323 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

You're moving goalposts

I think you used the wrong pronoun there.

[Skokes]

Brockololly wrote...

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.

I don't disagree, but it's worth noting that the Chanter's Board (and really all of the menus) was significantly different in the console versions of Origins. Far more akin to DA2. I don't know why that is, but I'd suspect there's a technical reason.

[jds1bio]

Skokes wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

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.

I don't disagree, but it's worth noting that the Chanter's Board (and really all of the menus) was significantly different in the console versions of Origins. Far more akin to DA2. I don't know why that is, but I'd suspect there's a technical reason.

A possible interesting solution to this is to be given inventory items that you must look at in order to obtain quests, i.e. you have to physically rip the chanter's board notice off of the board and carry it into your inventory.  That way you get the quest with all the look-and-feel of the source, but then will need to be placed into the player's digital "questbook" so the game can track the progress.  That way you also don't have to accept a quest right then and there at the board, you can take the quest and then accept and start it later wherever you might be.

Same with companion convos - maybe an inventory item such as a special flower from someone, or a delivered note, or a possible gift.  It might force someone to do just a bit more investigation into the inventory item, but it would also promote item descriptions back up to the level of meaningful.

Modifié par jds1bio, 26 avril 2011 - 01:58 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Thank you. That's really all I wanted to hear.

It may never happen, but I'd rather see  you say you wish it could than (apparently) dismiss those who want a bit more than was in DA2.

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.

I know what you meant. It was the phrasing that upset me, not the meaning, since it had been used in a similar context before and was perceived by many forumites as a simple "You're not going to get what you want, so stop complaining". It was unnecessary, even if that wasn't the intent. "While followers and relationships with them are very important, it's not the point of the game" is a perfect substitute and vastly preferable (yes, some people are just touchy like that. Sorry ).

In any case, I'm sure DA3's dialogue system (at least, I hope there is a DA3...) will be as good as it can be, and many things from Bioware's past games will be taken into account.

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I think you used the wrong pronoun there.

I'm afraid i'm not familiar enough with the english grammar to figure this out on my own

[Brockololly]

Skokes wrote..
I don't disagree, but it's worth noting that the Chanter's Board (and really all of the menus) was significantly different in the console versions of Origins. Far more akin to DA2. I don't know why that is, but I'd suspect there's a technical reason.

Hmmm.. yeah, having not played console DAO, I just looked on youtube and yeah, the DA2 menus do have far more in common with DAO on consoles. I don't know why they'd do such a thing- instead of bringing the console menus up to par with the PC, they brought both down.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Brockololly wrote...

Skokes wrote..
I don't disagree, but it's worth noting that the Chanter's Board (and really all of the menus) was significantly different in the console versions of Origins. Far more akin to DA2. I don't know why that is, but I'd suspect there's a technical reason.

Hmmm.. yeah, having not played console DAO, I just looked on youtube and yeah, the DA2 menus do have far more in common with DAO on consoles. I don't know why they'd do such a thing- instead of bringing the console menus up to par with the PC, they brought both down.

Yea, as an ex-console gamer, I can confirm.

In fact, DA2's menu reminded me too much of Prototype. Fast forward to 0:48
wouldnt' be too bad if Hawke is half as badass as Alex Mercer, which he is not.

And I found that weird. It isn't huge, but it does take away from the ambience a bit. Felt too out of place.

[Zjarcal]

I may be dumb but... what exactly was better from the PC DAO menu? All the same options where there and for me at least, they seemed equally intuitive and easy to navigate.

And KoP, my Hawke is more badass than whatever prototype you're taling about. FACT. 

Modifié par Zjarcal, 26 avril 2011 - 05:43 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Just the way it looks (for me at least). As much as I love red and black, it felt out of place (also maybe a bit hard to read). Aesthetically, I prefer Origins menu. ME1 and 2's menu are also pleasant to navigate and they "fit" for the lack of a better word. But like I said, not a big deal at all. Though it is still part of the larger design, which I am not a big fan of. It's trying a bit too hard to look "modern" and edgy. That's the impression I got at least.

I do not recall much difference other than looks when it comes to DA:O's menu on console and PC. Maybe ingredients and useable items were not separated on console IIRC.

EDIT: And no, Z. She is not.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 avril 2011 - 05:49 .

[Zjarcal]

Oh, if you meant more about the aesthetics then I would agree, I did like the Origins menus better on that regard. More effort was placed into making them look nice.


And bah, that dude had to rely on what looked like the champion armor (spiky stuff!) to survive. Ciera Hawke needs no such crap!


Plus, her eyes glow. She wins.

Yes I know the glowy eyes are from a mod... WHATEVER!


EDIT: Bah, the stupid link isn't working properly. It should fast forward to the exact point.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 26 avril 2011 - 06:08 .

[berelinde]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

OK, this I understand and can appreciate.

Would it be possible to reinstate player-initiated conversation in whatever kind of "home base" the next installment uses? Whether it's a party camp, DA3's version of the Hanged Man, or character homes, it would be enormously satisfying to have one place where a click is good for a few lines of conversation every time. I'm not talking about lengthy dialogues here, though I wouldn't complain.

Ambient lines elsewhere would not be so bad if we had that.

[wildannie]

 @jdslbio

I'm not against some convos being quests but I don't think that all convos should be given in this way and that some should be initiated by player.  In ME2 I can always talk to my crew on the Normandy, even when they are not needing sheps help.  That's what I want from the home bases in DA and I believe it would have made much more sense that what we get in DA2.  If I visited my friends and all they did was bark the same line back at me... I'd stop hanging out with them.  Maybe this is why my latest Hawke's sulking at her mansion instead of completing act III .

@brocololly

I totally agree about the cinematics not making sense and being a bit jarring.  I think it would be preferable for such scenes to be automatic (but paced) when entering a companions home, ending in a convo options screen.  The cinematics do look great in themselves though but I would miss them much less than I miss the freedom to initiate conversations whenever I like.  I really hope that Bioware can find an effective balance between the two for future DA releases.

[Mariquis]

In regards to getting the player to participate actively in banter...

Disclaimer: I have no idea how this would work programming wise. It may be entirely impossible, I would appreciate someone more in the know correcting me : ).

What if there were certain locations (that a player would commonly pass through) that were pretty open (like part of the walkway up to the viscount's keep, or the chantry courtyard. There could be 'zones' within the area that when entered a companion would address the PC (e.g. Hawke, can I ask you something? Or maybe just "Hey, Hawke!") at which point the PC could click on the companion and initiate a dialogue wheel style conversation. If the zones were kind of centered in larger open areas the camera could swivel around without much problem and remain more or less the same regardless of companion, since the dimensions of the area and people involved would be the same. So the camera angles in every zone (however many there are) could be recycled - no need to worry about environmental obstacles. Then the dialogue could end, and the party would proceed as normal. Or perhaps if the PC chooses not to engage the companion, when exiting the 'zone' the companion could say something like "Nevermind."

This may be all complete nonesense but.. who knows. Just tossing it out there.

[Zeevico]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Thank you. That's really all I wanted to hear.

It may never happen, but I'd rather see  you say you wish it could than (apparently) dismiss those who want a bit more than was in DA2.

"I agree." 

This is much better than reading 'oh, never mind about that' (so to speak).

Modifié par Zeevico, 26 avril 2011 - 07:23 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
"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.

Nonsence. To be friends with someone is a feeling, and there's a whole trope about people refusing to translate feelings to belief and otherwise being in denial.

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".

Did I say she was incapable of being friends with anyone? No. What I said was that she became friends with only one person.

Her change was only in the context of her relationship with the Warden. Her relationship with the Warden developed but that =! character development.

Contrast that with Alistiar, who changes what he believes, how he views the world, and how he acts.

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.

You mean the faults Branka pointed out when she speaks to Oghren at the anvil of the void? The ones that totally predate her leaving?

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 has to be development.

Zevran didn't grow or change as a person; Zevran went through moods.

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.

But now you're begging the question. I'm denying that the middle leaves lasting changes if the before and after are identical.

You're saying that if the the before and after are not identical, then the middle leaves lasting changes.

That's... actually the same concept, even in purely logical and deductive terms.

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.

She did have a major role in that. Her apprentice ran away because of her. He tells her it all worked out great for him because he happened not to get gutted by templars and she feels better about it.

But to say that it was meaningful character growth is ridiculous.

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?

Given that the Arishok finds Kirkwall to be all and all garbage, that Hawke has worth is probably the equivalent of us finding 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.

I concede Sten fully. I don't recall that line in my playthrough.

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.

No; as a result of liking you! She grows as a person once she has friends, cares for them, etc. etc. None of which she does in DA:O. She just likes you.

But she does change; that's why she ends her life happily with the Warden after explaining Flemeth's plot and....

Wait, no. She does the same thing she would with low approval; she just feels sad about it because she likes you, in the same way she left sad about it when she left Flemeth in the first place.

I like that you don't address her love moments in-game.

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?

That's, again, just his personal relationship with you. All you need to do is boost his approval rating.

Modifié par In Exile, 26 avril 2011 - 07:48 .

[Pookieroo]

I havn't read all the threads so forgive me if I am repeating what has previously been written. It is the interactions between people, the human consequences of our choices that enrich the gaming experience and make a good game a great game. Getting a new character to like us and the benefits that come from a better relationship between people is more than half the fun - the dialogue often holds many suprises and insights that draw one further into the game's world. The only time I object to long dialogue is on those occasions when there is no save point immediately before a long action sequence and if one comes unstuck it is mind numbing to have to hear the same dialogue over and over again. This is not an objection to the dialogue but and objection to not being able to save before a pivotal point in the game. For many of us these games are an interractive type of book or a substitute to a book, we are in the adventure and the dialogue brings things to life. The quality of the interractions and dialogue is certainly a major factor for me and many others when choosing a new game. There are so many of the other type of game - they do not compel one to buy them or to play them again. The games with great dialogue and relationships between characters stand out as the all time great games and will be played for years to come - I will be very disappointed if Bioware decides to appeal just to the technical people and the games lose their heart.

[SilentK]

Hmmm....

My two cents. I really really liked the scenes. To let your companions react with bodylanguage and voice was wonderful. The way that Aveline throws her hands up in the air when she hears that Donnic didn't appriciate being sent to guard the square in The Long Road. Loved that =) and boy did I feel for my poor little F!Hawke when after lovemaking Fenris says it was fine. She looks down and I feelt so so sad. The scenes works wonders for me.

For me getting notices when there are available conversations with your companions worked real well. I usually run out of things to say in DA:O so I need some structure in order to not use them up straight away. And in ME2 I run in circles to see if anyone has something new to say so I see where they are coming from.

DA:O. - conversations can be used up long before the game is over. My current LI:s is a mute since a long time ago and I've yet to see Redcliff

ME2: - Calibrations anyone? Jupp, it means that you run around and click on your companions to see if there is anything new. I was pretty tired of Garrus and used to try to wait with him until later in the game.

DA2: - we get q's. Some don't like it but it worked wonders for me. I actually have a LI that talks by the end of the game. Something of a first for me =) I have no selfcontrol apparently. Unfortunetly a lot of people feel that the companions don't like talking to their Hawke.


I can see how DA2 came to this solution. It feels like it tries to remove some of the problems from previous games. Guess we will see what happens in DA3 =) For the record, I connected more with my fellows in DA2. As I said before, I love the scenes and having bodylanguage as well. And it was the little things like following them in the banter. Companions who left you in the fade wanted to talk with you. Perhaps it would have been even better if they had come up to the Hawke Estate instead but oh well =) I rather see Anders having a difficult time with Justice in dissident than having it told to me afterwards so I prefer this way of having them more involved in q's.

Modifié par SilentK, 26 avril 2011 - 10:16 .

[Sinfullysweet]

(Read the OP, and before I forget what I was going to say posting, will edit if I read through and change my mind)

I am REALLY saddened by lack of conversation with party members. That was one of the biggest things that drew me into the DA:O universe. I could stop at any time, and speak with a party member, find out things I was missing, or wanted to know more of. Made it feel more than just a regular game. It gave it immersion for me.

This is just my humble opinion, now to read 11 pages to see what was said lol

[Lewie]

I can understand why people want more conversation dialogue but i feel a part of that is due to Origins being such a well written story on the whole, not just for the chats. You really did feel immersed in the world and i think its a connection people miss. Simply choosing a different race, you felt connected to the character through dialogue also. Origins set a bar its Biowares fault (lol) because it was so well written. I like the cutscene dialogue in 2, their reactions are top notch etc but i feel more like im watching others than having a conversation. Its maybe simple things, seeing what you are actually going to say instead of choosing whether to be sarky or calm in response. In saying that, it had comedy value at times, and laugh out loud moments for me. I don't know, but maybe change is just uncomfortable lol.

[tmp7704]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

Nonsence. To be friends with someone is a feeling, and there's a whole trope about people refusing to translate feelings to belief and otherwise being in denial.

Did I say she was incapable of being friends with anyone? No. What I said was that she became friends with only one person.

Her change was only in the context of her relationship with the Warden. Her relationship with the Warden developed but that =! character development.[/quote]
So, Morrigan at the beginning of the game is in denial about the whole friendship concept. Then she meets the Warden and having experienced these feelings herself eventually overcomes her initial stance and acknowledges that she can in fact be friends with someone rather than believe only in "every man for him-/herself"

And that's not character development? Getting from "friendship, pah that's just weakness" to "you know, it's actually pretty neat"?



[quote]Contrast that with Alistiar, who changes what he believes, how he views the world, and how he acts.[/quote]Right, because Morrigan changing her approach to friendship and making one when she'd scoff at the idea before is not a change of beliefs and behaviour.



[quote]You mean the faults Branka pointed out when she speaks to Oghren at the anvil of the void? The ones that totally predate her leaving?[/quote]Branka: Oghren. It figures you'd eventually find your way here. Hopefully, you can find your way back more easily.
Branka: Oh, stuff a rag in it, Oghren. Move on! Find a few ****s. Sodding stone, I never thought you'd be the pining type.

That's all Branka ever tells Oghren in the game. Please show me exactly what faults she points out when she speaks these lines because i'm afraid i just can't see it.

[quote]No. It has to be development.

Zevran didn't grow or change as a person; Zevran went through moods.[/quote]
Sorry but this is getting ridiculous. If Zevran changing his views on whether or not he should let himself get close to others is "going through moods" even though each instance alters how he acts as a person, does it mean if Alistair at some point changes his view on whether he should be selfish ... you'll declare that your initial assessment of him was wrong and he didn't undergo character development, he just "went through moods" too?



[quote]But now you're begging the question. I'm denying that the middle leaves lasting changes if the before and after are identical.[/quote]If the before and after are indeed identical, yes i agree. Our difference of views stems from the fact you declare the discussed cases to be in fact identical, when in my view there's only superficial similarity between before and after (if that) and there's number of aspects which become different.



[quote]But to say that it was meaningful character growth is ridiculous. [/quote]What exact part of your definition of "meaningful character growth" it doesn't meet?



[quote]I concede Sten fully. I don't recall that line in my playthrough.[/quote]Suspect it's easy to miss because it triggers just in one dialogue branch and if your relationship with him is at "warm" stage. If it's higher, there's a line that supplants it, about how it's going to be difficult to travel alone after long time spent with companions.



[quote]No; as a result of liking you! She grows as a person once she has friends, cares for them, etc. etc. None of which she does in DA:O. She just likes you.[/quote]She has a friend in DAO and can care enough for them to give them a ring that allows her to stay connected with them in a way after she has to part. But of course we're going to ignore this because your character doesn't count as a friend despite her explicitly telling you so. No, poor girl doesn't know what she's saying at all and she "just likes you".

[quote]But she does change; that's why she ends her life happily with the Warden after explaining Flemeth's plot and....

Wait, no. She does the same thing she would with low approval; she just feels sad about it because she likes you, in the same way she left sad about it when she left Flemeth in the first place.[/quote]
Clearly, if there's no "and then they lived happily ever after" with a person who initially despises the concept then there's no character development to speak of.



[quote]I like that you don't address her love moments in-game.[/quote]What is there to address? She isn't too fond of the PDAs, makes fun of the concept and that doesn't change. Whether she means these things is open to interpretation, given her delivery never sounds fully serious.

[quote]That's, again, just his personal relationship with you. All you need to do is boost his approval rating.
[/quote]
You should've checked that before making such claim. Because you can raise Oghren's approval to 100 and the only thing you'll get from him is "Stop wasting time Warden, i'm not here to chat."

Modifié par tmp7704, 26 avril 2011 - 03:29 .

[wildannie]

@SilentK

Using up all your dialogue at the start of DAO is a choice and it's something I always choose not to do but I agree that having some paced conversations is best all round.

But don't you think it would be good to have the paced conversations and some conversations that could be initiated any time (in the home) by the player? Personally I think a system like this would have much broader appeal to the fans than the DA2 system, but I may be wrong.

Tbh, I don't really care if they've got anything left to say as long as they engage with me and tell me that rather than spouting some random and often irrelevant line. I'll take Garrus' calibrations over DA2 barks anyday.

[Alamar2078]

tmp7704 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I think you used the wrong pronoun there.

I'm afraid i'm not familiar enough with the english grammar to figure this out on my own

I'm a native English speaker and I [believe] that I understood exactly what you were trying to say.

[88mphSlayer]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

can't speak for others but i think the move away from "go here to talk about what's happened" bit from every bioware game in recent memory (the ebon hawke, the random gathering in jade empire, the camp in dragon age origins, the normandy in mass effect) is a fantastic move because it honestly felt like a chore to do all that dialogue farming and because it rarely ever felt connected to the events at hand, ie: the banter in ME1 felt more connected to the events than any dialogue farming on the normandy, so i think DA2's move away from that is a good thing

the only character i didn't truly "get" tho was Anders, this is probably because i never played Awakenings, but Anders is always the one that feels distant or cold, like the guy has issues that he's just not willing to talk about - even my perception of Fenris changed but my perception of Anders didn't

as for feeling like speaking to companions is a mission vs. always going back only to be disappointed (like "calibrations" in ME2), the idea of fixing that to feel more "in the moment" and "random" is great but i guess it needs tweaking

probably the simplest idea would be to change the pointer from an arrow to something else and possibly of a different color

a different approach would be emulating the way people get in touch in the dragon age world when they're in a hurry to do so - namely in person, ie: Isabella needs your help so she's hanging around outside the hanged man in plain view waiting for you to pass through, or if it's Merril she's rummaging through abandoned belongings or Varric is dealing with a merchant or etc. it would add an element of randomness

as for additional dialogue, the one thing i really wished you could do in Dragon Age 2 is goto the hanged man and get drunk with any of your companions at anytime, i think that would've been a fun addition and would've been a great way to get to know them better

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 26 avril 2011 - 03:54 .

[ejoslin]

One problem I had with the dialog system in DA2 was the weirdness of the cutscene. I mean this. In DAO, you walked up to someone, clicked on them, and you got a greeting (which changed depending on what the approval rating was). You could then engage in a conversation, kiss them if romanced Alistair/Morrigan (and Zevran/Leliana via mod), or say "never mind" and be on your way. It was pretty organic.

In DA2, you go to someone's house, then you click on them, and then a cutscene starts, and I can only think of one that actually made it seem like your party was with you. Otherwise, you click on the companion, and suddenly either they're in a conversation with someone else, or they're doing some action that was completely unrelated, and you're in a different room in a few cases as well.  it's actually pretty jarring.  And this is not including that the way you learn that they want to talk to you is not a "Hey Hawke, come by later so we can talk," but a note in your quest journal.

I'm sure this has been mentioned by now, but just in case it hasn't...  Catching up now

Edit: a few more conversations, initiated by the protagonist even, would be nice.  Even if it's just at the house.  Even if some people do miss them because they're not in a quest book.

Modifié par ejoslin, 26 avril 2011 - 05:04 .

[SilentK]

wildannie wrote...

@SilentK

Using up all your dialogue at the start of DAO is a choice and it's something I always choose not to do but I agree that having some paced conversations is best all round.

But don't you think it would be good to have the paced conversations and some conversations that could be initiated any time (in the home) by the player? Personally I think a system like this would have much broader appeal to the fans than the DA2 system, but I may be wrong.

Tbh, I don't really care if they've got anything left to say as long as they engage with me and tell me that rather than spouting some random and often irrelevant line. I'll take Garrus' calibrations over DA2 barks anyday.

Jupp I agree    =)   it is my own damn fault for being clicker-happy when using up all my conversations early in DA:O. Since I'm stupid enough to do it I guess there are a few more who also does it..... hope I'm not the only one        Hmmm... I meant it more as a way to illustrate how I believe that they are trying out different ways to organize it in the games. So yes, some pacing is needed for me at least.  But yes, having some conversations that you can choose yourself when to have them in the game, so if you feel like first being very Fenris-happy and then sort of move over to Anders you could concentrate more on Fenris in the beginning. Use up so to say his "extra" conversations early and save the "extra" Anders conversations for later when you moved over to him. Yes, I would like that very much        after having tried DA:O and DA2 I guess that would be a nice way forward. You don't know until you have tried it. As for barking lines, I don't see that, I come around when I know I have a good scene waiting but that was just me. I was pretty sick and tired of poor Garrus and then I think that he is wonderful when he has something to say. Life isn't easy sometimes. Good thing that I have Kaidan, Anders, Fenris and Alistair to make it better     <3     I'm such a hopeless romantic