405 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

I agree. Unfortunately, Bioware always seems reluctant to release those details, don't they? Even after Dragon Age was released, some things were pretty obscure.

Georg tried to help us out with the Missing Manual project, but then he got transferred to Austin to work on SWTOR.  Plus he had those hosting problems.

Overall, DAO was terribly documented.  It's probably best that Dan Lazin doesn't come to the forum much (Dan wrote the DAO manual).

I see it as an improvement, but we view the dialogue lines fundamentally differently. As far as I'm concerned, the lines in Dragon Age *do* have a certain tone associated with them. For example, you can "sarcastically" choose "An honor, King Cailan," but that doesn't really mean anything. Cailan responds the way the writers intended him to respond. Each dialogue is written with a certain tone in mind already, which can be seen in how NPCs respond to you. Mr. Gaider said as much (you may have seen the post).

I disagree; it means quite a lot.  What matters here is the decision-making going on inside the PC's head.  That Cailan responds in a way that is sometimes inappropriate only serves to help develop my character's opinion of Cailan.

And the next time I play, with an entirely different character personality, Cailan comes across totally differently.  And hey, maybe in that game Cailan is different.  He's not written differently, but within the game world (which doesn't really exist) anything might be true.  How we see it (through the filter of the PC's perception) rarely tells us the whole story.

Now, in BG, you could pretend NPCs responded a certain way to your choices because the dialogue wasn't voiced and the NPCs certainly weren't 3D characters with personalities and expression. You may prefer that (in fact, I'm pretty sure you do, given past posts), but we're unlikely to see game developers take a step back in technology.

I don't see how it's a step back if it improves gameplay.  I dispute that the changes that got us here were steps forward.  They were just changes.  Calling them steps forward or back makes an implicit value judgment, and that's not justifiable.

[Sauronych]

If they leave the basics of DA's gameplay intact and make our choices from the first game matter, I'm ok with dialogue wheels. I liked them in ME.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Is there a way to turn the dialogue wheel off, and just get full-text options? I much prefer those...

That would be nice, but I doubt it.  That would require a pretty big change in the GUI.

[Nighteye2]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
Is there a way to turn the dialogue wheel off, and just get full-text options? I much prefer those...

That would be nice, but I doubt it.  That would require a pretty big change in the GUI.

Would it really? They'd only need to copy the DA:O gui and everything would be alright...

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They've given us one piece of information about how it's different (the emotion icon), and that piece of information seems to make the problem worse (and less fixable simply by removing the PC voice).

How does that make the problem worse? Sorry if I missed a post.

[Tsuga C]

TeenZombie wrote...

They really *don't* want fans of Dragon Age: Origins to buy DA2, do they?

I haven't heard any news yet that makes me think that they value the audience they already had.

Wow.

Yeah.  Let's all rejoice over the triumph of the Attention Deficit Disorder folks.  Woo hoo.

*big raspberry to the person(s) responsible for this call*  

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They've given us one piece of information about how it's different (the emotion icon), and that piece of information seems to make the problem worse (and less fixable simply by removing the PC voice).

How does that make the problem worse? Sorry if I missed a post.

The emotion icon in the wheel prevents us from assigning whatever emotion or intent we'd like to any given line.  We're then stuck with the emotion they show us.

I've said before that my first run through a game is typically a detached, emotionless character.  But on later playthroughs I'll play very different characters.  How different can they be if the emotions behind the lines can't change unless the lines themselves change?

In DAO there any many moments where the very same line, delivered by different PCs with different intents and perpectives, can lead to very different types of conversations (even though the game obviously can't tell them apart).  I came to these fora to applaud these types of conversations shortly after DAO was released, because I loved that two different characters (who even had the same origin - both Mages) could have such different experiences within he same conversation.  And I don't see how that can happen if the intent of each line is chosen for us.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 juillet 2010 - 07:15 .

[AlterEqo]

Actually I think if DA2 is a little more like ME1 it will be very enjoyable. I liked the fighting mechanic and order system in ME1. It really made me feel like I was in control of my hits and misses (yes I know it's not a typical RPG style). ME2 decisions were very bad. The game basically turned into a 3rd person shooter that was a good story driven game, but the lack of customization and limited weapons and armor in the game was just stupid. They dubbed it down so much that exploration was basically pointless. I hope they keep the rewards for exploring in DA2 and add more weapons and customization not less like they did on ME2.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The emotion icon in the wheel prevents us from assigning whatever emotion or intent we'd like to any given line.  We're then stuck with the emotion they show us.

I see it. But would you really feel comfortable assigning an emotion or intent to a paraphrase when you haven't read the actual line yet? Or are you going to just not read the subtitles?

I've said before that my first run through a game is typically a detached, emotionless character.  But on later playthroughs I'll play very different characters.  How different can they be if the emotions behind the lines can't change unless the lines themselves change?

Picking different lines? Assuming they're available, of course.

In DAO there any many moments where the very same line, delivered by different PCs with different intents and perpectives, can lead to very different types of conversations (even though the game obviously can't tell them apart).  I came to these fora to applaud these types of conversations shortly after DAO was released, because I loved that two different characters (who even had the same origin - both Mages) could have such different experiences within he same conversation.  And I don't see how that can happen if the intent of each line is chosen for us.

That's all true, but the flip side is that the game often does respond to an intent that the text didn't make explicit. I've said things that turned out to insult Alistair when I intended no such thing. I had to avoid other lines because I didn't know how they were intended.

I consider this to be a much more severe problem. Honestly, I'd want intention icons even if we were staying with a full-text system.

[soteria]

How does that make the problem worse? Sorry if I missed a post.

I believe he said that it makes it even harder to imagine that the dialogue options are voiced in any way he imagines. He might prefer to imagine a line delivered sarcastically in one playthrough and kindly in another, but if they're labeled...

I disagree; it means quite a lot. What matters here is the decision-making going on inside the PC's head. That Cailan responds in a way that is sometimes inappropriate only serves to help develop my character's opinion of Cailan.



And the next time I play, with an entirely different character personality, Cailan comes across totally differently. And hey, maybe in that game Cailan is different. He's not written differently, but within the game world (which doesn't really exist) anything might be true. How we see it (through the filter of the PC's perception) rarely tells us the whole story.

Yeah, I figured that might be your response. Cailan might not have noticed you were being sarcastic, of course. I really don't have anything to say to this--we play these games very differently, and as I said, we view the dialogues differently. I try to choose the option that most closely matches my character's personality as I've established it, within the framework of how I believe the dialogues were written. You seem to invest a lot more into it. Lucky you, that gives it more replayability.

I don't see how it's a step back if it improves gameplay. I dispute that the changes that got us here were steps forward. They were just changes. Calling them steps forward or back makes an implicit value judgment, and that's not justifiable.

You dispute that 3D art, higher resolutions, better texturing and animation technology, and large hard drive capacity were steps forward? I can't agree that a such a value judgment is unjustifiable.

[Selerz]

Hope it won't be as the Alpha Protocol system though, you have like 5 seconds to make the largest decision in the world. And if you like choose Sarcastic he will be sarcastic through the whole dialogue resulting in some thing happen that you don't want.



If DAO2 will have this system i hope this will happen:



1. Unlimited Time to choose your answer.

2. More detailed descriptions on what you will say.

3. Be able to choose answer after each line.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I see it. But would you really feel comfortable assigning an emotion or intent to a paraphrase when you haven't read the actual line yet? Or are you going to just not read the subtitles?

If I'm not making my choice basd on the full line, then I'd rather not ever know what the full line is.

That's all true, but the flip side is that the game often does respond to an intent that the text didn't make explicit. I've said things that turned out to insult Alistair when I intended no such thing.

So in that playthrough, Alistair was just over-sensitive and couldn't take a joke.

I had to avoid other lines because I didn't know how they were intended.

That's how I felt about the ME dialogue wheel, except I feared the consequences of every option all of the time.

In real world conversations, I concern myself with saying what I want to say.  I can't plan for misunderstandings, because they're necessarily unpredictable.  If people are going to draw a conclusion based on information I didn't include in my remark, that can't be my fault.

The same is true in games.  My PC says what I want him to say, and then the NPCs react as they will, but those reactions are beyond my control.  The thing I can control - my PC's words - is what's important.  And ME doesn't allow even that, thus reducing the player to the role of spectator.

I consider this to be a much more severe problem. Honestly, I'd want intention icons even if we were staying with a full-text system.

I don't even like the [LIE] indicator.  How does the game know what I think is true?  Maybe I didn't believe the previous character who told me something was impossible, so when I'm later telling someone it is possible, I think I'm telling the truth.  And then the [LIE] indicator appears and retroactively changes my PC's mind.  That's jarring.

Dialogue options are simply "things you can say" - that's all they are.  Why you say them should be left up to the player.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Selerz wrote...

3. Be able to choose answer after each line.

Right at the beginning of ME2, there's actually a wheel event where the option you choose actually controls the behaviour of OTHER CHARACTERS.

If you choose the neutral option, Shepard says something.  If you chose the Renegade option, Kaidan (or Ashley, whichever is there) says something first, and then you reply.

In that moment, ME2 makes it perfectly clear that you're just directing a story, rather than taking part in it.

[Nighteye2]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Selerz wrote...
3. Be able to choose answer after each line.

Right at the beginning of ME2, there's actually a wheel event where the option you choose actually controls the behaviour of OTHER CHARACTERS.

If you choose the neutral option, Shepard says something.  If you chose the Renegade option, Kaidan (or Ashley, whichever is there) says something first, and then you reply.

In that moment, ME2 makes it perfectly clear that you're just directing a story, rather than taking part in it.

Like an interactive movie, rather than a game. <_<

[the_one_54321]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Selerz wrote...
3. Be able to choose answer after each line.

Right at the beginning of ME2, there's actually a wheel event where the option you choose actually controls the behaviour of OTHER CHARACTERS.

If you choose the neutral option, Shepard says something.  If you chose the Renegade option, Kaidan (or Ashley, whichever is there) says something first, and then you reply.

In that moment, ME2 makes it perfectly clear that you're just directing a story, rather than taking part in it.

Like an interactive movie, rather than a game. <_<

Obviously it's not what you guys are looking for in this game, but it's not a bad thing in or of itself. Just not what you're looking for. More than fair.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Obviously it's not what you guys are looking for in this game, but it's not a bad thing in or of itself. Just not what you're looking for. More than fair.

Right.  I like roleplaying.

Of the sort one finds in roleplaying games.

I trust David and his team more than I trust the vast majority of people I have ever met.  If they tell me DA2 allows me to define my PC's personality (and Mary has done exactly that) and that DA2 permits roleplaying, I'm willing to accept that and move on.

But, upon release, should DA2 not permit roleplaying, I'll be the first one here complaining about it being called an RPG.

[Skilled Seeker]

Finally our characters can talk! Thank you Bioware, this is the one thing that really bothered me about Dragon Age since Mass Effect and SWTOR have dialogue wheels and full VO.

[sanadawarrior]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They've given us one piece of information about how it's different (the emotion icon), and that piece of information seems to make the problem worse (and less fixable simply by removing the PC voice).

How does that make the problem worse? Sorry if I missed a post.

The emotion icon in the wheel prevents us from assigning whatever emotion or intent we'd like to any given line.  We're then stuck with the emotion they show us.

You would have been stuck with the emotion that was used in the voice over so I fail to see how knowing beforehand makes the problem worse.

[joriandrake]

RunCDFirst wrote...

...

That was the only thing I didn't want. Ugh.

good for you


Other people just get more and more things confirmed from what they don't want

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Finally our characters can talk!
Thank you Bioware, this is the one thing that really bothered me about
Dragon Age since Mass Effect and SWTOR have dialogue wheels and full VO.

are you being sarcasting and trolling, or really
serious here?

Modifié par joriandrake, 12 juillet 2010 - 08:44 .

[sanadawarrior]

joriandrake wrote...

RunCDFirst wrote...

...

That was the only thing I didn't want. Ugh.

good for you


Other people just get more and more things confirmed from what they don't want

And other get more and more things confirmed that they do want.

[Vicious]

cry



RAAAGE



cry



RAAAGE



I like it!





sums up this thread.

[soteria]

I don't even like the [LIE] indicator. How does the game know what I think is true? Maybe I didn't believe the previous character who told me something was impossible, so when I'm later telling someone it is possible, I think I'm telling the truth. And then the [LIE] indicator appears and retroactively changes my PC's mind. That's jarring.

Dialogue options are simply "things you can say" - that's all they are. Why you say them should be left up to the player.

See, I used to think somewhat the same thing. Then, partway through one of my NWN games, something clicked. As far as the game is concerned, your dialogue choices aren't just "what you say." They're what you are. In order for the game to accurately respond to the player, it has to ascribe intent to each dialogue choice. That means that if you get into some sort of in-game ethics debate, the game will award "good" points for certain responses, even if you wanted to lie. I could just ignore the morality points (though they'd still annoy me), or, in DA, ignore people's reactions or imagine them to be something different, but that doesn't feel "real" to me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

sanadawarrior wrote...

You would have been stuck with the emotion that was used in the voice over so I fail to see how knowing beforehand makes the problem worse.

Because without it we could just disable the voice and the problem goes away.

soteria wrote...

Yeah, I figured that might be your response. Cailan might not have noticed you were being sarcastic, of course. I really don't have anything to say to this--we play these games very differently, and as I said, we view the dialogues differently. I try to choose the option that most closely matches my character's personality as I've established it, within the framework of how I believe the dialogues were written. You seem to invest a lot more into it. Lucky you, that gives it more replayability.

Except, that also means that I'm unable to enjoy Mass Effect because I don't understand how to play it.  I literally don't know how BioWare intended the player to make decisions in conversations.  I haven't been able to come up with any sort of standard by which to make those decisions.  The game simply isn't playable for me.

And yes, I did play through ME three times (twice trying to figure out how to play, and the third time just getting through it so I could give ME2 a shot to see if it was any better - I haven't had a chance to play much ME2 yet).

You dispute that 3D art, higher resolutions, better texturing and animation technology, and large hard drive capacity were steps forward? I can't agree that a such a value judgment is unjustifiable.

I certainly like some of them (aspect of 3D art, animations up to a point), but beyond that a lot of them look like turd-polishing.  Once the combat animations reach a certain level of sophisitication (particularly in a game with stat-driven combat), is there any value in "improving" them further?  Fighting games or shooters can reasonably claim that improved visuals and physics are relevant to gameplay, but with stat-driven RPGs I really don't see it.

[joriandrake]

sanadawarrior wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

RunCDFirst wrote...

...

That was the only thing I didn't want. Ugh.

good for you


Other people just get more and more things confirmed from what they don't want

And other get more and more things confirmed that they do want.

thanks, but I prefer my Dragon Age with Mass Effect neither stirred nor shaked

Modifié par joriandrake, 12 juillet 2010 - 09:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

See, I used to think somewhat the same thing. Then, partway through one of my NWN games, something clicked. As far as the game is concerned, your dialogue choices aren't just "what you say." They're what you are.

And I disagree.  As soom as what you say is true, then you're not roleplaying anymore.  And if I'm not roleplaying, then I'm not having any fun.