I think it's all pretty obvious:
A clenched fist means you punch them.
A laughing face means you punch them in the mouth and scream who's laughing now repeatedly.
Heart icon mean you tear their heart out.
Dove icon means you summon a stone golem to crush them.
A sad face means you weld an iron mask to their face and imprison them in an island off the coast of france and give a reassuring nod to the sun king.
A bunch of flowers means you poison them.
Etcetera, I don't think the icon really need explaining.
Dialogue?
Débuté par
Erika T
, févr. 01 2011 10:47
Retour en haut
#152
Posté 02 février 2011 - 05:15
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
Awesome.blothulfur wrote...
A sad face means you weld an iron mask to their face and imprison them in an island off the coast of france and give a reassuring nod to the sun king.
#153
Posté 02 février 2011 - 05:27
TheRevanchist
-
- Members
- 3 647 messages
blothulfur wrote...
I think it's all pretty obvious:
A clenched fist means you punch them.
A laughing face means you punch them in the mouth and scream who's laughing now repeatedly.
Heart icon mean you tear their heart out.
Dove icon means you summon a stone golem to crush them.
A sad face means you weld an iron mask to their face and imprison them in an island off the coast of france and give a reassuring nod to the sun king.
A bunch of flowers means you poison them.
Etcetera, I don't think the icon really need explaining.
Thats a disturbing train of thought.....
#154
Posté 02 février 2011 - 05:33
Big Mabels Diet-Plan
-
- Members
- 184 messages
hahahaha I just remembered that dialogue from the DLC guy who loiters non gratis around your camp.
Player1: "Who are you and why are you constantly hanging around my camp?"
DLCIdiot: "I have an important quest for you"
Player1 "Oh really, what is it?"
DLCIdiot: "It's a totally awesome quest....please deposit your BioWare fun bucks here..."
We're gonna need a $ icon on the wheel for this because I for one loved being panhandled in-game and the guy didn't clumsily shatter the immersion at all!
Player1: "Who are you and why are you constantly hanging around my camp?"
DLCIdiot: "I have an important quest for you"
Player1 "Oh really, what is it?"
DLCIdiot: "It's a totally awesome quest....please deposit your BioWare fun bucks here..."
We're gonna need a $ icon on the wheel for this because I for one loved being panhandled in-game and the guy didn't clumsily shatter the immersion at all!
Modifié par TripedWire, 02 février 2011 - 05:34 .
#155
Posté 02 février 2011 - 05:37
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 950 messages
The issue I had with FemShep/Jacob wasn't accidentally getting in a romance, but that the delivery of some dialogue which wasn't supposed to be romantic sounded extremely flirty.
#156
Posté 02 février 2011 - 05:38
TheRevanchist
-
- Members
- 3 647 messages
Thats putting it abit mildlyWulfram wrote...
The issue I had with FemShep/Jacob wasn't accidentally getting in a romance, but that the delivery of some dialogue which wasn't supposed to be romantic sounded extremely flirty.
#157
Posté 02 février 2011 - 05:42
nightcobra
-
- Members
- 6 206 messages
kylecouch wrote...
Thats putting it abit mildlyWulfram wrote...
The issue I had with FemShep/Jacob wasn't accidentally getting in a romance, but that the delivery of some dialogue which wasn't supposed to be romantic sounded extremely flirty.
though i think that has more to do with the writing itself.
#158
Posté 02 février 2011 - 05:44
TheRevanchist
-
- Members
- 3 647 messages
Of course...they wrote FemShep to sound like a total **** in that romance lolnightcobra8928 wrote...
kylecouch wrote...
Thats putting it abit mildlyWulfram wrote...
The issue I had with FemShep/Jacob wasn't accidentally getting in a romance, but that the delivery of some dialogue which wasn't supposed to be romantic sounded extremely flirty.
though i think that has more to do with the writing itself.
#159
Posté 02 février 2011 - 05:45
nightcobra
-
- Members
- 6 206 messages
kylecouch wrote...
Of course...they wrote FemShep to sound like a total **** in that romance lolnightcobra8928 wrote...
kylecouch wrote...
Thats putting it abit mildlyWulfram wrote...
The issue I had with FemShep/Jacob wasn't accidentally getting in a romance, but that the delivery of some dialogue which wasn't supposed to be romantic sounded extremely flirty.
though i think that has more to do with the writing itself.
it was in the game wasn't it?
#160
Posté 02 février 2011 - 06:13
TheRevanchist
-
- Members
- 3 647 messages
But realisticy...the romance actually works out for me. Because my FemShep is a racist human supremisist **** who loves gettin f***ed as much as loves shooting people. (which is a lot of love in both cases)
#161
Posté 02 février 2011 - 06:35
The Gentle Ben
-
- Members
- 86 messages
In my opinion, the Jacob/Femshep scenario is an example of one of the inherent risks and limitations of the player:VO cinematic dialogue/paraphrase system. The core issue is that the system is designed to both 1.) provide options for the player to select PC intent in their responses, and 2.) provide an implementation for the selected intent.
The potential pitfall is that under such a system only a limited number of implementations can be supported and the nature of those implementations lack prescient transparency (Which can lead to responses that ultimately differ in their implementation sufficiently from the intent of the player to be discordant or chagrin-inducing). In games without the system in question, nearly the entire responsibility for the interpretation of the player's intent falls upon the dialogue/actions of the NPC the PC is interacting with. Typically, if the NPC's reaction is discordant, people are more apt to assume it is the NPC's fault for misinterpreting what they said, but if the PC's reaction is discordant the player is more likely to blame the game for misinterpreting what they intended.
I hope that makes sense. I wrote it in a hurry. All that said, I still prefer the story-telling approach of fully voiced cinematic dialogue, but when people (such as Sylvius) advocate for a full-text option in conjunction with the paraphrase system, I am sympathetic. When prescience exists, such as in complete text (as opposed to paraphrase) systems, the player's options are still limited, but by better knowing what they are going to say they can console themselves with the knowledge that they selected the option that best reflects their intent (even if no option perfectly reflects it), however, when the dialogue system interprets player intent in a discordant way, (and the player has no foreknowledge to anticipate this outcome) the player is more likely to feel betrayed.
The potential pitfall is that under such a system only a limited number of implementations can be supported and the nature of those implementations lack prescient transparency (Which can lead to responses that ultimately differ in their implementation sufficiently from the intent of the player to be discordant or chagrin-inducing). In games without the system in question, nearly the entire responsibility for the interpretation of the player's intent falls upon the dialogue/actions of the NPC the PC is interacting with. Typically, if the NPC's reaction is discordant, people are more apt to assume it is the NPC's fault for misinterpreting what they said, but if the PC's reaction is discordant the player is more likely to blame the game for misinterpreting what they intended.
I hope that makes sense. I wrote it in a hurry. All that said, I still prefer the story-telling approach of fully voiced cinematic dialogue, but when people (such as Sylvius) advocate for a full-text option in conjunction with the paraphrase system, I am sympathetic. When prescience exists, such as in complete text (as opposed to paraphrase) systems, the player's options are still limited, but by better knowing what they are going to say they can console themselves with the knowledge that they selected the option that best reflects their intent (even if no option perfectly reflects it), however, when the dialogue system interprets player intent in a discordant way, (and the player has no foreknowledge to anticipate this outcome) the player is more likely to feel betrayed.
Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 02 février 2011 - 06:36 .
#162
Posté 02 février 2011 - 06:47
Addai
-
- Members
- 25 850 messages
Yeah I loved the grumpy responses.Brockololly wrote...
David Gaider wrote...
And there's no acknowledgement shout at all for when you click on a party member anyhow. We got rid of those as well as the acknowledgement of assigned commands.
Thats too bad- I enjoyed how those shouts changed based on the companion's approval- I thought that was a nice, clever touch.
And then there was Nathaniel Howe's "does this please you?" Sneaky. So, so sneaky.
#163
Posté 03 février 2011 - 03:33
TheRevanchist
-
- Members
- 3 647 messages
The Gentle Ben wrote...
In my opinion, the Jacob/Femshep scenario is an example of one of the inherent risks and limitations of the player:VO cinematic dialogue/paraphrase system. The core issue is that the system is designed to both 1.) provide options for the player to select PC intent in their responses, and 2.) provide an implementation for the selected intent.
The potential pitfall is that under such a system only a limited number of implementations can be supported and the nature of those implementations lack prescient transparency (Which can lead to responses that ultimately differ in their implementation sufficiently from the intent of the player to be discordant or chagrin-inducing). In games without the system in question, nearly the entire responsibility for the interpretation of the player's intent falls upon the dialogue/actions of the NPC the PC is interacting with. Typically, if the NPC's reaction is discordant, people are more apt to assume it is the NPC's fault for misinterpreting what they said, but if the PC's reaction is discordant the player is more likely to blame the game for misinterpreting what they intended.
I hope that makes sense. I wrote it in a hurry. All that said, I still prefer the story-telling approach of fully voiced cinematic dialogue, but when people (such as Sylvius) advocate for a full-text option in conjunction with the paraphrase system, I am sympathetic. When prescience exists, such as in complete text (as opposed to paraphrase) systems, the player's options are still limited, but by better knowing what they are going to say they can console themselves with the knowledge that they selected the option that best reflects their intent (even if no option perfectly reflects it), however, when the dialogue system interprets player intent in a discordant way, (and the player has no foreknowledge to anticipate this outcome) the player is more likely to feel betrayed.
I have to disagree with this. Because there is already pre-determined "intents" programed into the lines of a none-voiced character just as there are in the case of a VO. I however could never figure out the intent of those lines because there was nothing indicateing what it could even possibly be interpreted as. I also personaly find it a fool notion to simply "dismiss" the programed intent the NPC interprets as "misunderstanding" because they didn't misunderstand. They interpreted it the way it was meant to be interpreted. I personaly find it pointless to try and pretend what I RP in my head actually changes what the game is programed to comprehend.
Which,again imo, makes it exactly the same as a voided protagonist except your character isn't some empty shell that just stands there looking brain dead.
#164
Posté 03 février 2011 - 04:06
The Gentle Ben
-
- Members
- 86 messages
Dude, I was speaking from the player's perspective in terms of "misunderstandings"(not the game's, obviously) and full-text vs. paraphrase in terms of the predictability of intent. It was a nuanced argument about how people perceive and assign blame regarding failures to meet their expectations. Whether any individual mistake is ultimately the "fault" of the writer for imparting a "lack of clarity" or the player for a failure of "reading comprehension" or insight, would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. If you can't interpret the intent of full-text as you suggest? Then internet forums may not be the most conducive environment in which for you to conduct your discourse.
I feel that you've either totally misinterpreted my position or failed to understand my argument, which may go to your case? Although it was understanding intent and being satisfied with its implementation that we were discussing, not comprehension generally. Nothing in what I wrote has anything to do with VO vs. silent protagonists. It's a consideration of an inherent limitation and potential pitfalls within the paraphrase system (which I still on balance support, but would consider a full-text opt-in option, a nice bone to throw to people who worry about the lack of transparency the paraphrases provide).
I really wish people would stop equating paraphrase with VO. They are two separate features, and I think the evidence in support of VO is far stronger than that for the paraphrase system, especially for any game featuring cinematic dialogue for the reasons you stated:
I feel that you've either totally misinterpreted my position or failed to understand my argument, which may go to your case? Although it was understanding intent and being satisfied with its implementation that we were discussing, not comprehension generally. Nothing in what I wrote has anything to do with VO vs. silent protagonists. It's a consideration of an inherent limitation and potential pitfalls within the paraphrase system (which I still on balance support, but would consider a full-text opt-in option, a nice bone to throw to people who worry about the lack of transparency the paraphrases provide).
I really wish people would stop equating paraphrase with VO. They are two separate features, and I think the evidence in support of VO is far stronger than that for the paraphrase system, especially for any game featuring cinematic dialogue for the reasons you stated:
kylecouch wrote...
your character isn't some empty shell that just stands there looking brain dead.
Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 03 février 2011 - 04:06 .
#165
Posté 03 février 2011 - 04:59
In Exile
-
- Members
- 28 738 messages
The Gentle Ben wrote...
In my opinion, the Jacob/Femshep scenario is an example of one of the inherent risks and limitations of the player:VO cinematic dialogue/paraphrase system. The core issue is that the system is designed to both 1.) provide options for the player to select PC intent in their responses, and 2.) provide an implementation for the selected intent.
I would disagree with you here. At least as we currently have seen, the implementation does not allow for intent. The paraphrase as executed in ME (putting aside the issue of VO since it is separable) tried to condense the ''gist'' of the line in such a way that the player could reasonably pre-empt the actual line.
We are not at the level speaking about intent as an implementation since we have yet to have that. It's why, essentially, the paraphrase is called a 'paraphrase' system in the first place. The goal was to summarize content.
The potential pitfall is that under such a system only a limited number of implementations can be supported and the nature of those implementations lack prescient transparency (Which can lead to responses that ultimately differ in their implementation sufficiently from the intent of the player to be discordant or chagrin-inducing). In games without the system in question, nearly the entire responsibility for the interpretation of the player's intent falls upon the dialogue/actions of the NPC the PC is interacting with. Typically, if the NPC's reaction is discordant, people are more apt to assume it is the NPC's fault for misinterpreting what they said, but if the PC's reaction is discordant the player is more likely to blame the game for misinterpreting what they intended.
I agree with and follow your analysis up to the bold.
I don't think we can make this claim without objective data. Certainly, there players that believe that the NPC is at fault for doing it wrong. But you will have others such as myself (and Dave of Canada) who believe that it is the game itself that is at fault for poorly illustrating the written intention of the full-text line in such cases.
While I think your theoretical analysis is solid, I think an empircal claim of this sort requires empirical backing before it can be made.
To the extent that you think this is universally true, I disagree.
#166
Posté 03 février 2011 - 09:24
ReallyRue
-
- Members
- 3 711 messages
blothulfur wrote...
I think it's all pretty obvious:
A clenched fist means you punch them.
A laughing face means you punch them in the mouth and scream who's laughing now repeatedly.
Heart icon mean you tear their heart out.
Dove icon means you summon a stone golem to crush them.
A sad face means you weld an iron mask to their face and imprison them in an island off the coast of france and give a reassuring nod to the sun king.
A bunch of flowers means you poison them.
Etcetera, I don't think the icon really need explaining.
Sounds like Hawke is going to turn out as a well-rounded individual
#167
Posté 03 février 2011 - 09:39
TheRevanchist
-
- Members
- 3 647 messages
Let me put it this way then. What would be the point of having VO AND the full text? then obviously no would listen to the VO. Thats kind of the point of having paraphrases. While I understand what you're saying as that can be a problem. However I can safely say I know I am not the only person who has a hard time picking out intent from a full text statement. For example talking to Alistair many times I couldn't tell if the insults would be delivered in a snarky sarcasitc tone or an outright douchebag tone. There was no way at all to tell that at least foe me. So I know what your getting at from the players misunderstanding.
Now me personaly, I think if they are on a screen...and you can see them, it should be done for you...like what DA2 is doing. I shouldn't have to sit there and analyize what every single line of text means like a book or tabletop game.
Now me personaly, I think if they are on a screen...and you can see them, it should be done for you...like what DA2 is doing. I shouldn't have to sit there and analyize what every single line of text means like a book or tabletop game.
#168
Posté 08 février 2011 - 08:20
Erika T
-
- Members
- 233 messages
Wow such a debate about this! I personally think that the best thing about DA:O is the dialogues - how you can choose exactly what you want to say. This is the enjoyable part.. reading, thinking what the character should say, mulling over which one fits my character most.. I has a quirky mage girl, a posh noblewoman, an agressive warrior guy, a "tentative" character, a "please everyone" character", a "dont give a damn" character.. it looks like in DA2 you can only have three types of character: good bad and sarcastic. This makes me sad.
I would be interested what percentage of DA players are ~PC users or console users. It looks like the only reason they change it to the wheel is to make the game easier on console. Its a crying shame.
If they just wanted to voice the PC, they could have voiced it with the existing system. They should have just read what the line you pick says. But in any case I am not bothered. If we only have one voice like in Me, then it ruins the experience because not everyone will feel that they character has a fitting voice.
I think its a shame. I wish they made a DA2 just like Awakening - same everything, just more abilities and a different story.
I would be interested what percentage of DA players are ~PC users or console users. It looks like the only reason they change it to the wheel is to make the game easier on console. Its a crying shame.
If they just wanted to voice the PC, they could have voiced it with the existing system. They should have just read what the line you pick says. But in any case I am not bothered. If we only have one voice like in Me, then it ruins the experience because not everyone will feel that they character has a fitting voice.
I think its a shame. I wish they made a DA2 just like Awakening - same everything, just more abilities and a different story.
#169
Posté 08 février 2011 - 08:31
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
I just watched one of the videos with Mike (tjhe GiantBomb video), and the line Hawke spoke wasn't at all what I expected given the paraphrase.
I also don't know what the icon in the middle meant. It was a smiling mask.
I also don't know what the icon in the middle meant. It was a smiling mask.
#170
Posté 08 février 2011 - 08:34
lionsfan208
-
- Members
- 380 messages
J
...I've yet to accidentally stab someone, for example
Accidental stabbings are the worst.
#171
Posté 08 février 2011 - 08:35
Ziggeh
-
- Members
- 4 360 messages
It was a comedy mask, he did say "suave" about an option, but I guess he wasn't refering to that.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I also don't know what the icon in the middle meant. It was a smiling mask.
Modifié par Ziggeh, 08 février 2011 - 08:35 .
#172
Posté 08 février 2011 - 08:36
Amyntas
-
- Members
- 584 messages
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I just watched one of the videos with Mike (tjhe GiantBomb video), and the line Hawke spoke wasn't at all what I expected given the paraphrase.
I also don't know what the icon in the middle meant. It was a smiling mask.
I think that's for sarcasm.
#173
Posté 08 février 2011 - 08:37
Taleroth
-
- Members
- 9 136 messages
I've been on the receiving end of an accidental stabbing. Nothing worse than when your buddy won't pay for the second round of clean bandages, I tell you what.lionsfan208 wrote...
J
...I've yet to accidentally stab someone, for example
Accidental stabbings are the worst.
#174
Posté 08 février 2011 - 08:38
Erika T
-
- Members
- 233 messages
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I just watched one of the videos with Mike (tjhe GiantBomb video), and the line Hawke spoke wasn't at all what I expected given the paraphrase.
.
That was exactly what I hated in Mass Effect. That my Shephard didn't say what I thought she would say.
I hate to be negative about my favourite game developers but I am starting to think that they made the biggest mistake ever with this stupid wheel.
#175
Posté 08 février 2011 - 08:38
Jonp382
-
- Members
- 1 375 messages
Amyntas wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I just watched one of the videos with Mike (tjhe GiantBomb video), and the line Hawke spoke wasn't at all what I expected given the paraphrase.
I also don't know what the icon in the middle meant. It was a smiling mask.
I think that's for sarcasm.
'Humor' is what some of the developers have stated.
