313 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Riona45 wrote...

I have to admit this news about personality being tracked is the one thing I've heard about DA2 so far that I'm really...resisting. It won't keep me from buying the game, but I don't think I like the sound of it. As I mentioned in another thread, I like reacting differently to different types of people. For example, I don't want to be snarky towards someone I don't think deserves it.

I'm curious why you would resist just this aspect of a voiced protagonist and not the whole idea of a voiced protagonist?  The whole rationale is that the PC should be able to react spontaneously and without constant check-back with the player.

[The Masked Rog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

I realize the level of control you want over your characters borders on the pedantic, Sylvius, but we're not likely to put in something that is essentially micromanagement of dialogue options. Realistically speaking, nobody wants to pick their dialogue options twice. It's not going to happen.

Every time the game decides something for me when previous games did not, that's a loss of player agency.  You know this.

I realise it's not going to happen unless there's a sizeable share of the player market who wants it.  Getting that share of opinion is my objective.

Do you really think there's a lot of people out there who find the idea of controlling every single action the PC commits even if it is just a "Goodbie", "Gotta go!". This system is a very good balance between player choice and moving things fairly fast. I don't want to have to read 12+ option before I choose, that just plains breaks immersion. The current system allows my character to feel as I want it too, meaning if I play him as a sarcastic he will behave as sarcastic in flavour lines where Origins would have him just behave generic. If for some important desicion my character decides he is going to be serious the game won't impose the sarcastic flavour on the character, but present you with various choices. This seems to allow for imprecedented character roleplaying and immersion, while not becoming tedious. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Do you really think there's a lot of people out there who find the idea of controlling every single action the PC commits even if it is just a "Goodbie", "Gotta go!". This system is a very good balance between player choice and moving things fairly fast. I don't want to have to read 12+ option before I choose, that just plains breaks immersion.

You wouldn't need to check the extra options if you found one you liked in the first batch displayed.  You're just inventing problems.

The current system allows my character to feel as I want it too

Only if the designers foresaw your character's personality type.

meaning if I play him as a sarcastic he will behave as sarcastic in flavour lines where Origins would have him just behave generic.

Yes, but if you play him as something more complicated than a broad-brush "sarcastic" or "helpful", what happens then?

If for some important desicion my character decides he is going to be serious the game won't impose the sarcastic flavour on the character, but present you with various choices.

Why does the game get to decide which decisions are more important to your character?  Shouldn't you get to decide that?

This seems to allow for imprecedented character roleplaying and immersion, while not becoming tedious. 

Unprecedented roleplaying would be not voicing the lines, thus allowing literally any reading of them you could imagine.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 20 août 2010 - 11:18 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Addai67 wrote...

I'm curious why you would resist just this aspect of a voiced protagonist and not the whole idea of a voiced protagonist?  The whole rationale is that the PC should be able to react spontaneously and without constant check-back with the player.

I think that's an entirely different issue, and one we need to discuss.

The PC shouldn't ever do anything without checking back with the player.  Ever.  Under any circumstances.

[DarthCaine]

I'm somewhat concerned that all that VO is gonna make the game short ...

[DarthCaine]

If it's more than 35 hours (ME2's length), then I suppose I'll be ok with it ... eventually

Modifié par DarthCaine, 20 août 2010 - 11:47 .

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The PC shouldn't ever do anything without checking back with the player.  Ever.  Under any circumstances.

You can say that sort of thing as often as you like, Sylvius, but we're never going to make that kind of game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The PC shouldn't ever do anything without checking back with the player.  Ever.  Under any circumstances.

You can say that sort of thing as often as you like, Sylvius, but we're never going to make that kind of game.

You have before.

You've certainly made games previously that were closer to my ideal of player agency.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 20 août 2010 - 11:49 .

[Brockololly]

DarthCaine wrote...

I'm somewhat concerned that all that VO is gonna make the game short ...

Thats one of my big concerns with DA2. I liked how Origins was a nice, 80+ hour game. I'm hoping DA2 is at least 65+ hours- I'd hate it if it was as short as ME2 or ME1 as you lose that epic feeling when RPGs are that short, IMO.

Not to mention it would seem odd I think if DA2 is supposed to take place over 10 years yet is a shorter game than Origins....

[twincast]

DarthCaine wrote...

I'm somewhat concerned that all that VO is gonna make the game short ...

My single biggest concern. I ideally want it to be at least 80 hours long. If it's less than 60 hours I'll be seriously displeased. Pessimistically I expect it to be merely around 40 hours.

[DarthCaine]

Well, actually I'm one of those people that did everything in Origins in 60 hours (though I didn't read any codex pages), ME1 and ME2 in 35 each (with those idiotic collection quests in ME1). If it's round 40 hours I'm fine with it

Modifié par DarthCaine, 21 août 2010 - 12:01 .

[The Masked Rog]

Unprecedented roleplaying would be not voicing the lines, thus allowing literally any reading of them you could imagine.

Unprecedented means it has not been preceded, right? Dragon age has been there, done that. Baldur's Gate had much less VO and while I'm not denying it was an excellent RPG it did break immersion somewhat that the characters mostly remained silent. Same for having my character respond in a generic fashion. Sure I was comanding it, but it somewhat felt as if I was commanding an automaton instead of a person. I think the new system will bring the main character to life somewhat, thus enhancing my perception of roleplay. To be frank a silent protagonist somewhat breaks my immersion into the character. Why the hell is this guy standing here silent while everybody talks to him? But hey, everybody has their personal tastes, and I can completely understand that you don't like the direction things are taking. That said, I don't think there's any reason for me to continue this discussion - I've made my points and opinions clear.

[tmp7704]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Do you really think there's a lot of people out there who find the idea of controlling every single action the PC commits even if it is just a "Goodbie", "Gotta go!". This system is a very good balance between player choice and moving things fairly fast. I don't want to have to read 12+ option before I choose, that just plains breaks immersion. The current system allows my character to feel as I want it too, meaning if I play him as a sarcastic he will behave as sarcastic in flavour lines where Origins would have him just behave generic. If for some important desicion my character decides he is going to be serious the game won't impose the sarcastic flavour on the character, but present you with various choices. This seems to allow for imprecedented character roleplaying and immersion, while not becoming tedious. 

What if choosing the tone was for example as simple as clicking on certain part of the dialogue line? Say, putting the mouse over "I should go"option and clicking the part closest to the wheel was "aggressive" tone, middle part was "wisecracking" tone and farther out was "neutral" and "nice" or whathaveyou? And if these areas were fixed in width, so you could put your mouse in advance in the "nice" zone if you intented to be nice in most of your choices etc?

There's no need to read "12+ options" and no need to do any more clicking than you already do when you play the current game, and yet you can get full control over how your character says things, if you want to. And with full control in player's hands you could actually use these "flavour" lines for something, e.g. have them contribute to how the character you speak to views you, instead of them having the same reaction no matter what flavour the line gets.

Allowing things to "move fairly fast" can have lot to do with just UI being good enough to make it possible, instead of using one than gets in the way.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
What if choosing the tone was for example as simple as clicking on certain part of the dialogue line? Say, putting the mouse over "I should go"option and clicking the part closest to the wheel was "aggressive" tone, middle part was "wisecracking" tone and farther out was "neutral" and "nice" or whathaveyou? And if these areas were fixed in width, so you could put your mouse in advance in the "nice" zone if you intented to be nice in most of your choices etc?

None of this matters if the game doesn't react to it.

I'm assuming you're talking about VO. In that case, you would need to record every possible permutation of the line. This is just so expensive as to be impossible.
 

There's no need to read "12+ options" and no need to do any more clicking than you already do when you play the current game, and yet you can get full control over how your character says things, if you want to. And with full control in player's hands you could actually use these "flavour" lines for something, e.g. have them contribute to how the character you speak to views you, instead of them having the same reaction no matter what flavour the line gets.

But do we know that they will react the same independent of how the flavour line works? Perhaps that are slight differences in the scene our outcome based on dominant tone.

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You have before.

You've certainly made games previously that were closer to my ideal of player agency.

As far as I can tell, you're referring to BG1... a game that was made over 11 years ago and even then only accidentally meets your ideal, since you seem to think that allowing the player to control a party member to initiate dialogue in that game somehow allowed a greater degree of roleplaying even if everyone spoke to that character as if it was your PC.

I get that you prefer roleplaying that is mostly in your head, and dislike anything in the computer game that infringes on your mental "territory". I get that you don't mind micromanagement, and in fact prefer it.

But that's not what we're going to make, and it's not where we're going. You can keep asking for it, Don Quixote-style, if you like, but all I'm saying is it's not going to happen.

Modifié par David Gaider, 21 août 2010 - 12:23 .

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
I'm curious why you would resist just this aspect of a voiced protagonist and not the whole idea of a voiced protagonist?  The whole rationale is that the PC should be able to react spontaneously and without constant check-back with the player.

VO is just having the PC say the line in-game. That's all it does. The sponatenous reaction is entirely unrelated.

[filetemo]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You have before.

You've certainly made games previously that were closer to my ideal of player agency.

As far as I can tell, you're referring to BG1... a game that was made over 11 years ago and even then only accidentally meets your ideal, since you seem to think that allowing the player to control a party member to initiate dialogue in that game somehow allowed a greater degree of roleplaying even if everyone spoke to that character as if it was your PC.

I get that you prefer roleplaying that is mostly in your head, and dislike anything in the computer game that infringes on your mental "territory". I get that you don't mind micromanagement, and in fact prefer it.

But that's not what we're going to make, and it's not where we're going. You can keep asking for it, Don Quixote-style, if you like, but all I'm saying is it's not going to happen.

I have a non-related question:

if we can ****** our companions off and still get combat bonuses, does that mean we can't reach the point where they hate us so much that they will fight us or abandon us?

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

None of this matters if the game doesn't react to it.

I'm assuming you're talking about VO. In that case, you would need to record every possible permutation of the line. This is just so expensive as to be impossible.

This is actually what they are doing for DA2 -- some lines which are rendered neutral in DAO are given multiple tone versions, and which version gets used depends on which tone you've used the most up to this point in the game. I was just supplying example how the player could be allowed to choose freely between these options rather than rely on such automated system to try and make these choices for them.

But do we know that they will react the same independent of how the flavour line works? Perhaps that are slight differences in the scene our outcome based on dominant tone.

I would hope they overlook the tone for these automatically selected options precisely because they're automatically selected. Having NPC react to tone of Hawke's voice when the player had no choice to actually select the tone themselves... well, that's hopefully self-explanatory level of silly.

(and no, picking "dominant personality" in advance when you don't know what people you're going to meet and what tone you feel will be the most suitable to deal with them doesn't really count here as "being able to select tone yourself")

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
This is actually what they are doing for DA2 -- some lines which are rendered neutral in DAO are given multiple tone versions, and which version gets used depends on which tone you've used the most up to this point in the game. I was just supplying example how the player could be allowed to choose freely between these options rather than rely on such automated system to try and make these choices for them.

From what David said, it seems that different lines were recorded for a particular tone. So there is a sarcastic line versus an angry line, but it is not the same line.

Based on my reading of your post, you are saying we should have a written line, and by clicking in different places, we intonate that line differently. My understanding was that you wanted this for every line. Are you saying it should only be possible in rare flavour instances?

I would hope they overlook the tone for these automatically selected options precisely because they're automatically selected. Having NPC react to tone of Hawke's voice when the player had no choice to actually select the tone themselves... well, that's hopefully self-explanatory level of silly.

But this is precisely what it sounds like David is saying - that Hawke will respond spontaneously based on who you choose Hawke to be so far.

(and no, picking "dominant personality" in advance when you don't know what people you're going to meet and what tone you feel will be the most suitable to deal with them doesn't really count here as "being able to select tone yourself")

I don't understand. I'm a sarcastic person, myself. I tend to default to sarcasm most of the time, regardless of who I meet.

[David Gaider]

tmp7704 wrote...
This is actually what they are doing for DA2 -- some lines which are rendered neutral in DAO are given multiple tone versions, and which version gets used depends on which tone you've used the most up to this point in the game. I was just supplying example how the player could be allowed to choose freely between these options rather than rely on such automated system to try and make these choices for them.

And this is what I would call micromanagement. I don't doubt some people might think it's nifty in theory, but in practice I think it would be poor design to ask players to essentially choose dialogue options twice.

The tones are there to add personality to your player character, and react to your previous choices. The alternative would be to simply not have them at all, and have one neutral tone for all player lines. While having them doesn't allow the player control over their tone in every single action, I don't think that level of control is really necessary-- and I'm sure some people will be able to conjure worst case scenarios until their blue in the face but in the end I think you'll just need to see it in practice.

[Indoctrination]

I'm actually kind of excited for this feature because of how it could be used for future games. You can't really have the Warden showing up and interacting with Hawke because there's no tracking of your Warden's personality, and most people would probably be vexed at how badly their Warden is being represented from how they personally roleplayed him or her.

With this new system however, Hawke could show up to interact with our DA3 characters, and how he/she would react to you would be affected by how you played Hawke in DA2. If you played Hawke as a violent brute, then he/she would have a very aggressive and violent tone while interacting with your DA3 character. If you played Hawke as the kind white knight, he/she could be very friendly, like Duncan.

If you BioWare guys weren't already planning this, then you should steal this idea from me.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Based on my reading of your post, you are saying we should have a written line, and by clicking in different places, we intonate that line differently. My understanding was that you wanted this for every line. Are you saying it should only be possible in rare flavour instances?

I didn't word it clear enough i suppose. I was referring only to instances where line(s) generally mean the same thing and only differ by tone. (say, like: "A silver for a beggar Ser?" "Sorry, no" / "No" / "No, get the hell out of my way") Which as i understand it is the case of the "action choices" in DA2 -- you see it as one line on the wheel and when you click it Hawke picks tone automatically. I was suggesting having ability to override such automatic selections in simple manner could be beneficial.

But this is precisely what it sounds like David is saying - that Hawke will respond spontaneously based on who you choose Hawke to be so far.

Yes, which can a problem. Generally nice characters can still have valid reasons to be rude to some people and vice versa, to name the simplest cases. But if say, the game makes Hawke act all nice in conversation in these automated choices even if player selects aggressive options themselves, and it happens because Hawke was acting nice in few previous conversations with other people... then if you attached NPC reactions to these automated 'choices' it could easily lead to unintended results.

I don't understand. I'm a sarcastic person, myself. I tend to default to sarcasm most of the time, regardless of who I meet.

Leaving aside not everyone functions in this manner, even you only "default to sarcasm" most of the time. That means in some instances you choose not to use it when talking to some people. I'd presume your brain is capable of switching between these modes on the fly. The system attached to Hawke won't let you do such switch for the flavour options without manually choosing a large enough number of non-sarcastic responses to establish new "dominant personality" first, including (and realistically speaking, requiring) these non-sarcastic choices to be done also in entirely unrelated conversations with other people with whom you might feel the sarcasm would be actually fine.

[Riona45]

the-expatriate wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

I have to admit this news about personality being tracked is the one thing I've heard about DA2 so far that I'm really...resisting. It won't keep me from buying the game, but I don't think I like the sound of it. As I mentioned in another thread, I like reacting differently to different types of people. For example, I don't want to be snarky towards someone I don't think deserves it.

Yeah, but it's still a bit unclear as to how it'll play out I think. I mean, David Gaider can tell us about it all he wants, but it is still a work in progress and we probably won''t get a feel for how it affects roleplay until we get our hands on a final version ourselves. My hope, however, is that while developing it the dev's get some strong feedback from testers and fans who enjoy roleplaying their characters to a high extent, so as to make sure that the system of dominant tones indicating how your character reacts in some situations is not implemented in such a way that we have no choice over it. But besides, I get the impression that it will be fairly rare in comparison to all other game dialogue and more limited to main quests usually; I suppose all we can hope is that it's "done right." Whatever that means! That's subjective of course, but I think most fans would agree with you about not wanting to be railroaded into things, even based on your previous choices, without having the option to change your mind and, say, treat certain characters differently; if I understood you correctly there.

You did understand me correctly.

Yeah, I've mulled over this issue a bit, and you're probably right--it probably won't be as bad as I initially feared it would be.  I've decided not to worry over this too much, because there aren't too many details yet and because everything else about the game sounds so great to me.