313 réponses à ce sujet

[Riona45]

andar91 wrote...

I really think this sounds like a cool idea to implement in this type of dialogue system.

@Riona: I'm not too worried about this although I understand your concern. As David explains it (and as I questionably comprehend it), it will only come into affect for certain types of dialogue where we're doing something like accepting a quest or fighting in combat. It isn't as if this tracking is present in all of the dialogue lines, just some of them.

*nods*  Indeed, if it's the kind of thing that comes up only occasionally (at least, not all the time), odds are it won't bother me.  Heck, it might even turn out that I'll be pleasantly surprised when I finally play the game.

Modifié par Riona45, 21 août 2010 - 01:08 .

[David Gaider]

tmp7704 wrote...
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.

And I'll interject on that point and remind you that, most of the time, you WILL be able to select the tone you use when talking to people. We do not default to your dominant tone on every line. The only time it comes up is on the action choices-- where you are seeing the intended action and possibly the motivation spelled out for you in the paraphrase already. The dominant tone affects how you say those lines only, and even then only when we think it's appropriate.

If you're picturing us assigning a tone to your character all the time, that's simply not the way it is. You get choices all the time, and in this case we're not sticking to the "neutral" tone as we did in Origins, where such action choices would have resulted in a single tone simply due to the sheer number of options adding more would have required. 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.

[Riona45]

Addai67 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.

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.

Because normally you'd be able to choose what tone your response will be, if not the exact wording (although of course, with a "regular" conversation tree, you could never choose the exact wording you may have wanted either).  The "tracked personality" aspect may be less control than I'm comfortable with, but I'm still not opposed to giving it a try.

[Riona45]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

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

I am a little concerned about this as well.  I know the answer is always "why does it matter if a game is long if the game is awesome" and I know that is true.  But still, it can be hard to experience 60 hours of awesome in DAO, 40 hours of awesome in ME2 (counting DLC) and then have to content yourself with 20 or whatever.  I can deal with it, but I have been spoiled so it will be hard.

Is there reason to believe DA2 will be that short, though?

I definitely agree with the quality over length argument though.  A long but horrible game certainly isn't better for being long...

PS:  I played through DA:O for over 100 hours.  I did pretty much everything except for the rogue and assassination sidequests, which didn't fit my character.

Modifié par Riona45, 21 août 2010 - 01:22 .

[Brockololly]

I guess the question I have with the whole tone is do the NPC's specifically react to the "dominant" personality being expressed by Hawke for a given action? Basically, if Hawke's personality deems he react sarcastically to someone, would that NPC react to the sarcasm differently than if Hawke's personality was angry and resulted in an angry response?



I mean, is any reaction to the personality part of Hawke just in the form of a line or 2 difference and then the NPC goes back to the standard response? Basically, does Hawke's dominant personality ever have drastic effects on the gameplay or is it a feature to just sort of inject a little flavor into the voiced PC as opposed to how Shepard in ME was sort of a fixed personality?

[Riona45]

In Exile wrote...

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.

I'll just say I like this answer too.

[tmp7704]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I suppose we just see it differently -- i'll presume when you say "choose options twice" you don't actually mean "doing two clicks" because i was trying to address how such clunky UI limits could be avoided, earlier.

So, if you rather mean that you see it a poor design to ask the player to select both the dialogue option and tone associated with that option in single decision, then i don't exactly get why do you find it this way. To me it rather means the "dialogue game" can be extended from one- to two-dimensional. A poor analogy if you will, think of it as converting game of tic-tac-toe that happens on just single row to one which takes place on the field as we know it, and where both the row and column choice matters. Is the tic-tac-toe as we play it what you'd consider micromanagement because each choice consists of picking both the column and the row? Compared to playing on just one row perhaps, but is it poor design and is the game worse because of it?

It also isn't exactly different from how we conduct conversations (every time you speak to someone you do pick both the words and the tone... do you feel you're micromanaging real-life conversations because of it?) so i'm not sure why giving player access to something they're initimately familar with and do every day would be unwelcome development.

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.

Certainly, having no options whatsoever is one of possible alternatives. But having these options and giving the player control over them is also an alternative, just not one you think would be a good design, isn't that correct?

The way you put it right here was a bit as if Henry Ford one day declared "OK people, from now on you can get the Ford T in not only black but also red and blue. I'll select exactly which colour you get based on what colour clothes you've been wearing in the past five days. And the alternative is me going back to doing them all in just black like before"

[David Gaider]

tmp7704 wrote...
Certainly, having no options whatsoever is one of possible alternatives. But having these options and giving the player control over them is also an alternative, just not one you think would be a good design, isn't that correct?

Correct. You're already picking your tone the majority of the time, and your actions the rest of the time. I don't think it needs to get any more complicated than that.

The way you put it right here was a bit as if Henry Ford one day declared "OK people, from now on you can get the Ford T in not only black but also red and blue. I'll select exactly which colour you get based on what colour clothes you've been wearing in the past five days. And the alternative is me going back to doing them all in just black like before"

No, that's not what it's like-- but if you're really worried about not having control over something you never had control over previously either, I suppose there's nothing I can do to reassure you.

[tez19]

this sounds like a good idea to me, not only are you choosing what your character says in response to someone but also your character tone is different if you are usually good or bad. just adds a little bit more customisation i think.



*sighs*

sad people love to complain about little things, god knows how they would complain if something serious happened to them in everyday life.

[tmp7704]

David Gaider wrote...

And I'll interject on that point and remind you that, most of the time, you WILL be able to select the tone you use when talking to people. We do not default to your dominant tone on every line. The only time it comes up is on the action choices-- where you are seeing the intended action and possibly the motivation spelled out for you in the paraphrase already. The dominant tone affects how you say those lines only, and even then only when we think it's appropriate.

This is actually why i have some trouble understanding why it'd be such issue to allow the player also choose the tone in these few cases if they actually feel like it   Aside from the UI-related issues obviously discussed earlier and in the other thread which if they cannot be addressed then certainly make for a solid reason why it can't be done. But if it wasn't for that, providing player with ability to select between differently toned responses either regularly or most of the time and then taking it away from their hands just occassionally... feels rather arbitrary.

Perhaps i'm missing the importance of that "in situations where you've already indicated your action" part. I'm picturing it means actions like "Agree to the request" or "Say goodbye and part ways", is that wrong?

And granted, it's not something that was possible in DAO but i don't think that has effect on whether there's option of making it possible in DA2?

[tmp7704]

David Gaider wrote...

No, that's not what it's like-- but if you're really worried about not having control over something you never had control over previously either, I suppose there's nothing I can do to reassure you.

I think it feels different because previously the lack of control didn't matter as there was no choices to make. In this sense everyone was getting their "black Ford T" and they could take it or leave it. But when the possibility of more options is then presented there's feeling of lack of control rather than lack of options, and for some it can be more acute if it makes sense.

Although perhaps it also feels worse because with the broadened options comes subconscious expectation these options actually matter/make difference. If it doesn't matter at all whether Hawke is acting rude or polite during these "action lines" then i suppose it may only annoy someone who for the rp purposes would prefer their Hawke to use one tone over another, because they know Hawke is capable of doing either and it just happens the "wrong" one was selected by the code. But then on the other hand it also feels somewhat weird that these "flavours" have no impact while other instances (where the player gets to select how they behave) do.

[Bryy_Miller]

David Gaider wrote...
 You get choices all the time, and in this case we're not sticking to the "neutral" tone as we did in Origins, where such action choices would have resulted in a single tone simply due to the sheer number of options adding more would have required. 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.

Maybe my mind is not working at 100%, but what exactly are action choices. I know you've explained it before, but I can't seem to differentiate them from regular choices.

[David Gaider]

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Maybe my mind is not working at 100%, but what exactly are action choices. I know you've explained it before, but I can't seem to differentiate them from regular choices.

I explained it before, yes. You can find these quotes earlier in this very thread.

What you'd need to understand is there are two types of player responses that you're being asked for: one is the "personality choice" -- picture those times in Origins where you're not really making a story decision (take/refuse a quest, decide which path in a quest to follow, etc.) but simply selecting how you say something. In Origins we called that flavor and they didn't affect anything. Here we track it and have it affect the other responses-- the "action choice". If you're taking/refusing a quest or deciding on a path, we're not generally assigning a tone to
that response. We offer you options (and possibly different motivations for those options) but how you say them will depend on the personality choices you've been picking. Not all the time, of course, but often enough that you'll notice.

The idea, as I said, was not to have the tones be wildly divergent in their outcomes-- so it's not as if you're unexpectedly punching Bethany in the face with one action option and sweetly patting her on the head in the other. This is just the tone of the option as it's written in the paraphrase. We use the tones here when we think it adds something extra. If we're in doubt, we default to the same "neutral" tone that DAO used.

An example: Paraphrase = "Explain yourself. Now."

This could result in "Start talking" with an aggressive step towards the target, "I think it's in your best interest to tell me what you did" or maybe even "If I were you I'd be talking as fast as I could-- but maybe that's just me?"

That's just off the top of my head... at the same time we could just opt for the neutral "Tell me everything you know" if we felt the tones used didn't really add anything.

On the other hand (and this is more likely, with my example) if having the target start talking wasn't really an action option and we wanted the guy to explain himself anyway we could just present all three tone options complete with their tone icons. It's a bit more elegant than the DAO solution, from a writing standpoint (which did, actually, force you into a set personality for the most part), with the context icons hopefully alleviating a bit of the trepidation some people might feel about their sense of agency.

Modifié par David Gaider, 21 août 2010 - 06:06 .

[Collider]

This restricts roleplaying.

[David Gaider]

JoePinasi1989 wrote...
Have you considered adding a toggle (a lock) for Hawke's tone in options. Let's say I developed Hawke into a sarcastic tone, but if I use a ANY number of different tone "trigger" responses from that point on, my tone would change eventually, I, however, would not want that, I'd want my Hawke to remain sarcastic, EVEN if he'd choose the aggressive trigger. Maybe I'm imagining this wrongly. I suspect when such choices (triggers) are presented, there would be a distinct and clear reason not to muddle them.

You could mix and match your tone selections as much as you liked, so long as you choke the humorous responses more than the rest. If you were really selecting aggressive responses throughout the game, why would the game suddenly have you using humorous lines on the occasional action choice? No, we wouldn't do that. Like I've said before, this sort of dominant tone determination is happening under the hood. Turning it into something that you actively select belies its purpose completely.

To this end, I have another question: will you add a starting tone at the character creator? I think you'd have to.

No. The very first time a personality choice comes up (which is right away) that determines your initial "dominant tone". As I've said before, that dominant tone can "switch" as soon as your selections for another tone exceed that one's by one (so if your next two selections are a different tone, you'll switch). Each time you switch, the threshold for switching increases by one (so if your next three tone selections were different, you would switch again). This is to prevent a feeling of schizophrenia, but still allow you to change your personality if your selections are consistent enough.

[Arrtis]

JoePinasi1989 wrote...

Collider wrote...

This restricts roleplaying.

Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

THe trolls have escaped their cages and are hiding in our restrooms!
You can always try ignoring it....Mute it and turn off subtitles....make him say whatever you like.....Of course I guess you cannot make the npc to react in the way you want them to...

[Collider]

My goodness. Feeling that this feature of Dragon Age 2 restricts roleplaying equals trolling? Now I've heard everything. Basically everything else I've heard about Dragon Age 2 I liked. I just don't like to be forced to have my Hawke say something in a certain tone just because the game "thinks" my character is that way.

[Arrtis]

Collider wrote...

My goodness. Feeling that this feature of Dragon Age 2 restricts roleplaying equals trolling? Now I've heard everything. Basically everything else I've heard about Dragon Age 2 I liked. I just don't like to be forced to have my Hawke say something in a certain tone just because the game "thinks" my character is that way.

Look at who I quoted....Anyway....I am sorry to hear that...But at least you do not ahve to worry about your character saying something in a way you were not expecting.After all in most RPGs that give you a choice of dialogue is still a restriction on your roleplay capabilities.

[David Gaider]

Collider wrote...
This restricts roleplaying.

How, exactly?

You are choosing tones in the personality options, which is functionally no different than the flavor options you got throughout Origins where you were selecting how you said something.

When you are selecting an action (such as "I'll take the quest") instead of getting a neutral-toned respone (which is the only way it would have played out in Origins) you may get some personality in the line based on your dominant tone-- which is based on your choices to date. The action you chose, however, is still what you selected-- as is the motivation supplied in that choice.

Unless you balk at the idea of a voiced character completely, as in that isn't roleplaying in your estimation, I just don't see how this system-- which lets you develop a personality for your character in those situations where one wouldn't normally be useable-- doesn't allow you to roleplay better. Yet the idea that your character will occasionally be using a tone, something you've already consistently selected throughout the game, when taking actions that you've also selected, is somehow not roleplaying unless you also get to choose the tone for those lines... which you never got to do before anyway?

I really don't know how to better explain it. I think I'll just leave it at that.

[Arrtis]

David Gaider wrote...

Collider wrote...
This restricts roleplaying.

How, exactly?

You are choosing tones in the personality options, which is functionally no different than the flavor options you got throughout Origins where you were selecting how you said something.

When you are selecting an action (such as "I'll take the quest") instead of getting a neutral-toned respone (which is the only way it would have played out in Origins) you may get some personality in the line based on your dominant tone-- which is based on your choices to date. The action you chose, however, is still what you selected-- as is the motivation supplied in that choice.

Unless you balk at the idea of a voiced character completely, as in that isn't roleplaying in your estimation, I just don't see how this system-- which lets you develop a personality for your character in those situations where one wouldn't normally be useable-- doesn't allow you to roleplay better. Yet the idea that your character will occasionally be using a tone, something you've already consistently selected throughout the game, when taking actions that you've also selected, is somehow not roleplaying unless you also get to choose the tone for those lines... which you never got to do before anyway?

I really don't know how to better explain it. I think I'll just leave it at that.

I appluad your tolerance.It is that of a teacher.

[Collider]

How, exactly?

As I said in my previous post, because I am not directly choosing the tone Hawke takes in those instances, even when there are multiple variations. Why not just let the player choose? I don't view the voice acting as restricting roleplaying, btw. Maybe "restricts" roleplaying was bad wording, because as you said - the whole tone thing is basically new to the series. However, I prefer being able to choose directly, instead of the game assuming a personality from my character that I may not have envsioned in my head.



Yes - it's true, Hawke is not really my character in actuality and entirety, but if we're going to have multiple variations of the same sentence (the difference being the tone), then I'd like to choose it myself and instead of the game choosing it on what may be an unwarranted assumption.



So maybe it would be better to say that I do not feel it employs the full potential for roleplaying that the game has by virtue of having those differently voiced lines on the disc, and not letting the player choose which one to have Hawke say in some instances.