1279 réponses à ce sujet

[SirOccam]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But we won't know what it is the character is going to say, so our input won't be as deep.  We can't put as much thought into what it is we're going to say because those lines are kept hidden from us.

Try playing Mass Effect with specific conversation objectives in mind.  For example: "I don't trust this guy - I don't want to tell him anything."  In DAO (or KotOR, or NWN, or BG) you can choose dialogue options that avoid revelaing information.  Don't make any declarative statements you believe to be true, and you'll make it through without acting out of character.

But in Mass Effect, you can't do that.  You don't know what the lines are going to say, so you don't actually get any input into how your character behaves.

But that blame rests with the writers, not with the dialogue wheel. Who says that paraphrases have to be misleading?

Whatever you can do in Origins, you should be able to do in DA2. Again, it's the same team of writers, and the wheel isn't going to force them to change their writing. They've said they would be able to do all of Origins with the dialogue wheel if they were so inclined. It's just presentation...it doesn't change the content.

[exoproto]

Monica83 wrote...

Have a voiced character don't means have deep dialogues.. In mass effect 2 the paraphrases system don't works well you click a response and the character tells a complete different thing of what you mean... So if its implemented at the same way its implemented in mass effect 2 its very worse and not better...

Lack of contect: To have a voice character they cut out origins story and race selection.. This is a true stepback from origins.. In origins you can chose who you are by selecting class and race.. And origins story explain to you how you become a gray warden.. This is a deep storyline that make you feel inside the game.. With the class building of Dragon age origins you are more free if you like to be a warrior but you don't want to be a muscolar one you can select dual weild and bow specialization.. Ok its not good if they wear a full plate but is always better than cut off those ability in the sequel and cut the roleplay customization of a character for a Gameplay thing! or for Cool Animations!.. So they added cool animation they added VO character and whell of dialogues.. How can this be better from DAO?.. I see only a lot of features cut off to have an easy sequel the only thing i like of DA2 is the new design..
Why don't keep dragon age a old style Rpg?. For release fast another sequel?.. At that point i prefear to whait more and have a true sequel that follows the DAO setting and with a much more improvements..

Multiple Races
Better Graphic..
Fixed Animations
Fixed classes..
ecc ecc..
We have tons of schematic roleplay /action game around.. Why destroy the dragon age originality?
This is really bad but its what i feel..

I wouldn't consider it a step back. You said it yourself, Dragon Age: Origins was (undoubtedly) about the origins of your warden. Even then, whether you were an elf, a dwarf, or a human didn't make much of a difference to the story asides from a few race-specific dialogues.. which usually weren't the kindest of choices.

Dragon Age 2 begins and runs parallel to Dragon Age: Origins. I believe David Gaider himself said that it wouldn't make much sense to have any race other than a human "rising to the status of Champion of Kirkwall" seeing how it is dominated mainly by humans (Run over me with a steamroller if I'm wrong here, LOL). Of course, I understand the worries of not being able to play as another race. It was fun playing as a Dalish, but I'm still willing to play the game knowing that the other races aren't being left out of the game completely.

On the note of classes, I actually like what they're doing with the distinction. Believe me, I'm all up for the dual-wielding warrior, but every time I tried playing as one, it never worked out very well because of the system. I always ended up playing a rogue if I wanted to either a) be an archer (with the ranger specialization) or be a dual-wielder. The new animations are.. a bit over the top, I admit that, but it adds more to the story: Can Hawke/LadyHawke (or.. any companion, I s'pose) actually do those things? Or is it all bravado and exaggeration due to Varric?

I see an interesting story from the little scraps we have so far. Unfortunately, the changes a lot of people don't like is because BioWare has to adapt to the changing times or face losing everything. If a company tries to take a step back, they don't sell. If they try to take a step forward, they either do very well or fall beneath the weight of the almighty hype.

[Tsuga C]

SirOccam wrote...
Who says that paraphrases have to be misleading?

 
Sylvius does, and I concur.  Nuance is important in conveying meaning. Unless the writers are scrupulously thorough, there will inevitably be a fair number of instances when our protagonist either says something very different in kind or in degree from what the player intended.
 
To anyone not afflicted with ADHD, full-text responses are superior to summaries.
 

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

Having a paraphrase doesn't change the actual line.

It changes whether we can choose it.

All I can say is have some faith. They have the same excellent team of writers from Origins (with one additional writer), so they're not suddenly going to transform into the team that made Mass Effect. Having a dialogue wheel does not mean that the paraphrases have to be bad, nor that the voice has to be Mark Meer, or whatever else. It's just a different way of presenting the same high quality of content we got in Origins.

The voice does ensure that every line that delivered by the PC in DA2 is delivered exactly as intended by BioWare, which is a far more limited set of options than the effectively infinite set of options available in DAO.

[Sylvius the Mad]

axa89 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'm not asking you if you, the player, would preer that type of gameplay.  I'm asking if you, were you a character in the setting, would choose to face danger unnecessarily rather than spend the day relaxing by the fire.

Why unnecessarily?

You gain the XP either way.  The danger isn't necessary.

That's what unnecessary means.

[Meltemph]

To anyone not afflicted with ADHD, full-text responses are superior to summaries.

Most full text responses will have less meaning though, when you are dealing with multiple paths in a discussion because they can only let the story go "so far" the other way. Paraphrasing does not have to do that near as much. Sure you have less control of "exactly" what they say, but you have a better feel of the consequence of what you say.

The voice does ensure that every line that delivered by the PC in DA2 is delivered exactly as intended by BioWare, which is a far more limited set of options than the effectively infinite set of options available in DAO.

I would rather not have extra choices just for the "illusion" of choice. I would much rather have the dialog have more consequence.  And since, you said what the PC says is what Bioware intended it only makes sense that it will be easier for the writers to do just that.

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 septembre 2010 - 07:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Most full text responses will have less meaning though, when you are dealing with multiple paths in a discussion because they can only let the story go "so far" the other way. Paraphrasing does not have to do that near as much. Sure you have less control of "exactly" what they say, but you have a better feel of the consequence of what you say.

What consequence?  The direct consequence of me trying to say something is me saying something.  Everything beyond that (people's reactions to what I say) is beyond my control.

Control over exactly what I say is all that matters.

I would rather not have extra choices just for the "illusion" of choice, I would much rather have the dialog have more consequence.

It wasn't an illusion.  it was actual choice.  When you choose a line in DAO, your character means that line however you want him to mean it.  He says it however you want him to say it.  HE could even say something different - he's not wed to those exact words.

Not so in DA2.  in DA2 the PC will say exactly what the writers wrote and he'll say it exactly as they intended he say it.  You'll has as few options as you can count on your hand.

5 < infinity

[soundchaser721]

SirOccam wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Have a voiced character don't means have deep dialogues.. In mass effect 2 the paraphrases system don't works well you click a response and the character tells a complete different thing of what you mean... So if its implemented at the same way its implemented in mass effect 2 its very worse and not better...

The presence of a voiced character doesn't mean the dialogue will be deep, but it doesn't mean it won't be either. It's just presentation. The writers are the same. They made the dialogue very deep in Origins; of course they can do the same here. Having a paraphrase doesn't change the actual line.

Lack of contect: To have a voice character they cut out origins story and race selection.. This is a true stepback from origins.. In origins you can chose who you are by selecting class and race.. And origins story explain to you how you become a gray warden.. This is a deep storyline that make you feel inside the game..

How do you know that they'd have Origins again if they didn't go with a voiced protagonist? Have they ever said "we were going to have more Origins, but we thought having a voiced character would be cooler"? Origins were a part of Origins...it wasn't a promise that the entire series would always follow suit.

And look at it this way: the origins explain how you become a grey warden; this is true. But the entire game of DA2 explains how you become the Champion of Kirkwall. And you will still see the same "call to adventure" that the origins gave you. In DA2, it is the destruction of Lothering. So in a sense, there is an Origin, only they don't call it as such.

One final point...DA2's storyline is going to be much, MUCH deeper than DAO's. In DAO you could choose your race, yes, but everyone pretty much followed the same path. The game is about defeating the Blight. You could do things in a different order, or you could trade one ally for another (like Werewolves instead of Elves), but in any case, you visit these 4 locations, resolve their issues, then fight the Archdemon. It's all about The Mission. But in DA2, there is no all-important "Mission" taking precedence in every decision you make. You are just a person first trying to survive, then trying to make your mark on the world. That is much more freedom than in Origins, where you had no choice about becoming a Warden and no choice about your ultimate goal.

With the class building of Dragon age origins you are more free if you like to be a warrior but you don't want to be a muscolar one you can select dual weild and bow specialization.. Ok its not good if they wear a full plate but is always better than cut off those ability in the sequel and cut the roleplay customization of a character for a Gameplay thing!

I don't see how selecting dual-wield and bow means you are less muscular. And if you want those things, then why not be a rogue? I don't think it's as big of a deal as you make it out to be. Making classes more distinct is a good thing, though understandably it might upset some people. As great as Origins was, it's a legitimate complaint that rogues often just felt like weak warriors.

or for Cool Animations!.. So they added cool animation they added VO character and whell of dialogues.. How can this be better from DAO?.. I see only a lot of features cut off to have an easy sequel the only thing i like of DA2 is the new design..
Why don't keep dragon age a old style Rpg?. For release fast another sequel?.. At that point i prefear to whait more and have a true sequel that follows the DAO setting and with a much more improvements..

I don't understand. You just listed three huge features added, then you say you only see features cut off. The VO/wheel is going to be a matter of taste, but for some people it increases immersion. Obviously you can suspend your disbelief when you have to, but not having to is always going to be better, in my opinion. We could be playing a text-based game like Zork, but I for one like to see what's going on, even if it means I can't simply use my imagination and make the setting appear exactly like I want.

All I can say is have some faith. They have the same excellent team of writers from Origins (with one additional writer), so they're not suddenly going to transform into the team that made Mass Effect. Having a dialogue wheel does not mean that the paraphrases have to be bad, nor that the voice has to be Mark Meer, or whatever else. It's just a different way of presenting the same high quality of content we got in Origins.

How do you know for a fact that DA2 will have a much better storyline than origins? While origins did follow the "Defeat an ancient evil" cliche DA2 is going to follow an equally generic premise: "Rise to Power!" its been done some many times in so many different types of entertainment-and thats not to say the ancient evil hasn't been done to death either-but the fact is the game is about Hawke and his rise to power, and its about what kind of person Hawke is. I don't see how that can be much deeper than the story line of origins. Granted I'm sure it will be deeper than just a rise to power but thats the whole foundation of the plot, "who is the champion of kirkwall?". They've got a great writing team and I'm sure the story will be great, but I wouldn't make such a bold claim on based on what little we know of DA2's plot. 

Modifié par soundchaser721, 19 septembre 2010 - 07:28 .

[Riona45]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Hmm, I was actually curious about the cheese-wheel thing (per earlier post about ephemera/cheese wheels) and attempted to run around in order to see if I could locate any. So far I've completely struck out in several dungeon areas and have only seen the massive cheese wheel in camp. Either I'm blind as a bat and terrible at finding them or massive cheese wheels have ninja-like stealth capabilities. I did find some pies in the Denerim marketplace however (I should probably try the Deep Roads, but ugh, I don't want to run through there even though it's empty).

Yes, it was a silly thing to do, but it's election night and there's nothing to watch atm.

I disagree, I appreciate that you took the time to look.

[Tsuga C]

Meltemph wrote...

To anyone not afflicted with ADHD, full-text responses are superior to summaries.

Most full text responses will have less meaning though, when you are dealing with multiple paths in a discussion because they can only let the story go "so far" the other way. Paraphrasing does not have to do that near as much. Sure you have less control of "exactly" what they say, but you have a better feel of the consequence of what you say.

This is incorrect.  What you meant to say is that more responses increase the likelihood that a number of the responses will have a less meaningful impact upon the story as they will tend to lead to the same destination in the near-term.  There is no logical way to defend a three or four word summary as being more precise than a fully written, 25-40 word response.

Additionally, more flags may be tripped and variables set when a generous number of responses, some of them highly nuanced, are offered to a player.  There might not be a tremendous difference in the near-term between three of six options in a crucial conversation, but nuances in said conversation can always be used to trigger long-term options and consequences.  And BioWare has the writers capable of pulling off that sort of thing, so that's not a door I want shut.

Full-text responses are the superior system. 

Modifié par Tsuga C, 19 septembre 2010 - 07:32 .

[Meltemph]

What you meant to say is that more responses increase the likelihood that a number of the responses will have a less meaningful impact upon the story as they will tend to lead to the same destination. There is no logical way to defend a three or four word summary as being more precise than a fully written, 25-40 word response.

No, I have played just about every game with multiple choices there is, and specially the older ones are fill with long responses with nothing from it other then giving you an illusion that the line they fed you means something. But at the end of the day it was just a line of text that you chose, that they wanted knew you/someone would choose.



The idea that you have "more control" of what you say with an exact full text of what you will say is foolish. You only get the choices they give you, period. Those "long term" consequences can happen regardless and they already said there will be more then just 3 dialog choices.

Additionally, more flags may be tripped and variables set when a generous number of responses, some of them highly nuanced, are offered to a player. There might not be a tremendous difference in the near-term between three of six options in a crucial conversation*, but nuances in said conversation can always be used to trigger long-term options and consequences. And BioWare has the writers capable of pulling off that sort of thing, so that's not a door I want shut.



Full-text responses are the superior system.

Yes and the more you have the less they mean because it adds a lot more variables that they have to keep in mind for everyone. So yes you may get more inconsequential choices, but choices with real meaning will be less.

[Tsuga C]

With the abundant illogic like that displayed by Meltemph on these forums, it's a wonder Sylvius the Mad is still sane.  This conversation is no longer worth having. 

Happy trails.

[Meltemph]

Tsuga C wrote...

With the abundant illogic like that displayed by Meltemph on these forums, it's a wonder Sylvius the Mad is still sane.  This conversation is no longer worth having. 

Happy trails.

Definitely!  Specially compared to your ideas!  I mean, with logic like yours, it is a wonder people are not lining up asking you for consultation in game design choices!  Since there are just so many games with story dialog like you mentioned and it being a good story with strong consequences to onces choices.  Obviously the lack of said stories must be because they just don't have your level of expertise.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tsuga C wrote...

With the abundant illogic like that displayed by Meltemph on these forums, it's a wonder Sylvius the Mad is still sane.

I am Sylvius the Mad.

[SirOccam]

Tsuga C wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
Who says that paraphrases have to be misleading?

 
Sylvius does, and I concur.

Well that's nice, but it doesn't make it true.

Nuance is important in conveying meaning. Unless the writers are scrupulously thorough, there will inevitably be a fair number of instances when our protagonist either says something very different in kind or in degree from what the player intended.
 
To anyone not afflicted with ADHD, full-text responses are superior to summaries.

But it really doesn't matter, because you can't fine-tune your responses based on things like nuance. If you want to be aggressive but you don't like the particular turn of phrase your character uses, it doesn't mean you now have the choice to be aggressive with a different phrase. And if nuance is enough to put you off of a certain line, then why would choosing an entirely different attitude be better?

There were already lines in Origins where the line came across in a different way from how it appeared. This is something we're not going to get away from...it's inherent to the concept of communication. At least with the dialogue wheel, you have the tone icons so you can at least see how it's meant. That's a big step in the right direction.

I don't have ADHD, and I like summaries just fine. Unless you and Sylvius declare it not to be so, that is.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Having a paraphrase doesn't change the actual line.

It changes whether we can choose it.

All I can say is have some faith. They have the same excellent team of writers from Origins (with one additional writer), so they're not suddenly going to transform into the team that made Mass Effect. Having a
dialogue wheel does not mean that the paraphrases have to be bad, nor that the voice has to be Mark Meer, or whatever else. It's just a different way of presenting the same high quality of content we got in Origins.

The voice does ensure that every line that delivered by the PC in DA2 is delivered exactly as intended by BioWare, which is a far more limited set of options than the effectively infinite set of options available in DAO.

I disagree, but I don't think we need to get into this particular debate again. I've seen you argue this case before, and we both know no one is ever going to convince you otherwise, but let me just say that any "variability" in DAO dialogue was just in your head. Every line was intended to be expressed a particular way, and every line was received in a particular way, all dictated by the writers.

You can pretend that you said something in an entirely original way, but no matter how hard you imagine, it will always lead to the same response. If you think something is a joke, but Alistair gets his feelings hurt over it, it's because it wasn't a joke. Or it was a joke by which Alistair was meant to get offended. You could fill in the blanks in your head, but it doesn't actually affect anything. They are not truly options.

And besides, if you so wish, you can always pretend Hawke says something different in DA2 as well.

soundchaser721 wrote...

How do you know for a fact that DA2 will have a much better storyline than origins? While origins did follow the "Defeat an ancient evil" cliche DA2 is going to follow an equally generic premise: "Rise to Power!" its been done some many times in so many different types of entertainment-and thats not to say the ancient evil hasn't been done to death either-but the fact is the game is about Hawke and his rise to power, and its about what kind of person Hawke is. I don't see how that can be much deeper than the story line of origins.

What's different is that "rise to power" is WAY less defined than "defeat the Archdemon." It's very vague, and the manner by which you do so can vary greatly. What being Champion even means can vary greatly. So no, I don't know for a fact that DA2 will have a much better storyline than Origins, but when I see the foundation they've laid down, I can see that it has the potential to be much better. And that's saying a lot, because I loved Origins' storyline.

Granted I'm sure it will be deeper than just a rise to power but thats the whole foundation of the plot, "who is the champion of kirkwall?". They've got a great writing team and I'm sure the story will be great, but I wouldn't make such a bold claim on based on what little we know of DA2's plot.

I never said it will be better; I said it will be deeper. And I just say that because of the reasons above...it's based on the foundations they've laid. I don't know any more of the plot than the next guy, but that's sort of the point. If this were Origins coming out and we all learned that the plot was "kill the Archdemon," then that pretty much sums up the game. Everything will be preparing to kill the Archdemon and then killing the Archdemon. But with "rise to power"...that could be anything.

Modifié par SirOccam, 19 septembre 2010 - 08:22 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

I disagree, but I don't think we need to get into this particular debate again. I've seen you argue this case before, and we both know no one is ever going to convince you otherwise, but let me just say that any "variability" in DAO dialogue was just in your head.

Yes.  That's where roleplaying happens.

Any attempt to make that content explicit within the game can only diminish player agency.

Every line was intended to be expressed a particular way, and every line was received in a particular way, all dictated by the writers.

Both true.  Neither is relevant to how the line was actually expressed by the PC.

You can pretend that you said something in an entirely original way, but no matter how hard you imagine, it will always lead to the same response.

Again, true.  And not relevent to the roleplaying experience.

The roleplaying resides in how your character behaves and why.  how people react to him is immaterial.

If you think something is a joke, but Alistair gets his feelings hurt over it, it's because it wasn't a joke.

Or because Alistair took it the wrong way.

These things in DAO are available for you to decide.

You could fill in the blanks in your head, but it doesn't actually affect anything.

It affects who your character is, which is all that really matters.

And besides, if you so wish, you can always pretend Hawke says something different in DA2 as well.

If I could disable only Hawke's voice, and turn off the subtitles, then this would work.  I've actually asked for this option.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
 When you choose a line in DAO, your character means that line however you want him to mean it.

From what I can tell, that is a matter of some debate (debates that I've seen you participate in, no less).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riona45 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

 When you choose a line in DAO, your character means that line however you want him to mean it.

From what I can tell, that is a matter of some debate (debates that I've seen you participate in, no less).

But the other side has no leg to stand on.  As the player, you're free to control your gameplay experience and determine implicit content as you see fit.

[Meltemph]

When you choose a line in DAO, your character means that line however you want him to mean it.

In your head maybe, but in how it actually effects the game? No, the variables are set and the writers have their intentions.

[Riona45]

soundchaser721 wrote...
How do you know for a fact that DA2 will have a much better storyline than origins? While origins did follow the "Defeat an ancient evil" cliche DA2 is going to follow an equally generic premise: "Rise to Power!" its been done some many times in so many different types of entertainment-and thats not to say the ancient evil hasn't been done to death either-but the fact is the game is about Hawke and his rise to power, and its about what kind of person Hawke is. 

It's not what it is, it's how it's done that matters.

Modifié par Riona45, 19 septembre 2010 - 08:26 .

[SirShreK]

Riona45 wrote...

soundchaser721 wrote...
How do you know for a fact that DA2 will have a much better storyline than origins? While origins did follow the "Defeat an ancient evil" cliche DA2 is going to follow an equally generic premise: "Rise to Power!" its been done some many times in so many different types of entertainment-and thats not to say the ancient evil hasn't been done to death either-but the fact is the game is about Hawke and his rise to power, and its about what kind of person Hawke is. 

It's not what it is, it's how it's done that matters.

Does that mean that thre is no cliche involved in defeat the ancient evil scenario as long as its well done?

[Meltemph]

Does that mean that thre is no cliche involved in defeat the ancient evil scenario as long as its well done?

No, it just means cliches can be enjoyed if done properly. But you are correct, there are no promises that the story will be better, that will have to wait to be judged.

[Riona45]

SirOccam wrote...

I don't have ADHD, and I like summaries just fine. Unless you and Sylvius declare it not to be so, that is.

And, it would be nice if people would stop using clinomorphisms about ADHD--among other things--to make points in a discussion about video games (not calling you out, SirOccam, this is a general statement).

Modifié par Riona45, 19 septembre 2010 - 08:37 .