One of the best (IMO) features of DA2 was the opportunity to have characters in the party interject in dialogue based on their specialities or character traits - whether it was Aveline pressuring persons as a city guard or Varric creatively BSing, or even Anders just plain being a healer.
Will this be a feature in DA:I?
I liked how this worked in DA2, because it was a step toward letting us control all of the characters in conversations. That's something I've been requesting for some time.
I would like also them to interject even without the player choosing it. Like they did in DAO - the companions would jump in to give advice in the middle of conversations, and the PC could then choose to follow that advice or not.
I think Gaider mentioned that in the Special subwheel there'll be numerous options, like race and class exclusive choices, romance choices and companions interventions.One of the best (IMO) features of DA2 was the opportunity to have characters in the party interject in dialogue based on their specialities or character traits - whether it was Aveline pressuring persons as a city guard or Varric creatively BSing, or even Anders just plain being a healer.
Will this be a feature in DA:I?
Personally, I just hope it stays as companion banter. While I LIKE player interjection, ever since that whole Sarcastic Hawke convo involving Isabela and Gamlen in MOTA. I really don't want my character blah blahing anymore without my permission.
I liked how this worked in DA2, because it was a step toward letting us control all of the characters in conversations. That's something I've been requesting for some time.
I would like also them to interject even without the player choosing it. Like they did in DAO - the companions would jump in to give advice in the middle of conversations, and the PC could then choose to follow that advice or not.
There is a big difference between the NPC interjecting their own belief and opinion and the request of the player and choosing dialogue for NPCs.
That said, I do agree with characters interjecting even without input, though the DA:O approach did not go far enough. That was just an interlude to the player. In DA2 characters actually involved themselves in the conversation. There were some prompts that were there to give the player control, but the PC did not say anything; clearly that was a scene where we should not have had to prompt the PC via the UI.
Personally, I just hope it stays as companion banter. While I LIKE player interjection, ever since that whole Sarcastic Hawke convo involving Isabela and Gamlen in MOTA. I really don't want my character blah blahing anymore without my permission.
I don't remember this convo. What happened?
Maybe it's just me, but whenever there's a "special" option, I feel pressured to use it. Because it's special, clearly its the best. Maybe that's why I flirt with everyone...
So, if the point of companions interjecting is just to give an opinion, I'd kind of like them to just speak up on their own, like they did in DA:O. Or to have a general "anyone have an opinion?" option that doesn't feel so special to call out specific people.
If the point is for them to try and get something done - like say, Cassandra intimidating someone into doing something, well first off: I think part of why they did that in DA2 was because the player didn't have Intimidate or Persuade options, and I really hope DA:I does. I would much rather do the intimidating/persuading myself than asking companions to do it. Secondly, I would like for them to not always succeed at getting something done - that way it's a gamble, just like any of your own actions are, and not just a "special companion option = win" thing.
I don't remember this convo. What happened?
Isabela genuinely asks you to talk to Gamlen because he's sexually harassing her and it's upsetting her. Hawke just laughs in her face and tells her she usually likes that stuff.
As my Hawke was romancing Isabela it was...disturbing.
Isabela genuinely asks you to talk to Gamlen because he's sexually harassing her and it's upsetting her. Hawke just laughs in her face and tells her she usually likes that stuff.
As my Hawke was romancing Isabela it was...disturbing.
Holy ... okay, wow, yes, that's absolutely unacceptable. But putting aside issues of player control, that's unacceptable because of the sexism.
Maybe it's just me, but whenever there's a "special" option, I feel pressured to use it. Because it's special, clearly its the best. Maybe that's why I flirt with everyone...
So, if the point of companions interjecting is just to give an opinion, I'd kind of like them to just speak up on their own, like they did in DA:O. Or to have a general "anyone have an opinion?" option that doesn't feel so special to call out specific people.
If the point is for them to try and get something done - like say, Cassandra intimidating someone into doing something, well first off: I think part of why they did that in DA2 was because the player didn't have Intimidate or Persuade options, and I really hope DA:I does. I would much rather do the intimidating/persuading myself than asking companions to do it. Secondly, I would like for them to not always succeed at getting something done - that way it's a gamble, just like any of your own actions are, and not just a "special companion option = win" thing.
But if the NPC has a persuade skill, why shouldn't the NPC use it? It's absurd that in an RPG all skill checks should revolve only around the NPC when an NPC could do much better at solving the exact same task, but chooses to stay unengaged in the background. While I agree that the "special" option leads to a better outcome often, I have to disagree that removing this option is better because it reduces the verisimilitude of the world.I can certainly agree that success rate shouldn't be 100% - but that should depend on other factors that a random dice roll. It should be about how you phrase things, like DX:HR did with their dialogue battles. The PC always has a path to doing it right, but the NPCs don't always have that option to their own shortcomings.
If the NPC has a persuade skill, and I have a persuade skill, since I'm the leader of the Inquisition and generally do all the talking, shouldn't I be persuading?
Now, if I don't have persuade, or only have Intimidate, and Varric has persuade, then I see reason to ask Varric to persuade for me.
If the goal of asking for companions to interject is to get something done, I'm not saying the should remove it - I just would like it to not be an automatic success like it felt like in DA2. I would like to actually have to think about whether its a good idea or not.
If the NPC has a persuade skill, and I have a persuade skill, since I'm the leader of the Inquisition and generally do all the talking, shouldn't I be persuading?
Now, if I don't have persuade, or only have Intimidate, and Varric has persuade, then I see reason to ask Varric to persuade for me.
If the goal of asking for companions to interject is to get something done, I'm not saying the should remove it - I just would like it to not be an automatic success like it felt like in DA2. I would like to actually have to think about whether its a good idea or not.
I don't disagree that options should be an automatic success, but my view is that this should apply to the player either. And certainly there's no reason to defer if you can do it yourself - but that's not a change from DA2.
Isabela genuinely asks you to talk to Gamlen because he's sexually harassing her and it's upsetting her. Hawke just laughs in her face and tells her she usually likes that stuff.
As my Hawke was romancing Isabela it was...disturbing.
That conversation and the one that happens with Gamlen if you're romancing her and click on him in his home a) made me hate sarcastic!hawke a little bit because sarcastic DOES NOT MEAN SHUTTING PEOPLE DOWN WHEN THEY ASK YOU FOR HELP and b)lost every bit of affection I had been gaining for Gamlen as a result of his actions during All That Remains.
Isabela is not the type of person to ask someone for help regarding non-fighting stuff! Meaning that for her to ask Gamlen was going beyond the pale! I AM NOT COOL WITH LEAVING THAT BE.
Guest_Guest12345_*
Yeah, I love the idea of both player-controlled and computer-controlled interjections. I loved that in DA2, when I could choose to have Fenris talk to the Arishok, that was awesome. I would also like to see more uncontrolled interjections, as it would give the companions a bit more depth and expression of their beliefs and opinions.
There is a big difference between the NPC interjecting their own belief and opinion and the request of the player and choosing dialogue for NPCs.
We had exactly as much control over the companion lines in DA2 as we did over Hawke's lines. When those companion icons appeared, that was just like choosing other icons.
We had exactly as much control over the companion lines in DA2 as we did over Hawke's lines. When those companion icons appeared, that was just like choosing other icons.
That's not true at all. We could control the intent and have a general idea of the content of the line. The companion line said a name, and that was it. "Fenris" is not equal to "Diplomatic" "How can I help?" even if the end line is "I won't let this stand".
That's not true at all. We could control the intent and have a general idea of the content of the line. The companion line said a name, and that was it. "Fenris" is not equal to "Diplomatic" "How can I help?" even if the end line is "I won't let this stand".
I would argue that it is. That's exactly how informative I found the icon+paraphrase.
One of the best (IMO) features of DA2 was the opportunity to have characters in the party interject in dialogue based on their specialities or character traits - whether it was Aveline pressuring persons as a city guard or Varric creatively BSing, or even Anders just plain being a healer.
Will this be a feature in DA:I?
Hope not.
They need to shut up and let me lead.
Isabela genuinely asks you to talk to Gamlen because he's sexually harassing her and it's upsetting her. Hawke just laughs in her face and tells her she usually likes that stuff.
As my Hawke was romancing Isabela it was...disturbing.
I think that's a product of the personality system to an extent. I remember Diplomatic Hawke being different.
NPC interjections have been a thing since the days of Baldur's Gate, so I don't think they're going away anytime soon.
Dragon Age 2 did it a little differently, though, with the "Call on Companion" feature, and I LOVED that. I loved having the option to let Carver intercede with the angry Fereldan mob or to ask Fenris to scare some slavers into talking. This is a vast improvement from DAO, where the companions (mostly Leliana) just jumped in and did it anyway, whether you wanted them to or not.
That's an important distinction. It's great when followers have unique skills and can do things that the protagonist can't, but if the protagonist is *capable* of doing something, like opening a lock or passing a persuasion check, the protagonist should get first crack at it. I'm cool with the NPC stepping in if the protagonist tries and fails (possibly with a penalty for having tried and failed once already), but I can't tell you how absolutely infuriating it is watching the NPC get all smug about something the PC could have done with one hand tied behind his or her back.
I would argue that it is. That's exactly how informative I found the icon+paraphrase.
Even if that was your subjective perception of it, as a matter of fact, the nature of the information and the quantity of it was different. That the effect is the same to you alone doesn't justify categorizing them as the same thing.
Hope not.
They need to shut up and let me lead.
But not all of them would (and should) have that personality.
That's an important distinction. It's great when followers have unique skills and can do things that the protagonist can't, but if the protagonist is *capable* of doing something, like opening a lock or passing a persuasion check, the protagonist should get first crack at it. I'm cool with the NPC stepping in if the protagonist tries and fails (possibly with a penalty for having tried and failed once already), but I can't tell you how absolutely infuriating it is watching the NPC get all smug about something the PC could have done with one hand tied behind his or her back.
The problem here isn't that the NPC interjects. It's that the player - who is now upset at the interjection - can't address it.
All the comments in the world are great. However, I absolutely do not want which companions being present significantly affecting the story unless foreshadowing has been established.
Even if that was your subjective perception of it, as a matter of fact, the nature of the information and the quantity of it was different. That the effect is the same to you alone doesn't justify categorizing them as the same thing.
In both cases, there was no meaningful relationship between the information presented and the outcome. That's an equivalent level of control.
Yeah, Diplomatic and even Aggressive Hawke's replies were much better in my opinion. Agg Hawke just tells her to "get over it" Which is...appropriate for that flavor but sounds like they're saying she can handle it herself. Sarcastic Hawke was just straight up dismissive which doesnt fit the supposed , light - hearted jokey flavor to me. Granted they do say some inappropriate stuff, like after saemus' death, but that seemed like they were awkwardly trying to lighten the mood and not malicious like the MOTA dialogue.
I think that's a product of the personality system to an extent. I remember Diplomatic Hawke being different.
it bares mention that the line use by hawke is the same one used by isabella to change the subject. in the same way she does repeatedly... not saying good or bad just bring up a fact.
Retour en haut
