25 réponses à ce sujet

[Amycus89]

...and persuade/bluff properly. Ha, got your attention with the title!

I would like to hear the thoughts from the rest of you how you think the persuade/bluff/intimidate system should be working in DA3.

In the past DA-games I feel that these systems has been quite poorly implemented, especially when looking at the older Bioware games. In DA:O we had it as a 4-graded skill that covered it all, persuade, bluff and intimidate all into one. I didn't like that system too much since it felt like once you had all 4 levels unlocked, you never had to worry about not being able to unlock any extra dialogue options. And considering that the "sacriface" of spending those non-combat related skill points, there was never any reason NOT to get them all.

In DA2, it was based on your dormant personality, and I didn't quite like that either, since you (as if you needed any more incentive to make us do this) just started to select the symbol belonging to the type of tone you needed to be able to do ONE of the 3 things.

Personally I think that the persuade/bluff/intimidate options should require some effort to get, but still be possible to have them all. So, I would suggest that we for DA3 add the 3 new categories persuade, bluff, and intimidate to the other stats like STR, DEX, CUN, VIT, and so on. That way we have the choice to make very diplomatically skilled characters, but in return we will also be weaker than we would have been if we put those skill points into STR for example. It's basically the system used in NWN.

Another alternative would be to do it like Jade empire, so when you for example increase your STR, your intimidation level increases as well. 

EDIT: I also think it would be great if we can still choose a persuade option, but fail and get a different response by that (so if your character is bad at bluffing, he will make an attempt, but won't be able to come up with something good, or be very convinving (should be fun to watch if the character is voiced)

Modifié par Amycus89, 16 avril 2012 - 06:49 .

[Cultist]

Should they will be implemented they must be linked to your attributes.

[Arthur Cousland]

It would be nice if warriors could intimidate, mages could use Jedi mind-tricks, and rogues could use their cunning to convince others to do what they want.

[TheShadowWolf911]

i agree with the Jedi Mind Trick for Mages.

especially if there are some INCREDIBLY SILLY options with it.

[Maria Caliban]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

It would be nice if warriors could intimidate, mages could use Jedi mind-tricks, and rogues could use their cunning to convince others to do what they want.

Not all of us play blood mages.

[AlexJK]

Am I the only one who doesn't like "unlockable" (via stats, whatever) Persuade/Intimidate options? They always seem cheap to me. For example in Mass Effect; when would you ever *not* use the blue/red option if it were available?

Dialogue should be about listening to what the character says, and choosing the most appropriate responses to advance the conversation in the way you want it to go. Look at the DX:Human Revolution conversation system for examples - I thought this was really well done. To me that's much more interesting than "my charisma is 20 so I win this conversation".

I like options based on skill choices as well - as mentioned above. Force Persuade in KOTOR. The only problem with this approach; once you've got the skill, why would you ever *not* use it? Of course in DA, some people have much more mental resistance than others, so mage's mind-control skills wouldn't necessarily be universal succeeds...

Modifié par AlexJK, 16 avril 2012 - 09:00 .

[Asch Lavigne]

I know DA and ME take from each other and that's a good and bad thing, but I really liked the renegade/paragon interrupts introduced in ME2 and would like to see something like that in DAIII.

[Maria Caliban]

I've always been a bit conflicted about [Persuade] Take this Option to Win. On one hand, I want to know when I dialogue option is due to skills I've invested in. I loved this in Fallout: New Vegas.



Almost every skill in the game - Science, Survival, Barter, Medicine - gave you conversation options, and sometimes attributes like Intelligence or Perception would do the same. Speech was useful, but it was usually one of several ways to get what you wanted. Not like Mass Effect where if you had enough Paragon points you'd win the conversation, but if you didn't have the points, you'd lose.

I also liked Dues Ex persuasion mini-game. Would also work well with the emphasis on digital actors and cinematics.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 16 avril 2012 - 09:30 .

[daniel_schold]

I agree with several of the above posters;dialogue in DA shouldn't be "I have the points in X, so I win". Although I would like to be able to complete tasks in different ways. Such as:
- fight (which has been the DA-way in many/most situations);
- solve the problem through the right dialogue choices, or;
- find my own solution (by finding a hidden item/path/something)...

even if this can't be implemented in every little quest, and the outcome/reward isn't radically different, it is a great to way to add an illusion of great choice, as well as give us players more agency.

[Dessalines]

You know I liked how if you had the right companion with you, then they can do the task for you. Like Varric could talk people of of things, or how Morrigan could persuade people too. Those are just two examples, but please keep that.

[PinkShoes]

It annoyed me you could only do something with which tone you picked it didnt make sense. I think it should be linked in with skills.

[Giltspur]

It depends.

class A
Medicine/Science/Survival/Alchemy/Poison/Blood Mage/Mage/Elf - These sorts of things are cool stat/class/race-linked dialogue options.

class B
Bluff/Charm/Intimidate/Reason/Insult: These sorts of things are cool to choose but not cool when they're linked to stats.

class B is not cool when linked to stats because it's just an artifact of old gaming.  What's cooler?  Getting a feel for what works on a character by talking to that character and seeing what sort of influence they're susceptible and then choosing (with a chance at success or failure depending on whether I take a good approach) or plunking points into a stat to make an I-win button?  I like the former. 

Here's a way of thinking about it.  Imagine there's a tactics stat.  And imagine I haven't put points into it.  So in a combat scenario I decide to target the healer before attacking the tank.  Only the healer is grayed-out and can't be targted because my tactics score is too low.   The game is like "LOL no.  Only a bad strategy is available to you."

It's the same way in conversation.  Tie the decisions to the game within the conversation itself.  Make the conversations like combat in that they rely on your skill as a player where possible and with "class B" conversation options, I think there's no need to rely on skill points as you can rely on what the game world provides instead.

Modifié par Giltspur, 16 avril 2012 - 06:03 .

[daniel_schold]

Giltspur wrote...

It depends.

class A
Medicine/Science/Survival/Alchemy/Poison/Blood Mage/Mage/Elf - These sorts of things are cool stat/class/race-linked dialogue options.

class B
Bluff/Charm/Intimidate/Reason/Insult: These sorts of things are cool to choose but not cool when they're linked to stats.

class B is not cool when linked to stats because it's just an artificat of old gaming.  What's cooler?  Getting a feel for what works on a character by talking to that character and seeing what sort of influence they're susceptible and then choosing (with a chance at success or failure depending on whether I take a good approach) or plunking points into a stat to make an I-win button?  I like the former. 

Here's a way of thinking about it.  Imagine there's a tactics stat.  And I imagine I haven't put points into it.  So in a combat scenario I decide to target the healer before attacking the tank.  Only the healer is grayed-out and can't be targted because my tactics score is too low.   The game is like "LOL no.  Only a bad strategy is available to you."

It's the same way in conversation.  Tie the decisions to the game within the conversation itself.  Make the conversations like combat in that they rely on your skill as a player where possible and with "class B" conversation options, I think there's no need to rely on skill points as you can rely on what the game world provides instead.

Well said, my good sir.

[Amycus89]

Personally I never thought that felt like a "I win-button", since it meant that you had to sacriface stat points into diplomatic skills in order to be good in conversation. Conversely, you were "rewarded" with better dialogue options by sacrifacing points that could otherwise have made you stronger on the battlefield. That's at least how it felt for me.

Judging from the posts so far, it seems however that I'm alone in that regard...

I will agree that fallout did a really good job in this area though, and could live with such a system as well.

[deuce985]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I've always been a bit conflicted about [Persuade] Take this Option to Win. On one hand, I want to know when I dialogue option is due to skills I've invested in. I loved this in Fallout: New Vegas.



Almost every skill in the game - Science, Survival, Barter, Medicine - gave you conversation options, and sometimes attributes like Intelligence or Perception would do the same. Speech was useful, but it was usually one of several ways to get what you wanted. Not like Mass Effect where if you had enough Paragon points you'd win the conversation, but if you didn't have the points, you'd lose.

I also liked Dues Ex persuasion mini-game. Would also work well with the emphasis on digital actors and cinematics.

Yea, wouldn't it be awesome if we could get this kind of dialogue in DA3 if we dropped our intelligence?

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par deuce985, 16 avril 2012 - 11:20 .

[Amycus89]

deuce985 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I've always been a bit conflicted about [Persuade] Take this Option to Win. On one hand, I want to know when I dialogue option is due to skills I've invested in. I loved this in Fallout: New Vegas.



Almost every skill in the game - Science, Survival, Barter, Medicine - gave you conversation options, and sometimes attributes like Intelligence or Perception would do the same. Speech was useful, but it was usually one of several ways to get what you wanted. Not like Mass Effect where if you had enough Paragon points you'd win the conversation, but if you didn't have the points, you'd lose.

I also liked Dues Ex persuasion mini-game. Would also work well with the emphasis on digital actors and cinematics.

Yea, wouldn't it be awesome if we could get this kind of dialogue in DA3 if we dropped our intelligence?

www.youtube.com/watch

OMG:O
I would love the conversation system like that. I would actually suddenly love a voiced protagonist if your own dialogue choices changed like that depending on your stats.

[MagmaSaiyan]

why not make it simpler, and make it a hidden talent, based on your lvl and how many time you use persuade or intimidate the more it will be successful

[BubbleDncr]

I think the important thing is that players need to know they succeeded/failed at doing something.

I've played through DA2 three times, and only today did I find out that you could intimidate/diplomacy people based off your dominant tone. If I ever succeeded at doing that, I have no knowledge of it, because I got no feedback that I can currently remember (and I don't ever remember talking my way out of a fight, and believe me, I tried. It'd my preferred way of doing things).

I feel like if there's 3 dialog options, and one of them has (Attack!) in parenthesis next to it, that implies the other 2 have a chance of getting you on a path to talk yourself out of it. The quest is, should if be up to the player's luck of picking the correct dialog option to start on the path of talking their way out? If you got a couple chances, I would say sure. Otherwise, since I'm the type of player that prefers to talk myself out of all fights, I would be annoyed if I missed my opportunity cos I picked the wrong dialog option (and we all know with paraphrasing, that's bound to happen).

At the same time, I understand the argument with having (persuade) and (intimidate) next to dialog options - because that always feel like its the choice you're supposed to take. But as a result, it make me feel like I actually succeeded at something, when I pass the persuasion check.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

The Neverwinter Nights 2 Trial of Ember sequence has always been where I wanted dialog skills to go in RPGs. I always felt that if developers had looked at that prototype and advanced the concept and somehow getting the process to be more dynamic (ala Deus Ex: HR).

[esper]

Giltspur wrote...

It depends.

class A
Medicine/Science/Survival/Alchemy/Poison/Blood Mage/Mage/Elf - These sorts of things are cool stat/class/race-linked dialogue options.

class B
Bluff/Charm/Intimidate/Reason/Insult: These sorts of things are cool to choose but not cool when they're linked to stats.

class B is not cool when linked to stats because it's just an artifact of old gaming.  What's cooler?  Getting a feel for what works on a character by talking to that character and seeing what sort of influence they're susceptible and then choosing (with a chance at success or failure depending on whether I take a good approach) or plunking points into a stat to make an I-win button?  I like the former. 

Here's a way of thinking about it.  Imagine there's a tactics stat.  And imagine I haven't put points into it.  So in a combat scenario I decide to target the healer before attacking the tank.  Only the healer is grayed-out and can't be targted because my tactics score is too low.   The game is like "LOL no.  Only a bad strategy is available to you."

It's the same way in conversation.  Tie the decisions to the game within the conversation itself.  Make the conversations like combat in that they rely on your skill as a player where possible and with "class B" conversation options, I think there's no need to rely on skill points as you can rely on what the game world provides instead.

This is very true.

[G00N3R7883]

I definately want to see the likes of persuade/bluff/intimidate be a factor in DA3. I'd like to see lots of ways to complete quests other than combat (where appropriate) and these dialogue options are certainly one possible alternate solution.

My preference would be for these to be skills that we can put points into when we level up. So we'd have the STR/CON/DEX/INT/WIS/CHA (or whatever the Dragon Age equivalents are now ... its been a while since I played ), we'd have the class specific skills (special attacks for warriors, spells for mages, lockpick/traps/stealth/etc for rogues) and then we'd have the "other" skills like crafting, bartering, etc -- and these dialogue skills would be included with the "other"s.

And then at level up we get a certain amount of points to put into each of the three categories (so I can pick for example, INT, a new spell, and persuade).

Crucially, when we're actually involved in the dialogue, and we decide to select one of these special dialogue choices, I would like there to be a chance of failure. For example, I don't like how in Mass Effect the paragon/renegade choices are colour coded - blue/red = ALWAYS succeeds, gray = you don't have enough points so we won't even let you try.

Selecting these dialogues should have an element of risk/chance ... because that's how real conversations always work. You don't always know exactly how the other person will react. I think I'd be okay with a percentage of success indicator beside the line (eg [Intimidate: 75% chance] Drop your weapon or I'll kill you where you stand), perhaps similar how its displayed on screen in Kingdoms of Amalur.

It would also be nice to see the odd special dialogue linked to STR/WIS or even your class, a bit like Fallout 3/NV ... but that would really be the icing on the cake. I don't want to be too greedy

Modifié par G00N3R7883, 18 avril 2012 - 03:37 .

[RonixisJK]

AlexJK wrote...

I like options based on skill choices as well - as mentioned above. Force Persuade in KOTOR. The only problem with this approach; once you've got the skill, why would you ever *not* use it? Of course in DA, some people have much more mental resistance than others, so mage's mind-control skills wouldn't necessarily be universal succeeds...

If you're trying to do that with blood magic, and it fails, whoever you're talking to should have a significant reaction. Probably either attacking you or running away.

[AlexJK]

RonixisJK wrote...

AlexJK wrote...

I like options based on skill choices as well - as mentioned above. Force Persuade in KOTOR. The only problem with this approach; once you've got the skill, why would you ever *not* use it? Of course in DA, some people have much more mental resistance than others, so mage's mind-control skills wouldn't necessarily be universal succeeds...

If you're trying to do that with blood magic, and it fails, whoever you're talking to should have a significant reaction. Probably either attacking you or running away.

Makes sense to me! Big risk carries a big payoff or fails catastrophically!

[Wozearly]

Giltspur wrote...

class B
Bluff/Charm/Intimidate/Reason/Insult: These sorts of things are cool to choose but not cool when they're linked to stats.

Getting a feel for what works on a character by talking to that character and seeing what sort of influence they're susceptible and then choosing (with a chance at success or failure depending on whether I take a good approach) or plunking points into a stat to make an I-win button?  I like the former. 

Make the conversations like combat in that they rely on your skill as a player where possible and with "class B" conversation options, I think there's no need to rely on skill points as you can rely on what the game world provides instead.

I agree with your class A list completely, but not class B (although clearly there are divided opinions on this).

Partly I like the idea that player skill is not the only thing that defines success - otherwise a skilled player's characters will always be experts at charming, intimidating, bluffing, etc. which makes poor sense from an RP perspective.

You could also argue they do reflect combat in a different way. You can't equip that massive sword because you don't have enough strength points. You can't intimidate your way out of that fight because you don't have enough strength points - sorry, matey, you're just not physically intimidating enough.

Alternatively (or additionally) you could link it to something a bit like the Paragon / Renegade approach, or the dominant tone (although this has flaws) which is more along the lines of "This guy seems very honest and genuine, can't put a finger on it, but I feel I can trust him" or "Jeez, this guy looks like he'd be willing to cut my throat at the slightest excuse. I'm not crossing him if I can help it".

I have no objection to removing the I-win button nature of threshold-based success chances in place of a random roll with modifiers (the more traditional RP mechanic), but not everyone is a fan of having a combination of luck and stat choice decide whether they succeed or fail.

However, I'm not fond of the jigsaw-puzzle approach of "Hey, this person looks easily intimidated, lets try intimidating him even though I'm rubbish at it - aha, I picked the 'right' option and he's done what I want". That's just exchanging one (arguably lazy) mechanic based on player decisions around stat choice for another (equally lazy) one about having to drop discernable (ie, obvious) clues as to the best way to handle a situation via dialogue / cinematic exposition. And that would get freaking old freaking fast if those types of dialogue options were as frequently available as they have been historically in the DA series.