1502 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

wait, are people talking about the PC participating in banter? Because Hawke did that a few times. Like when I had Carver and Isabela in my party.

[Yuqi]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

I think the PG-13 style love scenes were actually the result of certain... ahem...anatomical limitations...of the parties involved. I know a girl who dated Hawke in college. Let's just say there were "immersion issues."

This is more likely because of different nations,and different ratings. Aus for instance only recently got an approval for R18 video games.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

wait, are people talking about the PC participating in banter? Because Hawke did that a few times. Like when I had Carver and Isabela in my party.

Lol yes Hawkes "Please stop talking"comment was awsome. 

Modifié par Yuqi, 06 août 2011 - 03:58 .

[craigdolphin]

Brockololly said it perfectly once more. I think he's my new hero! Brock for DA3 protagonist!

I hope the devs really can find a new way to allow anywhere interactive conversation happen, or else reevaluate taking talking heads off the table completely. That decision is hurting far more tHan it helps IMHO

thanks Brock

[b1322]

craigdolphin wrote...

Brockololly said it perfectly once more. I think he's my new hero! Brock for DA3 protagonist!

I hope the devs really can find a new way to allow anywhere interactive conversation happen, or else reevaluate taking talking heads off the table completely. That decision is hurting far more tHan it helps IMHO

thanks Brock

I agree with you but unfortunately I dont think that it will happen. I asked Mike about this yesterday, actually I am the one who started this whole discussion, and his reply was that it will only happen in a campside or homebase and not on the road.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

If there's going to be a shift back toward the chat trees, there has to be some way to alert players to a companion having something to say. I don't want to miss any dialogue because I didn't go companion by companions asking them the same questions over and over.

[Erani]

I'd be happy with continuing DA2 system + being able to initiate some dialogue with companions too, even if only at their homebases. Even if it's the same two lines about their past, I don't care...I would have been much happier playing DA2 if I could head over to Fenris' and just bask in the glow of Gideon Emery sexah voice over and over and over again (extra 5 hours of playtime right there)

Now initiating dialogue while on the road...errr, I'm glad that is not happening. It just doesn't make much sense to me to stop and talk to companions when you could potentially be attacked or during urgent quests. I guess, it'd be ok while protagonist and Co. are just strolling around, but I'd rather devs use those resources to make personal conversations at their homes better. Party banter (taking into account Legacy as well) is at such high level right now! We get input from companions during certain locations/situations + humor...It's just perfect.

[Zjarcal]

craigdolphin wrote...

Brockololly said it perfectly once more. I think he's my new hero! Brock for DA3 protagonist!

Maker no! I don't want a set protagonist that will complain about everything. 

[Xewaka]

Firky wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
DA:O allowed for an implicit first person narrative, while DA 2 explicitly disallows it to enforce the third person narrative. There was one less layer of separation between the player and the companions in DA:O, thus enhancing the perceived interaction with said companions.
That'd be my guess, anyway.

Do you mean "while DA 2 explicitly disallows it " being the paraphrased responses?
I didn't mind them, but I did feel separation (in rather an un-RPG kind of a way.) For me the issue of pacing was seperate to that. (I just wanted to get all the story now.)

That's more of a symptom, so let me elaborate. In former titles, when the character was mute (so to speak), you were allowed to play as if the character was yours or Bioware's (think posing as actor or posing as director). When voice acting made its appearance, coupled with paraphrases, you were no longer allowed to act as your character, only to direct Bioware's. For people who played this second way, the VA is inarguably an improvement and the next logical step. For people who played the first way, it's an additional barrier between themselves and their character, one that completely clashes with their favored playstyle. But in both cases, the additional step between character and player is an additional step between companions and characters; and even people who favored a third person approach feel this additional separation step.

[Siven80]

Huh, so i take a few days away from the forums to read up on TOR, play some KOTOR and watch a few films and i miss all the good discussions!!

Good info and replies from the devs imo, nice to see the constructive criticism has been listened too, and Legacy was a nice step in the right direction.

[phaonica]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

wait, are people talking about the PC participating in banter? Because Hawke did that a few times. Like when I had Carver and Isabela in my party.

Hawke participates in ambient party banter sometimes, but the player doesn't.

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.

If the devs are willing to take the time to figure out how to make the ambient dialog more interactive, I personally think that the time would be better spent trying to figure out how to make the "talking heads" work.

[ipgd]

phaonica wrote...

If the devs are willing to take the time to figure out how to make the ambient dialog more interactive, I personally think that the time would be better spent trying to figure out how to make the "talking heads" work.

They've already outlined the problems with the "talking head" dialogue. How do you propose they are supposed to solve those issues?

Not every problem is something that can be solved by throwing time and bodies at it. There are some things that are intractably incompatible with the direction of the project.

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

They've already outlined the problems with the "talking head" dialogue.

It seems to me rather they have outlined the problems with the more flashy alternative to the talking heads if it was to be used on the road, but regarding the "talking heads" specifically they basically just said "we don't want that" but without any explanation of the reasoning behind it...

Modifié par tmp7704, 06 août 2011 - 05:13 .

[Saintthanksgiving]

Xewaka im going to disagree with you on this voice actor thing, and here's why.

When we design our character, we allowing a fair amount of liscence. We acknowledge that this character will represent us, but it will not necessarily BE us. Most of us design our characters to be the" us" that we would like to be, more than the us that we are.

For example, "in game" SaintThanksgiving is signifigantly slimmer around the midsection than "real life sitting on couch" Saintthanksgiving. These differences do not break immersion because for the most part they remain neutral.

A voice actor not sounding like you need not be any more distracting than your character not looking like you. It is one of the things you just have to acknowledge and dismiss.

The problems arise when you choose something for the voice actor to say, and the character says something completely different. OR you find you find yourself having conversations that don't offer the responses that you feel your character would make.

Depth and choice bring immersion..... voice is cosmetic.

[ipgd]

tmp7704 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

They've already outlined the problems with the "talking head" dialogue.

It seems to me rather they have outlined the problems with the more flashy alternative to the talking heads if it was to be used on the road, but regarding the "talking heads" specifically they basically just said "we don't want that" but without any explanation of the reasoning behind it...

They've explained repeatedly that the talking head setup forces them to forgo cinematography, and, consequentially, substantive animation. As in, it effectively decouples full body visual character emoting and interaction from the dialogue staged in that manner and removes a significant dimension from their ability to actually present the story. And that being able to initiate dialogue anywhere is less important to them than being able to incorporate said dimension of story presentation in their dialogue.

Modifié par ipgd, 06 août 2011 - 05:22 .

[phaonica]

ipgd wrote...

phaonica wrote...

If the devs are willing to take the time to figure out how to make the ambient dialog more interactive, I personally think that the time would be better spent trying to figure out how to make the "talking heads" work.

They've already outlined the problems with the "talking head" dialogue. How do you propose they are supposed to solve those issues?

Not every problem is something that can be solved by throwing time and bodies at it. There are some things that are intractably incompatible with the direction of the project.

The main reason I've seen against the "talking heads" was that it makes cinematic cut scenes difficult because of camera clipping. Fair enough, but every single conversation doesn't have to be cinematic. If the devs say, yes every single conversation *does* need to be cinematic, then what's up with the ambient banter? There's no camerawork, no gestures, no nothing, and that seems to be working just fine. IMO, the banter has shown great improvement from DAO to Legacy, and there is no cinematography involved at all.

[MerinTB]

I just have to say...

Hawke was never my character in either play.  Hawke kept doing things that my character would never have done had I had any more control.

I think there needs to be a decision on BioWare's part - is this the player's character, or the designers' character?

The former needs to eliminate nearly all of the preset dialog and character interactions.  Or at least any preset dialog and character interactions that have predetermined relationships and attitudes.  The latter needs to do away with any pretense of this being "your" character, and by that I mean designing the cosmetic appearance (facial features) of the character.  Especially if, like in ME3, all elements that are not combat related are being stripped out.

The simplest, strongest example I have of this in DA2... and Isabela.  No matter how much of a dick I was to her Hawke always treated her as a friend in journals, in the things he'd say when you met her or about things she left in his manor.  It was tear-my-hair-out frustrating for me.  I was NOT being nice to her, but the game defaulted to being uber-friendly.

But I've brought that up before, in the past, so I don't think it's constructive to the dev's at this point.  I just add it to the current conversation as it fits into the ongoing topic of dialog not representing what you want your character to say.  It wasn't just the dialog - the game as a whole had some presets for Hawke's personality that directly conflicted with choice syou seemed to be able to make.
      

[Xewaka]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...
Xewaka im going to disagree with you on this voice actor thing, and here's why.
When we design our character, we allowing a fair amount of liscence. We acknowledge that this character will represent us, but it will not necessarily BE us. Most of us design our characters to be the" us" that we would like to be, more than the us that we are.

I rarely, if ever, play self insert. Notice I said "my character" and "Bioware's character". I never mentioned "me". It'd be weird if I played self-insert, considering my first usual run is with a female character.

[Mike Laidlaw]

craigdolphin wrote...
I hope the devs really can find a new way to allow anywhere interactive conversation happen, or else reevaluate taking talking heads off the table completely. That decision is hurting far more tHan it helps IMHO

There are more limitations at work than just presentation. Like everything, there are pros and cons to every decision, and while it would be lovely to have talk-anywhere dialogs whereever and whenever we want, it would also be wildly inappropriate at times, and also cause potential interruptions in gameplay when you mean to click on an item and are instead launched into a dialog with follower X.

Are there ways to make it work or work better? Yes. Is it something we will pursue? No. And no, this is not "bioware being arrogant," it is us making a conscious decision to implement a feature in a way we think is best for the game with a full understanding of the systems at play. Dragon Age already delivers tons of dialog outside of the staged conversations, and we feel that ambient banter is a much better way to do so (especially if certain improvements come through), so that we can put extra effort into the followers when they are in known positions.

While I do not expect everyone to agree with the decision, it is made, and in the spirit of the thread, we are being candid an honest about it so that you guys can focus on other areas of feedback.

[Brockololly]

tmp7704 wrote...
The result is, i don't actually enjoy one of 3 possible response. I feel instead frustration that one of these responses was imposed on me by a very simplified algorithm, frequently missing my actual intention.

Yup.

I really didn't enjoy the "dominant" tone system as it was in DA2. I understand what they were trying to go for and all, but it was more often jarring than not. As it was executed in the game, especially if you dared employ a mix of the personalities, the dominant tone points would seem out of character in any given moment.

I get what they were going for but did not enjoy the end result.

tmp7704 wrote...
However, like Brockololly points out few posts up the thread, large part of DA2  conversations effectively remains talking-head dialogue. And this is  pretty normal and also expected, given how many conversations even in
the movies are talking-head dialogues beacuse that's how people  frequently happen to conduct the conversations -- without dramating  posing, pacing around or any other such theatrics. As such, i have to
wonder why BioWare would decide they need to be "more cinematic than  cinema" and try to eradicate these completely, rather than accept that  for certain applications simple is perfectly fine?

I have to wonder maybe how BioWare defines "talking head" dialogue? Is it just something like in Origins where you'd click on a companion and the camera goes straight to the over the shoulder view focused on the companion standing in a fixed location? And "cinematic" dialogue is when you go to Fenris' house in DA2 and click on Fenris  only to have the camera abruptly switch to some low angle shot of Hawke walking into a room you had already entered only to find Fenris in a different spot talking to a previously invisible Isabela who magically spawned once you entered Cinema Land?

Do "cinematic" conversations just constitute any conversation where the actors are moving around, changing location, even if its just sitting in a chair or having the camera move about?

Again, I've got nothing against some of those happening in the game. BUt they need to be used more judiciously, in that I'd err on the side of giving the player more freedom in conversation even if it means more "talking heads." Unless a given conversation actively uses the setting for a specific purpose and a specific use, I'd leave them more open ended. So yeah, if you have a cinematic conversation with Merrill at her house, its because she is using the Eluvian as a prop or otherwise interacting in a specific environment where things wouldn't make sense if the conversation took place anywhere else.

Beyond that though, I'd be more enthusiastic if instead of having the camera move all around, you still had "talking heads" but put a massive effort into the facial animations and body language. Cause when I'm having a conversation with someone I'm generally focused on who I'm speaking with. And the same is true in games. Again, look at how Deus Ex: Human Revolution does their big conversation "battles."

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

wait, are people
talking about the PC participating in banter? Because Hawke did that a
few times. Like when I had Carver and Isabela in my party.

But Hawke just chimes in with zero input from the player. To the extent that most of the time when this happened in the game I was left wondering who was talking when Hawke would chime in because I sure as hell didn't trigger Hawke to say anything.

The lack of input in banter in DA2 was just especially noticable to me over Origins. In part because Hawke is a voiced PC and that supposedly affords more interactivity (yet Hawke cannot initiate any conversations) and it seemed to me that there was a good deal more banter in DA2 (or at least banter made up a higher percentage of companion dialogue compared to Origins). Banter is a good supplementary means of characterization but it feels very passive and uninvolved when you're just sitting back and listening to it without being able to directly interact with the companions.

Modifié par Brockololly, 06 août 2011 - 05:36 .

[ipgd]

MerinTB wrote...

The simplest, strongest example I have of this in DA2... and Isabela.  No matter how much of a dick I was to her Hawke always treated her as a friend in journals, in the things he'd say when you met her or about things she left in his manor.  It was tear-my-hair-out frustrating for me.  I was NOT being nice to her, but the game defaulted to being uber-friendly.

That's because it's just not possible to dislike Isabela. Anyone who disagrees with me is mentally diseased.

[leggywillow]

Xewaka wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...
Xewaka im going to disagree with you on this voice actor thing, and here's why.
When we design our character, we allowing a fair amount of liscence. We acknowledge that this character will represent us, but it will not necessarily BE us. Most of us design our characters to be the" us" that we would like to be, more than the us that we are.

I rarely, if ever, play self insert. Notice I said "my character" and "Bioware's character". I never mentioned "me". It'd be weird if I played self-insert, considering my first usual run is with a female character.

Self-insert is a phenomenon I will never understand in RPGs.  I often make characters with similar morals and decision-making processes to myself, but I never name a character after myself, make them look like me, or pretend that they are me in a fantasy/sci-fi world.  The whole thing just seems bizarre to me.

[Mike Laidlaw]

phaonica wrote...

The main reason I've seen against the "talking heads" was that it makes cinematic cut scenes difficult because of camera clipping. Fair enough, but every single conversation doesn't have to be cinematic. If the devs say, yes every single conversation *does* need to be cinematic, then what's up with the ambient banter? There's no camerawork, no gestures, no nothing, and that seems to be working just fine. IMO, the banter has shown great improvement from DAO to Legacy, and there is no cinematography involved at all.

Exactly the point. Banter presents dialog in one way. Cinematic dialog presents it in another. The two are consistent in the quality of presentation they provide: one is completely interruptive to free play and a different "mode" for the game, the other is layered cleanly on top of gameplay with minimal interruption except the interruption you choose to create for yourself by pausing to listen.

Let me try to give an example to help explain. If we allow conversation with followers anywhere, we have to write and create conversations that work anywhere. This means Merril can never glance at her book. Fenris can never throw a wine bottle. "but you could just write additional conversations for at the camp or home or whatever?" is a logical reply, and it's true, we could. Except that we have finite resources, so we cannot just keep adding more and more content. Therefore we have to make a decision in the balance of how those follower conversations play out.

Since we have to make a choice, we have chosen to give them places where they can be more interactive than not.

Making games is very much like playing them. You WANT all the spells in the mage tree, but the game limits you from having them. We WANT to give you guys things like talking anywhere, because there are some very cool things you can do with it, but we have budgets and time constraints, so we cannot do everything. Thus, like you build your mage with complimentary spells and a mix of buffs and actives, we have to build our game with what we feel will be a complimentary set of features.

And there are no XP exploits in game development.

[Alex Kershaw]

I'm surprised that the feedback on this thread seems to have an emphasis towards the gameplay - while I preferred DAO's combat, I don't think tending towards an action approach is necessarily a bad thing; look at Mass Effect 2 and The Witcher 2 - both having action combat. I am surprised that I haven't read anything in this thread about going back to a game on a grand scale as opposed to a single city - is that just implied? I assume at this stage that must already be decided on?

I actually respect that the DA2 team took a risk in attempting the one city thing, but I just don't think it worked. In fact, I think by far the largest flaw with DA2 was Kirkwall, because it spawned all of the other problems. Firstly, the story just couldn't meet expectations. In my opinion, you should be able to theoretically have an over-arching quest that lasts the entire game, from the end of the introduction when the plot starts, to the end of the game when it is solved. For example, in DAO that would be 'stop the blight' upon entering Ostagar, or something similar. In the original Witcher, it's 'Witchers' Secrets'. In Dragon Age 2, what could it be? I get that they wanted to be different, but I just didn't feel like I had a motive while I was doing off jobs around Kirkwall.

Secondly, the repeated maps seems to be all because of Kirkwall too. Look at Origins - Lothering was just one pretty small map with a chantry, inn and some outskirts, and yet there were like 10+ quests in there? That's because they created a place then put quests inside that place. Then when there was no room for more quests, there were new locations with quests in them. In DA2, it seems like it was done the other way around; quests were written, then locations were made from those quests, and so repeated dungeons were necessary.

[dragonfire100]

The only thing on DA3 i would not like to return is th waves of enemies but thats it.

[fchopin]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

craigdolphin wrote...
I hope the devs really can find a new way to allow anywhere interactive conversation happen, or else reevaluate taking talking heads off the table completely. That decision is hurting far more tHan it helps IMHO

There are more limitations at work than just presentation. Like everything, there are pros and cons to every decision, and while it would be lovely to have talk-anywhere dialogs whereever and whenever we want, it would also be wildly inappropriate at times, and also cause potential interruptions in gameplay when you mean to click on an item and are instead launched into a dialog with follower X.

Are there ways to make it work or work better? Yes. Is it something we will pursue? No. And no, this is not "bioware being arrogant," it is us making a conscious decision to implement a feature in a way we think is best for the game with a full understanding of the systems at play. Dragon Age already delivers tons of dialog outside of the staged conversations, and we feel that ambient banter is a much better way to do so (especially if certain improvements come through), so that we can put extra effort into the followers when they are in known positions.

While I do not expect everyone to agree with the decision, it is made, and in the spirit of the thread, we are being candid an honest about it so that you guys can focus on other areas of feedback.

What about having a toggle to show the full text of what our character will say? is there any chance of this happening?