1279 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
The question is do they care that theres a good number of people who were disenchanted with the way ME2 handled dialog? Going by some of the responses Mr Gaider makes to criticism especially involving the questionable conversation system deployed in awakening, I'd question if they care one iota.

They have actually responded on here to the effect that they are aware of the ME issues and won't have the same problem.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pritos wrote...

Then you must hate any Zelda games.

I have no opinion of Zelda games.  I've never played them, and don't generally play games on consoles.

If there were a PC port I might give one a go.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 20 septembre 2010 - 05:30 .

[Morroian]

Monica83 wrote...
The problem is that SirOccram im just wondering if we can select what hawke say's like happened in origin when you read your answer and you select the response.. Paraphrasing implemented like mass effect is too much schematic for a dialogue don't give you really deep interaction this i'm sayng..

Why not? You're saying its impossible without even trying it. Thats just being close minded. The DA writers are a lot more talented than the ME writers so why shouldn't they be able to implement it effectively.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Pritos wrote...

Then you must hate any Zelda games.

I have no opinion of Zelda games.  I've never played them, and don't generally play games on consoles.

If there were a PC port I might give one a go.

In any case the Zelda games are quite different from BioWare's RPGs, so I don't see how they are relevant.

[Riona45]

Monica83 wrote...
Simplify dialogues in a roleplay game its like make a pizza whitout mozzarella and tomato....

If you're going to go there...

You don't have to make pizza with either of those things for it to be legitimately pizza.

[Monica83]

The problem morroian is this:



In origins you can select your answer because you know exactly what your character is going to say..The answer is well writed so you have the time to think at the answer words and you can select what you want to say..



In a Paraphrasing system like mass effect you have stylized written answer and you don't know so well how the character answer... Then if you select one the character reacts and tells something much different from what you mean..This is the limit of a stylized paraphrasing system you can make it better but the limit persist anyway...



The best manner to implement it is write in text the full answer so one can read and have a clear idea in mind of what character is going to say..And if bioware and DA2 team use this manner in that case can be a great step up from origins... If they implement it at the same or similiar way of mass effect well its just limited and you limit the roleplay of the player..I'm not sayng its impossibile.. I'm sayng the best manner to do that its write in the wheel the complete answer... This add much more accurancy to the answer you give...

[Monica83]

For riona: Sorry hun im italian did you really want explain to me how is it a true pizza?

[Riona45]

Monica83 wrote...

For riona: Sorry hun im italian did you really want explain to me how is it a true pizza?

You could be anyone "hun," it's the internet.  Suffice it to say that I disagree with you and I think you used a bad analogy.

[Monica83]

Ok let's change it: Simplify dialogues in a roleplay game its like to watch a movie with a broken tv with black screen

[MDarwin]

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Whats amazing to me still after all this, is Dragon Age is a game that sat in development for as long as it did, was touted as a throwback to the genre and style that Bioware made its mark in and gained the majority of its long time fans from, and it appears at least from alot of the info on DA2 we've heard so far that it lasted all of one game.

They never said or promised anything else.

As far as I rememember DAO was to be a sort of BG2 with new "techinical/game play advances". The RPG style of BG2 was to be "dominant" in the DA(O) Franchise/Adventures.

Now, one can argue: Was it or Wasn't it? Also your choices/action was supposed to have a great impact on the outcome of the game. With me: It failed.

These are my opinions, not anybody elses!

[Morroian]

Monica83 wrote...
The best manner to implement it is write in text the full answer so one can read and have a clear idea in mind of what character is going to say..And if bioware and DA2 team use this manner in that case can be a great step up from origins... If they implement it at the same or similiar way of mass effect well its just limited and you limit the roleplay of the player..I'm not sayng its impossibile.. I'm sayng the best manner to do that its write in the wheel the complete answer... This add much more accurancy to the answer you give...

You forgot "in my opinion". I've already given you a reason why the paraphrasing works for me and why it should be implemented better than ME. You don't like the system fine, but don't try and make out like its some universal flaw in game design which is guaranteed to result in a game of lesser depth.

[Morroian]

MDarwin wrote...
As far as I rememember DAO was to be a sort of BG2 with new "techinical/game play advances". The RPG style of BG2 was to be "dominant" in the DA(O) Franchise/Adventures.

From what I read this was only said about DAO not possible future games.

[AtreiyaN7]

Unless I'm mistaken, there's more to the new system than just choosing between aggressive/diplomatic/sarcastic - you do also get to have companions participate in a conversation by making suggestions or coming up with their own solutions. That's something new and interesting for me at least. As for the old way of doing things in DA:O, considering that we do have a voiced protagonist now, it really would be rather redundant (as someone pointed out) to read the line exactly as written before you character says it. Also, we don't know exactly how many different dialogue options we'll have for any given conversation. There could easily be just as many choices as we had in DA:O (albeit in the new paraphrased form).

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

Okay, I see what you mean. I guess I just feel like if the player doesn't grasp the meaning of the line, it's a problem between the player and the game, not between the protagonist and his or her fellow conversant. If they can make the meanings clear to the player, there is still room for misunderstanding. It will just be more in-character. Personally, if I misunderstood something like that, and it affected my (character's) opinion of someone in a way not intended, then I wouldn't think I made a different choice, I would think I was wrong.[/quote]
When my character is making decisions when dealing with the other characters, that's all he can consider.  I (the player) don't exist.  The game doesn't exist.

This is why I don't think RPGs are a subset of games.  Games test the player, and you're clearly playing DAO like it's a game.  You're acutely aware all of the time that you're a player playing a game.

But that's not how RPGs work.  RPGs are a test of the character.  The character makes decisions on his own (as directed by you, but that direction takes place outside the game world so it doesn't really exist within the RPG).  So naturally, if things transpire that confuse him he'll think that he made a mistake or someone else in the game world made a mistake.  He's not going to blame something that doesn't exist (the player).

So if I invent a back story for my character, my character knows this story is true.  Anything in the game that contradicts this backstory must be wrong, even if the writers (who also don't exist from the character's point of view) intended that it be correct.

A great example of this occurs at the beginning of KotOR.  When Trask runs into your room and starts telling you things about yourself, those things can be true, or they can be false, and for each point that is up to you to decide.
[quote]Actually, it occurs to me that there is a perfect example: breaking Anora out of Howe's estate. I wasn't paying enough attention, and when Ser Cauthrien et al. stopped me, I said "we're rescuing the queen! Tell them, Anora!" At which point she "betrayed" me. It certainly felt like betrayal at the time. But sometime later I re-read her dialogue where she quite clearly says "even if my own people see me, they'll just take me back to my father." So I betrayed her by exposing her.[/quote]
I did the same thing.  My character totally forgot Anora's instruction (so did I), so he chose that same dialogue option.  Oops.
[quote]Now I know what you're going to say: "that's roleplaying!" Yes, it is very true that my character also could have been zoning out during that conversation. He could just as easily have been like me and naïvely thought that Anora could just explain everything and then we could all go about our business in peace. But it just felt like I got it wrong. It felt like it was my fault, not my character's. I didn't make his decision with all the information at hand.[/quote]
And that can happen.  Sometimes you'll make a decision for your character that you soon realise was out of character.  When that happens to me, I always reload and play through that section again, regardless of how long ago it was.

In DAO I made a metagame decision to go collect Shale early in the game, and I knew from that point on that I shouldn't have done it.  So I hoped that having Shale around wouldn't have any impact on the game up until the moment when I would have, in character, gone to find her.  Unfortunately, Shale did have an impact, so I had to back up and replay a 25 hour section of the game to fix it.

Roleplaying takes work and diligence.  And it's possible to screw it up.
[quote]Sure you can know people. I feel like I got to know most of my companions in Origins really well. If I didn't, it would make for some pretty shoddy companions. What would be the point of NPCs who have no personal consistency?[/quote]
People sometimes behave unpredictably.  I'd call that realism.  You're a bunch of people all thrown together by circumstance.  Is it really that surprising that maybe you wont' get along or be compatible?
[quote]We know Alistair's personality, so if he does something unexpected, I'd want to know that it's really him behaving unexpectedly, or if I said something that would naturally prompt him to act that way. If it's the former, it could be an interesting plot point, but if it's the latter, it might have just been me zoning out again.[/quote]
And here I think you're reducing replayability.

Different characters of mine have elicted entirely different reactions for the companions, and as such have had very different opinions of them.  In one playthrough Alistair might be whiny and petulant, while in another he's fun-loving and self-assured.  The writers certainly didn't intend both of those, but those are both impressions the PC can get by acting consistently himself.
[quote]Put yourself in the shoes of the writer. Say you were writing a dialogue that included the following:

1. Hey Alistair, try to restrain yourself when we pass this lamppost coming up.
Response: "I'll try, but it looks pretty lonely. It may need comforting." (Alistair approves +4)

This is Alistair running with the joke. No offense taken. This is probably what most players would expect, after getting to know Alistair.

But say you actually wrote it like this:
1. Hey Alistair, try to restrain yourself when we pass this lamppost coming up.
Response: "Just leave me alone, you bastard!" (Alistair disapproves -12)

Now this is pretty out-of-character for Alistair, but it is understandable if you imagine your character saying his line with a cruel sneer and a mocking tone. So the question is...how did you say it? Obviously he took offense, but was it because you cruelly mocked him, or because he's sensitive and embarrassed about the virginity talk earlier?[/quote]
That would depend on how I said it.  Allowing, of course, that we can't ever really know other people.
[quote]If you're the writer, you obviously meant it in some way.[/quote]
This is by no means guaranteed.  The DAO writers have said they did write with intent in mind, but that's not a necessary component of game writing.
[quote]So if you intended for the PC's line to be delivered cruelly, then some player comes along and says "well in my game, I said it in a nice, joking way, but he just misunderstood," you'd probably be thinking "good for you, but no he didn't."[/quote]
The writers' opinions have no material effect on gameplay.

You're presupposing that there is a pre-existing truth of how each line is delivered.  Stop presupposing that and these objections fall completely apart.
[quote]Indeed, and imagining that they sleep in hammocks held aloft by dragons doesn't mean they do.[/quote]
If your PC believes he sleeps in hammocks held aloft by dragons, that belief will colour all of his other experiences with sleep in the game.

This isn't about what's true.  This is about what your character believes is true.
[quote]Those are the questions I'd ask now, about Origins. Why not play text-based games, so you can imagine the scenery too? Why even play a game; why not just write your own story?[/quote]
Because I don't want to write a story.  I don't want to design a setting.

I want to create a character, and then see how that character behaves when presented with stimulus.  As I play the game and he character encouters each situation, I constantly refer back to my initial design (possibly amended by the character's later experiences) to see what response or behaviour would be consistent.

When the game is over, I can see what sort of events were wrought by that character design.  That's the payoff.

If I don't get to design the character, I have no interest in playing the game.  This is what broke ME for me.
[quote]Because again, a writer wrote the line, and also wrote the response to it.[/quote]
That doesn't lead to that conclusion, though.  You're making an unnecessary leap in reasoning.

Follow the logic.
[quote]Sure, but I wouldn't bother unless I'm writing a fanfic or something and such a thing will be significant enough, one way or another, to warrant inclusion.[/quote]
What if it becomes relevant later?  You can't know when you design the character what is going to matter or be relevant.  If you wait until the question actually comes up in-game, what then?  If you decide then your choice will likely be coloured by the expected results of the answer.  And is the question about his actual preference, or is someone simply asking leaving you the opportunitiy to lie?  Is your character the sort of person who would lie about something that trivial?

If you don't know these answers in advance you're just inventing a persona willy-nilly and not worrying about consistency at all.
[quote]I see your point IF we were, say, talking about writing a story. Lots of details can be interesting, provided they contribute to a more complete understanding of a character. If they don't, then they just bog the story down. My character's opinion on potatoes or having a lisp are two of the latter, in my opinion.[/quote]
Really?  Maybe his lisp caused him to be bullied as a child.  Might that not influence all manner of decisions he makes in life?

Those details do, as you say, contribute to a complete complete understanding of a character.  But if you're roleplaying that character, you need to have the most complete understanding possible in order to make decisions on his behalf.

Otherwise you're just guessing.
[quote]I guess all I can say is I find that entirely unfulfilling and unsatisfying. I do not like the idea one bit of making decisions based on things that might not have come from the game itself.[/quote]
Then why does the game need you?  What do you bring to the game?

If the game unfolds the same way regardless of who plays it, then my input ceases to be special.  And if my input isn't special, my input is no longer worth my time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

In DA2, if you chose "I like your clothes" and there was a little heart by it, you'd at least know you're saying something with a romantic intent. That, already, is an improvement. I only learned of what is now one of my favorite party dialogues recently, because I avoided it out of fear that I'd be flirting with the other person, and that has so far not been my intent with any of my characters. I wish there were a YouTube clip of it somewhere, but it's when you ask Leliana about her "methods."

It includes something like the following (I'm sure I'm butchering it):
"I'm sure I'm immune to your charms."
"I guess we'll never know. I'm not going to test you."
"Maybe I'll use my charms on you instead."
"That would be something to see. He thinks he'll charm me!"
"You know you want me, Leliana."
"Eee! That was awful. Silly boy! Awkward!"

This is all done in a comfortable, joking manner. It was great. It really sounded like romantic overtures, though, which is why it took me so long to find it. I hope there are more conversations like this. What's great is that if there are, I will know ahead of time if I'm hitting on someone or just joking around with them as friends.

Edit: I just recorded and uploaded that scene to YouTube, if anyone wants to see it.

I chose those exact dialogue options on one of my playthroughs, but my character (who was socially awkward) actually meant that line earnestly, and he was horribly embarrassed by Leliana's reaction.

He never would have uttered the line as a joke, and that would have required too much self-confidence.

So, by allowing the player to assign the tone, the game actually allows a greater variety of character-types to choose any given dialogue option without breaking character.

[MDarwin]

Morroian wrote...

MDarwin wrote...
As far as I rememember DAO was to be a sort of BG2 with new "techinical/game play advances". The RPG style of BG2 was to be "dominant" in the DA(O) Franchise/Adventures.

From what I read this was only said about DAO not possible future games.

I can be wrong ,  but as far as I remember, it was on the old forum, way before DAO was released.

[Monica83]

And again: Why we must semplify dialogues in a RPG game? Because some people don't want have to think? If is for that why people want's play a roleplay game?

[Merced256]

Riona45 wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
But no one has said they want a pew pew game with limited interaction and limited dialogue options.

And it doesn't even accurately describe Mass Effect either (will I be killed for saying that?).

No, but people will undoubtedly think you are delusional.

Modifié par Merced256, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:35 .

[Riona45]

Merced256 wrote...

No, but people will undoubtedly think you are delussional.

OK, sure, guy-that-I-don't-take-seriously.  Whatever you say!

Modifié par Riona45, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:32 .

[Merced256]

Riona45 wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

No, but people will undoubtedly think you are delusional.

OK, sure, guy-that-I-don't-take-seriously.  Whatever you say!

owe my fragile e-ego.

[Morroian]

Monica83 wrote...

And again: Why we must semplify dialogues in a RPG game? Because some people don't want have to think? If is for that why people want's play a roleplay game?

This forum needs an emoticon for beating a head against a wall. Why do you keep saying this? I don't know whether its the language barrier or not but once again they aren't simplifying the actual dialogue. 

[Morroian]

Merced256 wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
But no one has said they want a pew pew game with limited interaction and limited dialogue options.

And it doesn't even accurately describe Mass Effect either (will I be killed for saying that?).

No, but people will undoubtedly think you are delusional.

Except for the fact that she's correct.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

This forum needs an emoticon for beating a head against a wall. Why do you keep saying this? I don't know whether its the language barrier or not but once again they aren't simplifying the actual dialogue.

From a gameplay perspective the only relevant part of the dialogue is the part that is selected by the player.  It is in that selection process that the roleplaying occurs.

[Morroian]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Morroian wrote...

This forum needs an emoticon for beating a head against a wall. Why do you keep saying this? I don't know whether its the language barrier or not but once again they aren't simplifying the actual dialogue.

From a gameplay perspective the only relevant part of the dialogue is the part that is selected by the player.  It is in that selection process that the roleplaying occurs.

But what you're selecting isn't dialogue.

[Merced256]

Morroian wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
But no one has said they want a pew pew game with limited interaction and limited dialogue options.

And it doesn't even accurately describe Mass Effect either (will I be killed for saying that?).

No, but people will undoubtedly think you are delusional.

Except for the fact that she's correct.

Really? Seeing how its completely subjective; i wonder how anything can fit the mold of correct or incorrect. But as much as i hate the self righteous douchery that is invoked whenever that card is played.. well i feel obligated. To me it was pew pew pew with dialog. Why? Because you could literally beat the game without using a single skill or allocating a single skill point. So what exactly made it different from gears of wars taking that in to consideration; not much.

But since i know some people like RPG-lite, i won't go on about how my view is law like so many. However, don't tell me whats right and wrong on a subject in which there is none.

Modifié par Merced256, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:50 .