85 réponses à ce sujet

[por favor]

David Gaider wrote...

If you felt less connected to your followers, that's too bad. There could be many reasons for that, but if the requirement to someone feeling connected is having long, rambling conversations in the party camp... I can safely say that's unlikely to happen again. I could see front-loading the characters a bit more so players are more thoroughly introduced (as it was, a lot of the character interaction ended up in Act 2 quite by accident) but I have absolutely no intention of returning to the reams of expository dialogue as a replacement for character development anytime soon.

I'd like to say that, yes, long "rambling" conversations are an important part of being attached to a character. Not for everyone, of course, but for a good amount of people.

I must have talked to my first love interest, Isabela, a total of what -- 10 times? -- during the entire game. And each conversation was over almost as soon as it began.

How can BioWare expect me to have any attachment to someone that I've hardly even spoken to? That I've hardly spent any time with?

We grow attached to the people we know in real life because we spend time with them, have long "rambling" conversations with them, and develop a bond with them. How can you develop a bond with someone you've hardly spoken to? 

If it wasn't for the long, rambling conversations we were able to have at camp, I wouldn't have grown attached to Alistair at all. But all those hours I spent talking to him by the campfire made it happen. 

I just don't see how BioWare expects people to develop bonds with their followers if they're forced to talk to their characters at certain times in certain locations during certain Acts, etc. etc. All these rules just makes things so tedious and takes all the fun out of it.

Why can't I drop by and talk to Merrill just because? Why do I have to wait until the game tells me "go talk to Merrill"? What is so wrong with spending a lot of time with your party members?

I have never ONCE heard someone complain about being able to have long, rambling conversations with their party members in DA:O. Never.

I have NEVER heard someone say, "You know, I really hate spending a lot of time with the characters I like and having a million different conversations with them. You know what I also hate? Talking to them whenever I want. I wish the game would restrict how much I talk to my party members. I would bond with them a lot more that way."

Honestly, the whole dialogue set-up in DA:II comes across to me as laziness. It is my impression that the DA:II writers were too lazy to write out pages upon pages of dialogue, so they restricted each character's dialogue to a total of ~10 short conversations.

One of the things that impressed me about DA:O the most was the amount of time and effort that was put into the game. DA:II seems to, in almost all aspects, lack that kind of depth, lack that kind of detail, and lack that kind of work ethic.

Flame away, if you wish. I really don't care. I'm not the first person to say that this game lacks depth, and I certainly won't be the last. The game is getting horrible feedback for a reason.

Restricting dialogue is yet another example of BioWare doing what they want for the franchise, not what their fans want. Are we not the consumers?

TL;DR: 

errant_knight wrote...

It's incredibly lonely to have friends/companions who won't speak to you, and makes whatever relationship is shown in cutscenes feel hollow, unreal, and removed from daily life.

Modifié par por favor, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:59 .

[alex90c]

The DA2 system wasn't lazy, what Bioware wanted to do was make conversations more dynamic by triggering them only when they wanted to. This meant for example that rather than you and the companion standing chatting, you could get companions who interacted with their surroundings. Best example would be Merrill talking about how the people in her clan learned the Vir Tanadhal (sp?) and then there's her hand across the book.

Now it was pretty awesome just being able to go to camp, go 'sup to Alistair and just talk about Grey Wardens (what if we just left Ferelden? where's Weisshaupt? etc.) but both conversation systems have their positives and negatives. Admittedly I would prefer a DA:O system, and I don't see the big deal with letting players themselves pace their conversations with party members (oh, some people exhausted all the dialogues so we're simply going to remove any chance of this happening by restricting conversations full stop) since I found myself perfectly capable of pacing myself.

I think it was the inter-party banter which really made this flaw of the DA2 system hit home though. While it was great your companions had lives of their own, it really made you feel left out when they were all chatting about stuff and then there's you only getting two conversations per companion, or the whole party members don't visit Hawke they prefer to visit his dog business.

If Bioware aren't ever going to return to the DA:O system however, no point moaning about it I suppose if there's no way in hell it's gonna get changed.

[Zanallen]

The problem with Origins is that you could conceivably exhaust all dialogue with a companion during the first time you spoke with them in camp. That is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with people complaining about having to slough through massive amounts of dialogue. Don't be absurd. Also, from what Gaider has said, there is a similar amount of companion dialogue in DA:O and DA2. DA:O has slightly more, but not anything major. The main difference is that the dialogue in DA2 is broken up over the course of the game and not immediately available as it is in DA:O.

[huwie]

por favor wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If you felt less connected to your followers, that's too bad. There could be many reasons for that, but if the requirement to someone feeling connected is having long, rambling conversations in the party camp... I can safely say that's unlikely to happen again. I could see front-loading the characters a bit more so players are more thoroughly introduced (as it was, a lot of the character interaction ended up in Act 2 quite by accident) but I have absolutely no intention of returning to the reams of expository dialogue as a replacement for character development anytime soon.

I'd personally challenge the idea that the campfire dialogue in DA:O was "expository", though I suppose it depends on what's meant by that word. "Expository" in the sense that dialogue exposes character, is desirable. "Expository" in the sense that it's done by infodump, is not.

Now, the DA:O dialogue was hardly infodumpy, so I can't see the problem with it. How else is character development to be handled, if not largely by dialogue that subtly exposes character?

[Lord Nikon 001]

Why would you front load the converstions for the companions. That's beyond stupid. So you talk to them regularly when you first get them, learn more about them and maybe even get a quest or some other dribble, and then what. Nothing further for the rest of the game? What's the point?

As well, a converstion should be able to be initiated by you, THE PLAYER, at any time you want. Not just when you find that magical sweet spot in the game where the companions say something whitty or begin a conversation with another companion, excluding you.

For me the interaction with, and subsequent caring of the companions in DA2 was a HUGE issue, even beyond the resused maps, broken story and endless courier quests.

[OdanUrr]

David Gaider wrote...

(...) I have absolutely no intention of returning to the reams of expository dialogue as a replacement for character development anytime soon.

The problem being there's absolutely no character development whatsoever in DA2. I understand where he's coming from, ideally you'd want characters who learn from their experiences and thus evolve as a person. DA2 attempted to do this with the ten year time frame but ultimately failed. Why?

1) You don't need ten years for a character to evolve.

2) Most, if not all, characters remain set in their ways throughout the entire game and learn nothing at all from their experiences.

This as far as character development goes. On the other hand, if you truly want to bond with these characters you need to spend more time with them. This would not necessarily imply a camp-dialogue system (which I prefer) but, for starters, there could be more conversations over time with your companions, particularly if one of them is your LI.

[por favor]

Zanallen wrote...

The problem with Origins is that you could conceivably exhaust all dialogue with a companion during the first time you spoke with them in camp.

Since when is this a problem? I spent much of my time in DA:O "exhausting dialogue" and never did I consider it a problem. If the player considers that a problem, then they need not do it and simply pace themselves. I don't see how restricting players from something they don't consider a problem is productive.

Also, why can't we have conversational freedom AND the pace? Why do we have to have one or the other?

[Zanallen]

por favor wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

The problem with Origins is that you could conceivably exhaust all dialogue with a companion during the first time you spoke with them in camp.

Since when is this a problem? I spent much of my time in DA:O "exhausting dialogue" and never did I consider it a problem. If the player considers that a problem, then they need not do it and simply pace themselves. I don't see how restricting players from something they don't consider a problem is productive.

Also, why can't we have conversational freedom AND the pace? Why do we have to have one or the other?

The problem was that you could do it all within a few minutes and then the companion doesn't say anything new for the rest of the game. The player doesn't know that what is available to them is everything that the character will talk about so they exhaust the dialogue and are out of luck. Personally, I think that dialogue should be spread out. It is more realistic for a companion to not tell you their life story at the drop of a hat. I liked the way it was handled in KotOR the best.

[Tirfan]

Well, for me the origins way of chatting up companions in the camp after every major plot-quest (which is the way I did it) was extremely fun, getting to know about them and the lore, talking to them in different places (Only reason I brought Leliana to some places before she died was those "what do you know about this place"-dialogues) I even liked unlocking different conversation-paths for Sten. DA2.. well, seriously, I got 2 conversations that lasted for 3 lines/per act and did not even get that much for most of the companions because they apparently were tied to friendship/rivalry. And to make it worse, the conversations were basically the same each time. I really did want to start to cry as Merril started whining about her mirror for the 3rd time, I would have liked to know more about HER or the Dalish instead of her obsession with that thing.

I have to admit though, it was kind of silly that you could exhaust all conversations at the first time you started talking but, well, if these are the options, I really prefer the origins way of doing things.

[por favor]

alex90c wrote...

I don't see the big deal with letting players themselves pace their conversations with party members (oh, some people exhausted all the dialogues so we're simply going to remove any chance of this happening by restricting conversations full stop) since I found myself perfectly capable of pacing myself.

Yes, exactly. With the way the dialogue was before, people could choose to either pace themselves or talk to their party members endlessly.

[por favor]

Zanallen wrote...

The problem was that you could do it all within a few minutes and then the companion doesn't say anything new for the rest of the game.

Again, how is this a problem? If the player chooses to play this way, let them choose to play this way. If the player wants to instead pace themselves, let them pace themselves.

Personally, I chose to talk to my characters endlessly and I found it to be no problem whatsoever. With the way the dialogue set-up was before, no one was forced to do anything. With the way it is now, we're completely forced to only talk to our party members when the game says we can. 

Why should we all be forced to pace ourselves? Why can't we be given the option to pace or not to pace like in DA:O?

[Zanallen]

It is a problem because Gaider feels it is a problem. Either method works so it doesn't really matter. Its just a matter of opinion. Different strokes for different folks.

[Dormiglione]

Zanallen wrote...

The problem with Origins is that you could conceivably exhaust all dialogue with a companion during the first time you spoke with them in camp. That is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with people complaining about having to slough through massive amounts of dialogue. Don't be absurd. Also, from what Gaider has said, there is a similar amount of companion dialogue in DA:O and DA2. DA:O has slightly more, but not anything major. The main difference is that the dialogue in DA2 is broken up over the course of the game and not immediately available as it is in DA:O.

Not true. You had only the dialog that were available at that point of the quest. As the quest progressed, dialogues were added.

[KilrB]

Zanallen wrote...

por favor wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

The problem with Origins is that you could conceivably exhaust all dialogue with a companion during the first time you spoke with them in camp.

Since when is this a problem? I spent much of my time in DA:O "exhausting dialogue" and never did I consider it a problem. If the player considers that a problem, then they need not do it and simply pace themselves. I don't see how restricting players from something they don't consider a problem is productive.

Also, why can't we have conversational freedom AND the pace? Why do we have to have one or the other?

The problem was that you could do it all within a few minutes and then the companion doesn't say anything new for the rest of the game. The player doesn't know that what is available to them is everything that the character will talk about so they exhaust the dialogue and are out of luck. Personally, I think that dialogue should be spread out. It is more realistic for a companion to not tell you their life story at the drop of a hat. I liked the way it was handled in KotOR the best.

Not true.

There were many lines of dialog that would only trigger after certain conditions were met.

Party banter on the other hand ...

I spent hours on the bridge to the proving grounds.


EDIT: Ninja'd again!!!

Modifié par KilrB, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:52 .

[Xalen]

alex90c wrote...

I don't see the big deal with letting players themselves pace their conversations with party members (oh, some people exhausted all the dialogues so we're simply going to remove any chance of this happening by restricting conversations full stop) since I found myself perfectly capable of pacing myself..

Well, if the game must rely on a player to implement self-imposed rules for he narrative to be fluent and coherent - that's a badly structured narrative.
On the other hand, having two conversations per act marked as quests isn't the best alternative too, but I believe DG admitted this problem and stated that they were looking into other ways to implement companion interactions.

The issue Gaider addressed in that thread iirc was that most "long rambling conversations" were not so much about learning the characters but more about learning the world. Not all conversations were like that, of course, but it was a surprisingly big amount. That leads to the character being reduced to the walking lore encyclopedia. There maybe less interaction in DA2, but it's more nuanced and character-focused (well, I think it was counted somewhere that DA2, in fact, didn't have much less conversations, but the pacing and the structure made the difference, but whatever)

Now, there's no doubt that DAO system was good, but flawed and needed much improvements. But it inevitably raises a problem: like I said, the companion dialogues in DAO provided the player with much background information about the world. Making the DA2 dialogues more focused on characters themselves and their interaction with the protagonist (not just one-sided "let me tell you about my life") required changes in how the lore was presented (because, let's face it, we'd rather hear characters talk about it then read the same in the codex), and we've seen it: I think the ratio of amount of info that we got from books etc to the amount of info we got from characters (not only companions) was much greater in DA2 then in DAO, and that is not necessarily a good thing

I, for one, felt much more connected to the DA2 companions than to anyone in DAO, so I think the developers are on the right track. 
Like it was mentioned many times, initiating dialogues in specific locations allowed for much more cinematic conversations, and I liked that. Because talking to Alistair about cheese in the middle Deep Roads while the Warden stares blankly at him broke my immersion much more than the need to go to Anders clinic twice an act, but that just me. What do I know, I'm a filthy DA2 lover.

Modifié par Xalen, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:52 .

[por favor]

Zanallen wrote...

It is a problem because Gaider feels it is a problem.

And that is BioWare's problem. They do what they want, not what their consumers want.

[Dormiglione]

por favor wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

It is a problem because Gaider feels it is a problem.

And that is BioWare's problem. They do what they want, not what their consumers want.

But that is their right as developer. If they would follow every customers wish, they would never release a new game. Its impossible to follow every wish.

[Zanallen]

por favor wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

It is a problem because Gaider feels it is a problem.

And that is BioWare's problem. They do what they want, not what their consumers want.

You aren't the majority of Bioware's customers. Hell, everyone on this forum added together isn't anywhere near a majority. The way dialogue worked in KotOR or in Mass Effect 1 are just as valid as the method in DA:O. The only real problem with DA2's system is that you didn't know enough about your companions to make proper friendship/rivalry choices...Which would be fixed by a bit of front loading.

My personal take on the issue is that pacing companion dialogue out is more realistic.

[por favor]

Dormiglione wrote...

por favor wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

It is a problem because Gaider feels it is a problem.

And that is BioWare's problem. They do what they want, not what their consumers want.

But that is their right as developer. If they would follow every customers wish, they would never release a new game. Its impossible to follow every wish.

I'm not talking about following every consumer's wish. I'm talking about listening to the majority, which BioWare claims to do.

[Dormiglione]

I liked the conversation system of DAO much more than that of DA2.

[Zanallen]

Dormiglione wrote...

Not true. You had only the dialog that were available at that point of the quest. As the quest progressed, dialogues were added.

Not really. The last time I played Origins, I had exhausted just about everyone's dialogue the first time I could talk to them in camp. The only exception is the companion quest and the dialogue right afterward.

[por favor]

Zanallen wrote...

por favor wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

It is a problem because Gaider feels it is a problem.

And that is BioWare's problem. They do what they want, not what their consumers want.

You aren't the majority of Bioware's customers. Hell, everyone on this forum added together isn't anywhere near a majority. The way dialogue worked in KotOR or in Mass Effect 1 are just as valid as the method in DA:O. The only real problem with DA2's system is that you didn't know enough about your companions to make proper friendship/rivalry choices...Which would be fixed by a bit of front loading.

My personal take on the issue is that pacing companion dialogue out is more realistic.

Of course I am not the majority of BioWare consumers. Don't be silly. My point is that restricted dialogue is not what the majority asked for, yet it is what was implemented. As you stated before, "It is a problem because Gaider feels it is a problem." 

What about the consumers and what they consider a problem?

[Dormiglione]

por favor wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

But that is their right as developer. If they would follow every customers wish, they would never release a new game. Its impossible to follow every wish.

I'm not talking about following every consumer's wish. I'm talking about listening to the majority, which BioWare claims to do.

Im just happy if the next installment of Dragon Age improves very much on the issues that Mike Laidlaw mentioned in his post

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
I am absolutely aware of the concerns voiced here. Issues like level re-use, the implementation of wave combat, concerns about the narrative and significance of choice and so on have all been not only noted, but examined,
inspected and even aided me (and many, many others on the team) in formulating future plans

[Zanallen]

por favor wrote...

Of course I am not the majority of BioWare consumers. Don't be silly. My point is that restricted dialogue is not what the majority asked for, yet it is what was implemented. As you stated before, "It is a problem because Gaider feels it is a problem." 

What about the consumers and what they consider a problem?

You don't know what the majority wants because you have no access to that kind of data.

[Dormiglione]

Zanallen wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

Not true. You had only the dialog that were available at that point of the quest. As the quest progressed, dialogues were added.

Not really. The last time I played Origins, I had exhausted just about everyone's dialogue the first time I could talk to them in camp. The only exception is the companion quest and the dialogue right afterward.

I played 10+ playthroughs in Origins and thats not true.