154 réponses à ce sujet

[Quarian Master Race]

Get rid of it. ME3 Shepard is as near as makes no difference predefined as is. The ability to either agree or impotently express butthurt at something without doing anything about it is exactly the same thing. Action Mode hardly changes the game at all, and is the model they should move forward with in mind. This frees devs from devoting inordinate resources unimportant fluff like "muh choices" and lets them focus on the core aspects of the game, such as its overarching narrative, TPS gameplay mechanics and MP mode.

[PhroXenGold]

Sure, but they shouldn't mask it in "this is a persuasion check.  No you can't succeed at it"

 

It should simply be normal dialogue.

 

Actually, I like how the plan for Torment: Tides of Numenera where they are encouraging people not to save scum by saying even if you "fail" a check, it simply alters the direction of the narrative, maybe adds some complications.  One alpha footage scene shows you could still try and talk these bounty hunters down even while engaged in combat with them

 

Everything should be normal dialogue. It should not be shown to the player which options are using a "persuasion check" and which aren't, nor should it be clear that you've failed because of a check or because there simply is no way of convincing someone. Dialogue should never have different colours or other indicators that could highlight that it is a special option. If you don't have access to a dialogue due to a lack of skills, knowledge or experiences, then it simply shouldn't appear instead of being greyed out. The player should have no inclination what he or she could've had gotten they done things differently. All you should get is the words you are speaking and the tone they are being spoken in. And it's up to you to decide which options will take things in which directions.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sure, but they shouldn't mask it in "this is a persuasion check. No you can't succeed at it"

It should simply be normal dialogue.

Then it should all just be normal dialogue, with persuasion checks happening entirely behind the scenes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Everything should be normal dialogue. It should not be shown to the player which options are using a "persuasion check" and which aren't, nor should it be clear that you've failed because of a check or because there simply is no way of convincing someone. Dialogue should never have different colours or other indicators that could highlight that it is a special option. If you don't have access to a dialogue due to a lack of skills, knowledge or experiences, then it simply shouldn't appear instead of being greyed out. The player should have no inclination what he or she could've had gotten they done things differently. All you should get is the words you are speaking and the tone they are being spoken in. And it's up to you to decide which options will take things in which directions.

I don't think options should disappear. They just shouldn't be effective.

But otherwise I agree.

[Iakus]

Then it should all just be normal dialogue, with persuasion checks happening entirely behind the scenes.

Might be worth looking at

[Sylvius the Mad]

That was the upshot of a lot of the arguments in the 80s. Alignment didn't do much damage if you kept it from being meaningful in the game world. But if alignment isn't meaningful, why have alignment?

As I said above, because it encourages the player to think about moral and ethical issues during character creation, which in turn leads to deeper roleplaying.

I could build a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil hero. With some thought, that would work.

Sadly, BioWare won't let me play such a character now. I think them explicitly supporting a more robust alignment system, though, would change their approach that I could perhaps play less traditional heroic characters.

[Iakus]

As I said above, because it encourages the llayer to think about moral and ethical issues during character creation, which in turn leads to deeper roleplaying.
 

Best D&D campaign I ever played I was a lawful good paladin with a highly chaotic neutral druid in the party.

 

Talk about dueling ideologies!

[PhroXenGold]

I don't think options should disappear. They just shouldn't be effective.

But otherwise I agree.

 

I was referring to things that you simply wouldn't be in a position to ask unless certain criteria were met. If, say, it was a detailed discussion about hacking computers, and you had no skills in hacking, you wouldn't know to ask certain questions that someone who has those skills would. You wouldn't just be better at asking the same question if you had hacking skills, you would actually ask different questions. Likewise, if you'd found out some information about the person or situation before the conversation, then that could open up completely different lines of conversation that you would never have thought to open up. 

 

Now, I certainly want to see things like this in the game. But I don't want to know that they're there if I don't have the right skills or knowledge.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I was referring to things that you simply wouldn't be in a position to ask unless certain criteria were met. If, say, it was a detailed discussion about hacking computers, and you had no skills in hacking, you wouldn't know to ask certain questions that someone who has those skills would. You wouldn't just be better at asking the same question if you had hacking skills, you would actually ask different questions. Likewise, if you'd found out some information about the person or situation before the conversation, then that could open up completely different lines of conversation that you would never have thought to open up.

Now, I certainly want to see things like this in the game. But I don't want to know that they're there if I don't have the right skills or knowledge.

That makes sense, and it occur to me after I posted.

I was thinking more of cases where you might try to leverage knowledge you do have (like the other guy has a family he's trying to protect), but with too low a persuasion skill you wouldn't be good at it.

And I'd like some persuasion options that will always fail regardless of skill or context, ideally where not trying them will lead to better outcomes.

I really want players to have to think about which dialogue options they're choosing.

[AlanC9]

As I said above, because it encourages the llayer to think about moral and ethical issues during character creation, which in turn leads to deeper roleplaying.

I'd find this convincing if I thought the D&D grid was a useful way to approach these issues. Anyway, even assuming you need your ruleset to encourage this sort of thing, I could throw a dart at my bookshelf and hit a ruleset with a better approach.

[KaiserShep]

Get rid of it. ME3 Shepard is as near as makes no difference predefined as is. The ability to either agree or impotently express butthurt at something without doing anything about it is exactly the same thing. Action Mode hardly changes the game at all, and is the model they should move forward with in mind. This frees devs from devoting inordinate resources unimportant fluff like "muh choices" and lets them focus on the core aspects of the game, such as its overarching narrative, TPS gameplay mechanics and MP mode.

This would have ensured that I play the game once and never again. To be perfectly frank, I consider any BioWare game that doesn't offer any options during gameplay ( as in dialogue and so forth) to be unacceptable and not worth the time.

[Iakus]

I'd find this convincing if I thought the D&D grid was a useful way to approach these issues. Anyway, even assuming you need your ruleset to encourage this sort of thing, I could throw a dart at my bookshelf and hit a ruleset with a better approach.

Thing is, it's supposed to be a guide, rather than a hard-and fast rule.  It gives the player and the GM ideas of what sort of behaviors should be encouraged, and what sorts of problems the character should be confronted with.

 

This is something a cRPG will of course, have problems with, since it's hard to put a lot of context into a rigid computer program.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd find this convincing if I thought the D&D grid was a useful way to approach these issues. Anyway, even assuming you need your ruleset to encourage this sort of thing, I could throw a dart at my bookshelf and hit a ruleset with a better approach.

I find having such a ruleset helpful, and the vagueness of the D&D grid makes it even moreso.

I wouldn't object to using a different system, but I'd like us to have a system. Especially since it would encourage the developers to support a wider range of character designs. Though, I think it would require a forcible uncoupling of dialogue options from motive, as BioWare couldn't possibly foresee all possible combinations.

[PhroXenGold]

That makes sense, and it occur to me after I posted.

I was thinking more of cases where you might try to leverage knowledge you do have (like the other guy has a family he's trying to protect), but with too low a persuasion skill you wouldn't be good at it.

And I'd like some persuasion options that will always fail regardless of skill or context, ideally where not trying them will lead to better outcomes.

I really want players to have to think about which dialogue options they're choosing.

 

I'd love to have some characters who would be perfectly happy to deal with you if you you the simple "could you help me please?" type options, but react badly to the more manipulative or threatening options usually associated with dialogue skills and end up not aiding you should you try them. The kind of guy who simply respects people that are upfront and honest about what they want.

[AlanC9]

Get rid of it. ME3 Shepard is as near as makes no difference predefined as is. The ability to either agree or impotently express butthurt at something without doing anything about it is exactly the same thing. Action Mode hardly changes the game at all, and is the model they should move forward with in mind. This frees devs from devoting inordinate resources unimportant fluff like "muh choices" and lets them focus on the core aspects of the game, such as its overarching narrative, TPS gameplay mechanics and MP mode.

I can always depend on you for the radical solution.

[AlanC9]

Thing is, it's supposed to be a guide, rather than a hard-and fast rule.  It gives the player and the GM ideas of what sort of behaviors should be encouraged, and what sorts of problems the character should be confronted with.
 
This is something a cRPG will of course, have problems with, since it's hard to put a lot of context into a rigid computer program.

I guess I just can't think of any game-world where the system actually helped. Either it influenced the world design and made it worse, or it was irrelevant to the world and didn't help me think about anything. Or rather, it was of no more use than any other arbitrary classification system -- I could get the same benefits from Myers-Briggs types or astrological signs.

[sortiv]

Personally, I thought the renegade/paragon set-up in ME2 was terrible. Why should I be blocked out of ways to handle situations becuase I pulled my guns on a few jerks earlier in the game, but was always cool to my crew?  Left me with a bunch of grey to choose from, which was stupid.  Diaouge should never be greyed out based on prior conversations. It is a cheap way to do choice/conseqeunce and is more aggravating than anything else.

 

While I liked the DAI plethora of chcoies (happy, sad, angry, stoic, etc), I still found it difficult to really roleplay becuase many of the dialouge choices were exactyl the same...they just sounded different (ie, happy yes, sad yes, stoic yes, angry yes).  Seemed like we had more choice, but it was sham.

 

So...I guess I would want many choices in the dialouge wheel that are actually different in terms of meaning, not just tone.  I also want to be able to choose dialouge based on situation and not worry about not being able to be a jerk later just becuase I have been nice previously.  Reputation should be based on my accomplishements, not my dialouge tone.

 

In terms of implmentation...why do we need a wheel at all?  Why not do it like it was done in DAO...full sentences....where the tone was pretty apparant. The only difference is that you have a voiced protaganist who gets to say the line.  Simple.  Easy.  Role-playing.  Yay!

 

This is one of my biggest pet peeves with all morality point systems - it invariably devalues neutrality. It's also opposite to reality wherein often times it is the neutral part most able to resolve conflicts. 

[fyz306903]

I think they should use a system similar to the aporoval sytem in DA:I and seemingly Fallout 4. It'd kill two brids with one stone by improving the morality system and being more fluid than loyalty missions.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I guess I just can't think of any game-world where the system actually helped. Either it influenced the world design and made it worse, or it was irrelevant to the world and didn't help me think about anything. Or rather, it was of no more use than any other arbitrary classification system -- I could get the same benefits from Myers-Briggs types or astrological signs.

They'd work, too.

Jennifer Hepler used to take MBTI tests as the character she was writing in order to figure out what he might do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is one of my biggest pet peeves with all morality point systems - it invariably devalues neutrality. It's also opposite to reality wherein often times it is the neutral part most able to resolve conflicts.

Neutrality was beneficial in BG. It was the only way to keep a party of diverse alignments together.

[ModernAcademic]

A dialogue cube.
 
Or a magic eight ball.

A holographic projection, with full 3D wheel, now turned into a 3D hexagram. Instead of the only six traditional choices, the player now has 64 of them.

[mickey111]

paragon/renegade has to stay or else jimmy 360 noscope will find it too bewildering to determine good from evil and walk away thinking the game sucks.

[Quarian Master Race]

I can always depend on you for the radical solution.

It's hardly radical. Action Mode was in the most recent installment of the series, they simply need to make the bold, innovative decision to make it the only mode in the next game. This will allow them to reallocate resources to the more important parts of the game, like hiring decent writers and improving the MP's netcode.

GOTY is sure to follow.

[KaiserShep]

It's hardly radical. Action Mode was in the most recent installment of the series, they simply need to make the bold, innovative decision to make it the only mode in the next game. This will allow them to reallocate resources to the more important parts of the game, like hiring decent writers and improving the MP's netcode.

GOTY is sure to follow.

 

 

If they didn't hire decent writers as it was, what makes anyone believe that this wretched "Action Mode" would change anything? 

 

Anyway, **** action mode, man. BioWare's one of the few devs out there that bothers to make a big expansive game that allows us to play around with story options. I wouldn't want to see that sort of thing go extinct. 

[In Exile]

Man my memory sucks. I don't remember reputation points.

Yeah, it's how your bhaalspawn power triggered too. I accidentally killed an NPC by way of fireball so I got the evil power and cutscene after the bandit camp.