7 réponses à ce sujet

[Burnouts3s3]

 

I assume we're all familiar with the dialogue wheel. While, I am a bit disappointed that the developers decided to keep the Inquistor human for DA3, my real problem comes with the dialogue wheel in an attempt to create a familiar tool that every other game Bioware uses.

If I had to pick apart a fatal flaw, it is, in my opinion, the randomness of the persuasion system. Back in Dragon Age: Origins, I could invest points to either my cunning stat or my coercion skill in order to unlock the ability to get out of fights or tricky situations. Even in Mass Effect, I still had to invest points in order to unlock further Charm/Intimidate options and if I did not invest enough, the option would be grayed out and I could 'fail' a conversation check.

However, I felt that the persuasion system in DA2 was mishandled greatly. The only 2 ways I could pass a persuasion check in DA2 was: 1) use a branch of dialogue and 'hope' it would appear later in a conversation or 2) be lucky enough to have brought along the correct party member to help talk out a situation. Both times, I would have to reload and mix and match strategies to find out which path would be the best. While that seems like a good idea on paper, I much rather prefer the more conventional means of persuasion and have that be a catch-all situation with proper use of cunning stat. 

[Allan Schumacher]

In general I like the idea of having party members be a valid option if you have the correct party for the particular task, even if the execution could be improved upon (though frankly I don't see much issue with the execution TBH). It can be entertaining, and I think works well as long as the options are logical and frequent enough to contribute to the thought process of party make up.

[Allan Schumacher]

I really like the "conversation battles" in Human Revolution.

Although I think a system like this would innately limit the application of a coercion skill, since creating those is going to be more challenging/expensive, and at the same time having them happen too frequently could possibly get annoying as well?

[Allan Schumacher]

deuce985 wrote...

I don't mind this either. In fact, I'd like to see them interact more. I'd just like to see more ways added around encounters. To me, most conversations felt like they only had one or two ways around it in DA2. Maybe they didn't but it sure did seem like DAO gave you far more ways out of an encounter. I don't remember many situations where they had five different outcomes in DA2...

I could be wrong. Maybe it's just the illusion DAO gave me. It sure did feel different though. Maybe the dialogue wheel is fooling me.

I'd need to be reminded of some of the DAO ones just because it's been a long time (and even then I only played through the whole game once).

[Allan Schumacher]

They would NEVER get annoying! That is EXACTLY the kind of depth role playing games deserve! Where instead of icons or lines of dialogue highlighted in blue or red to indicate "this is the line you should pick to win the conversation" we should be challenged in conversations just as we are challenged in combat.

Would you be interested in doing something like this for getting an extra couple gold pieces when you turn in a reward?

It works fine for big events or some interesting exposition at key points, but would it still make sense for ALL persuasion checks?

[Allan Schumacher]

I love Alpha Protocol's dialogue system. I don't know the details, but I get the impression it's a real challenge to do well, however. This just based on some panels I saw with Obsidian talking about the game. The web of how the conversation flowed was crazy haha.

[Allan Schumacher]

google_calasade wrote...

Yes, yes, I would be interested and yes, yes, it would make sense. Games, especially DA games, have gotten far too easy even on the hardest level. Make it harder across the board for higher difficulties. Those who want an easy time of it can choose easy or normal. Give them the prompts, the fewer checks, etc.

I'm still not convinced that a system like Human Revolutions wouldn't lose its novelty if it ends up being done for mundane things.

I could just be too rigid in my placement of how Human Revolution specifically does it and how it would correspond to Dragon Age's persuasion checks (which are often a single line).

Obviously it doesn't need to be as long (spending 5-10 minutes in an epic game wits just ask for a larger reward just seems rather silly), but in order to be an actual game mechanic, does there have to be some level of length to the conversation?

You dont need the same webb of conversations for it to still work. 
Something as simple as: learning what "choices" you choose will lead to
what consequences, with this person or event(using hints and what not
through what the codex's have on them).  If you "earn" these
codex's(side quests that link into the main quests at that!) about these
people you will get a deeper insight on what their responses will be
with how you deal with them.

I actually misunderstood you.  My comment was more directed towards the conversation system of Alpha Protocol specifically (the free flowing, more natural conversation, which I think is inherently more difficult to do due to the branching nature of conversations), as opposed to just the idea of simply providing information to the codex (or some other source) akin to the Dossiers, allowing the player to push a particular tone in order to persuade them.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 25 octobre 2012 - 07:52 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Mostly it's just an example to demonstrate a situation where a persuasion check comes in as an alternative response to other lines, but ultimately doesn't have a huge influence on how the conversation goes: i.e. something minor.