102 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

CybAnt1 wrote...
Why should I have a wheel which "cues" and tells me which is unfriendly or friendly, either by position on the wheel, color, or icon? Simple, the only purpose for this is to speed things along, so I don't have to read the dialogue, and just choose whatever response sets the "tone" I prefer. If the left side of the wheel is friendly and I always want to boost approval by always choosing friendly, I can just tell my twitchy brain to twitch left everytime the wheel pops up. 

This is just wrong. When you use a wheel you don't see the full spoken lines on screen. In many cases they just wouldn't fit, and in all cases it would be annoying to read the same lines that you're about to hear spoken. What appears on the screen is a paraphrase. You still have to read it unless you don't care what your character is saying.

[CybAnt1]

This is just wrong. When you use a wheel you don't see the full spoken lines on screen. In many cases they just wouldn't fit, and in all cases it would be annoying to read the same lines that you're about to hear spoken. What appears on the screen is a paraphrase. You still have to read it unless you don't care what your character is saying.

Found a nice image of the wheel in Mass Effect.

[Alodar]

I find the predefined voice cuts down on replay-ability.

In the Mass Effects, I really couldn't play through with different characters because they all sounded the same.

BioWare has said in the past that full voice over is a very expensive feature, and it is prohibitive to have more than one male voice and one female voice.

I personally identify the look and the voice strongly with a particular character. I won't use the same voice set for two characters and no two characters will wear the same armor.

Unfortunately if there is only one voice option per gender, which I expect but has not been confirmed, I will most likely only be able to play through the game once.

Alodar

[CybAnt1]

Again, I acknowledge everything you said: it's just that I don't like it.



From what I can see, wheel position gives you a cue as to what you're about to say, even without reading the paraphrase.

[Bugzehat]

Alodar wrote...

I find the predefined voice cuts down on replay-ability.

In the Mass Effects, I really couldn't play through with different characters because they all sounded the same.

BioWare has said in the past that full voice over is a very expensive feature, and it is prohibitive to have more than one male voice and one female voice.

I personally identify the look and the voice strongly with a particular character. I won't use the same voice set for two characters and no two characters will wear the same armor.

Unfortunately if there is only one voice option per gender, which I expect but has not been confirmed, I will most likely only be able to play through the game once.

Alodar

Depends how it's done, I think. As much as I love ME, it doesn't have a great deal of replay value for me, not just because of the set voice, but because it's a set voice that can only really be nice or nasty, and the story is pretty much the same whichever you pick. The Witcher, on the other hand, had a preset voice and no character customisation at all, but because the story could change drastically depending on your choices (and they were difficult choices, unlike most of DA:O), it had a lot of replay value (or would have done if the parts that didn't advance the story -- combat, navigating the map etc -- weren't so tedious!) If DA2 goes this route I'll happily accept VO, despite being disappointed about it at first.

[team56th]

You will never get 'hardcore' gamers.

[Alodar]

I also prefer choosing carefully what I am about to say or do.

I like to take time to choose what I'm going to say next as the words/actions I choose define who my character is.

Choosing a blurb and not knowing what I'm going to do, changes things from making choices for my character to watching what Hawke is going to do next.

It's subtle but it's different.

Alodar

[Sidney]

As I said elsewhere, YOU never choose the dialog your character says in any CRPG. A writer chooses it for you so the difference between "No" on the wheel and "No, I won't do that". Is meaningless. Whatever line you pick from the menu is not necessarily what you want to say anymore than the lines coming out of Sheps mouth are. Oddly people accept writers putting words in their mouth but not actors. Don't get it.



As for replay, it can't change replayability. If you pick "Yes" or "Yes, I think that sounds like a good idea" vs "No" or "No, I don't like that" makes no difference in the fact that you still have two choices.

[Bugzehat]

Sidney wrote...

As I said elsewhere, YOU never choose the dialog your character says in any CRPG. A writer chooses it for you so the difference between "No" on the wheel and "No, I won't do that". Is meaningless. Whatever line you pick from the menu is not necessarily what you want to say anymore than the lines coming out of Sheps mouth are. Oddly people accept writers putting words in their mouth but not actors. Don't get it.

As for replay, it can't change replayability. If you pick "Yes" or "Yes, I think that sounds like a good idea" vs "No" or "No, I don't like that" makes no difference in the fact that you still have two choices.

People will respond that at least they could imagine how their characters were delivering the lines. Thing is, you could imagine you were joking, or being sarcastic or whatever all you liked, but NPCs would still respond as if you'd said it the way the writers imagined it (surely I'm not the only one who had this problem in DA:O?) I think the new system has the potential to give us a little more control over this -- if you want to be sarcastic, you can pick the "sarcasm" option and NPCs will respond as intended.

Of course, it depends on how it's implemented, but I doubt most people on these forums will listen to people saying "wait and see"

[atheelogos]

Rogue Unit wrote...

I'm all for the wheel. I hated standing there like a hunk of slab watching NPCs have conversations with themselves.

This. I hated standing there watching as everyone talked over me.

[AlanC9]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Again, I acknowledge everything you said: it's just that I don't like it.

From what I can see, wheel position gives you a cue as to what you're about to say, even without reading the paraphrase.

Oh, that part's correct. Bio specifically says that they've arranged ME dialog options in that fashion; I think it's even in the manual. But it's not necessary for a dialog wheel to be arranged that way. And not every player tries to pick Paragon or Renegade options without thinking in the first place. Though ME2 encouraged this with its awful implementation of morality and persuasion skills, but that's a separate issue.

Note that Bio's done that sort of arrangement even with traditional dialog systems. In KotOR a surprising number of people picked the first option because dialogs were typically LS-neutral-DS, only to complain when they accidentally went to the Dark Side in the endgame. Naturally, their complaints were greeted with contempt on these boards, but I suppose the lesson is that you should either have no pattern at all or be completely consistent.

[Alodar]

Sidney wrote...

As I said elsewhere, YOU never choose the dialog your character says in any CRPG. A writer chooses it for you so the difference between "No" on the wheel and "No, I won't do that". Is meaningless. Whatever line you pick from the menu is not necessarily what you want to say anymore than the lines coming out of Sheps mouth are. Oddly people accept writers putting words in their mouth but not actors. Don't get it.

As for replay, it can't change replayability. If you pick "Yes" or "Yes, I think that sounds like a good idea" vs "No" or "No, I don't like that" makes no difference in the fact that you still have two choices.

It makes no difference to you -- it makes a huge difference to me.
To me playing through a second time using the same voice feels like I'm taking the same character through and just making different choices. To me it does not feel like I am playing a different character.

It is a given that I choose my character's dialogue from a pre-defined set, but BioWare has been very good at giving a wide variety of choice so that I can usually match one of those choices to my character's personality. Choosing a style of response and hoping for the best feels very different to me.

Sometimes picking "No" on the wheel isn't the same as having my character say "No, I won't do that" it means having my character say "No" and then having to watch the character punch someone in the face. (Shepard did this lots)

Again to me choosing what my character says/does defines my character and not having that control makes it less my character.


Alodar

[JamieCOTC]

VO may not be a problem as they will most likely use Awakening style conversation system. Thus, you'll have to go out searching for some street light or whatever on the corner of some street in some town out in the middle of nowhere to actually have a conversation w/ someone ... but only if you bring the correct companion with you to begin with.



Other than that my only problem w/ the VO for PC itself is how much (if any) will it decrease game time? DA is about 40 hours, 50+ w/ side quests. ME and ME2 is about 25 - 30 hours.

[Estel78]

Alodar wrote...

Sometimes picking "No" on the wheel isn't the same as having my character say "No, I won't do that" it means having my character say "No" and then having to watch the character punch someone in the face. (Shepard did this lots)

No, he didn't, only if it's a "no" in red (renegade option) but the game (manual) made it clear that those choices can lead to extreme measures so you're prepared.

Modifié par Estel78, 10 juillet 2010 - 04:16 .

[Celtic Latino]

Its called fanboy (and fangirl)-ism. People who are obsessed with everything they like about the first game or so (or a certain aspect/character) that God forbid anyone deviate from what they want.

Waaahhhh I don't get to continue my Warden.
Waaahhhh I don't get to play as a dwarf, elf, qunari
Waaahhh my character is voiced now
Waaahhh my character's name is Hawke....
Waaahhh I don't see my favorite character....

Seriously, you're right. There's a lot of crybabies over a game they all have little to no info about. No its not Dragon Age Origins. You want Origins, playing as a dwarf/elf, silent character, go ahead and play Origins. Dragon Age 2 is in a new direction and thats not going to change. 

Its good Bioware isn't feeding too much into the fanboys. Fanboyism is what took its toll on Mass Effect 2...the developers listened to certain fans TOO MUCH. 

Hawke is still customizable as far as class, appearance, and gender. And I'm pretty darn sure you get to give him or her a first name or something (or last name, depending on how Hawke is used). 

Star Wars: KOTOR made you play Revan, who had a predefined history and was human. But you still chose his or her appearance, gender, and class. No one complained. 

Mass Effect made you play a human, your surname was always "Shepard", but you still got to customize his or her apperance, gender and class. Few people complained.

Okay so the original Dragon Age let you play a dwarf or elf. That let you understand the lore a bit. Now they're going for full-on storytelling that spans a decade and is much more interactive. If they have to take a few features out in order to deliver a better overall game so be it. Its not like they took out character customization completely (otherwise I myself would be mad).

People need to stop whining. If you don't like it, don't play the game. There's plenty of us who will.

(And yes I love the Mass Effect series AND Dragon Age: Origins, I support Bioware's new step and direction).

[GreenSoda]

JamieCOTC wrote...
Other than that my only problem w/ the VO for PC itself is how much (if any) will it decrease game time? DA is about 40 hours, 50+ w/ side quests. ME and ME2 is about 25 - 30 hours.

This.

I'd hate it if DA2 will end up being as short as ME2.

[whinnie]

i agree with Celtic Latino, I'm a big fan of both mass effect and dragon age origins so I'm just going to let bioware work their magic...because no matter how much you think you know about the game you're not a game developer so I'd suggest just leaving it to the professionals and giving your feedback when you actually KNOW about the game mechanics.

[In Exile]

Luke Bioware wrote...

I'd rather hear some awesome voice talking. The short segments of text work really well in Mass Effect. I have to admit: the 'humor' and way your character talks is already defined, but what's the problem with that? In Dragon Age you choice a voice to only hear him say that he is dying or he can't open up a box. Wow... How immersive!

TL;DR? I don't get the hate.

I had the same issue for a very long time, but talking about it on the old DA forums prior to release helped me get a good grasp of the issue.

Effectively, role-playing to some people is like fan-fiction. What I mean is, they want the game to avoid mentioning details or remain sufficiently ambiguous that they can fill in a mental explanation for parts of their background, etc.

A huge opposition to origins was that lots of backgrounds people wanted to invent would become logically impossible (e.g. human warriors that are forest dwelling recluses).

VO is not immersive to people who think that way because you can imagine alternatives that you self-create as much.

iTomes wrote...
what made it sucky.... let's see: for once the
fact that  i could for example choose "i don't trust you" and got a
speech saying how loyal i was to the alliance. than that there always
was ONE right dialoque option, all others werent effective in sense of
gameplay (besides some "yes-nos") and that my character was an
stereotype action hero so i couldn't play as anything else than "some
guy with gun huh-huh".

But the same thing happens in DA:O. The dialogue trees are worthless. Most of the time, characters respond to you the same way regardless of what you say. The difference in ME/ME2 was that sometimes your character would respond with effectively the same line. Which makes sense, because among other thingsif you said two different things and everyone responded the same way, that wouldn't be any fun either.

As I said above: no VO has to do with this premise that role-playing has to be a mental fantasy that has to be completely excluded from the game. They make things ambiguous enough so you can pretend that what youwant about a character is true. VO cuts down on ambiguity to make you more part of the world.

For example, before the last DA battle with the darkspawn, the King/Queen of Ferelden gives the speech; you, the main character, get to say nothing. Often, the other characters speak for you at dramatic moments, or take actions while you are off to the side. For some people, this is cool; for people that don't want this, they're forced with a side character or lackey that never seems involved in the story;

Take KoTOR, too - in the endgame at the Star Forge your character never speaks; it is either Bastilla or Carth. You are not allowed to be a dramatic set piece without VO.

Crrash wrote...

when i refer to ME i usually refer to
things that happened in my game as "Shepard did this and that" while
with Dragon age i say "MY warden did this and that" and even "I did this
and that".

I was just completely immersed in the game.
i know
you don't understand, you won't understand because you don't immerse
yourself the same way i do.
as i've said before:
Mass Effect was
like watching it.
Dragon Age was like living it.

See,for me it was the opposite. It was very easy to get immersed in the role of Shepard, and say, "I did this."

Onthe other hand, in DA:O, it was voiceless puppet did this. I was told this, versus I did this.

Like I said - I understand partially why you have the view you do. But please appreciate that for some of us, the opposite is true with the same facts.

Modifié par In Exile, 10 juillet 2010 - 05:00 .

[errant_knight]

Spear-Thrower wrote...

Sirsmirkalot wrote...
Many other games use full text, and they do so successfully. If you don't have the patience for full text, then you don't have the patience for the dialogue wheel either, since you need to read the subtitles or listen to the text regardless to know what your character does and says.

I think full text will be a thing of the past before long. All games will be voiced and the conversation system designed around that. Using a dialog wheel greatly speeds up interactions, especially in scenes that go on for a while. The ME wheel may need some modification for DA2 but in principle it should work. Just make the options clearer.

In a shooter, fast interactions may be a good thing. In an RPG, that's the opposite of good. The greater the depth of interaction, the better. I liked the converstaions because it allowed real interaction with the companions and NPCs. It felt like a conversation, where you think about what you might say. The fewer dialogue choices, the shorter the dialogue, the worse it is for roleplaying.

[errant_knight]

JamieCOTC wrote...

VO may not be a problem as they will most likely use Awakening style conversation system. Thus, you'll have to go out searching for some street light or whatever on the corner of some street in some town out in the middle of nowhere to actually have a conversation w/ someone ... but only if you bring the correct companion with you to begin with.

Other than that my only problem w/ the VO for PC itself is how much (if any) will it decrease game time? DA is about 40 hours, 50+ w/ side quests. ME and ME2 is about 25 - 30 hours.

The Awakening conversation system was a problem for many--just as bad as ME in it's own way. It was alienating and very easy to miss dialogue. And it feels weird as heck to travel with people who won't talk to you when you 'speak' to them.

[In Exile]

errant_knight wrote...

In a shooter, fast interactions may be a good thing. In an RPG, that's the opposite of good. The greater the depth of interaction, the better. I liked the converstaions because it allowed real interaction with the companions and NPCs. It felt like a conversation, where you think about what you might say. The fewer dialogue choices, the shorter the dialogue, the worse it is for roleplaying.

I agree that depth of interaction is critical to an RPG, but why would you say that having the time to think deeply about your choices is, well, depth?

In actual conversation, thinking profoundly and generally planning the next thing you're going to say is impossible. We have a basic idea of what we want to convey, and then good ol' brain automatically compiles the sentence based on who we are. To me, a conversation is 90% intention.

The old dialogue system absolutely fails to capture intention. Your conversations are static back and forths. No teasing. Rarely sarcatistic. Rarely emotional, except for melodramatic declarations of love.

[Leinadi]

As I said above: no VO has to do with this premise that role-playing has to be a mental fantasy that has to be completely excluded from the game. They make things ambiguous enough so you can pretend that what youwant about a character is true. VO cuts down on ambiguity to make you more part of the world.

Not quite. I think a good roleplaying game provides enough options for character creation and choices to *enocourage* a player to come up with character concepts for their playthroughs. Now, this will swing either way depending on what type of game we're dealing with. Dragon Age is, true to Bioware's style, a very story-driven game. Even so, Bioware managed to fuel the idea of different characters with the Origins and plenty of options to take in-game. I played my Dwarf Commoner vastly different from my Human Noble for example, and many times the game can respond fairly well to the concepts.



Arcanum is a different type of game which also provides excellent roleplaying options. Not as driven by the story, it instead features much freer reins when it comes to characters. Playing a Dwarven Thief Technologist vs an Elven Mage vs a low INT Ogre all makes for different playthroughs.



What you're describing is more akin to what I've come to call the "Oblivion style of roleplaying", where the player basically has to imagine everything in his head because the game doesn't respond well to the characters you create aside from which way you want to kill your enemies.



A good roleplaying game will encourage the player to come up with character concepts and then will *react* to those concepts and choices in the best way possible. DA was not amazing in this regard but the Origins were a great step in the right direction for story-based RPGs in that the player still had some "power". While I'm sure DA2 will still have in-game choices to make, it's still disappointing to see them going more towards a style that constricts the player in favor of telling a story instead of encouraging the player to "make his own path" as it were.

[Layn]

In Exile wrote...

See,for me it was the opposite. It was very easy to get immersed in the role of Shepard, and say, "I did this."

Onthe other hand, in DA:O, it was voiceless puppet did this. I was told this, versus I did this.

Like I said - I understand partially why you have the view you do. But please appreciate that for some of us, the opposite is true with the same facts.

i do understand your point too. heck i love cinematic games. But there are already so many games like that and so few where like in Dragon Age I fill voiceless puppet with life, emotion and a voice.
the dragon age series was to be the one old school series where i could truly roleplay and im just so disappointed that it seems that now not even dragon age serves that purpose

[errant_knight]

In Exile wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

In a shooter, fast interactions may be a good thing. In an RPG, that's the opposite of good. The greater the depth of interaction, the better. I liked the converstaions because it allowed real interaction with the companions and NPCs. It felt like a conversation, where you think about what you might say. The fewer dialogue choices, the shorter the dialogue, the worse it is for roleplaying.

I agree that depth of interaction is critical to an RPG, but why would you say that having the time to think deeply about your choices is, well, depth?

In actual conversation, thinking profoundly and generally planning the next thing you're going to say is impossible. We have a basic idea of what we want to convey, and then good ol' brain automatically compiles the sentence based on who we are. To me, a conversation is 90% intention.

The old dialogue system absolutely fails to capture intention. Your conversations are static back and forths. No teasing. Rarely sarcatistic. Rarely emotional, except for melodramatic declarations of love.

When you speak to people, you know what you're going to say. It's not a surprise. You say what you say for a reason. If you didn't like tho old system, you're not going to get what I'm saying here, but for me, what made Origins so unique and immersive was that not only did I get to choose what I would say, but I got to choose when and where I said it. Different character made different choices at different times, depending on how I roleplayed them. These changes take the dialogue from being part of roleplay to being straight gameplay. That doesn't mean it's bad for people who don't care about roleplaying, but for those that do, it is. Origins was not only an RPG in a way that Mass Effect is not, but it was a particularly immersive example of the genre. It's very disappointing for those who loved it for that reason to see exactly what they loved about it tossed out even before a year is out.

[Merci357]

A good roleplaying game will encourage the player to come up with character concepts and then will *react* to those concepts and choices in the best way possible. DA was not amazing in this regard but the Origins were a great step in the right direction for story-based RPGs in that the player still had some "power". While I'm sure DA2 will still have in-game choices to make, it's still disappointing to see them going more towards a style that constricts the player in favor of telling a story instead of encouraging the player to "make his own path" as it were.

I still don't see how a character concept is limiting you choices - it's the game that does or does not allow freedom. The prime example is Planescape: Torment, for me. There, fixed character, fixed background, fixed looks even. However, I'm still amazed how many options and choices you had to go on from.
For me, a story matters as much as "choices" - and maybe a fixed background lacks the diversity given in DA:O, however it might improve the narrative.

Modifié par Merci357, 10 juillet 2010 - 05:24 .