735 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
With a silent PC (or with ME), those tones were never knowable in advance, so they can't have been relevant to the selection.

No, they left you trying to figure out what the tone would be without many clues. Your specific interpretation of dialog is even less than a minority view. I am starting to wonder if there are even up to 5 or so people that played the game in the same way you did.

[Brockololly]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Well, we have to show something, and the simple truth is that the combat does look very different, and is thus worth showing to people.

I understand that, its just that my impression from reading around on the internet is that you have people hearing about the exaggerated narrative combat and thinking one of 2 things: 

• That the difference between the exaggerated combat and "normal" combat is night and day
• That they play the exaggerated section and don't feel much of a difference between the exaggerated and normal parts.

I don't know if thats simply because the convention demos are toned down to easy difficulty to not frustrate gamers or what. From everything I've seen and pieced together, the whole exaggerated bits don't happen often in the game and make up a fairly small portion of the overall game. So maybe its a quick and dirty way to show in broad strokes how the combat works now in DA2, but its not "actually" how combat works until you get to the "real" bit, which seems like its stil more or less how you do things in the "exaggerated" part.

I just think there are a fair number of people out there hearing about the exaggerated bit and thinking the "real" bit will be totally different. Unless the exaggerated bits have some meaningful narrative or gameplay purpose I just think they seem kind of superfluous- I mean if its going to be an exaggeration why not go all out and make exaggerated Hawke 10 feet tall, shooting fire balls from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse?

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
And as for why Bioware would show only the exaggerated part, I most people know that we did not, in fact, show the exaggerated part. Someone captured the opening moments of a larger demo and posted it against our wishes. That's a shame, I think the demo works better with the larger context, and at some point, I hope to share that larger context with you folks who didn't get to attend any shows where DA2 was. But good things come in time.

Wait, so the shakycam gameplay video thats been floating around was not the exaggerated bit? Or are you just saying that BioWare hasn't officially shown anything DA2 yet, so technically that footage has been disowned by BioWare?

I just don't get the marketing at all- slow burn or slow trickle of information whatever you want to call it- I just think its goofy to have been showing gameplay and having a playable game for the past 2 months or so but nothing for the unwashed internet masses besides a prerendered CGI trailer. I know, I know patience and all that. You want to plant the seed in people's minds that DA2 is on the horizon and all that. But,  I mean come on, the game is coming out in 5 months to the day (151 days, not that I'm keeping track) and the only official stuff thats been released has been a handful of screens and some concept art.

If nothing is ready to be shown at large, I'd almost the game have not been announced until you can really just hit hard with actual gameplay and stuff all at once or at least with something resembling a stream of information and not just starts and stops. Just something like a new piece of concept art or a new screen every Friday or something small like that on a regulat basis would be neat.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
It would have been out by now, but we push it back a day everytime Brock says that we  should show gameplay, so, at this rate you will see it in ..... *does  some quick math*....2014.

*sigh* Fine- I'll stop nagging for DA2 gameplay footage. Truth be told I'm only still invested in DA2 to see how it could maybe tie back into Morrigan/Warden/Flemeth/Old God Baby's possible storyline. So yeah....I'll just get a head start and begin demanding we see some DA3 gameplay!

Modifié par Brockololly, 08 octobre 2010 - 07:36 .

[TimelordDC]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
With a silent PC (or with ME), those tones were never knowable in advance, so they can't have been relevant to the selection.

No, they left you trying to figure out what the tone would be without many clues. Your specific interpretation of dialog is even less than a minority view. I am starting to wonder if there are even up to 5 or so people that played the game in the same way you did.

I personally think Sylvius likes taking the opposite stand always and arguing about it. Reminds me of a friend of mine who would argue about everything till he convinced the other person and then, would turn around and argue against what he just said once the other person seemed to have accepted his earlier stand

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Addai67 wrote...

Because there are always going to be some limitations, more limitations is better. I like that logic. Stick to snark, you appear to be better at it.

Funny, I don't actually recall saying that adding VO gave more limitations. The only person who said that is you because you seem to be stuck in this notion that adding voice does such a thing.

Like I said, a good portion of the DAO conversations generally had 3-4 options available to respond with.

Guess how many DA2 is most likely going to have, oh yeah, 3-4 options.

The only real time in DAO where you had more than 3-4 was when you was getting information about something and in DA2 there is going to be the 'Investigate' option where those options are going to be available.

So, my logic is sound, yours however is extremely flawed.

[Maverick827]

TimelordDC wrote...

I think you are not getting the distinction between the plot of the game (which you cannot change to any significant degree) and the story - which is driven by the player's character and how he reacts/influences events/other people.

That's actually backwards.  "A plot is a narrative of events with emphasis on causality."  The player's actions and influences would be that causality.

[the_one_54321]

TimelordDC wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
With a silent PC (or with ME), those tones were never knowable in advance, so they can't have been relevant to the selection.

No, they left you trying to figure out what the tone would be without many clues. Your specific interpretation of dialog is even less than a minority view. I am starting to wonder if there are even up to 5 or so people that played the game in the same way you did.

I personally think Sylvius likes taking the opposite stand always and arguing about it. Reminds me of a friend of mine who would argue about everything till he convinced the other person and then, would turn around and argue against what he just said once the other person seemed to have accepted his earlier stand

No, I'm pretty sure he really does believe what he argues for. Half the time I agree with him. But then he gets to things like the dialog and he comes up with such jaw dropping-ly odd and outlandish ways to claim his manner of play is logically consistent and therefore the ideal way to play the game.
I'm not normally a man of "popular vote is correct vote" but I honestly doubt even one other person played this game with the same frame of mind that he did. I don't think I've seen even one other person claim, or even just sympathise with his claim that the dialog text is just a UI and the PCs actual words can be composed differently. To be among a group with a certain preference that from all indications can't number above 50 across all of the games sales and to expect that your preference will be attended to is .... implausible.

[Addai]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Because there are always going to be some limitations, more limitations is better. I like that logic. Stick to snark, you appear to be better at it.

Funny, I don't actually recall saying that adding VO gave more limitations. The only person who said that is you because you seem to be stuck in this notion that adding voice does such a thing.

For you it's not a limitation.  Got it.  That is not the case for me, where having a voice and persona imposed on my character is a big deal.  So yes, it does add limitations, unless you are saying that your view of things is the god-given reality.  In which case I'll know for sure that we're on the internet.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That other people manage to do it isn't evidence worth considering?

It is like the other thread I brought this up in: as the game is constructed, progression through it is independent of effective roleplay.

The fundamental point of disagreement is whether a character in game can misunderstand you and what it means for them to do so.
 

If I can justify every dialogue selection, haven't I played that character?

The argument is whether you can. And my contention is that you cannot. I grant your criterion, just not that you can meet it.

[In Exile]

TimelordDC wrote...

So, you are telling me that in an RPG, whose basic definition is that the player gets to dictate the role of the player to a certain extent, not knowing what your character is going to say helps the story-telling?

No. The claim is that it is no VO that affects the issue. The paraphrase system does, but that is not a consequence of VO (the Witcher has VO without paraphrases). In addition, the claim is further than a non-VO system can still place you in a situation where you do not know what your character is going to say.

For example, it is impossible in DA:O to infer sometimes whether a line will be said sarcatically or straight.

[Gavinthelocust]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Burritos...you are back!

[the_one_54321]

Consider that in DA][ we will told what the tone of a response is before we give it.

How does the VO effect your interpretation of your character when you are informed of the tone that will be used before you make the selection?

[Brockololly]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Consider that in DA][ we will told what the tone of a response is before we give it.
How does the VO effect your interpretation of your character when you are informed of the tone that will be used before you make the selection?

Still though, we're only being told in vague abstractions that the tone will be either "diplomatic," "sarcastic," or "aggressive." So its surely better than ME's system but you're still left with guessing based on the paraphrase. Aggressive can encompass a wide range of things- is Hawke simply going to act ticked off and angsty in a hostile tone or is he going to be screaming in someone's face? I think thats where you're still potentially limited with the paraphrases versus the full text.

And thats not even getting into the instances where the paraphrase only extrapolates to the first line or so Hawke says before he goes off on a tangent being dictated by our "set" personality.

[Meltemph]

For example, it is impossible in DA:O to infer sometimes whether a line will be said sarcatically or straight.

Yes, this has quite a few points of it in it. For instance if you are a human mage and you tell the Elf(forgot his name) sitting in the library studying, "Good luck with that, you will need it" He responds with, "Well if that is how you feel, good day" which means you said it in a way where it was demeaning. Obviously that line is sarcasm, but the 1st time I actually used that line, I thought it was more of a "Good luck you are going to need it, because humans are very racist against elves". Which, if I did say it that way, then he would have obviously not implied that I thought he was lesser and needed the luck to "stand out".

[the_one_54321]

Brockololly wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Consider that in DA][ we will told what the tone of a response is before we give it.
How does the VO effect your interpretation of your character when you are informed of the tone that will be used before you make the selection?

Still though, we're only being told in vague abstractions that the tone will be either "diplomatic," "sarcastic," or "aggressive." So its surely better than ME's system but you're still left with guessing based on the paraphrase. Aggressive can encompass a wide range of things- is Hawke simply going to act ticked off and angsty in a hostile tone or is he going to be screaming in someone's face? I think thats where you're still potentially limited with the paraphrases versus the full text.

And thats not even getting into the instances where the paraphrase only extrapolates to the first line or so Hawke says before he goes off on a tangent being dictated by our "set" personality.

I think this only brings into sharp relief the limitations that have always existed in role playing in single player games. You are not deprived of choice, options, or variability. You are only deprived of the illusion of these things as the writers intentions are made openly manifest instead of existing in a form that you can forcefully dismiss from your mind.

To paraphrase: this is how it's always been, only now you're being forced to aknowledge it.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 08 octobre 2010 - 08:07 .

[Brockololly]

Meltemph wrote...
 Which, if I did say it that way, then he would have obviously not implied that I thought he was lesser and needed the luck to "stand out".

Or perhaps the elf misconstrued your PC's intent? Miscommunications happen all the time.

[Brockololly]

the_one_54321 wrote...
 You are only deprived of the illusion of these things as the writers intentions are made openly manifest instead of existing in a form that you can forcefully dismiss from your mind.

Right, I get that and I think blowing up that illusion of choice you had via the full text hurts my ability to get into the game. They're simply bringing the mechanisms tied to the dialogue choice which you can see in the toolset up to the surface. I don't care for that- whats next, just simple colors for choices?

Modifié par Brockololly, 08 octobre 2010 - 08:10 .

[the_one_54321]

Brockololly wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
 You are only deprived of the illusion of these things as the writers intentions are made openly manifest instead of existing in a form that you can forcefully dismiss from your mind.

Right, I get that and I think blowing up that illusion of choice you had via the full text hurts my ability to get into the game. They're simply bringing the mechanisms tied to the dialogue choice which you can see in the toolset up to the surface. I don't care for that- whats next, just simple colors for choices?

Well you could play a Final Fantasy game and not have any illusion of choice at all? Personally, I'm more in favor of different kinds of games having different kinds of approaches, so I'd prefer that these two series that I love not become like each other. But even then, I fail to see the inherent value of options and customizations in single player game. You don't interact with people, you interact with scripted AI. The choies don't actually exist to begin with. I can't fool myself into imagining that it does. For those that can and value it so highly, well I think that's kind of odd but they are welcome to their preferences.

[Meltemph]

Or perhaps the elf misconstrued your PC's intent? Miscommunications happen all the time.

But that only leaves miscommunication or sarcasm as the only way to get a response from the line. Also, the tone in which you say things typically implies the meaning, so if I said it kindly, good luck you are going to need it, RIGHT after he said he is going to become a great mage, then obviously the tone would matter greatly in such a conversation.



The conversation, the way it was presented, the responses had obvious specific tones. After I made the mistake I went back and it was very apparent there were 3 tones to take with the discussion. The sarcastic(Good luck you will need it), the kind(That is noble), or the mean(You shouldn't try to rise above your role). And each line is responded to exactly like that.

[triggerhappy456]

I wish people would stop declaring that everything they like is gone and that they won't buy it so early into the development time. As of now, I am buying it, because I have faith in Bioware. If later on I see that it has all the decent features removed, and it gets appalling reviews, I wont buy it. Since I actually prefer Mass Effect I doubt this will happen, but it seems poitnless to say that all the fans won't buy it this early on

[the_one_54321]

Meltemph wrote...
The conversation, the way it was presented, the responses had obvious specific tones. After I made the mistake I went back and it was very apparent there were 3 tones to take with the discussion. The sarcastic(Good luck you will need it), the kind(That is noble), or the mean(You shouldn't try to rise above your role). And each line is responded to exactly like that.

This. Very much this.
I do not think that anyone should abandon their imagination in playing a game, but they should definitely recognize it for what it is.
Somewhere at some time someone wrote this dialog. And if you analyize it enough it becomes very very clear what that person intended for the exchange in terms of wording and tone. You can deliberately interprate it differently, but the writing is still the writing is still the writing.

[FedericoV]

TimelordDC wrote...

So, you are telling me that in an RPG, whose basic definition is that the player gets to dictate the role of the player to a certain extent, not knowing what your character is going to say helps the story-telling?

No, I'm saying that videogame are a visual media and that voice over works better with a visual media than written dialogues and improves the form of the storytelling (thus, the storytelling itself since it's a mix of form and substance), being an RPG or not. So, I think that it's better to work on improving voice over in CRPGs than stagnate in outdated storytelling tecnique (I mean, outdated for videogames): the icon/tone system it's a nice addition to the formula for example. Moreover, I had never had problems with the paraphrase system in itself: most of the times I know what I was going to say. Same with the writing: sometimes it happens that I do not get the literal meaning of the phrase I choose, but most of the times I understand it. And when the paraphrase system fails it's a failure of the writer as well and not of the system itself.

I think you are not getting the distinction between the plot of the game (which you cannot change to any significant degree) and the story - which is driven by the player's character and how he reacts/influences events/other people.

Yes, I fail to see the difference. Story and plot are mostly part of the same thing... but most of all they are both scripted in a videogame. Honestly, what I fail to see is how a written series of dialogue choices should give you more freedom than a series of paraphrase with icons attached to them, at least if the number of options are the same.

Subtitles are there for a lot of reasons...maybe some folks need to be on call while playing games too. On call includes work, kids, wife, anything. Fact is, subtitles are already written. What the VO actors are going to speak is already written. Just give those of us who don't want VO an option to turn on subtitles and remove VO.

Yes I do agree, sub are there for many reason, but you are admitting as well that they are a tool that it's intended when you have to play a voice overed game in a "sub optimal" state. 

I also think investing in game length and story is better than investing in VO but as you said, it is Bioware's (or EA's) decision. I certainly don't have to think it is a good thing though.

I'm not saying that, since I respect your opinions. I'm only saying from the beginning that there is no way to prove with arguments that the voice over system is flawed and that it's just a matter of subjective tastes and habits.

About game lenght: I'm conflicted about it. I think that games nowaday are too short most of the times (Mafia II was 10 hours long... what a joke!). But I also think that some of the best RPG of the past were too long and that lenght it's not allways good in itself and most of the times do not means quality. I think that I like balance in that regard. A good balance between lenght, focus and quality. A balance that helps replayibility too (I never replayed DA:O even because of its lenght).

Modifié par FedericoV, 08 octobre 2010 - 08:44 .

[Rompa87]

I can understand the will to wait and see what the actual result will be, and reserve judgement until that day. But I cannot understand the rabid unwillingness to show even an ounce of concern over the possible setbacks in the end-product. It's like Gloria Allred has been hired by BW to discredit any form of critizism or worries

[the_one_54321]

Rompa87 wrote...
I can understand the will to wait and see what the actual result will be, and reserve judgement until that day. But I cannot understand the rabid unwillingness to show even an ounce of concern over the possible setbacks in the end-product. It's like Gloria Allred has been hired by BW to discredit any form of critizism or worries

Oh, I have my concerns. I just don't see why there should be any really dire concern over something as superfluous as voice acting or artistic styel.

[Meltemph]

But I cannot understand the rabid unwillingness to show even an ounce of concern over the possible setbacks in the end-product. It's like Gloria Allred has been hired by BW to discredit any form of critizism or worries

So you want a 1 way street, say what you want and nobody can disagree, since it is negative? I'm really not seeing this "rabid unwillingness". In-fact, I see more people getting in a huff for not agreeing with the complaints. Most of us like in this topic are disagreeing quite polity, and then someone like you comes in and tries to silence disagreement because of this supposed "rabid unwillingness".

[Brockololly]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Somewhere at some time someone wrote this dialog. And if you analyize it enough it becomes very very clear what that person intended for the exchange in terms of wording and tone. You can deliberately interprate it differently, but the writing is still the writing is still the writing.

I agree, its just that in so far as the emotion icons and paraphrases go, you can't really interpret the writing anymore. What I enjoy with the full text is the ability to read all the responses and make a decision off of the writing and even admire the choices that I won't make.

But with the paraphrase and icons, you get rid of the ability to see all the dailogue choices available to the PC and any nuance that may be present. If you've got the emotion icon, whats really the point behind even having the paraphrase? I just worry it turns into an ME2 style paragon/renegade instant win button.