323 réponses à ce sujet

[darkshadow136]

I felt that the conversations and depth into your companions either as friends or in a relationship were very lacking and shallow in DA2 among other things. In DAO you cared about your companions just like you could care about a fictional character in a book because they had back story and detail. In DAO they got it right the companions and even others had a 3 dimensional detail to them, where in DA2 the companions just seemed like a fixture or after thought for the game.

[TJPags]

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.

No, I definitely think you should have responded to the prior post.  And to this one.

I'm not the biggest fan of Bioware in general, and I've taken my share of shots at you, also.  But I respect this answer.

DAO did a fine job, I thought, in letting us get to know our companions.  It also gave us the illusion of being the ones in control - we could explore as we wanted, as much or as little.

DA2, as you seem to get, felt too structured to a lot of people, myself included.  I said before in this thread, it was like having a friend of a friend, who you normally only see with the common friend, but who calls you up only when they want something.  Was that just illusion?  Possibly.  But it is how some of us felt.

DA2 did do some things right, though, and those should be continued.

Something that's a hybrid of the 2 seems a good thing to try.  Allow us to initiate dialgue when we wish, rather than when the quest comes, even if it's about something inconsequential.  Make new dialogue options available as the game progresses, rather than as that conversation tree progresses.  In other words, tie it to game progression, not approval rating or how much of the conversation we went through.  In Origins, we could run through almost the entire conversation tree shortly after meeting a character.  The spaced out method of DA2 fixed that, but took away the "control" aspect.

Now, how to do that in practice?  How do I know - I'm not a professional writer.    You and your team are.  So I'll leave the "how" to you.

But reading that you essentially understand our frustration, and are not locked into the "DA2 method" is good to hear.  Your prior post in the other thread read - to me, at least, and I assume some others - as though the "DA2 method" was now the gold standard, and would not be changed.

[Faroth]

I'm in the camp that preferred Origins. I really didn't feel much connection to the characters in DA2 in comparison. I *knew* Anders from playing Awakening, so there was some backdrop to draw me to his character in the "oh, let's see how he's changed."

Honestly, and sadly, I missed out on a lot of companion dialogue because a battle would start and overpower the remaining dialogue from being heard. But nothing I heard compared to Morrigan & Alistair's banter or Morrigan's conversations with my Mabari (which still cracks me up) or Ohgren with...anyone.

In DA2, my favorite line of dialogue was actually in the cut scene with Alistair.

Teegan: Yes, we should be going. The hero of Fereldan should be returning to Denerim soon.
Alistair: Always so formal...he has a name, you know.

Of course, since I went through the Aluvian with Morrigan in Witch Hunt...Alistair's going to be waiting for a while.

In Exile wrote...

As it is in Dragon Age Origins. You can't not recruit an army. You can't call a Landsmeet without it.

While this is true, I felt that there was a lot more illusion veiled over our eyes in Origins than in DA2.  Being hurtled into a position to stop the destruction of an entire nation and possibly the world is more compelling to chase down the main quest requirements.

With DA2, however, I didn't feel there was any point...to almost anything.  Perhaps I find the Qun intriguing and want to explore converting. Maybe I want Kirkwall taken over by the qunari.  No luck there.  The only decision for us in DA2 is Templar vs Mage and regardless of decision, you'll fight the same battles and get the same end result for the world.

At least in Origins I saw more of my choices having an impact.  Werewolves vs Daelish, Annulment of the Tower, Which king to sit on the throne and the long term impact of that decision (heck, there's an epilogue where one tiny decision of a minor side quest in Orzamar could lead to an Exalted March on the city because you chose NOT to do a quest!).

With DA2, even if you tell Anders "Hey bud, you're going a little bat___ crazy here lately. I'm not distracting the Grand Cleric" the story still says "Well he didn't need you anyway!" and proceeds.

They can lead you down a path, they be a bit linear, but it's all about how well they keep the veil of freedom in tact.  I felt Origins was much better disguised and the fact that small choices had lasting impacts was more important.

All that said, Origins didn't have Varric, so that's a benefit for DA2.

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I think it's all about balance.  Yes, your companions should react to the story, but when you go visit them, especially shortly after meeting them, I think the "tell me about" questions are good.  After all, when you first meet someone, do you only talk about current events? What's going on at work?  Or does the conversation weave between current events in their lives and things of the past, where they came from and how it shapes who they are?

Starting with "tell me about" exposition and as the story progresses and these companions have known each other more, building into the reaction to the story's current situations, reacting to the plot, is a good route.

Modifié par Faroth, 24 avril 2011 - 03:58 .

[Everwarden]

David Gaider wrote...
 Even if it doesn't seem like we're coming to the conclusions you think we should be, it's still very much appreciated.

B-but.. that entire post was polite, reasonable, and made valid points.

Dammit. Now I feel like a jerk. Good post, though.

[RagingCyclone]

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.

This I like to see. I have stayed away mostly from posting in the main forums because they tend  to be way too polarized.  As one who saw potential for both methods as applicable, I stayed from these main forums because the general "feel" is that you have to either absolutely love or absolutely hate DA2 to be heard or even paid attention to.  I found DA2 good...to a point. Three playthroughs was enough before I became bored with it.  Companion interaction, for me as well as others I know, was lacking in that it was too structured. Only being able to have conversations at a specific point after a specific plot trigger felt artificial and contrite. However, being able to cover the entire gambit available in one shot as in Origins was also not the best either. Somehow I am sure a balance can be found, and I am glad to hear that it's not out of the realm of possibility in future DA games. How that comes about I leave to you and your team.    And as I am sure you are aware both games have strengths and weaknesses. I look forward to seeing if the lessons can be learned by the time the next installment comes out. (not DLC, but DA3)  But any progress is progress. And sometimes we have to step back to move forward. It's true here as it is in all aspects of life.

[Ulicus]

Faroth wrote...

I'm in the camp that preferred Origins.

I see what you did there.

[_Aine_]

David Gaider wrote...

 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.

 

That is entirely logical and very fair actually.  

 

 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.

The structure was exactly where it fell apart for me personally on a "know and like your companions" basis.    Illusion is bliss sometimes ( in video games anyway)   There *were* situations (specifically Leilana and her zillions of stories) that I basically skipped over. There *were* lots of rambling bits, granted.    If there is a middle ground to be found, I would hope for opportunities to have "real" sorts of discussions about things that have happened with that character, how they felt etc.  And it can be regarding things that HAVE just been shown to us in action, but part of the human condition is being a social creature.  All the visual in the world doesn't make us immune to wanting to connect with people, even in video games where the people are 100% make-believe.  It is part of, for me anyway, and I admit this is my opinion, what helps me get involved with a roleplaying game.  Sure, I don't need or even look for this level of interaction in Action sort of games...   It doesn't have to be one or the other. The more REAL you make the characters, the more we will want to encourage that connection as a part of our story (for love or hate of them). So perhaps this criticism actually means the characterization was better in one way which made it  lacking in how we *get* those characters interacting with us.  

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.

Well, the fans *knowing* this, in my opinion again, should help immensely.  Part of the *problem* is that our knowledge is limited to the few posts on here and poor interviews, which like most interviews I have ever been a part of, are not entirely accurate *grins*.  Of course, the posts are NOT required, but they *are* the reason I originally even stuck around here. I simply don't usually hang out talking about video games lol ( Although that may be hard to believe now Don't laugh at me lol)   It is kind of a weird mirror of the perceived issues between DA:O and DA2, Bioware and the fans...    When the dialogue doesn't give us that deeper understanding beyond the obvious, it is harder to feel connected.  For me, this post helped.  It wasn't ever about one being more right.  My feeling was that something was lost between DA:O and DA:2 ( while some things were also gained!) but that structure, or maybe it was the loss of all spontaneous-feeling conversation that did it.   I am logical and analytical, and sit and thrash it out when something just feels off until I come to one conclusion or another.  For me, this gives a bit of hope.  I don't want people to move backwards to pacify the angry masses, just hear a concern and take it into consideration from people who cared enough to even form an opinion.   Winning is optional and is rarely (if ever!) applicable to good, positive conversation but being heard is gold.   Down to perception again, hmm?

 
Even if it doesn't seem like we're coming to the conclusions you think we should be, it's still very much appreciated.

Thanks for that.  Even though many of us have been fairly vocal with our areas of disappointment (and things we did enjoy I hope!) it's still very much because we liked the world so much we want to keep it exciting and alive.    you guys have the pleasure (and pain) of being both Maker and Executioner of that world.

Modifié par shantisands, 24 avril 2011 - 05:09 .

[byzantine horse]

I have two problems with the characters in DA2, one of which Gaider brings up in his response:

1. Quest-related conversations. I agree that running around to every character and talking to them at any given moment just so that you don't miss anything isn't much better, but there should be other ways to solve that. I am no developer however so I have no answer on this one. It wasn't such a pain to run around and talk to everybody in Origins as everyone were in the camp, compared to Mass Effect 2 where there's a loading screen for every third character. Not outright bad of course, I didn't really mind, but if there is a way to make that better I'm all for it.

Picture that running around in DA2, from house to house - that'd be annoying. In such a case the system in the game is a better compromise, but there should be a better one out there. If it is a question regarding whether or not companions should have their own homes or everyone live in a camp is not mine to decide, but I did enjoy them having a home on their own.

2. The time gaps in the game. Given the structure of the game's plot there isn't much to do about this, but just getting a codex entry saying "Merrill picked flowers once in the past 3 years" is, bluntly, a bit lame. The time gaps hurt the companions (as well as the main character but not the right thread) as we quite frankly don't know squat about what happened in the years between. Anything important that we as best friends or love interests should have taken part in? Very unlikely that nothing of importance happened at all, and that kind of breaks a bit of the immersion. Again I don't know of a way to fix it, I frankly don't, because the way the game is outlined there are thse time gaps. It would feel weird having say 3 different events take the player forth in time in the middle of Varric talking, while it feels shallow not knowing more than a few lines per companion of their lives during the loading screen.

[Revakeane]

Here are my two cents:

I don't think DA2's conversation system is necessarily worse than DAO's. The voiced-protagonist and dialogue wheel has its possible faults, sure, but they worked pretty well in ME and ME2, neither of which made me feel anything less than connected with my companions. Also, since David Gaider has mentioned before that the sheer amount of conversation in DAO is comparable to that of DA2, I don't think the complaint that we have less conversations with our companions is very convincing.

For my experience, the problem was not in the changes made, but in the way the changes were executed. For one, I was quite irritated that Hawke couldn't initiate conversations with his companions, but had to always wait for a specific context or plot point or whatever in order to talk with them. This put the initiative for relationship-develop squarely out of my control and this didn't make sense to me. What, I can't talk to my companions unless they want something? Hawke then feels more like an errand-boy than a hero to me as a result, because even his team-mates feel more like quest-giving NPCs than actual companions.

Similarly, despite the fact that the volume of conversations is comparable to that of DAO, to me it simply didn't feel that way. I may be sounding obtuse here, but I think what the player experiences is at least as important than what the developers intend; if they weren't able to convey an intended experience effectively, it's not only my fault that I didn't get it. That said, I don't think it is the volume of conversation that needs to be evaluated (although I have said otherwise in a previous thread-I have since changed my mind-I'm allowed to do that), but the content of the conversations and what they signify. If DA2 is supposed to convey a deeply involving 10 year time span in ONE city with a set number of companions one acquires early in the game, I would expect the depth and extent of interaction and character-development to be much more comprehensive and significant. However the relationships in DA2 felt very much like the relationships in other Bioware games where the time spent together as a team is much less than a decade. 10 years is a very long time to know someone... I think the volume of conversation should not only be more than that of DAO's to convey this effect, but that it should also be more effective in impressing upon the player the depth of a potentially intense long-term relationship. That means more details, more quantifiable changes in how they address and interact with one another (more at ease, or more guarded, or whatever)... This is what got me most about the romance dialogues; I'm supposed to be in a romance with someone over the course of a decade, but we only have like 3 big conversations? I only get to grill Isabela ONCE about her views on love? Why doesn't she grill ME more often (like Morrigan did)? Why didn't Merrill and I have more conversations about living together? After all, she does come from a completely foreign culture, and would have to adjust significantly after moving from the Alienage to Hightown. These developments in character development were not effectively conveyed in DA2, and I think this is one major gripe some people share when they say they did not feel connected enough to the characters.

I understand resources are finite and that story and writing have to lean and mean. But I think DA2's conversation system was somewhat ill-fitting in DA2's aspirations to convey a deeply emotionally engrossing epic revolving around the personal tale of an individual, over a period of 10 years. It was simply too little to spread over such a scale.

[RosaAquafire]

Crossroads_Wanderer wrote...

 Y'know, I've been thinking about this. I used to think that I'd like all the campfire talking to come back, but I've realized that the companion dialogues in DA:O that most interested me and made me feel connected to the characters were the banter and the companion reactions to events in the story. The campfire stuff was nice and revealed more about the companions' past, but companions can reveal bits of their past without you questioning them directly. I found that after talking to most of my companions enough to make them like me, I mostly just talked to my LI in camp. And even then, after a while, the only things I could initiate were kissing and retiring to my tent.

The thing is, it's far more fascinating to see the characters interact with one another, not just react to your questions. I'd rather have story-dependent banter, such as Wynne ribbing Alistair about watching the Warden's swaying hips when they're romantically involved. I'd rather have important revelations as the story progresses, such as the conversation wherein Alistair reveals he's a royal bastard (*snicker*). Those were by far the more engaging conversations.

I've also thought about my views on the characters themselves. A lot of people complain about the characters in DA2, but I've come to realize that, while they may not be realistic in some regards (all of the LIs are rather extreme), they are more defined and maybe even more interesting than the characters in DA:O. I liked the characters in DA:O, but there was little conflict of personality if you played the nice guy/gal with a sense of humor. Morrigan was basically the only character who took issue with you being the selfless heroic type. In DA2, you're going to have personality clashes with your teammates, regardless of how you play your character.

I think I would have come to feel more strongly for the DA2 characters if the story had only been longer and maybe had a bit more banter. Really, I think the banter was the biggest problem. I kept hearing repeating banter, which takes away from the immersion because you'd think your companions would remember having had that conversation. I think there needs to a greater ratio of banter to gameplay time next time around and possibly some programming to remove conversations that have been done from the pool of banter options. None of this is to say that I didn't feel strongly about the characters, though. The romances felt slightly lacking in comparison to DA:O and I can't quite put my finger yet on why, but I did have 'awww' moments and moments of frustration with most of the characters. Merrill was really the only one I felt pretty apathetic about. And I've heard plenty of love and hate for her on the forums, so I think it's just that I personally don't connect with her, not that she's a failed character.

Ultimately, I think I'd like to see characters and character interaction more like that of DA2 in DA3, but simply with more story-relevant interaction. Maybe throw in a character like Alistair for some comedy (I think I had an idiotic grin on my face every time I talked to Alistair because he was adorable and funny ), but I don't want everyone in my party to get along perfectly and I want to hear their opinions about your actions and the actions of other characters.

I'm just going to quote this because it's basically my entire opinion summarized.

The one thing is that I DON'T think DA2 was perfect -- I would have liked more agency. The Fenris romance is a fantastic example. I would have loved to have been able to say "what the hell, bro?" on my own terms. Even if he just shut me out as a result, I would have felt less like a lump waiting around for him to change his mind. There were a lot of times where my character had something to say as a direct result of the companions arc, and I had to wait, sometimes years, to even comment on the subject.

If there's any way to do exactly what DA2 did, but give at least the ILLUSION of agency to the PC, it would be wonderful.

[Iosev]

Here are some changes that I would like to see in the next game:

1. New conversation opportunities for every companion after each main quest is completed.

Not only would it give players more opportunities to speak with their companions, but through each of your companions' reflections and the players' reactions to them, it provides better insight into not only how the player and each companion are shaped by main events of the storyline, but also provides opportunities for the player to shape their companions as the story progresses. In addition, it helps space the conversations, so that they're not entirely dependent on friendship/rivalry/approval (which can often result in front-loaded conversations, such as what were seen in DA:O, or sparse conversations, such as those seen in DA 2), but instead, are dependent on the plot.

2. Implement more group discussions that involve the player.

While playing Dragon Age 2, I always thought, "Wouldn't it be cool if Hawke and his companions all met up in the Hanged Man, have a drink, and discuss certain key events?" I mean, it is implied that many of your companions are spending time in the Hanged Man together, but it is disappointing that you rarely see it, and even more disappointing that you as a player are rarely a part of it. Of course, it doesn't have to be often, but it would have been nice to see at least one group meeting during each act.

3. More spontaneous conversations during exploration and questing.

One good example in DA 2 occurs when you take Fenris to the Gallows. I didn't take Fenris to the Gallows until late in Act 1, so I was surprised when he pulled me aside to talk about the Circle. With that said, I would like to see more of these types of spontaneous conversations occur with all of your companions. For example, it would have been nice to explore the Docks, and have Isabela stop and admire some of the boats, and give the player a chance to initiate a conversation with her to gain more insight into her character.

Modifié par arcelonious, 24 avril 2011 - 07:38 .

[Maria Caliban]

LobselVith8 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You didn't notice how Aveline and Isabela started off sniping at each other, and became friends over the course of the game?

And Aveline and Isabella essentially remain the same people they were at the beginning of the game. There's no dramatic character change with either of them.

The Act 1 Isabela would not risk her ass to return the Tome of Kuslan. If you go rivalry, you see an even larger change in her by the end.

[Skokes]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Maybe this is because of the voiced protagonist? If so, I see only two options that will please me
(sorry to be so needy [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/blushing.png[/smilie]): either throw enough time and money at the project to fully realize a two-sided conversation with enough branching paths to offer signifcant player input toward the development of her character and of her character's relationships, or abandon a voiced protagonist. I like the voiced PC. I think that it's a change for the better. But if this is the tradeoff, it's not worth it to me.

There are other options.

In Exile wrote...

What Bioware has done is write good characters; but they haven't grown. In DA:O, only Alistair and Lelina change to any meaningful degree, and for Leliana that isn't particularly much.

In Exile wrote...

Origins didn't provide any development for any companions beside Alistair and Leliana, as I said in my edit. The relationship with the Warden changes.. but so does the relationship with Hawke in DA2.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Aside from "hardening" just how else do they change and grow?  Please provide specific examples.

Note that Origins SPOILERS abound below.

First off, I think there may be some confusion here between character growth and the ability to affect the direction of that character growth. I'm finishing up a playthrough of Origins right now (my first time with the PC version, and it's kind of a revelation in comparison to the PS3), and there is certainly character growth from the companions. Some (Morrigan) grow more than others (Wynne), but that's not necessarily a bad thing. But yes, the characters change over time. Morrigan develops affection for others. Zevran gains (or can, rather) a sense of the greater good that he lacked as a Crow (one that makes his decision to join the Champion in the final battle of DAII make more sense than I initially assumed it did). Shale learns to accept the squishies and that she was once one herself. Sten comes to accept an individual who may have a radically different world-view than his own, something that would be out of character for him when the Warden first meets him.

Yes, these characters are the same essential people at the end of the game as they were at the beginning, but that's a sign of coherent writing. I'm the same essential person that I was 10 years ago. The characters in Dragon Age II are the same essential people at the end of the game as they are at the beginning (with the possible exception of Anders, but he's also being altered by an outside force). Character growth does not require radical change, nor does it require player agency in the direction of that growth; were either the case, the vast majority of art ever created would be devoid of character growth.

Yes, the character growth in Origins is largely communicated by the change in the relationship with the Warden, but that's because the Warden is the player's window into the world. What in the game isn't communicated by its relationship with the Warden outside of a handful of Loghain cutscenes?

Note that the above is in no way praising Origins or the way it handles character interaction over DAII (or vice versa); this is merely a disagreement with your assertion that the characters in Origins don't grow.

Modifié par Skokes, 24 avril 2011 - 07:48 .

[Oneiropolos]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

As I said before, I did feel connected to the characters, but at the same time, I felt detached? I completely fangirl Fenris and Varric and was surprised at how much I love Aveline.  I think you brought up a very valid point in that perception is everything. Clearly, it's not true spontaneity even in DA:O because we're...still only talking to them because the writers said we could. Still, I think my Reactions went from, DA:O---> Awakening ---> DAII feeling like Talk about almost everything that happens, WHEN you want to because you can strike up a conversation ----->Uh, you can talk to them when you get gifts and if you luck onto the magic bush that says you can have a conversation with the person the game chooses! ----> Okay, you can talk to them alot more and even have more individualized quests and home bases. But still not when you choose and not about even major elements going on. It kinda feels like having a yard to run around in (it's still not a field. It's fenced in, because games HAVE to be) to going to an almost complete choke collar to going to collared but attached to a chain that's staked in the middle of the yard. The problem is, to me, and I know you're cynical on the whys, but it seems like we were spoiled by the yard. And now it feels more like we're aware the yard is around us, but we can only go so far as the chain lets us. 

I loved hearing the banter. I did. I ADORE the banter in the games, and DAII having Hawke occasionally  speak up and often having your entire party talking behind your back was a blast. And I loved how often companions spoke up during quests. I'm still discovering them saying new things and grinning over it. That's a definite improvement in DAII. What I found frustrating was Fenris doing something awesome, like the first time he speaks up in the Qunari compound, and me only getting to respond to him when he does it and not pull him aside the second we step out and don't have the Arishok staring at us and go "WHAT WAS THAT?! How do you speak the Qun!?" Even if it was simply Fenris shrugging me off and saying it's not my business, I feel like not having the choice to address it made it feel a little like that movie where you're sighing and wondering why the main character is being so dense and not asking the obvious question that you would ask. I brought up the notifications, and you did as well. One suggestion I'll offer (and I mean that in an actual humble way, not a "U shuld listin cuz  Im smart!" way) is perhaps a happy medium would be notifications for actual "plot points" so people who don't want to get involved in deeper conversations can feel free to only visit when that pops up,  but if someone wants to talk to Varric about Leandra, that COULD be a possibility and they could go check to see if he's willing to just say a little bit more on the subject. Yes, Aveline or our LI comes to comfort us after it, but except for the possibility of a comment when you click on a companion... you can't actually DISCUSS it with anyone. And that seems like a ripe discussion to have with Merril or Anders considering it was a mage and a blood mage at that. 

I'm sorry you're getting called arrogant and all that stuff. It's not fair when you DO bother responding to things and answering things. As a dev for a different game, I've gotten well used to the fact that if you are the one who show up to the players and talk with them, somehow, everything down to combat is going to get pinned on you. Even when you're just a bloody character and plot creator and don't know HOW that magic spell even works.  But I imagine it also indicates that you're sort of like one of our companions because we want to get to talk to you? Except the dorks who will always insist they know best and will hate you no matter what because you said one thing two acts ago and they haven't forgiven you for it and didn't understand what you were saying anyway. 

[In Exile]

Skokes wrote...
Note that the above is in no way praising Origins or the way
it handles character interaction over DAII (or vice versa); this is
merely a disagreement with your assertion that the characters in Origins
don't grow.

I see your perspective; I just disagree with it, because I feel that in DA:O it is hard to distinguish force of personality from character growth. Zevran abandons the crows because, to an extent, Zevran always wanted to be free; with a certain amount of approval Zevran will stick with the Warden over Talisen but would otherwise not join. Morrigain complements her task; but she might end up liking or loving the Warden.

It's only Leliana and Alistair (and Shale too! I shouldn't give up Shale) that really change as people.

I think character development is different than a relationship developing. If you remove the Warden, how different would Zevran or Morrigain be at the end of DA:O? Alistair and Leliana would be different people if their relation with the Warden ended then and there, but that's really it.

The characters in Dragon Age II are the same essential people at the end of the game as they are at the beginning (with the possible exception of Anders, but he's also being altered by an outside force). Character growth does not require radical change, nor does it require player agency in the direction of that growth; were either the case, the vast majority of art ever created would be devoid of character growth.

Worldviews do change, though. Sebastian is a different person. So is Isabella (especially Isabella). Other characters grow as well as Morrigain and Zevran do.

I don't think DA2 is brilliant; I just think it executes development better than Origins.

Yes, the character growth in Origins is largely communicated by the change in the relationship with the Warden, but that's because the Warden is the player's window into the world. What in the game isn't communicated by its relationship with the Warden outside of a handful of Loghain cutscenes?

But that's what's shallow about DA:O. You could show the characters being different (like you actually do, though very rarely, with Alistair and Leliana) by having them object or not differently. They're different because their worldview is different.

But Zevran still wants killing and sex, Morrigain is still cold and ruthless... they deal with the world the same way with or without the Warden, and that can't be said for most of the DA2 cast in the same way.

[Keladis]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

It may not have been intended to have be quest based, but I am sorry to say almost every time you got to talk to your followers was when they had a quest for you to do for them. We got little chance got to walk up to a follower and just have a conversation and leave without having to go do something for them. To me that is a quest base interaction (wither it was deliberately intended or not).
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? It seems like every company is slowing doing away with allowing the player to interact with NPC and followers other then when the stories quest calls for them to be talked to.
If nothing else it seems you are trying to turn all your games into a Mass Effect style game. Then at lest do it like Mass Effect and allow use to ask our followers what their thoughts on the how the game has progress to that point and the can we talk option where they talk a little about themselves and we get to ask a couple questions about what they are telling us.
As for resources I would think that it would make more sense to spend a little more time/money to add interactions that allow players to feel like they have some control over, whom they talk to and interact with. Going a little out of the way to please the customers keeps them coming back.
The way RPG games seem like they are going, I feel like I might as well save some money and buy a book.

[Brockololly]

David Gaider wrote...
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.

Thats where  I'll disagree, insofar that player agency isn't an issue in feeling some relationship with the companions. Especially early on, once you've  first met/recruited a given companion I generally want to at least talk with them and get a baseline feel for who they are. I think thats a natural impulse- just like if you pick up a nice new shiny piece of loot, you want to equip it and try it out. The same with picking up or meeting a new companion- you want to see what they're all about and interact with them.
 
So as a player, at that point in time, I want MOAR! info on that certain companion. The problem in DA2 is that the  companions are more or less chucked at you and given a quest right off  the bat when you meet them- not unlike how the game just starts by  chucking Hawke in the middle of the Blight and you're lacking context as
to why you should care. Especially since Hawke is basically a nobody in Act 1, most of the early stages with the DA2  companions gives you little reason as to why you should care about them  when you barely know them and them even teaming up with you and instantly becoming buddies feels more than a bit forced.

As much as I liked BG2, I'd say this was an issue there as well with companions- "Hey, I want to chat with Jaheira about something...oh, I can't do  anything"...*rests for 3 days straight to see if any new dialogue  triggers* Origins got around that at least in the beginning by being able to have a consistent means of interacting with the companions by simply clicking on them and no matter what, they verbally acknowledge that action, you go into the conversation view and the player can then choose the direction of the conversation. It may seem like a small thing, but having a consistent means of interacting and getting responses from everyone helps enormously in the feeling and perception of being involved in the world and not just manipulating a game mechanic. Its not unlike how in ME2, people complain of not being able to have fleshed out conversations with Zaeed or Kasumi.

I think DA2 took too much control/agency away from the  player in terms of being able to feel like they were able to start a  conversation and be an active participant as opposed to being dictated  by the companions/game when it was ok to listen to them talk about one  of their problems. Its an issue with many RPGs where the PC ends up being a passive sponge for all the NPC's problems- at least in Origins I felt you could control what conversation you wanted to have with a given companion at a given time, whereas in DA2 you only have the option to listen to a companion talk about something when they want to. So as the player, you're stuck reacting and waiting for the go ahead to have any interaction with the companion and thats an issue I didn't have in Origins for the most part.

Again, its especially true early on- in Origins for instance, after getting into Lothering, I wanted to know more about Morrigan and as such talked with her about several topics which I found interesting based on her laundry list of possible questions available. But I greatly appreciated that, as having dialogue options which are responsive to the player's own curiousity keeps the player engaged and gives them a better context for who the companions are. So that when I'd hear Morrigan banter with others or make comments on quests later, I had some context already based on the one on one conversations. Nevermind that with stuff like banter, you never know when it will trigger, or if it triggers in combat and you're not paying attention or if it fades out as you're running around.

David Gaider wrote...
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.

I guess I'd say it rarely felt to me as if they were actual conversations with the DA2 companions, but rather being lectured to and having to listen. You get the memo in your journal that so and so wants to talk, and yet you get there and have zero control over what you can talk about- its just the companion talking your ear off with Hawke nodding and saying one response three different ways. Surely this happened at times in Origins too, but it was balanced by the "tell me about" questions which could be initiated by the player, which are pretty much entirely absent in DA2. That made the relationships in DA2 feel astoundingly one sided to me.

I loved when the follower came and spoke to you about your mother as that was a moment when the PC wasn't playing therapist to the NPCs and they were actually reacting to the PC, not unlike when in Origns you could direct the flow of conversation and have the companion respond or answer your question. It would be great if after a given quest or after you discovered a certain object you could go to a companion and have a conversation with them about that stuff. Or even like in Origins, where you listen to Morrigan tell about her mirror- at the time it seems like an innocuous littel backstory bit. Yet I can recall when I got the mirror gift, it clicked in my head to give it to Morrigan and the actual act of gifting the mirror to Morrigan via the inventory followed by  her stunned reaction was awesome.

As opposed to DA2 where if you have a gift in your inventory and talk to someone it just magically floats over to the companion, which often times left me confused for a bit, going "Oh, yeah, I forgot about that thing." I think just as important as the content of the conversations is the method by which the player is interacting in the conversations and there was a definite disconnect for me there as too often I felt like an onlooker and not actively engaged and involved like I often felt in DAO.

In the end though, the sort of open ended "tell me about" laundry list questions helped give some context and foundation for the companions to some extent, especially early on when you don't know them that well and have the urge to interact with them one on one. Maybe have some of those early on player initiated conversations pop up later on in the game by having a companion start a converstaion with a "remember when talked about..." type thing, so that, like Morrigan's mirror conversation coming full circle, even the more fluff conversations can have a greater impact. But since the player made the choice and started that initial conversation, I think it might carry more resonance for some as opposed to just being told by the game that so and so wants to talk and only being able to talk about a given thing.

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).

I'd agree there- having every possible interaction go down in the journal as a fully named "quest" didn't help. I get the intent to avoid Garrus situations, but plopping it down in the journal like any other quest made it feel more like a chore- like interacting with so and so is now just another task to check off on your list, followed by the subsequent backtracking again through Kirkwall- which the accompanying loading screens made about 10X worse than simply making the rounds at camp in Origins.

I think the lack of spontaneity was definitely part of it too- as again, it all felt very regimented and that Hawke wasn't actually starting any conversations or directing what to talk about but was simply being commanded to talk to a given companion, lest you miss out on their companion quest content. Whereas in Origins, the details of when and where you could chat with someone were left up to the player and thus, if you felt like taking a break from killing waves of darkspawn in the Deep Roads you could chat with a companion. Or even something little like being able to kiss your LI and having a party member comment on that- its that kind of reactivity and responsiveness to the player I found largely lacking in DA2.

Modifié par Brockololly, 24 avril 2011 - 09:06 .

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

But Zevran still wants killing and sex, Morrigain is still cold and ruthless... they deal with the world the same way with or without the Warden, and that can't be said for most of the DA2 cast in the same way.

And without Hawke's potential influence, Isabela would steal back her relic and be as shallow and flighty as day one of the game.  What changes there?

Zevran is going through a personal change even without the Warden, starting with Rinna's death, and so is Morrigan as she reaches a breaking point with her mother.  Just because there is not a "hardening" mechanic at play (and oh how I hate that mechanic), doesn't mean the characters aren't growing on their own.

[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 .

[Dave of Canada]

Addai67 wrote...

And without Hawke's potential influence, Isabela would steal back her relic and be as shallow and flighty as day one of the game.  What changes there?

And what about everybody else? You take maybe the exception to the rule, everybody else changes in some way or another.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 24 avril 2011 - 09:30 .

[Xewaka]

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?

It is, at least among the developing team. Players I don't have access to reliable data.

[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 .

[Keladis]

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.

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.

Thanks for taking the time to explain the reason behind things. It made a lot of sense and I guess that being said a unscripted dialogued conversations (ie. can happen at any time, rather than anywhere) would be more to my liking or more scripted dialogued conversations.
Once again thanks for taking the time to explain things.

[monima]

Well the facial animations and body language are amazing in DA2. I get the problem now. You cant make cinematics for every location there is. But there must be a way to compromise? And like many mentioned here before, is that we dont feel we get to know the characters soon enough.

But for some reason Aveline wasnt that bad, maybe because she is with us from the beginning.