323 réponses à ce sujet

[_Aine_]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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

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

Another recommendation is to have a few more ambient lines that your companions could repeat if clicked.  Varric seemed to have more than most of them, but ones relevant to your location, or the stage of your game would make it feel less canned and static, even though you can't actually initiate dialog.   (What I have noticed is that it is often the more ambient <for lack of a better word? I am sure there is a proper one> dialog that is often repeated and so often mentioned, where mission, story or quest dialogue happens only once, so less often.  Therefore, the more it is possible to happen, the more options need to be given for that percentage chance so it seems a bit more random since it will be obvious through repetition. )

Just thoughts.  =)    Of course, no-one asked but still.  

Modifié par shantisands, 24 avril 2011 - 10:06 .

[David Gaider]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AlexXIV]

You maybe should consider letting the player choose an alignment. Like it was in D&D. So that would at least give the player a say in the way he/she wants to respond. I don't think the approach with the 3 different 'personalites' in DA2 works well there, since in DA2 I always switched and chose the one that fit best even if it was 'out of character'.

[Night Prowler76]

I just miss the stories Leliana would tell, and the feeling of relaxation from being at camp after questing for a few hours, just chatting with companions and fiddling with their armor etc, the socializing and great background music at camp was one of the great things Origins did very well.

I find it easier to relate to companions the more I talk to them, especially spur of the moment conversations, but I can also understand there is budget and time restraints, I hope you guys can find a bit more time for some extra dialogue and story telling David, I would like to see the main protagonist be involved in the party banter, thats an interesting idea:>

Modifié par Night Prowler76, 24 avril 2011 - 10:49 .

[In Exile]

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?

I didn't mean to sound like I was discount the Warden. Rather, I meant that they aren't different at the end of it. Morrigain is still the same Morrigain you meet in the Wilds, but Isabella isn't still the same Isabella you met in the pearl.

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.

My point is that Zevran at the start of DA:O (sans romance) isn't very different than Zevran at the end of DA:O. There's a personal ephinany of sorts, but you don't have any kind of change. Zevran at the end of DA:O would still do the same things Zevran at the start would. Aside from workign with the Crows, that is, and Zevran already had doubts about that bit.

[In Exile]

David Gaider wrote...
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.

Why can't you recycle resources in ''camp'', i.e. the home base? The questioning beliefs quests had Fenris and Isabella sit; you can sit down and chat for most converations, reclycing camera angles as is. I don't think the right move is to go back to talk anywhere, but you can allow the PC to sponatenously revisit trees (as you did with Aveline n Act I) by just reclycing a generic conversation cinematic loop the way ME2 does it while saving the new cinematics for more major scenes.

Obviously the cost here is in terms of what you give up for that extra dialogue... but I think players would be willing to give up (for example) the Magistrate's son and Feynriel for the sake of more companion interaction.

[bleetman]

David Gaider wrote...

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

Characters chiming in with short comments and musings when you passed, for lack of a better term, interesting locations was a fairly nice touch, I thought. Morrigan arriving at Denerim and asking whether marketplaces are always this busy for example.

The only comparative example I can think of in DA2 - more of a criticism of my memory than of content, for the record - is when doing the All That Remains quest, where Hawke and The Gang regularly pitch in comments as they work their way through the lair. And though Anders needed to shut the god damn hell up, does he even remember who we're looking for, that kind of interaction - where characters respond with each other to the world around them rather than shuffling silently behind until passing over a ok-start-banter-with-another-character checkpoint - comes off great.

Not that I'm saying 'less party banter', I adore that. But if having more conversation in the style of cut scenes isn't feasible, it's something I'd love to see. Assuming more conversation overall is the goal, 'course.

Hawke (or whoever the player character ends up being next time) having the option to regularly pitch in his or her thoughts shouldn't be that difficult or awkward to convincingly add. I'll take the example of, say, the dragon in the Brecillian forest ruins, in Origins. Your party members there comment on there being something up ahead, wanting to turn around, 'mother always said never fight anything big enough to swallow you whole', and what have you, at which point all that need be done is allow the player to chime in themselves from a choice of a few options: agreement, re-assurances, jokes about how we'd just get lost on the way out, so on and so forth.

*shrug*

Modifié par bleetman, 24 avril 2011 - 11:20 .

[In Exile]

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

Why not hook it up to things the players said? If you let the player define reasons for doing things (like when Varric asks Hawke what the goal in Kirkwall is with a place in Hightown) then you can have banter about that.

The issue is just tracking metres. If you can weave a why in some conversations, you can get the player to banter a bit more without choosing dialogue. Take Anders for example in Dissent.

You save Ella, and you track (say) pro or anti abomination views and pro or anti mage views. Then when banter about that comes up, Hawke can comment. Or you can tie it to class. So mage Hawke with a bloodmage spec is pro bloodmagic, otherwise against.

It's not perfect, but essentially I don't think players would object to having their own choices reworded back to them in banter in a way that's consistent with a dominant personality (if you do keep that system).

[_Aine_]

David Gaider wrote...

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

Oh it probably is.  I don't doubt it.   Even with writing the things that look simple have likely had comma's and periods removed and re-inserted a million times before the simplicity was perfectly simple enough.  :happy: When it comes down to the technicalities, I appreciate hearing about them because it makes things make sense.  I can picture the how's to go with the why's and that is helpful.  Unnecessary in the grand scheme of things but a welcome indulgence for a brain prone to overthink.    So, thanks for that.   

I think it is more important (perhaps) to be able to say (at least some of the time) " I was able to talk to them when I chose it" rather than " I was able to talk to them anywhere."  We may interpret it as "more often, or anywhere" but the truth is having some control over the when's may erase the sticking point of the where's.   

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

Well, I was pleasantly surprised at how responsive the game got in the later stages to the cumulation of my dialogue choices and how it helped to develop MY Hawke's character. I didn't see this fully until I had done several playthroughs with very different characters, mindsets, and social approaches....but once I DID see it... this was one of my favorite features.  Actually, it made MY character seem entirely more real and intuitive.  I liked that. Did I mention I really liked that?     Anyway, my point would be that once these approaches are better predicted by the cumulative choices you have made, different ambient responses to your character from other companions would be realistically possible, but of course that would mean that the same system would need to be in place for companion dialogue with you as it seemed to effect your approach and initiatory dialogue in general for the game.  No idea if that is already the case though, or if it was more a matter of set choices to the circumstance/query rather than set choices by circumstance AND broken down by approach to the companion and or subject etc.  I can see this in crazy flow charts in my brain, so I can assume how messy it *actually* is to do more likely.  LOL  I should probably stop thinking about it, truthfully :innocent:

More back and forth banter would be awesome.  Whether using the predictive stuff based off of choices like our characters seemed to develop ( which I assume would work better the deeper into the game you went in terms of accuracy?) or through some method of choice (right click for pop up choices or something as easy as clicking at a certain time with an action for a specific prompt etc)  would be welcome. At least in theory.      

I do think I see that one size does not fit all and that the old method in DA:O does not necessarily fit tidily within a more cinematic approach (even if it differed from what was the standard in DA2).  I did enjoy that aspect, so I wish you guys success in finding new ways to promote more free-flow dialog (even if it is largely illusion) that takes into consideration player interaction in the game.     Dialogue ( or how accessible it is perhaps) can make or break a game so I really do wish you all the best of luck in continuing to fine tune the way it is done.    

Modifié par shantisands, 24 avril 2011 - 11:19 .

[upsettingshorts]

Curiosity/brainstorming:

What is preventing the dialogue wheel popping up in the third person overhead view mid-banter? Especially out of combat?

Wouldn't that allow the protagonist to take part in party banter in more or less the same way that they take part in conversations?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 avril 2011 - 11:18 .

[_Aine_]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Curiosity/brainstorming:

What is preventing the dialogue wheel popping up in the third person overhead view mid-banter? Especially out of combat?

Wouldn't that allow the protagonist to take part in party banter in more or less the same way that they take part in conversations?

That was what I was wondering in terms of perhaps using right click for a selective mode ?  Seems possible, perhaps a nightmare to code?? 

[hoorayforicecream]

shantisands wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Curiosity/brainstorming:

What is preventing the dialogue wheel popping up in the third person overhead view mid-banter? Especially out of combat?

Wouldn't that allow the protagonist to take part in party banter in more or less the same way that they take part in conversations?

That was what I was wondering in terms of perhaps using right click for a selective mode ?  Seems possible, perhaps a nightmare to code?? 

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

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

[bleetman]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Curiosity/brainstorming:

What is preventing the dialogue wheel popping up in the third person overhead view mid-banter? Especially out of combat?

Wouldn't that allow the protagonist to take part in party banter in more or less the same way that they take part in conversations?

Best guess? You'd either have to put the banter on hold until Hawke pitched in (and then somehow have the rest of the banter make sense for each possible response from Hawke) or only have the option to reply be available for a limited time, turning it into a frustrating quicktime event where you try to pick a response in the narrow window before someone else speaks.

Which, come to think of it, would make it a fairly apt representation of real life group conversations <_<

Modifié par bleetman, 24 avril 2011 - 11:32 .

[upsettingshorts]

I would endorse frustrating quicktime events as the price to pay for more (potentially) interactive party banter.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 avril 2011 - 11:36 .

[bleetman]

Quicktime events are a plague to be eradicated

Modifié par bleetman, 24 avril 2011 - 11:39 .

[David Gaider]

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

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

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

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

[Apollo Starflare]

I've always been in favour of finding a way to move the more random and 'getting to know you'-style conversations towards party banter the PC can take part in, or Awakening style moments caused by a certain object or event.

As it stands the 'party banter' of Dragon Age is rightly hailed as one of it's absolute best 'minor' features. It adds so much to the characters. However in DA2 it sometimes felt like your companions were finding out more about each other (the little things) than you got to. Having the PC be able to instigate similar style 'on the move' conversations would solve both this problem, and the problem of having more appropriate moments for dialogue.

I agree that having big chat sessions in the party camp never felt right. I loved it, but it never felt right. If that same degree of companion depth can be translated to the more dynamic 'talking as you quest' style then I think we have a winner. And in my opinion having the PC become more involved in the banter would be a great step towards that.

It should be noted that I seem to remember my Hawke responding to a companion during a banter in DA2 as it is.

I'm not sure what people expect to see from companions in their chosen hangouts though. I keep thinking about it, and even in Origins your companions ran out of things to say and you either had to repeat dialogue you had already heard or say 'nevermind'. Neither of which is better than the DA2 method. The one exception is the companion who moves in with you, it would make sense to have a 'share a kiss' or 'go to bed' option similar to Origins in that case.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I don't think it is about conversations being required or necessary or the danger of characters being obscured by some camera angle. It is about leaving them out because it requires less voice acting and thus is cheaper to produce. DA2 breaths this kind of economic thought throughout the game. Simplified game mechanics, simplified user interface, cut and paste environments and less content are all designed to allow a more economic development cycle and are certainly not designed to improve the gaming experience. Mix that with some telemetry numbers and marketing and you'll end up with DA2.

[Maria Caliban]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

The other day, I turned off the sound, and played through some conversations/events while just watching how the camera was used and the various animations.

There's some very good stuff going on there (though camera use is a touch conservative for me) but I think most players are so used to it through film, TV, and other games they take it for granted. While the idea of having conversations happen from the normal, overhead view sounds appealing, I think it's an area where people don't realize how what they're seeing adds to their experience. That is, I think overhead conversations might increase the feeling of distance.

Apollo Starflare wrote...

It should be noted that I seem to remember my Hawke responding to a companion during a banter in DA2 as it is.

This happens. Though I noticed that a view times, I didn't realize who was talking as I ran with Lady Hawke.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 25 avril 2011 - 12:03 .

[upsettingshorts]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I don't think it is about conversations being required or necessary or the danger of characters being obscured by some camera angle. It is about leaving them out because it requires less voice acting and thus is cheaper to produce.

*sigh*

[RagingCyclone]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I don't think it is about conversations being required or necessary or the danger of characters being obscured by some camera angle. It is about leaving them out because it requires less voice acting and thus is cheaper to produce. DA2 breaths this kind of economic thought throughout the game. Simplified game mechanics, simplified user interface, cut and paste environments and less content are all designed to allow a more economic development cycle and are certainly not designed to improve the gaming experience. Mix that with some telemetry numbers and marketing and you'll end up with DA2.

All of these are reasons I am already bored with the game. I doubt I will play it again since in three plays I've seen all I care to see. It's definitely not conducive to really making a replayable game.  Plus the dialogue makes for shallower more hollow companions.  Yes, there may be the same amount of dialogue lines, but the old adage of quality vs quantity applies to DA2. Just because the numbers are the same, the depth isn't there.  And while I am a member of a private group where a lot like Fenris, I find him extremely one dimensional.  In this group it makes for some interesting debates, but overall that particular character seems lacking.  And he's one of the more fleshed out characters.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I don't think it is about conversations being required or necessary or the danger of characters being obscured by some camera angle. It is about leaving them out because it requires less voice acting and thus is cheaper to produce.

*sigh*

You can sigh until you are blue. That and the post you linked does not invalidate my opinion.

[upsettingshorts]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

That and the post you linked does not invalidate my opinion.

No, your argument already did that.  The sigh would be for the fact you won't realize it .

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 25 avril 2011 - 12:19 .

[hoorayforicecream]

On a related note, I actually engineered a similar system for a different shipped game that handled a lot of the camera issues Gaider mentions that exist when trying to let players 'talk anywhere'. It actually did a lot of collision checking and had special camera animation constraints in order to minimize the possibility of camera clipping through objects, world geometry, etc. I wouldn't say it was 100% successful, but I would say I got maybe 99% of the problems. The remaining 1% needed more development time and better foresight.

The main issues I had were situations that seemed easy, but are actually quite difficult. Long narrow hallways, doorways, corners, tight enclosed spaces are all extremely troublesome when trying to place a camera and maintain a clear view. Also height differences (stairs, slopes, rocks, etc.) were very bad too. If characters are talking to each other while standing at different heights in arbitrary positions, it becomes very difficult to synchronize animations for things like touching, hitting, interacting, etc. because the animations are almost invariably created with equivalent height in mind. You can hide this with camera tricks (the camera only sees waist-up), but it's still another constraint you have to work around.

It's definitely doable, but will require a good amount of time from a dedicated (and experienced) engineer at the minimum. It comes down to whether the team leads think it is a worthwhile expenditure of resources.

[IainCD]

I don't post very often but I did comment soon after playing DA2 that I did miss the opportunity to speak to my companions at any time. I can understand now (from David Gaider's replies) why that was the case and I appreciate that the move to more cinematic filming makes this more difficult. Perhaps (as others have suggested) the problem in feeling 'connected' to the companions in DA2 is more to do with the balance of options. Earlier in the the game, it would have been good to find out more background of your future friends with more 'tell me about' options, simply to allow you to find out just who these people are and then, as the game progresses, restrict the conversation options more to current events. I liked how DA2 spaced out the dialogues but did feel less 'in control' of them - I agree that it felt more like being 'talked at' a lot of the time.

Personally, I also felt that the balance of the romance options felt a little odd. The flirting seemed to start too early (you could hit on Anders straight after watching him kill his lover) and then it fizzled out after the bed scene. This happened to a degree in Origins too but as others have said, at least there you could initiate a kiss etc which gave the illusion of a lasting relationship. In DA2, it often felt as if after your LI moved in, they were no longer very interested in you!

Finally, I dont know how feasible this is but it would be good if the ambient dialogue could sometimes reflect the situation in hand. As an example, after I have killed Marethari and all of Merril's clan, she is clearly devastated but when I (accidentally) click on her she makes that witty comment about 'why do they bury people on top of a mountain', which, frankly, broke immersion a bit! Perhaps that's not easily fixed however...

This all probably sounds a bit negative and I'd hasten to add that on the whole I loved DA2 and I found most of the companions to be really interesting and good to have around and the party banter is generally pretty wonderful. I also acknowledge that I know nothing of the mechanics of actually making a game and this why I love the threads that the writers contribute to because it really gives a bit of insight into the process!