82 réponses à ce sujet

[mesmerizedish]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Dialogue isn't like this. You cannot "lose" a dialogue in the game. Even if you fail at a particular coercion check (as in DAO), you still progress. Depending on your choices and the randomization element of the roll, you don't end the game, you simply don't get access to certain elements (rewards) of the game. There is a sliding scale of outcomes based on dialogue. There is no such sliding scale of results in combat, there is only a binary outcome (win or reload).

There is not a sliding of results from dialogue. There are no varying consequences whatsoever except in the few cases that your dominant tone unlocks a special option. Which is stupid to the extreme. Dominant tone should never dictate the availability of an option, like what Zjar said about the Paragon/Renegade stuff. It's absurd. I'm okay with it influencing your chance at success. And if that means players re-load over and over until they get what they want, I really don't a give a f*ck. Because that's what combat does.

[mesmerizedish]

ipgd wrote...

Adding a random element to dialogue would just exponentially increase the amount of time I spend compulsively reloading.

Honestly, I don't really like any kind of stat or numbers element being tied to dialogue. I both am a massive powergamer and actually enjoy roleplaying, but when a game is structured in such a way that my desire to do either of those things fundamentally conflict with the other I get massively buttpained. Make dialogue a numbers game (hello paragon/renegade) and I am invariably going to metagame it and stop actually roleplaying, which I perceive as Less Fun but cannot stop myself from doing anyway. The absolute only thing that I want to influence my dialogue choices is what I think my character would say, and the only time I want to fail a dialogue check is if I want my character to fail the dialogue check.

You would never be restricted in what your character is allowed to say, only how well it would work.

You cannot completely control the outcome of any adversarial encounter. The only time you want to fail a dialogue check is if you want your character to fail the dialogue check. Okay. Me too! The only time I want to die in combat is if I want my character to die in combat! But I still risk dying every time I enter combat. I should risk not being that convincing any time I try to be convincing.

I don't want my character to be some Hitler-esque demigod of mind-control who doesn't even have to try. That's not fun.

[Maria Caliban]

The problem with comparing dialogue to combat is that combat is an incredibly complex system where you win and lose constantly and which takes up the majority of the game wherein 'convincing' someone in dialogue has little in the way of complexity.

To put it in another way, when I lose in combat, it's the result of hundreds of decisions I've made. When I lose in dialogue, it's the result of maybe one or two decisions. Combat is a puzzle that is inherently interesting to play through while dialogue can be interesting to listen to, it's not an intellectually (or viscerally!, outside of pre-sex banter) satisfying.

Dues Ex: Human Revolution did well in that it added a puzzle element to the dialogues and more feedback. *Seeing* people react to my words as I go through multiple persuade nodes, watching the little graph raise, or reading the analyzer and deciding how to tackle someone are all more satisfying than merely hitting the right option.

[mesmerizedish]

Rojahar wrote...

This is more equivalent to say... if you couldn't beat the Arishok on Insanity, then the game continues on, but instead of becoming the Champion of Kirkwall, you become "That noob who got pwned." in the story. The story itself doesn't change if you fail at combat. The story itself does change if you fail some random dice roll. I think that's what IPGD is getting at. Though... it would be interesting if there was some sort of setting for dialog and other out-of-combat skill checks, similar to how you can play on casual for combat.

Sure. Have the DCs differ based on difficulty. Play on casual if you want the "I'm invincible slash don't have to persuade anyone to get naked" style of gameplay.

Also, you should be able to fail some combats. I mean, most of them really are straight life-or-death, so a failure means re-loading, but what if they're just trying to capture you? If you lose against Ser Cauthrien, don't you get put in Fort Drakon instead of dying?

[Mr.House]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Also, you should be able to fail some combats. I mean, most of them really are straight life-or-death, so a failure means re-loading, but what if they're just trying to capture you? If you lose against Ser Cauthrien, don't you get put in Fort Drakon instead of dying?

Yup you do.

[mesmerizedish]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The problem with comparing dialogue to combat is that combat is an incredibly complex system where you win and lose constantly and which takes up the majority of the game wherein 'convincing' someone in dialogue has little in the way of complexity.

To put it in another way, when I lose in combat, it's the result of hundreds of decisions I've made. When I lose in dialogue, it's the result of maybe one or two decisions. Combat is a puzzle that is inherently interesting to play through while dialogue can be interesting to listen to, it's not an intellectually (or viscerally!, outside of pre-sex banter) satisfying.

Dues Ex: Human Revolution did well in that it added a puzzle element to the dialogues and more feedback. *Seeing* people react to my words as I go through multiple persuade nodes, watching the little graph raise, or reading the analyzer and deciding how to tackle someone are all more satisfying than merely hitting the right option.

That's what I'm asking for (in part). It's not just "hitting the right option," because, in theory, you could succeed with any possible conversation path. But your chances of success skyrocket once you start thinking about which arguments might be most persuasive. And reading the NPCs' reactions should totally be a part of that. Get John Epler in here to go all cinematic on our asses.

Re: DE:HR: I've heard wonderful things about its persuasion system and have been told that it's similar in many respects to the system I present here. Good! That's absolutely wonderful, and makes me even more excited to get further into it. And BioWare should look at it as an example of fun, well-received persuasion. Because what they did in Origins and DAII (and, ugh, ME is even worse) just sucks.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Dialogue and persuasion results should be hidden from player, and relationships with characters should develop seamlessly. People's relationships are a bit more complex than a series of wins and loses. Debates are a bit diffirent, but debates are debates, they can be done with diffirent means and ends too. Quoting Ravel Puzzlewell I believe, it's not the answer what matters, but who says it.
I can hardly name games where everything was done right. It requiers a lot of nonlinearity in characters relationship with each other. I remember Blade Runner doing that well, I think. And Planescape too (you could agree and disagree with someone there in a lot of ways).

[mesmerizedish]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

Dialogue and persuasion results should be hidden from player, and relationships with characters should develop seamlessly. People's relationships are a bit more complex than a series of wins and loses. Debates are a bit diffirent, but debates are debates, they can be done with diffirent means and ends too. Quoting Ravel Puzzlewell I believe, it's not the answer what matters, but who says it.
I can hardly name games where everything was done right. It requiers a lot of nonlinearity in characters relationship with each other. I remember Blade Runner doing that well, I think. And Planescape too (you could agree and disagree with someone there in a lot of ways).

I would never suggest that every conversation be an implementation of this system. Just actual dialogue challenges. Which should be used liberally! Because I'm a filthy liberal.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

DE:HR system was intertaining, but it was implemented horribly:
- It still felt, yeah, like "boss battle", not like there are some relationships going on.
=> - Nothing you said changed anything during the course of the game. You still get 3+1 buttons in the end. Really, Origins system was primitive as crap, but at least it changed something like Alistair's view on being a king ect.

[hoorayforicecream]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Dialogue isn't like this. You cannot "lose" a dialogue in the game. Even if you fail at a particular coercion check (as in DAO), you still progress. Depending on your choices and the randomization element of the roll, you don't end the game, you simply don't get access to certain elements (rewards) of the game. There is a sliding scale of outcomes based on dialogue. There is no such sliding scale of results in combat, there is only a binary outcome (win or reload).

There is not a sliding of results from dialogue. There are no varying consequences whatsoever except in the few cases that your dominant tone unlocks a special option. Which is stupid to the extreme. Dominant tone should never dictate the availability of an option, like what Zjar said about the Paragon/Renegade stuff. It's absurd. I'm okay with it influencing your chance at success. And if that means players re-load over and over until they get what they want, I really don't a give a f*ck. Because that's what combat does.

Did I miss all of the people getting angry because they got some rivalry points with Anders and felt like they were ambushed? How about all of the dialogue options where you get a few more friendship points because you chose option X instead of Y? I remember when I had to kill Merrill's clan because I chose the top option and not the bottom one.

There are differing results from decisions made via dialogue, whereas combat is effectively a binary choice. When in the game do we have more than two different results from combat?

I'm not endorsing or denouncing this system. I'm simply saying that such a system will cause player behavior that the developers have stated they did not wish to encourage. 

[Maria Caliban]

The solution is for every 'failed' dialogue to end with the NPC pulling out the murder knife and shanking the PC.

Anders: I have feelings for you.
Hawke: Not interested.
Anders: Nooooo! *kills Hawke*

This should end the complaints of people feeling as though they're forced to go gay or get rivalry points.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

That's what I'm asking for (in part). It's not just "hitting the right option," because, in theory, you could succeed with any possible conversation path. But your chances of success skyrocket once you start thinking about which arguments might be most persuasive. And reading the NPCs' reactions should totally be a part of that. Get John Epler in here to go all cinematic on our asses.

Re: DE:HR: I've heard wonderful things about its persuasion system and have been told that it's similar in many respects to the system I present here. Good! That's absolutely wonderful, and makes me even more excited to get further into it. And BioWare should look at it as an example of fun, well-received persuasion. Because what they did in Origins and DAII (and, ugh, ME is even worse) just sucks.

*high five* *fist/paw bump*

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 04 octobre 2011 - 11:52 .

[mesmerizedish]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Dialogue isn't like this. You cannot "lose" a dialogue in the game. Even if you fail at a particular coercion check (as in DAO), you still progress. Depending on your choices and the randomization element of the roll, you don't end the game, you simply don't get access to certain elements (rewards) of the game. There is a sliding scale of outcomes based on dialogue. There is no such sliding scale of results in combat, there is only a binary outcome (win or reload).

There is not a sliding of results from dialogue. There are no varying consequences whatsoever except in the few cases that your dominant tone unlocks a special option. Which is stupid to the extreme. Dominant tone should never dictate the availability of an option, like what Zjar said about the Paragon/Renegade stuff. It's absurd. I'm okay with it influencing your chance at success. And if that means players re-load over and over until they get what they want, I really don't a give a f*ck. Because that's what combat does.

Did I miss all of the people getting angry because they got some rivalry points with Anders and felt like they were ambushed? How about all of the dialogue options where you get a few more friendship points because you chose option X instead of Y? I remember when I had to kill Merrill's clan because I chose the top option and not the bottom one.

There are differing results from decisions made via dialogue, whereas combat is effectively a binary choice. When in the game do we have more than two different results from combat?

I'm not endorsing or denouncing this system. I'm simply saying that such a system will cause player behavior that the developers have stated they did not wish to encourage.

None of those are speech challenges, with the exception of Merrill's clan, in which case it is a binary "kill the clan or don't kill the clan" consequence.

[hoorayforicecream]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

None of those are speech challenges, with the exception of Merrill's clan, in which case it is a binary "kill the clan or don't kill the clan" consequence.

How is that a speech challenge?

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Just actual dialogue challenges. Which should be used liberally! Because I'm a filthy liberal.

I would rather go with a bit diffirent system. I would call it Piling Up Persuasion Points.. or something. It's 4 of morning and I just ended some work so sorry if crap.
As your example goes..

Merrill: The mirror is driving me mad! I must talk to the spirit again!
[Must gather points to persuade to leave mirror alone: 10]
1. Add your Persuasion/Intimidate/Bluff rang, persuasion up to +5, intimidate +2, bluff automatic fail
2. Stupid line -2
3. Dork line -4
4. Smart line you remember from reading book about teenager elf psychology +1
5. Hey Merrill I brought you nice kitten +8
6. Aveline Handle This -9000
Automatic bonus if:
- You were nice to Merrill in the past
Automatic penalty (need to gather more points) if
- You were mean to elves in the past

Something like that

[mesmerizedish]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

None of those are speech challenges, with the exception of Merrill's clan, in which case it is a binary "kill the clan or don't kill the clan" consequence.

How is that a speech challenge?

Because it's an adversarial encounter in which you have to, through dialogue, alter the mindset of Fenarel and Ineria.

[hoorayforicecream]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

None of those are speech challenges, with the exception of Merrill's clan, in which case it is a binary "kill the clan or don't kill the clan" consequence.

How is that a speech challenge?

Because it's an adversarial encounter in which you have to, through dialogue, alter the mindset of Fenarel and Ineria.

How is this different from coercion? Three different flavors of coercion, instead of one?

[Zjarcal]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Collider wrote...

No chance whatsoever, please.
People are just going to reload. Like me.

You reload combat when you lose. Why shouldn't you reload when you don't pass a dialogue challenge?

I reload in combat because I screwed up, didn't use a proper strategy, ignored that the enemy was immune to x type of damage, etc., not because of random elements. To properly compare that to a "dialogue challenge" based on random numbers, then it'd be a case where I lost and reloaded because I was struck by a random lightning in the middle of battle, or an enemy managed to succesfully use an "instakill" move based on random numbers. Those situations in combat would be aggravating beyoned belief as the player would have no way of preparing against them, all strategy would be thrown out the window.

The same goes for a "dialogue challenge" based on random numbers, it would create nothing but frustration as one keeps on reloading to actually get the desired outcome. If you find that fun, then all I can say is that I certainly don't.

[mesmerizedish]

Zjarcal wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Collider wrote...

No chance whatsoever, please.
People are just going to reload. Like me.

You reload combat when you lose. Why shouldn't you reload when you don't pass a dialogue challenge?

I reload in combat because I screwed up, didn't use a proper strategy, ignored that the enemy was immune to x type of damage, etc., not because of random elements. To properly compare that to a "dialogue challenge" based on random numbers, then it'd be a case where I lost and reloaded because I was struck by a random lightning in the middle of battle, or an enemy managed to succesfully use an "instakill" move based on random numbers. Those situations in combat would be aggravating beyoned belief as the player would have no way of preparing against them, all strategy would be thrown out the window.

The same goes for a "dialogue challenge" based on random numbers, it would create nothing but frustration as one keeps on reloading to actually get the desired outcome. If you find that fun, then all I can say is that I certainly don't.

You fail a dialogue challenge because you weren't paying attention the the NPC's cues, you didn't think carefully enough about which argument you're using, etc. Except, sometimes, you get really crappy dice rolls. That happens in combat, too. That's not frustrating, it's what makes it fun. If success is assured, if there's no risk of failure, then there's no excitement. Watching your well-formed battle plan unfold successfully is fulfilling because you actually had to do some work to beat the odds. It should be the same for all challenges.

[mesmerizedish]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

None of those are speech challenges, with the exception of Merrill's clan, in which case it is a binary "kill the clan or don't kill the clan" consequence.

How is that a speech challenge?

Because it's an adversarial encounter in which you have to, through dialogue, alter the mindset of Fenarel and Ineria.

How is this different from coercion? Three different flavors of coercion, instead of one?

No one ever brought up coercion.

[DPSSOC]

I'm actually surprised that people see not being able to persuade an NPC because of poor decisions/bad rolls within the conversation as being worse than not being able to persuade an NPC because you didn't pick the top option often enough throughout the entire game. One requires you to reload a conversation to get the outcome you want, the other requires you to pretty much start the game over.

[Zjarcal]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

You fail a dialogue challenge because you weren't paying attention the the NPC's cues, you didn't think carefully enough about which argument you're using, etc. Except, sometimes, you get really crappy dice rolls. That happens in combat, too. That's not frustrating, it's what makes it fun. If success is assured, if there's no risk of failure, then there's no excitement. Watching your well-formed battle plan unfold successfully is fulfilling because you actually had to do some work to beat the odds. It should be the same for all challenges.

If random numbers are involved like you propose, it doesn't matter if I pay attention the NPC's cues because I can still fail, so it's NOT the same thing.

And no, crappy dice rolls are not fun to me in the slightest. NWN... trying to persuade Aribeth to not fight me and reloading over 20 times because of those stupid dice rolls was one of the most aggravating gaming experiences I ever had.

Combat is exciting because the success or failure lies in my hands, not in the dice. Dialogue challenges should be based on decisions I made earlier, how much I read the codex, how I interpreted what the characters said, but NEVER on dice rolls.

[Tyrium]

Personally, I prefer persuasion not to have a chance element. I like it when it is only available if it is a succeed. It just makes for a smoother playing experience for me, but I do see the other side of the argument.