205 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

Wothen wrote...

Dialog Wheels with 2 options, PC speaking automatically 80% of the game...ugh

Im really putting some faith in bioware for inquisition, I hope the longer development cycle improves things
If not, well, lets say they won't see my money for awhile

Was not 80% of the game.<_<

[CybAnt1]

phoenix fang55 wrote...

cybant1, you missed the main point I was making, overall, they use the same basic mechanics, there are some, different ones, but for the most part, they're incredibly similar,

And yet, not similar enough that:

a) Wikipedia lists one (ME) as an action-RPG, and the other (DA) as not-one. 
There is a tabletop-RPG version of one (DA), and only fanmade versions of the other (ME). Do you know why? They have to invent certain mechanics for the tabletop that don't otherwise exist in the game to do that, esp as of ME3.



 

[KaiserShep]

Despite Wikipedia's description, Dragon Age: Origins is still very much an action RPG. Its combat mechanics are largely unchanged between it and Dragon Age 2. Essentially the only things that truly set them apart are the enemy spawning and the outlandish maneuvering of the characters. The real-time combat and pause-and-play tactics were always there.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 10 février 2014 - 12:48 .

[CybAnt1]

I'd like to see some proper middle ground come to DA:I.

We may both be happy here, then.

3. The disparity between the two on the combat front is not as wide as people let on. 

Well, it's weird. There seem to be three camps, of course.
a) People asserting DA1 and DA2 were so similar as to be not worth discussing any differences
People asserting DA1 was much worse
c) People asserting DA2 was much worse

We'll get to that point, later. 

4. Auto-romance seems to be more of a writing issue with certain characters, 

No, for me, if you've been paying attention - and I understand why you wouldn't - it's an INTERFACE/UI issue. Which THEN *forces* a writing issue (no bifurcations in romance progress).

 

[CybAnt1]

KaiserShep wrote...

Regarding paraphrasing, what keeps it from breaking down completely as a design element is that the story itself does not engage the PC in a great deal of debate. You can do things like picking sides and having brief arguments, but imagine that system being implemented during something like the Landsmeet. It would be a total craps shoot, considering that these options can be affected by the impressions you get from the nobles you talk to prior. Example: Arl Wulf. The dialogue emphasizing the Blight over the threat of Orlais may be an option you'd lean toward as a result of talking to him on the loss of his sons. Such an option would be harder to discern (maybe even impossible) if paraphrased.

Thank you for helping us argue against paraphrasing, then. Your points in bold are reasons why Ieldra & I hate it. 

[leaguer of one]

CybAnt1 wrote...

phoenix fang55 wrote...

cybant1, you missed the main point I was making, overall, they use the same basic mechanics, there are some, different ones, but for the most part, they're incredibly similar,

And yet, not similar enough that:

a) Wikipedia lists one (ME) as an action-RPG, and the other (DA) as not-one. 
There is a tabletop-RPG version of one (DA), and only fanmade versions of the other (ME). Do you know why? They have to invent certain mechanics for the tabletop that don't otherwise exist in the game to do that, esp as of ME3.



 

That means nothing. What makes an rpg a type of rpg is the elements in it games. It not the first time a wiki page is wrong, And a Table top rpg has nothing to do with what type of rpg the game it got it inperation from is.
It based on the twitch combat/stat combat ratio. DA2 has it stat combat ratio higher then it twitch combat ratio.
DA2 is an auto attack base rpg with based succes for attack and missing based on stats out side of moving out of the way of aoe attacks.(With dao has as well.)

DA2 is just a fast version of DAO make to handle wave combat. You don't even have a manual dodge mechanic.

ME ofcourse clearly is an action rpg from day one.

[CybAnt1]

Wait ...Wait ..wait... DA2 combat is still point a click. It's nothing like an action rpg.

shh, they don't know what action rpg are like and I haven't had the heart to tell them how it actually goes.

I've played Dungeon Siege, Diablo, and Deus Ex. I know how they actually go. 

I also know the difference in definitional terms. It seems some people around here don't. 

1. In a "regular" or tactical RPG, what determines if you dodge an attack is your character's skill (dex, dodge, etc.) not your ability as a player to move him/her out of the way or into cover.
2. "" if you hit your enemy is your character's weapon skills, etc., not your ability (hand-eye) to aim.
3. "" tactical positioning is important (what some call "the shuffle"), in an a-r it's made irrelevant.
4. "" your attack speed by stats and weapon attributes, not how fast you can mash the button
5. "" auto-attack is the default, only deactivated if you prefer "one mash, one hit" (I don't)

In terms of "action-iness," it goes like this:

ME3 > ME1 > DA2 > DA1

But that was the problem ... I never said DA2 became a complete action-RPG like the ME series, just that it borrowed some action-RPG aspects/elements from the other series. To try to get, as some have said, the so-called "CoD audience".

In so doing, as one popular meme in the meme thread has put it, it went from "guerilla" warfare to "gorilla" warfare. 

[CybAnt1]

KaiserShep wrote...

Despite Wikipedia's description, Dragon Age: Origins is still very much an action RPG. 

It's really odd, both you and leaguer say I'm wrong, but one says I am wrong because DAO IS an action-RPG, and the other says I'm wrong because DA2 (as well as DAO) is not. 

BTW: for the record, I reiterate:

DA1 is NOT an action-RPG.
I did not SAY DA2 was either. It just became more 'actiony'. And more like the ME series, which ARE action-RPGs.

The thing both of you are ignoring is that you could speed up attacks by hitting buttons faster. That is also another action-RPG 'feature' added to DA2. 

Also, BTW, that DA2 *got rid of the top-down tactical view of your party*. 

[CybAnt1]

l
 It not the first time a wiki page is wrong,

[snip]

ME ofcourse clearly is an action rpg from day one.

Wiki pages can and have been wrong, but your last sentence shows that this one is right.

ME is an action-RPG, DA is not. Though they tried to make it more of one (not completely) with DA2. 

[holdenagincourt]

I hope they will either go back to DA:O's style of combat or go the whole hog and convert to WASD combat and PC control. DA:2 is a weird hybrid that feels neither as strategic as Origins nor as fluid as ME3.

[KaiserShep]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Also, BTW, that DA2 *got rid of the top-down tactical view of your party*.

Something that DA:I, thankfully, is bringing back. As one of the unwashed masses living with a PS3, however, I can't say it was a feature I really missed, since it didn't exist for DA:O either on that platform.

[CybAnt1]

Well, as I've been saying, the main reasons why I'm here and mostly happy is many things I've read to date suggest they are reversing the "action-iness" of DA2 and going back (somewhat) to DA1. Though yes I have seen they have made clear "it is not a complete 180" but ... I wasn't expecting that either.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Yeah i m caling dragon age 2 dragon effect 2 because it was moore like mass effect dialogue circle ,poor control over protagonist limited to 2-3 personalities... and action based game then tactical hell they even took drinking animation from mass effect.And to be honest more info about dai more it looks like dragon effect 3 than old dao... sadly

about multi they said same thing about mass effect 3 that multi won't be required to get best ending and how it worked that you without multi could get only half of your war points in single when peak was somthing about 7500 and at least 4000 point were needed to get second best ending and 5000 for best... 

[ames4u]

ElementalFury106 wrote...

Oh, I've talked about and thought about this topic so many times over the past 2 years I swear I could write a thesis/dissertation on it.

I wish I had the time to invest to a youtube channel many years ago, covering RPG games: playthroughs, builds and tips, news, comparisons, etc.

I like your title. The title for my theory(ies) pertaining to this subject is "The Mass Effect effect of Dragon Age." Looks silly, but reread and think about it.

So I don't want to write a massive post most people will just disregard. I'll just share my MAIN points in little bullets.

Bioware is increasingly destroying the identity of the Dragon Age franchise by changing it to be MORE and MORE like Mass Effect. From the story telling/progression, to combat, to fundemental RPG elements like character progression.

-Both Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age:Origins were said to have clunky combat. It took a little getting used to, but both games had charm to their combat. A huge change to combat came with Mass Effect 2, focusing more on being a faster, smoother cover-based third person shooter. Some hated the combat changes, but most people enjoyed them. The combat was smoother, regardless of one's opinion. DA:2 did the EXACT same thing. Made combat faster and more interactive, but much less tactical.

-The protaganist. And the dialogue wheel. Both straight out of Mass Effect, incorporated in both DA:2 and now DA:I. We now have a fully voiced acted protaganist who has dialogue options ranging between paragon/helpful, neutral/humorous, renegade/aggresive. Both Shepard and Hawke seem to also act like baby sitters, dealing with people s***. The Warden can basically say FU to any douche bag they encounter. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but you can clearly see how DA:2 took this straight outta Mass Effect.

-Gear and character customization. Mass Effect 2 was criticized for being dumbed down. Got rid of loot, took out all the different weapons and armor, and leveling process. You can also no longer outfit your companions, they all have their own armor in different colors/variations. DA:2 did this as well. You used to be able to fully outfit your team...then you couldn't. Straight from a decision made during the Mass Effect trilogy.

The story/decision making becoming fixed. Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3, completely fixed games. By that I mean, no matter what decisions you make, eventually comes together in the same fashions. The end results (and endings) are EXACTLY the same, except from a few very minor differentiations.

-Ever noticed how we no longer had a neutral option in Mass Effect 3? It was either diplomatic or renegade, or the special paragon and renegade options. Did you notice in the PAX gameplay of Inquisition how the dialogue wheel evolved in the EXACT same way..?

-Multiplayer. ME3 brought multiplayer to the equation. DA:I hasn't confirmed multiplayer...yet. But they haven't denied it either, and they even humored the idea of it. I definitely think Inquisition will have multiplayer. The third game of Dragon Age franchise...the equivalent of Mass Effect 3.

-Skill/Talent evolution. Mass Effect 2 introduced the power evolution mechanic, where ME1 and DA:O has a linear tree progression style of power-leveling. Then DA:2 adopted the power evolution mechanic as well.

-This one is an assumption, but in ME3 we had the Galaxy at War assets. I bet we're going to have something similar with Inquisition.

-Day 1 Squadmate DLC. Yup.

I'm sure I can probably come up with more, but these are the main ones. It's absolutely crazy how similar the two franchises are. I get that they're made by the same team. But Mass Effect and DA:O had their own identities and were great on their. They're becoming more and more similar with each passing game.

I'm also starting to believe that the Keep will be like Mass Effect 2's Genesis DLC. Basically, they will cut off all over choices except the 'big decision's. Hope I turn out to be wrong though.

[Dean_the_Young]

...people do realize that the dialogue wheel doesn't really change the number of available dialogues, don't they? That you could go back to the KOTOR/Jade Empire list formats and reorganize them in much the same way?

KOTOR and Jade Empire and DAO did list formats, but they weren't conceptually different from the dialogue wheel. The standard was still a nice/neutral/meanie tone breakdown to advance the conversation, with various investigate options scattered within that would just take you back to the same list for nice/neutral/meanie. It could sometimes be tricky to tell which dialogue was investigate versus conversation progression, but they were still there.

All a dialogue wheel is is a interface format that organizes your options. Investigates to the left, progression to the right. There's nothing else inherent about it: you can have an arbitrary number of progressions on the right side of the wheel, be it three or two (or four), and you can use investigate options to carry forward the dialogue as well (which they did from time to time). You don't even need to always have the same number of progression dialogues in every scene: you could have two, or three, or four.

[CybAnt1]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

...people do realize that the dialogue wheel doesn't really change the number of available dialogues, don't they?

Well, yes, and no. Again, it depends on whether we're talking implementation or systematicity.

By that, I mean, a wheel with six spokes can only offer 6 options. Yes? 

Whereas a list could have 12 or 20. I know you will say that the dialogue lists never had that many in recent previous Bio games, but the point is in a list format, they COULD. 

I will concur it was pretty rare in previous games to have more than 6 list options. But the possibility was there. 

That you could go back to the KOTOR/Jade Empire list formats and reorganize them in much the same way?

Yes, KOTOR started the trend toward Dark Side/Light Side answers/actions/options. Never played JE but as I recall it also had Open Fist/Closed Fist. As I think I've said, there are a few Biofans who wish they'd get out of the binarism rut. 

KOTOR and Jade Empire and DAO did list formats, but they weren't conceptually different from the dialogue wheel. The standard was still a nice/neutral/meanie tone breakdown to advance the conversation, with various investigate options scattered within that would just take you back to the same list for nice/neutral/meanie. It could sometimes be tricky to tell which dialogue was investigate versus conversation progression, but they were still there.

First off, DAO - which seemed, at least, to get rid of the binarism I discussed above, (whether that was illusion or not), was good that way. While I'm not saying most conversations didn't have nice, naughty, neutral, they didn't clearly mark which was which. To some of us, that's a good thing. 

And that it used this binarism doesn't mean it had at least the potential to move out/away from it. 

All a dialogue wheel is is a interface format that organizes your options. Investigates to the left, progression to the right. There's nothing else inherent about it: you can have an arbitrary number of progressions on the right side of the wheel, be it three or two (or four), and you can use investigate options to carry forward the dialogue as well (which they did from time to time). You don't even need to always have the same number of progression dialogues in every scene: you could have two, or three, or four.

Systems, and implementation.

As a system, the wheel UI forces paraphrasing, unless they change the positioning or fonts or other elements, because it is darn hard to display full-text adjacent to a wheel spoke when they keep the wheel on the bottom. Tooltips can help solve that problem, and just might be solving it, soon. 

As to implementation, well I think I've said about 8 times now the wheel would be just fine if it used the Choice icon a lot more often, and thus showed you 6 options frequently instead of 3 typically, with the 3 on the left hand side being a lot more ambiguous in tone/naughtiness, instead of the 3 on the RH side appearing constantly, with their constant marking. 

[Hiemoth]

[quote]ElementalFury106 wrote...

Oh, I've talked about and thought about this topic so many times over the past 2 years I swear I could write a thesis/dissertation on it.

I wish I had the time to invest to a youtube channel many years ago, covering RPG games: playthroughs, builds and tips, news, comparisons, etc.

I like your title. The title for my theory(ies) pertaining to this subject is "The Mass Effect effect of Dragon Age." Looks silly, but reread and think about it.

So I don't want to write a massive post most people will just disregard. I'll just share my MAIN points in little bullets.

[/quote]

You do realize that it might not just be people disregarding what you wrote, just not agreeing with your points.

[quote]ElementalFury106 wrote...
Bioware is increasingly destroying the identity of the Dragon Age franchise by changing it to be MORE and MORE like Mass Effect. From the story telling/progression, to combat, to fundemental RPG elements like character progression.
[/quote]

You know, when I started writing this reply, I decided to try to be as respectful in disagreement as possible, avoiding snark and jokes. Hyperbolic comments like that make it really difficult. And by the way, as I am coming over the list in the following, I have no illusions of convincing you how wrong I think you are. Still, as you feel truths need to be said, I thought I might as well throw my views out there as well.

[quote]ElementalFury106 wrote...
-Both Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age:Origins were said to have clunky combat. It took a little getting used to, but both games had charm to their combat. A huge change to combat came with Mass Effect 2, focusing more on being a faster, smoother cover-based third person shooter. Some hated the combat changes, but most people enjoyed them. The combat was smoother, regardless of one's opinion. DA:2 did the EXACT same thing. Made combat faster and more interactive, but much less tactical.
[/quote]

Yeah, it is not as if you could still pause the game and give commands to your team in DA2 as opposed to ME2/3. But wait, your argument is that they eroded the difference by making DA2 combat faster? That is all it took? Especially since there were several complaints after DAO about the combat being too slow?

[quote]ElementalFury106 wrote...
-The protaganist. And the dialogue wheel. Both straight out of Mass Effect, incorporated in both DA:2 and now DA:I. We now have a fully voiced acted protaganist who has dialogue options ranging between paragon/helpful, neutral/humorous, renegade/aggresive. Both Shepard and Hawke seem to also act like baby sitters, dealing with people s***. The Warden can basically say FU to any douche bag they encounter. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but you can clearly see how DA:2 took this straight outta Mass Effect.
[/quote]

Except they didn't. Don't get me wrong, the dialogue wheel is from Mass Effect, but the use of it isn't because they wanted to remove differences between the two games, but rather because they had copyrighted the dialogue wheel and wanted to employ as their general approach. At least that is how I understood it.

However, the problems in your argument really don't even start with that. First of all, your completely mixing up the tone system in DA2 with paragon/renegade system in ME. The P/R system was a choice system, where your P/R score was mostly impacted on how chose to react in situations, not just in dialogue options, but also as actions. By acting in a consistant manner, it allowed you to have unique solutions later based on the P/R score. In contrast the tone system was never affected by the choices. Those were always completely independ, thus no matter no matter how diplomatic your tone was, you could always choose not to go to look for Sandal in the Deep Roads, a very non-Paragon action, or no matter how aggressive your tone was, you can choose to try to stop the war between Kirkwall and the Qunari. The tone only affects how Hawke's reactions in those choices is expressed, while the P/R system doesn't affect experssion of a choice at all. Second of all, did I miss the part where neutral Shepard responses were wisecracks and jokes? As your argument here seems to be more about not placing the responses in a consistent matter or otherwise they are ripping of other games.

And Warden can turn down any task? Really? The person always drafted to the Grey Warden's, forced to a certain task during Ostagar and tasked with gathering the forces was constantly allowed to tell everyone involved to go to hell? Wow, I truly and utterly missed that part as I thought the Warden always to complete the central tasks. It isn't as if s/he could go the Dalish elves and after hearing about their problems just go 'I don't have time for your problems' and leave. Yeah, there were side quests the Warden could turn down, but, and I know this is a shocker, so could Shepard and so could Hawke.

[quote]ElementalFury106 wrote...
-Gear and character customization. Mass Effect 2 was criticized for being dumbed down. Got rid of loot, took out all the different weapons and armor, and leveling process. You can also no longer outfit your companions, they all have their own armor in different colors/variations. DA:2 did this as well. You used to be able to fully outfit your team...then you couldn't. Straight from a decision made during the Mass Effect trilogy.
[/quote]

Well, it isn't as if there was always a clearly superior weapon and armor choice in ME1 and while there were fewer options in ME2, all those operated very differently and had both pros/cons. And here I was also remembering that you could choose the weapons used by your squadmates in ME2/3 and DA2, and rings and amulets in DA2, but obviously that has to be wrong according to your argument there. As for the armor, that I wil give you, as it is true you couldn't change it, although linking that choice to Mass Effect is pretty far-fetched, as the rationaly given behind the decision in DA2 had nothing to do with ME.

[quote]ElementalFury106 wrote...
The story/decision making becoming fixed. Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3, completely fixed games. By that I mean, no matter what decisions you make, eventually comes together in the same fashions. The end results (and endings) are EXACTLY the same, except from a few very minor differentiations.
[/quote]

They were? Wow, really good to know. I thought the Krogan situation or the Quarian/Geth situations, just for examples, had a lot of differences, but apparantely not. And who knew that Destory and Control were completely the same. Or that Hawke going against the Mages and becoming a Templar supported Viscount was the same as him/her being a symbol of resistance for the mages, hiding from everyone.

And I guess I cannot argue with this. I mean, there were very clear paths of choices in DAO which did not lead to your character fighting the Archdemon on the roof of the palace and either sacrificing someone to seal away its soul or completing the Dark Ritual. Or not facing Soveirgn controlled Saren in ME1. Or storming the Collector base in ME2. And it isn't as if the major choices in those situations weren't made during those last minutes completely unaffected by prior choices.
[/quote]

[quote]ElementalFury106 wrote...
-Ever noticed how we no longer had a neutral option in Mass Effect 3? It was either diplomatic or renegade, or the special paragon and renegade options. Did you notice in the PAX gameplay of Inquisition how the dialogue wheel evolved in the EXACT same way..?
[/quote]

Huh? I honestly have no idea what you are writing about here? Not just that DA2 didn't have neutral choices either, as it didn't have anything corresponding to it, but also I cannot even think of a situation where your argument here could applicable.

[quote]ElementalFury106 wrote...
-Multiplayer. ME3 brought multiplayer to the equation. DA:I hasn't confirmed multiplayer...yet. But they haven't denied it either, and they even humored the idea of it. I definitely think Inquisition will have multiplayer. The third game of Dragon Age franchise...the equivalent of Mass Effect 3.
[/quote]

Wait, a lot of games had multiplayer. BG used to have multiplayer. And shouldn't the method of how that possible, although that is apparently an irrelevant detail, MP implemented be the deciding factor in this comparison. Or is shouting Multiplayer enough?

[quote]ElementalFury106 wrote...
-Skill/Talent evolution. Mass Effect 2 introduced the power evolution mechanic, where ME1 and DA:O has a linear tree progression style of power-leveling. Then DA:2 adopted the power evolution mechanic as well.
[/quote]

Again, I will admit being utterly baffled by your argument. ME2 and ME3 had a linear tree progression for leveling. You spend points on the skill and got to next stage of it. The final stage in ME2 and most of the stages in ME3 offered to options for gains to allow player customization of their character, which is apparently now a really bad thing according to this argument, but it was still quite linear. While the skill trees in DA2 were something completely different. I honestly don't know what else to answer here, as your claim is just blatantly false.

[quote]ElementalFury106 wrote...
-This one is an assumption, but in ME3 we had the Galaxy at War assets. I bet we're going to have something similar with Inquisition.
[/quote]

So wait, now your assumptions on things not yet even indicated of being in the game are evidence? Well, I think they are going to have the main character die halfway through the game and you shift playing one of the NPCs of your choice until the end of the game, thus it is nothing like ME series. I mean I have no proof of this, but we are now accepting these kinds of claims.

[quote]ElementalFury106 wrote...
-Day 1 Squadmate DLC. Yup.
[/quote]

Yeah. I mean I got Shale as a Day 1 DLC, but it was like totally different. Utterly different. Not the same at all.

[quote]ElementalFury106 wrote...
I'm sure I can probably come up with more, but these are the main ones. It's absolutely crazy how similar the two franchises are. I get that they're made by the same team. But Mass Effect and DA:O had their own identities and were great on their. They're becoming more and more similar with each passing game.[/quote]

Expect their not. They really, really, really are not. And my apologies on failing to curb my snark in my responses.

Modifié par Hiemoth, 10 février 2014 - 07:35 .

[CybAnt1]

Especially since there were several complaints after DAO about the combat being too slow?

That point, while valid, ignores that there were plenty that didn't think so and didn't feel that way. Perhaps it felt slow to people who weren't used to previous CRPGs and were used to action games like CoD. It didn't to me. 

This shuffle people keep talking about? Didn't notice, and didn't bother me. Yes, like every other CRPG on the planet, it had flawed pathfinding, which meant characters bumped into each other and objects on their way to their targets. Something we'll have to live with until game AI R & D fixes this problem. 

Oh, I do realize, at the end of the day, it does come down to who to listen to, but I just thought I'd make that point anyway.

BTW, if you read my points, you'll see they didn't just turn up the speed notch. 

No, the combat philosophy went to "hit the button and watch the awesome happen," which is a phrase that still sticks in some peoples' craws. Mine, anyway. 

I don't want to hit buttons and watch awesome happen, I want to select from sustained and activated abilities, and think about how they will modify the flow of combat, in numbers/technical/practical terms. I really just don't care how awesome they LOOK. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 10 février 2014 - 03:30 .

[Dean_the_Young]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

...people do realize that the dialogue wheel doesn't really change the number of available dialogues, don't they?

Well, yes, and no. Again, it depends on whether we're talking implementation or systematicity.

By that, I mean, a wheel with six spokes can only offer 6 options. Yes? 

Whereas a list could have 12 or 20. I know you will say that the dialogue lists never had that many in recent previous Bio games, but the point is in a list format, they COULD. 

I will concur it was pretty rare in previous games to have more than 6 list options. But the possibility was there. 

To answer your question: no!

A wheel with six spokes is a  fake limitation on two accounts: first, that the wheel can only have six spokes in the first place, but also for the fact that a spoke can link to another wheel. That's how the investigate option works most of the time: rather than your non-progressing dialogue being on the screen, you go to the investigate hub, which might have another two or three or five options. When Bioware's list-format dialogue had those ten+ options, most of them were investigate options now put on the investigate side or separate wheels. There was only an illussion of 10+ options because most of then didn't even progress.

And that's not even getting into variable-specific variations of dialogue, such as import-reflections or companion interjections. It's hidden, but there are still more than just the visible options being cached and used.

Even if you were limited to a six-spoke wheel (say Bioware has trouble implementing an aescetically pleasing and readable 8-spoke), that can still leave you with as many dialogue options as you wish. Five on the first wheel, with a sixth reserved to look at the second wheel. That second wheel could then have another four options, one to return to the first wheel, and another to progress to a third wheel. Ad infinitum.

ME1 and ME2 in particular had a number of times when there was a five-option progression dialogue wheel: Paragon/Neutral/Renegade, and then a Paragon and Renegade persuade on the left.

That you could go back to the KOTOR/Jade Empire list formats and reorganize them in much the same way?

Yes, KOTOR started the trend toward Dark Side/Light Side answers/actions/options. Never played JE but as I recall it also had Open Fist/Closed Fist. As I think I've said, there are a few Biofans who wish they'd get out of the binarism rut. 

This has more to do with traditional RPG delimms than dialogue wheels, which just synergize well since if you have a binary morality delimma (good/evil, P/R, pro-/anti- issue) it's easy to group the associated texts to a yes/neutral/no trinary. Which works well with the wheel format.

Personally, I find moral delimmas one of the more appealing parts of RPGs, and while I would accept trinary I recognize the exponential difficulty.

(Note: this isn't a counter-argument to your point, which is unchallenged. Just an additional note.)

KOTOR and Jade Empire and DAO did list formats, but they weren't conceptually different from the dialogue wheel. The standard was still a nice/neutral/meanie tone breakdown to advance the conversation, with various investigate options scattered within that would just take you back to the same list for nice/neutral/meanie. It could sometimes be tricky to tell which dialogue was investigate versus conversation progression, but they were still there.

First off, DAO - which seemed, at least, to get rid of the binarism I discussed above, (whether that was illusion or not), was good that way. While I'm not saying most conversations didn't have nice, naughty, neutral, they didn't clearly mark which was which. To some of us, that's a good thing. 

And that it used this binarism doesn't mean it had at least the potential to move out/away from it. 

If your argument is ambiguity of choices, less power to you. Not because I hate you and think you aren't a true fan or whatever the hyperbole of the hour is, but because I found the ambiguity of progression dialogue (where the real character-defining value is) versus investigate dialogue (which are generic questions and rarely have role-playing relevance as opposed to world-building I already know on playthrough 2) to be incredibly frustrating.

And, if we were to take this topic further off a tangent, I could have a number of thoughts of the relative merits about grouping or not. Personally, I feel thematic grouping makes sense. I don't like it when it's 'good vs evil', but I recognize the tendency towards accidental pattern recognition and find that accidental or even deliberate category flopping (P/R in ME2) to be annoying.


But that's not quite what I was responding to, albeit admittedly without a quote. I was responding to the common argument that dialogue wheels reduce the amount of dialogue, which isn't true. There are trade offs. But there's a common sub-thought (that you don't appear to share) that 'dialogue list' means 'more options' and 'more progression' than a wheel allows.

The real limiter in options is voice acting. The wheel is just cosmetic to presentation.

All a dialogue wheel is is a interface format that organizes your options. Investigates to the left, progression to the right. There's nothing else inherent about it: you can have an arbitrary number of progressions on the right side of the wheel, be it three or two (or four), and you can use investigate options to carry forward the dialogue as well (which they did from time to time). You don't even need to always have the same number of progression dialogues in every scene: you could have two, or three, or four.

Systems, and implementation.

As a system, the wheel UI forces paraphrasing, unless they change the positioning or fonts or other elements, because it is darn hard to display full-text adjacent to a wheel spoke when they keep the wheel on the bottom. Tooltips can help solve that problem, and just might be solving it, soon. 

Lists are also frequently paraphrases. You either paraphrase a much longer exchange (such as giving the oppening statement alone), or you paraphrase an assumption of how it will be received. It's no more inherent to one or the other than the whole 'no voice actor allows me to role play what I mean' argument: even in a voice-less RPG the characters are going to respond to what the writers presume you meant by their provided approximation of intent (ie, the list choice). The only point at which paraphrasing doesn't happen is in short statements with frequent stops for new dialogue prompts, which is a separate issue from the wheel and which carries its own tradeoffs (including, ironically, less protagonist input because companions or exposition characters are relied upon more).

There are various styles and potential solutions to paraphrasing that apply to both lists and wheels. The reason Bioware paraphrases is that these solutions have separate drawbacks that don't work as well in practice with the testers as fans frequently feel.

As to implementation, well I think I've said about 8 times now the wheel would be just fine if it used the Choice icon a lot more often, and thus showed you 6 options frequently instead of 3 typically, with the 3 on the left hand side being a lot more ambiguous in tone/naughtiness, instead of the 3 on the RH side appearing constantly, with their constant marking. 

Er... that is how it often works in effect when it came to distinct dialogue responses from lists (ie, silent-protagonist list choices that wouldn't produce the exact same output). The ambiguous tone/naughtiness has always been reserved for investigate or neutral options.  Persuasion (ME) or special context dialogue (DA2's companion-specific options or romance identifier) that provides that extra-nice or non-standard option also exist.

Show me a list with the progressions, and we can probably break it into a wheel with ease.

[CybAnt1]

A wheel with six spokes is a  fake limitation on two accounts: first, that the wheel can only have six spokes in the first place, but also for the fact that a spoke can link to another wheel.

I think I saw from the PAX demo they are going to an 8 spoke wheel. If you can figure out how to draw - and USE, which is the tricky part - a 12 spoke wheel, good luck to you. I think eventually it will stop being very usable.

As to the 2nd part of your argument, well, as you know, a menu node can lead to another menu, too, so that is neither a pro nor con argument for wheels.

But at the end of the day I do agree we are arguing about something other than just UI, Dean. We'll get to it. 

Personally, I find moral delimmas one of the more appealing parts of RPGs, 

I like them, too. I like them better when there isn't an obviously marked good/nice/paragon/open fist/light side choice, and another obviously marked evil/naughty-angry/renegade/closed-fist/dark side choice. Oh, and we'll throw in a neutral/sarcastic/something else option, which is really almost always delaying making one of the other choices. 

You know what I like best of all, Dean? Being given three choices, where none of them are obviously anything, let alone obviously good, evil, or neutral. Where I have to do some difficult thinking that goes beyond just "do I want to follow the light side or the dark side"? 

At the end of the day, I don't think what really upsets me is voicing or UI. What I want, Dean, is what I just described. It would be fine if it was presented to me as three bullet point options by Microsoft Bob, the talking paper clip. I want those choices; I care less about how they are presented to me. 

If your argument is ambiguity of choices, less power to you. 

Everybody wants their ambiguity served somewhere. I think our argument is where it's most tasty. 

What I don't want, Dean, is ambiguity where I pick three words, and have no freaking idea what their relationship is to the 50 word monologue I/Hawke give that follows. I want more control than that. 

That to me is a far more frustrating ambiguity than not knowing whether a menu node will lead to another menu, or not being sure of the tone I'm expressing. 

The reason Bioware paraphrases is that these solutions have separate drawbacks that don't work as well in practice with the testers as fans frequently feel.

I get that their testers didn't like reading, then hearing, entire dialogue.

I don't get why they didn't at least try the DXHR approach on their testers, which doesn't force them to read, then hear, but gives them the option. I suspect they would have liked it. People do like options. 

Anyway, Dean, as always, we're arguing personal preferences: developer statements have already pointed me to the solution they're going for (which is partial tooltipping), and I like it, although I await, as always, further details. 

[leaguer of one]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Wait ...Wait ..wait... DA2 combat is still point a click. It's nothing like an action rpg.

shh, they don't know what action rpg are like and I haven't had the heart to tell them how it actually goes.

I've played Dungeon Siege, Diablo, and Deus Ex. I know how they actually go. 

I also know the difference in definitional terms. It seems some people around here don't. 

1. In a "regular" or tactical RPG, what determines if you dodge an attack is your character's skill (dex, dodge, etc.) not your ability as a player to move him/her out of the way or into cover.
2. "" if you hit your enemy is your character's weapon skills, etc., not your ability (hand-eye) to aim.
3. "" tactical positioning is important (what some call "the shuffle"), in an a-r it's made irrelevant.
4. "" your attack speed by stats and weapon attributes, not how fast you can mash the button
5. "" auto-attack is the default, only deactivated if you prefer "one mash, one hit" (I don't)

In terms of "action-iness," it goes like this:

ME3 > ME1 > DA2 > DA1

But that was the problem ... I never said DA2 became a complete action-RPG like the ME series, just that it borrowed some action-RPG aspects/elements from the other series. To try to get, as some have said, the so-called "CoD audience".

In so doing, as one popular meme in the meme thread has put it, it went from "guerilla" warfare to "gorilla" warfare. 

So have I. da2 is nothing like that. DA2 is just a faster pause and plat, auto attack tactial rpg.
Your not getting what an action rpg is. It requires a dependency of player twitch skill over stats. DA2 is not like that at all.

[leaguer of one]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Especially since there were several complaints after DAO about the combat being too slow?

That point, while valid, ignores that there were plenty that didn't think so and didn't feel that way. Perhaps it felt slow to people who weren't used to previous CRPGs and were used to action games like CoD. It didn't to me. 

This shuffle people keep talking about? Didn't notice, and didn't bother me. Yes, like every other CRPG on the planet, it had flawed pathfinding, which meant characters bumped into each other and objects on their way to their targets. Something we'll have to live with until game AI R & D fixes this problem. 

Oh, I do realize, at the end of the day, it does come down to who to listen to, but I just thought I'd make that point anyway.

BTW, if you read my points, you'll see they didn't just turn up the speed notch. 

No, the combat philosophy went to "hit the button and watch the awesome happen," which is a phrase that still sticks in some peoples' craws. Mine, anyway. 

I don't want to hit buttons and watch awesome happen, I want to select from sustained and activated abilities, and think about how they will modify the flow of combat, in numbers/technical/practical terms. I really just don't care how awesome they LOOK. 

Wow. I love it when the pc players use something only the console players got as a fault of the game. You do know that this never effected you?

[leaguer of one]

CybAnt1 wrote...

l
 It not the first time a wiki page is wrong,

[snip]

ME ofcourse clearly is an action rpg from day one.

Wiki pages can and have been wrong, but your last sentence shows that this one is right.

ME is an action-RPG, DA is not. Though they tried to make it more of one (not completely) with DA2. 

DA2 is not. You're not getting what an action rpg is. It an rpg with a depentecy of a players twitch skill over stats. Stats are just their to support players character abilities. That's not the case with da2.

[leaguer of one]

holdenagincourt wrote...

I hope they will either go back to DA:O's style of combat or go the whole hog and convert to WASD combat and PC control. DA:2 is a weird hybrid that feels neither as strategic as Origins nor as fluid as ME3.

DAO combat was slow and cumber some. And you can use tactics in da2. You just have to watch you're back and reposition  mid combat to have it.

[Frybread76]

Yeah I'm not holding out much hope for DA:I. I'll rent it but won't buy it until I've played it myself for a few days.