518 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

JamesX wrote...

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.

Yes, absolutely. If all choices are equal, that is.

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.

Well, no, no one that I've read said this. What people denied is that the choices from silent VO are equivalent to the PC VO choices, or that silent VO actually gives you so many choices, etc.

Basically you are setting up a strawman with this second point.

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.

You're building a false dichotomy.

You can want to stop the blight without adopting the identity of the Grey Wardens. Instead of saying ''Join me! I am a Grey Warden and will lead an army to stop the Blight!'' you say ''Join me! I am Steve and will organize an army to stop the Blight!''

The Grey Wardens, as an order are irrelevant in DA:O. All you have are you and Alistair, and the Warden treaties are only good to get you into Orzammar. You can actually recruit ever race without mentioning or using them.

The only thing that matters (plot-wise) is that you did the Joining. That lets you kill the archdemon and is the reason why Flemeth saves you.

But neither of these things require you adopt a particular identity of a Grey Warden.

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.

You can want to stop the Blight while at the same time (for example) wanting to ban the Grey Warden order and disseminate their secrets to the Chantry, Circle of Magi and broader population given how their kidnapping and especially their lying nearly doomed Ferelden.

The only reason the Wardens even matter is because they Joining lets them kill the archdemon. That's it. If it wasn't for that bit of plot - which mind you, you don't know the entire game - the Wardens are effectively irrelevant. Plus incompetent, which is why you and Alistair are the only living Fereldan Wardens to begin with. 

[In Exile]

maxernst wrote...

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. 

I agree. I don't think the paraphrase would fix anything. My point is rather that the paraphrase does not make it worse for me. What I am saying is that re: our characters, we feel the cost in different ways.

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.

The problem isn't about sarcasm getting mistaken as hostile (though I still don't know how Alistair reacts to sarcasm, honestly). It's that certain lines I thought were sarcastic are actually not sarcastic at all.

Basically - 'Great idea!'' <_< is taken by characters to be ''Great idea! :happy:''. My problem is fundamentally that the game doesn't really let you be snarky.

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.

Close. What I am saying is that the core problem is the writing in either case. The implementation is different and we have our preference for it, but the paraphrase is not less clear (I would argue) than the full-text, it is simply a different presentation that either makes the writing problem more or less apparent.

Take the 'Shut up!' line. Basically, a writer thinks that's what Hawke's line means. In a text-based game, you get that line and people act like it meant shut up (but you never hear how it is said). This is way worse for me, because basically leads me to conclude all the characters are either incompetent and constantly misunderstand or the line means something different than I think it does. Wheares 'Shut up! accurately predicts the effect the dialogue will have on the characters, even if it doesn't let me know how it will be said.

To me, the effect matters more. To you, the literal line does.

As for my issues with ME, it was rather the fact that Bioware was better at giving me the pitch. In DA:O, they origins are actualy irrelevant for your identity. They are just who you were before becoming a Grey Warden. That's how DA:O was written. But I didn't catch on to that until maybe my third playthrough. Before that I was just fighting with the game. Whereas in ME2 and ME (for better or so) you have your script of who Shepard is pretty upfront.

[Zax19]

@In Exile
I understand that what you liked about MEs was the broader evil/good spectrum and that from the paraphrase you new the effect of the line. But, again, for me the paraphrase or quick time event usually did something I didn't want to  do. In other words, both the effect and the literal meaning were different what I expected .

About the option to play a bad guy in MEs, I really disliked the point system. The world isn't black and white, and I'm not one of the players who would want to follow a guide to get over 90% of the points. Usually I was 3/5 good, 2/5 evil. So despite the wider choices I sometimes ended up just not being able to say something because I didn't have enough of the points etc. The most annoying was probably the quest with the preaching Hanar in ME1:
http://masseffect.wi...esidium_Prophet

I had to get back to him later, I just wasn't bad enough to say "You're breaking the law, I'm arresting you". I understand that in several cases the points are representation of your success in saying/doing something, but in the end it's just farming and clicking the blues/reds. DA:O isn't much better than this (with the hardening), but I really loved one of the early conversations with Sten when I finally understood how he felt, it was very rewarding .

Modifié par Zax19, 15 janvier 2011 - 02:37 .

[In Exile]

Zax19 wrote...

@In Exile
I understand that what you liked about MEs was the broader evil/good spectrum and that from the paraphrase you new the effect of the line. But, again, for me the paraphrase or quick time event usually did something I didn't want to  do. In other words, both the effect and the literal meaning were different what I expected .

Keep in mind, I am actually a big critic of the alignment system. Bioware has no idea what paragon/renegade mean, and they were not consistent at all in writing dialogue for either. That is a major writing failure for te game.

About the option to play a bad guy in MEs, I really disliked the point system. The world isn't black and white, and I'm not one of the players who would want to follow a guide to get over 90% of the points. Usually I was 3/5 good, 2/5 evil. So despite the wider choices I sometimes ended up just not being able to say something because I didn't have enough of the points etc. The most annoying was probably the quest with the preaching Hanar in ME1:
http://masseffect.wi...esidium_Prophet

Wouldn't this be equivalent to not having enough points in coercion in DA:O? Now I happen to agree with you - I don't like having grey-ed out options either, and think persuasion should be handled in a different way, but this problem isn't related to the paraphrase per se.

I had to get back to him later, I just wasn't bad enough to say "You're breaking the law, I'm arresting you". I understand that in several cases the points are representation of your success in saying/doing something, but in the end it's just farming and clicking the blues/reds. DA:O isn't much better than this (with the hardening), but I really loved one of the early conversations with Sten when I finally understood how he felt, it was very rewarding .

Right, but how does this illustrate a difference between the two systems?

[vallore]

In Exile wrote...

[Take the 'Shut up!' line. Basically, a writer thinks that's what Hawke's line means. In a text-based game, you get that line and people act like it meant shut up (but you never hear how it is said). This is way worse for me, because basically leads me to conclude all the characters are either incompetent and constantly misunderstand or the line means something different than I think it does. Wheares 'Shut up! accurately predicts the effect the dialogue will have on the characters, even if it doesn't let me know how it will be said.

To me, the effect matters more. To you, the literal line does.

Hmmm,

In a text-base game a written “shut up!” would be the literal response; you know what your character is going to say and, even if you don’t necessarily know his tone, you still can guess the result it will create.

So how about, “shut up!” in a paraphrase?

It actually gives you less information:

Like before, you may guess what result is going to produce. Like before, you still lack information about the tone it is going to employ, but now, you also lack knowledge of the actual content of what he is going to speak.

It can be argued we gain such information after we chose the paraphrase, but that is the problem:

We gain the information after, when it is already outside of the player’s control. In this way we lose the ability to take into consideration motive,style and other information that the actual answer may carry, resulting in an unsatisfactory level of control of character characterization, al least for some of us.

[In Exile]

vallore wrote..

Hmmm,

In a text-base game a written “shut up!” would be the literal response; you know what your character is going to say and, even if you don’t necessarily know his tone, you still can guess the result it will create.

You pick shut up. Then:

Alistair: ''No, you shut up! Haha. But seriously, my idea is...''

Because the game just took ''Shut up!'' to be a playfull sarcastic line between two friends.

So how about, “shut up!” in a paraphrase?

If ''shut up!'' is an accurate enough framework to guide the potential action, i.e. the other character shuts up if you pick this option, then the paraphrase is clear about what the option does.

It actually gives you less information:

Like before, you may guess what result is going to produce. Like before, you still lack information about the tone it is going to employ, but now, you also lack knowledge of the actual content of what he is going to speak.

But the actual content is 100% irrelevant. You will not have any opportunity to reach a middle ground with me so long as you insistent that between full-text and VO in a scripted RPG, the actual line matters. I just outright reject this.

It can be argued we gain such information after we chose the paraphrase, but that is the problem:

It can be instead argued that this information is always irrelevant to choosing the dialogue line, which is as it happens what I argue. It does not particularly matter how you say something so long as it has the desired effect. After all, all the lines, being that which the NPC responds to, must have their tone and delivery (and meaning) already decided by the writer to be able to script the game in the first place.

''Great idea!'' can only either mean ''Great idea.<_<'' or ''Great idea! :happy:'' independent of whether you have a paprahrase, the full text, or a monkey reading it to you in ancient Hebrew.

We gain the information after, when it is already outside of the player’s control. In this way we lose the ability to take into consideration motive,style and other information that the actual answer may carry, resulting in an unsatisfactory level of control of character characterization, al least for some of us.

Whereas the souless automaton that is frozen out of dynamic and expository moments (i.e. Duncan describing what happened to the family of the HN instead of the HN) provides an unsatisfactory level of character characterization, at least for some of us.

So we have reached an impase. I reject one of your key premises, and instead argue that your desired implementation is several times more unclear and worse re: what I see as the aims of a video-game.

So what are we left with?

[vallore]

In Exile wrote...

vallore wrote..



Hmmm,In a text-base game a written “shut up!” would be the literal response; you know what your character is going to say and, even if you don’t necessarily know his tone, you still can guess the result it will create.

You pick shut up. Then:

Alistair: ''No, you shut up! Haha. But seriously, my idea is...''

Because the game just took ''Shut up!'' to be a playfull sarcastic line between two friends.

Context. I find that the meaning is, as a rule, provided in the context. Fortunately,I never had problems of the sort you had. Regardless, I can’t recall that specific dialog line, so I can’t clarify it for you.

So how about, “shut up!” in a paraphrase?



If ''shut up!'' is an accurate enough framework to guide the potential action, i.e. the other character shuts up if you pick this option, then the paraphrase is clear about what the option does.

Except it isn’t clear at all: Just take the example at the beginning of
this thread, and you will find out how a lot of people disagree about the
accuracy of the meaning provided; including me, btw. “Shut up!” and “I’m in charge. You do what I say” doesn’t mean the same and imply an entire different set of motivations goals and state-of-mind, for me and others.

It actually gives you less information:

Like before, you may guess what result is going to produce. Like before, you
still lack information about the tone it is going to employ, but now, you also lack knowledge of the actual content of what he is going to speak.

But the actual content is 100% irrelevant. You will not have any opportunity to reach a middle ground with me so long as you insistent that between full-text and VO in a scripted RPG, the actual line matters. I just outright reject this.

No, it is not irrelevant; it is irrelevant for you and your playing style, a
very important distinction. I could easily counter that in many events, what a line actually allows to do, the result it creates, is often irrelevant for me, while the way it allows to define a character is relevant.

It is important for me because it provides the motivations, style, personality quirks and other elements of the character personality. By having them prior to a decision, I can decide if a specific line fits my charter as I see it or not, in a way the paraphrase does not and cannot.

The conclusion should therefore be evident:

The relevance of it depends of the personal focus of the player. Denying its relevance is meaningless as, so long as someone attributes relevance to the information it provides it has meaning.

It can be argued we gain such information after we chose the paraphrase, but
that is the problem:

It can be instead argued that this information is always irrelevant to
choosing the dialogue line, which is as it happens what I argue. It does not
particularly matter how you say something so long as it has the desired effect.
After all, all the lines, being that which the NPC responds to, must have their tone and delivery (and meaning) already decided by the writer to be able to script the game in the first place.

See above. Besides, if results were all that mattered, we wouldn’t need lines
or paraphrases at all:

Pick option A to get Alistair mad at you.

Option B to make him go fetch milk and cookies for you.

Option C to leave.

Here you have your results; without real paraphrases and no pesky written
lines, or audio lines as well. Just the results, would this be satisfactory?

Not for me.



[

We gain the information after, when it is already outside of the player’s
control. In this way we lose the ability to take into consideration
motive,style and other information that the actual answer may carry, resulting
in an unsatisfactory level of control of character characterization, al
least for some of us.

Whereas the souless automaton that is frozen out of dynamic and expository
moments (i.e. Duncan describing what happened to the family of the HN instead
of the HN) provides an unsatisfactory level of character characterization, at
least for some of us.

Whereas for me, the warden was never a souless automaton and the male Sheppard was despite being voiced, (but not the female Sheppard). Interesting no?

As for your example; I disagree with it’s validity entirely. I don’t believe it was because he was mute that the king did not address the warden; you have plenty of emotive dialogs between the warden and other npcs.

Pick Duncan in a dialogue with a reluctant dalish for instance; we don’t get to have another npc to make the character’s case, on the contrary.The
reasons I believe that such happens at the arrival at Ostogar are entirely different:

First; it makes sense that the king interrogates the senior warden that he knows and respects, and not a raw recruit.

Second; it limits the dialogue.
Since every origin is different, actually recording all the different lines for each possible origin encounter with the king would consume a lot more resources; this way the different dialogue lines used are minimum, while the clarification of the situation is supposed to occur later on, (but never happens because of the battle).

So we have reached an impase.
I reject one of your key premises, and instead argue that your desired
implementation is several times more unclear and worse re: what I see
as the aims of a video-game.



So what are
we left with?

That there is no real impasse, as far as I’m concerned, for the reasons presented above. Your rejection would only be valid if all of us were goal oriented in our approach of roleplay, as you seem to be. Instead,some of us are role oriented. Both are valid approaches.

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...

It can be instead argued that this information is always irrelevant to choosing the dialogue line, which is as it happens what I argue. It does not particularly matter how you say something so long as it has the desired effect. After all, all the lines, being that which the NPC responds to, must have their tone and delivery (and meaning) already decided by the writer to be able to script the game in the first place.

I've been wondering the extent to which the problem with voice acting is based on the increase in feedback. For me it's all but critical; If the game doesn't acknowledge my dialogue decision I feel it has failed, I want to know that my point is across, not that it has been made. But for other approachs I imagine such definition presents a problem, a lack of options in essence, one line only being read a certain way, that there is value in the margin of error given by the response to your selection, be that pc delivery or npc response.

[Aynslie]

The same thing happens with Shepard in ME. The option on the wheel doesn't always come out how we think it will. Which potentially can mess up our renegade/paragon if we are not careful. Something that sounds like a joke or sarcastic to me ends up having Shepard in someones face. I was hoping Hawke wouldn't be affected the same way. This is why I prefer the DAO conversation options, at least I know exactly what my Warden is going to say despite the lack of a voice over.

[Naitaka]

In Exile wrote...

It can be instead argued that this information is always irrelevant to choosing the dialogue line, which is as it happens what I argue. It does not particularly matter how you say something so long as it has the desired effect. After all, all the lines, being that which the NPC responds to, must have their tone and delivery (and meaning) already decided by the writer to be able to script the game in the first place.

I happen to think that the knowledge of whether a choice produce a desirable outcome or not should not be the deciding factor in what dialogue/tone you choose in the first place. Yes, your character might expect a line, delivered in a certain tone, to affect the NPC or the companion in a certain way, but that is by no mean a sure thing, nor should your character expect it to be so. We, as players, might know the outcome through multiple playthrough or simply being familiar with how Bioware's dialogue works, however, that's the kind of OOC knowledge I wouldn't want to rely upon during play. Is the information in a fully written line relevant to the player out of character? The answer may varies. Is that same information relevant to my character? In my opinion, this can only be answered in the affirmative because there is no reason for there to be any ambiguity because he's the one saying it.

This is not to say that full-text is perfect in itself by any means; however, if I'm given a choice of fully written text with attitude indicator versus paraphrasing with attitude indicator, I'd pick the former because I find it much more in line with what my character should know and help improve immersion for my particular playstyle. I guess the question is why choose one or the other when the knowledge of the tone and exact phrasing should both be apparent to your character prior to making that choice?

Modifié par Naitaka, 16 janvier 2011 - 05:08 .

[In Exile]

[quote]vallore wrote..
Context. I find that the meaning is, as a rule, provided in the context. Fortunately,I never had problems of the sort you had. Regardless, I can’t recall that specific dialog line, so I can’t clarify it for you. [/quote]

Oh, that wasn't an issue in-game. That was just a hypothetical example. "Shut up!", as mere text, could plausibly be interpreted in many ways, due to the importance that tone and facial expression have re: conversation.

I happen to agree with you on context. But I think that context is precisely what clarifies the paraphrase, so we are still at an impasse.


[quote]
Except it isn’t clear at all: Just take the example at the beginning of this thread, and you will find out how a lot of people disagree about the accuracy of the meaning provided; including me, btw. “Shut up!” and “I’m in charge.You do what I say” doesn’t mean the same and imply an entire different set of motivations goals and state-of-mind, for me and others. [/quote]

Right, but I already addressed this. There is a group out there that thinks language is very precise, and the specific wording dramatically changes meaning. There is a group out there, as well, that does not think this.

What I am getting at, effectively, is that our conflict can't be resolved. Our positions are incommesurable. What is clear to me is not clear to you and vice versa. Our playstyles are directly at odds with each other.

[quote]
No, it is not irrelevant; it is irrelevant for you and your playing style, a very important distinction. I could easily counter that in many events, what a line actually allows to do, the result it creates, is often irrelevant for me, while the way it allows to define a character is relevant.  [/quote]

Precisely. I spoke in a generality to get this reaction from you. You see, in the same way you happen to think the lack of clarity is intrinsic to the paraphrase, I think the literal content of the line of dialogue is irrelevant to the dialogue choice.

Again, it comes right back down to playstyle.

[quote]It is important for me because it provides the motivations, style, personality quirks and other elements of the character personality. By having them prior to a decision, I can decide if a specific line fits my charter as I see it or not, in a way the paraphrase does not and cannot. [/quote]

I appreciate this. Yet what I am asking you to appreciate is that for those who are not like you, this particular way of expression is as inferior to them as the paraphrase is to you.

So, again, we are at an impasse.

[quote]The conclusion should therefore be evident:

The relevance of it depends of the personal focus of the player. Denying its relevance is meaningless as, so long as someone attributes relevance to the information it provides it has meaning. [/quote]

Yet you do not seem to want to apply this standard to clarity.

[quote]
See above. Besides, if results were all that mattered, we wouldn’t need lines
or paraphrases at all:

Pick option A to get Alistair mad at you.

Option B to make him go fetch milk and cookies for you.

Option C to leave.

Here you have your results; without real paraphrases and no pesky written
lines, or audio lines as well. Just the results, would this be satisfactory?

Not for me. [/quote]

Whereas for me it would be the same thing. Action + tone is all I care about - that is enough to define the personality of my character.

You see, you happen to think how a character says something is important to defining that character. I happen to think what a character does and how the character does it is important to personality.

All of this is to drive home the issue that you cannot make a blanket statement like - the paraphrase is inferior - without trying to push a subjective preference as objective, in the way you are trying to object that I am doing. [

[quote]
Whereas for me, the warden was never a souless automaton and the male Sheppard was despite being voiced, (but not the female Sheppard). Interesting no? 

As for your example; I disagree with it’s validity entirely. I don’t believe it was because he was mute that the king did not address the warden; you have plenty of emotive dialogs between the warden and other npcs.  [/quote]

It does not matter. You say dialogue defines the PC. Well, so does action. My PC would not sit quiet. This is just not an action this PC would ever, under any circumstances take.

[quote]Pick Duncan in a dialogue with a reluctant dalish for instance; we don’t get to have another npc to make the character’s case, on the contrary.The reasons I believe that such happens at the arrival at Ostogar are entirely different:

First; it makes sense that the king interrogates the senior warden that he knows and respects, and not a raw recruit. [/quote]

Certainly a reluctant character would not want to speak. But a domiant one would. Particularly a character that does not care about the King being King at all. One of your options, after all, is to tell the King off.

[quote]Second; it limits the dialogue.
Since every origin is different, actually recording all the different lines for each possible origin encounter with the king would consume a lot more resources; this way the different dialogue lines used are minimum, while the clarification of the situation is supposed to occur later on, (but never happens because of the battle). [/quote]

Well, sure. But we are talking about RP potentail here. You are saying that full-text silent VO allows you to RP better. I am giving you a case where full text silent VO broke my character.

[quote]
That there is no real impasse, as far as I’m concerned, for the reasons presented above. Your rejection would only be valid if all of us were goal oriented in our approach of roleplay, as you seem to be. Instead,some of us are role oriented. Both are valid approaches.[/quote]

There is absolutely an impasse. If I have my way, you will never have an RPG that you want to play like DA:O. I directly advocate against things you like (i.e. full-text).

[quote]Naitaka wrote...
I happen to think that the knowledge of
whether a choice produce a desirable outcome or not should not be the
deciding factor in what dialogue/tone you choose in the first place.
Yes, your character might expect a line, delivered in a certain tone, to
affect the NPC or the companion in a certain way, but that is by no
mean a sure thing, nor should your character expect it to be so.[/quote]


The problem with this is that in reality, if someone misunderstands (or does not react as we want) we can adjust on the fly and continue to push our agenda.

Say you try to be funny, but offend someone. In the real world, you can apologize. DA:O never allowed this. A video-game cannot script for every eventuality.

Thus it is important that the player knows what the desired attempt of the line is.

[quote]We, as
players, might know the outcome through multiple playthrough or simply
being familiar with how Bioware's dialogue works, however, that's the
kind of OOC knowledge I wouldn't want to rely upon during play. Is the
information in a fully written line relevant to the player out of
character? The answer may varies. Is that same information relevant to
my character? In my opinion, this can only be answered in the
affirmative because there is no reason for there to be any ambiguity
because he's the one saying it.[/quote]

The issue is that misunderstandings in a game are impossible. You cannot correct them. Either your character is impotent or the NPCs are idiots, but when something of this sort happens, all that is left is for you either to swallow that the dialogue has happened or reload.

[quote]This is not to say that full-text
is perfect in itself by any means; however, if I'm given a choice of
fully written text with attitude indicator versus paraphrasing with
attitude indicator, I'd pick the former because I find it much more in
line with what my character should know and help improve immersion for
my particular playstyle. I guess the question is why choose one or the
other when the knowledge of the tone and exact phrasing should both be
apparent to your character prior to making that choice?
[/quote]

Because the exact phrasing is not important, and I believe there are serious UI issues with allowing for the full text to be seen.

Here is an example from the Witcher:

At the end of Act I you can choose between two sides. To do this, you pick between two things Geralt can say. They are both speeches. They word count is about the same size as your quote above.

The two toghether take up a tremendous amount of the screen.

I'm an impatient person. If I've just read a paragraph, I don't want the thing read back to me. But I honestly enjoy VO. So I have to either grate my teath and hear the entire thing re-read at much less enjoyment than hearing it for the first time, or basically choose blind.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Why? If mental states lead to actions, we can easily imagine there are some mental states that would neccesarily lead to some actions.

We could imagine it, sure, but that's not a reason to hold the position as true.

The rest of your reasoning is without fault, but this initial leap seems unjustified to me.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
We could imagine it, sure, but that's not a reason to hold the position as true.

The rest of your reasoning is without fault, but this initial leap seems unjustified to me.

I'm not going so far as to actually claim this is a universal. I will only say that it is possible for this to be true, and if I were to design such a character, it would be a problem. I should add I am very much anti rationalizations, so if it appears a character concept of mine is not congruent, I won't go back and retcon my character, so to speak.

[Malanek]

[quote]Malanek999 wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]
[/quote]
Quoting myself. Just replayed the bit on Horizon and you can play through without bringing up Cerberus. In that case Ashley brings it up instead. So the problem was in the paraphrasing.

[Blessed Silence]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

Just finished watching the newest dev diary "Story" and a particular point has me curious about the dialogue options vs. what is said. At 4:16 of the vid, Hawke has three choices to speak:

This isn't helping.
You're right, but settle down.
Shut up!

The player chooses "Shut up!" and the spoken line is "I'm in charge, you do what I say."

From my perspective, the spoken line fits the least with the "Shut up!" option. I expected Hawke to actually get angry and tell his brother to shut up. Instead, it's more of a neutral (or mildly irritated) attitude. Wouldn't a dialogue option of "You do what I say" be a more obvious fit than what it currently is?

It may seem like a minor detail and a minor point in the story, and perhaps most dialogue will be more accurately reflected in the choices, but the dialogue tree choices in games have always been a pet-peeve of mine when I don't seem to be able to anticipate the writer's intention. Perhaps it's fully mitigated by the use of the icon showing what attitude the choice means, but I'd still rather have dialogue reflected appropriately in the choices.

Hoping it won't amount to much in the final tally; I've managed well enough in other games that use the abbreviated choices, although not without annoyances at times. Another reason to save often.

I do agree with what you are saying, but as you can see .. Carver did shut up after Hawke said it.
So .. works for me!

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I'm not going so far as to actually claim this is a universal. I will only say that it is possible for this to be true, and if I were to design such a character, it would be a problem.

Sure it would.  But I expect you knew that when you designed the character.  Any design that requires specific actions will almost certainly be broken by the limited options offered by the CRPG.

I should add I am very much anti rationalizations, so if it appears a character concept of mine is not congruent, I won't go back and retcon my character, so to speak.

I'm also strongly anti-rationalisations.  That's why I'm unwilling to retcon the PC's intent based on the NPC's reaction.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 16 janvier 2011 - 09:34 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Sure it would.  But I expect you knew that when you designed the character.  Any design that requires specific actions will almost certainly be broken by the limited options offered by the CRPG.

I can't know in advance what the game will and will not allow, and as a rule I don't (because I wouldn't know how) to design a character without such a personality. I am only saying I don't have a good argument to turn a could into an is, not that I don't think it is that way.

I'm also strongly anti-rationalisations.  That's why I'm unwilling to retcon the PC's intent based on the NPC's reaction.

But I would never do this. I simply abandon the character altoghether and restart the game if the character is broken. Beyond that, as I said, either the NPC misunderstands the dialogue or I failed to understand the option as it was presented, and in one case it neccesitates a re-load whereas for it to be the other, it requires the game to actually allow me to correct it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I can't know in advance what the game will and will not allow,

can you even imagine a game that would allow such a thing?  Where any character you designed could do that thing that he must do to maintain coherence?

I can't.  I've certainly never seen one.

By your standard of evidence, we have enough empirical data to be fairly confident that games don't do that.

I am only saying I don't have a good argument to turn a could into an is, not that I don't think it is that way.

Why would you think it is that way if you don't have an argument for it?  How can you hold the opinion without first having a justification for that opinion?

Beyond that, as I said, either the NPC misunderstands the dialogue or I failed to understand the option as it was presented, and in one case it neccesitates a re-load whereas for it to be the other, it requires the game to actually allow me to correct it.

This appears to follow from your belief that some action is mandatory given certain mental states.  And we've just shown that this isn't necessarily true.

[vallore]

@Inexile,

You know, I’ve read your reply and I found interesting the number of false assumptions you have made there. I believe you were trying to read my intentions on my text and using context – understandably , I may add- but as I have not actually post them, it had lead you astray. Curiously, that is a problem with paraphrases, btw.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Vallore wrote…

No, it is not irrelevant; it is irrelevant for you and your playing style, a
very important distinction. I could easily counter that in many events, what a line actually allows to do, the result it creates, is often irrelevant for me, while the way it allows to define a character is relevant.  [/quote]



Precisely. I spoke in a generality to get this reaction from you. You see, in
the same way you happen to think the lack of clarity is intrinsic to the
paraphrase, I think the literal content of the line of dialogue is irrelevant
to the dialogue choice.



Again, it comes right back down to playstyle. [/quote]

Let’s make an experience then; I’ll answer you with paraphrases, first, at least for a while. Here’s the first:



“Hmmmm, We will have to wait then.”












The answer:



Actually, I desagree with you. I’ll address this issue bellow.



[quote] [quote] It is important for me because it provides the motivations,
style, personality quirks and other elements of the character personality. By
having them prior to a decision, I can decide if a specific line fits my
charter as I see it or not, in a way the paraphrase does not and cannot. [/quote]





I appreciate this. Yet what I am asking you to appreciate is that for those who are not like you, this particular way of expression is as inferior to them as the paraphrase is to you.



So, again, we are at an impasse. [/quote]

Paraphrase:

“That was the wrong conclusion.”







Answer:

You were making an assumption there, I’m afraid it was wrong:

I’m perfectly aware that, for someone with a different playing style, paraphrases may represent a bonus and suffer none of the drawbacks I mention. But doesn’t mean that these flaws do not exist, rather that they are irrelevant for such players.

Further, I do not consider paraphrases inferior per se, that is entirely your assumption. I consider them flawed and with different advantages; something that it is not the same thing as being “inferior”, again, that assumption is entirely yours…


[quote]
[quote]The conclusion should therefore be evident:



The relevance of it depends of the personal focus of the player. Denying its
relevance is meaningless as, so long as someone attributes relevance to the
information it provides it has meaning. [/quote]



Yet you do not seem to want to apply this standard to clarity. [/quote]



Paraphrase:

“Oh, but I do”








Answer:

Actually, I have, and the answer to this was hinted just before.

The value one gives to the information contained in a phrase is a subjective matter, as you agree; however clarity is not exclusively a matter of personal perspective. To be clearer:

Beyond the individual capacity to understand what the paraphrase supposedly implies, most of the information of the phrase is itself not present, as a rule. That is a limitation, it just so happen that, for some players, like you, most of the actual information is not very relevant for them. As such they do not personally experience lack of clarity. But since the paraphrase is not meant to provide information just for such players, as a tool it is less clear than the phrase.





[quote] [quote]

See above. Besides, if results were all that mattered, we wouldn’t need lines

or paraphrases at all:



Pick option A to get Alistair mad at you.



Option B to make him go fetch milk and cookies for you.



Option C to leave.



Here you have your results; without real paraphrases and no pesky written

lines, or audio lines as well. Just the results, would this be satisfactory?



Not for me. [/quote]



Whereas for me it would be the same thing. Action + tone is all I care about -
that is enough to define the personality of my character.



You see, you happen to think how a character says something is important to defining that character. I happen to think what a character does and how the character does it is important to personality. [/quote]



Actually I think “Who” the character is, is the main question I put. Not how he speaks.



[quote]

All of this is to drive home the issue that you cannot make a blanket statement like - the paraphrase is inferior - without trying to push a subjective preference as objective, in the way you are trying to object that I am doing. [/quote]

Of course, we now know this point has no validity.



[quote] [quote]

Whereas for me, the warden was never a souless automaton and the male Sheppard was despite being voiced, (but not the female Sheppard). Interesting no?



As for your example; I disagree with it’s validity entirely. I don’t believe it was because he was mute that the king did not address the warden; you have plenty of emotive dialogs between the warden and other npcs.  [/quote]



It does not matter. You say dialogue defines the PC. Well, so does action. My PC would not sit quiet. This is just not an action this PC would ever, under any circumstances take.



[quote]Pick Duncan in a dialogue with a reluctant dalish for instance; we don’t get to have another npc to make the character’s case, on the contrary.The reasons I believe that such happens at the arrival at Ostogar are entirely different:



First; it makes sense that the king interrogates the senior warden that he
knows and respects, and not a raw recruit. [/quote]




Certainly a reluctant character would not want to speak. But a domiant
one would. Particularly a character that does not care about the King being
King at all. One of your options, after all, is to tell the King off.



[quote]Second; it limits the dialogue.

Since every origin is different, actually recording all the different lines for
each possible origin encounter with the king would consume a lot more
resources; this way the different dialogue lines used are minimum, while the
clarification of the situation is supposed to occur later on, (but never
happens because of the battle). [/quote]



Well, sure. But we are talking about RP potentail here. You are saying that
full-text silent VO allows you to RP better. I am giving you a case where full
text silent VO broke my character.[/quote]

You made yet another wrong assumption, I’m afraid.

I was pointing that your example was flawed, as I believe you have attributed the wrong cause for the lack of the character’s action. I was not saying that I believe the character being mute is necessarily “better.”

Further, I fail to understand your reasoning here. Either my points are right or they aren’t, but regardless they still raise doubts about the cause. And if the cause was not the full text/muteness, then blaming it is rather pointless, don’t you think?



[quote][quote]

That there is no real impasse, as far as I’m concerned, for the reasons
presented above. Your rejection would only be valid if all of us were goal
oriented in our approach of roleplay, as you seem to be. Instead,some of us are role oriented. Both are valid approaches.[/quote]



There is absolutely an impasse. If I have my way, you will never have an
RPG that you want to play like DA:O. I directly advocate against things
you like (i.e. full-text). [/quote]





I see. Of course your assumptions about what I like in a game and about what I want in it are more than a little of the mark. Amusingly, if you had the power to do it, that would result that you yourself would likely find yourself without paraphrases….

Fortunately for us, I doubt very much you will have your way.

Guess what. I don’t advocate the end of paraphrases. Shocking, no?

Because I take into account not only my personal tastes but that of others, I prefer to advocate a mixed system that would favor the ability to please as many players as possible.

I see as viable to introduce a system where by clicking a symbol in front of the paraphrase, would allow the view of the actual answer, for those who want it.

Much more satisfying for all. And not only for those who would rely solely in paraphrases or in the full text, but for all of those that, while content to use paraphrases most of the time, want to clarify one option or another. Or for those that while using primarily full text, like to avoid it where they don’t feel it necessary.

Another, even more radical possibility, is skip full text altogether, but introducing consistently a clear “return” option in the wheel, so that we could simply and easily return to the previous dialogue menu, if we found that the original choice made was the wrong one. I don’t have to say that, while sometimes this is possible to do, it certainly not always available as it is now, or it is not always clear the path to do it. Still, not as
satisfying but possibly much more simple to introduce.

Modifié par vallore, 17 janvier 2011 - 02:30 .