121 réponses à ce sujet

[IronVanguard]

The illusion of choice is all you need, as that reflects our reality.

[Riona45]

Addai67 wrote...
 The richness was in the variety of characterization that you could accomplish along the way.  My PCs might even have chosen similar responses to quests, but have very different motivations and reactions to the same events.  It's this richness of characterization that I'm going to miss.

 
I guess you haven't read the part about how much of DA2 is all about deciding who the character of Hawke is?

Comments like the one you just made come across as very ignorant.

[Jimmy Fury]

In Exile wrote...
Put another way, the writer has to make presumptions about how each character in the game interprets each line of dialogue, because the character has to react to something, and if that something is a series of sentences, it very well had to come with some tone and pronunciation, not to mention some intent.

The writer tries, as best as a writer can, to convey that intention in how the line is written. But why do you think the mere fact you never see a line spoken out loud entails that it could have been said in any number of ways?

That is an extremely good point and reminded me of something in Origins.
There were at least 3 conversation I had with Alistair (once in ostagar, once when I was talking to my dog, and once when we were discussing the other companions) where the wording of the PC's dialogue choices didn't register with the same tone and intent I imagined they would.
In all three cases the wording struck me as a sarcastic playful come-back and in all three cases Alistair got all butt-hurt and disapproved.

It didn't matter that the PC wasn't voiced because the companions still are and the writers have to give them dialogue they think will be an appropriate response.
If anything the new system will help avoid that by indicating the tone of each response.

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

You and I certainly don't see eye-to-eye on many things, and while I agree with you that the "find random tree" dialogue system in Awakenings was blaphemy and addressing a non-existing issue (in my opinion), can't you appreciate that people have different opinions that you?

You represent yours and I'll represent mine.  It usually works that way, no?

The writer tries, as best as a writer can, to convey that intention in how the line is written. But why do you think the mere fact you never see a line spoken out loud entails that it could have been said in any number of ways?

I won't even know exactly what my PC is going to say when I make the choice for her to say it.  With an unvoiced PC, I'm still choosing among the writers' responses, but I'm making them mine.  With a voiced PC and dialogue wheel, I get to be surprised by what my character says and does.  I lose control.  You said you didn't like the fact that the writers controlled your game.  So why do you want more of a bad thing?

I also have to accept that that is her voice, her persona, whether I like it or not.  Going back to Mass Effect, I simply didn't like Shepard, especially the female Shepard.  So that was the end of the game for me.  It didn't matter that I could "tweak" Shepard's actions.  The pre-set persona that was given to me didn't appeal to me and thus the game was broken.

Modifié par Addai67, 12 juillet 2010 - 03:35 .

[Demx]

Ecael wrote...

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Leafs43 wrote... People seem to think Bioware has the time and money to redo the dialog 6 individual times.

The Old Republic will have more dialogue than all there games combined,
including Baldurs Gate, seems they do.

BioWare Austin is being supported by both Electronic Arts as well as LucasArts, who holds casting calls for voice actors in five different cities around the world.

http://www.mmorpg.co...ions-SWTOR.html

The Old Republic is estimated to have cost at least $100 million to produce already. There is a lot riding on it to be very successful.

And to think, I thought the trend for Bioware was leaning towards a dialogue wheel. Clearly I was mistaken.

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...

You represent yours and I'll represent mine.  It usually works that way, no?

I tend to represent mine without insulting others, though. Kind of what I'm driving at.

I won't even know exactly what my PC is going to say when I make the choice for her to say it. With an unvoiced PC, I'm still choosing among the writers' responses, but I'm making them mine.  With a voiced PC and dialogue wheel, I get to be surprised by what my character says and does.  I lose control.  You said you didn't like the fact that the writers controlled your game.  So why do you want more of a bad thing?

As Jimmy Fury pointed out above (in fact, with the exact same examples I typically use) this is not a problem that is unique to VO-only games (i.e. ME/ME2). This is a problem that simply has to do with when there is an incongruency between what the player interprets and what the writers intend.

Personally, I did feel that this was more common in ME than in, say, KoTOR, but this is something that I feel they improved for ME2.

Still, my general point is that this is not an issue with VO, or with VO defining the tone of the speech (because the writers have to do this anyway) but with the dialogue wheel. If you're going to claim that the dialogue wheel is an implementation that needs to be improved dramatically to allow for better role-playing, I agree completely. By allowing VO the type of behaviours and actions that must now fall under the player's control for the sake of role-playing have increased and the dialogue wheel as is can't handle this. But this is an interface problem.

Put another way: the issue of saying something you didn't like "because the writers control your game" is a consequence of the writers writing the game and not playing PnP. The issue of more frequent surprises than in a silent VO is an interface issue.

I also have to accept that that is her voice, her persona, whether I like it or not.  Going back to Mass Effect, I simply didn't like Shepard, especially the female Shepard.  So that was the end of the game for me.  It didn't matter that I could "tweak" Shepard's actions.  The pre-set persona that was given to me didn't appeal to me and thus the game was broken.

Look, I really appreciate how that made the game terrible for you. I experienced the same thing in DA:O, which I believe I described in great detail in the other thread regarding the forced characterization regarding the attitude of the PC toward the Warden. I hated how the game forced me into a certain outcome; I hated how it forced me to identify someone attached to the Warden's cause. I actually can't replay DA:A because of how hardcore it breaks my character by forcing me to be the Warden Commander. In the same way that you can't play ME because the pre-set persona didn't appeal to you.

So, again the issue has nothing to do with VO. If you thought you controlled tone because you could use your imagination to wipe away dissonance, that had nothing to do with how the game was designed, but basically the fact that you could exploit a design bug. I get that it sucks this is being phased out, but this a dramatic change, and VO is not anathema to role-playing.

Modifié par In Exile, 12 juillet 2010 - 03:49 .

[Riona45]

In Exile wrote...


I tend to represent mine without insulting others, though. Kind of what I'm driving at.

I know.  Hey guys, just because some of us like what we're hearing about DA2 doesn't mean we don't know how to roleplay, don't like reading, have no imagination, etc.  If you need to say stuff like this to get your point across, that's pretty lame.

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
You represent yours and I'll represent mine.  It usually works that way, no?

I tend to represent mine without insulting others, though. Kind of what I'm driving at.

Like calling my characters lawn ornaments and insinuating I prefer a completely nonsensical approach to gameplay.  Right.  LOL

As Jimmy Fury pointed out above (in fact, with the exact same examples I typically use) this is not a problem that is unique to VO-only games (i.e. ME/ME2). This is a problem that simply has to do with when there is an incongruency between what the player interprets and what the writers intend.

The dialogue wheel does not allow us to choose the full text of what the PC is going to say.  So I don't even know what the writer intends when I choose an option.  I have a vague idea, but I'm still going to be surprised.  Apparently some people prefer to roleplay this way.  I don't.

Still, my general point is that this is not an issue with VO, or with VO defining the tone of the speech (because the writers have to do this anyway) but with the dialogue wheel. If you're going to claim that the dialogue wheel is an implementation that needs to be improved dramatically to allow for better role-playing, I agree completely. By allowing VO the type of behaviours and actions that must now fall under the player's control for the sake of role-playing have increased and the dialogue wheel as is can't handle this. But this is an interface problem.

What is the point of having a dialogue wheel versus the tree except to allow the voiceover to represent the PC's actual interaction with the world, versus my selection of a text?  Or do you mean to say that everything the PC is going to say and do is going to be in the dialogue wheel?  In other threads the writers are saying they don't want to have to check in with the player every few beats.  The dialogue wheel + VO will allow the PC to go off on their own and take care of that for us.

Except I don't want it taken care of for me.

So, again the issue has nothing to do with VO. If you thought you controlled tone because you could use your imagination to wipe away dissonance, that had nothing to do with how the game was designed, but basically the fact that you could exploit a design bug. I get that it sucks this is being phased out, but this a dramatic change, and VO is not anathema to role-playing.

You mentioned not being insulting.  It is a bit insulting for you to keep insisting to me that what I disliked about Mass Effect is not really what I disliked, as though you know my mind better than I do.  I hated the femShep's voice.  I hated her butch persona, as conveyed in the voice.  What does that have to do with the writers?

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
Like calling my characters lawn ornaments and insinuating I prefer a completely nonsensical approach to gameplay.  Right.  LOL

You caught me mid-snark, sorry about the lawn ornament remark. I just kept that going after you claimed I haven't palyed or cared as much about DA:O as you did to get under your skin. As for the second part - I am not saying that wanting to inject your imagination into the game is nonsensical; just that there are other possible ways of role-playing and that it is possible that this is consistent with wanting VO in a game.

What is the point of having a dialogue wheel versus the tree except to allow the voiceover to represent the PC's actual interaction with the world, versus my selection of a text?

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Or do you mean to say that everything the PC is going to say and do is going to be in the dialogue wheel?  In other threads the writers are saying they don't want to have to check in with the player every few beats.  The dialogue wheel + VO will allow the PC to go off on their own and take care of that for us.

No; what I am saying is that the dialogue wheel is UI. I can't speak for what the writers are saying. I would appreciate a direct quote, though. I'm certainly willing to grant you're right, but I'm going to need to see what the writers specifically are getting at.

Except I don't want it taken care of for me.

I agree, insofar as "taking care of that for us," means that we can't directly predict how the line of dialogue gives us the following interaction. I guess, if picking dialogue means four sentences back and forth between the PC and the other characters, that's massive railroading and you've just killed RP. But not even Mass Effect does this. So I'd like a bit more proof for the claim than j

You mentioned not being insulting.  It is a bit insulting for you to keep insisting to me that what I disliked about Mass Effect is not really what I disliked, as though you know my mind better than I do.  I hated the femShep's voice.  I hated her butch persona, as conveyed in the voice.  What does that have to do with the writers?

Your initial claim was that VO wrecks role-playing. I am arguing that you're mistaken about that, because VO in itself does not work differently than non-VO. Now, if you simply hate VO in and of itself, that's perfectly justifiable. But then don't say that it's an issue that wrecks roleplaying. Because it has nothing to do with the role-playing; it has everything to do with the fact tha you hate the voice.

As for the butch persona part, that's the same thing as my hating the "I wuv <3 Grey Wardens" attitude in DA:A that the writers force your character into. It is not possible to play DA:A in any way other than  Wardens. This, despite the absence of VO.

So if you hate the voice merely because of how the VA portrays it, fair enough. If you hate the character archetype, then that isn't exclusively to VO at all; in fact, it's completely unrelated to it. And I've given you an example from a non-VO game to back that up.

Modifié par In Exile, 12 juillet 2010 - 04:09 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Put another way, the writer has to make presumptions about how each character in the game interprets each line of dialogue, because the character has to react to something, and if that something is a series of sentences, it very well had to come with some tone and pronunciation, not to mention some intent.

The writer tries, as best as a writer can, to convey that intention in how the line is written. But why do you think the mere fact you never see a line spoken out loud entails that it could have been said in any number of ways?

Lack of explicit definition (through having character voice the line) creates wriggle room for the player's interpretation. The writer provides the context and intention, but the inflection, the exact tone of voice and even the voice itself are left to the player if the character doesn't do that for them. And these are just as important as having ability to adjust visual appearance of the character, as both these factors help the player to create a character that's "theirs".

If you pardon imperfect analogy, it's like being in position where you answer a question "how many fingers am i holding up behind my back?" You can pick any number from 1-5 and for all you know any of these picks is right, within the context i've provided you with. Until i go and outright state it's say, three. Once i do that, your number of options gets reduced to exactly one and any different choice will go directly against the reality as it's been defined by me i.e. the "writer".

edit: incidentally, re: your point about DA forcing character to play a "<3 wardens" person, this doesn't seem accurate. My first character was someone who got roped into the warden business against her will, and i don't recall her ever expressing this sort of attitude towards the order in DA:A.

Modifié par tmp7704, 12 juillet 2010 - 04:37 .

[Jimmy Fury]

tmp7704 wrote...
Lack of explicit definition (through having character voice the line) creates wriggle room for the player's interpretation. The writer provides the context and intention, but the inflection, the exact tone of voice and even the voice itself are left to the player if the character doesn't do that for them.

That's the point though, they're not. The NPC you're talking to has to react and what you intend has absolutely no influence over how the NPC responds. No matter what inflection or tone you imagine is there the NPC is going to respond the way the writers imagine he or she would.

Take this line for example
"That's a great idea Alistair"
Now that could be sincere or it could be sarcastic. Two very different intents and tones.
What you think it sounds like doesn't make any difference to how Alistair is going to respond. If the writers wanted that to be sarcasm then it is because that's what Alistair will respond to.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 12 juillet 2010 - 04:38 .

[tmp7704]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
Lack of explicit definition (through having character voice the line) creates wriggle room for the player's interpretation. The writer provides the context and intention, but the inflection, the exact tone of voice and even the voice itself are left to the player if the character doesn't do that for them.

That's the point though, they're not. The NPC you're talking to has to react and what you intend has absolutely no influence over how the NPC responds. No matter what inflection or tone you imagine is there the NPC is going to respond the way the writers imagine he or she would.

Take this line for example
"That's a great idea Alistair"
Now that could be sincere or it could be sarcastic. Two very different intents and tones.
What you think it sounds like doesn't make any difference to how Alistair is going to respond. If the writers wanted that to be sarcasm then it is because that's what Alistair will respond to.

I simply have to disagree with this -- or you're perhaps missing what i'm getting at. While it's correct that the NPC is locked in certain reaction, this still doesn't remove wide range of customization the player can add to the sentence in their head. Let's say this line is meant sincerely -- as far as player is concerned it can be stated matter-of-factly, or it can be stated with a smile, it can be turned into act of encouragement, or it can be reluctant, or in a number of other possible ways. Same for the sarcastic response, sarcasm can be expressed in many different ways, depending on the person who does it.

It's these "personal touches" to character's personality that get removed when the character does all the voice work themselves. And that's in addition to being able to define the character's voice in the player's head to begin with -- i find it rather strange that people argue having character locked with single voice isn't making any difference, and yet at the same time they are not arguing in the threads which ask for visual customization that such ability is equally unneeded and adds nothing to the experience. When these two are very alike.

[Jimmy Fury]

I hate to post a second time so soon but this is going to be stuck in my head if I don't.
(and to connect the dialogue topic back to the OP's point about DA not being as open as people are acting)

Both the tree and the wheel provide responses and topics that lead to specific questions.
So what exactly is it that makes the tree so much more open and choice-natured than the wheel? Serious question. I want to know why people believe this.

[Collider]

Oblivion is an open game. Bioware games aren't. I suppose, though it depends on what is meant by "open."

[Jimmy Fury]

tmp7704 wrote...
I simply have to disagree with this -- or you're perhaps missing what i'm getting at. While it's correct that the NPC is locked in certain reaction, this still doesn't remove wide range of customization the player can add to the sentence in their head. Let's say this line is meant sincerely -- as far as player is concerned it can be stated matter-of-factly, or it can be stated with a smile, it can be turned into act of encouragement, or it can be reluctant, or in a number of other possible ways. Same for the sarcastic response, sarcasm can be expressed in many different ways, depending on the person who does it.

I get what you're saying but that's not my point. Yes, if your intent is inline with the writers intent then you can add your own flavor to the line in your head. That applies to the VO too though. If the tone is the same in your head as it comes out on screen then you can imagine whatever little touches you want to.

But, if your intent is the exact opposite of the writers intent then your intent is irrelvant. If you read the line and think it's sincere, it doesn't matter how many touches you add in your mind Alistair is going to respond as if you were being sarcastic which completely changes the tone of what you said.

[tmp7704]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

I get what you're saying but that's not my point.

Yes, i'm just pointing out the part you seem to disregard while making your point, and which can be important to the player. Or to put it differently, while i agree that the player isn't given full freedom in deciding about their character's tone etc, i have to point out they still have some freedom, and it's this part that gets removed with introduction of fixed VO. As such, it's imo incorrect to say the fixed VO has no impact on the player's experience whatsoever.

Yes, if your intent is inline with the writers intent then you can add your own flavor to the line in your head. That applies to the VO too though. If the tone is the same in your head as it comes out on screen then you can imagine whatever little touches you want to.

However this is a big "if", and the point is chances are frequently the take of the VA's and the player's will be different. To reuse your earlier example, even in such simple situation as the player who's been trying to act like a jerk for most of their game and so is imagining that "yes, it's good idea Alistair" is spoken reluctantly and gruff, while the VA is nothing like that in their delivery because they didn't envision the character they're acting for to be like that.

edit: something to consider, DA:O provides "sound sets" of stock phrases for characters, and the player is given 4-5 choices of these for each race and gender. And yet, frequently players can't find a set they like, or get annoyed with how their character sounds. With this in mind, how big do you think are the odds the single voice set in DA2 is going to match expectations of everyone?

Modifié par tmp7704, 12 juillet 2010 - 05:26 .

[Riona45]

tmp7704 wrote...
i find it rather strange that people argue having character locked with single voice isn't making any difference, and yet at the same time they are not arguing in the threads which ask for visual customization that such ability is equally unneeded and adds nothing to the experience. When these two are very alike.

I guess that's because not everyone believes being able to read lines (written by someone else, mind) in their head is as important to them as being able customize the way their character looks.  In other words, not everyone agrees with you that those two things are "very alike."

Modifié par Riona45, 12 juillet 2010 - 06:15 .

[tmp7704]

I suppose there's that, but then why would someone who thinks voice isn't as important part of the experience... partake in discussion concerning its importance to begin with? I mean, given the same time could be spent discussing things more interesting to them, personally.

Modifié par tmp7704, 12 juillet 2010 - 06:21 .

[AlanC9]

tmp7704 wrote...
However this is a big "if", and the point is chances are frequently the take of the VA's and the player's will be different. To reuse your earlier example, even in such simple situation as the player who's been trying to act like a jerk for most of their game and so is imagining that "yes, it's good idea Alistair" is spoken reluctantly and gruff, while the VA is nothing like that in their delivery because they didn't envision the character they're acting for to be like that.

But since the DA2 system will allow us to see the emotional content of responses before selecting them, this sort of conflict isn't going to happen all that often. The wheel's supposed to indicate the sarcastic lines, for instance.

If anything, DA2 will give me more control over this aspect than I had in DAO. There were a few times in DAO where it was obvious that my reading of the line was not what the characters were responding to. There were other lines that I didn't pick because I'm not certain what the intent is.

[Jimmy Fury]

tmp7704 wrote...
edit: something to consider, DA:O provides "sound sets" of stock phrases for characters, and the player is given 4-5 choices of these for each race and gender. And yet, frequently players can't find a set they like, or get annoyed with how their character sounds. With this in mind, how big do you think are the odds the single voice set in DA2 is going to match expectations of everyone?

That works both ways though. All this talk about adding voices to DA2 and DA:O is already voiced. Yet those voices aren't even used in relation to the game and go out of their way to break immersion by talking to the player.

And like it or not, nothing is ever going to match the expectations of everyone. It's not possible. Me, I don't mind a voiced character. I write in my free time. If I want something where I can control every tiny aspect, that's where I go. Even then my characters end up taking on a life of their own and surprising me. So I don't mind so much when it happens in a game. For me it adds flavor, it adds another layer of depth to the character. As much as I try to imprint my personality on him I also try to put myself in his shoes.
I don't expect everyone to want the same thing I do though. I know there will be people who hate every single thing about DA2.
I just think it's too early to make those kinds of decisions. I think people have started to cling to their knee-jerks and haven't taken the time to think things through yet.
Nobody One person here has said anything about the Tone Icons in the dialogue wheel. I've mentioned three times now that the alleged GI article that confirms the Dialogue Wheel also says the center of it will indicate the tone of the response. Nobody One person has touched that with a ten foot pole!  I honestly think that's because it goes against their knee-jerk response so they refuse to acknowledge it because then they might have to actually reconsider their stance.
( Thanks Alan for mentioning it!)

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 12 juillet 2010 - 06:30 .

[Collider]

AlanC9 wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
However this is a big "if", and the point is chances are frequently the take of the VA's and the player's will be different. To reuse your earlier example, even in such simple situation as the player who's been trying to act like a jerk for most of their game and so is imagining that "yes, it's good idea Alistair" is spoken reluctantly and gruff, while the VA is nothing like that in their delivery because they didn't envision the character they're acting for to be like that.

But since the DA2 system will allow us to see the emotional content of responses before selecting them, this sort of conflict isn't going to happen all that often. The wheel's supposed to indicate the sarcastic lines, for instance.

If anything, DA2 will give me more control over this aspect than I had in DAO. There were a few times in DAO where it was obvious that my reading of the line was not what the characters were responding to. There were other lines that I didn't pick because I'm not certain what the intent is.

Agreed. I think the DA2 system be better in this aspect. I remember joking around with Alistair and apparently my Warden's tone was mean and I lost -8 approval

[Riona45]

tmp7704 wrote...

I suppose there's that, but then why would someone who thinks voice isn't as important part of the experience... partake in discussion concerning its importance to begin with? I mean, given the same time could be spent discussing things more interesting to them, personally.

LOL!  So basically you're saying, "If you disagree with me, why bother taking the time to mention why you disagree with me?"  Nice move, trying to invalidate the opinions of others.

Also, I noticed now you're talking about the importance of voice...when before you were expounded on the LACK of voice.

Modifié par Riona45, 12 juillet 2010 - 06:35 .

[tmp7704]

AlanC9 wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
However this is a big "if", and the point is chances are frequently the take of the VA's and the player's will be different. To reuse your earlier example, even in such simple situation as the player who's been trying to act like a jerk for most of their game and so is imagining that "yes, it's good idea Alistair" is spoken reluctantly and gruff, while the VA is nothing like that in their delivery because they didn't envision the character they're acting for to be like that.

But since the DA2 system will allow us to see the emotional content of responses before selecting them, this sort of conflict isn't going to happen all that often. The wheel's supposed to indicate the sarcastic lines, for instance.

Please note, the case i'm discussing is from example given earlier in the thread -- and it's regarding a line with such "emotional context" specified (in this particular case the context was "not sarcastic, really means it") The point being the emotional context as generic as "sarcastic", "nice" or "rude" is still wide enough to leave room for multiple takes on the subject, and this is only removed by the act of VA doing their own interpretation which is naturally limited to only one of these possible options.

[Jimmy Fury]

Ok since nothing is ever perfect I will pose a question instead of trying my debate angle again.

Which would you prefer:

You want - "That's a great idea Alistair" {Sarcastic with a smirk}
You get - "That's a great idea Alistair" {Sarcastic with an arched eyebrow}

--or--
You want - "That's a great idea Alistair" {Sarcastic with a smirk}
You get - "That's a great idea Alistair" {Sincere and honest}

because it seems to me that's the difference between what we're talking about. It sounds, to me at least, like you're saying the first is more immersion breaking than the second. I'm saying the second is more immersion breaking than the first.

[tmp7704]

Riona45 wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

I suppose there's that, but then why would someone who thinks voice isn't as important part of the experience... partake in discussion concerning its importance to begin with? I mean, given the same time could be spent discussing things more interesting to them, personally.

LOL!  So basically you're saying, "If you disagree with me, why bother taking the time to mention why you disagree with me?"  Nice move, trying to invalidate the opinions of others.

No, basically i'm saying your argument isn't coherent. You'd have to admit it doesn't make much sense for person who has little interest in X to spend their time reading deep into thread discussing X *and* choose to participate in the discussion they have no interest in, when there's many more alternative threads for them to read, ones they actively care about?

Also, I noticed now you're talking about the importance of voice...when before you were expounded on the LACK of voice.

I was initially discussing with others the impact presence of voice can have, as i see it. You were the one who decided to jump in and provide theory some people may not care about the voice as much. I thought your theory didn't make much sense and inquired about it. And thus yes, i'm now talking with you about the importance of voice.

Hope this helps, but is it really such a hard thing to follow the flow of discussion over three posts?

Modifié par tmp7704, 12 juillet 2010 - 07:06 .