992 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

Granted, there will be times when guessing what my character will say is rather obvious (investigation dialogues, when the paraphrase is the question topic,

So far, based on the demo, the investigation questions are the worst for not matching the spoken line.

[Nilbog79]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well they could leave potentially but I don't think it's linked to passively tracked approval or alignment, but circumstance and choice.

Also why does it force people?  It's not Mass Effect.  I plan on selecting different paraphrase options all the time based on situation and character.  

From what I've heard, you will be able to select some, say, aggressive dialogue options only if you were always choosing aggressive dialogue options before, which to me sounds exactly like ME paragon/renegade checks.
That's another thing that is kind of surprising, not only does the game allow you to always mindlessly click the top or bottom option, but it actually rewards you for it, like you accomplished something impressive.

Modifié par Nilbog79, 25 février 2011 - 12:57 .

[Darkeus]

I have to agree to disagree guys. I had no problem figuring what I was pretty much going to say. You guys are guessing, I was not.



With the tone already there, it doesn't take a great leap to figure what they are going to say.



And actually, when I picked "He is not alone", that is exactly what I expected. Heck, you know their dad died.... Again, not a great leap....

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm a bit concerned about the need to maximise one of those two scales.  Mike mentioned it in a recent video.

If my character design doesn't consistently agree or disagree with a given companion, then the game will see what I'm doing as waffling, when in fact I'm adhering to a strict position measured on a different scale.

Well let's take the cheese example.  Wouldn't your character have to have a Dairy Revelation for him/her to change their mind about it enough to not eventually result in maximizing it one way or the other?

That being said, why would you be concerned?  If your characters are flip-floppy on issues like that by nature, why should his or her companions end up feeling strongly (positively or negatively) about it at all?   

Nilbog79 wrote...

From what I've heard, you will be able to select some, say, aggressive dialogue options only if you were always choosing aggressive dialogue options before, which to me sounds exactly like ME paragon/renegade checks.

Except it has been described as not being as key to the game.  We'll have to see.  

Nilbog79 wrote...

That's another thing that is kind of surprising, not only does the game allow you to always mindlessly click the top or bottom option, but it actually rewards you for it, like you accomplished something impressive.

DAO allowed mindlessly picking all the nice, sarcastic, and angry options too.  The reward seems minor to me, more coloring something that wouldn't have been colored at all.

On balance it seems far from "forced."  Especially when compared to Mass Effect 1-2, games I cheat the scales in.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 25 février 2011 - 01:00 .

[stephen1493]

Darkeus wrote...

I have to agree to disagree guys. I had no problem figuring what I was pretty much going to say. You guys are guessing, I was not.

With the tone already there, it doesn't take a great leap to figure what they are going to say.

And actually, when I picked "He is not alone", that is exactly what I expected. Heck, you know their dad died.... Again, not a great leap....

For you it wasn't, but the problem is that the majority of DA2 players aren't going to be forumites who've lept on every bit of information like hungry dogs.

... Such as myself.

Modifié par stephen1493, 25 février 2011 - 01:01 .

[Darkeus]

But it says that in the demo as well! Right around teh beginning I believe....

[Infaela]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I would argue that the full text can never convey intent or tone, and that's a positive feature that I don't want to lose.

To others that's a negative feature.  Nothing is more annoying than picking a line that you think is conveying one feeling only to have the game treat it as another.  This happens to me a lot when I select lines that are just over the top and absurd to the point that I think they must be tongue in cheek, only to be taken absolutely literally, and maybe even have my options that follow tainted by the misunderstanding.  Like when my city elf said she was just thrilled to be getting married.  Straight text never conveys sarcasm.

If the problem for you is having a grasp of what the character is thinking while they say things, I'm not sure the dialogue wheel is really a problem.  After all, if you're thinking A while saying B you're still going to say B as if you mean it.  If the problem is that you want mental control of the tone in which B is delivered however... the voiced character is a problem.  But then, so is the way the characters respond to an unvoiced MC in the old list of options method.  Both a VA and NPC reactions to what you've said limit the realistic interpretations of what you meant when you said it.  It's a consequence of trying to define a character in a computer game, instead of writing a story yourself or playing a pnp rpg or the like.

[Ziggeh]

Nilbog79 wrote...

That's another thing that is kind of surprising, not only does the game allow you to always mindlessly click the top or bottom option, but it actually rewards you for it, like you accomplished something impressive.

Indeed, I find that a shame, and something I thought they'd intentionally moved away from with the absence of a trackable statistic behind the system.

I can see why it's been done this way. It certainly has an interesting effect on non chosen dialogue, like party banter and it does add complexity to the affair, but I can feel my metagaming senses tingling already. I'll have almost certainly convinced myself that my character was supposed to always be aggressive by about half way through the game.

[stephen1493]

Darkeus wrote...

But it says that in the demo as well! Right around teh beginning I believe....

There might have been a "If your father was here..."

I can't be sure.

But that doesn't mean based off that sentence that everyone knows he's dead.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Darkeus wrote...

I have to agree to disagree guys. I had no problem figuring what I was pretty much going to say.

"Pretty much" isn't good enough, because the specific details that matter will differ from character to character.

Unless they're forcing a pre-defined PC on us - and they say they aren't - the paraphrase can't work in all cases.

[upsettingshorts]

I can see where Sylvius (and Wakka and others) are coming from in at least one situation:

If you are playing a character who wants to withhold information, and your selected paraphrase ends up revealing it in the full line. That is a problem, but I'd call it one of execution not an indictment of the whole approach. They see the problems as more systemic in nature, hence these kinds of disagreements.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

I have to agree to disagree guys. I had no problem figuring what I was pretty much going to say.

"Pretty much" isn't good enough, because the specific details that matter will differ from character to character.

Unless they're forcing a pre-defined PC on us - and they say they aren't - the paraphrase can't work in all cases.

I'd like for them to say "we're forcing you to select from pre-defined options in order to form your own character from those choices, like we've always done."  But then, that'd be selfish because it supports my position.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 25 février 2011 - 01:08 .

[Darkeus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

I have to agree to disagree guys. I had no problem figuring what I was pretty much going to say.

"Pretty much" isn't good enough, because the specific details that matter will differ from character to character.

Unless they're forcing a pre-defined PC on us - and they say they aren't - the paraphrase can't work in all cases.

Again, I have to disagree with you.

In this game, it is really the tone that matters,

Hell, in real life tone is what really matters too.

And again, Full text cannot work in all cases either.  Full text can be just as mysterious with its intent and tone.
But you have your opinion and I have mine.  I don't see you changing and I shall not be either so we are at an impasse....

[stephen1493]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I can see where Sylvius (and Wakka and others) are coming from in at least one situation:

If you are playing a character who wants to withhold information, and your selected paraphrase ends up revealing it in the full line. That is a problem, but I'd call it one of execution not an indictment of the whole approach. They see the problems as more systemic in nature, hence these kinds of disagreements.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

I have to agree to disagree guys. I had no problem figuring what I was pretty much going to say.

"Pretty much" isn't good enough, because the specific details that matter will differ from character to character.

Unless they're forcing a pre-defined PC on us - and they say they aren't - the paraphrase can't work in all cases.

I'd like for them to say "we're forcing you to select from pre-defined options in order to form your own character from those choices, like we've always done."  But then, that'd be selfish because it'd support my position.  

The Jacob Taylor loyalty mission was a good example that this could be easily accomplished with paraphrasing, but I suppose with a different branch of the company working with the wheel we can't actually be sure that they'll be just as effective, if you wanted to withhold info.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well let's take the cheese example.  Wouldn't your character have to have a Dairy Revelation for him/her to change their mind about it enough to not eventually result in maximizing it one way or the other?

But if I oppose this specific cheese for reasons unrelated to cheese generally, the game will think I oppose cheese when that's not necessarily true.

That being said, why would you be concerned?  If your characters are flip-floppy on issues like that by nature, why should his or her companions end up feeling strongly (positively or negatively) about it at all?

Partly because I demand FF, so I'll be playing on Nightmare, where they tell me I need to play "optimally", and yet apparently I'll be eschewing a significant statistical bonus.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
First of all, Vael, I love that signature.  That is brilliant.

Thanks.  I found it pretty funny, particularly considering that I don't understand why anyone would buy diamonds.  I'd much rather have a more interesting stone like Lapus or Malachite.

Vaeliorin wrote...
I've only found it necessary with the ones with a voiced protagonist.

I don't appear able to play the game like that.  Again, I hope the intent icons will help, but overall I just don't think I'm going to find the choose-your-own-adventure style of gameplay sufficiently compelling to bother doing it.  

Luckily, there are loads of old games I haven't finished with to fill my time until the industry comes around and sees sense.

It's certainly not the most fun I can have with a game.  But I see it kind of like playing an action game (which I occasionally enjoy) with a more rewarding story.  Basically, it becomes more about having fun with the combat and watching a story be told to me, than trying to actually roleplay a character, which I know isn't something you enjoy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'd like for them to say "we're forcing you to select from pre-defined options in order to form your own character from those choices, like we've always done."  But then, that'd be selfish because it supports my position.

I don't see how that can even work.  If you don't already have the complete character in your head at the start, how do you make your first dialogue choice?  On what do you base the decision?  And if you haven't mapped it all out in advance, how do you maintain consistency?

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I can see where Sylvius (and Wakka and others) are coming from in at least one situation:
If you are playing a character who wants to withhold information, and your selected paraphrase ends up revealing it in the full line. That is a problem, but I'd call it one of execution not an indictment of the whole approach. They see the problems as more systemic in nature, hence these kinds of disagreements.

That is one of the better examples on why not knowing the full content of the line is a hindrance in the dialogue choices.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I'd like for them to say "we're forcing you to select from pre-defined options in order to form your own character from those choices, like we've always done."  But then, that'd be selfish because it'd support my position. 

And I'd argue back that when the full text was available, we were better informed when the game was railroading us and thus were better suited to make a compromise between our character concept and the game options. So yes, the choice may be limited, but we had better knowledge on our limits with the full line of text.

Modifié par Xewaka, 25 février 2011 - 01:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Darkeus wrote...

And again, Full text cannot work in all cases either.  Full text can be just as mysterious with its intent and tone.

The difference is, I don't want the game to give me intent and tone.  I want to do that myself.

Frankly, the game can't give me intent without the writers knowing something about who my character is, and they don't.  They know almost nothing about my character's personality, or his specific objectives or motives.

[panamakira]

I don't mind the dialogue wheel as much as you guys. I admit it is a bit confusing but nothing to cry about "the end of RPG elements in Bioware games". I do very much like that it gives you the icons as a way to know what kind of tone Hawke will be using and I like the whole "consistent personality" thing. I think it has so much possibility and I wonder how much that impacts a full gameplay. I'm looking forward to it....

I think people need to stop with, "If I don't like it it's dumb and if you like it you're dumb...." Also, I'm sure there are more people looking forward to the game, that all the negativity in the forums lately.

Seriously.<_<

Also it's perfectly ok to not like something. I'm not saying this game or Origins is perfect. Yes, Origins wasn't perfect.

Modifié par panamakira, 25 février 2011 - 01:17 .

[Wulfram]

I'm not particularly pro-cheese, but I am pro-cheese on toast. Does that make me a flip-flopper?

[Nilbog79]

[quote]Nilbog79 wrote...

That's another thing that is kind of surprising, not only does the game allow you to always mindlessly click the top or bottom option, but it actually rewards you for it, like you accomplished something impressive.[/quote]

DAO allowed mindlessly picking all the nice, sarcastic, and angry options too.  The reward seems minor to me, more coloring something that wouldn't have been colored at all.

On balance it seems far from "forced."  Especially when compared to Mass Effect 1-2, games I cheat the scales in.

[/quote]

I didn't find that DAO assigned the possible responses as angry, nice or sarcastic (at least not all of them). You could for example choose to kill a blood mage because the Chantry says you have to, or because what they did was repugnant to your morals, or because he/she attacked you. There were some obviously 'nice' and 'not nice' responses but there was a lot more moral ambiguity, and room for interpretation. Now there is zero moral ambiguity, you even have icons to tell you what end of moral spectrum you response falls into.
There still may be some room for roleplaying within this system, but probably far less than DAO.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

That is one of the better examples on why not knowing the full content of the line is a hindrance in the dialogue choices.

And this happens to me all the time because I see conversation as adversarial.

This is why I'm especially annoyed by the Investigate options.  Whenever I don't want to divulge information, I choose the question dialogue options because questions don't convey information.  But I can't do that even in the DA2 demo because the question paraphrase options produce spoken lines that are assertions rather than questions.

Interrogative sentences are different in kind from declarative sentences.  Never should one stand in for the other.

[soteria]

I dispute that questions don't convey information.

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

I dispute that questions don't convey information.

A lot of people do.

But think about it.  If questions can convey information, then they can convey false information.  That means you should be able to lie to me using only a question.

I invite you to try.

[Pritos]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

That is one of the better examples on why not knowing the full content of the line is a hindrance in the dialogue choices.

And this happens to me all the time because I see conversation as adversarial.

This is why I'm especially annoyed by the Investigate options.  Whenever I don't want to divulge information, I choose the question dialogue options because questions don't convey information.  But I can't do that even in the DA2 demo because the question paraphrase options produce spoken lines that are assertions rather than questions.

Interrogative sentences are different in kind from declarative sentences.  Never should one stand in for the other.

I don't see this as a problem when the second lead to the same response from the NPC as if we are actually asking them. Perhaps it is a problem if your taking hard on the Roleplaying feature.

Modifié par Pritos, 25 février 2011 - 01:21 .