27 réponses à ce sujet

[mickey111]

Most games allow me to maximize skills with points earned by character progression, and I tend to always go for the skills that look like they will unlock quests or dialogues and usually upgrade them far sooner than necessary. In games like Mass Effect 3, I am encouraged to build my reputation to get the same effect, and this is quite grindy, and makes it boring to replay the game. Deus Ex avoids both pitfalls, by making Adams social skill improvable with neural augments that I buy as they become available in accordance to when the developer thinks is the right time to let me have them. Its more rail-roaded in other words, it's transplanted from character level screen to an inventory menu in a way. I want more developers to copy DXHR.

[Zekka]

I wouldn't say it was flawless but I liked it

[Mirrman70]

that just sounds like they are holding my hand as I play...

[KaiserShep]

Neural augmentation fits the overall theme of DE:HR, though I honestly don't care much for that regardless. I don't think it would really be fitting to be able to just augment the character to accomplish this. I'd much rather it be done by the character learning information and unlocking the appropriate dialogue.

[mickey111]

that just sounds like they are holding my hand as I play...

 

yeah and why not? We don't all have foreknowledge of how may charisma points might be needed because we haven't played that far into the game yet. We know how much we want to spend on something like warp, or shotgun, or sniper, because we use those skills, constantly, and are learning how to use them well, constantly. These skills which are constant are in skill trees, mixed in with stuff like charisma which are not constant. See the problem? We don't know how much is needed and when because we haven't been there yet, and don't know how far into the campaign we are. That is a lot of unknowns to invest a skill point in, which is why we choose to err on the side of caution, putting the more constant skills on hold.

[Mirrman70]

yeah and why not? We don't all have foreknowledge of how may charisma points might be needed because we haven't played that far into the game yet. We know how much we want to spend on something like warp, or shotgun, or sniper, because we use those skills, constantly, and are learning how to use them well, constantly. These skills which are constant are in skill trees, mixed in with stuff like charisma which are not constant. See the problem? We don't know how much is needed and when because we haven't been there yet, and don't know how far into the campaign we are. That is a lot of unknowns to invest a skill point in, which is why we choose to err on the side of caution, putting the more constant skills on hold.

 

Eh......  That just seems like risk and reward to me.

[KaiserShep]

yeah and why not? We don't all have foreknowledge of how may charisma points might be needed because we haven't played that far into the game yet. We know how much we want to spend on something like warp, or shotgun, or sniper, because we use those skills, constantly, and are learning how to use them well, constantly. These skills which are constant are in skill trees, mixed in with stuff like charisma which are not constant. See the problem? We don't know how much is needed and when because we haven't been there yet, and don't know how far into the campaign we are. That is a lot of unknowns to invest a skill point in, which is why we choose to err on the side of caution, putting the more constant skills on hold.

I never really had a problem with this, but then I always prioritize dialogue stats above everything els. Coercion was always the first thing I filled up in Origins, and charm/intimidate got filled up before any weapon talents, because taking a little longer to kill something, which honestly isn't an issue with Spectre weapons, is not as important as having any and all dialogue available.

In any case, I'd much rather have information unlocked by investigating dialogue or finding data than purchasing augments.

[Cheviot]

As I remember it, the upgraded persuasion system of DE:HR (the one you had to grind XP points for) was basically a bottle of perfume.

[AlanC9]

Eh......  That just seems like risk and reward to me.

 

Agreed. I don't see the actual problem here.

[Han Shot First]

I'd love to see something like Alpha Protocol's dialogue system.

[BabyPuncher]

So...basically you just buy 'neural augments' (skill points) with money?

 

That sounds kind of lame, honestly.

[Regan_Cousland]

What I like about the persuasion "system" in Deus Ex is that there is no system.

You have to study your subject's body language, listen carefully to what he says, and then choose from several detailed responses. 

If you read the subject well and choose the right responses, you achieve the desired result. That's exactly how conversations work in real life.

 

Unfortunately, in Mass Effect, there's no thought required. All you have to do is be enough of a renegade or paragon to select the "special" option. 
 

[BabyPuncher]

What I like about the persuasion "system" in Deus Ex is that there is no system.

You have to study your subject's body language, listen carefully to what he says, and then choose from several detailed responses. 

If you read the subject well and choose the right responses, you achieve the desired result. That's exactly how conversations work in real life.

 

Unfortunately, in Mass Effect, there's no thought required. All you have to do is be enough of a renegade or paragon to select the "special" option.

 

Why don't you go ahead and read the post I wrote here which explains how silly this sort of sentiment is.

[Gwydden]

Why don't you go ahead and read the post I wrote here which explains how silly this sort of sentiment is.

Do enlighten us, oh wise sage, you who seem unable to grasp the difference between fighting your way through a dungeon and having every enemy drop dead with the push of a button you purchased with XP or paragon points or what have you.

[Regan_Cousland]

Why don't you go ahead and read the post I wrote here which explains how silly this sort of sentiment is.

I don't need to read your post to know that my comment isn't silly, thank you. I'm capable of drawing logical conclusions based on the evidence I observe.

And, by the way, your method of "persuasion" needs a little work. Leading with an insult isn't the best way to solicit someone's co-operation.

[BabyPuncher]

I can think of plenty of scenarios in numerous RPGs that have allowed 'dungeons' (enemies) to be bypassed by passing a skill check. That is, 'by the push of a button.'

 

Really, aren't we glamorizing 'fighting your way' through dungeons a bit? The fighting in video games is nearly always intentionally based on simple and easy systems. Just like the simple and easy systems of, say, distributing skill points.

 

 

I don't need to read your post to know that my comment isn't silly, thank you. I'm capable of drawing logical conclusions based on the evidence I observe.

 

Not very good ones, apparently.

[RoboticWater]

I can think of plenty of scenarios in numerous RPGs that have allowed 'dungeons' (enemies) to be bypassed by passing a skill check. That is, 'by the push of a button.'

 

Really, aren't we glamorizing 'fighting your way' through dungeons a bit? The fighting in video games is nearly always intentionally based on simple and easy systems. Just like the simple and easy systems of, say, distributing skill points.

The difference is the greater level of abstraction in fighting. All games are just complex tasks simplified down to essentially pushing buttons, but that's not what they're supposed to feel like. Combat systems done well (especially real time systems) suspend players' disbelief and make them think that their ultimately simple  actions are quite impressive.

 

Investing in persuasion and then passing a persuasion check simply isn't as engaging. How can it be? Unlike combat, there's no string of button presses to get lost in and it's the epitome of telling rather than showing (or in the case of videogames: doing). When I fight in games, I feel-despite my senses-like I'm actually fighting, but not once has a persuasion check made me feel like I was doing anything other than pressing a button.

 

That's also ignoring the tactical element of combat systems. Even if the end result is of an encounter is just killing things through a  mechanically simple system, the steps leading to all those button presses ideally might come from a tactic thought up by the player. Even if it's just basic flanking, the fact that the player thought to do it means the game has them hooked. Hell, every fight in XCOM comes down to an incredibly simple % chance to hit, but the combat still feels engaging because everything else is a thinking game.

[BabyPuncher]

Yes, well reasoned. It is ultimately an illusion, but illusions are still very important.

 

Well, if you have any ideas for such a system that gives the average player a reasonably high change of success (I'll be honest, I expect to be able to pass every persuasion check available and would be very frustrated at not being able to do so), I'm listening. I watched a few youtube videos of Deus Ex's system and it looked way too luck based to me.

 

Keeping in mind that players also generally want options for a certain type of persuasion. Charming vs. intimidation and so forth. And also the impact a slow system will have on conversation flow. A speech isn't going to sound near as good if the game is pausing for 20 seconds every few lines so the player can mess with a minigame.

[LinksOcarina]

I'd love to see something like Alpha Protocol's dialogue system.

 

Much better system in the end, although it becomes very transparent in terms of what you say as time goes on. 

[AlanC9]

Complicated conversation systems would burn zots at a huge rate if combined with ME's cinematic conversation style. This isn't as much of a problem with complicated combat systems since those can be assembled by recombining discrete parts in varying combinations, while voiced lines and animations are unique.

[RoboticWater]

Yes, well reasoned. It is ultimately an illusion, but illusions are still very important.
 
Well, if you have any ideas for such a system that gives the average player a reasonably high change of success (I'll be honest, I expect to be able to pass every persuasion check available and would be very frustrated at not being able to do so), I'm listening. I watched a few youtube videos of Deus Ex's system and it looked way too luck based to me.

Like what I said in response to what your post in the other thread, I believe that the average player problem could be solved with a difficulty slider. If the mechanics involved in persuasion are too difficult for some players to effectively use, then they can choose to simplify or even remove those aspects with a slider (similar to how those who are poor at combat do now).
 

Keeping in mind that players also generally want options for a certain type of persuasion. Charming vs. intimidation and so forth. And also the impact a slow system will have on conversation flow. A speech isn't going to sound near as good if the game is pausing for 20 seconds every few lines so the player can mess with a minigame.

I don't think a minigame is the ideal solution, but rather tactics. Like I said with XCOM, even the most basic pass/fail mechanic can be made more interesting when the player has to think about their approach and anticipate the enemy's tactics. Players would have to have to investigate their surroundings or probe their conversation partner through dialog to learn of their motivations/weak points to later exploit them. That sounds rather extravagant but ultimately, I'm concerned with how engaged the player is in the dialog system. I'd even be somewhat satisfied if the game let players pass charm/intimidate checks if they asked certain "investigate" questions or interacted with certain objects in the environment. At least then, the game would be rewarding players for investing in the actual story rather than just a stat.

 

As for the stopping and starting in speeches, I think it could be solved by letting the player plan out their entire speech ahead of time, and then let them alter the latter bits of it as the speech plays out i.e. while the first dialog option is playing, the player can alter their choice for the second part of the speech and so on (presumably in response to the reactions of the crowd listening to the speech). Players on lower difficulty could get the option to pause and alter their speech, and on the lowest difficulty, the game could just offer less speech options and fill in the contextually appropriate response for the rest of the speech.

 

One flaw (though I wouldn't call it that) is that the player wouldn't be able to effectively charm or intimidate everyone. Part of the point of a more "tactical" dialog system is that players must realize that not every approach will be effective everywhere. Choosing to intimidate at the wrong time should lead to failure just like the more neutral options (in some cases it could even lead to a worse state). As long as there's a slider, players should understand that the higher difficulties can't just be brute forced like they understand that higher difficulty combat can't be either. 

 

If charm/intimidate was always an absolute must, then the game could ask the player to back up their persuasion choices. For example: the player chooses to intimidate someone, so they're given the options:

-I'll hurt you

-I'll hurt your wife

-I'll hurt your children

By talking to this person, the player learns that he is an army veteran, by listening to his general tone, the player might deduce that this guy is pretty tough, and by looking around this person's office, the player can find a purple heart or something else proving this guy's mettle. Therefore option one should (and will) fail.

Again, by talking to this person, the player learns that this guy's wife died a while ago, so option two is a no go.

Option three could be found correct by finding a note from this guy's kids lying around the office or talking to him. Either way, the correct choice requires a bit of investment and memory to succeed.

 

Lower difficulty dialog could automatically choose correct intimidate option when the player presses "intimidate," or it could provide an on screen prompt like Deus Ex that says something that implies this guy cares about his kids.

 

Again, I'd even consider it a plus if the correct option only appeared once the player investigated enough. Even if it is just insta-win, it required a base level of investment to achieve.

[RoboticWater]

Complicated conversation systems would burn zots at a huge rate if combined with ME's cinematic conversation style. This isn't as much of a problem with complicated combat systems since those can be assembled by recombining discrete parts in varying combinations, while voiced lines and animations are unique.

This is indeed true, however I think it's disappointing that dialog hasn't evolved much from its relatively basic origins, especially in a company so renown for its storytelling in games.

 

I'll never be angry that complex dialog isn't implemented; it's expensive and can potentially hurt the game's mass market appeal if not implemented carefully, but I'll still always ask for it.

[WillieStyle]

Putting in a dull mini game required to progress conversations is a bad idea in my opinion. In a game, gameplay should only be added if it would actually be fun. The dialogue system, once mastered, would just be tedious and destroy the flow of dialogue. And the tedium would only get worse on subsequent playthroughs.

[Sanunes]

At least for me the persuasion system in Deus Ex: Human Revolution is about as deep as the Hacking and Decrypting in the first Mass Effect game and would get tedious. The trick to the persuasion system in Deus Ex is to see what type of personality the person is showing at that moment (Alpha, Beta, or Omega) and then picking the right response to that.  The issue I always had with the system is that they only tell you that when you use the pheromones the first time, but it seems to work for the entire conversation "hack".

 

Edit:

 

That only happens when you have the augmentation to improve it, but until then it always felt like a guessing game for the right answer.

Modifié par Sanunes, 13 octobre 2015 - 01:00 .

[PlatonicWaffles]

I loved the system, but I'm not sure how well it'd work in Mass Effect. One thing BioWare could learn from it though is fluidity in conversation so a conversation can go in wildly different paths depending on your dialogue choices.

 

In addition I don't really think neural abilities in a combat-centric game instead of a stealth game where you are given non-lethal options or the ability to pass by combat encounters entirely would work all that well.