the game as a gift. Leliana as a chantry sister would be scandalized at the idea of various parts of her anatomy flashing into view, but a hardened Leliana with the "i dont know i think it might be sexy" response from the PC might consider a bag of rags to fashion some revealing attire from as a gift.

Gifts should go both ways the PC could in the course of the game be asked by the NPCs about certain things like pies. The PC could be asked by Wynne if they like pies if Wynne's approval is high enough, as it grows to a point she would bake the PC a pie. At which point the player could share said pie with the folks around the fire to thier approval and Wynne's. The biggest thing is to get the conversation to flow both ways from the PC to the NPCs and from the NPCs to the PC in a an apparent random and spontanious fashion. I would consider some sort of flag on an NPC to remind or to notify the PC that they should go see that NPC as they have something to share, helpful but it would come at the expense of immersion, possibly allow the player as a game option to enable or disable it.

Sorry for the wall of text but this is not something that can be done in 50 words or less.

Asai

Wow!  I think you just figured out how to improve the curent system.  Can I buy your game?

[attend]

As Asaiasai stated above interaction is the key. I was disappointed (slighty) that we could not click on the fire in camp and get a cutscene of Alistair burning dinner or the bucket by the pond showing Leliana upset because she could not get Marjolaine's blood out of her armour.

If the triggers are in a central location where all your companions are then I would not feel I have missed out on something. That has been one of my gripes about Awakening (which I enjoyed), I felt I was missing out on conversations, because I was missing the wrong companion. I can not say how many statues I clicked on and nothing. My cuss jar thanks you.

Off topic. Was there some codex that were left out in awakenings?

Back on topic. Mr Gaider, thank you for taking the time to respond. It would be great to see a combination of both systems. That was one of my favorite things about the game. It would be nice if there was a way to incorporate some of asaiasai ideas to future releases.

Modifié par attend, 22 mai 2010 - 04:35 .

[cruelgretchen]

never change a working system

[MistySun]

cruelgretchen wrote...

never change a working system

Exactly my thoughts cruelgretchen

[attend]

Change for change sake? No I agree one should leave well enough alone.



At the same time improvement is a good thing. Chamber pots work well, but I prefer a fully functioning bathroom with running water inside the house. No offense meant.

[Vicious]

WE FEAR CHANGE!

[attend]

I fear spiders, especially with overwhelm abilities.

[k9medusa]

Dare to be different -- try different ideas, but if they do not work out, just go back to the old tried and true...

[VampireCommando]

I have a great deal of faith in BW, i trust they will do the right thing and it will be all okay . . . as long as they bring morrigan back anyway lol .

[TheMadCat]

cruelgretchen wrote...

never change a working system

Everything can always be improved upon and we should always try to improve upon it. If we didn't follow this little credo we'd still be using stone tools and killing animals with long, pointy sticks. I'm all for improving and changing so long as it's positive and progressive, Awakening didn't really do anything to improve, it corrected a few flaws and introduced a slew of new ones. Origins system was good but it still had it's share a problems so it can be improved upon, hopefully they make a better attempt at it next time though.

[KragCulloden]

soteria wrote...

You're making it sound a lot more ridiculous than it actually was, and clicking on objects to trigger a convo makes decent sense if you think of the alternatives.  Say you want to trigger an optional dialogue for someone in a specific area or about a specific object.  You could have the conversation just pop up, but then it's no longer optional, and could be annoying since the player loses control.  You could have a companion's dialogue tree change in different areas, but then you're stuck trying to talk to everyone in every area to see if they have something to say.  I don't want that.  You could have people audibly comment when they see something to let you know they want to talk about something in the area, but what if you walk on for a little while before starting the conversation?  Then you could have your companion talking about a statue that's not there anymore.

Really, when you get down to it, making this argument based on the ridiculous is just complaining about what part of the screen you click on to start conversations.  I may as well say I hate the targetting systems for aoe spells because "Why would I cast a fireball at the GROUND?  I'm trying to kill the people, not the ground."  Of course, the targetting system doesn't involve trying to kill the ground any more than the Awakening dialogue system involves talking to trees and boats, as is so often claimed.

Short version:  complaining about what part of the screen you click on seems silly to me.  It's such a trivial issue.

Is there a complaint about the concept of talking to companions about things they see in the game world?

Your example bears little relevence to the issue.  When I target an AOE the AOE actually lands where I targeted it - there is a direct relation between what I select and what happens.  That was not the case in Awakenings - I click on a bulletin board and instead get a conversation about Oghren's rash...WTF?  No relationship at all - I click on a floating boat and get whining from Oghren about being in the Fade - that is not a trivial issue, it is a dumb design decision and should be acknowledged as such.  The puzzling thing is that this is not new ground for Bioware and they have addressed this in better ways in earlier titles - Kotor had audible prompts from characters when they had something to say - why not use that?  NPC initiated conversations that are ESC-apable works as well.  Both solutions make more sense than clicking on random scenery items.

"Complaining about what part of the screen you click on seems silly to me..." - considering that clicking on the screen is the ONLY targeted input available, it is not silly in the least.

"Is there a complaint about the concept of talking to companions about things they see in the game world?" - Yes, when that is the only form of conversation in the game, more than few people are complaining about it.  When it is in addition to a existing party conversation system, its a great touch.  Not as a replacement.

[bronxchulo]

i dont mind some party camp dialogue but at times in Origins it just was getting to excessive. I mean my first play thru it was fine cuz you know you just starting out so its all new. But when you start over with different charas or decide to replay a class over to make it better, having to go thru all that camp party talking over and over and over, just gets annoying. Yes i know you can just hit "square" to skip thru the talking, but still its very annoying that i have to go thru all that all the time on each character just to unlock more areas/scenes in the game.

[GardenSnake]

soteria wrote...

MistySun wrote...

I read somewhere that Bioware have said they're removing camp conversation and future games will be more like the Awakening system.
Don't do it. 
You made DAO a great success.
But you made Awakenings a lost cause. People (most) did not like it.
Stick to what you know best. To make a great game such as DAO.
If future DA goes the same way as Awakenings, you will lose out.

In other words...the end of the line. 

Most people didn't like it?  I guess you're the majority representative or something?  Where are you getting these numbers?

Look ANYWHERE in the forums genius. The majority of us hated it. You seem to be turning a blind eye to that fact.

[dan107]

MistySun wrote...

cruelgretchen wrote...

never change a working system

Exactly my thoughts cruelgretchen ../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png

So the two of you would prefer each Bioware game to be essentially the same as the previous one, but with slightly better graphics? Or was the jump from 2D to 3D also an unnecessary change to a working system?

In a good game, everything essentially "works". But the fact that a certain approach works doesn't mean that it's the only way, or indeed the best way, to do things.

GardenSnake wrote...
Look ANYWHERE in the forums genius. The majority of us hated it. You seem to be turning a blind eye to that fact.

People that DON'T like something always express their views louder than those that do. That doesn't mean that the majority shares those views.

Modifié par dan107, 23 mai 2010 - 08:36 .

[Nuclear]

I rather liked the concept of the Awakening system. But as a stand alone interaction feature.... it doesn't work. Pair it with the DA:O system and voila! Sometimes it is a good idea to mix 'n match things and I reckon those two together would be good. DA:O can cope well enough on its own true but joining with the Awakening system would be good too.

[soteria]

KragCulloden wrote...
Your example bears little relevence to the issue.  When I target an AOE the AOE actually lands where I targeted it - there is a direct relation between what I select and what happens.  That was not the case in Awakenings - I click on a bulletin board and instead get a conversation about Oghren's rash...WTF?  No relationship at all - I click on a floating boat and get whining from Oghren about being in the Fade - that is not a trivial issue, it is a dumb design decision and should be acknowledged as such. 

Sure it's relevant--unless you just blindly ignore the similarities.  You target aoe's by selecting the area.  You click on a statue to talk about it.  You click on a painting to talk about that, and you click on a tree to talk about that.  You're in the Fade, and you click on something in the Fade to talk about being in the Fade.  What doesn't make sense about that?  IIRC, there was also a connection between the bulletin board and the rash, but it's probably easier for you to make your point if you ignore all those connections.  I'm not saying they implemented it perfectly or that they couldn't have done it better, but as I said, if you're trying to trigger conversations about objects or places clicking on those objects makes a lot of sense.

The puzzling thing is that this is not new ground for Bioware and they have addressed this in better ways in earlier titles - Kotor had audible prompts from characters when they had something to say - why not use that?  NPC initiated conversations that are ESC-apable works as well.  Both solutions make more sense than clicking on random scenery items.

Er, KoTOR had exactly three types of dialogue:  the companion's plot, which you could advance every time you gained a level, the companion's sidequest, which was triggered after a certain amount of time by talking to an NPC that would appear, and companion banter.  The only one that worked like what you described is the banter, which Awakening has, same as Origins--though you can't comment on it in either, like you could in KoTOR.  Or maybe you're talking about how the game would remind you that you could advance a companion's story whenever you levelled?  Again, that's completely different, since those conversations had no geographical context.

"Complaining about what part of the screen you click on seems silly to me..." - considering that clicking on the screen is the ONLY targeted input available, it is not silly in the least.

I didn't really expect you to say, "You're right, Soteria, I was being silly," you know.  I think it seems silly.  What makes more sense, initiating dialogue based on who you're talking to or based on what you're talking about?  They both make sense; people start conversations based on things they see all the time.  Conversations are generally a lot less awkward if you already have something to talk about rather than just talking to someone without a specific subject.

If I wanted to go the realism route I could even make a great argument that just randomly starting a conversation with someone, especially given the context of the game (you're on a mission) is pretty weird.  Sometimes I'll have a thought in my head that I want to talk to someone about, but rarely to never do I think, "I'm going to talk to Joe when I get off work tonight.  I wonder if he has anything to say about his life story." (Which is pretty much exactly the way a lot of the conversations worked in Origins) In that way, the Awakening system makes way more sense then what is in Origins.  You get to know your companions by travelling and fighting with them, not by interrogating them at night by the campfire.

"Is there a complaint about the concept of talking to companions about things they see in the game world?" - Yes, when that is the only form of conversation in the game, more than few people are complaining about it.  When it is in addition to a existing party conversation system, its a great touch.  Not as a replacement.

So, no.  In that case, I stand by my assertion that "I don't like clicking on trees to talk about trees" is silly, barring a better suggestion for how to do it.

[TMZuk]

I can't say Awakenings did a lot for me.



It wasn't bad, but on the other hand it didn't reach the epic heights Origins did, anywhere. It's all what you like, of course, but for me there was moments in Origins when I was sitting slackjawed in awe, where as Awakenings was just all right.



So whatever you, that is Bioware, do, I hope it's towards more choices, more interaction, dialogue, banter, and less hack'n slash.

[soteria]

Look ANYWHERE in the forums genius. The majority of us hated it. You seem to be turning a blind eye to that fact.

I've frequented several video game-related message boards, and the majority of comments and threads have always been negative or neutral in tone and substance. You would think that most people were at best indifferent about those games if you didn't know better.



That fact aside, you're vastly overstating your case. "ANYWHERE" I'll find that the majority "hated" Awakening? Really? I know a lot of people have expressed dissatisfaction with the numerous bugs and general shortness of Awakening at the $40 pricetag, but to say "the majority hated Awakening" is far from what I've seen. Even if they did, isolating a single factor like the dialogue system for why they "hated" it is quite a stretch.

[Finiffa]

Magnum Opus wrote...

If  Bioware can't figure out a way to establish the correlation between any given object and what clicking on that object is going to do (or even who's going to do it, because with the Awakening system, my protagonist clicking on that beer Keg makes [i]Ohgren[i/] talk to [i]me[/i)], then the mechanic is going to be worse than useless as a story-telling tool.   It's going to force players into relying on metagaming crutches like the Tab key to figure out what they need to click, because there will be no sense in examining the game world anymore, and no consistency between action and consequence.  Players won't be looking for toy horses or entrances to mines any more.  They'll be holding the Tab key and looking for some sort of change in terms of what glows because of it.

That's not the mark of a story-driven game, that's an exercise in mechanics.

Well said! I totally agree with this. I really found the immersion feeling in Awakenings lacking because of this mechanic.

[AmstradHero]

Magnum Opus wrote...
If  Bioware can't figure out a way to establish the correlation between any given object and what clicking on that object is going to do (or even who's going to do it, because with the Awakening system, my protagonist clicking on that beer Keg makes Oghren talk to me, then the mechanic is going to be worse than useless as a story-telling tool.  

You mean like having the cursor turn into a speech bubble when you mouse over the object?
Oh... wait...

We get that you don't like the system.  But that doesn't mean that the system is as stupid and arbitrary as you make it out to be. To start with I was a little bemused by it. But as it went along I really thought it delivered.  Having someone comment on something that is directly related to something that is happen or that you've found right now feels more realistic than going into camp and doing the "tell me your life story" thing.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the camp mechanic, but I don't see how you could argue that a mechanic like KotoR's (let's have a chat every time I level up) is any less mechanical and arbitrary than finding objects in the world to click on.

In either situation you aren't given the impetus to progress the dialogue. Mechanics and events are dictating it; in KotoR your level, in Mass Effect 1 the main quest missions, in Origins your approval rating, etc, etc. In Origins you had the potential to return to camp frequently and talk to people and explore their dialogue at length.  I didn't return to camp repeatedly on purpose, but I found that I exhausted the dialogue possibly a little too early for some of the characters and had nothing to talk to them about in about the last 1/2-1/3 of the game.

The problem I have with people complaining about the Awakenings system is that almost all of the complaints effectively boil down to "I don't like it because it's new and I wasn't expecting it." They also typically fail to accept any of the benefits and advantages it provided over the system in Origins.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 23 mai 2010 - 11:20 .

[soteria]

If you see a basketball sitting on the ground and someone tells you to "interact with it", what are you likely going to do? Are you going to A) talk to the basketball, look around for some nearby rocks to balance them on top of the basketball and see how high you can build the tower before it topples over, or C) pick up the basketball and bounce it as if you were playing basketball?

I'd pick up the basketball and shoot some hoops, you know, and one of my buddies might comment, "Did you know I was drafted to play at Texas Tech?" Makes sense, doesn't it? There's really no need to try to make this a ridiculous affair, so I don't know why you're trying to equate "interact" in computer game terms with "interact" in real life terms. Heck, as long as we're equating the terms, if you told me to "interact" with that person over there, I might just go kill them, right? After all, that's probably the most common result from clicking on an NPC.

The issue here is that clicking an object in a game does not automatically mean that I want to TALK with or about that object to someone, and my avatar's choice to do something with an object certainly shouldn't force someone else into any sort of action. When I've got one character selected, that mouse click really means "have that specific character interact with the object you just clicked", and that can mean a lot of different things depending what I'm clicking on (the basketball carries an implicit suggestion with it), or even the conditions under which I'm clicking it.

Because you're not used to it. At first, when I was trying to talk with my companions, I was just switching control. "Arg! I didn't want to control that party member, I wanted to talk to them!" Then I learned to use the other mouse button. Your inference is based off past behavior. My mix-up with switching companions was based off another game that used the left and right mouse buttons differently. Like everyone else, I learned pretty quickly to adapt my behavior/expectations, and I'm sure you can do the same.

Besides, I'm not sure if there's an equivalent to your basketball example in the game, unless you count gifts. Most of the things you click on, such as statues, paintings, and trees, are things that normal people might walk up to and comment on in real life if there's something remarkable about them. The tree in town you "talk to" is a perfect example: it was remarkable to one of your companions, and you walk up to it and click on it to trigger the conversation.

I guess Bioware could have had the companion trigger that conversation, but I prefer to have control. Why *shouldn't* my actions with an object "force" a reaction from someone? If I pass you the basketball, you're forced to react or get hit in the face. If I say, "Hey, what's the deal with this painting? Someone you know?" I definitely expect a response, unless we're not on speaking terms. That's normal human interaction.

"Click on rock" can carry an infinite amount of expectations with it, depending on the context.

Sure. In past games, I've often seen clickables and not known exactly what would happen if I chose to interact, but I never hesitated to do it, did you? I've clicked on rocks and thought maybe I was going to search them and found out that no, I needed to blow them up. But, in Awakening, it took maybe three or four times before I figured out that random clickables with a certain mouseover image would trigger a conversation. It may have taken you more or fewer, but you figured it out. Obviously.

If Bioware can't figure out a way to establish the correlation between any given object and what clicking on that object is going to do (or even who's going to do it, because with the Awakening system, my protagonist clicking on that beer Keg makes Ohgren talk to [i]me[/i)], then the mechanic is going to be worse than useless as a story-telling tool. It's going to force players into relying on metagaming crutches like the Tab key to figure out what they need to click, because there will be no sense in examining the game world anymore, and no consistency between action and consequence. Players won't be looking for toy horses or entrances to mines any more. They'll be holding the Tab key and looking for some sort of change in terms of what glows because of it.

That's not the mark of a story-driven game, that's an exercise in mechanics.

This mechanic is pretty old--in NWN 1 & 2, running around with frequent applications of the 'z' key was normal for me, and, I believe, my friends as well. Don't want to miss the lewtz, right? That, and the sidequests and stuff. In Origins it was the tab key, and it was pretty much the same thing, and many learned never to leave a room without toggling tab. Didn't you? Awakening didn't introduce anything new in this regard. You could make an argument against the tab/z key mechanic in general, and I'm not sure I'd side against you, but that is neither here nor there, and a complaint about this mechanic in Awakening is a complaint about it in Origins and other Bioware games.

As an aside, I'll make one concession: they overdid it inside Vigil's Keep. The first time or two I clicked on the keg, it made sense, but most of the other conversations didn't have much to do with the keg at all. If it makes sense to just start talking to a companion, such as, "Oghren, you're really drunk," then clicking on them makes sense. But if I'm going to talk to a companion about a particular statue, then the most logical thing is to click on that particular statue.

Modifié par soteria, 23 mai 2010 - 11:36 .

[soteria]

The problem I have with people complaining about the Awakenings system is that almost all of the complaints effectively boil down to "I don't like it because it's new and I wasn't expecting it." They also typically fail to accept any of the benefits and advantages it provided over the system in Origins.

Exactly. I found the conversations lacking on the whole in Awakening, but I think they have the makings of a great idea. And yeah, the first time I saw it, "I was like, what, talk to the keg? Is that a bug?" And then I realized I was talking *about* the keg, not to it.