110 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexJK]

I like talking my way through RPGs. I like winning conversations, defusing tense situations with dialogue and without resorting to combat (and it's quite nice when this actually results in a similar XP gain to what I would have achieved the violent way). I do not like pumping points into skills which basically result in a "win conversation" option popping up now and again - this is, frankly, not fun at all. (The second level of Force Persuade in KOTOR, for example.)

Persuade/Charisma skills shouldn't exist in RPGs with the ability to create better systems. Or, if they have to exist, I think they should move towards the approach taken by the DXHR "social enhancer" aug, whereby having a higher level of skill in Persuade (or whatever) gives you additional on-screen hints about which dialogue options are more likely to be successful (based on personality of PC and NPC, topic, previous interaction, approval/respect ratings, etc.)

[R2s Muse]

I do like having different ways to get through a given situation, like as someone mentioned early on having simultaneous intimidate and persuasion options for those with either a high STR or CHR, etc. It reminds me of my pet peeve with lockpicking being a rogue-only skill in DA2. So for example there's always a chest in the prologue/origin where you aren't a rogue so you can't open it. I'd love to see alternatives to this, like picking it, bashing it, casting knock, that sort of thing.

Similarly it would be nice to have these other avenues for conversation, as well. I did like the NPC interventions... but it was also hard to know that I would need that a priori (except that after a while it seemed that I should be taking Varric everywhere). So sometimes that seemed a bit like a needle in a haystack, that I just got lucky that I brought the right person.

Modifié par R2s Muse, 25 octobre 2012 - 12:19 .

[WotanAnubis]

I didn't much like Human Revolution's 'Conversation Battles' because they had clearly defined win/lose conditions. In those, Adam was always after a single goal. But that didn't matter that much because the player didn't have that much influence on Adam's personality (outside of getting to voice your opinion on how much you like your augments). They are neat set-pieces at best, but are also incredibly limited.

Compare this to Dragon Age: Origins and the resolution of the Dalish Questline. You can either kill all werewolves for Zathrian, persuade the werewolves to kill and turn the Dalish or persuade Zathrian to let go of his revenge and cure the werewolves. Granted, only the last two are accomplished through conversations. Even so, how would this work in HR-style conversation battle? Is 'winning' always persuading Zathrian to let go? But what if you want to have werewolves for your army instead of elves? Do you have to 'lose' on purpose? Or will 'losing' mean that you'll be forced to kill the werewolves for Zathrian and there is no way to get the werewolves because these conversation battles are so damn binary in their outcome?
The only way I can see this working if is you let the player state their goal first and then have the whole convo battle thing. Unless, of course, the PC is as rigidly defined as Adam and the player is only along for the ride.

No, I think I much prefer the way Vampire: the Masquerade: Bloodlines did it. You had 3 'Coercion' skills in that game (Persuasion, Seduction, Intimidation) and they all mattered differently in different situations (though, since Bloodlines was, unfortunately, incredibly unpolished Persuasion was pretty much the best one).
But it didn't stop there. They weren't automatic win buttons. Often, in the more important conversations, you'd either first have to set up your argument before getting to the win line or you'd hit the blue Persuasion line first and then lay out the rest of your argument through regular conversation. They were Win Buttons, sure, but they weren't automatic win buttons, which I think is an important distinction. (OK, sometimes they were automatic win buttons, but usually only in less important conversations during sidequests or something.)
And, of course, sometimes how you resolved quests or how you treated certain characters in the past also influenced the conversation you could have.
It was all very neat, I thought.

[Fast Jimmy]

In regards to the NPC conversation options we saw in DA2, I think these would be better served if the same options were available to each NPC of that class.

For instance, I know that Merrill knows more about demons and that is why she is able to unsummon the Profane in the Deep Roads, but I feel like having any Kate in your party should have offered this option (while, at the same time, that was a bit of an over-powered response).

This could limit the importance of certain NPCs backgrounds, but it would make the conversation option more predictable.

[Bean-shidh]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In regards to the NPC conversation options we saw in DA2, I think these would be better served if the same options were available to each NPC of that class. (...)

 

I have to disagree. To me, the idea of taking different companions to different locations and discovering how that influenced the conversation/quest outcome was one of the strongest points of DAII. It added a lot to the replayability. In DA:O, once I had a strong team I would leave the rest of companions in the camp and never take them along. In DAII I mixed my party all the time and none of them felt obsolete (even those that I wasn't fond of).

Also, I don't like the idea of the conversation being 'more predictable' - I like surprises and don't like to have too much control over the outcome so I enjoyed the unexpected companions'/NPC's interrupts.

[AxeloftheKey]

I would like it if the dialogue wheel had a "Persuade" option, which would then open up several options (2-5, mayhaps). This would range from options that were good, logical arguments, to intimidation, to bribery. You only have one shot to guess which one will work on a specific NPC, as they all respond differently. You could also have it so only PCs who'd been very aggressive previously could pass Intimidate checks (or had high Strength or something), so that way even just picking the right option won't necessarily win you the NPCs support. Also, picking certain options may gain or lose Approval of companions. It wouldn't be as complex as HR's persuasion (which was awesome BTW), but it would at least challenge me to analyze the NPC.

[Rinji the Bearded]

The only way I'd want persuasion to come back as a skill would be to change it from the way it was in DA:O. It was broken and silly, seemed like Warden was able to mind-control in certain situations.

[Maclimes]

I think what it really comes down to is non-binary choices. In DA:O, you often had a variety of options for how to solve a problem. Yes, some of them were actually just the same option in disguise. But as with the above-mentioned Jowan/Connor/Isolde/Demon situation, there were a legitimately large number of ways to resolve events.

DA2 has a more binary approach. Mage or Templar? Kill or Spare? Yes or No? I'd like to see a return to the depth of choices that were present in DAO.

[tmp7704]

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.

Alpha Protocol's dialogue system was awful in practice. Mechanically it's very much like DA2's "pick the tone", just with the paraphrases removed and the tones instead of "nice, troll and ****" being "bond, bauer and bourne". The really bad part was, there's occasionally 4th choice thrown in, which is "paraphrased" with just a single word and which would without any warning often just interrupt/finish conversation in some unpredictable manner when used.

"Cryptic" and "I did what" doesn't even begin to describe frustration with that dialogue system. The "challenge" of it if there's any to speak of, is you are largely blind-guessing what your options are because the UI obfuscates them so much.

Modifié par tmp7704, 25 octobre 2012 - 03:09 .

[JWvonGoethe]

I'd like a mix between Deus Ex: HR and the Landsmeet conversation in DA:O. So I wouldn't like to enter a kind of conversation battle, existing as a distinct mode outside of the normal conversation tree, but I would like some kind of strategy to come into play. One thing I'd like to see would be using the cunning skill to unlock hints as to how best to proceed in conversation. These 'hints' could take any form: providing information about a character/event on the HUD; giving unique conversation options; or, as in Deus Ex, displaying a bar showing how close you are to persuading someone. (This would also have the benefit of making rogues more interesting to play, while not precluding a mage or warrior from putting points into cunning either.) Other than that, the landsmeet from DA:O did a lot of things well.

In the landsmeet, the Warden had to rely on knowledge and insight of the relevant characters and events. In addition, if you had not completed certain prior quests, then you would not be able to use those as currency in the conversation. You could also, or so I believe, just attack everyone and win the landsmeet that way.

For shorter conversations, DA:O had a few instances, if I recall correctly, where you would get something like this:

"(Cunning) But haven't you just contradicted yourself?"

Where you could catch a character out. While I'd like cunning to be the main influence in conversation, mixing it up with a few other options on occasion could work well. For example, in Fallout: New Vegas there were similar dialogue options which appeared when enough points were put into the repair skill, medicine skill, and even the explosives and guns skills.

I'd like to see this return for short conversations, so you could use (Wisdom), (Strength) and (Magic) to: provide insight on a subject; or to tell if someone is lying; to intimidate someone; to perform an action, or even to correct someone, etc. Even better would be to allow specialisations to have an impact, as well, like:

/// NPC asks you to gather lyrium from a group of smugglers, in order to go into the fade and kill a demon who has just possessed someone.

/// Reaction:
(Blood Magic) But we can use blood instead of lyrium to get access to the fade.
(Templar) I can get some lyrium more easily than that.
(Spirit Healer) Let me talk with the spirit through you, maybe I can reason with it.
(Shadow Rogue) We can steal some lyrium from those templars round the corner.

If specialisations impacted regularly on conversations in this way, it would mean they would carry a lot more weight in the game and make them feel much more integrated into your character/story.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 25 octobre 2012 - 03:37 .

[Nerevar-as]

tmp7704 wrote...

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.

Alpha Protocol's dialogue system was awful in practice. Mechanically it's very much like DA2's "pick the tone", just with the paraphrases removed and the tones instead of "nice, troll and ****" being "bond, bauer and bourne". The really bad part was, there's occasionally 4th choice thrown in, which is "paraphrased" with just a single word and which would without any warning often just interrupt/finish conversation in some unpredictable manner when used.

"Cryptic" and "I did what" doesn't even begin to describe frustration with that dialogue system. The "challenge" of it if there's any to speak of, is you are largely blind-guessing what your options are because the UI obfuscates them so much.

Oddly enough, I loved it in AP, I never had the WTF did I just say I often did with Hawke.

[tmp7704]

I still remember selecting the 4th option that was summarized with something like "documents", thinking it'd make the character inquire about those documents in some manner, only for the conversation to be brought to abrupt end right there and then, instead.

The tone selection wasn't all bad itself, but even that had its "gotchas". I'd have hard time believing someone could immediately predict the difference they'd get from selecting between choices labelled "Lying" and "Faking", e.g.

Modifié par tmp7704, 25 octobre 2012 - 03:33 .

[Maytrows]

I like the idea of a conversation battle but there should be something at stake otherwise it would get frustrating rather quick, so for mundane conversation, keep it simple.

Something I find often occurs when I play is that I hoard money to get the good stuff in the endgame. It's metagaming and when it influences my gameplay (ask for more money) it feels like it lessens the experience. I do it because I dont know if I need the money later but better be safe then a few gold short of getting the item I don't yet know I want.
So I hope that you could give a reason early why to play greedy through out the game so I know why and don't do it because I might need it.

[Sainna]

O_O!

Give us mind cont-...persusaion if we go Blood mage or something else bit dark/evbul for none mages.
/flashbacks to the awesomness that was force persuade in Kotor1 and 2. I am sorry making people jump into a pit of death on Nar shadaa was fun!

Video!

[deuce985]

Maclimes wrote...

I think what it really comes down to is non-binary choices. In DA:O, you often had a variety of options for how to solve a problem. Yes, some of them were actually just the same option in disguise. But as with the above-mentioned Jowan/Connor/Isolde/Demon situation, there were a legitimately large number of ways to resolve events.

DA2 has a more binary approach. Mage or Templar? Kill or Spare? Yes or No? I'd like to see a return to the depth of choices that were present in DAO.

And I'm pretty sure I left more choices out in those situations. I know that you can kill Connor when you meet the demon to get your reward too but I've never done that. You can also persuade yourself out of another situation that I failed to mention(I forgot what it was).

What you mentioned is exactly the problem I have with DA2's resolution to encounters. I'm not sure if Bioware is aiming to keep it simple or what but it's too simple, IMO. If Bioware is worried about overload of icons, then why don't they just STATE what each paraprhase means? I don't understand why they slap icons in there. Some of them make no sense for the tone. I was definitely getting confused my first time through on what some actually meant...

Just put something like "persuade", "direct", "charming" inside the icon box. Yes, you'd probably need to make the UI much bigger to do that but being realistic, I feel it needs to be anyway.

Modifié par deuce985, 25 octobre 2012 - 06:02 .

[Bondari the Reloader]

I support the return of some kind of persuasion system, and I agree with the others who've stated that persuasion shouldn't be an instant win. I liked how in Neverwinter Nights, for example, if a persuade/bluff/intimidate option was available for a conversation, it was always visible to the player regardless of whether or not they had the skill level necessary to succeed. It was up to me to think about what my character's skills were and if I should even attempt to try this approach. It would be even more challenging if the labels weren't there and if there were serious consequences for failing (beyond just trying again with a different dialog option; maybe some characters would refuse to talk to the PC again or feel so insulted that they attack). While having this kind of system in every conversation would likely be overkill, I think it should be implemented with important NPCs.

[TheFinalDoctor]

AxeloftheKey wrote...

I would like it if the dialogue wheel had a "Persuade" option, which would then open up several options (2-5, mayhaps). This would range from options that were good, logical arguments, to intimidation, to bribery. You only have one shot to guess which one will work on a specific NPC, as they all respond differently. You could also have it so only PCs who'd been very aggressive previously could pass Intimidate checks (or had high Strength or something), so that way even just picking the right option won't necessarily win you the NPCs support. Also, picking certain options may gain or lose Approval of companions. It wouldn't be as complex as HR's persuasion (which was awesome BTW), but it would at least challenge me to analyze the NPC.

This actually seems like it could be a good, relatively easy way to do this.You still have to pay attention to what option would work best on the specific NPC, skills still come into play, and they wouldn't be very long and drawn out.

[ioannisdenton]

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.

alpha protocol had the best dialogue ever. it was dynamic , felt great and things would happen based on that!!
what a great underated game!!! every rpg lover (not just stat lover)  should play it at least once.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I liked the Ember Trial in Neverwinter Nights 2. Lots of dialogue skills, did not (excessively) suffer from button-winitis, relied on disposition and previous choices as to how the witnesses/companions testified and relied on a mix of good dialogue choices and character skill to verbally beat Torio in debate. You could un-nerve her, you could play to the jury, you could appeal to authority, play it straight, play it horribly, even treat it as a play.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 26 octobre 2012 - 09:51 .

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Please no dialogue skills, I dont know why anyone would even want these, if there is a way to solve problems through diplomacy rather than warfare then it should be based on the player digging up the right info, having the right tool for the job or buttering up the right people and not through investing points into the "I WIN" or "Get out of tricky situations free" skill.

[ioannisdenton]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Please no dialogue skills, I dont know why anyone would even want these, if there is a way to solve problems through diplomacy rather than warfare then it should be based on the player digging up the right info, having the right tool for the job or buttering up the right people and not through investing points into the "I WIN" or "Get out of tricky situations free" skill.

disagree greatly here.
it is a skill. you either invest a point it in a non combat talent or a combat one.
after all you sacrifice combat talents for "pesuade" skills. this is character building after all.
And it is not that you are going to get through every combat away by talking.
Also with persuade you could negotiate prices at stores , cnvinve someone to give up information.
Not everything has to be combat.

Modifié par ioannisdenton, 26 octobre 2012 - 11:41 .

[AlexJK]

ioannisdenton wrote...

it is a skill. you either invest a point it in a non combat talent or a combat one.
after all you sacrifice combat talents for "pesuade" skills. this is character building after all.

*Why* should you sacrifice combat talents for persuasion?

Not everything has to be combat.

Nobody said it did. In fact, one of the main points of this topic is that it doesn't...

Modifié par AlexJK, 26 octobre 2012 - 11:59 .

[J.C. Blade]

Because you're building a character who's better at talking his way through a hostile garrison than fighting his way through it? Are you building a character with high INT and CHA or are you building a character with high STR and DEX? Or a mix of either? Invest in one, lose in the other.

The same with combat talents. I had a character in DAO who could talk her way through anything but when combat started she kept waaaaaay back out of line of fire.

Modifié par J.C. Blade, 26 octobre 2012 - 12:38 .

[Eludajae]

With the new engine I am certain the wheel of choice will become even more detailed.