206 réponses à ce sujet

[Lyna357]

Hi there, 360 "Konsole Kiddie" here. Although I am hardly a kid, I just happened to have an XBox that my husband gave me 2 years ago for my birthday along with a copy of Lost Odyssey (a game that I love for the story and the romance). Please indulge me for a moment, I am going somewhere with this. After reading through this entire thread I know people really are as passionate about this game as I am.
When I first saw my son play Dragon Age: Origins, it was love at first sight. I had to get my own copy. I am embarrassed at how many hours I have spent playing it. I am basicly a very curious person, and the dialogue system was something new to me and the fact that I could "talk" to the characters was intriguing. Repeating the conversations in subsequent playings did not bother me at all, in fact, there was so much dialogue that I kept discovering new things each time through.

Then came the much anticipated Awakening. It was like giving me a box of my favorite assorted chocolates and then told I couldn't eat them! Five interesting new characters and hardly any of the conversations I had grown to love in Origins was so disappointing. I managed to find the "clickable" conversations, although I only found a few of the triggers (three I remember on my one full play of the game). This made Awakening seem hollow. Maybe my expectations were too high and it is probably my fault because I was already indulged by the generous and excellent dialogue/conversations in Origins.

That being said I guess I would not mind a combination of the two systems. I also think the idea of using more un-voiced dialogue would be okay with me as an option, if it means keeping more conversations, and to cut down on time/cost restraints. Let me say that I am one who doesn't mind reading a lot (loved the 1000 years of Dreams in LO). And please say that there will still be the random banter between the party members as we are trekking thought the game world.

To Mr. Gaider: It is always a pleasure to hear from the you on the forums. Thanks for taking the time to comment. I would like to add that I am a fangirl of both of your Dragon Age books and I wish that there had been more of "The Calling" fleshed out in Awakening, especially by way of dialogue.  Good luck with the new game coming out. I sincerely hope that you will do your best not to disappoint the fans that have grown to love all that is good about Dragon Age: Origins.

[AmstradHero]

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm fairly certain that placeables did come up with a speech bubble upon mouseover. It certainly did for Oghren's keg, and I was sure it did for the other objects too. Also, as far as I'm concerned, unless the relevant party member is in the party, the placeable should be non-interactive. i.e. it shouldn't show up as something I can mouseover.

For that matter, party presence should matter for approval ratings upon completing quests. If someone isn't with me and I complete a quest, I should not be getting an approval change for someone that isn't there. That applies whether it's positive or negative. I suppose maybe the party members will talk about what I did at camp and then the missing party members will or will not like it and thus their approval would change... but it still didn't seem like a sensible thing to do.

It's almost taking me back to BG2 days (damn, yes, I hate being nostalgic and referencing it, but in this case it is relevant) where you had to have someone in your party in order to learn about them. I still think that makes sense from a roleplaying perspective, despite that players now want to be able to do whatever they like and still get in everyone's good books. But heck, if I'm never adventuring with Sten or Oghren, then I don't think I should be able to make them feel like they're my best buddy.  Sure, I like that I can do that, but that's because I like playing a silver-tongued goody-two-shoes who is friends with everyone and gets the fairy tale ending.

I agree that you shouldn't be forced to drag companions around or be forced to learn nothing about them. But on the other hand I don't believe you should get to know them really well unless you do take them with you.  I figure after you save someone's life quite a number of times, go through some tight spots together, you'd grow to like them and change as people. Just like in real life.

PS What is with this forum occasionally mangling posts and adding extra new lines in?

Modifié par AmstradHero, 23 mai 2010 - 01:26 .

[GardenSnake]

dan107 wrote...

I actually like the Awakening style conversation system. It's much more realistic to have NPCs comment about events and people in the world, as opposed to playing twenty irrelevant questions back at camp. Ideally I'd like to have them comment and go into depth on the various decisions and situations that are meaningful to me as a player, rather than random trees and such, but this is a step in the right direction IMO.

FAIL

[bluewolv1970]

I think what really concerns fans over the conversation system...is the underlying concern that bioware is moving away from character development in the dragon age franchise...and honestly since dragon age has gone from awakenings, which was a poor game (IMO) from a character development/continuity department to darkspawn chronicles (which has non-existet character development/comtinuity) I would say that those concerns are warranted...the fact that in general bioware acts like both awakenings and darkspawn chronicles were well received, depsite overwhleming evidence to the contrary does not help and possibly explains the frustration directed at Mr. Gaider...

[GardenSnake]

soteria wrote...

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.

They're all 'indifferent' because it's a game from Bioware. They're so used to great games from them so they just go along with it. The dialouge system blowing was exactly what made the game worse than any of their others (see, notice how I didn't call it bad? Even I do it). With a crappy dialouge system, you care less about the characters which results in you not giving a crap about the overall story. Story equals most important and enjoyable part of Bioware games. There, the dialouge system complaint may seem minor, but that's just the root of the problem.  

[GardenSnake]

[quote]Catcher wrote...

[quote]Zanderat wrote...
I don't apologize for anything.  If you don't believe or think that this game was mainstreamed for the masses, then you are sadly mistaken.  I never said that there wasn't room for improvement.  But do you really think that clicking on a tree is more intuitive than, say, clicking on an NPC to initiate dialogue?  And I don't apologize for proclaiming that the camp conversations are what made the game for me.[/quote]

    Thanks for proving that you are the one being elitest and condescending.  BTW, do you have any quotes from david that he's elminating camp conversations? Or any actual facts to refute anything I've said? Arguementation works far better with Assertion, Fact Fact, Fact, Conclusion instead of Assertion, Assertion, Assertion.    Here's an example for your perusal...

[quote]
What I DID say was that David G.'s stubborn insistence that the Awakening system is superior is arrogant and blatantly disrespectful of the wishes of his payng customers.  At least, he could be respectful in his disagreement.
[/quote]

     From your post.

Assertion: David Gaider has shown no insistence, stubborn or otherwise, that the Awakenings conversation system is superior nor has he been disrespectful of posters (who we'll assume are, indeed, all paying customers).

Fact:


[quote]The approval system itself needs some looking at, but insofar as the dialogues in Awakening go, consider it a work in progress.[/quote]

Fact:


[quote]Feel free to offer suggestions if you have them, but keep in mind what I'm trying to avoid. Just because someone may have liked the system despite its flaws doesn't mean it didn't have them, or that it couldn't be improved on -- and that goes for the new system as well as the old.[/quote]

Fact:


[quote]If your opinion is you'd like to do it anyway, and that your preference is to be able to explore the thoughts and feelings of your party members whenever you'd like, that's fine. Feel free to say so. From a developer perspective, I'm simply going to look at it from different angles.[/quote]  (Note: Angles plural not angle singular)

Fact:
[quote]That's an interesting idea, though if you were going to ask Alistair about the Templars at the beginning of the Mage Tower segment it would still require you to click on him to see if he had anything relevant to say -- and if he did, would you not be checking every party member at every major location just in case?
Mind you, if Alistair made some comment that amounted to "Huh, I know a lot about Templars" when you entered the area... that might provide a good cue that eliminated the need for for dialogue-trolling, as it were. Though really it's the difference between clicking on an ambient object to start a conversation and clicking on the party member themselves. But it seems that's a real sticking point for some people. I'm not convinced it's a big issue, but it's something to consider.[/quote] (Note: Actually considering a Fan suggestion. Stubborn man that Gaider!)

Fact:
[quote]There's food for thought, here. I'll take it into account when I decide how to proceed in the future, so thank you for those who offered their insight. I do, of course, have to add a grain of salt that this is feedback from the bunch that are *most* likely to be biased in favor of the Origins system by virtue of their presence here... but that's not a bad thing at all. Just realize it's one part of what we need to take into account.
So thank you[/quote] (Note: Everyone who says thank you to customers is obviously condescending.)

Fact:


[quote]Very interesting thoughts. Some of the solutions you suggest have technical barriers that would prevent them, while others might be problematic due to more practical limitations (word budget, for instance -- yes, there is a budget for that) but on the whole very well spoken.[/quote](Note: The nerve of the man! Complementing a different viewpoint instead of ridiculing it!)

Fact:
[quote]Is what we tried in Awakening an effective answer to this? In some ways yes and in some ways no. It doesn't offer the clearest picture primarily because the amount of content to impart in an expansion of this size is not all that great, compared to the expectations of some, but I would say my impression taken from those who didn't like how it was presented was a feeling that they lacked agency. Why they feel that way and why they say they feel that way don't always seem to jibe, in my view, but I guess that comes with the territory.
Even so, there are some ways this could be ameliorated (or I think so, anyhow) and some of the things you suggest certainly have merit. Thanks for offering your thoughts.[/quote] Note: He's doing a bad job making Awakenings the next coming of RPG Godhood. Oh, and he complemented a different viewpoint agin. Fiend!)

Fact:


[quote]Zanderat thinks a battle of wits is a form of unarmed combat[/quote]
(Note: OK, I made that one up, but the rest you can find in the big, long thread that started this sillieness.)

Conclusion: David Gaider is remarkably even-handed in his treatment of the Origins Conversation system and its weaknesses, the Awakenings system and its weaknesses, and the ideas and thoughts of many other posters. Zanderat is a clod who doesn't need to apologize for his preferences, but does need to apologize to David for unsubstantiated personal attacks or produce some sort of evidence of his Assertions, forthwith.
 [/quote]
Hey Zanderat, put that in your stupid display picture's pipe and smoke it! Very well done by Catcher. Remind me to never get in an arhuement with him. We all have to realize that they're gonna make a great game regardless of what's in it. However, be that as it may, a convo system straight out of Awakening wouldn't do it for me. A combo of the two sounds about right but to what extent? Most people just say it should be a combo of them both and leave it at that. I of course, wouldn't mind just the Origins system, but if it must be a combo of the two, I'd prefer a system that was more Origins and less Awakening. Like Origins is the cupcake and the icing and the sprinkles is Awakening. You should still be able to activate convos whenever you want with your companions, however when there's an object in the area that would trigger a convo, if the character that it corresponds to is with you at the time, when you walk past the object instead of having to select it, the convo would be triggered.
Another thing that Gaider mentioned could be implemented. Lets say that you pick some party members to go to some place and it just happened to have some convo triggers for a character that you're not taking along with you. Right before you leave, that specific party member could run over to you and tell you that they have a lot of childhood memories there, or they really want to be taken along because they have pressing matters that need to be attended to. This could tip you off that there's some potential convo up ahead and could switch out an NPC for that companion. This could also serve as an entry way into character specific quests, and if they really wanted to go and you did/didn't take them with you, you could gain or loose some approval.

Modifié par GardenSnake, 23 mai 2010 - 04:40 .

[soteria]

As long as games are going to portray real life objects and expect to have players identify with them in real life ways, they should at least attempt to have those interactions make a little bit of sense, IMO, given all of the contexts in which those objects appear. Action and consequence shouldn't, IMO, be too far separated (that's just personal preference; I absolutely HATED opening the door to the Gargelflump headquarters in Origins, only to have a cutscene have my group blithely walk straight into the middle of a room full of Gargelflumps I knew full well I was going to try to kill... put me in a horrible position for that fight, they did. Sure, it made for a fine moment of drama (the first time they did it), but sheesh... not something that character would ever do, that's for sure).

Fair enough. Or the time you have a random encounter where you're basically told, "Hey, you're about to walk into an ambush." And then regardless of how you act or want to RP, you're required to walk into the ambush and initiate dialogue.

But with a dialogue tree the mouse click becomes a lot more abstract, and may or may not apply to my selected character (Anders could just as easily have started talking to Velanna as to me), and it may or may not have an effect on the tree itself, and it may or may not initiate conversation at all depending on who's in my group at the time.

With a few exceptions, the clickables that you "talk" to turn into the chat bubble when you mouse over them. It's possible that the exceptions made it harder for you to notice the trend, but if all of them were the same, or the feedback were more specific, would you be happier with the system? Also, I'm wondering about the comment about being able to click on objects that apply to NPCs not in the party, because that's not something I saw in my two playthroughs. There is one statue that multiple NPCs can interact with, and there are a couple trees in town that different NPCs interact with, but I don't remember seeing any of the wrong ones when a companion wasn't there. Unless there was a bug, which would unfortunately not be surprising.

I find that sort of ambiguity annoying, personally, because I'm never sure what that mouse click is going to mean and I'm just left wondering "what on earth are the developers going to do to me now?" If that's the case, it doesn't matter what my own expectations of the game are. It doesn't even matter what the game in question did in previous situations: If they change what it means when I click an object, then the interface is what I'm going to be noticing, not the game world which that interface is allowing me to access, and that's what I want to avoid in a story-based game. Mechanics in such a game should be specific enough and consistent enough to allow me access to the world and then ignore them. I can't do that when what it means when I click that mouse button changes every time I click it.

I too would have preferred if they had done the dialogue more consistently, among other things, but as you said in your other post, I don't fault the idea or the system, just the implementation. Another complaint I have is that some of the clickables were amazingly hard to click on--they seemed to have a little node sticking out the side of them a few feet up you had to find, which was sometimes frustrating.

Yes, I have. But then, I've played some games where developers actually let you lose or do things that would have negative consequences. Flip the wrong switch at the wrong time and you have to retrace your way to the beginning of the puzzle. Push the wrong button and end up trapped forevermore. Bioware has never been that extreme, but I still consider potential outcomes whenever I see something to click. Things have gone wrong too many times for me to just clickclickclick my way through any game and hope it all works out for the best.

You mistake me, or maybe "I don't hesitate to click on stuff" is putting it too strongly. In Bioware games, I can't think of a time when clicking on something in and of itself had negative consequences. Usually that happens from clicking on something and then getting a list of choices: Loot the corpse, burn it, leave it alone, etc. I played a text-based game that had extreme and realistic consequences for actions. Eat belladona root? You die, instantly, losing a level and possibly your money as well. But, in a Bioware game, there's really no reason *not* to click on something, at least to find out what it's going to do.

That's the point where I think I'll have to disagree. Awakening introduced necessity to the tab key. Instead of simply pressing it once in a while to make sure you didn't miss anything, they required you to use it if you wanted to really talk to your companions -- the objects that triggered companion dialogue were simply too unremarkable. Hundreds of trees in the game, dozens of pictures exactly like the one Nathaniel stands in front of in the Vigil great hall... without the Tab key being constantly pressed, I miss out on a chunk of what is perhaps the best feature of a Bioware game because I don't know what to click on to initiate a dialogue anymore. Characters end up seeming far more shallow than they were written, simply because the interface didn't quite make enough sense for me to recognize all of the places where dialogue could occur.



Sadly, it was my second run through Awakening before I even recognized Nathaniel's Picture for the mouthpiece that it was... I'd found other triggers on my first run, not many but some, and mostly by blind luck when I happened to swing my mouse over a certain spot on the screen and noticed the cursor change, but I just plain missed that one. I just either didn't press the tab key that often, or wasn't looking in that direction when I did.

Not surprisingly, I disagree with your disagreement. I don't see mashing the tab key as any more or less necessary in Awakening as I did in Origins. I don't like missing loot and sidequests, so I used it all the time. Same thing in both NWN games. If you didn't use it extensively in Origins, I suspect you missed a fair number of things, which may or may not be acceptable to you. For me, the possibility of missing loot and exp already "necessitated" the heavy [ab]use of tab.



I'd prefer to see the tab key go away and make figuring out what you can interact with more intuitive, but I'm not sure how that would work from a design standpoint. One possibility you implied was that talking to *any* tree in the city would trigger the appropriate dialogues for the companions who like to talk about trees. Assuming it's not too much work, it could make sense. More generally, allowing multiple triggers to start the same dialogue might alleviate some of the frustrations with the system. Otherwise, I'm not really sure how to deal with the tab key issue, though I'll repeat that it's definitely nothing new. The sparklies helped for lootable stuff, so maybe they could do something for objects that start quests/dialogues.

[soteria]

They're all 'indifferent' because it's a game from Bioware. They're so used to great games from them so they just go along with it.

Logic failure: if we're so used to great games from them, if it's really horrible we should be all the more outraged. If some developer I never heard of made a crappy game, then I would be indifferent. But if Bioware made a truly crappy game and I bought and played it, I would be mad, not indifferent.  If the Lions lose to the Colts, I'm indifferent.  We have higher expectations of Bioware.

The dialouge system blowing was exactly what made the game worse than any of their others (see, notice how I didn't call it bad? Even I do it). With a crappy dialouge system, you care less about the characters which results in you not giving a crap about the overall story. Story equals most important and enjoyable part of Bioware games. There, the dialouge system complaint may seem minor, but that's just the root of the problem.

In your opinion. You're still moving from a claim you can't prove and haven't supported ("majority hated it") to another claim that's obviously disputed ("dialogue system sucked") to an unfounded conclusion ("the majority hate it because the dialogue sucked"). Maybe you really did hate Awakening because the dialogue sucked, but that doesn't mean a majority or even a lot of people "hated" Awakening for that reason. Even in a group of bona fide Awakening haters I bet you'd find a number that would argue with what you're saying.

Modifié par soteria, 23 mai 2010 - 05:17 .

[Hollingdale]

If anything is a huge misstake it's making the same game twice just to please the addicted fans. Don't listen to them Bioware.

[David Gaider]

Hollingdale wrote...
If anything is a huge misstake it's making the same game twice just to please the addicted fans. Don't listen to them Bioware.

It's a pretty common thing for people who frequent a game's forums to get the impression that they represent the entire customer base or that their appeasement is required in order for a game to be successful. I call that "the fishbowl effect", as it's a matter of perception more than anything else.

That said, getting feedback is a good thing-- because if we're not going to get it here, from where are we going to get it? So long as that feedback is offered with the understanding that the people on the forums represent the most hardcore (and, yes, dedicated) minority of our customers and that, while a lot of it is great, it's also often made without the business component that we do have to take into account, it can be quite useful.

Any changes we make to the formula are going to upset the people who didn't feel the formula needed to be changed, no question. We know that. But I don't think we're going to feel beholden to stick to it just because it's what we've done previously. We're going to make the game that we want even if it doesn't please everyone who comes here. Some people might interpret that anger as entitlement (even I do, on occasion, when it gets strident enough), but hey-- we all only want a game that is going to please us personally. You're hardly going to argue in favor of a game that someone else is going to enjoy, are you?

So thanks to those who take the time to offer their thoughts. It makes for interesting reading.

Modifié par David Gaider, 24 mai 2010 - 03:23 .

[Gecon]

I think what was suggested might lead to a better game overall, with a more natural way to interact with your party. Because its really not natural that you run around in camp trying to talk to everybody all the time.



Thats all there is to say at this point, really.

[Brockololly]

Gecon wrote...
Because its really not natural that you run around in camp trying to talk to everybody all the time.

But its perfectly natural to run around huge maps trying to talk to trees, rocks and floating ships in hopes interacting with an inanimate object magically triggers a conversation with a random party member?

I agree with much of what Magnum Opus has mentioned- one of my main gripes with the Awakening system is the whole not clicking on the companion to have the PC initiate dialogue. Seems like a little, insignificant thing, but for me at least its just not very intuituive, especially after you've been playing through Origins' system. 

While I didn't have any big issues with Origins and going around camp to check in on party members never bothered me, there is certainly room for improvement. My issues with the changes in Awakening were that those changes largely stripped the player of any sense of agency in starting conversations with companions. Clicking on random tree #6571 doesn't start a conversation, it just all of a sudden causes Velanna to discuss to herself how unique this tree is, when it looks exactly like every other tree we've walked past. And then you can interject into the companion's little monologue.

Like Magnum Opus has said, I like the idea behind Awakening's system, but it turns just being able to engage in dialogue with companions almost into a little minigame of scavenger hunting for the dialogue points. My own impression of it in Awakening was that it too often acted as an obstacle to getting to know the characters. I'm all for having the characters be more reactive to the surroundings and events going on around them, but if thats the aim, then the mechanism needs to be disguised better than clicking on random objects. This thread and the older thread have alot of good ideas that would work well ( in concept at least), so I'm eager to see what kind of system DA2 ends up with.

[Vicious]

Hollingdale wrote...

If anything is a huge misstake it's making the same game twice just to please the addicted fans. Don't listen to them Bioware.

[Spitz6860]

does "i saw this guy murder my sister somewhere" hold up in court?  i'm really asking because i don't know

Modifié par Spitz6860, 24 mai 2010 - 07:06 .

[dan107]

GardenSnake wrote...

dan107 wrote...

I actually like the Awakening style conversation system. It's much more realistic to have NPCs comment about events and people in the world, as opposed to playing twenty irrelevant questions back at camp. Ideally I'd like to have them comment and go into depth on the various decisions and situations that are meaningful to me as a player, rather than random trees and such, but this is a step in the right direction IMO.

FAIL

Because I have an opinion that's different from yours? Lol, you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are ya?

[KragCulloden]

[quote]soteria wrote...
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.
[/quote]

Nice sarcasm - but it doesn't help you much.  You made a bad analogy and now keep trying to stretch it - it doesn't work.  The AOE goes where I click - its a targeting mechanic.  Clicking on a random scenery object and getting a random conversation piece is not the same - and that is what happens in Awakenings.    Clicking is an interaction or targeting action, but Awakenings now tries to add a third use - and doesn't even take the time to make sure the dialog is always RELATED to the item clicked.  Its just a bad implementation of a bad design concept.  Having item or location related dialog could be a great addition - but not the way Awakenings tried to do it.


[quote] 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.[/quote]

No they don't - it depends entirely on what else is happening when the item is seen.  In gaming terms, it makes more sense and follows convention to click on the target of the conversation - the conversation partner.  There are simply too many objects and too many places to talk about to make it another standard clickable action - given the contraints of current standard input items of keyboard and mouse, it makes the most sense to stick with convention and select the person I want to talk to.  If the game wants to indicate to the player that particular people have something to say - do it through audible or visual signals that indicate who I should talk to. 

[quote]
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.[/quote]

I disagree entirely with this paragraph - and have to ask - have you served in the miliitary are even just gone camping before?  Nighttime by a campfire is a special place, and VERY conducive to all sorts of conversations.  Talking is also a great way to pass the boredom between final meal and bedtime in a campsite, as there is little other activity that nightime allows in the wild.  Those campfire talks in Origins are extremely plausible and natural in my opinion.

In terms of contextual talks - given the situation of a quasi-military unit on a mission of world-saving importance - it seems far more plausible that folks would file away stuff they see at the moment and bring it up later, when time and situation permits.  Again, sitting around a campfire is a great time to say - "Remember that tree we saw today, it made me think...."  Its a time for reflection, unwinding, and letting down one's guard.  That typically does not occur during the day while "on the job" with a million things going through your head and various inputs vying for brain time - Joe Moron deciding to talk about  his rash at that point is likely to get a curt STFU or head slap, instead of a sympathetic ear.    


[quote]
[quote]"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.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]
[/quote]

That was a pretty clear "Yes" - and other ways have been suggested by me, others, and by bioware itself in other titles.  You also keep ignoring the fact that in Awakenings you didn't always even talk about trees by clicking on trees - that was the most annoying part - the lack of relevence of the object to the conversation in some cases.

[soteria]

But its perfectly natural to run around huge maps trying to talk to trees, rocks and floating ships in hopes interacting with an inanimate object magically triggers a conversation with a random party member?

At this point, that's just a straw man. We've already pointed out that first, the game tells you you're about to trigger a conversation by changing the cursor to a dialogue bubble, and second, you're obviously not talking to the inanimate object. Additionally, it's a faulty comparison because the post you quoted said "running around camp talking to everyone is unnatural" in the sense that it doesn't make sense for human interaction. Your response isn't about what makes sense for human interaction at all; it's an interface issue.

[Tirigon]

If OP is right I see a time coming where I will be limited to play years-old games and / or shooters. RPG with the Awakening system would be goddamn awful.



If anyone is going to make a petition against it, tell me, I´ll sign.

[NamiraWilhelm]

Zanderat wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

A) As was pointed out above, despite what you "read somewhere", that's not what we're doing. Just because we're not doing one thing does not make it the extreme and exact opposite. Chances are it will end up somewhere in-between... which is, frankly, the case every time someone on the forums begins panicking over a perceived change.

On the off chance what we implement isn't what you're looking for, I apologize in advance. Even so, we'll muddle through somehow despite what "most" people think.

I don't care for your dismissive eltiist attitude.  Maybe you should LISTEN and acknowledge what your CUSTOMERS are saying.

Haha oh no he didnt!
Im a little worried too. What would be awesome if we had the origins way of conversation, plus the chance to click on objects on excursions.

[Lyna357]

Does anyone remember the New Coke from the 80's? Coca Cola tried changing the formula for its most popular soft drink and what happened with that? Companies can experiment all they want but people like what they like. Dragon Age: Origins had sales of 3.2 million copies the last I'd heard. I'd say that's pretty good for a new franchise, and I'd wager that many of those sales were from word of mouth. I know I was skeptical about buying it until I saw it being played. Advertising hype doesn't influence me much. Mr. Gaider states, "We're going to make the game that we want even if it doesn't please everyone who comes here." This considered, I will take a wait and see stance. I hope Bioware isn't thinking of taking the MMO route thus requiring these changes?
I certainly don't feel entitled to anything and I know that I don't I represent the entire customer base. As for "New and Improved" Dragon Age 2 being successful, it remains to be seen.

Modifié par Lyna357, 24 mai 2010 - 11:49 .