518 réponses à ce sujet

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Malanek999

Well exept for being easer to comprehend for someone who hates books, it does't make much sense, cause in real life there are times when you can only shout short phrases and commands (the battlefield) and times when you just sit near a companion and can think for minutes, drinking tea, what to say. In that way, dialogue wheel only is good for the first type of speech.

[Urdnot_Write]

BW made a mistake introducing the paraphrasing to the dialogue wheel. This is how it should have looked:



Paragon

Neutral

Renegage



Then nobody would be upset about a perceived loss of role-playing ability, since it was barely a part of the game to begin with.

[maxernst]

Malanek999 wrote...

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

Did developers explained somewhere why the dialogue wheel is better than white text on black screen? I can only think of like 2 reasons - easer manipulation for console players and some kind.. I dunno.. "guessing thing", so a gamer would reload much more and.. um.. no, can't see any logic in here. Why do you think they think the wheel is better?

The wheel does have some benefits. It is in the middle of the screen which is better prenetation for short paraphrases. Having short paraphrases means that the player does not have to read as much leading to more realistically paced conversations. It also means that the player can become familiar with which option is most likely what they want ie in me it was paragon up the top, reneaged down the bottom, charm top left, intimidate bottom left.

I'm fairly confident that I spent more time on conversations in Mass Effect than in DA:O because I had to think more about what the paraphrases meant.  The amount of time spent on decision making is far greater than the amount of time reading.  If they really wanted to speed up conversation, they'd drop voice over and animations completely.  That would make things go MUCH faster.

[Malanek]

Urdnot_Write wrote...

BW made a mistake introducing the paraphrasing to the dialogue wheel. This is how it should have looked:

Paragon
Neutral
Renegage

Then nobody would be upset about a perceived loss of role-playing ability, since it was barely a part of the game to begin with.

Look, I'm quite anti-dialogue wheel and paraphrasing but it doesn't help to exagerate the matter. You do, usually, have some idea what your character will say, it's just not as accurate as knowing exactly what they will say.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

maxernst

Or they could always add a timer to a dialogue system and see people cry.

[vallore]

AlanC9 wrote...

vallore wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I think I said that upthread. There are only two situations where an adult says "shut up." One is where he's got some sort of authority. The other is where he doesn't have authority but figures he can compel obedience through threat, typically violence.

However it is obvious that, for significant number of people, this supposed transparency of intent was not obvious, quite the contrary.

Sure. I'm curious about how the problem comes up -- I'm not trying to deny that people are having one.

More specifically, I'm curious why some people have problems and other people do not. It isn't random.

Clarity - Assuming the role of a paraphrase is to be a clear indication of what actually is to be said, this particular paraphrase lacks enough clarity not to lead a significant number of people astray about what to expect. In this it failed, regardless of anyone being able to establish a correlation between it and what actually was said or not.

As for why, a particular paraphrase fails to some and not others, it could be for various reasons; I would point, for instance, that, the level of deviation we consider acceptable between the implied message and the actual message is something that is entirely dependent of individual standards. The issue with a paraphrase may therefore be that deviated too much from what a person or group expected, regardless of others being able to still find a correlation.

In this I see a weakness inherent to the paraphrase system, as it introduces an unnecessary level of subjectivity in the dialogue system.

[Malanek]

maxernst wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

Did developers explained somewhere why the dialogue wheel is better than white text on black screen? I can only think of like 2 reasons - easer manipulation for console players and some kind.. I dunno.. "guessing thing", so a gamer would reload much more and.. um.. no, can't see any logic in here. Why do you think they think the wheel is better?

The wheel does have some benefits. It is in the middle of the screen which is better prenetation for short paraphrases. Having short paraphrases means that the player does not have to read as much leading to more realistically paced conversations. It also means that the player can become familiar with which option is most likely what they want ie in me it was paragon up the top, reneaged down the bottom, charm top left, intimidate bottom left.

I'm fairly confident that I spent more time on conversations in Mass Effect than in DA:O because I had to think more about what the paraphrases meant.  The amount of time spent on decision making is far greater than the amount of time reading.  If they really wanted to speed up conversation, they'd drop voice over and animations completely.  That would make things go MUCH faster.

It's certainly interesting to argue against what you believe, which is what I am doing here. They want the conversations to be more cinematically realistic, not just faster. So with silent charcters, that would be fast but not as cinematically realistic and immersive. I generally didn't mind the silent character and preferred the approach because of the advantages. However there were some times in DAO where it did feel funny. I think the worst was when Alistair (or even worse Anora) started giving their battle speech while you just stood there. That should have been the Warden rarking up the troops.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Malanek999 wrote...

Look, I'm quite anti-dialogue wheel and paraphrasing but it doesn't help to exagerate the matter. You do, usually, have some idea what your character will say, it's just not as accurate as knowing exactly what they will say.

I disagree with you entirely.

When someone asks you what Jane Austen was trying to say in Northanger Abbey, unless you happen to be Jane Austen the only sensible reply is "I don't know."

"Some idea" only matters if you know on which details you have relevant information, and you don't.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Edit: you guess over and over until you get really good at guessing right.

That would require an enormous dataset and some terrific record-keeping.

It's internalized. Like a msucle memory. That's why I say it takes practice.

And stirctly speaking, your data set already should be huge.

Should it?  I've played exactly two games with a system anything like this.

How is the Mass Effect series alone a sufficient dataset?  Certainly the first one wasn't sufficient, as my attempt to apply what I'd learned there when playing ME2 failed utterly.

[the_one_54321]

Ok, so maybe you don't have such a great data set. Though, I didn't have as much trouble with ME2, and that was the first time I ever played a game like that and that's what I'm basing things on.

[Malanek]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Look, I'm quite anti-dialogue wheel and paraphrasing but it doesn't help to exagerate the matter. You do, usually, have some idea what your character will say, it's just not as accurate as knowing exactly what they will say.

I disagree with you entirely.

When someone asks you what Jane Austen was trying to say in Northanger Abbey, unless you happen to be Jane Austen the only sensible reply is "I don't know."

This is completely irelevant to the discussion.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
"Some idea" only matters if you know on which details you have relevant information, and you don't.

Some idea is better than no idea. You cut out what I was replying to and I was saying not to exagerate. That part you cut out said the only idea you had was paragon, neutral, renegade...and that is an exageration.

[Morroian]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Some people want to be role playing when playing a role playing game. Other people see the game more like a book, and care more about the story than about any role playing aspects.

I don't think thats quite true, the way Sigil Beguiler described her/his playstyle a few pages back is very similar to the way I play and while its not role playing on the level you and Sylvius do it its still role playing. 

[maxernst]

Malanek999 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

Did developers explained somewhere why the dialogue wheel is better than white text on black screen? I can only think of like 2 reasons - easer manipulation for console players and some kind.. I dunno.. "guessing thing", so a gamer would reload much more and.. um.. no, can't see any logic in here. Why do you think they think the wheel is better?

The wheel does have some benefits. It is in the middle of the screen which is better prenetation for short paraphrases. Having short paraphrases means that the player does not have to read as much leading to more realistically paced conversations. It also means that the player can become familiar with which option is most likely what they want ie in me it was paragon up the top, reneaged down the bottom, charm top left, intimidate bottom left.

I'm fairly confident that I spent more time on conversations in Mass Effect than in DA:O because I had to think more about what the paraphrases meant.  The amount of time spent on decision making is far greater than the amount of time reading.  If they really wanted to speed up conversation, they'd drop voice over and animations completely.  That would make things go MUCH faster.

It's certainly interesting to argue against what you believe, which is what I am doing here. They want the conversations to be more cinematically realistic, not just faster. So with silent charcters, that would be fast but not as cinematically realistic and immersive. I generally didn't mind the silent character and preferred the approach because of the advantages. However there were some times in DAO where it did feel funny. I think the worst was when Alistair (or even worse Anora) started giving their battle speech while you just stood there. That should have been the Warden rarking up the troops.

Well, I wasn't really arguing for that, just arguing that as far as I'm concerned the amount of time spent reading is trivial and I am highly skeptical that shortening the phrases will speed up conversation for me.  As I said, I think it almost certainly had the opposite effect in Mass Effect.

I didn't think it was all that bad to have the King/Queen speaking to the troops...think of Queen Elizabeth when the Spanish Armada was coming.  What happened in my game, where Anora was Queen but my sidekick decided to make a speech seemed very odd, though.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Malanek999 wrote...

Some idea is better than no idea. You cut out what I was replying to and I was saying not to exagerate. That part you cut out said the only idea you had was paragon, neutral, renegade...and that is an exageration.

Given that Paragon, Neutral, and Renegade weren't well defined or consistently used, I'd say we didn't even have those.

We were guessing blind.

[Xewaka]

Ziggeh wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
 In this case, since "Shut up!" does not content command, I might consider choosing "Now is not the time", as it approaches the sense of urgency I'm seeking.

I suspect this argument is taking on a particularly circular shape, but I would say that "shut up" is quite literally a command, and so does/could indeed imply authority.

Shut up is a command. The speech Hawke delivers when choosing it is not. That is the problem.

[Malanek]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Some idea is better than no idea. You cut out what I was replying to and I was saying not to exagerate. That part you cut out said the only idea you had was paragon, neutral, renegade...and that is an exageration.

Given that Paragon, Neutral, and Renegade weren't well defined or consistently used, I'd say we didn't even have those.

We were guessing blind.

"Save the council", "Concentrate on Sovereign", "Let them die"...gave you enough information to make a decision with no blind guessing. Just having Paragon, Neutral, and Renegade would not. You are getting more information, arguing otherwise degrades your good arguments.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There were specific examples during the game where we were given clear paraphrases.

But there were many more where we were not.

[Schneidend]

Xewaka wrote...

Shut up is a command. The speech Hawke delivers when choosing it is not. That is the problem.

"I'm in charge. You'll do as I say," sounds like a command to not question Hawke to me.

[Xewaka]

Schneidend wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
Shut up is a command. The speech Hawke delivers when choosing it is not. That is the problem.

"I'm in charge. You'll do as I say," sounds like a command to not question Hawke to me.

Does he say "You'll do" or "You do"?
And still, he does not tell him to shut up. At most he implies it. It's not the wording I'd associate with the paraphrase.

Modifié par Xewaka, 12 janvier 2011 - 11:59 .

[vallore]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Some idea is better than no idea. You cut out what I was replying to and I was saying not to exagerate. That part you cut out said the only idea you had was paragon, neutral, renegade...and that is an exageration.

Given that Paragon, Neutral, and Renegade weren't well defined or consistently used, I'd say we didn't even have those.

We were guessing blind.

Personally, I would not say blind, just not clear enough.



Deviations from what I expected from a paraphrase certainly occurred frequently enough, but a level of resemblance with what I expected still occurred consistently enough, in most cases, that I cannot speak of being blind in making my choices; it was just not enough accurate a way of deciding about the characters motivations and concerns, as the games had a way of throwing with what I did expect a mix of unexpected motivations and concerns, while ignored others I expected to be addressed by a particular phrase, and so on.

[maxernst]

vallore wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Some idea is better than no idea. You cut out what I was replying to and I was saying not to exagerate. That part you cut out said the only idea you had was paragon, neutral, renegade...and that is an exageration.

Given that Paragon, Neutral, and Renegade weren't well defined or consistently used, I'd say we didn't even have those.

We were guessing blind.

Personally, I would not say blind, just not clear enough.



Deviations from what I expected from a paraphrase certainly occurred frequently enough, but a level of resemblance with what I expected still occurred consistently enough, in most cases, that I cannot speak of being blind in making my choices; it was just not enough accurate a way of deciding about the characters motivations and concerns, as the games had a way of throwing with what I did expect a mix of unexpected motivations and concerns, while ignored others I expected to be addressed by a particular phrase, and so on.

That's about what I would say as well...although I agree with Sylvius that the Paragon/Renegade scale was of almost no use to me at all.  To be honest, I can't see how it would be useful if you're trying to roleplay a realistic character rather than a caricature.

[vallore]

maxernst wrote...

vallore wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Some idea is better than no idea. You cut out what I was replying to and I was saying not to exagerate. That part you cut out said the only idea you had was paragon, neutral, renegade...and that is an exageration.

Given that Paragon, Neutral, and Renegade weren't well defined or consistently used, I'd say we didn't even have those.

We were guessing blind.

Personally, I would not say blind, just not clear enough.



Deviations from what I expected from a paraphrase certainly occurred frequently enough, but a level of resemblance with what I expected still occurred consistently enough, in most cases, that I cannot speak of being blind in making my choices; it was just not enough accurate a way of deciding about the characters motivations and concerns, as the games had a way of throwing with what I did expect a mix of unexpected motivations and concerns, while ignored others I expected to be addressed by a particular phrase, and so on.

That's about what I would say as well...although I agree with Sylvius that the Paragon/Renegade scale was of almost no use to me at all.  To be honest, I can't see how it would be useful if you're trying to roleplay a realistic character rather than a caricature.

Indeed, the way it was encouraged,(in ME2), full paragon/renegade was quite bad. As far as I am concerned the result wasn’t consistency, rather reduced the possible range of motivations by limiting the use of the more “extreme” unnecessarily. A person can adopt a different demeanor with different people and in different situations an still have a consistent personality, but the game punished that.

[AlanC9]

Nighteye2 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Unless he says it playfully.

Sure, but I figured that was out-of-scope for a paraphrase.

Which is part of the problem with paraphrases.

How is Bio not using irony in their paraphrases a problem?

AlanC9 wrote...


Sure. I'm curious about how the problem comes up -- I'm not trying to deny that people are having one.

More specifically, I'm curious why some people have problems and other people do not. It isn't random.

Some people want to be role playing when playing a role playing game. Other people see the game more like a book, and care more about the story than about any role playing aspects.

Maybe so. But since I'm not one of those people and still the wheel doesn't bother me, this doesn't answer my question.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 janvier 2011 - 12:30 .

[AlanC9]

Xewaka wrote...

Does he say "You'll do" or "You do"?

"You'll do" is short for "you will do, " and it can be a command in English. It can also be a prediction, but in this context it's a command.

[Xewaka]

AlanC9 wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
Sure. I'm curious about how the problem comes up -- I'm not trying to deny that people are having one.
More specifically, I'm curious why some people have problems and other people do not. It isn't random.
Some people want to be role playing when playing a role playing game. Other people see the game more like a book, and care more about the story than about any role playing aspects.

Maybe so. But since I'm not one of those people and still the wheel doesn't bother me, this doesn't answer my question.

How can you appropiately play a character when you do not know how will he express himself? I'm reffering to content, not intent. I cannot play a character without knowing the content of his expressions. How can you? This is an honest question, to see if we can answer yours.

AlanC9 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
Does he say "You'll do" or "You do"?

"You'll
do" is short for "you will do, " and it can be a command in English. It
can also be a prediction, but in this context it's a command.

Well, I heard "you do".
It still isn't the phrase I'd associate with the paraphrase.

Modifié par Xewaka, 13 janvier 2011 - 12:36 .