518 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Except they're not restricting role playing options, they're taking them away.

Restricting role playing options was what DA:O did: you could pick exactly what you wanted your warden to say, with the only restriction that you had to pick from a predefined list of options.

By that definition every crpg is restricted.

Of course, but a choice between apples and oranges is still a choice.  It's not as good as choosing any food in the world, but at least you can still choose one or the other and you get the one you selected.

ME's dialogue system was like offering you the choice between apples and oranges and then giving you mangos regardless of which you chose.

DAO restricts choice.  ME denies it entirely.

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

You yourself are saying rp options will be more restricted while advocating for voice overs. Why people advocate for any sort of removal of RP options in an RPG just baffles the hell out of me.

Because its adds another element to the game as a whole which IMHO adds to the game experience. 

[Urazz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Alodar wrote...



And I'm uncertain why you think that "Shut up!" is a poor paraphrase. The full line states that PC Hawke isn't interested in Carver Hawke's opinion. Hawke is in charge so Carver can just shut up.

"Shut up!" is a simple command that offers no justification for itself.



"I'm in charge" is itself justification.



That's a siginificant and relevant difference.

I dunno, that "I'm in charge, you'll do what I tell you" line was basically telling Carver to shut up in general. I think that's what bioware is trying to do. Give the general gist and tone of what is going to be said. If you don't think a line like that is basically telling that person to shut up then you basically probably walked right into pissing someone off enough to start yelling at you.



The scene itself basically showed that Carver recognized that Hawke was pretty much at that pissed off yelling point and backed off instead of pressing things.

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

I think intent and emotion behind the words for some people is more important then the words themselves. For myself it is, paraphrase (and will be even more so with the intent icon) is good for this because it's brief statement sums up the emotion/intent behind it and also allows me to pick quickly to have a better flow of conversation. As such for me a emotionally correct back-and-forth conversation (and mixed into this is also cinematic stuff like physical interaction) makes a better roleplaying experience.

Now obviously as this discussion shows this is subjective and personal to each person. But with this particular view on it, it is quite easy in fact easier then full text to pick which choice is best.

[Xewaka]

Urazz wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Alodar wrote...
And I'm uncertain why you think that "Shut up!" is a poor paraphrase. The full line states that PC Hawke isn't interested in Carver Hawke's opinion. Hawke is in charge so Carver can just shut up.

"Shut up!" is a simple command that offers no justification for itself.
"I'm in charge" is itself justification.
That's a siginificant and relevant difference.

I dunno, that "I'm in charge, you'll do what I tell you" line was basically telling Carver to shut up in general. I think that's what bioware is trying to do. Give the general gist and tone of what is going to be said. If you don't think a line like that is basically telling that person to shut up then you basically probably walked right into pissing someone off enough to start yelling at you.
The scene itself basically showed that Carver recognized that Hawke was pretty much at that pissed off yelling point and backed off instead of pressing things.

The problem is not that the phrase can be surmised by the paraphrase. The problem is that the paraphrase can be indicative of a highly variable number of responses. Even with a tone indicator, you still don't know the content of your response.
Why does "Shut up!" with aggresive intent translate as "I'm in charge. Do as I say." and not, for example, "Now is not the time, Carver!"?
I understand an aggresive silence command tries to express urgency, not authority.

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 janvier 2011 - 11:53 .

[nijnij]

Nighteye2 wrote...

nijnij wrote...
I might be dumb, but to me, "I'm in charge, you do what I say" is clearly a way to shut Carver up.

Yes, but far from the only way. How you do something matters as much as what you do. Knowing in advance that picking the 'shut up' option leads to the 'I'm in charge' motivation, I might want to pick a different dialogue option because that motivation does not fit the Hawke I'm trying to play.

True, I was saying it means the same thing, but it's true you don't necessarily expect it that way. My Hawke would sound more exasperated and less authoritarian.

A good option (but that would take all forces of hell to design) would be to select your personality during character creation (tough, fragile/sensitive, cold/detached etc.) and the line would be different.
Shut up would be :
tough > I'm in charge, you do what I say.
fragile/sensitive > Alright, shut up now, you're giving me a headache !
cold/detached > Maybe you need to let go from time to time Carver, that would certainly be easier for the rest of us.

[-flashblade-]

Lord Gremlin wrote...
Actually you've just nailed the main idea: paraphrasing is ok as long as Hawke actual dialogue never surprises you.

As I am a translator by trade, I can tell you this is impossible. Some people whos post I have read here would be absolutely wrong in my field. When "Shut up" is the same for them as "I am in charge here" you don't qualify to be a translator. Speaking of which that opens up another can of worms. Localizing paraphrases is the next pile of crap this creates. The translator not only has to understand the actual line and what was intended as such things can be ambigous, no the same thing applies to the paraphrase. And translators only work with a script on paper. They will not see their translation in the actual game, by all acounts they probably will never see a scene of it. Thats why I have come across abysmal mistranslations in my mother tongue, because they have been translated without the proper context. This goes as far as that the translation expresses the oposite from what was said in the original. I see that all the time when I care to entertain myself with localized media, which is seldom at best for that very reason!

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How do you read the paraphrases such that you can tell which one produces the line you want the PC to deliver?

Practice. You just have to practice at working out tone from text. It should be easier in DA][ since they are going to at least try and tell you what tone to expect.

[Morroian]

Nighteye2 wrote...

The Witcher 2 comes closest, from what I've seen. It gives a few phrases full-text, from which the conversation bounces to and fro between Geralt and the other characters a few times. You fully get to choose the first response, but not the few that follow naturally after it.

But isn't that even more restrictive because you only make a choice at the beginning of a conversation? The intent of the paraphrase system is to allow the player to choose every response within a conversation while trying to keep the conversation flowing as naturally as possible. 

[addiction21]

"Now is not the time" is more of a diplomatic approach then aggresive. Just my two cents there.

[Dave of Canada]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Thats not what I said Dave, encouraging removal of RPG elements from an RPG seems pretty counter intuitive doncha think? Opinion doesn't really play into it to be honest.

I prefer role playing with a voice actor, thereby am I not roleplaying? Oh wait, now we're heading into "WHAT IS AN RPG?" and that too is opinion. What you're believing isn't fact, contrary to what you might think, and opinion plays a very important part into it.

Just because you believe it's removing RPG elements does not make it so, sorry. Some people might agree with you and some people might disagree, it's the nature of the forums. Please don't try to pretend like opinion doesn't play a part into it.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 12 janvier 2011 - 12:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How do you read the paraphrases such that you can tell which one produces the line you want the PC to deliver?

Practice. You just have to practice at working out tone from text. It should be easier in DA][ since they are going to at least try and tell you what tone to expect.

I'm not asking about the tone.  I'm asking about the words.  How do you know what the content of his remarks are going to be?  Is he going to ask a question?  Or answer one?  Is he going to hide information, or divulge it?

Or even his intent.  What is he trying to do?

In ME and ME2, I literally had no idea throughout both games.

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How do you read the paraphrases such that you can tell which one produces the line you want the PC to deliver?

My approach is something like this (I wouldn't say exactly, as it's not something I've seriously considered): I have a rough idea of how I want to respond before reading the phrase/paraphrase. I then try to pick the closest option to that, and consider the actual statement to be some sort of monsterous amalgamation of the 2/3, but I consider the initial intention, the rough idea, which is often more concept than language, to be more important than what is literally said.

Phrase and paraphrase are equally good and bad at covering that (I hope and suspect the icons will help considerably), but the voiced PC gives me more feedback. Now one would assume that that would serve to highlight when it fails, but that's not been my experience, so far.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 12 janvier 2011 - 12:05 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How do you read the paraphrases such that you can tell which one produces the line you want the PC to deliver?

Practice. You just have to practice at working out tone from text. It should be easier in DA][ since they are going to at least try and tell you what tone to expect.

I'm not asking about the tone.  I'm asking about the words.  How do you know what the content of his remarks are going to be?  Is he going to ask a question?  Or answer one?  Is he going to hide information, or divulge it?

Or even his intent.  What is he trying to do?

In ME and ME2, I literally had no idea throughout both games.

I understand, and the answer is practice. Just as I said above. Hopefull you'll at least have an easier time than in ME1&2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

addiction21 wrote...

"Now is not the time" is more of a diplomatic approach then aggresive. Just my two cents there.

Depends how you say it.

And really, simply an aggressive line could be very strongly aggressive, delivered shouting, or it could be coldly threatening.  And that difference might matter fo the player's character design.

How does he know which he's going to get?

[maxernst]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...
 I want a system that makes the intent clear

I want that, too.

I haven't seen one yet that uses paraphrases.

Not sure I've ever seen a system I'm entirely happy with.

The Witcher 2 comes closest, from what I've seen. It gives a few phrases full-text, from which the conversation bounces to and fro between Geralt and the other characters a few times. You fully get to choose the first response, but not the few that follow naturally after it.

The effect looked acceptable in the videos I've seen, although it's still a compromise.

It would be harder to carry off in DA2 because Hawke is (I hope) a much less tightly defined character than Geralt.  It's much easier to say what lines follow naturally when the character is already established.

Of course, I found playing the Witcher that I never really wanted to use any of the dialogue options because I didn't want to play Geralt.

[Piecake]

nijnij wrote...

True, I was saying it means the same thing, but it's true you don't necessarily expect it that way. My Hawke would sound more exasperated and less authoritarian.

A good option (but that would take all forces of hell to design) would be to select your personality during character creation (tough, fragile/sensitive, cold/detached etc.) and the line would be different.
Shut up would be :
tough > I'm in charge, you do what I say.
fragile/sensitive > Alright, shut up now, you're giving me a headache !
cold/detached > Maybe you need to let go from time to time Carver, that would certainly be easier for the rest of us.

I believe Tactics Ogre: Wheel of Time is doing this - allowing yo to select your personality during character creation.  Its been forever since I played the original so i can't comment on how well that does it(forgot), but supposedly they are improving that with the remake. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

My approach is something like this (I wouldn't say exactly, as it's not something I've seriously considered): I have a rough idea of how I want to respond before reading the phrase/paraphrase. I then try to pick the closest option to that, and consider the actual statement to be some sort of monsterous amalgamation of the 2/3, but I consider the initial intention, the rough idea, which is often more concept than language, to be more important than what is literally said.

And that should make it even easier for me, since even in a game like DAO I don't generally come up with a response in my head prior to readuing the options.

I do take the time to work out exactly how my character feels about what just happened, and his opinions regarding everyone in the room.  Then, in DAO, I'd pick the option that didn't contradict anything I'd just decided.

My problem in ME was that I routinely couldn't tell which options would contradict me, so Shepard often said things that ran directly contrary to my ideas about what he wanted right then.

So your approach should work for me (indeed, it's basically the one I was using), except in ME the paraphrases were so poorly written as to offer no guidance as to what was coming next.

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How do you read the paraphrases such that you can tell which one produces the line you want the PC to deliver?

Practice. You just have to practice at working out tone from text. It should be easier in DA][ since they are going to at least try and tell you what tone to expect.

I'm not asking about the tone.  I'm asking about the words.  How do you know what the content of his remarks are going to be?  Is he going to ask a question?  Or answer one?  Is he going to hide information, or divulge it?

Or even his intent.  What is he trying to do?

In ME and ME2, I literally had no idea throughout both games.

I really think this is something that some people like and work with and others don't. Just like DA:O style can vary. For myself I found it much clearer to have conversations in ME then in DA:O. Thanks I think in large part to the paraphrases (gives a clear intent I find more then full text) as well as placement, ie; right side is questions and left side is paragon-to-renegade from top to bottom.

[Nighteye2]

Morroian wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
Except they're not restricting role playing options, they're taking them away.

Restricting role playing options was what DA:O did: you could pick exactly what you wanted your warden to say, with the only restriction that you had to pick from a predefined list of options.

By that definition every crpg is restricted.

True, but that restriction was necessary to be able to play RPGs on PCs, where originally the genre evolved on PnP. So that restriction is perfectly acceptable.

Well, at least until technology reaches a point where AI DMs become possible.

Morroian wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
DA2 no longer gives you that choice, instead asking for a general direction and then playing the role for you.

When the game itself is doing the role playing, instead of the player, it's no longer an RPG. How can it be a role playing game if the player is no longer able to play a role, being limited to giving only vague directions and hoping the character will do what the player expects?

Mileage varies, IMHO I'm still defining the character and role playing Hawke in the way I want him/her to be. Being able to choose the exact line of dialogue isn't the only thing that defines a character.  Actions, intent and choosing what I want to say in a more general sense still enables me to define the character.

You still have influence, but as long as your own character can suprise you, it's not enough. When your own character surprises you, you're no longer playing your character - you're watching your character being played for you. Based on the directions you've given your character, but even so.

[Morroian]

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

I think intent and emotion behind the words for some people is more important then the words themselves. For myself it is, paraphrase (and will be even more so with the intent icon) is good for this because it's brief statement sums up the emotion/intent behind it and also allows me to pick quickly to have a better flow of conversation. As such for me a emotionally correct back-and-forth conversation (and mixed into this is also cinematic stuff like physical interaction) makes a better roleplaying experience.

Yep this is exactly how I play as well. 

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I do take the time to work out exactly how my character feels about what just happened, and his opinions regarding everyone in the room.  Then, in DAO, I'd pick the option that didn't contradict anything I'd just decided.

My problem in ME was that I routinely couldn't tell which options would contradict me, so Shepard often said things that ran directly contrary to my ideas about what he wanted right then.

So it's not so much selecting the specific langauge that's key, but the fact that you want/need as much information about the statement as you can get, to ensure it fits the criteria, and the literal provides that? (And paraphrase rather seriously minimises)

I think the key difference is just how rough my initial position is, it will often be entirely non lingual and reactive.

[IRMcGhee]

That's pretty much how I treat this type of dialogue system too. In the ME games you could judge intent by the position of the paraphrase, in DA2 it should be even easier with the attached icons. 

Modifié par IRMcGhee, 12 janvier 2011 - 12:20 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nighteye2 wrote...

When your own character surprises you, you're no longer playing your character - you're watching your character being played for you.

This.

The acceptable number of surprises is zero.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

So it's not so much selecting the specific langauge that's key, but the fact that you want/need as much information about the statement as you can get, to ensure it fits the criteria, and the literal provides that? (And paraphrase rather seriously minimises)

Yes, exactly.

I think the key difference is just how rough my initial position is, it will often be entirely non lingual and reactive.

I'll end up with combinations of opinion like "the Warden thinks Morrigan is an idiot" and "the Warden needs to keep Morrigan happy".  So, from those, I can't select any option that involves taking Morrigan's advice, but I also want to avoid antagonising her.

With full text, I can tell which options do that.  Can I with paraphrases?