323 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Morrigan who didn't believe in friendship and Morrigan who understands what it is like to have a friend has the same beliefs? How, exactly?

Morrigain believed in power and control, and by the end of it, Morrigain believes in power and control. She doesn't change her moral compass. She doesn't change her behaviour. She doesn't change her goal. She just really likes the Warden.

At the beginning of Awakening Oghren is different person than he was at the end of DA. He has tried to form a relationship different than one he had previously, and it ended in a failure because of his own shortcomings and doubts. That if anything is more of character development, not lack of one. I also don't know how you equal Awakening Oghren with the one at the beginning of DAO -- in DAO he didn't abandon his wife, it was the other way around. And they definitely didn't separate because Oghren wanted to "kill stuff".

Oghren is the same drunken lout at the start of DA:A that he was in DA:O. Oghren's life fell apart for the same reason at the start of DA:A that it did during DA:O.

Branka left Oghren and Oghren left his new girlfriend ( I think her name was Felsi), but that's not relevant to why these things happened to him.

His previous relationship was a failure because of his own short-coming and doubts, and he became a laughing stock in Orzammar for the same reason that he left to join the Wardens.

As for the killing stuff remark - Oghren's sense of purpose comes from being a warrior. He joined the Wardens because he wanted the security of that purpose, and he brawled in Orzammar and fell from status because fighting is all that he knew.

Zevran at the beginning of DAO wouldn't allow himself to love another person. Zevran at the end of game does. Again, how is that exactly the same beliefs?

Zevran at the beginning of DA:O already loved a person.

And again empty statement. How is Wynne who was feeling guilt over the idea she'd failed her first student "totally the same person" with Wynne who doesn't?

Because there is no substantive change in her beliefs; she feels the same way about the Circle, about her religion, about the Grey Wardens, about her role in the world...

She has a warm fuzzy feeling instead of guilt because as it turns out her apprentice wasn't dead, but that was just a lucky coincidence. But she already came to terms with what happend, and then started feeling regrets because she had died. And then it suddenly and magically all worked out for her.

No. Sten learns that Grey Wardens aren't born and raised to be Grey Wardens. That person who isn't a warrior and explicitly tells him so can actually perform such a role. And that person can even be a woman, which is completely out of realm of his initial understanding. He as much as openly questions your character about this matter, after all. If that was confirmation of his world view, what would he need to question about it?

No, he doesn't. Sten acknowledges you as a brother in arms, but he never acknowledges your worldview. This is just something that you seem to want to believe about Sten, but he remains convinced about his world view. Your final conversation with him isn't about how he realized that you changed your role, but that you as a person are some sort of magical unicorn creature that could do anything at all.

He doesn't change his view about the Wardens, about women... about anything, really. Every discussion that you have with him challenging his views ends with him defending himself. Sten never changes anything about himself other than his view of you.

Just look at the conversation about the farmer becoming a merchant.

That's nonsense. The characters who do undergo through these particular personal developments acknowledge it in their dialogue. The ones who don't undergo through these development, don't. They don't react the same in some situations.

They react the same in every situation. There are only two examples: Alistair and Leliana.

Otherwise, you get ''pretty please for me'' options, but that's just liking. Character developing is more than just liking someone and doing them favours.

[Lenimph]

tmp7704 wrote...

Lenimph wrote...

MHm and would you like to continue comparing the Sun and the Moon?

Could you clarify your point? It's certainly possible to compare the Sun and the Moon if your goal is to determine and/or show how these two differ. Much like it's possible to compare the same mechanics in two games also to show how they differ.

I'll say it one last time...
The Warden can't speak... Hawke can... showing the mute warden's face while they "spoke" would be awkward and "immersion breaking".  Showing the back of Hawke's head while they spoke would be awkward and "immersion breaking". (Well unless the player had some kind of hair or nape area fetish and didn't mind staring at the back of someone's head as they talked) 

Now if you excuse me I shall go play with my fellow ponies. 

Modifié par Lenimph, 25 avril 2011 - 06:20 .

[Babi]

The new system is a lot more expansive than it initially appears. Did anyone notice how Hawke's tones/lines are completely different based on which dialogue wheel option you choose more often?

"Your lost garbage, serah" if you usually use the aggressive choices or the good old "I believe this belongs to you" sort of thing.

It is sooooo lulzy. Makes the second/third playthough so much more fun.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Morrigain believed in power and control, and by the end of it, Morrigain believes in power and control.

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

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

Oghren is the same drunken lout at the start of DA:A that he was in DA:O. Oghren's life fell apart for the same reason at the start of DA:A that it did during DA:O.

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

His previous relationship was a failure because of his own short-coming and doubts, and he became a laughing stock in Orzammar for the same reason that he left to join the Wardens.

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

Zevran at the beginning of DA:O already loved a person.

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

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

Because there is no substantive change in her beliefs; she feels the same way about the Circle, about her religion, about the Grey Wardens, about her role in the world...

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

No, he doesn't. Sten acknowledges you as a brother in arms, but he never acknowledges your worldview.

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

They react the same in every situation.

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

Modifié par tmp7704, 25 avril 2011 - 06:36 .

[tmp7704]

Lenimph wrote...

I'll say it one last time...
The Warden can't speak... Hawke can... showing the mute warden's face while they "spoke" would be awkward and "immersion breaking".  Showing the back of Hawke's head while they spoke would be awkward and "immersion breaking". (Well unless the player had some kind of hair or nape area fetish and didn't mind staring at the back of someone's head as they talked) 

And i'll say it last one time as well -- and this is exactly how the conversation systems in DA2 and DAO differ. Which (the differences) may be a reason why someone finds one of these systems "immersion breaking" for them, while accepting easier the other.

Which one they like better is down to individual preferences, but can we at least agree that these systems do indeed differ? Like the Sun and the Moon if that's the analogy you must to use. Oddly enough there's people who may prefer one over the other when it comes to these, too.

Modifié par tmp7704, 25 avril 2011 - 06:33 .

[Lenimph]

tmp7704 wrote...
Which one they like better is down to individual preferences, but can we at least agree that these systems do indeed differ? Like the Sun and the Moon if that's the analogy you must to use. Oddly enough there's people who may prefer one over the other when it comes to these, too.

Then say you don't like a voiced PC instead of saying.

"I don't like looking at my main characters face" 

[Fieryeel]

I wished there were more "battle of Ostagar" epic battle moments...

[tmp7704]

Lenimph wrote...

Then say you don't like a voiced PC instead of saying.

"I don't like looking at my main characters face" 

... what do my preferences have to do with this?

I'm starting to think you're replying without understanding the context. This angle of discussion started with:

Maria Caliban wrote...

fchopin wrote...
Then please remove the cinematics for dialogue as it's impossible for me to get immersed with dialogue or companions, use cinematics in other ways but not in this, dialogue is very important for role playing.

fchopin wrote...
I was connected with all the companions in DAO, did not matter if i liked them or not.

How could you connect with the companions in DA:O if cinematics make it impossible to do so?

and it simply went onto what's different about DAO and DA2 cinematics that could make a person feel so differently about these two.

Is it clear now?

[Lenimph]

No because I posted pictures from DA:O with cinematics similar to those in DA2... and they happened plenty of times. (Which you arrogantly shrugged off)

It happened more in DA:2 because they were no longer limited by a silent protagonist.

Modifié par Lenimph, 25 avril 2011 - 06:53 .

[tmp7704]

Lenimph wrote...

No because I posted pictures from DA:O with cinematics similar to those in DA2... and they happened plenty of times.

It happened more in DA:2 because they were no longer limited by a silent protagonist.

Right, and immediately afterwards you started to talk how i'm comparing the Sun and the Moon.

Would you mind to clarify whether you agree or disagree with me that there's some things in conversation system that's different between DAO and DA2?

edit:

(Which you arrogantly shrugged off)

i didn't shrug off anything. I meant situations in which camera would be pointing at the back of the PC's head while it's the PC that's speaking (and i didn't clarify that well enough because i thought it'd be too redundant. In hindsight, that was a mistake, sorry)

This, obviously, doesn't really happen in DA2 because --unlike in DAO and like you point out-- in DA2 character actually speaks. Which caused the change to how the cinematics are done. Which was the very point of discussion...

Modifié par tmp7704, 25 avril 2011 - 07:03 .

[Skokes]

In Exile wrote...

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.

I don't really buy this perspective. I mean, my snarky answer to the last question would be "Dead, probably," but that's not very useful. But given that the character development occurs as a direct result of the protagonist's actions (and is indeed tied almost linearly to Approval - which, it could be said, is a thematic issue underlying both games, that way we treat others significantly impacts them), I have a difficult time seeing it as you do.

Yes, Zevran still enjoys whoring and killing. These are essential aspects of his personality. It's like saying that Hamlet doesn't grow as a character because he's still moody with mother issues in the final act. On the other hand, look at the different ways in which Zevran's story can play out - he might betray the Warden to rejoin the Crows; he might fight the Crows and then leave to pursue his own fortune; he might help the Warden against the Crows and then swear to help kill the Archdemon because it's the most worthy thing he's ever done. These are radically different. And sure, back at camp he's got the same dialogue trees to exhaust as he did before, but that's an issue with the limitations of the system (and, I suspect, part of the reason for the changes in DA:O:A and DAII).

I guess my point is that character growth doesn't require utter character reinvention. (Also note that in my first playthrough of DAII I went up the Friendship path with everyone, which reinforced their characters, which resulted in the characters feeling a little less dynamic over time. Not that I'm complaining, just pointing out that those characters grew without me dramatically changing them.)


To get back into the conversation at hand, however, I'd rather BioWare go whole-hog and set conversations where they wanted them, when they wanted them, if the result would be more complex conversations with multiple options and multiple companions. Setting scenes in specific locales opens up all kinds of possibilities, such as interacting with the environment (the option to 'buy Varric drinks' at the Hanged Man is a step in that direction), interruptions or interjections from NPCs, and more dynamic blocking.

There's an aspect of the current design that's inclined towards the freedom of the player to choose to ignore interacting with companions, which is something I generally support, but perhaps there are ways to include that freedom without forcing players to seek out the companions to talk to them? Rather than Anders sending a letter saying he wants to talk, for example, perhaps he just shows up. At that point the player can tell him to go away if he or she doesn't want to deal with him. Indeed, perhaps a mix would be interesting - characters come to the protagonist to initiate quests, for example, but scenes like "Questioning Beliefs" are generally activated by the player going to the character.

Of course, the issue in both cases then becomes communicating this to the player. Perhaps a simple "There be a scene here!" icon on the world map would do the trick, though it might also destroy the pleasant sense of surprise the player gets from a scene like Fenris's on entering the Gallows.

[Lenimph]

tmp7704 wrote...

Would you mind to clarify whether you agree or disagree with me that there's some things in conversation system that's different between DAO and DA2?

They are different vocally (and with the wheel)
But visually not so<_<

If looking at  the main characters face makes you feel less immersed then I don't understand how you could get through DA:O because it still happened just less because the warden is silent.

The sun and the moon light up the sky, one less so then the other but they still do the same thing. 

[tmp7704]

Lenimph wrote...

They are different vocally (and with the wheel)
But visually not so<_<

 But isn't it quite enough of visual difference that one game actually shows your character while he/she speaks, while the other doesn't..? I mean... isn't that... well, different?

[Lenimph]

tmp7704 wrote...

 But isn't it quite enough of visual difference that one game actually shows your character while he/she speaks, while the other doesn't..? I mean... isn't that... well, different?

<- The wardens/my face 
edit: 

Modifié par Lenimph, 25 avril 2011 - 07:14 .

[tmp7704]

Bah, Rainbow Dash's face next to it fits better... so fierce!

[Lenimph]

tmp7704 wrote...

Bah, Rainbow Dash's face next to it fits better... so fierce!

 Hidden brony has unleashed his pony fandom 

Modifié par Lenimph, 25 avril 2011 - 07:18 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I was addressing that the development from the codex entries wasn't shown, and I think it should have been. It's my opinion, of course, but I think it would have helped strengthen the relationships with the companions.[/quote]

But you do see it. You don't get the codex entry until you first speak to the companion. Merril's a beautiful example:

In year 7, Varric visits her to get her to go outside. She refuses. Hawke comes. They talk. Eventually she admits Varric is right. Then you get the codex entry that says she was consumed by the mirror; but you already saw she was consumed by the mirror. [/quote]

You mean she was determined to save her people through the knowledge she believed the Eluvian would provide about the fallen kingdom of Arlathan.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

Or with Anders. After dissent, he is broken up about Ella. He says he wants to abandon his quest. But by Year 7 he's back at it, even more committed than ever.  [/quote]

Which is explained in the codex entry on Anders.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Except when dialogue was chosen for the Warden, it's often what he said (except for the line where he hardened the personality of Alistair); when dialogue is chosen for Hawke, it can be (and often is) radically different than what was intended (such as the "you're useless" option for Grand Cleric Elthina). I feel that it hurts immersion.[/quote]

Personal preference for dialogue presentation is a can of worms in itself, and I think we should agree to disagree and focus on more of the substance re: the characters. [/quote]

It's not an issue of personal preference, it's an issue of the dialogue options not accurately demonstrating what will verbally be said by the protagonist Hawke.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't think there wasn't any character development, but I feel that the ties to the companions weren't as strong as they were in Origins.[/quote]

I agree with you that the personal connection the game strove to establish was done better in DA:O than in DA2. I just don't think the characters underwent more development in DA:O. [/quote]

It felt to me like the characters were more developed in Origins, which is probably because I felt more connected to them as the protagonist. I think it's an issue of being able to immerse myself as the Warden better than I was able to immerse myself as Hawke, where I felt I was playing a character as opposed to being the character.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

That's true, but you can determine what Orzammar's future will be like by choosing the next ruler and whether the Anvil will be spared; you can choose to help or abandon the people of Redcliffe; you can side with the elves, the werewolves, or help both of them; you can save the mages or argue for their destruction. The Warden had the opportunity to change the world around him even though there were some linear elements to the storyline. Hawke never has the opportunity to change Darktown, the Alienage, investigate the "O" letter, or be proactive like the Warden was. I hope this issue is rectified in DLC or an expansion.[/quote]

We can't compare scope because DA2 just doesn't have that scope. But in terms of execution, DA2 does the same thing. Like with the Arishok - let him live and walk away with Isabella, or duel him, or refuse to duel and fight him and his men, etc. You have multiple solutions to the same quest. [/quote]

Except that's one example of one companion making a choice based on approval, which was done in Origins with Zevran. The problem I'm addressing is that Hawke is reactive and never changes the world around him, while the Warden does time and again because he's proactive. DA2 doesn't do the same thing DA:O does because we are not permitted to have the same impact on Thedas that we did in the original.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

Bioware hasn't changed their formula; they just changed the scope, and to some people it was the scope that led to satisfaction. Those decisions were always flavour to me because they were irrelevant gameplay wise, and I got the same fuzzy feeling from saving the Werewolves in DA:O when I helped the Starkhaven mages in DA2.

From an RP standpoint the consequence is irrelevant, and from a consequence standpoint DA:O shows as much as DA2. [/quote]

From the perspective of RP, consequence is always relevant, because it allows the protagonist's actions to have meaning. I also have to contest what you said about DA:O and DA2 having the same consequences, because I can assure you that DA2 does not show as much as Origins by any measure merely from the examples I cited to you. Hawke doesn't change the society around him, while the Warden literally changes all the societies that he visits.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

But the problem is some quests force you to do them, even when you've turned them down. It's the illusion of choice.[/quote]

So does DA:O. DA:O even stops giving you the option of turning anythign down after Flemeth's hut. You can complain about fleeing and you're just railroaded. This what Bioware does - do it because the plot demands it. Some people just seem to have bought the role of the Wardens more. [/quote]

DA2 does that time and again, where we're given the illusion of having agency over the character and our choice doesn't matter because Hawke has the option of saying "no" but is forced to go through with the quest anyway, even when it makes no sense for Hawke to be forced into going through with it.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

That would have explained why Hawke would have to accomplish some of the quests, as Meredith uses the same threat to force Hawke to do "On the Loose."[/quote]

Lots of ways to do it, but I think Bioware wanted to allow players to fill in their own reason for why Hawke does what he does, in the same way that they let you fill in the why for the Warden. [/quote]

If we were expected to fill these issues in ourselves, why are there times when I see decisions made because Hawke says things and acts without my imput?

[Kajan451]

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.

You know... about the ambient dialogue, at times i would have loved to throw in a "line" of my own, or remain totally out of it.

And i think that could be done, if you'd use a simple system. And of course, with all those arguments about DA2 being COD like and such... you could use a voice system much similiar to the one used in some shooters. The one where you press down a button and a canned voice menu pops up and you select a pregenerated voice message.

This could be used for Partybanter of the PC. Your Companions would remark something and you could either not press the button and Hawke stays mute and the banter plays out just between the companions, or you press that voice button and are presented with a couple of lines Hawke could throw out.

It could be a radial wheel kind of thing, you know like pressing ... dunno T... and then a speechwheel pops up, much like the normal conversations and you can choose from the possible answers. Maybe even allowing you to agree or disagree with their banter.

The thing about Party Banter, to me has always been the point of being unable to butt in, when i felt one of them overstepped a line with one of my other companions.

Also having the option to select an answer by bringing up such a wheeled option, would give the player much more control over what their character does, than just simply forcing the player just to listen in on what their PC says.

It wouldn't be a cutscene and just bringing the button up, maybe without losing the ability to "move" our characters, would be quick enough not to break the flow and still have a conversation.

Companions would be scripted to give the player a quick moment to react, maybe giving more time as soon as you press the button for the quick chat, and then either continue, if the player doesn't say anything, as if hawke had nothing to say... or of course the conversation is altered by the choice the Player made. Maybe even allowing lengthy conversations about the locations with companions simply by keeping them talking.

It would allow to have some notion of "talk everywhere" without being serious conversations. And stuff like Questitems and Gifts, could be given to Characters anywhere, they would give a quick line about it, but reply to it more lengthy in their hideout. I mean to me that would be much more preferable than being unable to interact with them at all, outside their hideouts.

Combining interactive Ambient Conversation with Cutscenes inside hideouts and quest, would be cool, in my opinion.

On the topic of "Conversation" notification... while i am writing an answer, i can adress that. I liked the way Mass Effect2 handled it much more than the quest Notes in your journal. Having someone tell you, uppon entering your hideout, that XY was around to see you, so you'd know you should go to them to talk, would have been a much better option.

[Sad Dragon]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I have a feeling this sugestion isnt going to be a popular one -- but im going to put it out there anyway.

Why not have is as a quick time event?

Party banter starts and when it is time for Hawke to pipe in you simply get to choose tone. This could be made easy to use for people on the console as well. Press X for polite/diplomatic respone, Y for sarcastic/charming and B for agressive -- looking at the X-Box controller. For us on the PC we could have right, middle (both) and left mouse to select.

Should the player miss the quick time even, someone else in the party takes over and runs with it, that way you wont get pausing in the dialogue -- or well, not much anyway -- and the player doesnt need to stop and read the text.

Just a sugestion.

- The Sad Dragon

[LadyJaneGrey]

Kajan451 wrote...

The thing about Party Banter, to me has always been the point of being unable to butt in, when i felt one of them overstepped a line with one of my other companions.

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

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

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

Modifié par LadyJaneGrey, 25 avril 2011 - 01:04 .

[Zeevico]

I'd rather multi-person (hawke included) banter sparking up every now and then as opposed to ambient dialogue, myself. If the price is that it's less frequent, well, so be it. Just imo.

[_Aine_]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

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

It could be tied to character/companion, which at least in my non-technically up to speed head it sort of is.  The companions already seem to have their friendship/rivalry path thing going on, so it perhaps is possible to branch out from those already established friendship/rivalry stances to provide the ambient dialogue.  For example, if you are raging on Anders, you might have a "Suck it up, Princess" line when he intermittently whines about, oh, say.... mages and templars again and the injustice of being alive in a cage.    If you actively have supported him and are on a friendly basis with him, your ambient dialogue would be fed from a "happy place" and be likewise supportive.  

I was thinking of it, and I think there are a couple issues with immersion for people.  The first is that roleplayers in more text driven roleplaying ( where you actually are typing with other people within a live game for example) do not like having one roleplayer decide what the action will be DONE to them.  License only goes so far I suppose.  But of course, you can't expect to have that same freedom within a pre-determined game.  There HAS to be some limits and some direction. The solution (I think anyway) is finding a happy medium where the pc is existing within the story, but is able to use their own power of choice, or type of character personality to respond within that story they way they choose, and preferably be able to change the world, albeit slightly even, with their choices.  

Now, DA2 was different in that Hawke sort of was an external character. Instead of being Hawke to a large degree, you were kind of like the ACTOR playing Hawke.   You had a set role, !%^& was going to happen no matter what you did one way or the other and your choice was how you evolved your character within rather rigid roles.  I am saying that not as a criticism per sae but more as a defining fact.    When having discussions as Hawke, it was basically up to your companions to need you. Companions directed the timing.    There was little illusion of Hawke saying " I want to go chat with Fenris about life" and then just heading over to talk to a friend.  I know *why* they did it ( to avoid that annoyance of " I'm busy, come back later and I may have something for you" perhaps) but it still led to a very methodical, structured and "out of my hands" feeling.  

The benefit to the way the Warden was done was more about the illusion of choice and the illusion of control, which I personally feel is a bit part of the issue in DA2.  No-one likes to admit they are a bit of a control freak in their games, but there you have it.   We want to feel like we initiate things, that we effectively change and mutate things by our choices and have the world shape.  Flemeth actually says a line in the opening that fits perfectly what I love in a good video game, even if I do change it a bit for my own preferences....

 "Hurtled into the chaos, you fight and the world will shake shape before you. (Aside, mumbling to herself) Is it fate or chance? I can never decide."

I use shape, because I think it fits   

While I LOVE the cinematic approach personally, I miss the feeling of at least being a decision maker in DA:O. Sure, I was always railroaded into doing things anyway, like it or not, but at least there was more a *feeling* of choice and things COULD end differently.  I could either end up with Zevran, or kill him outright - be abandoned by him or have him support me wholeheartedly as a friend.  I could lose Alistair and gain Loghain of all things, what are the chances in most games to do this sort of thing?  The endings, while still firmly within the bounds set by the writers et all, feel like they change ( and to some degree they do) by our presence in that world.  

Maybe it was intended in DA2 (and if so, well, that is just cruel, *grins*) but there was, to me, never a sense of me being any form of champion at all.  I was little Hawke, teased by fate into believing I had power when in fact I was just a puppet of circumstance.  My companions only talked to me when they wanted me to help them and even then the expanse of the game time-line actually worked to make this seem more hollow by giving us set time frames... " He kissed me three years ago and we finally get around to talking about it."   Wouldn't I have at least had *something* to say about it, so I felt like it just didn't *happen* to me without me being able as so much as a) comfort the doofus or give him a good piece of my mind etc.  ?    Why does the codex replace logic, or fill gaps that should be filled with seeing instead of hearing about it, which again adds distance and takes us from "happening with us" to "happening to us". 

I think there *could* be middle ground here between the two basic approaches, somehow.  Give us more illusion I guess, more control.  Truly allow us to (feel we can) somehow shape the world despite the chaos we have been hurtled into, by fate or design.      

Modifié par shantisands, 25 avril 2011 - 02:37 .

[Alex Kershaw]

Just my thoughts on Gaider's responses:

I don't really care so much for being able to talk to characters anywhere if it's a big deal. I rarely did it anyway. The party camp was fine in Origins and other than going through all the new companions' dialogue when I got them (which could probably still be done with your new *ahem* stylistic approach), I only ever chatted at camp anyway.

I just think the main problem is that DA2 companions have nothing to talk about. Go to Merrill, watch cutscene about two people talking about something predictable, then go off to the next quest marker. While the 'doing the rounds' part of the DAO camp could be improved, I would much much much much much rather have DAO where all the conversations are available at the start and I go to the camp and talk to all of them than the DA2 system where it's paced better but the conversations are worse. Both have flaws but DA2's flaw is much worse.

The ideal is to stop wasting resources on the cinematics and have a DAO camp system where the player initiates the conversations - exactly like Mass Effect 2 and DAO (2 games with higher metacritic scores than DA2, I might add), and the conversations feel natural and not staged, and there are lots of things to discuss and talk about that gives the character depth and more than one dimension. Then I'd give it more DA2-style pacing where you can't just go through all the text at the start. Telling the player when new conversations are available might not be easy but in DAO/ME2 it would have been simple enough to unlock new conversations after each 'major' quest. In DA2 it would be more troublesome but anything would be better than the current system.

In DAO, when I completed the game, the first thing I did is furiously Google search to see if Morrigan was appearing in DA2 (I only played Origins a few months ago) and find out if any of the companions appeared in DLC or whatever. I played Witch Hunt straight away despite knowing it would mess up the import order because I needed to know what happened. Hearing the characters talking to you before the final fight in Denerim was probably the best part of the game... In DA2, I didn't care at all when Varrik said we all went our separate ways. I still want the DAO characters back.

Modifié par Alex Kershaw, 25 avril 2011 - 06:47 .

[Addai]

Lenimph wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

And how often that happens, compared to DA2?

edit: for that matter try the reverse -- how many conversations in DA2 have the camera on Hawke's shoulder and not showing his/her face during the speech.

The Warden didnt talk. Would you have liked to watch the warden "speak"?

And if you want to go prove a point why don't you go count and show us some of your almighty evidence but as for now... 
 here's some of that smexy Hawke shoulder

*snip*

The point is that it is hardly ever there, not that you can find a few seconds here or there where it does or a few seconds here or there in Origins where it doesn't.  Though for me the greatest immersion breaker is the PC voice.

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
If the Warden has befriended her, she is significantly different.  Considering where she started, acknowledging one true friend or love and doing something (the DR) out of selflessness as much as her own motive is huge. 

No, it isn't, because when it comes right down to it Morrigain stays on task. She never tells you the goal of the DR except in vague terms. In a romance, she only says she cares about you and that it will end badly.

Morrigain doesn't change her values, her beliefs, hear dealings with people... nothing. She isn't at all different. She just likes another person.

Yes.  She does.  Have you ever seen the Revelation comic, or the mod scene that is based on it?

But as you pointed out, this was something he was doing already. He was mostly there; not being a douche to him is all that it takes for him to make-up his mind.

He realized he was on a dead end road, but that is not the same as taking up a new purpose.  In taking the Warden contract he was hoping to die, not start a new life.

Alistair changes his values dramatically. A hardened Alistair will allow Loghain to live and rule with Anora; he'll sacrifice his desire to avenge Duncan over the greater good, and that's a dramatic shift.

Alistair never lets Loghain live.  He just agrees to remain so that he can sulk in Denerim rather than in the Free Marches.  His essential personality remains the same.  Apart from the kingship, you can't even tell the difference between hardened and unhardened.

We're probably never going to agree on this, so it's o/t.  DA2 tried to make the characters more interwoven in the plot, but did not do as good a job in creating "whole" characters IMO.  Not that we ever got to see, anyway.  I would not call it character-driven in the way that Origins was.  The plot was driving characters and not the other way around.  You can see this most clearly in the antagonists, Loghain vs. Meredith (and Anders).

Modifié par Addai67, 25 avril 2011 - 03:21 .