110 réponses à ce sujet

[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?

[Dhiro]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

I'd like that. Of course, it may be easier on resources to keep it on big events, but I wouldn't mind having this kind of thing in regular quests too.

[Meltemph]

To me the best persuasion system would be the one that encourages the most natural dialog. If anything, I would prefer a dialog system similar to Alpha protocol, where the tone and your ability to read a character enough to be able to manipualte him gets you resaults(desirable resaults or not).

Would seem like being able to find codex's that explain the history and what not of important people you have to talk to, to find what makes them tick; or codex's that explain the situation you are about to deal with, in detail, so you can get a better understanding of what you are doing in the setting of the story, before opening your mouth.

Modifié par Meltemph, 25 octobre 2012 - 07:27 .

[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.

[Direwolf0294]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

I was actually thinking this. Persuade option for every day conversations and conversation battles for major things. If you had the resources though (I'm assuming you don't) I wouldn't mind seeing those persuasion battles for every day conversation.

One of the key parts of RPGs for me has always been the conversations, so I'm all for expanding and adding to them.

[DreamwareStudio]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

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.

Modifié par google_calasade, 25 octobre 2012 - 07:36 .

[Meltemph]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

This way it isnt a "pick a personality" or "pick the skill dialog ALWAYS" event and instead a more "real" conversation.  That way you there isnt a "winning" or "losing", but instead that is action and reaction with the dialog.  Seems it would allow more roleplaying, yet at the same time give writers the same amount of freedom if not more so.

Seems it would also play really well into the whole "Inquisition" title. 

Modifié par Meltemph, 25 octobre 2012 - 07:40 .

[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 .

[Darkstorne]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

I guess that comes down to two issues: Resources, and not wanting to gimp the Persuasion skill (if you use one).

Personally, I would love all persuasion checks to come down to player skill - in the same way that combat does. If you really do want to use one, maybe you can find a way to make a higher Persuasion skill provide more tools for a player to use in "dialogue battles", in the same way that leveling up combat skills provide more abilities to use in combat, but if Persuasion works the same way as it has done in previous Bioware titles - unlocking "I Win" options - then that Persuasion skill is significantly reduced in usefulness if it doesn't work for key dialogue battles, or it makes conversations too easy to "win" as it does in current games (Mass Effect's Blue and Red options were insta-win choices for the most part, and ALWAYS rendered the standard conversation options obsolete).

So to counter that issue I would love to see more complex dialogue for all situations, with varying degrees of difficulty. So turning in a quest reward and being able to wring a few more gold coins from a standard NPC should be fairly easy (and also shouldn't be defined as the goal - since some of us love playing as a character who would say "Keep the gold, you need it more than I do"), whilst key plot points and NPCs who should naturally be adept rhetoricians should have more challenging conservations - they would require careful thought on the player's part about which angle of an argument to pursue, and the NPC wouldn't give up their argument as easily. The conversation might swing back and forth for a while, like a game of tug and war. But the development limitation here would be budget and time.

Ultimately, I would love to see dialogue with more depth that requires thought on the player's part. I would like to see icons removed for the key dialogue sequences at the very least (preferably for all of them, because icons in DA2 were really personality decisions rather than conversation decisions - to the point where players just defaulted to the personality icon they prefered without even reading the text), and an emphasis placed on turning dialogue into another way of testing a player's skill in the way combat mechanics do, rather than just an interactive cut scene.

Modifié par Darkstorne, 25 octobre 2012 - 08:20 .

[Meltemph]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

Ya... I dont really wana have to manipulate EVERY conversation like Human Revolution.  DX, imo, encouraged "winning" a conversation.  And while I liked that aspect in Deus Ex, I dont want to "win" a conversation in DA3.  I want consequences or reactions from people due to my conversation.  That way there isnt winning or losing, but an organic and natural concequence from the way a conversation went.

Now that isnt to say that it wouldnt have ANY place in DA, to me, but just that it should be used for a very specific scene or something to that effect.

[Darkstorne]

google_calasade wrote...
 Those who want an easy time of it can choose easy or normal. Give them the prompts, the fewer checks, etc.

The danger in this approach is that it is often handled the other way around - "Just disable icons for harder difficulty settings." Which doesn't solve the issue at all.

The game needs to be designed with lack of icons in mind, so that the text conveys adequately enough what the icons would have. Dishonored for example allowed for location markers to be disabled, but never gave detailed enough text and dialogue descriptions for gamers playing without location markers to know where to go - we had to fumble around various different areas and rooms until we stumbled across our destination.

So yes, provide icons and hints for players on lower difficulty settings if you wish, but make sure it's done this way around - and don't just remove the icons and hints for harder difficulties.

Modifié par Darkstorne, 25 octobre 2012 - 07:59 .

[Meltemph]

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.

To a point I did mean the branching nature of conversations. However, jsut use it in a more finite way that would fit into the Bioware type dialogs. Also, the dossiers would help give you an idea of a situation, so you wouldnt be stuck with the whole "who do i bring to get this out of a situation" which would help with, instead of personalities and abilities dictate dialog flow, having intent of the PC dictate the flow. Instead it would give you an idea of the area and the reactions, to that point, combined with a more natural action/reaction in conversations, I would think it would be no more complex that what we have now, in DA series, only the why of the reactions and events from your choices, would change.

[Darkstorne]

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.
[/quote]

Oh I see. I certainly wouldn't expect to see such lengthy debates for every single dialogue scene. Turning in a quest for example probably works fine the way it already is (sans personality icons), allowing players to accept rewards / demand more / decline rewards etc.

Conversations with Companions and more important NPCs (Hawke's mother, Gamlen, Duncan, King Cailan, etc) I would love to see more complex than before, in that we don't just mindlessly click the blue personality icon, or the purple personality button each time, but are encouraged to think about what is being said and tailor our responses to each situation - being rewarded for doing so (with coin, or some point system akin to Companion approval points or Paragon/Renegade).

Conversations with key plot (for both main quests and side quests) NPCs and bosses (Arishok, Loghain, Harrowmont/Behlen, Meridith, etc) should be akin to Deus Ex HR. Debates and arguments that require careful thought and feel as though they ebb and flow in different directions, as each side fights their corner.

I would also really like to see these conversation battles as optional politcal forays in DA3 - so nothing to do with combat. You know how in DA:O Awakening there were plenty of optional quests to do with fortifying your keep and managing soldier distibution across your land, all of which played into the final section of the game? I would love to see gameplay aspects like that in DA3, being allowed to delve into politics to forge alliances, convince other nobles to assist your cause (through positive persuasion, or threatening persuasion), handled through complex dialogue battles - all of which factors into the end game, and maybe even provides benefits throughout the entire game.
[/quote]

Modifié par Darkstorne, 25 octobre 2012 - 08:17 .

[Xewaka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

Use both. Single line have/not for the mundane, and the freeflowing "dialogue boss battle" for, well, dialogue boss battles.

[Direwolf0294]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

I guess you could look at it like this, does DA3 actually need conversations where we persuade a character to give us extra gold as a quest reward or cheaper prices from their store? 

[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.

[Red by Full Metal Jacket]

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.

This has nothing to do with coercion, but Japanese RPGs are much better in that during an event, party companions can speak back and forth with each other rather than interjecting randomly with one line during a cutscene like Dragon Age is doing.  You know, all the characters interacting rather than one specific person when the script calls for it. It's pretty limiting to just have whoever you took with you during most of the important scenes.

Modifié par Red by Full Metal Jacket, 25 octobre 2012 - 08:49 .

[Amycus89]

There are several good suggestions here, but one feature I miss would be the ability to actually FAIL a persuasion attempt and suffer the consequences of it.

I actually think that DA2 did touch a little on this (though my memory is a bit fuzzy since it has been a long time since I played it), I think there was a worker in the dock that you could try to intimidate for information, but you failed unless you had a "renegade" personality. Can't remember other situations like that, but it was one of the few things I welcomed in DA2.

So for example, you can always TRY to lie in a situation no matter what your class our stats is, but unless you pass the requirements to pass, your character will mumble something that's hardly convincing while stumbeling upon the words - and of course, this will turn the situation to the worse than if you had simply told the truth.

[Darkstorne]

Or on the topic of party members, we could really inject some sensibility and allow the player to take all of them with him? I swear the only reason developers limit us to three or four is because that's just how it's always been.

Example of how odd it is:

Grey Warden at the Party Camp: "Right guys, we need to go to Redcliff tonight and defend the people from an undead army that is devastating the town and castle. Every militia-man killed becomes a ghoul himself, and they've already stressed to me how much help they need. So Alistair, Morrigan, Dog, you're with me. Sten, Wynne, Zevran, Leliana, Shale, Oghren, you guys toast marshmallows or something until we get back. I would love to take you all but for some reason I am incapable of commanding more than three people at once. Maker knows why I'm trying to raise an army." 

Gaming as a medium needs a swift kick up the behind in some areas. Too much reliance on dated systems that have no place anymore. There's a reason the suicide mission in Mass 2 was so highly praised.

Modifié par Darkstorne, 25 octobre 2012 - 08:58 .

[L. Han]

I'd like a persuasion system where you have to do certain things or talk to certain people to succeed. Or what class your character is.

[Darth Krytie]

I wouldn't mind if the ability to persuade/charm/intimidate was an alt means of completing a quest, and had exp to match. If there were some alternate avenues to combat all the time, I'd like that. I also wouldn't mind if we could charm our way into greater quest rewards or out of trouble.

[philippe willaume]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

Or you could use a  dialog to get XP. role playing a class as much about soft skill than combat.
Rogues should really be con artist/bull crap merchant.
you may not need special dialogue but the player could chose a skill  to use with one of the dialogue wheel option in certain case.
phil


 

[Salaya]

 I completely agree with this. Persuasion should come back in a classic form, or a refined version. In fact, I really wish that skills come back, as non-combat ways to improve your character. 

The "system" from Dragon Effect 2 was extremely poor. 

[DMan7733]

The DE:HR is a good approach for the big things, the persuasion skill should be used to increase chances in circumstances but not add options, that would require int, wis or cunning.

Small things could use persuasion in the form of Intimidate, Lie, or basic diplomacy, I imagine the dialog tree to be something like this.

"Here sir, thanks for helping free those slaves, a token for your gratitude"

OPTIONS:
Sure no problem (take money)
[Lie] We lost a lot of stuff in there
[Intimidate] Is this really all their worth
[Diplomacy] If you're willing, I might be able to provide some more protection.

Depending on how you interacted with the quest giver previously and who he is, he might be more succeptible to either of the three, nobles will probably appreciate Diplomacy, as they deal with enough lies in their life, and they view themselves too high above you to give in to intimidate.

Using a random number generator it might look like this for the chance at the lie skill.

Lie vs Questgiver: Steve
RNG = 1-100 = 50
RNG + (Persuasion + Cunning) = 50 + (10+5) = 65
Result vs Steve = 65 vs (1-100=70, steve is gullible=-10)
Lie Success (65>60)

It is not to a properly acceptable scale, but this is how I see this working out best. But moreso, where a random number generator doesn't play as big of a part. In the big important conversations that could go the DE:HR way, the skill should still count, someone who heavily invests in it might be able to work out an interaction in two options rather than three, and someone who invests highly in intelligence, would generally have an easier time if someone didn't like being threatened or could read people easier.

(as an afterthought, whay it might work would be to get full bonus from cunning + half wisdom would help, seeing as wisdom would help you read people better, same deal for intimidate etc. just replace cunning for STR or INT)

It's all how I see it playing out, just an option with a stack of bonuses for minor stuff, but for the big stuff an entire conversation with a few bonuses. (I apologise for what I see may be taken as rambling)

[Eternal Phoenix]

DA2 didn't even have a real persuasion system. The personality would work in some cases such as where a threat would only be successful from an aggressive character but I do not consider that a real persuasion system. We need skills back for DA3.