406 réponses à ce sujet

[Bond]

       Couple a days ago i made the horrible mistake of replaying Dragon Age Origins and Awakening and now i am obsessed with everything about the new inquisition installement. Before i go any further i would like to adress that i replayed DA2(yep from start to finish...) as well. 
 
      With that being said i would like to analyze the dialogue system in both games. I find DAO superior due to reasons i will explain in a minute but lets begin with the 2 flaws. The mute protagonist and the interface, which resembles reading a book. You addressed those things in DA2 and i believe many people appreciate it. 
   
     So, for DAI everything is perfect right ? Not really, While dialog wheel is very good interface-wise, i think you need to look why people fell in love with the characters and interactions in Dragon Age Origins. First of all there is no good, neutral, bad line. Or at least not all the time. Further, there is no indication that when you say something, you are gonna upset someone. You just need to pay attention to who are you talking. The simplicity of good/bad, blue/red, does no one favors. People who want to skip the dialogue(the so called casual crowd) will do it all the same, But the core Dragon Age fanbase want a complex system, which is not really that far, Just random generate the location of the line on the wheel. On several occasions Mass Effect 1 did this, so it is achievable. Put there more investigate options, where you dont aim to bed someone, or give him a pep talk, just to learn something new. 
 
     If you really merge the dialogue that way, you may still not achieve the perfect algorithm of interacting with companions and NPC, but i will bet you anything, that it will be improvement over the past 2 games, which is the point of the sequels. Now few other things i believe will do you good. Implement the best thing of Mass Effect dialogue(no, not the ABC options), but the fact that you can shut someone middle speech with some action, or give him a compliment out of no where, while he talks. People complain about simplicity of Good and Bad line but no one complains about being able to change conversation path in the middle of it. Witcher 2 tried to do sth similar after that, because it is fresh and intuitive.
     
     There you go, the best from all of your projects combined. When you add the interactive party banter you announced in some panel a while ago, you got something new, and the best of your old projects. Walking out of conversation is another thing i appreciate. I hope if you read this post, to give it some thought. :happy:
   
    I would like to finish by saying, i think you find some odd inspiration in fable series... please dont, just dont, ever, dont,not a good idea, dont.... There are 2 games i would write this kind of post 1 year before release. This one and the new mass effect, cause i really care about those projects, and i sincerely want to help make them better. Keep up the amazing work, we will keep supporting you.
  And last but not least, i want in this topic all folks who have opinion on the subject to fire some suggestions, i hope for even better ones then mine.

Modifié par LoyalFan, 16 février 2014 - 03:26 .

[Arcanis]

I have to admit there is one thing I never understood:
What are those good/neutral/bad restrictions in the dialogue so many people are talking about?
Being a direct and grumpy person is NOT bad or evil, neither is being "diplomatic & nice"
-often it is just you being agreeing with everything. Not everything is black & white with a neutral
stance just because you have 3 options.

My main problem with the dialogue system of DA:O is the lack of ..information.
I'm never sure if a certain line is ment sarcastic, ironic or admiring.
So I rather liked that I was told the "tone" of the sentence -although the paraphrasing
could be done better and more options would be often nice (even though I think it is
rather debatable if origins truly had different more options, but that is another topic)


EDIT:
just some spontanious ideas:
A "diplomatic" Hawke could just be a spineless coward.
Many swashbuckler-storys have a joking/sarcastic lead (though Hawk is sometimes rather clownish,
I admit as much =P )
The rough Veteran, dark hero and so on is also a rather popular hero trope -but that is has to be
impossible if "red Hawke" has to be the bad version apperently..

Bottom line: rude is not evil nor is being nice good.

Modifié par Chaoticos, 16 février 2014 - 03:57 .

[CybAnt1]

and the interface, which resembles reading a book.

I don't know why some people hate reading.

Furthermore, why they then express their hatred of reading in a place (forum) focused around reading and writing.

I have this weird view. Hear me out. Games can aspire to be like literature, or they can be nothing like it. Space Invaders is not literature. It's blips on a screen. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I liked Space Invaders, Pac-Man, and many of the classic arcade games. 

But along came this genre called the "C-RPG". For many years, it consisted of dungeon crawlers. Then along came a game called Fallout. It presented you with choices - in text form - and you had to think about the consequences of your choices. It might require sitting there, reading, thinking about your options. And choosing one. Presented in text form. 

For the first time, CRPGs started feeling like literature. It's kind of like the difference between a graphic novel and a comic book. A comic book is just a comic book. But a graphic novel at least aspires to being like literature... it's the difference between Watchmen and many of the weaker DC/Marvel titles. 

Some people see games as inevitably like comic books -- cheap, tawdry diversions only for the young. However, there is something about the CRPG that can draw a different audience. It can aspire to be like literature, and with a fantasy game, perhaps even be like some of the great old medieval romances, like the story of Arthur and the Grail. 

This is my problem. When CRPGs aspire to be less like reading a book, they seem less literary. You are no longer a protagonist in a well-written story which changes based on your choices and decisions (interactivity). It's clear to me that Bioware is interested in using their games to present and deal with ideas. For example, the perennial conflict between freedom/liberty and order/control. Well, to best deal with ideas, the human being needs WORDS. Not icons, not images, not animations, not cutscenes. And they can listen to those words recited, but I think they really only deeply engage them when they are presented as TEXT or PRINT. 

Hawke never debated anyone. Ever. How could that interface allow you to debate an idea? (Well, it could have, but only if it made far more use of the left side of the wheel instead of the right, as I've said.) 

People who hate reading should play a different kind of game. Honestly. 

First of all there is no good, neutral, bad line. Or at least not all the time.

People will dispute that point. However, I would say the good thing about at least not having those lines explicitly marked by icon or position in a list meant you had to READ them and THINK about them to FIGURE out which one was good, bad, or neutral. I think a lot of people are increasingly losing their ability to read for tone.

"Sarevok! You are a pus on the arse of humanity!" I mean, did you really NEED an angry icon there to know that statement was said in anger? Jeez-louise. 

And for me, always, more thinking in a game is good, not bad. 

I will repeat: I have no problem with a voiced protagonist in and of itself, nor a wheel UI. Personally, I would prefer a wheel UI where the tonal markings aren't constant. I really cannot get this idea that every statement requires a tonal marking. "Hawke, where is the store?" "Down the street." Hawke doesn't have to answer that in either an angry, joking, or peaceful way. He just has to answer it. Also, it would be nice if instead of the same three emotional ranges constantly appearing, they mix it up a little.

Like he's just been told his mother died, and the options now are Sad, Angry, or Regretful. Something like that. Something that shows a character with an actual complex inner life beyond 3 emotions. BTW, it seems to me with the "reaction wheel" they may be going this route. If so, I look forward to it. 

[CybAnt1]

Bottom line: rude is not evil nor is being nice good.

Absolutely agreed.

OTOH, there are a lot of situations where the choice should not be between being nice or rude, but between choosing two (or more) entirely different ways of expressing oneself. 

There are a lot of times in life where your choices don't come down to just being agreeable or disagreeable. Sometimes you want to agree with some of what someone is saying, and disagree with other parts. Like on these forums.

Have you ever noticed how difficult that is to do without deep, rich text? 

That you can see & engage, think about, deliberate over. As you READ it - not just LISTEN to it? 

Print and text may be dead, but this is one gaming sub-genre where I think it still should be used. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 16 février 2014 - 04:06 .

[Bond]

 @CybAnt1 I love reading books, but this is just not the point of what i was saying. Thousands RPG do this interface and it seems outdated. Further, it is not the best design choice out of no where to appear black lines which cover the screen, as if developer says - ok time for dialogue. I think the wheel works better for immersion. And Paraphrasing is something cool, because not knowing the exact sentence before saying it is interesting, as oppose to listening something you just read. I hope i made my point, nothing agains books, i love them even more when they are not online.
@chaoticos Ok, some times it is not necessary good and bad ( but most of the time it is), but being polite and being rude (like speaking to uncle Gamlen), but does that change something....no. Again it is blunt and straightforward. It is black and white and you are rewarded with friendship-rival points, by choosing one or the other. Same with mass effect paragon, renegade. 

And if it is too late to remove the icons during dialogues, lets make them switchable from options. I dont like to be spoon feeded. Bioware i understand what are you peraphrasing, you do a good job in this department, do not waste the amazing writers/editors work by putting stupid icons who can replace the lines completely and just click some angry face, or some angel wings. Imagine if you hit reply to my post and you are presented with A. Oh that is nice of you to say, very clever. B A horse walks into a bar.... C Get the **** out i will report you for spam. 

Modifié par LoyalFan, 16 février 2014 - 04:16 .

[CybAnt1]

 @CybAnt1 I love reading books, but this is just not the point of what i was saying. Thousands RPG do this interface and it seems outdated.

Not to me. Lists still work just fine. You can even use brackets with words to tonally mark them. 

But that said, at the end of the day, my core problem isn't with a wheel vs. list. The UI debate is secondary, what is more important in a CRPG is the options that are presented (or not) to the player, not how they are presented, and also the quality of the writing.

But you can best judge the quality of the writing by SEEING it, not listening to it. 

And Paraphrasing is something cool, because not knowing the exact sentence before saying it is interesting, as oppose to listening something you just read. I hope i made my point, nothing agains books, i love them even more when they are not online.

If you read my posts, you will note I feel exactly the opposite. 

There is nothing cool about it. I think it sucks. What's interesting about not-knowing what my character is about to say or do? Heck, let's just roll the dice, and have a random action-reaction? 

I get why it's necessary in this type of UI, but I don't have to like it.

Good news: there will be tooltips for those of us who like to read what we're about to say, and they can be avoided by those like you who prefer not to. Win/win.

I'm glad you have nothing against books, I want the one genre of gaming with aspirations to being like literature not surrendering its uniqueness. 

[Arcanis]

Just three things:
First, being good or evil/bad are moral and ethic categorys and do not fit in a grey in grey world,
they have nothing to do with HOW you act & react but with the PURPOSE of your action.

Secondly, being rude means a break of etiquette or (most commonly) talking in a manner that
the recipient feels inappropriate and/or offending, thus a humorous or agreeable answer can
be rude under certain circumstances.

And finally, you don't have to be black and white (and ..orange). Nothing FORCES you to
always chose the same tone - you can change it depending on the question. Showing us
the tone of what is said is nothing more than additional info, an offer of help - it is not
and never will be an order to pick certain answers.
(Merill comes to mind, she will let go of her obsession and be actually happier if
you are more direct with her instead of being "helpful" though you must read between
the lines to see it that way [could just be me tofc] )

[Bond]

And i agree that lists vs wheel is secondary topic and there many fans who do not care for the wheel. But seeing the direction that BW heads(which i like as ME fan as well), i think wheel can be made much better which resembles more DAO type of dialogue, rather than be given 3 choices, which are further simplified by icons and even further simplified by being put in exactly same fashion in every single encounter. I could roleplay the nice Hawke with my eyes closed, as everything is fixed. This details can seem a little during development process, but can be quite annoying past the mid-game. You just stop thinking about it as a real conversation and answer robotic.

[Arcanis]

Have you ever considered of playing a character that is not one-dimensional?
Think of a background for your character, what are his believes, what are his needs?
Let's say he is a "charming" but free-spirited mage.
So usually funny answers, but a bit more aggressive when it comes to templars.
No set opinion about Qunaris till he meets a Saarebas, after that he HATES them.
That means he will use DIFFERENT tones depending on Circumstances.

[Bond]

    I never play one dimentional characters. Heck i cant even do full paragon/ renegade walkthroughs just for fun. I dont do them like many people. In fact i play in very similar fashion all RPG games. First playthrough i play as if i am the protagonist, and what i would of done in this situation. The second time, for the most parts i choose the oposite options to my first playthrough. But you are missing the point. I dont like oversimplifying the dialogue, with being presented every time with A B C + "investigate" if any. At the same time Dragon Age Origins did dialogue choices much better.

    Lets put it this way i want voiced protagonist, with richness of the dialogue in Dragon Age Origins. I will go further and suggest dialog wheel which resembles more Alpha Protocol instead of Dragon Age 2. Having 4-5 answers in no particular order which you must choose carefully depending on person(s) who you talk to. But instead of one word "professional" or "Suave" i will have a whole sentence like DA does at the moment. Mix that with interactions during dialogue, like shut someone sooner, or punch someone, or comfort him (like Liara in ME3)
     
    My point all along was : No to playing it safe, no to oversimplifying dialogue, no to little children icons, no to fixed three answers, no to arranging everything in A,B,C order from top to bottom. This will be first bioware game on next gen consoles, let try something new. The whole formula of Dragon Age Inquisition is something new, from the part that you control whole inquisition, to that it goes open world/multi region. Lets shake the dialogue's fixed ass too.

Modifié par LoyalFan, 16 février 2014 - 04:54 .

[Bond]

Sorry for the double post, but recently Mike Laidlaw announced that dialogue system is very similar to DA2. I will go ahead and ask everyone that finds that disturbing to share a comment or give opinion on the subject, so that the developers can see this thread and reconsider. It is not too late, there are good 8+ months till release.

Bioware listens to what we say so let us show them our point of view on one  of the most important parts of the game.

Modifié par LoyalFan, 17 février 2014 - 09:27 .

[Ieldra]

I have one suggestion: remove paraphrasing or find a way to show the player exactly what the protagonist is going to say if you choose an option from the wheel.

There have been a number of threads about this already, but it bears repeating. Paraphrasing is detrimental to roleplaying because, as trivial as that sounds, words do matter. In order for meaningful roleplaying, I need accurate information about what options I have, and I need complete information about those options. I don't know how much the usual redundancy in language can be condensed, but as a rule a seven-word paraphrase is not enough.

[CybAnt1]

As I've said many times, I really do not get why people say knowledge of tone is critical, but somehow then knowledge of what we're going to say and do is unimportant. I get the arguments for both, but I think knowledge of tone is only sometimes important, whereas knowledge of the words that are going to come out of the quizy's mouth is MORE important.

At least if you think words matter more than tone - I do. There is nothing interesting or fun "wondering" what the relationship between a very short paraphrase and the monologue or actions that follow will be. I sometimes feel I'm living in bizarro land, where I've now been given the power to say things that are angry or charming, I just can't know what they'll be.

I get that this is a world where things are not under the protag's control, and so of course I can't control how people will react to what they say and do. What I can't get is something called a "RPG" where the other thing I can't control is what my character will say and do. Huh? If I am supposed to be playing him, BEING him, then why is his mind now impenetrable to me?

The good news, Ieldra, is that Mike Laidlaw has said that a priority for DA:I is restoring player control. That the player will make things happen, instead of things just happening to them. This will probably mean goodbye to some crappy DA2 combat mechanics. But they also have made it a priority to allow us to see what things the paraphrase will link to - at least a "significant portion" of it.

That is a very good, good thing.

[Elissiaro]

I kinda hated the conversation wheel in DA2 and ME1-2-3... I want to know what my character is saying damnit!

With the wheel I just didn't feel in control... I was playing as Hawke and Sheppard, Biowares characters. Not Amelia or Richard or Caroline or whatever I named them, My characters.
I knew how the companions would probably react, but I didn't what they would react to.

With the DA:O list, I knew what I was saying, maybe sometimes it can out wrong and characters reacted badly, but I said what I meant to say. "Yes." didn't turn into "I agree with you completely and will do all I can to help.".

Modifié par Elissiaro, 17 février 2014 - 01:45 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Chaoticos wrote...

Have you ever considered of playing a character that is not one-dimensional?
Think of a background for your character, what are his believes, what are his needs?
Let's say he is a "charming" but free-spirited mage.
So usually funny answers, but a bit more aggressive when it comes to templars.
No set opinion about Qunaris till he meets a Saarebas, after that he HATES them.
That means he will use DIFFERENT tones depending on Circumstances.

And this is the crux of the matter. Hawke felt like a psychopath or a sycophant by the end of any of my playthroughs, simply because they either treated every person and situation the same, or they were bi-polar in their reactions, flip-flopping in how they sounded. 

A sarcastic Hawke who is diplomatic to Mages and elves, aggressive to Templars and slavers, and sarcastic to everyone else comes off as a very disjointed experience. The system for DA2 seemed to be very slanted towards "playing a tone" rather than roleplaying a character. At least, in my view. 

[Bond]

Another thing i forgot to say and some folks here mentioned it, is that hawke/shepard/whatever is too polarising. I mean, he is either too nice or too rude, or making stupid jokes, while city is burning. I want different options, to say different things, not to say the same thing but in a rude/nice fashion. For example Kirkwall is attacked by dragons, DAII model of handeling such a things is
1. Its a dragon, we must protect the city.
2. A dragon eh ? Finally some fun in this city.
3. Damn Kirkwall, i must save it by myself again.

This is the DAII type of handeling situations like this. If you are absent choice in this curcumstances dialogue still can be tweaked and make you think what to say

1. I dont care about casulties we finish our mission 2 Be carefull and on your guard, i wont wait for you if you cant catch up.
3. Lets try to trap them with using some1 as bait. 4. Priority is getting everyone to safety, we can finish them later.

Now even if in this particular situation there is no different outcomes depending on the dialogue and you always lose the city for example, depending on what you say, you may provoke a reaction from companions, argument will start, or some running citizens will overhear if you say N1 and will start to panick even more. If you say 2, Varic may say i am out of breath already, or at the end of the battle you will see him tired as f##k. If you choose 3 let Cassanra argue that there is no time for such things  before the city is lost for good. And so on. These little details are so immersive you have no idea. Instead of the dull good cop bad cop situation with 90 % of DA2 dialogue.

Modifié par LoyalFan, 17 février 2014 - 02:45 .

[Kidd]

LoyalFan wrote...

i think you need to look why people fell in love with the characters and interactions in Dragon Age Origins. First of all there is no good, neutral, bad line.

This is just as prevalent in DAO as it is in DA2. Usually, the diplomatic response is at on top ("1" on PC) and then the other types trail down after that (source). Near the bottom there's something called "I had questions" which is basically a long and odd workaround for an Investigate menu.

Compare,
NPC: That's why after doing this thing in my backstory, I decided I would continue living my life like this.
Hawke: (Investigate->Dalish) You mentioned Dalish in your backstory. Who are those?
NPC: Dalish are basically wood elves who have lost their heritage.
NPC: That's why after doing this thing in my backstory, I decided I would continue living my life like this.
Hawke: (Diplomatic: Good going.) I think that's a cool idea.
NPC: Thanks.

to,
NPC: That's why after doing this thing in my backstory, I decided I would continue living my life like this.
Warden: I had some questions.
NPC: Oh? Ask away.
Warden: You mentioned Dalish in your backstory. Who are those?
NPC: Dalish are basically wood elves who have lost their heritage.
Warden: All right, no more questions.
NPC: Certainly.
NPC: That's why after doing this thing in my backstory, I decided I would continue living my life like this.
Warden: I think that's a cool idea.
NPC: Thanks.

LoyalFan wrote...

Further, there is no indication that when you say something, you are gonna upset someone. You just need to pay attention to who are you talking.

DA2 does not tell you any outcomes either. Not everybody are upset by blunt words. Heart icons mean your character is trying to flirt, with success or failure being up to the NPC. The brandished swords icon is your character drawing weapons, very similar to the "(Attack)" suffix many lines carry in DAO.

LoyalFan wrote...

Just random generate the location of the line on the wheel. On several occasions Mass Effect 1 did this, so it is achievable.

Please name a dialogue hub where ME1 did this, because I have beaten the game six times without ever noticing anything to that effect.

Randomising the location on the wheel is not a good solution to anything. Controlling your character should not be difficult. Should hot bars in combat be randomised? Should there be a QTE every time you attack an enemy that allows you to deal more damage or otherwise enhance the effect? All those things require more skill and more presence from the player, but are they things we want in a party-based RPG (ie a realm where character skill weighs more than player skill).

Randomising the responses on the dialogue wheel amount to the same thing. If I want to ask questions, I can't just perform the action I have grown to know means "ask question" (on PC you hit "5," on console you hit left on the joystick + confirm)? If I truly don't care what my character will say as long as it is in diplomatic tone, can't I hit 1?

Mind you, I wouldn't play that way, but I wouldn't begrudge one who did. I prefer having the icon, having the reply in the designated spot and reading the text. After all, perhaps what I want to say is actually better represented in another response than the one tone I imagined it would be.

Changing controls mid-game doesn't solve anything. All it does is create issues.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And this is the crux of the matter. Hawke felt like a psychopath or a sycophant by the end of any of my playthroughs, simply because they either treated every person and situation the same, or they were bi-polar in their reactions, flip-flopping in how they sounded. 

I have never played a one-tone Hawke and I have yet to feel Hawke sounds like a "psychopath." Not the most productive point, I know, but I suppose that's my saying YMMV =)

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Chaoticos wrote...

Have you ever considered of playing a character that is not one-dimensional?
Think of a background for your character, what are his believes, what are his needs?
Let's say he is a "charming" but free-spirited mage.
So usually funny answers, but a bit more aggressive when it comes to templars.
No set opinion about Qunaris till he meets a Saarebas, after that he HATES them.
That means he will use DIFFERENT tones depending on Circumstances.

And this is the crux of the matter. Hawke felt like a psychopath or a sycophant by the end of any of my playthroughs, simply because they either treated every person and situation the same, or they were bi-polar in their reactions, flip-flopping in how they sounded. 

A sarcastic Hawke who is diplomatic to Mages and elves, aggressive to Templars and slavers, and sarcastic to everyone else comes off as a very disjointed experience. The system for DA2 seemed to be very slanted towards "playing a tone" rather than roleplaying a character. At least, in my view. 

If you heard me talk about different subjects I would sound different about different subjects. I didn't feel that was Hawke was a psychopath, sycophant, or bi-polar, I felt Hawke was a human being with different views, tones, and feelings on different subjects. Just like me, you, and every other human being on this planet.

[CybAnt1]

Unfortunately, unlike other human beings on the planet, he had only three different ways of reacting to things.

Most humans I know have a slightly greater emotional range. They can do other things than just becoming angry, diplomatic, or sarcastic. (Though, of course, on these forums, those can often be used to describe peoples' affect displays, even without tonal markings.)

Modifié par CybAnt1, 17 février 2014 - 03:18 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Chaoticos wrote...

My main problem with the dialogue system of DA:O is the lack of ..information.
I'm never sure if a certain line is ment sarcastic, ironic or admiring.

Whereas, I  always knew, because I got to decide myself.  Because the game didn't tell me, I could intend the line however I wanted.

As such, I vastly preferred DAO's approach.

[TheLittleBird]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Chaoticos wrote...

My main problem with the dialogue system of DA:O is the lack of ..information.
I'm never sure if a certain line is ment sarcastic, ironic or admiring.

Whereas, I  always knew, because I got to decide myself.  Because the game didn't tell me, I could intend the line however I wanted.

As such, I vastly preferred DAO's approach.

But that open interpretation could get the player a different outcome than desired (within the same sentence, I mean). I've had some occasions on which I would something I perceived as nice, but would be interpreted otherwise by the characters on the screen. And that's a little off-putting.

Still, I definitely prefer such a system over the Dragon Age II-system, which really was a big immersion-breaker for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

TheLittleBird wrote...

But that open interpretation could get the player a different outcome than desired (within the same sentence, I mean). I've had some occasions on which I would something I perceived as nice, but would be interpreted otherwise by the characters on the screen. And that's a little off-putting.

I don't find that off-putting at all, because I don't expect to be able to predict people's reactions to what I say.

[Hiemoth]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Unfortunately, unlike other human beings on the planet, he had only three different ways of reacting to things.

Most humans I know have a slightly greater emotional range. They can do other things than just becoming angry, diplomatic, or sarcastic. (Though, of course, on these forums, those can often be used to describe peoples' affect displays, even without tonal markings.)

But the problem here is that while what you are saying is true, they have limited amount of options to write in a video game and are not able to truly project the full range of human expression in each discussion. The same was true for DAO where you had a limited amount of dialogue choices which were, in general, written with a clear tone in mind, as expressed by the reaction of the other parties in the discussion. To say that this is a fault of DA2 alone is simplifying things to put it mildly.

As for the OP, DA2's system actually allowed for a far greater representation of characters than you give it credit to. You could be the angry, grumpy person who always strode to do the right thing or diplomatic soothspeaker who did not hesitate to stab people in the back. I think this misunderstanding of DA2 system, which did have its flaws, comes from comparison to ME and many seemingly assume that the tone system is the same as the Paragon/Renegade system, which it wasn't. The tone system determined how the character behaved when making the decision, but didn't impact/wasn't impacted by the decision itself. The P/R system, in contrast, was tied to the decision itself and ultimately expressed those decisions made by the character. It is a huge difference, with DA2 system being far more complicated. I respect that Bioware decided to try something so different and hope that they go on from there developing new approaches that allow such different impacts even if they move away from the tone system.

[Bond]

EntropicAngel wrote...

We haven't even seen the dialog system yet, OP. We saw one decision wheel. We have yet to see the conversation wheel or the reaction wheel.

However, Gaider has stated that A. the dominant tone is gone, and B. responses will be a bit more neutral (than DA ][, i imagine).

We were told however that the dialogue will be similar to DA2, which is something i do not like. And i think bioware should develop and not stay at the same place. They should try something new and refreshing. Putting different icons wont be enough. Interactions during banter  will be awesome but not enough.