1502 réponses à ce sujet

[David Gaider]

craigdolphin wrote...
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?

It depends. The problem, at least in part, is that we use terms that we are familiar with but which you might not be.

For us, cinematic dialogue is the "full dialogue" that Mike refers to. You speak to someone and the camera zooms in to the type of dialogue you're familiar with: you get the conversation wheel, the camera angles, the animatics, etc. Ambient dialogue is the sort where people are speaking, but you're still fully in control of your character. Party banter is ambient, as are many one-line interactions (or "barks", as we call them).

The technical hurdle I referred to is that ambient dialogue doesn't offer the possibility of player interaction. If we can solve that hurdle, then we can use ambient dialogue to a greater degree as regular (if non-vital) communication. If not, we still intend to have it play more organically (a la Legacy). Regardless of how that breaks down, you're correct to a degree: fully cinematic dialogue would happen in a hub (or at least a location that we know for sure is where you'll be-- Alistair speaking to the PC outside of Redcliffe is an example of this sort of use), and more of it would be player-initiated. If it's dialogue that can literally happen anywhere, like Mike said it's not going to be cinematic.

[mesmerizedish]

David Gaider wrote...

It depends. The problem, at least in part, is that we use terms that we are familiar with but which you might not be.

For us, cinematic dialogue is the "full dialogue" that Mike refers to. You speak to someone and the camera zooms in to the type of dialogue you're familiar with: you get the conversation wheel, the camera angles, the animatics, etc. Ambient dialogue is the sort where people are speaking, but you're still fully in control of your character. Party banter is ambient, as are many one-line interactions (or "barks", as we call them).

The technical hurdle I referred to is that ambient dialogue doesn't offer the possibility of player interaction. If we can solve that hurdle, then we can use ambient dialogue to a greater degree as regular (if non-vital) communication. If not, we still intend to have it play more organically (a la Legacy). Regardless of how that breaks down, you're correct to a degree: fully cinematic dialogue would happen in a hub (or at least a location that we know for sure is where you'll be-- Alistair speaking to the PC outside of Redcliffe is an example of this sort of use), and more of it would be player-initiated. If it's dialogue that can literally happen anywhere, like Mike said it's not going to be cinematic.

I'm okay with all of this. It's all stuff you guys (you in particular, Mr. Gaider) have said before. I really didn't miss the ability to talk to my followers anywhere I wanted. What I did miss was the ability to talk anywhen I wanted at "home."

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

If it's dialogue that can literally happen anywhere, like Mike said it's not going to be cinematic.

And I say "good riddance" to the cinematics.  Player agency trumps presentation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I'm okay with all of this. It's all stuff you guys (you in particular, Mr. Gaider) have said before. I really didn't miss the ability to talk to my followers anywhere I wanted. What I did miss was the ability to talk anywhen I wanted at "home."

We're not always at home, though.  If I'm going to ask them questions as they arise, either I need to talk to them out in the world or I need to keep notes so I'll know what it was that I wanted to ask.  That's not organic at all.  That's really cumbersome (and requires I work outside the game, since there's nowhere in the game for us to record our own notes, as far as I know - that would be a nice feature in future games).

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

We're not always at home, though.  If I'm going to ask them questions as they arise, either I need to talk to them out in the world or I need to keep notes so I'll know what it was that I wanted to ask.  That's not organic at all.  That's really cumbersome (and requires I work outside the game, since there's nowhere in the game for us to record our own notes, as far as I know - that would be a nice feature in future games).

I understand that we're not always at home. But, as they've said, they want their cinematic dialogue, and that's not going to happen "out in the world." I know you say scrap the cinematics altogether, which would solve the problem, but I don't think they'll do that :innocent:

As for in-game recordkeeping: this is the first time I've considered it, but I absolutely agree. I'm not sure how many people actually made use of Baldur's Gate's player-input journal (you probably did, Sylvius ), but I did, and I loved it.

Mr. Laidlaw, Mr. Gaider... make this happen

[Dormiglione]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

craigdolphin wrote...

And I'm all for that. But what I want to know is whether we will additionally get back the ability to INITIATE dialog on the road (Active Dialog) as we were able to do in DAO?

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.

This are great news.
>>As I noted elsewhere, we will be looking at putting player-initiated dialog back in. Likely at some sort of camp/base/etc.
I missed the conversation option that we had in DAO

[jlb524]

I actually prefer DA2 companion interaction to DA:O.

When 'roaming' around an area, I get annoyed when I accidentally click on a party member and it brings up their dialog. I don't want to talk to you, I was just trying to move.

That's like, my opinion though.

[David Gaider]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
I understand that we're not always at home. But, as they've said, they want their cinematic dialogue, and that's not going to happen "out in the world." I know you say scrap the cinematics altogether, which would solve the problem, but I don't think they'll do that :innocent:

Cinematic dialogue can happen "out in the world" if it's a place where we can be certain of the location. It won't be wherever and whenver the player feels like, however. That's simply not on the table. If we can make ambient dialogue more interactive, like I said, that will allow interactive dialogue to a degree-- but that is by no means guaranteed.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

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.

Well, colour me interested, but I will hold out hope that there will one day be the possibility for player-initiated dialogue 'on the road'. Not on every road, since I tend to agree that it's a bit silly to stop and declare undying love for your LI while in hot pursuit of your mother's murderer, for instance, but strolling around town when you're not on urgent business? Why not (technical reasons aside, that is)?

Origins enabled it almost anywhere. IIRC you couldn't initiate dialogue when fleeing from Fort Drakon, and the barks were appropriate to the situation, so even it didn't allow for player-initiated chit-chat whenever and wherever the player wanted, which is perfectly fine. Story restrictions are cool, if they make sense, and here's hoping the technical side will allow for 'more' in the future. I don't see that every close-up dialogue in the game has to be full-blown cinematic with pacing, throwing wine bottles or crouched before a smashed mirror, so maybe less animation-intensive dialogues available  for on the road? I dunno, but for now I'm very glad to hear player-initiated chat may be coming back even as purely a camp/hub thing

Thanks.

[Anarya]

I'm really trying to figure out what exactly about DA2's dialogue system I didn't like. Because in Origins I got annoyed at rapidly mowing through dialogue and then getting the same "I have nothing new to say" dialogues whenever I made the rounds, so I like how DA2 paced the content a bit, and I would certainly have been annoyed at having to make the rounds in a situation like DA2's where the companions were all over the map, so I like the idea of the notifications. I also, given the choice, would probably choose the type of full cinematic DA2 had over the "talking head" style. But at the same time, I did feel a bit closer to the companions in Origins than the ones in 2, and I can't exactly pinpoint why that is.

I seem to recall someone (I believe it was DG) postulating that it was because if you mowed through all the dialogue at the beginning of the game, your experience was front loaded with a lot of information about the followers and therefore you felt like you knew them during the rest of the game. I think it's probably a sound theory, but I don't know if I would want to go back to having 2/3 of my game devoid of new dialogue because I greedily consumed it all in the first third.

Sooo I guess what I'd like is to increase the illusion of close friendship/attachment while still having the content paced in some way, which I'm not sure is even possible but I'll happily dump that task on the guys who are getting paid to figure these things out.

Modifié par Anarya, 06 août 2011 - 06:53 .

[Dormiglione]

David Gaider wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
I understand that we're not always at home. But, as they've said, they want their cinematic dialogue, and that's not going to happen "out in the world." I know you say scrap the cinematics altogether, which would solve the problem, but I don't think they'll do that :innocent:

Cinematic dialogue can happen "out in the world" if it's a place where we can be certain of the location. It won't be wherever and whenver the player feels like, however. That's simply not on the table. If we can make ambient dialogue more interactive, like I said, that will allow interactive dialogue to a degree-- but that is by no means guaranteed.

Been reading throught the thread and i have a question. Please excuse me if it was asked before, because i didnt find any answer.
In DAO we had the possibility to talk everywhere with our companions, kiss our love interest. There were also cinematics like Alistair telling me that he was the son of maric (Redcliffe).
Sure the cam was somehow in a fixed position when you had a conversation in the middle of the deep road. I can only speak for myself, i liked the possibility to talk whenever i wanted with my companions, i didnt care about the position of the cam. In DAO i felt connected to my companions, because i could talk to them. In DA2 there is just a bubble over the head of a companion and when i click on it, i get often the same response that has nothing to do with the location we are, the quest we are doing and so on like such one "do i need a bath?".

I dont understand why the conversation options have changed so much between DAO and DA2. In my opinion DAO conversation options are much better than the conversation in DA2.

[Dexter111]

Honestly, I don't get the idea of your "expanded audience" you want to "get into RPGs". Baldur's Gate was my "introduction" into RPGs, I think I dabbled into them somewhat because of curiosity e.g. played a few Demos and whatnot... of say Albion or/and some Might&Magic or early Ultima, but the first game I actually stuck through and played fully I can remember is Baldur's Gate... and I was hooked. Just as much as WarCraft I and StarCraft after it got me into "Strategy" games. Before that I largely only played Jump&Runs and Point&Click Adventures.

Thing is, you won't get someone "into" something with mediocrity on almost every level, you might even make them stay away. Just make the damn best game you can in a respective genre supported by proper marketing and people will come or try yourself in another, although from what I've seen from Dragon Age 2 I don't think Bioware is quite capable of making a fun Hack&Slay either xD

I'd have thought the prospective success of DA:O (even though it was no perfect game either) would have made that clear...

Modifié par Dexter111, 06 août 2011 - 07:10 .

[David Gaider]

Dormiglione wrote...
Sure the cam was somehow in a fixed position when you had a conversation in the middle of the deep road. I can only speak for myself, i liked the possibility to talk whenever i wanted with my companions, i didnt care about the position of the cam. In DAO i felt connected to my companions, because i could talk to them.

I don't doubt you felt connected to the DAO companions. I'm not as certain that it's solely because you could talk to them anywhere, but I imagine anyone's mileage will vary on that account.

In DA2 there is just a bubble over the head of a companion and when i click on it, i get often the same response that has nothing to do with the location we are, the quest we are doing and so on like such one "do i need a bath?".

In DA2 the followers both had location-specific and quest specific barks, as well as generic ones. You would receive a random bark when you clicked on them. As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the idea with regards to this sort of dialogue would be to move to more reactive ambient dialogue as in Legacy-- and possibly something more complicated, if we can swing it. It won't be fully cinematic dialogue, however.

I dont understand why the conversation options have changed so much between DAO and DA2. In my opinion DAO conversation options are much better than the conversation in DA2.

The technical issues have been brought up elsewhere in this thread. We're not interested in talking-head dialogue and have chosen to raise the bar on our cinematic presentation whenever we use it. As I mentioned previously, there are ways to arrange the interaction with the party members which could potentially provide more agency-- but if you believe you absolutely require the ability to talk to a party member with full dialogue anywhere in the game, that's not on the table. Sorry.

[Zjarcal]

Anarya wrote...

But at the same time, I did feel a bit closer to the companions in Origins than the ones in 2, and I can't exactly pinpoint why that is.

I think that for the people who felt this way (not me, I was just as attached to both casts), it's more than just not being able to start dialogue at any time, it's a combination of factors. One of them could simply be that they liked the characters less. I know I am less attached to the characters I don't like than the ones I like, even if the former had more interactions.

I seem to recall someone (I believe it was DG) postulating that it was because if you mowed through all the dialogue at the beginning of the game, your experience was front loaded with a lot of information about the followers and therefore you felt like you knew them during the rest of the game. I think it's probably a sound theory, but I don't know if I would want to go back to having 2/3 of my game devoid of new dialogue because I greedily consumed it all in the first third.

Again, this doesn't really apply to me, but it is a sound theory indeed. It's hardly ideal though if it means having most dialogue take place early one. Perhaps having one "I want to get to know you" conversation with each companion early on (where you can interrogate them on their private life, ignoring any other factors), could probably help, without having to shove most of the companion dialogue early on.

[Tommy6860]

Zjarcal wrote...

Anarya wrote...

But at the same time, I did feel a bit closer to the companions in Origins than the ones in 2, and I can't exactly pinpoint why that is.

I think that for the people who felt this way (not me, I was just as attached to both casts), it's more than just not being able to start dialogue at any time, it's a combination of factors. One of them could simply be that they liked the characters less. I know I am less attached to the characters I don't like than the ones I like, even if the former had more interactions.

I seem to recall someone (I believe it was DG) postulating that it was because if you mowed through all the dialogue at the beginning of the game, your experience was front loaded with a lot of information about the followers and therefore you felt like you knew them during the rest of the game. I think it's probably a sound theory, but I don't know if I would want to go back to having 2/3 of my game devoid of new dialogue because I greedily consumed it all in the first third.

Again, this doesn't really apply to me, but it is a sound theory indeed. It's hardly ideal though if it means having most dialogue take place early one. Perhaps having one "I want to get to know you" conversation with each companion early on (where you can interrogate them on their private life, ignoring any other factors), could probably help, without having to shove most of the companion dialogue early on.

And kissing "anytime" is a must!

[jlb524]

David Gaider wrote...

The technical issues have been brought up elsewhere in this thread. We're not interested in talking-head dialogue and have chosen to raise the bar on our cinematic presentation whenever we use it. As I mentioned previously, there are ways to arrange the interaction with the party members which could potentially provide more agency-- but if you believe you absolutely require the ability to talk to a party member with full dialogue anywhere in the game, that's not on the table. Sorry.

Not on the table...can't say I'm dissapointed by that.

I personally don't like that type of dialog (the anywhere/anytime thing) as I feel it has to be too 'generic' and can't take past events into account.  Though, I don't think it would be so bad if it was limited to a home base type thing.

Like I said before, I didn't like accidently triggering the same companion dialog in the middle of a war zone if I accidently clicked on them.  No, Leliana, I don't want to talk to you 'now'...whoops.

[Yuqi]

As someone who is an avid student: of philosophy,religion,ethics, and the moral standpoints of each, respectively. I'm curious Mr Gaider, on whether we will see more clarity to the chantry. So far you have done an excellent job on this. But I feel more could have been clarified; like the  mages,and templars moral stance.(Not just Bloodmagic) 

Oh and  any chance, of a sexy aus accent,even a faux one? Like  Oerba Yun Fang, for instance?

Modifié par Yuqi, 06 août 2011 - 07:44 .

[Gunso91]

And kissing "anytime" is a must!

I've often wondered, as it seems to be a rather common request, whether it wouldn't be possible to simply have a scene or two which plays during a specific time during some quest(s) or something if you're in a romance which would give the option of a kiss or something like that. Maybe it would go some way to quenching people's thirst for romance in these games, serving as a "reminder" that you're romantically involved with that person.

[Esbatty]

jlb524 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

The technical issues have been brought up elsewhere in this thread. We're not interested in talking-head dialogue and have chosen to raise the bar on our cinematic presentation whenever we use it. As I mentioned previously, there are ways to arrange the interaction with the party members which could potentially provide more agency-- but if you believe you absolutely require the ability to talk to a party member with full dialogue anywhere in the game, that's not on the table. Sorry.

Not on the table...can't say I'm dissapointed by that.

I personally don't like that type of dialog (the anywhere/anytime thing) as I feel it has to be too 'generic' and can't take past events into account.  Though, I don't think it would be so bad if it was limited to a home base type thing.

Like I said before, I didn't like accidently triggering the same companion dialog in the middle of a war zone if I accidently clicked on them.  No, Leliana, I don't want to talk to you 'now'...whoops.

Alistair: I think thats some kind of Darkspawn... Blacksmith.
Warden: How observant of you.
Alistair: I think we should do something before the dozen or so 'spawn around him realize we're here.
Warden: QUICKLY - TO ME, LELIANA!
Leliana: Looking for little ol' me?
Warden: Tell me about Aveline... *rests chin on fist* ...again.
Alistair: We're all going to die down here. *hangs head*
Dog: WOOF!
Alistair: Sorry, I am being rude, go on Leliana. *sigh*

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

David Gaider wrote...

We're not interested in talking-head dialogue and have chosen to raise the bar on our cinematic presentation whenever we use it.

Is raising the bar the only reason why you have dispensed with talking-head dialogue? I am not quite sure that's a good reason to completely thrown it out...I mean, cinematics and animations are nice and I thought they were fantastic in DA2 (and DA:O when they happened), but people don't have to be gesticulating, leaning dramatically against walls or what have you just for a simple conversation. "Why can't we have both?" might sound like yet another "Why can't we have more?" argument, but I don't think it's an illegitimate one. It sounds like the desire for superb theatric presentation could be an excuse for cutting potential content, which is not necessarily a bad thing because you certainly wouldn't want poor presentation, but I am not convinced it's always a good thing either. Simple presentation can often be elegantly executed.

[Utoryo]

David, what about allowing the same player-initiated dialogue in all inns/taverns (or similar) as well as the camp/base? It wouldn't have changed much in DA2 but I think it could have worked very well in DA:O or DA:A's case. Yes, it makes no sense to have a long conversation on cheese in the middle of the Deep Roads, but it certainly does in a tavern, and that allows you to fix the camera issue.

[Anarya]

Zjarcal wrote...

I think that for the people who felt this way (not me, I was just as attached to both casts), it's more than just not being able to start dialogue at any time, it's a combination of factors. One of them could simply be that they liked the characters less. I know I am less attached to the characters I don't like than the ones I like, even if the former had more interactions.

It's really puzzling to me because I actually liked the companions in both games about the same, on the whole. I have a few favorites from each, but I don't feel like the ones from 2 were somehow inferior, so I can rule that out. The only other thing I can think was maybe I have an irrational amount of nostalgia for Origins in particular because it was my first Bioware game and it completely blindsided me with how much I liked it. But I'm definitely one of those "Origins and DA2 both had flaws and good qualities, and DA3 should learn from both and be totally awesome" people so I don't think my nostalgia is blinding me.

I don't know, it's perplexing.

[Shadowlit_Rogue]

On the topic of party banter from a few pages back, I would love it if the PC was able to participate in some way, or somehow influence it. I remember more than a few instances where I would have loved to be able to chime in. This was especially irksome since casual chatting with party members was scaled back significantly. I understand the whole in-context thing they were going for, but it was a shame that most of the dialog revolved around "the mission," and the casual stuff was usually over and done with after one or two conversations.

Like Sylvius said, being able to interact with characters at anytime (ala KotOR & DA:O) adds so much to the game in terms of immersion. Learning how much or how little party members know about certain locations or major events was a great feature, and I really missed it in DA2.

[seraphymon]

While were on a discussion I want to ask something myself, that i dont think has been brought up here. If it has, there hasnt been an awnser. I wonder what the thought process of weapons and talents are in mind for the future.

Mainly i think weapons were screwed up in DA2 in terms of detail and terms of dmg in relation to each other. For example most of the endgame two handers only go to about 38 dmg. However daggers can go up to like 44. To my understanding of plent yof rpgs and even the guidebook itself, and DAO. Daggers are supposed to be the lowest dmg but fastest speed. 2 Handers being slowest speed but highest dmg. This is certainly not the case in DA2, with daggers having highest dmg, fastest speed and you can have 2 of them. This is regardless of the spell or talents or who should have highest dps wether its aoe or single target.

Second concern are the talents. While i find the tree a bit of an improvement, i remember the reason for changes was because in DAO you had to pick up stuff you didnt want or was useless in order to get what we did want. I dont think the talent trees in DA2 solved the majority of that. At least not in certain trees where it made it really obvious. Such as Rogues specialist tree. Because of needing certain talents and or amount of points, we had to get some sustained abilities that couldnt be used at the same time. Same thing for vanguard in the warrior one. Also i think i would appreciate more skills in the warrior/rogue tree and not be so reliant on auto attacks 75% of the time waiting for cooldowns. The Mage seems to have a good number.

Above all i do wish for the consideration of being back to DAO style in terms of what weapons a class can use. At the very least, for you r main character.