238 réponses à ce sujet

[eratis]

I respectfully disagree.

The camp chats, while fitfully interesting, didn't so much as show us the character as tell us about the character. You talked to them, they told you about their life before joining you, you move on. Really, Morrigan, Flemeth was a bad mother? How do you REALLY feel about Duncan, Alistair? Want to tell me another twenty minute codex entry, Leliana? (Yes, I'm oversimplifying, but the camp chats were really tedious for me and virtually emotionless overall).

In DA2, every companion has personal quests that offer some significant interaction and shows you how they react to in different situations. Merrill really gets put through the wringer in hers, and her reactions (even though the bug showed me one reaction far too early and spoiled it for me...) told me more about her than pretty much any life story I heard from the DA:O cast. Couple that with much more diverse party banter, and the evolving relationships between the cast over the course of the game, and by the final act I understood what made these characters tick.

Basically, I could probably write a biography about anyone in DA:O, but I knew more about the cast of DA2 as characters. And in my opinion, DA2 offers the superior storytelling experience.

[TomY90]

i feel they did not quite get the balance right with the amount of conversation yet because I felt dragon age 1 they went on way too long for no apparent reason any single hint for them of asking about themselves they gave a 2000 word essay to you which is too many in my opinion.

I feel though there is too few conversation with your companions now though its as if they tried to save memory so they did not have to go onto two discs. (same can be said for the recycling of levels)

Though the conversations are now much more engaging than previously just want the same level of quality but increased quantity.

I do feel I know a lot of the characters (apart from the elf forgot his name never have him in my squad)

Modifié par TomY90, 13 mars 2011 - 04:49 .

[FeriIuce]

TomY90 wrote...

i feel they did not quite get the balance right with the amount of conversation yet because I felt dragon age 1 they went on way too long for no apparent reason any single hint for them of asking about themselves they gave a 2000 word essay to you which is too many in my opinion.

I feel though there is too few conversation with your companions now though its as if they tried to save memory so they did not have to go onto two discs. (same can be said for the recycling of levels)

Though the conversations are now much more engaging than previously just want the same level of quality but increased quantity.

I do feel I know a lot of the characters (apart from the elf forgot his name never have him in my squad)

I think a balance would be great. A lot of dialogue you can go through whenever you want as well as quests and plot related dialogue throughout the game.

[noxsachi]

It feels like the characters I took with me worked really well. I really got to know Aveline, Varric, Isabela, and even Carver for the brief time he was with me. In regards to the personal quests both Varrics and Aveline's provided some great moments and good insight into their character. The others felt really lacking. Its like if you don't have them with you they don't really develop.

I'd have loved just some minor interaction at their home bases. Learning about their past, what they want to do in Kirkwall, what they do when not with me. Merril in particular was kinda frustrating. She turned to blood magic to restore the Eluvian and then never really talks about it. I still have no clear idea why she wants to do that.

I wouldn't say that they are terribly written cause I did enjoy greatly those who I had in my party, Sebastian was pretty good as well, but that I need more. If you don't have them in your party they don't have a character which is unfortunate.

[maxbarton]

I believe that DAO had better interaction because the player had to initiate the interaction to get any benefit.

In DA2 it feels more like "Quest journal says I need to get a quest from Merrill, better do that." While I love the characters in DA2 (for the most part) I feel like my main incentive is to get a quest, not grow a friendship with the companions. The quests were all interesting, but no option to talk to people otherwise was annoying.

I'd much rather see companions you can talk to when you like ala DAO. Ideally I'd like a DAO setup where each of the companions also have a deep quest associated with them.

[Brockololly]

David Gaider wrote...
My impression is that some people miss being able to get all the dialogue at once. I think there's an urge to get an immediate response for interaction-- click-reward-click-reward, etc. --until they feel they've gotten to know the character and then move onto the rest of the game, even if there's not a lot of dialogue after that point outside of triggered moments.

I think thats it to some extent.

Maybe not get all the dialogue at once, but having the simple reactivity of clicking on the companion and having awesome dialogue happen. At least initially when you first recruit or meet them- I felt like in Act 1 you get the companions but really have no clue who they are for a good long time. And yet you take them around and they're gaining rivalry/friendship, but since you don't know them that well its sort of confusing as to why they're approving/disapproving.

Thats where I liked Origins, just being able to recruit, say, Morrigan and then ask her 20 questions in Lothering to get to know her. And from that point on, you had a foundation of who she was as a character so the banters sort of fleshed out what you had already figured out. So maybe from that point on, if you had more banters in the later acts and reactivity to events with more open ended questioning in the early part, that might help.

The issue in part for me with DA2's companions is that it seems like there is a ton more banter (good!) and more interactivity with them when you take them out with you, but if you don't take them around, they can seem very shallow only interacting with them in their home base in the cutscenes.  Having just the basic dialogues at their bases turn up as "quests" in the journal almost made it seem like a chore having to make the rounds on a city wide scale, as opposed to just discovering the dialogue on your own.

David Gaider wrote...
I imagine it varies, and the fact that someone feels less connected certainly speaks for itself, but it's not from lack of dialogue. Not everyone feels the same way, of course, but we'll definitely look at the various reactions and tweak it some more. There are indeed some things we tried in DA2 that I don't think we'll try again, but I'm still willing to give it some time to mull over.

With DA2 it felt like there was a ton more banter dialogue which is good, but I think thats good once you already know the companions well by interacting with them one on one. Otherwise, they're amusing, but there isn'tr much interactivity and agency involved in the banters- you're just passively listening. 

Modifié par Brockololly, 13 mars 2011 - 05:48 .

[Piecake]

Reading this topic helped clarify my thoughts. I liked the companion side quests, the party banter, and your companions needing you to help them out. What I missed though that DAO did well was the conversations that didnt directly relate to the main story or their side quests.

I felt like every conversation you had with your companions in DA2 was too focused, they talked to you when they needed you to do something, or at least something that was related to their personal side quest. I really liked the side quests, the focused conversations, the banter, but with the lack of just sitting around their home and chatting about unrelated things I feel a bit like I am being used and lacks the charm of the original.

For example, one of the things I really liked about Origins was that you could ask Lelliana to tell you a number of stories. Obviously their purpose was exposition and expanding the world, but they werent related to her side quests or the main plot. It was something extra that felt like it expanded her character and it was an escape from the main plot/personal side quest storyline.

That's one of the things that I felt like DA2 lacked. the lack of rewards outside of side quests (companion quests included) and the main quest. You didnt have exploration and you didnt really get to talk to your companions about their unrelated past or simply chat. There was nothing that really broke up the that questing focus.

I would have loved to be able to visit the hang man and asked to hear the latest rumor of Hawke or a tall tale that varric cooked up. Basically, what Leliana was in DAO, except that Varric would be dealing with rumor and contemporary story instead of the historical bard tale. I think that was a huge opportunity missed.

Thats not to say that I didnt like the companions in DA2, because I really did. I just feel like they werent as memorable as DAO's companions, and I think the lack of being able to chat with them about random things is the reason for that.

[Auroras]

 Maybe it's because I've played through DA:O so many times that I got more attached to them than DA2 companions, but I agree. I liked being able to randomly kiss Alistair or... give Leliana Andraste's Grace in the middle of the Brecilian Forest. That element has been traded for more cinematic, spaced out dialogue, and I understand that, I just think I got to know even Morrigan better than I did Isabela.

[FeriIuce]

Auroras wrote...

 Maybe it's because I've played through DA:O so many times that I got more attached to them than DA2 companions, but I agree. I liked being able to randomly kiss Alistair or... give Leliana Andraste's Grace in the middle of the Brecilian Forest. That element has been traded for more cinematic, spaced out dialogue, and I understand that, I just think I got to know even Morrigan better than I did Isabela.

I only ever played through DA:O once, and I still feel the same way, so I doubt thats the main reason.

[adneate]

After playing two games with this new "BioWare Dialogue System" I have to say that I think it's the primary problem with the companions not really clicking or not feeling like properly fleshed out characters. The whole conditional conversations aren't in DA2 and ME2 because they do a better job or are more immersive, it's because they allow EA to spend less money on writing and recording lines so that they can get the games out faster and for less money. The concept that this change was done to prevent circular conversations or the player from asking the same thing over and over again is false since both ME2 and DA2 allow me to have circular conversations where I ask a companion the same thing over and over again.

As it stands the system makes companions just quest givers that follow you around instead of making them a cast of characters that you want to get to know and help out. Why did I do Fenris's quest? Because it told me to I hated the guy's guts and couldn't stand having him around I just did it because that's how ME2 works. Do the quests for the characters you don't like because they are quests and you have to do them in order to get some slivers of actual characterization.

Without the ability to interact with the companion NPCs on my time they will always be hollow and a bit flat. As it stands all BioWare has done it take the initiative from the player and give it to the NPCs which is a bad thing to do in an interactive video game.

[FutileSine]

eratis wrote...

I respectfully disagree....

Basically, I could probably write a biography about anyone in DA:O, but I knew more about the cast of DA2 as characters. And in my opinion, DA2 offers the superior storytelling experience.

Well said, eratis!

[FeriIuce]

I think you're overreacting a bit here. I think the companion quests are great, because it stands to reason that your companions will need your help with something or other from time to time, and it actually helps grow them as a character.

However they cannot stand alone. You need to be able to just talk to your companions as well.

[Darkannex]

Quick Opinion? Better than Awakenings, (in that you didn't HAVE to have that party member there to click on the object that would trigger their conversation). Still not as good as Origins in that you had more freedom.
But this issue was discussed ad nauseum when Awakenings was released. All the griping there we were pretty much told that the game designers/writers did not like the marathon system of discussion and wanted something that was more 'in situ" (paraphrasing). They felt that backstory had other ways of being introduced rather than giving companions the third degree.
I admit - I was pretty bummed that once Anders moved in, we couldn't have cuddle time at will

I think my main criticism of this system was how formulaic it was. Each chapter you knew you had companion quests. It comprised of the quest, and then follow up. There was very little spontanaity in it at all. I found the quests themselves very engrossing though. 

My one complaint? There was no well adjusted love interest for the Hetero females. Either you got Emo-Fenris or baggage-ridden Anders. XD  At least Isabela wasn't a weight to carry around (even if I have no LI interest in her)
And don't get me started on Sebastian. He's committed to the chantry - and a dlc to boot. 

Modifié par Darkannex, 13 mars 2011 - 06:29 .

[adneate]

FeriIuce wrote...
I think you're overreacting a bit here. I think the companion quests are great, because it stands to reason that your companions will need your help with something or other from time to time, and it actually helps grow them as a character.

Every BioWare game ever had companion quests this isn't something new to DA2. What is new is that you don't know anything about these characters before they give you their quest. In Origins for example you didn't do companion quests until they reached a certain level of approval with you, then they'd ask you for help with something because they trusted you and there was some kind of relationship there. In DA2 people ask you to help them in matters of life and death because they think you look trustworthy or something. You have no relationship with them, you don't know a thing about them but they just ask you to co-opt family expeditions, launch night assualts on Tevinter Magisters and fight raiders in a chantry.

It's almost a parody of WRPGs in general.

[Piecake]

adneate wrote...

FeriIuce wrote...
I think you're overreacting a bit here. I think the companion quests are great, because it stands to reason that your companions will need your help with something or other from time to time, and it actually helps grow them as a character.

Every BioWare game ever had companion quests this isn't something new to DA2. What is new is that you don't know anything about these characters before they give you their quest. In Origins for example you didn't do companion quests until they reached a certain level of approval with you, then they'd ask you for help with something because they trusted you and there was some kind of relationship there. In DA2 people ask you to help them in matters of life and death because they think you look trustworthy or something. You have no relationship with them, you don't know a thing about them but they just ask you to co-opt family expeditions, launch night assualts on Tevinter Magisters and fight raiders in a chantry.

It's almost a parody of WRPGs in general.

The dialogue was simply moved into party banter and those side quests.  The companion quests in DA2 were longer and much more involved than DAO and the party banter was greatly expanded upon.  You get to know your companions from those two avenues instead of player initiated conversations.  Its not that DA2 had far less companion dialogue, it was simply moved out of player initiated conversations. 

And yea, that parody of WRPG line wasnt overreacting at all...

[dewayne31]

David Gaider wrote...

You know, what's interesting about this is that there's actually almost as much dialogue per follower in DA2 as there was in DAO (barring perhaps Alistair and Morrigan specifically, considering their larger roles in the story). The primary difference is that in DA2 it's spread out. We took a lot of that dialogue you had before at the camp and deliberately put more of it into their personal quests and the intermittent dialogues you have at the follower's base-- that's where you get to ask them their questions, as they come up in context.

My impression is that some people miss being able to get all the dialogue at once. I think there's an urge to get an immediate response for interaction-- click-reward-click-reward, etc. --until they feel they've gotten to know the character and then move onto the rest of the game, even if there's not a lot of dialogue after that point outside of triggered moments.

Maybe that's better, I don't know. It's simply an interesting perception, but whether it's caused by some people simply missing dialogue or because the first act is so long and there's only one major dialogue for a follower there after you recruit them... or something else, I can't really say. I imagine it varies, and the fact that someone feels less connected certainly speaks for itself, but it's not from lack of dialogue. Not everyone feels the same way, of course, but we'll definitely look at the various reactions and tweak it some more. There are indeed some things we tried in DA2 that I don't think we'll try again, but I'm still willing to give it some time to mull over.

Well If Hawke story contiunes in a expanison or DA # i hope you keep the family part. i liked that and i'm pver my problem with how you handle in te game.

[adneate]

Piecake wrote...
And yea, that parody of WRPG line wasnt overreacting at all...

It's true though in Act 1 people seem to trust you just because you're the player character. It's like Isabela is worried about the coming duel and then she turns around and looks at Hawke and says, "Oh thank God the player character is here, help me with this!" Why else would someone trust such incredibly personal matters to a total stranger?

As for the information coming from inter-party banter that's not a problem, it's nice to have everyone be more engaged with each other. The problem with lumping all character exposition in there is that I have to drag people around just to get an idea of what they are like and that party banter doesn't do anything to build the relationship between Hawke the companion. I know they all get  along but for the majority of the game I knew almost nothing personally about them, had no attachement to them and no personal stake in the dynamics between the PC and any given NPC.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Brockololly wrote...

Maybe not get all the dialogue at once, but having the simple reactivity of clicking on the companion and having awesome dialogue happen. At least initially when you first recruit or meet them- I felt like in Act 1 you get the companions but really have no clue who they are for a good long time. And yet you take them around and they're gaining rivalry/friendship, but since you don't know them that well its sort of confusing as to why they're approving/disapproving.

Thats where I liked Origins, just being able to recruit, say, Morrigan and then ask her 20 questions in Lothering to get to know her. And from that point on, you had a foundation of who she was as a character so the banters sort of fleshed out what you had already figured out. So maybe from that point on, if you had more banters in the later acts and reactivity to events with more open ended questioning in the early part, that might help.

Very interesting analysis, and well worth considering. I think the companions are an investment, but there are probably some ways to keep the later-game depth while offering some more specifically establishing information out front. Hmm hmmm. Food for thought.

Thanks, Brock!

[Piecake]

adneate wrote...

Piecake wrote...
And yea, that parody of WRPG line wasnt overreacting at all...

It's true though in Act 1 people seem to trust you just because you're the player character. It's like Isabela is worried about the coming duel and then she turns around and looks at Hawke and says, "Oh thank God the player character is here, help me with this!" Why else would someone trust such incredibly personal matters to a total stranger?

As for the information coming from inter-party banter that's not a problem, it's nice to have everyone be more engaged with each other. The problem with lumping all character exposition in there is that I have to drag people around just to get an idea of what they are like and that party banter doesn't do anything to build the relationship between Hawke the companion. I know they all get  along but for the majority of the game I knew almost nothing personally about them, had no attachement to them and no personal stake in the dynamics between the PC and any given NPC.

I mostly agree with you.  I just wouldnt take it as far as you did.  I still really liked the characters in DA2 and I felt that they were well done and I became personally attached a number of them.  I simply didnt feel as attached to them as I did with DAO's characters because of the lack of player initiated dialogue, more specifically the lack of player initiated random, inconsequential to the overall plot or companion quest discussions. 

[David Gaider]

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...
An interesting point. I think the structure of the interacitons (home-base or quest-specific only) is interesting, but most companions could use a more lengthy introduction. I think that's the problem, before entrusting someone with watching my back on a regular basis, I'd like to get to know them a little more, sooner rather than later.

Yes, when the writers talked about how things ended up, one of our own observations was that Act 1 ended up being considerably longer than was intended-- so players went a fair length of time after that first dialogue without anything extensive. Front-loading the conversations a bit more, rather than having the sole post-recruitment dialogue, would probably have worked a little better insofar as getting to know characters went.

We'll have to decide if it was worthwhile having all the companion quests. That's where a good deal of the word budget for companions went in comparison (remember in DAO you had one very short quest, if anything at all). From a writing perspective it's a much better way to get to know a companion, but perhaps it simply didn't come soon enough (the first personal quest starts in Act 2, after all) or perhaps that's not what some people want. Perhaps what they want is to ask their companions a bunch of questions, instead? Whether or not I think that's a less desireable way to approach it, if many people felt less connected it might have to be considered.

Regardless, I know that many will take the standard "well, why not do both?" approach to an answer. Yes, ideally you'd want to have lots of personal quests, be able to talk to companions whenever you wanted and ask them lots of questions, etc. etc. That's simply not practical, however. This is not the "talk to companions" game, and thus only so much of our resources can be devoted to it.

[Grunk]

I actually hated nearly every companion in Origins. Hated Leliana, hated Sten, LOATHED Wynne. I was fairly neutral to Shale (at least she made me chuckle sometimes), Morrigan wasn't bad, Oghren could be amusing. The only companion I actually liked was Zevran, and he definitely made Oghren more interesting.

By comparison, in DA2, I hate Sebastian, I hate Anders, Fenris bores me so much I feel physical pain (and I am creeped out that he lives in a mansion filled with corpses and never lights a light; I dunno, he just feels like Edward Cullen were he an elf). Loved Bethany, I enjoy Carver for being a jerk, Varric is my bro, Merrill is alright, and I Isabella.

I wouldl ike to be able ot have more conversations with my party members at their places, and have companions that I bring with me get involved in them, maybe even invite them to my place, so it can be improved, but I feel like the ratio of hits to misses is better this time around.

[maselphie]

I, for one, think this was a very character-driven story, so the companion quests were crucial, and by far, my favorite part. Aveline's quest? Guys, that's the best quest in the history of quests.

As for why people mistakenly thought there were less conversations, it's because they didn't have control over it. A loss in control will seem like a bad thing, even though it was done with good intentions (that I personally liked). Having a void companion for the rest of the game after blasting through all their dialogue, clicking them over and over, looking at the empty topics every time I go to camp was a tedious chore that never paid off. Letting me know, via journal, that there was something new to be said was SUCH a relief. But yes, Act 1 needs more character development because it is the longest one.

[Piecake]

David Gaider wrote...

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...
An interesting point. I think the structure of the interacitons (home-base or quest-specific only) is interesting, but most companions could use a more lengthy introduction. I think that's the problem, before entrusting someone with watching my back on a regular basis, I'd like to get to know them a little more, sooner rather than later.

Yes, when the writers talked about how things ended up, one of our own observations was that Act 1 ended up being considerably longer than was intended-- so players went a fair length of time after that first dialogue without anything extensive. Front-loading the conversations a bit more, rather than having the sole post-recruitment dialogue, would probably have worked a little better insofar as getting to know characters went.

We'll have to decide if it was worthwhile having all the companion quests. That's where a good deal of the word budget for companions went in comparison (remember in DAO you had one very short quest, if anything at all). From a writing perspective it's a much better way to get to know a companion, but perhaps it simply didn't come soon enough (the first personal quest starts in Act 2, after all) or perhaps that's not what some people want. Perhaps what they want is to ask their companions a bunch of questions, instead? Whether or not I think that's a less desireable way to approach it, if many people felt less connected it might have to be considered.

Regardless, I know that many will take the standard "well, why not do both?" approach to an answer. Yes, ideally you'd want to have lots of personal quests, be able to talk to companions whenever you wanted and ask them lots of questions, etc. etc. That's simply not practical, however. This is not the "talk to companions" game, and thus only so much of our resources can be devoted to it.

what if we sacrficed all other side quests to get player initiated dialogue, long companion quests, and improved party banter?

Personally, I would be fine with that.  Well, I would like a few side quests at the end that open up very difficult, but optional, bosses.  I would like one of those quests to be as long and involved as Andrastre's ashes as well

[Cuthlan]

David Gaider wrote...

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...
An interesting point. I think the structure of the interacitons (home-base or quest-specific only) is interesting, but most companions could use a more lengthy introduction. I think that's the problem, before entrusting someone with watching my back on a regular basis, I'd like to get to know them a little more, sooner rather than later.

Yes, when the writers talked about how things ended up, one of our own observations was that Act 1 ended up being considerably longer than was intended-- so players went a fair length of time after that first dialogue without anything extensive. Front-loading the conversations a bit more, rather than having the sole post-recruitment dialogue, would probably have worked a little better insofar as getting to know characters went.

We'll have to decide if it was worthwhile having all the companion quests. That's where a good deal of the word budget for companions went in comparison (remember in DAO you had one very short quest, if anything at all). From a writing perspective it's a much better way to get to know a companion, but perhaps it simply didn't come soon enough (the first personal quest starts in Act 2, after all) or perhaps that's not what some people want. Perhaps what they want is to ask their companions a bunch of questions, instead? Whether or not I think that's a less desireable way to approach it, if many people felt less connected it might have to be considered.

Regardless, I know that many will take the standard "well, why not do both?" approach to an answer. Yes, ideally you'd want to have lots of personal quests, be able to talk to companions whenever you wanted and ask them lots of questions, etc. etc. That's simply not practical, however. This is not the "talk to companions" game, and thus only so much of our resources can be devoted to it.

If you handled things the way you did in DA2 but staggered the companion quests out more, I think you'd be golden. There was an appropriate amount of dialog and quests for the companions, but it came in bursts which made them less personal.

An added benefit of having the quests staggered more so that you're not doing lumps of companion quests at one time is that each companion will have a period of time where the focus is on them, encouraging players to travel with all of the companions at different times through the campaign.