216 réponses à ce sujet

[karushna5]

No please! I don't understand why people want no flirt option. I hate being ninjamanced, and that can't happen in DA2 because of clear parameters. Get rid of the other icons but please, me and my roommate were so relieved to get the hearts. Every game where you can play out a romance a ninjamance happens because I was nice.

ME1- Ashley, I felt terrible in that scene where I had to dump her for Liara when I never flirted with her, just was nice

DAO- Morrigan wants me in her tent despite I was gay and happily in love with Zevran. That made me surprised, and once again had to break up with her, which was awkward

ME2- Jack ninjamanced me, which I did not expect after telling her twice I was not interested in her like that but because I picked a nice line and had to lose her dialogue due to breaking up with her rather meanly.

I hate stumbling into these things and was overjoyed to see the flirt option in DA2. Please don't take it away or once again I will be stuck breaking up with someone because I accidentally flirted. And I know I would had to have done that with Fenris with "Let me teach you to read" being flirtacious and a couple others.

Please bioware they are incredibly useful. The people who think it is dumbed down have an interesting opinion, but don't sacrifice a great utility because it feels kiddie for some. It is the only sure way to avoid ninjamance and for one person I know not accidentally be gay. We love it. And please keep it.

[WotanAnubis]

Meh. DEHR's 'Conversation Battles' didn't do much for me. Either you won them or you lost them and that's that. The conversations themselves might have been interesting, but the concept was flawed.

Alpha Protocol's conversations were way better. You always got *something* out of them. It may not have been something you wanted, but at least you couldn't 'lose' (except for that one conversation with Marburg in Rome - you know the one). There was no 'right' way to do a conversation, and that's great.

Modifié par WotanAnubis, 28 juin 2012 - 07:40 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Meh. DEHR's 'Conversation Battles' didn't do much for me. Either you won them or you lost them and that's that. The conversations themselves might have been interesting, but the concept was flawed.

That's fair. The idea of a conversation battle where you read your character is likely what I found interesting about it. Doesn't mean it can't be iterated on and improved either!

Alpha Protocol's conversations were way better. You always got *something* out of them. It may not have been something you wanted, but at least you couldn't 'lose' (except for that one conversation with Marburg in Rome - you know the one). There was no 'right' way to do a conversation, and that's great.

As stated, the conversation system in that game blows me away. Even with the timer (which I know many did not care for).

[Firky]

I've said this before, and recently, but I accidentally slept with Merrill because the heart was in place of where the olive branch usually was, and I was rushing through dialogue. (It is possible that I may have pressed heart previously to get to that point, I'm not sure.)

But, I don't have a problem with the heart for flirt. Perhaps there should also be a .... (?) .... something for stuff other than flirt. Because, racing through or not, I wasn't expecting her to jump in the sack with me. Honestly.

PS. For Allan Schumacher. http://www.gog.com/e...s_of_ultima_1_2

Modifié par Firky, 28 juin 2012 - 07:57 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I did see that. I never did play the World of Ultima games

[Firky]

I've played Martian Dreams twice. It's amazing. I'm playing Savage Empire for the first time now, and I'm blown away by the ways I'm learning to interact with the world, through blind experimentation.

In an effort to link it to the topic, though. Something I've always missed from the old school RPGs and adventures is typing in key words, parsing etc. I miss dialogue systems that rely on observation and concentration. (Something I'm guilty of these days, because life is busy, is just skipping through quickly.) I'm also playing Resonance at the moment, which allows you to drag short term/long term memories onto people. It requires a similar thought process. I wonder if DA could have some kind of method by which you can use objects on people, so that also sparks a conversation. (Rather than it being signposted "Gift" or whatever.)

[Allan Schumacher]

I personally loved the switch to the mouse based system in Ultima VII from Ultima VI.

I found the guesswork to be as equally frustrating as it was entertaining. To be right about something was cool, but it typically resulted me trying that word with EVERYONE. And then having to type out that big word that I couldn't quite remember the spelling for? ARGH!

[Firky]

</3 Aw.

(Just kidding.)

In U7, it became more obvious to me how things were progressing because new dialogue options would be available if you'd investigated a murder, or whatever. In DA2, it felt like conversations were like a straight, one off event. I'd really like to see conversations which could be coloured by concurrent events - which order you'd done stuff in, relevant things you'd found. (More plot flags, I guess.)

[AmstradHero]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I guess what I was more saying is: "What if the heart icon was literally just an attempt to flirt?" Or is there a part of you that enjoys guessing which line is the actual flirt line?

In a word, yes. I like actually having to be able to work out how to romance a character rather than simply pick the "let's flirt" line.

Furthermore, the heart icon hamstrings the development of "organic" romances due to the inherent meta-information it provides the player. Due to player expectations, picking anything other than the heart will imply that they do not want to pursue a romance with the character, and picking the heart indicates that they do.

Even worse is that if the player picks the heart option and is rebuffed or rejected as a result of it, then they will feel cheated or misled by the meta-information provided by the game. The only way to get around it would to be to give the player multiple heart options, but that obviously would increase the dialogue requirements significantly so as to likely become infeasible.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
As stated, the conversation system in that game {Alpha Protocol} blows me away. Even with the timer (which I know many did not care for).

For me, the timer actually helps make the system. It forces the player to make tough, instant decisions and simultaneously keeps the conversation flowing like a normal conversation. The absence of long drawn out pauses where the player is allowed to contemplate their decision forever lacks the impact of that split second decision. The timer forced roleplaying upon the player rather than allowing players to meta-game their way to what they thought would be the "best" decision.

The romances here are a prime example of how to make things organic. The required tonal response varies depending upon the person you're talking to, as well as the particular point in the relationship you're at. For example, Mina Tang likes a professional approach most of the time, but does like and responds well to a little more flirting as the romance matures. The "optimal" path for love interests (or even gaining friendship from other characters) lies in a mix of tonal responses depending upon the immediate scenario. That makes the experience feel more genuine far more than any number of heart icons ever could.

Despite Alpha Protocol's flaws, it had some absolutely superb aspects, and the conversation system is arguably the cream of the crop. Any game that goes down its path will pretty much be a guaranteed purchase as far as I am concerned.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 juin 2012 - 08:25 .

[Cultist]

WotanAnubis wrote...

Meh. DEHR's 'Conversation Battles' didn't do much for me. Either you won them or you lost them and that's that. The conversations themselves might have been interesting, but the concept was flawed.

Alpha Protocol's conversations were way better. You always got *something* out of them. It may not have been something you wanted, but at least you couldn't 'lose' (except for that one conversation with Marburg in Rome - you know the one). There was no 'right' way to do a conversation, and that's great.

The biggest problem was that you have no control over what you say, that was made due to timer, as you can't read all the phrases before timer expired. To their credit - Alpha Protocol writers done a terrific job and not a single time I felt like "wtf, I never wanted to say that!" as all the lines perfectly fitted all descriptions, be it agressive, calm or joking etc.
For me, the ideal solution will be to mix Deus Ex "enchanted" dialogue wheel concept with Alpha protocol action-consequence approach, where almost every your phase and action have a consequences in the future and.
For instance - Alpha Protocol is one of the few games that made side information worth looking for. We got Codex that we can read and get a meager xp but that is all. AP put all that useless "Investigate" dialogue to use. made them influence the game, further dialogues, quests and combat situations. We hould learn from them.

Modifié par Cultist, 28 juin 2012 - 08:25 .

[Firky]

AmstradHero wrote...

I like actually having to be able to work out how to romance a character rather than simply pick the "let's flirt" line.

That's a good point, Amstrad.

For me, the DA2 system gets a bit tied up in intent, too. Like, if I'm actually asking Merrill to jump in the sack with me, I'd like to know I'm doing that. But, "click to flirt" does kind of remove the thrill of flirting. (That you are testing, romantically.)

[Allan Schumacher]

For me, the timer actually helps make the system. It forces the player to make tough, instant decisions and simultaneously keeps the conversation flowing like a normal conversation. The absence of long drawn out pauses where the player is allowed to contemplate their decision forever lacks the impact of that split second decision. The timer forced roleplaying upon the player rather than allowing players to meta-game their way to what they thought would be the "best" decision.

Preaching to the choir hahaha.

[FedericoV]

I do agree with the OP. Personally I would use Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines dialogue system where each option used a different font and color. The icon system give an impression of superficiality and stupidity even if the personality system running underneath was quite interesting and deep imho.

In general, voiced dialogues work best with fixed protagonists. If Bioware wants to keep using VO for the main charachter, he/she should be more of a Geralt/Sheppard and less of an Hawke/Thorton.  The "roleplay" with voiced charachters works best when is focused on choices and less on personalities/tone. At least they tried but It's allways the same problem with DA2 design: impossible compromises that cannot work.

Modifié par FedericoV, 28 juin 2012 - 09:09 .

[AkiKishi]

All of the speech system that people appear to like, or acknowlege as working well rely on having a fixed protagonist and allowing them to deal with the content while the player picks the "theme" of the conversation.

[Wulfram]

I felt a problem was that you rarely got the opportunity to choose how to flirt. Would have been better if you actually got to choose which line Hawke would say rather than it being at the mercy of the dominant tone system.

[AkiKishi]

FedericoV wrote...

I do agree with the OP. Personally I would use Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines dialogue system where each option used a different font and color. The icon system give an impression of superficiality and stupidity even if the personality system running underneath was quite interesting and deep imho.

In general, voiced dialogues work best with fixed protagonists. If Bioware wants to keep using VO for the main charachter, he/she should be more of a Geralt/Sheppard and less of an Hawke/Thorton.  The "roleplay" with voiced charachters works best when is focused on choices and less on personalities/tone. At least they tried but It's allways the same problem with DA2 design: impossible compromises that cannot work.

Did you mix those two up?

[Fredward]

I WAS going to come in here campaigning for icons but Amstrad's post changed my mind (actually I wasn't going to come in here at all since I've never really had a problem with any of the dialogue systems but... meh) so maybe Sylvius isn't so mad after all.

Though if we do lose the icons I'mma gonna need a full line of text from which to draw context. It can still be paraphrased, I don't mind, but I need a full line to at least know whether I'm being funny/mean/threatening. We'll keep the "suprise" element of conversation (which is more realistic imo, does a heart pop up next to your head when you want to flirt with someone? No? Good, LSD is bad kids.) and I'll be able to be sarcastic and charmingly witty in one conversation and a total douche-nozzle in another without feeling like I'm breaking my character's personality mold.

At least this is my interpretation of a no icon conversation system.

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 28 juin 2012 - 09:41 .

[TonberryFeye]

karushna5 wrote...

No please! I don't understand why people want no flirt option. I hate being ninjamanced, and that can't happen in DA2 because of clear parameters. Get rid of the other icons but please, me and my roommate were so relieved to get the hearts. Every game where you can play out a romance a ninjamance happens because I was nice.

Welcome to real life. I know people who I would very much like to be going out with, and have felt this way for years (and said as much more than once) and it never gets anywhere. The characters you mention are no different.

In fact, these "ninja romances" are part of why Origins was great, and DA2 was not.

In Origins, a romance (or at least a sexual encounter) could occur whenever the other guy/girl was interested. Whether or not you are interested is for you to decide, but that's life. Sometimes you ask your 'true love' out on a date and they shoot you down. Sometimes someone you don't care about confesses they think you're their soulmate.

DA2 annoyed the ever-loving hell out of me because romances felt so damn forced. "I'm sorry, but you can't be romantically involved with Fenris because you didn't pick the Luvvy-Duvvy conversation option the first time it came up!" Well I'm sorry, but I didn't have much of an opinion on the guy back then and I wasn't willing to shag a stranger!

The "romance" option in the dialog wheel is just... it's just terrible. I hated how it turns romances into a sidequest; something missable that can only be done when Bioware says so. Origins? Vastly superior. Yes, it was a little prone to abuse in that you could spend an hour chatting, throw some gifts their way and then either dive straight into bed or go do a sidequest first, but the point is that most people I know scored relationships slowly over time - the odd conversation here and there, questing with the character, giving the odd gift and then allowing the bond to form organically.

My current playthrough has me romantically involved with Alistair, despite the fact I set out with the mindset of "A Dwarf would never want to sleep with an Elf or Human." I didn't plan on that happening, but it would never have happened at all if Origins insisted on putting a giant pick loveheart on screen next to the "PICK THIS TO PLAY THE ROMANCE MINIGAME" text option.

[FedericoV]

BobSmith101 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

I do agree with the OP. Personally I would use Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines dialogue system where each option used a different font and color. The icon system give an impression of superficiality and stupidity even if the personality system running underneath was quite interesting and deep imho.

In general, voiced dialogues work best with fixed protagonists. If Bioware wants to keep using VO for the main charachter, he/she should be more of a Geralt/Sheppard and less of an Hawke/Thorton.  The "roleplay" with voiced charachters works best when is focused on choices and less on personalities/tone. At least they tried but It's allways the same problem with DA2 design: impossible compromises that cannot work.

Did you mix those two up?

No: I believe that Thorton is more of an open ended charachter than Sheppard. Sheppard has a defined personality. He has a wide range of choices to make but his eroic persona is quited fixed.

[Gebert]

I'd just like to throw my support in for a dialogue system similar to DE:HR, or at least being able to know exactly what you are going to say.

[Am1vf]

Gebert wrote...

I'd just like to throw my support in for a dialogue system similar to DE:HR, or at least being able to know exactly what you are going to say.

+1
And using Bood Magic as the CASIE implants.

[AmstradHero]

FedericoV wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
In general, voiced dialogues work best with fixed protagonists. If Bioware wants to keep using VO for the main charachter, he/she should be more of a Geralt/Sheppard and less of an Hawke/Thorton.  The "roleplay" with voiced charachters works best when is focused on choices and less on personalities/tone. At least they tried but It's allways the same problem with DA2 design: impossible compromises that cannot work.

Did you mix those two up?

No: I believe that Thorton is more of an open ended charachter than Sheppard. Sheppard has a defined personality. He has a wide range of choices to make but his eroic persona is quited fixed.

This is something you have to be very careful with. I really liked snarky Hawke, but understand some people hated her/him. There were definitely some that were groan worthy though.

I thought Thorton was a wonderfully douchebag hero, though had some truly horrendous "suave" lines. Ugh.

Shepard started off fantastic, and while typically maintained a good (not morally good) character, renegade Shepard became more of a flatout jerk rather than a "do-anything-for-the-cause" hero.

Geralt... ugh. I really cannot stand Geralt. No matter what you picked (I've only played Witcher 1, so can't comment on him in 2), he's a self-righteous sanctimonious jerk. I understand he's not a hero, but he's just so utterly unlikeable that I really could not sympathise with him at all. What's more was that he always did things for his reasons, not my reasons. As a roleplayer, the character decides what I'm doing, but I decide why I'm doing it. If I can't do the latter, then I may as well be playing a game entirely on rails with no dialogue options/choices.

[Wulfram]

TonberryFeye wrote...

DA2 annoyed the ever-loving hell out of me because romances felt so damn forced. "I'm sorry, but you can't be romantically involved with Fenris because you didn't pick the Luvvy-Duvvy conversation option the first time it came up!" Well I'm sorry, but I didn't have much of an opinion on the guy back then and I wasn't willing to shag a stranger!

There's usually multiple opportunities to pick a flirt option and start up a romance.  Pretty sure you don't have to flirt with Fenris in Act 1.

[Cultist]

AmstradHero wrote...
Geralt... ugh. I really cannot stand Geralt. No matter what you picked (I've only played Witcher 1, so can't comment on him in 2), he's a self-righteous sanctimonious jerk. I understand he's not a hero, but he's just so utterly unlikeable that I really could not sympathise with him at all. What's more was that he always did things for his reasons, not my reasons.

Wicher is different to AP or DA becasue the game is based on books with already described character, so all Geralt's dialogues and reactions was made to be similar to "book Geart"...and he was a self-righteous sanctimonious jerk. You can't make a game about Harry potter and make him act like a ruthless ****.

Modifié par Cultist, 28 juin 2012 - 11:37 .

[Cultist]

doublepost

Modifié par Cultist, 28 juin 2012 - 11:36 .