1502 réponses à ce sujet

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Well this thread turned into a surprise thats for sure.

Regarding dominant personalities I think the system there has the potential to be a good one but it needs more refinement, rather than just "Flirty" or "Angsty" I would like to see again more focus on the "good guy" or the "Badass" guy with more depth brought in in terms of how the character reaches those decisions, if that makes sense.

Cant remmeber if I put this up but since this whole thread started with a video about community its only fair I post a response to that.

I have to say the entire content of this thread has really energised me for the project I am working on with the Promoting Thought channel, the comments people have sent to me and made here show just how important community can be to a games development and improvement and no matter what I think everyone who has taken part in this discussion deserves a pat on the hack for approaching it with a lot of respect and with open minds. The response has been great and I hope that we can get similar discussions going on MAss effect and SW:ToR certainly I think the dragon age team have set a high standard for community engagement here.

Kudos to all

P.S. Afore mentioned video response to this thread (Comments and feedback on content and quality always appreciated)

I am running on 3 hours sleep because I stayed up late to record that and talk about this thread with some of my subscribers and friends so now I think I will take a quick nap, laters people.

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 06 août 2011 - 12:09 .

[TEWR]

while we're discussing the tones and the personality system, I believe there are two ways that this could be made better.


Personality: Replace the dominant personality system with a numerical tally system. Instead of having to stay as an aggressive ****** who has a cactus shoved up his ass just to access a few bonus lines, the game should actually keep track of how many aggressive choices you picked. So if an aggressive bonus line appears in Situation F and requires you to have been aggressive at least two times, and you felt an aggressive choice worked best for Situation A and D, then you're good.

I admit though that this might still have a slight metagamey aspect to it, but I feel that DA2's system is incredibly metagamey because I find myself sticking to one tone like a religious zealot just to access something.

I also think that the dominant personality should just be tied to what choices you picked the most, much like it does now, but it isn't tied to bonus dialogue. It's just more for flavor.


Tone: I think the dialogue wheel should be scrapped and replaced by the Dragon Age Origins list, with the tones to the side.

If the dialogue wheel must absolutely stay, then the paraphrases need to go. I dislike not knowing what my character will say word for word, even if what actually came out of his mouth is something I would've said. Or, just have the full line of text appear at the top of the screen before you click on it.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 août 2011 - 01:17 .

[Johnny Jaded]

ApostleinTriumph wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Fair enough. 

But my point was more of how in DA2 it seems that no matter what I click, my Hawke just says the same bloody thing but with a different tone rather than different comment entirely.

For example, DA2's options felt more like when I talk to a character: 

1. No (in a happy/diplomatic tone)
2. No (in a sarcastic tone)
3. No (in an angry tone)
4. Investigate 

Compared to DA:O where I feel more in control of what I say. Look at my previous screenshot with Duncan for an example: 

1. You're not wanted here
2. Lets talk about your impending beating
3. Thanks but please go. 
4. What's your business?

I freely admit that the system is similar to each other but I believe DA:O created a better illusion of control of what I'm saying even as the dialogue discreetly loops back. 

Is it possible that the dialogue wheel can better reflect my words rather than be a vague description of my actual words.  Make the player think "This is what I want to say" rather "this is the tone I want" 

Look at DX: HR's dialogue wheel. Is it possible that the next DA3 can use
that dialogue wheel instead which I believe is the perfect compromise? 

What I really don't like about the dialogue wheel system is exactly this. I cannot correctly gauge what I'm going to say. What I think a neutral response may seem like an aggressive one. There is no way to know. I prefer the DA:O/KOTOR style old system with choosing exactly what your character is going to say, because you know what you're getting into. There were times in DA2 that I said "Hey, I didn't mean that!", because the dialogue wheel system is stupid.

ME2 had the same thing, but ME2 is not a true RPG game. It is sort of like interactice storytelling, and a great, great one at that. I really love that game. But please, just let DA franchise do its own thing, don't make DA into another ME.

A lot of people have taken umbrage with this, myself included, but many don't seem to realise that it's not the dialogue wheel that's the problem. It's paraphrasing. The wheel allows for far more dialogue options than DA:O's list, but due to the way the two are presented, it seems as though the list offers more depth - the list will give you up to six lines of dialogue but several of them will be investigate options mixed in with decision options; the wheel makes it clear which is which so appears to offer less options while actually offering the same amount, sometimes more.

As to the issue of Hawke not saying what you want/expect, that's down to the paraphrasing and not the wheel itself. It would be the same had paraphrases been implemented in list form (like they are in The Witcher 2, for example). Theoretically, full dialogue lines could be implemented on the wheel giving the player more dialogue options than they did in DA:O and know exactly what the protagonist is going to say.

Modifié par Johnny Jaded, 06 août 2011 - 01:26 .

[Rixxencaxx]

Laidlaw decided he can't be wrong. Now he tells us how much he learned from feedback witch legacy....and then we have a dlc with mediocre scores from all reviewers.....ahhahahha
Really Laidlaw...dragon age 2 is totally wrong. Origins is the way. If you can't accept this...prepare for a dragon age 3 epic fail.

Modifié par Rixxencaxx, 06 août 2011 - 01:50 .

[nitefyre410]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Laidlaw dediced he can't be wrong. Non he tells us how much he learned from feedback witch legacy....and then we have a dlc with mediocre scores from all reviewers.....ahhahahha
Really Laidlaw...dragon age 2 is totally wrong. Origins is the way. I you can't accept this...prepare for a dragon age 3 epic fail.

This is constructive How?... Just because doesn't agree with you or those who are of the same opinion as you  does not mean that he does not think he is wrong or that  mistake were not made...

back to  other matters.

[b1322]

Persephone wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

b1322 wrote...

I have a question for Bioware and I hope someone will answer it:

One thing I really missed from origins to be seen in DA2 is the ability to talk with your companions, I loved all the deep conversations, is this something that Bioware intents to integrate back in DA3?

Oh, FINE. One more fun one: yes.

Our intention is that there will be the ability to initiate companion dialogs at "home base," whatever that is. Remember, though, that we have a finite amount of resources, and there's a delicate balance between the resources spent on personal plots out in the world and dialogs in the "base," and the we'll have to tread carefully.

Still, I completely understand the desire to plunk down and at least have the option to ask Fenris a few things, even if they're eventually going to be the same things (as was the case in Origins), if only to show off / enjoy / savor Gideon Emery's dulcet tones.

That is so NOT.....

Ok, I admit it. First time I heard that voice during Fenris' intro my thoughts went "Oh hello! Please be a LI!".

But then, Simon Templeman could be reading the phonebook and I'd be a puddle of goo.

But all fangirling aside, that IS a delicate balance, On one hand the camp/interrogation dialogue from DAO (Which, I admit, I skip through these days except for maybe 2-3 characters on occasion...because it's always the same & never adapts as it does in DAII) and on the other the plot-based/adapting dialogue triggering at a companion's home base which I also enjoy immensely.

One situation where I would have liked interrogation dialogue to trigger would be when you take Izzy to the Qunari compound. She slinks away and her excuses are rather telling. Now after talking to the Arishok, I would have liked to question her on what happened back there. Granted, plot points there....but a flavour response (Adding Rivalry/Friendship) would have sufficed IMO and deepened immersion. For me, anyway.

I understand the need to skip the dialogues because you dont need to hear them again but that is why the dialogues are optional. If you dont want to talk then dont talk but I still think that the option should be there

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Laidlaw dediced he can't be wrong. Non he tells us how much he learned from feedback witch legacy....and then we have a dlc with mediocre scores from all reviewers.....ahhahahha
Really Laidlaw...dragon age 2 is totally wrong. Origins is the way. I you can't accept this...prepare for a dragon age 3 epic fail.

Please find other threads to troll, this one is for sensible discussion and dialogue pertaining to feature sets we want to see implimented, removed, added or brought back and how the community can assist in getting these issues addressed discussed and in some cases altered.

Your kind of post has no place and I hope it is not allowed to derail what has been a very constructive and enjoyable thread.

Also you will see all the Bioware Devs especially Laidlaw in this thread discussing with honesty what worked and what didnt, there is little need to be a troll.

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 06 août 2011 - 01:46 .

[TEWR]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Laidlaw dediced he can't be wrong. Non he tells us how much he learned from feedback witch legacy....and then we have a dlc with mediocre scores from all reviewers.....ahhahahha
Really Laidlaw...dragon age 2 is totally wrong. Origins is the way. I you can't accept this...prepare for a dragon age 3 epic fail.

Yes, the same reviewers who gave DA2 amazing reviews when DA2 was mediocre are now giving Legacy mediocre reviews when it was amazing.


Can you say "jumping on the bandwagon"?

[Dianjabla]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Johnny Jaded wrote...

Is there consideration for character-initiated dialogue? It would feel more natural than the player starting every conversation. For example, in DA:O, you could ask Leliana what she knew about an area and have a brief discussion about it; instead she could have started up a conversation stating that she had something interesting to say and allow the player to engage in conversation or dismiss her.

People seemed to dislike it when we did something similar in KotOR. While they liked the dialogues themselves, usually they were on the way somewhere adn got frustrated with having to stop and engage in conversation whenever Bastila was feeling chatty. Multiply that by the two or three you have in your party, and you can see how some folks might not enjoy having their adventure stopped now and again by one's followers.

It breaks up the flow of the game, I think, when that happens. I liked it in KotOR because it was different than what we'd done for NWN, but these days, I think it would feel intrusive, like we were trying to force feed you character stories or dialogue.

What about the "huh" you got from your team at various locations in ME1? You didn't have to talk with them & hear what they had to say if you didn't want to, but it certainly did put more life into the game. Although that was banter not dialogue, the principle seems the same.

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Johnny Jaded wrote...

ApostleinTriumph wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Fair enough. 

But my point was more of how in DA2 it seems that no matter what I click, my Hawke just says the same bloody thing but with a different tone rather than different comment entirely.

For example, DA2's options felt more like when I talk to a character: 

1. No (in a happy/diplomatic tone)
2. No (in a sarcastic tone)
3. No (in an angry tone)
4. Investigate 

Compared to DA:O where I feel more in control of what I say. Look at my previous screenshot with Duncan for an example: 

1. You're not wanted here
2. Lets talk about your impending beating
3. Thanks but please go. 
4. What's your business?

I freely admit that the system is similar to each other but I believe DA:O created a better illusion of control of what I'm saying even as the dialogue discreetly loops back. 

Is it possible that the dialogue wheel can better reflect my words rather than be a vague description of my actual words.  Make the player think "This is what I want to say" rather "this is the tone I want" 

Look at DX: HR's dialogue wheel. Is it possible that the next DA3 can use
that dialogue wheel instead which I believe is the perfect compromise? 

What I really don't like about the dialogue wheel system is exactly this. I cannot correctly gauge what I'm going to say. What I think a neutral response may seem like an aggressive one. There is no way to know. I prefer the DA:O/KOTOR style old system with choosing exactly what your character is going to say, because you know what you're getting into. There were times in DA2 that I said "Hey, I didn't mean that!", because the dialogue wheel system is stupid.

ME2 had the same thing, but ME2 is not a true RPG game. It is sort of like interactice storytelling, and a great, great one at that. I really love that game. But please, just let DA franchise do its own thing, don't make DA into another ME.

A lot of people have taken umbrage with this, myself included, but many don't seem to realise that it's not the dialogue wheel that's the problem. It's paraphrasing. The wheel allows for far more dialogue options than DA:O's list, but due to the way the two are presented, it seems as though the list offers more depth - the list will give you up to six lines of dialogue but several of them will be investigate options mixed in with decision options; the wheel makes it clear which is which so appears to offer less options while actually offering the same amount, sometimes more.

As to the issue of Hawke not saying what you want/expect, that's down to the paraphrasing and not the wheel itself. It would be the same had paraphrases been implemented in list form (like they are in The Witcher 2, for example). Theoretically, full dialogue lines could be implemented on the wheel giving the player more dialogue options than they did in DA:O and know exactly what the protagonist is going to say.

This is actually an interesting point, I would like to see the wheel expanded though.  perhaps with 8 points rather than six, its a nice system it just needs the paraphrasing issue refining to be an improvement over the list system and make for a much more cinematic presentation.

[Rixxencaxx]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Laidlaw dediced he can't be wrong. Non he tells us how much he learned from feedback witch legacy....and then we have a dlc with mediocre scores from all reviewers.....ahhahahha
Really Laidlaw...dragon age 2 is totally wrong. Origins is the way. I you can't accept this...prepare for a dragon age 3 epic fail.

This is constructive How?... Just because doesn't agree with you or those who are of the same opinion as you  does not mean that he does not think he is wrong or that  mistake were not made...

back to  other matters.

Well just an example...everyone hates waves....now he could decide to eradicate waves...no he wants to work on waves to fix them simply cause he can't admit waves are bad. He said that legacy is  the evidence of a change of gameplay flaws in da2....reviewers think that legacy is more of the same......(crap)....scores are generally in the 4-5/10 range....

Modifié par Rixxencaxx, 06 août 2011 - 01:57 .

[Saintthanksgiving]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Laidlaw dediced he can't be wrong. Non he tells us how much he learned from feedback witch legacy....and then we have a dlc with mediocre scores from all reviewers.....ahhahahha
Really Laidlaw...dragon age 2 is totally wrong. Origins is the way. I you can't accept this...prepare for a dragon age 3 epic fail.

can we not?  For the first time since DA2's release, we are having a productive dialogue about what we ALL want in the future.  these arent even funny....i could deal with funny ... 
back to the conversation issue, I dont think the conversation interface was the real problem.  For me it wasnt about cinematic vs talking heads as much as we never really established the connection between hawke and kirkwall.  I think that has more to do with the frequency and depth of conversations than the presentation.

[Rixxencaxx]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Laidlaw dediced he can't be wrong. Non he tells us how much he learned from feedback witch legacy....and then we have a dlc with mediocre scores from all reviewers.....ahhahahha
Really Laidlaw...dragon age 2 is totally wrong. Origins is the way. I you can't accept this...prepare for a dragon age 3 epic fail.

Yes, the same reviewers who gave DA2 amazing reviews when DA2 was mediocre are now giving Legacy mediocre reviews when it was amazing.


Can you say "jumping on the bandwagon"?

Simply now they feel free to give a genuine score.....with da2 they were into "oh my god it is bioware must be good" mode....

Modifié par Rixxencaxx, 06 août 2011 - 01:56 .

[b1322]

I also felt that the companions in origins were more "life like" than the ones in da2. For example, if I wanted to break up with Zevran or Alistair from origins, I always got a "oh no how do I do this" feeling inside, I almost got nevous for their reaction, like they were real people, I didnt get that feeling with the companions in da2 at all, not that I could ever talk with them enough to get that feeling... but still.

Modifié par b1322, 06 août 2011 - 02:02 .

[Saintthanksgiving]

If conversations and interactions become a balancing act between logistical limitations vs immersion quality... I think we have to give immersion the priority.

People, RPG fans especially, are more willing to sacrifice cosmetics than depth of character.

Modifié par Saintthanksgiving, 06 août 2011 - 02:07 .

[KennethAFTopp]

I really think the personality system needs more than Diplomatic, Sarcastic and Aggressive options, for the life of me, I can't quite figure out what, but I felt that there was less ways to costumize your character to your liking in DAII compared to MAss Effect series or DA1 with the dialogue system.
There was a huge disconnect between the three personalities.

[Dianjabla]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Interactive ambient dialogue sounds good. I don't mind if party members don't want a good old heart to heart in the middle of the street or hiking up a mountain between fights - I wouldn't either. Save the cinematic stuff for that and plot advancement conversations. But the opportunity to initiate and respond in banter conversations would be great.

[Tirfan]

@TEWR: Yeah, we've discussed this a bit before haven't we? I still do, when really thinking about the dominant-personality, view it as an inherently flawed design. In the end, it really is a system that tries to guess what the character is like - it could be made better - I don't dispute that - but as long as getting certain dialogue-options or choices are dependent on the dominant-personality it fails.

It boils down, in the end, to control. If I create my character and there is a system that tries to guess how the character would act in a given situation - there is bound to be contradictions & unnecessary restrictions. Of course, I could let go of the attitude of creating my own character and let the character itself lead the characterization - but I don't view this as very satisfying.

On paraphrasing: Yeah, this needs to go. Really, I will never again do those horrible reload-fests that I did in DA2 act1.Having to reload 2-7 times in every single conversation is just not acceptable.

[b1322]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

If conversations and interactions become a balancing act between logistical limitations vs immersion quality... I think we have to give immersion the priority.

People, RPG fans especially, are more willing to sacrifice cosmetics than depth of character.

Excactly! To me personally it is more important that the characters has depth than the cosmetic view. Besides, I didnt see anything wrong with the cosmetics in da1.

Modifié par b1322, 06 août 2011 - 02:17 .

[Saintthanksgiving]

b1322 wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

If conversations and interactions become a balancing act between logistical limitations vs immersion quality... I think we have to give immersion the priority.

People, RPG fans especially, are more willing to sacrifice cosmetics than depth of character.

Excactly! To me personally it is more important that the characters has depth than the cosmetic view. Besides, I didnt see anything wrong with the cosmetics in da1.

well... I could do without brown teeth.

[Brockololly]

Johnny Jaded wrote...
As to the issue of Hawke not saying what you want/expect, that's down to the paraphrasing and not the wheel itself. It would be the same had paraphrases been implemented in list form (like they are in The Witcher 2, for example). Theoretically, full dialogue lines could be implemented on the wheel giving the player more dialogue options than they did in DA:O and know exactly what the protagonist is going to say.

I'll say it again, that given we're stuck with a voiced PC, Deus Ex: Human Revolution's dialogue system is a huge step up over BioWare's paraphrases.

It gives you a general tone in text and when highlighted it expands into either the exact full text of the response, or if its not the entire full text of what Jensen says, it will be one of the full sentences in his response which best sums up what he is going to say.

It just works extremely well, and even in the beta for DX:HR I felt far more agency and control with Jensen than I did throughout ME1, ME2 and DA2 with Hawke. Their inclusion of the text based tones is vastly superior to DA2's vague icons as you can have precise tones with far more nuance than you'd ever be able to get in DA2's system since they're just not going to make that many graphical icons.

[b1322]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

b1322 wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

If conversations and interactions become a balancing act between logistical limitations vs immersion quality... I think we have to give immersion the priority.

People, RPG fans especially, are more willing to sacrifice cosmetics than depth of character.

Excactly! To me personally it is more important that the characters has depth than the cosmetic view. Besides, I didnt see anything wrong with the cosmetics in da1.

well... I could do without brown teeth.

I didnt notice any brown teeth...  But I did notice Fenris had skinny legs, too skinny...

Modifié par b1322, 06 août 2011 - 02:24 .

[TEWR]

b1322 wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

b1322 wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

If conversations and interactions become a balancing act between logistical limitations vs immersion quality... I think we have to give immersion the priority.

People, RPG fans especially, are more willing to sacrifice cosmetics than depth of character.

Excactly! To me personally it is more important that the characters has depth than the cosmetic view. Besides, I didnt see anything wrong with the cosmetics in da1.

well... I could do without brown teeth.

I didnt notice any brown teeth...

The teeth in DAO were disgusting. They were brown or yellow. And on one occasion I could've sworn I saw black teeth.

And considering ancient Egypt had toothpaste, I didn't like seeing discolored teeth.

[Tirfan]

Oh gods the horrible teeth. Luckily, there is a mod to fix them!
I just wish there was a mod to fix the DA2 darkspawn pepsodent-smile. They need to have brown teeth.

Or Bioware needs to introduce a new sentient darkspawn called The Dentist.

[b1322]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

b1322 wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

b1322 wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

If conversations and interactions become a balancing act between logistical limitations vs immersion quality... I think we have to give immersion the priority.

People, RPG fans especially, are more willing to sacrifice cosmetics than depth of character.

Excactly! To me personally it is more important that the characters has depth than the cosmetic view. Besides, I didnt see anything wrong with the cosmetics in da1.

well... I could do without brown teeth.

I didnt notice any brown teeth...

The teeth in DAO were disgusting. They were brown or yellow. And on one occasion I could've sworn I saw black teeth.

And considering ancient Egypt had toothpaste, I didn't like seeing discolored teeth.

Well, I dont think that correcting the brown teeth thing would mean that the depth of characters had to be sacrified.