15 réponses à ce sujet

[Default137]

Just wanted to say this to Bioware, in the hopes they keep with it, and keep making it better,

I've always hated going back to my camp after missions, because it means I would have to get some popcorn, and set myself up for 30-45 minutes of talking to people to make them like me, even if I could care less about them. And in many cases it just felt like a really odd system, that was more of a chore then an actual fun thing to do.

This new conversation system is great, it allows me to ignore the childhood of everyone, and actually learn about them as a character, and it never feels like a chore, in fact I often get a childlike glee seeing a new person that wans't standing there before, or finding an object near them that has the clickable mark over it, because it means I'm going to learn something about the world, and how at least one of my characters view it.

Keep up the good work Bioware, this is a great game!

[David Gaider]

Default137 wrote...

Just wanted to say this to Bioware, in the hopes they keep with it, and keep making it better,

I've always hated going back to my camp after missions, because it means I would have to get some popcorn, and set myself up for 30-45 minutes of talking to people to make them like me, even if I could care less about them. And in many cases it just felt like a really odd system, that was more of a chore then an actual fun thing to do.

This new conversation system is great, it allows me to ignore the childhood of everyone, and actually learn about them as a character, and it never feels like a chore, in fact I often get a childlike glee seeing a new person that wans't standing there before, or finding an object near them that has the clickable mark over it, because it means I'm going to learn something about the world, and how at least one of my characters view it.

Keep up the good work Bioware, this is a great game!

Glad you liked it!

I think it could use some refinement, and I imagine some people are going to mistake the volume of dialogue itself (in an expansion) for the system, but overall I think it's a better way to go.

[David Gaider]

Default137 wrote...
Well, the way its set up now is like this.

Basically, before you had to go to them in the camp, and go through the correct dialogue options to learn about "x", then you had to tell them how you feel about "x" and then after that, they get a boost, the problem is, after awhile you just gather so much "x" you have to talk to, and often its stuff that has NO connection to the game whatsoever, and is only mildly touching on things.

In Awakening, when you walk around with lets say Anders, he'll notice things, and suddenly say something about them, and you can turn to him and ask him how he feels about these things, its basically the same principle, but it actually makes the world feel more, well, real, hearing about it from another person while at a place like that, and seeing how they view such things, you still get the conversations, they are just split up a bit more, and allow a deeper understanding really.

A minor first example, I left my keep with Anders, and he noticed the statue to Andraste in my courtyard, and said a little bit about how he feels about Andraste, and the Chantry, and I was able to talk to him about it, and learn much more about the Chantry then I ever did from Morrigan and Wynne, however at the same time it was really fun, it didn't feel like he was reading it out of a book, I could feel how he felt about the Chantry, and it was just so much more interesting to see things from that angle.

Excellent example!

The drawback might be viewed as you being unable to go around in camp and chat with every party member, regardless of whether you spend any time adventuring with them. I don't know that this is necessarily a drawback, however, as I think you *should* only be building friendships with the characters in your active party. That and I think a system that doesn't make the player feel like they have to keep "checking in" with a character regularly to see if they have anything new to say is more natural -- saving their interactions for those times when what they have to say is more significant.

There's going to be some people who are going to miss the "laundry list" of questions, because as far as they're concerned any conversation they can have with a character they like is gravy -- it is, let's face it, MOAR! -- but I've always felt that such dialogues are often exposition-filled by necessity, and personally I think a system where a player feels compelled to sit in camp and drain a character of all their dialogue options (in a lengthy process) just to have a "complete" picture of a character isn't ideal.

The approval system itself needs some looking at, but insofar as the dialogues in Awakening go, consider it a work in progress.

[David Gaider]

LenaMarie wrote...
I think a mix of the new and old system would be better. Yes, its good to be able to talk with them out in the world to get their views on things. But Its also nice from a immersion stand point to get to know them even better when your back in camp.

My personal thought on that is, instead of having questions that you can ask a follower, having conversations you can initiate with them in camp in the same fashion that you do out in the world. So maybe there's a keg in camp and you see that clicking on it means "have a drink with Oghren" or similar... maybe even new items appear, such as something taken from a quest and you can ask someone about it without needing to have them in your active party per se.

Somthing to consider in the way of adding more "personal" conversations, perhaps, though that may be a step down a slippery slope. Hard to say.

[David Gaider]

Brockololly wrote...
Yeah I get that, I'm not expecting the volume of character development or dialogue that we had in DAO but from everything I've read from Mr. Gaider, it seems like they wanted to tweak the dialogue system in this fashion expansion or not- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Gaider

That is indeed so.

For those that are suggesting a "best of both worlds" that would include both the directed dialogues outside of camp as well as being able to click on followers and ask a bunch of questions -- you're missing the point. That would, once again, encourage the player to keep returning to the follower to check to see if they have any new dialogue options available.

Feel free to offer suggestions if you have them, but keep in mind what I'm trying to avoid. Just because someone may have liked the system despite its flaws doesn't mean it didn't have them, or that it couldn't be improved on -- and that goes for the new system as well as the old.

[David Gaider]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I do not like the fact that it's the game that imposes where and when I should talk to my companions. 
In addition, the new system doesn't allow me to ask them personal questions. I can't ask Oghren how Felsi is doing, how he feels to be a father and why he joined the Wardens.
I can't ask Howe what he was doing in the Free MArches or what he feels about the Couslands.

I really do not see how the origin system is a problem. It could have been improved, but it didn't need to be removed in this fashion. Truly, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Just add to it. 

Well, my response to that is: "why do you think you should be able to ask a follower a bunch of personal questions?" Is it because Origins conditioned you to expect those questions? Or because you actually needed them in order to find out more about the character? Baldur's Gate 2 didn't allow you to click on party members for anything -- all dialogue was initiated by them. Not that the BG2 system didn't have its own weaknesses (the random "initiate anywhere" style, for one) but I think the point still holds. Nobody was looking for it, and it wasn't missed -- people still felt very connected to those characters. I'm seeing people wanting some more personal interaction with their party members, but I'm not sure the "list of questions" is needed in order to achieve that.

And it is broken, I'm afraid. Simply because you liked something despite its flaws doesn't mean those flaws don't exist. Adding more and more dialogue is not an option, and establishing the expectation that this is what you should be doing in a game like this (as we're seeing) in order to explore a party member isn't the right way to go -- despite how nice some people might think that is. I get it -- from the perspective of a fan, why not add more? More is always the solution. I'm simply looking for alternate ways to achieve the goal of character development without needing to provide it through exposition and heaps of low-impact dialogue.

If your opinion is you'd like to do it anyway, and that your preference is to be able to explore the thoughts and feelings of your party members whenever you'd like, that's fine. Feel free to say so. From a developer perspective, I'm simply going to look at it from different angles.

Modifié par David Gaider, 17 mars 2010 - 03:05 .

[David Gaider]

Addai67 wrote...
Is it not the place of the people paying money for your game to decide what we want out of it?

"We" meaning the people on this forum? The people who like dialogue? Or all the people who buy our games or might want to in the future?

I didn't realize you were speaking on everyone's behalf. My mistake.

I think some people are getting the wrong impression, that my goal is to strip out your ability to initiate dialogue. That's not the case at all. It's more a matter of when and how. I'm not going to get into an argument about it, however, but I do recognize that some people are always going to look at any change as a net negative. From my perspective I just don't consider the aimless chatting a sacred cow -- especially when there can and has been excellent character development in RPG's that did not need to run in one, set method. It's always good to hear some perspectives, however, though you'll have to recognize that yours (meaning "yours" plural) is not the only one we're going to listen to.

[David Gaider]

Rixxencaxx wrote...
Mr gaider...we are all whining people...we are all wrong. excuse us we cant understand the new fantastic changes brought by awakening...

Which is clearly what I meant.

If someone is willing to offer respectful feedback, positive or negative, I'm willing to hear it. Let me know if you come up with any.

As to the others on the thread: thank you for the suggestions. It may not always be clear why I do what I do, but we didn't arrive at DAO's method of dialogue without iterating on what we did before that. My goal is to preserve the good and adjust the bad, and in this case not to confuse the volume of dialogue in an expansion with the system itself. I'm under no impression that any given attempt is going to be perfect, and I will leave it at that. Thanks again.

[David Gaider]

MrGOH wrote...
But I understand the appeal, to some, of the camp conversation style of DA:O. I do like to ask questions of the companions, especially if my character would want their input into a decision beyond a brief interjection. I think perhaps implementing some sort of conference or palaver segment during certain points of major questlines in which the PC can ask relevant, but perhaps myriad, questions of the companions regarding (again) relevant world building topics and factors that may affect the party's plan. For example, I'd have liked to ask Alistair about the Templars and mages at the beginning of the Mages' Tower segment in DA:O rather than randomly in camp. Then Alistair's stories and reactions could be tied to some sort of in-game event than a random moonlit conversation. Of course, there could always be a companion-initiated romantic conversation by moonlight, should that be required...

That's an interesting idea, though if you were going to ask Alistair about the Templars at the beginning of the Mage Tower segment it would still require you to click on him to see if he had anything relevant to say -- and if he did, would you not be checking every party member at every major location just in case?

Mind you, if Alistair made some comment that amounted to "Huh, I know a lot about Templars" when you entered the area... that might provide a good cue that eliminated the need for for dialogue-trolling, as it were. Though really it's the difference between clicking on an ambient object to start a conversation and clicking on the party member themselves. But it seems that's a real sticking point for some people. I'm not convinced it's a big issue, but it's something to consider.

Another possibility might be spacing out dialogues in-between major plot points. You don't get to ask said character twenty questions right off the bat, no, but maybe after you complete a plot you could click on them in the camp and ask them about the plot point specifically -- and it leads into something related, perhaps at your option. I'd prefer that to exposition on their background (which is to say I'd prefer to reveal character and background while you are talking to them about something else rather than allowing the player to simply say "Tell me all about your background." Despite the fact that some people seem keen on that, I really do think we're the worse for letting them do it.), and if it was restricted to the camp or somewhere neutral (read: with a set stage so the cinematic designers don't tear their hair out) it might not be so bad so long as the expectation was very clear and there were no exceptions. Again, something to consider.

Romances, of course, are another ball of wax completely. But, yes, I knew that.

Modifié par David Gaider, 18 mars 2010 - 04:41 .

[David Gaider]

Hmm. I will say that "I like the old conversation system, having long talks with the character let me get an insight into their personality and made me feel really close to them, etc etc." is very understandable. Who doesn't like having long talks with characters you like? It is, however, a lot of writing that is inefficient and, yes, expensive. No, you as fans don't have to worry about how expensive it is. I, however, do, and I do have to think about the sort of behavior a conversation system encourages in players -- even if some players (especially the really hardcore ones) enjoyed the end results despite its flaws (and every system has some).

There's food for thought, here. I'll take it into account when I decide how to proceed in the future, so thank you for those who offered their insight. I do, of course, have to add a grain of salt that this is feedback from the bunch that are *most* likely to be biased in favor of the Origins system by virtue of their presence here... but that's not a bad thing at all. Just realize it's one part of what we need to take into account.

So thank you.

Modifié par David Gaider, 18 mars 2010 - 03:27 .

[David Gaider]

kimmarberry wrote...
I've read all your responces here David and it looks to me like you always say" thanks for the advice i understand you like the way the old converations went but i think its broken and this one is better so you guys can give me suggestions but im not going to listen to them even tho you are paying customers." I don't see why you are so against a combantion of the two conversation styles? it would be great to have it both ways is it because you are too lazy to come up with a way that would make ppl happier? well I now know if this is the way you "listen" to your customers then I will NOT be buying any more of bioware products.

PS some of your posts have a condisending tone. perhaps you should take a remedial class on customer service.

Sigh.

I am not here to provide customer service. I am not a customer service provider. I am a developer, and one who thought that some discourse could be had with the fans over this particular element in the game, which is something I specialize in. There is use to be had in that, although yes -- I am not going to listen to every opinion someone offers because they come from a very particular perspective that isn't entirely useful to me as a developer. This is nothing to take personally -- I don't expect you to care about what I need to deal with as a developer, or to make the sorts of distinctions that I do as a designer, I'm looking for your experience as a player. Nothing more.

But it's precisely the above kind of attitude that makes it aggravating to do so. If we didn't do what you wanted it's because we're "too lazy". If we aren't jumping up and nodding our heads saying "yes, we'll do that immediately!" we're being condescending and offering (sic) bad service.

There is a distinction to be made in the experience of the dialogue in Awakening in part because it's a slightly different system for delivery and in part because the volume of dialogue is much less due to it being an expansion. Those are not related, and I recognize that sometimes people are going to mush them together. There's also a distinction between the dialogue that actually offers insight into a character (which I'm not looking to lose) and the laundry list of questions which is mostly exposition (you haven't noticed, for instance, that those questions are almost always "Tell me about X -- this feature of the world  -- that will start a dialogue which offers no real personality on your part and is mostly just information") which never offered the kind of insight that people keep claiming it does.

That's no problem, as it's my job to try and parse any comments that get made. But I do so voluntarily. I can just as easily figure it out for myself without coming anywhere near this forum at all.

So -- thanks to those who did offer some feedback. It was useful, and I will consider it even if some people seem to think I'm only placating you by coming here (as unrequired as that is, except in the minds of the entitled I suppose). But I'm going to bow out of the thread now. Feel free to keep conversing on the topic as much as you like, of  course.

Modifié par David Gaider, 19 mars 2010 - 08:14 .

[David Gaider]

AmstradHero wrote...
That said, I hope I've offered some useful suggestions to improve the new conversation system.  Even if I was slightly disappointed with its implementation in Awakenings, I definitely appreciate the intent behind it.

Very interesting thoughts. Some of the solutions you suggest have technical barriers that would prevent them, while others might be problematic due to more practical limitations (word budget, for instance -- yes, there is a budget for that) but on the whole very well spoken.

One point I'll add:

Don't forget that "making the rounds at camp" is not the only issue. Another is what I call the "low impact" dialogue-- the expository dialogue required when you have a list of questions to ask an NPC about themselves, which takes a lot of writing and offers very little in return (though it would be unfair to say it offers nothing, it is nonetheless very expensive to attain what is offered). The fact that such a list must be filled out with even more questions once depleted, combined with a lack of some kind of consistent indicator when such new content is available, compounds the "rounds at camp" issue.

Is what we tried in Awakening an effective answer to this? In some ways yes and in some ways no. It doesn't offer the clearest picture primarily because the amount of content to impart in an expansion of this size is not all that great, compared to the expectations of some, but I would say my impression taken from those who didn't like how it was presented was a feeling that they lacked agency. Why they feel that way and why they say they feel that way don't always seem to jibe, in my view, but I guess that comes with the territory.

Even so, there are some ways this could be ameliorated (or I think so, anyhow) and some of the things you suggest certainly have merit. Thanks for offering your thoughts.

Modifié par David Gaider, 02 avril 2010 - 03:20 .

[David Gaider]

Mlai00 wrote...
But then you're still working under the impression that the 'word budget' should be kept low, because it's "not so important as to warrant a higher percentage of the budget." You are thinking "this is an adventure-RPG, more budget must be doled out to the gaming aspects, less on the dialogue... that's what we must do for DAO2. DAO1 didn't use the word budget effectively, and used too much of the money pie."

Correct me if I'm wrong on that impression.

I don't set my own budget. So what I think the word budget should be set at is irrelevant, and there's no need to put words in my mouth -- I work with what I'm given, as best I can, and that's always been the case. Just because a budget would be higher in a non-expansion game, however, does not mean that it should not and can not be used more efficiently.

I recommend Bioware/EA use game registration info to see how large a
percentage of DAO gamers are female.  I know that's a broad
generalization, but it shouldn't be hard to tally?
Hey, if females
are like under 10% or something, sure go ahead make DAO2 have Awakening
amount of dialogue.

Is your assumption that female gamers prefer a larger percentage of dialogue to male gamers? If so, I find that rather erroneous.

Regardless, I'm also not sure how you picture a budget being allocated. It is not "okay 30% goes to gameplay now instead of 20%" or anything like that. If the budget overall for a project is smaller, the budget that goes towards our word count is smaller. The proportion of the headcount on a team between projects is always roughly the same (although the size of the team overall will vary, especially when it comes to a small project like an expansion). If your opinion is that the budget for a project should be larger overall, that's fair enough -- we base it on potential sales, ourselves -- but I assure you that whatever else you're picturing happening is not how it works.

Modifié par David Gaider, 02 avril 2010 - 04:44 .

[David Gaider]

AmstradHero wrote...
I agree that the method in Awakening is a step in the right direction, by having conversations directly related to events and surroundings rather than a "tell me your life story around the campfire" situation.  It is easy for people to say they don't like something and there's always resistance to change, but it's not always easy to pick out the reasons why they dislike it.

Indeed. This is not to say they won't try, and not to suggest that every person is wrong when they do so, but it's not very clear -- we're talking about an emotional response, by and large, so that's not something that anyone can easily gauge even if they claim to. Expectations play a part in it, and that's completely fair, whether that comes from what they were expecting to be able to do or how long they expected the game to be or whatever. In terms of separating what people might mean when they talk about it, I need to make dinstinctions that not everyone even cares to.

That said, at the end of the day whatever direction we end up taking (with regards to dialogue or anything else) is not going to make everyone happy. I know everyone thinks we should (and install a toggle when all else fails) but at the end of the day all we can do is try to figure out how best to implement our vision with the resources we have available. Sitting here with a pad and paper to take down instructions is not the point, but getting intelligent feedback even when it's not all glowing praise certainly is (for me, anyhow).

At any rate, thanks again for the discussion. I'm off.

Modifié par David Gaider, 02 avril 2010 - 04:58 .

[David Gaider]

AmstradHero wrote...
I won't presume to speak for David Gaider, but he doesn't appear to be talking about cutting the word budget, only finding ways to use that word budget more efficiently.  I'd equate it to things like getting rid of Leliana's exposition for "Why did you come to Ferelden?" questions in which she responds by giving her life story and family tree.  With the right sort of reworking, it would be possible to cut down that dialogue chain significantly while still imparting the same relevant information about her character.

That is exactly what I mean. I think some people interpret that as me suggesting that all the personality parts that we included in such dialogue (like Alistair's "I was raised by dogs" comment) would be removed... whereas the intention is actually to preserve that part while removing the need for the accompanying expository baggage. It does mean losing the ability to interrogate your followers, yes, but I think somewhere between that and feeling like you don't have to go quite so out of your way to "force" such interactions may be what is needed.

(Now I really am going, I promise. )

Modifié par David Gaider, 02 avril 2010 - 05:56 .

[David Gaider]

Suilebhain wrote...
This is unfortunate. Part of the thing I liked the most was the conversations, both talking to people in camp and the sponteaneous banter behind me as we travelled. Also, the romance, which of course requires dialogue, which means reading for those who just want to get on to the next battle, has fallen by the wayside as well.

I think removing these elements move the game from being as true a roleplay experience as it can be to more of a linear adventure with real-time shooter combat - not something I care to spend my hard-earned money upon. The fact that the lead writer confirms this dumbed-down direction as the "better way to go" is a bad sign.

I see this franchise starting great and moving rapidly toward mediocrity. Return to Ostagar was the first step, now Awakenings. Fortunately I have a bunch of games I can play instead. If I want a shooter, I'll dig out Altered Beast.

Err... was someone talking about removing romance or party banter or even removing entirely the ability to talk to a follower in camp? Not me.

Modifié par David Gaider, 02 avril 2010 - 07:13 .