98 réponses à ce sujet

[Cultist]

In Dragon Age, we have no option to "lose" a conversation.
If you played Witcher 2, then you remember the part where you can die if you chosen your words poorly; That is instant game over. In Dragon Age, we have no such situations and most dialogues will result in battle in which we can be defeated, but not instant Game Over situation.

Let's see how it works in Witcher 2:
You found yourself ambushed by dozens of elves. From now on you start a conversation.
Now, if you act like "Back off, you knife-eared degenerade scum!!!" they will visibly aim their bows at you and if you persist in acting agressively entire band will loose their patience along with arrows, killing you and your companions instantly.

So this is the RPG at its best - where you should actually read the dialogues and analyze the situation, not only bash awesome buttons. For example, we may have a battle of minds where we have to force opponent to lose concentration. Or distract him long enough for some event to happen. There are limitles potential here I think Dragon Age 3 should use.

Iunderstand that with dumbed down and primitive tools like dialogue whel and paraphrasing it is extremely difficult to create a complex dialogue with more than 2 "levels" of answers, but imagine our encounter with Blood Mage Idunna in Kirkwall's brothel where you should little by little shook off her control over you, instead of simply clicking star button.

Modifié par Cultist, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:02 .

[Wolfspawn]

Yeah, I just got reminded of Morinth's 'romance' in ME2.
For those of you who don't know, you die having sex with her. You decide to have sex with her, Insta-Die.

[Foolsfolly]

And then the game loads the last auto-save and you have to repeat the dialogue again. Or choose that you've 'beaten' the game by virtue of your character's death.

I'm all for getting less-optimal results from conversations but dying is stupid. And just forces the player to go through the whole conversation again only this time knowing the "Your mother" line is the "I lose" line.

[Cultist]

And if you die in battle you'll reload and try again, thus, we must remove all battles?

[Biotic Sage]

Cultist wrote...

And if you die in battle you'll reload and try again, thus, we must remove all battles?

I must say I was leaning in favor of his argument, but this is an excellent point.  Touche.

[Sable Rhapsody]

This reminds me of the L5R tabletop system, which focuses a lot more on what you say and often does have lethal consequences. It's interesting and dramatic, but it does get a little old when you have to always resist the urge to call some jerkass samurai out on his crap lest your head get lopped off.

I do think there should be negative consequences for saying stupid things, though. Sort of the opposite of a persuade option.

[Biotic Sage]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

This reminds me of the L5R tabletop system, which focuses a lot more on what you say and often does have lethal consequences. It's interesting and dramatic, but it does get a little old when you have to always resist the urge to call some jerkass samurai out on his crap lest your head get lopped off.

I do think there should be negative consequences for saying stupid things, though. Sort of the opposite of a persuade option.

Well you should just be aware of your situation.  If you are hopelessly outnumbered and surrounded, then you should know not to say, "Your mother!"  Unless you know for sure they need you alive.  This just adds to the roleplaying dynamic in my opinion.  Or if you are playing a riddle game with a sloth demon and the penalty for losing is death, for example, and you choose the incorrect response...well then RIP.

[Maria Caliban]

The PC spends eight hours on a message board arguing whether his world is 'dark' and 'mature' enough, and kills himself either to prove a point or to escape the mind-numbing tedium of it all.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:16 .

[Foolsfolly]

Cultist wrote...

And if you die in battle you'll reload and try again, thus, we must remove all battles?

It's a frustation issue. It adds nothing to the game other than offering a false choice. In battle if you die you've died for any number of reasons. Perhaps you haven't micro-managed enough, perhaps you didn't prioritize your enemies correctly (fighting minions instead of the Elite Blood Mage on the dais), and these challenges raise as you go through the game. You learn the system as you go and get better along with your character.

In this it's just those frustrating text-based games from the 80s that are neigh unplayable.

You find yourself at a crossway...

Go forward.

You slip on the flagstone and break your spine.

You find yourself at a crossway...

Go right.

You run into the minotaur. He breaks your body and uses your skull for a soup ladel.

You find yourself at a crossway...

Go left.

You come to a dark room...


It's just trial and error for trial and error's sake. If you die you know you'll never again use that choice and that at least one of the other choices is the correct choice. It also diminishes role-playing because what if I want my character to tell this guard that I'd teach his grandmother to suck eggs? The game should end until I tell him "Yes, it is a good afternoon, serah."

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:19 .

[Biotic Sage]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The PC spends eight hours on a message board arguing whether his world is 'dark' and 'mature' enough, and kills himself either to prove a point or to escape the mind-numbing tedium of it all.

If it were my PC it would be for the latter reason.

[Biotic Sage]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Cultist wrote...

And if you die in battle you'll reload and try again, thus, we must remove all battles?

It's a frustation issue. It adds nothing to the game other than offering a false choice. In battle if you die you've died for any number of reasons. Perhaps you haven't micro-managed enough, perhaps you didn't prioritize your enemies correctly (fighting minions instead of the Elite Blood Mage on the dais), and these challenges raise as you go through the game. You learn the system as you go and get better along with your character.

In this it's just those frustrating text-based games from the 80s that are neigh unplayable.

You find yourself at a crossway...

Go forward.

You slip on the flagstone and break your spine.

You find yourself at a crossway...

Go right.

You run into the minotaur. He breaks your body and uses your skull for a soup ladel.

Go left.

You come to a dark room...


It's just trial and error for trial and error's sake. If you die you know you'll never again use that choice and that at least one of the other choices is the correct choice. It also diminishes role-playing because what if I want my character to tell this guard that I'd teach his grandmother to suck eggs? The game should end until I tell him "Yes, it is a good afternoon, serah."

If the death triggers are arbitrary like that, then yes it is just trial and error.  However, if implemented properly, it doesn't have to be like that at all.  There should never be a situation where you are able to die as the result of telling someone to sod off in a normal conversation.  If, on the other hand, you have been physically bested by an opponent and he gives you the opportunity to apologize or be cut down, and you say "Sod off," at that point I think it's completely fair play on the game designer's part to allow you to be killed there.  Or in a situation like the riddle game with the sloth demon in DA:O.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Biotic Sage wrote...
Well you should just be aware of your situation.  If you are hopelessly outnumbered and surrounded, then you should know not to say, "Your mother!"  Unless you know for sure they need you alive.  This just adds to the roleplaying dynamic in my opinion.  Or if you are playing a riddle game with a sloth demon and the penalty for losing is death, for example, and you choose the incorrect response...well then RIP.

You could always just be roleplaying an idiot smartass.  DIE FOR THE RP INTEGRITY! 

[Foolsfolly]

Biotic Sage wrote...


If the death triggers are arbitrary like that, then yes it is just trial and error.  However, if implemented properly, it doesn't have to be like that at all.  There should never be a situation where you are able to die as the result of telling someone to sod off in a normal conversation.  If, on the other hand, you have been physically bested by an opponent and he gives you the opportunity to apologize or be cut down, and you say "Sod off," at that point I think it's completely fair play on the game designer's part to allow you to be killed there.  Or in a situation like the riddle game with the sloth demon in DA:O.

I'm all for less optimal consquences for my actions, including dialogue choices. Like if I tell some minor lord that he sleeps like the dead because his daughter was making so much noise last night that I was sure I'd be caught. There should be a consquence for that!

Of course there should. It's an RPG, after all.

But that consquence should be something like the noble making life harder on me either by hiring goons to kill me, raising the rates for all merchants in his town, or having his plot important friends treat me like the uncouth rogue that I am and refuse to help me secure some power broker later in the game.

Those are good consquences. But a line of dialogue that only exists to kill you and tell you "Never click this one again." Is just a button that you'll complain about and then never click on again.

[Biotic Sage]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...


If the death triggers are arbitrary like that, then yes it is just trial and error.  However, if implemented properly, it doesn't have to be like that at all.  There should never be a situation where you are able to die as the result of telling someone to sod off in a normal conversation.  If, on the other hand, you have been physically bested by an opponent and he gives you the opportunity to apologize or be cut down, and you say "Sod off," at that point I think it's completely fair play on the game designer's part to allow you to be killed there.  Or in a situation like the riddle game with the sloth demon in DA:O.

I'm all for less optimal consquences for my actions, including dialogue choices. Like if I tell some minor lord that he sleeps like the dead because his daughter was making so much noise last night that I was sure I'd be caught. There should be a consquence for that!

Of course there should. It's an RPG, after all.

But that consquence should be something like the noble making life harder on me either by hiring goons to kill me, raising the rates for all merchants in his town, or having his plot important friends treat me like the uncouth rogue that I am and refuse to help me secure some power broker later in the game.

Those are good consquences. But a line of dialogue that only exists to kill you and tell you "Never click this one again." Is just a button that you'll complain about and then never click on again.

So we disagree on situations where insults could lead to death, but what about situations like the riddle game?

[Icinix]

I don't mind having the odd place where you can die by dialogue choices, but I think it has to be handled really carefully so as not to force the player to choose a set path - there still needs to be ways for expression and handling of the situation within the confines.

..but yeah - taking a really dumb conversation option while someone has an arrow pointed at your face from a metre away deserves to be treated in death.

[Foolsfolly]

So we disagree on situations where insults could lead to death, but what about situations like the riddle game?

What like some gate guardian asks a riddle and vaporizes you if you say the wrong choice? Maybe. A touch old fashion RPG things aren't terrible. But in the land of internet video game riddles and problems have become very easy. Like back in the day for KOTOR I had to grab a sheet of paper and solve math problems or write down which part of the assassin droid's systems had to be shut down in which order to solve those things. Now I'd just hit up gamefaqs or the Dragon Age wikia.

I have nothing against dying for a riddle/puzzle or the game locking you out of whatever it is if you fail the riddle/puzzle. But neither do I have a deep desire to see those things in DA3.

[Cultist]

Foolsfolly wrote...
It's a frustation issue. It adds nothing to the game other than offering a false choice. In battle if you die you've died for any number of reasons. Perhaps you haven't micro-managed enough, perhaps you didn't prioritize your enemies correctly (fighting minions instead of the Elite Blood Mage on the dais), and these challenges raise as you go through the game. You learn the system as you go and get better along with your character.
It's just trial and error for trial and error's sake. If you die you know you'll never again use that choice and that at least one of the other choices is the correct choice. It also diminishes role-playing because what if I want my character to tell this guard that I'd teach his grandmother to suck eggs? The game should end until I tell him "Yes, it is a good afternoon, serah."

It's actually the same. battle is still trial and error. you failed when fought with minions - you reload and fight with elite blood mage.
Nevertheless, the conversation deaths should apply only to special situations, not common conversations. In Witcher - you are surrounded by dozen of skilled archers, all pointing arrown on you. With 3 paraphrases we hardly can do anything to make the dialogue thrilling, but with lots of optins it is possible to make it interesting.

[Little Princess Peach]

I would not like this it would drive me insane going over the options again and again so no

[Dagr88]

I'm not against such thing if there is a chance to survive it. How should I put it better...

Example: ONLY your Templar PC can survive the result of this usually fatal dessicion. (thus being able to get somewhere in time to...)

[septembervirgin]

Are we dying as a result of this conversation? Are words wraiths that sip the life from our fingers?

[deatharmonic]

The initial idea sounds good but I agree with foolsfolly. On subsequent play through's no one would pick that option, it becomes redundant because the second time round there's effectively one less option (because you know it leads to death). I wouldn't want that, I'd feel as though it narrows the dialogue options too much. I wouldn't mind if the penalty was less harsh than death, maybe the surrounding force takes you captive if you persist on being rude? Or you damage relations with the group of people the force belong to? Making later encounters difficult and extracting any info from these groups more challenging.

I'm all for added consequences to dialogue, but having certain options end in death I think just takes something away. I like to play games more than once and the death option becomes empty and redundant on subsequent play through's.

[TsaiMeLemoni]

The only way that would work effectively would be the first play-through, and they risk losing a few players due to frustration issues. The idea is an interesting one, but I don't think it has any actual traction.

[iSignIn]

RPG at its best, huh?

Then ME3 ending is the snow capped peak of BioWare's career. No matter which colored option you choose, you die.

Modifié par iSignIn, 02 octobre 2012 - 10:37 .

[Rylor Tormtor]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The PC spends eight hours on a message board arguing whether his world is 'dark' and 'mature' enough, and kills himself either to prove a point or to escape the mind-numbing tedium of it all.

Brilliant. 

As an aside, in KotOR, I did get myself killed the first time I played through the trial Manaan. I was like, 'Ya, I did it. I'm a Jedi," and the fishes were like "buh buh". And I died. True Story. 

[TsaiMeLemoni]

iSignIn wrote...

RPG at its best, huh?

Then ME3 ending is the snow capped peak of BioWare's career. No matter which colored option you choose, you die.

Except for the red one. Maybe.