196 réponses à ce sujet

[monima]

rak72 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If you felt less connected to your followers, that's too bad. There could be many reasons for that, but if the requirement to someone feeling connected is having long, rambling conversations in the party camp... I can safely say that's unlikely to happen again. I could see front-loading the characters a bit more so players are more thoroughly introduced (as it was, a lot of the character interaction ended up in Act 2 quite by accident) but I have absolutely no intention of returning to the reams of expository dialogue as a replacement for character development anytime soon.

It realy makes me sad the way you guys keep dissing origins like that.  It was a wonderful game and I felt much more connected to the characters than DA2's.  I was emotionaly invested in the fates of all my DAO companions.  At the end of DA2, my  hawk rode off into the sunset by herself & didn't give a rat's butt what happened to the rest of her crew.  I wish you would listen to the fans so you can get a better understaning of why we felt DAO was so special & DA2 has already been uninstalled by many of us.

Edit to say, the only conversations I found long and rambling in DAO were with Wynn, and thats because she is an old lady that likes to ramble on.  It added to the character and made her more real.  I know peolpe who go on like her and when I see them, I try to walk the other way and go unnoticed, much like I did with Wynn.  It realy helped making her someone real to me.

I so agree with this. Why say such things aboyut your own game? DA2 is not an overal improvement no matter what you say, I would rather listen to Wynne rant all day, then wander around (tiny) Kirkwall on my own, waiting for any of my companions to give me the time of day. Companion interaction was what sat Bioware apart from the rest, now butchered what can you offer that set you apart, Not much

[BlueMew]

David Gaider wrote...
I'm not certain what it is you assume I would have done differently. The role Anders plays in the sequel was set by myself as well as by the writing team, prior to anyone writing him. Even if I had been the one to write him, he most certainly would not have been the witty fellow you remember from Awakening... he's changed, in some very substantial ways, and if you're mourning the fact that he's different I can safely say that's very much part of the point.

A successful character provokes strong reactions. So I would say Anders was quite successful even if I didn't approve of Jennifer's writing job on him-- which I very much do. I think she did a stellar job. While there's always some trepidation in seeing someone else touch your baby, I had no reservations once I saw how she handled him.

If you felt less connected to your followers, that's too bad. There could be many reasons for that, but if the requirement to someone feeling connected is having long, rambling conversations in the party camp... I can safely say that's unlikely to happen again. I could see front-loading the characters a bit more so players are more thoroughly introduced (as it was, a lot of the character interaction ended up in Act 2 quite by accident) but I have absolutely no intention of returning to the reams of expository dialogue as a replacement for character development anytime soon.

Considering, however, that a game like BG2 where people still felt plenty connected to party members even though you couldn't click on them at all and had no control over when they spoke to you, I'm not certain the issue here isn't one of expectation rather than execution. Not that execution couldn't improve, sure, but some people seem to equate lots of dialogue to emotional connection... and I'm not sure they're as connected as they seem to think.

Hmm. Now I actually changed my opinion a little. I *do* remember BG, and quite possibly most of its quotes by heart. Preferring to play without any mods, I still love it today and many of the characters in it, so probably expectations and adjusting play a big part as well.

I loved Anders, but then again, I'm more of a writer than a pureblood gamer. I like character development, even though I've always wanted to shove Justice under a carpet somewhere.

And I want to thank whoever is responsible that you can at least run away with Anders and try to make something of what's left; that was my only beef with BG, that some of the major characters were just doomed from the start (another writer's pet peeve?). My Hawke has the feel of a proper hero, even without being a demigod

Modifié par BlueMew, 22 avril 2011 - 10:39 .

[Persephone]

Addai67 wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
DA2 kind of had the best of both worlds by including in depth personal quests (probably even better than the ME2 loyalty missions) and more conversations at the companions home bases. In ME2 there were maybe 3 or 4 convos per squadmate in the Normandy (including quest related stuff), while there were around 8 to 10 per companion in DA2 (also including quest stuff as well as gift convos). 

How is that different from the companions' personal quests in Origins?

In DAO each companion had ONE personal quest. Some are just a single conversation with someone outside camp. (Wynne, Alistair, Oghren) In DAII you have several personal quests per companion. They are longer. And some of them, like "Dissent" (With Anders descending further into his obsession, I loved that wordplay. Even though I know Dissent means something else), "The Longer Road", Mirror Image.....are so involving.... And meeting Fenris' sister in DAII makes meeting Goldanna look like child's play.

[Persephone]

Zjarcal wrote...

DahliaLynn wrote...
Then again, if they didnt call it DA *2* i.e. sequel,  perhaps I would have been more forgiving.

Dragon Age: Exodus was going to be the original name. I would've preferred that name really.

And that would have been a PERFECT name for it. And it also would have avoided most of the "This is not the sequel *I* wanted!" outcries.

[Wulfram]

Meh, Fenris's quests in particular were pointlessly repetitive. We meet some Tevinters, they say Fenris is a slave, I say he isn't, we kill them, he does his glowy fist things on someone. Repeat 3-4 times.

It's basically Leliana's Origins quest but pointlessly drawn out. I'd rather have had the opportunity to discuss shoes with him.

[Everwarden]

Persephone wrote...

And that would have been a PERFECT name for it. And it also would have avoided most of the "This is not the sequel *I* wanted!" outcries.

It's not the sequel most people wanted. Mainly because it's a rushed, sloppy mess. 

[lobi]

Wulfram wrote...

Meh, Fenris's quests in particular were pointlessly repetitive. We meet some Tevinters, they say Fenris is a slave, I say he isn't, we kill them, he does his glowy fist things on someone. Repeat 3-4 times.

It's basically Leliana's Origins quest but pointlessly drawn out. I'd rather have had the opportunity to discuss shoes with him.

mmmm  Shoes!

[Langaer]

Just to voice an alternative opinion - I would like to say that I totally agree with Mr. Gaider when he says that actual emotional connection and lots of dialog cannot be equated.

When I was playing DAO, I remained absolutely indifferent towards all my companions. There was not a single person in the entire bunch who I wanted to become friends with. Characters perfectly written, dialogue clever, everyone's personal drama understandable, but... no connection. So those camp dialogue bits were the biggest in-game challenge for me, since the game approval/disapproval system required me to maintain the relationships, and I had to spend lots of time just clicking on dialog options mindlessly. At times, I felt like I was playing the Sims.

Therefore, the problem was not in the lack of dialogue - the selected companion archetypes simply did not connect with me. Yes, I'm a woman. And no, Alistair did not attract me in the least. And I don't see how more volumes of dialogue could improve our relationship.

In DAII, suddenly - click! - there was a connection! And - wow! - to several companions at once! And it was not because of what they said (or I said), but because of what they did and how they did it. In DAO, companions did almost nothing. I felt like I was controlling their lives and making decisions for them. In DAII, our roles almost changed. In DAII, companions are already developed personalities, with strong beliefs and opinions, capable of making their own decisions, doing things without asking for my permission. They are mature. They are not weak. They change, but not because I talk them into or out of something, but because they make decisions, implement them and face the consequences. You go through that with them and see how the events affect them, and it is self-evident, you don't need extensive dialogue to understand this. This - their decisions, their goals and how they achieve them - is the best way to know them. For me, it was just thrilling to finally fight alongside people who knew exactly what they wanted. For a change. So once I had this connection, the lack of "small talk" did not bother me. My imagination just managed to fill all the gaps.

In a word, for me personally, DAII is a very character-oriented game, in the sense that companions here are not an appendix to the Hero; they are independent and self-sufficient; they actively form the environment; they create the circumstances that Hawke has to react to. Of course, it therefore makes the game a bit less player-oriented, because Hawke cannot actually do anything to change the situation. S/he is caught in a whirlwind. Remember what Flemeth said when they first met: "Hurtled into the chaos, you fight... and the world will shake before you." Isn't it a perfect summary of the role our Hero has in this story?

As for Anders... I was thrilled with the new Anders. Never before in a game have I experienced such a variety of very strong and very mixed feelings. I guess, you could call him "one-dimensional", but truly, how many real multi-dimensional people have you seen? And what exactly does it mean to be a "two-dimensional" or "three-dimensional" person? To have several points of view on one issue? To me personally, Anders - desperate, obsessed, paranoid closer to the end of the game - looked far more alive than baby-like Alistair who failed to look like a proper King even when I met him in DAII. Anders did change the world. And he was prepared to face the consequences - neither he, nor Justice defended himself (themselves?) against me in the end. He demanded justice for all, and was prepared to receive it himself. Because justice - it is not about classifying people into innocent and guilty. Justice is recognizing that everyone is actually guilty. Including Hawke. And Anders. And Orsino. And Meridith. And Elthina. Everyone, by their action or inaction, lead the city to chaos. And everyone got what they deserved. I think what we had in the end was Justice in its full abstract glory. I disagreed with Anders on a lot of points, but I am actually... proud to have known him.

I am actually proud to have known all of DAII companions (except Sebastian).

I don’t remember having any doubts about killing the Archdemon in DAO. Taking sides in DAII was a big challenge, but it did not matter in the end. Just like in reality, people are pawns in some global-scale events. I liked that immensely. In my opinion, DAII had extremely well-written story and characters. It connected to my reality and provoked feelings and thoughts. So if abandoning 80% of in-game dialogue means having more stories and characters of this kind, I'm all for it.

Modifié par Langaer, 22 avril 2011 - 01:17 .

[mesmerizedish]

I generally agree with the above (horribly formatted ) post.

But, I think that companions who actually exist as their own personae aren't mutually exclusive with lots of dialogue. And I don't see how it would be too much of a resource-sink to have both.

It's not even a case of "Let's do everything!" I think they're just completely separate issues from one another. To say "We can have companions who are real people independent of the PC OR we can have companions with lots of dialogue" is kinda like saying "We can have three classes OR we can have skill trees." They're probably worked on by the same people, but there's not much overlap beyond that.

[Langaer]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I generally agree with the above (horribly formatted ) post.

But, I think that companions who actually exist as their own personae aren't mutually exclusive with lots of dialogue.

Sorry about the "horribly formatted", I deserved it  Copied from Word and there is no preview. Trying to make it better right now.

I side with you, I also *would* like to have everything. But I understand that it is actually next to impossible. My point is that when you really have to make a choice (and its awful), I would prefer a better story to more dialogue.

But everything is totally subjective, of course. Take a thousand people and they all have different opinions. I will be waiting to DAIII to see how it all plays out, for sure.

[DahliaLynn]

Langaer wrote...

Just to voice an alternative opinion - I would like to say that I totally agree with Mr. Gaider when he says that actual
emotional connection and lots of dialog cannot be equated.

When I was playing DAO, I remained absolutely indifferent towards all my companions. There was not a single person in the entire bunch who I wanted to become friends with. Characters perfectly written, dialogue clever, everyone's personal drama understandable, but... no connection. So those camp dialogue bits were the biggest in-game challenge for me, since the game approval/disapproval system required me to maintain the relationships, and I had to spend lots of time just clicking on dialog options mindlessly. At times, I felt like I was playing the Sims.

Therefore, the problem was not in the lack of dialogue - the selected companion archetypes simply did not connect with me. Yes, I'm a woman. And no, Alistair did not attract me in the least. And I don't see how more
volumes of dialogue could improve our relationship.

In DAII, suddenly - click! - there was a connection! And - wow! - to several companions at once! And it was not because of what they said (or I said), but because of what they did and how they did it. In DAO, companions did almost nothing. I felt like I was controlling their lives and making decisions for them. In DAII, our roles almost changed. In DAII, companions are already developed personalities, with strong beliefs and opinions, capable of making their own decisions, doing things without asking for my permission. They are mature. They are not weak.
They change, but not because I talk them into or out of something, but because they make decisions, implement them and face the consequences. You go through that with them and see how the events affect them, and it is self-evident, you don't need extensive dialogue to understand this. This - their decisions, their goals and how they achieve them - is the best way to know them. For me, it was just thrilling to finally fight alongside people who knew exactly what they wanted. For a change. So once I had this connection, the lack of "small talk" did not bother me. My imagination just managed to fill all the gaps.

In a word, for me personally, DAII is a very character-oriented game, in the sense that companions here are not an appendix to the Hero; they are independent and self-sufficient; they actively form the environment; they create the circumstances that Hawke has to react to. Of course, it therefore makes the game a bit less player-oriented, because Hawke cannot actually do anything to change the situation. S/he is caught in a whirlwind. Remember what Flemeth said when they first met: "Hurtled into the chaos, you fight... and the world will shake before
you." Isn't it a perfect summary of the role our Hero has in this story?

As for Anders... I was thrilled with the new Anders. Never before in a game have I experienced such a variety of very strong and very mixed feelings. I guess, you could call him "one-dimensional", but truly, how many real
multi-dimensional people have you seen? And what exactly does it mean to be a "two-dimensional" or "three-dimensional" person? To have several points of view on one issue? To me personally, Anders - desperate,
obsessed, paranoid closer to the end of the game - looked far more alive than baby-like Alistair who failed to look like a proper King even when I met him in DAII. Anders did change the world. And he was prepared to face the consequences - neither he, nor Justice defended himself (themselves?) against me in the end. He demanded justice for all, and was prepared to receive it himself. Because justice - it is not about classifying people into innocent and guilty. Justice is recognizing that everyone is actually guilty. Including Hawke. And Anders. And Orsino. And Meridith. And Elthina. Everyone, by their action or inaction, lead the city to chaos. And everyone got what they deserved. I think what we had in the end was Justice in its full abstract glory. I disagreed with Anders on a lot of points, but I am actually... proud to have known him.

I am actually proud to have known all of DAII companions (except Sebastian).

I don’t remember having any doubts about killing the Archdemon in DAO. Taking sides in DAII was a big challenge, but it did not matter in the end. Just like in reality, people are pawns in some global-scale events. I liked that immensely. In my opinion, DAII had extremely well-written story and characters. It connected to my reality and provoked feelings and thoughts. So if abandoning 80% of in-game dialogue means having more stories and characters of this kind, I'm all for it.

Issues need to be adressed, have nothing to do with character depth in your case.
It seems to me that what you enjoyed about DA2 was the fact that the game was less player oriented. The Characters in DA:O relied on the Warden to make decisions and for you, it is viewed as weak undeveloped characters with no personalities of their own. That translates as uninteresting for you, because for you you would prefer characters take charge of their lives. That doesn't make it a better written character but rather, for you, a well written character is one who has his own decisions. That's meshed with game design.

Alistair did not interest you because he had weaknesses and fell into the catergory of *needy*. That does not attract you, and that is fine. DA:O was dependent on the players decisions. You enjoyed Anders because he influenced the world and was his own person.

The issue with the charcters independence is what mostly attracted you in DA2 , not character depth, according to what you write.

In my own opinion, I had no problem with the characters relying on my decisions in DA:O and had no problem with the characters being more independent in DA2. The Characters in DA2 had deep histories each, and their own lives to contend with. The problem is, Hawke barely really got a chance to get to know them, because...well, how do you get to know someone? you talk to them. And the more you talk, the more a relashionship is formed or broken. You also experience life with them. In DA2, you only got a taste of experiencing life with them with a few personal quests, and minimal ability to converse with them, only when things mattered. Experiencing characters only in the highlighted version, takes away from the feeling of really getting to know them.

In DA:O you were able to go through an entire game getting the impression of experiencing your travels and quests, listening to their banter, while getting a healthy amount of dialogue going when you wished, providing the pseudo atmosphere of getting to know them while fighting darkspawn together. This creates the feeling of slowly getting to know someone, (even though if you wanted to you could exhaust the dialogue all at once, but if you didn't....)

The main difference here is that we weren't given the opportunity to really feel these characters, but rather get the TV guide version. As they had so much to offer (I loved the DA2 character potential), but yet, I couldnt feel them.

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 22 avril 2011 - 01:37 .

[nightscrawl]

David Gaider wrote...

Even if I had been the one to write him, he most certainly would not have been the witty fellow you remember from Awakening... he's changed, in some very substantial ways, and if you're mourning the fact that he's different I can safely say that's very much part of the point.

I think this needs to be posted in every Anders thread.


While playing DAA and walking around with Justice and Anders in the party, the banter really shows how Justice influenced Anders's thinking about mages, their plight, and how Anders himself fits in with all of that. Is it really so much of a stretch to think that they would have even more detailed conversations offscreen, or that Anders would mature and change as a result of his experiences in DAA?

I liked Anders in DAA, but let's face it, while he was amusing he was also pretty self absorbed. He didn't care about other mages, he cared about himself and escaping what he thought of as oppressive environment in the circle. Then he became a Grey Warden and everything about his life suddenly changed. Becoming a Grey Warden all by itself is character building. It's for life. As a Warden he saw things he never would have seen otherwise, some of them really horrible things, and anything involving the darkspawn affects the entire world. He would have been poorly written indeed if he hadn't changed at all from these experiences.

Additionally, what part of merging with a different being don't you understand? It can never be the DAA Anders. That Anders is dead. "Even the greatest scholars cannot tell you where Justice ends and I begin." That single sentence should have told you that this was a different Anders.

As far as the writing staff in general is concerned, you make it sound like she was handed this character, wrote all of this stuff about him, and they just stuck it in the game without dev meetings or anything. You really think that's how it works? You think David Gaider, credited as "lead writer" didn't have input?

monimakitten wrote...

I so agree with this. Why say such things aboyut your own game? DA2 is not an overal improvement no matter what you say...

Maybe for YOU. It's still an opinion. Even if many people share the opinion, it's still subjective, therefore cannot be right or wrong.

I like DA2. I'm sorry you don't.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 22 avril 2011 - 01:46 .

[ejoslin]

Wulfram wrote...

Meh, Fenris's quests in particular were pointlessly repetitive. We meet some Tevinters, they say Fenris is a slave, I say he isn't, we kill them, he does his glowy fist things on someone. Repeat 3-4 times.

It's basically Leliana's Origins quest but pointlessly drawn out. I'd rather have had the opportunity to discuss shoes with him.

Fenris doesn't wear shoes...

Edit: Yes, I know.  The point.  Deliberately missed.

Really, though, my first play through I reached a point where I had no clue if Fenris and Hawke were together.  She was dumped, it was confirmed in a banter with Anders (it would have been really REALLY nice had I been able to ask him about it).  Then act 3 started, I get a confrontation from Anders, three years after dumping and it being confirmed why they're together.  I see Fenris possessive of Hawke regarding Zevran.  One of Fenris' ambient comments was "I am yours."  Yet I hadn't done his personal quest, so there's no anything about reuniting.  

While I loved the final few dialogs in the romance, NOT KNOWING if the romance is actually happening, not being able to question what is going on, not being able to kiss him in his mansion after they definitely are together...  They don't make for being pulled into the story.

If nothing else, a few more dialogs per companion would have been nice.  The ability to kiss/hug the LI at the home would have made the romances feel a whole lot more real as well.

Modifié par ejoslin, 22 avril 2011 - 01:57 .

[Persephone]

Everwarden wrote...

Persephone wrote...

And that would have been a PERFECT name for it. And it also would have avoided most of the "This is not the sequel *I* wanted!" outcries.

It's not the sequel most people wanted. Mainly because it's a rushed, sloppy mess. 

It's not the sequel some very vocal people wanted because it is a rushed, sloppy mess in your opinion. There, much better. :innocent:

[nightscrawl]

ejoslin wrote...

I see Fenris possessive of Hawke regarding Zevran.  

Reeeeeeeeeeeally? I'll have to try the Zev flirt options next time (never bothered previously)!

With Fenris and Isabela in particular I think it's deliberately ambiguous because of the issues both of them have. What happens in Act 2 with Fenris isn't an indication of anything really, it was just spontaneous sex between people who share an attraction. You have to wait until Act 3 to really be "together" with Fenris, and that fits in with his story to be honest. The only part that bothered me about it is that in real life, I would have given him a couple of says alone to think about things, then I would have asked him about it. I REALLY wish I could have done this in game .


I won't derail the thread any further sorry...

[Zeevico]

shantisands wrote...

ME2 style of conversations, after DA:O felt forced and lacking IN COMPARISON.  On it's own it would have seemed far better than much of what came before it.

Precisely.

[ejoslin]

nightscrawl wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

I see Fenris possessive of Hawke regarding Zevran.  

Reeeeeeeeeeeally? I'll have to try the Zev flirt options next time (never bothered previously)!

With Fenris and Isabela in particular I think it's deliberately ambiguous because of the issues both of them have. What happens in Act 2 with Fenris isn't an indication of anything really, it was just spontaneous sex between people who share an attraction. You have to wait until Act 3 to really be "together" with Fenris, and that fits in with his story to be honest. The only part that bothered me about it is that in real life, I would have given him a couple of says alone to think about things, then I would have asked him about it. I REALLY wish I could have done this in game .


I won't derail the thread any further sorry...

I know Fenris' story (though in act 3 he admits it meant a lot to him and his codex says he has lingering feelings so it's a bit more than just sex).  My point is this.  In act 2, he dumps Hawke.  He confirms it, NOT with Hawke, but with Anders, saying leaving Hawke was the hardest thing he had ever done.

In act 3, I wanted to see Zevran (first playthrough, unspoiled), and did take the flirt options.  Fenris was possessive. When I would click on him, sometimes I'd get the "I am yours" ambient comment.  I got the confrontation with Anders, again, this is before doing Fenris' personal quest.  So there are three indicators right there that Fenris and Hawke are a couple.  Yet I know the dumping happened.  NOT being able to talk to Fenris about it just gave me a huge feeling of disconnect.  Yes, the whole thing is resolved after his personal quest.  But those things happen before his personal quest as well.

Edit: I also had Merrill pointing out, in act 2 after the sexytime scene, that Fenris was in love with Hawke (happens any time after the sexytime scene, so act 2 or 3).  That Fenris denies it is irrelevant.  

Modifié par ejoslin, 22 avril 2011 - 02:38 .

[_Aine_]

ejoslin wrote...

 So there are three indicators right there that Fenris and Hawke are a couple.  Yet I know the dumping happened.  NOT being able to talk to Fenris about it just gave me a huge feeling of disconnect.  Yes, the whole thing is resolved after his personal quest.  But those things happen before his personal quest as well.

This. The huge disconnect for me was at some point early in the game when I realized the only time my companions ( romantic or otherwise ) would have anything to say to me was if they needed a quest done.  I know people like that in RL, who you are the bestest thing since sliced bread and candy ...when they need you.  As soon as you are irrelevant to the larger scheme of their needs, you are on the sidelines.  

Sure, you also hear about your life from other people, rarely are they talking to *you* though.  

Is that classified as character development or story-line progression though? I can never remember....  

Still, it was disheartening given the ease to speak to your companions in DA:O.  I have played other games since DA2 and it really *is* still better than many games out there.  DA:O was just better.  DA2 has *things* about it that *were* better.  Companion interactions, to me, were not one of the improvements.  They felt shallow and methodical in comparison. 

[Tommy6860]

David Gaider wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Curious.  You say that as if they are mutually exclusive, rather than complimentary.  I'd just as soon have Alistair explain something to me as read it in a codex or see a cinematic- scratch that, I would much prefer it.  Since he can also offer his own opinions on the subject matter, it works to personalize world and game information as well as give insight to the character.

Yes, in a world where More is always Better there'd be no reason not to have it both ways. Lots of dialogues in camp, with expository dialogue about anything that strikes your fancy, initiated conversations out and about in the world and DA2's more detailed series of personal quests.

Considering, however, that a game like BG2 where people still felt plenty connected to party members even though you couldn't click on them at all and had no control over when they spoke to you, I'm not certain the issue here isn't one of expectation rather than execution. Not that execution couldn't improve, sure, but some people seem to equate lots of dialogue to emotional connection... and I'm not sure they're as connected as they seem to think.

I honestly don't think that's a good comparison when you relate BG to Origins and then Origins to DA2. BG to Origins is more like Red Decicious Apples to Golden Declicious. Whereas Origins to DA2 is simply apples to oranges. I find it striking that you make these comparisons, considering the familiarity that Bioware fans have with the history of Bioware's game line-ups. When BG was made, it was a new IP, based all on its own mechanisms, and fans became familiar with that lack of character interaction as that was Balder's Gate, that's ok, we still loved it. But then Bioware creates the "spiritual successor" to BG called "Dragon Age: Origins" which had rich character interaction and truly expanded the companion connection to a degree (that at least) I had never experienced before in a video game. Where those interactions reflected not only on the companions I grew to know, but as allies in a great battle, with their own personal reflections of me, which was cause for certain choices I made in the game plots. That's not just execution, that's great scripting IMO.

To allude that some of us "think" we have this connection, is dismissive if you ask me, and it's convenient rhetoric to casually interchange this as some issue between "execution" and "expectation". You at Bioware made that expectation with Dragon Age: Origins, when you then made Dragon Age 2 a sequel, advertised and promoted as such. I don't think it's unreasonable to have such expectations. Remember, the basis of Origins' gameplay and character interaction/customization and style, is what made me personally feel that it was the greatest overall RPG expereince I have ever had in video gaming. I feel I can safely say that many of the Origins fans feel the same way as I do. But in all honestly when thinking back on "apples and oranges", DA2 was poorly "executed" and didn't meet my "expectations" since it has "Dragon Age" as its namesake, even if the story/companion plots are supposed to be entirely different.
 
It wasn't as if those interactions were as you say, "with expository dialogue about anything that strikes your fancy" The dialogue we had with our companions in Origins actually shaped plots states during the courses of certain quests where our companions came view us under varying degrees of what constitutes a companion. Whether lover, friend or even foe who stayed in the fight simply because of the threat of the greater evil at hand. Interestingly that you compare this to "DA2's more detailed series of personal quests.", as those quests bear little, if any relevance to the story of DA2. Yes, they help the friend/rival system along, but in the end, except for two characters in DA2, it ultimately has no effect on the quests plot states as they do in Origins. No matter what I choose to do or not in DA2 with the personal quests, they outcome is always the same, except for two of those characters, Anders and Isabela. No matter how I interact with the rest, what conversation choices I make, they are there at the end as if nothing was ever saidm, except for their ending remarks before the final battle; they are simply ancillary more than being companions on some degree or another.

As an aside, the game could have been really good, and this is solely my opinion, had it been marketed as something other than Dragon Age or an RPG. But I have to ask, how much did the Mass Effect team have to do with the dialogue script in DA2, because there was just too many instances where the similarities of the ME style felt prevalent in a good deal of the dialogue?

Modifié par Tommy6860, 22 avril 2011 - 03:27 .

[errant_knight]

David Gaider wrote...
I'm not certain what it is you assume I would have done differently. The role Anders plays in the sequel was set by myself as well as by the writing team, prior to anyone writing him. Even if I had been the one to write him, he most certainly would not have been the witty fellow you remember from Awakening... he's changed, in some very substantial ways, and if you're mourning the fact that he's different I can safely say that's very much part of the point.

A successful character provokes strong reactions. So I would say Anders was quite successful even if I didn't approve of Jennifer's writing job on him-- which I very much do. I think she did a stellar job. While there's always some trepidation in seeing someone else touch your baby, I had no reservations once I saw how she handled him.

If you felt less connected to your followers, that's too bad. There could be many reasons for that, but if the requirement to someone feeling connected is having long, rambling conversations in the party camp... I can safely say that's unlikely to happen again. I could see front-loading the characters a bit more so players are more thoroughly introduced (as it was, a lot of the character interaction ended up in Act 2 quite by accident) but I have absolutely no intention of returning to the reams of expository dialogue as a replacement for character development anytime soon.

David Gaider wrote...
Yes, in a world where More is always Better there'd be no reason not to have it both ways. Lots of dialogues in camp, with expository dialogue about anything that strikes your fancy, initiated conversations out and about in the world and DA2's more detailed series of personal quests.

Considering, however, that a game like BG2 where people still felt plenty connected to party members even though you couldn't click on them at all and had no control over when they spoke to you, I'm not certain the issue here isn't one of expectation rather than execution. Not that execution couldn't improve, sure, but some people seem to equate lots of dialogue to emotional connection... and I'm not sure they're as connected as they seem to think.

First off, I was fine with the change in Anders. Given his circumstance, it would have been bizarre if he wasn't very different and was still a funny guy. I'm sorry that had to happen to him, but it worked and made sense for the character. He made a stupid choice and the Anders in Awakening is all but dead. He's an abomination and what's left of him isn't really Anders anymore, it's the remnants of Anders under constant influence of Vengence. Having a different voice just emphasised that. It works.

I'm really saddened to hear that we won't have anymore casual conversations with our companions, however. It wasn't how much was said, or what was said, its being able to return from a hard fought battle or a long quest and do what real people do--go up to someone you care about and chat just to hear their voice, because the fact that you're both still alive makes everything better. It doesn't have to be exposition, it doesn't have to be important. It could be a comparison of bruises, what to get for dinner, or a desire to do laundry. That doesn't matter. Of course, it would be best if the tone changed depending on the relationship, but it's the fact that you can talk that's important. It's incredibly lonely to have friends/companions who won't speak to you, and makes whatever relationship is shown in cutscenes feel hollow, unreal, and removed from daily life.

Sure, do character development with action--show not tell, and all that, but keep casual conversation, because that's what ties all that character development to an ongoing relationship, not just brief moments in a solitary life. DA:O was more involving than any game I've ever played, and I think the casual conversation, that could be done whenever you felt the need to connect with your companions, was a big part of that.

Modifié par errant_knight, 22 avril 2011 - 03:54 .

[jds1bio]

errant_knight wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If you felt less connected to your followers, that's too bad. There could be many reasons for that, but if the requirement to someone feeling connected is having long, rambling conversations in the party camp... I can safely say that's unlikely to happen again. I could see front-loading the characters a bit more so players are more thoroughly introduced (as it was, a lot of the character interaction ended up in Act 2 quite by accident) but I have absolutely no intention of returning to the reams of expository dialogue as a replacement for character development anytime soon.

I'm really saddened to hear that we won't have anymore casual conversations with our companions, however.

Sure, do character development with action--show not tell, and all that, but keep casual conversation, because that's what ties all that character development to an ongoing relationship, not just brief moments in a solitary life. DA:O was more involving than any game I've ever played, and I think the casual conversation, that could be done whenever you felt the need to connect with your companions, was a big part of that.

Is expository dialogue required to be connected to a character in any way? No, we can empathize with characters, reach out to them, step in their shoes, etc. without it.

But we don't conduct our real-life social conversations this way.  We don't excise expository dialogue and use only the most pertinent words or the most concise sentences, except when we're learning to speak or we're too weak to talk.  Some of these "reams" of expository dialogue we create end up being the beginning of a romantic relationship, or a long-overdue reconciliation between siblings, or simply our most-cherished memories. 

When it comes to games I would argue that we're not too young OR too weak to handle natural conversations as part of the gaming experience.  How would Mass Effect 2's life-or-death decisions weigh on us if we didn't converse at length with Thane about his profession or illness, or Grunt's purpose in life, or Mordin's scientific work.  After more than a year since I played ME2, I can't remember every single battle I fought, but these are the things that have stuck with me about the experience and make me want to go back and revisit the game. 

As far as DA2 goes, all I'm ever going to remember about Anders is what he did in Act III.  Yet I'll always remember Knight-Captain Cullen speaking with Hawke in a conversation earlier in the game where he says that the mages would just as soon use the statues in the gallows, the symbols of slavery, to satisfy their own ends.  And yet it is Meredith, not the mages, who ends up using the statues after all.  I may be wrong here, but I don't recall that conversation being one of the required ones to have.

Modifié par jds1bio, 22 avril 2011 - 05:51 .

[Nyreen]

Before I even begin my response, I want to give a sincere thanks to Mr. Gaider for even bothering to respond to us whiny fans in the forums. I speak from experience when I say most developers don't even answering fan questions or concerns - so this means a lot.

There's a lot a want to respond to, so I'll use the quote option…hopefully without pulling anything out of context.

David Gaider wrote…

I'm not certain what it is you assume I would have done differently. The role Anders plays in the sequel was set by myself as well as by the writing team, prior to anyone writing him. Even if I had been the one to write him, he most certainly would not have been the witty fellow you remember from Awakening... he's changed, in some very substantial ways, and if you're mourning the fact that he's different I can safely say that's very much part of the point.

First, it means a lot to me to know that Ander's fate wasn't just a easy decision made by a singular writer. Thank you for explaining that. I wasn't trying to attack your team or Jennifer Hepler. I keep reiterating my sincerity because oftentimes, especially on the internets, there's a lot of misunderstanding. :innocent:

Anyway, I wasn't "mourning the fact that he's different" so much as morning the fact he's different AND that change had been so poorly implemented.  Look under the "Anders plot-holes and mischaracterizations" thread, there's a much more detailed explanation, in the first post, of what I mean by "poorly implemented".

David Gaider wrote…

A successful character
provokes strong reactions.

Even when those strong reactions are mostly negative, and mocking said "successful" character? And not just on these forums?

David Gaider wrote…

If you felt less connected
to your followers, that's too bad. There could be many reasons for that, but if
the requirement to someone feeling connected is having long, rambling
conversations in the party camp... I can safely say that's unlikely to happen
again. 

Discovering that a brutal stoic and murderer has a preference for cookies - The plentiful amount of "long rambling" conversation branches used to get that response was well worth the gut-busting laughter. 

But then again, it was never "long" and "rambling" with Sten because he spoke so little.  So I should've used another DA:O characters as an example for delightful idiosyncrasies, but oh well.

Having long, rambling conversations in the party camp isn't required for me to feel connected to a virtual character.

But it did make them sound like real people, instead of streamlined drama queens.

[Nyreen]

Midnight Voyager wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I'd just as soon have Alistair explain something to me as read it in a codex or see a cinematic- scratch that, I would much prefer it.  Since he can also offer his own opinions on the subject matter, it works to personalize world and game information as well as give insight to the character.

I'm sad. 

I... did not like information being exposited in the codex at all. Them popping up after conversations did not help. "Wait, what, Aveline's married, when did-?!"

Heck, I'd rather a companion just SAY IT than have to read it elsewhere. Seeing it happen isn't so bad, but... The codex exposit dump just did not work for me in any instance. I still felt like almost no time had passed, not many years, and absolutely nothing that happened in the interims had any impact on me.

...To be honest, the only one I can think of off-hand is Aveline's marriage, but I heard plenty of that in speech, too. DID anything happen? I felt like we all sat around, eating toast and not talking at all. Fenris's romance hit me there. "We haven't talked about it since that day" ...Annd not by my decision, just because I tardised ahead. If we didn't talk about that for three years, what DID we talk about? The weather?

Er, in short: Cinematic "see things happening and be there" is fine. Codex is... ennnh.

(...Unless you mean the cinematics of Varric just summarizing everything, in which case... Ehhhh)

THIS. I felt like in order to really understand my companions lives, I had to open a menu and then read many pages of tiny font.

[Nyreen]

This is the last time I triple post myself. It's just a lot of what I'm reading in the past pages is worthy quoting….IMHO :innocent:

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Considering, however, that a game like BG2 where people still felt plenty connected to party members even though you couldn't click on them at all and had no control over when they spoke to you, I'm not certain the issue here isn't one of expectation rather than execution. Not that execution couldn't improve, sure, but some people seem to equate lots of dialogue to emotional connection... and I'm not sure they're as connected as they seem to think.

I think that is completely subjective.

Would Alistair have made so many women around the globe break down in tears at the end of DA:O if they hadn't gone through that long courtship, the little comments of flying dogs and the tastiness of cheese, gifts of roses and awkward refusals of gettin' it on without first getting to know?

Modifié par Celestina, 22 avril 2011 - 07:10 .

[Sejborg]

David Gaider wrote...

You misunderstand. I am not saying that those expectations aren't justified... things have changed. But some perspective is required. Some people are expressing that they didn't feel as connected to the characters and then looking for what was different and deciding that must be what's at fault. I'm not convinced it is.

And if it is, and someone's requirement is that they must have everything and more in order to feel connected to a character at all ...then you're not going to be connected to any of our characters in the future. If that's truly what it takes, then I can safely say it's not going to happen.

This is not to say that some middle ground isn't possible, but that's middle ground and not "why not just do both?" As I said earlier, in an ideal world you'd get to click on your party members everywhere you liked, get lots of options for new dialogue to initiate and get quest dialogue to boot... but until this becomes the Companion Relationship Game, that's probably unrealistic to expect. Even in DAO that didn't happen, and DA2 was probably even more character focused. There are always going to be resource issues as well as other limitations to contend with (if you want cinematic dialogue, for instance, you need a set stage-- the dialogue cannot happen anywhere... the way our engine works dialogue that can occur anywhere must be "unstaged" and thus have a fixed camera), and while I understand that players will always want more of everything, I'm not at liberty to be okay with the idea that more of everything is required in order for a player to feel emotionally engaged.... and I simply suspect that some people are seeing something missing from what they had before and deciding that the equation now adds up to less than zero.

In short: they're feeling what they're feeling, and that's valid, but there may be other reasons behind it that are more easily addressed. If not, and they require constant dialogue in order to feel any emotional connection, then they're simply not going to get it.

But this is a discussion for a different thread, as it no longer has anything to do with Anders. I'll leave you guys to it.

The problem for me is, that the litlle dialogue I have in DA2 with my companions, is not efficient enought to make me care for the companions. If there had been more, like there was in Origins, then it would probably have been a different story.

The thing is, when you turn down the amount of time you spend getting to learn the characters, then you have to be equally more efficient wtih what you have. And you wasn't with DA2. I hate to be pessimistic but I don't think the gaming industry is talented enough to pull something like that off. 

The characters from Origins where great, but it took a long time to get learn them. I didn't care for characters from DA2 because I didn't spend enough time with them / the time i spend with them was not efficient enough.

Something like this is efficient. But this is also in whole other league. Just to give an example.