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.
If it were me, I'd put a cunning/willpower (both because there are different types of intelligence and persuasiveness; sheer confident determination counts for a lot as others can sense it in you) limit on the clever options--if you have enough cunning/willpower you can say it, and if you have the persuade skill then it will be labeled "persuade" whereas if you're relying on cunning/willpower alone, it's just not labeled and it's ambiguous enough that you have to think carefully about the particular NPC you're talking to. Then players with the base scores have a challenge to pick the right option if they want it, and those who have bad luck or poor instincts and don't want a challenge can just choose the Persuade skill and options.
I do like Avaraen's statements. The Landsmeet was brilliance, one of the most enjoyable parts of the game, but I actually wish that rogues had the option to go through it almost purely on their silver tongue rather than by quests alone; if nothing else, that you could visit the nobles you know will be important, which is the smart move politically, instead of seeing most of them only after you've stumbled across their respective quests. I like being able to cut to the heart of the matter and craft a sweeping argument that knocks an audience off their feet--to out-speech a politician with personal charm is extremely fun.
I only wish that if you'd been
really good, you could have persuaded Loghain himself to see reason without any need for a duel. It should've been a quite tricky feat, but that sort of verbal gymnastics feat in itself is often far more rewarding for me than a simple run around the room while my Dirty Fighting and healing poultices recharge. I know it's hard to do that and make it dramatic, but it can be done, particularly by a talented team of writers such as the ones who worked on this game--and it tends to be a nice change of options which makes you feel incredibly clever for finding that path by seeing past all the lesser arguments you could have made and choosing the ones that made the most sense.
I hated that you never got to address the heart of the matter. That you couldn't passionately rip Loghain a new one in the verbal sense after all you'd helplessly watched him do during the entire course of the game before that moment--and particularly that you couldn't say anything substantial to him when he comes up to you and Eamon, though the existing lines were good on both sides. I felt like after the reports of the Blight spreading, his resolve had to be breaking a bit already, and my cunning and persuade were all the way up there. It felt like it was more of a game limitation, like the real options were in other places that likely weren't as interesting to choose between anyway, and that broke immersion for me. I know it was a very difficult, complicated sequence, but considering its importance the fact that you couldn't talk serious business with the single most important NPC about the single most important matter in the entire game... throw a heaping dose of cold, hard reality straight in his face, and have the carefully constructed illusions fall apart or at least teeter precariously... it felt unrealistic to me.
When the player has been building up all these feelings of frustration and anger during the entire course of the game, watching this blind patriot go from hero to madman... when the protagonist her/himself has had many nights to spend falling asleep to the sound of everything he/she would say to Loghain if they ever met... that's a sort of literary momentum. That's something that you want to use because it is so,
so powerful. You can't underestimate the player's appreciation of your story--identifying what they've been wanting to say or express all this time is a huge key to making them feel like the arc completes in a satisfying, awesome way that provides a feeling of plot closure. And if the player, and by extension probably their character as well, has developed a sense of passionate disgust at the injustice and outrage and the horrible mess of lives lost because of one man's foolish paranoia... well, they probably have a lot of venting they want to do. To not let them fully do so is inevitably going to frustrate the player.
What makes you feel like your character can be interesting and truly relateable is if they have the chance to express emotion and have it make an impact. I wasn't really feeling that as much as I wanted to in DA, particularly in certain portions of the game. The protagonist ends up feeling like a flat character. I wish I knew how to say that and give you a real answer for what could be done to fix this in a way that is practical, but the best I can say is that even though you can't give the voiced characters a ton of dialogue, you could give the protagonist more zingers and more passionate lines to choose if they really want to say those things.
Sorry if I sound negative or whiny in this post, it's only because I loved the story, and the sheer force of that love only emphasizes the few things that truly bugged you. The contrast becomes all the more stark.
I don't need to argue
everything out... but for the really crucial stuff, I want to be able to. Otherwise, every time I replay that portion of the game I get really annoyed noticing all the things I felt I should be able to say and couldn't. I don't give a crap if I can't convince random bandit #32 to lay down his weapons and walk away, but Ser Cauthrien and Loghain...
The most interesting choice tends to be a choice not between, "I want
to fight/Let's not fight/I'm not sure yet," but rather a sub-option for
"Let's not fight" which sets you between several different possible
arguments. Then the player must size up the NPC and pick the option
that will catch the NPC's attention. But it has to be quite sharply
done, in a way that rewards the player for stopping a moment to think
about what they
really want to say to this particular bloke.
And if the other options are satisfying enough, you may not care that
you just provoked combat--you probably won't reload if you feel like
the NPC really asked for the outcome that occurred and you chose the
option your PC would want to say.
Personally, I got so annoyed at Ser Cauthrien's unreasonable attitude and arrogant demeanor that I just killed her and missed out on a portion of the game because of it. I think that entire sequence of the game could've been handled better... much like I think there ought to have been about 400 more darkspawn if you were going to be overwhelmed in the Tower, or at least 5 emissaries throwing disabling spells at you. Or, heck, maybe five ogres.
Lotta people loved PST and other heavy-dialogue games like the Fallouts. There was a reason, and I think it's worth pondering what that reason truly was. I think more than anything it wasn't the plethora of words, or even options, but rather, the sheer, beautiful
logic you could display to NPCs. You could poke holes in their personal bs and watch it crumble around them. You could implode bs. It was unbelievably satisfying, the kind of thing you dream about doing to jerk politicians or ignorant Fox News people you don't like.
From the most epic
end battle avoidance to the lowliest "You taught Curtis that life is cruel and unfair. You gain 100 experience points," quality persuade options are the best fun you can have with your clothes on.
Retour en haut
