206 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

We need both systems. In full. But please, make the convos trigger automatically instead of clicking on something.

[k9medusa]

Lyna357 wrote...

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.

Just like the coke example, in the end it is the one who plays the games will make say what is in the game.  In other words, if a gamer does not have X, Y, and Z, then the game will not sale thus forcing any company either offer what the gamer wants or be force to closed their's doors forever. IMHO, I would like see both talk systems (DAO & DAO:A) in DA 2.  I know DAO:A is short (I still like it overall), but the henchman seems less "real" then the massive DAO.

[Tirigon]

Dalira Montanti wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

We need both systems. In full. But please, make the convos trigger automatically instead of clicking on something.

Afraid of taking someoens eye out with all that clicking? *ok bad joke*
...........................................................................................................................

Naa, taking eyes out would be a nice change to beheading them outright!:devil:
*counter bad joke*

It just seems ridiculous that you need to click the object. As I hear the DAA convo system was meant to make dialogue more lively instead of having everyone wait until you lower yourself to address them; However, it doesn´t. They still wait, only at a tree instead of the camp.

If convos trigger automatically it gives the impression your companion actually talks to you because THEY want.
I always like the few places in DAO where someone talks to you because they want (after Redcliff, e.g.) It´s just more immersive.

[soteria]

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.

Except, what you quoted wasn't sarcastic. As you said, and I bolded, you admit that clicking is a targeting action. The only difference in Awakening is what you click on becomes the subject rather than the object. You talk about it rather than talk to it, and, as has been pointed out numerous times, the game tells you that you're triggering a conversation by changing the cursor to a chat bubble. I know of one exception.

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.

Yes, they do. Saying "it depends on the context" is just stating the obvious, and makes me wonder why you even bothered to tell me I'm wrong, since the qualifier "it depends" pretty much nullifies the "no, they don't." Or are you really saying people don't in fact start conversations based on things they see or see you do?

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.

Active duty, and though I have been to the field numerous times, we never had a campfire. That's a recreational thing... why would we have a campfire? Usually at night if you're not cleaning weapons or eating or on watch, you're sleeping. Any chatting happened during the meal... when you're waking up before dawn, there's no sitting around bored waiting for "bedtime." That was my experience.



As a civilian, recreational camping is entirely different. Sitting around the campfire cooking hot dogs and marshmallows and telling stories is considered part of the camping experience in America, but really, that's not even the same kind of campfire as you'd use for cooking or warmth. A hunting camp is probably the closest modern equivalent, and I can't say that sharing deep personal revelations around the campfire is normal there, either. Ironically, most conversations have revolved around things like, "Is that a star or a satellite," and "Gosh, the stars are beautiful away from town," and "I'm telling you, the gun jammed, dammit. And YES, I cleaned it just yesterday."



I dispute that nighttime around the campfire is special, except in the case where you went camping to get some kind of special bonding experience. That's not the case with our party. You're on a mission, with a long day behind you and another long one ahead of you, and don't have time to hold hands and sing "kum-bay-ya." It kinda makes sense to talk about things back at the fort or in the ship in KoTOR, but a camp isn't really that safe or comfortable of a place.

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.

The majority of the conversation triggers happen in safe places, like town or your own fort. When else would Oghren ask about it? Back at the fort? "Uh, Oghren, why didn't you say something when we were in town and could have picked something up?" Implying he asked you that question when you were just so busy that the issue couldn't be dealt with is disingenuous. Seriously, you're looking at a job board for some side quests. Obviously, you have time. This is my main gripe with yours and others' complaints: the criticisms are blown out of proportion and downright inaccurate.



As for not talking about trivial things while on a mission of world-saving importance, that's the whole game. Logically then, all questions and dialogue should be held until the world is saved, right? Instead of talking about cookies or finding long-lost relatives or traveling across Ferelden to replace the leader of a guild or sacking up with someone, you should be working to save the world or sleeping or eating or doing *something* constructive, right? Or, is it reasonable to sometimes talk about other things on the way? I'm guessing the latter. Unless you're advocating the end of side-content altogether, you don't have a leg to stand on with this argument. In Origins, a lot of people spend (game) weeks or longer doing frivolous side-quests, and you're saying that comments like, "Ah, the smell of freedom" are out of place? Please.

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.

To quote you: "Yes, when that is the only form of conversation in the game, more than few people are complaining about it." That's not a clear yes, that's an implied "no." This sentence could be rephrased, "Not if there is another form of conversation in the game." Unless you're going to renege on your qualifier about it being the only form of conversation, it means the same thing.



I don't ignore "the fact that in Awakenings you didn't always even talk about trees by clicking on trees." I dispute it. The majority of the objects you click on have a clear connection to the conversation, and most (all?) of the others have an indirect connection. Not that I'm saying they implemented the system perfectly or that I liked everything about it, but claiming there is no connection at all is nonsense.

[hexaligned]

I didn't mind the clickables (other than the ones in the keep), I didn't do anything like farm them either though. My only concern with them being automatically and not player triggered is that it would come across as feeling a little forced, at least to me. I've seen people mention BG2's system in this thread, so this is relevant. I hated, hated, how party members in that game would leave you to do their own thing, or basically force you to go somewhere in particular NOW if you wanted to keep them in your party. More realistic sure, but game mechanic wise I hate being forced into things in my RPG's.   So while I didn't mind DAA's system overall I will concede there is a fine line between realistic and fun gameplay in the system.

Modifié par relhart, 24 mai 2010 - 01:34 .

[Tirigon]

soteria wrote...

I dispute that nighttime around the campfire is special, except in the case where you went camping to get some kind of special bonding experience. That's not the case with our party. You're on a mission, with a long day behind you and another long one ahead of you, and don't have time to hold hands and sing "kum-bay-ya." It kinda makes sense to talk about things back at the fort or in the ship in KoTOR, but a camp isn't really that safe or comfortable of a place.

I disagree with that. Dunno about you, but if I was an such a mission and everything that´s between victory and utter destruction of the entire world I would damn well want to get to know my allies, if only to know whether I can trust them. I mean, none of your companions is the kind of people you would trust on sight, and I surely wouldn´t want a damned drunk who was punished for murder in his hometown (aka Oghren) have fight with me without even knowing him.

[soteria]

^^ Just a last response.



I'm not going to argue that the new system couldn't have been more intuitive and transparent, since that would kinda require contradicting myself. I like what it's trying to do, though. Let's face it, some sections in Origins were just a lot of fighting your way through a dungeon. Others, especially camp, could involve hours of nothing more than pursuing different conversation trees. I'm sure someone will want to lynch me for saying this, but I think the pacing was better in Awakening. I never had the "Is this dungeon ever going to end?" feeling that I got sometimes in Origins my first time through. Part of that, I feel, is that your companions had more to say in those dungeons. However you may feel about people talking while going through a dangerous area, I think the occassional conversation helped to keep me engaged.



And yeah, it was kinda weird that every conversation (except personal quests) was done by clicking on something else. Did I really have to click on the keg to talk to Oghren *every* time, or click on the painting to talk to Nathaniel when he was standing right next to it? Not really, even though it made sense to me in Nathaniel's case. I knew right away we were talking about the painting instead of dismissing it as part of the background.



That said, thanks for being reasonable about this, unlike too many others.

[soteria]

I disagree with that. Dunno about you, but if I was an such a mission and everything that´s between victory and utter destruction of the entire world I would damn well want to get to know my allies, if only to know whether I can trust them. I mean, none of your companions is the kind of people you would trust on sight, and I surely wouldn´t want a damned drunk who was punished for murder in his hometown (aka Oghren) have fight with me without even knowing him.

Eh, I don't know about that. In the military, it's quite different as knowing the men I'm serving with are Marines is enough for me to know they'll do what they need to do. Still, I think from a realism perspective I'm going to care a lot more about how they act here and now than what they or someone else says about their past. People can say anything. How they act when their blood is up or in every day affairs is much more telling than any conversation in a controlled environment could be.



In Origins, you got a much better gauge of Morrigan from taking her with you and seeing her response to different situations than you possibly could from pursuing every dialogue with her in camp. Asking Sten about his immediate history told you a lot less about him as a person than seeing how he responded to different situations. That's why I don't think the campfire interrogations are necessary to get to know someone: you can know a person's history, or what they say their history is, but that doesn't mean you know them.

[balooochi]

Tirigon wrote...

Dalira Montanti wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

We need both systems. In full. But please, make the convos trigger automatically instead of clicking on something.

Afraid of taking someoens eye out with all that clicking? *ok bad joke*
...........................................................................................................................

Naa, taking eyes out would be a nice change to beheading them outright!:devil:
*counter bad joke*

It just seems ridiculous that you need to click the object. As I hear the DAA convo system was meant to make dialogue more lively instead of having everyone wait until you lower yourself to address them; However, it doesn´t. They still wait, only at a tree instead of the camp.

If convos trigger automatically it gives the impression your companion actually talks to you because THEY want.
I always like the few places in DAO where someone talks to you because they want (after Redcliff, e.g.) It´s just more immersive.

yea tht will be real kool!!!

[Brockololly]

soteria wrote...

In Origins, you got a much better gauge of Morrigan from taking her with you and seeing her response to different situations than you possibly could from pursuing every dialogue with her in camp.

Meh, you definitely see one side of Morrigan by taking her with you everywhere, true. Same is true for all of the companions, but there is definite value in being able to talk with them in camp as well in a more personal setting where you can have more private one on one conversations. Morrigan specifically, I'd argue you're only seeing one side of her when you hear most of her dialogue on the road. Enough to get a feel for her character but if you're only judging the character by what you get out and about in the world, you only get a fairly simplistic view of most of the characters. 

But I guess the other half of the equation with Awakening is the entire romance element being missing and how an Awakening style system would or wouldn't work with romances. But thats a whole other issue...

[Tinxa]

Tirigon wrote...

It just seems ridiculous that you need to click the object. As I hear the DAA convo system was meant to make dialogue more lively instead of having everyone wait until you lower yourself to address them; However, it doesn´t. They still wait, only at a tree instead of the camp.

If convos trigger automatically it gives the impression your companion actually talks to you because THEY want.
I always like the few places in DAO where someone talks to you because they want (after Redcliff, e.g.) It´s just more immersive.

 I agree. In DA I liked it most when conversation started by itself, when arriving in Lothering, when the PC has dreams, when Alistair talks to you before arriving in Redcliffe...
It's too easy to miss those clickable objects, it was just chance that I happened to press tab while facing that particular tree to talk to Anders.
I know BG2 is an old game but I liked how the conversations would trigger by themselves. Sure sometimes partymembers decided to talk at strange times and talk about roses while you were in a cave  but I still liked the way the conversations surprised you.

[MistySun]

Automatic triggers by the companions in various places would be better. IE: Arriving at The Arl's castle, Alistair would automatically trigger a convo like>>>You know , i've been thinking...

That kind of thing.

[Catcher]

      I've got a few refinement ideas to throw out for general consumption that I feel address some needs here and (probably) represent the very least of what Bioware is likely already working on, if they haven't found a better method already. As a quick aside, I doubt very seriously that the conversation method in our still theoretical DA2 will look exactly like what is in Awakenings anyway, at least based on David's comments and the fact that Awakenings was an expansion with a very short timeframe to implement something as fundamental to a game like this as the conversation system. That said, here are a couple of thoughts of where things might go...


    None of us really has any problems clicking on objects for many other purposes in a CRPG, even in Origins. I've missed topics on Bioware forcing players to click on chests, bodies, etc. to obtain loot because there have been none. We as players have been conditioned over 12+ years of Bioware releases to scour any battlefield and even unoffending village pathways for loot containers. To extend the idea that I offered MO earlier, what if Bioware put an object that acted as a conversation trigger into a given container? The writer would have a larger variety of triggers to choose from since they wouldn't need a full-on 3D model. The object could also be more pertinent to the conversation thus fired. For an example, consider the Gifts that gave more Approval with certain Companions but didn't have an actual Quest attached. In Origins, all you recieved once you gave the Gift was a bump in Approval and perhaps a small note in the Codex that Companion X likes Y. In this proposal, a Gift like this would trigger a conversation with a Companion starting like "Allistair: Hey! I used to fiddle with a dinglehopper like that back in the monestary,"  with Approval contingent on Conversation choices instead of a flat value on the "Gift".  To be sure, there would be some technical elements to consider/overcome. The objects would have to be marked as Plot Objects so you wouldn't be denied a convo just because you had a full inventory. The developers would also need to consider the non-linear sections, if DA2 has a section similar to DA:O, which seems highly likely. That could probably be addressed by generating the Conversation Object from a pool based on PC level or some other factor when the Container is opened.

     The other idea I'll bring up is one filched from Poster Nazo in [url=http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/9/index/2664330]this Thread[\\url] which would address the problem of 'knowing' who to bring. By placing a small variation on the Companion animation on the Party Selection Screen and moving said screen to the point after you select your destination on the World Map, Bioware could give a clue as to which Companion(s) might have important dialogue along a certain route. Of course, we all might prefer special dialogue for all Companions on all courses, but let's not get too greedy.

Modifié par Catcher, 24 mai 2010 - 09:28 .

[Gecon]

Brockololly wrote...

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?

Yes, exactly, thats much more natural and integrated into the game flow than having to remember "oh wait, I should now go to camp and check out if anyone has new dialogue".

[PanosSmirnakos]

From a soldier's point of view it's more logical & realistic to talk at camp than a battlefield or a zone with potential danger. In my opinion, Awakening's new "innovative" dialogue system was an excuse to hide the much less dialogue offered. It's more like the true reason of Oghren's reappearance... He was added because his voice actor was available and not because he was the most popular.

[Hollingdale]

Lyna357 wrote...

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.

If developers weren't prepared to take the risk of making a new ''New (hahahaha two new's(wait that's three LOL!)) Coke''  we would indeed have solid and polished games (and the fanbase would be pleased). But the payofff is quite massive as a ton of great games would never have seen the light of the day following such conservative reasoning. I will not make a speculative list of games but I dare to speculate that the list would be very long indeed and I dare you to imagine it's potential future lenght should the gaming franchise as a whole grow conservative.

Frankly I think innovations in general should be encouraged even if they can't at first stand uo to the tried and tested methods they often have more potential.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 24 mai 2010 - 10:09 .

[tjmax]

David Gaider wrote...

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

Don't know if you are still watching the thread or not. I just wanted to say. I love Bioware games. Unlike most RPG and almost all MMORPGS, Bioware makes you feel like part of the story.

That is your success. 

 You are story tellers and thats what has been missing in RPG's for a long time. Most games are what i would classify as hack and slash games. Contents quest loot and levels with you just running the paces. 

Its been since the old ultima series since i actually got attached not only my char but cared about the rest of my party.


Regardless to what people think or say or want to see. The story is what makes people passionate about what happens in the future.

Peace and love,

Jane

[Zanderat]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Thanks DG for responding and letting us know that our concerns are heard. 

I think that you may be missing the REAL concern (at least for me).  The conversation system, while not perfect, did allow you to get to know your npcs.  The depth of the writing allowed me, for the first time ever, to feel a connection to game characters.  Awakening had none of that.  This is my concern.  We can only judge your intentions by your actions.  And the double whammy of Awakening and the DS Chronicles, both utterly lacking the very core of what made DOA unique, is troubling.

Modifié par Zanderat, 24 mai 2010 - 10:21 .

[David Gaider]

Zanderat wrote...
I think that you may be missing the REAL concern (at least for me).  The conversation system, while not perfect, did allow you to get to know your npcs.  The depth of the writing allowed me, for the first time ever, to feel a connection to game characters.  Awakening had none of that.  This is my concern.  We can only judge your intentions by your actions.  And the double whammy of Awakening and the DS Chronicles, both utterly lacking the very core of what made DOA unique, is troubling.

I think you may, in part, simply be mistaking the amount of writing that goes into a full game like DAO and the amount that can go into something like an expansion or a tiny piece of DLC. I realize some people had issues with the interface used in Awakening, but even if that interface was what you were used to in Origins that wouldn't change the fact that there was exponentially less dialogue. That's something the "use both systems!' camp seems to forget. The word budget for Awakening was less than a tenth of Origins.

Maybe we shouldn't have tried to introduce new characters with that budget? Maybe. Hindsight is always 20/20, as they say, and our effort was spent trying to present it as well as we could and also innovate a little to try some new things (which we tend to when it comes to expansions). And DLC is going to be even more daring than that-- some are going to be story-driven, some not. Some things work out, some don't, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying-- and using them to extrapolate our intentions for future full-budget games is an interesting exercise, I'm sure, but you're welcome to try.

[pvpgirl]

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.

I see your point but I don't want to talk about that tree. I don't even want to look at that tree. I want to talk to Anders about Anders. I want to know who he is other than a tower hating mage. Perhaps if there were a trigger when you approach the tree the first time with the relevant party member in your group.

Example - you are on approach to Ameranthine, you are within 10 feet or so of the tree. Anders suddenly pipes up "Ooo look at that tree". PC goes ahhh ha! There is a conversation trigger near - and begins holding tab to look for it.

I can't stand Ogrhen. Love Steve Blum's voice acting in many many chartoons. Hate Ogrhen. Party with Ogrhen passes by Chanters Board (or whatever that thing is), Ogrhen pipes up "Hey Warden, can I ask you about something?" PC keeps walking skipping the whole rash conversation.



I would like to toss myself into the camp of 'merge the systems', even though I totally understand that would mean the camp talks dialogue would get drastically reduced. It's still part of what made DAO stand out from other rpg's. Most likely the only thing that keeps me playing it. The depth of each of the characters was amazing. In DAA, some characters you get so little information on, I don't see how you could trust them to have your back in a dire situation. I understand that a lot of that was likely due to the word restriction. It was an interesting experiment, but alone I just don't think it cuts it.



As for the people who detest the camp talks so much, I just want to point out that you in no way have to talk to them. There is no required rounds you have to make to ensure you have gotten every bit of information on every party member for the umpteeth time. Yes, I know the OCD compelles us. But you can skip that crap about this or that and guess what? You still make it to the top of Fort Drakon in time to fight the Archdemon.

[Zanderat]

David Gaider wrote...

Some things work out, some don't, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying-- and using them to extrapolate our intentions for future full-budget games is an interesting exercise, I'm sure, but you're welcome to try.

I am up for the challenge! 

[Fntsybks]

I think that instead of clicking on objects, there should just be automatic conversations. To use a few examples, what if instead of clicking on a tree, Anders just decided to talk to you? For me, that would be a lot more realistic/entertaining than having to click on the tree itself. A good template is the entrance into Kal'Hirol, you just walk up and the conversation starts. That creates a much more engaged feel than having to click on the ridge or the statue. Of course, I would also like to combine this system with the DAO camp talking, although there would be fewer/shorter camp conversations.