318 réponses à ce sujet

[Bleachrude]

This may sound weird but what is wrong with how persuade was handled in DA2?

For example, you didn't HAVE to fight the quanari in act 2 when entering the keep as long as beforehand you had been siding with the quanari...

Isn't this a more natural persuade system? One based on actual actions taken by the player?

[MichaelStuart]

I would prefer persuasion be a simple matter of choosing the right dialog options.

[Fast Jimmy]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I would prefer persuasion be a simple matter of choosing the right dialog options.

I would like this too. 

What tone or wheel icon is the right dialogue option? I need someone to tell me, otherwise I won't know what my PC is going to say, so I won't know what the right dialogue option is. 

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The one that's highlighted blue or red is the right option

I fixed that for you, based on how ME2 and 3 treated some of the Renegade choices. 

[LPPrince]

He's right though.

[vandalDX]

I'm a fan of the situational persuasion system espoused in DAII. Mass Effect didn't need something like that, because the player built Shepard's entire fight with the Reapers, and needed larger-scale focus.

If Inquisition is a stand-alone game (benefitting from some outcomes based on choices from II), then something like gifts and situational responses might work. I liked the personalities of all of the companions in DAII, and found the gift giving system from Origins rather trifling. I disliked Sten as a character, so rather ignored him. DAII gave me the player some more dimension with the personality of Hawke, which I found engaging and warranting of multiple playthroughs. If Inquisition stays on a small scale (though that seems unlikely, given what's out there about maps), the DAII system would work, and certainly could be upgraded.

If Inquisition is the start of something greater, then I'm not sure what I'd prefer. I'm a sucker for the games' romances, so anything that plays to a deeper relationship between my PC and his or her LI would be on my wishlist.

[LPPrince]

You're right though.

[Urazz]

I liked how DA2 handled the persuasion system. It was influenced by your dominant personality and your past behavior. The best example is that you didn't have to fight the Arishok in the Qunari invasion if you got the Arishok's respect. Otherwise you were doomed to fight him.

[LPPrince]

Well, the DA dev team decided to get rid of dominant personality for DA3, so...

[UnderlAlDyingSun]

I'd like the option to punch everyone in the face.

Naw, but honestly it would be cool of they could make your inquiry tone a little more consistent with your dialogue choices.

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Because, in books, the reader isn't an active participant in the narrative.  The reader doesn't have any control over the characters.  The reader isn't making any of the characters' decisions.

In roleplaying games, however, the player does (and should) get to do those things.  The player can imagine content, and the game lets him do so.

I suppose the reader could do the same thing with a book, but I'm not really sure why he would want to.  There's less investment in the character in a book, because the character isn't the reader's.

Precisely. They have their similarities, but the two media have significant differences as well. Much like games (and rpgs) have vis-á-vis television/cinema.

[Fiery Knight]

LPPrince wrote...

Well, the DA dev team decided to get rid of dominant personality for DA3, so...

Probably a good thing, the dominant personality restriced certain decisions in the game. Like for example, siding with Petrice was only available to people who were "Violent". That was a big "wtf" for me.

[Urazz]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Urazz wrote...

I liked how DA2 handled the persuasion system. It was influenced by your dominant personality and your past behavior. The best example is that you didn't have to fight the Arishok in the Qunari invasion if you got the Arishok's respect. Otherwise you were doomed to fight him.

I hated that because the dominant personality thing was terrible, just terrible.

In theory it could be well done, but not in reality where they are already spending three times as much time and money for each conversation, because of the dialog wheel--six if you separate male and female. It's already almost too much work, and adding many personalities--because three just don't cut it--wouldn't help at all.

Oh, I agree that the dominant personality thing was handled poorly in some cases in DA2 but overall, I think it was a good way to go forward instead of going with a stat you invest in when you level up.

I think they shouldn't have had the dominant personality affect  the auto dialogue in most cases but it should keep score of what dialogue choices you have made in the past so it would limit what type of choices you can make in the future.

For example, if you were constantly being a dick to the Templars, the game should remember that and limit what you can do with the Templars because they would no like you for being a dick to them constantly.

Hawke_12 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Well, the DA dev team decided to get rid of dominant personality for DA3, so...

Probably a good thing, the dominant personality restriced certain decisions in the game. Like for example, siding with Petrice was only available to people who were "Violent". That was a big "wtf" for me.

I agree that was a poor example of tying a decision to the dominant personality you have but I do think having it tied to your past decision in dealing with Petrice and the Qunari should effect in being able to side with her.  I.E. you would have to help help the Chantry all the time and not help the Qunari at all to be able to pick Petrice.

Modifié par Urazz, 24 mai 2013 - 03:03 .

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Urazz wrote...

I liked how DA2 handled the persuasion system. It was influenced by your dominant personality and your past behavior. The best example is that you didn't have to fight the Arishok in the Qunari invasion if you got the Arishok's respect. Otherwise you were doomed to fight him.

What? I thought you always have to fight him unless you give him Isabella. Gaining his respect means you don't have to fight the Qunari Honor Guard he sicks on you when you confront him in the throne room.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 24 mai 2013 - 03:24 .

[esper]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Urazz wrote...

I liked how DA2 handled the persuasion system. It was influenced by your dominant personality and your past behavior. The best example is that you didn't have to fight the Arishok in the Qunari invasion if you got the Arishok's respect. Otherwise you were doomed to fight him.

What? I thought you always have to fight him unless you give him Isabella. Gaining his respect means you don't have to fight the Qunari Honor Guard he sicks on you when you confront him in the throne room.

His respect mean skipping out on the guard fight.

You can duel him over Isabella or if you have Fenris on you team (his respect might also be needed with the last option).

If you have neither Isabella nor Fenris, you are doomed to fight his whole group.