372 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you desire an RPG where the developers won't hamper your ideal for the character, you need something a bit more open-ended like The Elder Scrolls, Diablo, or Fallout series.

And if any of those games didn't feature action combat, I might never look at a BioWare game again.

But they all do.  They're all click to attack, with no tactical pausing.  As such, I find them generally unfun to play (I'm still working on Fallout - maybe I'll manage to enjoy that one).

In story-based RPGs, which is all that BioWare makes, there are limits to what PCs can express.

There's a credible argument to be made that "story-based" and "RPG" are contradictory.

I am not going to make that argument here.

[upsettingshorts]

Honest question Sylvius: Do you roleplay in MMOs? They seem if not tailor made, at least compatible with your preferences and expectations.

[Dodge-Venom]

I don't see showing intent as a dumbing down, it is cutting out a step to allow you to focus on the immersion of the conversation/story. Even better it is much closer to how people carry out a conversation. It isn't as though in a voiced system all those long responses are gone, they're just spoken instead!



No matter what system you are using you still select an option based on the intent. Wether its BG/DA text responses it doesn't matter, the only difference is with a text repose is you have to read your response and infer an intent which you hope has the desired result. Immersion to me is lost in that process, especially when the responses are complicated and the process of going through them all is relatively lengthy. Then after reading them you still select an option based on the intent anyway, not because you really like the way that response is structured as a sentence. By simply showing intent you cut out that step. You assess the other parties remark, decide on your intent, and bang you select it. Of course you still have a limited selection for your replies, but that’s still the same for both systems! That process is much closer to how people actually have conversations. E.g. someone just said something mildly rude to you in front of others, the first think most people think is hmm, should I be offended and make them feel bad and look like a dick? or make a witty retort and make them look stupid? You decide on the intent first and then form a response to, hopefully, achieve that intent.



Okay poor example, but it was a demonstration of the thought process involved in a conversation. The point been you don't consider a series of fully formed responses, because you'd stand there like a slack jawed idiot in the middle of a conversation. You consider your intent, then form a response. In other words it’s just a better system.

[unspoken_demise]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Unless it was a romance story or game, then it wouldn't be worthwhile. Some of my favorite games - Quest for Glory, Prince of Persia - only allow me to be a straight dude and I don't think reflects poorly on the game.

Being the Warden or the Champion of Kirkwall is an important part of the plot, not optional content. There are a few points where you can object to the Wardens, joining them, and their methods, but at the end of the day your PC accepts their role as Warden and wishes to stop the Blight as one.

Probably unnecessary, agreed. Though to no small extent, Bioware games have a tendency to try to involve you in some sort of romantic subplot, as you're clearly familiar. So the PC (if you are roleplaying a homosexual character) is going to deny a heterosexual relationship. I think the question becomes one of how nuanced the writers want that denial to be ("Your personality is appalling" vs. "I'm actually gay" vs. "Was your father an ogre?").

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Honest question Sylvius: Do you roleplay in MMOs? They seem if not tailor made, at least compatible with your preferences and expectations.

MMOs are terrific environments for PvE roleplaying.  I've enjoyeddoing that quite a bit.

Unfortunately, the other players eventually drive me out of the games.  Inevitably (it would appear) some other players come to recognise my character and will (unintentionally, I suspect) exert social pressures I simply can't tolerate.

[fchopin]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

fchopin wrote...

And what is wrong with that if that is how i wish to play the game? It does not change your game, why are you trying to force me to play your way?

I'm not. I'm asking why you think an inherent flaw in the system is a postive thing.

I like how framed your question.
 
Let me see if i can explain.
 
First icons signifies to me that i am not intelligent enough to understand what is written down.
 
Second if there is an icon for rivalry i would know approximately what is about to happen if that is my selection. I would hate to know approximately what is about to happen as it takes the surprise out of the game as i like to be surprised by NPC's even if the text is aggressive.
 
Third in my opinion i think the icons could also imply indirectly how the NPC's will behave or react to my selection and i don't like that as i don't want to know what is about to happen.
 
Forth, Hawk is supposed to be a champion and needs silly icons to form an intelligent sentence.
 
As far as i know this is an adult game so i want the game to show respect to the player, you will probably find my last comment funny but you asked.
 
All the above are my opinions and have no problem how other people wish to play their games.
 
Therefore i am asking for an option.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dodge-Venom wrote...

No matter what system you are using you still select an option based on the intent. Wether its BG/DA text responses it doesn't matter, the only difference is with a text repose is you have to read your response and infer an intent which you hope has the desired result.

If that's how you played the old system, no wonder it didn't work for you.

That's entirely unlike how I want to use dialogue selection in RPGs, though.  What I want to do is choose expression, not intent.  The intent isn't something I can really choose, as it follows logically from the design of my character.  What I'm choosing is the expression that relates to that intent.

The game can't know your character's intent without restricting your ability to design your character's personality.  As such, requiring intent be known to the game for the dialogue system to work serves only to reduce player agency.

[upsettingshorts]

That is kind of tough. RP-PVP is something that I've found is hard to maintain. In Conan for example on the Cimmeria server (explicitly RP-PVP) it was hit or miss, then became totally miss after the non-RP PVP server basically went kaput and migrated.

Even then, there were heavy RPers who simply never entered PVP zones. Some of it was my fault as I roleplayed a bounty hunter who would murder them whenever they left town. My favorite contracts were purely RP though, I remember one guy wanted me to disrupt his RP guild by targeting leadership and relaying misleading messages. Still, sidetrack aside, I think I see what you're saying.

If you'd like to elaborate on what social pressures you're referring to, I'd be interested (a PM might be better, as it is off topic).

[upsettingshorts]

fchopin wrote...
 
First icons signifies to me that i am not intelligent enough to understand what is written down.

Why?  Do you feel this way when you're reading a book or magazine article and dialogue is described as angry, petulant, comical, etc?

But it simply: Do you feel that the word "angrily" requires more intelligence to understand than a picture of a fist with a red background? 

fchopin wrote...
 
Second if there is an icon for rivalry i would know approximately what is about to happen if that is my selection.

I do not believe there is an icon for "Rivalry."  Friend/Rivalry is based upon agreement on or disagreement over an issue fundamental to the NPC's character. 

fchopin wrote...

I would hate to know approximately what is about to happen as it takes
the surprise out of the game as i like to be surprised by NPC's even if
the text is aggressive.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.  The tone icons only represent the player's intent, not the NPC's reaction.
 

fchopin wrote...

Third in my opinion i think the icons could also imply indirectly how the NPC's will behave or react to my selection and i don't like that as i don't want to know what is about to happen.

There is no reason to suspect this is the case.  The tone icons simply represent the intent of the line delivered by the protagonist.  
 

fchopin wrote...

Forth, Hawk is supposed to be a champion and needs silly icons to form an intelligent sentence.

That's confusing in-character Hawke with the interface used by the player.  
 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:14 .

[unspoken_demise]

fchopin wrote...
 
Second if there is an icon for rivalry i would know approximately what is about to happen if that is my selection. I would hate to know approximately what is about to happen as it takes the surprise out of the game as i like to be surprised by NPC's even if the text is aggressive.
 
Third in my opinion i think the icons could also imply indirectly how the NPC's will behave or react to my selection and i don't like that as i don't want to know what is about to happen.
 

But you're approaching the problem from a platform of "Yes, I possess the intelligence to understand what this actually means, and how this is going to work out." I'm not disputing your intelligence. However, if you're working from that perspective, how many times are you going to be legitimately surprised anyway? You've already calculated it out, to the best of your (or anyone's) ability.

Even so...

Mary Kirby wrote...

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.

[Ziggeh]

[quote]fchopin wrote...
First icons signifies to me that i am not intelligent enough to understand what is written down.[/quote]
Fair enough. It's not inherent though, or it would seem a common sentiment.
 
 [quote]fchopin wrote...
Second if there is an icon for rivalry i would know approximately what is about to happen if that is my selection. I would hate to know approximately what is about to happen as it takes the surprise out of the game as i like to be surprised by NPC's even if the text is aggressive.[/quote]
Kirby already covered that one. The intent of your statement is symbolised, not the reaction.
 
 [quote]fchopin wrote...
Third in my opinion i think the icons could also imply indirectly how the NPC's will behave or react to my selection and i don't like that as i don't want to know what is about to happen.[/quote]
Aside from the misunderstanding above, that's no more the case with icons than being clear as to the intent of a worded statement.
 
[quote]fchopin wrote...
Forth, Hawk is supposed to be a champion and needs silly icons to form an intelligent sentence.[/quote]
Erm. He's not holding up little signs or anything. I'm not sure how thats relevant beyond being a restatement of your position.

You didn't answer the question by the way. Mary Kirby just explained that the intent will often be very unclear without the icon as they've been written with their presence as a given. So I'm asking why you want an option that allows what you're attempting to convey to be further open to misinterpretation than either a full text or straight paraphrase system. [/quote]

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:19 .

[maxernst]

In Exile wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Yep, argued the same thing myself. It's one thing - again, open for debate but not the issue here - to keep the secrets of their order from the populace they intend to recruit from. But the idea that a senior Warden would withhold vital intelligence from battlefield commanders, like Cailan and Loghain, strikes me as profoundly negligent.

It gets worse. What if Loghain plays along, and the Ferelden army meets the archdemon away from the Vanguard where the Wardens are, and Loghain sacrifices most of his forces to take down the archdemon? It amounts to a disaster, because most of the army is lost and the archdemon just regenerates.

The more I think about it, the more disastrous what Duncan does is.

And when I think about it the Archdemon should appear far from where the Wardens are, if it appears.  It can sense the Wardens, and the more Wardens in one place, the easier it is for him to locate them.  That was the whole point of Riordan's trying to go it alone.  Putting all the Wardens in one place on the battlefield is a terrible strategy.

[Maria Caliban]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you desire an RPG where the developers won't hamper your ideal for the character, you need something a bit more open-ended like The Elder Scrolls, Diablo, or Fallout series.

And if any of those games didn't feature action combat, I might never look at a BioWare game again.

But they all do.  They're all click to attack, with no tactical pausing.  As such, I find them generally unfun to play (I'm still working on Fallout - maybe I'll manage to enjoy that one).

*Tries to remember the last undefined protagonist RPG that had tactical combat*

Wizardry 8? Maybe the original BG? Wow, modern RPGs must be very frustrating to you.

You've probably already heard about it, but maybe Age of Decadence?

In story-based RPGs, which is all that BioWare makes, there are limits to what PCs can express.

There's a credible argument to be made that "story-based" and "RPG" are contradictory.

I am not going to make that argument here.

Gratzi.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:26 .

[fchopin]

[quote]ziggehunderslash wrote...

You didn't answer the question by the way. Mary Kirby just explained that the intent will often be very unclear without the icon as they've been written with their presence as a given. So I'm asking why you want an option that allows what you're attempting to convey to be further open to misinterpretation than either a full text or straight paraphrase system. [/quote]
[/quote]


If as you say the text will not be self explanatory and we will need a silly icon to know what direction the conversation will follow then we are really playing a guessing game in regards to text as we will have no idea what our character will say or in what way unless we check what kind of icon is showing and go by that.
 
Don't you think that is being treated like a child?

[Dodge-Venom]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's entirely unlike how I want to use dialogue selection in RPGs,
though.  What I want to do is choose expression, not intent. 
The intent isn't something I can really choose, as it follows logically
from the design of my character.  What I'm choosing is the expression that
relates to that intent.

The game can't know your character's intent without restricting your ability to
design your character's personality.  As such, requiring intent be known
to the game for the dialogue system to work serves only to reduce player
agency.

Regardless of whether you are selecting based on an intention or expression you
still have a finite number of choices. To say one style logically follows the
personal design of your character may be true, sure. I wasn't intending to
say it would be so for every individual.

What you are saying doesn't make a lot of sense though. To suggest choosing whether
an intent or a fully formed response allows you to more completely carry out
your character agency is flawed. Either is still restrictive, a finite choice.
Someone else is giving you your responses, that is immediately restricting your
ability to freely design your character. What if according to the logic you
have created for your character none of the responses are appropriate? The
events, what your character will do and achieve is all pre-determined. So, the
whole experience is by its very nature is restricting your ability to design
and carry out your characters personality and logic. In other words what you
are expecting of a single player RPG is completely contrary to the point.

Even if you accept that within the scope of such a game you a working within
these pre-defined limitations what you are saying still doesn't make much
sense. Bioware doesn't know your intent, they don't need to know it. They care,
that’s why they give you a choice. Yet they're giving you an intent. Your
character WILL have one of a selection of intents. There is no free agency
in that. Your experience is the culmination of multiple pre-defined choices,
all of which are wholly created by Bioware. If you can't accept that and enjoy
the experience for what it is, then why are you here?

Modifié par Dodge-Venom, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:46 .

[Ziggeh]

fchopin wrote...

If as you say the text will not be self explanatory and we will need a silly icon to know what direction the conversation will follow then we are really playing a guessing game in regards to text as we will have no idea what our character will say or in what way unless we check what kind of icon is showing and go by that.

That's backwards. Because the icons are there they can have the paraphrase more closely match the actual phrasing, without having to cover intent within the wording.
 

fchopin wrote...
Don't you think that is being treated like a child?

Not even slightly.

[Morroian]

fchopin wrote...

If as you say the text will not be self explanatory and we will need a silly icon to know what direction the conversation will follow then we are really playing a guessing game in regards to text as we will have no idea what our character will say or in what way unless we check what kind of icon is showing and go by that.
 
Don't you think that is being treated like a child?

No because communication is inexact. What may be obvious to 1 person may not be obvious to another. As ME proved.

[fchopin]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

fchopin wrote...

If as you say the text will not be self explanatory and we will need a silly icon to know what direction the conversation will follow then we are really playing a guessing game in regards to text as we will have no idea what our character will say or in what way unless we check what kind of icon is showing and go by that.

That's backwards. Because the icons are there they can have the paraphrase more closely match the actual phrasing, without having to cover intent within the wording.
 

fchopin wrote...
Don't you think that is being treated like a child?

Not even slightly.

I am afraid i disagree with you on this point as my problem is with the icons.

[fchopin]

Morroian wrote...

fchopin wrote...

If as you say the text will not be self explanatory and we will need a silly icon to know what direction the conversation will follow then we are really playing a guessing game in regards to text as we will have no idea what our character will say or in what way unless we check what kind of icon is showing and go by that.
 
Don't you think that is being treated like a child?

No because communication is inexact. What may be obvious to 1 person may not be obvious to another. As ME proved.

We are not talking about ME we are talking about DA which is an rpg with options.

[jackkel dragon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There's a credible argument to be made that "story-based" and "RPG" are contradictory.

Doesn't BioWare constantly say they strive to make the best story-based games?

[unspoken_demise]

fchopin wrote...

Morroian wrote...

fchopin wrote...

If as you say the text will not be self explanatory and we will need a silly icon to know what direction the conversation will follow then we are really playing a guessing game in regards to text as we will have no idea what our character will say or in what way unless we check what kind of icon is showing and go by that.
 
Don't you think that is being treated like a child?

No because communication is inexact. What may be obvious to 1 person may not be obvious to another. As ME proved.

We are not talking about ME we are talking about DA which is an rpg with options.

"How then would you classify ME?" Unspoken asks confusedly. "Are you suggesting," Unspoken inquires, "that ME had no options?"

"The point Morroian appears to be making is of an actual conceptual similarity with game-based dialogue," Unspoken points out, in a somewhat annoyed manner.

[Maria Caliban]

While I can understand not wanting the writers to dictate the PC's intent, I am not sure how the icons are akin to being treated like a child. At the bottom of my DA:O screen are a row of icons for the various skills and abilities. They could have simply had the name of the power (and I've played older RPGs that do just that) but it would take up more space and would take longer to process than the small, visual icon.

Likewise, when I use a spell like Blizzard, I get a bright, visual overlay as to what area the spell will cover.

Contextually, there's no difference between

[Friendly] That sounds wonderful. Thank you for inviting me.
and
That sounds wonderful. Thank you for inviting me.

Except the second one takes up less space and the viewer will read it faster.

And before anyone quotes me to tell me about some other aspect of the system they don't care for: I'm talking about icon and the claim that icons are inherently hand-holding. If you have other problems with the system, tell In Exile or Upsettingshorts.

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

So it's a mystery why there was this conclusion that the dialogue system was "broken" and hence we're now being forced to play Dragon Effect.

I don't think they ever decided it was broken. They most likely just got feedback that most players liked VO better. Replacing features isn't always about a feature being broken, just about a replacement feature being prefered.

When they were discussing the changes to the dialogue system made in Awakening, the devs said it was because the dialogue system in DAO was obviously broken.  Which always made me wonder how it could be obvious to everyone but me.

[AlanC9]

fchopin wrote...
First icons signifies to me that i am not intelligent enough to understand what is written down.
 

As I mentioned upthread, this can't work for irony, since the whole point of irony is that the literal meaning of what the person is saying simply isn't what he's actually saying.

Mary Kirby's example also applies.

Second if there is an icon for rivalry i would know approximately what is about to happen if that is my selection. I would hate to know approximately what is about to happen as it takes the surprise out of the game as i like to be surprised by NPC's even if the text is aggressive.
 
Third in my opinion i think the icons could also imply indirectly how the NPC's will behave or react to my selection and i don't like that as i don't want to know what is about to happen.
 

The devs have never said that the icons have anything to do with consequences. If you want to believe that, though, I can't argue against it, since it's not rational

Forth, Hawk is supposed to be a champion and needs silly icons to form an intelligent sentence.
 

That's extremely silly. Hawke isn't looking at icons in the first place.

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Really? Where did you see I <3 Grey Wardens railroading? 

The first is the sloth demon seduction. Each character gets what the sloth demon thinks is their central desire/goal, and you get the end of the blight as a Warden, even if you don't give a damn. There's no option to say that you hate the Wardens for what they did to you, particularly with Wynne. Your options are just "I will sacrifice my life!" or "I will use my status as a Warden for power!" but there isn't a "Tell these kidnapping psychopaths to shove it!" option. That's off the top of my head.

There's all of Awakening, but that's a whole other issue.

This has nothing to do with the dialogue delivery system.  It is a function of having limited dialogue choices.  Nothing about that is going to change in DA2.