66 réponses à ce sujet

[Kidd]

I think the persuasion system in DA2 is great (I even created a thread about it a few months after release), it just needs some transparency and to be used more often. Most times you can use persuasion, any form will fit the bill and thus all Hawkes have the same ability.

There's some great examples in this thread where only specific Hawkes are capable of doing certain things, which I think is just amazing. I don't want to be able to dump a few skill points into a "persuasion" skill and then be able to auto-win everything in the game, or anything of the like. Let me rejoice during subsequent playthroughs that I can now do things on my new character which I simply could not do before. It's very empowering and shows that the differences between your characters truly matter.

So basically, keep the system. Just use it more often, and rarely allow all types to resolve a situation their own way (though I don't think this needs to be done away with completely, of course). And of course, don't ever lock away a characters's ability to say "I approve of your agenda and want to side with you" behind persuasion skills - however, whether they believe you or not may indeed take some diplomacy. Deciding who to side with takes no parleying skill and should thus be open, but you do not get to join someone with reasons to be sceptical of your motivations for instance without some social cunning.

[RonixisJK]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

I think the persuasion system in DA2 is great (I even created a thread about it a few months after release), it just needs some transparency and to be used more often. Most times you can use persuasion, any form will fit the bill and thus all Hawkes have the same ability.

I agree. I'd like to know what Hawke's dominant personality is and how close the others are, to get a better sense of what's going on.

[the_one_54321]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...
I think the persuasion system in DA2 is great (I even created a thread about it a few months after release), it just needs some transparency and to be used more often. Most times you can use persuasion, any form will fit the bill and thus all Hawkes have the same ability.

There's some great examples in this thread where only specific Hawkes are capable of doing certain things, which I think is just amazing. I don't want to be able to dump a few skill points into a "persuasion" skill and then be able to auto-win everything in the game, or anything of the like. Let me rejoice during subsequent playthroughs that I can now do things on my new character which I simply could not do before. It's very empowering and shows that the differences between your characters truly matter.

This sounds awful. That's not character building, that's choosing between different premade characters.

I should be able to make any kind of character I want, and if I spend the progression points needed in the right places, he will still be persuasive in every version.

[LobselVith8]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

I think the persuasion system in DA2 is great (I even created a thread about it a few months after release), it just needs some transparency and to be used more often. Most times you can use persuasion, any form will fit the bill and thus all Hawkes have the same ability.

I don't think Hawke should be limited to siding with certain people, lying, or resolving disputes, simply based on how many times our protagonist has chosen diplomatic, sarcastic, or aggressive options. It makes for an artifical experience. No one person is entirely diplomatic, sarcastic, or aggressive. I prefer having the opportunity to resolve some situations through dialogue, as The Warden could accomplish in Origins (which is also possible for the protagonists in the Fallout series), rather than having to massacre everything in his path.

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

There's some great examples in this thread where only specific Hawkes are capable of doing certain things, which I think is just amazing. I don't want to be able to dump a few skill points into a "persuasion" skill and then be able to auto-win everything in the game, or anything of the like. Let me rejoice during subsequent playthroughs that I can now do things on my new character which I simply could not do before. It's very empowering and shows that the differences between your characters truly matter.

It's not "auto-win" for the protagonist to be able to use their intellect and resolve a situation through dialogue, rather than having to hack and slash their way to victory every time. Being limited in having a diplomatic, sarcastic, or aggressive personality also makes choices feel artifical (for me, at least). I would rather have the freedom for my protagonist to say what I want, without feeling that my character will be hampered into one specific personality set as a consequence.

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

So basically, keep the system. Just use it more often, and rarely allow all types to resolve a situation their own way (though I don't think this needs to be done away with completely, of course). And of course, don't ever lock away a characters's ability to say "I approve of your agenda and want to side with you" behind persuasion skills - however, whether they believe you or not may indeed take some diplomacy. Deciding who to side with takes no parleying skill and should thus be open, but you do not get to join someone with reasons to be sceptical of your motivations for instance without some social cunning.

While I agree that people shouldn't be prevented from siding with certain groups due to their personality, I'm not a fan of the system employed in Dragon Age II. I don't think pigeon-holding a protagonist into a diplomatic, sarcastic, or aggressive personality should be kept.

[aries1001]

See, I didn't know what Allan is saying now either, although having heard rumours about this before playing the game, I did the same as someone in the ME games did (dismissed that claim). I seem also to have read, either on the dragon age wiki or here that persuasion in DA2 is tied to your intelligence ability? or something like that? Or at least a skill of something...don't remember what is was, though.

Is there a way that this could be made clear to the player? that if you pick the diplomatic route, you'll be better at dealing with things diplomatically? On a sidenote that jjust occured to me, isn't thid the way things are done in say Skyrim or Oblivion, the more you use you abilities in a specifik way, the better you get at using them in that specific way? And does this way of thinking - or gaming - really belong in Bioware's games, which uptill now has been stat, ability and skillbased...?

[darrylzero]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I know DA2 did it differently where it depended on the stance that your Hawke took, rather than an explicit skill.

For example: a Hawke known for being diplomatic/sarcastic would fail the attempt to bully someone into giving information (aggressive stance), but if your Hawke's persona was aggressive, it would work. Unfortunately I don't know how prevalent this is throughout the game, but it does seem like it's not all that well known. Actually in my experience many of my friends didn't even realize that Hawke would take on different personas depending on which conversation lines you tended to pick.

This is a little counter-intuitive to me.  If I'm known for usually being glib, mightn't my deviation from that pattern be indication that I'm really serious (and therefore more dangerous than usual)?  I think intimidation checks could reasonably be based on level and reputation -- level shows your capacity to follow through on your threat, but if you're seen as a goody-goody people will think you're soft.  Contrarily, maintaining a good reputation (even if you're a relatively nefarious character underneath), might help your persuade checks.  I think that could lead to some interesting choices that players would have to make. 

There's a clear analog in the Renegade/Paragon thing in ME, but what's a little weird about ME is that your levels of Renegade/Paragon points affect what you can say, not whether or not people will take you seriously.  I'd prefer dialogue options either be unlimited or be limited by something like intelligence or cunning or what have you.  Something like a reptutation or Renegade/Paragon meter should be reserved for how people react to your character.

Now, that obviously sounds like a lot of work, and I seem to remember that you guys haven't been interested in reputation systems lately, but it's a thought.  In any case, the idea that because I'm direct and to the point most of the time I can't smooth talk my way past a guard (or sarcastic all the time and therefore can't intimidate anyone)...  I don't know, something feels a little mismatched there.  I can kind of see reality poking through, but not enough for me to feel comfortable with idea that seemingly unrelated personality choices dictate my ability to avoid violent encounters.

I would love to add more additional mechanics in terms of blackmail, forgery, calling in favors, and the like -- story-based ways to have the upper hand and manipulate.  Also a lot of work, I know, but I enjoy that stuff a lot more than combat.  So, I probably won't be catered to, and I get that, but I definitely won't be if I don't say anything about it.  So, there it is. 

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I do agree that non-violent means of circumventing foes helps provide a varied and interesting game experience though.

For me personally, and I'm well aware I may be in the minority here, it's also a pretty big issue of staying in character.  I feel a little bit like a broken record on this subject lately, but as I get older, it is more and more important to me to be able to imagine that my characters (particularly for the first half of a game or so, before they've really come into their own) don't trust their own ability to win fights.  They're not necessarily cowardly, though they might be, but because they don't assume they can win fights (in my head), they will try to avoid them wherever possible (unless there's some overriding moral or situational imperative). 

That's also partially related to morality and values.  I feel like killing people is a pretty big deal.  I'm not a pacifist, but I don't really want to do it (and thankfully, I've never really had to engage in real violence), and I suspect that even in a more violent, medieval/fantasy setting most people would feel the same.  That's not a call for less violence in games -- making tough choices about when to kill these imaginary people is part of the fun.  But I'd like them to be tough choices.  The waves of street gangs and apostates and Hawke killed made me feel a little sick.

The easiest way to appease me in this regard would be a good out-of-combat stealth mechanic, as that's the usual way I try to satisfy these feelings, but that's really just the tip of the iceberg.  Running away from people trying to attack me could also be pretty important.  The aforementioned forgery, blackmail, and use of political and personal favors really starts to add some texture.

Anyway, I know that's all tricky and potentially expensive and there are only so many zots and all that.  But I feel like these things are at the heart of role-playing, for me.  I would love to play a character who studiously avoided violence for the first third of the game, for primarily practical but also some ethical reasons.  If that were Hawke, though, he still might still have tried to assassinate Meredith in her sleep (and letting Fenris execute people by sticking his hand in their chest was really fun for me, when I was able to imagine that my character could countenance it).  So, it's not that these characters would necessarily be very moral; it's just that they're not interested in killing every bandit under the sun. 

Am I making any sense?  Anyway, I would really love parley options and any other non-violent ways to resolve or avoid conflicts you can squeeze into the game.  They would make me very, very happy.

Modifié par darrylzero, 20 avril 2012 - 11:40 .

[Withidread]

I liked the persuasion in DA2, and don't see any real reason to change it. A "speech" skill or other stat to be raised just makes me choose between story and gameplay.

You know what I like best about Fallout's speech skill? Using "player.setav" to make it completely irrelevant.

Also, one last thing... anytime someone uses the word "Parley" I can't help but picture Isabela doing horrible unspeakable things to Jack Sparrow.

[Absafraginlootly]

I really love the persuasion skill not just for the extra dialogue options/situations that open up when you take it, but also for the roleplay value of NOT taking it.

After I go through the game with my female silver tongued mage I can then make a warrior who tries his best to get what he sees as 'right' situation for everyone but mostly fails because he just doesn't have the ability to convince people.

All I have to do is invest in persuasion with the first character and not with the second and I get an entirely different experience, this is something I can't do with DA2.

The DA2 system is problematic if you don't just pick a tone and go with it. I tend to vary between tones depending on whats apropriate for the situation and on what the actual paraphrase sais, so I don't always know what my dominant tone is, and I may go back in forth between a couple. So how do I know that I'm better at being intimidating due to being aggressive dominant?

And I haven't made the decision that my character is intimidating the game has which is something I dislike, can't I make the roleplay decsion about whether my characters any good at persuading?

What's more I don't really get how tones should affect persuading abilities. Just because someone is often aggressive and or rude doesn't necesarily mean their more intimidating to, say, a bandit. If the bandit has no reason to think you are tough (no rep/doesn't no who you are) he might even find it hilarious.

Basically I prefer having some form of choosing, or at the very least being able to SEE, how persuasive I am or in what manner am I better at persuading. It's a little hard to roleplay a character I don't know the skills of.

[Eudaemonium]

I liked the system in DA2, but like many felt it needed a lot more transparency. I only knew what half the systems were because I followed the pre-release info. The game does a ****-poor job of actually explaining any of its systems beyond the simple 'state increases damage'.

What the game relaly needs is multiple ways to resolve situations. Maybe personality-type could be one, but others could be how you acted in previous quests, whether you have certain items, are above certain levels, etc. There are lots of ways it could work.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think having some type of system to capture how your previous decisions went could determine the success of a persuasion type skill.

For instance, if you had supported mages throughout DA2, then went to intimidate a blood mage to surrendering to the templars, that should be a low-outcome possibility. You've spent the entire game supporting mages, defining your character as being anti-Templar. Why should you all of a sudden be just as convincing when arguing the exact opposite outcome? Even if you've been aggressive, or diplomatic, etc. the whole game, arguing a complete opposite logic out of the blue should not be as easy as pressing a button.

This gets us into the very sticky situation of dialogue options, if you ask me. We all want more, with more options to say different things and have those dialogue options be impactful. But it starts being a little hard to manage from a development point of view if you have a way to say something, but with a variety of tones, then have a way of also using persuasion skills and then also have branching dialogue options and a ton of investigate prompts. It quickly turns the most basic of conversations into a long, thought out interaction.

Unless, of course, we reverted back from this now-sacred principle that every single NPC in the game (as well as the PC) has to be voiced. I understand for cinematic scenes and important characters, such as companions, being voiced. But does every single discussion really need to be more than text? I feel like it ties the hands of EA/Bioware without providing a huge return in gameplay value.

That being said, I would love to have more than just one "Persuasion" stat, like in DA:O. An entire branch, just like a combat specialty, for speech and dialogue skills would be phenomenal.

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I should be able to make any kind of character I want, and if I spend the progression points needed in the right places, he will still be persuasive in every version.

What we need is a better persuasion mechanism, not an "I Win!" button. Not to say that DX was amazing in this regard, but at least persuasion was an actual, active part of the game and not just "click win for best loot + dialogue!"

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
It's not "auto-win" for the protagonist to be able to use their intellect and resolve a situation through dialogue, rather than having to hack and slash their way to victory every time. Being limited in having a diplomatic, sarcastic, or aggressive personality also makes choices feel artifical (for me, at least). I would rather have the freedom for my protagonist to say what I want, without feeling that my character will be hampered into one specific personality set as a consequence.

The way Bioware games handle persuade (pick the dialogue option labelled [Persuade] and never fail  + get optimal result) it is an "I win! " button. That doesn't mean that Bioware is doing it right by switching to DA2's way of doing things, it does mean we should have a real persuasion system.

[Allan Schumacher]

The way Bioware games handle persuade (pick the dialogue option labelled [Persuade] and never fail + get optimal result) it is an "I win! " button. That doesn't mean that Bioware is doing it right by switching to DA2's way of doing things, it does mean we should have a real persuasion system.

This reminds me of Chris Avellone's critique of the way Bloodlines did their dialogue. On the one hand, it was creative and neat to see the different colored text, but on the other hand it really presented itself as being THE choice to make.

[Wulfram]

It might be interesting to have persuade options that appeared only if you'd constructed a good argument in the preceeding dialogue. Asked the right questions, made the right points and whatnot.

Though it would be difficult to fit with the tones. And might just result in everyone reloading the dialogue if they don't get a good outcome.

[Withidread]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The way Bioware games handle persuade (pick the dialogue option labelled [Persuade] and never fail + get optimal result) it is an "I win! " button. That doesn't mean that Bioware is doing it right by switching to DA2's way of doing things, it does mean we should have a real persuasion system.

This reminds me of Chris Avellone's critique of the way Bloodlines did their dialogue. On the one hand, it was creative and neat to see the different colored text, but on the other hand it really presented itself as being THE choice to make.

Did you ever play a Malkavian in that game? Can you imagine trying to play one WITHOUT the benefit of that colored text?

[Allan Schumacher]

Malkavians were amazing!

[In Exile]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
This reminds me of Chris Avellone's critique of the way Bloodlines did their dialogue. On the one hand, it was creative and neat to see the different colored text, but on the other hand it really presented itself as being THE choice to make.

I'm not a fan of the coloured text. I actually like the icons. I just think the way dialogue is conceptualized should change. Bioware's had a pretty significant commitment to a more developed (in relation to the game-world at large) protagonist. In DA:O it was origins. In DA2 (though it didn't work so well, IMO) it was the family. In ME3 it's Shepard's reaction to Earth's devastation.

I think that having more complex dialogue, or at least more complex interactions in dialogue that (like Deus Ex: HR) turn dialogue into gameplay is the natural evolution for Biwoare.

Right now, it's hard get a non-RPG group into RPGs because dialogue is often a "pick your cutscene" type situation, but it needn't be. It could be active (like HR).

[Maria Caliban]

The combination of color + font changes reminded me way too much of freshman poetry output.

One of my problems with every BioWare game since KotOR is that BioWare wants to put all its energy into complex combat systems while neglecting non-combat skills and systems.

[Wulfram]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The combination of color + font changes reminded me way too much of freshman poetry output.

One of my problems with every BioWare game since KotOR is that BioWare wants to put all its energy into complex combat systems while neglecting non-combat skills and systems.

Non-combat skills and systems tend to not work very well or make much sense.

Crafting is usually at least 2 of unbalanced, boring or silly.  Pickpocketing fits in stupidly with the rest of the story.  Persuade becomes obligatory for everyone to max out and turns into something closely resembling mind control.

So I think it's better to leave them out.  Let interaction between characters be governed by roleplaying not mechanics, and leave the crafting and thieving to the people who aren't busy saving the world

[Maria Caliban]

They worked well and make sense in Vampire: Bloodlines, Fallout, The Elder Scrolls, Knights of the Old Republic, The Witcher, and Deus Ex. They could work well and make sense in Dragon Age if BioWare focused on problem solving instead of killing stuff.

[Wulfram]

Maria Caliban wrote...

They worked well and make sense in ... Fallout, The Elder Scrolls, Knights of the Old Republic, The Witcher...

No, they didn't.

[Maria Caliban]

They worked very well and made sense in Vampire: Bloodlines and Deus Ex. They could work well and make sense in Dragon Age if BioWare focused on problem solving instead of killing stuff.

While I'm at it, how does Smithing not work well and make sense in TES, Stealth not work well and make sense in Fallout, and Computer Use not work well and make sense in Knights?

[Wulfram]

I can't comment on V:B and Deus Ex because I haven't played them.

The world is about to be eaten by Dragons! And only I can stop them! This seems like a great time to learn how to smith my weapons. Of course, after a few days I can make them far better than anyone who actually makes smithing their profession. Though Skyrim gets a certain amount of a pass because you're supposed to ignore the main plot.

Stealth is a combat skill. When used as something else, it's incredibly tedious in RPGs because it relies on skill rolls and little else. And it fits not at all with Party RPGs.

Computer Use was harmless, I guess. Though it's fairly pointless, apart from giving you some slight reason not to use an all Jedi party.

[Brockololly]

In Exile wrote...
I'm not a fan of the coloured text. I actually like the icons. I just think the way dialogue is conceptualized should change. Bioware's had a pretty significant commitment to a more developed (in relation to the game-world at large) protagonist. In DA:O it was origins. In DA2 (though it didn't work so well, IMO) it was the family. In ME3 it's Shepard's reaction to Earth's devastation.

I think that having more complex dialogue, or at least more complex interactions in dialogue that (like Deus Ex: HR) turn dialogue into gameplay is the natural evolution for Biwoare.

Right now, it's hard get a non-RPG group into RPGs because dialogue is often a "pick your cutscene" type situation, but it needn't be. It could be active (like HR).

Some snippets from various Chris Avellone interviews on the topic of RPG dialogue:

Here- Talking about AP's dialogue:

Chris Avellone: When you see a  Speech skill in a role-playing game, it's usually the "correct"  response. That's not much of a choice. So we made the "speech skill"  based on actions you take in the game world including research, paying  attention to cues in the dialogue, your attitude when speaking to  someone, the amount of Intel you've gathered or purchased, and how you  treat other people - not just the person you're talking to. We want you  to act the way you want when choosing a stance or action, not have a  skill point you to the "best" option.

In addition, dialogue in  Alpha Protocol is complicated in that you don't always want to succeed  in a conventional speech check against someone. In the spy feel of the  game, there are many positive and negative repercussions to dealing with folks that pay off immediately (which is how players have been trained  with Speech) but also longer-term counterbalancing positive and negative repercussions (which do undermine how Speech skills are perceived). By  the end of the game, there isn't always a clear win when all's said and  done - just reactivity.

In short, the payoffs for a response or  behavior that would be typically defined by a short-term Speech skill  success are often "too soon to tell," both immediately and in missions  down the road.

Here- Recent interview with Avellone:

Conversation mechanics also bore me and frustrate me. I feel like  dialogues have been devolving as time goes on, and the idea of being  placed in a paralyzing face-to-face conversation with limited  interactivity doesn’t seem to be the way to move ahead with this system. I keep looking at shows like Sherlock for inspiration, or even mull over ways to implement interactions if you had to do it for Half-Life and keep the feel of the game, and I feel there’s a better way to do it without going the full-on cinematics route… no slam on that  presentation, but that’s BioWare’s territory, they’re masters at it, let them do it best, and the rest of us should find other ways to approach  it that might yield an equally cool system with less resources. I felt  we had a good system going on with Aliens that didn’t take you out of environment, and I did like the time pressure that Alpha Protocol provided because it fit the spy/24 genre (not my idea, that’s all Spitzley on programming and Mitsoda on design).

Next – dialogue morality bars tied to your character’s power with no  middle ground that gives you equal empowerment. It removes any interest  or awareness of the conversation beyond trying to hit the button that  says “choose Good side or Bad side.” When that happens, I feel like  you’re in danger of losing the RPG experience because you’re not  reacting like you would naturally based on the context of the situation, you’re “gaming” the system instead of role-playing it.

And here- from the recent Reddit AMA with Fargo and Avellone:

Do you prefer [Speech 76%] Hey, can I  get some more money? or [Has Speech 3] Hey, can I get some more money? for your Speech checks?



CFA: I prefer neither because Speech checks are insta-wins and don't require any thought to make them successful.

I prefer speech skills like "empathy" from Fallout 1 where it would tell you what the listener reaction would be, but that wouldn't tell you  whether it would actually help you with a quest goal or objective or not (sometimes you'd want someone to go hostile on you).

Or I should correct that - random chance isn't a good method either  because if the Speech Guy puts 95% into Speech and they fail the check,  it's not fair to their character build, imo.

Modifié par Brockololly, 22 avril 2012 - 03:08 .

[Withidread]

The biggest problem with persuasion or speech skills is that most of the time they force you to sacrifice combat upgrades for them. I'm sorry, but, my character shouldn't be weaker in a fight just so I can decide my own character's personality.