125 réponses à ce sujet

[mickey111]

Where is that planescape: torment screen shot of the 20 something dialogue replies when I need it? How would a Biowheel fit all of those on it? Opinions might not be wrong, but they can be stupid. And that the whole investigate wheel design makes conversations feel unreal is kind of the truth and only the type of person who has been exposed to almost no human to human conversation ever would argue otherwise. Honestly, very few people in the real world would simply allow themselves to be asked constant questions. The DAO system was a lot more like a flowing coversation because it just comes out naturally and not everyone allows you to ask every single question unless it's an appropriate time and place like around the campfire.

[Herr Uhl]

mickey111 wrote...

Where is that planescape: torment screen shot of the 20 something dialogue replies when I need it?

That was a single instance where all of the dialouge replies lead to "well, if that works for you". It was usually 4 or something (I'm a bit rusty as it's been a few years since I played it).

[upsettingshorts]

Whether or not PS:T or BG or some other list game had more than 6 options is irrelevant when people are explicitly comparing the wheel to DA: Origins' list, which was limited to six.

Lists as long as those offered in text games are cost prohibitive in fully voiced games. You simply will not get PS:T screenshot numbers of options as long as characters are voiced, regardless of the GUI presenting those options.

[Ianamus]

The conversations were generally the same options-wise as Origins, but in Dragon Age 2 conversations with party members in particular never felt as satisfying. I don't think this was due to lack of options every time you got to choose a response though, just that the conversations were much more linear and shorter overall. It's still a problem, but I'm not sure exactly where the root of it lies, the wheel, the voiced protagonist, or just limited time/budget.

[axl99]

It's always budget. 

I mean, the more written/voiced content there is, the more work there is going to be for localization.

Modifié par axl99, 29 novembre 2012 - 12:37 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Sidney wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The dialogue wheel has four problems for me.

1. It's style, artwork does not feel fantasy based to me, the colours too bright and icons too in your face blatent. My personal perception. This is subjective in sense I can see why people might like it but I do not.

2. The paraphrasing due to space limitations and the age old overused arguement of redundancy resulting in confusion, what was chosen was not said.

3. The positioning of choices and structure of the wheel, meaning having a blatent invesitgate option on one side and impactful choices which result in consequences on the other is detrimental to my enjoyment.

4. The restriction from my interpretation of responses, due to icons removing any interpretation I might have and enforcing Biowares.

I'm going to be harsh here but i mean well...

1. What? Seriously?  While lines of text seem "fantasy" to you?

2. This is the most overused and 95% silly argument. People are either not capable of understanding paraphrases (as in their issue not the game's) or they're deliberately obtuse.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter. In any dialog system the dirty peasant asks for your help you get Yes, No. It isn't like you get 3 or 4 forms of yes or no to pick from . I still challenge anyone to give me a place in DA2 where the line of dialog spoken would change your selected style of response.

3. This is an awful argument. I guess it makes people feel smart to say this. First, having a player have access to information is good. Heck, the info is a repsonse to people saying "I didn't want to start a war just compliment her hair" in other games. Second, the wall of text did the same thing. You had [Intimidate] tags for example bt also go back and the top option is "good" warden and the second option is "bad" warden.

4. This is another pointless argument. You have no voice. Period. The game knows what your intent is based on the lines you select because it is coded to respond in one way.  When I picked "I like shoes" in DAO I didn't want to sound nice, I wanted to sound derisive to Leliana. What reaction do I get? "Me too" and a big, NIG gain to my friendship. Now I know I've had the "People misunderstand in real life" response to this but that's not a good answer in a game otherwise it legitimizes ANY repsonse to dialog. Purely random reactions become acceptable because people are confused and it equially allows me no agency to say that I wanted to be blantantlky derisive as opposed to subtle where mayb misunderstanding could happen. Your control is a lie and illusion..

Firstly your spamming of the word pointless and awful does not make it so, it is not pointless to whoever brings it up else they would not have done so to begin with and it is not awful just because you preference is different to theirs. Your confusing your opinion and preference with factual realities. Your attempt at dismissal via projecting your personal perception, preference and opinion as a form of factual stance is pure fallacy. Also remember their like or dislike effects whether they buy or do not buy the games being made, keep that in mind regardless of whether you agree or not. If something is done that others do not enjoy then those others may not buy the game.

1. Yes text can and does have a perceived association whether fantasy or science fiction which relates to the style of font used. Regardless of that attempt at diversion on your part, the colours, icons, shape and design of the UI meaning in this case the wheel does not feel fitting to this genre of game to me. This does not mean everyone would feel this way but I do and your attempt to handwave it away because you do not is irrelevant. What you perceive or like may not be what I perceive and like. Not only the wheel itself but the entire UI felt bad to me and out of place, too bright, too big, too bold and in your face, too sharp. It felt like an action genre game UI which you may argue that it is an action game, but it did not feel very fantasy RPG to me based on the UI and maybe this is because I have spent over 30 years playing fantasy RPGs which have a more traditional fantasy style UI's.

2. It is the most used because it means many people feel that way. They experienced it and they are expressing their dislike of what they have experienced on top of the fact even DG admitted some of the paraphrasing did not work very well in some cases. There were quite few occassions where what I assumed stance would take based on both the icon and paraphrase of that stance ended up being different via vocalisation to what I thought based on what I clicked.

From the offset at start of the game when confronting Wesley about Hawke's sister and many more times through the game. I expected an aggressive defense of my characters sister based on the tone icon and paraphrase and nothing of the sort happened. If anything it was diplomatic response and not aggressive at all to me. Happened when confronting Petrice too later on. Talking to Cullen aswell about knowing mages was another example. There are more examples but contradictory to your false assertion, they have been mentioned before on here despite your claim noone has given examples.

3. I don't have to make myself feel smart, I am smart and my IQ shows this to be the case plus I do not care why you think others may say what I did. I said it because that is how I feel about it. There was far less emphasising emotion state of response in DAO compared to the tone icons from DA2. I stated this already that it was not that there was none in DAO, but instead was not as many examples of forcing of tone on the lines themselves. I assume you know how to read and therefore read that I did indeed state this earlier.

I also make quite clear my preference is that I 'prefer' not having blatent information dump side of the wheel aka investigate and the another side for choices that lead to impact or physical reaction. You might prefer differently but your preference is not good or bad just because you prefer it and it is not an awful argument aka stance what I said either. When talking about preferences there is no black and white, right or wrong. It is down to the individual which they enjoy more.

4. Your example does not benefit your stance, her response did not invalidate your perception of how you felt you would be saying your line. She may not be aware that you were being sarcastic and despite whether you feel the real life comparison is valid or adequate when being sarcastic or derisive does not change this. The only thing you got right in this aspect is that anyones different perception of the reaction or expression compared to creators intent is an illusion. This does not invalidate it as a quality that can enhance the game for some. That freedom to perceive or create a different experience based on your interpretation adds value and entertainment to others even if not to yourself.

I will lastly point out that I do not approve of your self selecting which lines I wrote in your quoting, that which excludes my explanations of why I said what I did in each part of the points I made. It gives a false impression and misunderstanding of my points when you cut out my explanations of any points I made or may make.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 29 novembre 2012 - 01:07 .

[Allan Schumacher]

mickey111 wrote...

Where is that planescape: torment screen shot of the 20 something dialogue replies when I need it? How would a Biowheel fit all of those on it? Opinions might not be wrong, but they can be stupid. And that the whole investigate wheel design makes conversations feel unreal is kind of the truth and only the type of person who has been exposed to almost no human to human conversation ever would argue otherwise. Honestly, very few people in the real world would simply allow themselves to be asked constant questions. The DAO system was a lot more like a flowing coversation because it just comes out naturally and not everyone allows you to ask every single question unless it's an appropriate time and place like around the campfire.

The question "what can change the nature of man" is a very specific design choice that actually necessitates the number of dialogue choices available.  The conversations with your other selves can easily be broken into segments as well.


As for whether or not a conversation feels realistic, neither DAO nor DA2 are particularly shining examples of this (which is fine, we don't aim to be).  If you want a realistic looking conversation, try Alpha Protocol.

Lists as long as those offered in text games are cost prohibitive in
fully voiced games. You simply will not get PS:T screenshot numbers of
options as long as characters are voiced, regardless of the GUI
presenting those options.

Actually I am going to disagree with this.  The circumstances surrounding Ravel's question is why so many dialogue choices were needed.

If we were to create a conversation point like that, we'd likely have little issue creating the voice work, as well as a custom one time GUI to facilitate the choice.  Particularly since the conversation response is actually irrelevant (it doesn't branch the plot nor even the dialogue).

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 29 novembre 2012 - 01:15 .

[Icesong]

mickey111 wrote...

Where is that planescape: torment screen shot of the 20 something dialogue replies when I need it?

This one always amuses me.

[MisterJB]

Icesong wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Where is that planescape: torment screen shot of the 20 something dialogue replies when I need it?

This one always amuses me.

Well, to be fair, aren't most of those essencially "Investigate" options? Forgive my ignorance and possible blasphemy, I never played Planetscape: Torment .

[Dominus]

Also, not everyone in PS:T was necessarily willing to be asked a barrage of queries, something Black Isle Studios was likely aware of for the writing process. Taken from here:

Elderly Hive Dweller: [Upon The Nameless One telling her that he is an adventurer] "I'll bet ye've got all *sorts* o' barmy questions!" She mimics your heroic stance: "Greetin's, I have some questions... can ye tell me about this place? Who's the Lady o' Pain? I'm lookin' fer the Magic Girdle o' Swank Iron, have ye seen it? Do ye know where a portal ta the 2,817th Plane o' the Abyss might be? Do ye know where the Holy Flamin' Frost-Brand Gronk-Slayin' Vorpal Hammer o' Woundin' an' Returnin' an' Shootin'-Lightnin'-Out-Yer-Bum is?" She spits. "Dung, all o' it! Only gets ye in the Dead-Book! I ought ta kick ye in the shins fer even pesterin' a poor ol' woman about it all! Now go away an' leaves me in peace!

Modifié par DominusVita, 29 novembre 2012 - 01:20 .

[Allan Schumacher]

MisterJB wrote...

Well, to be fair, aren't most of those essencially "Investigate" options? Forgive my ignorance and possible blasphemy, I never played Planetscape: Torment .

It's also a situation that is only true if Planescape: Torment was the only RPG back then.

[mickey111]

MisterJB wrote...

Icesong wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Where is that planescape: torment screen shot of the 20 something dialogue replies when I need it?

This one always amuses me.

Well, to be fair, aren't most of those essencially "Investigate" options? Forgive my ignorance and possible blasphemy, I never played Planetscape: Torment .

There was no such subcategory as investigate in PS:T either. A category which allows you to probe for information with the assurance that none of your conversations won't prgoress to the next stage while you investigate. if there were ever a time in any of these games of Bioware where one of the investigation options might shift the focus of the whatever your talking about to some other subject then maybe you'd be right. The difference between the two styles of conversation is that the Bioware wheel makes conversations feel a little bit like your just browsing through the codex to help you decide which way to proceed. I don't think I'm explaining this very well, but the best way to learn the difference is to try it for yourself. Go play some other RPGs which don't have subivisions of dialogue replies such as investigate,  or Mass Effects paragon/renegade, Dragon ages nice/mean Kotors darkside/lightside and I think you'll notice that you need to spend more time thinking about how you want to talk to people.

[Brockololly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
As for whether or not a conversation feels realistic, neither DAO nor DA2 are particularly shining examples of this (which is fine, we don't aim to be).  If you want a realistic looking conversation, try Alpha Protocol.

But isn't one of the goals behind using cinematic conversations and an overall cinematic presentation to have the conversation "feel" realistic?

I love Alpha Protocol's dialogue system and for me, that kind of timed dialogue makes for a much more engaging experience with a voiced protagonist. It made the experience feel more cinematic and flowing than any recent BioWare game I can think of.

I guess that's just my issue with how BioWare games are all currently being presented- the cinematic presentation isn't being taken advantage of to the extent that Alpha Protocol did with timed dialogue and super simple tones with a more fixed protagonist to keep the scenes moving. And yet things like the paraphrases in BioWare games slow down the cinematic presentation by not going more to one extreme (Alpha Protocol) or on the other hand providing more info via full text  and toning down the cinematic presentation.

I guess I just wish BioWare would try something completely different from the Mass Effect formula presentation for their games at this point. Maybe that'll be DA3, but from what little has been said it seems to be more an iteration of DA2/ME3's style of presentation and dialogue.

[AmstradHero]

nightscrawl wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
In DAO, players see that they get offered more than three choices at the same time as a means to progress a conversation. In DA2, they almost always get offered only three choices at the same time as a means to progress a conversation. Yes, there are investigate hubs where DA2 can sometimes get more options, but these are clearly marked as such and very obviously denoted as "you are just finding out information".  So what conclusion do players make? DAO has more choice than DA2. It's really that simple.

I would really like to know how many players routinely go through all of the investigate options, in both games. I say this because I have never thought that DA2 had fewer options, because of the fact that I do read them all. Even after playing both of them several times, I still go through all of the options. I look at it more like crafting a conversation (I also pick investigates in the order that seems most logical, rather than strictly in the order they are listed), so I go though them all, and use that information, even though I as a player have already heard it several times before, to make my PC's decision.

I understand what you're saying, and I do exactly the same thing in terms of picking all the options and in the order that I want to ask them, but it doesn't change the issue that it very obviously will never progress the conversation. In DAO you largely knew from the words and construction what was going to progress the conversation and what wouldn't, but it wasn't so immediately and blatantly presented.

Brockololly wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
As for whether or not a conversation feels realistic, neither DAO nor DA2 are particularly shining examples of this (which is fine, we don't aim to be).  If you want a realistic looking conversation, try Alpha Protocol.

But isn't one of the goals behind using cinematic conversations and an overall cinematic presentation to have
the conversation "feel" realistic?

I guess I just wish BioWare would try something completely different from the Mass Effect formula presentation for their games at this point. Maybe that'll be DA3, but from what little has been said it seems to be more an iteration of DA2/ME3's style of presentation and dialogue.

I could not agree more. Having a voiced protagonist and autodialogue but then also having dialogue options where I can freely sit and wait and slowly flick back and forth over lines of dialogue breaks the flow. Moreover, I'm forced to break the conversation flow because I have to consider the words and the tone in DA2. It's a half-way house between the old list style and Alpha Protocol's forcibly "natural" conversations. As far as I'm concerned, Alpha Protocol still sets the benchmark for how dialogue with a voiced protagonist should be done.

The most significant writing/design change resulting from the AP style would be forcing the removal of investigation information dumps. That said, I understand the purpose of the investigation options in terms of providing further optional background and contextual information to players who want it and providing the player more illusion of control in terms of the delivery of that content.

Given players are already relying heavily on tonal information to determine the nature of their response in DA2, its pauses and paraphrasing seem to introduce more negatives than positives. The main positive I can see is allowing players to have an internal debate of how they would react in a particular situation on their own time/terms. Personally, I don't think this infrequent payoff is worth it.

To reiterate the question above: What is BioWare's aim with its conversational design?

Modifié par AmstradHero, 29 novembre 2012 - 06:32 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Out of curiosity, is BioWare still insistent on not using an abbreviated/shortened version of the full line as paraphrases?

Like if "You know this boredom is really getting to me. I swear if nothing exciting happens soon, I'm going on a rampage!" were a line, instead of getting something like: Aggressive - This boredom is getting to me; we'd be getting: Aggressive - I am not amused.

I remember it was a key point of discussion after DA 2 came out. They wanted to improve the paraphrases, but did not want to use the actual words in the full line to summarize what was being said. Is that still the case?

Also, going to have to echo the sentiment from other posters. What is it that BioWare wishes to actually achieve with their conversation design if it's not realism/realistic conversation flow, which is the big advantage associated with voiced dialog?

Modifié par CrustyBot, 29 novembre 2012 - 08:54 .

[Wulfram]

CrustyBot wrote...

Out of curiosity, is BioWare still insistent on not using an abbreviated/shortened version of the full line as paraphrases?

IIRC they've said they're going to be less reluctant to use the same word in the paraphrase as the actual line.

[Firky]

AmstradHero wrote...
To reiterate the question above: What is BioWare's aim with its conversational design?

I'd like to theorise. Moreover, I'd be interested to know this, too.

[Plaintiff]

I don't think realism is or has ever been an 'advantage' of voiced dialogue. Dialogue in film and television is not realistic. People do not constantly spout off pithy one-liners in real-life, they mumble and misspeak and 'um-ah' and ramble and go off on irrelevant tangents.

I'm fairly certain that Bioware's goal is simply to have a more cinematic presentation, and realism is not inherent to that, unless you consider cinema to always be realistic just by virtue of being cinema.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Do not be obtuse. Realistic not necessarily in the sense of "it's exactly like in real life", but realistic relative to more abstract methods of dialog. Such as the text-dumps in games like Baldur's Gate, let alone keyword systems like in Morrowind and earlier RPGs.

And if we're talking specifically about voiced protagonists and the difference between DA:O/DA 2, you're not seriously suggesting that the mute telepath is as realistic as DA 2's method, are you? I thought that was a massive complaint leveled at Origins by DA 2 fans who like to defend the changes made.

Unless the cinematic presentation itself is highly stylized or surreal (which DA's is not), it depicts a direct/non-abstract method of communication. Giving it an inherent advantage in terms of making it "realistic", because there's no mental barriers or assumptions the audience has to make. What's shown on-screen is what it is. Whether or not it ends up being "realistic" is a matter for the writing, but if the goal for cinematics, voiced protags and all is not to facilitate a more realistic presentation of dialog, then what is the goal?

Modifié par CrustyBot, 29 novembre 2012 - 01:18 .

[Plaintiff]

CrustyBot wrote...

Do not be obtuse. The cinematic presentation is less abstract than the text-dumps we see in Baldur's Gate and other IE games, therefore it is more realistic. Realistic not necessarily in the sense of "it's exactly like in real life", but realistic relative to more abstract methods of dialog.

And if we're talking specifically about voiced protagonists and the difference between DA:O/DA 2, you're not seriously suggesting that the mute telepath is as realistic as DA 2's method, are you? I thought that was a massive complaint leveled at Origins by DA 2 fans who like to defend the changes made.

I'm saying nothing of the kind. My intention was never to quibble about degrees of abstraction in the first place, and apparently neither was Bioware's, since a developer just stated that 'realism' was not the reationalisation behind the change. So as far as they, or I, are concerned, the degree of realism of either method is irrelevent.

All I am saying is that simply having spoken dialogue isn't inherently realistic, so it doesn't make sense to assume, as you seem to be doing, that the only reason to even have spoken dialogue is for the sake of 'realism'.

My desire for a voiced protagonist is because I find the conversations more dynamic and engaging, and I also suspect it is part of the reason why the script in DA2 is more concise, rather than the rambling style of Origins.

Dialogue will always be a more effective way to convey information than monologue. The conversation style in Origins is just plain dull, especially on subsequent playthroughs, when I've heard it all before. The only upside is that I can go and make a sandwich while characters ramble on about their pasts in excruciating detail.

If the voiced dialogue in DA2 happens to more realistic, in addition to the benefits that I already perceive, then I suppose that's a happy side-effect.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 29 novembre 2012 - 01:24 .

[abnocte]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
*snip*
If we were to create a conversation point like that, we'd likely have little issue creating the voice work, as well as a custom one time GUI to facilitate the choice.  Particularly since the conversation response is actually irrelevant (it doesn't branch the plot nor even the dialogue).

Feel free to ignore this since I'm just nitpicking...

The response is irrelevant from a programatically point of view as the answer does not affect what follows next, but from a roleplaying point of view... that's whole different thing, right there just in a single question you get 20 different ways to define the character you are playing, 20 different characters you can play as... I loved that.

True enough that the whole game revolves round that very question and is a very particular moment.

Firky wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
To reiterate the question above: What is BioWare's aim with its conversational design?

I'd like to theorise. Moreover, I'd be interested to know this, too.

Count me in.
Knowing this will make easier to understand Bioware design decisions in that regard...

Modifié par abnocte, 29 novembre 2012 - 01:25 .

[AmstradHero]

Plaintiff wrote...

CrustyBot wrote...
Do not be obtuse. The cinematic presentation is less abstract than the text-dumps we see in Baldur's Gate and other IE games, therefore it is more realistic. Realistic not necessarily in the sense of "it's exactly like in real life", but realistic relative to more abstract methods of dialog.

And if we're talking specifically about voiced protagonists and the difference between DA:O/DA 2, you're not seriously suggesting that the mute telepath is as realistic as DA 2's method, are you? I thought that was a massive complaint leveled at Origins by DA 2 fans who like to defend the changes made.

All I am saying is that simply having spoken dialogue isn't inherently realistic, so it doesn't make sense to assume, as you seem to be doing, that the only reason to even have spoken dialogue is for the sake of 'realism'.

My desire for a voiced protagonist is because I find the conversations more dynamic and engaging, and I also suspect it is part of the reason why the script in DA2 is more concise, rather than the rambling style of Origins.

Dialogue will always be a more effective way to convey information than monologue. The conversation style in Origins is just plain dull, especially on subsequent playthroughs, when I've heard it all before. The only upside is that I can go and make a sandwich while characters ramble on about their pasts in excruciating detail.

If the voiced dialogue in DA2 happens to more realistic, in addition to the benefits that I already perceive, then I suppose that's a happy side-effect.

Please don't turn this into ANOTHER discussion isn't about the voiced versus non-voiced protagonist. Even if it was, this is a largely moot point because on average all you get extra in DA2 is a voiced line from Hawke. The NPC may respond with either a specific response to what you've said, but then the dialogue chain proceeds down the same pre-written path. That is EXACTLY the same for DAO and DA2. It's how and why dialogue trees work.

Arguably, DAO's system gives more freedom for roleplaying and the feel of an organic conversation because the mechanics of the conversation are not explicitly laid out for the player. This is more difficult to the writer because now there's a balance between player expectations and the mechanics. If someone accidentally progresses a conversation, that can be annoying.

DA2's style is more cinematic because of the voiced style and aimed to provide a more emotion/values driven character by the addition of the tone wheel. I think part of the issue was that many people were relying first on the words provided to give an indication of how they would respond, and the tone second. I did it the other way around, and wasn't really ever annoyed at what Hawke said, because it fit the tone I'd picked.

This is why I prefer Alpha Protocol's system. By stripping it purely to emotion and tone, then you get that value-driven character that seemed to be the aim for DA2, but don't have any of the headache of misinterpretation and failed expectations when the character delivers a line that the player didn't expect. Once we've moved into a paraphrasing realm, it's unlikely that most people can project themselves AS the protagonist, but merely the proxy for the protagonist. In my eyes, the paraphrasing isn't aiding roleplaying.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 29 novembre 2012 - 08:09 .

[Firky]

AmstradHero wrote...

I think part of the issue was that many people were relying first on the words provided to give an indication of how they would respond, and the tone second. I did it the other way around, and wasn't really ever annoyed at what Hawke said, because it fit the tone I'd picked.

I'm fairly sure I stopped even reading around 50% of the paraphrases, pretty quickly. Except when showed the non-standard icons, or it seemed to be an important moment, or I was just playing slowly.

Somehow, I'm adverse to DA3 just using tone, even though that's largely how I played. I'm not entirely sure why ...

Maybe, on the point of how they're aiming to design conversations, I'd like to feel like I have an important stake/role/part in the conversation. Icons seems to take it one step further from that, while DA2 seemed to have a bit of a foot in either camp. (I dunno. Tricky.)

Edit: PS. It's like, customisation. I played twice with default female Hawke and once with default male Hawke. Yet, if they removed customisation, I'd freak out. There's an odd double standard with DA going on in my mind. I don't think I bothered changing Hawke's look because I was just more interested in trying out classes, whereas, in Origins, things like tattoos etc, made more sense to muck around with, based on race, etc. A few of the things in DA2 that I never really used simply created the illusion of it harking back to older roots for me, I think.

Modifié par Firky, 30 novembre 2012 - 03:48 .

[Allan Schumacher]

But isn't one of the goals behind using cinematic conversations and an overall cinematic presentation to have the conversation "feel" realistic?

No conversation in reality would ever result in someone repeatedly saying the same thing and the other person responding the exact same way. All of our games allow this, however.

You've grasped to something not relevant to what I was talking about. Alpha Protocol's conversations flow a lot more naturally (and I'm not talking about the timer.  Even though I didn't mind it, I remember Luke having some very good points as to why the timer isn't necessary for appropriate flow). Though by Obsidian's own admission, they were mountains of work and much more prone to breaking.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 30 novembre 2012 - 08:00 .