299 réponses à ce sujet

[Erika T]

David Gaider wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...
like you said that an "agressive" character might be blunt and to the point in certain dialogue choices, are the 3 different personality tones reflected in animations/mannerisms as well apart from voice acting? 

We set facial expressions on the player lines, if that's what you mean. There's a limited amount we can do in combination with the systemic lip-synching that occurs (trying to use emotions to change the shape of a mouth that is already working to emulate the sounds being spoken ends up with some very strange combinations), but things like eyes widening/narrowing, movement of the eyebrows, things of that sort can let the PC occasionally look like something other than a Tranquil.

Is it really that important though?  I assume these decisions must be based on customer feedback?  Is it really important to people that thir PC lip syncs well?  I find it incredibly hard to imagine.  for me, personally, the joy of the game is reading through the dialogue options, mulling over, deciding, trying different options - and after click, I just want to see the answer.  For me, DA was absolutely 100% perfect.  Why fix what's not broken?

[Erika T]

Erinpedz wrote...

I must admit I'm looking forward to the dialogue wheel with the way Mr Gaider has explained it..
Although with his line about combat shouts.. my one burning urgent question is.. please tell me the get off my back line has gone byebyes???
I don't want to have to abort a 0playthrough due to that line over and over and over again.

I like the get off my back line!!  I used it on my colleague the other day.  She retreated.  Immediately.  I had the whole bench in my office in hysterics for the whole afternoon after that. 

[Taleroth]

Erika T wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...
like you said that an "agressive" character might be blunt and to the point in certain dialogue choices, are the 3 different personality tones reflected in animations/mannerisms as well apart from voice acting? 

We set facial expressions on the player lines, if that's what you mean. There's a limited amount we can do in combination with the systemic lip-synching that occurs (trying to use emotions to change the shape of a mouth that is already working to emulate the sounds being spoken ends up with some very strange combinations), but things like eyes widening/narrowing, movement of the eyebrows, things of that sort can let the PC occasionally look like something other than a Tranquil.

Is it really that important though?  I assume these decisions must be based on customer feedback?  Is it really important to people that thir PC lip syncs well?  I find it incredibly hard to imagine.  for me, personally, the joy of the game is reading through the dialogue options, mulling over, deciding, trying different options - and after click, I just want to see the answer.  For me, DA was absolutely 100% perfect.  Why fix what's not broken?

Obviously they felt it was "broken."  In a sense, anyway.  There's a trend to go for more cinematic here and they've stated previously that they don't like the idea of people seeing/hearing what they had just read.  I can understand the sentiment, hearing it after reading it is somewhat redundant.

I do agree with you nonetheless in preferring DAO's style.

[Ziggeh]

Erika T wrote...

For me, DA was absolutely 100% perfect.  Why fix what's not broken?

That'd be your answer

[Sylvius the Mad]

Jonp382 wrote...

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.

That can't be right.  Different characters will have different sorts of humour.  Without knowing what sort of humour it is we can't know whether it's the sort of joke that Hawke would make, or even the sort of joke that Hawke would find funny.

Based on the paraphrase (Define "without need"), my typical character would have chosen it.  I love demanding definitions from people.  But then Hawke's actual line did nothing of the sort, and instead made an assertion.

Just like Mass Effect, DA2 appears to use parahrases that indicate the wrong kinds of sentences.

[JrayM16]

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.

Well, when I first saw the paraphrase + icon, I interpretted it as cautiously sardonic.  The paraphrase indicates that the character is skeptical about the thing's intentions due to fighting demons who might be this things minions on the way inside. 

The quotes around "without need" show that Hawke is questioning of something the thing just said because the quotess are used to identify that Hawke is quoting the thing in the paraphrase, especially since "without need" were the last words out of the things mouth when that wheel comes up. 

And finally, the icon.  A smiling mask.  It's a call back to ancient Greek theatre.  A smiling mask is often coupled with a frowning mask as symbols of theatrics.  The smiling mask usually represents comedy and the frowning mask tragedy, the two predominant forms of Greek theatre at the time.  The smiling mask icon is comedy, which represents that Hawke will say something mildly witty. 

So, to sum up my quick interpretation before I saw the response, the paraphrase overall indicated questioning the thing's previous words based on immediately prior experience and doing so in a mildly witty way.  It appeared that the personality assigned to the Demo's Hawke from previous dialogue choices ended up making the witty option more evasive and sarcastic than straight-up funny.

And that's pretty much how the line turned out.

[The Elder King]

I have to say, when I read that humour/sarcastic line, I'd expect Hawke saying what he said.

[BeardedNinja]

Ziggeh wrote...

Erika T wrote...

For me, DA was absolutely 100% perfect.  Why fix what's not broken?

That'd be your answer

yeah, there were many things in DA:O that needed fixing, and excuse many for being a console player an not one of the "chosen" PC players, where everything was cookies and rainbows. I'm glad that they are fixing and changing things because if the dont then the series becomes stagnant. And IMO the best fix is actually giving our character a voice, a pressence. Since we dont pick our origins its feasable in this game, and the wheel just streamlines the process.

[Taleroth]

BeardedNinja wrote...

 And IMO the best fix is actually giving our character a voice, a pressence. 

And IMO, giving the character a voice removes it from being our character and replaces it with the a pick-a-path character that I can never feel belongs to me.  Funny how IMO works.

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Jonp382 wrote...

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.

That can't be right.  Different characters will have different sorts of humour.  Without knowing what sort of humour it is we can't know whether it's the sort of joke that Hawke would make, or even the sort of joke that Hawke would find funny.

Based on the paraphrase (Define "without need"), my typical character would have chosen it.  I love demanding definitions from people.  But then Hawke's actual line did nothing of the sort, and instead made an assertion.

Just like Mass Effect, DA2 appears to use parahrases that indicate the wrong kinds of sentences.

Here's how I see it.  David explained earlier in this thread that as you choose certain choices over time the actual responses change to suit that character's particular chosen tone(atleast for as long as they are consistent with that).

It looks like the Hawke in the demo was set to be an aggressive Hawke who had chosen aggressive choices previously in the game(I can also surmise this from the fact that they chose to attack the creature in the demo, without seeing the rest of this non-existant playthrough).

So therefore the aggressive type Hawke's "humor" was more violent and challenging in nature. 

Thus, that response actually fits that character more perfectly than has been achieved in other dialogue systems, especially given what you just said about "that character's sense of humor".

When you play the game, your Hawke will probably say something different if you choose that line, one that more fits the Hawke you have been building.  And if you choose choices that make sense for the character you are trying to build, then it sounds like the game will reciprocate and make options make more sense for individual character types.

[blothulfur]

Damn I was way off.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The personality tracking only applies to action choices. Flavour choices (as this was) are controlled by you, the player. That's what the icons are for.

[Taleroth]

JrayM16 wrote...

Here's how I see it.  David explained earlier in this thread that as you choose certain choices over time the actual responses change to suit that character's particular chosen tone(atleast for as long as they are consistent with that).

It looks like the Hawke in the demo was set to be an aggressive Hawke who had chosen aggressive choices previously in the game(I can also surmise this from the fact that they chose to attack the creature in the demo, without seeing the rest of this non-existant playthrough).

So therefore the aggressive type Hawke's "humor" was more violent and challenging in nature. 

Thus, that response actually fits that character more perfectly than has been achieved in other dialogue systems, especially given what you just said about "that character's sense of humor".

When you play the game, your Hawke will probably say something different if you choose that line, one that more fits the Hawke you have been building.  And if you choose choices that make sense for the character you are trying to build, then it sounds like the game will reciprocate and make options make more sense for individual character types.

I just went through the thread to find what you're referring to and it sounds impressive.  I'm curious to see how it turns out.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

Well, when I first saw the paraphrase + icon, I interpretted it as cautiously sardonic.  The paraphrase indicates that the character is skeptical about the thing's intentions due to fighting demons who might be this things minions on the way inside. 

The quotes around "without need" show that Hawke is questioning of something the thing just said because the quotess are used to identify that Hawke is quoting the thing in the paraphrase, especially since "without need" were the last words out of the things mouth when that wheel comes up. 

And finally, the icon.  A smiling mask.  It's a call back to ancient Greek theatre.  A smiling mask is often coupled with a frowning mask as symbols of theatrics.  The smiling mask usually represents comedy and the frowning mask tragedy, the two predominant forms of Greek theatre at the time.  The smiling mask icon is comedy, which represents that Hawke will say something mildly witty. 

So, to sum up my quick interpretation before I saw the response, the paraphrase overall indicated questioning the thing's previous words based on immediately prior experience and doing so in a mildly witty way.  It appeared that the personality assigned to the Demo's Hawke from previous dialogue choices ended up making the witty option more evasive and sarcastic than straight-up funny.

And that's pretty much how the line turned out.

But he never actually does the thing the paraphrase says he's going to do, which is seek clarification.

[Erika T]

BeardedNinja wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Erika T wrote...

For me, DA was absolutely 100% perfect.  Why fix what's not broken?

That'd be your answer

yeah, there were many things in DA:O that needed fixing, and excuse many for being a console player an not one of the "chosen" PC players, where everything was cookies and rainbows. I'm glad that they are fixing and changing things because if the dont then the series becomes stagnant. And IMO the best fix is actually giving our character a voice, a pressence. Since we dont pick our origins its feasable in this game, and the wheel just streamlines the process.

Wouldn't you rather sacrifice voice for being able to say WHAT you want?  Witht he wheel, you will not know.  The character will not be your own.  Have you never tutted indignanty at your Shepard saying something that you SO did not mean?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Erika T wrote...

Wouldn't you rather sacrifice voice for being able to say WHAT you want? 

I wouldn't even call it a sacrifice.  I see exactly zero benefit to having a voice, and enormous costs.

[casedawgz]

Erika T wrote...

BeardedNinja wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Erika T wrote...

For me, DA was absolutely 100% perfect.  Why fix what's not broken?

That'd be your answer

yeah, there were many things in DA:O that needed fixing, and excuse many for being a console player an not one of the "chosen" PC players, where everything was cookies and rainbows. I'm glad that they are fixing and changing things because if the dont then the series becomes stagnant. And IMO the best fix is actually giving our character a voice, a pressence. Since we dont pick our origins its feasable in this game, and the wheel just streamlines the process.

Wouldn't you rather sacrifice voice for being able to say WHAT you want?  Witht he wheel, you will not know.  The character will not be your own.  Have you never tutted indignanty at your Shepard saying something that you SO did not mean?

Nope.

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But he never actually does the thing the paraphrase says he's going to do, which is seek clarification.

It's rhetorical, the intent is humour.

[Taleroth]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Erika T wrote...

Wouldn't you rather sacrifice voice for being able to say WHAT you want? 

I wouldn't even call it a sacrifice.  I see exactly zero benefit to having a voice, and enormous costs.

I'm actually okay with vague options.  What I dislike is the fact that voicing sets the mood.  No more can [Kill him] be reluctant, but necessary, when the choice elicits glee and laughter.

[Sylvius the Mad]

casedawgz wrote...

Erika T wrote...

Have you never tutted indignanty at your Shepard saying something that you SO did not mean?

Nope.

The only way I can imagine this even being possible is if you didn't give Shepard's responses any thought.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

It's rhetorical, the intent is humour.

If the intent is humour, that forces a specific sense of humour on him.  That's a terible idea.

If that's actually how it works, I will never choose the "humour" option anywhere in the game.

[Ziggeh]

Erika T wrote...
Wouldn't you rather sacrifice voice for being able to say WHAT you want?  Witht he wheel, you will not know.  The character will not be your own.  Have you never tutted indignanty at your Shepard saying something that you SO did not mean?

I suspect we've all been through this conversation before, but at this point I feel obliged to add: The full text system is prone to similar flaws if you approach it as attempting to convey information that is more important than the literal wording.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Taleroth wrote...

I'm actually okay with vague options.  What I dislike is the fact that voicing sets the mood.  No more can [Kill him] be reluctant, but necessary, when the choice elicits glee and laughter.

This is my biggest complaint with the voice.  It locks us into a single delivery of each line.

Even if that delivery is somehow perfect for the character you design, what about the next character?  It can't possibly be appropriate for a completely different character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

I suspect we've all been through this conversation before, but at this point I feel obliged to add: The full text system is prone to similar flaws if you approach it as attempting to convey information that is more important than the literal wording.

Only if you judge your success by the reaction of the NPCs, which is an approach to conversation I just don't understand.

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

It's rhetorical, the intent is humour.

If the intent is humour, that forces a specific sense of humour on him.  That's a terible idea.

If that's actually how it works, I will never choose the "humour" option anywhere in the game.

How would you not enforce without providing an array of humourous options?