332 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In summary, it's easier/faster to quickly state "This is the choice you're making if you pick this" as opposed to showing what the next (potentially several, and potentially dynamic) lines are going to say.

If that's what it is, then that's a good approach.  "This is the choice you're making" is fundamentally what I want from the dialogue options.  I'm not sure to what extent this is possible, given that the writers don't have access to the PC's thoughts, but to the extent that it is possible I do like that this is apparently a design goal.

What I do not want is "This will be the consequence of what you do here."  That would be more information than I think should be available.

For example, in the hover text shown in the PAX demo, it mentions that the troops won't be available later.  I would like this to reflect the knowledge currently available to the Inquisitor, not necessarily truth about future events.  And I would like that distinction to be clear.

[Savber100]

So far, so good.

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I'm disappointed there won't be a neutral option. Hopefully there'll be something approaching it in most, if not all, tone wheel circumstances.

Direct is more straight to the point, as opposed to aggressive, so that might fit the bill.  I'd have to look closer in game (unfortunately I am hella busy on other stuff so I haven't been in the actual campaign for some time and don't expect to be)

I'd argue that it does, in fact, reflect the knowledge (and moreso the intent)
of the Inquisitor. I for one was under the impression that these troops
WOULD be available later, and feel that distinction was, will be,
immensely helpful in making a choice.

That circumstance feels
like one where the Inquisitor would know that telling them to tend to
their wounded would mean they can't join the battle later--but the
player wouldn't necessarily.

I agree, though I can see it both ways.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 21 février 2014 - 08:17 .

[nightscrawl]

David Gaider wrote...

Just to be clear as to what Mike was and was not referring to:

<SNIP>

This all looks great, I can't wait! !

[fchopin]

What Mr. Gaider said is interesting but there is no way for us to know if it will be an improvement until we play the game.

[The Elder King]

From what David said, the reaction wheel will present a sort of neutral option (Stoic), which is present all the time in that wheel. If the reaction wheel and the action wheel (which seems to have neutral option, since there's a lack of tones) will come up enough times, I'll be satisfied.

[The Elder King]

fchopin wrote...

What Mr. Gaider said is interesting but there is no way for us to know if it will be an improvement until we play the game.

Yeah, though for features like this there's no way for gamers to know exactly how it works until they play the game for a number of hours. All of this sounds good though, and I'm curious to test the system.
I have to say that for me it'll be a success even just for the autodialogue part of David's post. My biggest problem with Me3 was that feature.

Modifié par hhh89, 21 février 2014 - 08:23 .

[Bond]

For what is worth, i already said in my thread, that i enjoy peraphrasing and can relate to people who do not want to read the whole thing and wait for the character to say it.
I am looking forward to action and reaction wheels, i hope they are more often used than not.

[Ieldra]

David Gaider wrote...]
Similar to how the Investigate option off any wheel "breaks out" into a sub-wheel for questions (if there is more than one question), there can be a Special option off any wheel which breaks out in the same manner. This is where we put conditional things, such as dialogue options that depend on having a particular party member, being a particular race/class, romance options, having made certain choices previously, etc...and thus allows us to add as many of these to a wheel as we like without breaking the interface structure. Some of these now "grey out" if you don't have the requirement, meaning you can see an option you might have had, but currently cannot take.

Very interesting. I'm always of two minds about this: remove the options depending on unfulfilled conditions completely or grey them out? From a roleplaying POV it's more honest to remove them, but as the player of a videogame I appreciate the knowledge that there is content I am missing and may aim to get in a different playthrough.

[Ieldra]

Kazanth wrote...
I have to say, I'm really impressed with all the improvements. Between less auto-dialogue, a reaction wheel, no dominant tone and better dialogue tones, pretty much all of my issues with the DA2 dialogue system have been addressed.

I appreciate it, too. Still, the paraphrasing remains. We'll see how that turns out.

[The Elder King]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Kazanth wrote...
I have to say, I'm really impressed with all the improvements. Between less auto-dialogue, a reaction wheel, no dominant tone and better dialogue tones, pretty much all of my issues with the DA2 dialogue system have been addressed.

I appreciate it, too. Still, the paraphrasing remains. We'll see how that turns out.

Maybe the new tones will makes it easier to understand what the character will say. Though I don't fully understand what 'Noble' means.

[Ieldra]

hhh89 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Kazanth wrote...
I have to say, I'm really impressed with all the improvements. Between less auto-dialogue, a reaction wheel, no dominant tone and better dialogue tones, pretty much all of my issues with the DA2 dialogue system have been addressed.

I appreciate it, too. Still, the paraphrasing remains. We'll see how that turns out.

Maybe the new tones will makes it easier to understand what the character will say. Though I don't fully understand what 'Noble' means.

Polite, helpful.....and arrogant? I'm more curious about the "clever" option.

As for the paraphrasing, I think it's possible to avoid drastic disconnects like after selecting "I take responsibility" with Merrill or "I'm glad you're back" with Isabela without scrapping the system, but the fact that you don't know what you're going to say, only "the general sense of it", creates an unavoidable disconnect on its own and makes me feel I'm not in control. Basically, it means I don't know the mind of the character I'm playing.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 février 2014 - 10:43 .

[Ieldra]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Also, the reaction wheel. Simply having the ability to respond in emotional situations, especially since we can always be "Stoic," is an improvement.

That's one of the most important changes IMO, and a definite improvement. I've wanted the option to be more emotionally detached for a long time, but that wish, while still genuine, was in part driven by the fact that some unavoidable emotions were out of character for the protagonist I wanted to play. Now I can hopefully do both: be stoic when appropriate for my character, or when nothing else fits, or be more emotional. The reaction wheel could turn out to be a fantastic roleplaying tool, and I'm looking very much forward to it.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...]
Similar to how the Investigate option off any wheel "breaks out" into a sub-wheel for questions (if there is more than one question), there can be a Special option off any wheel which breaks out in the same manner. This is where we put conditional things, such as dialogue options that depend on having a particular party member, being a particular race/class, romance options, having made certain choices previously, etc...and thus allows us to add as many of these to a wheel as we like without breaking the interface structure. Some of these now "grey out" if you don't have the requirement, meaning you can see an option you might have had, but currently cannot take.

Very interesting. I'm always of two minds about this: remove the options depending on unfulfilled conditions completely or grey them out? From a roleplaying POV it's more honest to remove them, but as the player of a videogame I appreciate the knowledge that there is content I am missing and may aim to get in a different playthrough.

I'm glad they've gone for the greyed out option rather than forcing players to find out about it completely by accident on subsequent playthroughs.

[The Elder King]

I agree, Ieldra. I'd have personally liked the hover-text option in every dialogues. Since it's not going to happen, I'm willing to see how it'll turn out this time. Expecially because for the rest it seems a vast improvement over DA2 and the ME IP (expecially, in my opinion, the third game), and it'll allow us for the first time to choose our character's emotions, which is something DAO lacked too, since sometimes the character's facial expression was forced  and resulted in expressing certain emotions(for example, the HN origin).

Modifié par hhh89, 21 février 2014 - 11:34 .

[CannotCompute]

EntropicAngel wrote...

fchopin wrote...

What Mr. Gaider said is interesting but there is no way for us to know if it will be an improvement until we play the game.

It's already an improvement simply by not having the dominant tone, which railroaded your character into one of three specific personalities that you were required to have with everyone you encountered. It's a bad idea unless it's about ten times more complex than it was in DA ][, and that will likely never happen.

So we already know one improvement.

Also, the reaction wheel. Simply having the ability to respond in emotional situations, especially since we can always be "Stoic," is an improvement.

I agree. Mr. Gaider's post is very interesting & also very much appreciated. I'm convinced the conversation and action system will indubitably be mesmerizingly awesome in DA:I !

[Ieldra]

wright1978 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...]
Similar to how the Investigate option off any wheel "breaks out" into a sub-wheel for questions (if there is more than one question), there can be a Special option off any wheel which breaks out in the same manner. This is where we put conditional things, such as dialogue options that depend on having a particular party member, being a particular race/class, romance options, having made certain choices previously, etc...and thus allows us to add as many of these to a wheel as we like without breaking the interface structure. Some of these now "grey out" if you don't have the requirement, meaning you can see an option you might have had, but currently cannot take.

Very interesting. I'm always of two minds about this: remove the options depending on unfulfilled conditions completely or grey them out? From a roleplaying POV it's more honest to remove them, but as the player of a videogame I appreciate the knowledge that there is content I am missing and may aim to get in a different playthrough.

I'm glad they've gone for the greyed out option rather than forcing players to find out about it completely by accident on subsequent playthroughs.

Note that he said "some of these". So you still won't see everything there might have been in all situations. Hmm.... I'd like to know which criteria they use to make the distinction.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 février 2014 - 11:23 .

[fchopin]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Also, the reaction wheel. Simply having the ability to respond in emotional situations, especially since we can always be "Stoic," is an improvement.

Yes this is a big improvement and should always be included in RPG's.

It is above my minds capabilities that it was taken out in the first place.

[Ieldra]

fchopin wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Also, the reaction wheel. Simply having the ability to respond in emotional situations, especially since we can always be "Stoic," is an improvement.

Yes this is a big improvement and should always be included in RPG's.

It is above my minds capabilities that it was taken out in the first place.

Taken out? What are you talking about? This was never so far included in any CRPG in any systematic way.

[fchopin]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Taken out? What are you talking about? This was never so far included in any CRPG in any systematic way.

Most RPG’s i played have included the neutral option unless the writers wanted to make a special point in the game that was not supposed to be avoided.

[Fast Jimmy]

Ieldra2 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...]
Similar to how the Investigate option off any wheel "breaks out" into a sub-wheel for questions (if there is more than one question), there can be a Special option off any wheel which breaks out in the same manner. This is where we put conditional things, such as dialogue options that depend on having a particular party member, being a particular race/class, romance options, having made certain choices previously, etc...and thus allows us to add as many of these to a wheel as we like without breaking the interface structure. Some of these now "grey out" if you don't have the requirement, meaning you can see an option you might have had, but currently cannot take.

Very interesting. I'm always of two minds about this: remove the options depending on unfulfilled conditions completely or grey them out? From a roleplaying POV it's more honest to remove them, but as the player of a videogame I appreciate the knowledge that there is content I am missing and may aim to get in a different playthrough.

Agreed. I think it is, honestly, a "show your work" method for Bioware. That there is flexibility and divergence being offered, but that it is just not available. 

I've liked how they did such things in DA:O better, but it is still better than in DA2. For instance, trying to marry Anota can be done if you are, say, a female city elf, but she will say no, citing you being female. If you do it as a male city elf, she says no, due to you being an elf. If you do it as a Dwarven noble, she cites that despite your noble background, the baans wouldn't accept a dwarf king. If you try as a human Mage, she will say the baans won't accept a Mage. If you ask As a female human noble, she says that House Cousland would be a good bid to the throne, but that being a couple that can produce no heir would not be accepted. 

If you piece all of these responses together across almost a dozen playthroughs, you can see that a male Human Noble might work. Sure enough, a male Human noble is the only own who can convince Anora to marry the. And being king-consort. 

So no grating out was done, it simply let you choose the dialogue and explain why it failed, giving clues and context into how it COULD be approved, given different circumstances. 

Still, this setup for DA:I sounds intriguing. I'd like to see a few demonstrations.