518 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
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 me.

I think I see the problem. To you, how something is said matters a lot in communication. Whereas to me, that's not so important. Lots of wordings could get at the same thing. I think this is what leads to our different reactions to the paraphrase. Sylvius has the same complaint.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...
I think I see the problem. To you, how something is said matters a lot in communication. Whereas to me, that's not so important. Lots of wordings could get at the same thing. I think this is what leads to our different reactions to the paraphrase. Sylvius has the same complaint.

I share Sylvius' viewpoint in this regard, yes. Though for different reasons, I'd wager.

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 janvier 2011 - 02:17 .

[bcooper56]

Dont worry once this game is out someone will make a mod that will change dialouge that to show hole saying like dao and wheel will be gone.

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...

This further illustrates my problem with paraphrasing, really. I infer different things from it.

The same is true of full text, but as In Exile says, I think there's a basic divide in the approach.

[kayangelus]

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."

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".

1. If it was rocket science, it would be easy

2. If your main idea is longer than your actual phrase (what you are doing), that is no longer the main idea at all.

3. There is a difference between "shut up" and "I'm in charge". Shut up is more a case of you simply don't care what the other person wants to say/thinks. I'm in charge, just means that you expect your commands to be followed. However, (unless you are an utter retard who probably should not be in charge of anything), if you are in charge you are probably still going to take an interest in what your subordinates think.

4. When you have to explain what the main idea of a paraphrase is, to someone who read it, at that point the paraphrasing has straight up failed at its purpose.

[Xewaka]

Ziggeh wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
This further illustrates my problem with paraphrasing, really. I infer different things from it.

The same is true of full text, but as In Exile says, I think there's a basic divide in the approach.

There is. The selling point of the paraphrase system (voice acting) is lost for me, so I'm reduced to a text-based dialoge mechanic. Just without the text.

[DaggerFiend]

kayangelus wrote...

3. There is a difference between "shut up" and "I'm in charge". Shut up is more a case of you simply don't care what the other person wants to say/thinks. I'm in charge, just means that you expect your commands to be followed. However, (unless you are an utter retard who probably should not be in charge of anything), if you are in charge you are probably still going to take an interest in what your subordinates think.

Well, let's be fair. There's a difference between. "I'm in charge =D" and "I'm in charge! D=<" Plus, you don't have to be a retard. You could just be a jerk.

4. When you have to explain what the main idea of a paraphrase is, to someone who read it, at that point the paraphrasing has straight up failed at its purpose.

By this definition, all philosophical literature has failed.

Modifié par DaggerFiend, 11 janvier 2011 - 02:35 .

[In Exile]

kayangelus wrote...
1. If it was rocket science, it would be easy

Oh, snap! You're clever.

2. If your main idea is longer than your actual phrase (what you are doing), that is no longer the main idea at all.

Oh, snap. You so got me on that witty one-liner!

3. There is a difference between "shut up" and "I'm in charge". Shut up is more a case of you simply don't care what the other person wants to say/thinks. I'm in charge, just means that you expect your commands to be followed. However, (unless you are an utter retard who probably should not be in charge of anything), if you are in charge you are probably still going to take an interest in what your subordinates think.

It all depends on how you say it. You might care what people have to say if you are in charge. Or you might not, once you've made a decision. I'm in charge could easily be dismissive. It depends on how you say it.

4. When you have to explain what the main idea of a paraphrase is, to someone who read it, at that point the paraphrasing has straight up failed at its purpose.

Not at all. 100% accuracy is never a standard.

The problem in this case is quite clearly expectation. People see to disagree over what equivalence means.

[kayangelus]

DaggerFiend wrote...

kayangelus wrote...

3. There is a difference between "shut up" and "I'm in charge". Shut up is more a case of you simply don't care what the other person wants to say/thinks. I'm in charge, just means that you expect your commands to be followed. However, (unless you are an utter retard who probably should not be in charge of anything), if you are in charge you are probably still going to take an interest in what your subordinates think.

Well, let's be fair. There's a difference between. "I'm in charge =D" and "I'm in charge! D=<" Plus, you don't have to be a retard. You could just be a jerk.

True.

At this point, I just wonder how long it will take people to make mods. Say, one where after every time your character speaks a line, you get to go back to the previous choice wheel (so you can skip the quick save, quick load)

In Exile wrote...

kayangelus wrote...
1. If it was rocket science, it would be easy

Oh, snap! You're clever.

No, its just my major...

In Exile wrote...

Not at all. 100% accuracy is never a standard. 

The problem in this case is quite clearly expectation. People see to disagree over what equivalence means.

It tends to be a problem when you are making game impacting decisions.

[In Exile]

kayangelus wrote...

No, its just my major...

To be honest, I don't think physics is hard. But that's the phrase, so...

It tends to be a problem when you are making game impacting decisions.

I don't think it's a bigger problem than the lack of tone with silent PCs.

[17thknight]

No one in here can give one single logical reason why implementing Deus Ex: Human Revolution's approach is a bad thing.



Why is it BAD to give people a choice between paraphrases that don't match the spoken words in the least, or being able to see precisely what will be said?

[In Exile]

17thknight wrote...

No one in here can give one single logical reason why implementing Deus Ex: Human Revolution's approach is a bad thing.

Annoyance. If they wanted to add a toggle for it, sure, but there are problems with spacing. And Deus Ex doesn't give you the whole line. Only the first line.

So you might have.

I want soup.
I could go for some pizza.

Then you would could say:

I want some soup. I'm more thirsty than hungry.
I could go for some pizza. Still, no mixing meat and milk.

[DaggerFiend]

17thknight wrote...

No one in here can give one single logical reason why implementing Deus Ex: Human Revolution's approach is a bad thing.

Why is it BAD to give people a choice between paraphrases that don't match the spoken words in the least, or being able to see precisely what will be said?

Perfectly frank, I believe this to be ideal. Then people would stop complaining one way or the other. However, there are many people who are complaining about how this will change DA forever (which it very well might) when it's merely the mechanic that they chose for the game. 

[17thknight]

In Exile wrote...

17thknight wrote...

No one in here can give one single logical reason why implementing Deus Ex: Human Revolution's approach is a bad thing.

Annoyance. If they wanted to add a toggle for it, sure, but there are problems with spacing. And Deus Ex doesn't give you the whole line. Only the first line.

So giving peole a choice, between whether have to read absurdly inaccurate paraphrasing, or the actuall lines that will be spoken is an 'annoyance'? 

How? There is nothing logical in your response whatsoever. Why on Earth are you defending this nonsense to the death? There is NO REASON you can't simply implement an option to swap between the stupid wheel interface or a full dialogue one.

Deus Ex found an elegant solution, which you are obstinately against because you are a raving fanboy.

[In Exile]

17thknight wrote...

So giving peole a choice, between whether have to read absurdly inaccurate paraphrasing, or the actuall lines that will be spoken is an 'annoyance'?

The text has to be displayed on the screen somehow. Given the position of the wheel, where exactly are you going to display it? If I keep subtitles on, will it be over the other set of subtitles? If Hawke has two lines or three, are we going to have a paragraph show up (since it has to be compatible with low resolutions, not just 1920x1280)? 

ETA:

And if Hawke has a back and forth, do they display the other person's line too?

How? There is nothing logical in your response whatsoever. Why on Earth are you defending this nonsense to the death? There is NO REASON you can't simply implement an option to swap between the stupid wheel interface or a full dialogue one.

I just gave it to you, now in detail.

Deus Ex found an elegant solution, which you are obstinately against because you are a raving fanboy.

The first sentence of an exchange is an elegant solution?

Modifié par In Exile, 11 janvier 2011 - 03:21 .

[TRISTAN WERBE]

i cant wait dragon age 2 and mass effect 3 will go head to head for game of the year awards this year me2 dominated last year and dragon afe the year before and on 07 me killed em all well see soon

[DTKT]

What about? There isnt enough time to implement everything?



Full text needs to be translated for all languages. After that, QA Loc needs to go through ALL the text and make sure it fits. Bugs are found and time spent on a feature thats far from critical is wasted.



If I was producer, that would be the first thing to cut.

[iDEAF]

Since I am deaf, unless the subtitle is optional, this is the biggest disappointment for me.

[Schneidend]

"Do what I say!" IS the ye olde method for telling people to shut up.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Lots of wordings could get at the same thing.

Right, but what each particular wording "gets at" would differ from PC to PC, so there's no way the writers can possibly believe that a specific set of wordings all gets at the same specific thing unless they control all of the PC's personality variables.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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.

That only matters if the player knows what it is the writer thinks he'll want to achieve by choosing it.

How, exactly, is the player supposed to determine that?

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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

But it doesn't do that.  The spoken line is an observation that Hawke is in charge and that Carver does as hes told.  The aggressive tone conveys only that Hawke is annoyed he has to spell it out for him.

That's how I'd interpret that line if I heard it.

[Pwnsaur]

There will always be some communication issues when an invisible third person is translating one thing to another. Obviously, the frequency and degree of miscommunication will be determined by the writers' ability to envelop the panorama of human expression. Clearly, this example was not the most transparent phrase to indicate what the writer intended the PC to say. Debate if you will, but the fact that enough people were confused by its' execution is enough to acknowledge its' ambiguity.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Right, but what each particular wording "gets at" would differ from PC to PC, so there's no way the writers can possibly believe that a specific set of wordings all gets at the same specific thing unless they control all of the PC's personality variables.

I've thought about this, and I one issue between us (putting aside the philosophical debate about dialogue we sometimes have, because I think this is an interest mechanics track to go down) is how we approach dialogue to begin with. That is, even with silent PC, to me dialogue always had to first be deciphered before being picked.

Since the full line isn't any more clear than the paraphrase for me (since the writer's intention, and therefore the effect on the world, needs to be determined in either case) having to first translate the line at the level of the player, before picking it at the level of the character, is natural.

What the PC wants differs from PC to PC. But what the writer designed the line to say, i.e. its measurable consequence in the game (this, again, from a design and so player perspective who can see all playthroughs, not a PC RP perspective) is the same. Since it is the effect on the world that matters, what the PC picks is the intented consequence of the phrase, not the wording.

I think the paraphrase captures this style of play well.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That only matters if the player knows
what it is the writer thinks he'll want to achieve by choosing it.

How,
exactly, is the player supposed to determine that?

Strangely enough, as I said above. As an aside - you seem to have caught on to the same line of thought I was just thinking of above.

Essentially, I would now say I think the task of picking dialogue is separable as a player task and a PC task.

Put it this way: when you played a game that we can both agree allowed you to create the whole party (e.g. IWD) you presumably had any PC speak for the party.

That process invovled you as the player picking the appropriate PC, then one level lower, picking the line for the PC.

This is the same kind of idea, though applied differently.

The actual process would be context cue + paraphrase + intent => consequence, and then with that, you pick the particular line. Silent VO changes this to context cue + full text => consequence. I, of course, argue that paraphrase + intent is superior to full text as a cue for determining the consequence, but that's (at least for now) a side part of our debate.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But it doesn't do that.  The spoken
line is an observation that Hawke is in charge and that Carver does as
hes told.  The aggressive tone conveys only that Hawke is annoyed he has
to spell it out for him.

That's how I'd interpret that line if
I heard it.

The line is designed to end any and all objections from Hawke. "I'm in charge" establishes authority; "Do as I say" rejects any appeals to a decision. Since Hawke already made a decision, the line effectively tells Carver to stop trying to make any contribution, i.e. shut up.

ETA:

As an aside, having "Dialogue" in the thread title is basically a summon me + Sylvius spell. Just saying.

Modifié par In Exile, 11 janvier 2011 - 02:47 .

[Gabey5]

think mass effect.



that is all