60 réponses à ce sujet

[Taleroth]

Considering 9 out of 10 dialogue prompts in those other games you mentioned are all equally informed, questioning the point of it is not going to lead you to anywhere satisfactory. In ME2 you might have gotten one inequality per mission.

The rest were just expressions of tone or intent.  The demo is a fine example of this fact.  It has no inequal options.

Modifié par Taleroth, 23 février 2011 - 11:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

It looks like we have no persuade skill in DA2, and that our ability to be influential/persuasive with party members/NPCs depends on our party composition and dialogue options rather than a persuade skill. 

I like this change.  I think this is a good change.

I think this makes the game work more like how actual persuasion works in the real world, which is to say it doesn't.

Let no one say I am always negative.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I think this makes the game work more like how actual persuasion works in the real world, which is to say it doesn't.

Sure it does.  When you are capable of persuading someone they have incentives they may not have been consciously aware of before.

It's still pretty much based on the incentive though.

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I think this makes the game work more like how actual persuasion works in the real world, which is to say it doesn't.

Sure it does.  When you are capable of persuading someone they have incentives they may not have been consciously aware of before.

It's still pretty much based on the incentive though.

Would it count as Godwinning the thread if I mention Hitler here?

[Rimfrost]

The coersion option was cool in DA:O but simplistic. You either had it or you didn't. I would like another option better where you as a player would have to pick the right option and or party members and or timing. My fear is that they have removed a lot of it i.e the outcome of the dialouge will always be the same. Let's hope not

[upsettingshorts]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Would it count as Godwinning the thread if I mention Hitler here?

Depends how in depth you would be going into the socioeconomic and political state of the late Weimar Republic and the German people at that time.  Since I assume you wouldn't be that thorough, I would say - yeah, that'd count as a Godwin.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 février 2011 - 11:07 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I think this makes the game work more like how actual persuasion works in the real world, which is to say it doesn't.

Sure it does.  When you are capable of persuading someone they have incentives they may not have been consciously aware of before.

It's still pretty much based on the incentive though.

Isn't that convincing and not persuading?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sure it does.  When you are capable of persuading someone they have incentives they may not have been consciously aware of before.

Yes, but given the knowledge of the relevant incentives, anyone can do that.

[Annoyed Dragon]

Maconbar wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Taleroth wrote...
Why are you assuming they're going to present options that are inequally informed?  Why would they do that?

Because they've done that in just about every BioWare RPG   I think if something's a pattern for that long, it's not unreasonable to assume it might be in the next game.

All of BioWare's RPGs to date have had dialogues in which some options are available to an informed PC and not to others.  Everything from INT/WIS/CHA checks in Baldur's Gate to persuade checks in NWN to Coercion, Survival, etc. checks in DA:O and Paragon/Renegade checks in ME2.  Think about it--if all the dialogue options were equally informed, what would be the point of having different dialogue options?  The inequality is what makes them interesting.

I am pretty sure that BW has indicated that new dialogue choices will open up based on your dominant voice.

I remmber that in a forum, it depends on both the dominant personality and the continuation of intent choices with the npc you are talking to.

For example if your dominate personality is diplomatic and you picked mostly diplomatic intents with the person you are talking to a extra diplomatic option would appear causing either a strong diplomatic talk with the individual or some action to take place.

Though sadly I can't remmber which forum BW said this in.

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Isn't that convincing and not persuading?

They have similar definitions. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, but given the knowledge of the relevant incentives, anyone can do that.

Indeed.  But acquiring that knowledge, or being clever enough to make a reasoned guess - can be tricky, or at the very least require real prior effort. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 février 2011 - 11:12 .

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Would it count as Godwinning the thread if I mention Hitler here?

Depends how in depth you would be going into the socioeconomic and political state of the late Weimar Republic and the German people at that time.  Since I assume you wouldn't be that thorough, I would say - yeah, that'd count as a Godwin.

All I'm saying is he was a persuasive dude. Whatever else was going on in Germany, it takes a lot of ranks in Diplomacy to channel an entire nation's depression, fear, and hopelessness the way he did. I'm not convinced that you can do that just by talking really loudly. Dominating a room is talent, a community a gift, but an entire nation? It's no wonder people think he magicked them into it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Isn't that convincing and not persuading?

They have similar definitions. 

The way I understand it, persuading is an appeal to emotions. Convincing is an appeal to reason. 
But anyways, nit-picking.

@ the OP
I am kind of interested in the change. It sounds similar to Alpha Protocol's system, which I think was the jewel of the game. And it's still better than the ME2 system, where it's based on how renegade or paragon you are (which doesn't make sense and discourages playing something in between).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 février 2011 - 11:20 .

[upsettingshorts]

It worked partly because he said what they wanted to hear. Their present state was not their fault, his party could fix it, they had outsiders to blame, and they could be relevant and take pride in themselves again.  Also jobs.  Jobs jobs jobs. The incentive he was capable of leveraging was the promise that he could reverse the ill tide that had befallen their country in the aftermath of the First World War.

That is of course, a gross oversimplification. That he was effective in getting that message across is remarkable, but the incentive was still what mattered. And it was as valuable and useful as it was because the situation in the late Weimar Republic was desperate and by all accounts pretty awful.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 février 2011 - 11:17 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Indeed.  But acquiring that knowledge, or being clever enough to make a reasoned guess - can be tricky, or at the very least require real prior effort.

I think making that reasoned guess is the player's job, since only the player knows what sort of guess that character would make.

[JamesX]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sure it does.  When you are capable of persuading someone they have incentives they may not have been consciously aware of before.

Yes, but given the knowledge of the relevant incentives, anyone can do that.

Get an abrasive person who has absolutely no charm or respect for others trying to convince a merchant to make a sale at a steep discount (though some profit) vs a person with tact and acurem.  
The difference would be striking.
And the underling incentive is the same - you still make some profits.

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It worked partly because he said what they wanted to hear. Their present state was not their fault, his party could fix it, they had outsiders to blame, and they could be relevant and take pride in themselves again.  Also jobs.  Jobs jobs jobs. The incentive he was capable of leveraging was the promise that he could reverse the ill tide that had befallen their country in the aftermath of the First World War.

That is of course, a gross oversimplification. That he was effective in getting that message across is remarkable, but the incentive was still what mattered. And it was as valuable and useful as it was because the situation in the late Weimar Republic was desperate and by all accounts pretty awful.

On-topic: you should be able to win every persuade check by offering the character a job.

[upsettingshorts]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

On-topic: you should be able to win every persuade check by offering the character a job.

If they've been unemployed for a while and have bills, family to take care of - yes, that could do it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

On-topic: you should be able to win every persuade check by offering the character a job.

If they've been unemployed for a while and have bills, family to take care of - yes, that could do it.

That's one way to become the Champion of Kirkwall. Lots of refugees afterall.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 février 2011 - 11:22 .

[STARSBarry]

hmm will there be an option to punch any character that says "cant this wait a bit champion im in the middle of some calibrations?"

Modifié par STARSBarry, 23 février 2011 - 11:23 .

[NightmarezAbound]

I have a feeling like in ME2, when you become higher pargaon/renegade... that maybe depending on where your friendship/rivalry, will open new dialogue choices on the wheel. this would give you with high friendship a better chance to persuade your comrades, and with your rivals, have to bark orders to keep them in line. guess we shall have to wait and see.

[Morroian]

Rimfrost wrote...

The coersion option was cool in DA:O but simplistic. You either had it or you didn't. I would like another option better where you as a player would have to pick the right option and or party members and or timing. My fear is that they have removed a lot of it i.e the outcome of the dialouge will always be the same. Let's hope not

I thought the devs have said it works exactly as you've described.

[Amioran]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

In the DA2 system, it looks like the same situation would require the PLAYER to decide which dialogue option would be most likely to persuade Alistair.  At first glance, it's not a bad idea.  Axe the skill trees that had limited contribution to the mechanics of DA:O, and just base everything on dialogue options.  But it also has one other very important side-effect.

For how I understood the mechanic it doesn't work exactly as this. The game keep a sort of "track" of your attitude towards conversations. So, for example, if you choose often the "silver tongue" road you will have the option to persuade people that way. Naturally this persuasion can be not the type of persuasion an NPC can like, being him, for example, a more direct guy (meaning he will be much more likely persuaded by a PC behaving aggressively).

In this case there's less metagaming, since you pick options based on the character you like to play and your ability to persuade others will depend on how you behave. Similarly on how it happens in real life too. Your behaviour can look charming to someone while boring to another or either offensive to another one, so persuading the latters can be much more difficult than the formers.

This, or you begin to do as Nietzsche said and start wearing a mask depending on the situation. I already bought some for my Hawke, hoping that Gaider likes to read him ;-)

Modifié par Amioran, 23 février 2011 - 11:33 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amioran wrote...

or you begin to do as Nietzsche said and start wearing a mask depending on the situation.

Why would anyone not do this all the time?

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

If there are skills in game, then I want to apply my skill points to more or less everything that my character does, or, vise versa, if they say I must use my brains to figure which dialogue option is the right one, let me use my brains and/or reflexes to add some potential to my sword mastery. Either that, or a good balance of both. It is not fair that battle oriented character can put skill points in battle skills, but diplomacy/stealth oriented can't.

[Adhin]

They said, I believe that you basically get options that are just more dramatic, but theres basically Persuade, Charm and Intimidate. In a situation like that, the Diplomatic/Snarky sides (top right, center right) may lead to something like that in your situations. But if you had picked either side heavily an option on the left would become available that would have an extra effect but ultimately lead to the same area. Least, that's my understanding of it.

Personally I think getting rid of a 'single' skill that handles all forms of that kind of a good. Persuade and Intimidation, awhile 2 sides of the same multi-die, lets say, being good at one doesn't mean your good at the other. So I feel that you either have multiple skills that covers each one, or you just don't have it and the way there handling it (if I even understand it right) works best for RP value.

-edit-
Ah right and intent icons, basically the 'pesuaded option' you where using as an example, now will have the Heart icon letting you know your intends to stay with him, even with him having to marry.

Your success on the matter would then be less on persuad (since its a given) and more on him being hardened or not due to your earlier choices. Though I doubt there going to do a situation like that again but with DA2 system I would imagine they would of instead, tied that into the rivalry/friendship section. not sure how though heh.

Modifié par Adhin, 24 février 2011 - 01:27 .