1279 réponses à ce sujet

[Amioran]

FieryDove wrote...

So in a real conversation you never know what you are going to say and just throw out phrases that sound good, read in a book, seen on the billboard or are hearing on the radio at the moment and these have nothing to do with whatever the subject is?

More simply, you cannot think and talk at the same time.

I would imagine most people would back away slowly or just stop talking at all to anyone that has a *real* conversation in this manner.

It is obvious that you haven't done a good work of introspection. I leave it at that. When you talk you do so by emotion. This is one of the motive many yogis, for example, despise talk.

The wheel is ebil and nothing anyone can say will make it otherwise. I have seen it in the ME games and it should stay there...imho (Or better yet die a quick death)

I always dislike total evil/total good arguments, because they are obviously crap. Your makes no ecception,

[Riona45]

SirShreK wrote...

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

You either misunderstood me or you're being disingenuous.

[Amioran]

Monica83 wrote...

Pahraphrases system= less deep dialogues
I think if DA use the wheel dialogue uses also Paraphrases system.. blah

Also written dialogue is a pahraphrases system. Or you do REALLY believe the contrary? No. Seriously.

[Amioran]

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.
.

Again, as it happens in a real conversation. Try to notice. You just "go by the mood". You cannot think and talk at the same time. In fact is usually happens that when you had a meaningful conversation you after rethink about it and it comes to mind many things you would have said etc.

And, anyway, deepening doesn't come by this, but HOW the method is used. You can have also written dialogue not deep, also knowing exactly what will come next and pondering about it.

All I see from people putting the "wheel" down are arguments that makes no sense, really. Even in a written dialogue you are bind by what the writer want you to tell, it does not make many difference. The only REAL difference is that you have all the time to ponder and to see what it is being said, while in the other case you cannot. But this difference is only on the approach used, not on the deepness of the medium.

[SirOccam]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]
Yes.  That's where roleplaying happens.

Any attempt to make that content explicit within the game can only diminish player agency.[/quote]
We're approaching this from two very different angles. What you see as player agency I see as simply compensating for ignorance on the player's part, ignorance of what the writers intended. In my view, there is a truth. The line was delivered a certain way, and it was received a certain way. If we use the Alistair example again, if you say something you think is a joke and he gets offended, we don't know whether it's because it was simply misunderstood by Alistair or it's because it wasn't a joke in the first place. Something was intended by the writers; we just don't know what it was. It's funny you should mention "player agency," because "roleplaying" in these instances (meaning choosing an explanation) has exactly 0 effect on the story. There is no player agency there. Whatever is meant to happen will happen, regardless of the explanation we imagine.

You see filling in these gaps as a feature; I see it as a chore. To me, roleplaying is choosing what to say, making actual choices that have an actual effect. Deciding what to say is roleplaying, pretending that something was meant one way or the other is not, because it makes no difference. You can't escape what the writers intended to happen.

If that same example happens in DA2, you can at least know that the joke was intended as a joke, and then you'll know that it was maybe a sensitive issue with the other person. That leads to greater insight into that character. In DAO, you could pretend, but as it has no effect on the story, then what's the point? If you choose to believe that Alistair is particularly offended by the subject matter of your joke, then great, but if the writers didn't design him that way, then it will signify nothing. And that just feels so...empty.

[quote]
[quote] Every line was intended to be expressed a particular way, and every line was received in a particular way, all dictated by the writers.[/quote]
Both true.  Neither is relevant to how the line was actually expressed by the PC.[/quote]
I don't see how you can arrive at this conclusion. If the writers intended a line to be expressed a certain way, then it was expressed that way. Not being able to determine the intent does not mean there was no intent. And again, pretending it was expressed a different way leads to nothing, and you can still do this in DA2 anyway, if you really want to.

[quote]
[quote]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.[/quote]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.[/quote]
Yes, but the same gripe you have about paraphrases and ambiguity applies here. You might be thinking he's saying one thing, but he's actually saying something else. I would think that would bother you.

[quote]
[quote]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.[/quote]These things in DAO are available for you to decide.[/quote]
But you're not really "deciding" anything, are you? One or the other explanation is the truth.

[quote]
[quote]You could fill in the blanks in your head, but it doesn't actually affect anything.[/quote]It affects who your character is, which is all that really matters.[/quote]
But it doesn't matter if it never affects anything in the game. I could pretend my character has a lisp, but if no one ever reacts to it, then what value does it have?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not someone who's against roleplaying or doesn't enjoy roleplaying. I can definitely see the value of these things if, say, I were playing a PnP RPG. Then I'd have a DM who would react to these things. They would carry some weight, however minor, in the story.

In a scripted video game, it's different. There is a truth, and no amount of roleplaying is going to affect that truth one iota.

[quote]
[quote]And besides, if you so wish, you can always pretend Hawke says something different in DA2 as well.[/quote]
If I could disable only Hawke's voice, and turn off the subtitles, then this would work.  I've actually asked for this option.[/quote]
It's more of a stretch, but you could still pretend that a hostile response was meant as a joke.

EDIT: fixed quotes

Modifié par SirOccam, 19 septembre 2010 - 08:52 .

[Amioran]

Monica83 wrote...

Have a voiced character don't means have deep dialogues..

Same as for a silent character. Being silent doesn't imply "deepness", at all. It depends on how the dialogue is written.
Try playing Divinity 2 and you will understand what I mean. You can ponder and know how much you want what it is being said, if there's no content there's none.

Same as it happens when someone that talks (or write a letter, there's no difference on this aspect on the two, same as "wheel" vs. silent) is not very intelligent, same as it happens in life. Having a system that doesn't let you know what you are gonna say doesn't mean "less deepness", it just mean a different approach.

Modifié par Amioran, 19 septembre 2010 - 08:51 .

[Pritos]

Lilacs wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Pahraphrases system= less deep dialogues
I think if DA use the wheel dialogue uses also Paraphrases system.. blah

Also written dialogue is a pahraphrases system. Or you do REALLY believe the contrary? No. Seriously.

Yes, it is a paraphrase which you can clearly see and control.

From what I heard from the devs, the pahraphrases system of DA2 will be something like that.

[SirOccam]

Riona45 wrote...

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).

Yeah, it's always nice to be told that if you don't agree with someone, you must have a learning disability. It must make people who actually have ADHD feel great too.

[Amioran]

Lilacs wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Pahraphrases system= less deep dialogues
I think if DA use the wheel dialogue uses also Paraphrases system.. blah

Also written dialogue is a pahraphrases system. Or you do REALLY believe the contrary? No. Seriously.

Yes, it is a paraphrase which you can clearly see and control.

And yet, the difference from writing a letter and having a conversation.
Still you don't go yelling around how not deep conversations are, isn't it?

[MerinTB]

I don't know about all that, but I can say quite simply that putting a voice to "my" MC is like having read a book series and then having an actor shoved into the lead role that just doesn't fit at all with how you imagined the character in the books at all.

Some people don't care - they read the book, and whatever movie translation happens is fine with them.

Others read the book, have a set way the character looks and sounds, and can't accept the actor cast.

Sylvius (and to probably a lesser extent, myself) fall into the latter category there.

That's the difference. No more really needs be said on it.

Some have no problem with it.
For some others, it ruins the experience.

Modifié par MerinTB, 19 septembre 2010 - 08:51 .

[-Semper-]

wow... money talks.

[Amioran]

MerinTB wrote...

I don't know about all that, but I can say quite simply that putting a voice to "my" MC is like having read a book series and then having an actor shoved into the lead role that just doesn't fit at all with how you imagined the character in the books at all.

This can be true for a book translated for example in a movie, where the character is created FIRST in imagination and AFTER it cannot coincide with it and you don't like that.

However if the character is already given to you then there's no motive why you cannot accept it. In a typical silent situation you have the freedom to create the character you want, and voicing the same can be bad, but in this case the character is already created for you. so all it is already contained within him/herself. In a movie where a character is already defined (and not in the above mentioned case) you accept the same how it is, you don't judge the same on "technical" standards since there's no motive to do so and no motive to believe him/her something else.

[Amioran]

Lilacs wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Lilacs wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Pahraphrases system= less deep dialogues
I think if DA use the wheel dialogue uses also Paraphrases system.. blah

Also written dialogue is a pahraphrases system. Or you do REALLY believe the contrary? No. Seriously.

Yes, it is a paraphrase which you can clearly see and control.

And yet, the difference from writing a letter and having a conversation.
Still you don't go yelling around how not deep conversations are, isn't it?

Did I yell that ?!  Did I ever suggest such a thing ?!

No, you just said that you can control one while you cannot the other. I just said that this happens also in a conversation vs. for example a written letter and yet nobody goes around mad at conversations not being "deep" or "controlled" as a letter.

I wasn't impling that you did it, I was just stating what it is happening in this forum.

[Amioran]

Lilacs wrote...
Ok.  I do see your point.  You can control a real conversation, but with a letter you would have to wait for a response (The sense of urgency, no matter how fast you want a response, will be unavailable).

Exactly. In the former (a letter) you have all the time to ponder what you are gonna say next. You already know the "impact" your words will make, or at last you can anticipate that and understand the implications. In a conversation, however, there's always a sense of "not knowing what will happen next", a state of tension brought upon by not having all the time to ponder, nor the definite understanding of what you will gonna say next. For example in a conversation that bring you to a fight you don't have the time to ponder how to come out of it how you would like, you could have said something not exactly as you meant it, etc.

The difference of the two, however, doesn't imply in itself deepness. That is inherent on the quality of the discussion, not on the time to ponder the same. It is the same as it happens in chess. A 5 minute game of two GMs is much more deep than a 2 hours game of amateurs. While having more control and freedom can brought you deepness, it is not directly tied to the approach.

Now, both silent and "wheeled" approach are however already written by some others. So deepness is already whitin it, in a bad or good way, what changes is only that the former gives you more control, the latter gives you much more tension. So they are only different approaches, with different good and bad points, with no absolute winner. Same as the above mentioned example of letter vs. conversation.

Modifié par Amioran, 19 septembre 2010 - 09:21 .

[Monica83]

Lol tha'ts really funny people love to rush in the dialogues too! Why don't puchase a FPS so you don't have to read the silly dialogue and think what answer you just go around and Pew Pew!....

In a RPG game dialogues are important.. Paraphrase sistem its not accurate many times sway what you are meaning with the response.. An example? Play mass effect 2 its a nice example of paraphrasing don't works well...



I prefear the old system so i can read the phrase and answer what i Chosed....This is why paraphrasing in roleplay don't work...

An example:?



Npc: I see you Kissing a pink bunny!



Answer:

I was not- Displayed response: Nooo im not im just try to catch it to have something good and tenderly to eat..

((what if i don't want eat the rabbit but i want only to catch him only because i hate pink?))

Yes i did- Displayed response: Yes im just wondering how is it to kiss a pink bunny i'm courious about the taste! ((and what if i wanted only kiss the bunny because is tenderly?))



Well im not sure-Displayed response: No im stupid so i just hugged him... ((what if i don't wanted hug this rabbit but i want only grab him to see how strange is that?))



This is why i prefear old style dialogue.. Maybe a lot more to read but i can give accurated answers..

[AtreiyaN7]

Monica83 wrote...

Pahraphrases system= less deep dialogues
I think if DA use the wheel dialogue uses also Paraphrases system.. blah

The use of the paraphrase is meant to quickly give you the gist of what your character is about to say. Your character inevitably says something much more lengthy, interesting and detailed than the paraphrased version that you select from the wheel, so I don't believe that it cheapens things any. It just makes things move along more snappily.

Not being able to read the exact words you're about to say does not mean that there is a corresponding decrease in quality or complexity of the spoken dialogue as far as I'm concerned. I also rather like the idea of being surprised (so long as the tone that I want to use is clearly indicated).

And no, I'm not lacking in imagination nor the ability to suspend my disbelief - my job involves formatting manuscripts, so I read a lot (like when I formatted a 500-page+ book last Sunday). I have to say that sometimes I really, REALLY regret being able to read every line of dialogue in detail in a fiction book, especially when it involves laughably bad love scenes.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 19 septembre 2010 - 09:24 .

[Riona45]

Monica83 wrote...

Play mass effect 2 its a nice example of paraphrasing don't works well...

I've played ME2 and I think the complaints about the dialogue system are overstated, although not entirely baseless.

Modifié par Riona45, 19 septembre 2010 - 09:30 .

[Monica83]

Yes but its not accurate.. In a roleplay you must know what you are sayng if you not its not a roleplay its only a sort of: Lol im watching a fiction and i select random answers with different tones...



If i create a character i want control what my character say... i don't want when i mean something my character say a complete different things...



Inaccurate=Less roleplay= no deep dialogues..

[Amioran]

Monica83 wrote...

Lol tha'ts really funny people love to rush in the dialogues too! Why don't puchase a FPS so you don't have to read the silly dialogue and think what answer you just go around and Pew Pew!....
In a RPG game dialogues are important.. Paraphrase sistem its not accurate many times sway what you are meaning with the response.. An example? Play mass effect 2 its a nice example of paraphrasing don't works well...
.

Ok, now I understand. You don't really know the meaning of the word, isn't it?

Also a written dialogue IS a pahraphrased sentence, no matter how much you want it not to be, do you get it? I can understand that you can like more to ponder on what is going happen in a game next, but still this is not what happens in a real life situation where for example your life is at stake. Didn't you were all for immersion? Or it changed somewhat for what you don't want to consider? So, this is not the difference between an FPS and an RPG because both systems can bring immersion in different ways, it is only the approach that changes.

A written dialogue by some author is ALWAYS a paharphrased system, voiced or not. This it is not tied AT ALL to "wheel" or not, do you get it or do you really don't? In this case I suggest you to read a vocabulary and PONDER (yes, this time it will make you good) a bit about what it is written.

Modifié par Amioran, 19 septembre 2010 - 09:34 .

[Amioran]

Lilacs wrote...
I see your point of view Monica, and it does make sense to have a CLEAR idea what your character would say.  Not having that capability, will result in situations most people face or encounter in the Mass Effect series (I stay clear of Mass Effect, though the graphic is engaging.  I must say I stopped at the first mission because I wanted tou use at least a dagger at close range; hooray for that ability in Halo Reach).

The bad of the system used in ME was NOT the approach (i.e. the wheel) but the background where that was used. Being that you already did know what the "correct" answer would have been, being that already the choices were clear and there was a sort of anticipation on what you wanted to say instead of what was being written, and lastly being that many people just created their "shepards" in their head before all of the dialogue either happening, it is obvious that the same would happen.

However this doesn't pertain to the fallacy of the approach but more on how it was used. Also if ME would have been written down and silent many of the choices you had were already clear before happening, there was no ponder needed, no real different choices making a true impact to warrant a difference.

The story was so already laid down that people already had the clear replies in their mind before all the dialogue happened. In this case the "wheel" cannot work because the preamble of the method working (i.e. buiding up tension) is not present in the beginning.