89415 réponses à ce sujet

[meanieweenie]

LolaLei wrote...

littlenikki wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

I've been looking at the DA3 concept art properly on my computer, since I've only really seen it whilst using the Internet on my phone. Seeing it blown up big on my monitor looks awesome! I think the Frostbite 2 engine is really gonna do the environments justice this time round. I can't wait to get horribly lost in the forest ruins area... preferably with Cullen and the other new companions!

Lost...uh yea...that's a good word for it.

Elf Companion: There you two are! Where did you run off to?

*PC and Cullen trade suspicious looks*

PC: We were uh, lost. Cullen got stuck in a trap and um, we got seperated...

Qunari Companion: Mhmm...Hey Templar, your skirts on backwards

This! 100% this! ^^^

+10 from me too! lmvo!

[LolaLei]

 Oooo, Mary Kirby said something intriguing after someone asked if we will find out/experience how we become an Inquisitor (if that is what we become):

"The Inquisition is a sufficiently critical part of the plot that we named the entire game after it. You can probably assume that your relationship to it will factor significantly into the story. The start of the game will help you to establish how and why you are involved in the plot, yes."

Modifié par LolaLei, 02 novembre 2012 - 10:37 .

[LolaLei]

 Oh-my-effin'-gee:

Random person: "Will the PC stay vocal in banters in DA3: Inquisition?"

Gaider: "Yes. In fact, we're testing out a way for the player to chime in occasionally-- not with an automatic line, but with a chosen response. It'll also be an opt-in system, so you can choose to chime in on the banter or remain silent and let them talk. We'll see if that ends up working as we expect, but I consider it the ideal evolution of the system."


TAKE MY MONEY!

Modifié par LolaLei, 02 novembre 2012 - 10:29 .

[LolaLei]

 Gaider's response to someone asking about the Friendship/Rivalry system and if it would return:

"It won't, or not quite. Mechanically it'll work the same, but it won't exist as a gating mechanism for interactions and gaining/losing it will be done in the manner of DAO's approval rather than being tied (mostly) to a single character issue."

And then MC asked:

"Will you have a selection of companion specific quests like DA2? I really liked them, though I think the shifting of dialogue from general conversations to quests might have thrown some people."

He replied with: 

"I don't think we'll have as many companion quests as we did in DA2, no. On the whole I thought the companion quests worked far better as character development than just talking to a follower back in their base, but it seems some people really missed that and I can see a certain loss in agency so we're likely to move a lot of that content back into their personal interactions.

I know some people will ask "why can't you do both?"... to which my response would be "because this isn't Talking To Followers: The Game", despite how much some people seem to think that's what it should be. ;)"

Modifié par LolaLei, 02 novembre 2012 - 10:52 .

[R2s Muse]

LolaLei wrote...

 Oooo, Mary Kirby said something intriguing after someone asked if we will find out/experience how we become an Inquisitor (if that is what we become):

"The Inquisition is a sufficiently critical part of the plot that we named the entire game after it. You can probably assume that your relationship to it will factor significantly into the story. The start of the game will help you to establish how and why you are involved in the plot, yes."

Wow... so what does this mean? LOL I guess it tells us little, but just hearing them talk about the Inquisition is cool. And, of course, confirming that it's a big part of the game... and we'll have some "relationship" to it. Easy to read this as us actually being an Inquisitor. I hope there's a good reason it's named after the Inquisition... *sigh*

[LolaLei]

More Gaider-y goodness:

Random person: "Couldn't romances form outside of the party?"

Gaider: "Technically they can. The problem there is a tough one to tackle, however. The amount of dialogue which is distinct to the romance is actually fairly small... there's a lot of conversation which a player has with a follower outside of romance-specific stuff (just "building the relationship"), often with just some variant lines to give such dialogues some different flavor. This allows them to serve more than one purpose (which is important, lest not romancing a character means barely having interactions with them at all).

Thus the line between what is the romance and what isn't are blurred, from the player perspective... indeed, a great deal of the relationship that you build with a follower stems from the time you spend adventuring with them. Is it part of the romance? No, of course not... but in your head it's an accumulation of time and experience. You're building a head canon of the time you've spent with the character.

Now take a character outside of the party. There's no time spent adventuring with them. Unless there are many other dialogues which would have occurred with that character anyhow, this means that any and all romance interactions would have to written specifically for that character... making them more expensive. Since you're not "spending time" in that character's company, the entirety of your relationship thus consists of you talking to them... and, from the player's perspective, those will always seem to be precious few. We can't possibly give such a romance the same depth. So, unless people are okay with such romances being comparitively paper-thin to follower romances, it cannot work the same way. Not, like I said, unless this is a character you are already otherwise interacting with a great deal.

Unless, by romances, we are referring to the kind of paper-thin romances one finds in the Witcher or Skyrim. If so, then sure. But I assume what's being requested are romances that are comparable to the ones you'd have with party members."

Modifié par LolaLei, 02 novembre 2012 - 11:20 .

[LolaLei]

R2s Muse wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

 Oooo, Mary Kirby said something intriguing after someone asked if we will find out/experience how we become an Inquisitor (if that is what we become):

"The Inquisition is a sufficiently critical part of the plot that we named the entire game after it. You can probably assume that your relationship to it will factor significantly into the story. The start of the game will help you to establish how and why you are involved in the plot, yes."

Wow... so what does this mean? LOL I guess it tells us little, but just hearing them talk about the Inquisition is cool. And, of course, confirming that it's a big part of the game... and we'll have some "relationship" to it. Easy to read this as us actually being an Inquisitor. I hope there's a good reason it's named after the Inquisition... *sigh*

Hard to say, since she was pretty cryptic about it, but it does make me wonder if there's more truth in that leaked survey than just the Inquisitor title.

[R2s Muse]

LolaLei wrote...

More Gaider-y goodness:

Random person: "Couldn't romances form outside of the party?"
Gaider: "Technically they can. The problem there is a tough one to tackle, however. The amount of dialogue which is distinct to the romance is actually fairly small... there's a lot of conversation which a player has with a follower outside of romance-specific stuff (just "building the relationship"), often with just some variant lines to give such dialogues some different flavor. This allows them to serve more than one purpose (which is important, lest not romancing a character means barely having interactions with them at all).

Thus the line between what is the romance and what isn't are blurred, from the player perspective... indeed, a great deal of the relationship that you build with a follower stems from the time you spend adventuring with them. Is it part of the romance? No, of course not... but in your head it's an accumulation of time and experience. You're building a head canon of the time you've spent with the character.

Now take a character outside of the party. There's no time spent adventuring with them. Unless there are many other dialogues which would have occurred with that character anyhow, this means that any and all romance interactions would have to written specifically for that character... making them more expensive. Since you're not "spending time" in that character's company, the entirety of your relationship thus consists of you talking to them... and, from the player's perspective, those will always seem to be precious few. We can't possibly give such a romance the same depth. So, unless people are okay with such romances being comparitively paper-thin to follower romances, it cannot work the same way. Not, like I said, unless this is a character you are already otherwise interacting with a great deal.

Unless, by romances, we are referring to the kind of paper-thin romances one finds in the Witcher or Skyrim. If so, then sure. But I assume what's being requested are romances that are comparable to the ones you'd have with party members."

Wow!! What an insightful and forthcoming answer!!  I guess it's a good day in Gaiderville today! It's funny to think that our romances with the followers really are limited to a few lines, and we just assume most of our "relationship building" is part of that... which, of course, it is, right? In the perfect world your lover is also your friend (right?? ).

So, now I contrast this with the relationship I am convinced my Hawke was having with Cullen... I suppose it's the same smoke and mirrors. But then again... add a few actual romance lines, and I would have been in seventh, eight or maybe ninth heaven. Would it have felt "paper thin"? Dunno. Didn't really play skyrim... so I have no comparison there, but I still think it would have been satisfying. Hmm... will have to think some more...<_<

[LolaLei]

R2s Muse wrote...

Wow!! What an insightful and forthcoming answer!!  I guess it's a good day in Gaiderville today! It's funny to think that our romances with the followers really are limited to a few lines, and we just assume most of our "relationship building" is part of that... which, of course, it is, right? In the perfect world your lover is also your friend (right?? ). 

So, now I contrast this with the relationship I am convinced my Hawke was having with Cullen... I suppose it's the same smoke and mirrors. But then again... add a few actual romance lines, and I would have been in seventh, eight or maybe ninth heaven. Would it have felt "paper thin"? Dunno. Didn't really play skyrim... so I have no comparison there, but I still think it would have been satisfying. Hmm... will have to think some more...<_<

You couldn't get more paper thin than Skyrim lol. Literally, you put on a special necklace, talk to the npc who notices you're wearing the "I'm looking for a husband/wife" necklace and asks "are you looking to get wed?", You then say "are you interested?", He/she says "I'm interested, are you?", You say: "I'm interested", they say: "Great, lets gets married", you then book a church with some holy dude, who marries you the next day. Your husband/wife then says: "So we're married then. Doesn't feel like I expected, but I'm happy" and then you move them into your house, they disappear and you spend the next 3 hours looking for them. When you do finally find them you can make them cook you pie. Aaaaand that's about it. Oh, you can't get laid either.

But anyway, back to Dragon Age. I've always prefered getting to know your chosen LI through talking and travelling around with them. I find the build up leading to the fully fledged relationship the best part... Kinda like real relationships I guess, all the excitement is in the thrill of the chase! 

Modifié par LolaLei, 02 novembre 2012 - 11:33 .

[LolaLei]

 I've just found something else interesting that one of the other forum users just posted, that I wasn't aware of, or even considered before:

"So I was just playing Dragon age 2 with a pro-mage agressive femHawke and during the quest "Justice", I got the option to openly call the Chantry a scam and a lie to the Grand Cleric's face - Blew my mind . 
I also had a rather charged conversation with Petrice about a schism forming in the Chantry and picking a side one day. Evidently the faithful are not happy under the current divine's rule."


Soooooo, now I'm thinking that some of the faithful might revolt against the Divine too. Not just the Seekers and the Templars. I wonder if this will become an aspect of DA3? If so, then it's shaping up to be a pretty spectacular game!

[LolaLei]

charlottecorday wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

 Oh-my-effin'-gee:

Random person: "Will the PC stay vocal in banters in DA3: Inquisition?"

Gaider: "Yes. In fact, we're testing out a way for the player to chime in occasionally-- not with an automatic line, but with a chosen response. It'll also be an opt-in system, so you can choose to chime in on the banter or remain silent and let them talk. We'll see if that ends up working as we expect, but I consider it the ideal evolution of the system."


TAKE MY MONEY!

This sounds awesome.

I really hope they're able to implement it as planned. No idea how they'll pull it off, but if they can then it'll amazing!

[LolaLei]

I.. er... found something:




... Was that always there? Who's love scene was that?! :-S

Modifié par LolaLei, 03 novembre 2012 - 01:21 .

[berelinde]

LolaLei wrote...

R2s Muse wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

 Oooo, Mary Kirby said something intriguing after someone asked if we will find out/experience how we become an Inquisitor (if that is what we become):

"The Inquisition is a sufficiently critical part of the plot that we named the entire game after it. You can probably assume that your relationship to it will factor significantly into the story. The start of the game will help you to establish how and why you are involved in the plot, yes."

Wow... so what does this mean? LOL I guess it tells us little, but just hearing them talk about the Inquisition is cool. And, of course, confirming that it's a big part of the game... and we'll have some "relationship" to it. Easy to read this as us actually being an Inquisitor. I hope there's a good reason it's named after the Inquisition... *sigh*

Hard to say, since she was pretty cryptic about it, but it does make me wonder if there's more truth in that leaked survey than just the Inquisitor title.

Now, I read that exactly the opposite way that you two seem to have done.

"The Inquisition is a sufficiently critical part of the plot that we named the entire game after it." This means that it is a large part of the game, but it is not the *entire* game. If we were *all* going to be inquisitors, there wouldn't really be the need to qualify that statement.

"You can probably assume that your relationship to it will factor significantly ito the story." Relationships can be adversarial. Also, if we were going to be inquisitors, Mary's sentence would have read "your participation in it." Mary is very skilled with the language. She can find a noun with both hands and a map.

"The start of the game will help you establish how and why you are involved with the plot." This means that there will be more than one way to be involved with the plot.

Granted, I'm probably overanalyzing, but taken together with Darth Gaider's assertion that we won't be forced to work for the Chantry, I find it encouraging. I get very, very limited replay value out of games where I'm locked into one specific character. Playing as an inquisitor might be OK for one playthrough, but I don't generally buy games I'm only ever going to play once.

[berelinde]

LolaLei wrote...

I.. er... found something:




... Was that always there? Who's love scene was that?! :-S

It's a mod, I think. More OPtions at the Pearl or something.

[LolaLei]

It's the most disturbing thing I've seen all week!

[meanieweenie]

The reat question is : Where did that banana come from? Did someone drop it earlier? Did it fall out of.... that 'hammock' he's wearing?

[LolaLei]

meanieweenie wrote...

The real question is : Where did that banana come from? Did someone drop it earlier? Did it fall out of.... that 'hammock' he's wearing?

I dread to think. Either way, I certainly won't be eating it!

[berelinde]

Maybe it's the top of a round pillow that's covered by the blanket. Yeah, I think I'll be going with that explanation.

[meanieweenie]

Maybe it's that damned peanut butter jelly time dancing punk.

[LolaLei]

... (I think Sandal used it for a "not enchantment".)

[LolaLei]

berelinde wrote...

Now, I read that exactly the opposite way that you two seem to have done.

"The Inquisition is a sufficiently critical part of the plot that we named the entire game after it." This means that it is a large part of the game, but it is not the *entire* game. If we were *all* going to be inquisitors, there wouldn't really be the need to qualify that statement.

"You can probably assume that your relationship to it will factor significantly ito the story." Relationships can be adversarial. Also, if we were going to be inquisitors, Mary's sentence would have read "your participation in it." Mary is very skilled with the language. She can find a noun with both hands and a map.

"The start of the game will help you establish how and why you are involved with the plot." This means that there will be more than one way to be involved with the plot.

Granted, I'm probably overanalyzing, but taken together with Darth Gaider's assertion that we won't be forced to work for the Chantry, I find it encouraging. I get very, very limited replay value out of games where I'm locked into one specific character. Playing as an inquisitor might be OK for one playthrough, but I don't generally buy games I'm only ever going to play once.

Apparently one of the devs said that the Inquisition won't necessarily be aligned with the Chantry or anti-mage. Which sounds to me like if we are "the Inquisitor" then we'd choose who we affiliated/aligned ourselves with. So if we wanted to be pro-nutty Templars, then we could be etc.

[vieralynn]

I've been having a hard time keeping up over here because this thread moves so fast and life gets in the way.
Interesting info from Mary Kirby about the Inquisitor. Sounds sort of similar to how the Warden's role was central to DA:O's plot. I think I like it.
Btw, I'm posting a month of Cullen related essays, ramblings, and other stuff on Tumblr (and Dreamwidth/LJ). First one went up today.

[LolaLei]

vieralynn wrote...

I've been having a hard time keeping up over here because this thread moves so fast and life gets in the way.
Interesting info from Mary Kirby about the Inquisitor. Sounds sort of similar to how the Warden's role was central to DA:O's plot. I think I like it.
Btw, I'm posting a month of Cullen related essays, ramblings, and other stuff on Tumblr (and Dreamwidth/LJ). First one went up today.

Awesome! I've been following your tumblr with one I've opened (torturedknightcaptain), I done some photo manipulations that I posted up on there if you wanna use them for anything.

[vieralynn]

R2s Muse wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

More Gaider-y goodness:

Random person: "Couldn't romances form outside of the party?"
Gaider: "Technically they can. The problem there is a tough one to tackle, however. The amount of dialogue which is distinct to the romance is actually fairly small... there's a lot of conversation which a player has with a follower outside of romance-specific stuff (just "building the relationship"), often with just some variant lines to give such dialogues some different flavor. This allows them to serve more than one purpose (which is important, lest not romancing a character means barely having interactions with them at all).

Thus the line between what is the romance and what isn't are blurred, from the player perspective... indeed, a great deal of the relationship that you build with a follower stems from the time you spend adventuring with them. Is it part of the romance? No, of course not... but in your head it's an accumulation of time and experience. You're building a head canon of the time you've spent with the character.

Now take a character outside of the party. There's no time spent adventuring with them. Unless there are many other dialogues which would have occurred with that character anyhow, this means that any and all romance interactions would have to written specifically for that character... making them more expensive. Since you're not "spending time" in that character's company, the entirety of your relationship thus consists of you talking to them... and, from the player's perspective, those will always seem to be precious few. We can't possibly give such a romance the same depth. So, unless people are okay with such romances being comparitively paper-thin to follower romances, it cannot work the same way. Not, like I said, unless this is a character you are already otherwise interacting with a great deal.

Unless, by romances, we are referring to the kind of paper-thin romances one finds in the Witcher or Skyrim. If so, then sure. But I assume what's being requested are romances that are comparable to the ones you'd have with party members."

Wow!! What an insightful and forthcoming answer!!  I guess it's a good day in Gaiderville today! It's funny to think that our romances with the followers really are limited to a few lines, and we just assume most of our "relationship building" is part of that... which, of course, it is, right? In the perfect world your lover is also your friend (right?? ).

So, now I contrast this with the relationship I am convinced my Hawke was having with Cullen... I suppose it's the same smoke and mirrors. But then again... add a few actual romance lines, and I would have been in seventh, eight or maybe ninth heaven. Would it have felt "paper thin"? Dunno. Didn't really play skyrim... so I have no comparison there, but I still think it would have been satisfying. Hmm... will have to think some more...<_<

I think DA2 was much better designed for the possibility of romances with non-party members. It is really easy to have interactions with non-party members in DA2 because the entire story takes place in Kirkwall. You can talk to people just as often as you can talk to party members so I don't see a big difference in cost or a risk of paper-thinness with an official DA2 romance with Cullen, Seneschal Bran, Madame Lusine, or anyone else who lives through the entire length of the game. Really, how different would these be from a romance with Merrill or Fenris other than *not* getting the character's banter while roaming around Kirkwall?

For a game like DA:O (and presumable DA:I), it's a completely different story because the player character is traveling a large area and would only have a brief bit of time with their LI. That would be very paper thin.