518 réponses à ce sujet

[Snoteye]

Mmmm. Mangos.

[Ziggeh]

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

Only if they're really good, I imagine.

[Heimdall]

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.
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.

I think this is the first time I've encountered my own playstyle so well described.

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

Thanks. I think it is also why there is disagreements in this discussion is just very different preferences in how dialogue works.

Modifié par Sigil_Beguiler123, 12 janvier 2011 - 12:25 .

[IRMcGhee]

Ziggeh wrote...

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

Only if they're really good, I imagine.

The icons should make it easier to interpret them. You might not know precisely what is going to be spoken, but you should be able to judge which one matches your character's intent closest.

Modifié par IRMcGhee, 12 janvier 2011 - 12:31 .

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

IRMcGhee wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

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

Only if they're really good, I imagine.

The intent icons should make it easier.

In ME placement was important also. The right side were all questions. While the right was progressing conversation, and statements. With also top, middle and bottom making a difference, from diplomatic/nice to aggressive/mean from top to bottom. With middle obviously being more neutral.

[HolyAvenger]

On reflection, when I played Leliana's Song, MOST of the time I didn't mind the paraphrase. There were just a couple of conversations where I felt let down by the paraphrase and wished to start the convo again. So basically, hit F5 before any conversation

[Xewaka]

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

IRMcGhee wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

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

Only if they're really good, I imagine.

The intent icons should make it easier.

In ME placement was important also. The right side were all questions. While the right was progressing conversation, and statements. With also top, middle and bottom making a difference, from diplomatic/nice to aggressive/mean from top to bottom. With middle obviously being more neutral.

Intent does not equal content. Paraphrases do not have enough content information, despite the numerous intent cues we may have. That is the problem. I want to know the full content of the statement my character will do, not only the general idea of what and how. Because I don't know the full content of the statement, I don't know if it is what I actually want my character to do.

[-flashblade-]

Hmm this was still racing through my head when I just went to bed. Actually I think that BioWares paraphrase dialog system could learn something from how it was done in Wing Commander III - Heart of the Tiger. I am actually not sure whether this was the way it was done throughout the game but instead of giving a paraphrase of dialog they worked with a paraphrase of intent. In one scene a young pilot was talking smack and so you could choose for Col. Blair: "reprimand him" or "let it go". The advantage i see in this is that it opens up the player for any kind of response that in this case "reprimands" the young pilot  or "lets him get away with what he said in ignorance". The player is not expecting to hear a certain sentense that way.

To take this example to DAII instead of a paraphrase that states "Shut up" have a paraphrase that states "Shut him up". Thoughts? I would be especially intrested what Silvius would think about an approach like that.

That doesn't change however as far as I am concerned that dialog choice in DAII is the way of interactive movie and not RPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

Thanks. I think it is also why there is disagreements in this discussion is just very different preferences in how dialogue works.

Over the last several months I think we've uncovered differences of opinion even over how language and conversation work in the real world.

IRMcGhee wrote...

The icons should make it easier to interpret them. You might not know precisely what is going to be spoken, but you should be able to judge which one matches your character's intent closest.

The concept of "closest" doesn't really apply.  Some of the options are demonstrably wrong for that character, so they need to be avoided at all costs.  There's no room for error in that determination.

[IRMcGhee]

Of course it does. You had to do exactly the same in DA:O, quite often I found there wasn't a dialogue option that fitted what I wanted my character to say. And unlike the DA2 system you almost never knew the way the line was intended to be spoken (only lines marked Persuade/Intimidate and such). I know you think the written line can be interpreted in any manner the player wishes, but they'd all be written with a specific tone in mind to match the responses.

Modifié par IRMcGhee, 12 janvier 2011 - 12:53 .

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

Xewaka wrote...
Intent does not equal content. Paraphrases do not have enough content information, despite the numerous intent cues we may have. That is the problem. I want to know the full content of the statement my character will do, not only the general idea of what and how. Because I don't know the full content of the statement, I don't know if it is what I actually want my character to do.

See for myself, I found the same with DA:O, but in a opposite way. I felt I always had to guess the intent and emotion behind the dialogue, even with full text. With paraphrase (I find the paraphrases focus on intent/emotion), placement and intent icons I have a greater understanding of the intent and emotion. Which like I said earlier for some people like myself is more important then the exact words (just like the opposite may be for others).

Modifié par Sigil_Beguiler123, 12 janvier 2011 - 12:43 .

[Jzadek72]

-flashblade- wrote...

Hmm this was still racing through my head when I just went to bed. Actually I think that BioWares paraphrase dialog system could learn something from how it was done in Wing Commander III - Heart of the Tiger. I am actually not sure whether this was the way it was done throughout the game but instead of giving a paraphrase of dialog they worked with a paraphrase of intent. In one scene a young pilot was talking smack and so you could choose for Col. Blair: "reprimand him" or "let it go". The advantage i see in this is that it opens up the player for any kind of response that in this case "reprimands" the young pilot  or "lets him get away with what he said in ignorance". The player is not expecting to hear a certain sentense that way.

To take this example to DAII instead of a paraphrase that states "Shut up" have a paraphrase that states "Shut him up". Thoughts? I would be especially intrested what Silvius would think about an approach like that.

That doesn't change however as far as I am concerned that dialog choice in DAII is the way of interactive movie and not RPG.

How? You may find it easier with the old system, but you can still roleplay a character, and choose your intentions. It doesn't force personality on Hawke.

Modifié par Jzadek72, 12 janvier 2011 - 12:43 .

[Pacifien]

I had some serious issues replaying DA:O and reading everything in a sarcastic voice, but none of the characters reacting as if I had been sarcastic. Actually, that's probably a realistic response considering how most of my sarcasm goes down in real life. But it does make me wish I could follow up some of my dialogue with "That was a joke."

[Sylvius the Mad]

-flashblade- wrote...

Hmm this was still racing through my head when I just went to bed. Actually I think that BioWares paraphrase dialog system could learn something from how it was done in Wing Commander III - Heart of the Tiger. I am actually not sure whether this was the way it was done throughout the game but instead of giving a paraphrase of dialog they worked with a paraphrase of intent. In one scene a young pilot was talking smack and so you could choose for Col. Blair: "reprimand him" or "let it go". The advantage i see in this is that it opens up the player for any kind of response that in this case "reprimands" the young pilot  or "lets him get away with what he said in ignorance". The player is not expecting to hear a certain sentense that way.

To take this example to DAII instead of a paraphrase that states "Shut up" have a paraphrase that states "Shut him up". Thoughts? I would be especially intrested what Silvius would think about an approach like that.

I was thinking about that, actually.  I think I may have been more annoyed by the ME system because I expected the spoken line to convey the same meaning as the paraphrase I selected, and it usually wasn't even close.

But what if that's not what I was selecting?  As you say, a WC3-style system where you're giving the character direction rather than actually inhabiting his mind might alleviate that somewhat.

And if that's the case, why can't I simply read the options like that rather than expecting an actual paraphrasing of the spoken line?  It's certainly worth a shot.

David Sims's suggestion on page 4 of this thread might achieve the same result, as well.  I'll try that one, too.

[Xewaka]

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
Intent does not equal content. Paraphrases do not have enough content information, despite the numerous intent cues we may have. That is the problem. I want to know the full content of the statement my character will do, not only the general idea of what and how. Because I don't know the full content of the statement, I don't know if it is what I actually want my character to do.

See for myself, I found the same with DA:O, but in a opposite way. I felt I always had to guess the intent and emotion behind the dialogue, even with full text. With paraphrase (I find the paraphrases focus on intent/emotion), placement and intent icons I have a greater understanding of the intent and emotion. Which like I said earlier for some people like myself is more important then the exact words (just like the opposite may be for others).

The intent in DA:O is whichever you want to read on the text. If a character reacts unexpectedly to the tone you applied to the text, that is a misunderstanding between characters, not between the player and the interface, which is something much more agreeable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

See for myself, I found the same with DA:O, but in a opposite way. I felt I always had to guess the intent and emotion behind the dialogue, even with full text.

I'm with Xewaka on this.  The intent and emotion behind the dialogue was yours to control.  When the Warden said something, why he said it, how he said it, and what he hoped to achieve by saying it was up to you.

When I played, the answers to those questions were what informed the choice of dialogue option in the first place.  What does the Warden want to convey here?  Why?  how does the Warden feel about these people?  Once I had those answers, only then could I select a dialogue option.

I can't imagine how I'd play a game any other way.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'm with Xewaka on this.  The intent and emotion behind the dialogue was yours to control.  When the Warden said something, why he said it, how he said it, and what he hoped to achieve by saying it was up to you.

Unfortunately it can't work that way with a voiced protagonist. You have to accept some loss of control over the character or else treat the game as thought it's broken. And if you're going to treat the game as though it's broken then there's hardly any point in playing it.

[Piecake]

Xewaka wrote...

The intent in DA:O is whichever you want to read on the text. If a character reacts unexpectedly to the tone you applied to the text, that is a misunderstanding between characters, not between the player and the interface, which is something much more agreeable.

I completely disagree.  Since I lacked the ability to clear up misunderstandings - something that you would/should do if another person didnt understand your meaning - I found it to be a problem with the player and the interface.  Since I lacked that ability, my conclusion was that I simply guessed wrong on the intent of the dialogue choice.

[Xewaka]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'm with Xewaka on this.  The intent and emotion behind the dialogue was yours to control.  When the Warden said something, why he said it, how he said it, and what he hoped to achieve by saying it was up to you.

Unfortunately it can't work that way with a voiced protagonist. You have to accept some loss of control over the character or else treat the game as thought it's broken. And if you're going to treat the game as though it's broken then there's hardly any point in playing it.

The moment there is a limited list to choose from, we have already accepted there will be some loss of control. The voiced character does increase this loss, but the loss in itself is a gradient. If I am given a limited amount of options in a situation, I can try and adapt, granted that I know what those options are. With the paraphrase, I don't know the options.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Unfortunately it can't work that way with a voiced protagonist.

I was talking about silent PCs there.

Honestly, if more people knew how to play with a silent PC and stopped expecting the game to tell them who their character is, there'd be less of a push for voicing the protagonist.

That said, I don't accept that it can't work that way with a voiced PC.  We just haven't seen it work that way yet.

You have to accept some loss of control over the character or else treat the game as thought it's broken. And if you're going to treat the game as though it's broken then there's hardly any point in playing it.

Worst case I'll mute the voice and turn off the subtitles.  Then I'll just have an old-school keyword system.

[the_one_54321]

You don't need to know the specific wording of an option to try to roleplay with it. Sure it will be harder and even less perfect, but it's still entirely possible to roleplay to what extent it allows you to.

[bsbcaer]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

And yet they assured us earlier on it was going to make much more sense in what the paraphrase said and what Hawke actually speaks. So much for that.

Simply put having the PC's character voiced, limits role playing period. You as a player don't set a tone, you don't even get to pick what is said to begin with.  Terrible design decision imo and sadly it seems there's no going back now. Bioware is so dead set on trying to make their games be hollywood movies at this point to begin with. Roleplaying be damned.

Roleplaying will always be limited in certain ways by games like this...The ONLY way that roleplaying is not going to be limited is to allow the player to type in whatever dialogue he or she wants to say.  It's an inherent limitation in RPGs (be they on console or PC) that's not going to go away.  It's not the voiced PC that limits roleplaying, it's not the paraphrasing that limits roleplaying, it's not the dialogue that limits roleplaying, it's the fact that the game is going to be played on a console or PC and limitations are always going to be there

[Sylvius the Mad]

Piecake wrote...

I completely disagree.  Since I lacked the ability to clear up misunderstandings - something that you would/should do if another person didnt understand your meaning - I found it to be a problem with the player and the interface.  Since I lacked that ability, my conclusion was that I simply guessed wrong on the intent of the dialogue choice.

You lacked the ability to say all sorts of things.  The writers can only include so many options.

Why does the lack of these specific options make you draw broad conclusions about your character when the lack of other options doesn't?

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...

If a character reacts unexpectedly to the tone you applied to the text, that is a misunderstanding between characters, not between the player and the interface, which is something much more agreeable.

I have tried that, and it just doesn't work for me, as my response is to want to correct or clarify.