6 réponses à ce sujet

[jds1bio]

I read on the forums today that BioWare is unlikely to have "rambling", party-camp style conversations in a Dragon Age game again.  They do not deem it a requirement to have such "reams of expository dialogue" in order for the player to feel connected to the character.

The words in quotes are taken from the quote, and the quote from BioWare can be found in this thread, you can see the quote for yourself:

social.bioware.com/forums/forum/1/topic/305/index/7154827/1

So here is my off-topic response from that thread, updated to be on-topic, and for more public consumption:

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, with the time skips the conversations don't get much of a progression of depth.  I think this is partly because the game took away from the player the responsibility of "checking in" with your companions if you want to know more about them.  Instead they are waiting for you to speak with them less frequently at convenient points in the game.  I know that this gives some overall guidance to some players, but veterans of BioWare games expected to be able to converse more with their companions on their own, rather than have to catch up with them through a codex.

Still, DA2 is not without its memorable conversational moments.  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.  If it is part of a required conversation, then I am glad, because I hope everyone gets a chance to be part of it.

So, while I agree in principle (it is not REQUIRED), I still think having these social conversations is somewhat NECESSARY as part of the full interaction experience with the character.  To me, this is part of WHY we play videogames with stories, they give us something extra we don't always get from other mediums.  Getting to frequently interact with a character outside of combat is usually considered a good thing, whether central to the main plot or no.  And this is part of the reason why BioWare games stand out in the minds of many.

Thank you for your attention.

Modifié par jds1bio, 23 avril 2011 - 12:23 .

[David Gaider]

Perhaps I shouldn't have responded to the initial thread at all. The responses from some quarters are fairly predictable -- "Oh, he's being arrogant. He thinks he knows what everyone wants, but he's wrong!"

I don't, in fact, know what everyone wants, nor do I think I have all the answers. This is a field in which I have a lot of experience, however, so I'll speak to that, and in terms of how the writing team can best use the resources at hand. Resources are, after all, the reality of game development. So if I'm talking about things that you find irrelevant, that's fine. I just can't express it in any other terms, and I know for a fact that no matter what solution I end up trying it's never going to work for everyone.

To put it another way, I get that not everyone felt connected to the followers. It's not universally true, by any means, but I get some people feel that way. Regardless of the reason behind it, that feeling is valid. What seems to get on some people's goat a little is my suggestion that the cause is not necessarily what they suggest it is. When someone says "this is the way I felt", I'll pay attention. When they move onto "and this is why", I'm a little more skeptical. They may be right, at least for them, but more often what I see is people making a comparison to something they thought was better and assuming anything that's different must be the cause. I doubt it's that easy.

Rather than repeat my mistake and talk more about what I think the real reasons might be, I'll simply clarify a few erroneous rumors. I don't think Origins did it "wrong". I think Origins was terribly inefficient in its use of resources, but we also had a lot on hand to throw around. I think there's a better way to do it, but I can also see where DA2's method was lacking. And while I don't think agency is really the issue -- there are lots of games, some of which we've even made, where a player has no agency at all in the relationships and yet feels connected -- I do think there's something to be said about a player feeling better acquainted with their follower. If those "long rambling conversations" do anything, it's bestowing a feeling like you know a character prior to adventuring with them.

As for conversations being a thing of the past, that's simply not true. You had quite a few conversations with your followers in DA2, some of them quite lengthy. Overall the density of conversation was, in fact, higher than in Origins. When I say 'that's not going to happen again", I mean the dialogue being as weighted in favor of "tell me about" questions as it was in Origins. I'd sooner have followers reacting to the plot more often, scenes like a follower coming to speak to you about your mother, then I would putting more resources into exposition-- which has its place, don't get me wrong, but I really don't think that's why most people connect to a character. Perhaps the "notice" you received whenever new dialogue became available made people feel like it was always quest-related (which, if so, certainly wasn't it's intent-- the intent was to not make you feel like you had to keep returning to a follower only to get "I'm still recalibrating the weapons" dialogue), perhaps it simply felt too structured and some level of spontaneity is required-- as in a feeling that the conversation you're having is because you wanted it to happen (whether that's technically true or not, perception is everything). There are several possibilities, not all of which can be addressed, but some might be at least on the structural level.

If anything, my comment was directed solely at those who felt the Origins method was the only possible solution, that they required lengthy and repeated conversations about nothing in particular in order to feel connected. If someone absolutely feels that's the case, my response was that they weren't likely to feel connected to a character of ours again in a game. That said, I don't feel that the DA2 method is the be-all and end-all of our development on this front, nor that everything Origins did was wrong-- while some people will mix things like plot and content volume into this argument as if they're the same thing, I think there's some very valuable information to be garnered even if I'm forced to filter it through my "I only have limited resources" lens.

If I also have to take such criticism with the caveat that it's primarily going to come from those who didn't enjoy the results, and that there are those who did... well, you can call that arrogance if you like. I seem to get called arrogant a lot these days when I disagree with someone regarding what they think Dragon Age should be. If simply having the power to form my own conclusions and act as I think best (ignoring the fact that I do not control the franchise outside of my tiny corner of it) is arrogant, then so be it. I'll simply ask you in the most snide and arrogant tone possible to keep providing such useful and thoughtful feedback. Even if it doesn't seem like we're coming to the conclusions you think we should be, it's still very much appreciated.

Modifié par David Gaider, 24 avril 2011 - 07:26 .

[David Gaider]

Keladis wrote...
I do not think character interaction need to be a lengthy as Origin but what was so wrong with allowing us to just talk to our companions or other select NPC almost anytime we wanted to talk?

I'll just point out that part of this has to do with the way the camera system works. Every cinematic conversation must be "staged"... meaning that a stage must be created with cameras in place, and that's how you get the dynamic camera switching while dialogue is occurring.

You can have "unstaged" dialogue... but if you use pre-set cameras without knowing the area you're working in you run the risk of cameras being blocked by objects or other area geometry. The only realistic option in those instances is to go with a single camera showing the character directly in front of the PC and never switching. Which wouldn't be so bad, except that after experiencing most cinematic conversations being staged it's actually quite jarring to suddenly switch to a static camera. It feels like something's wrong. This is why major conversations, the ones where you have everyone interacting with the environment (like sitting down in a chair, for instance), need to happen in a specific place.

Now, I know the response from some people would be "then do away with cinematics"... but that's not in the cards. It's a stylistic decision, and the best we can do is figure out how to work with it. I don't know that I would want to split every follower up into their own home like in DA2 again-- that turned out to be problematic on several levels-- but conversations that can simply occur anywhere, other than the most basic sort, are unlikely. Player-initiated dialogue that is unscripted (ie. can happen at any time, rather than anywhere) is far more feasible.

Even then, of course, it's a matter of give-and-take. Adding more dialogue in one place means it must come from somewhere else. When I've said previously that we can't do both, what I mean is we cannot simply take the system in DA2 and add in a bunch of new dialogue to happen at multiple other junctures. While I could indeed imagine that would be ideal-- heck, if it were up to me I'd have conversations possible every time you turned around-- it's an ideal that's never going to happen.

I remember in the other thread someone got upset when I said DA isn't "the Relationship Game" -- and by that I mean, while followers and relationships with them are very important, it's not the point of the game. One must be careful not to focus on it to the exclusion of the fact that there's an entire game around which these dialogues must occur.*I* certainly can't forget that, anyhow, but such focus is what tends to happen in these sorts of threads where one issue is zeroed in on and everyone tends to forget there is anything else it might affect or which even needs to be considered. In game development we call this "designing in a bubble", and it happens to the best of us.

Modifié par David Gaider, 24 avril 2011 - 09:23 .

[David Gaider]

Dalira Montanti wrote...
@david gaider: would it be simple to just not have a talking main player then you can use camera point as you guys did in origins or is the voiced player highly popular?

The voiced player has nothing to do with staged dialogue. Staged dialogue is a stylistic decision-- you'll notice in most of the dialogues of DA2 that the camera switches viewpoint more often, and there's a greater focus on animation and interacting with the environment. This is intentional. The only difference with regards to a voiced player is they can take part in the resulting scene, which is also what we want.

Modifié par David Gaider, 24 avril 2011 - 09:43 .

[David Gaider]

shantisands wrote...
Hmm, so what you would need to have is designated areas within areas, with set and *safe* locations ( like against a wall, in a corner of a room, corner of alley etc.) as the set stage for any dialog to occur now in order to be able to do this?  So, the ability to have a conversation with Cullen out works because of the location he is in, so it was possible to recreate this scene without having certain objects or walking people blocking the scene?

 Couldn't you do it *kind of* middle ground, like have opportunities in certain locations to have conversations, such as the tavern at the bar, or in your living room etc.?  Common areas you tend to go to often and for a while, that would give the opportunity (in a casual and conversation-normal environment) to kick back and deepen already present companion themes through dialog the character could initiate?  This would keep the character initiated dialog to certain locations only but being character initiated would give the player a sense of choice? Plus, being logical "conversation" places would make sense and being only one or two areas, need less work than free-for-all character clicking for extra conversation?  I hope this makes sense.   

The very best we could do is allow a conversation to occur in areas where we know there is sufficient space for the cameras. That's if there's nothing in the environment we want to have happen, however, and in fact it's probably harder to script those "safe" zones in than you might think. Most likely it'd have to be restricted down to a list of locations small enough that the idea of "I can talk to them anywhere" would become rather moot anyhow.

As I said before, limited dialogue could be permitted in any location (one camera, but you can't sit there on it for long or it's going to feel weird) but more likely it'd have to be dialogue in a set location but which is entirely up to the player to initiate that'd be more feasible. The question then becomes just how many such dialogues can we have?

Another recommendation is to have a few more ambient lines that your companions could repeat if clicked.  Varric seemed to have more than most of them, but ones relevant to your location, or the stage of your game would make it feel less canned and static, even though you can't actually initiate dialog.

I think that's where we're heading to, to be honest. Ambient dialogue (meaning lines are spoken but no cinematics are required, such as with party banter) is "cheap" in the sense that it's not labor intensive. If we can figure out a way mechanically for the player to choose responses in ambient dialogue, it could certainly open more up on the front of short flavor conversations. Even lacking that, I'd like to see more back-and-forth banter-- especially with the player. We realized only towards the end of the project just how much we could actually have the player partake in party banter rather than simply listening to it. I'm not sure how far we could go down that front without the player feeling like we were stepping on their toes, character-wise, but it might be a use of the player voice that we haven't fully explored yet.

[David Gaider]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
All the situations that can happen without pausing the action. Existing dialogues take place with the rest of the game effectively paused and have a critical path. It would feel extremely unnatural if you were walking along and the conversation halted abruptly while waiting for a response from Hawke to continue. The other issue is that you must consider console controller input. How would it work on a console if you're moving (left thumbstick) and the dialogue wheel appears? It's not that cut and dry, especially when the console sales are a significant portion of the game's total audience.

It isn't impossible, but requires a lot of testing and proving out.

Yes, it's not so much of a matter of why it can't be done but more that the engine doesn't currently allow for it-- and adding the feature would require addressing the interface issues you mention. I'd also bring up the fact that you'd also need to read the possible responses... which might not seem to be a limitation, except that with everything unpaused it might be an issue.

At any rate, it's still just a thought at this point.

[David Gaider]

I like the idea of companions coming to the mansion / slums to visit Hawke at his house rather than you having to wait through load screens just to have a conversation.  Basically if companions can come to my house to speak to DOG then they can also come to speak to me.

This would solve:
-- Waiting through load screens just to talk to someone in a different area of the city
-- Solves the "calibration" issue
-- If there is a message on your desk [at someone's house] you know it's a real quest or at least that the setting is important [like visiting Merill & the mirror]

We actually considered having more companions come to your home (it does happen in a few instances, after all, like Aveline & Isabela at the end of Act 2). The issue we ran into was with regards to not knowing just how often the player was going to actually return to their home... and the resulting queue of "companions waiting to talk to Hawke" that could result.

Ultimately I think this boils down to splitting the companions up into their individual homes having logistical complications. While I like the idea from a conceptual standpoint, I'm pretty certain I wouldn't do it this way again without addressing some of the functionality.