Up until the point when the character acts wholly contrary to his personality. Then the game is just broken.the_one_54321 wrote...
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.
NAMEbsbcaer wrote...
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
Sylvius response above addresses this point.Ziggeh wrote...
I have tried that, and it just doesn't work for me, as my response is to want to correct or clarify.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.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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?
Modifié par Xewaka, 12 janvier 2011 - 01:08 .
the_one_54321 wrote...
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.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.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You lacked the ability to say all sorts of things. The writers can only include so many options.
You always have the option to just replay the scene and try to find the available option that best fits your character's personality. There's no rule that says this destroys in-character behavior for your game.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Up until the point when the character acts wholly contrary to his personality. Then the game is just broken.the_one_54321 wrote...
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.
In ME, this happened for me in the chat with Anderson and Udina after rescuing Tali.
The PC has never been me. The PC is a completely different person that I've designed from scratch.Merci357 wrote...
You only have to swallow that the PC isn't you,
True.the_one_54321 wrote...
You always have the option to just replay the scene and try to find the available option that best fits your character's personality. There's no rule that says this destroys in-character behavior for your game.
Woah, you're misunderstanding. I'm responding to those that don't want to see this. I'm just fine with playing either type of system.Merci357 wrote...
So you really can't stomach a slightly different approach, or at least give it a shot? A voiced character isn't 100% under your control, he's more restricted then a non voiced. No argument about that. Restrictions apply either way, that is also obvious. But you can't enjoy playing the "puppeteer"? - you still pull all the strings, you still navigate with lot's of freedom regarding chosen role and character in a rich world full of choices to be made? You only have to swallow that the PC isn't you, it's a good/selfish/agressive (pick one role of your taste) Hawke instead. And that is still, and very much, role playing.
If this isn't for you, then this might not be your game. But I don't see that many games on the horizon made for your taste then, either.
Why? Explain that for me. How does the icon + paraphrase system help with that?IRMcGhee wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You lacked the ability to say all sorts of things. The writers can only include so many options.
That's exactly why I prefer the icon + paraphrase system they're using in DA2.
Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 janvier 2011 - 01:15 .
And one day someone will develop a perfect UI. Until then we have to work around the imperfections.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
True.the_one_54321 wrote...
You always have the option to just replay the scene and try to find the available option that best fits your character's personality. There's no rule that says this destroys in-character behavior for your game.
But it shouldn't be necessary. I shouldn't have to work around the UI.
It's certainly true that limited dialogue options limit your immersion in the game. Often you can't say exactly what you want, sometimes you can't even say something that you're merely OK with. It's not easy to do anything about that. However you can usually NOT say what you don't want to. With paraphrasing that isn't possible.bsbcaer wrote...
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
Modifié par Malanek999, 12 janvier 2011 - 01:16 .
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You lacked the ability to say all sorts of things. The writers can only include so many options.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.
Why does the lack of these specific options make you draw broad conclusions about your character when the lack of other options doesn't?
And my point is that the paraphrase system has added a boatload of new imperfections with exactly zero benefits to balance them out.the_one_54321 wrote...
And one day someone will develop a perfect UI. Until then we have to work around the imperfections.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
True.the_one_54321 wrote...
You always have the option to just replay the scene and try to find the available option that best fits your character's personality. There's no rule that says this destroys in-character behavior for your game.
But it shouldn't be necessary. I shouldn't have to work around the UI.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.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.
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.
Right, but that doesn't mean it's deeply dissatisfying.Xewaka wrote...
Sylvius response above addresses this point.
I think the system in DA][ improves upon what we had in ME1&2. It even could potentially improve upon what we saw in DA:O. It gives you information that could make you better able to predict how the NPCs will interpret the dialog choice.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And my point is that the paraphrase system has added a boatload of new imperfections with exactly zero benefits to balance them out.
This is the important detail we appear to be losing. How do we avoid saying specific things the writers can't know we want to avoid saying? With full text, it's easy. With paraphrase, it appears to be impossible.Malanek999 wrote...
However you can usually NOT say what you don't want to. With paraphrasing that isn't possible.
Undoubtedly. But the ME system was perhaps the worst RPG dialogue system ever designed, so that's a pretty low bar.the_one_54321 wrote...
I think the system in DA][ improves upon what we had in ME1&2.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And my point is that the paraphrase system has added a boatload of new imperfections with exactly zero benefits to balance them out.
I don't think NPC reactions are at all relevant to the choice being made.It even could potentially improve upon what we saw in DA:O. It gives you information that could make you better able to predict how the NPCs will interpret the dialog choice.
I'm not sure what you mean. The in-game timer said 87 hours, but I backed up and replayed a few large sections totalling at least 26 hours (I added up the big ones at one point), so that's 113 hours there.bsbcaer wrote...
completely off-topic, but Im just curious Sylvius...How long did it take you to finish your first playthrough of DA:O?
It's a mental game, but for me it's just not roleplay with a voiced protagonist. I'm not roleplaying a character, I'm setting up a scene and giving cues for how the scene is going to play, then sitting back and watching it play. I didn't feel any more involved or in control of Shepard or Geralt than any other NPC.bsbcaer wrote...
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
Modifié par Sigil_Beguiler123, 12 janvier 2011 - 01:24 .
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The PC has never been me. The PC is a completely different person that I've designed from scratch.Merci357 wrote...
You only have to swallow that the PC isn't you,
I've played 7 different fully-formed characters in DAO, and they're all very different from each other.
That's the freedom I want. How different can Hawke be from Hawke?
What I mean is that it can help you convey what you want to convey more accurately. Just that instead of doing it with more words it does it with an expression of the emotion/tone that will be attached to the statement. The dialog options give you information on what your character is trying to convey. This system gives more information, but in a different way. Or it could, anyway.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't think NPC reactions are at all relevant to the choice being made.
I'd rather have my character express what I want and be misunderstood than have my character say what I don't want him to say because the paraphrase misled me.Ziggeh wrote...
Right, but that doesn't mean it's deeply dissatisfying.Xewaka wrote...
Sylvius response above addresses this point.
Retour en haut