885 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You didn't know Shepard's motivations in say, the Council Chambers in Mass Effect 1 after having heard the exposition by Anderson and Nihlus at the beginning and playing through Eden Prime?

Clearly not, because he almost never said what I thought he was going to say.

If I knew what he was trying to do, then I'd at least understand why he said the things he said.

[upsettingshorts]

That's something I haven't been able to figure out or had explained to me yet. How so many people could have been that surprised (or whatever word you want to use here) by what Shepard did or said on a consistent basis, and how so many others had no issue whatsoever.



I'm sure there's an explanation but I don't know what it is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

To answer that, I think we'd need to play through sequences in the game side-by-side and explain what it is we expect and why, and then see whether those expectations differ, and whether either of us is correct.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

To answer that, I think we'd need to play through sequences in the game side-by-side and explain what it is we expect and why, and then see whether those expectations differ, and whether either of us is correct.

I'm not sure there's going to be a "correct."  It'll end up coming down to something else like expectations and approach, like so many other polarizing topics 'round these parts.

[Nighteye2]

Some people have more expectations about how something is going to be said than others. Also, sentences are often open to multiple interpretations - paraphrases even more so.

[upsettingshorts]

It's consistent though. You don't often read people say, "Sometimes Shepard acted as expected, other times he didn't." It's either 100% "misleading random paraphrases suck" or 100% "lolwut my Shepard was fine I don't see the problem."

That could just be the small sample size nature of the forum. But it does give me the impression that it's some underlying issue. Or both sides consistently overstating their case.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 25 novembre 2010 - 10:03 .

[Nighteye2]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's consistent though. You don't often read people say, "Sometimes Shepard acted as expected, other times he didn't." It's either 100% "misleading random paraphrases suck" or 100% "lolwut my Shepard was fine I don't see the problem."

That could just be the small sample size nature of the forum. But it does give me the impression that it's some underlying issue. Or both sides consistently overstating their case.

Confirmation bias is probably a large part, yes. You notice what you focus on, and tend to forget the rest. So if you're iiritated by all the misses, you remember those - but if you're excited about the times it does go well, those times will be what you remember.

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

I found the same too with people talking about DA:O. Or well not so much with actual words obviously since we can see them but how they are "heard" by NPCs. Either people tend to feel it was appropriate or wasn't.

For myself I found in ME my choices felt more appropriate to what I wanted while DA:O, not always but occasionally felt was not taken how I read the text to be like.

Modifié par Sigil_Beguiler123, 25 novembre 2010 - 10:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's consistent though. You don't often read people say, "Sometimes Shepard acted as expected, other times he didn't." It's either 100% "misleading random paraphrases suck" or 100% "lolwut my Shepard was fine I don't see the problem."

I suspect it has to do with the various priorities of the various players.

When in conversation, what are you worried about?  What specific aspect of expression and interpretation concerns you?

If your answer to those questions differs from mine (or if you think those are silly questions), then we'll probably read the paraphrased options very differently.  The paraphrases need to reduce the relevant content of the full line down to a short phrase, but that guarantees a problem when the players honestly disagree about what the relevant content of the line was.

For ME-style paraphrases to work, the player needs to approach the conversation in a way that is relevantly similar to the way the writer expects him to approach it.  DAO required the same thing, but the bounds of that relevant similarity were much broader.

There were many times in DAO where agreeing with someone or asking for more information produced the same response from them.  But I think those lines are very different from a roleplaying perspective, as my characters are often wary about expressing opinions or relaying information, so questions are always safe responses.  In ME, though, there was no way to know whether any option on the wheel would avoid making assertions, and if making assertions was the specific thing you wanted to avoid doing, that's a big problem.

[vallore]

In Exile wrote...

If an excell spreadsheet is RP for Sylvius, and for Upsettingshorts a movie is RP, for me, acting is the metaphor of choice.
My position is different than, say, what shorts would argue. I think that psychological closeness to your character is absolutely crucial to an RPG. This is what to me demarcates an RPG from other games.  I think  customizability is an important aspect of this psychological closeness.

Interesting. I feel I could have said that about my own perspective

So far, my position isn't so different from, say, Sylvius. Where we depart is on what best achieves that. To me, roleplay is acting versus any kind of more profound role-adoption. It is a very narrow kind of freedom. So for me, the character I felt most close to was Shepard. Shepard was far more my character than, for example, the Warden (in DA:O) or the Spirit Monk (in JE) or our resident Jedi (in KoTOR). In the way a method actor adopts his or her role, I adopt a role in RP. In the same way an actor might be allowed a narrow lattitude to change the story, this is how I view RP. It is a very bounded process.

This puzzles me somewhat as I genuinely fail to understand how you achieve greater
closeness to Sheppard.

in my case, to achieve psychological closeness, I find necessary to have an a
priori understanding of the thoughts and emotions of said character, before
being able to translate it in the actions and words the character is going to
take, (within the limitations imposed by the game).

Now, in ME, due to the paraphrase system, I have the necessary knowledge only a posteriori,
after Sheppard actually gives his speech. Prior to it I can’t know what he will
actually say or do, I merely guess and decide based in an imperfect knowledge
what may or may not be revealed accurate about Sheppard’s motivations and
actions. This creates a barrier between the character and me.

Modifié par vallore, 25 novembre 2010 - 10:28 .

[vallore]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That's something I haven't been able to figure out or had explained to me yet. How so many people could have been that surprised (or whatever word you want to use here) by what Shepard did or said on a consistent basis, and how so many others had no issue whatsoever.

I'm sure there's an explanation but I don't know what it is.

I would
agree with other’s explanations of this issue, and would add that the occasions
the player would find himself to be totally wrong about his assumptions are likely
rare in most cases, but the occasions one could find that his assumptions were
not totally accurate, (and therefore there was a deviation from what he
expected) are likely much more numerous. Therefore the importance one gives to the
details will characterize his entire perception of the system.

[vallore]

Double post

Modifié par vallore, 25 novembre 2010 - 11:01 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

For me it's hard to form a solid opinion about the wheel. So far I've seen very little of it and I would like to see more examples of the paraphrases before I completely trash it, love it or feel nothing special about it. I look forward to seeing the paraphrases and hearing to voices they have chosen for the Hawkes.



The wheel in ME did cause me to reload a few times but I think the DA team has learned from ME and improved it even more.



Who writes the paraphrases? Is it the writers?

[maxernst]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's consistent though. You don't often read people say, "Sometimes Shepard acted as expected, other times he didn't." It's either 100% "misleading random paraphrases suck" or 100% "lolwut my Shepard was fine I don't see the problem."

That could just be the small sample size nature of the forum. But it does give me the impression that it's some underlying issue. Or both sides consistently overstating their case.

Well, I would say that he sometimes did more or less what I expected, but the times when he didn't were annoying and memorable.  It's much like the issues with characters failing to attack as expected in DA:O--when they simply do what they're told, it's not noteworthy.

Also, if your comments on third-person narratives are any indication, it may also be that some people don't view Shepard as really being their character, and therefore aren't bothered by imperfect control of his behavior.  I certainly don't expect Geralt in the Witcher to behave in the way I would like him to because he has a very distinct personality that I have no control over.  I don't like that about the game, but I'm resigned to it, because it's his nature, even if it does make me feel like a spectator instead of a participant in the game.  But Shepard isn't nearly as tightly defined as Geralt--he has a variety of different possible backgrounds rather than just one, for a start--so I expect to be able treat him as my character, just as I do with my DA:O warden. 

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

You know for me I think part of what makes me like ME system more then DA. Is I felt I had more control over the actual emotion behind my character's words and that is more important to me then the actual words themselves.

[maxernst]

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

You know for me I think part of what makes me like ME system more then DA. Is I felt I had more control over the actual emotion behind my character's words and that is more important to me then the actual words themselves.

Really?  So you feel that the paraphrased words give you a better idea of the emotion he's going to express than the actual words he uses do?  That seems strange to me.  I can understand you saying that you have a stronger sense of the emotions behind the words after he uses them because of gestures and tone of voice, but I'm honestly puzzled that you feel you have more control of those emotions.

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

I think it is a combo of the paraphrase is a short immediate sentence. As such sort of has a punch to it as it were. Plus of course stuff like Paragon and Renegade, knowing that where on the wheel the text is makes a difference (left side being more questioning, while with right side going from top = paragon to bottom = more renegade), etc, etc. which of course will be even more the case in DA2 with the symbols.

I would say also it is the fact that with the paraphrase there is a more immediate reaction, as such I can base it more quickly off emotional response of the time. So do I feel like a "I want answers!" is more emotionally appropriate or something else. While with a full text I end up getting caught up in reading all the text, etc. then making a immediate response.

But, it is definitely a personal thing. For me I can read the writer's emotional intent clearer in the short phrase then in a full text. 

Modifié par Sigil_Beguiler123, 25 novembre 2010 - 11:31 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

maxernst wrote...

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

You know for me I think part of what makes me like ME system more then DA. Is I felt I had more control over the actual emotion behind my character's words and that is more important to me then the actual words themselves.

Really?  So you feel that the paraphrased words give you a better idea of the emotion he's going to express than the actual words he uses do? 

I can understand that.  Since the words in DAO lacked emotional content, but the NPC reactions implied the preceding words had contained emotional content, emotionally DAO would surprise players the same way ME would with regard to literal content.

There must be some way to allow both.

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

What I think be interesting to see, a ways down the line is a sort of interrupt system but with dialogue. So you do different prompts/can switch what you say mid way through. So if a NPC begins to reply to what you said and you are like, "oh crap! didn't mean it that way" you can interrupt with some new dialogue, etc. Be extremely difficult to implement but be interesting.

You could almost in a way build your dialogue statement as you go along.

Modifié par Sigil_Beguiler123, 25 novembre 2010 - 11:53 .

[Nighteye2]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

You know for me I think part of what makes me like ME system more then DA. Is I felt I had more control over the actual emotion behind my character's words and that is more important to me then the actual words themselves.

Really?  So you feel that the paraphrased words give you a better idea of the emotion he's going to express than the actual words he uses do? 

I can understand that.  Since the words in DAO lacked emotional content, but the NPC reactions implied the preceding words had contained emotional content, emotionally DAO would surprise players the same way ME would with regard to literal content.

There must be some way to allow both.

There is: full text + intent icons.

[upsettingshorts]

Good thing the word chosen was "allow" not "satisfy"

[Mr. Man]

Yes, voices are awesome. They make me forget I'm playing a game, and immerse me into the world

[Sylvius the Mad]

Except the interrupt system was a condensed version of everything that was wrong with Mass Effect's dialogue wheel.

You didn't know what you were choosing, and you had no idea what the alternatives were.

[maxernst]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

You know for me I think part of what makes me like ME system more then DA. Is I felt I had more control over the actual emotion behind my character's words and that is more important to me then the actual words themselves.

Really?  So you feel that the paraphrased words give you a better idea of the emotion he's going to express than the actual words he uses do? 

I can understand that.  Since the words in DAO lacked emotional content, but the NPC reactions implied the preceding words had contained emotional content, emotionally DAO would surprise players the same way ME would with regard to literal content.

There must be some way to allow both.

There is: full text + intent icons.

That would be ideal from my standpoint. 

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

Oh no, I just meant interrupt in terms of the idea of a prompt/cutting off dialogue. In this dream system as someone is talking it can cue different dialogue segments you can pick, or not pick. So one could pick different pieces of text that get built up into a full segment of dialogue from your character.

The amount of sheer breadth of options and different paths this would cause though sticks it clearly in the dream game section.

Modifié par Sigil_Beguiler123, 26 novembre 2010 - 12:06 .