885 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

But you only get that larger set or responses because the NPCs can react to anything in that space. Freedom for a player to imagine different content is freedom for NPCs to react to content that's different from the content the player imagined.

[AlanC9]

Nighteye2 wrote...
Even then, players can easily misinterpret NPCs by misreading those emotions - worse if Bioware plans on players taking NPC emotions into account, which could result in the actual words being deliberately ambiguous, in the way I illustrated.

Don't be suprised if Isabella asks you whether those clothes make her look fat. <_<

A fair amount of Leliana's dialog already works like that.

It's better to have the entire message available in text, without the added ambiguity of vague emotional cues and signals that are open to multiple interpretations and may even be inaccurately mimicked in-game.

I may have lost the thread here. It sounds like you're arguing that the NPCs shouldn't rely on anything but the plain text to communicate with the player.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

But you only get that larger set or responses because the NPCs can react to anything in that space. Freedom for a player to imagine different content is freedom for NPCs to react to content that's different from the content the player imagined.

The NPC's reaction has nothing to do with the PC's behaviour.

I don't understand why people think theer's a necessary connection between the two.

[Maria Caliban]

AlanC9 wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
Even then, players can easily misinterpret NPCs by misreading those emotions - worse if Bioware plans on players taking NPC emotions into account, which could result in the actual words being deliberately ambiguous, in the way I illustrated.

Don't be suprised if Isabella asks you whether those clothes make her look fat. <_<

A fair amount of Leliana's dialog already works like that.

What do you mean?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The NPC's reaction has nothing to do with the PC's behaviour.

I don't understand why people think theer's a necessary connection between the two.

In general, I prefer NPC's to react to what the PC has said and done.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 29 novembre 2010 - 06:27 .

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
Even then, players can easily misinterpret NPCs by misreading those emotions - worse if Bioware plans on players taking NPC emotions into account, which could result in the actual words being deliberately ambiguous, in the way I illustrated.

Don't be suprised if Isabella asks you whether those clothes make her look fat. <_<

A fair amount of Leliana's dialog already works like that.

But in her case it made things interesting isntead of irritating. She was flirty ambiguous instead of threatening ambigous.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The NPC's reaction has nothing to do with the PC's behaviour.

A: Person bahaves a certain way.
B: Other Person witnesses this behavior.
C: Other Person interprets what is witnessed.
D: Other Person reacts to this interpretation.

A=>B AND B=>C AND C=>D
Therefore
A=>C AND B=>D
Therefore
A=>D

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

In general, I prefer NPC's to react to what the PC has said and done.

And they do.  But they don't necessarily react in predictable ways.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The NPC's reaction has nothing to do with the PC's behaviour.

A: Person bahaves a certain way.
B: Other Person witnesses this behavior.
C: Other Person interprets what is witnessed.
D: Other Person reacts to this interpretation.

A=>B AND B=>C AND C=>D
Therefore
A=>C AND B=>D
Therefore
A=>D

Sure, but what are those reactions?  Can you predict them in advance for all people?

If not, then the NPC's reaction to the PC's lines can't really be incongruous, as there's no established reaction they're violating.

[upsettingshorts]

OT: I liked your "views them as mistakes" signature better, Sylvius. As someone who was new to the forum - despite my deceptively "old" registration date - it was a great way of preparing me for your posts and perspective in general.

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

A: Person bahaves a certain way.
B: Other Person witnesses this behavior.
C: Other Person interprets what is witnessed.
D: Other Person reacts to this interpretation.

A=>B AND B=>C AND C=>D
Therefore
A=>C AND B=>D
Therefore
A=>D

A=>B isn't accurate. It's possible for someone to act without another witnessing it.

C=>D is also not accurate. It's possible for someone to interpret an action without reacting to it.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The NPC's reaction has nothing to do with the PC's behaviour.

A: Person bahaves a certain way.
B: Other Person witnesses this behavior.
C: Other Person interprets what is witnessed.
D: Other Person reacts to this interpretation.

A=>B AND B=>C AND C=>D
Therefore
A=>C AND B=>D
Therefore
A=>D

Sure, but what are those reactions?  Can you predict them in advance for all people?

If not, then the NPC's reaction to the PC's lines can't really be incongruous, as there's no established reaction they're violating.

There is no implication that incongruity is not present. But they are still related to each other in succession. At least they are in dialog.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If that relationship isn't known the the player, then it's not relevant to gameplay.

[the_one_54321]

What is known the player is that the NPCs reactions are based on the characters actions. That is relevant.

[Nighteye2]

the_one_54321 wrote...
What is known the player is that the NPCs reactions are based on the characters actions. That is relevant.

Is it, when you don't know which actions will be responded to and which won't?

[the_one_54321]

All dialog options get responded to.

[Nighteye2]

the_one_54321 wrote...
All dialog options get responded to.

Dialogue options, yes - but not all actions. Also, eve those dialogue options only in the short term - many NPCs suffer from severe bouts of amnesia in regards to the things you did in the past.

[the_one_54321]

I thought we were just talking about dialog.

[jackkel dragon]

Nighteye2 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
All dialog options get responded to.

Dialogue options, yes - but not all actions. Also, eve those dialogue options only in the short term - many NPCs suffer from severe bouts of amnesia in regards to the things you did in the past.

In video games, that's a programming/memory issue. For example, the module I'm making for DAO has almost no player choices, yet I already have dozens of variables to track and check at a time.

It's also a writing thing. In KOTOR2, many of the opening conversations had 3-9 choices per line, but the NPC always responded exactly the same. Writing more than 2-3 versions of the same line becomes an absolute nightmare. (Trust me on this. I've tried.)

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

What is known the player is that the NPCs reactions are based on the characters actions. That is relevant.

Sure, but the details of that relationship are hidden from us.

So if an NPC has a reaction you didn't expect, you can't say why that happened with any confidence.  Maybe you misunderstood the line you chose, or maybe the NPC misunderstood what your character said, or maybe you misunderstood the NPC's reaction.

You can't know which of these is true, so pointing to this event and claiming you know why it happened is silly.

[Ulicus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

OT: I liked your "views them as mistakes" signature better, Sylvius. As someone who was new to the forum - despite my deceptively "old" registration date - it was a great way of preparing me for your posts and perspective in general.

I like OotS references, though. Especially ones quoting Elan's father.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
What is known the player is that the NPCs reactions are based on the characters actions. That is relevant.

Sure, but the details of that relationship are hidden from us.

So if an NPC has a reaction you didn't expect, you can't say why that happened with any confidence.  Maybe you misunderstood the line you chose, or maybe the NPC misunderstood what your character said, or maybe you misunderstood the NPC's reaction.

You can't know which of these is true, so pointing to this event and claiming you know why it happened is silly.

Thats fairly correct, except that you can say with certainty that it happened because of how the NPC percieved whatever the player said/did. That much is certain.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The NPC's reaction has nothing to do with the PC's behaviour.

I don't understand why people think theer's a necessary connection between the two.

I really don't get this. Are you saying that the NPCs only respond to the literal text of what the PC says?

I guess this would be true if you were writing the dialogs. But you're not.


Edit: Ah, I see. As the_one notes, what you said there doesn't seem to have very much to do with what you actually meant.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 novembre 2010 - 09:48 .

[AlanC9]

Maria Caliban wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
Even then, players can easily misinterpret NPCs by misreading those emotions - worse if Bioware plans on players taking NPC emotions into account, which could result in the actual words being deliberately ambiguous, in the way I illustrated.

Don't be suprised if Isabella asks you whether those clothes make her look fat. <_<

A fair amount of Leliana's dialog already works like that.

What do you mean?

Just that some of her lines have almost nothing to do with the purported topic, particularly the romance tracks. She isn't actually talking about pudding; any PC who thinks she is is simply making a mistake. However, her dialogs typically don't rely on tone in the way that many of Alistair's do.

[tmp7704]

AlanC9 wrote...

Just that some of her lines have almost nothing to do with the purported topic, particularly the romance tracks. She isn't actually talking about pudding; any PC who thinks she is is simply making a mistake.

I think the only person who'd miss the meaning of pudding talk is the kind of guy who finds himself very surprised after taking Zevran up on his offer of free massage...

[AmstradHero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
What is known the player is that the NPCs reactions are based on the characters actions. That is relevant.

Sure, but the details of that relationship are hidden from us.

So if an NPC has a reaction you didn't expect, you can't say why that happened with any confidence.  Maybe you misunderstood the line you chose, or maybe the NPC misunderstood what your character said, or maybe you misunderstood the NPC's reaction.

You can't know which of these is true, so pointing to this event and claiming you know why it happened is silly.

You've just argued for voiced characters here. Following the above,  it's obvious that you've misinterpreted the text - which is often because there's no associated (emotional) context!

If you get meta-game information to inform you of the nature of your choice, and then the NPC has associated emotional content with their response because they have a voiced responses with appropriate animations, then the voiced response is actually superior because it eliminates the miscommunication.

I've said it before - the nature of the NPC's response is always the same regardless of your personal interpretation because it's been written that way by the writers of the game. In a text only game, you can think that the NPC is giving you a playful/joking response, but then be shocked when the dialogue ends and you get a big "Character X disapproves (-12)" at the end informing you of that. If the NPC is voiced and animated, it's immediately clear that you've annoyed them.