1008 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
I fail to see how the game is ignoring the statement. If anything, the disappointment seems to stem from the inability to control Morrigan's reaction. Different characters react differently. While In Exile might not have understood the sexual context I obviously did. Why wouldn't Morrigan?

Okay, so I always understood what Shepard meant to say witht he wheel. This obviously means the system is infallible, and any complaint from anyone regarding it is just silly. Can you not appreciate what a nonsensical standard of evidence this is?

The dissapointment has nothing to do with Morrigan's reaction - it has to do with the fact that I would not have said bad touching in any tone that could have been interpreted as sexual. The only way for this to happen is for the line to be delivered in a different way than I intended.

It is no different than Shepard going off the deep end with the paraphrase.

And no, it's not roughly the same. It'd be roughly the same if your character pulled out the murder knife and put it up against Morrigan's throat whilst yelling "HOW'S THIS FOR BAD TOUCHING!?"

Again, no. The behaviour doesn't have to be the same for the situation to be similar.

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

Absolutely. I said this like three times by now. I don't see how ''bad'' touching in any way implies sexual touching, or sexual assault, or anything of the sort.

Then the issue lies with your inability to understand the sexual context of it. This still doesn't make Morrigan's reaction unwarranted or without context. It simply means that it just went over your head.

In Exile wrote...

It is no different than Shepard going off the deep end with the paraphrase.

You =/= Morrigan.

You = Shepard.

Modifié par Marionetten, 27 novembre 2010 - 04:08 .

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
Then the issue lies with your inability to understand the sexual context of it. This still doesn't make Morrigan's reaction unwarranted or without context. It simply means that it just went over your head.

In the same way that the dialogue wheel never fails. There is no problem with the paraphrase: it is simply that the line went over your head.

ETA:

When Shepard punches Manuel to shut him up, it's just your inability to appreciate that the paraphrase could stand in for a violent urge; not at all the fault of the paraphrase for being written unclearly.

Modifié par In Exile, 27 novembre 2010 - 04:12 .

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
You =/= Morrigan.

You = Shepard.

For the tenth time, saying something in a way this is not meant to be delivered a certain way and having the game act like it was is absolutely the same problem.

You = player. If you (i.e. the player) can never accurately predict what your dialogue choices will do in the world, the dialogue system fails. There is no difference between ME2 and DA:O in this regard, no matter how much you want to insist otherwise.

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

Marionetten wrote...
Then the issue lies with your inability to understand the sexual context of it. This still doesn't make Morrigan's reaction unwarranted or without context. It simply means that it just went over your head.

In the same way that the dialogue wheel never fails. There is no problem with the paraphrase: it is simply that the line went over your head.

Are you really going to compare your inability to comprehend the sexual context of bad touching with someone being unable to predict Shepard's every action?

In Exile wrote...

Marionetten wrote...
You =/= Morrigan.

You = Shepard.

For the tenth time, saying something in a way this is not meant to be delivered a certain way and having the game act like it was is absolutely the same problem.

You = player. If you (i.e. the player) can never accurately predict what your dialogue choices will do in the world, the dialogue system fails. There is no difference between ME2 and DA:O in this regard, no matter how much you want to insist otherwise.

You don't seem to get that you don't get to dictate Morrigan's responses as Morrigan isn't your character. You may attempt to mock her. You may attempt to flirt with her. You may attempt to punch her in the face. That doesn't necessarily mean that you will be successful at any. If anything, Shepard behaves more like Morrigan in this regard. While you can try to nudge him here and there he will ultimately do whatever he pleases.

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
Are you really going to compare your inability to comprehend the sexual context of bad touching with someone being unable to predict Shepard's every action?

Let me try again.

A game cannot account for all possible reactions a player might want. If a character in-game misunderstands you, it's impossible to correct that misunderstanding and the game acts like you wanted that all along. Image, for example, how aggravating it would be if there was a secret romance trigger and then it would be impossible to ever back out of the romance with a character. It destroys player agency by removing free expression.

Because the game cannot account for all expressions, the expressions that are included in the game have the be transpared to the player. There is nothing wrong with the line flying over my head if a possible reaction to it is 

If you don't have this option, and if the game plays your choice straight as if that is what you wanted to do in the first place, that is a serious problem.

To a lot of people, this is a problem magnified in Mass Effect because the sort of certitude in behaviour they want is not available. Shepard will act a certain way regardless of how they want. 

The problem with this in DA:O is that it creats incoherent dynamics between the players and NPCs. When Alistair is crowned you can say ''Shut up and put on the crown.'' The game seems to play this as you basically ordering Alistair, but the intention of saying it (for me) was to represent the kind of joking back and forth you might get in male cammaraderie.

If the game actively countradicts your impression of what you think is going on in the game, the game is failing.

A game needs to acknowledge something for it to happen within the game: if Morrigan misunderstood you, there has to be the option to address the misunderstanding. Otherwise it was never a misunderstanding to begin with, and just you delivering the line straight.

You don't seem to get that you don't get to dictate Morrigan's responses as Morrigan isn't your character. You may attempt to mock her. You may attempt to flirt with her. You may attempt to punch her in the face. That doesn't necessarily mean that you will be successful at any. If anything, Shepard behaves more like Morrigan in this regard. While you can try to nudge him here and there he will ultimately do whatever he pleases.

Again, it is not a matter of dictating responses - it is a matter of understanding the possible consequences of those responses. It is not possible to RP effectively if you do not know what outcomes a dialogue choice leads to.

In Mass Effect, this might be the problem of ''punch you in the face'' Shepard. In Dragon Age, in this context, it is the problem of hidden sexual innuendo.

Modifié par In Exile, 27 novembre 2010 - 04:27 .

[Qset]

In Exile wrote...

Marionetten wrote...
Then the issue lies with your inability to understand the sexual context of it. This still doesn't make Morrigan's reaction unwarranted or without context. It simply means that it just went over your head.

In the same way that the dialogue wheel never fails. There is no problem with the paraphrase: it is simply that the line went over your head.

ETA:

When Shepard punches Manuel to shut him up, it's just your inability to appreciate that the paraphrase could stand in for a violent urge; not at all the fault of the paraphrase for being written unclearly.

Marionetten wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Absolutely. I said this like three times by now. I don't see how ''bad'' touching in any way implies sexual touching, or sexual assault, or anything of the sort.

Then the issue lies with your inability to understand the sexual context of it. This still doesn't make Morrigan's reaction unwarranted or without context. It simply means that it just went over your head.

In Exile wrote...

It is no different than Shepard going off the deep end with the paraphrase.

You =/= Morrigan.

You = Shepard.

Can both of you see that you are guilty of accusing each other of misunderstanding the dialogue at points in the games. You level the same critique at each other in defence of your own point.

I guess, it all comes down to people's intepretation of the dialogue and non verbal clues given in the game in deciding what the meaning is behind it and so choose their response.
Personally, I am amazed that anyone can take the phrase "bad touching" given the context of the conversation and the lead up to it as well as the previous conversations that occur before this as anything but sexual in content but Exile I'll take your response at face value and respect that you saw it different.

Ultimately, this means for me that there will always be things where players intepretation will be different due to the imperfect nature of the game mechanics here - consequently I think that anything that reduces that chance is a good thing - hence I would say that the chance is reduced if the full dialogue was presented as well as the tone icons - this would always be superior to paraphrasing if reducing the chance of misunderstanding is one of the design goals. Of course, presenting the opportunity for misunderstanding and hence surprise might very well be a design goal - only the devs know that.

[In Exile]

Qset wrote...
Can both of you see that you are guilty of accusing each other of misunderstanding the dialogue at points in the games. You level the same critique at each other in defence of your own point.

That was on purpose - a sarcastic mockery of the nonsensical standard being advanced. I obviously do not actually believe Mass Effect is perfect or that the dialogue wheel works well.

Personally, I am amazed that anyone can take the phrase "bad touching" given the context of the conversation and the lead up to it as well as the previous conversations that occur before this as anything but sexual in content but Exile I'll take your response at face value and respect that you saw it different.

Look, I am the sort of guy that makes a lot of sexual jokes. All the time. But how does the context of ''What is up with all the touching'?  ' on the part of Morrigan = sex? 

To me, it seems very clear she is going on about how she cannot understand basic social behaviour in our society, while she opened with how she can use her raw sexuality as a woman to get what she wants. So it seemed clear that what was freaking her out was a hug or handshake, not groping.

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

There is nothing wrong with the line flying over my head if a possible reaction to it is 

There are plenty of opportunities to shut Morrigan down after the bad touching line instead of playing along. I'll file this one under non-issue.

In Exile wrote...

Again, it is not a matter of dictating responses - it is a matter of understanding the possible consequences of those responses. It is not possible to RP effectively if you do not know what outcomes a dialogue choice leads to.

In Mass Effect, this might be the problem of ''punch you in the face'' Shepard. In Dragon Age, in this context, it is the problem of hidden sexual innuendo.

There's a very big difference between roleplaying and metagaming.

Short of being able to read minds there is no way to accurately predict how another individual will act. And this is the issue with Shepard. He's supposed to be your character yet we're stuck playing the guessing game with him.

Modifié par Marionetten, 27 novembre 2010 - 04:34 .

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote..
There are plenty of opportunities to shut Morrigan down after the bad touching line instead of playing along. I'll file this one under non-issue.

If you want to pretend like the issue isn't there, I won't stop you from conceding. Your potentially dismissive options are:

• Yet here you are. (-1) (end)
• You can go back, if you like. (-4) (end)
• I guess the joke’s on you, then. (end)

Which one allows me to address the misunderstanding again? Yeah, none of the do.

Short of being able to read minds there is no way to accurately predict how another individual will act. And this is the issue with Shepard. He is supposed to be your character yet we're stuck playing the guessing game with him.

So I open with: ''Unlike reality, in a game'' and you counter with ''In reality accurately prediction behaviour requires mind reading.''

I say we should stop talking about this; we are talking so far past each other we're on different hemispheres.  You're stuck doing the same thing with the Warden. I will try to say this again: I have no problem with the wheel or interpreting Shepard, but this does not prove that the wheel is good. That you somehow do not see the problem with full text does not mean there isn't a problem with full text.

Modifié par In Exile, 27 novembre 2010 - 04:37 .

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

Marionetten wrote..
There are
plenty of opportunities to shut Morrigan down after the bad touching
line instead of playing along. I'll file this one under
non-issue.

If you want to pretend like the issue isn't there, I won't stop you from conceding. Your potentially dismissive options are:

• Yet here you are. (-1) (end)
• You can go back, if you like. (-4) (end)
• I guess the joke’s on you, then. (end)

Which one allows me to address the misunderstanding again? Yeah, none of the do.

If your argument was that there weren't enough options available I'd be more than happy to concede. However, that wasn't your initial argument. You attempted to equal Morrigan's comment surprising you to someone being surprised by Shepard's behavior. I merely pointed out why this analogy doesn't work.

Modifié par Marionetten, 27 novembre 2010 - 04:42 .

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
If your argument was that there weren't enough options available I'd be more than happy to concede. However, that wasn't your initial argument. You attempted to equal Morrigan's comment surprising you to someone being surprised by Shepard's behavior. I merely pointed out why this analogy doesn't work.

I do want to make that claim, however.

Again, the issue is that I think for an RPG to work, the game cannot surprise the player with the player's own behaviour. In the case of Morrigain, the writers were, from my PoV, making a very different point about Morrigain than everyone else seems to believe, specifically that she was out of place in Ferelden society and could not understand social rules.

Here is the issue: she does not say "I would understand sexual touching." She says "That kind of touching", i.e. she is speaking as if your implication was that sexual. Basically, she's acting like you're flirting with her. That's the problem. There's nothing in the line, or the context of the scene, that would lead me to believe that the conversation was about anything other than her awkwardness, and that we had switched to flirting.

This is the same problem with the paraphrase. The issue is that the writers believe the paraphrase + the context can provide the players with a reasonable understanding of what Shepard would do. Obviously they want this, otherwise they'd just give you 4 buttons to press with no content at all if they wanted to surprise you.

The problem in both kinds of misundertanding, the issue is how the writers constructed the scene, how the felt the players would read it, and then how they had the characters react based on the tone they added to the sentence.

If you want to argue that you, as the player, add whatever tone you want to the PC's lines in silent VO, that's a whole other debate that I really don't want to have anymore. Let's just say I disagree, though, and the PC has a fixded tone. So if the game says, "oo! you're flirting!" then you're flirting, regardless of what you believe.

This is why the situation is the same.

[Qset]

In Exile wrote...

Qset wrote...
Can both of you see that you are guilty of accusing each other of misunderstanding the dialogue at points in the games. You level the same critique at each other in defence of your own point.

That was on purpose - a sarcastic mockery of the nonsensical standard being advanced. I obviously do not actually believe Mass Effect is perfect or that the dialogue wheel works well.

Personally, I am amazed that anyone can take the phrase "bad touching" given the context of the conversation and the lead up to it as well as the previous conversations that occur before this as anything but sexual in content but Exile I'll take your response at face value and respect that you saw it different.

Look, I am the sort of guy that makes a lot of sexual jokes. All the time. But how does the context of ''What is up with all the touching'?  ' on the part of Morrigan = sex? 

To me, it seems very clear she is going on about how she cannot understand basic social behaviour in our society, while she opened with how she can use her raw sexuality as a woman to get what she wants. So it seemed clear that what was freaking her out was a hug or handshake, not groping.

thanks for sharing why you thought the way you did, helps me to understand that. I saw it differently as did many others. I guess there will be plenty of folks who saw it as you did.

From my side, the phrase "bad touching" just immediately had a sexual tone to it given the context of the conversation. I couldn't think what other meaning would be relevant in that phrase.
Afterall, if its not sexual then do they mean a weak handshake or a hamfisted hug etc. If they meant hugs and handshakes then why not just say "touching". It was the addition of the "bad" word that gave me the clue in my reading of the meaning.

Anyway, it just reinforces that the dialogue system would be benefit from improvement to remove these misunderstandings if we can read that so very differently.

[In Exile]

Qset wrote...
thanks for sharing why you thought the way you did, helps me to understand that. I saw it differently as did many others. I guess there will be plenty of folks who saw it as you did.

My reading of Morrigain is that she is overwhelmed by how exotic and strange Ferelden is. When you leave the hut, she talks about how she wants to "see" mountains and castles, etc. So that to me suggests someone socialy isolated. Her story about the shiny bauble shows a girl who is idealistic and wishes for an entirely different sort of life. Her "alone in the wilds," dialogue tree just adds to that.

So when the context of our conversation is how strange she found the human areas around the Wilds, and that human society confuses her because of all the touching, I just took that to be her not being able to understand why we hug, or pat each other on the back, or high five, etc. I saw a little girl who was raised by an ageless abomination.

Certainly not someone looking to see if Grey Wardens endourance stories are not overstated.

From my side, the phrase "bad touching" just immediately had a sexual tone to it given the context of the conversation. I couldn't think what other meaning would be relevant in that phrase.
Afterall, if its not sexual then do they mean a weak handshake or a hamfisted hug etc. If they meant hugs and handshakes then why not just say "touching". It was the addition of the "bad" word that gave me the clue in my reading of the meaning.

I thought it was "bad" that make the line sarcastic, i.e. "Oh noes!  Poor Morrigain, suffering from the agony of having to shake a hand every so often!". I took bad to be ragging on the fact that it is silly to consider touching to be bad.

Anyway, it just reinforces that the dialogue system would be benefit from improvement to remove these misunderstandings if we can read that so very differently.

Indeed. I think the best kind of dialogue system does several things. First, it separates action from behaviour. So if (like in DA:O) I would say that I am going to kill a prisoner, I don't pull out some magic knife but have some reasonable 'action' choice that lets me do so. The second is that we need to have clear indication of the sort of tone and the sort of aim that a dialogue line has. It's a good step forward we will have access to intent; but what I think we need more than that is access to a stance.

So here would be my idea in full: the stance represents your "attitude" to the person, i.e. friendly, neutral, hostile. This affects what behavioural choices you get (e.g. stab/hug). The tone dictates how a particular line will be said. Finally, we have the text, which I largely think is irrelevant with all this, but some people find crucial, which should also be fully available to other players as a result.

I think a system like this would be phenomenal. Of course, it would be very resource intensive.

[Qset]

In Exile wrote...

Qset wrote...
thanks for sharing why you thought the way you did, helps me to understand that. I saw it differently as did many others. I guess there will be plenty of folks who saw it as you did.

My reading of Morrigain is that she is overwhelmed by how exotic and strange Ferelden is. When you leave the hut, she talks about how she wants to "see" mountains and castles, etc. So that to me suggests someone socialy isolated. Her story about the shiny bauble shows a girl who is idealistic and wishes for an entirely different sort of life. Her "alone in the wilds," dialogue tree just adds to that.

So when the context of our conversation is how strange she found the human areas around the Wilds, and that human society confuses her because of all the touching, I just took that to be her not being able to understand why we hug, or pat each other on the back, or high five, etc. I saw a little girl who was raised by an ageless abomination.

Certainly not someone looking to see if Grey Wardens endourance stories are not overstated.

my reading of morrigan was very similar to yours, although she does state that she was not without sexual experience before this dialogue I think so I saw someone very unfamilar in human/elven/etc group/society settings and normal customs and not quite as strong as little girl lost. Still we both had similar readings from the background information I think.

From my side, the phrase "bad touching" just immediately had a sexual tone to it given the context of the conversation. I couldn't think what other meaning would be relevant in that phrase.
Afterall, if its not sexual then do they mean a weak handshake or a hamfisted hug etc. If they meant hugs and handshakes then why not just say "touching". It was the addition of the "bad" word that gave me the clue in my reading of the meaning.

I thought it was "bad" that make the line sarcastic, i.e. "Oh noes!  Poor Morrigain, suffering from the agony of having to shake a hand every so often!". I took bad to be ragging on the fact that it is silly to consider touching to be bad.

ok, now I see where you took your cue from. I never saw the "bad" word as sarastic as there were so few tone or additional meaning cues in any of the dialogue in DAO and if there was something like that it was in brackets anyway hence why I took the "bad" as implictly sexual.

Anyway, it just reinforces that the dialogue system would be benefit from improvement to remove these misunderstandings if we can read that so very differently.

Indeed. I think the best kind of dialogue system does several things. First, it separates action from behaviour. So if (like in DA:O) I would say that I am going to kill a prisoner, I don't pull out some magic knife but have some reasonable 'action' choice that lets me do so. The second is that we need to have clear indication of the sort of tone and the sort of aim that a dialogue line has. It's a good step forward we will have access to intent; but what I think we need more than that is access to a stance.

So here would be my idea in full: the stance represents your "attitude" to the person, i.e. friendly, neutral, hostile. This affects what behavioural choices you get (e.g. stab/hug). The tone dictates how a particular line will be said. Finally, we have the text, which I largely think is irrelevant with all this, but some people find crucial, which should also be fully available to other players as a result.

I think a system like this would be phenomenal. Of course, it would be very resource intensive.

That does sound like a solid system - separating out the elements like that makes a lot of sense. Now see what you have done, I won't be satisfied until I see something like this implemented or at the very least something that gives the perfect  illusion of working like this

Modifié par Qset, 27 novembre 2010 - 09:44 .

[Bryy_Miller]

*walks into thread*

*reads*



Please. Won't someone think of the children?

[Hollingdale]

In Exile: I think the point that should be made is that the problems with missintepretation happen to a lesser extent with a non voiced PC.

[Realmjumper]

I was pretty stunned when I finished reading that article. That Bioware would remove the tactical camera. It was of great help in certain places in Dragon Age: Origins. Once I opened the door I would pause the game and see what was in the other room.



Then I would proceed to nuke it into oblivion while blocking the doorway with my melee characters. Perhaps Dragon Age 2 will be different and focus on more intense smaller battles. I am not sure, but I will make sure to give Bioware a chance at this new venture.



I enjoyed the change to Mass Effect 2 over Mass Effect 1 for the most part. Perhaps this will be similar for me in Dragon Age 2.

[pcrisipm]

Hollingdale wrote...

In Exile: I think the point that should be made is that the problems with missintepretation happen to a lesser extent with a non voiced PC.

i don't think a voiced character has nothing to do with the ambiguity of the dialogue system.

missinterpretation only goes away if dialogue options display the complete sentence in addition to a marker (icon, color, whatever) signaling which options are good/paragon and which are bad/renegade.

alternatively, use the elcor system!! (thus this sentence would be -- "barely contained joy: use the elcor system!!")

Modifié par pcrisipm, 30 novembre 2010 - 02:09 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

pcrisipm wrote...

missinterpretation only goes away if dialogue options display the complete sentence in addition to a marker (icon, color, whatever) signaling which options are good/paragon and which are bad/renegade.

While that would probably eliminate misunderstandings, it would do so at the loss of a considerable about of player freedom over his characters' expression.

I'd rather stick with just the full text options and lose both the intent icons and the voice.

[Altima Darkspells]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

pcrisipm wrote...

missinterpretation only goes away if dialogue options display the complete sentence in addition to a marker (icon, color, whatever) signaling which options are good/paragon and which are bad/renegade.

While that would probably eliminate misunderstandings, it would do so at the loss of a considerable about of player freedom over his characters' expression.

I'd rather stick with just the full text options and lose both the intent icons and the voice.

But then how will we be able to mindlessly click the top right 'good' option or the bottom right 'evil' option?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'd rather stick with just the full text options and lose both the intent icons and the voice.

But then how will we be able to mindlessly click the top right 'good' option or the bottom right 'evil' option?

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

[In Exile]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

But then how will we be able to mindlessly click the top right 'good' option or the bottom right 'evil' option?

Click 1 and 4. Bioware did this in DA:O most of time, and in KoTOR almost all the time. About as frequent as ME, really.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Altima Darkspells wrote...

But then how will we be able to mindlessly click the top right 'good' option or the bottom right 'evil' option?

Click 1 and 4. Bioware did this in DA:O most of time, and in KoTOR almost all the time. About as frequent as ME, really.

Of course, in DAO, the empirical data wasn't sufficient to satisfy my standard of evidence, so I never thought I could rely on that pattern.

And that's how I like it.