372 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

druplesnubb wrote...

I agree that there probably wouldn't be that many dominant personalities but what makes you think there's only those three? just because we only saw those on that particular screenshot it doesn't mean there couldn't be a fourth or even a fifth personality. It's not like they are forced to have one of every kind all the time.

I'm under impression Mr.Gaider gave info about the three dominant personalities earlier, though i can't provide exact source. The amount of personalities can't be too large since each personality involves considerable amount of extra work for the VA, to cover that personality in dialogues where it's used.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Or maybe tone doesn't equal to personality.

[Brockololly]

druplesnubb wrote...
I agree that there probably wouldn't be that many dominant personalities but what makes you think there's only those three? just because we only saw those on that particular screenshot it doesn't mean there couldn't be a fourth or even a fifth personality. It's not like they are forced to have one of every kind all the time.

I don't know where the post is, but a while back Gaider went into detail on the nitty gritty of the personality system and I believe made mention thats its limited to the 3. Think of it this way too- they had to voice out those 3 different options and I can't imagine they'll necessarily have even more uniquely voiced personalities simply due to cost.

There are likely more icons, but those don't seem to be linked to your dominant personality. Question is, are those extra icons tied to some other dialogue skill like a coercion or maybe a lying skill or something?

[nightcobra]

Brockololly wrote...

There are likely more icons, but those don't seem to be linked to your dominant personality. Question is, are those extra icons tied to some other dialogue skill like a coercion or maybe a lying skill or something?

honest answer: i don't know

wishful answer: i'd like it if all stats influenced dialog choices.

[TMZuk]

David Gaider wrote...

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?

I don't know? All I have to use as a reference is how it worked in ME/ME2, and that is the dialogue wheel, combined with paraphrasing. I can't count the amount of times I felt like hitting my own character in those two games, especially in ME2, because they refused to produce a line that was anything like what I wanted my character to say.

Now you use that system, and add intent-icons. I assume that is to acertain that I as player get the gist of how the writers meant the reply to come across. So now the ten billion dollar question; if the dialogue-wheel is so unclear, compared to having the various answers presented to you - and IMO ME/ME2's system was vastly inferior and unclear compared to DA:O's oldfashioned approach - that you have to add intent-icons to clarify, why use it at all?

While the ME series was entertaining, it had none of the depth or replay value to me, that DA:O had and has. So yes, I am very worried that you implement features from those games in DA2. Not to mention a lot of other things about DA2 which are hugely dissapointing, but they are besides the point in this discussion.

[Ziggeh]

TMZuk wrote...

So now the ten billion dollar question; if the dialogue-wheel is so unclear, compared to having the various answers presented to you - and IMO ME/ME2's system was vastly inferior and unclear compared to DA:O's oldfashioned approach - that you have to add intent-icons to clarify, why use it at all?

Highlighted the important part there. Both systems are prone to similar misinterpretation problems.

[Dave of Canada]

TMZuk wrote...

I can't count the amount of times I felt like hitting my own character in those two games, especially in ME2, because they refused to produce a line that was anything like what I wanted my character to say.

I "felt like hitting my own character" in Dragon Age too, this isn't an isolated problem to one series. Multiple times in Dragon Age I'd say something but it would be completely taken out of context from what I was taken, at least with the Mass Effect system I can follow the conversation and not go "Wait, what?". Adding tone and paraphrase opens up a lot of doors, it clears a lot of what's in the air.

DA:O: I HATE YOU > You don't know if the character will laugh and shrug it off as a joke, take offense to it and such.
ME: I HATE YOU > You know immediately where it's placed how the person is going to react. If it's at the bottom, you shouldn't expect sunflowers and rainbows. It's not said expressely "I hate you", though it conveys the intention of the line.
DA2: [ANGRY/AGGRESSIVE] I HATE YOU > You won't be surprised when it turns out the character is offended..

Either way you're restricted by what the writers want, you're trapped within the sandbox and you need to use the toys that you were given. If you wish to pretend there's more toys in the other sandbox than there is, that's not really anybody's fault. No?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 06 décembre 2010 - 06:27 .

[Piecake]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

So now the ten billion dollar question; if the dialogue-wheel is so unclear, compared to having the various answers presented to you - and IMO ME/ME2's system was vastly inferior and unclear compared to DA:O's oldfashioned approach - that you have to add intent-icons to clarify, why use it at all?

Highlighted the important part there. Both systems are prone to similar misinterpretation problems.

personally, I'd find selecting a sentence or two option and then have that exactly repeated to me positively absurd.  And yes, I prefer VA to text

The main point here is that without an indicator of tone, you need to write dialogue in a way that tries to convey intent and tone on its own, and that is tremendously limiting and confining, not to mention unnatural.  Even then, there are misunderstandings, especially for us sarcastic/smarmy bastards. 

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

I agree with Mr. of Canada. Though I never was in a where situation my PC said something I didn't intend, I was surprised to find through the wiki that some dialogue options were meant to be taken much more lightly than I had thought (even though I can smell sarcasm from a mile off) and even earned approval... I missed out on some good Alistair snark.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 06 décembre 2010 - 06:38 .

[LexXxich]

But will I be able to say something in neutral tone? Without being all "Diplomatic" about it?

If I'm not playing a character as Joker or Angry Guy, will s/he become Goody-Two-Shoes?

[In Exile]

TMZuk wrote...
The icons will take away the illusion covering the game-mechanics. When playing a game like DA:O, or BG/BG2, I am not specificly trying to gain x amount of reputation-points or experience when choosing my reply, or unlocking a specific quest.. Rather I am trying as hard as I can to simply choose the line I feel is the most in character.

Having the icons will make this much harder, since I will quickly, through playing the game, learn what sort of replies the different NPC's prefer.

Why would you think this way? That is, why would you want to try and figure out what replies NPCs like if you aren't RPing a character that is manipulative?

I have characters who are everything to everyone, but that's because that's who they are. They're always going to tell Alistair they love saving puppies and Morrigan they love kiling them, just because that let's them suck up to both and that's who they are.

But why not choose an expression for its own sake? i.e. Shepard is violent, so he's always renegade because that's who he is. Hawke is sarcastic, so Hawke is always sarcastic because that's who he is. I don't understan why meta-game concerns of this sort are relevant.

Are you saying you prefered DA:O because even though you were trying to game the system, it was harder for you as the player to do it?

ETA:

Basically, you sound like you are saying you don't like intent options because they make it easier to meta-game, but the whole issue of the intent options is that they are information for the player and not for the character. If the player is using them as if they were the character, that's an entirely different problem.

For me, what I want, as the player, to have a good experience is different than how my character thinks if I RP.

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.

Sten responds well to the scant sarcasm options that you have. You can win approval and challenge him. Want Sten wants is for you to know who you want and what you are. You lose points when you flip-flop.

This is, IMO, made worse by the paraphrasing - it certainly was bad in ME/ME2 - which prevents you from even choosing a reply, rather you just have to settle for an intent. If the system was used in DA:O, any dialogue with Sten would simply be done through clicking the "short and to the point" icon, and there would be no point in NOT doing so, as you cannot read the replies anyway, but have to wait and hope that the actor deliever a line that's actually what you want it to be. This makes for a dull third person experience, rather than an immersive first-person experience.
 
In other words, roleplay goes out the window, and you are instead spoon-fed an interactive movie.

I disagree completely. Deciding whether I want to be sarcastic or not or what exactly I should do (if my character is such) to push someone's buttons is RP. I don't see how that character choice vanishes if we have an interface with intent versus one without.

Modifié par In Exile, 06 décembre 2010 - 06:44 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
I'm not sure if there's any "instead" here -- the icons don't create anything that wasn't already there, they just clarify the writer's intent. But it can be argued that you were given the same set of "options that actually matter in the game" without the icons too (although the player could choose to make-believe these options were something other than they actually were)

But as the player (not the character) it's important to know what your real options are. In the real world, I can do everything. In the game world, my character can only do the things the writers allow. It makes a big difference in my experience knowing what is allowed.

I can appreciate that some people want imaginary content, but at this point that comes down to preference and is 100% irreconcilable.

[AlanC9]

TMZuk wrote...
 I can't count the amount of times I felt like hitting my own character in those two games, especially in ME2, because they refused to produce a line that was anything like what I wanted my character to say.

But is that because you didn't get the line you wanted out out of the ones that were there, or is it because you just didn't like any of the lines? If ME2 had had dialog controlled like DAO but had the exact same PC lines to choose from, would it have worked any better for you?

Now you use that system, and add intent-icons. I assume that is to acertain that I as player get the gist of how the writers meant the reply to come across. So now the ten billion dollar question; if the dialogue-wheel is so unclear, compared to having the various answers presented to you - and IMO ME/ME2's system was vastly inferior and unclear compared to DA:O's oldfashioned approach - that you have to add intent-icons to clarify, why use it at all?

Like I said upthread, I'd want the intent icons even if they were keeping full text in the interface, to clarify statements where the PC may be speaking ironically.

[fchopin]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I can see there is no chance for an option as all the text would have to be redone and it would take months so i will not ask for an option on this point again.
 
That does not mean i like the intent icons as i don't like icons and guessing games when my character speaks.
 
I don't want to know the intent of what i am about to say but the actual words as i am playing a role.
 
Will have to think on this.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

But as the player (not the character) it's important to know what your real options are.

Sure, i just don't think it's the clarification itself that "gives the player choices that matter".

[AlanC9]

fchopin wrote...
That does not mean i like the intent icons as i don't like icons and guessing games when my character speaks.
 

Don't you mean that you dislike the paraphrases rather than the intent icons? The intent icons reduce the guessing.

[fchopin]

No, the intent icons are what is preventing me from reading the actual text, without them the writers would have had to make the text more self explanatory.

[upsettingshorts]

fchopin wrote...

No, the intent icons are what is preventing me from reading the actual text

No they aren't.

fchopin wrote...

without them the writers would have had to make the text more self explanatory.

No they wouldn't.

[nightcobra]

fchopin wrote...

No, the intent icons are what is preventing me from reading the actual text, without them the writers would have had to make the text more self explanatory.

wait, what? if i'm reading correctly, you're blaming the intent icons as an excuse for the writers to relax and write their paraphrases as ambiguously as possible?

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 06 décembre 2010 - 09:31 .

[fchopin]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

fchopin wrote...

No, the intent icons are what is preventing me from reading the actual text, without them the writers would have had to make the text more self explanatory.

wait, what? if i'm reading correctly, you're blaming the intent icons as an excuse for the writers to relax and write their paraphrases as ambiguously as possible?

That is not what i said, try reading the post again.

[nightcobra]

fchopin wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

fchopin wrote...

No, the intent icons are what is preventing me from reading the actual text, without them the writers would have had to make the text more self explanatory.

wait, what? if i'm reading correctly, you're blaming the intent icons as an excuse for the writers to relax and write their paraphrases as ambiguously as possible?

That is not what i said, try reading the post again.

could you please explain yourself more clearly then as i still find it a bit difficult to understand the meaning of your statement.

[fchopin]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

fchopin wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

fchopin wrote...

No, the intent icons are what is preventing me from reading the actual text, without them the writers would have had to make the text more self explanatory.

wait, what? if i'm reading correctly, you're blaming the intent icons as an excuse for the writers to relax and write their paraphrases as ambiguously as possible?

That is not what i said, try reading the post again.

could you please explain yourself more clearly then as i still find it a bit difficult to understand the meaning of your statement.

No, i have said all i want to say, if the developers have a problem with what i said they are welcome to criticise.

[nightcobra]

maybe simplifying your statement to its essencial meaning would help, maybe even adding an emoticon to be sure it's not sarcasm.

ps:don't take this particular phrase too seriously:P

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 06 décembre 2010 - 09:44 .

[Maria Caliban]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Or maybe tone doesn't equal to personality.

I'd say they're closely related.

[Ortaya Alevli]

fchopin wrote...

No, the intent icons are what is preventing me from reading the actual text, without them the writers would have had to make the text more self explanatory.

Think about Mass Effect series. No intent icons there. But writers didn't have to make the text any more self-explanatory, did they? Paraphrasing and the associated ambiguity were full-force there. I don't like all this paraphrasing solution myself, but why would you blame the icons for obscurity?