101 réponses à ce sujet

[errant_knight]

AlanC9 wrote...

Is full-text dialog really a key part of "the game model"?

It is to me, yes. It's the difference between playing in the first and third person, between being 'myself', and some other guy that I move around the game, who says things I didn't expect.

Modifié par errant_knight, 17 juillet 2010 - 03:47 .

[Heavenblade]

I had almost zero emotional connection with the characters in origins anyways. Unless hatred counts as an emotional connection. Sten constantly jumped between being interesting and annoying, Morrigan was a complete **** and completely impractical so I couldn't really feel anything for her other than antipathy at worst and indifference at best. Alistair was a selfish cry baby who constantly forgot that I was in charge by virtue of him being spineless worm (he's no cailan. Cailan was an idiot, but at least he had a spine.) Oghren was alright, didn't feel strongly one way or another about him though. Lel wasn't very inspiring for a Bard.



In fact, I'll just say which characters I did like and sympathized with without massive heapings of hate: Loghain, Zevran.

[Kimarous]

I just love how people cry "ruined forever" before we've even seen a sample of the system in action...

[casedawgz]

Plain and simple, picking multiple races probably made having a voiced character impossible, and having a voiced character seems very important to the devs. Its their game, so I can deal with it.

[Bryy_Miller]

Lilacs wrote...


P.S. All of our thoughts here should inform Bioware that it needs to pursue the same avenue it utilized in Dragon Age Origins, except to improve the bugs, the graphic to some extent, and to add a bit more heart and interaction in the world that is Dragon Age Origins in DA II.  (Fight like a Spartan, still, fuels my interest in DA II, for I enjoy the gut wrenching fighting action in DAO; I truly enjoy the swordsmanship, and how powerful mages are in both games...  and, oh, let us not forget the codex entries, a true delight   )

Public discussion forum. Not happening.

[Kalfear]

AlanC9 wrote...

Wishpig wrote...
My one prob with ME was, yes, picking something from the dialog wheel and getting a totally diffrent response then what I THOUGHT I would get. After a while I realised if I'm playing a renegade like character, I just pick the last one on the list.

Didn't the manual say that the dialog options were arranged by alignment? It's not something you're supposed to have to figure out.

And as an old-school RPG gamer myself, I don't see much advantage to the full-text system. If anything, it produces more mismatches between what I'm trying to say and what the game thinks my character is saying

What a JA answer
As a OLDER School RPG gamer I totally see the advantage to full text system and Wish is 110% correct on how you never quite knew what your were saying with ME dialog wheel!

Quit trolling and making false statements

[Kalfear]

errant_knight wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Is full-text dialog really a key part of "the game model"?

It is to me, yes. It's the difference between playing in the first and third person, between being 'myself', and some other guy that I move around the game, who says things I didn't expect.

Well said Knight and I agree

Your never going to get C9 to understand this cause he doesnt understand what emotional connection to your character and surroundings is.

He thinks if you read about it, you have it

[errant_knight]

Kalfear wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Is full-text dialog really a key part of "the game model"?

It is to me, yes. It's the difference between playing in the first and third person, between being 'myself', and some other guy that I move around the game, who says things I didn't expect.

Well said Knight and I agree

Your never going to get C9 to understand this cause he doesnt understand what emotional connection to your character and surroundings is.

He thinks if you read about it, you have it

Let me put it this way.... When you go see a Spiderman movie, you don't feel like you are Spiderman, you're just watching him, Even if you picked the general type of response he gave, you'd still be watching him. On the other hand, if you didn't see or hear an actor, if you picked each line he said, directly, you would.

That's a little off because a movie isn't an interactive experience, but that's the jist. The comparison also brings up the point that the more cinematic a game is, the less of an interactive/gameplay experience it is, and the more it's like a movie. Something you watch, not live.

[AlanC9]

Right, because anyone who actually understands the issue has to agree with you, Kalfear. (/sarcasm)

I can't help it that some player's ability to form an emotional connection with PCs is blocked if there's a voice attached to the PC. But since I'm not limited in that way, I just don't have that problem.

errant_knight I'll take a little more seriously.

I simply don't see that picking options that cause the character to speak is any less interactive than picking the full text of the response myself. In terms of what happens in the game it's obviously exactly the same thing. As for what's happening in my head, I find the process to be more natural. Shepard feels like less of a puppet than my DA characters do. More like an extension of myself. When I need to ask someone a question, I generally don't form the phrase of the question in my mind and then spit that text out. I just intend to ask the question, and then .... ask a question.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 juillet 2010 - 06:15 .

[Grommash94]

Them adding the dialogue wheel was, well, weird, I admit, seeing how DA:O was very successful. I think though, if it is done well, it would be OK, if not as immersive as the regular silent hero.



David did say, in some thread, that talking to companions would be a combination of DA:A and DA:O, so hopefully it will take the best features of both.



Maybe it is just me, but I don't that just because the game will fully voiced and have a dialogue wheel that it will be less epic, or deep than the previous. Seeing as the story will be different, as for once you won't stopping an ancient evil or saving the world, I think there a lot of possibilities for this game to become even BETTER than the first one. But only if BioWare does it right. Have a little faith guys.

[errant_knight]

AlanC9 wrote...

Right, because anyone who actually understands the issue has to agree with you, Kalfear. (/sarcasm)

I can't help it that some player's ability to form an emotional connection with PCs is blocked if there's a voice attached to the PC. But since I'm not limited in that way, I just don't have that problem.

Well, it's one thing to feel that way and say so. Like you did just then. It's another to ask rhertorical questions that you aren't interested in the answer to. If that's all you're doing, just state your opinion instead of wasting my time.

[Lintanis]

In the gameinformer article on DA2, Bioware said they felt hampered by having a silent character

"Hawke is a more defined character than the Warden from the previous game. He/she is human, but this allows BioWare to provide voice acting for the character, a cue taken from BioWare's Mass Effect franchise. BioWare felt limited by keeping the Warden mute". 

Modifié par Lintanis, 17 juillet 2010 - 06:19 .

[AlanC9]

See my edit above, e-k.



I'll confess that I didn't see how fundamental this issue is to you, because form my perspective these are just different means of doing the exact same thing. My question was not rhetorical; I didn't think that you were really going there.

[saruman85]

errant_knight wrote...
There's nothing more alienating than trying to talk to a character and have them refuse. It's bad enough when it's on the road--real people don't refuse to speak because they're busy walking--and it's unforgivable in camp. 'So, here we are back at the Vigil.... How are you feeling? Go away, I'm busy.' Yeah, good friends....

This.

It's really, really bad. But for some reason Bioware don't seem to be listening to all the fans saying they hate it, either because they want to save money or they want to cater to the ADHD hack-slash cutscenes-are-stupid crowd. The worst thing in Awakening for me was Velanna going "ugh" when I tried talking to her, and yet when we pass some random tree in Amaranthine she wanted to talk.

[Grommash94]

saruman85 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
There's nothing more alienating than trying to talk to a character and have them refuse. It's bad enough when it's on the road--real people don't refuse to speak because they're busy walking--and it's unforgivable in camp. 'So, here we are back at the Vigil.... How are you feeling? Go away, I'm busy.' Yeah, good friends....

This.

It's really, really bad. But for some reason Bioware don't seem to be listening to all the fans saying they hate it, either because they want to save money or they want to cater to the ADHD hack-slash cutscenes-are-stupid crowd. The worst thing in Awakening for me was Velanna going "ugh" when I tried talking to her, and yet when we pass some random tree in Amaranthine she wanted to talk.

David said they wouldn't be using that same system in DA2, so, (hopefully) we won't have to worry about the conversation being immersion breaking.

[casedawgz]

Can it wait for a bit? I'm in the middle of some calibrations.

[errant_knight]

AlanC9 wrote...

See my edit above, e-k.

I'll confess that I didn't see how fundamental this issue is to you, because form my perspective these are just different means of doing the exact same thing. My question was not rhetorical; I didn't think that you were really going there.

Okay, that's cool. Read your edit above, and we can disagree when you meant your question seriously. We just see gameplay differently. I don't feel the same immersion when playing in the third person. You do. That's okay. It's why some people enjoyed Mass Effect, and I couldn't get into it. I don't want to take away from that. It's good that there are games for everyone. I just want there to keep being games for everyone, which means I want Dragon Age to stay first person. Did I get my point across about why they aren't the same thing to me?

Modifié par errant_knight, 17 juillet 2010 - 06:35 .

[Biserthebomb]

NO. Dragon Age 2 will thrive by severing itself from overused characters that have had their time in the limelight.

[saruman85]

Lilacs wrote...

Grommash94  wrote:
David said they wouldn't be using that same system in DA2, so, (hopefully) we won't have to worry about the conversation being immersion breaking.

We can only hope.

Seconded! Thanks Grom, I wasn't aware he'd been so specific.

Modifié par saruman85, 17 juillet 2010 - 06:44 .

[ArcanistLibram]

Here's the thing that's been bothering me about Origins ever since Awakening came out: It is not a self-contained game. Origins was all about the Blight and the Warden's story was insignficant compared to the defeat of the Archdemon. The Warden's personal decisions, such as the Godbaby, love interests and the choice of monarch, did not have any significant impact on the story's outcome because they were irrelevant to the defeat of the Blight. It doesn't matter who's on the throne, the Archdemon still attacks Denerim and it's still defeated in the end. All of the side-plots that were important to the Warden but not to Blight were resolved in the Epilogues.



And then Awakening came out.



In order to accomodate the large number of personal choices in Origin, Awakening had to be kept as broad and generic as possible and avoided references to Origins. You put your search for Morrigan on hold for a few months or you leave Zevran behind while you do your thing and once the game is over, you're right back where you started at the end of Origins. These are all issues that should have been resolved in Origins and that are extremely difficult to address in expansions or DLC. The only way to do it would be to release an expansion pack that has short stories for all the possible outcomes of Origins.



By making Hawke his own character and making the story about him, that problem goes away. All of the subplots can be resolved within the game itself and all of the player's decisions can have a significant impact on the story and radically alter the player's experience.

[Altima Darkspells]

@BioWare Apologists requesting that we 'give the game a chance'--I would ask, how? Should we just go ahead and purchase the game only to be disappointed with it? On the other hand, if the released information has already disappointed some people by changing their favorite aspects of DAO, they do have the right to voice their disappointment.



@Original Poster: Have you ever played any Obsidian games? Certain Obsidian innovations happen to find themselves in BioWare games from time to time. Such as high approval giving mechanical bonuses. Then being able to view what your approval was on a numerical scale. Oh, and let's not forget the 'mood' addition to the conversational wheel. Granted, these are merely natural progressions, but since Obsidian tends to do it first, it's not adequate to say that BioWare is *always* two steps ahead.



As I've said before, part of Origins' original marketing campaign (pre-EA, I might add) was that it was supposed to be very traditional, and it was. And it sold really well. Now, I'm sure EA's marketing department would like to take all the credit with their bait and switch This Is The New **** campaign, but over three million copies aren't sold by cheap tactics. There is a market for traditional games. Now, it seems, that BioWare is completely abandoning its roots with a sequel coming out, what, eighteen months after the original? That seems to have more in common with ME2 than Baldur's Gate.



To me, it seems, the problem is that there really is no competition in RPGs anymore, CRPGs, anyway. The only competition BioWare really has anymore is Obsidian, and that company gets screwed by the publisher so often that it's not even funny. When publishers think RPGs, they only see MMOs and dollar signs, and immediately want a piece of Jerkass Blizzard's WoW cake. But the cake is a lie.



So, in essence, BioWare can get aware with recycling the same things over and over. No one's going to call them out over it, either, because you either have what they feed you or you starve.

[errant_knight]

ArcanistLibram wrote...

Here's the thing that's been bothering me about Origins ever since Awakening came out: It is not a self-contained game. Origins was all about the Blight and the Warden's story was insignficant compared to the defeat of the Archdemon. The Warden's personal decisions, such as the Godbaby, love interests and the choice of monarch, did not have any significant impact on the story's outcome because they were irrelevant to the defeat of the Blight. It doesn't matter who's on the throne, the Archdemon still attacks Denerim and it's still defeated in the end. All of the side-plots that were important to the Warden but not to Blight were resolved in the Epilogues.

And then Awakening came out.

In order to accomodate the large number of personal choices in Origin, Awakening had to be kept as broad and generic as possible and avoided references to Origins. You put your search for Morrigan on hold for a few months or you leave Zevran behind while you do your thing and once the game is over, you're right back where you started at the end of Origins. These are all issues that should have been resolved in Origins and that are extremely difficult to address in expansions or DLC. The only way to do it would be to release an expansion pack that has short stories for all the possible outcomes of Origins.

By making Hawke his own character and making the story about him, that problem goes away. All of the subplots can be resolved within the game itself and all of the player's decisions can have a significant impact on the story and radically alter the player's experience.

No, it wasn't a self-contained game--which seemed good. It seemed like choices would have repercussions down the road. That may still be true, but it also seems more likely that all the dangling plot ends that led people to believe there would be a direct sequel, may be left to dangle. I have no doubt that the Morrigan plotline will appear again, but there were many, many other things that may not be, and probably not by the people to whom it most matters, but others in some other part of the world. The choices were only irrelevant if you consider the blight to be the only thing that mattered. I don't consider that to be the case at all.

It matters what happens to characters you care about. Yes, they needed to defeat the blight, but other things matter too. That's like saying the only thing that matters is your job, because it's what puts food in your mouth and a roof over your head--your relationships are meaningless. Not so. Things that aren't about survival are important, too.

Awakening didn't have to be as generic as it was. They made the choice to make it so. They made it fairly short, and cut conversation to the bone, creating an expansion that was much more about the fights and forced decisions than Origins. It had neither the depth of emotion, not the replayability of the original. But it didn't have to be that way. The ruler could have stuck around, at least for a while. We could have had more interaction with our companions, which would have been much more satisfying. The letters from love interests could have been kept instead of cut, and now added again. You couldn't deal with characters who were gone, like Morrigan, but there was no reason to completely ignore the others. If they were going to have a companion make a cameo, why not actually DO something with it. What if There's been anothe attack after Alistair arrived, and he fought at your side, at least for that battle. Or you had to protect Anora and get her to safety? What if Wynne came with you for that sidequest she gave, then took off? Just because it was that way doeesn't mean it had to be.

Addendum: I really think we can disagree about these things without using loaded terms to describe each other, like 'apologists.'

Modifié par errant_knight, 17 juillet 2010 - 08:21 .