405 réponses à ce sujet

[CybAnt1]

I'm sorry. Having written out dialogue means the "lines" for my characters can express long, deep, complex thoughts.



Now, who knows, maybe Shepard - excuse me Hawke - is going to be "about" to say something long and complex, but I have to intuit what it's going to be based on the cues of wheel position (position must matter, or they wouldn't be using a wheel -- so there may be no "morality meter" but I'm sure position will determine nice/nasty), a short paraphrase, and an icon.



I'm sorry. I'd still rather see what I'm about to say. Even if it does bug people to hear what they just picked; it wouldn't bother me.



If the wheel has six spokes, then there are only six possible kinds of statements I can make at any given point. In a text menu system, there could be ten or twelve possible options. Now, granted, I *know* it was pretty rare to have that many, and that many lines essentially generated the same result, so they weren't different from a "practical" point of view. Still, I don't see why anyone can't see the move to a wheel must, by necessity, constrain options.



The bottom line is, as I keep saying, if I know, let's say, every time I pick the upper left corner of the wheel, and a angry face icon pops up, I'm about to say a mean/angry statement, I don't even have to read the paraphrase. It's no longer become a matter of thinking of my dialogue in terms of statements and responses; it's become a tone poem of position & icons.

[soteria]

I certainly like some of them (aspect of 3D art, animations up to a point), but beyond that a lot of them look like turd-polishing. Once the combat animations reach a certain level of sophisitication (particularly in a game with stat-driven combat), is there any value in "improving" them further? Fighting games or shooters can reasonably claim that improved visuals and physics are relevant to gameplay, but with stat-driven RPGs I really don't see it.

Well, I don't think either of us are really arguing about whether the graphics in DA need to be improved. The relevant question is whether things that can be rendered should be.

And I disagree. As soom as what you say is true, then you're not roleplaying anymore. And if I'm not roleplaying, then I'm not having any fun.

I think you're ignoring the subtle difference between role-playing any character you choose and role-playing within set limits. It's still RP, simply with a smaller scope for variety, because you are limited by the dialogue options you are given.

[soteria]

If the wheel has six spokes, then there are only six possible kinds of statements I can make at any given point. In a text menu system, there could be ten or twelve possible options. Now, granted, I *know* it was pretty rare to have that many, and that many lines essentially generated the same result, so they weren't different from a "practical" point of view. Still, I don't see why anyone can't see the move to a wheel must, by necessity, constrain options.

I'm pretty sure that if you pay attention, you'll find that DA:O never allowed you more than six choices. I could be wrong, but if so it's only one or two exceptions. Four choices seemed to be the most common.

[joriandrake]

soteria wrote...

If the wheel has six spokes, then there are only six possible kinds of statements I can make at any given point. In a text menu system, there could be ten or twelve possible options. Now, granted, I *know* it was pretty rare to have that many, and that many lines essentially generated the same result, so they weren't different from a "practical" point of view. Still, I don't see why anyone can't see the move to a wheel must, by necessity, constrain options.

I'm pretty sure that if you pay attention, you'll find that DA:O never allowed you more than six choices. I could be wrong, but if so it's only one or two exceptions. Four choices seemed to be the most common.

this is true, DA1 already had much less choices than the Baldur's Gate series

Modifié par joriandrake, 12 juillet 2010 - 10:00 .

[Chuvvy]

Anathemic wrote...

Mary Kirby wrote...

I haven't played Alpha Protocol yet,
so I can't compare the DA2 system with theirs. However, it looks like
you've got the gist of the new system. You have a wheel like Mass
Effect's, and when you move over a selection, you get an icon in the
center of the wheel that indicates the intent of the player line:
Flirty, violent, sarcastic, etc.

That doesn't sound that bad. At least you wont be suprised when something happens. I'm okay with this.

[DanaScu]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Selerz wrote...
3. Be able to choose answer after each line.

Right at the beginning of ME2, there's actually a wheel event where the option you choose actually controls the behaviour of OTHER CHARACTERS.

If you choose the neutral option, Shepard says something.  If you chose the Renegade option, Kaidan (or Ashley, whichever is there) says something first, and then you reply.

In that moment, ME2 makes it perfectly clear that you're just directing a story, rather than taking part in it.

Like an interactive movie, rather than a game. <_<

I wonder if any of the devs have noticed how many people, who followed DA from the beginning on the old forum, who intentionally went out and bought the game PRECISELY BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO  BE "THE SUCESSOR TO BG" and we wanted a great GAME to play, not a sweeping cinematic semi-interactive movie to watch after clicking upper right hint, lower left hint, pulling out a weapon and shooting teh bad guy.

If DA had been done like ME from the beginning, I wouldn't be annoyed about DA2, since I would never have bought DA in the first place.

Again, way back in the beginning, I looked at the ME forum, thought it looked interesting, then saw it was for the 360 only, and promptly forgot about it. I had my suspicions that eventually Bioware would release it for pc, and I would pay attention to it then. The last xbox exclusive took two years to move from xbox exclusive to pc, so I didn't bother to check every day on the forums. I was paying a lot more attention to the "originally unnamed project" that ended up being called Dragon Age. You see, it was supposed to be an "old-fashioned" traditional rgp for the pc, from devs who had made fantastic traditional games in the past. I lurked on the forums a lot. Dragon Age was one of the few games I was actually anticipating. I was even willing to hope that EA couldn't screw up a game that had been in development for so long before they bought the company. I guess that possibility is gone now. Awakening was EABioware, and that changed from DA:O, and not in a good way, for me. DA2 is EABioware. While the game may be good, it isn't the traditional "old fashioned" game being made anymore. It seems to be a cinematic experience with semi-interactive bits in between the "cinematics", imo.

Yes, I know there isn't that much information available yet. Seeing the repeated use of phrases like"cinematic experience" and statements like "Dragon Age 2 will simultaneously deliver an epic story and set a new bar
for intense action in the genre." makes me doubt they are talking about a traditional rpg though. Which genre? Role-playing games, or shooters that have a story? I should probably also mention that, given the cinematic thing, and the intense action thing, the very first thing that came to mind with "Think like a general fight like a Spartan" wasn't the ancient Greek warrior; it was Master Chief. And I don't even play Halo.

This is going to be a "wait and see" game for me. Your mileage may vary.

Modifié par DanaScu, 12 juillet 2010 - 10:11 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

I'm pretty sure that if you pay attention, you'll find that DA:O never allowed you more than six choices. I could be wrong, but if so it's only one or two exceptions. Four choices seemed to be the most common.

Though KotOR did go as high as eight.

I see no reason why there should be a hard cap, even with a wheel.  Regardless of platform, we're selecting options with what is effectively an analog tool.  There could be 20 and it would still work.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 juillet 2010 - 10:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

I think you're ignoring the subtle difference between role-playing any character you choose and role-playing within set limits. It's still RP, simply with a smaller scope for variety, because you are limited by the dialogue options you are given.

In a CRPG there are always limits, as we're forced to choose from among the pre-written options (even if we view those options as abstractions, there are still only so many things they can mean).

The problem arises when we're roleplaying within limits of which we're unaware, and then we run into those limits unexpectedly.

As an example, let's look at NWN2.  Right at the beginning, you're told to go to Neverwinter, and it is suggested that you take a ship, as the "High Road" will be too dangerous.  Well, my first character was particularly brazen, and he didn't care about those warnings, so he decided to take the High Road.

Except the High Road didn't exist.  Obsidian hadn't actually built the High Road, or even any blocked path that claimed to lead to the High Road.  The NPCs went on and on about this road, but it wasn't real.  Gods that was annoying.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The problem arises when we're roleplaying within limits of which we're unaware, and then we run into those limits unexpectedly.

You really ought to know well in advance what you're going to get in a CRPG. Especially considering you are well aware that the writiers have to write everything before you ever get to touch it and can't change anything after you get your hands on it.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
As an example, let's look at NWN2.  Right at the beginning, you're told to go to Neverwinter, and it is suggested that you take a ship, as the "High Road" will be too dangerous.  Well, my first character was particularly brazen, and he didn't care about those warnings, so he decided to take the High Road.

Except the High Road didn't exist.  Obsidian hadn't actually built the High Road, or even any blocked path that claimed to lead to the High Road.  The NPCs went on and on about this road, but it wasn't real.  Gods that was annoying.

This sounds like a prime example of a problem that exists mostly in your own head. You found it annoying. What exactly did you expect the writers or devs to do? Should they have completely left out that bit of exposition for fear of the players that would want to violate what obviously a plot device? Should they have created an entire new route, making development longer or possibly shortening the game elsewere? Should they have put a monster there that you had absolutely  no chance of beating? Would any of those been less annoying? 

[AlanC9]

They couldn't just leave the road out. People who are familiar with the FR know that a land route exists.

[the_one_54321]

Yes, that would be my point. Sometimes options have to suffer for exposition. If you can't get over that, the problem is more with you than elsewhere.

[Orfinn]

I say why the heck not? You only got to play as one human dude or dudette, not choosing from other races. That means less cost for hiring voice actors. It would be too time consuming I think, if they had to hire 2 genders x 3 races, 6 voice actors just for DAO 2. So I at least welcome this change big time, I loved ME conversation wheel and mix that with an improved DA battle system. Best of both worlds thank you!

Modifié par Orfinn, 12 juillet 2010 - 10:59 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

This sounds like a prime example of a problem that exists mostly in your own head. You found it annoying. What exactly did you expect the writers or devs to do? Should they have completely left out that bit of exposition for fear of the players that would want to violate what obviously a plot device? Should they have created an entire new route, making development longer or possibly shortening the game elsewere? Should they have put a monster there that you had absolutely  no chance of beating? Would any of those been less annoying? 

The unbeatable monster would have worked, though I think the cheapest solution would have been a road sign next to an impassable barricade.

[soteria]

The problem arises when we're roleplaying within limits of which we're unaware, and then we run into those limits unexpectedly.

As an example, let's look at NWN2. Right at the beginning, you're told to go to Neverwinter, and it is suggested that you take a ship, as the "High Road" will be too dangerous. Well, my first character was particularly brazen, and he didn't care about those warnings, so he decided to take the High Road.

Except the High Road didn't exist. Obsidian hadn't actually built the High Road, or even any blocked path that claimed to lead to the High Road. The NPCs went on and on about this road, but it wasn't real. Gods that was annoying.

Well, illusionary and forced choices have always annoyed me, too. Including that one... my first character was a dwarf fighter who for a lot of reasons would have preferred the high road. Now, I have my limits, because the writers already have an idea of the basic story they want to tell, and I'm fine with that. To continue with NWN2, you always had to go to Neverwinter. You couldn't just say "I don't care about this," unless you were willing to quit the game.

But to get back on topic, for dialogue options, as long as I have enough choices to conceivably get three or four "unique" replays out of it, I'm fine. KotOR, NWN, and ME disappointed me in that regard, though I still enjoyed the heck out of them once or twice. KotOR especially really annoys me if I try to replay it, because of the extreme contrast between LS and DS and how hard it is to be neutral.

This sounds like a prime example of a problem that exists mostly in your own head. You found it annoying. What exactly did you expect the writers or devs to do? Should they have completely left out that bit of exposition for fear of the players that would want to violate what obviously a plot device? Should they have created an entire new route, making development longer or possibly shortening the game elsewere? Should they have put a monster there that you had absolutely no chance of beating? Would any of those been less annoying?

I can't speak for Sylvius, but yes. I would rather have gone down the road and gotten killed by swarms of monsters and be forced to go the "right" way than just be told, "You can go the safe way, or the dangerous way, but you're going to go the safe way."

[FearMonkey]

Orfinn wrote...

I say why the heck not? You only got to play as one human dude or dudette, not choosing from other races. That means less cost for hiring voice actors. It would be too time consuming I think, if they had to hire 2 genders x 3 races, 6 voice actors just for DAO 2. So I at least welcome this change big time, I loved ME conversation wheel and mix that with an improved DA battle system. Best of both worlds thank you!

I think they could have had 6 different voices if they wanted to.  The problem, IMO, is with the 360 version.  The 360 DVDs can only fit so much data on them.  Meanwhile it doesn't matter how many discs the PC version is, it all gets installed on to the hard drive and the PS3 has a blu-ray drive which can store as much as 10 DVDs.  So the weakest link for having 6 different voices is really the low disc space on the 360.  Otherwise I think we could've theoretically had male/female voices for a Human, Dwarf, and Elf characters, story-limitations not withstanding.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

I only ask because I've seen at least 3 different posts by David Gaider saying that while it is similar to ME it is NOT the same. Which would make it different than what you have seen correct?

They've given us one piece of information about how it's different (the emotion icon), and that piece of information seems to make the problem worse (and less fixable simply by removing the PC voice).

I actually think the emotion thing could work...if the emotion choice and the line choice were separate.  Of course, I advocated for a similar thing prior to the release of DA, asking for a drop down "tone" list that could be associated with the various dialogue choices.

Sadly, voice acting probably makes this impossible, as the cost of voicing all the different combinations of line and tone would be prohibitive.

Another strike against voice acting, I suppose.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I actually think the emotion thing could work...if the emotion choice and the line choice were separate.

Of course.  If the two were uncoupled so we could choose from a range of possible emotions for every possible line, that would be fine.

Another strike against voice acting, I suppose.

Like we needed another one.

[Wynne]

Doing the dialogue wheel isn't going to bother me, not as long as they make it CLEAR what you're doing. "Flirty"... the flirty options should either be consistent, predictable-ish in context, or clearly delineated. I mean, I just want to know whether I'm saying something along the lines of, "nice hair," "Do you think I could handle your sword *eyebrow waggle", or "Let's go upstairs to my room and do the Dragon Age tango!"



Other than that, I don't mind this at all. I hope they put their own mark on the style, but if you see the difference between the way Mass Effect does it and the way Alpha Protocol does it, you'll realize pretty fast that such is almost inevitable. This won't feel like just a mere medieval copy of ME, it will be the DAO writer team doing it their way. The spirit is the same, but the execution will be DA-style.

[IronVanguard]

I have figured out the truth!

It is... a SPHERE! A great sphere of choice and personality.

But due to limitations in technology and imagination, we can only comprehend two dimensions of it.



Thus, a circle.

[CybAnt1]

I'm pretty sure that if you pay attention, you'll find that DA:O never allowed you more than six choices.  

I would agree, but my point was, a menu with a number of choices can, at least, theoretically, offer any number of choices between 1. and X, X essentially being any number.

A wheel with n number of segments is limited to those n choices. From what I can see, if it's like the ME wheel, then n=6. 

It's a limit being imposed on the game that wasn't there before. 

[Morroian]

CybAnt1 wrote...

I'm sorry. Having written out dialogue means the "lines" for my characters can express long, deep, complex thoughts.

Now, who knows, maybe Shepard - excuse me Hawke - is going to be "about" to say something long and complex, but I have to intuit what it's going to be based on the cues of wheel position (position must matter, or they wouldn't be using a wheel -- so there may be no "morality meter" but I'm sure position will determine nice/nasty), a short paraphrase, and an icon.

From what I understand there will be a paraphrase of some length so you will have a pretty good idea of what the character is going to say. As has been said elsewhere having the exact dialogue written then spoken is redundant.

[soteria]

But the limit was there before. If they were never going to use more than 6 options, what does it matter if the graphic for the wheel shows the arbitrary limit? "In theory" is irrelevant because in practice more than six choices wasn't going to happen anyway. And again, I'm not sure that more than six choices was ever really an important feature in games that allowed it. The few times I remember it done in BG2 were riddles... and the right answer would have still been easy to guess if they had doubled the options.

[CybAnt1]

That doesn't seem to be the way Mass Effect does it apparently. Therefore, I would say, I would accept this to the extent that it's NOT based on the ME system.



How long can the paraphrase be; it would have to be a short line attached to a wheel segment.



The absence of morality meter, and the tone icons are interesting, but I really admit I will be skeptical until I see more about how the system will be implemented. I don't like the implementation in Mass Effect, and can see the reasons why others don't, as well.

[Anathemic]

Another update: http://xbox360.ign.c.../1108057p1.html
"We also got to see the new conversation system. Dialogue has been
simplified so that you only have up to three choices. Each choice is
represented by an icon that indicates whether or it's a "good,"
"nasty," or "badass" choice. Good choices are represented by an olive
branch, nasty by a Greek comedy mask, and badass by a red fist. This is
an easy way to gauge what response your dialogue choices will produce."


Alright, even though this article is bull**** a fallicy, there is some (hard to believe) some basis here. Even though the devs confirmed that we will be able to have 6 dialogue options at most, I think it's safe to say that throughout hte majority of the game we will have 3 (simaler to Mass Effect).

[Heimdall]

Anathemic wrote...

Another update: http://xbox360.ign.c.../1108057p1.html
"We also got to see the new conversation system. Dialogue has been
simplified so that you only have up to three choices. Each choice is
represented by an icon that indicates whether or it's a "good,"
"nasty," or "badass" choice. Good choices are represented by an olive
branch, nasty by a Greek comedy mask, and badass by a red fist. This is
an easy way to gauge what response your dialogue choices will produce."


Alright, even though this article is bull**** a fallicy, there is some (hard to believe) some basis here. Even though the devs confirmed that we will be able to have 6 dialogue options at most, I think it's safe to say that throughout hte majority of the game we will have 3 (simaler to Mass Effect).

How do you come to that conclusion based off an article that you admit is bull and whos writer apparently only veiwed an instance or two of the system