1502 réponses à ce sujet

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

FieryDove wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Totally agree about Orsino!

I had plans for Orsino. I was going to appoint him the KC title. lol

Sigh

I will be your champion! armed as I am with..... ahh... bugger, thats another fine plan out of the window.

[lobi]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Totally agree about Orsino!

I had plans for Orsino. I was going to appoint him the KC title. lol

Sigh

I will be your champion! armed as I am with..... ahh... bugger, thats another fine plan out of the window.

I was going to open a restaurant/art gallery with Merideth. Lets all shed a communal tear

[erynnar]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Totally agree about Orsino!

I had plans for Orsino. I was going to appoint him the KC title. lol

Sigh

I will be your champion! armed as I am with..... ahh... bugger, thats another fine plan out of the window.

*giggle* Well you can be my champion any day. *hands you a baguet for a sword* Don't bust that, we're having that baguet with cheese later.

[thegoldfinch]

lobi wrote...

I felt the overall theme of DA2 was "corruption". Corrupted by desire, passions and power, and how corruption can punish virtue. Orsino and Merideth prime examples of the latter.

(more spoilers ahead, sorry guys)

What I got out of it was power: The implications of having too much on both the mage and Templar front, and the strains of not having enough, also on both fronts. Powerlessness was also something brought up in a lot of quests. You couldn't save both siblings - there was no choice. Death was coming and there was nothing you could do about it.

The same with mama Hawke biting the bullet. I am in the small percentage of people who LOVED that you couldn't save her. It shows inevitability and that sometimes you cannot have a sunshine perfect ending, no matter how hard you try. It reflects on the fact that you cannot have a perfect life because you will always face the death of a loved one. It reflects the dark ending of the game - no control, no peace, no power. 

The finality of death was also reinforced by the guy who actually did the dirty deed (can't recall his name at themoment). The love of his life perished and there was nothing he could do to stop it. He tried to thwart death - or, thwart powerlessness - but he still failed in the end. It wasn't the same. It never will be.

Fenris and Anders embody both sides of this theme, I think, which is why I loved having them in my party at the same time. It felt right for the game. And definitely not just because they were both hotness. Definitely not.

Modifié par pixieface, 06 août 2011 - 04:43 .

[Sutekh]

erynnar wrote...

Nope, not just you sweetie. Is it great, or just disturbed, minds that think alike? I too imagined a senario like the one you described.

Disturbed, I suppose. Deeply, deeply disturbed 

re: Orsino: the Greatest and Most Random Tantrum of All Times deserves some sort of acknowledgement, though. It's not every day that an until then perfectly reasonable Archmage acts like a panicked six-year-old (and it's a good thing that panicked six-year-old don't have Blood Magic. 'twould be quite a mess).

Seriously, if someone pulled something like that in a fanfic, you would see tons of angry reviews howling for plot hole and OOCness. And rightly so.

[lobi]

@pixieface An Anders, Fenris full on fight cinematic with a dialogue after would have been great for the end of act one.

[FieryDove]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

I will be your champion! armed as I am with..... ahh... bugger, thats another fine plan out of the window.

Yeah! I have a champion!

Oh are you a mage, warrior or rogue pls?

[__nderscore]

I'm a bit of a weird RPG fan, in that I mainly enjoy the molding of a character. If any Dragon Age game had no required combat, but extremely ornate dialogue decisions, louder origins, and highly open directions, I would run through 10 computers playing it.
Of course that's not to say combat doesn't have its place, but I personally value dialogue and impacting decisions over closure through action and confrontation.
What I would thoroughly enjoy would be a Dragon Age game with a heavier emphasis on 'in the now' decisions. IE: Should we fight these thugs, threaten them off, or invite them to a pub? Especially if they don't make any significant impact. It sounds like it's just shallow padding, but having the option to stop mid-combat with bandits and warn them to change their ways before allowing them retreat would be so satisfying, even if we never met again!
Oh, and some more dialogue options with requirements (Such as: Cunning, completing a certain quest, rebellious against the Chantry, sympathetic towards impoverished, chivalrous, and so on). Just a few more, not one in every major decision point, but you get what I mean.

[Savber100]

 *cough* 

If this is still about the subject of Dragon Age 2's reception, I have one more suggestion to offer. 
I was just playing the endgame for DA:O and reached the end where you're feeling enthralled and awesome after 50+ hr gameplay when Alistair asked me what I plan to do next.
Here we get five or so choices ranging from serving the crown to finding You-know-who to rebuilding the Grey Wardens etc.  
In reading this, this made me realize that with the current dialogue wheel, we don't have the same depth or richness of these options. Mostly in DA2, I won't be given an option to choose my decision but more an option in how to react to an already set decision. Even if we're given a choice, we're limited to two or three rather than the 5-6. Sure some of these 5-6 choices will probably lead to the same conclusion but at least the illusion of choice was strong and there were plenty of options that best fitted the reaction I wanted. 

Compare



 

Is there anyway for more choices that go beyond my "reaction" or a "yes" or "no"?

Modifié par Savber100, 06 août 2011 - 04:59 .

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

erynnar wrote...

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Totally agree about Orsino!

I had plans for Orsino. I was going to appoint him the KC title. lol

Sigh

I will be your champion! armed as I am with..... ahh... bugger, thats another fine plan out of the window.

*giggle* Well you can be my champion any day. *hands you a baguet for a sword* Don't bust that, we're having that baguet with cheese later.

FieryDove wrote...

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

I will be your champion! armed as I am with..... ahh... bugger, thats another fine plan out of the window.

Yeah! I have a champion! ../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png

Oh are you a mage, warrior or rogue pls?

As per the first Quote, I am a baggutte weilding maniac it seems.


@ Everyone, please lets not get this one moved to the spoiler only forum, the most visible place for the thread is here so please lets keep it in this section.  If you want to discuss Story specific stuff I will set up a seperate thread for purely spoilerish story things in the spoiler section right now.

Thanks

[thegoldfinch]

lobi wrote...

@pixieface An Anders, Fenris full on fight cinematic with a dialogue after would have been great for the end of act one.

Ohh man, I cannot tell you how much I would have loved to see two companions being rivals to the point of duking it out. Especially Fenris and Anders. I mean sometimes it seems like they straight up want to murder each other, which is both amusing and awesome. I might place it more around Act II so their relationship has more time to set up and simmer from their mutual disgust.

Mass Effect 2 did not do a lot of story things right in my eyes, but having companions engaged in heated arguments you could involve yourself in was a great move.

Modifié par pixieface, 06 août 2011 - 05:02 .

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

For all your spoiler filled posts to discuss storyline in an environment similar to this thread.
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/8047637


Please lets move the spoiler posts to that one so that the entire thread doesnt get moderated

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 06 août 2011 - 04:55 .

[Mike_Neel]

So, will Blood Dragon armor be coming back for DA3 if you have the original suit all the way from Ferelden? It's cool getting some warrior love, but what's wrong with having some Blood Dragon Robes for my wizards or some Blood Dragon leather for my Rogue? Maybe mix it up a little this time.

Also loved the whole "hide helmet" feature. That way I get all the benefits of full cranial protection without all the reduced situational awareness.

Also wonder if they're going to have a fixed character or if they'll let me chose between races again. I get not having the time or resources to develop a handful of origin stories again, and at the same time I liked having an involved family in DA2 which wouldn't be possible realistically if you had to create a new race. It was nice having some family survive outside of the tutorial, though I also missed being a jerk to humans as an elf.

[Savber100]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

For all your spoiler filled posts to discuss storyline in an environment similar to this thread.
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/8047637


Please lets move the spoiler posts to that one so that the entire thread doesnt get moderated

Don't worry.. I've edited my post and removed any major spoilers. 

[erynnar]

Sutekh wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Nope, not just you sweetie. Is it great, or just disturbed, minds that think alike? I too imagined a senario like the one you described.

Disturbed, I suppose. Deeply, deeply disturbed 

re: Orsino: the Greatest and Most Random Tantrum of All Times deserves some sort of acknowledgement, though. It's not every day that an until then perfectly reasonable Archmage acts like a panicked six-year-old (and it's a good thing that panicked six-year-old don't have Blood Magic. 'twould be quite a mess).

Seriously, if someone pulled something like that in a fanfic, you would see tons of angry reviews howling for plot hole and OOCness. And rightly so.

Oh definitely! I write fanfic, my betas would eat me alive! And cannibalism is frowned on in most cultures children, just sayin'...

Ah nice to have another deeply disturbed person besides me around here!

[Sutekh]

@Savber100

The wheel has room for six choices (or eight?). In a case where decision is more important than tone (such as the Epilogue in DAO), nothing prevents to use the wheel for only "three arrows icon" dialog choices.

It's purely cosmetic, though. You'd have something identical to the wheel (in function) with a dialog list and little icons before the choice (like in a certain game).

Modifié par Sutekh, 06 août 2011 - 05:07 .

[thegoldfinch]

__nderscore wrote...
Oh, and some more dialogue options with requirements (Such as: Cunning, completing a certain quest, rebellious against the Chantry, sympathetic towards impoverished, chivalrous, and so on). Just a few more, not one in every major decision point, but you get what I mean.

I actually like the way New Vegas treaded on the relationship between a character's stats and what they can say during a dialogue. For instance, a character with lots of points in medicine could have input on a surgery process. A character with lots of points in computers would have input on hardware and software. Not sure if that is possible within the DA universe, but linking highest stats to unique dialogue options is never a bad move for me.

Modifié par pixieface, 06 août 2011 - 05:10 .

[__nderscore]

What would genuinely be amazing is having the option to just speak with your friends after the 'end' of the game. Kind of in the same way you're allowed that option in DA:O. Even if it's just a conversation, a little "Hey there," it'd be nice.
Now this could be already in place with the preorder version (Which I have, but have a weird spread of DLC amongst 2 different accounts, one of which I don't really own anymore ), but I wouldn't know it.
At first it seems I'm hyping this possibility a bit, by calling it "genuinely amazing," but allow me to explain. The beauty behind RPGs is how I, personally, can hate Isabella and all she stands for, but my character can adore her. That's simply brilliant, by my eyes.

[Johnny Jaded]

__nderscore wrote...
the option to stop mid-combat with bandits and warn them to change their ways before allowing them retreat would be so satisfying, even if we never met again!

This reminds me of another gripe I have with both DA2 and DA:O. Very rarely are you given the option to end a conflict through dialogue, and when you are you're actually punished for it by the loss of XP you would have gained through killing them. The only exception I've ever seen to this was the group of Fereldens who approach you after talking to Lirene about Anders.

Savber100 wrote...

I was just playing the endgame for DA:O and reached the post-coronation scene where you're feeling enthralled and awesome after 50+ hr gameplay when Alistair asked me what I plan to do next. Here we get five or so choices ranging from serving the crown to finding Morrigan to rebuilding the Grey Wardens etc.  
In reading this, this made me realize that with the current dialogue wheel, we don't have the same depth or richness of these options. Mostly in DA2, I won't be given an option to choose my decision but more an option in how to react to an already set decision. Even if we're given a choice, we're limited to two or three rather than the 5-6. Sure some of these 5-6 choices will probably lead to the same conclusion but at least the illusion of choice was strong and there were plenty of options that best fitted the reaction I wanted. 

Is there anyway for more choices that go beyond my "reaction" or a "yes" or "no"?

Actually, if that scenario (the post-coronation) had occurred in DA2, you would have been given the same amount of
options - it's the equivalent to how you react to Fenris asking MageHawke what you want after you've done his introduction quest, or Varric asking what your plans are after becoming a resident of Kirkwall - they gave 5 and 4 possible responses, respectively, if I remember correctly.

Modifié par Johnny Jaded, 06 août 2011 - 05:14 .

[__nderscore]

pixieface wrote...

__nderscore wrote...
Oh, and some more dialogue options with requirements (Such as: Cunning, completing a certain quest, rebellious against the Chantry, sympathetic towards impoverished, chivalrous, and so on). Just a few more, not one in every major decision point, but you get what I mean.

I actually like the way New Vegas treaded on the relationship between a character's stats and what they can say during a dialogue. For instance, a character with lots of points in medicine could have input on a surgery process. A character with lots of points in computers would have input on hardware and software. Not sure if that is possible within the DA universe, but linking highest stats to unique dialogue options is never a bad move for me.

Exactly! Personally I would love if every single conversation choice was based purely on the character you control, kind of in a similar way they did with [Spoiler?] DA:O in that one sequence where you may control Morrigan in the Fade, but even moreso.
Of course I can't expect this with Dragon Age 3, but in a perfect world this wouldn't be a problem.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Savber100 wrote...

[image snippage]
Is there anyway for more choices that go beyond my "reaction" or a "yes" or "no"?

You could click the investigate to open up 5 additional choices to ask Isabela about her relationship with Hayder, or you could choose to help her or not, and enjoy one of 3 possible responses, colored by the dominant tone you had chosen throughout the course of the game, creating a consistency of character. So that's...let's see....11 possible things you could say there, some of which were determined by how you had played the game up to that point.

Not too shabby, if you ask me.

[craigdolphin]

Posted by Mike Laidlaw...
So, to be direct: No, you will not be able to have full dialogs with
your followers on the road. I completely understand why it's a desired
feature, but it is not one we will be pursuing.

(Yes, the danger of an honest and open dialog with developers is that they sometimes say no. Sorry!)

I am very disappointed by that, but I'm a big boy. Thanks for the honesty.

Brockololly and others have responded to the making sense regarding story aspect and player agency aspect very well. I agree with them completely. Naturally, serious intimate discussions make little sense in a public setting, but there's much more to getting to know people than 'spilling your guts'. Joking around is an obvious one. Exposition of NPC history. And heck, in the thick of battle in WWI trenches, the conversations during lulls were quite often remarkably personal, ribald, and sometimes very sad. How could any of that not be fodder for story between battles or along the road? Much of it was present in origins, after all. I certainly would not disagree that the subject of the conversation can and should be differentiated depending on the setting.

The 'technical reasons' argument is, naturally, harder for me to comment on. If I understand you correctly though, the hypothetical choice is to have player initiated conversation but only allow it to be 'talking heads' rather than fully cinematic, or not having it at all. If that's so, then for me the talking heads on the road option is pretty much a no-brainer. I understand you are working under a cinematic-at-all-costs design vision, but I think this idea is being counter-productive when it only serves to destroy the empathy players have with the companions. I realize that's just me, and it's your job to implement the vision of the senior design team, but I hope you guys will seriously contemplate revisiting that balance if you realize how it is impacting some of us. No disrespect intended. I think Brockolloly was right on the money with his reply.

David Gaider posted...
Having the player be able to offer input into this type of dialogue (ie.
non-cinematic dialogue) is something we're exploring. How far we can
push that, we'll see, but ideally we could allow the player to engage in
initated dialogue of this fashion. It's very much a technical
limitation, however, as hoorayforicecream points out above-- and, no, we
don't consider it an acceptable compromise to allow happen-anywhere
cinematic dialogue that can make for screwy cameras.

I don't,
however, consider this to be a huge limitation-- with the caveat that
there should be more opportunity for the player to engage in initiated
dialogue in places where we know what the camera situation will be. My
impression regarding views on the party dialogue is that the feature we
intended to be for convenience (the notification of a follower having
new dialogue) was seen by many as rendering follower dialogue too
obviously structured. Some people felt like they were only talking to
the follower at the follower's behest rather than the other way around.
An interpretation, for sure, but perhaps as a result it surrendered too
much agency for the sake of convenience.

Well, now I'm a bit baffled. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Mike, or I'm misunderstanding David. Or both!

Seriously David, what you wrote suggests to me that you're looking to restore that opportunity to initiate dialog as I'm hoping for: at least to a limited degree. If so, then great. My level of pessimism would be markedly reduced if so.

I would imagine that having fully cinematographic dialogs in hubs/locations, mixed with some player-initiated (talking head) conversations, and NPC-initiated banter would be a perfect mix. Am I engaging in wishful thinking/interpretation here?

Look, whatever. I really appreciate both Mike and David talking about this topic, and even knowing they actually read my posts and concerns. I understand your plans aren't finalized yet anyways. I'll keep watching and waiting to see what you come up with. It encourages me to know that you at least are thinking about how to address the problems that I and several others have discussed here relating to the conversation system. Until this, I had only seen the folks at Bioware address the more obvious issues of re-use of areas and waves (which I care about far less than this). I wasn't even sure that this was still on your radar, let alone that you might actually 'get' why I feel this way. I realize I still might not like where you end up, but I now feel like I've been 'heard'. That's pretty cool. So thanks.

[Raven2131990]

I liked both dragon age games and i just wanna give my two cent. first, i loved dragon age origins. it was epic. the dlcs were meh except for one or two. but i could live with that, origins was a living and breathing world that would react to everything i do. and im the one making choices. Instead in dragon age 2, while shiny and streamlined and kinda cool in terms of its powers, didnt let me make any epic choices. i understand that its not fun if all u do is make life and death choices, but at the very least let me make decisions that can truly impact the world and beyond dragon age 2 like in dragon age. i understand kill one guy now never see them, but the impact is different in the two games. dragon age 2 felt more restricted.

another issue was the dialogue wheel thing, i can understand how newbies would be put off with reading the choices, but its an rpg, we are suppose to roleplay. giving us three options or variations of the three isnt really the same as origins. id rather have a more indepth dialogue, more meaningful choices in there, than hearing my character speak. i felt that it was borrowing too much from mass effect, even that was great, dragon age is its own separate thing. it shouldnt try to emulate mass effect.

and finally, the story, one of my biggest issues. some of the compaions, most, were very interesting. but hawke himself/herself (storyline wise) was kinda bland. it wasnt really his rise to power, just him doing stuff thrown at him why cant he choose how he does it, like in baldur gates 2 when u had to choose how to raise money. maybe not have a dynamic economy or such, but alot of meaningful and interesting quests to develop the character. there was never a compelling reason to rise to power in the game. in origins you needed to gather an army to save the world.

i understand that making a bg 2 is unviable, nay impossible in this day and age, the time committement and financial investments would be tremendous and risky. but at the very least i hope for something like origins. maybe not epic on scale of bg2, but with good story line, meaningful choices, complex and deep dialogue and gameplay system. gamers arent stupid, give us some complexity. i apologize for meandering about in this post, but overall i just want to say, i loved dragon age origins, dragon age 2 not so much. 

Modifié par Raven2131990, 06 août 2011 - 05:41 .

[erynnar]

craigdolphin wrote...

Posted by Mike Laidlaw...
So, to be direct: No, you will not be able to have full dialogs with
your followers on the road. I completely understand why it's a desired
feature, but it is not one we will be pursuing.

(Yes, the danger of an honest and open dialog with developers is that they sometimes say no. Sorry!)

I am very disappointed by that, but I'm a big boy. Thanks for the honesty.

Brockololly and others have responded to the making sense regarding story aspect and player agency aspect very well. I agree with them completely. Naturally, serious intimate discussions make little sense in a public setting, but there's much more to getting to know people than 'spilling your guts'. Joking around is an obvious one. Exposition of NPC history. And heck, in the thick of battle in WWI trenches, the conversations during lulls were quite often remarkably personal, ribald, and sometimes very sad. How could any of that not be fodder for story between battles or along the road? Much of it was present in origins, after all. I certainly would not disagree that the subject of the conversation can and should be differentiated depending on the setting.

The 'technical reasons' argument is, naturally, harder for me to comment on. If I understand you correctly though, the hypothetical choice is to have player initiated conversation but only allow it to be 'talking heads' rather than fully cinematic, or not having it at all. If that's so, then for me the talking heads on the road option is pretty much a no-brainer. I understand you are working under a cinematic-at-all-costs design vision, but I think this idea is being counter-productive when it only serves to destroy the empathy players have with the companions. I realize that's just me, and it's your job to implement the vision of the senior design team, but I hope you guys will seriously contemplate revisiting that balance if you realize how it is impacting some of us. No disrespect intended. I think Brockolloly was right on the money with his reply.

David Gaider posted...
Having the player be able to offer input into this type of dialogue (ie.
non-cinematic dialogue) is something we're exploring. How far we can
push that, we'll see, but ideally we could allow the player to engage in
initated dialogue of this fashion. It's very much a technical
limitation, however, as hoorayforicecream points out above-- and, no, we
don't consider it an acceptable compromise to allow happen-anywhere
cinematic dialogue that can make for screwy cameras.

I don't,
however, consider this to be a huge limitation-- with the caveat that
there should be more opportunity for the player to engage in initiated
dialogue in places where we know what the camera situation will be. My
impression regarding views on the party dialogue is that the feature we
intended to be for convenience (the notification of a follower having
new dialogue) was seen by many as rendering follower dialogue too
obviously structured. Some people felt like they were only talking to
the follower at the follower's behest rather than the other way around.
An interpretation, for sure, but perhaps as a result it surrendered too
much agency for the sake of convenience.

Well, now I'm a bit baffled. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Mike, or I'm misunderstanding David. Or both!

Seriously David, what you wrote suggests to me that you're looking to restore that opportunity to initiate dialog as I'm hoping for: at least to a limited degree. If so, then great. My level of pessimism would be markedly reduced if so.

I would imagine that having fully cinematographic dialogs in hubs/locations, mixed with some player-initiated (talking head) conversations, and NPC-initiated banter would be a perfect mix. Am I engaging in wishful thinking/interpretation here?

Look, whatever. I really appreciate both Mike and David talking about this topic, and even knowing they actually read my posts and concerns. I understand your plans aren't finalized yet anyways. I'll keep watching and waiting to see what you come up with. It encourages me to know that you at least are thinking about how to address the problems that I and several others have discussed here relating to the conversation system. Until this, I had only seen the folks at Bioware address the more obvious issues of re-use of areas and waves (which I care about far less than this). I wasn't even sure that this was still on your radar, let alone that you might actually 'get' why I feel this way. I realize I still might not like where you end up, but I now feel like I've been 'heard'. That's pretty cool. So thanks.

Well, you're in good company in both confusion, and in feeling like we've been heard.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Increased community interaction is one of the things I would like to do in future projects. I would like us to get back to the way things were in the early days of the BioWare online community, where developers felt safe and valued and their opinions and advice were respected because, hey, these guys made the game y'all love.

Announcing games earlier would help with that.

Remember how early DAO was announced.  Do that more.  As soon as you have a working title, tell us about it.

Then we can interact without the burden of marketing bearing down on everyone.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

As I noted elsewhere, we will be looking at putting player-initiated dialog back in. Likely at some sort of camp/base/etc.

I very much doubt that we will be doing player-initiated dialog "on the road," however, as our systems are designed to work in fixed places. There are several technical and multiple story reasons why it's inappropriate to stop to chat about someone's personal feelings in the middle of a dungeon; while possible, it doesn't make a lot of sense, so it would not be a priority for us.

You did it in DAO, Mike.  Obviously those technical limitations aren't that big.

I'm strongly of the opinion that player agency is more important than presentation.  If the dialogue cinematics are too complicated to put them in any location, then make them simpler.

Or make them dynamic.  Procedural camera movement based on level geometry would solve some of the problem (and maybe create new ones, but it's worth a shot).

Or just stop having cinematic dialogue.  I don't think cinematic conversations have added anything at all to BioWare's games.  A conversation with an NPC is NWN works just as well as a conversation in DA2, and that's all due to the writing.  As long as the writing is strong (and in a BioWare title it always is) then you don't need the cinematics.  You just don't.

That the whole rest of the industry now relies on cinematics is not sufficient reason for you to do it.  Be bold.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Suffice it to say that I am strongly in the camp with the people who believe that the best parts of Origins combined with the best parts of DAII would create a game better than both of them.

Everyone thinks that, Mike.  The disputes arise because we disagree about what the best parts were.

I think the best part of DA2 is the structure of the plot in Act I.  And the way that seemingly unrelated quests (as long as you don't read the journal and see how they're organised) come together later in the game.  That's a great feature, and I'd like to see more of it.

But I'm confident that opinion isn't univerally held.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Beyond technical, if we were to have these dialogs such that they could play anywhere, they would, by nature, have to be completely static "talking heads" and while I'm aware that some people are fine with that, I do not think it plays to our strengths.

In the interests of having an open an honest dialogue, I think you've badly misidentified your strengths.

Stanley Woo wrote...

That would be quite impossible, i'm afraid. Many are not appropriate for our family-friendly forum.

Family friendly?  I thought there was an age gate.  There used to be an age gate.

David Gaider wrote...

I don't, however, consider this to be a huge limitation-- with the caveat that there should be more opportunity for the player to engage in initiated dialogue in places where we know what the camera situation will be. My impression regarding views on the party dialogue is that the feature we intended to be for convenience (the notification of a follower having new dialogue) was seen by many as rendering follower dialogue too obviously
structured. Some people felt like they were only talking to the follower at the follower's behest rather than the other way around. An interpretation, for sure, but perhaps as a result it surrendered too much agency for the sake of convenience.

I don't even recall those notifications.  Were they in the journal?  Because we can just ignore the journal.  I disliked DA2's journal content enough that I made a point never to read it (and thus found some quest instructions annoyingly incomplete).

But if people dislike the notifications, I'd suggest just dropping them and keeping everything else the same.  That
way, the player gets to go talk to the companions when he feels it's appropriate, and sometimes they'll have something to say.

The players will miss more content this way, though, but that's a necessary consequence of player agency.  If you let the players choose, sometimes they'll choose badly.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Cinematics shouldn't be put on a pedestal, they should be treated just as they are - as tools for creators to express and further their stories.

But the costs of using them shouldn't be ignored.  If cinematics restrict player agency, we need to talk about that.

erynnar wrote...

pixieface wrote...

This is great news for me! There were many times when I initiated unique dialogue by accident in a place that just kind of sucked. I remember  I either got the request to see Goldanna or Alistair's rose while I was infiltrating Redcliffe Castle because I clicked on him instead of something else. That was indeed a let down. Limiting serious dialogue to serious settings in favor of party banter geared at the quest and environment seems far more sensible.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I would rather reload and not touch them again the next go around, than feel so isolated from my companions and feel as if our relationships are based soley on what I can do for them.

I agree entirely.  What pixieface describes is a UI problem, not a design problem.  The fix it needs is UI-based, and shouldn't affect the game's content.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 06 août 2011 - 06:13 .