Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jul 2014
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by LordCrash
And my critique isn't about the situations in which you can agree or disagree with your companions. Actually it's not about that at all! It's about each and every normal dialogue with NPCs (see my screen in the first post). Giving the companions behavioural presets is fine with me, that would "fix" the situations of party discussions. But that has again nothing to do with how normal dialogue between one party member and an NPC is treated (and fixed).


Oh, okay, that was super not clear to me XD

In that case, I don't really understand why it's bothersome. But there are... heavens, there are so many things I don't understand... it's so overwhelming. I need a drink.

Joined: Jun 2013
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Jun 2013
I think it's too early to seriously discuss within-party interactions because companions dialogues are not yet in the game.

Joined: Jul 2014
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by LordCrash
With extensive scripting I mean that the game has A LOT of dialogues with a lot of possible combinations of party members. If you really want to add scripted party dialogues to the game you have to adjust and manually create A LOT of dialogues in various combinations which leads to, well, extensive scripting. wink


I'm not sure how much experience you have with dialogue editors in these types of games, and, like I said, my memory of the toolset is distant and ill-formed, but if their tools have even a basic level of functionality, then that kind of conditional cascade is not nearly as work-intensive as you're worried about :p But also, it's not super relevant to your ACTUAL issue, which, as I stated in my last post, I completely misunderstood XD

Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Yeah, sorry if I didn't make my point clear enough. wink

It's really about normal dialogue with NPCs, and NOT about party interaction.


WOOS
Joined: Jun 2013
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Jun 2013
Originally Posted by LordCrash
Yeah, sorry if I didn't make my point clear enough. wink

It's really about normal dialogue with NPCs, and NOT about party interaction.

So what is it exactly you don't like about npc dialogues in SP? It seems that the game treats all companions as protagonists, meaning they all can initiate conversations with npcs. Which is fine by me, because some npcs may refuse to talk to some companions but are willing to with others. So this way chances of botching some quest or unwittingly aggroing someone are less likely.

If you don't like that after the conversation another companion can talk about same things with that npc then I don't see a problem either - you won't get a quest twice and may actually learn something new along the way.

Last edited by Aramintai; 20/09/16 01:20 AM.
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by Aramintai
Originally Posted by LordCrash
Yeah, sorry if I didn't make my point clear enough. wink

It's really about normal dialogue with NPCs, and NOT about party interaction.

So what is it exactly you don't like about npc dialogues in SP? It seems that the game treats all companions as protagonists, meaning they all can initiate conversations with npcs. Which is fine by me, because some npcs may refuse to talk to some companions but are willing to with others. So this way chances of botching some quest or unwittingly aggroing someone are less likely.

If you don't like that after the conversation another companion can talk about same things with that npc then I don't see a problem either - you won't get a quest twice and may actually learn something new along the way.

Well, how about reading the initial post of this thread? It's all there why I don't like the system. wink

But it comes down to that having the same conversation four times in a row pretty much all the time is extremely tiresome and pretty unimmersive. It doesn't add anything to the game. On the opposite, it reduces replayability and believability. And yes, having one character with a certain set of origins and racial traits means that you likely won't discover all possible ways to solve quests and challenges. Imo that's absolutely okay, even good. That's what roleplaying is all about, taking a role, but also being limited to that role. That' imo the way it should be.

In DOS1 dialogues between your companions and NPCs weren't able either. So I don't see why they should be now (in SP).

Last edited by LordCrash; 20/09/16 01:26 AM.

WOOS
Joined: Jul 2014
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jul 2014
It's very easy to not have the same conversation four times in a row by just... not doing that?

It makes sense to me that it should be possible. It doesn't make sense to me that anyone would feel compelled to do it, though. I mean, you can have the same conversation four times in a row with just one character, but you don't, because that's silly.

Now that I DO know what your complaint is, your comment about single-player games having to... put up with, I guess... multiplayer systems makes a lot more sense, but it's just super easy to avoid. Like, the problem you have is a problem I didn't even encounter in my playthrough, because I just... didn't do that.

It's like the old joke about the person who goes to see the doctor and says "Doc, it hurts when I do this!" And the doctor replies, "Well, stop doing that!"

I hate that joke, because, presumably, one should be able to do whatever it is the patient is doing, and it's not SUPPOSED to hurt. But I think in this case it's apropos, since some people do benefit from the game behavior you don't like, and that game behavior is trivial for you to avoid.

Joined: Jun 2013
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Jun 2013
Well, I can see why devs wanted to make 4 companions as protagonists - that way in case other players join in and turn it into MP session they all can initiate conversations. It's why DOS1 had 2 protagonists - it was a 2-player coop. And since devs made DOS2 a 4-player coop I don't think 4x samey conversations with npcs are gonna go away.
On the other hand, nobody forces you to talk to npcs with all 4 companions. I certainly didn't, unless some npcs weren't willing to talk or aggroed on some companions. If it were a true SP rpg then the dialogue system would have had companions interjections and only the protagonist as the conversation initiator, but since it isn't I too doubt that anything will be changed just for SP.

Joined: Jul 2014
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Aramintai
If it were a true SP rpg then the dialogue system would have had companions interjections and only the protagonist as the conversation initiator, but since it isn't I too doubt that anything will be changed just for SP.


Basic interjections are easy-peasy, and I would hope their dialogue editor has some way of knowing whether or not a character was player-created.

If they don't add in that style of party dialogue, it would be a fun mod to make, like the old banter packs for Baldur's Gate.

Joined: Jun 2014
Location: DeepSpace8
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Jun 2014
Location: DeepSpace8
Agree.
I am like you, when i have the option to do the conversations with all party members, i do it. (Just feel the urge to get all the answers i can get). So i end doing the same thing four times with a few different answers and outcomes depending on the background story. I even do it on my second and third playtrough.. I just can't help my self.
But as others have stated, this part of the game is not done yet so i presume they will fix it before launch.


Amberstar
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by mesmerizedish
Now that I DO know what your complaint is, your comment about single-player games having to... put up with, I guess... multiplayer systems makes a lot more sense, but it's just super easy to avoid. Like, the problem you have is a problem I didn't even encounter in my playthrough, because I just... didn't do that.

No, it's actually not that simple. It's easy to say "just don't do it" from the offset but often such a comment just neglects player psychology (which means: how other people are wired). Many gamers, especially many RPG-gamers, suffer from a certain form of fear that they don't get the most or enough out of the game. So they try everyting in the game, they explore the whole map, talk with everybody, do every quest, open every chest, pick every flower. I know that feeling. The point is that I find it tiresome and stupid to read the same dialogue four times in a row - but at the same time I fear that I miss something if I didn't. You might call me stupid or weak but that's how psychology works and that's why good game designers design systems in a way that focus (and limit) the experience to its best possible implementation. The very concept of "focus" is that you only implement stuff that is great - and cut out everything else. So even people who want to see every inch of your game have a great time. But with this repetitive group dialogue in place for SP that's imo not the case anymore. Something that is recommended to be avoided should be just cut or changed, that's basic game design philosophy.

Originally Posted by Aramintai
Well, I can see why devs wanted to make 4 companions as protagonists - that way in case other players join in and turn it into MP session they all can initiate conversations. It's why DOS1 had 2 protagonists - it was a 2-player coop. And since devs made DOS2 a 4-player coop I don't think 4x samey conversations with npcs are gonna go away.

My suggestions in the first post in this thread are exactly made for this case, with 4-player coop in place. They wouldn't require a vastly different system, actually just some minor adjustments and limitations.

Last edited by LordCrash; 20/09/16 01:52 AM.

WOOS
Joined: Jun 2013
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Jun 2013
Another point in favour of any-companion-can-initiate-conversation - how about situations where the protagonist is far away from the rest of the party, locked in a dungeon, for example, and the only way out is to talk to some npcs? The rest of the party *needs* to have this ability to be able to resolve these kinds of situations.

Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by Aramintai
Another point in favour of any-companion-can-initiate-conversation - how about situations where the protagonist is far away from the rest of the party, locked in a dungeon, for example, and the only way out is to talk to some npcs? The rest of the party *needs* to have this ability to be able to resolve these kinds of situations.

Good point. But actually these situations are pretty rare. Why should you split up your party in SP if you're not forced to do so? And in these rare cases another companion could be allowed to speak on your behalf (quest or situation related).

I mean in whole act 1 there is exactly ONE situation in which the player character could get imprisoned.


WOOS
Joined: Jun 2013
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Jun 2013
Originally Posted by LordCrash

Good point. But actually these situations are pretty rare. Why should you split up your party in SP if you're not forced to do so? And in these rare cases another companion could be allowed to speak on your behalf (quest or situation related).

Sometimes splitting up is not voluntary, like that dungeon example. Who knows what else like that is later in the game. Making exceptions for these situations is not in vein of systemic approach Larian has in DOS.

Also, I take it both of your suggestions in the first post assume that dialogues with npcs take place only once and if botched no second chances? This will just encourage save scumming, which is bad enough as it is in DOS. I'd rather have another go at an npc with another companion.

Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by Aramintai
Originally Posted by LordCrash

Good point. But actually these situations are pretty rare. Why should you split up your party in SP if you're not forced to do so? And in these rare cases another companion could be allowed to speak on your behalf (quest or situation related).

Sometimes splitting up is not voluntary, like that dungeon example. Who knows what else like that is later in the game. Making exceptions for these situations is not in vein of systemic approach Larian has in DOS.

You're right. But is making 98% of the game an unimmersive, repetitve chore better, just to have a "systemic approach"? It's a tough call to make, sure, but for me that's pretty much the point where the SP experience begins to fall apart as a narrative medium. Why having all that great story and talented writers if everything is ruined by a rigid systemic approach?

Quote
Also, I take it both of your suggestions in the first post assume that dialogues with npcs take place only once and if botched no second chances? This will just encourage save scumming, which is bad enough as it is in DOS. I'd rather have another go at an npc with another companion.

That's imo an invalid argument. If that's true why ending conversations at all? Just let them always start from the beginning without consequences, in order to avoid savegame spamming. Point is though that RPGs are about choices and choices should be made without having 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances all the time...


WOOS
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Germany
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Germany
I have to agree with LordCrash on this topic.
Another problem with the "every companion is a protagonist" solution that really pisses me of are the forced conversations. Sometimes there are conversations that start automaticly after a fight or when a npc aproaches you by himself or something like that. And most of the time I don't have any control which of my characters will get into the dialogue. Mostly it is just the one who is nearest to the npc. Then I have to talk through this conversation with a character I don't want to. I want to do all these important dialogues with my main character.

Joined: Oct 2015
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2015
I agree that it's annoying when one of my companions takes control of a key conversation instead of my player character. However, I really want to emphasise that the reason this bugs me is because my player character completely disappears. I think that it's best that the entire group participates in the conversation.

Joined: Feb 2003
Lar Offline
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2003
Hello,

It pains me a bit to hear that we'd be treating the single player as inferior to the multiplayer since exactly the opposite applies. However - we are trying to do things different - and that obviously is not always a straight path so I think I can see where LC is coming from.

I personally love that I can take control of a character, split him from my party, and go do shenanigans away from the rest of my party, including interacting with npcs. I don't think this hurts the single player at all - on the contrary - I think it's really cool feature that no other game has. I also love that thinking of which party member might be the best to handle a certain situation has a lot of gameplay value. I don't consider that micromanagement at all. There really are a lot of situations in the game where this gives you advantages.

That said - there are a couple of things that aren't in there yet and I think they may go a long way to address the problems LC has (at least, I hope). First off, in single player, your main character gets the "avatar" tag. It's invisible for now but it is there. Only a character with an avatar tag gets an origin quest activated i.e. If you recruit red prince and had Lohse as your avatar, then red prince's origin quest won't be active. You will be able to interact with the world when controlling Red Prince as a party member, they'll recognise him as Red Prince, but you'll never get his specific origin quests. That's now already the case and if it's isn't in a particular instance, that's a bug, not a design decision.

What's not the case yet is the companion specific scripting and the party relation dialogs. In the example I gave, in the final game you'll won't be able to control the reactions Red Prince has in party reflection or decision dialogs (except if you play a multiplayer game on your own). But currently you can and I understand that's not cool. But that's going away.

Likewise, Red Prince's origin quest will be something that he'll talk about as a problem he has and which the party can help in, but you won't handling from his point of view. In that sense, it'll feel more than what you're used to.

Rest assured, this particular topic is something that we discuss a lot about so I really appreciate the feedback. If you don't feel like an avatar, it's normal for the moment, but it certainly isn't our intention to keep it that way. It will take us some time to put all components in so you'll have to have some patience. We'll only put in party relations and companion reactions once everything is 100% solid but it is coming. Once that is done I think you'll have a game where in SP you'll feel more like your avatar is the hero but where you still have the ability to split up your party and have meaningful interactions in the world and use that to your advantage. Personally I think that's pretty cool and a lot of fun.

Cheers,

Swen


Where stands it written that I have to be fair?
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Thanks for explaining your vision, Swen, I do get why you did the things the way you did them. I do hope that the stuff that isn't yet implemented will make the SP experience more consistent and "SP-like". That you want to make the main character more important by giving him an avatar tag (and deleting all other origin stories) is indeed reassuring. I personally can't wait for the love and hate relationship system. That should make the group much more dynamic.
I stand to my critique though that dialogues with NPCs can become tiresome, at least for some of us, in the current implementation if you want to explore them to their full potential with every character of your group. The current implementation of dialogues with NPCs does neither include the rest of the group in the conversation nor does it react dynamically to the state of the already conducted conversations with the same or others characters. I therefore think that a "group based" dialogue system ( explained here) would make the SP experience more intuitive, more dynamic, more believable and less time consuming/tiresome without sacrificing a single element of your original vision. wink

And please don't take my critique too much to the heart, Swen. Often the very same thing can often feel very differently from different perspectives. You know that I love the game and you guys no matter what, I'm just pretty emotional about the stuff I love. And in the end I think the best way you can make a great game even better and explore its full potential is honest and even brutal feeedback. smile

Last edited by LordCrash; 25/09/16 06:15 PM.

WOOS
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Germany
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Sep 2016
Location: Germany
Thank you Swen, for this detailed reply.

But one thing still bothers me.
It is nice to have the oportunity to interact with all party members with other npcs, but it must be a choice, always.
That is not the case for the dialogues that are triggerd automaticly. The game always selects the nearest group member who has to do the talking in this situations. So I'm mostly forced to do this dialogue not with my hero. Maybe the avatar flag should also cause that automatic dialogues are always started with the avatar.

This is really important to me.
Because, when I create my own character, I want to play the game with him as much as possible.
This is one of my two biggest concerns at this time, besides the narrative disadvantage of a custom character. (but that is another topic)

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  gbnf, Kurnster, Monodon, Stephen_Larian 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5