134 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Shadow6773 wrote...

Mrcrusty- Please tell me that you are a Bioware game designer on the team for DA3 come to the forums in disguise as a way to test the waters for your ideas.

If only. Though I'm pretty sure I'd get yelled at because I can be an epic procrastinator.

Shadow6773 wrote...
On second thought, just lie to me and say yes. At this point I need a morale system as much as DA3 needs much of yours.

Oh! Umm... yeah sure. I'm Mike Laidlaw in disguise. Laidlaw looks like a crusty fellow, right?

Shadow6773 wrote...
That being said I am curious what you have to say about the dialog system in the next days as I have many gripes and sadly far less ideas/fixes concerning it.

It's surprisingly difficult to craft a new dialog system using Dragon Age 2's voiced, tonal personalities as a base without just going "Alpha Protocol, CTRL+C, CTRL+V, finished". Alpha Protocol is far from perfect here imo, but it seems to capture a lot of what Dragon Age 2 wanted to do, but failed at doing.

Shadow6773 wrote...
My major one being how the wheel is a limiter on conversation options and has now becomes predictable(boring) with companion reactions. Compounding this is the fact that the more voice acting is added the more the budget goes in the pooper and the less they seem to want to add. I like the voiced main but don't like not knowing what they will say. Basically just adding an icon for one tone in a society where half of our conversation is layered or has none in many cases does not fit.

That's what's difficult - trying to have the sublety, variety (because tone is not implied) and amount of content/dialog as a silent protagonist while keeping it voiced and keeping it tonal.

I'm currently thinking of a system where the majority of responses still imply tone, but do it on a contextual basis, rather than always having responses that can be shoehorned into three archetypes. Basically, ditch the personality system in terms of dominant tones and changing dialog. I know it's probably the biggest actual innovation in Dragon Age 2, but it's ultimately forcing more of a personality on you than you might want.

I tend to like it when personality traits blend through to the character system and vice versa. A good example of this is the Perks system in Fallout games, especially ones like Confirmed Bachelor. The reason is because it's tangible to the player rather than being self contained in invisible formulae that's hard to grasp without metagaming.

I've also got ideas to reintroduce skill checks into the equation, although that would probably require an edited version of my Talent Trees redesign to include social skills.

Shadow6773 wrote...
I am curious to see your thoughts and ideas. Hopefully this thread stays objective.

Thank you. I hope so too.

[Theagg]

mrcrusty wrote...

Here is a step by step process for creating weapons and armor:



This is roughly an equivalent to how you'd create potions and traps.

Same process: Base Materials to Components and with the right recipes, creation.

Commerce also comes into this because of how it alters your relationship with vendors. Depending on how much skill you have in Commerce, you'd be able to create and then sell items to vendors at a profit rather than at a loss. It should also have some affects in general gameplay, skill checks and opening up options for quests and the like. Imagine a quest or two where you actually have to create a special armor. With skill in Smithing, you could make it. With skill in Commerce, you could just buy it after finding the right vendor (or hey, with skill in the Infiltration Tree, you could just steal it) - multiple approaches ftw.

This would help for a more rounded character and actual, useful non combat characters.

I've got many more ideas which I can elaborate or be specific on if needed.

But basically, here's the end goal for me:

- Attributes that are clear, transparent, easy to understand logically and provide the basis for character building through Attribute requirements in Talents.

- Talent Trees that properly allow for roleplaying through an open ended system that divides Talents properly into generalized skills, specializations and special, innate talents.

- A meaningful and deep crafting system that makes crafting feel more fun while also adding significant depth to new Talents and features (Smithing, Commerce, etc).

Going to this level of detail for crafting armour, items, potions etc is likely to bog the game down with procedure at the expense of flow.

It might work if this level of proceedural requirement can be totally bypassed by default (with no disadvantages) but frankly, having to go to that level of crafting and sourcing materials regularly just to ensure my character has some potions in her backpack would quickly become a tedious chore.

It also becomes unrealistic..examples... in the sense that for the most part, warriors in reality did not go dig the ore and source all the various the components for the weapons they wanted made. They left that to the blacksmith and his chain of suppliers. So steps 1 to 3 in your example of creating a weapon are somewhat superfluous in that respect.(They are certainly not needed for 'roleplaying') The same for armor. In essence you leave these kinds of proceedural steps to Wade.

Exception might be where you need a specific weapon made, in true fantasy style, to tackle a specific enemy. Then there might be a quest where you gather the required parts in order to make that weapon. But every time...no.

Now, if you want to roleplay being a blacksmith, then great....

[Theagg]

Barry Bathernak wrote...

@staindgrey

did you really just call ORIGINS tedious when compared to d.a.2!? since that's just lunacy and absurd since d.a.2 in terms of both combat and dialogue all you have to do is hit the A (or the respective pc key) as fast as you can without breaking the button/key.

it also sounds like you just want a button masher/hack-n-slash with any form of story,so why not play something like god of war,dynasty warriors,or even infamous?

Respective PC key ?

As a PC player, playing on nightmare, this "all you had to do is hit the A key" rhetoric really has become tiresome. And is completely not the case.

Here's a fact. I'm currently replaying Origins and Awakening and am walking through them like a knife through hot butter. It's embarrisingly easy on nightmare, I am indeed almost metaphorically speaking simply hitting the Origins equivalent of the "A" key.

Now DA 2 isn't perfect either but its far from just being a "button masher".

[Cyberarmy]

Nice postand ideas Mrcrusty, but it is wishfull thinking :/
I dont think we will have that detailed DA3.

Your post make me to go and install Fallout 2 again, i dont know if to thank or curse you ...
Going to be a charismatic p0rn star in this playthrough

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Theagg wrote...

snip

It's a supplement to the item system, not a replacement. Conceptually, it's not much different to the new Fallout games, the Elder Scrolls games, the Neverwinter Nights games, the KotOR games and even what BioWare is planning for Mass Effect 3. So I honestly don't see what's the problem.

Also, I'd like to get away from the idea of character archetypes and move to more interesting character concepts. Many of which, involve an element of non-combat expertise. If one wanted to fully ignore smithing and crafting to create a full fledged warrior, that's perfectly possible. If one wanted to play a warrior who use to be a blacksmith and still enjoy smithing as a hobby, that's possible too. The first character would be superior in martial combat, but the other can possibly create superior equipment, giving him an edge that way.

The idea is to put the choice in the hands of the player by giving them a framework to create many interesting characters, then create the systems to allow them to play it in gameplay.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 novembre 2011 - 12:50 .

[Theagg]

mrcrusty wrote...

Theagg wrote...

snip

It's a supplement to the item system, not a replacement. Conceptually, it's not much different to the new Fallout games, the Elder Scrolls games, the Neverwinter Nights games, the KotOR games and even what BioWare is planning for Mass Effect 3. So I honestly don't see what's the problem.

Also, I'd like to get away from the idea of character archetypes and move to more interesting character concepts. Many of which, involve an element of non-combat expertise. If one wanted to fully ignore smithing and crafting to create a full fledged warrior, that's perfectly possible. If one wanted to play a warrior who use to be a blacksmith and still enjoy smithing as a hobby, that's possible too. The first character would be superior in martial combat, but the other can possibly create superior equipment, giving him an edge that way.

The idea is to put the choice in the hands of the player by giving them a framework to create many interesting characters, then create the systems to allow them to play it in gameplay.

Which was my caveat. So long as such a system does not bestow advantages to players that cannot be achieved any other way then fine.

But to have a crafting system down to that level of micromanagement, even as a supplement, that means by using it. players could develop a more powerful character overall than those who choose not to would not work in my opinion.

And would be disadvantageous and unfair to those who don't feel role playing requires such things to get the upper hand.

I'm all for getting away from character archetypes though. It's something a friend and I have debated for quite a few years with regards to how we would like to see games develop, and potentially develop them ourselves..(but we are not rich enough yet to take the latter course !)

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Modifié par CrustyBot, 14 novembre 2012 - 05:57 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Modifié par CrustyBot, 14 novembre 2012 - 05:57 .

[eroeru]

mrcrusty wrote...

I love your many ideas here - you mentioned randomization (thinking "throwing dice") and a possibly more challenging combat - and they certainly caught my ear. Also the thought process, and other dialogue options. About those - how would it be possible to take a tone - Calm, Respectful, Blunt, Aggressive, Charming or Humourous - and give it multiple choices withing the tone - did I understand correctly, that you would pick one in the start of the conversation and make a few (with a difference of choice) meaningful comments and decisions, all with that tone? (I think that to be great)

And will the main attributes like Strength, Wisdom and Cunning influence the flow of the conversation some more (will it be based on the classical-type skill-checks for intimidation and such...)?

Anyhow, looking forward to more posts in this discussion...

[Foolsfolly]

The BioWare games of the last what.. ten years? Maybe a bit less haven't really had many skills. Origins had a few that were largely useless (at least to me because I usually spent those skill points in Combat Mastery and Tactics while one person got Potion making). But in general BioWare games have been focusing on Attributes and Abilities instead of Skills.

KOTOR was their last game that really had a focus on Skills.

I don't wish to argue about the importance of skills or not but it at least to me appears that they're moving away from skills... rightly or wrongly. And that it should be Attribute checks instead of skill checks. Because I don't see them going New Vegas style skills and massive amounts of skill checks. At least they don't appear to be moving in that direction.

Love the dialogue stuff and I've often wanted our prior actions to affect NPCs. Your system reminds me an awful lot of the Alpha Protocol system which was rather well done.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

eroeru wrote...

I love your many ideas here - you mentioned randomization (thinking "throwing dice") and a possibly more challenging combat - and they certainly caught my ear. Also the thought process, and other dialogue options. About those - how would it be possible to take a tone - Calm, Respectful, Blunt, Aggressive, Charming or Humourous - and give it multiple choices withing the tone - did I understand correctly, that you would pick one in the start of the conversation and make a few (with a difference of choice) meaningful comments and decisions, all with that tone? (I think that to be great)

You don't pick a tone at the start of conversation, no. I like the idea (I suggested it in another thread), but that seems insurmountable with a voiced protagonist.

The idea is that you pick a thought process (with an explicit tone or not) which then determines what your character says until that conversational thread is worn out. It's essentially no different to what already happens, but this method allows for (hopefully) the clarity of full text options, without having the disparity of dialog volume (you say a line, they say a paragraph) and without having nearly as many dialog prompts (which ruin flow of dialog and make dialog trees harder to structure).

The idea of having more explicit tones isn't really necessary to my core idea since well written thought processes already imply a tone, but I kinda added in so you could have a Talent Tree geared towards social skills.

Perhaps explicit tones (Calm, Respectful, etc) should only be apart of conversations that are focused or purpose driven dialog w/ the structure of the mini game since the mini games are like one giant skill check and social skills would have the biggest effect there.

Outside of those conversations, you could certainly imply tone without being explicit with it (I posted a screenshot showing off an example w/ FemHawke).

eroeru wrote...
And will the main attributes like Strength, Wisdom and Cunning influence the flow of the conversation some more (will it be based on the classical-type skill-checks for intimidation and such...)?

Ideally yes, and perhaps the Attributes ought to have explicit skill checks, or modify how successful other skill checks are depending on the stat (Cunning -> Commerce, etc).

Personally, I'd love to mix and match, having checks that utilize a variety of character aspects (Attributes, Skills/Talents, classes, etc).

[Magic/Smithing: Recall a rumor about a Templar Commander to emphasize the danger of using Lyrium to create weapons.]

[Willpower/Mage: Admit that your Harrowing was difficult, but stress that it's absolutely necessary for Mages.]

The reason why I didn't put it into my example of NPC X and Castle Y was because I started to run out of space and ideas for dialog options, but also that I wanted to showcase mainly new concepts and how they work: the thought process, how the Talent Trees become skill checks, explicit tones, the disposition system and the overarching purpose and calculations.

Foolsfolly wrote...

The BioWare games of the last what.. ten years? Maybe a bit less haven't really had many skills. Origins had a few that were largely useless (at least to me because I usually spent those skill points in Combat Mastery and Tactics while one person got Potion making). But in general BioWare games have been focusing on Attributes and Abilities instead of Skills.

KOTOR was their last game that really had a focus on Skills.

I don't wish to argue about the importance of skills or not but it at least to me appears that they're moving away from skills... rightly or wrongly. And that it should be Attribute checks instead of skill checks. Because I don't see them going New Vegas style skills and massive amounts of skill checks. At least they don't appear to be moving in that direction.

Agreed, but there are just too many cases where a check only for Attributes feels shoehorned. All well and good if BioWare had Intelligence, Wisdom and/or Charisma, you could just funnel a lot of the skill checks towards those Attributes. Pointing that the blacksmith's weapons are crap could be a matter of Intelligence. Gaining the help of NPCs by being honest could make you look Charismatic. But what is there, Strength and Cunning? Not really.

In those cases, you'd have to go to the Talent Trees in order to pick out what the check logically requires.

What I'm hoping for is a system that makes enough sense so as to encourage moving towards skill checks again.

Foolsfolly wrote...
Love the dialogue stuff and I've often wanted our prior actions to affect NPCs. Your system reminds me an awful lot of the Alpha Protocol system which was rather well done.

That was one of the biggest aspects for me. The disposition system (probably the meatiest mechanic since it has it's hands in everything) was conceptually modeled after AP's reputation system, along with some elements of the system in Origins, expanded and changed to include the notion of character building (skill checks), not just character approach (tones and thought process).

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 novembre 2011 - 10:27 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lol. 4000 words? My posts are easily longer than 4000 words combined. I honestly can't tell if you're being a little sarcastic.

But since I've got my "major" ideas out of the way, I might as well find a way to condense it into a good summary.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 06 novembre 2011 - 04:25 .

[Sepewrath]

Here's my idea, I'll keep it short

Quest system: I want it in the vain of Origins, lenghty quest that take you all over. However, only when the plot supports such a situation. No stretching like Lost in Dreams, just to achieve a lenghty quest. Also could do without the needless run around ala Orzammar. Redcliffe is what I think the aim should be, the pacing for that whole quest chain was the best this series has had so far.


Dialogue: I saw the above poster talk about a compass, but like they said, the conversations don't branch, so that many choices is pointless. Personally I want them to stick to what was done in DA2, the companion options, the special options and the focus on tone, because really that's all that matters. No matter what you say, you end back p in the same spot, so its just a matter of how you say it.


Party: I loved what was done with the party in DA2. They were far more fleshed out than they were in Origins and the affect the PC had on their personality i.e. Isabela was far more organic. I don't want that static one line of control like in Origins. I loved that your overall relationship with them mattered more than just saying the right thing at the right time.


A fleshed out personality vs being an archetype. That is where Origins comes up short, the archetype supercedes the character personality. Its like Morrigan, she is cold and calculating, if the Warden did something calculating, but it was also good, she didn't like it. That didn't happen as much in DA2, Isabela is selfish but at the same time, there are things she wont just look the other way on. The "selfish character" type didn't dictate her entire character. I want to see more of that.


I want to see them keep the individual looks, weapon styles and unique trees. I friendship/rival system back, I enjoyed that. But what I would love to see added is one, you can move along the meter for major decisions, whether a party member is there or not. If I free 50 blood mages for the lulz, even if Fenris isn't there, I would expect he wouldn't like it. Also I would love to see a talent tree at the end of friend or rival meter, Instead of just a passive skill. i.e. Merrill learning Healing Spells for a friendship.


class/Specs: Personally I wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of the class system, but I know its not going to happen. So I would proposed that the specs become a major part of the character system. Going beyond the 4 powers of Origins certainly did do that, but there still isn't much separating a Blood Mage for a Spirit Healer, outside a few passive skills. What I would do is say when you create your character, you pick a spec and that makes up the bulk of your talent tree. Like you have 4 trees devoted to Blood Magic and 2 standard mage trees.


Combat: Not huge on the combat in this series, but I don't see it changing much. So I would rather stick closer to DA2, its better to look at and I enjoy the cross class combo over the spell combo.


Crafting: Its tricky, I wouldn't be opposed to making weapons and armor as the TC suggested. However, it can go overboard like it did in Origins. Its get to the point...where its pointless. If your making a bunch of stuff, there's no need to find a bunch of stuff and vice versa. So I would save crafting for special equipment. Instead of being able to make 150 different chestpiece, there are 10 sets of armor for each class that you can make. You can try to get it as early or as late as you want.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

[eroeru]

@Sepewrath
Though I don't quite agree on the characters of Origins, I also think the writing in this department was actually pretty much wonderful in DA2. + with all the other suggestions, aside from the combat, I can very much agree on em.

Here's what I have in mind:

1. tone in dialogue
2. spec-unique ability(and talent-)-trees
3. more lenghty, though not tedious quest-lines (the only things that make a quest tedious are the lack of impact of the player and repetition imo)
4. crafting for special items - but only when complemented with a cool in-depth talent tree (smithing etc) - talents like that could give other bonuses as well - even to the point that Smithing gives extra Strength and Dexterity - not much though
5. attribute points seem a bit inflated nowadays - they could lean more on the more classic D&D systems - then there'd be lore to it and every point and improvement could be felt significant
6. Combat where enemies are formidable and have little special weaknesses - both in placement and respectful abilities

Though I know - some of these things are not going to happen in this extent.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

RE: Smithing & Crafting - that's easy. Essential to the crafting process is the Item's Design Component. Limit the available designs to a group of baseline, non special equipment and some high quality, unique perhaps even plot relevant equipment and away you go.

I guess the closest equivalent to that kind of system would be the Witcher 2 crafting system. It's even less complex than that because the Components are Creatable (through Item Breakdown) rather than having to gather specific items.

On that note, I think the "monster learning" system they employed in the Witcher games would be very good for Dragon Age games.

Reading certain books/Codex entries and tackling creatures in particular ways could unlock some Innate Talents, helping you face those enemies in future confrontations.

Like say, reading Codex entries about certain Dire Wolves in the area and killing a few packs via Traps and taking out the Alpha Male should unlock some Innate Talent that increases Trap damage against Wolves, or maybe spots them earlier on the minimap. Or something.

Hell, imagine if you did that with certain NPC factions too. You could actually try and roleplay as a "Specialist Mage Hunter" and get associated perks for finding (and reading) books/Codex entries on Mages (and their weaknesses), then exploiting those weaknesses in combat, like using Silence Talents.

....


Mang, I gotta stop thinking of ideas. I'm trying to condense them into a single post, not just type in whatever comes to mind...

Modifié par mrcrusty, 06 novembre 2011 - 10:05 .

[eroeru]

I'm not going to help you with the condensed post - and will try with the opposite

About the reading of Codex entries - in the outline you gave, it'd be too much similar to the Witcher I'd say... But I'd really like it if the Perk you receive is based on 1.) the amount of the creatures you've confronted AND 2.) reading about it - the former being even more important.

Edit: a really cool thing would be if the text contained some knowledge that is actually useful for confronting the creatures - tactics-wise. Though I really like the story-lore-driven Codex entries thus far - that shouldn't be compromised.

Modifié par eroeru, 06 novembre 2011 - 10:55 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I dunno. I guess that makes sense. But I really want to encourage a system where you'd be a) reading texts, books and Codex entries about creatures, factions or people as apart of the lore then be rewarded for exploiting weaknesses detailed or implied by those Codex entries.

So having any Innate Talents or perks to result from that would consist of first reading and then utilising certain tactics in combat that are logical matches. Traps on creatures, Silence on Mages, Debuffs on Arcane Warriors, Ranged Stealth Kills on Warriors, etc.

edit: lol.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 06 novembre 2011 - 10:59 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I would be interested in seeing a progression-through-experience type model for things like crafting, enchanting, potion making and maybe even dialogue options. For instance, instead of paying money to level up all my crafting tables and equipment and then magically being able to craft the most powerful/complex potion in the game, why not make it so that I can only unlock higher level potions (in this example) by creating and maybe even using lower level potions?

Same with a dialogue skill. Getting tons of XP from killing hordes of enemies lets me level up and gain experience... in being diplomatic? That doesn't seem logical.

Or maybe there could be multiple types of experience, like combat XP, dialogue/plot/character interaction XP (for those who like to max out every dialogue option and conversation thread and always use diplomacy instead of violence) and crafting/brewing/enchanting/sweater-knitting XP.

I admit my ideas are not as well crafted or polished as Mr.Crusty's. Thanks again for this thread, which has (so far) been helpful and not devolved into a name-calling match.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Modifié par CrustyBot, 14 novembre 2012 - 05:58 .

[Sepewrath]

Speaking of diplomacy, that's what I liked about Mass Effect 2. In ME1 it was your standard skill thing, plow a bunch of points in Charm, be a jerk the entire game and then you can charm someone? I much prefer things to be active, if your a jerk for the entire game, well in a situation where being a jerk would help, now it pays off. There was even a little of that in DA2, I by far prefer that over a stat system which supercedes player action. The actions of the player is the actual role playing. Toss in some class/spec/party based options and we got a winner on our hands.

I would like to see something like that for combat too. Yeah you could incorporate books, but I would like that to be more active as well. I wouldn't make it lean too heavily on plot choices, as it can lock people out of things. Of course its a balance, you don't want players grinding or spamming attacks to try and get some bonus or when it comes to the plot, metagaming i.e. picking side X because they were already building up their bonus magic resistance.

Basically a small thing, like say building fire resistance if you take several fire attacks. Nothing huge, so you wont go diving into fire attacks to get it, just an illusion that your moment to moment decisions are affecting your character. Your Berserker who takes huge amounts of damage is getting stronger, not simply because your putting points in Fortitude, but because their out there on the frontline taking the hits.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

That's already in the Innate Talents system (Gameplay Oriented Talents), I used an example of Stealthed Kills.

But in regards to diplomacy and/or dialog system, the problem is not in the statistics, but how the system is structured. My system is still based on stats, but there is continuity in how you approach situations, how people look at you and how all of that affects your chance at success.

If you were a jerk for the whole game, then it ought to be damn difficult to convince people by being nice. NPCs should treat you differently and it should alter your chance at success either numerically, or by the approach you need to take to accomplish your goal. Or both.

Dragon Age 2 has a little bit of this with it's Friendship/Rivalry system.

Alpha Protocol did this element really well, though.

Ideally, this would be reinforced through the character system, which is the other element which BioWare missed out on. Like having some Innate Talents carry penalties for tonally opposed dialog options, so being Nice and having a Reputation or habit for being Nice makes it harder to be a Convinciningly Intimidating, even if you try to dedicate yourself into learning how to be a Mean Jerk.

On the other hand, I doubt that would be a popular move since people don't like to be locked out of content. Which can get annoying sometimes. The essence of a meaningful choice lies in the quality of it's consequences.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 07 novembre 2011 - 04:04 .

[Foolsfolly]

mrcrusty wrote...

Agreed, but there are just too many cases where a check only for Attributes feels shoehorned. All well and good if BioWare had Intelligence, Wisdom and/or Charisma, you could just funnel a lot of the skill checks towards those Attributes. Pointing that the blacksmith's weapons are crap could be a matter of Intelligence. Gaining the help of NPCs by being honest could make you look Charismatic. But what is there, Strength and Cunning? Not really.

In those cases, you'd have to go to the Talent Trees in order to pick out what the check logically requires.

What I'm hoping for is a system that makes enough sense so as to encourage moving towards skill checks again.

I can understand the desire to bring in skills again. Perhaps not skill trees but that's likely just my fondness for the New Vegas like 1-100 skill point system.

RE: Smithing & Crafting - that's easy. Essential to the crafting process is the Item's Design Component. Limit the available designs to a group of baseline, non special equipment and some high quality, unique perhaps even plot relevant equipment and away you go.

I guess the closest equivalent to that kind of system would be the Witcher 2 crafting system. It's even less complex than that because the Components are Creatable (through Item Breakdown) rather than having to gather specific items.

Essentially you're saying you want a crafting system that works like a hybrid of The Witcher 2's and KOTOR 2's. You can breakdown things into components and then build them like you would in the Witcher 2.

Not bad. I liked the KOTOR2 crafting entirely because of its simplicity. (I liked Fallout 3's the best, there's something about making a railway gun and a deathclaw gauntlet or a Nuka grenade that's just so... nice) I felt The Witcher 2's crafting to be alright. There's almost always crafting material enough to go around... but I hated paying for crafting. I wished the Witcher would just craft his own gear and not have middle men I have to pay for it. Plus some of the craft this into that component to be used to craft this armor stuff got annoying.

But I like this. It's like the best of both games mixed into one.

On that note, I think the "monster learning" system they employed in the Witcher games would be very good for Dragon Age games.

Reading certain books/Codex entries and tackling creatures in particular ways could unlock some Innate Talents, helping you face those enemies in future confrontations.

I liked that about the Witcher 2 as well. It's in a few games where certain events would gift you with a nifty new passive or active ability. Origins had the blood powers in Soldier's Peak and Wynne got an aura spell from an encounter on the road.

I think tying them to the Codex would be a great little reward for collecting the codex entries. Hell Alpha Protocol had them give you special passives while also opening up certain dialogue trees with characters (although I tend to believe AP over-did the passives. By the end of the game you have like 30-50 passives.)

Ideally, this would be reinforced through the character system, which is the other element which BioWare missed out on. Like having some Innate Talents carry penalties for tonally opposed dialog options, so being Nice and having a Reputation or habit for being Nice makes it harder to be a Convinciningly Intimidating, even if you try to dedicate yourself into learning how to be a Mean Jerk.

On the other hand, I doubt that would be a popular move since people don't like to be locked out of content. Which can get annoying sometimes. The essence of a meaningful choice lies in the quality of it's consequences.

They would complain but I think it would be worth it for the roleplaying and replaying value it'd add to the game. And it's not exactly locked out content if the situation resolves regardless. I think of it as locked out as if "this can only be resolved ONE WAY and if you failed to have a high enough percentage in Diplomacy then you can't continue."

That's why I never really understood the whole complaining about certain personalities getting certain actions or choices (like Diplomatic characters peacefully resolving the Elf and Werewolf thing on the Coast). It has an end regardless of choice but if your Hawke is brutish or an insincere sarcastic ass then that Hawke's not going to quell an argument like that peacefully. You have to decide who you stand with here, the aggressors or the victim.

Again, I love your dialogue system ideas.

[Sepewrath]

mrcrusty wrote...
Ideally, this would be reinforced through the character system, which is the other element which BioWare missed out on. Like having some Innate Talents carry penalties for tonally opposed dialog options, so being Nice and having a Reputation or habit for being Nice makes it harder to be a Convinciningly Intimidating, even if you try to dedicate yourself into learning how to be a Mean Jerk.

If your doing it that way, then having a stat system is redundant. It kind of brings me to an interesting point on the view of stat systems in RPG's. Ultimately, you don't need them. People say a stat system is an RPG element, that definitely use to be the case in early games, but now you can differentiate characters looks, actions, ideals etc. That's where the real role playing comes in. What people don't seem to notice is, they actively make their stats match a pre-designed character choice.

They want Shepard to be a badass mofo, who intimidates everyone they meet. So they pump a bunch of points into intimidate and spend the whole game being a renegade. But in reality they could have spent the entire gaming being the nicest guy ever and still intimidated people whenever the red option showed up. That shows that the stats can exist in total contrast to the player action. So if you throw the stats out, Shepard could still be a renegade who intimidates everyone they meet.

Its the same for your idea, if you want to be the jerk, then you cant put points in the nice guy option. Its a waste of points with that system. So if you've decided to be the jerk, you have to spend points only on the jerk option. Its the same for the combat and class system. If you want to be the tank, you cant put a bunch of points in magic. Think about DAO, if you were SnS Warrior, your built to tank. No matter how much you use the crossbow, your gonna suck with it, because the stats contrast with your actions. If I had to guess, I would imagine that's why they got rid of DW and Archery for Warriors in DA2.

My idea system would be a mix of DA2, New Vegas and Skyrim. The friend/rival system, love it, apply to everyone. This is where NV comes in, the factions and area relationships, they can love me in Antiva, not so much Orlais. That love in Antiva will make them do me favors they might not otherwise do. I would think BW would make that system more organic than Obsidian though. Lastly Skyrim, you get better with weapons, simply because you use them. No more "I used the Crossbow for half the game, but I suck because my Dex isn't high." You can choose to be an expert with one weapon, good with two, decent with three or some kind sub average Jack of all trades.