6 réponses à ce sujet

[d4eaming]

You know what I mean, when you select another companion and they say something. "Yes?" "Hmm?" "What do you need?" Or when clicking to interact with something, the PC makes a comment "Can I get you a ladder so you can get off my back?"

In Baldur's Gate, when you selected another companion, they would be moved to the front into the party leader position, and they would make a comment, something like "Ha ha! Now I get to lead!"

I miss those. I found them amusing in DAO, and in DA2, it didn't feel quite right to me for them to say nothing when you selected them. I do like how when you select a companion and click on Hawke, you get a comment, and the same with the companions (yes, I click Fenris all the time just to hear "I am yours," my life is sad and pathetic, I know).

These were small touches that I really enjoyed. I can understand they might have been cut from DA2 due to time contraints, and I'd really like to see them come back. I like hearing the companions make comments on everything else, and I love banter, I'd just really like to see it expanded back to how BG and DAO were.

Modifié par d4eaming, 11 décembre 2012 - 08:30 .

[David Gaider]

d4eaming wrote...
I can understand they might have been cut from DA2 due to time contraints

Not at all. We cut them because they were too repetitive, and there's really no way to make them non-repetitive even if we tripled the number of lines because clicking on companions is simply something you do very frequently throughout the game.

[Allan Schumacher]

That's like saying people weren't obessed with clicking on orc peons / many other units in other RTSs / games just to hear all the funny lines, over and over and over and over again.

There's a usability case for RTS games to still have the dialogue (audible confirmation that the selection has occurred). This is less vital in a game with RTwP mechanics.

[Allan Schumacher]

If we were controlling a party in MP, I guess the usability case might come back for that?

It'd be valid feedback if we were to have players control full parties in multiplayer, yes.

Basically if we were to provide gameplay elements where pause is not an option, and quick response time is still necessary, that type of feedback becomes more valuable.

[David Gaider]

Well, it's nice to know that some people appreciated them. I'm not sure that reducing the frequency would be all that helpful-- we were trying that with the attack barks ("have at you!") which fire randomly during combat, and all we found with a greatly reduced frequency is that suddenly the very point of having them at all started to become questionable. I can think of better places to put effort towards a character's charm, but again it's nice to know that this effort wasn't completely invisible.

Though I will NOT miss having to come up with 5-10 different acknowledgements for every character, let me tell you.

[David Gaider]

Dhiro wrote...
I could stand for more in-battle banter. Specifically, the one in Legacy during the last fight is a favorite of mine. I also adore small details such as Anders crying out loud if a romanced Hawke falls in battle, while Isabela says "Hawke's down, time to panic!"

Err... just to be clear, I was referring only to the bark issued when you click on a character (as was the OP, I believe). We still will have other reactive barks, such as when someone in the party falls. In fact, these sorts of barks reacting to specific events (rather than ones that just fire at random) are what those party comments work best for.

[David Gaider]

sea- wrote...
Yet the dialogue in combat grew extremely repetitive as well.  So why was that kept?

We are getting rid of the random combat barks as well, keeping the stuff that is reactive rather than sporadic.

Why did we not get rid of the random combat barks back in DA2 at the same time as the on-clicks? Tradition, I suppose. Those seemed more important, somehow. They're really not, provided that combat isn't reduced to mere grunting and silence, and that leaves us room for more reactive barks instead.