110 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. 

[deuce985]

I wouldn't mind them

1.) Bringing back talents and completely removing the combat talents from DAO. It should be only talents like Lockpicking, Persuasion, Herbalism, Runecrafting, etc. My characters felt gimped if I didn't pick the combat talents. I don't think that should ever happen picking talents. It should be something extra for my character that isn't needed. The combat talents felt like they were needed in DAO. Maybe even add alternate forms of persuasion in the talents to get around certain situations for the PC.

or

2.) Allow something similar to Lockpicking in DA2. Push persuasion in the Cunning stat.

[AlanC9]

Burnouts3s3 wrote...
Both times, I would have to reload and mix and match strategies to find out which path would be the best.

How about just accepting the result?

[Face of Evil]

I found the skill system in DAO to be a … "false dilemma," for lack of a better word. The skill system was designed such that you were foolish if you put your points into anything BUT Coercion. Oh, you'd need to beef up your Combat Training if you were a rogue or a warrior, but that was a secondary concern.

Poison-Making? Nice, but hardly essential. Trap-Making? Useless for anyone not a rogue, and even then it was Poison-Making's pathetic cousin. Herbalism? Just get another party member to build it up. Stealing? Not even close to being worth the effort, aside from opening up one quest branch. Survival or Tactics? HA HA HA HA STOP YOU'RE KILLING ME

I can tell you right that every person who ever played Dragon Age Origins and was not deliberately or unintentionally handicapping their character had a minimum of three ranks of Coercion by the end game. You'd be an idiot for not taking it. I mean, this is a Bioware game; of course conversational skills are going to be essential.

Maybe the answer to that problem was a better skill set, but as it stands, DAO's system just wasn't very good. DA2's system could be arbitrary and random at times, but it didn't make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 25 octobre 2012 - 05:08 .

[Nashimura]

AlanC9 wrote...

Burnouts3s3 wrote...
Both times, I would have to reload and mix and match strategies to find out which path would be the best.

How about just accepting the result?

This...its how i always play, bringing all the imperfections through with you and watching the results. 

Modifié par Nashimura, 25 octobre 2012 - 05:08 .

[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.

[deuce985]

Face of Evil wrote...

I found the skill system in DAO to be a … "false dilemma," for lack of a better word. The skill system was designed such that you were foolish if you put your points into anything BUT Coercion. Oh, you'd need to beef up your Combat Training if you were a rogue or a warrior, but that was a secondary concern.

Poison-Making? Nice, but hardly essential. Trap-Making? Useless for anyone not a rogue, and even then it was Poison-Making's pathetic cousin. Herbalism? Just get another party member to build it up. Stealing? Not even close to being worth the effort, aside from opening up one quest branch. Survival or Tactics? HA HA HA HA STOP YOU'RE KILLING ME

I can tell you right that every person who ever played Dragon Age Origins and was not deliberately or unintentionally handicapping their character had a minimum of three ranks of Coercion by the end game. You'd be an idiot for not taking it. I mean, this is a Bioware game; of course conversational skills are going to be essential.

Maybe the answer to that problem was a better skill set, but as it stands, DAO's system just wasn't very good. DA2's system could be arbitrary and random at times, but it didn't make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Doesn't necessarily mean it should be something removed. Bioware could just make more talents more attractive and viable.

I really liked how DAO gave me so many alternate ways to find a solution in conversations.

Even better, I wouldn't mind them getting rid of the talent system completely but added a way around certain encounters from every stat.

Some conversations could end an alternate way if your character has a high strength number. Another conversation might end because you have high willpower. Each stat would be a unique way to get around specific conversations. That adds more customization and since the entire game is built around conversations, it might help promote spreading points across instead of whoring your character out on stats that are seen as "essential".

Modifié par deuce985, 25 octobre 2012 - 05:14 .

[HTTP 404]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

yah, this is always surprisingly refreshing to see.  more companions involved in talking with other NPCs please.

[challenger18]

I would actually prefer they go the route Deus Ex did and actually make persuading someone a game mechanic where there are actually multiple ways to navigate a conversation and get the result you want. Much more involving than picking the blue or red option when it appears. www.youtube.com/watch example of that.

[deuce985]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

Modifié par deuce985, 25 octobre 2012 - 05:19 .

[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?

[Examurai]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what your picture is mean't to show in regards to the persuasion system.

[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).

[Tokion]

I wish my Hawke would improve on his humorous personality every time I pick the funny option. Same goes for the other 2 personality.

Older rpgs used to have lots of *checks*. I missed them very much in these new games. :[

[challenger18]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

Maybe a balance then? Minor characters get the "use persuasion or NPC" option while more important conversations can be more of a battle? Using the skill or another NPC might even allow another route in the conversations.

[deuce985]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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).

Right off the top of my head I can remember the Redcliff quest. That quest had a ton of options in several parts.

When you first meet Jowan, you can pick one of four choices:

Kill Jowan
Free him and tell him to do anything but run
Free him an tell him you never want to see him again
Leave him in the cell locked up

Each one of these choices branches off and actually changes some variables later on in the quest. Then you have the Connor part where:

Kill Connor
Do Jowan's ritual(this actually branches off even further)
Travel to Circle Tower and save it(saves Isolde from Jowan's ritual and Connor)

Then you can:

Enter the fade to deal with the demon
Decide to sacrifice Isolde in Jowan's ritual
Let the circle use Lyrium
Kill Connor

Lastly, if you decide to enter the fade and deal with the demon you can:

Learn the Blood Magic specialization
See a kiss from the desire demon on the Warden
Significantly boost a companions approval
Receive a Tome instead
Refuse anything from the demon
Intimidate her(you need master persuasion here)

On killing Connor:

You can kill him
Hand Isolde the knife to kill him
Knock her out and kill him yourself

All those quests are really close together and they have so many branching variables it's crazy. I can't really think of any scenarios remotely close to this in DA2. You had a TON of choices just on those few quests and many different outcomes.

Modifié par deuce985, 25 octobre 2012 - 05:42 .

[Face of Evil]

One option would be to marry certain coercion options to class instead of dialogue tone. For instance, Fighters would gain the ability to Intimidate opponents, Rogues could Bluff them and Mages could use Jedi Mind Trick. (Or something else. I'm just throwing ideas at the wall right now.) These would be situational, like Rock, Paper, Scissors; you couldn't always use Intimidate, Bluff or Jedi Mind Trick in every situation, but at least one of them would work.

For instance, the Inquisitor needs to get information from Steve the Informant, who is willing to exchange secrets for money. Steve is too smart to be bluffed and too strong-minded for Jedi Mind Trick, but Warriors have an Intimidate option that would let the Inquisitor avoid paying Steve.

Later on, the Inquisitor must pass Rex the Guard. Intimidate and Jedi Mind Trick won't work so Warriors and Mages must fight Rex, but Bluff lets the Rogue walk right past.

And finally, the Inquisitor has the option of getting a key from Sara the Noble to open a treasure chest. Bluff and Intimidate are not options here, but Jedi Mind Trick proves to be an excellent panty-remover and the Inquisitor seduces Sara into giving him/her the key.

I don't know if that's a great idea, but the player would at least know what Coercion options are open to them from the start and would at least be denied certain options.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 25 octobre 2012 - 05:43 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Dialogue wheel = garbage. I'm rather astounded they kept it given the amount of complains I've seen about it.

I very much like what Face of Evil has proposed. He saved me some typing.

[Dhiro]

I'd prefer if persuasian is done in a way that you can only convince a person by choosing the correct dialogue options - they wouldn't be marked as [PERSUASION, CLICK HERE!], of course. Different characters would prefer different approaches.

Or maybe there is a I WIN!!1one option based on stats, but it won't be marked as such and instead appear as a regular dialogue option. Doesn't really work outside your first playthrough though.

[tmp7704]

Face of Evil wrote...

For instance, the Inquisitor needs to get information from Steve the Informant, who is willing to exchange secrets for money. Steve is too smart to be bluffed and too strong-minded for Jedi Mind Trick, but Warriors have an Intimidate option that would let the Inquisitor avoid paying Steve.

Then i'd have to question why the mage inquisitor doesn't have option to set Steve on fire and offer in a silky tone, "the sooner you tell me what i want to know, he sooner this searing pain will stop". Or why the rogue inquisitor would refrain from just stabbing Steve to similar effect. ("Does it hurt? Oh, it can hurt much worse")

There's more than one way to intimidate someone, much like being able to swing a sword doesn't elimitate mental capacity to bluff -- some would say melee fighting is all about the bluffing, whether to avoid it altogether or to come out on the top.

Modifié par tmp7704, 25 octobre 2012 - 06:29 .

[Direwolf0294]

I think I'd prefer persuasion to come from picking the right dialogue choices rather than having sunk the right amount of points into a persuasion skill. Something similar to Human Revolutions would be cool.

[Face of Evil]

tmp7704 wrote...

Face of Evil wrote...

For instance, the Inquisitor needs to get information from Steve the Informant, who is willing to exchange secrets for money. Steve is too smart to be bluffed and too strong-minded for Jedi Mind Trick, but Warriors have an Intimidate option that would let the Inquisitor avoid paying Steve.

Then i'd have to question why the mage inquisitor doesn't have option to set Steve on fire and offer in a silky tone, "the sooner you tell me what i want to know, he sooner this searing pain will stop". Or why the rogue inquisitor would refrain from just stabbing Steve to similar effect. ("Does it hurt? Oh, it can hurt much worse")

It's a hypothetical situation I pulled off the top of my head, so it's not absolutely foolproof. But there could be story-related reasons why you can't simply torture Steve for the information; for example, you're meeting him in a busy public place, and any harm to Steve will result in him calling for the city guard. Or he's a useful informant and roughing him up means permanently losing his services.

My suggestion does already exist to some extent in DA2. For example, Warrior Hawkes can sucker punch the hunger demon in the Primeval Thaig. Rogue Hawkes can throw a knife at a slaver during Wayward Son. Mage Hawkes can … well, I don't know. I never played a mage in DA2.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 25 octobre 2012 - 06:50 .

[TomHark]

Face of Evil wrote...

One option would be to marry certain coercion options to class instead of dialogue tone. For instance, Fighters would gain the ability to Intimidate opponents, Rogues could Bluff them and Mages could use Jedi Mind Trick. (Or something else. I'm just throwing ideas at the wall right now.) These would be situational, like Rock, Paper, Scissors; you couldn't always use Intimidate, Bluff or Jedi Mind Trick in every situation, but at least one of them would work.

For instance, the Inquisitor needs to get information from Steve the Informant, who is willing to exchange secrets for money. Steve is too smart to be bluffed and too strong-minded for Jedi Mind Trick, but Warriors have an Intimidate option that would let the Inquisitor avoid paying Steve.

Later on, the Inquisitor must pass Rex the Guard. Intimidate and Jedi Mind Trick won't work so Warriors and Mages must fight Rex, but Bluff lets the Rogue walk right past.

And finally, the Inquisitor has the option of getting a key from Sara the Noble to open a treasure chest. Bluff and Intimidate are not options here, but Jedi Mind Trick proves to be an excellent panty-remover and the Inquisitor seduces Sara into giving him/her the key.

I don't know if that's a great idea, but the player would at least know what Coercion options are open to them from the start and would at least be denied certain options.

The problem with this is that it is only worth doing if you get some benefit for it.  DAO and DA2 never gave you a reason to avoid fights, as you only get XP/loot for killing everything.  The only time I found such options useful was in situations where there was no other solution if you couldn't use Coercion.  If the fall back was to kill them, then I always used that even if I could sweet talk my way out.

[Darkstorne]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

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.

Too many games rely on combat mechanics as the sole method of testing a player's skill. RPGs, particularly character-driven RPGs like Dragon Age, would benefit so damn much from a dialogue system that requires genuine thought and strategy to debate with opponents. I'm not saying it should happen in every single conversation, but perhaps the same frequency to which elite and boss level enemies appear in relation to common enemies. A couple of times or more throughout each quest thread, with dozens of optional extras to pursue in a poltical side of the game - related to the castle maintenance and interaction with other nobles perhaps?

There's more than one way to pursue a goal. Charging through caves and dungeons, fighting waves of enemies is certainly one method, but there are always political methods of tracking people down too. Mingling with nobles and the aristocracy, forging alliances, talking them into helping you, gossiping at balls to pick up information, and planting information (whether true or false) at those balls to further your goals, can all lead to powerful men and women owing you favours or being coerced into providing them - helping you complete your main quest.

I created a thread about this here and got some great feedback: http://social.biowar...ndex/14604344/1

Bring on the dialogue battles! It would be a great step forward for RPGs as a whole! <3

[Face of Evil]

TomHark wrote...

The problem with this is that it is only worth doing if you get some benefit for it.  DAO and DA2 never gave you a reason to avoid fights, as you only get XP/loot for killing everything.  The only time I found such options useful was in situations where there was no other solution if you couldn't use Coercion.  If the fall back was to kill them, then I always used that even if I could sweet talk my way out.

Man does not live by XP or loot alone. My focus is on saving lives. If there were Persuasion options that allowed me to avoid killing innocents, I took them.

Generally speaking, the dialogue-based Coercion options in DA2 generally did reward you. Being a Diplomatic Hawke and convincing Gascard Dupuis to help fight Quentin made that battle easier. Being an Aggressive Hawke allowed you to avoid paying a bribe during Finders Keepers.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 25 octobre 2012 - 07:05 .