154 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarevok Anchev]

dark-lauron wrote...

For me that lady is the Tamoko of the situation, Howe is Angelo and Loghain is Sarevok.
So... who does think that Loghain and Cauthrien do... ahem... sex?

What the F???

DONT YOU EVER AGAIN COMPARE ME WITH THAT DOUCHEBAG!!!

[JaegerBane]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

Yep, honorable my ***. She's just a toadie, a lickspittle, a yesman, a henchie, a no-good scumbag who follows every order given to her by you-know-who, no matter the cost.

Well said. Frankly I had more respect of Arl Howe, as despite the miserable excuse for a man he was, at least he was honest about his actions and didn't try to hide his greed and depravity as anything else than what it actually was.

Ser Cauthrien's whole attitude was pathetic. Sure, no problem, Loghain selling Ferelden citizens as slaves, allowing his pet loony to torture and kidnap whoever he wants - rather questionable, but ultimately needed to keep the country afloat.

But because Cailan was a bit naive and impetuous, he deserved to die. Stupid woman. My opinion of Leliana went even higher than it was previously when she decapitated the stupid cow. I only wish I had the chance to take her down the deep roads and let her be corrupted into a brood mother.

[keesio74]

JaegerBane wrote...


Well said. Frankly I had more respect of Arl Howe, as despite the miserable excuse for a man he was, at least he was honest about his actions and didn't try to hide his greed and depravity as anything else than what it actually was.

Howe is scum. I had no issues killing him. Cauthrien, I would have felt bad taking out (and I'm glad I didn't). Like I mentioned, she is fiercely loyal... actually the perfect soldier in the eyes of the army  -  take orders, ask no questions, follow chain of command.

Her character is a common one in movies and books. The loyal soldier torn between doing her duty or doing what's right. I'm glad she came around in the end.

I don't consider her blameless. She has crimes she must pay for (like Loghain, who I also felt a little bad for, but had killed). But I sympathize (and admire) with her just a little bit.

[Kyogen]

@keesio74: Kudos!

[The Angry One]

T0paze wrote...

Actually, Dragon Age doesn't (at least in most cases) have persuasion. It has hypnosis. You say something, and if your hypnosis skill is high enough, people will obey. It doesn't have anything to do with using strong arguments or cogent reasoning.

What we need is Mass Effect style red/blue text. 100% effective if it's available, guaranteed! 

e.g.

Me: You suck, and should die.

Saren: You're right. I suck, and should die. *BANG! * *thud*


Take that, persuasion!

[andybuiadh]

So I decided this time to let Cauthrien live (or attempt to as I've always been after her sword in the past and/or just wanted to kill her) so I tried the pursuade options. My God she's a cop-out. I don't think that this thread really does justice to how much of a toad she is.



Badly written in my opinion. I don't think this fight should have been optional.

[Taleroth]

The Angry One wrote...

T0paze wrote...

Actually, Dragon Age doesn't (at least in most cases) have persuasion. It has hypnosis. You say something, and if your hypnosis skill is high enough, people will obey. It doesn't have anything to do with using strong arguments or cogent reasoning.

What we need is Mass Effect style red/blue text. 100% effective if it's available, guaranteed! 

e.g.

Me: You suck, and should die.

Saren: You're right. I suck, and should die. *BANG! * *thud*


Take that, persuasion!

I don't know.  I think you made a good argument there.  He'd be a fool not to listen to that.

[David Gaider]

My take from this is that perhaps Persuade options should simply be taken out. Persuasion is intended to be abstracted a little, and not every line of reasoning spelled out -- but perhaps that is difficult to understand when you can otherwise say so much? Or perhaps you simply shouldn't get to indulge in long conversations with characters that you can Persuade. One of the two, really. I know the response is that you should have both -- long conversations AND Persuade options that are also long conversations, but that's not going to happen.



Thanks for the feedback.

[The Angry One]

Eh.. it's abstract in Mass Effect because.. well, all options are. Usually the dialog fleshes it out (except in the Saren example where the red dialog leads to exactly that).
I've never regarded the persuasion options in Dragon Age to be abstract, so much as I imagine it depends on the tone of voice you'd use, or the body language, or whatever (well that part *is* abstract but more in a roleplaying sense). So they're fine as they are.

Modifié par The Angry One, 22 décembre 2009 - 09:44 .

[Ulicus]

Ha. I tend to view every dialog option as abstract unless the words are literally quoted back at me by the person my character is speaking to... but I'm a little weird.

I suppose a simple "solution" would be along the lines of:
1. [Persuade So-And-So of Such-And-Such]
2. Okay, I surrender!
3. Let's fight!

Leaving the details up to the player's imagination and making the abstraction in "persuade cases" more overt. Though I imagine some folk would view that as a cop-out. *Shrug*

Edit: Or, if people preferred:
1. So-And-So, listen to me... [Persuade So-And-So of Such-And-Such]

(Not that there's much difference)

Modifié par Ulicus, 22 décembre 2009 - 10:10 .

[dan107]

David Gaider wrote...

My take from this is that perhaps Persuade options should simply be taken out. Persuasion is intended to be abstracted a little, and not every line of reasoning spelled out -- but perhaps that is difficult to understand when you can otherwise say so much? Or perhaps you simply shouldn't get to indulge in long conversations with characters that you can Persuade. One of the two, really. I know the response is that you should have both -- long conversations AND Persuade options that are also long conversations, but that's not going to happen.

Thanks for the feedback.

I think that a good way to do this would be to not have Pesuade options come up right away in the more involved conversations. You should have to argue with the character for a little bit initially, and only if you picked the right arguements should the Persuade option come up and determine whether you win or lose the arguement. A Persuade should be the final nail in the coffin at the end of a long conversation, not a way to essentially skip the conversation entirely.

[Avaraen]

David Gaider wrote...

My take from this is that perhaps Persuade options should simply be taken out. Persuasion is intended to be abstracted a little, and not every line of reasoning spelled out -- but perhaps that is difficult to understand when you can otherwise say so much? Or perhaps you simply shouldn't get to indulge in long conversations with characters that you can Persuade. One of the two, really. I know the response is that you should have both -- long conversations AND Persuade options that are also long conversations, but that's not going to happen.

Thanks for the feedback.

Persuasion is sort of like the Easy button in the Staples commercials; spend 4 skill points and always get what you want out of a conversation. I'd guess most players max out Coercion regardless of the character, simply to ensure they don't miss out on anything or get backed into a corner because they can't convince someone of their
sincerity. The only problem with this is taking Persuasion checks means we miss out on a lot of dialogue; it's like a fast-forward button to the end of the movie, without the interesting middle bits. No matter where you put the Persuasion check, it will always be a magic "I win" button for the argument (if the player has invested in Coercion as they go).

Ideally, persuasion-possible conversations would function similarly to the Landsmeet. The player's dialogue choices during a conversation add or subtract from their "argument" score; at the end of the conversation, the tally is made and the character has either succeeded or failed at convincing the NPC. There could be a secondary "threaten" counter for some conversations, that allows the player to select threatening responses - depending on the NPC, that might cause them to become hostile, or cause them to give in to the character's demands. That actually would make for more interesting and dynamic gameplay than putting Persuasion checks at the end of a long dialogue. Of course, that would also be a lot more work for the designers, so... yeah, I don't really expect to see anything like this implemented in a game any time soon, but it's a nice thought.

Modifié par Avaraen, 22 décembre 2009 - 11:41 .

[Mnemnosyne]

Avaraen wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

My take from this is that perhaps Persuade options should simply be taken out. Persuasion is intended to be abstracted a little, and not every line of reasoning spelled out -- but perhaps that is difficult to understand when you can otherwise say so much? Or perhaps you simply shouldn't get to indulge in long conversations with characters that you can Persuade. One of the two, really. I know the response is that you should have both -- long conversations AND Persuade options that are also long conversations, but that's not going to happen.

Thanks for the feedback.

Persuasion is sort of like the Easy button in the Staples commercials; spend 4 skill points and always get what you want out of a conversation. I'd guess most players max out Coercion regardless of the character, simply to ensure they don't miss out on anything or get backed into a corner because they can't convince someone of their
sincerity. The only problem with this is taking Persuasion checks means we miss out on a lot of dialogue; it's like a fast-forward button to the end of the movie, without the interesting middle bits. No matter where you put the Persuasion check, it will always be a magic "I win" button for the argument (if the player has invested in Coercion as they go).

Ideally, persuasion-possible conversations would function similarly to the Landsmeet. The player's dialogue choices during a conversation add or subtract from their "argument" score; at the end of the conversation, the tally is made and the character has either succeeded or failed at convincing the NPC. There could be a secondary "threaten" counter for some conversations, that allows the player to select threatening responses - depending on the NPC, that might cause them to become hostile, or cause them to give in to the character's demands. That actually would make for more interesting and dynamic gameplay than putting Persuasion checks at the end of a long dialogue. Of course, that would also be a lot more work for the designers, so... yeah, I don't really expect to see anything like this implemented in a game any time soon, but it's a nice thought.

The whole way the Landsmeet works does seem to be the best way for a persuasion dialogue to play out, I think.  With each choice you make during the dialogue influencing whether you win or lose the argument.  A persuade skill could then, for example, increase the effectiveness of beneficial dialogue options and reduce the harm of negative ones.  Imagine that each rank of persuade made your argument 15% more effective, so you essentially get 15% more 'argument points' per rank of persuade, so with a maxed skill you're gaining 160% points on beneficial arguments.  And it reduces the impact of harmful arguments by 5% so you're only losing 80% points on harmful ones.

[Thiefy]

I think that the whole point of persuasion and coercion is that two people can say exactly the say thing, yet the one person just has that 'something' that convinces you or sells something to you that the other person doesn't. The way that's given value in DAO is with cunning.



Unless I just royally confused myself somewhere.



It may seem bizarre that one line can change a person's view point on something so drastically, but I work retail. It happens. It's nothing new to me, and it's totally understandable from the game makers POV.

[tmp7704]

Koyasha wrote...

Ideally, persuasion-possible conversations would function similarly to the Landsmeet. The player's dialogue choices during a conversation add or subtract from their "argument" score; at the end of the conversation, the tally is made and the character has either succeeded or failed at convincing the NPC.

Given how many people never managed to realize how the Landsmeet works and the amount of complaints related to it, i'd be wary about calling it "ideal" way for conversations to work.

edit: Also, i don't think there's anything wrong with the "magic coercion" when people seem to be accepting the concept of "magic intimidation" without much struggle...

Modifié par tmp7704, 23 décembre 2009 - 01:40 .

[tmp7704]

David Gaider wrote...

My take from this is that perhaps Persuade options should simply be taken out. Persuasion is intended to be abstracted a little, and not every line of reasoning spelled out -- but perhaps that is difficult to understand when you can otherwise say so much?

I suspect it'd be fine if only Persuasion had in-game appearance like the Yammer skill from the Anachronox...

[Avaraen]

tmp7704 wrote...

Koyasha wrote...

Ideally, persuasion-possible conversations would function similarly to the Landsmeet. The player's dialogue choices during a conversation add or subtract from their "argument" score; at the end of the conversation, the tally is made and the character has either succeeded or failed at convincing the NPC.

Given how many people never managed to realize how the Landsmeet works and the amount of complaints related to it, i'd be wary about calling it "ideal" way for conversations to work.

edit: Also, i don't think there's anything wrong with the "magic coercion" when people seem to be accepting the concept of "magic intimidation" without much struggle...

Well, that was my post, not Koyasha's, so, I'll just say it's ideal based on what I would want from a game, so I have no hesitation about dubbing it "ideal".  If people understood the mechanics behind a Landsmeet-style "persuasion" system, they probably wouldn't find it so confusing. The reason Landsmeet is confusing is because there was no explanation for it - the mechanics behind it were completely opaque. If part of a game's advertised features include "dynamic conversations in which each player choice adds or detracts from their arguments, impacting the NPC's response", well, I imagine people would find that easy enough to understand. Or is your argument that even with an explanation, the system would be too confusing for the average gamer to grok?

[Estelindis]

David Gaider wrote...

My take from this is that perhaps Persuade options should simply be taken out. Persuasion is intended to be abstracted a little, and not every line of reasoning spelled out -- but perhaps that is difficult to understand when you can otherwise say so much? Or perhaps you simply shouldn't get to indulge in long conversations with characters that you can Persuade. One of the two, really. I know the response is that you should have both -- long conversations AND Persuade options that are also long conversations, but that's not going to happen.

Thanks for the feedback.

Actually, David, I got the impression that the opposite was being said.  And I don't think it would be especially difficult to insert a link to the Persuade node (the one that already exists) into all the explanation branches, so that you can elaborate your argument and then go for the clincher.  Really, why is that "not going to happen"?  I know a kitten dies every time a player says "but it wouldn't be that hard to implement," but... really!  I can't help but think that, when both the explanation and the persuade dialogue already exists, a few extra linkies would take care of the issues expressed here.  Sorry for any kitten death...

Modifié par Estelindis, 23 décembre 2009 - 02:10 .

[Mnemnosyne]

tmp7704 wrote...

Given how many people never managed to realize how the Landsmeet works and the amount of complaints related to it, i'd be wary about calling it "ideal" way for conversations to work.

edit: Also, i don't think there's anything wrong with the "magic coercion" when people seem to be accepting the concept of "magic intimidation" without much struggle...

The landsmeet is confusing and has a lot of complaints about it because it looks like each of the nobles is a vote, and you should just need a majority of votes to win, but it doesn't actually work like that.  It decides things in one way, but it looks like something entirely different, because you're never told anything else.

Intimidation is an entirely different beast than persuasion.  When you're persuading someone you're trying to convince them to see your point of view and change their opinion.  If you're intimidating them, well, you're just threatening to hurt or kill them if they don't do what you say, and the response is much more direct.  The only convincing you need to do is to convince them that you're serious about being willing and able to hurt them, and at that point it's up to them to either back down or stand up for themselves.  The guy that walks into a 7-Eleven and shoves a gun in the cashier's face doesn't need to have an in-depth conversation with the cashier about exactly why he should be given the money.

[Original182]

David Gaider wrote...

My take from this is that perhaps Persuade options should simply be taken out. Persuasion is intended to be abstracted a little, and not every line of reasoning spelled out -- but perhaps that is difficult to understand when you can otherwise say so much? Or perhaps you simply shouldn't get to indulge in long conversations with characters that you can Persuade. One of the two, really. I know the response is that you should have both -- long conversations AND Persuade options that are also long conversations, but that's not going to happen.

Thanks for the feedback.

But, it worked well for Planescape: Torment! The successful persuasion lines are the wordiest.

[David Gaider]

Estelindis wrote...
Actually, David, I got the impression that the opposite was being said.

There's a world of difference between what you say and why you say it. Most often I'm fairly certain if you got what you were actually asking for, you wouldn't enjoy it. Either that or what you're asking for just isn't feasible.

And I don't think it would be especially difficult to insert a link to the Persuade node (the one that already exists) into all the explanation branches, so that you can elaborate your argument and then go for the clincher.  Really, why is that "not going to happen"?  I know a kitten dies every time a player says "but it wouldn't be that hard to implement," but... really!  I can't help but think that, when both the explanation and the persuade dialogue already exists, a few extra linkies would take care of the issues expressed here.  Sorry for any kitten death...

Like this. Perhaps you people actually do think that you can simply heap dialogue upon dialogue and end up with Planescape Torment -- and that the end result wouldn't be an expectation of even more dialogue ("I got to explain my entire argument in thesis format in that one major dialogue, why can't I do it in this minor dialogue here?") -- but the difference between us is that I need to concern myself with cost and implementation and you do not. That's the "kitten death" you're referring to.

[AtreiyaN7]

She's Loghain's lieutenant pretty much, isn't she? She was serving him because she thought he was a hero, only I think it's pretty clear that she starts realizing that he's not the same person he was before when he orders the retreat at Ostagar (yes, she still follows his orders anyway). Before the Landsmeet thouigh, she will have a change of heart if you're persuasive enough and will ask you to stop Loghain at least.

[Original182]

David Gaider wrote...
Like this. Perhaps you people actually do think that you can simply heap dialogue upon dialogue and end up with Planescape Torment -- and that the end result wouldn't be an expectation of even more dialogue ("I got to explain my entire argument in thesis format in that one major dialogue, why can't I do it in this minor dialogue here?") -- but the difference between us is that I need to concern myself with cost and implementation and you do not. That's the "kitten death" you're referring to.

Hang on, we're not asking for a thesis. All we ask are long well-reasoned arguments as successful persuade checks. In Cauthrien's case, it may work nicely, and it sort of didn't make sense that the persuade option is the shortest compared to the other 3 unsuccessful conversation options. I mean, those long conversation options are already there, why the principle that a persuade option has to be short?

Something like Planescape: Torment surely isn't unreasonable. The game didn't bankrupt the company because you had to add longer "persuade" dialogues. And when you try to convince Vhailor that he is not living, surely it requires well reasoned arguments rather than a one-liner.

I'm saying now Planescape: Torment was a great game! Surely you wrote some part of it. Planescape: Torment should be living proof that wordy logical persuade options work. I don't understand where the cost and implementation is coming from. Dragon Age already had thousands and thousands of dialogue, adding longer persuade conversations surely won't hurt.

Modifié par Original182, 23 décembre 2009 - 02:40 .

[Estelindis]

David Gaider wrote...
the difference between us is that I need to concern myself with cost and implementation and you do not

Please, by all means, concern yourself with cost and implementation.  I just fail to see why the cost of some links would be especially huge.  Unless what you're saying is that the cost would be the expectation of being able to elaborate one's argument in every situation, and increased player disappointment when that didn't become possible.  But... in this situation... the Warden *can* elaborate her (or his) argument... and have it be less persuasive than a single line. 

Please forgive me if there's something major I'm missing here.  It just doesn't make sense to me.

And I'm sure you can't be saying that we can't make one thing too awesome or people would be disappointed when other things weren't as awesome, because then you'd never have any awesomeness in-game at all, and we all know that hasn't happened.  ;-) 

A second time, please do forgive my obtuseness.  I appreciate that amateur modding does not a dev make and I apologise for not being able to see things from your perspective without explanation.

EDIT: Okay, the answer below helps me a lot.  Thanks.  It's just that, in this case, it's not more dialogue that's being requested (at least, not by me).  I hope I am being clear.

Modifié par Estelindis, 23 décembre 2009 - 02:53 .

[David Gaider]

Original182 wrote...
I'm saying now Planescape: Torment was a great game! Surely you wrote some part of it. Planescape: Torment should be living proof that wordy logical persuade options work. I don't understand where the cost and implementation is coming from. Dragon Age already had thousands and thousands of dialogue, adding longer persuade conversations surely won't hurt.

I did not write any part of Planescape: Torment, no. Seeing as it was a game with no voice over (and a lot of narrative text) simply adding more text to that game didn't add much more cost outside of translation (if it was translated).

Adding longer persuade options can work in isolation, sure, but the difference comes in the expectations they generate. If the expectation is that persuade should only come about as a result of a long dialogue where you get options to explain your reasoning then there are two inevitable results:

1) Less persuade options.
2) Remove the persuade mechanic.

Either of these are workable, and #1 may certainly lead to more effective use of the persuade mechanic -- if we agree that the use of persuade does indeed require changing. But saying adding more dialogue "couldn't hurt" is exactly the kind of thinking I was talking about. Of course it hurts. And it's never simply one dialogue. Add it to Ser Cauthrien's dialogue and suddenly somewhere else will look deficient -- that's how it goes. So you mentally add more here and more there, more story on this part that isn't quite right and more dialogue to solve this problem and... suddenly we have a brilliant masterpiece or an unworkable mess of wordiness. Chances are you've got something inbetween, and either way the cost of it is going to have to come from somewhere else. All that mentally-added story and dialogue never results in any kind of negative for fans that don't need to concern themselves about such things.

Which is exactly my point. My words are probably wasted, however, which is why I should have just stopped at "Interesting. Thanks for the feedback!" and moved on from that.

Suffice it to say that I understand what you want. You want more and better. In this specific instance of Ser Cauthrien's dialogue I can certainly understand how that might be applied, for it to be more and better, but it's never quite that easy, is it?