635 réponses à ce sujet

[--Master of All--]

JakePT wrote...

Initiating combat while out in a dungeon or out of camp (or similar places) is unnecessary and unrealistic.
It doesn't make sense that, all of a sudden, you stop in the middle of a dungeon to talk about a party member's childhood.

This makes sense back in camp, or at some other place the party is resting, not while you're out on a quest.

Perhaps having inns or temporary camping spots you can stay at where the party will disperse and you can go and chat to them, instead of a singular camp you always return to, is a potential solution.

Don't let me start a conversation if the character has nothing new to say
Since in Dragon Age (and Mass Effect 2, but not 1*) it's very difficult to tell when a character has something new to say, I ended up wasting a lot of time going up, initiating conversations only to see that there where no new dialog options and I had to wait for them to say "Yes?", me to say "Nothing" and them to say "Ok". Sure it's probably not even a full second if I skip, but it's not so much about the wasted time, as it is about the way it interrupts the flow of the game.

It also negatively affects the role playing, because even though it doesn't affect the way other characters feel about you, you feel like your character looks kind of stupid constantly going up saying "Hello. Nothing. Goodbye" to the other characters.

One simple solution, especially since the DA camp was always nighttime, would be to have the character sleeping. That way it makes more sense from a role playing perspective to go up to a character who isn't asleep and asking them what's keeping them up. This way you have a story and gameplay indicator for when a character has something new to say.

*I have to express how incredibly annoying it was in ME1 that after a certain point any character you weren't in a romance with particularly Garrus, Miranda, Grunt (in my experience) would suddenly either have nothing to talk about, become incredibly busy, or start repeating themselves. In Mass Effect 1 the characters always had something new to say after a main mission, and this would last until the end of the game. Unless you left all your side missions until just before Ilos you'd never feel like the game had 'run out' of dialog for the characters.

Characters need to respond to their surroundings and events
This one wasn't a much of problem in DA, but I think it's important not to forget this. The game needs to know how characters feel about certain issues, and respond to events in the game on their own.

Characters should reference the players choices, express their opinions about them, talk about places you've just been to, or have to go to, talk about important events that have occurred, reference things happening with other characters and not be completely oblivious the the importance of events impacting other characters. This way when a character speaks, it doesn't feel like a canned piece of exposition, but like something the character would actually say in any given situation.

I also think it's important party characters form relationships with each other. If two characters form a bond, something that causes one character to disapprove should cause a character who likes that character to also disapprove.

Also, wouldn't it be interesting if the player's choices could cause a romantic relationship between two other characters to occur, or if they already had a romantic relationship the player character, or even how the character interacts with a fourth character, could influence their relationship. I think it would be a huge deal for video games as a dramatic medium if a game could have have such dynamic relationships between not just two, but three, four, six or, hell, ten, characters.

Unfortunately this would be incredibly difficult because the more the characters respond to the player's actions the more dialog has to be written, and the more reactive the characters get, even more dialog will need to be written that a larger and larger percentage of players will never see. Heavy Rain took a big step in this direction, unfortunately it also meant the game, despite being developed for just as long, or longer than, Mass Effect 2, is considerably shorter.

Party member participation in dialog with other characters needs to be more natural
When a character speaks in a conversation with a villain, NPC, or whatever, other characters need to respond to this better. Particularly in Awakening party member dialog really felt like it exposed the underlying dialog system.

It was just cycling through their dialog, maybe giving the player a couple of things to say, before returning to the conversation subject who would be completely oblivious to anything anyone said.

Once again, the problem with this one is the more reactive characters get, the more work needs to be done for less and less people.

Less exposition
I should learn about characters by how they respond to events, or about how others respond to them, not because I asked them to tell me their life story back at camp.
Obviously you'd need the character to tell you some things about themselves, but these, whether by player or character initiation, should only come at the right time.

Characters should only tell you about their childhood after having forged a relationship through both of your actions during events. You don't build up trust with a character by giving them a snowglobe, you do it through how you treat their opinions on a problem you face, how you face that problem, demonstrating leadership etc. Only after doing that should the characters open up.

Don't waste dialog on expostion
You have a great character, a great voice actor and you've only got a certain about of dialog you can write and record with them. Don't waste a 15 minute conversation on them explaining the politics of their home country or whatever.

When I talk to a character I want to learn about them, and if I want to learn about their culture, it's only because I want to know what made them the way they are.
Obviously many players will be interested in those politics and that culture, and let them ask about it, just don't waste too much time on it. For the really detailed stuff give me another source of info, such as an NPC somewhere of the same race, or a codex entry.

In Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 one of my least favourite characters is Tali, and the reason is because all of her dialog in ME1 is just exposition on the quarians (who have nothing to do with that game's story!) while only most of her dialog in ME2 (outside the loyalty mission, which is fantastically written) is exposition. Yes, you made a fascinating world and fleshed out all the cultures, and I want to know that stuff, just don't waste a party member's dialog on giving that information. A good example is Garrus. He's a turian, but very little of his dialog is about his race or his culture, it's about him, his motivations, his personality. If I want to learn about the turians I can read the codex and piece together the rest by talking to a whole bunch of other characters who's motivations and personality I'm less interested in.


I'm sure there's more I have to say, I just can't think of it now, this'll do for the moment.

Just wanted to say I agree almost 100% with every point you made here. You pretty much touched on every complaint I have about RPG dialogue systems. I would just like to add that one of the main problems with a camp-based dialogue system for me as a player is pacing. I'm the type of person who will almost always diligently comb each character's dialogue tree until they have nothing new to say. Taking this approach in DA:O, it is fully possible to exhaust 75% of a character's dialogue within the first 25% of the game. At which point, they will take a vow of silence and have nothing new to talk about (aside from the occassional banter/rant) until their personal quest is triggered. The reason for this is that there is no in-game mechanism to break up dialogue and keep each character's development in synch with the main story arc. The end result of this is that towards the middle of the game, almost all of my party members have stopped talking to me and I feel completely disconnected from them. I think that better integrating dialogue into certain plot moments, world objects, and events would allow party members to play a much more central role in the main story, and also ensure that npc/player interactions remain unpredictable and interesting throughout the course of the game for dialogue-addicts like myself. This may require having less party members overall, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

Under the DA:O 'camp is story time' model, navigating dialogue trees has become something of a mini-game, completely separate from the main plot. IMO, that needs to change. Party dialogue should contribute to the story, not distract from it. In this regard, DA:A was on the right track.  

Modifié par --Master of All--, 03 avril 2010 - 02:53 .

[zahra]

I think one of the immersion-breaking points for me was when I would accidentally click on a character in the middle of tense moments (like before deciding how to deal with the conner situation, or in the middle of battle!) and the character would be like "Hello! Let's talk about grey wardens." or worse "Here's a rose! You're beautiful in the midst of this darkness for reals!"



I think maybe in some situations conversations should be made impossible to initiate. Kind of odd chatting about Orlais and bards in the middle of beating up an ogre, no?

[TheMadCat]

That's a simple fix, simply remove the ability to initiate conversation out in the field and instead have needed conversations triggered. Apparently this is similar to what Awakening does. Really there is no reason to hold the more personal conversations out in the field anyways when their are tasks at hand, to me that is better handled in a more restful setting such as the camp, fortress, whatever.

[mhendon]

LenaMarie wrote...

I think some people should put it in perspective. Sure you can chat with your friends when your at the mall or something, but comfortable surroundings like someones house or hangout is more realistic way to get to know someone on a deeper level. You wouldn't 'believe' someone telling you all about their life in the middle of a crowded mall or in Reference to the game a Crowded Marketplace.

It'd be much more believable to have those deep chats with someone in a more quiet and relaxed setting. Thats mostly why I believe perhaps theres a place for both styles. Casual Conversations out in the world, but deeper more meaningful conversations back at your Base. That seems more immersive and realistic to me.

This

[Urdnot_Write]

LenaMarie wrote...

I think some people should put it in perspective. Sure you can chat with your friends when your at the mall or something, but comfortable surroundings like someones house or hangout is more realistic way to get to know someone on a deeper level. You wouldn't 'believe' someone telling you all about their life in the middle of a crowded mall or in Reference to the game a Crowded Marketplace.

It'd be much more believable to have those deep chats with someone in a more quiet and relaxed setting. Thats mostly why I believe perhaps theres a place for both styles. Casual Conversations out in the world, but deeper more meaningful conversations back at your Base. That seems more immersive and realistic to me.

I agree completely.

Several conversations that I've had with companions were far better suited for a private campfire scene than a crowded marketplace. When Alistair teared up about Duncan I'm sure he was glad Morrigan and Sten weren't standing right behind us, waiting for the tears to stop so we could continue on our way.

It also felt more like a meaningful relationship when I could initiate dialogue. Despite the fact that I wanted to talk to Nathaniel about the Howes and the Couslands, I had to wait until he noticed a particular statue or tree before he would share anything. In an in-game sense, I was no more interested in his story than I was in Anders or Velanna. I responded to all of them but I never actually asked my own questions.

Finally, I actually LIKED the chore of the campsite. As fun as the combat and the quest-running was, it's nice to have a safe place to buy and sell and just get to know your companions a little better. I appreciated the break that it gave me from the rest of the game. Sometimes you've just killed enough darkspawn for the day. The "dialogue mini-game" was actually nice.

I know I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said before, but hopefully one more voice will help illustrate that a significant number of people would prefer the original system, despite it's flaws.

[zahra]

--Master of All-- wrote...

JakePT wrote...

Initiating combat while out in a dungeon or out of camp (or similar places) is unnecessary and unrealistic.
It doesn't make sense that, all of a sudden, you stop in the middle of a dungeon to talk about a party member's childhood.

This makes sense back in camp, or at some other place the party is resting, not while you're out on a quest.

Perhaps having inns or temporary camping spots you can stay at where the party will disperse and you can go and chat to them, instead of a singular camp you always return to, is a potential solution.

Don't let me start a conversation if the character has nothing new to say
Since in Dragon Age (and Mass Effect 2, but not 1*) it's very difficult to tell when a character has something new to say, I ended up wasting a lot of time going up, initiating conversations only to see that there where no new dialog options and I had to wait for them to say "Yes?", me to say "Nothing" and them to say "Ok". Sure it's probably not even a full second if I skip, but it's not so much about the wasted time, as it is about the way it interrupts the flow of the game.

It also negatively affects the role playing, because even though it doesn't affect the way other characters feel about you, you feel like your character looks kind of stupid constantly going up saying "Hello. Nothing. Goodbye" to the other characters.

One simple solution, especially since the DA camp was always nighttime, would be to have the character sleeping. That way it makes more sense from a role playing perspective to go up to a character who isn't asleep and asking them what's keeping them up. This way you have a story and gameplay indicator for when a character has something new to say.

*I have to express how incredibly annoying it was in ME1 that after a certain point any character you weren't in a romance with particularly Garrus, Miranda, Grunt (in my experience) would suddenly either have nothing to talk about, become incredibly busy, or start repeating themselves. In Mass Effect 1 the characters always had something new to say after a main mission, and this would last until the end of the game. Unless you left all your side missions until just before Ilos you'd never feel like the game had 'run out' of dialog for the characters.

Characters need to respond to their surroundings and events
This one wasn't a much of problem in DA, but I think it's important not to forget this. The game needs to know how characters feel about certain issues, and respond to events in the game on their own.

Characters should reference the players choices, express their opinions about them, talk about places you've just been to, or have to go to, talk about important events that have occurred, reference things happening with other characters and not be completely oblivious the the importance of events impacting other characters. This way when a character speaks, it doesn't feel like a canned piece of exposition, but like something the character would actually say in any given situation.

I also think it's important party characters form relationships with each other. If two characters form a bond, something that causes one character to disapprove should cause a character who likes that character to also disapprove.

Also, wouldn't it be interesting if the player's choices could cause a romantic relationship between two other characters to occur, or if they already had a romantic relationship the player character, or even how the character interacts with a fourth character, could influence their relationship. I think it would be a huge deal for video games as a dramatic medium if a game could have have such dynamic relationships between not just two, but three, four, six or, hell, ten, characters.

Unfortunately this would be incredibly difficult because the more the characters respond to the player's actions the more dialog has to be written, and the more reactive the characters get, even more dialog will need to be written that a larger and larger percentage of players will never see. Heavy Rain took a big step in this direction, unfortunately it also meant the game, despite being developed for just as long, or longer than, Mass Effect 2, is considerably shorter.

Party member participation in dialog with other characters needs to be more natural
When a character speaks in a conversation with a villain, NPC, or whatever, other characters need to respond to this better. Particularly in Awakening party member dialog really felt like it exposed the underlying dialog system.

It was just cycling through their dialog, maybe giving the player a couple of things to say, before returning to the conversation subject who would be completely oblivious to anything anyone said.

Once again, the problem with this one is the more reactive characters get, the more work needs to be done for less and less people.

Less exposition
I should learn about characters by how they respond to events, or about how others respond to them, not because I asked them to tell me their life story back at camp.
Obviously you'd need the character to tell you some things about themselves, but these, whether by player or character initiation, should only come at the right time.

Characters should only tell you about their childhood after having forged a relationship through both of your actions during events. You don't build up trust with a character by giving them a snowglobe, you do it through how you treat their opinions on a problem you face, how you face that problem, demonstrating leadership etc. Only after doing that should the characters open up.

Don't waste dialog on expostion
You have a great character, a great voice actor and you've only got a certain about of dialog you can write and record with them. Don't waste a 15 minute conversation on them explaining the politics of their home country or whatever.

When I talk to a character I want to learn about them, and if I want to learn about their culture, it's only because I want to know what made them the way they are.
Obviously many players will be interested in those politics and that culture, and let them ask about it, just don't waste too much time on it. For the really detailed stuff give me another source of info, such as an NPC somewhere of the same race, or a codex entry.

In Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 one of my least favourite characters is Tali, and the reason is because all of her dialog in ME1 is just exposition on the quarians (who have nothing to do with that game's story!) while only most of her dialog in ME2 (outside the loyalty mission, which is fantastically written) is exposition. Yes, you made a fascinating world and fleshed out all the cultures, and I want to know that stuff, just don't waste a party member's dialog on giving that information. A good example is Garrus. He's a turian, but very little of his dialog is about his race or his culture, it's about him, his motivations, his personality. If I want to learn about the turians I can read the codex and piece together the rest by talking to a whole bunch of other characters who's motivations and personality I'm less interested in.


I'm sure there's more I have to say, I just can't think of it now, this'll do for the moment.

Just wanted to say I agree almost 100% with every point you made here. You pretty much touched on every complaint I have about RPG dialogue systems. I would just like to add that one of the main problems with a camp-based dialogue system for me as a player is pacing. I'm the type of person who will almost always diligently comb each character's dialogue tree until they have nothing new to say. Taking this approach in DA:O, it is fully possible to exhaust 75% of a character's dialogue within the first 25% of the game. At which point, they will take a vow of silence and have nothing new to talk about (aside from the occassional banter/rant) until their personal quest is triggered. The reason for this is that there is no in-game mechanism to break up dialogue and keep each character's development in synch with the main story arc. The end result of this is that towards the middle of the game, almost all of my party members have stopped talking to me and I feel completely disconnected from them. I think that better integrating dialogue into certain plot moments, world objects, and events would allow party members to play a much more central role in the main story, and also ensure that npc/player interactions remain unpredictable and interesting throughout the course of the game for dialogue-addicts like myself. This may require having less party members overall, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

Under the DA:O 'camp is story time' model, navigating dialogue trees has become something of a mini-game, completely separate from the main plot. IMO, that needs to change. Party dialogue should contribute to the story, not distract from it. In this regard, DA:A was on the right track.  

I agree with all of the above.

[zahra]

TheMadCat wrote...

That's a simple fix, simply remove the ability to initiate conversation out in the field and instead have needed conversations triggered. Apparently this is similar to what Awakening does. Really there is no reason to hold the more personal conversations out in the field anyways when their are tasks at hand, to me that is better handled in a more restful setting such as the camp, fortress, whatever.

Exactimundo!

[Shutterbugsue]

Cat Lance wrote...

This thread and dialogue has made me much more interested in playing through Awakenings. Even if it's just to give this new dialogue system a run!

Mlai00 wrote...

@ Regarding gender and dialogue quantity:
Sure,
laugh it off. "Oh, what a dated misconception, ha ha har. This is
2010, we all know girls and boys all like the same things in games and
books and movies har har!" I feel no need to argue this point any
further; my livelihood doesn't depend on tapping fresh consumer
demographics. Think what you will.

I think the reason the point was
argued isn't so much that "in general" girls are more interested in
dialogue than males, but that, once you are talking about people who
enjoy these sorts of games, they enjoy lots of dialogue, no matter to
their gender.

I agree I am female, but everyone I game with on the X Box 360 are male and they all loved the dialogue in Dragon Age Origins, They were dissapointed with the lack of conversation and lack of romance option in Awakenings as was I. We all thought, what was the point of giving gifts and getting appoval if you cant even talk to them? Dont get me wrong there were alot of things I thought were great in Awakenings but I have only played through it once and I have played through origins well... I have lost count on how many times hehehe and I even bought it for the PC So I can download what other people have created with the toolset. I am hoping someone makes a mod where you can talk to them in Awakenings Then I will concider buying that for the PC as well.

David Gaider I think you do great writing I love the mixture of comedy and romance that you put in these stories, and I have to say I have only read one book in my entire life cause I hate reading, but your writing has made me go out and buy 2 books, I have read The Stolen Throne and I am proud to say I am about three quaters of the way through The Calling. I also think it is great that you read the forums and respond.   

[shedevil3001]

there are some awesome mods out there i hope they make some for awakening, as for the conversation system for the next expansion/sequal maybe if bioware use the old and the new system combined and flesh the conversation out so you cant exaust all the conversation in 1 go then maybe that might work better, maybe keep the romantic/personal things in camp/base along with the more deeper conversations, other less meaningful conversations or world related can be used anywhere but the conversation should be either automatically triggered when you walk upto an item rather than clicking on something or maybe the companion says something to indicate they want to say something, as i found the clicking on items to start a conversation you missed a great deal of opertunities for convo's or you had to keep your finger on tab all the way through the game, which is awfully inconvenient, hopefully bioware will read some of this thread and take these points into consideration and maybe improve the system, make it easier to spot a conversation trigger or something. I'm no game developer so i'm not sure if its possible for them to maybe make it when you walk upto things to go straight into a conversation or if thats a difficult or costly process but if they could do that then that would definatly be alot better.

[Rejoy Skinler]

Realy liked the new crew, great VA as usual, and the events were a good idea but I kinda miss not being a ble to start a convo when I feel like it or even at the camp. I don't see why both can't work together.



I also really appreciate the no romance thing. What a twist.

[CakesOnAPlane]

I agree. It feels alot more natural, and to get to know the characters you have to actually use them. However, I think it needs to be mixed with the Mass Effect style, where the characters have something to say after each mission. But this was only an expansion so it's understandable.

My only problem in Awakening is that without being able to talk to them at any time, it felt more like they were just NPCs and not Party Members, kind of like Zaeed in ME2.

Modifié par CakesOnAPlane, 03 avril 2010 - 03:23 .

[NCPokey]

Rejoy Skinler wrote...

Realy liked the new crew, great VA as usual, and the events were a good idea but I kinda miss not being a ble to start a convo when I feel like it or even at the camp. I don't see why both can't work together.

I agree, I like the idea of two different types of conversations. One could be triggered by an event or something you see, and the other could be more of a casual conversation. The event-triggered conversations could be more geared towards advancing the plot and the casual conversations more about getting to know the other characters.

I'd actually like to see more of the codex items taken out of the codex and placed into dialogue. I bet more people would have learned about Orlais if they could ask Leliana questions about it instead of reading codex text. The people interested in RP could spend as much time as they want delving into the conversations, but someone who is only interested in advancing the story could skip all of that, but not miss any dialogue important to the plot.

[rak72]

I just want to add my 2 cents, not to complain just to complain, but rather, so that BW knows where it's customers stand. I HATE the new system. This is a long thread, my reasons have been stated by other people, suffice it to say I liked the old system. I liked breaking up the monotony of killing with a conversation about griffins, to go back to camp/the keep to say something to someone is just silly. If, in the new game, a companion sees a tree that reminds him of his 1st grade teacher - and he wants to tell me about it - fine. But don't get rid of the best part of the original game.

[DrugmeupElmo]

I miss the original games system, it felt much deeper and made characters much more complete. This conversation in this just feels speedily done, and called refinement to hide its much more shallow nature due to having a tiny fraction of the developement time the main game had. On another note though, are they ever going to release a patch to fix the monstrous amount of bugs the game has shipped with? It feels more like an obsidian game than a bioware one.

Modifié par DrugmeupElmo, 04 avril 2010 - 07:23 .

[Catcher]

     I'll just paste over what I posted over on a closely related thread on the main DA: O Discussion board since this topic seems more active.

   I have a feeling that those suggesting to "just do both" are missing the points that David Gaider brought up in the other thread, not to mention that having two differently functioning systems might be messy from a gameplay and design resource standpoint. I'll toss out a few ideas that I've got on the subject ranging from the least disruptive from the DA: O system to the most.
   
   One of the problems that David pointed out with the Camp Talk structure was that the Player didn't have adequate feedback as to when new dialogue was available from a Party NPC. My thought, incorporating the new "Talk Object" model, would be to have an object that each Party member is "busy with" when in Camp and there's no new dialogue available. For example, Lelania would be playing that odd, three-necked lute, Rabbit would be worrying a bone, Alistair would be working on his shield, Wynne would be reading a book, etc. When one or more of your companions puts down or lays aside the object, it would be clickable and you could have a conversation, or leave the Campanion alone as you choose. This approach would both give clear signals as to when a Campanion had new dialogue and utilize the new system in both Camp and Outside. Further, it would give the Camp a bit more life and each object could in itself give you an insight into a new Campanion. As a side note, does anyone wish there was some more NPC-NPC interaction in the Camp talks (a'la the Rabbit talks)? Those were mostly full of Win and let your PC participate or just hang back and added life to the Camp as well. When Leli sings her song in Camp, one of the best effects was the reactions of several of the Companions. Just a thought.
   
   As many have said, on the road it seems really out of place to be looking for randomish objects to click for conversations with NPCs. The simplest improvement would be to give every such active object a "shimmer" effect so at least the Player didn't have to TAB through the entire game. A more aggressive thought would be to remove the need to click whatsoever. Make the object into a "beacon" with a certain radius that fires off the conversational cutscene whenever the PC and NPC get into range. That would be more complex to test and run than the DA: A system but would remove the problems of "needing" to look for talk objectsand work more invisibly. A more radical idea, which is not incidentally one I've offered before, is to trigger conversations "On the Road" during Map Travel or while traversing previously cleared areas. With this method, there's a greatly minimized risk of bugs, the writer still has control and it fills in an otherwise dead moment. Unless, that is, you really do enjoy watching the blood trail across the map for the 35th time.
   
   Let me know what you think.

[tmp7704]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Initiating *dialogue* while out in a dungeon or out of camp (or similar places) is unnecessary and unrealistic.

(You meant dialogue. Fixed it for you.)

Agreed. You should be either in camp, keep, or some "rest" type place if you want to initiate conversation or ask them to teach you to be a templar (or whatever). It's silly to think you can talk to them while surrounded by things ready to gnaw off your leg.

I'd have to disagree with that -- having conversations happen in potentially dangerous situations is something absolutely common in all kinds of fiction, from books to movies and as such it's viewed as natural and actually expected. The use of this trope goes to the point where the most powerful scenes involve characters resolve their conflicts or form bonds through conversations held right in the middle of combat, with bullets and swords flying.
 
And it's "truth in television" so to speak, since this practice is a simple and quite common human method to cope with prolonged stress -- the conversation allows the mind to partially focus on something else, reducing the pressure which could otherwise negatively affect the performance.

[Ash Wind]

I enjoyed the Origins Dialogue System much more than the Awakenings system. Biggest problem with the Awakenings system was its reliance on these random items to initiate conversations that told you more about your companions.

It would be fine as a compliment, but is awkward at best as a major way to converse. Its like re-inventing the wheel. We are social creatures. We learn about others by 'talking' to them, making comments and asking questions; not by staring at random objects, hoping it will initiate a long winded diatribe on how trees = freedom.

And if you make all conversation pieces shimmer, aside from making in-game conversation little more than a glorified easter egg hunt, what happens if the Companion whose conversation any given piece initiates isn't in the Party? Is that conversation lost? Then what? Put 40 items throughout the game world that initiates the same coversation... for every conversation... for every possible party member? Talk about getting messy.

Aside from being awkward and taking away from the immersion, the possibility of lost content seems very high. And few things ****** gamers off more than lost content... that they've already paid for. Oh? You didn't get Leliana's song?? You didn't stare at the covered wagon outside of the chantry... when Leliana was in your party. Bah!

Modifié par Ash Wind, 06 avril 2010 - 12:27 .

[TheMadCat]

I'd have to disagree with that -- having conversations happen
in potentially dangerous situations is something absolutely common in
all kinds of fiction, from books to movies and as such it's viewed as
natural and actually expected. The use of this trope goes to the point
where the most powerful scenes involve characters resolve their
conflicts or form bonds through conversations held right in the middle
of combat, with bullets and swords flying.
 
And it's "truth in
television" so to speak, since this practice is a simple and quite
common human method to cope with prolonged stress -- the conversation
allows the mind to partially focus on something else, reducing the
pressure which could otherwise negatively affect the performance.

That depends on the conversation though, I agree conversations in the middle of a nasty situation could add a lot. But it would make no sense to hear Alistair go on about how he was raised by dogs in the middle of a dragons layer simply because we come across the remains of a dog. I do like the idea of having more quest related dialogue while out in the field, but the dialogue should pertain directly to task and situation at hand. Dialogue whose sole purpose is developing the character and building relationship should mostly be restricted to a safe environment such as a camp simply because of the nature and purpose of the dialogue.

[CybAnt1]

And it's "truth in television" so to speak, since this practice is a simple and quite common human method to cope with prolonged stress -- the conversation allows the mind to partially focus on something else, reducing the pressure which could otherwise negatively affect the performance.

Sure. On the other hand, I don't think the time to ask somebody "teach me to be a templar" or "tell me about your culture" is while surrounded by blight wolves. Although yes you would expect people to discuss their feelings, maybe most notably, their fear of death (or not). 

[tmp7704]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Sure. On the other hand, I don't think the time to ask somebody "teach me to be a templar" or "tell me about your culture" is while surrounded by blight wolves. Although yes you would expect people to discuss their feelings, maybe most notably, their fear of death (or not). 

That's fair point. Well, personally i can see the talk about culture happen, not in the least because the triggers for some of these conversations can actually happen while adventuring around -- if Sten can comment about mages in Ferelden while trekking through abomination-infested tower, i'm game. But things like the specialization unlocks when they imply some activity involved, yeah, that doesn't make much sense. I'd just chalk that up to not this much thought put into the dialogue trees. The option to filter certain lines when not in camp is actually in the game, it just perhaps didn't occur to anyone it could be viewed by someone as important enough to warrant extra work.

[Urdnot_Write]

Catcher wrote...
One of the problems that David pointed out with the Camp Talk structure was that the Player didn't have adequate feedback as to when new dialogue was available from a Party NPC. My thought, incorporating the new "Talk Object" model, would be to have an object that each Party member is "busy with" when in Camp and there's no new dialogue available.

Honestly, if that was really the extent of his problem with it then something as simple as making characters be asleep in the camp when they have nothing new to say or giving them a dialogue icon over their head when they have something new to say would completely resolve the issue.

Modifié par Urdnot_Write, 06 avril 2010 - 02:17 .

[--Master of All--]

I really think the answer is having less party members, and a more linear recruitment process. In Awakening, Origins and ME2, the story allows for most companions (other than the initial two or three) to join the party in any order. Because of this, and the fact that the player can choose who to bring along with them on most missions, it is necessary for the dialogue to have little relevance to the main story. One of the only exceptions to this rule are the loyalty missions in ME2. Why are those missions so engaging and memorable? Becuase for one brief moment, the party member it pertains to steps out of their magic bubble and begins to play an active and integral role in the story, instead of tagging along as a silent observer.

So my idea is that instead of providing the player with three different fighters/soldiers, two different mages/biotics, and three different rogues/engineers, give them one or two of each, and allow a one-time ability to change the class of certain characters in order to flesh out the squad from a strategic standpoint, as long as the transition is logical and makes sense (such as from fighter to rogue, or vice versa). This will allow the player to still retain some degree of tactical flexibility in combat, while maintaining a small enough squad so that storytelling can reign supreme, and charcters do not have a feeling of being "tacked on" and tangential to the main plot.

Although having fewer charcters and a more linear flow to the recruitment process may initially seem like a drawback, the possibilities for storytelling, roleplaying, and character development will really open up, since the writers can be certain of who is in your party at various points during the game. So instead of having a conversation triggered by clicking on a random covered wagon with Leliana in your party that 75% of players will miss entriely, These types of triggers could be reserved for a moment when the writers know for 100% certain that Leliana WILL be in your party, and you WILL be passing by a wagon. Then, Leliana could make a comment to the effect of "Oooh! Look at that wagon! I love wagons!" as you're passing by, and the player will immediately know that a conversation can be initiated by clicking on that object.

Modifié par --Master of All--, 06 avril 2010 - 02:50 .

[Sable Phoenix]

The more I think about it the more I think that the Awakenings dialog system is a distinct step in the wrong direction. This is because I cannot think back on the companions in Awakenings as memorable, not even remotely close to the ones from Origins. Part of this is the shortness of the game overall, of course, but the biggest is that you never really learn anything about them to make you care for them. You run across a few of their insights into the world around them, think, "Oh, interesting," and then are back to killing things.  The only one who stood out was Nathaniel Howe, and why was that?  Because he tied directly back into Origins.  Awakenings' only memorable character cheated obscurity by porting depth from a preceding storyline.

The Awakenings system would be fine as an add-on to the already existing Origins style. Standalone? The magic eight ball says; "All signs points to 'No'."

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 10 avril 2010 - 08:53 .

[MrBoomba]

There's no way i'm reading all of the walls of text in this, but to the OP:

This reduces the players choice which I greatly dislike as it forces you to find out all of these new points in order to talk to the people outside of camp, which is terrible in my opinion. Why not just choose who you want to talk to instead of having to use one of these vantage points hoping it is the character you want to talk to? There is one point in the keep im thinking of which you can talk to anybody in the group at least once, but it does it in a specific order and not to what you would like.

This creates more linearity which is not something that is needed in a game that tries not to be terribly linear...

This is just, however, what I think and you apparetly think differently. If there is any extent to hwo this should be put, lets drop this new system, it creates more issues than solves with the whole "I hate going to camp" thing. I didnt like going to camp much my first play through and as a matter of fact I didnt do it, but when the cutscenes forced me into it, but now I know how the game actually goes, I return almost after every mini quest and talk to most all of my companions.

Modifié par MrBoomba, 10 avril 2010 - 09:01 .

[Glottisthedriver]

Going to just chip in and say I strongly prefer the camp centric dialogue system. I like to play a game once (don't have time to replay a game 4-5 times unfortunately), and thoroughly. Going back to camp frequently is pretty standard to sell stuff, heal injuries and swap out party members. I like being able to create a save game and catch up with all the characters (including the ones I don't usually use in party) without fear of missing anything.



DA:Os dialogue system may not be ideal for everyone, but it's far better than say KOTOR II, which btw is a text book example of how rushing a sequel can lead to only partial implementation of some really great idea and ruin a game with a ton of potential. In KOTOR II, if you didn't talk to the right companion, in the right place at the right time, or pursue some fairly counter intuitive dialogue options on board your ship, you could miss out on a ton of really interesting content.



The system, if not amount of content, of dialogue in ME 2 might be a decent example. All substantial interactions with Characters occur either on board the ship or during quests that center around them and require their presence, while there are various other opportunities for minor "flavor" dialogue from them as they either react to your actions or comment on your location.