191 réponses à ce sujet

[DA_GamerGal]

David Gaider wrote...

krissyjf wrote...
I certainly was really hoping it wasn't the plan, but I kept reading in the various forums and boards that this might be( or might have been) the original plan to do just 3 games ( thus I started with "if") . Are you saying that this never was the plan? Because you would make me extremely happy if this isn't the case!

We've never said DA was intended as a trilogy, nor that DA was ever intended to follow a single character. In fact, I do believe we've said the opposite. I'm pretty certain that some people are referencing discussions about Mass Effect and assuming they also apply to DA.

As for what someone said about having so many unanswered questions-- yes, I definitely agree that you wouldn't want to keep posing questions without ever answering them. That would eventually get tiresome. I suppose it would be incumbent upon us, then, to start answering a few. Not on forums, of course, but in an actual game. That would be ideal.

Well thank you so much, Mr. Gaider, for clearing that up for me. I certainly appreciate that you have taken the time out of your busy schedule to respond to the various posts here ( especially mine!).

Once again, forgive me for not doing a bit more reading up on what the DA team may, or may not have, said. Up until the middle of 2010 I had no idea who Bioware was ( or their brand of games) and new nothing about the DA world, so it may be easier for you to forgive my ignorance by knowing this fact (I hope).

I certainly thought that the DA team would start to answer some of the more important questions - eventually. And I agree- a game would be the best place to tie-up all those story plots and sub plots. Although I wouldn't be adverse to reading more of your books (hint,hint) and getting some questions answered that way.

[DA_GamerGal]

David Gaider wrote...

VeoLu wrote...
I am in favour of Hawke having a voice, however, just in the future hope it' fits better to the emotional pretense.

Personally, I wouldn't mind adding some different icons. I think, for instance, that we became a bit fixated on the icons presenting "tone" and thus missed an opportunity to have them express emotion: a happy or sad icon, for instance, that would be permission of a sort from the player for us to have the PC react to something in a more emotional way (whereas normally we avoid going too far in that direction out of a sense of not wanting to impede on the player's territory).

As far as the paraphrases themselves go, I don't think we'll be getting rid of them anytime soon. I do think, however, that we can and should work on refining our rules for their use (coupled with the use of better icons). I wouldn't mind seeing an option for a player to hover over a response and get some pop-up text of the resulting wording-- but that might be something that only works for the PC, and not really my forte anyhow since it involves GUI magic. But I'd be in favor of it, even if it's just for those people who will never get past their mental block regarding the paraphrases.

I actually liked the idea that my PC could have a "tone" now, but I found myself sometimes forgetting what each icon actually meant, so my PC ended up saying something quite different then what I thought would be, or should be, said. I found my self grabbing my DA2 strategy guide ( first time I have ever bought one of these, by the way) to read what each icon was. It kind of ruined the flow of things at times, but I feel that it is a small thing that really doesn't detract too much from my overall enjoyment of playing the game.

That being said, I do feel that there needs to be more emotional responses to choose from for my PC. Being a female myself ( and 99% playing as a female PC) I relate much more on an emotional level and I respond more to the emotional tones and situations of my companions and NPCs within the game.

Case in point:  The All That Remains storyline invoked a huge emotional response from me- even after playing through the game a few times. I still felt the same horror, anger, and sorrow for each play-through, so therefore I expected my Hawke(s) to have the same emotional response. Unfortunately, the present dialogue wheel does not give me the type of emotional responses that I am looking for --so it's a good thing I have a great imagination and am able to give my Hawke those emotional responses in my mind. It would be so much more satisfying and realistic If I didn't have to revert to this.

I really feel that a voiced PC was a brilliant step in the right direction for the DA games. I love that my PC has fully voiced conversations now, instead just short little banter lines as was the case in DA:O. Yes, all my PC words and conversations may not always be what I would have "my" PC say or think in a particular situation, but I have no problem working within the confines of what the writers feel the PC should say. I just use my imagination and adjust "my" Hawke as needed so she still fits into the type of "person" I feel she really is or should become. Like I said- I have a good imagination and I am willing to overlook certain things that do not go along with "my" Hawke.

It really is nice to know that the DA writers and rest of the team are really trying to resolve some of the issues DA fans may be having with the game. It lets me know they are not in this just to receive a paycheck. They really care about the game and it's impact on those that buy it and play it.

Modifié par krissyjf, 11 avril 2011 - 01:24 .

[_Aine_]

David Gaider wrote...

Possibly, but if it's, say, something that only pops up after hovering over the option for a certain length of time it'd be the player's own doing if they "ruined the surprise", so to speak. I do agree that it might be a slippery slope in terms of expectations-- but if it wasn't that difficult to implement, I wouldn't see the harm. Those people who can't get past the paraphrases/voiced PC on a philisophical level will probably never be entirely happy, but if we can put in something to make it easier for them without impeding our intent it might still be okay.

It's a suggestion I saw on these forums, anyhow, that I've brought up with the team. We'll see if it's something we can actually do. In the meantime, refining the paraphrases and the icons would be more my department.

What about something like an "insight" button, where if you want to see more of the emotion behind what you are about to say, you can manually click it and get some idea of where the statement is going?   

The only times I really disliked what was said was where I would have prefered a more diplomaticly "neutral" phrase, one that DIDN'T take sides.  Much of the time, the "diplomatic" option actually meant pleasing the person you spoke with and not necessarily being neutral and diplomatic.    Sarcastic did usually refer to inflection, much of the time so did the aggressive option.  It was the olive branch, leafy one that had the tendency to not be neutral, and instead was a people-pleaser button.  My character sometimes wanted to avoid conflict at the moment, but still didn't want to side with the person I was speaking with necessarily, causing my character to say something that was *against* her/his viewpoints, throwing me out of character.  It wasn't a HUGE deal, but it *was* noticeable*  Hardly game-breaking, but possibly immersion-breaking....

That and having my freaking companions making jokes when I was running around in a panic looking for my mum.   Screw you bastards, fire incoming.  If I could have killed them all at that moment or sent them home on the end of my boot, I totally would have!!  *growls*..... 

Modifié par shantisands, 10 avril 2011 - 03:21 .

[DA_GamerGal]

David Gaider wrote...

Occasionally we run into a bit of a conundrum when it comes to the split between a "choice wheel" and a "personality wheel". The latter just has flavor options-- the three tones plus the possibility of up to two extras (ignoring investigates). The former, meanwhile, is intended for use when actual choices are needed... but we do occasionally use it as a sort of personality wheel when the intent is to express opinions sans tone. That, however, seems to muddy the waters a bit... not just for the player but for the writer-- as a choice line would automatically change depending on the dominant tone.

Thus we're often forced to include opinions on the personality wheel, essentially picking which choices to present and matching them as closely to a tone as we can (not unlike Origins, incidentally, as there you would also simply have whichever opinions we chose to include). I can't help but feel there's a better way to do this, however, without it becoming incredibly cumbersome to write.

At any rate, it's something the writing team has been smacking our heads against lately with the post-mortems. In case you're interested in hearing about the sorts of things we discuss.

I have a small complaint about the the dialogue wheel. There have been times when I responded to a NPC or companion by choosing a personality dialogue before choosing any or all of the investigated questions offered on the left , and after Hawke responds, the investigative questions all disappear. There are times when a NPC ends there dialogue with a question to Hawk, so I want to answer their question first , before I start asking questions of my own... but often when I try to do this, all the investigative questions are removed. 

 For example: When Hawke meets the Dalish Keeper for the first time, she asks Hawke how she came into possession of the amulet. If you choose to answer her question first by picking , let's say, the diplomatic response which answers her question to you, you then cannot go back and choose any of the investigative questions to ask her. Yes, another set of questions come up a few moments later, but the are different ones.
I wish this could be fixed for future games. Or maybe there was a good reason for having this happen....??
Just a thought.

I never thought about what really goes into the production of a game, before... not until I played DA:O and DA2. But I have been thinking about it a lot now. So I for one am very interested in hearing what the DA team goes through.. what is being discussed... how all the writers feel about what they have done so far and what is to come - very interested indeed.

Modifié par krissyjf, 11 avril 2011 - 01:25 .

[DA_GamerGal]

I was wondering something else... would it be possible to create a game where the PC choices actually changed the ending of the main plot/storyline for that particular game?  Would it be possible to create 2 or 3 possible endings of the game to reflect the actual choices made by the player?  And still be able to incorporate those possible endings into the main theme/storyline of the DA games?

What if my Hawke had been able to stop Anders from destroying the chantry... which set in motion an alternate ending to the game... maybe something that caused the Templars or the Chantry to bring about that final event that forever changed the future of  the mages/templars/chantry/circle in Thedas...?

From a purely developmental/technical aspect, can this be done in a game? I imagine if it could be done, it would require much more time, effort, and money then is probably feasible. More wishful thinking on my party.

Modifié par krissyjf, 11 avril 2011 - 01:26 .

[_Aine_]

krissyjf wrote...

From a purely developmental/technical aspect, can this be done in a game? I imagine if it could be done, it would require much more time, effort and money then is probably feasible. More wishful thinking on my party.

Short answer: yes.  To the possibility and the need for more money/time.

Many of us have discussed that disappointment regarding DA2 in threads.  It would have been fantastic.  If it is simply wishful thinking, then, you are not alone with those wishes  

Modifié par shantisands, 10 avril 2011 - 04:05 .

[Hhoal]

I don't necessarily want all the "loose ends" tied up. I just want to see more of this world. I really want to see Orlais and the Tevinter Imperium. I would like to see what happens to the Champion and the Hero. But It's more of a curiousity than a burning desire.
Though when they say that the Champion disappeared just like the Hero of Fereldan one can only hope they'll address it in a sequel. There's only one possible explanation,
Flemeth is abducting people of notoriety and power, brain washing them, and making them into her super-top-secret-ninja-army to defeat Morrigan and her bastard god-child.

[Hhoal]

krissyjf wrote...
I have a small complaint about the the dialogue wheel. There have been times when I responded to a NPC or companion by choosing a personality dialogue before choosing any or all of the investigated questions offered on the left , and after Hawk responds, the investigative questions all disappear. There are times when a NPC ends there dialogue with a question to Hawk, so I want to answer their question first , before I start asking questions of my own... but often when I try to do this, all the investigative questions are removed.

Just do what we all do, investigate first, then answer. You get more information and then continue with the original question. Therefore if you've already played and know the scene you can just cut to the chase. If they allowed you to have all the investigative options throughout the entire conversation I imagine the wheel would become a cluster****.

[zyxe]

Brockololly wrote...

Torax wrote...
To be fair. His response was probably in part to the replay value for those that would wish to not read the paraphrase at all to be surprised in their next play through. If I could read every piece of dialogue from my character in the first play through? What am I playing it again for. I'd basically know the entire story in one sitting. Part of the fun with shepard was seeing for example every result for Tali's trial. If I knew every speach the first time. I'd have less reason to play it again if I decided on my first play through that 1 of the 3 seemed good to me.

In Origins at least the fun for me came from being able to see every ful text option for my PC, knowing that was the full text of what could be said in that given exhange with the NPC. Thus, I could see the totality of the complete jackass response to the snarky one to the saintly response. The fun there is being able to see all those responses and knowing what your PC is going to say and thus being surprised at how the NPC's respond.

So long as the angry dialogue gives a different response from the NPC as the nice response, you're not losing any of the surprise, from my point of view.

With something like Shep and Tali's trial, you'd have to keep full text broken up into chunks such that you didn't see the whole thing. I don't care about the NPC's reaction- that should be kept away from the player- thats where your surprise should be, I think, not from being surprised by what the PC says. So again, even if you saw the full text of Shepard's speech, so long as the Quarians reacted to each differently or reacted to the substance of each speech appropriately, then nothing would be lost I don't think.

bingo. why should i ever be surprised by what i choose for my PC to say? shouldn't i be in control of at least that??? the true surprise is in the reaction of the NPCs and how my choice affects the world or events.

i would love to see full text options in the next installment. i don't personally care if it's expandable on a dialogue wheel with icons (i like the idea of happy/sad icons added) or if it's DA:O style lists, or a hybrid of some sort. i would like to see the cunning's and strength's relative "persuade" and "intimidate" options come back and not have them simply be successful or not based on the NPC's ability to be fooled or intimidated, but based on your own skill set.

i really also hope that we get a few more answers in the next installment. i didn't feel like this game had a cliffhanger ending, it was just a nice set up for whatever comes next, but i do feel that a few more questions could have been answered before the end of the game. and i defintely would have liked to see a little less of the fixed outcome quests (how you can't save your mother no matter what, apparently, a few more quests where your choices made a difference would be awesome).

that's my 4 cents 

[darrylzero]

David Gaider wrote...

Torax wrote...
After thinking about it though. The allowing to highlight and see more of what is said could be a slippery slope if it's a long conversation with more than one talking. Would some then dislike not knowing the response they were given that is not shown? I'm guessing some that would already not like knowing now may also hate not being able to see the response from the companion to.

More than that. It takes out the fun of playing again to see what else is said. Like a surprise. You'd know in your first game everything you'd say. You'd just not be able to hear it.

Possibly, but if it's, say, something that only pops up after hovering over the option for a certain length of time it'd be the player's own doing if they "ruined the surprise", so to speak. I do agree that it might be a slippery slope in terms of expectations-- but if it wasn't that difficult to implement, I wouldn't see the harm. Those people who can't get past the paraphrases/voiced PC on a philisophical level will probably never be entirely happy, but if we can put in something to make it easier for them without impeding our intent it might still be okay.

It's a suggestion I saw on these forums, anyhow, that I've brought up with the team. We'll see if it's something we can actually do. In the meantime, refining the paraphrases and the icons would be more my department.

I'm glad to see this is under consideration.  It would have been most useful for me when selecting the sarcastic responses.  Much of the time (probably on the order of about a third, really), this more "neutral" path was more or less what I wanted to say, but the joke told was so over-the-top I had to reload.

However, I think my biggest problems with the dialogue wheel were moments of writing (though I thought the writing was very strong, overall), not problems inherent to the wheel.  A couple of examples:

1) Going after the slavers in the Amell house in Act 1, the direct option is great, right up until Hawke says "And I don't care if we KILL them," which is just something I would never say.  I want to angry and direct right there, but does that necessarily mean itching at the chance to kill and thrilled to tell everyone all about it?  How about something menacing and angry but with a modicum of subtlety?

2) Helping Feynriel's mom, I want to be sympathetic, but the helpful response is basically to promise that everything will absolutely be all right if I have anything to say about it whatsoever.  That's not bad writing in the way that "And I don't care if we KILL them" is, but it still totally took me aback.

I think clearly maintaining the difference between diplomatic and helpful, humorous and charming, and aggressive and direct is actually really important here, contra Brockololly.  I think I would probably want to use all 6 on any given playthrough (every once in a while, I really did want to fly off the handle, so I'm particularly glad that there are aggressive options).  But I think my ideal Hawke would be diplomatic but not particularly helpful, direct but not particularly aggressive, with a hint of charm and humor, playing a lot pretty close to the chest. 

As it was, I ended up choosing more humorous and charming responses than I really wanted because I was afraid of saying something that would come out saccharine-sweet or homicidal.  The issue here really is consistency.  I'm sympathetic to the enormous challenge that must be, and I think 70% of the dialogue allowed me to do just that.  But those moments that really don't work are incredibly jarring.

So, being able to hover over and see the full text would be wonderful.  If not, I think keeping all 6 tones and being as consistent as humanly possible about them is best.  Difficult, though.

[Querne]

Xewaka wrote...

I'd also like to ask you to clarify why asking for something as basic as "knowing what my character will say" somehow constitutes a mental block, considering that "sorta kinda getting the gist of something barely related to what my character will say, maybe" is not the same as "knowing what my character will say".

This.
Still, good news.

[Sauronych]

David, if you don't mind implementing pop-ups on hovering over the dialogue options, why not just make this a toggle so that they would completely replace paraphrases? I know you've said many times in the past that making everything toggleable is bad in terms of game design(I disagree with that, but that's not my point), but what you're proposing is basically a toggle, it just takes longer to display. You can make everyone happy with only a small checkbox in the options menu.

Modifié par Sauronych, 10 avril 2011 - 09:24 .

[KennethAFTopp]

I've heard alot of complaining about the ending, havn't reached that point yet though.

[StingingVelvet]

David Gaider wrote...

To be honest, I don't think there's much middle ground to be had with this. One of the advantages of a voiced PC is having them participate in the scene, after all, and attempts to try and appease people who are fundamentally opposed to the idea tend to weaken that advantage. I'm not suggesting it's always a good idea-- you don't want to take away player agency either-- but in some respects it's better to just own the style you've chosen rather than trying to have it both ways and ending up with the disadvantages of both as well.

So that's not ever something I'm going to opt to do-- which isn't to say that how we do it couldn't use some refining, definitely. Using a voiced PC properly isn't easy, and while it offers strengths the unvoiced PC doesn't have, it also has its own inherent weaknesses. Our efforts will be to mitigate those as much as we can without simultaneously surrendering the advantages for the sake of players who would really just rather have it be the other way anyhow.

It seems to me that voiced PC's benefits lie mostly in the cinematic while non-voiced's benefits lie mostly in roleplaying and gameplay.  To me the choice is clear there, and I have no idea why you guys are consistently moving more towards movies than RPGs.

Admittedly this is my opinion, and one I am sure you will not share.  In any event my main problem with your Mass Effect system, which is now your Dragon Age system as well I guess, is that I have no idea what my character is going to say.  Even with the little icons and the so-called paraphrasing the end result is often not as expected, and sometimes wildly different from what is expected.  In DA2 especially this was a problem, the anger icon could mean anger at anything, for instance.  I often meant to express anger at Fenris but ended up agreeing with him about being angry, or something equally annoying.

If you guys flat-out refuse to show the full sentences for whatever reason (which I assume is not financial since more succesful games like Fallout 3 show the full sentence) then you at least need to do a much better job on the paraphrasing.  That's something you have promised for ME2 and DA2 both but have failed to actually accomplish.

[jsteinhauer]

StingingVelvet wrote...

It seems to me that voiced PC's benefits lie mostly in the cinematic while non-voiced's benefits lie mostly in roleplaying and gameplay.  To me the choice is clear there, and I have no idea why you guys are consistently moving more towards movies than RPGs.

Admittedly this is my opinion, and one I am sure you will not share.  In any event my main problem with your Mass Effect system, which is now your Dragon Age system as well I guess, is that I have no idea what my character is going to say.  Even with the little icons and the so-called paraphrasing the end result is often not as expected, and sometimes wildly different from what is expected.  In DA2 especially this was a problem, the anger icon could mean anger at anything, for instance.  I often meant to express anger at Fenris but ended up agreeing with him about being angry, or something equally annoying.

I agree with the first paragraph, in essence.  The reason they do it is to sell games on consoles.  The days of true turn based western RPG's are long gone, just like text adventures.

While I agree that DA2 is more ME like than DAO, it's still not the same.  In some ways, ME (at least ME2) is better in that at least you can predict which choice will earn paragon points or renegade points.  In DA2, while choosing "nice", "sarcastic" or "mean" options was straightforward, predicting whether your party members would approve or disapprove was not.  On second games and later, I tried to select party members for quests who I thought would respond well to how I played the quest, but I still found myself reloading dialog sequences often, because my party member did not respond in predictable ways.  Granted, aside from certain story elements, NPC approval is not nearly so important in this game as it is in Mass Effect.

[Shazzie]

@David Gaider

Thank you, sir. Thank you very much for your responses.

I am one of those that was troubled by the voiced PC.  In DA:O, I had to look at all the text responses to decide which one fit, and then I had to provide the emotional background for that response. This pulled me in, and demanded that I FEEL as the character should. It was my job to supply that, I was part of the equation.

My 'best guesses' of the paraphrased wheel in DA2 were flat-out wrong many times, causing me to reel back in my chair in surprise at what she was saying. Hearing my character speak with improper (or lack of) emotion when I felt she should be reacting strongly was another problem for me. I just can't feel like I'm providing the emotion when, instead, I'm watching something (especially something emotionally flat or wrong) play out on my monitor. Voice and emotion are tied, for me. Watching voice without emotion sealed off that 'emotional pull' that demanded I take part, and closed down any possible emotional response from me... since it felt I was no longer a part of the equation. It was the PC's job to speak and act and respond ... and thus it should have been her job to feel. I was just a voyeur.

Perhaps if you can succeed in finding ways to bring emotional responses into the game, emotional choices that I, the player, can make, then I will feel pulled in, again. Not for the same reasons as an unvoiced PC demands... not because I had to be the one supplying the emotion. But, perhaps, as an empathic response, riding the same emotional wave my character is.

I hope that can happen.

[Maria Caliban]

David Gaider wrote...

At any rate, it's something the writing team has been smacking our heads against lately with the post-mortems. In case you're interested in hearing about the sorts of things we discuss.

<- Is interested in those sorts of things.

[Bryy_Miller]

Maria Caliban wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

At any rate, it's something the writing team has been smacking our heads against lately with the post-mortems. In case you're interested in hearing about the sorts of things we discuss.

<- Is interested in those sorts of things.

Same.

[DA_GamerGal]

Hhoal wrote...

krissyjf wrote...
I have a small complaint about the the dialogue wheel. There have been times when I responded to a NPC or companion by choosing a personality dialogue before choosing any or all of the investigated questions offered on the left , and after Hawk responds, the investigative questions all disappear. There are times when a NPC ends there dialogue with a question to Hawk, so I want to answer their question first , before I start asking questions of my own... but often when I try to do this, all the investigative questions are removed.

Just do what we all do, investigate first, then answer. You get more information and then continue with the original question. Therefore if you've already played and know the scene you can just cut to the chase. If they allowed you to have all the investigative options throughout the entire conversation I imagine the wheel would become a cluster****.

But that's my point... I shouldn't always have to investigate first and then give my answer.  If there are investigative questions on the wheel, it shouldn't matter if I answer first, or investigate first... the option to use the investigative questions should still be there and not disappear on me. It's a small matter, but an irritating one to me.

[Persephone]

The Angry One wrote...

I personally loathe games that force jump you between characters.
Character selection is okay, but jumping just ruins immersion.

Worked just fine in Gabriel Knight: The Beast Within. Still considered one of the greatest adventure games ever made by many. Including yours truly.

[The Angry One]

Persephone wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I personally loathe games that force jump you between characters.
Character selection is okay, but jumping just ruins immersion.

Worked just fine in Gabriel Knight: The Beast Within. Still considered one of the greatest adventure games ever made by many. Including yours truly.

That is, as far as I know, an adventure game with set characters.
As far as I'm concerned in RPGs it just doesn't work.

[Persephone]

David Gaider wrote...

VeoLu wrote...
I am in favour of Hawke having a voice, however, just in the future hope it' fits better to the emotional pretense.

Personally, I wouldn't mind adding some different icons. I think, for instance, that we became a bit fixated on the icons presenting "tone" and thus missed an opportunity to have them express emotion: a happy or sad icon, for instance, that would be permission of a sort from the player for us to have the PC react to something in a more emotional way (whereas normally we avoid going too far in that direction out of a sense of not wanting to impede on the player's territory).

As far as the paraphrases themselves go, I don't think we'll be getting rid of them anytime soon. I do think, however, that we can and should work on refining our rules for their use (coupled with the use of better icons). I wouldn't mind seeing an option for a player to hover over a response and get some pop-up text of the resulting wording-- but that might be something that only works for the PC, and not really my forte anyhow since it involves GUI magic. But I'd be in favor of it, even if it's just for those people who will never get past their mental block regarding the paraphrases.

I'd like to see more icons and I'm all in favor of the hovering over a paraphrase showing the exact wording of the reply. It would be helpful to those who haven't played ME or ME2. Now I've played ME&ME2 a lot, so I loved the paraphrases, esp. the snarky ones...wondering where they'd lead. What I especially loved (Compared to ME) is the personality system. PLEASE keep that!!

[KyleOrdrum]

David Gaider wrote...

c) Thank you for being so personally involved so as to rant. I'll take flaily rants over apathy any day.

Did Gaider just say he likes making us angry?

[Esbatty]

Maria Caliban wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

At any rate, it's something the writing team has been smacking our heads against lately with the post-mortems. In case you're interested in hearing about the sorts of things we discuss.

<- Is interested in those sorts of things.

I'll have what she's having.