149 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Well, but it is basically THE most central Design Choice that led to many / most of the Differences between both games, storywise. However, if you actually want to argue about that, I suggest you find yourself someone who played TW3, as I grew bored with Geralt midway through TW2 and didn't even play the Sequel. Watched some Previews, thought "Yep, it's still Geralt" and didn't buy the Game.

 

I tried The Witcher 2 didn't care for it. It was boring as hell, Geralt had NO real personality, The companions were stupid. The combat was horrible The menus were horrible. The next time I'll just bang my head against a wall because that is far more enjoyable than playing The Witcher 2 was. 

[CuriousArtemis]

About the only thing I would like to take from TW3 are the hairstyles

[In Exile]

Dialogue is another Thing that is inherently heavier influenced by the Fact that Geralt is a predefined Protagonist. If BioWare were to take Pages from their Book in Terms of writing Dialogue, we would only end up with a disgusting Hybrid between our own Protagonist, created by ourselves (YAY!) and a predefined Protagonist like Geralt (BOO!). They should try to find their own Way that allows for us Players to have as much Influence over our Character as possible.

Can't talk about Choices though, not having played the later Witcher games. There is another Thread, though, talking about Choices and Consequence, serving up Life is Strange as an Example and although the Sturctures of Story and Game can't really be compared to Mass Effect, the general Consensus seems to be to move away from various Galaxy-altering Choices per Game to having most Choices be on a more personal Level mostly influencing Character Interactions.

The main thing in dialogue is that Geralt typically has fewer options than even ME3 Shepard per conversation. I'm not sure that's really the way to go with things in MEA.

[Steelcan]

The main thing in dialogue is that Geralt typically has fewer options than even ME3 Shepard per conversation. I'm not sure that's really the way to go with things in MEA.

well I don't think its that bad of a system, in ME the trend is that all dialogue options are created equal in a sense, there's the investigate options, and the ones that move the conversation along tend to not be particularly different from each other.

 

That is something that needs to change.

[LinksOcarina]

well I don't think its that bad of a system, in ME the trend is that all dialogue options are created equal in a sense, there's the investigate options, and the ones that move the conversation along tend to not be particularly different from each other.

 

That is something that needs to change.

 

What is the proposal then?

 

More or less, the current incarnation of the Dialogue wheel pretty much follows a pattern that is done through other games before it; the only difference is the said pattern is more pronounced because of the options being limited most of the time.

 

How can it change, exactly?

[Steelcan]

What is the proposal then?

 

More or less, the current incarnation of the Dialogue wheel pretty much follows a pattern that is done through other games before it; the only difference is the said pattern is more pronounced because of the options being limited most of the time.

 

How can it change, exactly?

Scrap the dialogue wheel almost entirely I think.

 

Narrow down options to include less options that ultimately play out the same in favor of fewer, but more divergent options

[LinksOcarina]

Scrap the dialogue wheel almost entirely I think.

 

Narrow down options to include less options that ultimately play out the same in favor of fewer, but more divergent options

 

I don't think that will work, it's too restrictive and will lead to more bottlenecks in the design.

[Steelcan]

I don't think that will work, it's too restrictive and will lead to more bottlenecks in the design.

how?

 

If you have say two dialogu options that push you into two different out comes as opposed to three that lead to the same point, is that a bottleneck?

[LinksOcarina]

how?

 

If you have say two dialogu options that push you into two different out comes as opposed to three that lead to the same point, is that a bottleneck?

 

You are presuming the two outcomes will have a conclusion then, and will then lead to no continuation of said conclusion?

 

Why build a story around that at all? For side-quests I can see it. But even then it becomes formulaic and restrictive because the outcome leads to simple completion. For the main quests though, there is no difference. That was more or less the problem in games like Witcher 2 and Origins; you had your two choices when it counted, and it changed the narrative in a way that is inconsequential to the plot in the long run. 

 

Not to mention it is also fairly binary; that is more inclined with what Fallout 3 did in a lot of situations, ironically outside of the main quest.

 

So it is a bottleneck because its still leading to the same place. You just now have less choices to make. I do see the appeal due to the narrative changes in-game, but they are not divergent in that sense. 

[Steelcan]

You are presuming the two outcomes will have a conclusion then, and will then lead to no continuation of said conclusion?

 

Why build a story around that at all? For side-quests I can see it. But even then it becomes formulaic and restrictive because the outcome leads to simple completion. For the main quests though, there is no difference. That was more or less the problem in games like Witcher 2 and Origins; you had your two choices when it counted, and it changed the narrative in a way that is inconsequential to the plot in the long run. 

 

Not to mention it is also fairly binary; that is more inclined with what Fallout 3 did in a lot of situations, ironically outside of the main quest.

 

So it is a bottleneck because its still leading to the same place. You just now have less choices to make. I do see the appeal due to the narrative changes in-game, but they are not divergent in that sense. 

They can work for the main plot as well, see Iorveth/Roche in TW2

[LinksOcarina]

They can work for the main plot as well, see Iorveth/Roche in TW2

 

Except that an example of what I am referring to.

 

Who you chose between them lead to the same bottleneck in Chapter 3 regardless of what happened. Only a few details were changed because of their presence, and whether or not that king dies. 

 

Not to mention, after Act 3, we get the same conclusion. The 16 endings in Witcher 2 all lead to the same place, much like the endings in Origins, Inquisition, and Mass Effect 3. It's flavor for the game.

 

So it's a bottleneck, a well dressed bottleneck, but still a bottleneck. 

[Steelcan]

Except that an example of what I am referring to.

 

Who you chose between them lead to the same bottleneck in Chapter 3 regardless of what happened. Only a few details were changed because of their presence, and whether or not that king dies. 

 

Not to mention, after Act 3, we get the same conclusion. The 16 endings in Witcher 2 all lead to the same place, much like the endings in Origins, Inquisition, and Mass Effect 3. It's flavor for the game.

 

So it's a bottleneck, a well dressed bottleneck, but still a bottleneck. 

if the bottleneck provides sufficiently different content in the short term, I fail to see the issue.

 

Obviously it is too much to hope for a different game to be played out after every game decision, but more different options in the short term for the main quest and for side quests is not an unreasonable request.

[The Heretic of Time]

Except that an example of what I am referring to.

 

Who you chose between them lead to the same bottleneck in Chapter 3 regardless of what happened. Only a few details were changed because of their presence, and whether or not that king dies. 

 

Not to mention, after Act 3, we get the same conclusion. The 16 endings in Witcher 2 all lead to the same place, much like the endings in Origins, Inquisition, and Mass Effect 3. It's flavor for the game.

 

So it's a bottleneck, a well dressed bottleneck, but still a bottleneck. 

 

Have we played the same game?

Sure you go to the same place in Act 3 regardless of the path you chose, but to say it's the same and plays out the same? That's ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

[LinksOcarina]

Have we played the same game?

Sure you go to the same place in Act 3 regardless of the path you chose, but to say it's the same and plays out the same? That's ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

 

That's the games design though, It doesn't change, and the choices are inconsequential to the design, really. 

 

It plays out the same with different narrative points, much like how Tuchanaka played out the same with those narrative points; the end result is something that gives you different beats to the same conclusion, and those beats form the narrative core of what actually happens. 

 

For example. Shepard must decide how to deal with the Genophage while the Reapers are attacking. That is literally the plot of the Tuchanka arc. Geralt must find the Kingslayer and take him down. That is the plot of Witcher 2. This is what makes a plot different from a narrative; the plot is the general goal of the entire story, the synopsis. It can be intricate, simple, what have you. I made it simple here to emphasize the point in this case. 

 

What changes is the narrative structure and tone around that; so yes, whether or not you choose Iroveth or Roche is nice, but it's still a bottleneck to the same conclusion, the Sorcerers Summit, the Dragon Attack, what happens during those moments is servicing the narrative through the choices, and the plot through leading to that conclusion. 

 

So what you played is still an illusion in it's choices. Like I said, it's a good illusion but it's still a bottleneck. And when you make choices more or less binary, or dependent on characters involvement (or lack thereof in some cases), it leads to different narrative beats, but still the same plot.

 

Of course, it doesn't make these choices no more or less important, the difference you can argue is execution of the design, versus the design itself. Since we are talking about gameplay mechanics here, and whether or not we can fix something like the dialogue wheel, it has to be said that it's still the same result when stripped to it's bare mechanics. 

 

So I like I said before, it will lead to bottlenecks because it's the only way to control divergent choices without going overboard in where they lead, and if you are telling a story, it's what you have to do.

[Drone223]

Scrap the dialogue wheel almost entirely I think.

 

Narrow down options to include less options that ultimately play out the same in favor of fewer, but more divergent options

Also make the options more ambiguous so we don't have one options that is "obviously right" and the other "obviously wrong" which was pretty evident with the dialogue wheel in the trilogy.

[In Exile]

well I don't think its that bad of a system, in ME the trend is that all dialogue options are created equal in a sense, there's the investigate options, and the ones that move the conversation along tend to not be particularly different from each other.

That is something that needs to change.

Absolutely not. That's the single most brilliant invention on the part of Bioware. In real conversation, you aren't stopped by some metaphysical force from asking more questions. You might be told to shut up or told off - sure. But actually losing the ability to ask questions because of the purely random possibly of picking some dialogue option is ridiculous.

But the point is moot since TW3 actually used the same system. They just had their "this line advances dialogue" in yellow.

[In Exile]

Have we played the same game?

Sure you go to the same place in Act 3 regardless of the path you chose, but to say it's the same and plays out the same? That's ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

No, your position is silly. TW2 deserves a great deal of praise for how they handled Act II. Split on two sides of a massive gulf, seeing two sides of a war, having two totally separate arcs - one heroic and one so very dark and depressing - that's all narrative brilliance.

But Act 3 was just the same style Bioware uses and would use.

[Steelcan]

Absolutely not. That's the single most brilliant invention on the part of Bioware. In real conversation, you aren't stopped by some metaphysical force from asking more questions. You might be told to shut up or told off - sure. But actually losing the ability to ask questions because of the purely random possibly of picking some dialogue option is ridiculous.

But the point is moot since TW3 actually used the same system. They just had their "this line advances dialogue" in yellow.

and I'm fine with investigative options for dialogue

 

what irks me is when the options for the actual conversation all boil down to three flavors of the same thing

[Drone223]

and I'm fine with investigative options for dialogue

 

what irks me is when the options for the actual conversation all boil down to three flavors of the same thing

Don't forget how some of the dialogue options are tied to the players paragon/renegade score.

[In Exile]

and I'm fine with investigative options for dialogue

what irks me is when the options for the actual conversation all boil down to three flavors of the same thing

It's really hard to have multiple options and multiple flavours. They could do different flavours of different things but then you run e.g. into the DA2 problem of only aggressive personalities siding with the Qunari.

[The Heretic of Time]

No, your position is silly. TW2 deserves a great deal of praise for how they handled Act II. Split on two sides of a massive gulf, seeing two sides of a war, having two totally separate arcs - one heroic and one so very dark and depressing - that's all narrative brilliance.

But Act 3 was just the same style Bioware uses and would use.

 

Why? Because Act 3 takes place in the same city for both paths? Because the final boss is the same for both paths? Because really that's the only thing both paths have in common in Act 3.

[Steelcan]

It's really hard to have multiple options and multiple flavours. They could do different flavours of different things but then you run e.g. into the DA2 problem of only aggressive personalities siding with the Qunari.

let's take the conclusion of the Keira Metz storyline in TW3 as an example

 

in the final confrontation with her, there are several ways it can play out, depending on what dialogue options are chosen.  Some close off options, others unlock some.  Calling her a viper forces a confrontation, explaining how idiotic the plan is works a tad better.  But they aren't all sitting there in one wheel, and the conversation isn't forced to end one way with each of the options leading you towards the same outcome.

[Seboist]

Why? Because Act 3 takes place in the same city for both paths? Because the final boss is the same for both paths? Because really that's the only thing both paths have in common in Act 3.

 

Right, there's exclusive tangible divergence in act 3 based on which path you took in the form of quests,even more so after the Enhanced Edition. Said exclusive quests even have divergences of their own.

 

That's unlike in ME1-3 where most "choices" involve choosing which brief cutscene or piece of throwaway dialogue one wants.

[In Exile]

Why? Because Act 3 takes place in the same city for both paths? Because the final boss is the same for both paths? Because really that's the only thing both paths have in common in Act 3.

Everything is essentially identical apart from the 3 main story paths: Iorevth, Roche, and Triss. The sidequests don't really vary. The same confrontation takes place but you get a different sidekick when you see Radovid. The opening is a little different between Iorveth and Roche.

It's variable, but not more variable than, say, DAI with the templars and mages leading up to in your Heart Shall Burn.

Comparing Act 3 to Act 2 is an insult to CDPRs brilliance in Act 2.

[In Exile]

let's take the conclusion of the Keira Metz storyline in TW3 as an example

in the final confrontation with her, there are several ways it can play out, depending on what dialogue options are chosen. Some close off options, others unlock some. Calling her a viper forces a confrontation, explaining how idiotic the plan is works a tad better. But they aren't all sitting there in one wheel, and the conversation isn't forced to end one way with each of the options leading you towards the same outcome.

But that's not a complaint against a "wheel". CDPR could have had all the options on one list. They didn't. They handled their branch differently, with some options being dead ends earlier on.

They could use a wheel, a list, a square, or a zig-zag, and it would amount to the same thing. What matters is the dialogue pathing.