313 réponses à ce sujet

[Collider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

This is intended to react to your choices, not dictate your personality-- and as I said only applies to lines where you've already indicated your action. No, you can't choose your tone on those, but then you never could even in Origins.

Oh, but we could.  Because the character wasn't voiced we could impart literally any tone we could imagine.  We could even fiddle with the wording.

The voice robs us of this.

We can imagine in our head, but it's not necessarily what the NPCs react to. I might choose an option that seemed innocuous and like the Warden was joking and Alistair would think I was being serious.

[Vandrayke]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

This is intended to react to your choices, not dictate your personality-- and as I said only applies to lines where you've already indicated your action. No, you can't choose your tone on those, but then you never could even in Origins.

Oh, but we could.  Because the character wasn't voiced we could impart literally any tone we could imagine.  We could even fiddle with the wording.

The voice robs us of this.

I know you and I differ completely when it comes to this concept but for what it's worth, I think that what I gain in impact by having the lines spoken (and therefore made more explicit) makes dialog a lot more entertaining in general.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Collider wrote...

Thanks David. This is a godsend. No more accidental romances!

Never?  Accidental romances were always a strength of BioWare's games.  I (real-world me) have actually been in an accidental romance.  It was awful.  But that there can be that level of misunderstanding between characters in the game is a terrific aspect of realism.  I'd hate to lose that.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 21 août 2010 - 09:30 .

[Collider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Collider wrote...

Thanks David. This is a godsend. No more accidental romances!

Never?  Accidental romances were always a strength of BioWare's games.  I (real-world me) have actually been in an accidental romance.  It was awful.  But that there can be that level of misunderstanding between characters in the game is a terrific aspect of realism.  I'd hate to lose that.

Not what I mean. I mean my character actually consciously being in a relationship when I don't want him to.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Collider wrote...

We can imagine in our head, but it's not necessarily what the NPCs react to. I might choose an option that seemed innocuous and like the Warden was joking and Alistair would think I was being serious.

So in that playthrough, Alistair is an idiot.

What I've seen in this thread makes me think that DA2's dialogue system will be vastly better implemented than ME's awful, awful dialogue system, but I see artificial barriers being placed in our way that don't need to be there.

Why the wheel?  If the wheel limits how many options can be displayed on screen at a time, and that means that some options (that exist and were written and recorded and are accommodated by the NPC reactions) need to be hidden, then the wheel is a bad idea.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Collider wrote...

Not what I mean. I mean my character actually consciously being in a relationship when I don't want him to.

If you don't want him to then he doesn't want to be.  He's trapped.  It would suck for him.

These things happen.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Collider wrote...

We can imagine in our head, but it's not necessarily what the NPCs react to. I might choose an option that seemed innocuous and like the Warden was joking and Alistair would think I was being serious.

So in that playthrough, Alistair is an idiot.

But in real life, if someone takes your joking for seriousness (or vice versa), you can correct them.  In the game, you usually* either have to let it pass, or reload.


*To be fair, I *have* on a occasion seen "that's not what I meant" options.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riona45 wrote...

But in real life, if someone takes your joking for seriousness (or vice versa), you can correct them.

But you don't always.  I often don't (because it would be an awkward I don't want to have).

There are all manner of things your characters could say that aren't offered as options.  These correction phrases are simply some of them.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But you don't always.  I often don't (because it would be an awkward I don't want to have).

That's true for you, but not everyone.  And it may not be true for one's PC.

Modifié par Riona45, 21 août 2010 - 09:46 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riona45 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But you don't always.  I often don't (because it would be an awkward I don't want to have).

That's true for you, but not everyone.  And it may not be true for one's PC.

Sure, but if you're going to complain that the game won't let you say literally anything you might want to say, then you simply can't play a game with pre-written dialogue choices.

Since you are, this clearly can't be a concern of yours.

[AlanC9]

I'd like that, but it would mean a fair amount of work for alternate responses..

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

ME's system had a high learning curve for me.

ME's system had a vertical learning curve for me.  I still haven't figured it out (I've played through ME three times), and no one on the ME team has offered anything approaching useful advice on how to play their game.

Surely they know.  Why they won't tell me I have no idea.

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

This is intended to react to your choices, not dictate your personality-- and as I said only applies to lines where you've already indicated your action. No, you can't choose your tone on those, but then you never could even in Origins.

Oh, but we could.  Because the character wasn't voiced we could impart literally any tone we could imagine.  We could even fiddle with the wording.

The voice robs us of this.

You know, I already said that the system adds to your ability to roleplay... unless you're of the opinion that the root problem is that the character is voiced and all and that isn't what you consider roleplaying.

If that's your issue, however, it's also beside the point. I don't care what you like to do in your head. This isn't about whether or not this dialogue system allows you to roleplay better than a game that doesn't have a voiced protaganist, Sylvius, because that's not up for debate. The game does have a voiced protaganist. This is about whether the dialogue system allows you to roleplay better within the parameters of a voiced protaganist, which I think it does.

Modifié par David Gaider, 22 août 2010 - 08:21 .

[AmstradHero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Why the wheel?  If the wheel limits how many options can be displayed on screen at a time, and that means that some options (that exist and were written and recorded and are accommodated by the NPC reactions) need to be hidden, then the wheel is a bad idea.

You mean limited to six options? Just like Origins? Stating the wheel gives fewer options when the maximum available in both games is exactly the same is... let's just go with "wrong".

You don't like a voiced protagonist, fine. To be honest, I liked that DAO didn't have one, and I might have preferred if DA2 didn't have one either. However, the decision has been made and nothing you (or anyone else) can say will change that.

I can see the benefits of having voiced and non-voiced protagonists, even if I personally prefer one over the other. The point is not to make inaccurate claims about DA2's conversation system because you don't like the fact that Hawke is voiced.

Edit: I'm really looking forward to this new system and the fact that we create a "default" personality for our Hawke based on our choices. People's complaints about Shepard in ME/ME2 delivering "flat" lines because there was not an associated emotion with the line was something I saw as a valid stylistic concern. If Hawke doesn't play everything "straight", but instead reacts based on the default emotion/conversational style that we as a player have given him/her, then the impact of the delivery and the effectiveness of him/her as a voiced protagonist will both increase significantly.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 22 août 2010 - 08:58 .

[Ammonite]

Sorry if this has already been asked, but how many personality tones are there?

Are some of them the result of "mixed" choices? By that I mean if you choose an almost similar amount of e.g. snarky comments and angry comments; would the resulting tone be angry AND snarky?

[Homebound]

David Gaider wrote...

the-expatriate wrote...
Whoever it is will have to be veeery multi-talented, and the pressure would be very high.

They are indeed. It wasn't easy to cast, as we required someone who could do all three tones convincingly without sounding like a completely different person each time. When people find out who the male PC is, I'm going to laugh-- he was in Origins, but his character wasn't very popular. Regardless, he has a wonderful voice and is quite capable.

Please tell Mark Hildreth that, for what it's worth, this fan thinks that he did a great job voicing Heero Yuy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

You know, I already said that the system adds to your ability to roleplay... unless you're of the opinion that the root problem is that the character is voiced and all and that isn't what you consider roleplaying.

You claimed that DA2's system allowed for greater freedom than DAO did, and that's demonstrably false.

I'm not saying the roleplaying is impossible with a voice (that's a rationally untenable position).  I'm saying that your claim about player control was incorrect.

I don't care what you like to do in your head.

What happens in my head is a core gameplay component in RPGs.  You should care.

This isn't about whether or not this dialogue system allows you to roleplay better than a game that doesn't have a voiced protaganist, Sylvius, because that's not up for debate.

If you're comparing the game to DAO, then that's exactly what this is about.

DAO offered some level of player control, and didn't have a voiced protagonist.

DA2 offers some level of player control, and does have a voiced protagonist.

If that level of control differs between the two games, the voice might be one of the reasons, and if we're discussing that different level of control then we need to discuss the voice if we're going to learn anything.  DA2's voiced protagonist being written in stone is immaterial to the discussion.

The game does have a voiced protaganist. This is about whether the dialogue system allows you to roleplay better within the parameters of a voiced protaganist, which I think it does.

And that's a conversation worth having, but as soon as you say that DA2 offers greater control than DAO does, you're not having it.  Then you're comparing a voiced PC to a non-voiced PC, which is something you explicitly don't want to do.

Now, having the discussion you're willing to have, I'd say that we'd have even greater roleplaying control if you let us choose the tone of action responses.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


Sure, but if you're going to complain that the game won't let you say literally anything you might want to say, then you simply can't play a game with pre-written dialogue choices.

Since you are, this clearly can't be a concern of yours.

...And now I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AmstradHero wrote...

You mean limited to six options? Just like Origins? Stating the wheel gives fewer options when the maximum available in both games is exactly the same is... let's just go with "wrong".

You're not paying attention.  This has nothing to do with how many options DAO had.

In DA2, when action choices are made, we'll choose among probably three options.  Each of those options might be delivered in a number of different tones (even with different wording, based on our character's established dominant tone.  If we assume three possible tones in this particular example, that mens there are NINE different ways Hawke might respond.

But we can't choose among nine because the wheel won't accommodate more than six.  This is what I'm complaining about.  If there are nine options, I want to choose from among all nine.  Why should I have to rely on the game to have any idea what my character's personality is when I'm guaranteed to do a better job if I get to do it.

You don't like a voiced protagonist, fine. To be honest, I liked that DAO didn't have one, and I might have preferred if DA2 didn't have one either. However, the decision has been made and nothing you (or anyone else) can say will change that.

And this is why I'm not really complaining about the voice.  I'm not asking for DA2 not to have a voice (though I have asked for the voice to be optional or removable through modding).  I'm asking for UI features that will make the voice work better, and no one seems to be willing to discuss it.

[AlanC9]

By "no one seems to be willing to discuss it" do you really mean no one, or just no one from Bioware? If it's the former, you may need to rethink the arguments you're making.

[AmstradHero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

You mean limited to six options? Just like Origins? Stating the wheel gives fewer options when the maximum available in both games is exactly the same is... let's just go with "wrong".

You're not paying attention.  This has nothing to do with how many options DAO had.

In DA2, when action choices are made, we'll choose among probably three options.  Each of those options might be delivered in a number of different tones (even with different wording, based on our character's established dominant tone.  If we assume three possible tones in this particular example, that mens there are NINE different ways Hawke might respond.

But we can't choose among nine because the wheel won't accommodate more than six.  This is what I'm complaining about.  If there are nine options, I want to choose from among all nine.  Why should I have to rely on the game to have any idea what my character's personality is when I'm guaranteed to do a better job if I get to do it.

Well, your original complaint was actually about the wheel and the fact that it only gave six choices... but let's move on.

Let's look at the issue and a possible implementation. You're giving an "action choice" where you have one of three options. You're unhappy that a tone gets assigned to that response based on your previous choices that have set the default tone for your Hawke, and want the option to specify the tone for that choice.

So we have the player pick the desired action, then change the wheel to give them the potential to decide on the nature of the tone for that response. (Potentially keeping an option to back out if they decide they don't like that action after all). Alternatively, we present all three options each with their own tone in a list of nine different options.

For me, both of these are equally undesirable. It reeks of a horribly strong meta-game approach to determine the nature of your tone, especially in the case where you've already made the decision. Picking the tone of your response dilutes the impact of the decision of picking your course of action.  If I'm making a big decision that forces me to pick one of three choices that all appear equally undesirable, I don't then want to be asked "Now that you've just made that important decision, how would like to say it?" The focus should be on the choice, not Hawke's reaction to that choice.  The only way I would take issue with the system would be if our tone made Hawke give a rationale for his decision without our consent. Applying a tone to our decisions is one thing, but assigning a thought process to our decisions is a far greater crime against roleplaying.

Now, yes, I'll agree you do get a little more "control" over your character if you get to pick the tone, but the strength of the narrative and the flow of the dialogue will suffer a solid blow as a result. If you're roleplaying a character that really straddles borders between two of the tones, you might get some "inaccurate" representations of Hawke's character. But I'm unsure as to how common that would be for an average player if they're not trying to work the system. And if people are meta-gaming their responses to get specific "desirable" outcomes... then we've pretty much thrown roleplaying out the window already.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 23 août 2010 - 11:17 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AmstradHero wrote...

Well, your original complaint was actually about the wheel and the fact that it only gave six choices...

I complained about the limit of six because there can be more than six available responses for action choices.  The wheel is the only reason we're not being shown all of them.

Let's look at the issue and a possible implementation. You're giving an "action choice" where you have one of three options. You're unhappy that a tone gets assigned to that response based on your previous choices that have set the default tone for your Hawke, and want the option to specify the tone for that choice.

Yes.

So we have the player pick the desired action, then change the wheel to give them the potential to decide on the nature of the tone for that response. (Potentially keeping an option to back out if they decide they don't like that action after all). Alternatively, we present all three options each with their own tone in a list of nine different options.

I'd suggest nine different options.  This isn't any different from choosing other dialogue options - I see no reason to offer some sort of tiered response.

For me, both of these are equally undesirable. It reeks of a horribly strong meta-game approach to determine the nature of your tone,

But on flavour choices, that's exactly what the game is doing.  For all the choices that are not action choices, you already get to specify your tone.  This is the basis of the dominant tone system.  Do you think that tone selection counts as metagaming?  I don't see how it could, given that you're just giving the game more information about how your character behaves, and without any foreknowledge knowledge of the consequences.

[AmstradHero]

You've focussed on the first half of my post, which is setting the problem and the possible solution, and subsequently missed the discussion of the failings. The point is that flavour choices are about flavour and giving Hawke a personality, whereas action choices are about the decision that is being made. If you're demanding that we give the tone of our decision, then focus is taken away from the decision itself and onto the meta-gaming issue of how that specific line making that choice is delivered. I'd consider that to be diluting roleplaying, not enhancing it. Taking it is a single element in isolation and saying "I don't get choice, therefore it is bad" is an argument, but it's neglecting multiple other elements that form to create the overall gaming experience.

PS I seriously don't want nine choices every time I have to make a big decision. Choice is good, but that many dialogue options makes things a little silly.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 23 août 2010 - 09:28 .