885 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

You can do just that, which I prefer too.

[Jshay512]

Yeah. So have they talked about how this party banter is going to work at all? I am kinda curious about that.

Modifié par Jshay512, 20 novembre 2010 - 09:32 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

I don't know if each and every option will be marked by an icon, but I'd expect so.

And...why do I have an issue with paraphrasing? Because if it can't be done right (and I don't know if it's at all possible to do it right), it may lead to awkward situations such as Miss Shepard being a total **** to Mr. Taylor while all you wish to do is talk. As in, communicate. Not go all over the fellow in a "why don't we dispense with the yak yak part and get to the humping already" sort of way.

[Piecake]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You do not need to accumulate sarcasm points to unlock sarcasm options like Paragon/Renegade in Mass Effect.

Your habits however will color Hawke's speech whenever you wouldn't normally have a choice - such as when he participates in party banter. It will keep Hawke's comments in character without making them dry enough to suit all Hawkes.

Which is very good, since it wouldnt be too immersive if you were a sarcastic, cynical jerk most of the time, but a cheerful, upbeat person in party banter

[upsettingshorts]

The paraphrase exists so there isn't a sense of repetition between the option and the spoken line. I know I would feel like I was hearing the line twice (having first read the text in my head then heard the character speak it). Also, it allows for* quicker evaluation so you can choose the option faster and thus better simulate the cadence of a typical conversation.

As far as why go with a voiceover at all? Part of the cinematic approach. I also prefer it because it maintains consistency, but I don't recall Bioware raising that particular bonus.

* Yes, I know some people would love to study every line meticulously to decide which to go with, but what the paraphrase system allows for is more "on the fly" evaluations for people such as myself who try to respond in a short amount of time in order to maintain the immersion a well-timed conversation provides me. Full text responses don't allow for that because they must be read in their entirety to be evaluated.

filaminstrel wrote...

Actually I think you will, occasionally, according to this:

I didn't see that.  But as long as it's more of an occasional thing and not "a rule that dictates how you play" like Mass Effect's Paragon/Renegade system, that strikes me as fine too.  I mean, if your character isn't established as having a razor sharp sarcastic wit, he or she might simply not notice when a perfect opportunity for a joke comes up.  Whereas UberSarcastic Hawke will jump on it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 novembre 2010 - 09:46 .

[philbo1965uk]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

philbo1965uk wrote...
I understand your confusion....the topic is Genre specific ..introducing generality , red and green trucks is moot.

I'm not confused, I can see very clearly through your nonsense.

philbo1965uk wrote...

Have you ever bought an RPG that had no VA ..?

I've been playing Bioware CRPGs since Baldur's Gate and Bethesda RPGs since Morrowind.  I've described my issues with text only vs silent protagonist vs fully voices at length here and elsewhere. 

I cannot help but notice your tone  which is leaning toward personal insult.I haven't chosen to dismiss you as an idiot so please keep it civil.

That's a yes then.So you have bought a game that doesn't include any VA ..and that didn't dissuade you from purchase!

Ignoring  the subsequently poor analogies of red trucks and cheese crips

People regardless of what you think, do not buy rpg's that have a VAPC...so are excluded.

Now it's common sense that if you sell 900,000 units on average for your games...and when you include a VAPC those sales fall to 700,000...thats bad business.

[Russalka]

Let Bioware experiment. Are there any other games out there that would include a dialogue system similar to what we will see in Dragon Age 2?

[Jshay512]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The paraphrase exists so there isn't a sense of repetition between the option and the spoken line. I know I would feel like I was hearing the line twice (having first read the text in my head then heard the character speak it). Also, it allows for* quicker evaluation so you can choose the option faster and thus better simulate the cadence of a typical conversation.

As far as why go with a voiceover at all? Part of the cinematic approach. I also prefer it because it maintains consistency, but I don't recall Bioware raising that particular bonus.

* Yes, I know some people would love to study every line meticulously to decide which to go with, but what the paraphrase system allows for is more "on the fly" evaluations for people such as myself who try to respond in a short amount of time in order to maintain the immersion a well-timed conversation provides me. Full text responses don't allow for that because they must be read in their entirety to be evaluated.

filaminstrel wrote...

Actually I think you will, occasionally, according to this:

I didn't see that.  But as long as it's more of an occasional thing and not "a rule that dictates how you play" like Mass Effect's Paragon/Renegade system, that strikes me as fine too.  I mean, if your character isn't established as having a razor sharp sarcastic wit, he or she might simply not notice when a perfect opportunity for a joke comes up.  Whereas UberSarcastic Hawke will jump on it.

I kinda agree with your own the fly pick how you are really feeling instead of a phrase they pick before hand but on the other hand i also like know what topic i am going to say before i pick it.

[Jshay512]

Sorry double posted...

Modifié par Jshay512, 20 novembre 2010 - 09:52 .

[upsettingshorts]

philbo1965uk wrote...

I cannot help but notice your tone  which is leaning toward personal insult.I haven't chosen to dismiss you as an idiot so please keep it civil.

I'm sorry, I'm selfish and inattentive.  Maybe I should tell more "jokes."

philbo1965uk wrote...

That's a yes then.So you have bought a game that doesn't include any VA ..and that didn't dissuade you from purchase!

I don't see how that's relevant.   Fully voiced CRPGs as I understand them didn't exist then, so my previous purchases are immaterial. 

If Bioware released "Dragon Age 2: Voiced Protagonist Edition" and "Dragon Age 2: Silent Protagonist Edition" I would buy the former.

But they're not.  So it's irrelevant.

philbo1965uk wrote...

Ignoring  the subsequently poor analogies of red trucks and cheese crips

They're not poor analogies.  They recognize that Mass Effect and Dragon Age are wildly different games.  One is twitch.  There are people who will not under any circumstance buy twitch games.  This clouds your comparison immensely.  It is quite literally like comparing a car to a truck.  Both are RPGs (both are vehicles) but both serve very different functions and have very different gameplay (one is a party based CRPG, another is a shooter-based action RPG).

philbo1965uk wrote...

People regardless of what you think, do not buy rpg's that have a VAPC...so are excluded.

They're missing out?  I don't see how this is relevant either.  Why should I entertain their "selfishness" over "my own?"

philbo1965uk wrote...

Now it's common sense that if you sell 900,000 units on average for your games...and when you include a VAPC those sales fall to 700,000...thats bad business.

Common sense is a placeholder that ought to be discarded in the face of evidence and/or logic, something your argument lacks.  Your conclusions are baseless, and I'm not going to keep showing how they are.  Someone else can bother if they wish but this has gotten tiresome.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 novembre 2010 - 09:59 .

[Dave of Canada]

Russalka wrote...

Let Bioware experiment. Are there any other games out there that would include a dialogue system similar to what we will see in Dragon Age 2?

Alpha Protocol to a much lesser extent.

[In Exile]

Jshay512 wrote...
Omg i know exactly what you mean tho. I always wish i could have said something while I heard my party members banter with each other. I felt SOOOO left out. -party banter part of it- So they are actually going to make it so hawke talks in the banter?

Left out isn't even the start of it. When Morrigan talks to Sten about trying some qunari lovin', I was basically "WTF!? WTF do you mean 'The Warden won't have a problem with it!?' Morrigan?"

That exchange almost broke the game for me.

The options in the DA2 screenshot are not very far off from the line in DA:O. You can just change those three lines to:

That isn't reassuring.
He isn't serious.
Is this a blight? 

Modifié par In Exile, 20 novembre 2010 - 10:35 .

[In Exile]

Jshay512 wrote...

So wait i have a question. will the dialog options we pick decide what might will be showed later in the game? Like if i make my guy really sarcastic will it give me more sarcastic options than normal ones or will it be the same options no mater what I picked?

Whenver you can pick tone, you can always pick whatever tone you want. However, when Hawke (apparently) participates in party banter or picks a quest, Hawke will default to your personality.

Sarcastic Hawke will do it in a sarcastic way, angry Hawke in an angry way, and peaceful Hawke in a boyscout way.

[TheMufflon]

In Exile wrote...

That isn't reassuring.
He isn't serious.
Is this a blight? 

None of those are good paraphrases of the actual lines.

The obvious interpretation of the first one is a statement of the (pre-)warden's own opinion, when in fact he's asking for Duncan's.

The second one could easily be interprerted as saying that Cailan is joking, when the actual line says that he is taking the situation too lightly.

The third expresses ignorance, but the line expresses doubt.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 20 novembre 2010 - 10:57 .

[Jshay512]

I know. I agree with you exile i remember that part with Morrigan and sten. I also remember the parts with Leliana when she asked how would she know if i wanted to go out with her. I was thinking welllll i can kinda hear you over here you could just ask me.

[TJPags]

TheMufflon wrote...

In Exile wrote...

That isn't reassuring.
He isn't serious.
Is this a blight? 

None of those are good paraphrases of the actual lines.

To you, no.
To him, yes.
To me, one of them is.

This being part of the problem with paraphrasing.

[Jshay512]

I can see TJpags point to though. Paraphrasing can lead to many different means and someone can get made that they felt the paraphrase mean one thing and it really was something totally different

[TheMufflon]

TJPags wrote...

To you, no.
To him, yes.
To me, one of them is.

This being part of the problem with paraphrasing.

You have a strange criterion for what constitutes good paraphrasing. I would say that the defenition of a good paraphrase is that it is unequivocal, rather than a subject-based metric.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 20 novembre 2010 - 10:51 .

[TJPags]

TheMufflon wrote...

TJPags wrote...

To you, no.
To him, yes.
To me, one of them is.

This being part of the problem with paraphrasing.

You have a strange criterion for what constitutes good paraphrasing. I would say that the defenition of a good paraphrase is that it is unequivocal, rather than a subject-based metric.

I'm not sure there is a thing a a universally good praphrase.  A paraphrase is a summary or abbreviation of what's said - it seems to me that each person doing the paraphrasing will have their own interpretation.

If we're supposed to use it to decide what to say, it SHOULD be unequivocal, I agree.  But I really doubt he would have posted those if they weren't clear to him.  As I said, I'm okay with one of them (the last), you're okay with none.  So they weren't unequivocal.

Can a game be made where they ALL are?  I don't think so, myself.  Thus, my problem.

[Ortaya Alevli]

TheMufflon wrote...

You have a strange criterion for what constitutes good paraphrasing. I would say that the defenition of a good paraphrase is that it is unequivocal, rather than a subject-based metric.

Well, if you're willing to go there, what ME did doesn't fit the definition of paraphrasing anyways. We're using the word "paraphrasing" for want of a better term. It's closer to summarization, though a lot of "lost in translation" incidents happen along the way.

[upsettingshorts]

I'll give paraphrasing those options a try, using the rules as described by David Gaider (no repetition of words actually in the line)

1) You have doubts?
2) He isn't worried.
3) I'm not convinced.

Some of those paraphrases could be changed if I could remember what the preceding line was, especially #3.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 novembre 2010 - 11:03 .

[In Exile]

TheMufflon wrote...

None of those are good paraphrases of the actual lines.

The obvious interpretation of the first one is a statement of the (pre-)warden's own opinion, when in fact he's asking for Duncan's.

The second one could easily be interprerted as saying that Cailan is joking, when the actual line says that he is taking the situation too lightly.

The third expresses ignorance, but the line expresses doubt.

Yeah, that was a crappy job with the them, no doubt. I was trying to stick to as low a character limit as possible, since i don't know what the paphrase character limit is.

We can go with:

You aren't reassured.

With the second one, it's obvious in context what serious could mean, we can go with:

He didn't sound serious.

With the third,

It might not be a blight.

So there you go. Writing a paphrase isn't hard when you have a back and forth on them.

[TJPags]

IMO, the very fact that we now have 2* attempts at paraphrasing (and as someone said, it's not really paraphrasing, but I don't know what else to call it) and disagreements and doubts about which is good and which is bad just seems to demonstrate it's not a great idea.

*edit - 3

Modifié par TJPags, 20 novembre 2010 - 11:07 .