323 réponses à ce sujet

[Giltspur]

David Gaider wrote...
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.

My first reaction to the idea that conversation was too structured was...

What's the big deal?  You do still click on them.  You do initiate the conversation.  You don't have to go there until you want to.  It can't be the "quest" system that makes people feel they can't direct the conversation.

But after reading some of the replies here my reaction is...

Well, in DAO when you click on someone there's a list of topics to choose from.  So it feels like you're dictating the conversation because you're choosing what to talk about from options.  In DA2, you get a quest, and you get to talk about one thing.  So it feels like the NPC is guiding you on conversation rails--even if it's just DAO spread out over time and dropped into homebases with quest prompts for new topics being available.

So maybe that's where the perception comes in. 

[QueenPurpleScrap]

I am in the third act, and I have to agree with a lot of the posts here. I felt much more connected to the other characters in DAO, and even my own character than I do in DA2. The conversations in DAO weren't just helpful for better understanding/building relationships with other characters, but gave you the opportunity to flesh out your own character and better define or even redefine these connections.
The banter is nice (I agree that it should not be repetitive, nor initiate during a battle) but that is not enough.
Aveline is a member of your party. If you helped her out and she gets married, you should have a wedding to attend. That would be a great opportunity not just for talking to your party members, but other characters, overhear different gossip, etc. In real life, if a friend gets married you either go to the wedding or don't. Why do all direct conversations have to be quest related? If a friend is upset, or if something happens, you talk - even if it is just to suggest getting a beer and hanging out.
Keep the home bases. That's fine. But for heaven's sake, you have a tavern that you all can go to. Add an option to the map for party or poker night at the Hanging Man, and each time you go it is random as to how many of the available characters show up, 1 to all. There could be banter with the opportunity to interject or listen, as well as initiated conversations with specific individuals. These would all flesh out the game and relationships, without having to have reams and reams of dialogue.
DA2 cheaps out in this respect.
Love relationships are also not very fulfilling. This is my first playthrough, and Anders is my LI, but let's face it, the vanilla DAO with Alistair seems like porn in comparison. If you have an LI, why not a few extra conversations and the ability to go to bed (since you have one) or kiss them occasionally.
And even though it is not about the conversations, the way the elves were redesigned really bugs me. They are pretty cookie cutter, different hair and other cosmetic differences. And they are uglier. I can understand, maybe, wanting to make them more distinct from humans, but they are less attractive and less individual. They are supposed to be from the same planet. Come to think of it, the Qunari in DAO were more individualized than here. I liked Zevran in DAO. In DA2 he and Fenris are the only distinct elves. And Zev did not improve in the transition.

[Kreidian]

Thinking about this conversation issue I have to say that I actually did enjoy the way DA2 handled a lot of their companion dialogs. I liked the effort put in to make these events feel more natural, more organic, it felt more like the sort of interactive back and forth conversations that people would expect to have in real life ( or at least in a good story ) rather then just standing there and forcing people to talk to you to no end.

That said, I still wish there could have been more of them. That's something that I suspect everyone would have wanted but I understand very well that this is hard to manage given the finite resources you have to deal with in game development. My point is more specifically that I would like to have seen more options in my interactions with my companions, more opportunities to get to know them, and more opportunities to boost their approval or rivalries accordingly. So often in this game I felt as though if I wanted to become friends or rivals with someone in the group I would ultimately have to focus on only just that.

The number of opportunities to influence party members feels so limited, that you just end up playing the relationship game even when you don't want to. By this I mean you end up dealing with a lot of meta gaming where you specifically take people with you - or specifically leave them behind - even when you don't want to, just because completing a certain mission in a certain way will give a certain amount of friendship or rivalry. Alternatively you often find yourself picking specific conversation options for their specific meta game value rather then because that's what your character would actually say.

All of which ultimately tends to diminish the value of the interactive conversations that are actually there. You can't really enjoy the cinematic conversations when you're more concerned how they will affect "the relationship game". What would be nice is having more opportunities to influence party members outside of these specific mechanics, so you can go back and forth across the friendship/rivalry meter several times but still ultimately end up where you want to be.

I think making ambient dialogs more interactive would provide a great opportunity for this if done properly.

Or at the very least they will provide more funny dialog.

[Zeevico]

I'm getting serious deja vu here. Isn't "we chose to make conversations cinematic and that's why there's less of them" something I heard from the devs in either NWN or NWN2 (not Bioware from memory but another company)? Lord help me that excuse was poor then and it's poor now. Think about the logic there for a minute: "We chose to make cinematic conversations (to encourage immersion) and that's why we have less conversations (to decrease immersion)." DA2 has way better dialogue than NWN/2, admittedly, but the excuse is still poor in my book.

I'm just saying, why have them at all then? I'd much rather have more writing. For that matter why voice every convo anyway?

I know, I know--I'm just that outlying demographic BG2 fanatic. Best of luck--I hope I'll enjoy the next game, but this feels like NWN disillusionment all over again. It's strange--in NWN they fixated on combat and got it more-or-less right during the OC but made companion banter bad. But in DA2 they fixated (somewhat) on interaction but didn't put in enough to get it right; introduced cookie cutter battles with mooks and badly scripted wave combat; and simply didn't bother wih level design or art (all whilst proclaiming that the visuals were "better" than DAO, what nonsense). The combat system is interesting so that's one thing they got right more-or-less.

Counting the successes, we have:
-Dialogue (somewhat) and writing (but there's not enough); and
- Combat system
--Friendship/Rivalry, which is interesting.

Against:
Level Design (or rather, the total lack of it);
Actual combats rendered boring by reason of poor design (inexplicable waves, etc)
Some sidequests without context, excepting a shoestring line of ambient dialogue (thugs in kirkwall at night, fedex quests)
Poorer art and visuals than the original game.

All in all, a pretty poor effort for Bioware.

Cost effective? Probably. But who will buy DLC of this kind? I won't. Or expansions? Nope. DA3? Possibly, because it may have enough content overall to compensate for its flaws.

Modifié par Zeevico, 25 avril 2011 - 04:46 .

[Iosev]

Kreidian wrote...

Thinking about this conversation issue I have to say that I actually did enjoy the way DA2 handled a lot of their companion dialogs. I liked the effort put in to make these events feel more natural, more organic, it felt more like the sort of interactive back and forth conversations that people would expect to have in real life ( or at least in a good story ) rather then just standing there and forcing people to talk to you to no end.

That said, I still wish there could have been more of them. That's something that I suspect everyone would have wanted but I understand very well that this is hard to manage given the finite resources you have to deal with in game development. My point is more specifically that I would like to have seen more options in my interactions with my companions, more opportunities to get to know them, and more opportunities to boost their approval or rivalries accordingly. So often in this game I felt as though if I wanted to become friends or rivals with someone in the group I would ultimately have to focus on only just that.

The number of opportunities to influence party members feels so limited, that you just end up playing the relationship game even when you don't want to. By this I mean you end up dealing with a lot of meta gaming where you specifically take people with you - or specifically leave them behind - even when you don't want to, just because completing a certain mission in a certain way will give a certain amount of friendship or rivalry. Alternatively you often find yourself picking specific conversation options for their specific meta game value rather then because that's what your character would actually say.

All of which ultimately tends to diminish the value of the interactive conversations that are actually there. You can't really enjoy the cinematic conversations when you're more concerned how they will affect "the relationship game". What would be nice is having more opportunities to influence party members outside of these specific mechanics, so you can go back and forth across the friendship/rivalry meter several times but still ultimately end up where you want to be.

I think making ambient dialogs more interactive would provide a great opportunity for this if done properly.

Or at the very least they will provide more funny dialog.

I agree with a lot of what you've said.  I think one way to improve (in addition to adding more conversations) the friendship/rivalry system is to give more points during personal companion quests (and in particular, key dialogue decisions), and less from regular questing.  This way, players aren't as worried about taking or leaving a particular companion behind just because they want or don't want friendship/rivalry points.

Ultimately, players should be able to bring companions they want in order to see the different reactions without having to worry so much about being rewarded/punished for doing so.

[tmp7704]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

If a pipe-in banter system had been implemented, I wonder how much time would have been spent telling a companion "knock it off" in the Anders/Fenris/Merrill party configuration...  :innocent:

If that gets implemented i hope the PC's line will be "you guys"

Modifié par tmp7704, 25 avril 2011 - 06:16 .

[jds1bio]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

More on topic: I'm not entirely convinced automatic party banter based solely on previous personality choices would make the game feel more immersive; it might actually make it less so.    With some companions, my character was kind and with others more confrontational and challenging.  If my Hawke spends the whole game being tough on Fenris and Isabela, for example, while being helpful to everyone else, Hawke shouldn't have an understanding tone during ALL the banters.

@Dragon  I see the quick time event model working nicely with a controller, and am trying to make it work as smoothly with a mouse and keyboard.  Maybe use the QEF keys for the options?  Then the player could continue to move using WASD or the mouse...

I do think about what the playtesting of DA2's dialogue system was like.  Was any of it automated to assure that the the things Hawke said were said with the "correct" tone for that playstyle?  How much did people "get it" the first time playing it through vs. having it sail by them without taking notice?  What types of edits and changes were done to make sure the player would be able to "make sense" of the changes in tone, and acknowledge the effects of their choices?  Did players rate the strength and understanding of their connections to the companions, and rate the representation of growth as a function of progress through the game?

Aside from eye-hand coordination testing, any control scheme like a quicktime model needs to be playtested within the context of the game itself to assure that people will "get it" without becoming overly fatigued, confused, or detached.

[Alex Kershaw]

Another point I thought of:

I found it odd that there is much talk of DAO being inefficient and generally of resource allocation. Let's look at the facts on DA2:

1) 18 months development time
2) Sequel to a game that got a 91 metacritic score, sold well and established a large fan base

The decision - a 180 degree turn on the franchise. How is that efficient?

[GenericPlayer2]

I can't say I felt disconnected from the characters, but I do have some issues with the system in DA2:

Adding notices for conversations to the Quest queue made it feel like a chore. It should be noted that by comparison to Origins, DA2 already feels like a series of side quests.So the fact that I had to leave my home to have these conversations exacerbated the feeling that this was another side quest or chore.

In ME2 there were characters I hated, like Jack/Tali, and aside from the loyalty mission I really did not have to deal with her nor did I feel like I had to pay any attention to her. In DA2, I felt obligated to talk to Merill when prompted. Part of this was because of the prompt coming into the Quest page, and the other was that not doing some of her missions meant you could not craft fell grenades or fell poison. If you compare this to Origins, ignoring the personal requests of companions impacts the story, but does not stop you from crafting any item or upgrading a weapon.

I guess what I am saying is that I would like to feel like I can spend more time with companions I like and get to know them better. At the same time I don't want to feel obligated to spend time with companions I hate because there is a prompt in the quest page or because I will miss out on a crafting ingredient or weapon upgrade.

PS> I just wanted to add that with the Arishok, you could go back and talk to him again and again. Even if he had nothing new to say, it meant that you did not have to go through the entire conversation tree with him in one go. With companions I have to exhaust all investigative options in one go because I will not be able to return to the same dialogue again.

Modifié par GenericPlayer2, 25 avril 2011 - 07:17 .

[Giltspur]

Still thinking about the socializing aspect of things.

The Suggestion
Why not have a "social hub" you can go to like camp or the Hanged Man where people react to what's happened in the game?  You know instead of NPC's being fully stocked with conversations from Day 1, they accumulate potential conversations based on things that have happened in the game.   And the conversations don't just have to be, say, Hawke and one other person. 

Now don't get me wrong.  Reacting to quests during quests and immediately after quests can be even cooler.  But maybe that's not always appropriate and it makes sense to put stuff in the communal setting.  Other things that seem like private discussions might belong elsewhere.

The Feedback, The Possible Compromises
At any rate, I really liked the companion scenes like where Merrill is playing cards with Isabela or Isabela is talking with Merill about...you know.  Generally speaking that stuff was cool and caused me to like the characters more.  I mean, Varric tried to teach a dog to gamble.  Who doesn't appreciate that?

That said, I"ve seen others say they felt left out.  And I can see that.  My first impression was Merill was leaving out of respect in those scenes because the show (Hawke) had arrived.  But I can see how it can make someone feel lonely if their party is always breaking up as soon as the "leader" arrives.  It's like being an office manager. 

At any rate, they were still cool for the NPC's.  And they were usually attached to a "Questioning Beliefs" quest or companion quest or an apology-after-fade quest, if I recall.  So what if you hive that stuff off of the quests and dump it into "the Hanged Man social hour".  (Obviously, there will be no Hanged Man in DA3--I'm just putting things in DA2 terms.)  So you check in on stuff like that but still get quest notifications for things like "Hawke, I need to talk. And here's a side quest."   (Because there's going to be part of the player base that doesn't want to miss quests--hence the notification--but also doesn't care about getting every possible conversation.)

Modifié par Giltspur, 25 avril 2011 - 07:29 .

[tmp7704]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

Adding notices for conversations to the Quest queue made it feel like a chore. It should be noted that by comparison to Origins, DA2 already feels like a series of side quests.So the fact that I had to leave my home to have these conversations exacerbated the feeling that this was another side quest or chore.

I'd imagine that could work slightly better if instead of quest notifications there was a mark on the map at the follower's location, if they had new dialogue available. DA2 already had that mechanics with the "you have mail" icon at your own home and it felt less obtrusive.

[Mikeuicus]

I just want to thank David for his thoughts and the insights they provide into the game design process. I personally didn't have much of a problem with the conversations in 2, save for how much traveling I had to do to talk to all my companions. I liked getting a quest update for when a friend was ready to talk, but I did feel that Act 1 conversations felt a bit short.

[wildannie]

 It was so good to read some more of David's thoughts on this issue as they cleared up a lot of what I'd read in another thread.

For me, I would have been perfectly happy if I could only initiate convos in the home bases (but at any time).  It was the not being able to truely initiate any dialogue that irked me the most.  It would be nice to be able to chat anywhere but it's not crucial to my continued enjoyment of the franchise.

By splitting  up the dialogue a bit it would seem to have been possible to stretch what there was beyond the existing convos.  The sword of mercy convo with Fenris provides the opportunity to ask about Tevinter, this is the only chance the player gets to pick his brains on this.  I believe that having these kind of questions available at the players leisure would have greatly helped to deliver the missing sense of freedom that I felt. I have found these constraints harder to ignore on repeated playthroughs to the point where I'm struggling at Act III on playthrough 3.  Also, having the 'kiss him/her'  option for LIs as in origins would have helped too.

Edit:  I love the banters, having some agency in banter would be really cool, although implementing this would surely be difficult.

Modifié par wildannie, 25 avril 2011 - 08:30 .

[Sad Dragon]

scyphozoa wrote...

I love the idea of PC responding to
ambient dialog. I think it would be a great passive feature. If your
Hawke is consistently diplomatic, snarky or pragmatic, then the PC
should have designated lines for ambient responses. This removes the
necessity to give the player the choice of those dialog interactions,
something I'm sure people will scoff at me for suggesting. However, I
think if you play consistently through as a single type of character,
having those passive responses will still be in the player's control,
just indirectly.

I think the problem with having automatic responces -- I think -- is that it can be really immersion breaking.
I know I got anoyed at times when it happened in DA2. We, as humans, are rarely just sarcastic, nice och agressive. Just looking to myself I can be a total deadpan snark at times, that doesnt mean I answer everything with a sarcastic/witty reply IRL. It depends on the conversation at hand, who I am interecting with and my mood.
It might be a compleetly serious discussion but someone just hands me a punch line on a silver platter. Now if I am in a totaly serious mood or if the person is not the kind to share a joke with i might pass it up. Most of the times with my friends I would just go for it -- as long as the topic isnt something that demands serious discussion.

That said, it is an easy way of doing it. I just feel like the devs are controling my character and not me when it happens -- but that can just be me.

wildannie wrote...

For me, I would have been perfectly happy if I could only initiate convos in the home bases (but at any time).  It was the not being able to truely initiate any dialogue that irked me the most.  It would be nice to be able to chat anywhere but it's not crucial to my continued enjoyment of the franchise.

By splitting  up the dialogue a bit it would seem to have been possible to stretch what there was beyond the existing convos.  The sword of mercy convo with Fenris provides the opportunity to ask about Tevinter, this is the only chance the player gets to pick his brains on this.  I believe that having these kind of questions available at the players leisure would have greatly helped to deliver the missing sense of freedom that I felt. I have found these constraints harder to ignore on repeated playthroughs to the point where I'm struggling at Act III on playthrough 3.  

This just gave me an idea, might be a bad one -- but ill put it out there and see what happens.
Perhapps have dialogue become unlocked after some condition is met. Take the Sword of Mercy convo -- say that upon giving Fenris the sword you unlock more dialogue about Tevinter. You can then access the dialogue at any time (as long as you initiate it at his home base). You can also have some topics unlock after different quests or depending on what act you are currently in.

Just a though.

wildannie wrote...
Also, having the 'kiss him/her'  option for LIs as in origins would have helped too.

Yes to this! I missed this little feature until my last playthrough of Dragon Age: Origins -- the one I played for importing into Dragon Age 2 -- and I have to say that it added another layer to the romances that I liked.

- The Sad Dragon

[wildannie]

@ Sad Dragon - I like your thinking, having some anytime dialogue unlock after each paced companion quest convo would be perfect. I think I would also prefer to be able to choose whether to give the gifts (or not) through conversations rather than just not speaking to them when the gift quest is active if I wasn't feeling generous.

There were so many little things in Origins that really added to the experience (although as a Zev fan I needed a mod to get my wardens a random kiss : [ )

Modifié par wildannie, 25 avril 2011 - 10:01 .

[ejoslin]

wildannie wrote...

@ Sad Dragon - I like your thinking, having some anytime dialogue unlock after each paced companion quest convo would be perfect. I think I would also prefer to be able to choose whether to give the gifts (or not) through conversations rather than just not speaking to them when the gift quest is active if I wasn't feeling generous.

There were so many little things in Origins that really added to the experience (although as a Zev fan I needed a mod to get my wardens a random kiss : [ )

Even though you need a mod in the game to get an anywhere kiss with Zevran, even in the vanilla game when you went back to camp you could get the leading-to-sexytime kiss which to me felt very natural.  You're at camp, you're settling in for the night, you let your lover know you'd like to get busy.

If there was even that at the homebase of the LI, it would have made a huge difference.

Modifié par ejoslin, 25 avril 2011 - 10:26 .

[Ulicus]

Giltspur wrote...

Still thinking about the socializing aspect of things.

The Suggestion
Why not have a "social hub" you can go to like camp or the Hanged Man where people react to what's happened in the game?  You know instead of NPC's being fully stocked with conversations from Day 1, they accumulate potential conversations based on things that have happened in the game.   And the conversations don't just have to be, say, Hawke and one other person. 

Now don't get me wrong.  Reacting to quests during quests and immediately after quests can be even cooler.  But maybe that's not always appropriate and it makes sense to put stuff in the communal setting.  Other things that seem like private discussions might belong elsewhere.

I very much like the sound of this idea.

[_Aine_]

I think bottom line is, we want a little bit of control over the conversation initiation, even if it is largely illusion.  I'm happy to also see other people liking the idea of a social hub, although it seems that is not in the cards. 

Another thing that kind of let me down was the sometimes enormous burdens of quests that I would get when I went home (usually at an Act change) as I would check and BAM 10+ quests and what if I wasn't in the mood at that moment to read them all? At the very same moment that my codex would be populated with so many new tidbits of history? When I play a video game, I don't want to read so much of my direction ( now, history stuff, extra infos, sure I LOVE that stuff when used as a spice and not a main course) but it just *seemed* like we got our direction often by mail. What, they can't show up? I can't run into them and they give me the quest? It just seemed very impersonal.

I suppose it was several little things that gave the impression of conversational distance ( with the lengthy time-span probably being a big factor also) but it has been nice to have a real conversation about our feelings countered by the reasons behind it ( provided by David Gaider, *thanks for that*) to deepen understanding .

Modifié par shantisands, 25 avril 2011 - 10:33 .

[wildannie]

ejoslin wrote...

wildannie wrote...

@ Sad Dragon - I like your thinking, having some anytime dialogue unlock after each paced companion quest convo would be perfect. I think I would also prefer to be able to choose whether to give the gifts (or not) through conversations rather than just not speaking to them when the gift quest is active if I wasn't feeling generous.

There were so many little things in Origins that really added to the experience (although as a Zev fan I needed a mod to get my wardens a random kiss : [ )

Even though you need a mod in the game to get an anywhere kiss with Zevran, even in the vanilla game when you went back to camp you could get the leading-to-sexytime kiss which to me felt very natural.  You're at camp, you're settling in for the night, you let your lover know you'd like to get busy.

If there was even that at the homebase of the LI, it would have made a huge difference.

very true, and my wardens often took this opportunity, for the kisses and the one liners 

[jds1bio]

wildannie wrote...

For me, I would have been perfectly happy if I could only initiate convos in the home bases (but at any time).  It was the not being able to truely initiate any dialogue that irked me the most.  It would be nice to be able to chat anywhere but it's not crucial to my continued enjoyment of the franchise.

By splitting  up the dialogue a bit it would seem to have been possible to stretch what there was beyond the existing convos.  The sword of mercy convo with Fenris provides the opportunity to ask about Tevinter, this is the only chance the player gets to pick his brains on this.  I believe that having these kind of questions available at the players leisure would have greatly helped to deliver the missing sense of freedom that I felt. I have found these constraints harder to ignore on repeated playthroughs to the point where I'm struggling at Act III on playthrough 3.

I notice that in this game the companions' willingness to talk is more affected by mood and circumstance than in, say, DA:O or ME2.  I think that this partly because the companions in those games figure that, well our do-or-die direction is clear and we don't have anything else to occupy our time, might as well come out and spill our guts to the player whenever it's convenient for the player. 

Whereas the companions in DA2 are actually living in Kirkwall, and do have separate lives they are carrying out. 
So they would not always be accessible anyway, but they also have no central quest to bind them.  They just simply agree to hang out with Hawke and help him/her whenever Hawke calls on them, and presumably when they're not busy working or trying to restore mirrors or running a clinic or what have you.  So they may not always be in the mood to spill it for you, but you can also tell them that you don't want to talk about things either, and then miss out on some of the questioning beliefs quests later on.

For this type of story, where the party isn't necessarily dedicated to one cause, I would say that questing a conversation is the right idea, if that quest can somehow involve an activity of some sort relevant to the main plot or to the relationship.  Something similar to the ME2 loyalty quests, but not necessarily as neatly separated from everything else.  And something closer to what was done with Anders and the deep roads quest, where his presence offered an alternative to a companion's particularly dire circumstance.  DA2 made some strides in this direction, but the entire quest would have to sate much of the player's desired "conversation quotient" in addition to providing enough gameplay variations.  I don't think BioWare is as far away from pulling this off as it may seem.

Modifié par jds1bio, 25 avril 2011 - 10:49 .

[Alamar2078]

I like many of the suggestions here. I personally would like a good amount of party banter. I would like a whole lot more banter for each individual mission that we are on ... along the lines of hey Varric what do you think? Hey Merill what about destroying these tomes of blood magic? ... etc.

Then maybe you could have your companions drop by the mansion when they just want to chat. This would eliminate the "calibrating" lines and [perhaps] would be a nice touch.

As for the tons of DA:O dialog I liked it as it helped flesh out not just characters but the world. It was also nice to hear Morrigan's story about the gold mirror and then when you see one in the shop you can get it for her. I know you're clubbed over the head with that but those sorts of touches are nice. It's these sort of "meaningless" conversations that I have with my wife & friends that really let me know what sorts of gifts they'd like / surprises that are good for them / etc.

[Brockololly]

tmp7704 wrote...

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

Adding notices for conversations to the Quest queue made it feel like a chore. It should be noted that by comparison to Origins, DA2 already feels like a series of side quests.So the fact that I had to leave my home to have these conversations exacerbated the feeling that this was another side quest or chore.

I'd imagine that could work slightly better if instead of quest notifications there was a mark on the map at the follower's location, if they had new dialogue available. DA2 already had that mechanics with the "you have mail" icon at your own home and it felt less obtrusive.

I really think they underutilized Hawke's desk- it would have been very cool if when you clicked on it to read letters, it actually looked like a desk with letters and so forth on it- kind of how in Origins the Chanters board looked like an actual board  that you could stamp with your wax Grey Warden seal. Have it so you can interact with actual letters on your desk and otehr objects and maybe have them open up as an actual handwritten letter instead of just a screen of text. Hell, it would be neat if they were even voiced over by who ever was wrote it.

Just something more immersive than the Mass Effect style menus - having the menus look so sparse and sci-fi and not fit any discernable DA theme was just another bit that "broke" my immersion to some extent.

Sad Dragon wrote...

I think the problem with having automatic responces -- I think -- is that it can be really immersion breaking. I know I got anoyed at times when it happened in DA2.
*snip*
That said, it is  an easy way of doing it. I just feel like the devs are controling my  character and not me when it happens -- but that can just be me.

No, I totally agree- its one thing for Hawke to maybe ask a folow up question, but to have Hawke or the PC just respond in banter based solelyt on the dominant mood would likely not go over well with me, as I often had enough issues with the dominant personlaity thing causing Hawke to act out of character.

I'd be fine with the PC interacting in banter more, so long as it was done in such a way that felt like the player was giving input and not just sitting there as the PC went rogue saying something which leaves the player frustrated. Beyond that, its jarring when you hear the PC talk on their own with no player input as it often takes a while to register that, "Oh, wait, thats the PC talking" and not some random person, since you didn't give any input- especially if the camera isn't focused like in the party banter.

wildannie wrote...

@ Sad Dragon - I like your thinking,  having some anytime dialogue unlock after each paced companion quest  convo would be perfect. I think I would also prefer to be able to  choose whether to give the gifts (or not) through conversations rather  than just not speaking to them when the gift quest is active if I wasn't feeling generous.

There were so many little things in Origins  that really added to the experience (although as a Zev fan I needed a  mod to get my wardens a random kiss : [ )

 I agree- one of the annoying things in DA2 was how you automatically gave the gifts just by initiating conversation sometimes. Whereas in DAO it was consistent in how you had to gift them from the inventory to the companion in question.

I guess thats another issue I had, thats mayeb more with the cinematics than anything, but made me more detached from Hawke and the game anyway, was how the transitions between gameplay and conversation often were really abrupt. In that, when you clicked on someone to talk, in Origins it was fairly consistent in that it zoomed down to the over the shoulder view  initially while in DA2, the camera can be all over the place, which just makes it jarring and takes me out of the experience and it makes it more like passively watching a movie. 

Or when clicking on someone to talk and it goes into Cutscene World and the companion you clicked on is magically talking to another companion, even though they were no where to be seen in Gameplay World. There wasn't any consistency or sense of continuity between the gameplay and conversations/cutscenes.  Its just the accumulation of little things like that which snowball and become immersion breaking annoyances.

Modifié par Brockololly, 25 avril 2011 - 11:57 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
No. Morrigan believed in power and control, and by the end of it Morrigan believes in power, control and friendship.

A + B isn't equal to A + B + C (unless C is zero but in Morrigan's case it isn't)

But Morrigain doesn't believe in friendship or love. She believes in friendship or love with the Warden. She never warms up to anyone in the party. She doesn't develop a kinder edge. She doesn't even deviate from her purpose! She just feels bad because she kind of likes the Warden.

That's it. That's not major development of her character. It's a development of her relation with the PC.

Like I said before: I fully admit Morrigain underwent some growth. But it isn't anything significant. Not even close when you compare it to Leliana or Alistair, and almost every rival romance had a personal crisis and realingment that was comparable to that (save Varric and Aveline, whose paths I've not seen).

Again, Awakening Oghren abandoned his spouse. DAO Oghren was abandoned by his spouse, himself. How is abandoning and getting abandoned even remotely the same reasons?

Because both happned because of who Oghren was. The same character faults that had Branka leave him behind where the same character faults that had him leave Felsi.

No, his previous relationship was a failure because he got dumped by his wife who turned out to prefer women (something he didn't know) His short-comings and doubts originated as result of that breakup.

Branka didn't leave Ogrhen behind in Orzammar when she left with her house, and his life didn't collapse as a result of her liking girls. It collapsed because of his personality - aggressive, impulsive, prone to substance abuse; these are the same reasons he left Felsi.

And the way that ended up rendered him unable to do that again without long period of learning how to trust someone.

Wow! It's almost like Zevran is the same as every person that ever got their feelings hurt in a relationship.

ETA:

That was far too snarky. What I mean is, Zevran had his feelings hurt with someone special. Then he met someone special again. That's not particularly dramatic character growth; that's just him healing.

The way i see it, your reasoning seems to be along the lines if someone was once healthy, then broke a leg and then eventually got healthy again... then the accident and the process of healing, along with the changes in physical performance, has never taken place?

Which, funnily enough, you mention.

No; it's that the if they broke their leg and it works exactly the same as before, then the fact that something happened in the middle was an experience but not a change.

Now if they broke their leg and walked with a limp, that was a change.

She feels different about herself -- she no longer thinks she'd failed her student. Whether that's result of happy coincidence doesn't matter. What matters is her mental state when it comes to evaluation of herself has changed.

Which, now that we're on that topic, is ridiculous. She was vain and arrogant and had a major role in running her apprentice out of the Circle. She suddenly thinks her behaviour was "A-OK" because he didn't get gutted by the templars?

That's what happens with Wynne. Her character development was the person she became as a result of losing her apprentice. In DA:O, she just has a "Oh, wow, it kinda all worked out! Man, me being mean actually turned out ok!"

She's the same person; hell, she already became a better person because of what did happen, and now that she's about to die she gets to die with the knowledge that her growth didn't come at the cost of someone's life.

A warm fuzzy feeling isn't character development.

He doesn't need to acknowledge "my" worldview. The point is his initial worldview wouldn't allow him to acknowledge "me" as the brother in arms. If that means he's started to believe in magical unicorns then so be it. You're still indirectly admitting his beliefs have changed, and now include the concept of magical unicorns which before he'd never imagine to exist.

No, I'm not. As we learn in DA:O, there's nothing against the Qun to recognize someone as having worth outside the Qun. Unless you think that being respected by the Arishok meant that the Arishok changed his worldview in DA2?

Again, Sten respecting you isn't character development. It's just Sten respecting you.

ETA:

When you met Sten, he's shocked you're a Gray Warden because Gray Wardens are something to be respected. By the end of the game he realizes you are worth the title.

No, they don't. Speak to Morrigan who considers you a friend and to Morrigan who doesn't believe in such silly concept.

Because she likes you! Get Morrigain to be your friend (hell, get her to love you!) and then set up that Dalish couple in the camp. She's still going to go "Bleh, love. :sick:" Or get her to come with you and tell that husband his wife died as a werewolf. She's back to "Bleh, love :sick:".

Modifié par In Exile, 26 avril 2011 - 12:20 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

But Morrigain doesn't believe in friendship or love. She believes in friendship or love with the Warden.

"I don't believe in apples. I believe in red apple."

In order to be friends with someone you have to believe the general concept of friendship is possible. That Morrigan doesn't warm up to other members of the party doesn't mean she's incapable of doing that with anyone but the Warden -- the number of people i know personally is much greater than the number of people i'm friendly or (especially) friends with. It doesn't mean i believe only in concept of "being friend with X".

Because both happned because of who Oghren was. The same character faults that had Branka leave him behind where the same character faults that had him leave Felsi.

It's impossible Bianca would leave Oghren behind due to faults which only developed as result of her leaving. At the point she left these traits did not yet exist.

Wow! It's almost like Zevran is the same as every person that ever got their feelings hurt in a relationship.

Wow, it's almost like more than one person in the world can experience personal growth when faced with difficulties and failures.

You're moving goalposts -- it's not enough that Zevran goes through personal development, now it also must be unique?

No; it's that the if they broke their leg and it works exactly the same as before, then the fact that something happened in the middle was an experience but not a change.

Except there is a change -- the leg which was previously intact is now a leg that was once broken. Run the x-ray scan on it and it'll show different from how it used to be, plain as day.

It can cause them discomfort on a rainy day. It can be more fragile and prone to further accidents. It'd provided them an experience which is going to affect their behaviour in situations like one that led to that leg breaking in the first place. There's plenty of change, if only you bother to stop and actually look beyond the extremely narrow "well, the leg is working again".

Which, now that we're on that topic, is ridiculous. She was vain and arrogant and had a major role in running her apprentice out of the Circle. She suddenly thinks her behaviour was "A-OK" because he didn't get gutted by the templars?

She thought she had a major role in that. She's told by the man in question to put it behind just as he had done so, and she does.

You're free to think it's ridiculous, but just the same it's a change to her mindset while you were claiming there's none.

No, I'm not. As we learn in DA:O, there's nothing against the Qun to recognize someone as having worth outside the Qun. Unless you think that being respected by the Arishok meant that the Arishok changed his worldview in DA2?

The Arishok views your character as basalit-an, thar is a foreigner who is worth "some" respect and can be dealt with. You aren't really implying this is the exact same thing like viewing someone as if they were a magical unicorn?

It's fairly simple. During the epilogue you can hear it directly from Sten:

PC: That will be a long trip home.
Sten: Yes. I suspect Par Vollen will not look the same as it once did. My views have... changed, a little.

go ahead, argue with the man himself he still has the exact same views and beliefs he once did.

Because she likes you!

Yes, as result of character development. Morrigan who recognized friendship exist is willing to discuss that and admit it. Morrigan who doesn't get to believe in the concept doesn't even think about talking of something this foolish.

Another simple example -- companions are supposed to behave exactly the same all the time because they don't go through character development right? Go on then, set up Oghren and Felsi together right as you meet him. He is supposed to behave the same all the time and think the same all the time, so he should be as receptive to the idea at the beginning of the game as he is at the end of it, right?