387 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

*deep breath*

I couldn't care less if you like it or not, nor am I demanding you empathize with my defense. I do care that you and others stop casually dismissing this, and/or everything you don't like as "dumb." That simple. Excuse me if I'm offended when people imply I must be stupid, or like stupid things.

And if that was never your intent, great, I can respect that - use different language and there will be no problem. It is most certainly the intent of many others who use the same dismissive catchprases as you did in your post. You're around the forums enough to recognize this. That's my problem.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2010 - 04:52 .

[John Epler]

Keep it civil, folks, or I swear I will turn this thread right around and no one's going to Super Happy Funland!

[upsettingshorts]

JohnEpler wrote...

Keep it civil, folks, or I swear I will turn this thread right around and no one's going to Super Happy Funland!

I'm just angry the United States lost its World Cup bid to Qatar.  QATAR!

[Thandal N'Lyman]

Addai67 wrote...
Well I'm not saying that the emoticons dumb down Mass Effect's system or aren't an improvement on that.  I'm saying that the dialogue wheel with a paraphrase dumbs down Dragon Age.  At least insofar as it requires player engagement in the diaolgue.  Pointing at a general response indicator is more mindless than having to read and analyze written text and choose the one that best represents what you want your character to say.  How is this not obvious?  It's even touted as such, e.g. the one dev interview that talked about "reading and analyzing" responses as a negative in DAO.

The reason players  perceived the "read and analyze" as a negative was that EVEN AFTER DOING THAT, the lack of an "emotional overtones indicator" meant that what the player had percieved as a friendly, (or hostile, or sympathetic...) response would lead to a totally different result.  In RL, I would have given many more of the joking/sarcastic responses, they were frequently the ones that sounded most appropriate in my own head for my PC.  But they also were frequently not received in the way I had intended.  That  is the issue that this solution tries to overcome.

Yes, the Voice Actor will be able to convey that content through tone of voice, (or the good ones will, anyway.)  But how do you know what tone that will be BEFORE the lines are delivered without some kind of clue?  Were the writers to try to add all the qualifiers and modifiers needed to make absolutely clear what any given line was "intended" to convey, it would no longer sound like dialogue at all, it would be exposition.  Talk about breaking immersion! 

One is still free to "read and analyze".  And yes, some players will never do so but just pick an emoticon.  So they'll miss the opportunity to have a more nuanced experience.  Their loss, that's all.

Modifié par Thandal NLyman, 02 décembre 2010 - 05:12 .

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

*deep breath*

I couldn't care less if you like it or not, nor am I demanding you empathize with my defense. I do care that you and others stop casually dismissing this, and/or everything you don't like as "dumb." That simple. Excuse me if I'm offended when people imply I must be stupid, or like stupid things.

And if that was never your intent, great, I can respect that - use different language and there will be no problem. It is most certainly the intent of many others who use the same dismissive catchprases as you did in your post. You're around the forums enough to recognize this. That's my problem.

You're on this forum too much, AngryPants.  Or not hanging around the Varric chest hair kind of threads enough when you are.  Why do you care so much what us whiners are saying?

I could be mad about my preferences being dissed by the devs, but I'm just more puzzled than anything.

Modifié par Addai67, 02 décembre 2010 - 05:16 .

[Addai]

Thandal NLyman wrote...

One is still free to "read and analyze".  And yes, some players will never do so but just pick an emoticon.  So they'll miss the opportunity to have a more nuanced experience.  Their loss, that's all.

How am I free to read and analyze when all I'm given is a two or three word bullet point?

I didn't encounter any problems with lines not being received as intended in Origins, so that just wasn't  a big issue to me.  If they had kept the Origins systems and added emoticons, I would have thought it a little silly but not had an objection.

[NamiraWilhelm]

JohnEpler wrote...

Keep it civil, folks, or I swear I will turn this thread right around and no one's going to Super Happy Funland!

What happened to you, man? You used to be cool!

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
*deep breath*

I couldn't care less if you like it or not, nor am I demanding you empathize with my defense. I do care that you and others stop casually dismissing this, and/or everything you don't like as "dumb." That simple. Excuse me if I'm offended when people imply I must be stupid, or like stupid things.

And if that was never your intent, great, I can respect that - use different language and there will be no problem. It is most certainly the intent of many others who use the same dismissive catchprases as you did in your post. You're around the forums enough to recognize this. That's my problem.

I keep waiting for Bryy_Miller to come in and tell you to take a step back.  You are getting this upset because people dislike something you like, and you are reading this dislikes or even attacks on these things as somehow being an attack on you.

If someone said that they hate turn-based, or 6 member parties, or Joss Whedon's Firefly... I wouldn't read that as them hating me.

Because someone thinks a game mechanic is dumb... or dumbed down... does not equate to them think YOU are dumb for liking it.

Sometimes I like things being "dumbed down" if they are too complex.  3.5 D&D's character creation myriad of options, for example, were just muddy overindulgences for min-maxers (IMO) so removing most of the useless options and ability for players to both build nerfed as well as OP'd characters is a GOOD "dumbing down" IMO.  I don't think it makes ME dumb for liking the simplification.

As many defending DA2 has said - simple doesn't automatically mean bad.  But in response to that, for some people simplifying something they liked as complex as it was is a bad thing.

Why would you get so heated over this?  Are your boxers chaffing?

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...

I keep waiting for Bryy_Miller to come in and tell you to take a step back.  You are getting this upset because people dislike something you like, and you are reading this dislikes or even attacks on these things as somehow being an attack on you.

No, I was getting upset for precisely the reason I said I was. 

MerinTB wrote...

If someone said that they hate turn-based, or 6 member parties, or Joss Whedon's Firefly... I wouldn't read that as them hating me.

Because someone thinks a game mechanic is dumb... or dumbed down... does not equate to them think YOU are dumb for liking it.

Good thing that isn't the issue.  What if someone said a feature they disliked was a dinosaur and a relic of the sprite era?  Would you have gotten upset at that and taken it as a personal attack? 

Catching my drift, friend? I learn my lessons too, you know. 

Way I see it, I was either wrong then, or I'm wrong now.  I'm going with the former.

MerinTB wrote...

Why would you get so heated over this?  Are your boxers chaffing?

The Qatar World Cup thing temporarily put me in a very bad mood. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2010 - 05:35 .

[Brockololly]

Addai67 wrote...

How am I free to read and analyze when all I'm given is a two or three word bullet point?

Oh, come on Addai! Clearly when you read "sigh" that obviously means "I should kill both of you idiots."

[upsettingshorts]

Brockololly wrote...

*sigh* = dismissive
Bottom Right = Renegade, aggressive

"I should kill both you idiots" is aggressively dismissive.  Where was I supposed to be confused?  Does Shepard shoot him, then jog over to C-Sec Academy and shoot Jahleed?  No.  Does she even draw her weapon?  No.  She raises her hand in frustration.  Seems consistent to me.

In DA:2, instead of calling for the player to understand what the bottom right selection implies, they're putting a big red angry face in the middle of the wheel.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2010 - 05:42 .

[Piecake]

MerinTB wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
*deep breath*

I couldn't care less if you like it or not, nor am I demanding you empathize with my defense. I do care that you and others stop casually dismissing this, and/or everything you don't like as "dumb." That simple. Excuse me if I'm offended when people imply I must be stupid, or like stupid things.

And if that was never your intent, great, I can respect that - use different language and there will be no problem. It is most certainly the intent of many others who use the same dismissive catchprases as you did in your post. You're around the forums enough to recognize this. That's my problem.

I keep waiting for Bryy_Miller to come in and tell you to take a step back.  You are getting this upset because people dislike something you like, and you are reading this dislikes or even attacks on these things as somehow being an attack on you.

If someone said that they hate turn-based, or 6 member parties, or Joss Whedon's Firefly... I wouldn't read that as them hating me.

Because someone thinks a game mechanic is dumb... or dumbed down... does not equate to them think YOU are dumb for liking it.

Sometimes I like things being "dumbed down" if they are too complex.  3.5 D&D's character creation myriad of options, for example, were just muddy overindulgences for min-maxers (IMO) so removing most of the useless options and ability for players to both build nerfed as well as OP'd characters is a GOOD "dumbing down" IMO.  I don't think it makes ME dumb for liking the simplification.

As many defending DA2 has said - simple doesn't automatically mean bad.  But in response to that, for some people simplifying something they liked as complex as it was is a bad thing.

Why would you get so heated over this?  Are your boxers chaffing?

I think that is exactly the meaning of a few posters on this board since they seem to think that DA2 has been dumbed down and streamlined in order to cater to the stupid console gamer masses

I even understand why people call the new companion armor system simplified (or more derogatorally, dumbed down).  Since it is simplfying a system in order to provide other tangible benefits.  I like it because i prefer those tangible benefits over the loss.  I just dont agree that you can say that of the new dialogue wheel.  To me, that makes no sense.  Does that mean i have an issue with people hating the change? No

[John Epler]

I'm still waiting for when they interview me.



Put me in, coach, I'm ready!

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
I keep waiting for Bryy_Miller to come in and tell you to take a step back.  You are getting this upset because people dislike something you like, and you are reading this dislikes or even attacks on these things as somehow being an attack on you.

No, I was getting upset for precisely the reason I said I was. 

That reason being this, right -

Upsettingshorts wrote...
"I do care that you and others stop casually dismissing this, and/or everything you don't like as "dumb." That simple. Excuse me if I'm offended when people imply I must be stupid, or like stupid things.

I may be putting too much confidence in my reading comprehension and writing skills, but I am fairly certain my bolded statement is a pretty dead-on paraphrase of your underlined one.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
What if someone said a feature they disliked was a dinosaur and a relic of the sprite era?  Would you have gotten upset at that and taken it as a personal attack? 

Catching my drift, friend? I learn my lessons too, you know. 

Way I see it, I was either wrong then, or I'm wrong now.  I'm going with the former.

Touche.  And I agree with you here.

To be clear, I unfairly attributed the general sentiment of that thread to your one post.  Overall the dinosaur comment was taken out of context but I still believe the extent of what you were saying was "this is old stuff, new stuff is better, get over the old stuff it's gone" - which if that WASN'T your intent, I'll take you at your word right now.

The person you were getting upset with explicitly said that liking what they considered "dumbed down" didn't mean your were dumb for liking it in their eyes.  I gave similar examples of "dumbing down" that I liked that I didn't take as me being dumb - or things I like that get bashed often that I don't take personal offense for.

But, again, when you say that it "wasn't what you were saying" - look at what I underlined from you and compare it to what I bolded that I said.  Explain to me (I'm being honest, not sarcastic here) where the differences are in them?

Modifié par MerinTB, 02 décembre 2010 - 05:54 .

[Apollo Starflare]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Keep it civil, folks, or I swear I will turn this thread right around and no one's going to Super Happy Funland!

I'm just angry the United States lost its World Cup bid to Qatar.  QATAR!

Hey now, at least the last time you had it was '94 and you guys don't even like football! The country where it essentially originated from hasn't had it since '66 and it looks like we won't be seeing it until the distant future post 2030 (which will be going to Uruguay/Argentina short of some crazy twist).

Er, OT: I think the paraphrase system undeniably can be improved, but at the same time I think it has the potential to be much better than the old system. I don't like it when I come across one of those cases where the paraphrase doesn't accurately represent what my character will say, but at the same time when it gets it right I find the conversations become seamless, more involving and very fluid and enjoyable. I think a lot of it comes down to the writers perfecting the writing of the paraphrases themselves, as well as knowing when to put in something that indicates it's a violent (etc.) action. The latter thing seems to be mostly covered by the symbols, but we won't know how well they work until we play the game or see them in action properly.

The biggest problem with the 'Sigh' example is that it sounds like it should describe exactly what Shepard is going to do rather than a paraphrase of what he/she says. I generally agree with Shorts that at the end of the day it fits the position ascribed to it, but that doesn't mean I didn't also 'fall for it' and choose it as an option expecting different. It all comes down to the wording at the end of the day.

Modifié par Apollo Starflare, 02 décembre 2010 - 05:52 .

[John Epler]

Folks, while I appreciate that misunderstandings occur, let's try and curtail the 'he said/she said' discussion and bring this back on-topic. Thanks!

[Brockololly]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

*sigh* = dismissive
Bottom Right = Renegade, aggressive

"I should kill both you idiots" is aggressively dismissive.  Where was I supposed to be confused?  Does Shepard shoot him, then jog over to C-Sec Academy and shoot Jahleed?  No.  Does she even draw her weapon?  No.  She raises her hand in frustration.  Seems consistent to me.

In DA:2, instead of calling for the player to understand what the bottom right selection implies, they're putting a big red angry face in the middle of the wheel.

Well thats the thing- sure, it technically makes sense, but maybe I don't want my Shep to sound like a murderous **** making death threats, yet still sound angry? If you had the full text there, I could have seen that response and gone "Whoa! I don't want to quite say that!" Even if behind the scenes its the same net result in the engine, I personally don't like being surprised by the extreme nature of that sort of response when you could likely come up with a dozen other variations on "sigh" with some renegade connotation besides death threats.

My issue is that for myself, and many others, there can often be a big disconnect in a short paraphrase and some ambiguous icon versus being able to read out all the full text responses and judge for myself what response means what. Again, just because you've got a red angry fist doesn't tell me much- is Hawke going to go all marine bootcamp drill instructor and get in someone's face and start screaming, or is he going to be passive aggressively pissed off and talking through clenched teeth? Obviously the paraphrase should help give context, but still, I much rather feel a greater sense of agency and can actually try to RP it better if you know exactly what the PC is going to say versus having only an approximation.

Modifié par Brockololly, 02 décembre 2010 - 05:57 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

MerinTB wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
*deep breath*

I couldn't care less if you like it or not, nor am I demanding you empathize with my defense. I do care that you and others stop casually dismissing this, and/or everything you don't like as "dumb." That simple. Excuse me if I'm offended when people imply I must be stupid, or like stupid things.

And if that was never your intent, great, I can respect that - use different language and there will be no problem. It is most certainly the intent of many others who use the same dismissive catchprases as you did in your post. You're around the forums enough to recognize this. That's my problem.

I keep waiting for Bryy_Miller to come in and tell you to take a step back.  You are getting this upset because people dislike something you like, and you are reading this dislikes or even attacks on these things as somehow being an attack on you.

If someone said that they hate turn-based, or 6 member parties, or Joss Whedon's Firefly... I wouldn't read that as them hating me.

Because someone thinks a game mechanic is dumb... or dumbed down... does not equate to them think YOU are dumb for liking it.

Sometimes I like things being "dumbed down" if they are too complex.  3.5 D&D's character creation myriad of options, for example, were just muddy overindulgences for min-maxers (IMO) so removing most of the useless options and ability for players to both build nerfed as well as OP'd characters is a GOOD "dumbing down" IMO.  I don't think it makes ME dumb for liking the simplification.

As many defending DA2 has said - simple doesn't automatically mean bad.  But in response to that, for some people simplifying something they liked as complex as it was is a bad thing.

Why would you get so heated over this?  Are your boxers chaffing?

Bryy only shows up to jump on people against the changes, ie: not glowingly onboard for whatever Bioware does.

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...
But, again, when you say that it "wasn't what you were saying" - look at what I underlined from you and compare it to what I bolded that I said.  Explain to me (I'm being honest, not sarcastic here) where the differences are in them?

I could, honestly, but I'd rather just drop it.  I've calmed down.  The TLDR version is when I devolve into aggressive rants, I'm typically using a post or poster as a trigger to respond to a perceived trend, hence why I mention "others."  If you or Addai seek additional clarification, send me a PM and I'll respond.  Otherwise, I think it'd probably be a good idea to move on.

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Hey now, at least the last time you had it was '94 and you guys don't even like football! The country where it essentially originated from hasn't had it since '66 and it looks like we won't be seeing it until the distant future post 2030 (which will be going to Uruguay/Argentina short of some crazy twist).

Yeah, the Qatar-over-US thing is really not as bad as England - but in terms of pure logistics as opposed to national pride, it's much easier for English people to drive to France or Germany than it is for an American to haul their butts anywhere other than Canada or Mexico.  The US is big.

Apollo Starflare wrote...

The biggest problem with the 'Sigh' example is that it sounds like it should describe exactly what Shepard is going to do rather than a paraphrase of what he/she says. I generally agree with Shorts that at the end of the day it fits the position ascribed to it, but that doesn't mean I didn't also 'fall for it' and choose it as an option expecting different. It all comes down to the wording at the end of the day.

That comes down to expectations and approach I think.  The reason it doesn't surprise me is that no matter what the system, DA:O's or ME1-2's, I'm concerned with implications and consequences - not specifics.  The bottom right choice labeled *sigh* resulting in that scene was consistent with the result I expected, even if I was "surprised" at the precise nature of the line.  I do not view this as a bad thing - I consider it a feature.  I want to know where I'm going, but I if I'm surprised as to how I get there, I enjoy that.  It isn't, to me, any less cerebral.

Brockololly wrote...

Well thats the thing- sure, it technically makes sense, but maybe I don't want my Shep to sound like a murderous **** making death threats, yet still sound angry?

I have many, many problems with the writing of Renegade Shepard, but I don't really think that's a flaw inherent in the paraphrased dialogue wheel system.  That being said, I don't really think Shepard makes a death threat there.  The tone of voice doesn't suggest it, and the other character doesn't appear to feel threatened, only shamed.  Which fits the scene.

Brockololly wrote...

I personally don't like being surprised by the extreme nature of that sort of response

And we arrive at an actual difference of opinion!  See my above comment to Apollo regarding such surprises.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2010 - 06:02 .

[Cloaking_Thane]

Perhaps 5 dialouge options would help (i.e slightly "paragon" or slightly "renegade")



Sure it would take up disk space and whatnot, but ME2 was 2 disks anyhow, and it could placate many more people.

[Cloaking_Thane]

Slightly off topic, but for weapons



It seems to be a mixture of Dynasty warriors (Special weapon)/ME2 upgrades.....is that far off the mark.



I know you can equip other weapons but will it be feasible to keep your weapon throughout. I'm of 2 minds of how I feel about it.

[Drasanil]

JohnEpler wrote...

Keep it civil, folks, or I swear I will turn this thread right around and no one's going to Super Happy Funland!

Does that mean if we keep on being rude you guys will strip out the PC VO and AWESOME BUTTON?

Because judging by the amount of complaints, I'm willing to bet half the fanbase already thinks we're not going to Super Happy Funland

[Brockololly]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
... even if I was "surprised" at the precise nature of the line.  I do not view this as a bad thing - I consider it a feature.  I want to know where I'm going, but I if I'm surprised as to how I get there, I enjoy that.  It isn't, to me, any less cerebral.

Fair enough- I'd rather be surprised by what an NPC says or reacts to the PC rather than having to be surprised by the PC. I'd bring up Shepard attacking the reporter lady but thats the whole interrupt system and a whole other can of worms...

[Cutlasskiwi]

Drasanil wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Keep it civil, folks, or I swear I will turn this thread right around and no one's going to Super Happy Funland!

Does that mean if we keep on being rude you guys will strip out the PC VO and AWESOME BUTTON?

Because judging by the amount of complaints, I'm willing to bet half the fanbase already thinks we're not going to Super Happy Funland

Some of the fanbase you see on some forums.. I bet most of their fanbase don't visit this forum on a regular basis. 

[Ziggeh]

Brockololly wrote...

Well thats the thing- sure, it technically makes sense, but maybe I don't want my Shep to sound like a murderous **** making death threats, yet still sound angry? If you had the full text there, I could have seen that response and gone "Whoa! I don't want to quite say that!" Even if behind the scenes its the same net result in the engine, I personally don't like being surprised by the extreme nature of that sort of response when you could likely come up with a dozen other variations on "sigh" with some renegade connotation besides death threats.

It's not a death threat, it's agressively dismissive, it's a gesture of frustration from someone who is extraordinarily violent no matter how one chooses to play them. Between "sigh" and the radial position I think it's a pretty decent paraphrase.

If you had the full text then it could have read like a death threat, and would have been contradicted by the voice over, the intent of which was more accurately potrayed by the wheel. Both systems are prone to the same issues of misunderstanding.