635 réponses à ce sujet

[Bibdy]

melkathi wrote...

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.

Evolution doesn't automatically mean improvement. If a game came out offering 100 hours of gameplay, and it was nothing but 100 hours of dialogue, that wouldn't be an improvement.

My preference is: fun first, above all else. I like DA:A's system because I'm entertained the whole time. DA:O's system felt more like pointless busy-work to get party member's approval ratings up, and after a couple of playthroughs you realise what each party member wants to hear (even if you don't agree with it) so you end up always picking the same options. There's no point exploring those other options except to hear some lines you might not have heard, at the expense of some loyalty stat bonuses.

Wasn't a very fun system, overall. I like DA:A's more.

Figuring out which gifts apply to each party member is fun. Seeing some random object pop up, click on it and get a piece of dialogue on the party member's thoughts is fun. Always on the hunt for adventure, instead of sitting in camp talking to people, is fun.

[Senalda]

There was nothing wrong with the dialogue system in the original game, there was just too goddamn much of it. Just keep the dialogue to normal human lenghts like in ME series and it's fine.

[Ignus Burns]

MoSa09 wrote...
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.

You assume that everyone who enjoys story, characters and interaction favors the old system. You are wrong, I play RPGs for pretty much the same reasons you do and I think the system in Origins is flawed.

[le_cygne]

Bibdy wrote...

My preference is: fun first, above all else.

Hear, hear.

I like DA:A's system because I'm entertained the whole time. DA:O's system felt more like pointless busy-work to get party member's approval ratings up, and after a couple of playthroughs you realise what each party member wants to hear (even if you don't agree with it) so you end up always picking the same options. There's no point exploring those other options except to hear some lines you might not have heard, at the expense of some loyalty stat bonuses.

This is assuming you only want to "win" approval, though. Not everyone plays that way.

[KnightofPhoenix]

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.

I did not play Baldur's gate, so I can't judge. But I do expect the same thing we had in KOTOR, Mass Effect and Origins, because it worked.

Why do I feel that I should be able to ask them questions? Because that way, I can enjoy the characters more and praise the writing better. Because that way, I can feel like the companions are more than just followers, but rather friends. Stories are told by people. Interaction with our companions IS story telling.
If Origins didn't have such amazing companions that we can learn more about and interact with, then the entire plot would have been mediocre at best. And judging from the forums, I am far from being the only one who thinks that.
 
About the questions. Well if I meet new people, I generally ask them questions of course. It's natural. Of course I want to ask Leliana where she learned how to fight. I also want to ask Sten if he misses his land or if he can tell us anything about his people. I want to ask Morrigan what it felt like being raised by Flemeth.
I don't understand how this is to be underestimated. It isn't necessary. But its presence is gratifying and immersive.
Unnecessary does not mean pointless , useless or easily expendable. Luxury is unnecessary, but it's damn good to have it. 

David Gaider wrote...
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.

How is it broken?
Something having flaws =/= broken.
Something broken is completely unplayable, annoying and ruins the game epxerience.

Seeing how the Origins system made the game for many, it's hardly broken. Flawed perhaps, but not broken.

The new Awakening system, if added to the Origins system, can fix some of those flaws. But it cannot solely replace it. The Awakening companions had very great potential, but I don't feel connected to them as I was with the Origin characters (yes I know, time and length matters in this, but part of it is my inability to talk to them whenver I feel like it).

From a developper perspective, you should take into account what people like as well. People loved the system in Origins. I am not exagerrating, not once did I see a complaint about it. Not once did I read "the dialogue system is so broken". Isn't that proof that the Origin system worked? I mean, what more proof does one want? Everyone loved the characters and everyoen loved talking to them.

I welcome new additions. As long as they are additions and not replacements to a system that worked and defined the DA franchise.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 mars 2010 - 04:32 .

[MoSa09]

Ignus Burns wrote...

You assume that everyone who enjoys story, characters and interaction favors the old system. You are wrong, I play RPGs for pretty much the same reasons you do and I think the system in Origins is flawed.

I don't assume anything, especially when it comes to gaming. I'm just trying to give my reasons while the old system is not flawed in my opinion. I just happen to like to talk to my companions and ask them something, even if they don't answer my questions all the time. And i like listening to their storeis because as i said, to me, it adds to realism for me. In the end, it's for everyone to decide on his/ her own, i just voice my opinion here on what i like.

[PSUHammer]

MoSa09 wrote...

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.

I agree...I love the dialogue, don't get me wrong.  But, only if it adds to my immersion and the story at hand....random stories and thoughts really dont, but that is just me.  Regardless, you are correct in that at the end of the day this is a piece of entertainment and Bioware is the artistic creator of said entertainment.  I am enjoying the expansion and am not really bothered by it...I am still immersed in the story and am getting to know the characters, so it is all moot to me.

At the end of the day, I think it is good that they are constantly trying to improve.  That is what the gaming industry does.  I try not to take the "aint broke so don't fix" to heart as that can also stifle evolving the interface.

[ankuu]

i liked it a lot. i know i may have been complaing before, but now i actually quite like it! it does feel quiet sometimes, as they don't banter too much (or so i saw). and they don't talk too much either but at least i am not running around in camp, trying to see if there is new dialogue.

[PSUHammer]

Actually...I am getting more banter. And, it isn't like you don't talk to people anymore. That impression is bogus or from people who haven't played it yet.

[EccentricSage]

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.

If we are reduced to only a brief responce to a comment a character made publickly and ONLY when initiated by the NPC, it won't feel like a personal conversation. 

This is a problem, as I do not wish to be a player who merely apreciates the idea of a character.  I wish to RP my PC as though he or she were a person with his or her own thoughts and feelings, and I want to feel like my PC actually has some conection to the companions beyond having to work together.  I agree the system in Origins had it's flaws as well, but over all, the dialogue trees WERE successful in giveing me a sence that the characters and my PC formed realistic bonds with eachother.  I loved some, I hated some, but both reactions were proof that the system acheived it's goal of immersion.  I'm all for making improvements to the dialogue system, and I did give some suggestions as to how to improve the camp dialogue system in previous posts in this thread.

I do love the idea of the new system for when the characters are outside their camp/keep.  It would make long slogs less of a slog if the dungeon crawling were broken up by character reactions and brief dialogues with them about those reactions.  But if that's the only type of interaction we would get, it WOULD break immersion for me.  IRL if I want to just go up to a friend, say hi, and exchange a brief pleasantry just to hear their voice, I can.  I would feel like the game is less real if I can't engage companions in dialogue.  Not to mention, how would we romance them?  Scripted tent scenes triggeed by in game events instead of our own choice?  That would suck.  And yes, I know you left romance out of Awakenings, but I think you should bring it back in the future. 

I think if we miss a chance to engage in a brief discourse outside of 'camp', a solution could be to then be able to click on the NPC anytime afterward and ASK them about what they were reacting to, or what they thought about what we experienced.  That way people only miss it if they don't want to interact with characters.  Which is fine... it should be the player's choice.  That is part of realism... some people are more social than others.

Modifié par EccentricSage, 17 mars 2010 - 04:55 .

[Brockololly]

Senalda wrote...

There was nothing wrong with the dialogue system in the original game, there was just too goddamn much of it. Just keep the dialogue to normal human lenghts like in ME series and it's fine.

Baaah! There is no such thing as too much, the keyword on these forums is MOAR!

[Darkannex]

I wish Oggie's banter had grown up from last game-and had not gotten even more base. If I hear one more fart joke-seriously...

[EvilChani]

redlight wrote...

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.

For me, it's not even that. When I decide who is joining me to explore a place, a great deal of that decision is based on what class of character I'm playing. My warrior has to have a rogue with her or she can't open chests (and if she can't open chests, she'll be broke, will be low on health potions, and won't get to see whatever new armor there is to see) so there's one slot filled right then. In Origins, I like Zevran far more than Leliana but until Zev was leveled up enough (wasting points that should've been spent on shadow/assassin in order to give him the ability to open chests and disarm traps), I was stuck with her (not that I hated her, but she was not my first three choices of companions). I loved Sten, oddly enough, but Alistair was a much better companion because of his skills (and because he wasn't always lying on the ground with a head wound fifteen seconds into a fight). Besides, why take two tanks when I am already a tank?

It's all fine and good for Bioware to act like we have some nerve wanting to talk to the companions we don't take as squad members, but sometimes we have to leave the people we like most behind because combat dictates it (I preferred Morrigan to Wynne's lectures but Wynne was my healer).

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.

Given the comments from the dev here, I wouldn't count on it. Bioware seems to be intent on "streamlining" all of the best RPG elements out of their RPGs (take a look at ME2, which has been stripped to the bare minimum in RPG elements, as well as Awakening where the character interaction with NPCs is a joke). Less dialogue means less work on the story (and less money paid to voice actors) so they save money making the game (but, unsurprisingly, still charge more money for it when it comes out). Awakening has been entertaining thus far, despite the bugs that plague the game, but it was not worth forty bucks. You get barely a nod to anything that happened in Origins and the lack of dialogue and interation have turned it into a RPG for short attention spans and people who have no interest in being drawn into the story. Origins was an immersive world that had well-developed NPC companions you could get to know and love (or hate). Awakening has the depth of a kiddie pool. The sad part is that I really want to get to know a couple of my companions. Nathaniel had great possibilities, as did Anders, who I really want to get to know better. Instead, I get one liners from them about a frigging tree or statue and can't really learn squat about them.

I guess the one thing to take from this thread is that the folks at Bioware really care what we want and will do as they please. On the whole, they seem to be catering to the people who don't really have the attention span to play a decent RPG (ME2 is more shooter than RPG now and Awakening...well, it's a lame excuse for a RPG when compared to Origins). Considering that we've been told (on this very thread) that they intend to keep the chat system in Awakening whether we like it or not, I suspect that the relationships you have with your companions in DA:O2 will be just as shallow as they are in Awakening or, perhaps, even more shallow. Instead of looking for a sword as we did for Sten (getting to hear the story of how he lost it and how much it means to him), we'll probably end up searching for someone's lost fountain pen. No story behind it, you know (never that, since it would take involved dialogue!)...they just need to write a letter.

[Addai]

I couldn't disagree with the OP more. The only thing that made DA:O feel different to me than any other boring, "oh hey lootz!" video game was the chance to get to know characters on a deeper level. There is nothing that says you have to talk to the NPCs in camp. You never even need to go back to camp if you don't want to. It is easy enough to raise approval level just with gifts. But the thing you're celebrating being gone is the very thing that makes Awakenings feel empty and lonely to me, and why I could care less about Mass Effect. Why should I care about Anders, when I can't even talk to him?

I can't believe this is actually coming from player feedback, versus dev chintziness not wanting to hire VAs for any more than the bare minimum. If you want a sandbox world where you hardly talk to anyone, play a Bethesda game. I was thinking that Bioware had hit on something that might actually make me keep playing their games rather than reading a good book. Maybe not...

Edit P.S. Without getting to know NPCs, I wouldn't feel like I know my character, either.  Another thing that makes Mass Effect dull to me, the fact that I'm forced to be Shepard.

Modifié par Addai67, 17 mars 2010 - 05:02 .

[Creature 1]

I don't see how this system is supposed to work with romances. With the DA:O system the PC and love interest meet somewhere where they can get some privacy, and the pace of the relationship is determined in large part by when you want certain interactions to happen. With this system your character is always traveling, never in a safe or private place, and the relationship is pre-scheduled and advances at the same speed for everyone. It takes a lot of the role-playing and spontaneity out of it. Of course there are no romances in Awakening so this problem is masked, but if this system is kept for later expansions and in DA2 I think it will detract from the replay value of the game.



I haven't purchased Awakening yet, and will probably wait for the price to drop. This development makes me more likely to be cautious about further Dragon Age purchases.

[EccentricSage]

Addai67 wrote...

I couldn't disagree with the OP more. The only thing that made DA:O feel different to me than any other boring, "oh hey lootz!" video game was the chance to get to know characters on a deeper level. There is nothing that says you have to talk to the NPCs in camp. You never even need to go back to camp if you don't want to. It is easy enough to raise approval level just with gifts. But the thing you're celebrating being gone is the very thing that makes Awakenings feel empty and lonely to me, and why I could care less about Mass Effect. Why should I care about Anders, when I can't even talk to him?

I can't believe this is actually coming from player feedback, versus dev chintziness not wanting to hire VA actors for any more than the bare minimum. If you want a sandbox world where you hardly talk to anyone, play a Bethesda game. I was thinking that Bioware had hit on something that might actually make me keep playing their games rather than reading a good book. Maybe not...

Edit P.S. Without getting to know NPCs, I wouldn't feel like I know my character, either.  Another thing that makes Mass Effect dull to me, the fact that I'm forced to be Shepard.

I know!  Aaaagh... just think of how much Zev goodness we would have missed without the dialogue trees!!!  Thise scenes were ART.  Those who don't apreciate the character can skip it, but more and more people are realising what a strong storry some of the companions have, and how nuanced they are.  As I said before, two different PCs by the same player could develop entirely different ideas and feelings about a companion character just because they made a handful of different choices.  It was fantastic.  There are better ways to fix dialogue pacing than to do away with the dialogue all together.  The point of a RPG is to Role Play the game.  That means personalized experiences and choices are necassary, otherwise we are merely 'playing a movie'.

[Ezele Olos]

DAO dialogue definitely could take on some aspects of ME2.

DAO doesn't bring the main character into the world enough. The character NEEDS a voice. Every other npc in the game gets to talk their face off while you are reduced to the multiple choice manipulation game (which is fun still). These next suggestions (probably not original) will need the character's voice in order to be useful. Without it, no dice.

1. Paragon / Renegade / random action options DURING conversations. Don't need an alignment to pull this off, and it could be based on stats or class specific options(Which there are examples of already in DAO). ME2 doesn't even have near the amount of dialogue, and it works well.

During some conversations I'm really just wanting the dialogue to end (WRAP IT UP punch in the face), use the environment, pull a quick move on the leader myself, or signal a companion to do it while I distract.

This would do wonders for the already massive amount of dialogue there is, and would make it less "boring" to go through it all. I'd also make people pay attention to their surroundings in dialogue a bit more. They can avoid/dodge/use the environment or FAIL to. It'd be clever and a bit ironic to have an NPC that actually chats you up for his own distraction in the background....

The dialogue deserves more animation (especially the well written ones) and less specifics. ME2 introduced leaders and bosses DIRECTLY to the main character before a fight. The initial tension and rivalry in the leader confrontations made the character/player actually feel like a leader/badass. Giving the player a voice and actions during dialogue is key IMO.

2. Choices and dialogue shouldn't be so specific for the main character(to the letter). Like ME, the player should have (and be shown) a general idea of what they want to say. Let the player hear it for the first time AFTER choosing a path instead of just throwing them out there like a multiple choice question to solve. It's too easy in a way. Options do not have to be taken away for this to happen. Just rephrase them and make the outcome less obvious (easier said then done i'm sure). This would make dialogue a bit more Grey for the Warden

The drawback is that this takes away a bit of our personal touch on the character, but I think it is worth it. I like being surprised by the main character's actions as well as the others.

It's one thing to relax in a chair sipping on a drink and casually make choices, but I think some actions/dialogue from the main character should be unexpected to show some emotions/beliefs that every hero has to deal with, and that the player might not have or lacks . This can draw a distinction between the person in the chair and the actual character in game who is in the thick of things and experiencing pain/feeling. Dangerous line to tread, but perhaps it would work.

Modifié par Ezele Olos, 17 mars 2010 - 05:09 .

[Brockololly]

Addai67 wrote...

I couldn't disagree with the OP more. The only thing that made DA:O feel different to me than any other boring, "oh hey lootz!" video game was the chance to get to know characters on a deeper level. There is nothing that says you have to talk to the NPCs in camp. You never even need to go back to camp if you don't want to. It is easy enough to raise approval level just with gifts. But the thing you're celebrating being gone is the very thing that makes Awakenings feel empty and lonely to me, and why I could care less about Mass Effect. Why should I care about Anders, when I can't even talk to him?

I can't believe this is actually coming from player feedback, versus dev chintziness not wanting to hire VAs for any more than the bare minimum. If you want a sandbox world where you hardly talk to anyone, play a Bethesda game. I was thinking that Bioware had hit on something that might actually make me keep playing their games rather than reading a good book. Maybe not...

Edit P.S. Without getting to know NPCs, I wouldn't feel like I know my character, either.  Another thing that makes Mass Effect dull to me, the fact that I'm forced to be Shepard.

Exactly- part of what makes DAO so refreshing to me is that the dialogue and character interaction elevates the game above any other RPG I've payed, with respect to dialogue and characters. From the developer's perspective maybe it was wildly inefficient to create and implement and I'm sympathetic to wanting to make it more efficient while still getting the same level of interaction.  I get that.

But you start tinkering too much with the style of system that I think almost everyone that played DAO would say "worked" and it seems like a slippery slope. Not to say that the dialogue couldn't be improved from DAO, and I think adding features like the environmental cues would be good, but to just ditch the camp or player initiated dialogue  thinking that the environmental cues would sufficiently substitute would be a huge mistake, IMO.

There are plenty of games out there that I can play if  I want more loot and grinding. What makes DAO different are the characters and your ability to interact with them in meaningful ways as the PC- I hope the devs don't lose sight of this.

[Brockololly]

Ezele Olos wrote...
It's one thing to relax in a chair sipping on a drink and casually make choices, but I think some actions/dialogue from the main character should be unexpected to show some emotions/beliefs that every hero has to deal with, and that the player might not have or lacks . This can draw a distinction between the person in the chair and the actual character in game who is in the thick of things and experiencing pain/feeling. Dangerous line to tread, but perhaps it would work.

As much as I enjoy ME and ME2- that dialogue system wouldn't work with DA, at least as long as we have our unvoiced Warden. The whole point is that the Warden's dialogue choices are what the Warden is actually saying all the time, not implied. Sure Bioware could try that out in a future game if they want, but then you would need to be stuck in a stock character like Shepard from ME or like Geralt from the WItcher.

ME's system works for ME- we don't need to homogenize all games into one way of doing things.

[Addai]

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?

Yes!  Is it so surprising that the very thing we liked most about DA;O, which set it apart from other games, we want to see more of?  You seem to be telling us that you plan to go back to the way every other video game is made.  Why in Thedas would you do so??

And it is broken, I'm afraid. Simply because you liked something despite its flaws doesn't mean those flaws don't exist. 

Who says?  Is it not the place of the people paying money for your game to decide what we want out of it?

[Bibdy]

I think y'all are making the wrong argument. If all you want is more, moar, MOAR dialogue, then that's just not going to happen. If your only request is more, it will never be satisfied and developers attempting to do such, is a lost cause.

You can have deep character involvement, interaction and attachment WITHOUT laboriously long dialogue. In my opinion, most of the attachment to characters in DA:O didn't come from these pointless chats in the party camp. They came from dragging them around and hearing their opinions before/after you make your decisions - getting into possible conflict with them, or finding some understanding (such as using Persuade on them).

Sitting in the camp wading through line after line of dialogue doesn't feel realistic at all. Who are you to walk around asking all these personal questions? The only one who seems to respond in a realistic manner is Sten!

I already feel like I know Anders better, in 4 hours of DA:A gameplay, than I did Morrigan after spending 'hours' listening to her talk.

Modifié par Bibdy, 17 mars 2010 - 05:20 .

[el-pinko-grande]

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.

See, this is an issue for me. The characters with whom I’m most interested in interacting aren’t necessarily the ones that are most useful for me in combat. In DA:O, I played a rogue, so I rarely had Leliana in my party. Nevertheless, hers was the romance I wanted to pursue, and I found myself rather looking forward to going back to camp to talk to her. It would have annoyed me quite a bit if I had to give up someone like Morrigan or Alistair, and thereby take a hit to my party’s combat effectiveness, in order to pursue the relationship I wanted.
 
While I won’t disagree with your point that the DA:O system was broken, I will point out one advantage to it that I don’t think I’ve seen acknowledged in this thread- it’s great for completists. Knights of the Old Republic 2 had a lot of random conversation events in the world, and I usually felt compelled to save before entering a new area so that I could sweep through it with each combination of characters to make sure I wasn’t missing any cool character moments. I’m sure that probably makes me sound like some kind of obsessive-compulsive anomaly to you devs, but I’ve found that lots of other players are the same way. OTOH, in DA:O, I didn’t have to worry about missing RP events just because I didn’t have a particular character in my party. That allowed me to relax in a way that I never did in KotOR2.

[Carmen_Willow]

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.

Exactly! Camp was home!  It was where everyone gathered, where you could discuss things that we long and involved. In the real world, if you were out patroling an area in combat mode, it would be too dangerous to have involved conversations with your comrades.  You would be too busy looking for things that will kill you to talk at length about something.   The keep should be the new version of camp where you feel at ease and can share a little of yourself.  I will miss that.  I don't like talking to my companions when I'm out on quest because I'm too busy looking for darkspawn....I think the best way would be both ways....we need "camp" or "keep" but there's no reason why conversations on the road couldn't be more meaty. 

[Carmen_Willow]

Elps wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I fail to see what's the problem with that.

The new system doesn't really allow to me converse with the character. It's just me responding to his / her comment. That's it.
That's not saying that those comments are pointless or that they don't  have depth, because they do. But I don't feel like I am actually talking with any of them.

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. 

Completely agree. 
The changes to the conversation system have had a huge impact on how I play. In Origins, I was inhabiting the world in the roles I played. With Awakening, I'm just on the outside playing a game. 

Part of the immersion was the opportunity to return to camp, relax, and chat with companions. I didn't need the game to pace the dialogue as I am perfectly capable of pacing myself. Having a home base to return to made Origins more realistic, after all, who travels and fights for days without sleeping and eating? 
To me, being able to talk to companions that are not in the party is important. In real life people talk to workmates AND to friends you only catch up with once in awhile. In my first few play-throughs there were some companions I never took on the road with me but in later games I chose to do so because their dialogue had made them more interesting and I wanted to get to know them better.

I think Bioware needs to think about what type of game the Dragon Age epic is supposed to be. If its an emotionally involving, multi-replay, RPG then Origins got it right. If its just another game where the role-playing is scripted with loads of "click here, this happens" quasi-interaction then Awakening seems to have got that right. 
Origins reeled me in to the extent that I bought the books just so I could understand more of the back-story. I've never done that with any other game. Awakening feels like many other games and the disconnect is really souring my enthusiasm for sticking around for future DLC's and expansions. 

EXACTLY.  I could not have said it better!  It's what made DA:O different and fun and meaningful.

[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.