518 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Lord Gremlin wrote...
The real problem is that paraphrases are ****. Intentionally or not they're screwed/wrong. Take this phrase - "I'm in charge, you do what I say". What's the main idea? Yes, that Hawke is in charge and will force Carver to obey his orders. The logical paraphrase is "I'm in charge". Imageine it instead of "Shut up". Much better, right?

The main idea is "Carver, shut up, I'm in charge and you do as I say."

I mean, seriously, this isn't rocket science.

When you select "Shut up" you expect the phrase where it's the main idea. Like "Shut up, I'm tired of your whining" or "Shut up and just do it" or even "Shut up, you worthless idiot" or something like that - a phrase which is a rude way to tell him to shut up.

Or "Your job is to listen to me. Your input is irrelevant".

[In Exile]

Snoteye wrote...
The problem is that "shut up!" is only dismissive (and aggressive, but that's merely delivery). "I'm in charge!," say, is both dismissive and commanding. It's not a matter of the actual paraphrase being unfit but not being the best fit.

The first time I saw that scene I read the paraphrase as "help me!" Imagine my reaction.

Shut up is a command. It's literally telling someone what to do. I don't think there's any way to make it more commanding, to be honest.

[DaggerFiend]

Point to make: Carver did shut up. Carver did seem insulted/wounded/to act as if he was just told to shut up.

[Kevin Lynch]

In Exile wrote...

The main idea is "Carver, shut up, I'm in charge and you do as I say."

I mean, seriously, this isn't rocket science.

Apparently it is. If they wanted to convey the line that is actually spoken, they would have used "You do what I say." or "I'm in charge." Both of those are much better choices to reflect what is spoken than "Shut up!" On the other end, the spoken dialogue could have been "Shut up! I'm in charge, you do what I say." Just like the example you gave.

As I said, the problem isn't with the use of paraphrases, it's the decision on what phrases to use in the choices. I think they need to reflect the spoken lines and intent a little bit clearer. Too, this was a minor example, I think. I'm sure there will be others in the game that appear at more critical moments, when what you say has a bigger impact. Hopefully those aren't ambiguous or misleading.

[Ziggeh]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

The problem is when the choice phrase isn't reflected in the spoken line and is something very different in tone and intent.

Along with the icon I believe it does carry the tone and intent, which is what I expect of the paraphrase system. If they needed to convey the exact phrase, there's a much better system for that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

That removes intent. The paraphrase is the cue to the content of the line. What Hawke says in that contex is basically the equivalent of telling someone to shut up. "I'm in charge, that's it" is another way of saying "STFU and listen to me."

I think it captures to intent very well.

One is imperative.  The other is declarative.

That's quite different.

[Sylvius the Mad]

DaggerFiend wrote...

Point to make: Carver did shut up. Carver did seem insulted/wounded/to act as if he was just told to shut up.

Which makes no sense, given what Hawke actually said.

[DaggerFiend]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Which makes no sense, given what Hawke actually said.

Why not? If someone told me "You do as I say" aggressively, I take that to mean I can't argue against them (edit: or rather, they won't let me argue), which will convince me I should just stop talking, whether about the given subject or in general.

Of course, we could argue all day that because the direct line wasn't said, the system is flawed. Personally, I am satisfied if my intent is delivered, regardless of choice of words. The point is communication, and in my opinion, communication does not have to be verbatim and literal, so long as the correct point was made.

Modifié par DaggerFiend, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:10 .

[HolyAvenger]

Yes I hate this too (very noticeable since I'm currently playing Leliana's Song, and they chose to do this in that DLC). Drove me utterly nuts when she'd say something when I meant something else or what she said did not (to me) reflect the sense and emotion of what I wanted to say...

[Ryzaki]

Ah yes paraphrasing. We have dismissed claims of it being overly accurate depictions of words spoken.



Though yeah I hate paraphrasing. I had 2 games to cultivate my hatred of it.

[Xewaka]

Now throw in a localization. I'll be playing by looking at goddamn icons.

I still cannot fathom how could anyone think this method is better than full phrasing.
How do you want me to get in the role of Hawke if I can't know what I'll be saying?

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:19 .

[Merci357]

Xewaka wrote...

Now throw in a localization. I'll be playing by looking at goddamn icons.

I still cannot fathom how could anyone think this method is better than full phrasing.

Easy. I skip dialogue if I've already read it word for word . Why listen to a voice actor if I know already what lines he'll deliver? It's repetitive. I agree that the paraphrasing isn't ideal if phrase and actual delivery differ to much, but I prefer it over full script (like The Witcher), and I prefer it over intent icons only (like Alpha Protocol).

[IRMcGhee]

I don't see the problem. The paraphrase fits the phrase in that example just fine, at least as I perceived it. But then, I rarely was surprised by the paraphrase vs speech results in the two ME games either.

[In Exile]

Kevin Lynch wrote..

Apparently it is. If they wanted to convey the line that is actually spoken, they would have used "You do what I say." or "I'm in charge." Both of those are much better choices to reflect what is spoken than "Shut up!"

No, they're both much worse. Hawke isn't trying to tell Carver he is in charge. He's trying to get Carver to shut up.

The line isn't designed to remind Carver who is in charge. It is designed to put him in his place.

On the other end, the spoken dialogue could have been "Shut up! I'm in charge, you do what I say." Just like the example you gave.

But you're just fusing the two at this point.

As I said, the problem isn't with the use of paraphrases, it's the decision on what phrases to use in the choices. I think they need to reflect the spoken lines and intent a little bit clearer. Too, this was a minor example, I think. I'm sure there will be others in the game that appear at more critical moments, when what you say has a bigger impact. Hopefully those aren't ambiguous or misleading.

I think they are clear. In the same way that you apparently can't see why the meaning is clear for me, I can't see why it is unclear for you.

The line does exactly what is advertised - command Carver to shut up.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
One is imperative.  The other
is declarative.

That's quite different.

No, because you think the value is in the spoken content. But we have had this debate so many times by now.

Both lines have one aim: to stop put Carver in his place.

Modifié par In Exile, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:39 .

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...

Now throw in a localization. I'll be playing by looking at goddamn icons.

I still cannot fathom how could anyone think this method is better than full phrasing.
How do you want me to get in the role of Hawke if I can't know what I'll be saying?

Because in english, for me, the translation from paraphrase to statement is clear and obvious and has the added advantage of giving an antimated and active PC instead of dead & static.

[Xewaka]

Merci357 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
Now throw in a localization. I'll be playing by looking at goddamn icons.
I still cannot fathom how could anyone think this method is better than full phrasing.

Easy.
I skip dialogue if I've already read it word for word . Why listen to a voice actor if I know already what lines he'll deliver? It's repetitive. I agree that the paraphrasing isn't ideal if phrase and actual delivery differ to much, but I prefer it over full script (like The Witcher), and I prefer it over intent icons only (like Alpha Protocol).

I will be reading subtitles anyway because there will be no voiceover in my native tongue (spanish), and while I can understand english once I've become accostumed to the accents, I'm still losing the perspective of the scene concentrated on understanding what the heck the scottish guy is saying to the american guy. So it's still subtitles for me, and voiceover adds exactly zilch.
Even emotions are lost, as emotional tones don't translate that well from language to language.

In Exile wrote...
Because in english, for me, the translation from paraphrase to statement is clear and obvious and has the added advantage of giving an antimated and active PC instead of dead & static.

I can understand the logic trail going from the full phrase to the paraphrase. The reverse process requires me guessing what the translator though the writer meant with the paraphrase, and from that what the writer actually meant. Even playing in english, I'd have to second guess every thing I'm going to pick as my phrase choice before picking it or reload a lot. Paraphrases are very clunky unless you somehow think just like the writer who made them. You can have voice over, just let me pick the full phrase to know what I'm saying, rather than guess by icons.

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:49 .

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
I can understand the logic trail going from the full phrase to the paraphrase. The reverse process requires me guessing what the translator though the writer meant with the paraphrase, and from that what the writer actually meant. Even playing in english, I'd have to second guess every thing I'm going to pick as my phrase choice before picking it or reload a lot. Paraphrases are very clunky unless you somehow think just like the writer who made them. You can have voice over, just let me pick the full phrase to know what I'm saying, rather than guess by icons.

I find it clear. I don't know how to explain it otherwise. I have much more trouble with silent PCs than with PC VO in terms of figuring out how a line is delivering because I'm a very sarcastic person and so I naturally read sarcasm into most lines.

To me, the paraphrase ''Shut Up!'' and ''I'm in charge - do as I say.'' are equivalent in terms of what they want to achieve, and either is a good indicator for the other.

[DaggerFiend]

Xewaka wrote...
 
Paraphrases are very clunky unless you somehow think just like the writer who made them.

It's my opinion that all dialogue in RPGs is clunky unless you somehow think just like the writer. Immersion and clarity are lost when you have to choose someone else's words. That I can see the exact words isn't inherently better to me. That I get to hear it said the way the writer intended as opposed to half-guessing what exactly a line means appeals to me. Which isn't to say they were hard to interpret, but if I wasn't paying attention or guessed wrong, I end up insulting a member of the Chantry by accident, or telling Zevran he can look at me that way (which was fine, I was romancing Zevran anyway ).

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...
I find it clear. I don't know how to explain it otherwise. I have much more trouble with silent PCs than with PC VO in terms of figuring out how a line is delivering because I'm a very sarcastic person and so I naturally read sarcasm into most lines.
To me, the paraphrase ''Shut Up!'' and ''I'm in charge - do as I say.'' are equivalent in terms of what they want to achieve, and either is a good indicator for the other.

Now that I've heard the full line, it makes sense. But without hearing the full line, my first guess would be something like "Quit complaining Carver, we're together in this", or something to that effect. As a person who thinks before talking, rather than think through talking, the paraphrase system feels counterintuitive and unnatural.
If you are able to guess the full line from the paraphrase, congratulations for your impressive deductive skills. I cannot.

[Bryy_Miller]

In Exile wrote...

Lord Gremlin wrote...
The real problem is that paraphrases are ****. Intentionally or not they're screwed/wrong. Take this phrase - "I'm in charge, you do what I say". What's the main idea? Yes, that Hawke is in charge and will force Carver to obey his orders. The logical paraphrase is "I'm in charge". Imageine it instead of "Shut up". Much better, right?

The main idea is "Carver, shut up, I'm in charge and you do as I say."

Yeah, I'm a fan of voiced PCs, and did enjoy ME and ME2's system (and even Origins'), but it also felt way too awkward at time. I know that's a rather juxtapositional stance to have on the matter.

I'm willing to shrug this one off, but I would have liked Hawke to be a tad more jerky. I did, however, love how Carver responded.

I mean, how much of a jerk do you have to be to tell your own brother to obey you?

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...

my first guess would be something like "Quit complaining Carver, we're together in this", or something to that effect.

Even with the aggressive icon?

[Xewaka]

Ziggeh wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
my first guess would be something like "Quit complaining Carver, we're together in this", or something to that effect.

Even with the aggressive icon?

"Quit complaining" can be said aggressively. At least in spanish.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
Now that I've heard the full line, it makes sense. But without hearing the full line, my first guess would be something like "Quit complaining Carver, we're together in this", or something to that effect. As a person who thinks before talking, rather than think through talking, the paraphrase system feels counterintuitive and unnatural.

Maybe that's it. To me, talking is nothing like writing. I have things I want to say so I say them. The paraphrase is just that not-yet fully elucidated idea, IMO. Are you saying talking to you is like writing, i.e. you compose the full sentence in your head and then say it?

If you are able to guess the full line from the paraphrase, congratulations for your impressive deductive skills. I cannot.

It's more that, to me, the line and paraphrase have to be congruent in what they're going to achieve.  I want Carver to shut up (if I pick that line). What Hawke says is congruent with that.

Modifié par In Exile, 11 janvier 2011 - 02:05 .

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...
"Quit complaining" can be said aggressively. At least in spanish.

I mean the "we're together in this" part (which is covered by the other options, which are often useful in determination), it's aggressive and dissmissive, so I'm not sure where you'd be reading that part from is all.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...
Maybe that's it. To me, talking is nothing like writing. I have things I want to say so I say them. The paraphrase is just that not-yet fully elucidated idea, IMO. Are you saying talking to you is like writing, i.e. you compose the full sentence in your head and then say it?

I usually do, yes. I tend to stutter otherwise.

In Exile wrote...
It's more that, to me, the line and paraphrase have to be congruent in what they're going to achieve.  I want Carver to shut up (if I pick that line). What Hawke says is congruent with that.

I need more information for a choice in dialog. Because what the writer thinks is congruent between paraphrase and actual full line will probably be different from what I expect the paraphrase to mean.

Ziggeh wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
"Quit complaining" can be said aggressively. At least in spanish.

I mean the "we're together in this" part (which is covered by the other  options, which are often useful in determination), it's aggressive and dissmissive, so I'm not sure where you'd be reading that part from is
all.

Mostly because Carver is placing the responsibility squarely on Hawke's shoulders. Slapping back with shared guilt sounds like dismissing his (Carver's) point.
This further illustrates my problem with paraphrasing, really. I infer different things from it.

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 janvier 2011 - 02:22 .