26 réponses à ce sujet

[S Seraff]

wouldnt this be sweet?

 

you have the dialogue wheel for your inquisitor as always, 

and

you have a dialogue wheel for hawke and the warden (i'm wishful thinking)

 

IQ's comments create 1-3 responses the NPC's can have, and you get to choose those as well. in effect, you're having a dialogue between your main characters. i would LOVE this

 

granted, most options would have to feather back into the same reply options to keep things from getting out of hand, and mostly the difference in replies would be about tone. The dialogue topics would have to be pretty focused, too. but this is (one) fairly elegant way to answer especially the warden problem. move the plot forward, but give us some control over our npc's dialogue with the warden. and head canon i GUARANTEE will do the rest!

 

ok guys - stress test this idea for me please.

 

please DON'T chime in if you're just going to offer thoughts about whether you want the warden to visit the screen again; there are loads of topics discussing that aleady

[GreyWarden_Smith]

In Divinity: Original Sin you can pick the dialogue options for both of your two protagonists if you play in solo mode and you can make them get along & agree with each other or disagree with each other & hold differential believes with each other.

 

so it is possible to do in games can be somewhat clunky sometimes.

[In Exile]

I absolutely would loathe the option. It's not fun to talk to myself. What's the point of the entire interaction then?

[S Seraff]

I absolutely would loathe the option. It's not fun to talk to myself. What's the point of the entire interaction then?

 

...

well... it's not really talking to yourself?  the writers would have the dialogue point in the right direction. This would just be a chance to guide the color and course of the dialogue for those players who imagined a specific personality for their character.

[Regan_Cousland]

I quite like the idea. I can see why nothing like that was implemented (it seems a rather messy way to have a conversation), but if the option had been there I would have happily used it to keep both of my protagonists in character. 

[Coyote X Starrk]

For the Champion? Maybe.

 

 

For the Warden? No. 

 

 

No VA they get for the Warden could possibly fit everyone's vision they had for their Warden and for some the Warden is no longer even alive to have a wheel. The Warden as they are right now is satisfactory. 

 

Don't fix what isn't broken. 

[S Seraff]

for the wardens who made the ultimate sacrifice, the orlesian warden commander is still in play.

i think the VA problem is surmountable. after all, we had a selection of voices to choose from the DAO. 2-3 voices for each gender ranging in tone; then allow us to choose personality (even virtuous, sarcastic, aggressive ala Hawke would work just fine) through dialogue wheel options. Keep the dialogues memorable but contained. 

 

viola!

[In Exile]

...
well... it's not really talking to yourself? the writers would have the dialogue point in the right direction. This would just be a chance to guide the color and course of the dialogue for those players who imagined a specific personality for their character.

I am talking to myself. Or rather I'm reacting to myself. There's nothing interesting about it - it's like writing a conversation but without all the parts that make it fun (actual control over what is being said).

[S Seraff]

I am talking to myself. Or rather I'm reacting to myself. There's nothing interesting about it - it's like writing a conversation but without all the parts that make it fun (actual control over what is being said).

 

wait - what are the parts that make a conversation fun?

[S Seraff]

i guess what i'm saying is - you arent talking to yourself. you arent making up the dialogue, you are choosing from the dialogue options which one both the Inquisitor and the HoF/WC/Hawke is most likely to say.

 

we exercised control like this when the game imported our Keep decision about Hawke's basic personality. What I'm suggesting is more in-game control over these conversations.

 

BW are great at controlling the destination and general direction of  conversation. this approach gives us the ability to match the route as closely as possible with our individual character's personalities. 

[KaiserShep]

Boy, that would be a lot of lines recorded. Let's say you have three options to choose from to start the conversation, there would be multiple lines for each option to give an appropriate response, rather than the typical single response made specifically for that line. In any case, it would be pretty awkward jumping back and forth with dialogue wheels.

 

Just for fun, add a flirt option for each. Guaranteed success!

[JadeDragon]

If they kept the lines between the heroes simple then i dont see why not. Inquisitor is the one asking the questions mainly so for example if the inquisitor ask hawke what happen to there LI then we have a set options to choose from. Something like that would help with things such as blood mage hawke who hates blood magic. If your hawke was a blood mage its now up to you if they hated it or not.

[S Seraff]

Boy, that would be a lot of lines recorded. Let's say you have three options to choose from to start the conversation, there would be multiple lines for each option to give an appropriate response, rather than the typical single response made specifically for that line. In any case, it would be pretty awkward jumping back and forth with dialogue wheels.

 

Just for fun, add a flirt option for each. Guaranteed success!

 

it could be a lot of lines, but i think that could be controlled with good writing.

for example, Hawke in DAI had dialogue three personality types. when we selected one in the Keep, any dialogue based exclusively on the other personalities was deleted out and we never saw it. That said, a lot of the dialogue was the same no matter the personality we chose. what i'm suggesting is akin to leaving those other dialogue options in, so we can guide our Hawke's dialogue in-game.And/or the HoF/WC

[Eternal Phoenix]

TBH I'd rather them just kill every protagonist off at the end of each game now instead of doing what they're doing.

 

If you can't control a previous protagonist that you created and instead have them around uttering gibberish whilst donning crap armour then they are no longer your character.

 

Either keep them in the background or kill them off entirely.

 

Instead of each hero mysteriously vanishing Bioware style, they should have it where they are simply "mysteriously killed" and found dead at the end of each game (providing they don't die in the actual ending after the main boss). If they survive their ordeal then after you watch the cutscenes, you get text coming up telling you about your decisions and your companions whilst triumphant music plays and then after this, the music abruptly halts, everything turns silent and a black screen comes on where white writing slowly appears on it saying "Sadly you didn't live long after your victory and were found mysteriously dead in a back alley of Denerim. The people would never forget your sacrifice." and this is the fate for every DA protagonist from now on.

 

I'd prefer that treatment to what they've done right now.

 

If Hawke's role in Inquisition was simply to offer you plain advice and then join you in the final battle, then that could have worked. Having them be around getting emotional about Anders (even if they killed him), cracking jokes and becoming heavily involved in their own plot? Not so much.

 

So I agree they should have given us control at one point but forget dialogue wheels, I'm talking about where we should have ended up with a one hour section just controlling Hawke giving a better closure.

 

Thing is, I don't think Hawke would have appeared in DA3 had the expansion "Exalted March" for DA2 happened (which would have been the closure) and DA3 would have been entirely different. Because it didn't happen, half of its ideas ended up in Inquisition and we got Hawke as an NPC instead. 

 

If previous protagonists characters appear in future, give them insignificant things to say around the new player character and then let us control them when they go off and do what they do in their own chapter or whatever.

 

The only way I can see two-player dialogue wheels working is if they did it in the Divinity Original Sin style I suppose but I think Bioware would see it as a bad mechanic to have suddenly introduced this mid-way into the game when you meet Hawke when he/she is only in the game for a little while and admittedly I feel it would be disjointed to suddenly throw new players into forced two-way convo.

[S Seraff]

I dont think it would feel disjointed at all - i think it would be fun! If you must, the inquisitor, Hawke and/or HoF  could be talking to someone ELSE, and you are just making dialogue choices for your present and past PC's. This is a great way to bridge the gap and give us some control over our past heroes!

 

and the truth is, BW inherited (and hopefully accepted) responsibility for this complication when they decided each new game would feature a new PC. A new PC begs the question of what happened to the previous ones. And I disagree with you Eternal Phoenix - killing them off at the end of each game is just lazy

 

I would much prefer BW saw this complication as a challenge not an annoyance. Weave the stories of these characters together, make a great culmination that involves all of them, even.  And if necessary, if the variables get too complex to navigate for the plot team, start the next game in a time when these characters have all died.

 

I wish Exalted March had happened too - i really liked DA2 - but even had it occurred, my inquisitor meeting my hawke (as close at the game would allow) was still hands-down my favorite part of DAI. I really really hope they have something awesome in Mind for Weisshaupt.  

[happy_daiz]

I'd rather them keep working on the Black Emporium, instead.

[S Seraff]

I'd rather them keep working on the Black Emporium, instead.

 

lol - I doubt BW will ever have to make a decision between this idea and the BE

[In Exile]

wait - what are the parts that make a conversation fun?

To me it is the fact that you are stuck with one perspective, one-side of a conversation. You then react based on that perspective as best you can to the situation that you're dealing with and the character with whom you are interacting. To have control over both sides of the conversation would IMO really change the experience. You suddenly aren't just reflecting on what your character think the other person is saying, and how your character perceives it - you know for a fact the 'true' reality for both, and then you are also inventing what they perceive... there's just nothing there I find interesting. 

[S Seraff]

To me it is the fact that you are stuck with one perspective, one-side of a conversation. You then react based on that perspective as best you can to the situation that you're dealing with and the character with whom you are interacting. To have control over both sides of the conversation would IMO really change the experience. You suddenly aren't just reflecting on what your character think the other person is saying, and how your character perceives it - you know for a fact the 'true' reality for both, and then you are also inventing what they perceive... there's just nothing there I find interesting. 

 

what if both characters are talking to, say, Cullen?

now both your PC's are responding/reacting to someone else. How does that strike you?

[In Exile]

what if both characters are talking to, say, Cullen?

now both your PC's are responding/reacting to someone else. How does that strike you?

 

It would work better for me, but it would still have the problem of being a three-way where I'm basically working on two sides of a conversation. It would be frustrating for me, because once you give me that much control over a conversation I want to write it; I'll end up feeling very dissatisfied with the dialogue options I get (which is something I often feel anyway). 

 

The problem as I see it is that I'm not entirely clear on what kind of conversations you could have using this model. 

[Il Divo]

It would work better for me, but it would still have the problem of being a three-way where I'm basically working on two sides of a conversation. It would be frustrating for me, because once you give me that much control over a conversation I want to write it; I'll end up feeling very dissatisfied with the dialogue options I get (which is something I often feel anyway). 

 

The problem as I see it is that I'm not entirely clear on what kind of conversations you could have using this model. 

 

Agreed. It's the same issue I've run into with tabletop in trying to control multiple characters at a time in dialogue. There's rarely (if ever) a point where I'm able to make both my characters interact with each other, it's almost exclusively each character interacting with the game world as if the other doesn't exist. 

[S Seraff]

well, i'd often like to write the in-game conversations too, and i am fairly often surprised at what comes out of my character's mouth. but on the other hand, it makes the character a kind of co-creative process between you and the game. my concept of my character is always altered/shaped by that tension. the house you plan vs the house you build.

 

here's an example off the top of my head. Let's say Hawke and the IQ are both discussing red lyrium with Varric. Let's say Varric kept the idol fragment and divulges to the IQ and Hawke that he was more affected by it than he let on. Would you want Hawke to have a stock response to this - say, "I knew I should have gotten rid of that!" or have the option to say that line, or "I thought you'd have been more responsible with that fragment, Varric," or "see what happens when you give a shiny thing to a dwarf?"

 

all three of these could feather back to the same dialogue beat Varric needs to hit (like, "I know I shouldnt have kept it Hawke. My choice. My consequence.") to keep the conversation moving. AND it allows us to play both hawke and our IQ in character. Varric is a good example of a third-character conversation actually, since in most playthroughs he and Hawke were close friends. 

[S Seraff]

and i still think it would work too, if just hawke and the IQ were talking - BW often uses conversation to divulge to the player information he didnt know his character knew.

 

So the HoF and the IQ are talking. IQ asks about the Calling

IQ: what did you find out there?

HoF: 1) less than I'd hoped; 2) sand; 3) nothing but frustration

 

So, in this case, you choose the reply that fits your HoF concept best, but BW uses the reply to elaborate, and giv additional information that you the player didnt know before. Like, that the HoF did discover an important amulet, but lost a good friend. 

 

Now the IQ responds to that new information.

 

What I'm saying is, there is always a 3rd person in the conversation: the BW writer, because we as the player didnt write the dialogue and so dont know where the dialogue is headed.

 

it could so work! 

[Innsmouth Dweller]

talking to myself. hmm... assuming the dialogue wheel is rebuild to include various options, like... more than three ways of saying 'blood magick sux'?

i'm not that big RPG nerd to be able to shift my mindset like that and play it successfully (=not being biased towards one char). tbh i'd rather have all my past chars dead.

[S Seraff]

talking to myself. hmm... assuming the dialogue wheel is rebuild to include various options, like... more than three ways of saying 'blood magick sux'?

i'm not that big RPG nerd to be able to shift my mindset like that and play it successfully (=not being biased towards one char). tbh i'd rather have all my past chars dead.

 

why dead? so you dont have to fuss with them again?