518 réponses à ce sujet

[Malanek]

AlanC9 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
Accuracy is important for a couple of reasons. What you say implies a personality onto your character, with full dialogue you might not always be able to say what you want but you can usually avoid saying what you don't want. For example in ME2, the Charm option of "Leave the Quarian alone" comes out as something like"how about you and I make a deal. You leave the quarian alone and I won't break your arms and legs. Then there is detailed information you may want or not want to reveal. Having yourself draw attention to the fact you are with Cerberus about a dozen times in ME2 is a good example of this. Many people care what they say, the difference of a few words can be a big freaking difference. The paraphrasing approach can at times be very frustrating.

Which Charm option was that?

That was to the elcor vendor who was pressuring the quarian on Omega.

[AlanC9]

Xewaka wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
But  you haven't shown a case where the indeterminacy of the paraphrase system led you to give an option that wasn't the best one available. Can you think of a case where you would have preferred one of the other options if you had actually known all of the texts beforehand? Remember, you were wrong about the paraphrases in the OP's example.

The whole Horizon conversation. Which option allows me to dodge mentioning Cerberus? Is there even an option for doing that? I haven't found out yet.

But that's exactly my point. If the option isn't there in the first place then you couldn't have picked it in DAO either. Convert that conversation to the DAO system and you're still screwed.

In Zaeed's DLC, choosing twice the paragon response after he does his thing at the entrance results in a *Shepard pawnch!*. I'd rather not clock companions in the jaw.

Hmm -- I'll have to replay that one. I guess I never tried it. Kinda weird -- I don't remember any other Paragon responses leading to that sort of thing.

[Malanek]

Xewaka wrote...
The whole Horizon conversation. Which option allows me to dodge mentioning Cerberus? Is there even an option for doing that? I haven't found out yet.

IMO, and I do share your frustration on this, this is actually a problem with a slightly railroading script requiring you to mention Cerberus, rather than the main problem being the paraphrasing. If in one of the options you could not mention Cerberus (but you don't know which), then it would be a problem with the paraphrasing. A better example was the "Commander, not captain" choice you can make when being introduced to the quarians on Talis loyalty mission. Shepard goes on to draw attention to the fact s/he is no longer with the alliance but with Cerberus.

Xewaka wrote...
In Zaeed's DLC, choosing twice the paragon response after he does his thing at the entrance results in a *Shepard pawnch!*. I'd rather not clock companions in the jaw.

Completely agree with this.

[Xewaka]

AlanC9 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
The whole Horizon conversation. Which option allows me to dodge mentioning Cerberus? Is there even an option for doing that? I haven't found out yet.

But that's exactly my point. If the option isn't there in the first place then you couldn't have picked it in DAO either. Convert that conversation to the DAO system and you're still screwed.

And my point is that, due to the nature of the paraphrase, I don't know if the option exists or not, as none of the paraphrases mentions Cerberus. Whereas, with DA:O system, I would notice that no option fits my criteria and so I will compromise accordingly. It's not the fact that I have to speak about Cerberus, it's the fact that I don't know which option will reveal it. Sometimes it's the paragon choice, sometimes the renegade, sometimes the neutral, depending on the stage of the conversation. I have no information to make my choice.

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...

And how is that an accurate choice?

I was only speaking towards the case you stated, which I don't believe (accurately) represented biowares paraphrase systems.

Xewaka wrote...

I want to know exactly what will my character say on each option so I can best approximate my ideal choice.

If they could convey exactly the same information, but in different wording, would you still have the same problem? As in, do the specific words have some sort of value, or is it a case of wanting all the information available? (which I don't believe a full text system delivers either.)

Modifié par Ziggeh, 13 janvier 2011 - 02:26 .

[AlanC9]

Xewaka wrote...
It's not the fact that I have to speak about Cerberus, it's the fact that I don't know which option will reveal it. Sometimes it's the paragon choice, sometimes the renegade, sometimes the neutral, depending on the stage of the conversation. I have no information to make my choice.

Or, as on Horizon, all possible choices reveal that you're involved with Cerberus. I think Malanek's right about that; it's unavoidable.

I guess I'm not sensitive to that particular situation because it never occurred to me that Shepard's involvement with Cerberus could be kept secret. Everyone who would give a damn knows about it before you talk to them anyway.

[Xewaka]

Ziggeh wrote...

If they could convey exactly the same information, but in different wording, would you still have the same problem? As in, do the specific words have some sort of value, or is it a case of wanting all the information available?

In my field, the wording is precise, as in each wording carries a meaning. Wording and meaning are intertwined. Two options which otherwise convey the same general information but have two different wordings carry two different readings of the information. Which is relevant to the choice.

AlanC9 wrote...

Or, as on Horizon, all possible choices reveal that you're involved with Cerberus. I think Malanek's right about that; it's unavoidable.

I guess I'm not sensitive to that particular situation because it never occurred to me that Shepard's involvement with Cerberus could be kept secret. Everyone who would give a damn knows about it before you talk to them anyway.

No paraphrase mentions Cerberus. So I don't know that is the only option until after the dialogue is chosen. Besides, Horizon speciffically has a former party member who is unwilling to believe the rumors until after Shepard confirms them. People don't know Shepard is with Cerberus, they have heard rumors that Shepard is with Cerberus. Those are very different things. Some people don't give weight to those rumors until after Shepard validates them.

[Skalish]

This conversation hasn't moved anywhere in about 10 pages (and it's been had before anyway). I'm not really interested in adding to that conversation so I'm going to say why I'm okay with the current system.

Interactive conversation systems still have a tremendous amount of room for growth to add to the video game experience. The limitations of technology in the past made the dialog tree the preferred way although a few game designs benefited more from other systems. And the Interactive conversation systems became very static and had little experimentation done for more than a decade.

This has started changing in the last 4 or so years. The thing that caused the change was voiced protagonists. A lot of people found it a bit silly to read a line of dialog, select it, and then hear that line of dialog they just read. That led to companies starting to experiment with the old formula and this is a good thing. Dialog trees are far from perfect and there is plenty of room to improve on them. ME was Bioware's first experiment on it. It worked okay. There were some problems that could be identified. ME2 was able to fix some of those and experiment a little further (with the interrupts). DA2 is experimenting a bit further and we are getting some more things out of it.

We are getting the dominant personality system, an improved paraphrase system to more clearly show the intent of each dialog option (although still not the exact content), a way to make dialog flow and feel more natural and the ability to focus on showing rather than telling. More importantly however this will take us to a point where further experimentation can happen in games that come after this.

It's true that this system cannot give you as much detail as showing the full line would. It is not true that you could just have an option to display the full line when a choice is highlighted. When the full line is the choice you are tied to the full line. By making the full line not the choice and instead the paraphrased Intent the choice they have more freedom to develop that portion of the dialog. This allows them more freedom to show rather than tell. They also would not be able to take advantage of the the more natural flow of conversation that the paraphrase allows.

There will still be drawbacks to the system used in DA2. There will be less than ME2 though. There should be less in the game after DA2 and even less in the game after that.

Bioware is not the only company experimenting with and tweaking interactive dialog systems either. A few years down the line we might see some really impressive things. All made possible by companies like Bioware experimenting with systems and trying them out today.

That's why I'm okay with the system they are using in DA2.

Modifié par Skalish, 13 janvier 2011 - 01:36 .

[MacNille]

AS long there is no paragon sytstem where you can see if you are a dick or a saint. That is one of the little thing that i did not liked about Mass effect.

[Naitaka]

Skalish wrote...

This conversation hasn't moved anywhere in about 10 pages (and it's been had before anyway). I'm not really interested in adding to that conversation so I'm going to say why I'm okay with the current system.

Interactive conversation systems still have a tremendous amount of room for growth to add to the video game experience. The limitations of technology in the past made the dialog tree the preferred way although a few game designs benefited more from other systems. And the Interactive conversation systems became very static and had little experimentation done for more than a decade.

This has started changing in the last 4 or so years. The thing that caused the change was voiced protagonists. A lot of people found it a bit silly to read a line of dialog, select it, and then hear that line of dialog they just read. That led to companies starting to experiment with the old formula and this is a good thing. Dialog trees are far from perfect and there is plenty of room to improve on them. ME was Bioware's first experiment on it. It worked okay. There were some problems that could be identified. ME2 was able to fix some of those and experiment a little further (with the interrupts). DA2 is experimenting a bit further and we are getting some more things out of it.

We are getting the dominant personality system, an improved paraphrase system to more clearly show the intent of each dialog option (although still not the exact content), a way to make dialog flow and feel more natural and the ability to focus on showing rather than telling. More importantly however this will take us to a point where further experimentation can happen in games that come after this.

It's true that this system cannot give you as much detail as showing the full line would. It is not true that you could just have an option to display the full line when a choice is highlighted. When the full line is the choice you are tied to the full line. By making the full line not the choice and instead the paraphrased Intent the choice they have more freedom to develop that portion of the dialog. This allows them to more freedom to show rather than tell. They also would not be able to take advantage of the the more natural flow of conversation that the paraphrase allows.

There will still be drawbacks to the system used in DA2. There will be less than ME2 though. There should be less in the game after DA2 and even less in the game after that.

Bioware is not the only company experimenting with and tweaking interactive dialog systems either. A few years down the line we might see some really impressive things. All made possible by companies like Bioware experimenting with systems and trying them out today.

That's why I'm okay with the system they are using with DA2.

Well said, while I dislike the fact that so many RPG are heading down the whole cinematic experience road, I agree that experimentation with the dialogue system is most certainly welcomed. The only reason I was able to finish playing Alpha Protocol despite its shortcomings is because of the innovative dialogue system it employs. However, I still think cinematic experience are better in the domain of FPS and action game rather than a role-playing game.

[Xewaka]

Skalish wrote...
This conversation hasn't moved anywhere in about 10 pages (and it's been had before anyway). I'm not really interested in adding to that conversation so I'm going to say why I'm okay with the current system.
Interactive conversation systems still have a tremendous amount of room for growth to add to the video game experience. The limitations of technology in the past made the dialog tree the preferred way although a few game designs benefited more from other systems. And the Interactive conversation systems became very static and had little experimentation done for more than a decade.

This has started changing in the last 4 or so years. The thing that caused the change was voiced protagonists. A lot of people found it a bit silly to read a line of dialog, select it, and then hear that line of dialog they just read. That led to companies starting to experiment with the old formula and this is a good thing. Dialog trees are far from perfect and there is plenty of room to improve on them. ME was Bioware's first experiment on it. It worked okay.

There were some problems that could be identified. ME2 was able to fix some of those and experiment a little further (with the interrupts). DA2 is experimenting a bit further and we are getting some more things out of it.
We are getting the dominant personality system, an improved paraphrase system to more clearly show the intent of each dialog option (although still not the exact content), a way to make dialog flow and feel more natural and the ability to focus on showing rather than telling. More importantly however this will take us to a point where further experimentation can happen in games that come after this.

It's true that this system cannot give you as much detail as showing the full line would. It is not true that you could just have an option to display the full line when a choice is highlighted. When the full line is the choice you are tied to the full line. By making the full line not the choice and instead the paraphrased Intent the choice they have more freedom to develop that portion of the dialog. This allows them to more freedom to show rather than tell. They also would not be able to take advantage of the the more natural flow of conversation that the paraphrase allows.
There will still be drawbacks to the system used in DA2. There will be less than ME2 though. There should be less in the game after DA2 and even less in the game after that.

Bioware is not the only company experimenting with and tweaking interactive dialog systems either. A few years down the line we might see some really impressive things. All made possible by companies like Bioware experimenting with systems and trying them out today.

That's why I'm okay with the system they are using with DA2.

I do not mind experimenting. I believe the direction of the experiments is wrong. An increase in technology should increase the amount of useful information available to the player, not reduce it.

Naitaka wrote...
Well said, while I dislike the fact that so many RPG are heading down the whole cinematic experience road, I agree that experimentation with the dialogue system is most certainly welcomed. The only reason I was able to finish playing Alpha Protocol despite its shortcomings is because of the innovative dialogue system it employs. However, I still think cinematic experience are better in the domain of FPS and action game rather than a role-playing game.

A cinematic experience (as in cinema-like) precludes the player's input, reducing him to an observer. I'd rather play than watch.

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...

In my field, the wording is precise, as in each wording carries a meaning. Wording and meaning are intertwined. Two options which otherwise convey the same general information but have two different wordings carry two different readings of the information. Which is relevant to the choice.

Hmm. Does that not cause you problems outside of your work? I mean, that's not how the language you're using here operates. For the most part it's a decidedly imprecise art, but I can see how it might affect ones view of it.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 13 janvier 2011 - 03:56 .

[Monica83]

Someone have a problem to understeand that a full written answer its way more accurate than a schematic paraphrase system..I don't see how is that hard to understeand...



Ful written:More accurancy

Paraphrasing:Less Accurancy



This is not a opinion this is a fact and says different means: Climbing the glass..

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I see your point about revealing information -- to a limited extent, since we both know that revealing such information won't actually be noticed by any NPC.

Not at all.  In ME, talking to Udina and Anderson after rescuing Tali, I found Shepard making assertions I didn't believe to be true, so I wouldn't have had Shepard make those assertions.  And then the conversation moved on with everyone accepting those assertions as true, so the NPCs absolutely did notice.

And regardless of whether they noticed, expressing things the PC shouldn't want to express (given his personality) damages character coherence.

However, that problem would still be there in DAO; you can't choose to avoid revealing that information and still get the rest of the dialog option's effects,

That's the player's choice.  He can either choose one option or the other.  If revealing the information is too great a cost, then the other option gets chosen.

But in ME, we're not given the choice.

[Naitaka]

Monica83 wrote...

Someone have a problem to understeand that a full written answer its way more accurate than a schematic paraphrase system..I don't see how is that hard to understeand...

Ful written:More accurancy
Paraphrasing:Less Accurancy

This is not a opinion this is a fact and says different means: Climbing the glass..

I don't think that's what's in debate here though. It's which is more desirable in a RPG with voiced protagonist that's in question here unless I'm mistaken.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

If they could convey exactly the same information, but in different wording, would you still have the same problem?

For me, no.  That would be fine.

I'm not at all confident this design is possible, though, as the meaning is imparted by the word choice.  Expressing exactly the same meaning with different words is often extremely difficult, and doing it throughout the game would be nigh impossible.

I'd love to see them try, though.  If the paraphrase options contained enough information so I would know exactly what information my character would divulge (and what he wouldn't), and whether he'd make an assertion or ask a question (or both, given the longer PC lines now), then I would have no problems with the paraphrase system.

This is why I suggested that the paraphrases should be written by someone who has no knowledge of the rest of the conversation, and instead they should be written one line at a time in isolation.  In that case, no one would ever paraphrase "I'm in charge.  You do as I say." as "Shut Up!" because those aren't equivalent remarks.

As in, do the specific words have some sort of value, or is it a case of wanting all the information available? (which I don't believe a full text system delivers either.)

I want all the information available, but I also think that the full text system gives that.

All of the meaning contained within a sentence is in the vocabulary and syntax.  This is true of all languages.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Naitaka wrote...

I don't think that's what's in debate here though. It's which is more desirable in a RPG with voiced protagonist that's in question here unless I'm mistaken.

How does the voice matter?

[Monica83]

I have no problem with voiced protagonist.. But if for implement it we must be forced to be limited in our roleplay with a schematic silly dialogue system well that's a problem... After all cinematics is good in rpg but its not what make an rpg or we should call games like Metal gear solid 4 full of cinematics cutscene and dialogues an Rpg...

When you take an rpg and you begin to strip the roleplay factor in order to make a voice character cinematics cutscene only to try in a very disperate mannet to make it looking cool.. Well... its not an rpg..

Im not surprised by the fact that david gaider don't answer to how can a schematic dialogue system be better than a full written one.. and since we don't an answer don't exist..
This because a system like that improve the cinematics but limits the roleplay.. And if im looking only to cinematics and a nice story... well sorry but i watch a DVD..

Modifié par Monica83, 13 janvier 2011 - 05:04 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Monica83 wrote...

I have no problem with voiced protagonist..

I do.  Making the tone and delivery of the lines explicit limits roleplay.

After all cinematics is good in rpg

No, they're not.  They direct the player's attention in a way that takes him out of character.  Depth of Field effects and lens flare are a terrific example of this; they make explicit that there is a lens between the player's perception of the world and the world itself.

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Naitaka wrote...
I don't think that's what's in debate here though. It's which is more desirable in a RPG with voiced protagonist that's in question here unless I'm mistaken.

How does the voice matter?

Allegedly, having the full phrase as a choice makes the voicing of said phrase redundant.

[Monica83]

Cinematic scene if well implemented can be good in rpg... The problem begins when you begin to be forced on roleplay choices only to have a system that fits better with cinematics.. For me the best combination of a VO character in a rpg is...



Full written answer an voice acting...(better in a rpg)

And not paraphrase wheel and schematic answer..(terrible in a rpg)

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I see your point about revealing information -- to a limited extent, since we both know that revealing such information won't actually be noticed by any NPC.

Not at all.  In ME, talking to Udina and Anderson after rescuing Tali, I found Shepard making assertions I didn't believe to be true, so I wouldn't have had Shepard make those assertions.  And then the conversation moved on with everyone accepting those assertions as true, so the NPCs absolutely did notice.

I meant factual information. I agree that a PC shouldn't make statements of belief that the player isn't responsible for. Having never followed all the branches of those convos, I don't know if this is a railroading convo or it's because of the terrible P/R implementation in ME2.

However, that problem would still be there in DAO; you can't choose to avoid revealing that information and still get the rest of the dialog option's effects,

That's the player's choice.  He can either choose one option or the other.  If revealing the information is too great a cost, then the other option gets chosen.

But in ME, we're not given the choice.

Yep. Like I said, you do get to choose your particular flavor of suck. But I'd still consider that choice to suck.

[Nighteye2]

Merci357 wrote...
What you are talking about are social
skills, non verbal communication is a part of this. Even spoken language
isn't as simple as that, due to rhythm, stress and intonation
(paralanguage) a single word can have multiple meanings. I guess the
later is part of my preference of paraphrasing coupled with intent
icons. The intent makes it clear what will happen, maybe not what is
said, but how it is said. A full transscript with a silent PC simple
misses any indication of this paralanguage, and is prone to wrong NPC
reactions as well, as seen in DA:O.

I agree that the
icons may have some benefit - but they don't require paraphrases. You
can have intent icons with full-text, too.

Skalish wrote...
This conversation hasn't moved anywhere in about 10 pages (and it's been had before anyway). I'm not really interested in adding to that conversation so I'm going to say why I'm okay with the current system.

Interactive conversation systems still have a tremendous amount of room for growth to add to the video game experience. The limitations of technology in the past made the dialog tree the preferred way although a few game designs benefited more from other systems. And the Interactive conversation systems became very static and had little experimentation done for more than a decade.

This has started changing in the last 4 or so years. The thing that caused the change was voiced protagonists. A lot of people found it a bit silly to read a line of dialog, select it, and then hear that line of dialog they just read. That led to companies starting to experiment with the old formula and this is a good thing. Dialog trees are far from perfect and there is plenty of room to improve on them. ME was Bioware's first experiment on it. It worked okay. There were some problems that could be identified. ME2 was able to fix some of those and experiment a little further (with the interrupts). DA2 is experimenting a bit further and we are getting some more things out of it.

We are getting the dominant personality system, an improved paraphrase system to more clearly show the intent of each dialog option (although still not the exact content), a way to make dialog flow and feel more natural and the ability to focus on showing rather than telling. More importantly however this will take us to a point where further experimentation can happen in games that come after this.

It's true that this system cannot give you as much detail as showing the full line would. It is not true that you could just have an option to display the full line when a choice is highlighted. When the full line is the choice you are tied to the full line. By making the full line not the choice and instead the paraphrased Intent the choice they have more freedom to develop that portion of the dialog. This allows them more freedom to show rather than tell. They also would not be able to take advantage of the the more natural flow of conversation that the paraphrase allows.

There will still be drawbacks to the system used in DA2. There will be less than ME2 though. There should be less in the game after DA2 and even less in the game after that.

Bioware is not the only company experimenting with and tweaking interactive dialog systems either. A few years down the line we might see some really impressive things. All made possible by companies like Bioware experimenting with systems and trying them out today.

That's why I'm okay with the system they are using in DA2.

I don't mind experimentation, but why throw out the old before the new functions well enough? The paraphrase system is far inferior to what DA:O had.

So why not have classic full-text dialogue trees available for those who want them, and don't mind the VO repeating what they just read? Perhaps even with an added option to mute the PC.

That way, players and Bioware can experiment with paraphrases and VO, and fall back on the trusty old full-text system when the paraphrase/VO system (again) fails to deliver.

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
In that case, no one would ever paraphrase "I'm in charge.  You do as I say." as "Shut Up!" because those aren't equivalent remarks.

Along with the icon and delivery, I think they convey the same message: aggressive and authorative dismissal, which is what I'm looking for in the system.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I want all the information available, but I also think that the full text system gives that.

All of the meaning contained within a sentence is in the vocabulary and syntax.  This is true of all languages.

There's meaning in context and delivery. Sarcasm is the extreme example. I know you don't see in game misunderstanding as a flaw, but for what I try to achieve within the conversation system, it's the sole issue.

[maxernst]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I see your point about revealing information -- to a limited extent, since we both know that revealing such information won't actually be noticed by any NPC.

Not at all.  In ME, talking to Udina and Anderson after rescuing Tali, I found Shepard making assertions I didn't believe to be true, so I wouldn't have had Shepard make those assertions.  And then the conversation moved on with everyone accepting those assertions as true, so the NPCs absolutely did notice.

I meant factual information. I agree that a PC shouldn't make statements of belief that the player isn't responsible for. Having never followed all the branches of those convos, I don't know if this is a railroading convo or it's because of the terrible P/R implementation in ME2.

.

But actually you do that all the time in ME.  Very first conversation with Joker, if you choose "you're overreacting", Shepard says "You always expect the worst".  That's an unexpected statement of belief about Joker's personality, not a comment on the specific situation. 

You also announce that you're going to do something which isn't stated in the paraphrase in the very next line.  If you choose the paraphrase "I heard", Shepard says "I'm on my way."  Could you not intend for your PC to disobey orders or simply to keep them waiting, even though you heard?  I chose to answer to Joker's question honestly and what I got was a statement of intent.

Sure, neither of these, taken by itself, is a big deal, but collectively, it becomes problematic for me.  And sure, in DA:O you won't have exactly the phrase you're looking for.  But at least you know what you're character is going to say.  You don't make unexpected assertions about the character of your companions or say you're about to do things that you may not be.