468 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

uberdowzen wrote...
I'd have to boot the game up and check but I'd say the majority of DA conversations have no more than 6 choices (bear in mind I'm pretty sure DAO actually had a conversation wheel quite late into it's development). And if there are more than 6 choices there will probably be only 5 important plot changing options and 5 tell me more options, which the wheel is perfectly capable of rendering.

For the record, DA:O has 4 choices typically, with 1 fast forwarding through the conversation and 2-4 ocassionally adding a few more developed lines of dialogue from the NPCs. But you only typically have 4 lines unless you are asking questions.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

No. I am saying that to be able to predict what the character would do, once we have VO and scripted behaviour, the player requires more information than the line of dialogue.

Your original complaint about ME was that the dialogue wheel paraphrase failed to let you meaningfully predict what the line would do. I am saying that even if you were given the line, you would still have this disconnect.

The solution to the failed implementation of the wheel is not the full line if you retain VO and cinematic visual behaviour.

Yes, but:
1. I don't want to retain the VO, and do not plan to.
2. When you're hungry, half a sandwich is better than no sandwich.

I don't consider that a meta-game. That aside, I am not forcing that playstyle on anyone, any more than you are forcing yours. I am simply pointing out that our playstyles are mutually exclusive, and trying to relate how ME and the dialogue wheel and VO can all be envisioned as things that enhance role-playing.

In short, Bioware has to assume a gameplay style when designing their game. I am trying to illustrate how it is that they could assume mine yet still consider themselves producers of RPGs.

In short, no they don't.  They can choose a design that accommodates a wider variety of playstyles.  Perhaps it cannot accommodate both you and me (I think it can if they just let me disable the voice), but they don't have to pick just one.

I wonder to what extent you can replay the game as an entirely different character - with different motives and preferences, with different reactions to NPC personalities.

Remember that what I may consider a different character, with different motives, and different reactions, is not what you may consider a different character.

How different can those reactions be, for you?  When you meet an NPC, how widely disparate can your opinions be from one playthrough to the next?  Cailan, for example.  When your character first meets Cailan at Ostagar, what does he think of him?  What can he think of him?

As of right now (putting aside characters I've deleted) I have 8 playthroughs for 205 hours.

8 playthroughs in 205 hours?  I have to assume those aren't all complete.  My first took me 84 hours.

No, this is a different debate. What I am saying is that with VO, the line will now be said with a particual tone. 'Great idea' could be both sarcastic or serious, depending on tone. The player must know this. The player could embrance someone or maintain distance; the line must now convey this.

Well, until someone finds a way to do that in the dialogue options, I'd suggest we should abandon PC VO, then.

That's a problem with the writing. More than one person wrote Shepard and the writers seem wholly unable to agree what it is that paragon, renegade and even the Shepard is.

If our only example of the feature is this badly implemented, how are we to judge the feature at all?  How can anyone?

[In Exile]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes, but:
1. I don't want to retain the VO, and do not plan to.
2. When you're hungry, half a sandwich is better than no sandwich.[/quote]

Well, we have no indication so far 1 is possible. Granting that it isn't, we are back to the problem I describe.

[quote]In short, no they don't.  They can choose a design that accommodates a wider variety of playstyles.  Perhaps it cannot accommodate both you and me (I think it can if they just let me disable the voice), but they don't have to pick just one.[/quote]

Of course they do. In virtue of making it isometric they chose not to accomondate any non-isometric playstyle. In virtue of voicing the PC, they chose not to accomodate your interpretation of dialogue and role-play. And so on.

As a basic logical rule, they cannot have one thing and its logical opposite simulatenously. So at the very least, in virtue of choosing one thing they are not getting another.

More specifically, my claim is that any one playstyle is exclusive with all other playstyles.

[quote]How different can those reactions be, for you?  When you meet an NPC, how widely disparate can your opinions be from one playthrough to the next?  Cailan, for example.  When your character first meets Cailan at Ostagar, what does he think of him?  What can he think of him? [/quote]

The reactions different as can be expressed in game; keep in mind I do not think it is possible to ever have a reacton the dialogue choice does not allow for.

That being said, with regard to meeting an NPC, any opinion on which I can act in-game on is possible. So long as I can treat someone well (and I use this very broadly) I can have any kind of positive attitude toward the NPC. And vice-versa if I can treat them poorly.

Take Loghain, for instance. Anything from respect, to hatred, to bitterness, to understanding and to pity is possible.

Taking Cailin in particular, I think you can portray him in lots of ways. If you're elven, he's plausibly the embodiment of the opression of your people, for example. So long as the game can accomodate the attitude by letting my express it, the character can have it.

[quote]8 playthroughs in 205 hours?  I have to assume those aren't all complete.  My first took me 84 hours.[/quiote]

Not all. My first playthrough took 58 hours, and I completed pretty much everything short of some chanter board quests I don't know how to trigger.

4 of those playthroughs are origins I cannot relate to, and therefore I cannot roleplay in game but still want to see (i.e. the female city elf, the two dwarven origins and the dalish elf origin).

[quote]Well, until someone finds a way to do that in the dialogue options, I'd suggest we should abandon PC VO, then.[/quote]

I disagree, because I think PC VO is already superior as is to

[quote]If our only example of the feature is this badly implemented, how are we to judge the feature at all?  How can anyone?[/quote]

Whether or not you think it is good in principle. I do. To me, PC VO is in virtue of its existence already superior to anything silent PC can offer. There is no possible state of affairs in which I would think silent PC could be superior.

That being said, poor writing has nothing to do with VO. It is just poor writing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

More specifically, my claim is that any one playstyle is exclusive with all other playstyles.

Right, and that's what I dispute.

Case in point, DAO accommodates both those who think they're choosing full dialogue lines and those who think they're choosing abstractions of dialogue lines.

The reactions different as can be expressed in game; keep in mind I do not think it is possible to ever have a reacton the dialogue choice does not allow for.

That being said, with regard to meeting an NPC, any opinion on which I can act in-game on is possible. So long as I can treat someone well (and I use this very broadly) I can have any kind of positive attitude toward the NPC. And vice-versa if I can treat them poorly.

Take Loghain, for instance. Anything from respect, to hatred, to bitterness, to understanding and to pity is possible.

Taking Cailin in particular, I think you can portray him in lots of ways. If you're elven, he's plausibly the embodiment of the opression of your people, for example. So long as the game can accomodate the attitude by letting my express it, the character can have it.

Surely it's not your opinion that you cannot hold an opinion without expressing it.

Except... of course.  It's your opinion that you cannot meanginfully hold an opinion without the option of expressing it, and since you meta-game all the conversations you know when that option isn't there.

That is so weird to me, but I finally seem to understand it.

4 of those playthroughs are origins I cannot relate to

That is also very strange to me.  I understand what you mean, but for me not to relate to a character would mean that I'd created him badly.

Whether or not you think it is good in principle. I do. To me, PC VO is in virtue of its existence already superior to anything silent PC can offer. There is no possible state of affairs in which I would think silent PC could be superior.

 Ahh.  Conversely, as the PC VO makes the literal content of the written lines explicit, I find it inferior to a silent PC.

[Riona45]

Addai67 wrote...
I don't have to listen to Jennifer Hale's or Corinne Kempa's voice and pretend that that is my character speaking.

Well, in the case of Leliana, she was never your character to begin with.

[In Exile]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Right, and that's what I dispute.

Case in point, DAO accommodates both those who think they're choosing full dialogue lines and those who think they're choosing abstractions of dialogue lines. [/quote]

I happen to disagree, because I do think you can separate the playstyle of a person into componets. To say that I have a playstyle that believes the dialogue line is said as voiced versus as an abstraction is to fail to capture my playstyle.

To use you as an example, more than believing the dialogue is an abstraction, you believe very specific things about what can happen off-screen. These views are part of the views that jointly make up your playstyle.

So while you can make the claim that looking only at the dialogue system, and then only at the PC's dialogue, both interpretations could be plausible is missing the forest for the trees so to speak... but then again I'm debating with someone who doesn't think there is a forest.  

[quote]Surely it's not your opinion that you cannot hold an opinion without expressing it.[/quote]

No, of coursenot. I can hold any opinion. But a video-game character is not me, or any other person for that matter. I hold that a video-game world, and video-game characters, are a separate kind of thing and can't ever be made equivalent to people by analogy.

[quote[Except... of course.  It's your opinion that you cannot meanginfully hold an opinion without the option of expressing it, and since you meta-game all the conversations you know when that option isn't there.[/quote]

It is not meta-gaming. Remember, I hold that the only possible things you could say are the dialogue options in front of you. These are all the possible expressions available. You can invent whatever reasons you want for them to exist, certainly, but it does not change the fact that only a set number of options exist.

[quote]That is also very strange to me.  I understand what you mean, but for me not to relate to a character would mean that I'd created him badly.[/quote]

Quite simply, dwarves are aesthetically aversive to me. By virtue of their apperance, I cannot relate to them. It is impossible to consider myself as having a connection to a dwarf, so I would never be able to play any video-game where a dwarf is a PC. It is the same for other backgrounds.

Put simply, there are certain features I cannot relate to. I can relate to any character I create... but I would never create a character that is a dwarf. Do you see what I mean?

And actually, I really hate this aesthetic thing, because I happen to think both dwarven origins are absolutely brilliant. But it just incredibly aversive to me.

[quote] Ahh.  Conversely, as the PC VO makes the literal content of the written lines explicit, I find it inferior to a silent PC.[/quote]

Right. So in practice, the implementation is irrelevant, because insofar as it ihas VO, it is inferior to you. And as I've tried to argue, the implementation of the phrase exists only as a consequence of the VO. So to look at it in isolation would be missing the point.

[uberdowzen]

Addai67 wrote...

I know that many of you out there in gameland disagree, but it makes a difference that I don't ever hear that tone voiced.  If the NPC reacts in a way I don't expect, that adds to realism, because in life people misunderstand you sometimes.

So no, my dialogue choice does not have a pre-defined tone.  The writer may have a set idea in mind of the tone and intent of a particular line of dialogue, but I'm still free to imagine it delivered how I want.  I don't have to listen to Jennifer Hale's or Corinne Kempa's voice and pretend that that is my character speaking.

But if I use sarcasm on someone (which is a daily occurence) and that person doesn't realise it's sarcasm I'll say "I'm being sarcastic". To me what put as "add[ed] realism" to me comes across as diminished role playing. If I want my character to be sympathetic, I want to know that I'm selecting the sympathetic option. If I want to be sarcastic I want to know which is the sarcastic option.

[uberdowzen]

Addai67 wrote...

They've said that there won't be a Mass Effect morality system, and that the intent behind the response will be indicated by an icon.  Like a fist to show the response is likely to end in a dust-up.  Or a heart for kissyface.  Or whatever.

And we're not allowed to call that "dumbing down." 

So, portraying exactly the same information in a form which makes it clear what the option you choose is going to illicit and which would make it easier for people who have trouble reading emotions is dumbing down? Dumbing down is a conversation system with a smiley face and an unhappy face.

[uberdowzen]

In Exile wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...
I'd have to boot the game up and check but I'd say the majority of DA conversations have no more than 6 choices (bear in mind I'm pretty sure DAO actually had a conversation wheel quite late into it's development). And if there are more than 6 choices there will probably be only 5 important plot changing options and 5 tell me more options, which the wheel is perfectly capable of rendering.

For the record, DA:O has 4 choices typically, with 1 fast forwarding through the conversation and 2-4 ocassionally adding a few more developed lines of dialogue from the NPCs. But you only typically have 4 lines unless you are asking questions.

Exactly. I'd say when presented with a major choice you'd usually have maybe 3-4 choices and maybe another 3-4 "investigate choices".

[AlanC9]

Addai67 wrote...

Sooo... you advocate the dialogue wheel because you're jaded about games and consider it all the same crap recycled anyway?  I mean, you could reduce any story to tropes if you want, but I guess I'd still rather know more than less about what my PC is going to do.

I don't mean to come across as an advocate of the dialog wheel. I'm pretty much neutral about it. Depending on implementation I see it as being either a minor positive, a minor negative, or a wash.

And barring outright implementation errors, I don't think that you actually do have less control over what a character says. The specific words aren't as important as the effect on other actors in the game world (yes, Sylvius, this is only a personal interpretation). And since, as you say, " if I'm given the full line my PC is going to say, I have to first read it, interpret what it could mean, and decide which piece of written text best represents what I want my response to be," there is obviously room for a wrong interpretation. This isn't theoretical for me; I had about as many lines go wrong in DAO as I had go wrong in ME1. ME1 still caused a bigger problem because the failure was bigger, but what we're talking about is replacing one imperfect system with a system that's imperfect in a different way.

[Addai]

Riona45 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I don't have to listen to Jennifer Hale's or Corinne Kempa's voice and pretend that that is my character speaking.

Well, in the case of Leliana, she was never your character to begin with.

She is in Leliana's song, where she is for gameplay purposes the PC.  Though you quibble.

[Riona45]

Addai67 wrote...


She is in Leliana's song, where she is for gameplay purposes the PC.  Though you quibble.

Feeling snappish today, are we?

I'm not quibbling, just pointing out something I thought was important to this discussion.  I get that some people feel like they don't really have ownership over a character that is fully voiced, like Shepard.  But Leliana can't be lumped in with Shepard because there was never any promise that you could define her, it was really just a chance to play through the story she was telling.

[Gaxhung]

KalDurenik wrote...

Gaxhung wrote...

This is a response to the OP
1) Imagine you have full VO
2) Imagine you have fully worded character response, ala DAO
3) Imagine you click on a fully worded character response and the VO voices the exact same wording again.
4) WTF right?

It makes sense in the case of full VOed main character to use convo-wheel, because of point 3.

Well holy crap! In that case there should be a timer on how long time you have to response before the NPC do / react.
Lets say 2 sec? I mean the fact that one can sit back and go afk for 2 hours and that the other NPC will just stand there and look at you is horrible.

Oh well it wont get changed. Most people on this forum luv it O.o 

Whats a timer got to do with it? Do you understand what I wrote? Well I do not wish to explain.

Wizbane wrote...
Who
wrote this crap in the first place, a Bioguy?

It doesn't make
sense. It's a CRPG or something else? Who cares if it takes some time to
read the full answer and once chosen it's played out again with voice
acting + cinematic animations or sequences? How long are these answers
after all, that they cannot be presented like in DA:O? Reading time
won't be shorter with a wheel, the wheel will even need an
interpretation, with the same problems of ME, as pointed out in this
thread, because options are just an unclear declaration of intents.

The
reason of the wheel is that this game is not for PC only. It's a
"consolized" CRPG. No other reason.

I hope the wheel will be for
console versions only.
 

Read once, hear it once, multiply by every single dialog in the game, i don't understand why I even have to type this. Its dumbfounding.

The wheel for DA2 has an emote icon in the middle, or didn't you know this. The tone is made visual, seems to me, they are trying to improve the one from ME; addressing what you just complained about. Personally I enjoy how Sheppard is rogue-ish in how he does what I tell him to, he has an attitude, some sort of Marine attitude!

Consolized not consolized, the PC has an awesome pointing device. Wheel, whatever, can handle. The bad of the Wheel, totally "laid back" points:
1) No obvious shortcut shortcut key binds for each response.
2) Having to click more to get deeper into your options? But since you don't mind listening to the VO repeat exactly what you just read, I don't see why this is a problem.

Maybe you should start thinking about leaving PnP ideas behind while you are at your computer. Because this is a computer game after all and consoles are here to stay in one form or another ... or are you merely angry, generally speaking.

Modifié par Gaxhung, 20 juillet 2010 - 12:57 .

[Gaxhung]

--  sorry double posted --

Modifié par Gaxhung, 20 juillet 2010 - 12:44 .

[Addai]

Riona45 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...


She is in Leliana's song, where she is for gameplay purposes the PC.  Though you quibble.

Feeling snappish today, are we?

I'm not quibbling, just pointing out something I thought was important to this discussion.  I get that some people feel like they don't really have ownership over a character that is fully voiced, like Shepard.  But Leliana can't be lumped in with Shepard because there was never any promise that you could define her, it was really just a chance to play through the story she was telling.

No, but it's still a valid example of a more preset character.  And also of a voice that, for me, makes playing a character painful.

[Wynne]

The only thing I care about is that they do better than ME and Alpha Protocol in terms of letting you know what the hell you are actually about to say. If they can summarize it properly, then I am happy with it.



I hope they give you a slightly longer period of time to answer, if they do it AP-style. I hope they pick the right actors for the job of Hawke. Beyond that, I'm not at all fussed about the change to the dialogue wheel.



If I want to read a book, I'll read one. Trying to pick between a bunch of fairly inconsistent, inflection-devoid lines as I glance back and forth and realize that I don't really like any of the 5 or 6 that are there because I think they'll all lead back to the same thing anyway, that's not my idea of fun. Conversation in AP felt exciting. You have to experience it to understand it, but when you have the sense your decisions actually matter beyond just advancing the plot or getting you to the part where they inevitably attack, you end up feeling like it all matters. There are no dull throwaway conversations with generic NPCs anymore.

[LMNOPMusic]

wookie wookie yurpins

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

To use you as an example, more than believing the dialogue is an abstraction, you believe very specific things about what can happen off-screen. These views are part of the views that jointly make up your playstyle.

I don't think that's right.  You believe very specific things about what can happen off-screen.  I do not hold those beliefs.  My position is one where I'm not creating restrictions for myself where they need not exist.

If I don't hold beliefs about what can happen off-screen, then anything I can imagine that might happen off-screen fails to be contradicted by my beliefs, and thus is a plausible (not possible - I wouldn't know if these things were possibly true in the game world) jumping off point.

It is not meta-gaming. Remember, I hold that the only possible things you could say are the dialogue options in front of you. These are all the possible expressions available. You can invent whatever reasons you want for them to exist, certainly, but it does not change the fact that only a set number of options exist.

Whereas, I would assert that the options don't exist at all until you choose them, at which point only that one you've picked exists.  So the failure of others to exist can't possible matter; their existence is impossible.

Right. So in practice, the implementation is irrelevant, because insofar as it ihas VO, it is inferior to you. And as I've tried to argue, the implementation of the phrase exists only as a consequence of the VO. So to look at it in isolation would be missing the point.

But they can exist in isolation.  That the implentation of the wheel is as it is because of the VO is no reason to believe that it was the only possible implementation, or that the wheel was ever a necessary consequence of the VO (as games with VO combined with full dialogue options demonstrate).

Also, since I'm hoping to replace the PC voice files with blanks, thus erasing the PC's VO, that feature (in isolation) becomes optional.  I'm then free to examine the effects of the wheel without considering the VO.

And as it happens, without the VO (assuming I also disable subtitles) the wheel should work swimmingly.  It would function even more like my preferred dialogue style than DAO does.

[Addai]

Wynne wrote...

If I want to read a book, I'll read one. Trying to pick between a bunch of fairly inconsistent, inflection-devoid lines as I glance back and forth and realize that I don't really like any of the 5 or 6 that are there because I think they'll all lead back to the same thing anyway, that's not my idea of fun. 

And if I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a movie.  One that's not being constantly interrupted by tedious battles or pointless crafting.  The more "cinematic" end of the game spectrum is duller for me because if I'm going to sit back and watch, I'd rather... sit back and watch.

However, it seems that Bioware values players with your preferences more than mine.  At least they gave us one good game in the franchise.

[Arttis]

Riona45 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...


She is in Leliana's song, where she is for gameplay purposes the PC.  Though you quibble.

Feeling snappish today, are we?

I'm not quibbling, just pointing out something I thought was important to this discussion.  I get that some people feel like they don't really have ownership over a character that is fully voiced, like Shepard.  But Leliana can't be lumped in with Shepard because there was never any promise that you could define her, it was really just a chance to play through the story she was telling.

I do not think any of that really matters.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riona45 wrote...

I'm not quibbling, just pointing out something I thought was important to this discussion.  I get that some people feel like they don't really have ownership over a character that is fully voiced, like Shepard.  But Leliana can't be lumped in with Shepard because there was never any promise that you could define her, it was really just a chance to play through the story she was telling.

There was never really any promise that we could define Shepard, either.  BioWare's been pretty open about that.

The problem is that being unable to define the PC makes for a lousy game.

[Riona45]

Arttis wrote...
I do not think any of that really matters.

Too bad I don't give a damn what you think, eh?

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

There was never really any promise that we could define Shepard, either.  BioWare's been pretty open about that.

Shepard was less defined than Leliana.  And according to the devs, Hawke will be less defined than Shepard.

[maxernst]

Having finally started to play mass effect, I'm finding that I am often surprised by the tone of my character's dialogue...I don't find the summaries to be very accurate, at times. But I don't think that's really a necessary flaw in the dialogue wheel as the lack of care in some of those summaries. I don't understand why they're not longer, it seems like there's room on the screen for more.



As far as the morality system, I haven't really noticed it. I think I've taken mostly neutral responses--is this really going to screw me over?



On the whole, it's nice to see the full text of what your character is going to say, but an icon indicating tone might actually have advantages. There were certainly times in DA:O where the response to what I said told me that I had misread the tone significantly. So summary + tone could conceivably be as good as full text if well implemented.



On the voice over...well, I think if you're going with a pre-defined character, it makes a certain amount of sense. I'd like it better if I had a choice of a few different voice actors, but I suppose that would be hideously expensive. Although I wonder how much it would cost to just hire union wage actors instead of celebrities. I'm sure there are plenty of completely unknown actors who are perfectly capable of doing good voiceover.



I don't think having voice over/not having voice over or dialogue trees vs dialogue wheels would ever be a deal breaker for me.



On the other hand, the interface for controlling my companions in combat in ME is driving me BONKERS! Lord help us if they do something like that for DA2.

[JemyM]

Having not played that many RPG's during the past years, but actually having played both ME and ME2, I was quite amazed over how engaging I found the dialogue in DA:O to be. I have definitely missed the depth that is possible in dialogue of the old style, and I hadn't realized before just how much the dialogue wheel remove that. I had hoped that the wheel had kept itself to, and died with the ME series, not that it would begin to infest other titles.



I think the main advantage with traditional dialogue is that it can be adapted into subtle different ways to approach the unique encounter the PC may be facing. The dialogue wheel disconnected me from feeling engaged in the dialogue. It simply wasn't me talking anymore and I stopped to listen to what people were saying and got preoccupied with pumping directions on the wheel.