406 réponses à ce sujet

[TKavatar]

When player picks a certain emotion off the wheel will NPCs be able to respond to that?

For example if the PC picks Confused the NPC asks "You look confused, why is that" or something.

[AlanC9]

Just my 2 cents here. When you say you work to refine the system, you do not always do that. The wheel was not a system that you implemented in Dragon age from the start, you simply copied it from Mass Effect and modified it in DA 2. Many people like myself, liked the fact that in DA:O we were able to choose lines which cannot be misinterpreted by the player, despite them being limited in number. So in DA 2, you refined neither the existing system nor tried to implement what was best about it in the new one. 
 

Um.... you did read the bit about DA:O conversation nodes being conceptually the same as the DAI nodes, right?

[AlanC9]

Tell me about it. That happened a lot for me in my first Origins playthrough...what I thought the tone was and what the NPC thought the tone was...completely different.

Maker, yes. Particularly in conversations with Alistair. The DAO interface didn't handle PC irony.

[AlanC9]

Dear Bioware.
. At least next ME wont have them ( if it does, it will speak louder than anything about the IQ of americans and other nations for that matter).

Where was that announced? And what do Americans have to do with it?

[Darth Krytie]

Maker, yes. Particularly in conversations with Alistair. The DAO interface didn't handle PC irony.

 

I heard 'Maker, yes' in Donnic's voice, jsyk. My best friend somehow ended in a s/s romance with Zevran because what he thought was joking was taken as a come on. He didn't fuss about it, though, was a good sport and went for it. Then left him for Leliana. But, yeah, sometimes it was like. Ohhhh, so that's how you meant it.

[ElitePinecone]

Um.... you did read the bit about DA:O conversation nodes being conceptually the same as the DAI nodes, right?

 

The DA2/DA:I system strikes me as much better and more intuitive in some respects, in that you can visually separate Investigate options (and that entire hub) from responses that move the conversation onwards.

 

In Origins there was no way of knowing which options would cycle back to the same hub and which would advance the conversation, short of guessing by parsing the language of each option. That's hardly ideal. 

[David Gaider]

David, are you able to tell us any about the "joining party banter" system? I believe I read somewhere that the Inquisitor will be able to take part in random party banter while strolling along (or can choose not to participate) and I'm wondering how that would work?

 

I'm not sure this is something that's easily explained, as opposed to shown.

 

This gist of how it works is this: if there is ambient dialogue (which party banter is), and a possible player response comes up, you'll get a cue to "click in" if you want to speak. If you don't, the dialogue simply moves on without you (after a certain amount of time). If you do, you get an actual response wheel (though this will stop you from moving until you select your response).

 

Note that how this works (or if it remains in at all) is subject to change. Very subject, in fact, as it's a new thing we're poking at.

[David Gaider]

When player picks a certain emotion off the wheel will NPCs be able to respond to that?

 

Sure. Why wouldn't they be able to?

[Darth Krytie]

I'm not sure this is something that's easily explained, as opposed to shown.

 

This gist of how it works is this: if there is ambient dialogue (which party banter is), and a possible player response comes up, you'll get a cue to "click in" if you want to speak. If you don't, the dialogue simply moves on without you (after a certain amount of time). If you do, you get an actual response wheel (though this will stop you from moving until you select your response).

 

Note that how this works (or if it remains in at all) is subject to change. Very subject, in fact, as it's a new thing we're poking at.

 

 

What would cause it to change: the difficulty in implementing it? Or if it's too disruptive? Or is it a word budget thing? If you can answer that.

[David Gaider]

What would cause it to change: the difficulty in implementing it? Or if it's too disruptive? Or is it a word budget thing? If you can answer that.

 

It's an interface usability thing—or, at least, that's what could potentially torpedo the system, depending on how it plays out over the next few months. Considering the words are already written, and the system uses no cinematics, those aren't really considerations at this point.

[ElitePinecone]

David, it's also been said that we can talk to companions outside of a camp/base/Keep area - is this still accurate?

 

Will their conversations there have a quota of sort-of-encyclopaedic "tell me about yourself/your culture/your faction" questions? I actually really enjoyed those from Origins. 

 

(And, although it's been said that companion word budgets in DAO and DA2 were roughly the same, for whatever reason the Origins campfire and roadside conversations did feel meatier and more engaging, at least to me.)

[Darth Krytie]

David, it's also been said that we can talk to companions outside of a camp/base/Keep area - is this still accurate?

 

Will their conversations there have a quota of sort-of-encyclopaedic "tell me about yourself/your culture/your faction" questions? I actually really enjoyed those from Origins. 

 

(And, although it's been said that companion word budgets in DAO and DA2 were roughly the same, for whatever reason the Origins campfire and roadside conversations did feel meatier and more engaging, at least to me.)

 

I wouldn't mind this as long as no situations come up where I do something like accidentally click on Alistair and trigger an inescapable, one time conversation I don't want to have that instead of that chest I really wanted to open.

[David Gaider]

David, it's also been said that we can talk to companions outside of a camp/base/Keep area - is this still accurate?

 

Will their conversations there have a quota of sort-of-encyclopaedic "tell me about yourself/your culture/your faction" questions? I actually really enjoyed those from Origins. 

 

(And, although it's been said that companion word budgets in DAO and DA2 were roughly the same, for whatever reason the Origins campfire and roadside conversations did feel meatier and more engaging, at least to me.)

 

Any follower conversations outside of a camp/base/keep area are conversations that are either triggered (meaning it's not the player who clicks on the follower to initiate anything) or ambient (such as the banters). You cannot click on followers anywhere in the world to get the same conversations you would back in the camp/base/keep.

 

Insofar as the conversations you do have in the camp/base/keep, yes, each follower has a number of questions/topics you can cover with them at your discretion (with new ones perhaps opening up over time). So a little more like DAO in that respect.

[DragonRacer]

I'm not sure this is something that's easily explained, as opposed to shown.

 

This gist of how it works is this: if there is ambient dialogue (which party banter is), and a possible player response comes up, you'll get a cue to "click in" if you want to speak. If you don't, the dialogue simply moves on without you (after a certain amount of time). If you do, you get an actual response wheel (though this will stop you from moving until you select your response).

 

Note that how this works (or if it remains in at all) is subject to change. Very subject, in fact, as it's a new thing we're poking at.

 

Cool! Yeah, that's totally new and why it intrigued me.

 

Thank you, also, for the heads up that it's not 100% confirmed to still be there when you ship. Hopefully the interface works out for you guys because I think it's a great addition and just another way to more personally craft our Inquisitor (plus you've already put the work into it!), but I also understand if it goes to the rubbish pile because of technicalities.

[Darth Krytie]

It's an interface usability thing—or, at least, that's what could potentially torpedo the system, depending on how it plays out over the next few months. Considering the words are already written, and the system uses no cinematics, those aren't really considerations at this point.

 

If it turns out to have too many technical difficulties, would the Inquisitor simply not join in party banter or would the Inquisitor engage in party banter in a neutral tone? If you can answer this or perhaps this is a bridge you'll come to if you have to.

[AlanC9]

The DA2/DA:I system strikes me as much better and more intuitive in some respects, in that you can visually separate Investigate options (and that entire hub) from responses that move the conversation onwards.

 

In Origins there was no way of knowing which options would cycle back to the same hub and which would advance the conversation, short of guessing by parsing the language of each option. That's hardly ideal. 

 

There's an interesting trend I've noticed on this board that's been popping up in various topics. Some of us actually prefer systems that are obscure to systems that are clear. I haven't tried mapping individual posters' tastes to see if, for instance, preferring not being able to instantly tell which dialogue line is Direct and which one  is Clever correlates with also wanting the NPC Approval meter hidden from the player's view.

[David Gaider]

If it turns out to have too many technical difficulties, would the Inquisitor simply not join in party banter or would the Inquisitor engage in party banter in a neutral tone? If you can answer this or perhaps this is a bridge you'll come to if you have to.

 

I imagine we would just go back to the PC never joining in ambient dialogue, as before. That's zero sum, insofar as we're concerned, even if it'd be a bit disappointing, considering how much work we've put into it.

[AlanC9]

It's an interface usability thing—or, at least, that's what could potentially torpedo the system, depending on how it plays out over the next few months. Considering the words are already written, and the system uses no cinematics, those aren't really considerations at this point.

 

This is the part where I suggest a toggle and something bad happens to a kitten, right?

[Darth Krytie]

I imagine we would just go back to the PC never joining in ambient dialogue, as before. That's zero sum, insofar as we're concerned, even if it'd be a bit disappointing, considering how much work we've put into it.

 

Thanks for the info. I really do appreciate you answering these questions. It makes the wait both easier (as some concerns are laid to rest) and interminable (as my desire to have the game in my greedy little hands increases from 100% to some undefinable number above that)

[DragonRacer]

Thanks for the info. I really do appreciate you answering these questions. It makes the wait both easier (as some concerns are laid to rest) and interminable (as my desire to have the game in my greedy little hands increases from 100% to some undefinable number above that)

 

Agreed.

 

And your last sentence made me laugh out loud. I know that feel. Picked up Titanfall at GameStop this past Tuesday and, yes, it's STILL too early to preorder DA:I. I ask every time I go in to the point I must be driving them crazy (although every clerk I've asked has responded excitedly about their wanting to preorder as well ). 

[John Epler]

This is the part where I suggest a toggle and something bad happens to a kitten, right?

It comes down to whether or not it's a good user experience.

 

It's something (along with some other variations thereof) that's been the subject of a number of meetings and various revisions. What we have now I -think- works, but I've been involved with it for almost two years and it's really hard for me to be objective about it.

 

Essentially, it's something we'd really like to put out there, but if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and that's a call we'll make at some point before ship.

[Jaison1986]

This is very interesting. 

 

Gaider, I was just wondering about the reaction wheel. Will it be used simply to display emotions, or will it also work on an more physical way? Such as the ME interrupts, like punching someone for doing something really bad, or stopping an person for commiting an act they might regreat later. Or will this reactions be used on things like the choice wheel?

[AlanC9]

Gotcha, John. No sense having a toggle for something that doesn't work.

[In Exile]

Just my 2 cents here. When you say you work to refine the system, you do not always do that. The wheel was not a system that you implemented in Dragon age from the start, you simply copied it from Mass Effect and modified it in DA 2. Many people like myself, liked the fact that in DA:O we were able to choose lines which cannot be misinterpreted by the player, despite them being limited in number. So in DA 2, you refined neither the existing system nor tried to implement what was best about it in the new one. 

 

This is just wrong. Whatever your view on VO vs. non-VO, or wheel vs. list, it's wrong as a matter of fundamental grammar to say that written lines cannot be misinterpreted. In fact, the very nature of writing is such that it can be misinterpreted and be (usually) subject to multiple interpretations. 

 

Let's take a basic sentence statement: "that was a great idea". The basic pragmatics (i.e., emphasis) of a sentence can totally change the meaning of it. So there is a huge difference between:

 

That was a great idea. 

That was a great idea. 

 

If we take away the smilie face - which is the same as taking away visual demeanour cues - we get this: 

 

That was a great idea. 

That was a great idea. 

 

If we take away the italics - which just take the place of emphasis - we get this: 

 

That was a great idea. 

That was a great idea. 

 

Two identical looking statements. But not identical. And depending on which one the writer thinks up, the NPC reaction will be totally different. But the player is left to guess what line it is. And I've chosen these examples - with totally different tonal emphasis and facial expressions - to point out that this is a basic difference in speech that people do not miss. 

 

Writing is ambiguous and misleading, and it's just wrong to say otherwise. 

 

Edit: Fixed a typo. 

[Darth Krytie]

^

Moreover, you can put the emphasis on "was" or "idea" and also change the meaning of the sentence. And thus could have four separate meanings for the same five word sentence depending on context and tone.