518 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

Nighteye2 wrote...

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.

I'd definitely advocate that, as it increases accessibility, but I assume there are some problems devliering that. Follow up responses during the cinematic and such.

[AlanC9]

maxernst wrote...

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.  

I saw that as a factual statement. Joker does always expect the worst.

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?

Is Shepard really going to disobey an order from his CO at that point? Over what? My problem with the scene is that there are conversations with Pressly, Jenkins, and Chakwas that Shepard has no business engaging in.

[maxernst]

AlanC9 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

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.  

I saw that as a factual statement. Joker does always expect the worst.

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?

Is Shepard really going to disobey an order from his CO at that point? Over what? My problem with the scene is that there are conversations with Pressly, Jenkins, and Chakwas that Shepard has no business engaging in.

But that's just proves that the game does allow you to not be on your way.  Maybe Shepard hates his job and wants to be demoted and will deliberately go out of his way to keep them waiting while he chats with Pressly, Jenkins and Chakwas.  It seems improbable that they'd consider him for the position if he had that much of an attitude problem, but there are lots of places where the game does allow you to play a Shepard with some serious attitude.

And as far as Joker always expecting the worst, I have zero knowledge on which to base that.  If I had realized that the only possible reason to disagree with his asessment was if he always assumes the worst, I might have agreed with him. Also, saying that he always expects the worst doesn't say (or really necessarily imply) that he's overreacting in this particular instance.

Modifié par maxernst, 13 janvier 2011 - 06:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I meant factual information.

So did I.  Shepard made an assertion of fact in the conversation that I didn't support.  I didn't hold a contrary opinion - I simply hadn't reached that conclusion.  As such, I wouldn't have had Shepard claim it was true because from my point of view that might have been a false claim.

It didn't turn out to be false.  Apparently it was something I was expected to hold as true, but I simply didn't.  Maybe some other conversational option would have connected those dots for me, but I never saw that happen because Shepard jumped to a conclusion irrationally.

And my characters are never irrational.

Yep. Like I said, you do get to choose your particular flavor of suck.

That's all CRPG choices ever are.  But not having those choices basically eliminates all gameplay.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I saw that as a factual statement. Joker does always expect the worst.

But was it the sort of thing your Shepard would say?  Did your Shepard actually think it was true?

That's what matters.

Is Shepard really going to disobey an order from his CO at that point?

If not, then the dialogue UI needs to let the player know what his range of options is.  The player might choose an option specifically because it accommodates some point of view the writers never foresaw (the player wouldn't know this yet), only to see his character immediately do something that does actually preclude that point of view.

As soon as the player has made his selection, it is now too late to give him any new information about what he just selected.  If any information about that dialogue option is at all relevant to his character design, he needs to have access to it before the choice is made.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I could have done this with ME and ME2, but I didn't, because I just didn't care enough about those games (I didn't really like them), but I do care about DA2. So for DA2, I'm going to keep detailed records of what options I choose and what I expect from thos options when I choose them, and then we can compare that expectation directly with that actual result (Hawke's words and actions).

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I saw that as a factual statement. Joker does always expect the worst.

But was it the sort of thing your Shepard would say?  Did your Shepard actually think it was true?

That's what matters.

Is Shepard really going to disobey an order from his CO at that point?

If not, then the dialogue UI needs to let the player know what his range of options is.  The player might choose an option specifically because it accommodates some point of view the writers never foresaw (the player wouldn't know this yet), only to see his character immediately do something that does actually preclude that point of view.

As soon as the player has made his selection, it is now too late to give him any new information about what he just selected.  If any information about that dialogue option is at all relevant to his character design, he needs to have access to it before the choice is made.

In actual fact, I did disobey the order in order to chat with people before going in.  I'll grant that strictly speaking that was metagaming, but it's the kind of metagaming that RPG's have trained us to do.  Nothing will change if it takes me an hour to get to the meeting instead of a minute.  However, it's entirely possible that there are conversation options with those characters that will never be open again if I go into the meeting.  It's also possible that one of those characters will give me information that will be useful for making decisions in the meeting.  So from a metagaming standpoint, Shepard probably shouldn't follow orders.

So first two statements of the game, I asserted something about Joker that might be true but was certainly not an opinion I had formed, and then lied to him inadvertently. 

[In Exile]

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.

Which option in DA:O allows me to express my view that the Wardens are murders and kidnappers and should be disbanded to Wynne? Answer: none of the do, because the game does not want you to have this opinion.

Not having the option to say something is not a criticism of the paraphrase, because this is just a consequence of having to choose from a limited number of lines. Sometimes you are on rails re: what the writers what you to say.

maxernst wrote...
Hmm...that's interesting.  I'm also a
scientist (geologist) and I agree with you about the exact phrasing and
word choice being very important.  I wonder whether people who tend
toward more abstract thinking are more sensitive to language and less
sensitive to non-verbal cues. I know when I used to play on an NWN2
server that I felt one of my weaknesses relative to other roleplayers
was that I was much less skilled at describing body language to express
emotion and relied more heavily on my dialogue, and I suspect that it's
because I'm not particularly observant of body language in real
life.

I do not think this is true, at least re: profession. I am, as many are aware, one of the biggest backers of the paraphrase on this forum.

For the past four years, I've studied cognitive neuroscience. My minor is in philosophy. I am going to law school, a profession where misplaced commas can be catastrophic.

ETA:

I have more than zero publications as an undergraduate, but do not want to say more or specificy if those are current publications or journal submissions for obvious reasons. Still, this is not a matter of speaking as solely an undergraduate, but rather as a someone who has been very involved in the literature and research.

Yet in all of this, I have always been a "gist of things" kinds of person. IMO, the variable is personality trait, not profession. Though I would argue that having a need for this sort of precision and exacticity encourages one to pursue a career in a field like science, which is precise and exact.

Modifié par In Exile, 14 janvier 2011 - 12:57 .

[In Exile]

maxernst wrote...
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.

Does this really matter? DA:O broke my character by forcing me into I<3 Wardens. Even if I concede every point to you in this debate re: the paraphrase, it wouldn't t break the character more than if these I Warden lines were "hidden" by the paraphrase.

ETA:

And what about silent VO moments were inaction breaks my character, like how as a HN you can't cut-off Duncan and explain what happened to your family yourself?

Modifié par In Exile, 14 janvier 2011 - 12:58 .

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...
Which option in DA:O allows me to express my view that the Wardens are murders and kidnappers and should be disbanded to Wynne? Answer: none of the do, because the game does not want you to have this opinion.
Not having the option to say something is not a criticism of the paraphrase, because this is just a consequence of having to choose from a limited number of lines. Sometimes you are on rails re: what the writers what you to say.

You misunderstand. It's not the fact that there isn't a "not mention cerberus option". It's the fact that no option actually mentions cerberus in the paraphrase. If I knew all choices would end in the reveal before choosing any, then I'd reconsider from that knowledge how to proceed. It is the fact that no option actually indicates this information will be revealed what infuriates me.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
You misunderstand. It's not the fact that there isn't a "not mention cerberus option". It's the fact that no option actually mentions cerberus in the paraphrase. If I knew all choices would end in the reveal before choosing any, then I'd reconsider from that knowledge how to proceed. It is the fact that no option actually indicates this information will be revealed what infuriates me.

You misunderstand my objection. My stance is that it is no less character breaking to not have the option to be character consistent evident in the dialogue choice than to have it in the spoken line of the paraphrase.

I fully agree with you that in ME2, we were forced into allegiance dialogue. ME1 did not do this, so ME2 was entirely a step back in that respect.

But this was not bad paraphrasing - this was bad writing.

[Greenishio]

Hmm, I think maybe if instead of "Shut up!" it could just be "Shut up." with a period? The exclaimation mark implies too much aggression in this case. I'm also wondering if the tone is not as agressive or angry because Hawke was in his "nice" mode?



I'm worried with the paraphrasing system I would have a lot of "what that's not what I wanted Hawke to say" moments, which is not so much a roleplay problem for me but just simply distracting when I'm trying to immerse in the game. I'm digging the idea of showing the beginning of the actual line. At least the player get a clearer idea of the direction of the dialogue.



What we need is more footage of the dialogue wheel in action...

[maxernst]

In Exile wrote...

maxernst wrote...
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.

Does this really matter? DA:O broke my character by forcing me into I<3 Wardens. Even if I concede every point to you in this debate re: the paraphrase, it wouldn't t break the character more than if these I Warden lines were "hidden" by the paraphrase.

ETA:

And what about silent VO moments were inaction breaks my character, like how as a HN you can't cut-off Duncan and explain what happened to your family yourself?

It would be even worse with the paraphrase because you'd pick the expression you thought would be most hostile to the Wardens and it would still be I<3 Wardens.  Nor would the ME system allow you to interrupt Duncan, you still wouldn't be able to unless those dialogue options were written for your character.  Or were you thinking of a renegade interrupt so you could hit it, and just hope that it did something approximating what you had in mind, rather than killing somebody.

Are you really arguing that they're going to give you more and better dialogue options because of the voiced protagonist that you wouldn't have otherwise?  Umm...why?  If anything, there will be more work involved because you have the writing not only of the dialogue line, but also the writing of a paraphrase, and the voicing, so every additional dialogue option requires more work than it does with the voiceless protagonist..

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
You misunderstand. It's not the fact that there isn't a "not mention cerberus option". It's the fact that no option actually mentions cerberus in the paraphrase. If I knew all choices would end in the reveal before choosing any, then I'd reconsider from that knowledge how to proceed. It is the fact that no option actually indicates this information will be revealed what infuriates me.

You misunderstand my objection. My stance is that it is no less character breaking to not have the option to be character consistent evident in the dialogue choice than to have it in the spoken line of the paraphrase.
I fully agree with you that in ME2, we were forced into allegiance dialogue. ME1 did not do this, so ME2 was entirely a step back in that respect.
But this was not bad paraphrasing - this was bad writing.

Bad writing made worse by the paraphrase hiding it. We are already parting from the fact that we will be limited in our options and if the game plot demands it -due to whatever reason- we will sometimes be forced to make character-breaking decisions. I'd rather be told before making the decision, if only to accompany it with choo-choo noises, rather than being misled into believing I had options that did not really exist.

I'm willing to compromise when playing, but I can only compromise if I know I'm in a situation that requires it. The paraphrasing hides it from me.

I guess since I enjoyed Sam&Max hit the Road, Monkey Island 3, and Full throttle inmensely, I simply know that having the full line repeated after picking it from a list is not as redundant as people make it out to be.

Modifié par Xewaka, 14 janvier 2011 - 12:29 .

[Zax19]

I have to join the angry crowd here. After the ME1 and ME2 hype I was really disappointed by them (the dialogue system, bad UI, not enough RPG elements, story that wasn't really all that new to me as I'm a B5 fan...and then ME2 came with horrible controls, no inventory, even fewer RPG elements...). Recently I've been looking into DA2 and ToR and both of the games are going to have the ME dialogue system? This is just sad :/.

As it's been mentioned the paraphrasing just doesn't work, I'm no console player, I want to know what I'm going to say, not just click all that's red or blue (on another note, I will never say what they want me to say just to get the renegade/paragon points, it's simply against the concept of RP).

What's worse when you have 3 options, but the outcome is the same (it wasn't that bad in DA:O, but it was fairly frequent in Awakening). Like when "insert a party member" accuses me of working for Cerberus, there was no "They saved my life, they gave me resources! Do you honestly think I had a choice?" option.

The point is that you end up save loading 3 times only do discover there is no alternative, so hell yeah, I want the
"full text choices" back. It works well also because you can use numbers to make a choice and escape to stop the speech. With the wheel you have to use the mouse and both the "accept" and the "cancel speech" keys were on the spacebar - who the hell came up with that?

TLDR: It worked in BG, NWN, DA:O etc., so please, let us say what we actually want to say, not all the games are
"consolers", not all the players want to have sprint/interact/cover/jump cover on the same button .

EDIT:Formating.

Modifié par Zax19, 14 janvier 2011 - 01:39 .

[In Exile]

maxernst wrote...
It would be even worse with the paraphrase because you'd pick the expression you thought would be most hostile to the Wardens and it would still be I<3 Wardens. 

But in DA:O, all of the expressions are I<3 Wardens. So, again, I don't see your objection. It seems to come down to an issue of expectation - you want fine control over wha is being said, and how things are being said matters to you.

That's fine. But I don't see the argument that the parapharse, PC VO or silent VO are all any different in terms of breaking character.

If you grant, for example, that you ought to "adjust" your RP choices once you see the full text, then you have to grant that you can "adjust" your RP choices once you hear the voice. It's an equivalent proposition.

  Nor would the ME system allow you to interrupt Duncan, you still wouldn't be able to unless those dialogue options were written for your character.

But this is irrelevant. Silent VO still breaks my character by forcing actions on  me. This isn't exclusive to PC VO or the paraphrase, which was your point.

I appreciate it is more conducive to your playstyle, but your general claim is unsupported.

Or were you thinking of a renegade interrupt so you could hit it, and just hope that it did something approximating what you had in mind, rather than killing somebody.

No different than thinking a particular full-text line was going to be said in such-and-such-way (e.g. sarcastically) and then is misunderstood by the NPC because the writer wrote it with another tone in mind.

These problems are not restricted to the paraphrase - they appear in different ways as a consequence of the medium.

Are you really arguing that they're going to give you more and better dialogue options because of the voiced protagonist that you wouldn't have otherwise?

No. I am arguing that the are intrinsic problems to RPGs, and the paraphrase shfits how these problems are experienced. I believe there are measurable benefits to PC VO over silent VO based on implementation, but these are subjective points.

What I am reject is your central claim that silent full-text interfaces are (i) more clear; and (ii) allow for a better connection/control over a PC than the paraphrase.

Xewaka wrote...
Bad writing made worse by the paraphrase
hiding it. We are already parting from the fact that we will be limited
in our options and if the game plot demands it -due to whatever reason-
we will sometimes be forced to make character-breaking decisions. I'd
rather be told before making the decision, if only to accompany it with
choo-choo noises, rather than being misled into believing I had options
that did not really exist.

But this is a purely subjective preference. It is not a universal problem with the paraphrase at all. Not to mention that it is certainly a problem with DA:O and silent text as well. I already gave you the example of Duncan speaking for you - that breaks my PC, it forces them into subservient and quiet rules, and none of them would ever willingly do this; but the game does it to me anyway, without any warning.

I'm willing to compromise when
playing, but I can only compromise if I know I'm in a situation that
requires it. The paraphrasing hides it from me.

Whereas I can't compromise on certain things. They break my character concept. DA:O did this far worse than Mass Effect, actually, because the origins out and out lied to me in a way that the paraphrasenever did.

I guess since I
enjoyed Sam&Max hit the Road, Monkey Island 3, and Full throttle
inmensely, I simply know that having the full line repeated after
picking it from a list is not as redundant as people make it out to
be.

It's strange, since I hated all of these games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

DA:O broke my character by forcing me into I<3 Wardens.

I don't remember being forced to love the Wardens.  I know I wasn't allowed to express my indifference, but I don't see what expressing that would have gained me, so I wouldn't have chosen to do it.

I'm going to go back through the thread in case you mentioned where the game made you love the Wardens.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't remember being forced to love the Wardens.  I know I wasn't allowed to express my indifference, but I don't see what expressing that would have gained me, so I wouldn't have chosen to do it.

It was the role adoption that the game tried to push on you. Essentially, there were parts where the dialogue veered into ME2 ''I work for Cerberus!'' options, where you could not deny you were a Warden. There was actually only one dialogue where you could deny you were a Warden and have the game act like you meant it, and that was with the inkeeper in Lothering.

Otherwise the game acts as if you have adopted the identity of a Grey Warden. It does not recognize that you could want to work to end the blight for some other heroic or selfish reason, independent of the Wardens.

Remember, I think not having an option that my character would inavariably say breaks my character. I just had this happen less in ME2 versus and even ME (though Crazy! Shepard was no fun) than DA:O.

Modifié par In Exile, 14 janvier 2011 - 08:44 .

[JamesX]

Odd ideas some of you seems to hold, It seems that if 99 choices is not enough, then 1 choice is just as good (Extreme representation).

Modifié par JamesX, 14 janvier 2011 - 08:47 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Remember, I think not having an option that my character would inavariably say breaks my character.

Right, of course.

I still think that's a very strange position to hold.

[In Exile]

JamesX wrote...

Odd ideas some of you seems to hold, It seems that if 99 choices is not enough, then 1 choice is just as good (Extreme representation).

Are you talking about me? If silent VO actually game you such a dramatic difference in choice, I would favour it. But part of our debate here is whether or not there is actually a difference in choice the options offer you in the first place ( I, for example, disagree there is).

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Right, of course.

I still think that's a very strange position to hold.

Why? If mental states lead to actions, we can easily imagine there are some mental states that would neccesarily lead to some actions. If the actions are impossible, logically, the mental state would also be impossible. If my character cannot have that mental state, but that mental state is a neccesary condition for some particular variant of the character, then the character variant cannot viably exist within the game.

[JamesX]

I am talking about some of the repeated points here in general.

99 Choices might not be enough, but you can RP better than when you have only 1 choice. I don't think anyone would debate that as a self-evident statement.

Yet some in this thread seems to believe, since you make adjustments and tolerances when you have 99 choices, then it is essentially the same thing when you make adjustments and tolerances for 1 choice.
It is a very odd idea of all or nothing.

As for loving the Gray Wardens. I don't remember in DA there are any "I Love wardens" lines. In fact most of the dialogue regards to believeing what the Warden does as necessary. I guess you can say "My Warden Believes the opposite.  That wardens are not necessary and I do not want to join this thing against the blight." Which is more power to you. So I guess you can just quit the game because (since I don't want to put spoilers) it just didn't work out at the end.

The idea that your character want to stop the blight is set in stone, and none of us would reasonably assume that is a bad decision. What you can differ on is WHY you are doing it. Almost all the choices regarding the wardens (and even all the origins) are focused on this moral choice.

Modifié par JamesX, 14 janvier 2011 - 08:56 .

[Alodar]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Remember, I think not having an option that my character would inavariably say breaks my character.

Right, of course.

I still think that's a very strange position to hold.

Oh, the irony.


Alodar

[maxernst]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't remember being forced to love the Wardens.  I know I wasn't allowed to express my indifference, but I don't see what expressing that would have gained me, so I wouldn't have chosen to do it.

It was the role adoption that the game tried to push on you. Essentially, there were parts where the dialogue veered into ME2 ''I work for Cerberus!'' options, where you could not deny you were a Warden. There was actually only one dialogue where you could deny you were a Warden and have the game act like you meant it, and that was with the inkeeper in Lothering.

Otherwise the game acts as if you have adopted the identity of a Grey Warden. It does not recognize that you could want to work to end the blight for some other heroic or selfish reason, independent of the Wardens.

Remember, I think not having an option that my character would inavariably say breaks my character. I just had this happen less in ME2 versus and even ME (though Crazy! Shepard was no fun) than DA:O.

Well, I absolutely agree that the way that the Warden role was forced on you was a problem, but it's a problem of writing not dialogue system.  I just don't see how having paraphrasing and a voiced protagonist would have fixed it.  Maybe a tonal indicator would fix some of your problems, but sarcasm is really tricky because even if a line isn't intended seriously, it's often still hostile.  You would really need something not only whether it's sarcastic, but also whether you're just trying to be funny or mocking the person you're speaking to, and that's something that people get confused by even in real conversations. Your core problem of them just not writing dialogue options that you wanted would still be there, regardless of what dialogue system is used.  You presumably had that problem less in Mass Effect not because of paraphrasing and voiceover, but because your character concept was closer to what they wrote for.