468 réponses à ce sujet

[Narreneth]

Mike2640 wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

You only know how it was implemented in Mass Effect.  It's a whole different ball game here.  If by the voice not being as good as your imagination you mean what the character's voice sounds like I suppose I can buy that.  IF you mean *how* the character says things (ie sarcastically etc) that doesn't really hold up when you take into consideration the characters in the game respond to you the same no matter what you think you meant.

No offense, but I think you're assuming it'll be a whole different ball game. Judging from what I've seen of the Game Informer article I see no reason to believe it will be any different than what was used in Mass Effect 1 and 2. And for the second thing, yeah I meant how it sounds.

I posted an example of how it may work up a bit.  The short explanation is this:  ME's dialogue was centered around Renegade/Paragon.  DA2's is going to be centered around a variety of responses.  You will ahve the same amount of options with the same varied possibilities you had in Origins.  The only difference is you will now have paraphrased lines with an indicator to tell you what the intent of the line is, and a voice actor.

[Mike2640]

In Exile wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

My problem with the wheel isn't so much the wheel itself as much as it is how Bioware implements it. The dialogue wheel in Alpha Protocol, for example worked very well because the developers never gave the impression that you were deciding what the character was saying, just how he says it.

Alpha Protocol was absolutely brutal at letting you know what the options meant. You could fly completely off the cuff with what you were saying that had nothing to do with what you wanted. I don't even think Alpha Protocol pretends to be an RPG - no character customization, no choice in dialogue.... it's far more restrictive than ME. To use the word your character at all in that game is, IMO, silly.

Bioware gives you links - you pick the name, you choose each line generally knowing ahead of time what happens so you can choose it for a reason more than (be suave or be profesional), etc.

As far as the voiced pc, I'm in the "If I wanted cinematic I'd watch a movie" crowd. The voice will never be as good as what your imagination can conjure up.

The problem is my imagination does poor work when giving garbage material. My imagination works when I'm free to control the environment and shape it as I please, not when I have A and B and have to create a logically consistent, non-contradictory (relative to known facts in the game), character consistent linkage between the two. Then it's just a rationalization. I get that for some people this is really fun. But not for me, and for others who argue for a voiced PC. To us, there is no possible way to involve your imagination in the game.

It's like saying - no, imagine that instead of Duncan dying, he lived, and Alistair is just confused (this is to the well, if you read the non-VO dialogue wrong and it leads to an outcome not consistent with your character's tone pretend it is a mistunderstanding). In both cases we have the same evidence after the fact: Alistar's voiced dialogue. The difference is that in one case you have explicit evidence of coming up with a counterfactual that contradicts an in-game event (because you saw it) while in the other you have to recognize it abstractly.

I get that not everyone plays the game this way - but to those of us who do, VO is a good thing. I say this constantly as I want your side to appreciate we care about RP and connections to our characters as much as you do; you're just not getting why we're connected in the first place.

In regards to your first point, I gues that's kind of why I liked it better than Mass Effects. I never tried to guess what he was going to say because there was no way. You weren't picking what he was saying, just how he said it. If it said "sly" you were going to be jokey or flirty, if it said "professional" you were going to be direct. Since how you say things had some serious effects on how people treat you, one could argue that it had more choice than Mass Effect, which was almost misleading with what it's dialogue wheel said and what Shepard said.

As far as the second part i'm not really sure what you meant. Are you saying you have trouble creating a personality for the character while within the constraints of the game? Also I never meant to say that the people who prefer the Dialogue wheel were somehow "wrong", it's just not a style that I enjoy with regards to RPGs, and I dont feel that Bioware does it particularly well..

Modifié par Mike2640, 16 juillet 2010 - 06:38 .

[Mike2640]

Narreneth wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

You only know how it was implemented in Mass Effect.  It's a whole different ball game here.  If by the voice not being as good as your imagination you mean what the character's voice sounds like I suppose I can buy that.  IF you mean *how* the character says things (ie sarcastically etc) that doesn't really hold up when you take into consideration the characters in the game respond to you the same no matter what you think you meant.

No offense, but I think you're assuming it'll be a whole different ball game. Judging from what I've seen of the Game Informer article I see no reason to believe it will be any different than what was used in Mass Effect 1 and 2. And for the second thing, yeah I meant how it sounds.

I posted an example of how it may work up a bit.  The short explanation is this:  ME's dialogue was centered around Renegade/Paragon.  DA2's is going to be centered around a variety of responses.  You will ahve the same amount of options with the same varied possibilities you had in Origins.  The only difference is you will now have paraphrased lines with an indicator to tell you what the intent of the line is, and a voice actor.

Has it been confirmed that that's how it will be? If so then that is good to hear, but it still has the potential problem of the voiced line being pretty different from what the paraphrased line seemed to imply, a problem that persisted in both Mass Effect games.

[In Exile]

Mike2640 wrote...

In regards to your first point, I gues that's kind of why I liked it better than Mass Effects. I never tried to guess what he was going to say because there was no way. You weren't picking what he was saying, just how he said it. If it said "sly" you were going to be jokey or flirty, if it said "professional" you were going to be direct. Since how you say things had some serious effects on how people treat you, one could argue that it had more choice than Mass Effect, which was almost misleading with what it's dialogue wheel said and what Shepard said.

See, whereas I felt with Alpha Protocol I finally understood the complains of those who played ME. I was effectively looking at the screen, screaming "NO! What are you doing? Why are you saying that? How is making him want to stab you suave?"

As far as the second part i'm not really sure what you meant. Are you saying you have trouble creating a personality for the character while within the constraints of the game? Also I never meant to say that the people who prefer the Dialogue wheel were somehow "wrong", it's just not a style that I enjoy with regards to RPGs, and I dont feel that Bioware does it particularly well..

What I am trying to say is that my imagination is very rich - but my imagination likes to be in control. I do not like being told where I start if I am also told where I have to end up. Take this following interaction (it is becoming a common example)

Alistair brings up his parentage. One of your options is "Ah, you're going to tell me you're an idiot." I took this to be sarcastic. It was offensive beause Alistair played it straight. There is an associated approval loss (-5). Now, you have two events: at the start, you decided, based on your character, that sarcasm was appopriate. The line was not delivered sarcsitically. But you now have the "opportunity" to use your imagination to have a made-up interaction with Alistair where this is rectified. But if you rectify it in any way that ends with him increasing his approval, you have broken from the reality of the game. So the game must resolve itself with no change in approval. So you are effectively inventing a scenario for the sake of not feeling like the dialogue system constrained you. Which to me is just a rationalization.

This is what I mean by the example - that if there is physical evidence something took place, I cannot simply ignore it or wish it away. This is why I look to roleplaying very differently than other individuals.

[ObserverStatus]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Diablo 3 has a conversation wheel as well.

[Mike2640]

In Exile wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

In regards to your first point, I gues that's kind of why I liked it better than Mass Effects. I never tried to guess what he was going to say because there was no way. You weren't picking what he was saying, just how he said it. If it said "sly" you were going to be jokey or flirty, if it said "professional" you were going to be direct. Since how you say things had some serious effects on how people treat you, one could argue that it had more choice than Mass Effect, which was almost misleading with what it's dialogue wheel said and what Shepard said.

See, whereas I felt with Alpha Protocol I finally understood the complains of those who played ME. I was effectively looking at the screen, screaming "NO! What are you doing? Why are you saying that? How is making him want to stab you suave?"

As far as the second part i'm not really sure what you meant. Are you saying you have trouble creating a personality for the character while within the constraints of the game? Also I never meant to say that the people who prefer the Dialogue wheel were somehow "wrong", it's just not a style that I enjoy with regards to RPGs, and I dont feel that Bioware does it particularly well..

What I am trying to say is that my imagination is very rich - but my imagination likes to be in control. I do not like being told where I start if I am also told where I have to end up. Take this following interaction (it is becoming a common example)

Alistair brings up his parentage. One of your options is "Ah, you're going to tell me you're an idiot." I took this to be sarcastic. It was offensive beause Alistair played it straight. There is an associated approval loss (-5). Now, you have two events: at the start, you decided, based on your character, that sarcasm was appopriate. The line was not delivered sarcsitically. But you now have the "opportunity" to use your imagination to have a made-up interaction with Alistair where this is rectified. But if you rectify it in any way that ends with him increasing his approval, you have broken from the reality of the game. So the game must resolve itself with no change in approval. So you are effectively inventing a scenario for the sake of not feeling like the dialogue system constrained you. Which to me is just a rationalization.

This is what I mean by the example - that if there is physical evidence something took place, I cannot simply ignore it or wish it away. This is why I look to roleplaying very differently than other individuals.

I suppose a part of sarcasm is the risk of someone not getting or liking the joke. There are plenty of times when Alistair himself is sarcastic where the Warden can not get it or resent him for being like that. I'm not sure that that is a rationalization, but I do see your point.

[Massadonious1]

bobobo878 wrote...

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Diablo 3 has a conversation wheel as well.

[Altima Darkspells]

bobobo878 wrote...

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Diablo 3 has a conversation wheel as well.

That's what a conversation wheel should look like (Page 3 of 7, btw, great!).

Sadly, the Diablo series is about as much of an RPG as my left big toe.

[ObserverStatus]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Diablo 3 has a conversation wheel as well.

That's what a conversation wheel should look like (Page 3 of 7, btw, great!).

Sadly, the Diablo series is about as much of an RPG as my left big toe.

I suppose you left bug toe could have seen lots of exploration, but I don't know about character progression.

[Narreneth]

Mike2640 wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

You only know how it was implemented in Mass Effect.  It's a whole different ball game here.  If by the voice not being as good as your imagination you mean what the character's voice sounds like I suppose I can buy that.  IF you mean *how* the character says things (ie sarcastically etc) that doesn't really hold up when you take into consideration the characters in the game respond to you the same no matter what you think you meant.

No offense, but I think you're assuming it'll be a whole different ball game. Judging from what I've seen of the Game Informer article I see no reason to believe it will be any different than what was used in Mass Effect 1 and 2. And for the second thing, yeah I meant how it sounds.

I posted an example of how it may work up a bit.  The short explanation is this:  ME's dialogue was centered around Renegade/Paragon.  DA2's is going to be centered around a variety of responses.  You will ahve the same amount of options with the same varied possibilities you had in Origins.  The only difference is you will now have paraphrased lines with an indicator to tell you what the intent of the line is, and a voice actor.

Has it been confirmed that that's how it will be? If so then that is good to hear, but it still has the potential problem of the voiced line being pretty different from what the paraphrased line seemed to imply, a problem that persisted in both Mass Effect games.

It's been confirmed that they will be using both sides of the wheel (6 responses) at a time sometimes which is the samea s you'd get in Origins.  It's also been confirmed there's no morality system so you don't have to worry about every conversation being "good bad neutral."   I certainly can't tell you with 100% certainty that it's going to be an awesome system, but I think it is going to work pretty well.  TIme will tell on that though.

[ObserverStatus]

Narreneth wrote...
It's been confirmed that they will be using both sides of the wheel (6 responses) at a time sometimes which is the samea s you'd get in Origins.  It's also been confirmed there's no morality system so you don't have to worry about every conversation being "good bad neutral."   I certainly can't tell you with 100% certainty that it's going to be an awesome system, but I think it is going to work pretty well.  TIme will tell on that though.

That's good to hear, the morality system was my biggest issue with ME's wheel.

[AmstradHero]

17thknight wrote...
You pick responses based on your character, based on what they would say and do, not based on "Well I'm playing a Paragon so I'll just keep clicking in the upper right.".
The vast majority of Mass Effect conversations are 3 lines of advancement (Good/Bad/Neutral) and every now and then you get investigation.

AlanC9 wrote...
Is that how you played ME? That's not how I played it. The problem is you.

No, the problem is the game. If you played a paragon and ever picked a renegade response your character would act wildly out of character because everything was based on extremes. One second your character is talking about how killing is wrong, the next he's murdering people.

Yes, I'm going back to early quotes in this thread that may have
been dealt with in the 9 pages, but, what is the Internet for if not
finding a way to voice your opinion?

I have to agree the problem isn't the game, it's the players themselves. If players are always picking the top right response "because it's paragon" or the bottom right "because it's renegade", then the player is already meta-gaming to the point where they've destroyed the roleplaying experience. Arguably, in many cases it's possible to do a similar thing in Dragon Age by picking the first or last response. The outcome is ultimately the same, a player is using the established ordering of responses to "meta-game" rather than pick their choice.

To be honest, I was never really surprised by Shepard's paragon/renegade actions in Mass Effect 1/2 once I worked out that top was paragon and bottom was renegade. I made that discovery after physically threatening the man holding the body of Samesh Bhatia's wife custody to perform tests on it. After that, I was never once surprised (in a bad way) by Shepard's actions.  And no, I steadfastly don't metagame. My "canon" Shepard is mostly paragon, but he doesn't mind walking the tough renegade line every now and then because he believes things are going to go badly if he doesn't.

That said, I see that your argument about paraphrasing. However, if we're getting a fully voiced protagonist (and we are, so there's no point arguing the issue), I don't want to read the full line then hear my character say it. That breaks the flow of the game more than getting a paraphrased line.

So, that then leaves the issue of your character's actions not potentially being represented appropriately by the short paraphrase. I believe this is what the icon is meant to address. Say, for example, your worst fears are realised and there are two paraphrases responses that have exactly the same text (which has never occurred in ME1/2, btw), but one features the icon of a fist, and the other features the icon of a sword.  Based on that, I would assume that the fist would have Hawke threaten the individual, whereas the sword would have Hawke kill them. The icon system is designed to deal with the shortcoming inherent in the wheel system, a problem that still exists even when you have the full line of text present.  Origins has several instances where there's a directive "(Lie)" or "(Truth)" or something else to make the context of the line clear.

The wheel isn't inherently flawed, at least not to the degree that you seem to claim. It is a different means of providing dialogue decisions, but there are flaws with the "traditional" way as well. I'd also like to raise the issue of Alpha Protocol, a game which got brutal reviews from many players and "professional reviewers" (I can't take that term seriously any more since the debacle of reviewing that is Super Mario Galaxy 2) and it was denounced as a hideous game. A lot of that flak seemed to come from the fact that the game that they thought Alpha Protocol was, and the game that Alpha Protocol actually is are two completely different things.

If you judge Alpha Protocol for the game it is, it's actually damn good, despite the polish issues it has.  But the point where it really shines through is the dialogue system.  All you get is a single word to describe your response (usually out of three choices), along with the meta-knowledge of the "tone" of that response (which is what an icon will provide in DA2), and moreover, you have to make the decision quickly. Yet it works, and works brilliantly. Yes, there were limited options, and sure, sometimes Thorton would come across a little more sleazy/gruff/businesslike than you might have liked, but it is among the best damn roleplaying around because you don't have time to think. Unless you are deliberately metagaming, you have to make that instant decision and because of that your roleplaying is far more real because your reaction is based on your interpretation of the character and your instincts in that role.  If we're going to get voiced player characters, then I have to say that system is brilliant. Even if you really want some extra time to decide occasionally, the fact that you don't is a wonderful means to force you to roleplay.

Yes, I love the traditional system to bits, and I love seeing lovingly written prose flow across my screen in an RPG, but that doesn't mean I think it is the only way dialogue in an RPG can be effectively conveyed.

Viva le difference!

[TMZuk]

@ArmstradHero.



Your arguments are definately valid, and your post well-argued.



In the end, however, it depends on what sort of game you want. And simply put, ME, and ME2 simply have very little replay value for me. DA:O somewhat more. The reason I dislike the wheel is that is part of an overall package, which are meant to simplify and speed up descision making, rather than having the player take his/her time reading through the replies..



When you have to read through a number of responses, and figure out what they actually mean, it, IMO, forces you to slow down. It also forces the writer to phrase the replies more carefully, as it is what is written that determines what the NPC's reaction will be, rather than where the reply is placed on the wheel.



Preferences are different, I found the dialogues in ME and ME2 flawed. With Maleshep I skipped through them as fast as possible, as I disliked the VA of MM. With Femshep I did listen, but not because I felt more connected to her, but because I -mostly- enjoyed JH's acting. Mostly. However, what sort of reply I'd give was solely determined on wether I felt like being "renegade" or "paragon", rather that thinking about how the actual words might impact the NPC.

[balchagi]

Concur on Alpha Protocol. It is a great game and deserved much better. I've played through it three times now and no game so far had ever had me second guessing the intentions of NPCs. There are so many variables to that game it's a very different experience each time I play.

[oenis]

[quote]Narreneth wrote...

[quote]oenis wrote...

Okay, so instead of spreading your angry tirade all over the boards, keep personal insults out of it or use a PM.[/quote]

Don't presume to tell me how to use the boards.  When I am addressed in a public forum in a way that is insulting, I have no problem using an insulting tone to respond to the person.  I also have no problem being civil with said person later.  If you don't like what you see me saying, you are more than welcome to skip over my posts.  I won't be directing any insults at you, and most generally even when I'm being insulting I at least have a point.  I do utilize the PM feature when necessary; however, my definition of necessary may differ from yours.  (I also tend not to use it when things are really heated because I don't want to come off as harassing the person... I keep the conversations where they are and leave them there)

[/quote

Then don't presume to tell Addai how to use the boards! She's allowed to voice her opinions on DA2 in a DA2 forum, not just to her husband (shocking, I know). 

[Daryn Mercio]

Daewan wrote...

And your suggestion to improve this, keeping in mind that they have already chosen to go with full voice for the main character, would be....?
Don't get me wrong - I hate the wheel for Dragon Age, and preferred the silent protagonist. I am just sick of people restating the obvious over and over again without making any valid suggestions on how to fix it.

I suggest that when you scroll over (with a mouse or analog on a controller) the paraphrased statement on the wheel makes a sort of expanded area that opens up and shows exactly what the paraphrase is meant to say along with a part of the wheel tellign your tone whether it be sarcastic or flirty.
For example, the wheel is obviously shaped into a wheel with the possible responses forming a  sort of web, like those things we all made back in school to "brainstorm" or papers.
When you roll over with the mouse or the analog stick, the box you roll over expands, hiding the paraphrase, but showing you an expanded version that tells exactly what Hawke will say.
Idk if it has game breaking flaws, I just thought it off the top of my head, but pick it apart and analyze that idea.

[Kohaku]

In Exile wrote...

The problem is my imagination does poor work when giving garbage material. My imagination works when I'm free to control the environment and shape it as I please, not when I have A and B and have to create a logically consistent, non-contradictory (relative to known facts in the game), character consistent linkage between the two. Then it's just a rationalization. I get that for some people this is really fun. But not for me, and for others who argue for a voiced PC. To us, there is no possible way to involve your imagination in the game.

It's like saying - no, imagine that instead of Duncan dying, he lived, and Alistair is just confused (this is to the well, if you read the non-VO dialogue wrong and it leads to an outcome not consistent with your character's tone pretend it is a mistunderstanding). In both cases we have the same evidence after the fact: Alistar's voiced dialogue. The difference is that in one case you have explicit evidence of coming up with a counterfactual that contradicts an in-game event (because you saw it) while in the other you have to recognize it abstractly.

I totally agree here. Like I said I don't care about having VO or not but my imagination does wonders. No amount of voice acting would have allowed me to "connect" with the Warden. I didn't connect with her when she didn't have a voice either. She wasn't my character, she wasn't something I dreamt up or created. She was Bioware's creation that I just dressed up pretty and picked options I wanted at the time. Anything I write based on the Warden, that's my creation and that's where my connection comes in. I've never been connected to a video game character ever in a RPG so I'm sure I'm in the minority.

Edit: Also, that picture is way funny.

Modifié par Kerridan Kaiba, 16 juillet 2010 - 01:46 .

[Daryn Mercio]

bobobo878 wrote...

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Diablo 3 has a conversation wheel as well.

Honestly Idk if you are just messing around about the dialogue because those are comedic. Or at least they seem to be

[CybAnt1]

Not much harder than it is with a line of text. I'm not saying it was as bad as ME, but DA:O had more than its fair share of dialogue misfires. Honestly, even if they kept the lines verbatim, the icons would still be a worthy addition.

I disagree completely. Do you know a good icon for representing irony? I don't. 

If we're going to have cues, I'd rather they be textual than visual. 

[Irony] Loghain, I believe you to be one of the best generals to have ever graced the battlefield!

[tmp7704]

CybAnt1 wrote...

I disagree completely. Do you know a good icon for representing irony? I don't. 

i'm not suggesting it's something to use verbatim, but the emoticons are direct result of limitations of written text when it comes to conveying the intent. Their very existence shows it's not exactly an impossible task.

[In Exile]

CybAnt1 wrote...

I disagree completely. Do you know a good icon for representing irony? I don't.

You don't need one. If the game is going to use a series of possible expressions, they can just be defined in the manual. This symbol means sarcastic, this symbol means flirty, etc. You can keep the manual open as a legend.

[angj57]

I understand why some people might not like the wheel, but personally I love it, or more specifically what I love is my character not being voiceless.

[Narreneth]

oenis wrote..


Then don't presume to tell Addai how to use the boards! She's allowed to voice her opinions on DA2 in a DA2 forum, not just to her husband (shocking, I know). 

Voicing an opinion =/= being ****y.  For someone who "hates to cut in" you sure are making a substantial effort to start a fight.  If Addai wants to defend herself, she can.  There's no need for you to get involved.

Modifié par Narreneth, 17 juillet 2010 - 06:30 .

[Khavos]

Of course there were ambiguous wheel options in ME2 that turned out different from what you expected.  Paragon/Renegade interrupts were even worse.  There were more times than I could count where I found out after the fact that the neutral option would've been better for how I decided my Shep would respond to a given situation, because yes, the short little blurbs really can be misleading.

Does the voiceless protagonist ruin the cinematic quality of the game?  Sure, I suppose it does.  I'm in the camp that doesn't give a **** about cinematic quality, though.  And given that Bioware's called DA:O its best-selling title to date, it appears that plenty of other people were fine with the traditional RPG dialogue system as well.  ME2's a fun game; it's an absolutely atrocious RPG.  The fact that you're basically playing second unit director to the Bioware writers' character is one of the many reasons why that's the case.  

[Chuvvy]

Your face is flawed.