Bioware let's have a talk about your conversation system.

[white_salad]

I agree with an above poster. Enough with the "good, evil, and neutral" shit. I don't want to be a flower child, Hitler, or a blank slate, k thx...

Well, the Dragon Age 2 wheel does actually have more than that. I noticed different symbols in the same place. I saw a red havel, which seemed to be a sort of "Take Charge" while there is a red fist for kind of "aggressive response", the jokey is obviously nuetral, but in the good slot is a branch for what seemed sort of a make peace option, and a halo and wings for of course, flower child response. So it's slightly deeper than just good bad and nuetral, but not much.

What people doesn't seem to really have realized is that DA2 isn't Paragon/Renegade or Good/Evil in alignment axis. As you've found out, there are many different symbols that differ based on the context of what is happening in the conversation. Sure, the lower one is usually a more blunt or offensive option but it isn't automatically the evil option. Just as the top one is usually diplomatic or submissive that doesn't instantly make it good. Hopefully that trend will follow through in all of DA2 and not just the demo.

Pretty sure it will carry over, maybe they'll open up both sides so you can really choose what you want to choose. Perhaps I'm feeling aggressive, instead of wanting to lead. Maybe I want to be diplomatic instead of just nice to the person. Either way, I think the wheel and the tree don't carry too much of a difference, just slightly less choice.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

Rule number 1: Do not make the button that skips dialogue also choose it if there isn't a safe location for the cursor to rest. You have no idea how many times I had to reload because I picked the "Bwarrr Shepard smash!" option by accident.

Rule number 2: If you aren't going to voice your main character don't make me watch his/her dumbfounded face in dialogue while the other actors ham it up. I personally found the dialogue system for New Vegas infinitely better than both ME and DA:O, simply because I could fill in myself talking instead of listening to a voice actor completely missing my intention or a blank faced mute NPC making some weird face gestures.

Rule number 3: Make dialogue somewhat dependent on some of the RPG aspects (beyond just allowing good dialogue for good people and vice versa or 1 invariable speech skill). I like having multiple ways to approach dialogue, not just good/evil options.

Rule number 4: Divide the dialogue up so its not in 20 minute chunks between levels. It seemed that whenever I completed a mission in ME or DA I had to spend an hour talking to all my party members so they can get more loyal/powerful. Make dialogue and combat fit well together and not feel like an rpg game with a dating sim that butts in every once in a while.

Rule number 5: Let me lie. Sometimes I want to trick an enemy into letting his guard down before I attack, sometimes I want to play both sides of a conflict for personal benefit, maybe I want to lie to earn extra rewards. Let me lie, don't make all of my dialogue options a golden promise unless it has (lie) written next to it. To supplement this, let me attack anyone I want, not just who I deem as my enemy in dialogue sections. Otherwise the only playable character is the honorable type, who warns his foes with dialogue before striking. I may want to be a scoundrel who will kick you in the nuts before removing your liver without a peep of warning.

Rule number 6: Allow talking while mobile, don't have the characters sit in a circle while they sort out the plan to save the world or make a pie or something. Even if its just a horseback ride on a road, a changing background would do wonders to add to the immersion. (which made me think, do you ever see a single horse in all of DA:O?)

Rule number 7: Not dialogue elated, but make our spells and abilities evolve over time. Playing as a mage in DA:O felt like I was an autocast for walking bomb. Every fight involved casting walking bomb and nuking the target then repeating. Also, give us at least one low cooldown ability so enemies with really low health aren't as much as a pain. Give us some late game spells that supplement our existing spells, like a buff that causes your spells to empower another random spell, encouraging a wide use of abilities. As a melee class abilities become nearly useless in the late game, as my auto attack trumped pretty much all abilities, barring area attack moves. Give me a reason to use abilities rather then just autoattack.

On a side note, tone down the hemophilia, if you can't reduce the number of references to blood magic, darkspawn blood, sacred blood or just regular blood, then don't make my character look like he just swam in the pool from the descent. Its really off putting and it looks very weird when a man is talking with an old lady and she fails to notice the 7 pints of blood dripping from his body.

 

[ImprovizoR]

That's exactly what bothers me about DA2. I want to be my own character not to control some twat. Mass Effect is different because it was always about Shepard. And it's not exactly a standard RPG. It's more like an RPG-shooter. Also Mass Effect should be like that. It should be cinematic with a strong voiced character. But a fantasy RPG like Dragon Age will only suffer because of something like that. Fantasy RPG's work best with mute characters and Origins was perfect because of it.

 

[SillyGodDisco]

I will be a fan of DA anyway they choose to go.

If they want to make it more like Mass Effect, go ahead because I love that series.
If they want to keep it like DA:O, even better. I'm not picky when it comes to Bioware,I feel they're one of the companies in the industry I can still rely on to make a great game.

 

[Trolldor]

1) I like the wheel
2) I don't mind the wheel
3) The wheel is... problematic


*selects 3*

"Oh this dialogue wheel? The one I'm now forcing through your uterus?"


Yeah... I hate the dialogue wheel, it's fucking narrow and confusing.
Also, limits conversation to a 'good/neutral/evil" system which narrows down... everything.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Ya the new system is a role of the dice (quite funny how it's taken out of combat and put into dialogue), but I just see it as dialogue roulette that adds amusement factor.

The "I disagree" option can be anything from punching, decapitation, or forced anal without lube, and because it's random you never really know what comes next, sort of fun in it's own way

 

[Dethpixie]

In DA:O I wasn't anybody, I was just myself.
It was me who joked with Allistar, it was me who woo'd Leliana, it was me who sat and drank with Oghren; reminiscing about the old days in Orzimmar, well you get the idea.

For once I agree with a critic of voiced characters. Shocking. But this is a good point and I think Dragon Age may be one of the few games where a non-voiced character and text-based responses work best. It really felt like role-playing in the truest sense of the word.

 

[OniaPL]

I dislike the dialogue wheel and also slightly Hawke, as I would have enjoyed being me in a fantasy world rather than being in movies watching Hawke... They could have at least added an option "Show what you will say as a pop-up in the corner when you mouse over a choice". Also, I felt the combat was rather easy in the demo. You can outrun your enemies, and the Ogre can be easily defeated by hit-and-run tactics, as when you are not close it will rush or throw a rock; both are easily avoided (And the combat, in general, was a little over-the-top for me). I'm just afraid that Dragon Age 2 won't be the kind of RPG experience I am looking for: Long and hard.

However, I am probably going to buy it, as I loved Origins, it's characters, story and the world.

 

[Critical92]

the way hawke is made, it would have been silly if he hadn't talked, in dragon age 1 it seemed to fit it.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I prefer the ME dialogue wheel option to DA:O. DA just felt a little too much to me like I was playing a jRPG from the early 00s rather than a modern game. Eventually I suspect there will be a game like others have mentioned where they combine both the voiced options of ME but the greater selection of DA.

I'd also like to draw attention again to Alpha Protocol, which I very much liked as a dialogue system. Three responses, Aggressive, Suave, Professional, you know which button does what, but there's no written lines to make you think you were going to say something else. The system was not without its flaws, for example the numerous times when the three emotions didn't quite sum up the conversation options so they left you having to read and decipher one word responses instead of at least a sentence fragment, but it was more immersive than any other dialogue system I've seen in any other game, when it started flowing and feeling natural.

 

[Trolldor]

I prefer the ME dialogue wheel option to DA:O. DA just felt a little too much to me like I was playing a jRPG from the early 00s rather than a modern game. Eventually I suspect there will be a game like others have mentioned where they combine both the voiced options of ME but the greater selection of DA.

I'd also like to draw attention again to Alpha Protocol, which I very much liked as a dialogue system. Three responses, Aggressive, Suave, Professional, you know which button does what, but there's no written lines to make you think you were going to say something else. The system was not without its flaws, for example the numerous times when the three emotions didn't quite sum up the conversation options so they left you having to read and decipher one word responses instead of at least a sentence fragment, but it was more immersive than any other dialogue system I've seen in any other game, when it started flowing and feeling natural.

DA:O reminded you of linear jRPGs? Really?

 

[Meggiepants]

Except it really isn't you saying those things or even you playing you. A writer came up with six responses you get to choose from. If you really were responding to Alistair, you might have something other to say than the "Smart Ass Response," the "Mean Response," the "Nice Response," or the "I don't really care" response.

Don't get me wrong, I love Dragon Age. But I make no illusions when I choose dialog options. They aren't my choices. I'm choosing the dialog David Gaider wrote that I like the best. I didn't say those things, he did. I don't really see the difference between that and having a character like Shepard or Hawke say those things for me.

Either way, I don't get to say what I really would say if I really had a choice in the matter. And this becomes painfully obvious to me when I am forced down a particular path if I want to say, convince Alistair that killing Loghain for vengeance sake doesn't fit with his character one little bit, considering every step of the way he urges you to show mercy to all kinds of people who have been killing others. But I get no Persuade option, not even if his loyalty is 100, my cunning is 50 and I've picked all the persuasion skills. Because the writer wants the story to go in a contrived direction, so they force me to choose from 4 options which all lead to the same end.

I like more options, it does give a little more nuance, but it is only the illusion of choice you are getting in DA. They might say three or four different words with each choice, but ultimately, regardless of your choice, you are set on a couple of potential paths.

Besides, I hate unvoiced protagonists. It's weird to have everyone voiced but you. It draws me out of a game, not into it.

 

[loremazd]

I dont really get it, to be honest.

The non dialog wheel usually consisted of about 4 responses, as well as some "will you please explain more?" responses.

Now, 3 or 4 options, and some "will you please explain more" responses. The only real difference is you choose intent rather than the precise wording.

 

[Dastardly]

snip

The difference, as I see it, is whether you are playing a character you created, or playing an existing character within the game's story/mythology.

If you're playing an existing character, it makes sense that you have fewer options. You're choosing what flavor of that character you're playing, but it's within an existing framework. So, you get maybe three options, basically boiling down to "good, bad, neutral."

If you are creating your own character, this changes drastically. Far more options need to be available, because the game is effectively putting words in your character's mouth. In an MMO in particular, this can feel extremely forced and limiting if there aren't enough options available--you're paying rent on this character, so you expect far more control.

But I think there's another facet of this that is often ignored: the character's voice. Plenty of MMOs let you choose a voice for your character, but of course limit the dialogue to various battle cries and such. The reason is that when you create a character, it's not just about the looks. It's the sound and style of the character that you want to create.

If a game is fully voice-acted, that means it's far less likely that you're going to have multiple voices to choose from, due to expense. That means all human male protagonists will sound the same. All alien female protagonists will sound the same. For a single-player game, this is (debatably) acceptable, since you won't run into any other protagonists... but for multiplayer, or an MMO? This shouldn't fly.

If you aren't going to provide robust options for voicing and dialogue choice, it's better to have the silent protagonist. Otherwise, you move away from "character creation" and you step toward "character rental."

(ON DIALOGUE: If you want a branching dialogue system without forcing particular phrases into every player's mouth, there's always the option of more abstract dialogue choices. For instance:

NPC: "I don't like your offer, pal. It's insulting. Give me a reason to change my mind."

Player: - [Intelligence] Attempt to convince him of the value of your offer.
- [Persuasion] Attempt to persuade him to see your side.
- [Aggression] Attempt to coerce him into agreement.
- [Etc...]

This way, you're choosing what your character is trying to do, based on what attribute you feel most defines your character... but they're not shoving stock phrases into your character's mouth.)

 

[BeeRye]

This won't be true in five years time. Eventually we will see a dialogue system like DA:O that is fully voiced and it is a win win for everyone.

Which is what The Witcher did way back in 2007. And that game kicked ass.

OT: I'm not too fond of the dialog wheel either. I like knowing exactly what my character is going to say. With Mass Effect, and now Dragon Age, I have to play "guess what he's going to say", and quite a few times the actual dialog didn't match up too well with what the summaries were.

The wheel also kills role-playing. Mass Effect is not a role-playing game. You are Shepard, you play Shepard, and you choose responses he would say, not you. And now DA2 seems to be doing that. People seem to confuse role-playing with stat-building. This is wrong. Role-playing is creating a character, and, well role-playing him/her.

In Mass Effect, you are Shepard. No matter what. In DA2, you are Hawke, no matter what. And you cannot break out of these character molds and shape your own. Your set with what Bioware gives you. And if you try to divert from that, you get railroaded back into being Shepard/Hawke.

Hopefully DA2 offers more role-playing then Mass Effect, but with the wheel I doubt it will be the case.

As I've stated before, I don't see how Hawke having a name and voice limits your options any more than in Origins. There are just inescapable facets of your character. In Origins, you are a Grey Warden, no matter what. You can never just decide to flee and leave Alistair to it. You always fight the blight, and always defeat it by the end of the game. It is very limited. But this is limitation is ok because, hey, you bought a game that sold itself on the experience of being a Grey Warden.

Dragon Age 2 is selling itself on the experience of being "The Champion". Only, unlike DA:O, just what this means is a little ambiguous. People need to stop thinking that Origins gave you any more choice than an RPG with a set character. You got your origin story, which meant almost nothing for the purposes of the rest of the game. You got to defeat the blight by the end. In between you got to make choices. In DA2 you have a backstory. By the end you are the Champion. In between you get to make choices. It's the same thing.

If you want an RPG where you can do anything, and everything you do affects the world around you, you really have no choice but to play a paper/dice rolling rpg with real people. Game developers can't cram every possibility into their games, so all the choices you get are finite and defined before you even play the game. A Game Master can react to everything you do to give you a proper role playing experience.

 

[Dethpixie]

And I really don't buy into the "blank slate" school of video game lead character design--it can work, in certain situations, but not all the time--so I kind of like the way they went with Mass Effect and DA2.

Generally I'd agree with you entirely. When I played Half Life, Bioshock or Halo I wasn't me, I was the guy in Master Chief or Gordon Freeman's head. Dead Space was worst because you'd think through all of that Issac might have had something to say about the horrors he'd encountered.

Dragon Age: Origins is about the only time I liked the "blank slate" model because you were offered enough choice to really make the character your own and actually role-play. That said, I love the Mass Effects and I trust that Bioware is going to do a great job with Dragon Age 2.

 

[twistedheat15]

I dont really get it, to be honest.

The non dialog wheel usually consisted of about 4 responses, as well as some "will you please explain more?" responses.

Now, 3 or 4 options, and some "will you please explain more" responses. The only real difference is you choose intent rather than the precise wording.

Yes, but ppl have to ***** and cry about things being dumb down for every rpg that isn't a slow paced, dice rolling, wall of menu's. I don't mind either, DA:O just laid out a bunch of options and had you pick the one that made ppl happy or mad, but still nothing "you'd" prob want to say. The wheel has you pick a stance where you don't know how ppl are gonna feel about it, so more consideration came into play. I like when you try picking nice/good options on ppl, and they just tell you fck off for it, but picking a asshole/evil response makes them respect you.

A lot of DA:O options was stuff like:
"I really like working with you, how do you feel about me?"
:Of course! I couldn't do any of this w/o you!
:Meh your alright, kinda annoying though.
:Tell me more about yourself.
:I once made a butterfly sandwich.

 

[Legion]

Bioware I have one last thing I need you to hear. For the love Christ stop having Sheppard/Hawke answering on their own!
You remember the first time Sheppard spoke without a prompt from you? Yeah, I still get pissed every time that happens.

This part I definitely agree with, if we are the character then they should say nothing without us choosing to.

Also, Shepard only has one 'p' in it.

I do adore the voice they gave for LadyHawke though, so, so sexy.

 

[Irridium]

As I've stated before, I don't see how Hawke having a name and voice limits your options any more than in Origins. There are just inescapable facets of your character. In Origins, you are a Grey Warden, no matter what. You can never just decide to flee and leave Alistair to it. You always fight the blight, and always defeat it by the end of the game. It is very limited. But this is limitation is ok because, hey, you bought a game that sold itself on the experience of being a Grey Warden.

Dragon Age 2 is selling itself on the experience of being "The Champion". Only, unlike DA:O, just what this means is a little ambiguous. People need to stop thinking that Origins gave you any more choice than an RPG with a set character. You got your origin story, which meant almost nothing for the purposes of the rest of the game. You got to defeat the blight by the end. In between you got to make choices. In DA2 you have a backstory. By the end you are the Champion. In between you get to make choices. It's the same thing.

If you want an RPG where you can do anything, and everything you do affects the world around you, you really have no choice but to play a paper/dice rolling rpg with real people. Game developers can't cram every possibility into their games, so all the choices you get are finite and defined before you even play the game. A Game Master can react to everything you do to give you a proper role playing experience.

True, but in Origins it was my Warden. I controlled who he was, what he said, and his personality. I was able to use my imagination to make the character my own.

In DA2, I can't do that. Its Hawke, and just Hawke. He already has a voice, a personality, everything. Its all done for you, the only way you can make him your own is by just changing his face and by controlling the tone of his answers.

 

[MakazeX]

*snip*

------Sorry Belgian_Waffles, we will change it right away!-------------------I think you're being a bit too angry about all this. Lets talk this over

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (o) -------------Perhaps you need some waffles!

NO! You will not get in the way of our system, DIE FOOL!------------------I think you should back off a bit and calm down!

Okay no, on a serious note. I like the conversational systems, they might be cheesy and they might be changing from full control. It isn't the same as before I agree, but we're not playing as the same character from dragon age. We're playing as Hawke, who is going to probably be another part of the story for the main character, your character. (See it as if you're expanding the world for your character, that's how I'm looking at it at least.)

In the end, the character from Dragon Age: Origins was never us anyways, I still felt like I was his little angel on his shoulder, or devil in some cases. Whispering to him, telling him what to do. It was like some evil twisted fantasy! (The one where you control peoples minds.)

I back Bioware 100% on most choices and I feel the same for this one. In my opinion I believe what ever choices they make, even the bad ones are going towards in the giving us the best game they can. Mass effect 2 for example made some horrible choices, but they worked, and bioware took into note about the bad choices and they're being sorted for number 3.