518 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...

Right, but that doesn't mean it's deeply dissatisfying.

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.

Just realised there should be a not in there somewhere, but you got it anyhow.

As I detailed above, I don't consider whats literally being said as important as my original intention, and so I find both the phrase and paraphrase systems equally liable to error.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 12 janvier 2011 - 02:23 .

[Kimarous]

Anybody else find it ridiculous how much people are discussing this issue to death despite the fact that the game isn't out yet, isn't going to change, and may very well be superior to the system that naysayers keep touting?

[Ziggeh]

Kimarous wrote...

Anybody else find it ridiculous how much people are discussing this issue to death despite the fact that the game isn't out yet, isn't going to change, and may very well be superior to the system that naysayers keep touting?

Not so much, this sort of discussion is kinda what games forums are for. It's criticism, and in places it's been constructive.

[Monica83]

Paraphrase killing the roleplay factor and this is "supposed to be a RPG" we can debate of what is an rpg but who knows what is it agree with me and im really bored from the people that says don't exist a definition of an rpg... This is climbing the glass... I Know games like Baldur's gate,Icewind dale,Planescape torment and Dragon age origins are rpg... If in those games you add a schematic dialogue system they will be a disaster for only one reason.. That system its not nice in a rpg where you are supposed to create your character but in those ones that you have a total premaded one can work..



Call mass effect 2 an RPG its like call super mario a shooter.. Mass effect 2 don't have enough rpg's element to be an rpg.. Its more a shooter with rpg elements.. We all know how the true rpg are we played it in the past... So stop to say we don't have a definition of rpg.. Because its only a marketing act.. Or a poor way to climb glass.. Since a schematic dialogue system kill the immersion and kill the roleplay if you are supposed to create your character...Just that...



If you think different i suggest you to stop play rpg and play some shooter game or hack & Slash..

Interactive Movies are NOT rpg!

Cinematics and voice act don't make a game an rpg.. or we should call any recent shooter game an rpg...

RPG its Role Play...And this system don't work in a rpg game where you create your character.. We already seen it in mass effect and mass effect 2....

And think someone can't play an rpg because the pc don't have the voice act..well.. its sad... poor humanity

[Ziggeh]

Monica83 wrote...
So stop to say we don't have a definition of rpg

Go ahead then. Enlighten us.

And no, a list of games does not constitute a definition.

[Monica83]

Those are not only games.. those are masterpieces... but this is not the thread to debate this... So i want keep this thread on topic.. because it's an interesting one..

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

And I maintain that the game can't actually know what I'm trying to convey.  It's not the job of the game to tell me what the character will say, because that's entirely my decision.  It's the job of the game only to tell me what possible utterances are supported by the game's design.

The paraphrase (as implemented in ME) doesn't do that because the dialogue can surprise me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

Monica83 wrote...
So stop to say we don't have a definition of rpg

Go ahead then. Enlighten us.

No, please don't.  That's a one-way trip to getting the thread locked.

[maxernst]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't think NPC reactions are at all relevant to the choice being made.

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.

It doesn't give more information, it gives different information.  It might give more information about emotion, but that's not always what's important.  For example, in a lot of situations you could be sounding out an NPC on what he knows about something, but not wanting to reveal what you already know to him...in Mass Effect, sometimes Shepard would reveal information that I would not have chosen to disclose or make statements about an intended course of action that were not indicated in the paraphrase.  An emoticon isn't going to help with that problem. 

Forget roleplaying for the moment, it's an issue of control...fundamentally not knowing what's going to happen when you choose a particular option.  Suppose they changed the combat system so that when combat started, all you could do is indicate a general direction and whether you wanted to attack with magic, melee or ranged weapons.  The target and the precise spell chosen would be done by the A.I. (basically like the tactics system only you would never have the option of manually controlling any of your characters). Wouldn't that bother you? Actually, it would bother me less than paraphrasing, because at least with a combat there's normally only two possible outcomes and exactly how I kill the bad guys doesn't matter to me as much as the more varied and complex outcomes of conversations.

[Blastback]

As far as the paraphrases go, hopefully given the content and context of the preciding diolologue, plus the icons, they will make sense. I've only had the "I didn't mean to say/do that" in ME happen a couple of times, but it was annoying a crap.



My worry, is about how much the charater will feel like my own. For me, Shepard felt like my version of Bioware's charater, vs the Warden, who felt like s/he was genuinly my own charater. I know that ultimatly this is an illusion of control, but it is very important to me to be able to define the charater's personality and identity myself in an RPG. I think Bioware refered to it as a first person vs third person narrative style.

[Morroian]

Monica83 wrote...

We all know how the true rpg are we played it in the past... So stop to say we don't have a definition of rpg..

We do, its just wider than you would personally like. Why should your definition be the one true definition of what an rpg is? I can role play a character in mass effect and I'll be able to in DA2. 

[craigdolphin]

I have no issues with the paraphrasing system myself. But I do think the example cited by the OP does demonstrate the weakness of the concept. That said, David Sims post was interesting and helpful: if I do find it jarring, I'll try to do as he suggests and see if it helps.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

We do, its just wider than you would personally like. Why should your definition be the one true definition of what an rpg is? I can role play a character in mass effect and I'll be able to in DA2.

That response only serves to call out for a common definition of roleplaying.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Morroian wrote...

We do, its just wider than you would personally like. Why should your definition be the one true definition of what an rpg is? I can role play a character in mass effect and I'll be able to in DA2.

That response only serves to call out for a common definition of roleplaying.

Wanting something to exist doesn't mean that it ever will.

[AlanC9]

craigdolphin wrote...

 But I do think the example cited by the OP does demonstrate the weakness of the concept. 

Really? Considering that the OP himself had what he thought was a working paraphrase, what I took away was that there was poor execution.

[maxernst]

Blastback wrote...

My worry, is about how much the charater will feel like my own. For me, Shepard felt like my version of Bioware's charater, vs the Warden, who felt like s/he was genuinly my own charater. I know that ultimatly this is an illusion of control, but it is very important to me to be able to define the charater's personality and identity myself in an RPG. I think Bioware refered to it as a first person vs third person narrative style.

They did, but I wonder if it might be more accurate to call it 2nd person vs 3rd person narrative--because even when you drive the action, you're not really the author of the game.  Personally, I think games will always be inferior to media like films and books in presenting third-person narratives.  It's the second person--directly involving you in the action--that most other media can't effectively do, so I think it's the most promising narrative style for games. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

maxernst wrote...

They did, but I wonder if it might be more accurate to call it 2nd person vs 3rd person narrative--because even when you drive the action, you're not really the author of the game.

Yes you are.  An RPG is a collaborative effort between the writer and the player.

[Ziggeh]

maxernst wrote...
They did, but I wonder if it might be more accurate to call it 2nd person vs 3rd person narrative--because even when you drive the action, you're not really the author of the game.  Personally, I think games will always be inferior to media like films and books in presenting third-person narratives.  It's the second person--directly involving you in the action--that most other media can't effectively do, so I think it's the most promising narrative style for games. 

I think the relationship is more complex. We're able to take on various roles within the game and string them into something cohesive. Sometimes you're the actor and at other times the director, and we barely notice when the changes take place, so I personally don't think describing any of them as first, second or third really does them justice.

edit: that's not to say they're not helpful terms in the discussion, I just don't think any system can be entirely defined by them.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 12 janvier 2011 - 05:38 .

[-flashblade-]

Ziggeh wrote...
We're able to take on various roles within the game and string them into something cohesive. Sometimes you're the actor and at other times the director, and we barely notice when the changes take place, so I personally don't think describing any of them as first, second or third really does them justice.

It is not the players role to be the director, it is the role of the game/dungeon master. Then again an actual director or dungeon master would KNOW what follows next and you don't. So you are actually some weird general guidance type of person who is along for the ride.

Only Sylvius actually commented on my idea for an improved paraphrase system. I had hoped for a litte more input. Having a paraphrase with the general intent of the line instead of the words to be said, together with an emotional intent icon, seems a huge improvement to me. For example you want to get information from somebody so instead of a paraphrase that says "Tell me what you know!" you have a paraphrase that says "Interrogate him". Together with the emotional intent icon you could tell that he is not going for the "good cop" approach and the advantage to this is that you do not have the baggage attached of expecting specific words to be said.

I also have an idea how to make the best of the current system. I think to do it David Sims way does not really work. Imagining that Hawke says both the paraphrase and the actual dialog while he really doesn't, seems weird to me. I say approach it that way that the paraphrase is what runs through Hawkes mind. Taking the example from this thread his thought would be "Shut up" and because he doesn't completely want to hurt his brother he doesn't put it this bluntly but instead says "I am in charge here. You do what I say." Approaching it like this you hopefully end up being less surprised than you did when you expected the paraphrase to be part of what the character is going to say.

[Xewaka]

-flashblade- wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...
We're able to take on various roles within the game and string them into something cohesive. Sometimes you're the actor and at other times the director, and we barely notice when the changes take place, so I personally don't think describing any of them as first, second or third really does them justice.

It is not the players role to be the director, it is the role of the game/dungeon master. Then again an actual director or dungeon master would KNOW what follows next and you don't. So you are actually some weird general guidance type of person who is along for the ride.

The director does indicate the actors how should they interpret their roles. That direction role is assumed by the player in a cRPG which have paraphrases instead of full lines (in which the player, by virtue of choosing the whole text, is both directing and acting).

-flashblade- wrote...
Only Sylvius actually commented on my idea for an improved paraphrase system. I had hoped for a litte more input. Having a paraphrase with the general intent of the line instead of the words to be said, together with an emotional intent icon, seems a huge improvement to me. For example you want to get information from somebody so instead of a paraphrase that says "Tell me what you know!" you have a paraphrase that says "Interrogate him". Together with the emotional intent icon you could tell that he is not going for the "good cop" approach and the advantage to this is that you do not have the baggage attached of expecting specific words to be said.

It'd have the same problems for the paraphrase system has now: I do not know what my character will say, and more importantly, I do not know what he will not say. I'm reffering content, not intent, here.

-flashblade- wrote...
I also have an idea how to make the best of the current system. I think to do it David Sims way does not really work. Imagining that Hawke says both the paraphrase and the actual dialog while he really doesn't, seems weird to me. I say approach it that way that the paraphrase is what runs through Hawkes mind. Taking the example from this thread his thought would be "Shut up" and because he doesn't completely want to hurt his brother he doesn't put it this bluntly but instead says "I am in charge here. You do what I say." Approaching it like this you hopefully end up being less surprised than you did when you expected the paraphrase to be part of what the character is going to say.

See above.

[Fishy]

I had the same experience in Origins . Paraphrase or not it's  never 100 % clear!
i once picked a cool sarcastic phrase and Allistair almost decapited me.
So i had to reload a previous save.

Modifié par Suprez30, 12 janvier 2011 - 09:58 .

[Cyr8]

The problem is not the paraphrasing. I believe it works well and is more engaging. The problem is that the tone is incorrect, or the paraphrase is not right. Like the OP said, if the paraphrase is "shut up," the main character should tell the character that, maybe in more words. Saying "I've got this handled" doesn't match up.

[hangmans tree]

Paraphrasing...can be tricky.

I found out the hard way in ME2. Thought Shep will say one thing - he opens his mouth and the course of the subject goes U-turn with me speachless trying to reload as quickly as possible...

It's like a slip of the tounge

I was trying to ask her to pass the salt but said instead you wasted 25 years of my life you w***e

I'll be raging if need be when the game comes out as its too late for BW to change the system now...if they had a will to do so anyway.

[Collider]

Skellimancer wrote...

This is why I am dreading the dialog wheel.

We don't know what they will actually say.

Me too.
An option to preview the line said by Hawke would be appreciated.