387 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

AlanC9 wrote...

Is is really your position that the paraphrase actually contains no information whatsoever, so we're reduced to just pointing at the symbol? Or was that just silly overblown rhetoric? I don't want to waste time arguing a point without knowing if you're serious about it.

The question was whether it is dumbed down or not, not whether it contains no information at all.

[AlanC9]

Brockololly wrote...

Well, in many of the interviews for ME1 back when the dialogue wheel was some new thing, they always mention how they wanted it to be a quick way of simply not even having to look at the text but just memorize the position of the response tone to keep the conversations looking fluid and cinematic, so you could just flick the controller to the proper direction without even having to read.

I'll take your word for it, since I didn't read much of the prerelease chatter for ME1. All I've ever done with the ME games is play them. And since I have played them, I completely disagree with this:

Essentially, if the diplomatic option is always in the upper right, sarcastic in center right, and aggressive lower right with investigate on the left, and we're left partially guessing about the true meaning of the paraphrases, then it simply contains the bare minimum information and likely lacks any of the perceived nuance of being able to read all the full text options.

(Disagree as far as it applies to ME, anyway -- since I haven't played DA2 I'm not in any position to judge the DA2 implementation, obviously.)

I found the paraphrases to be far more important than the P-R axis when determining what I wanted to say. The only time I found myself concerned with the P-R position was when the paraphrase would be ambiguous without knowing tone. That happened maybe 20% of the time, and even then I only consulted the P-R axis to clarify the paraphrase.

I can't imagine why anyone would handle dialogs by picking tone first. Most people who talk about picking dialog choices that way also don't like the system. Coincidence? Or a bad playstyle?

[AlanC9]

Addai67 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Is is really your position that the paraphrase actually contains no information whatsoever, so we're reduced to just pointing at the symbol? Or was that just silly overblown rhetoric? I don't want to waste time arguing a point without knowing if you're serious about it.

The question was whether it is dumbed down or not, not whether it contains no information at all.

So it really was just silly overblown rhetoric. Gotcha.

We can talk about dialog being "dumbed down" now that we've got the inaccurate description out of the way. I guess Brockololly's post and my reply cover it. Do you think that primarily picking responses by tone is the way to go in this dialog system? If so, how does this differ from DAO, where dialog option 1 was always the more diplomatic choice?

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 décembre 2010 - 04:24 .

[Addai]

I always read all the responses before choosing, so didn't rely on position in the queue.

"Flirt" and heart sign or "now we fight" and fist is simplistic and meant to let you choose without thinking much about the response. The poster asked how it could be considered dumbed down. To me it's obvious that it's meant to be.

Though as I said, what mainly boggles me is that people can consider it to actually be a good thing that you don't really know what the PC is going to say before he says it. Apparently some people consider it a good thing to be surprised by this. I don't.

And if you're going to object to "overblown rhetoric", don't do so with out of hand dismissiveness.

Modifié par Addai67, 02 décembre 2010 - 04:33 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Is is really your position that the paraphrase actually contains no information whatsoever, so we're reduced to just pointing at the symbol?

I maintain that there's no way to know whether the paraphrase option contains the relevant information from the actual spoken line, and I suspect that it can't contain that information for all players, as different character concepts will make different information relevant.

The only way to ensure that the player gets all the information he needs is to give him all the information.  I recognise that some people need the tone icon to get that, but I insist we also need the full text and a description of any actions.

Otherwise we're just guessing.

[Revan312]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I maintain that there's no way to know whether the paraphrase option contains the relevant information from the actual spoken line, and I suspect that it can't contain that information for all players, as different character concepts will make different information relevant.

The only way to ensure that the player gets all the information he needs is to give him all the information.  I recognise that some people need the tone icon to get that, but I insist we also need the full text and a description of any actions.

Otherwise we're just guessing.

Which is why they should just have that happen when subtitles are on.. I normally have them on anyway, but at least then, when you hovered over a paraphrase, at the top or bottom of the screen it could show the actual line. 

I hated when I'd pick what I thought was an idealogical viewpoint from the wheel and then get a complete piece of uninformed rhetoric like "Your a murderous monster Mordin!!"

All I want now is simply an option, like Sylvius, to actually see what will be spoken, before it is..

Modifié par Revan312, 02 décembre 2010 - 04:59 .

[Brockololly]

Revan312 wrote..

Which is why they should just have that happen when subtitles are on.. I normally have them on anyway, but at least then, when you hovered over a paraphrase, at the top or bottom of the screen it could show the actual line. 

I hated when I'd pick what I thought was an idealogical viewpoint from the wheel and then get a complete piece of uninformed rhetoric like "Your a murderous monster Mordin!!"

All I want now is simply an option, like Sylvius, to actually see what will be spoken, before it is..

Agreed- if Deus Ex: Human Revolution can do just that, why not DA2? Does it ruin the great cinematic flair they're striving for?<_<

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think the problem is that, like ME2, choosing one paraphrase option in DA2 will lead to a long back-and-forth exchange that includes actions. If they wrote DA2 like that, then there's really no way to display everything the PC says as a direct result of the wheel selection.

But even just the first sentence would be a step in the right direction.

[Sylvius the Mad]

More and more in games I find myself ignoring features because they provide me with information I don't want. Like the Journal, for example. I almost never consult my journal because it routinely gives me information I don't think I should have. Instead I keep my own journal.

At some point I might be reduced to muting the voices and turning off the subtitles so all I ever see are the paraphrase options. Then at least the game won't contradict my interpretation of them.

Though I wonder if I'd then be able to follow the plot at all.

[Revan312]

True, but like you said, the first sentance would help a lot so long as they kept that same personality and attitude throughout the exchange and our character doesn't have wild mood swings in the back and forth.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

More and more in games I find
myself ignoring features because they provide me with information I
don't want. Like the Journal, for example. I almost never consult my
journal because it routinely gives me information I don't think I should
have. Instead I keep my own journal.
At some point I might be
reduced to muting the voices and turning off the subtitles so all I ever
see are the paraphrase options. Then at least the game won't
contradict my interpretation of them.
Though I wonder if I'd then be able to follow the plot at all.

I wouldn't count on it

Modifié par Revan312, 02 décembre 2010 - 05:11 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Revan312 wrote...

True, but like you said, the first sentance would help a lot so long as they kept that same personality and attitude throughout the exchange and our character doesn't have wild mood swings in the back and forth.

I agree.  That would help a lot.

I would love this feature.

Perhaps they''ll patch it in later.  Since the subtitle files are already in the game, they'd just need to have the wheel make a call to the subtitles in advance of the selection.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Revan312 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Though I wonder if I'd then be able to follow the plot at all.

I wouldn't count on it

I think I'll give it a shot.

[MerinTB]

AlanC9 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
Well, in many of the interviews for ME1 back when the dialogue wheel was some new thing, they always mention how they wanted it to be a quick way of simply not even having to look at the text but just memorize the position of the response tone to keep the conversations looking fluid and cinematic, so you could just flick the controller to the proper direction without even having to read.

I'll take your word for it, since I didn't read much of the prerelease chatter for ME1. All I've ever done with the ME games is play them. And since I have played them, I completely disagree with this:

Essentially, if the diplomatic option is always in the upper right, sarcastic in center right, and aggressive lower right with investigate on the left, and we're left partially guessing about the true meaning of the paraphrases, then it simply contains the bare minimum information and likely lacks any of the perceived nuance of being able to read all the full text options.

(Disagree as far as it applies to ME, anyway -- since I haven't played DA2 I'm not in any position to judge the DA2 implementation, obviously.)
I found the paraphrases to be far more important than the P-R axis when determining what I wanted to say. The only time I found myself concerned with the P-R position was when the paraphrase would be ambiguous without knowing tone. That happened maybe 20% of the time, and even then I only consulted the P-R axis to clarify the paraphrase.
I can't imagine why anyone would handle dialogs by picking tone first. Most people who talk about picking dialog choices that way also don't like the system. Coincidence? Or a bad playstyle?

They honestly spoke on this?  I kind of just picked up on it on my own early on it ME1 and knew what response I wanted to give, not based on color coding or words  but on WHERE the response was on the axis.  While the paraphrases were indeed horrible at time, I knew which direction Shepard would take conversation based solely on where on that wheel the response I chose was situated.

I thought this would be obvious to most people?

[Atakuma]

Addai67 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

It all hangs together, of course.  If we didn't have a voiced protagonist, we wouldn't have the paraphrase and could choose actual wording rather than pointing at a symbol and hoping for the best.

You're acting like they have removed all words from the dialogue system and replaced them with emoticons.
The symbols are there to give you a clearer idea of how the paraphrased dialogue will be spoken by the PC.
Now I understand you don't like it, but it isn't "dumbed down" just because you dont like interpreting paraphrases.

Emoticons are exactly what they are.

You either lack reading comprehension skills, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

[Piecake]

Addai67 wrote...

I always read all the responses before choosing, so didn't rely on position in the queue.

"Flirt" and heart sign or "now we fight" and fist is simplistic and meant to let you choose without thinking much about the response. The poster asked how it could be considered dumbed down. To me it's obvious that it's meant to be.

In that context I really don't see much difference between the two.  Unless, of course, you thought the intent of what you were going to say in DAO was unclear and had to think about it for a while.  If thats the case, I dont think that is a positive. 

With intent and the paraphrase I'm going to know the gist of what my character will say, and that is perfectly fine with me.  I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch if my character words his response in a slightly different manner than I expected.  I thought the dialogue wheel worked perfectly fine in ME and I'm sure will work perfectly fine in DA2, and I cant say I remember 'thinking less' when choosing ME's dialogue options.

And like I said, I would get annoyed with full written dialogue with a voiced protaganist.  Who knows, this might come down to role-playing.  I dont role-play in any real sense, i play myself, so that might be the reason why this change doesnt bother me at all.

[Addai]

Atakuma wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

It all hangs together, of course.  If we didn't have a voiced protagonist, we wouldn't have the paraphrase and could choose actual wording rather than pointing at a symbol and hoping for the best.

You're acting like they have removed all words from the dialogue system and replaced them with emoticons.
The symbols are there to give you a clearer idea of how the paraphrased dialogue will be spoken by the PC.
Now I understand you don't like it, but it isn't "dumbed down" just because you dont like interpreting paraphrases.

Emoticons are exactly what they are.

You either lack reading comprehension skills, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

Or you're just rude and not really here to discuss anything.

[Addai]

Piecake wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I always read all the responses before choosing, so didn't rely on position in the queue.

"Flirt" and heart sign or "now we fight" and fist is simplistic and meant to let you choose without thinking much about the response. The poster asked how it could be considered dumbed down. To me it's obvious that it's meant to be.

In that context I really don't see much difference between the two.  Unless, of course, you thought the intent of what you were going to say in DAO was unclear and had to think about it for a while.  If thats the case, I dont think that is a positive. 

With intent and the paraphrase I'm going to know the gist of what my character will say, and that is perfectly fine with me.  I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch if my character words his response in a slightly different manner than I expected.  I thought the dialogue wheel worked perfectly fine in ME and I'm sure will work perfectly fine in DA2, and I cant say I remember 'thinking less' when choosing ME's dialogue options.

And like I said, I would get annoyed with full written dialogue with a voiced protaganist.  Who knows, this might come down to role-playing.  I dont role-play in any real sense, i play myself, so that might be the reason why this change doesnt bother me at all.

I'm aware that some people like the system.  Sucks to be me.

Like I said, it's not so much the paraphrase as the voiced protagonist that is the problem for me, but they go together.  When the camera cuts to "my character" in a cutscene, it pulls me out of the conversation and I start watching instead of participating, get antsy, start to think about folding laundry.  For that matter, the same thing happened in Origins when the camera would cut to the Warden's face.  I would prefer dialogues to be first person.  You only need to pan the camera when there is non-verbal action, after all.  In a real conversation, I'm not looking at myself in a mirror talking.  Naturally a game PC is not "myself" in the true sense, but as far as immersion goes it works better for me in 1st person.

But, no one other than Bethesda does that anymore.  As I said, sucks to be me.

[Atakuma]

Addai67 wrote...
Or you're just rude and not really here to discuss anything.

I got the same impression from you, when you ignored most of my post and chose to respond to something you took out of context.

[Addai]

Atakuma wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Or you're just rude and not really here to discuss anything.

I got the same impression from you, when you ignored most of my post and chose to respond to something you took out of context.

You said the symbols on the paraphrase aren't emoticons, but in my view that's exactly what they are.  How else would you describe a little heart next to a buzz phrase?

As for whether it's dumbed down or not, again, to me this is obviously so.  To go back to my example, a monkey or a dog can be taught simple phrases tied to hand motions or a symbol.  But they cannot do anything with a longer, more complex sentence.  "Complex is not always better" I hear the peanut gallery say.  I'm sure that's true, but the poster was puzzled as to how anyone could describe the new system as "dumbed down."

It's just incongrous to hear someone talk about it as a great thing when to me it makes me heave a great, world-weary sigh.  Like if you really, really hate broccoli and someone comes up to you, all perky, and says they're taking you to Bob's All-Broccoli Cafe.  The perkier they are when they say it, the more surreal the experience.

Modifié par Addai67, 02 décembre 2010 - 06:13 .

[Piecake]

Addai67 wrote...

You said the symbols on the paraphrase aren't emoticons, but in my view that's exactly what they are.  How else would you describe a little heart next to a buzz phrase?

As for whether it's dumbed down or not, again, to me this is obviously so.  To go back to my example, a monkey or a dog can be taught simple phrases tied to hand motions or a symbol.  But they cannot do anything with a longer, more complex sentence.  "Complex is not always better" I hear the peanut gallery say.  I'm sure that's true, but the poster was puzzled as to how anyone could describe the new system as "dumbed down."

It's just incongrous to hear someone talk about it as a great thing when to me it makes me heave a great, world-weary sigh.  Like if you really, really hate broccoli and someone comes up to you, all perky, and says they're taking you to Bob's All-Broccoli Cafe.  The perkier they are when they say it, the more surreal the experience.

I find your dog/monkey example absurd. 

"I just dont see how 'dumbing down' applies to the dialogue wheel.  Sure,
you might not like it, but 'dumbing down'?  I just dont see it. 
Anyways, I hate phrases like 'dumbing down' and 'streamlined' and
'dragon effect'.  Explain why you dont like a certain feature, dont
resort to negative phrases that really dont mean anything.  I blame
cable news for trying to validate that as a suitable way to argue your
point (pet peeve, dont sue me)."

That was my original post.  As you can see, I sure was gushing over the dialogue wheel in that post:whistle:

[Thandal N'Lyman]

@Addai; I guess unless you actually experienced your PC punching-out an NPC simply because you chose the dialogue option: "This conversation is over.", you wouldn't understand the need for some indication of the tone and emotional content of the options. I don't view an emoticon (and I agree, that's what it is) and a phrase that gives an idea of the dialogue to follow as "dumbing-down."

The only reason to see it that way is if, instead, you think the entire conversation (with editorial explanation for tone and demeanor) should be provided in advance of your making a selection. Otherwise, (as with email and IM) the opportunities to be mistakenly perceived as "flirty", or "hostile", or "indifferent", are legion!

Modifié par Thandal NLyman, 02 décembre 2010 - 06:38 .

[Atakuma]

Addai67 wrote...

You said the symbols on the paraphrase aren't emoticons, but in my view that's exactly what they are.  How else would you describe a little heart next to a buzz phrase?

I did not say they weren't emoticons, I said you were acting as if the dialogue had been replace by them.

[upsettingshorts]

The idea that the dialogue wheel, paraphrasing, and voiced protagonists is a "dumbing down" isn't accurate. In the case of this feature it is simply a tradeoff of priorities.

Reading a line of dialogue with no emotional inflection and predicting the result is to me, no more prone to error than reading a paraphrase of dialogue when the emotional intent either implied (ME1-2) or explicit (DA:2). There is going to be some error either way, and which system is more error prone depends on the user. The issue comes down to the priority for the player, not some notion of one feature inherently being deepr or more difficult or more complex than the other. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2010 - 07:31 .

[Maria Caliban]

Brockololly wrote...

Well, in many of the interviews for ME1 back when the dialogue wheel was some new thing, they always mention how they wanted it to be a quick way of simply not even having to look at the text but just memorize the position of the response tone to keep the conversations looking fluid and cinematic, so you could just flick the controller to the proper direction without even having to read.

Essentially, if the diplomatic option is always in the upper right, sarcastic in center right, and aggressive lower right with investigate on the left, and we're left partially guessing about the true meaning of the paraphrases, then it simply contains the bare minimum information and likely lacks any of the perceived nuance of being able to read all the full text options.

They said they wanted a fluid, cinematic system where the player felt like they were in the game. They didn't want players to start reading the text while the NPC talked or for the PC and NPC to stand there silently for 30-60 seconds while the player scrolled through a bunch of text.

No one ever said that the goal was to have the player not read at all. Or to simply flick to response without knowing what you're going to say.