372 réponses à ce sujet

[Ortaya Alevli]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Or maybe tone doesn't equal to personality.

I'd say they're closely related.

Indeed.

[Russalka]

The intent and tone is already more or less evident in the text, I for one welcome this mild clarification. It does not show which is the right option or the reaction, it may hint it, but there are already things that do.

[Xewaka]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

As a freelance translator, I vehemently disagree. Context is vital for a proper translation, and paraphrases, by their short and to the point nature, are more prone to lack context and thus be misinterpreted.

[upsettingshorts]

Xewaka wrote...

As a freelance translator, I vehemently disagree. Context is vital for a proper translation, and paraphrases, by their short and to the point nature, are more prone to lack context and thus be misinterpreted.

Wouldn't that only be true if the translation of the paraphrase had to be done in isolation?

If the translators had both the paraphrase and the resulting action/dialogue infront of them, wouldn't that make it less of an issue?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 décembre 2010 - 10:08 .

[fchopin]

Russalka wrote...

The intent and tone is already more or less evident in the text,.

Not according to David Gaider, he said we will need the guidance of the icons as we would not be able to understand from the text both the tone and intent.

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
As a freelance translator, I vehemently disagree. Context is vital for a proper translation, and paraphrases, by their short and to the point nature, are more prone to lack context and thus be misinterpreted.

Wouldn't that only be true if the translation of the paraphrase had to be done in isolation?
If the translators had both the paraphrase and the resulting action/dialogue infront of them, wouldn't that make it less of an issue?

I might be mistaken, but usually translations are made with the text blocks in isolation.

[Russalka]

@fchopin

Hence "the less", there are quite a few dialogue options where it is not very clear and these icons help out quite well.

Modifié par Russalka, 06 décembre 2010 - 10:12 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

As a freelance translator, I vehemently disagree. Context is vital for a proper translation, and paraphrases, by their short and to the point nature, are more prone to lack context and thus be misinterpreted.

Wouldn't that only be true if the translation of the paraphrase had to be done in isolation?

If the translators had both the paraphrase and the resulting action/dialogue infront of them, wouldn't that make it less of an issue?

Even that wouldn't be enough. Most of the time, you cannot translate a paraphrase word for word and expect it to make sense even if you have the full context. Generally the process goes like reading the initial long line in full context and paraphrasing it yourself while using the original paraphrase as a guide and trying to stay true to it as humanly as possible.

[fchopin]

Russalka wrote...

@fchopin

Hence "the less", there are quite a few dialogue options where it is not very clear and these icons help out quite well.

I have never said that the icons don't help out.

[Xewaka]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Wouldn't that only be true if the translation of the paraphrase had to be done in isolation?
If the translators had both the paraphrase and the resulting action/dialogue infront of them, wouldn't that make it less of an issue?

Even that wouldn't be enough. Most of the time, you cannot translate a paraphrase word for word and expect it to make sense even if you have the full context. Generally the process goes like reading the initial long line in full context and paraphrasing it yourself while using the original paraphrase as a guide and trying to stay true to it as humanly as possible.

This is another excellent point. Besides, most latin-based languages usually have a higher count of characters per word than english; this added to the rather small character limit of the paraphrases, makes them even harder to incorporate without losing meaning of the paraphrase.

[AlanC9]

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.

How so? Removing the icon wouldn't give them enough space to avoid paraphrasing. Unless they limit Hawke to 30-character lines, and they were never going to do that.

It's not like an icon and a paraphrase is less work for the writers -- it's more. They added the icon to make something they were already going to do work better, rather than adding the icon so they could use paraphrases.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 décembre 2010 - 10:24 .

[fchopin]

AlanC9 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.

How so? Removing the icon wouldn't give them enough space to avoid paraphrasing. Unless they limit Hawke to 30-character lines, and they were never going to do that.

It's not like an icon and a paraphrase is less work for the writers -- it's more. They added the icon to make something they were already going to do work better, rather than adding the icon so they could use paraphrases.

The dues ex team seem to have found a way to do this so that is one possibility.

[AlanC9]

Having not played DX, I don't know how they're solving it. Do you?

Edit: IIRC The Witcher handles this by keeping Geralt's lines short. It works because he's a fairly laconic character, and doesn't have to make any of those big inspirational speeches that Shepard makes and Hawke almost certainly will have to.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that you have the causality wrong. The paraphrases are making the intent icons happen, not the other way around.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 décembre 2010 - 10:38 .

[Icinix]

Humans begin language using simple symbols for description.
Early languages develop greater amount of symbols for meanings, still with pictures or icons.
As languages evolve, the pictures become intricately woven lines to represent common parts of a word.
Language becomes incredibly complicated using multiple symbols, apostrophes, commas with graphical symbols used only for emphasis (?, !)
Language becomes totally anal and people cry foul when someone uses the incorrect their, there, they're.
Language begins to abbreviate again, (txt, h8, gr8, wot, etc)
Language uses more 'smileys' and pictures to emphasize words ( , :@, O.o etc)

Prince changes his name to a symbol.
Various computer and phone companies drop the use of text for applications and folders, relying on visual icons for use.

BioWare releases DA2 with graphical representation of how you will communicate.

So in conclusion, It's quite simple really, BioWare are grumpy old people several thousand years old who believe that the way they used to do things was / is and always will be the best

Modifié par Icinix, 06 décembre 2010 - 10:36 .

[fchopin]

AlanC9 wrote...

Having not played DX, I don't know how they're solving it. Do you?

Edit: IIRC The Witcher handles this by keeping Geralt's lines short. It works because he's a fairly laconic character, and doesn't have to make any of those big inspirational speeches that Shepard makes and Hawke almost certainly will have to.

No i don't know the actual mechanics and it could turn out very bad but that's one possibility at least so there are ways.

AlanC9 wrote...

Anyway, all I'm saying is that you have the causality wrong. The paraphrases are making the intent icons happen, not the other way around.

The way things change here i would not be surprised if i am wrong but i am not really interested how the intent icons happen i am more interested in the way they are preventing me from the full text message.

[Morroian]

fchopin wrote...

The way things change here i would not be surprised if i am wrong but i am not really interested how the intent icons happen i am more interested in the way they are preventing me from the full text message.

They aren't preventing you, the paraphrasing system is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

And yet none of them would say "Yo, buddy, you misunderstood," but if they wanted to, they couldn't.

Unless they did it off-screen.  Which is entirely possible.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...


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.

Why?  That would just force a specific tone on he player even if he wanted a different one.

DAO, as implemented, allowed the PC to deliver a line using any tone the player could imagine.  Why would you want to take that away?

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
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.

Why?  That would just force a specific tone on he player even if he wanted a different one.

DAO, as implemented, allowed the PC to deliver a line using any tone the player could imagine.  Why would you want to take that away?

I'd say because authors want people to experience their works by the vision the author has, rather than by the vision the reader has. Which is impossible.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...


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.

Why?  That would just force a specific tone on he player even if he wanted a different one.

DAO, as implemented, allowed the PC to deliver a line using any tone the player could imagine.  Why would you want to take that away?

Meh

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why?  That would just force a specific tone on he player even if he wanted a different one.

What you see as "actively supports" I see as "limitations of the game allowing for."

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO, as implemented, allowed the PC to deliver a line using any tone the player could imagine.  Why would you want to take that away?

Because your preferences are conceptually similar to players enjoying a particular bug or exploit in a game, when it isn't working as intended.

And that applies to either DA:O (such as through adding [Sarcastic] to text options) or DA:2. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 décembre 2010 - 11:58 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

The icons are about conveying the writer's intent to you, the player.

And while that's valuable, I don't see how constraining the player character's response to match that intent benefits 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.

But what if the player wanted the character to say that very thing but not sarcastically?

DAO would have allowed that.  But DA2 does not.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In other words, illusion of choice supported by your imagination goes out the window, and you are instead given options  that actually matter in the game as opposed to ones that only matter in your head.

Roleplaying only ever exists in the player's head.  Wanting it to occur outside the player's head - regardless of the form of roleplaying being performed - is contrary to the nature of the activity.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

I'd say because authors want people to experience their works by the vision the author has, rather than by the vision the reader has.

That runs contrary to centuries of literary theory.

Once the author writes the book, he no longer has any control over how people read it, and there's no wrong conclusion to draw from the text.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Roleplaying only ever exists in the player's head.  Wanting it to occur outside the player's head - regardless of the form of roleplaying being performed - is contrary to the nature of the activity.

When it comes to cRPGs,  I don't agree.  If I wanted such an experience I would write a story where the choices and consequences were internally conceived.  In cRPGs they aren't.  I don't make choices that aren't offered to me by the game, because those choices do not have observable consequences.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 décembre 2010 - 12:04 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

How so? Removing the icon wouldn't give them enough space to avoid paraphrasing.

No, to do that they'd need to abandon the wheel interface and put everything back in a list - ideally in a scrollable text box.