10 réponses à ce sujet

[Mary Kirby]

Snoteye wrote...

The icons only represent intent. How the message is received by the NPC is a separate matter altogether and they have no direct relation to approval friendship/rivalry. The icons were added to reduce risk of asari mind-raping from players misunderstanding paraphrasals.
Yeah, if you generally know how the NPC responds to things you will probably be able to metagame the icons, but most likely you could do so without the icons anyway.

This. Yes. The icon tells you what tone you are selecting. They are, "I am going to say something psychotic," or "I am going to be a smartarse." Not, "This is the option the NPC will like." NPCs are just as likely to hate your jokes or your interpret your attempts to be nice as butt-kissing.

[Mary Kirby]

scyphozoa wrote...

I feel like the english language is plenty complex enough to make textual cues clear. Why do we need icons? And can we toggle them off if we are literate?

Quit murdering kittens. Jerk.

[Mary Kirby]

Brockololly wrote...

I'm still wondering how it will all work in the game though, as a red angry fist or joker mask for sarcasm with only a limited paraphrase and no full text leaves you guessing as to the extent of how much "red angry fist" your response will actually be- is it screaming in someone's face or passive aggressively growling through clenched teeth? Does the "joker mask sarcasm" mean you'll make a subtle, witty dry humor remark or will you act all Oghren like and make a Jar Jar Binks level fart joke?

Regardless of icon, all you do is make fart jokes. Every time.

[Mary Kirby]

fchopin wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

So when you read books, do you first go through with a magic marker and obscure any descriptions of how a character said something as insults to your intelligence?

Because you know, the icons are the same damn thing. Sometimes I feel like I'm explaining this concept as if I am talking to two-year olds.  There is no difference between an "anger icon" and the words "he angrily demanded" or some other phrase.

I don't need a silly icon to tell me that by selecting option one it would be a romance option, if i can not tell from the text then the developers have made a mistake.

This is why, in ME2, you have flirt lines with paraphrases like, "I want you, Thane." Even though what Shepard says does not in any way sound that ridiculously blatant. Because the 30 characters of paraphrase have to convey without a doubt that you are going to initiate a romance. Frankly, I would rather have a little flirt icon and a paraphrase that says, "I'm here for you." Closer to what I'm actually going to say, and it doesn't make me cringe to select it. I don't think that's dumbed down, I think that's just plain better. But your mileage may vary.

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Indeed. Though the paraphrase system becomes even more problematic when it passes through translators.

Actually, that's not true. Praphrases are generally easier to translate because they're short and simple sentences. The part where it becomes tricky is the line length limit-- but that limit also presented a problem in DAO, requiring much re-wording of a lengthy sentence to get its point across.

[David Gaider]

fchopin wrote...
I have no problem with people who wish to use the icons but what is wrong with having an option for people that do not need any guidance?

But you do need the guidance. It has nothing to do with hand-holding-- like Mary pointed out there, the paraphrases were written using the icons for context. This means that we didn't have to try and convey both tone and intent at the same time... which can be difficult to do in 30 characters, as it forces you to be incredibly blantant and sometimes unintentionally misleading. Suddenly taking away the icon without re-writing all the paraphrases would leave someone in quite the difficult position.

In fact, I'll point out that the tone/intent issue isn't restricted to paraphrases. One can encounter this issue even in the DAO-style responses, and were we to go back to such responses I would still want to include the tone icons. It just makes good sense and has nothing to do with people wanting/lacking options. We don't give people options to make their game worse.

Modifié par David Gaider, 06 décembre 2010 - 04:05 .

[David Gaider]

AlanC9 wrote...
There's at least an "aggressive" icon too according to screenshots -- I don't think it necessarily means immediate violence, though I imagine it'll be attached if Bio decides to give you something like  " (Kill him)" as an option.

There's a separate icon for committing violence versus the aggressive dialogue tone. The icon gets rid of the necessity for the bracketed comments-- we done need things like [Attack] or [Lie] and so forth within the paraphrase, as the icon provides that instead.

And possibly a flirt icon, depending on whether Mary Kirby was being serious or just giving a hypothetical.

Quite serious. It's one of the most useful icons, in fact, right beside the Lie icon.

[David Gaider]

Risax wrote...
Do we get a turtorial of what all icons mean?
I mean some are pretty obvious, but if there are icons for lieing killing and attacking, it could be usefull.

I'm not sure what the tutorial consists of, or if the icons will be listed in the manual (though that seems most likely). For the most part they're pretty self-explanatory, as well as colour-coded.

And now where on the subject. Can you still Persuade people, and does it have an icon if you can?

There's no single "persuade" option. What you have is the occasional special Diplomacy, Charm or Intimidate option in dialogue that's dependent on your dominant tone. And these will have an icon to single them out, yes.

[David Gaider]

Addai67 wrote...
And what if your PC says it sarcastically but Morrigan doesn't pick up that you're being sarcastic?  Either we'll still have the same problem in DA2, or else the icons are going to tell us what comes next and they are controlling the NPCs, not just the PC's voiceover.

The icons are about conveying the writer's intent to you, the player. If the PC says something sarcastically and we conveyed that to you in the paraphrase, along with the icon to make it clear, and you picked it then Morrigan will respond to the sarcasm. How she responds you won't know-- the PC's intent is being conveyed, not the effect.

[David Gaider]

TMZuk wrote...
Sten is a good example. In DA:O you learn through playing the game that he like his dialogues short and to the point. If this was in DA2, after a little while you don't even have to read the different options presented, - not
that you can anyway, since they are paraphrased - you can simply just keep clicking on the icon you know Sten prefers.

That's quite the assumption on your part. I don't know of a single companion in DA2 that responds consistently to the tone selected, as opposed to the sentiment expressed-- and more often than not they respond to action choices and not tone choices at all.

But I guess you're free to assume otherwise? It's generally best to assume the worst-case scenario is true and then scoff at the system for something you only imagine it does, yes?