635 réponses à ce sujet

[redlight]

David Gaider wrote...

...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.....

With respect, it is a drawback.  Perhaps the player doesn't like a character... for example Oghren.  That player may not want to have him in the active party, but may still want to do his side quest.

I agree that in real life, you would only build friendships with the people you spend time with.  The difference is that the game has only a finite amount of content.

A mixture of both conversation systems would allow for a more natural experience, but still permit the player to enjoy all the content.

To be honest, my opinion is only based on the comments of others.  Although I LOVED Origins, it is unlikely that I will buy Awakening.  Rather than an expansion, it seems like a short spin off, only loosely tied to the game that captivated me. 

My opinion is only expressed here in hope that DA:O2 will be as enjoyable as the original.

[twincast]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I take it you never just ask your friends what's up, but only converse with them when they look forlornly at an old building or something? You sure must be great company.

[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 .

[MoSa09]

twincast wrote...

I take it you never just ask your friends what's up, but only converse with them when they look forlornly at an old building or something? You sure must be great company.

Not sure going personal is the way to go to promote one's opinion.

Anyway, that quote reminded me of something:

David Gaider wrote...

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..

I simply disagree the old system was flawed. Running around and asking, sometimes receiving new information, sometimes not is simply not flawed to me, it's good. That like in real life. You meet people/ friends: sometimes they are willing to talk, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they have something new and interesting to say, sometimes they don't.
Origin companions felt alive and real because they behaved alive and real. Simple as that.

@David Gaider: don't know why you always talk about people wanting to have more, can't remember anyone calling for more random dialogue than Origins had. No one argues just make them clickable any time and add
tons of more random dialogue so they have something to say all the time.The amount of random dialogue that was there in Origins was sufficient enough. So instead of calling for more, people simply want what was
there before.
That's a difference in claiming people simply want more (which is expensive and time consuming i know, so i see your reasoning) or just what was there previously

Modifié par MoSa09, 17 mars 2010 - 03:31 .

[Bibdy]

I liked it, too. 'Realism', schmealism. Give me a system that's fun, not a chore. This is a video GAME after all.

[Annarl]

I liked the old system better...the new system isn't bad. As the player I want more control not less. A combination of the two might be best. I don't know if that's doable.



I like being able to talk companions and hearing their stories. Certain companions I might not use as much as others (due to the PC skill set) it doesn't mean I don't care. Or you could make the games longer and gives more options to use these companions.

[Darkannex]

I do agree with some others that say a mixture of new and old systems would perhaps fill things out more. Im the kind of person that even if I didn't bring Oghren along (for example), because I already had Sten filling the dps melee role, didn't mean I wasn't interested in him as a character. Sometimes we have to make decisions based less on personal likes and dislikes and more on what makes the party most effective.

While I would have liked to have Oghren around to get his P.o.V, the fact that I didn't should not restrict me from 'totally' being unable to learn about him and take an interest in his life (or approximate thereof).

Because the game IS limited (and should be, it has a beginning, middle, and end), you have a 'limited' amount of resource (time) in which to complete your objective. Therefore it becomes very difficult to play all the characters in all the scenarios to get all their character dialog. (Won't this also be an issue with Awakening?) 

Maybe it's not even a problem or issue so much as what is the expectation now. You have to multiple play through to see everthing. I'd rather milk that single game for all it's worth, getting all the interaction/accolades I can in that playthrough, and then reload and play a totally different 'personality' ... than have to replay the same personality type several times through with different characters to get their feedback. 

Modifié par Darkannex, 17 mars 2010 - 03:46 .

[Rixxencaxx]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

well
1) i think i should be able to aske a follower a bunch of personal question cause YOU allowed me to do so in the game that YOU sold and named Dragon age origins if you try to sell me another game with the name "dragon age" before it i am allowed to expect more of the same...
2)Well so you said....a) a lot of people like the old system people (customers) think the system is nice c) YOU dont'l like this system so we are wrong
3) Customers liked the system ad are free to ask for it but you are in need to look for something different...

Nothing to say....except....we'll see your awakening sales numbers....

[Giltspur]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Conversation goes both ways. Sometimes it's cool for someone to start up a conversation. Other times, it's
cool to be the one to start it. Sometimes it's cool to have a conversation in the moment. Sometimes it's cool to talk during downtime. Feeling like you're a part of an interesting group and having these interactive conversations is a big part of Dragon Age's appeal.

Yeah, yeah, get to the point, I know.

Instead of circling through camp to see if they have anything new to say, what if you have a kind of character journal that has your notes on a character and that basically tells you things you can strike up a conversation with a character about?  One character mentions something in passing, and the game puts a note in your journal that basically tells you you can follow up on it at your convenience. And camp or such would be a good place to do that. 

You don't have to run around and check on people. And it's not like a laundry list that you just drain. Because you don't just start with a list that you go through. And you don't just have a list that refreshes at predictable intervals. You have a “list” (so to speak) that gets added to based on experiences you've had. And it's predictable because it's in a journal that you can look at anytime.

Modifié par Giltspur, 17 mars 2010 - 03:45 .

[twincast]

MoSa09 wrote...

Not sure going personal is the way to go to promote one's opinion.

Well, I debated with myself whether to add the second sentence since I it could come across that way. Still, the first sentence was a reaction to the dissing of the "laundry list" as tedious and unrealistic through actually comparing it to reality. And the second merely a logical conclusion from that theoretical (and unrealistic) David Gaider I constructed in the first to underscore my point. No offense meant in the slightest.

And as far as constructive criticism goes: Well, he dismissed the idea of mission-relevant markers on missions and deeper or general stuff in camp through talking to companions (which prompted my reply in the first place), so I don't really see what other ideas we are supposed to have.

I should add that living in Europe  I don't have Awakening yet, but from what I've read I can conclude that my opinion on the matter is markers on missions = realistic and welcome, markers at home = unintuitive, limiting and definitely unwelcome. Especially when the discussion isn't about the object itself, but a barely connected abstract, maybe even philosophical topic.

edit: Typo galore. I should stay with Firefox 100%, not just 95% of the time.

Modifié par twincast, 17 mars 2010 - 03:59 .

[ejoslin]

A very enjoyable and immersive system was in DA:O. It was so good that the game won all sorts of awards. People played and replayed and got all sorts of into the game. This is NOT a bad thing. It's a good thing. I understand wanting to make it better. But from a player's point of view, the way it's set up in DA:A is NOT nearly as immersive. I wish it were -- I WANT to get to know these characters. I think they're likable. But I feel like I'm playing a video game now, not exploring a world and getting to know people.

Ah well, I loved DA:O so thank you for that. I like DA:A, but it just doesn't even come close to the same amount of immersion. I hope what people are saying isn't just discounted. We LOVED DA:O. The fact that we're feeling a loss and expressing it is a huge complement.

Modifié par ejoslin, 17 mars 2010 - 03:53 .

[Ignus Burns]

I agree that the old system was flawed. The character could easily finish almost all conversation with a companion early on in the game. The latest 15 times I've spoken with Sten in my current (and first) Origins playthrough, it has gone like this:

cachx wrote...
Sten: What is your wish, kadan?
PC: I want to discuss something you mentioned.
Sten: Very well.
PC: Never mind.
Sten: Then I suggest we move on.
PC: I should go.

This breaks all my immersion in the game. Better that I do not get the option to ask him anything at all if he has got nothing to say. This new system sounds like a better one since it means that you learn about your companions throughout the whole game instead of learning 95% very early, leading to the above conversations.

[Rixxencaxx]

ejoslin wrote...

A very enjoyable and immersive system was in DA:O. It was so good that the game won all sorts of awards. People played and replayed and got all sorts of into the game. This is NOT a bad thing. It's a good thing. I understand wanting to make it better. But from a player's point of view, the way it's set up in DA:A is NOT nearly as immersive. I wish it were -- I WANT to get to know these characters. I think they're likable. But I feel like I'm playing a video game now, not exploring a world and getting to know people.

Ah well, I loved DA:O so thank you for that. I like DA:A, but it just doesn't even come close to the same amount of immersion. I hope what people are saying isn't just discounted. We LOVED DA:O. The fact that we're feeling a loss and expressing it is a huge complement.

it's not intended to make the game better...but to make the game cheaper....<_<

[le_cygne]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

First, I've only played a few hours of Awakening so far, and while I like what I see about the conversation, I can't say that I've played it enough to form a real opinion.

Just on the hopes that David sees this, though... The campfire was one of my very favorite parts of Origins. There were evenings when I'd turn the game on for an hour, never leave camp, and that would be my play session for the night. And frankly, because of the excellent writing and characters, I generally enjoyed those more than moving through another dungeon, and certainly more than knocking out another few job board quests. Similarly, it was a great way to step aside from the main plot after a major dramatic arc, and added a lot of realism to the experience, at least for me. It felt like I was kicking back with my team after a hard fought battle, and it was nice to ask little things: "So, tell me another of your wacky adventures, Zev."

Whether it's broken is a matter of perspective, I suppose. I personally never felt this was the case, but then I always used restraint and chatted with a character for a short time during each camp visit instead of exhausting all of the available options.

From what I've experienced of the Awakenings system so far, I too think a hybrid system would be best, even as I acknowledge that it doesn't fix the problem you see. From a design standpoint, I agree with you that it doesn't make sense that you'd be best friends with Zevran after he spent the whole game sitting at camp, and I like the idea of a system that discourages this sort of thing. (Besides, the Gift system already means that it's easy to befriend everyone regardless of role play choices, if you're just playing for stats or similar.) It would be great if the Antivan boots micro-quest could only happen if you brought Zev to the leather district (), and it would be great if the relationships of the core party are more meaningful than those of the group that waits in the wings ... but not if it's at the cost of the player-guided respite. In a game with the scope of Dragon Age, I think the in-character break is not only a welcome change of pace, but also one that makes the story as a whole feel more epic.

[Darkannex]

Actually, the funny thing is that I have Anders at 99 LOVE (bug much?) and I've not even gotten that far into the game. Oghren, who loved me like family is only at 20ish Neutral at this point.



It feels...awkward. I can see the plus points in this type of system, but it feels sort of rushed that 2 hours into the game Anders already wants me to do his personal quest.

[CybAnt1]

Bottom line: is there a reason (well other than budget) to not have all three?



Conversation initiated by the NPC (BG2 style). Sten did that to me occasionally in DAO. Was the only one I can remember. There should be moments for that.



Conversation initiated by interacting with world objects. Sure. Makes sense. However, it does force me to become a bigger Tab key addict. Before I was only clicking on them to get codex entries or 'observations'. Now I know I'm missing dialogue if I don't.



And yes conversation initiated by PC. Either in camp/home base or while travelling. I agree the "background info" stuff is something you can get in a codex entry. Why not just get a Codex entry on Qunari culture instead of having to interrogate Sten about it. Get a codex entry on Bards instead of playing 20 questions with Leli about it. Etc. However, when it comes to things that are tied to their approval or personal quest and are story-driven; well yes, they should be player-initiable.

[Rixxencaxx]

Ignus Burns wrote...

I agree that the old system was flawed. The character could easily finish almost all conversation with a companion early on in the game. The latest 15 times I've spoken with Sten in my current (and first) Origins playthrough, it has gone like this:

cachx wrote...
Sten: What is your wish, kadan?
PC: I want to discuss something you mentioned.
Sten: Very well.
PC: Never mind.
Sten: Then I suggest we move on.
PC: I should go.

This breaks all my immersion in the game. Better that I do not get the option to ask him anything at all if he has got nothing to say. This new system sounds like a better one since it means that you learn about your companions throughout the whole game instead of learning 95% very early, leading to the above conversations.

more dialogue option became available whe your party approval increase or when something important happens...so it's impossible to conclude 95% of dialogue options till the game is near to end...

[PSUHammer]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

well
1) i think i should be able to aske a follower a bunch of personal question cause YOU allowed me to do so in the game that YOU sold and named Dragon age origins if you try to sell me another game with the name "dragon age" before it i am allowed to expect more of the same...
2)Well so you said....a) a lot of people like the old system people (customers) think the system is nice c) YOU dont'l like this system so we are wrong
3) Customers liked the system ad are free to ask for it but you are in need to look for something different...

Nothing to say....except....we'll see your awakening sales numbers....

You are making the assumption that everyone agrees that the original system was better.  I, for one, wasn't a huge fan of these long expositions in camp dialogue...especially if they didn't add to the story at hand....I ended up getting bored as Leliana went on about the Chantry and bard stories.  Not that they weren't written poorly, just that I felt I HAD to listen to this to get her approval higher.  That is flawed, in my opinion.  I don't know why people are making a big deal about this....the game is still fun as hell.

[Rixxencaxx]

Hammer6767 wrote...

Rixxencaxx wrote...

well
1) i think i should be able to aske a follower a bunch of personal question cause YOU allowed me to do so in the game that YOU sold and named Dragon age origins if you try to sell me another game with the name "dragon age" before it i am allowed to expect more of the same...
2)Well so you said....a) a lot of people like the old system people (customers) think the system is nice c) YOU dont'l like this system so we are wrong
3) Customers liked the system ad are free to ask for it but you are in need to look for something different...

Nothing to say....except....we'll see your awakening sales numbers....

You are making the assumption that everyone agrees that the original system was better.  I, for one, wasn't a huge fan of these long expositions in camp dialogue...especially if they didn't add to the story at hand....I ended up getting bored as Leliana went on about the Chantry and bard stories.  Not that they weren't written poorly, just that I felt I HAD to listen to this to get her approval higher.  That is flawed, in my opinion.  I don't know why people are making a big deal about this....the game is still fun as hell.

judging from the forums (not only this one) and from the tepid professional reviews i'm pretty sure that positive/negative ratio is 1/20
But..i repeat...sales number will the best indicator....

[melkathi]

I think all the comparison to Baldur's Gate 2's system is off.

BG2 was released 12 years ago.

RPGs and expectations of the customer base have evolved since then.

Saying "What we had in DAO we didn't have in BG2 12 years ago and noone missed it then" is not sound. Companions evolved. There were companions in Eye of the Beholder, there were companions in BG, BG2 etc. Each game added something. Not just bioware games. The original Fallout series tried to do things differently (remember Myron in FO2?). Planescape Torment tried to add things. Kotor did some amazing things. And Kotor lead to ME and DAO. ME did it one way, DAO another.

In my opinion ME failed when it comes to companions, while DAO succeeded beyond my expectations.



12 years ago we did not ask for what DAO offered.



But I also remember a time when we happily played with VGA graphics. We never asked for better ones. Still nobody would seriously suggest going back to those.

Because everything evolves.

Devolution is not an option and should not be used as an excuse.

Saying "We wanted to experiment with something else." is acceptable. But then the fanbase should not be attacked for stating that they believe experiment failed.

[Ignus Burns]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Ignus Burns wrote...

I agree that the old system was flawed. The character could easily finish almost all conversation with a companion early on in the game. The latest 15 times I've spoken with Sten in my current (and first) Origins playthrough, it has gone like this:

cachx wrote...
Sten: What is your wish, kadan?
PC: I want to discuss something you mentioned.
Sten: Very well.
PC: Never mind.
Sten: Then I suggest we move on.
PC: I should go.

This breaks all my immersion in the game. Better that I do not get the option to ask him anything at all if he has got nothing to say. This new system sounds like a better one since it means that you learn about your companions throughout the whole game instead of learning 95% very early, leading to the above conversations.

more dialogue option became available whe your party approval increase or when something important happens...so it's impossible to conclude 95% of dialogue options till the game is near to end...

Not entirely true. I've read people sleeping with Morrigan after Lothering which means that pretty much all dialogue has been said. Regardless, it's entirely possible to finish 95% of a companions dialogue during ONE camp visit, which is pretty much why the system is flawed imo.

[MoSa09]

Hammer6767 wrote...

You are making the assumption that everyone agrees that the original system was better.  I, for one, wasn't a huge fan of these long expositions in camp dialogue...especially if they didn't add to the story at hand....I ended up getting bored as Leliana went on about the Chantry and bard stories.  Not that they weren't written poorly, just that I felt I HAD to listen to this to get her approval higher.  That is flawed, in my opinion.  I don't know why people are making a big deal about this....the game is still fun as hell.

Depends on what kind of gamer you are and what you want in a game i guess.

I play RPG for great and epic stories, great characters and interaction, i care less about looting and great bloody battles. Therefore i enjoyed that moments in DAO. It's a question what you emphasize within the game and what kind of audience you appeal to with that decision, and BW has to decide which direction the franchise is heading and what audience they want to appeal to in the first place, like every other company does when developing games.

[Darkannex]

Basically it 'hard blocks' dialogue options based on location and not the player's time/attention. It's an artificial block, like WoW uses when they make things that you can buy-but limit the currency that you can get to 1-2 a day. Games do it often to try and prevent burning too quickly through content.

[le_cygne]

Hammer6767 wrote...

You are making the assumption that everyone agrees that the original system was better.  I, for one, wasn't a huge fan of these long expositions in camp dialogue...especially if they didn't add to the story at hand....I ended up getting bored as Leliana went on about the Chantry and bard stories.  Not that they weren't written poorly, just that I felt I HAD to listen to this to get her approval higher.  That is flawed, in my opinion.  I don't know why people are making a big deal about this....the game is still fun as hell.

To each his own, of course. 

That said, those aspects that you found boring were some of my favorite parts of the whole game, and I don't think I'm alone. I think a lot of the "zOMG oh noez!" we're seeing here is just indicative of people that are afraid of losing one of the things they liked best about the original game (coupled with the obligatory "we fear change," naturally).

I honestly don't understand why players would feel obligated to chat with characters when they found it boring (if, say, you prefer the combat or questing or min/maxing or whatever). To me it was always a convenient way to define my characters' relationships within the party, to flesh out the world, and to establish the PCs and NPCs as people, too. The number on the love-o-meter is just a number, and it doesn't always have to move toward the heart.