184 réponses à ce sujet

[Dhiro]

Hmm, I'd prefer if the persuasion (and intimidations etc) checks were dialogue-based. As in: to convince a certain character, you need to choose nice, diplomatic options, while other character is more easily convinced if the PC talks to him in a direct, aggressive fashion.

IMO, I think it's more interesting than just raising your cunning and putting points in Coercion.

[Salaya]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

...

Do not agree here. While ME1 and ME2 sure required more effort indeed, that also railroaded you. To play a persuasive character of either kind, you'd really need to glue yourself to the upper right and bottom right corners respectively. This leads to pretty two dimensional characters, and at least I have never enjoyed playing those much.

The ME3 system is odd in that it ties to (essentially) quests completed instead of character actions. As long as your percentage of completion is high, you can talk yourself out of any situation in any way you like. The limitation isn't there, but I suppose at least you can always pick the choice that fits your character.

I like the DA2 system a lot because it's somewhere in between the two. Since it depends on your dominant tone and nothing else, you simply need to pick more of that one tone than the other two tones. You can have a spread of 34%/33%/33% - essentially being able to pick your options very freely yet retaining your dominant tone. If you did 34% Paragon / 33% Neutral / 33% Renegade in ME2, you'd never pass a paragon check - or renegade for that matter.

DA2 has three types of persuasion btw, DAO has two.

I completely agree with your opinions about ME coercion system. But my point is that in DA2 the "system" is irrelevant. It does not require any effort. The moment you acquire a personality, the "coercitive" lines pop up. And thats all. At least in ME you need to build your character more and more to grow your "skill" as a diplomat/baddass.

What I want is a system that has some gameplay weight. And in that regard, DA2 just adds nothing. You have three ways to coerce people, but not a single one has any true gameplay effort by the player.

As I said countless times, I never asked for Coercion as a skill exactly in the same way as Origins. What I want is a way to improve a skill as diplomacy that reflects later in the dialogue with some system that works nicely. Origins system is closer to that vision? Yes. But that does not mean I want the exact same thing again.

At any rate, I think it's necessary that some kind of non-combat skills should be put in the gameplay again (always with gameplay value, at the same level as combat skills).

[NRieh]

l with Hawke's personality dictating the persuasion chances and options.

What are you talking about? Can you point out any situation, where "diplo" works, but "angry" or "witty" fails and makes difference?

Yes, there are some moments, where only one of all choices brings peace and other - make you fight. Like after fight with the Keeper on a mountain. One option does bring you peace, but it has nothing to do with nature of your personality - it just how it is written. Same goes for "Varric-checks" - those are not depended on personality anyhow, they just..sheck for Varric.

Fenris agrees to let sister go regardless of your nature and stats (and I'm not even sure there is a friend\\rival check at this point - at least it is not mentioned in wiki and I did not fail it on both high friend and low rival).

I played "diplo" and "witty" style - the only difference is words that Hawke says, most of the times answers don't even change. It's same "customization" as hair, face and eyes color. It does NOT affect gameplay anyhow. Say A, B or C - and get same result. It also affects "autodialogue" style, and slightly changes romantic lines. But I'd dare not to talk about high "replay value" here.

If leaving DnD classics - I loved how it worked in ME1, you had to pick those skills instead of combat. If you needed them. Unless you play with 3rd time reimport which has all maxed.

s it cheapens(as in it takes the value away from, not that its cheesing) npc conversations/personalities.

You know, it's last thing to hear about a game, where romance is not even bound to affection in any reasonable way, and where such thing as "rivalmance" exists. I don't see how skill check can cheapen NPC personality (if there is anything valuable at all). Definetely that can not be more gamebreaking than 100% succesfull flirt(which also does NOT depend on personality type, by the way) .

[Medhia Nox]

What did anyone "win" in any Bioware game by taking the Coercion skill (or become the equivalent in another game).

The Coercion skill - and its like - is a choice by a gamer that says: "I want more dialogue options and I'm willing to build my guy toward that and not combat."

There's no dialogue you can't "win" in these games - just like there's no battle you can't win.

Do people also think difficulty levels should be removed? I think they "cheapen" the experience and there should only be one extremely difficult level of play.

Anyway - I'm pro Skills - and pro conversation skills in particular.

Especially in a game where they've already touted "Diplomacy" as an option to victory.

If you can get better at fighting - you can get better at talking.

YOUR ability to speak does not equal roleplay. Your ability to speak is the exact opposite of roleplaying a character.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 26 septembre 2012 - 05:47 .

[Kyle Kabanya]

I personally liked skills in origins because added more abilities without the cost of using combat points. However, Origins didn't have enough points, but as long as I can cheat to get more, then no problem. (Console)

I don't like playing a game and investing a bunch oftime only to be restricted because you only get a certain number of points, example Skyrim. If I play 40+ hours I want to feel like a god.

[burning salaradile]

It really should come back in some form different from the DA2 incarnation. I recall that I really did miss it during my playthrough of DA2 because the options for persuasion weren't particularly intuitive, or they didn't exist while playing as the wrong personality type. Why would it be that a snarky warrior with a massive two-handed sword would be unable to intimidate someone if they so desired?

[Overlord_Mephist]

s it cheapens(as in it takes the value away from, not that its cheesing) npc conversations/personalities.

You know, it's last thing to hear about a game, where romance is not even bound to affection in any reasonable way, and where such thing as "rivalmance" exists. I don't see how skill check can cheapen NPC personality (if there is anything valuable at all). Definetely that can not be more gamebreaking than 100% succesfull flirt(which also does NOT depend on personality type, by the way) .

Deflecting on a minor part of the game with no real consequence? Really?

Persuasion accomplished far too much in DA:O, (incoming levity, calm your("your"as in anyone getting riled up) hemorrhoids and proceed) they may as well have allowed you to persuade the archdemon to go away.

Modifié par Overlord_Mephist, 26 septembre 2012 - 09:06 .

[Arokel]

I actually preferred the DA2 system where it was your personality/companions/class were the deciding factors.

Modifié par Arokel, 26 septembre 2012 - 09:04 .

[The Night Haunter]

I would like a variety of Non-Combat skills, including coercion. In DA2 there was no effort, it was just if you were diplo you could convince Gaspard to betray the necromancer, if you were aggressive you could persuade the Tal-Vashot merc to help against the other Tal-Vashoth, etc...

In DAO you had to actively build your character toward being persuasive, by putting points into coercion that could have gone elsewhere.
It allowed you to force the seductress to relinquish Connor and still give you a buff.
You can Convince Ser Catherine into not fighting (which I like to do on honorable characters).
Etc....

In both games they allow you to do 'extra' stuff but in DA2 it all depends on your most used convo, which is silly because it isn't building a skill which what you are supposed to do in something claiming to be the BG successor.

Anyway, all the non-combat skills were cool, it allowed you to develop other aspects of your character. Want to be a trap maker and prep for each fight? Can do that. Want to stock up on potions? Can do that. Want to be a sneak-thief? Can do that too.

[Salaya]

I didn't expect so many divided opinions in this topic. I supposed that the majority would go for one option or the other..., but it seems is something somewhat controversial.

As for me, is one of this crucial things that would led me to buy or not to buy the game.

[Rovay]

Personally, I like DA2 way of how persuasion works a lot more then what we had in DAO. I always felt that putting skills into Persuade was essentialy turning on 'easy mode' when it came to dialogue. In DA2 it felt a lot more natural and realistic.

That said, these persuasion options were too rare, didn't carry as much impact as they could and sometimes didn't make much sense in given context (why exactly do I need to be continously angry, scowling and frowning to decide that Qunari are a threat that needs to be taken care of?). But still, Bioware got the gist of it. Now they just need to improve on it in my opinion.

As for other non-combat skills, then I agree. They should bring them back. Just don't add Coercion as one.

[milena87]

I don't know, it didn't feel like such a difficult choice in DAO: you upped your cunning at the very beginning and then put 4 points in coercion, your pc will have enough skill points anyway.

I think that DA2 added some variety in getting rid of coercion: I didn't miss it at all. Of course they could always find a better system, but I'd be fine with something similar to DA2.

[Forst1999]

Nrieh wrote...

l with Hawke's personality dictating the persuasion chances and options.

What are you talking about? Can you point out any situation, where "diplo" works, but "angry" or "witty" fails and makes difference?

 

Let's see...You can only convince the Dalish on the wounded cost to let the former Werewolf go as a diplomatic Hawke. Only a witty Hawke can successfully lie to Ser Karras in "Act of Mercy". Only an agrressive Hawke can threaten the Harbormaster's assissatant in "Finder's Keepers", only a witty Hawke can distract the guards in the same quest. Diplomatic and aggressive Hawkes can motivate the Guards in "Raiders on the Cliffs", witty Hawke can't. Only an agrressive Hakwe can side with Petrice. And an agressive Hawke can suggest to Velasco to kill Isabela (he doesn't do it, but you sshould see her face). There are probably some more, but apart from the last one (which is just pretty funny), they do make a difference.

[Salaya]

It was easy to obtain a persuasive character in DA Origins, yes. But its a lot easier to obtain a "persuasive" Hawke. And why I need to stick to a personality to have those diplomacy/intimidate/funny coercitive lines? The moment I have a defined personality, every aspect of obtaining coercion ends.

That the system of Origins wasn't perfect doesn't mean it couldn't be refined. With DA2 system, diplomacy becomes irrelevant. Diplomacy works only if the writer wants to (and the contray). I'm pretty sure there is a lot of room for improve the coercion as a skill, better than just stick an innocuous system that removes all the control from the player.

[AlanC9]

milena87 wrote...

I don't know, it didn't feel like such a difficult choice in DAO: you upped your cunning at the very beginning and then put 4 points in coercion, your pc will have enough skill points anyway.

Yeah, in DA:O the only reason to not make a persuasive character is RP. But at least you can do it. In ME3 I can't fail checks since the system works on Reputation, and since I'm pretty much a completionist all my Sheps have high scores. And then there's ME2, where the P/R system arbitrarily makes some characters persuasive and others not. And then there's DA2'

If these are the option I vote DA:O as least bad.

[Thibbledorf26]

I agree with the OP, I would like coercion type skills to come back. It would add more role-playing customisation.

[Killer3000ad]

Coercion skill? Nawww the COD crowd don't like the difficult story bits and listening and talking to people.

[Senya]

I love persuade options. They unlock a lot of choices that you wouldn't normally get. It also gives the player a chance to work for a good outcome using the right dialogue and selecting the right skills.

[mickey111]

Salaya wrote...

Dragon Age 2 got rid of skills, implementing a pretty poor coercion system (of course, I didn't like it, I'm not saying is bad per se). Personally, I would be very grateful if you bring back all the skills, but my biggest concern is coercion. Is there any possibility to see it back again for DA3?

All I want is a system that makes me feel I invested some work on it; with Origins, you have to take decisions. Investing in coercion implies a renounce in other areas, as combat training or traps. Some modern games considered great successes, have implemented coercion abilties with ease (I'm thinking of Deus Ex: HR).

Why every part of growing the characters needs to be about combat abilties? Diplomacy, intimidating and such things, as part of the exp-point spending system, becomes very enjoyable precisely because as an option, it slows or directly hurts the main character combat expertise.

Is there anyone else who missed coercion and diplomacy?

If classic RPGs such as BG, DA:O, PS:T etc did anything wrong it was the whole coercian system in general. I believe that these games just added up your stats to determine whether or not you, the player, were entitled to what is usually the ideal quest resolution. In short, they treated coercian as a type of "win" button, and that's just ****. It's not fun at all, and it's incredibly cheap and lazy design.

Games like Alpha Protocol and Human revolution, believe it or not, actually did coercian way better than the classics like PS:T and BGII. In HR, coercian was interactive, which is how a persuade system should be, because we play games for interaction, not some damned win button dependent on stats. In both games, it was absolutely neccessary for you as a player to learn about the person you wanted to persuade. You had to learn what their role in the game was, their likes, dislikes strengths and weaknesses and their personality type. You have to factor in all of these details when given the choice of how you interact with them.

THAT, is what a good coercian system should be. None of this "hmm, I see that you xx points in stength, and xx points in wisdom, so I'll allow you to rough the NPC up a little to intimidate the information out of them and tag the option as [intimidate] for you. Hell, I'll even color code it for you (as is the case in games such as bloodline and DAO).". Human Revolution and Alpha Protocol was just so superior to the classics in that regard. No hand holding, no rail roading to some renegade/paragon type of system which is utter bs to begin with, and these games I believe both had their their own unique bvenefits to pissing people off too, instead of just actively encouraging the player to stay on everybodies good side all of the time.

Modifié par mickey111, 14 avril 2013 - 02:35 .

[GithCheater]

mickey111 wrote...

Salaya wrote...

Dragon Age 2 got rid of skills, implementing a pretty poor coercion system (of course, I didn't like it, I'm not saying is bad per se). Personally, I would be very grateful if you bring back all the skills, but my biggest concern is coercion. Is there any possibility to see it back again for DA3?

All I want is a system that makes me feel I invested some work on it; with Origins, you have to take decisions. Investing in coercion implies a renounce in other areas, as combat training or traps. Some modern games considered great successes, have implemented coercion abilties with ease (I'm thinking of Deus Ex: HR).

Why every part of growing the characters needs to be about combat abilties? Diplomacy, intimidating and such things, as part of the exp-point spending system, becomes very enjoyable precisely because as an option, it slows or directly hurts the main character combat expertise.

Is there anyone else who missed coercion and diplomacy?

If classic RPGs such as BG, DA:O, PS:T etc did anything wrong it was the whole coercian system in general. I believe that these games just added up your stats to determine whether or not you, the player, were entitled to what is usually the ideal quest resolution. In short, they treated coercian as a type of "win" button, and that's just ****. It's not fun at all, and it's incredibly cheap and lazy design.

Human Revolution, believe it or not, actually did coercian way better than the classics like PS:T and BGII. In HR, coercian was interactive, which is how a persuade system should be, because we play games for interaction, not some damned win button dependent on stats.

Should a dumber than dirt PC with low cunning be able to consistently be persuasive?  Or should a 5 pound weakling be able to intimidate?

Modifié par GithCheater, 14 avril 2013 - 02:34 .

[mickey111]

GithCheater wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Salaya wrote...

Dragon Age 2 got rid of skills, implementing a pretty poor coercion system (of course, I didn't like it, I'm not saying is bad per se). Personally, I would be very grateful if you bring back all the skills, but my biggest concern is coercion. Is there any possibility to see it back again for DA3?

All I want is a system that makes me feel I invested some work on it; with Origins, you have to take decisions. Investing in coercion implies a renounce in other areas, as combat training or traps. Some modern games considered great successes, have implemented coercion abilties with ease (I'm thinking of Deus Ex: HR).

Why every part of growing the characters needs to be about combat abilties? Diplomacy, intimidating and such things, as part of the exp-point spending system, becomes very enjoyable precisely because as an option, it slows or directly hurts the main character combat expertise.

Is there anyone else who missed coercion and diplomacy?

If classic RPGs such as BG, DA:O, PS:T etc did anything wrong it was the whole coercian system in general. I believe that these games just added up your stats to determine whether or not you, the player, were entitled to what is usually the ideal quest resolution. In short, they treated coercian as a type of "win" button, and that's just ****. It's not fun at all, and it's incredibly cheap and lazy design.

Human Revolution, believe it or not, actually did coercian way better than the classics like PS:T and BGII. In HR, coercian was interactive, which is how a persuade system should be, because we play games for interaction, not some damned win button dependent on stats.

Should a dumber than dirt PC with low cunning be able to consistently be persuasive?  Or should a 5 pound weakling be able to intimidate?

Should a dumber than dirt gamer be able to consistently be persuasive? Thewy can be, all they've got to do is invest in the persuasion skill and select the blue colored text. That's my point: stats (not all stats, but the ones related to persuasion definitely) are a load of crap.

Modifié par mickey111, 14 avril 2013 - 02:37 .

[GithCheater]

What about basing "persuasive" ability based on cunning similar to how finding traps in DA2 (every 10 points of cunning raising persuasive ability)?

Modifié par GithCheater, 14 avril 2013 - 02:45 .

[Boycott Bioware]

i like coercion game, DA:O make it simple, DA2 make it ridiculous. I really don't like the special dialogue option or the "star" option in DA2. Funny Hawke have a star option where he/she auto kill a Tevinter slaver in a cave, diplomatic Hawke have star option that he/she can lie to a group of Templars, it is so unrealistic.

Just because a character have certain personality doesn't mean that character always win in certain things.

Why not use KotOR style where we need Charisma point modifier AND Persuade points if we really want to be a diplomatic Revan? That is realistic

[andy6915]

Qistina wrote...

Funny Hawke have a star option where he/she auto kill a Tevinter slaver in a cave

Wrong. Being a rogue is the only thing that lets you do that. Personality has nothing to do with it.