992 réponses à ce sujet

[TMZuk]

I despise it!

[sevalaricgirl]

Worse. There aren't enough options and what the character is saying isn't what I meant to say, so no don't like it at all.

[Maconbar]

Erika T wrote...

JabberJaww wrote...

theenigma77 wrote...

Love the voiced main character, hate the wheel. Fuse Dragon Age: Origins choices with DA2 voice acting and BAM your golden. They think just because it worked in ME2 mean it will work here? Nah no way. Not when you get your customers accustomed to something else first.

Agree with this.. keep the voice over main char (which I love), but still have the full dialogue options like in DA:O.. best of both worlds. Oh well

I agree with this.


I am sure I will get a lot of hate for the following comment, but - mass effect is a much moe dumb game than DAO.  dumb story, dumb characters, some cool fighting - dont get me wrong, i playeed it though a couple of times, enjoyable enough, but nothing immersing or interesting.  I never looked at a single codex.  DAO is intelligent, clever, deep and full of lore thats a pleasure to explore.  I daresay it attracts a different core customer.  why dumb it down?

What do you specifically think has been dumbed down? I am not suggesting that parts having been simplified just want to know which parts you are talking about. Several of the reviews that I have seen praise DA:2 for making the lore even more connected to the game. Clearly that wasn't shown in the demo but I don't want huge spoilers so I am fine with that.

[Maconbar]

sevalaricgirl wrote...

Worse. There aren't enough options and what the character is saying isn't what I meant to say, so no don't like it at all.

Are there fewer dialogue options in DA:2 compared to DA:O?

[sevalaricgirl]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Also, I thought the demo delivered perfectly myself. While the whole sibling death is a writing technique used a lot in stories, it's how it's delivered in each story that keeps it from becoming trite, which you guys got perfect for here. I even started to tear up, and only maybe 4 other video games have made me either tear up or actually cry.

Actually, I thought Wesley's death was more poignant than Carver/Bethany as did many others who played the demo.  It is more emotional to watch Aveline have to help her husband kill himself than having sibling Hawke killed by the ogre.  There was no emotion there for me or my fellow gaming son and if you read the forum, many people felt the same way.

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 27 février 2011 - 03:01 .

[sevalaricgirl]

Maconbar wrote...

sevalaricgirl wrote...

Worse. There aren't enough options and what the character is saying isn't what I meant to say, so no don't like it at all.

Are there fewer dialogue options in DA:2 compared to DA:O?

Probably it was the demo but you have to agree that having a two or three word blurb and having the VO say something somewhat similar (and sometimes not what you expected) is very different than having the complete line that you read and get to choose from.  I like that much better and there are games out there that have VOs that do that, give you more of the line or even the whole line and then voice it.

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 27 février 2011 - 02:59 .

[upsettingshorts]

Maconbar wrote...

Are there fewer dialogue options in DA:2 compared to DA:O?

Per discusson they are exactly the same in number.   Like a conversation between Bob and Joe would have the same number of options.  Whether or not the inclusion of the voiceover meant that we don't get a conversation between Bob and Ted is the typical criticism.

sevalaricgirl wrote...

even the whole line and then voice it.

And I absolutely can't stand that. It's almost as bad as the silent PC, which is the worst.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 février 2011 - 02:58 .

[sevalaricgirl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Are there fewer dialogue options in DA:2 compared to DA:O?

Per discusson they are exactly the same in number.   Like a conversation between Bob and Joe would have the same number of options.  Whether or not the inclusion of the voiceover meant that we don't get a conversation between Bob and Ted is the typical criticism.

sevalaricgirl wrote...

even the whole line and then voice it.

And I absolutely can't stand that. It's almost as bad as the silent PC, which is the worst.

Well it's an opinion of course, but I thought I'd hate the silent PC and ended up loving it.  The demo only had three choices most of the time with some investigating and what came out of the VO's mouth wasn't the intention of some of the choices I picked but again it was only a demo.

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 27 février 2011 - 03:03 .

[Adhin]

I don't like silent PC's I just deal with em. It's not like that's a huge, down factor for me or anything, but I prefer a voiced PC. Makes the whole game come alive more for me at the very least. Also, voice or no, I like the wheel as it splits up investigation options so I'm never confused as to what will just be a basic question and what will advance the conversation.

That kinda thing often gets to me in chat-list based stuff. Having no clue what you can ask before it forces you to not be able to ask anything else in the list. That's one thing the Wheel clears up pretty easily. Plus I like the intent icons as that clears up a lot of other 'did he say that in away I thought he did? or does the NPC just not like that?".

And then, on top of that, the voicing just immerses me more in things for some reason. Just always feels awkward when everyone's voiced but your character.

-edit-
Oh and you also get less of that 'I want to talk about something else.' respond followed by the same, canned NPC response to that like "here I am' or "what do you want?'. It's just.. I dunno feels more organic? Less NPC-Robot.

Modifié par Adhin, 27 février 2011 - 03:27 .

[DJ0000]

my only problem is that the summarised sentence doesn't always make the intention of the comment clear.

I do play on console and I don't really like the idea of the pictures, I find it over simplified, but I'll just have to deal with it and possibly grow to like it when the full games comes out..

[Adhin]

I think the pictures are a good way to handle it, that is, if you know what the pictures mean. If you don't realize there directly tied to intent and don't bother reading the manual to link them together I can see them being a bit.. confusing. Partly because most of them aren't faces with expressions. Which I'm kinda glad for cause that would be awkward for most of them, and also be a bit confusing.

Either way they've said there detailed out in the manual so, thats what ill be reading while I load it to the HD. Make sure i know what they all mean prior to playing. Should make it all make more sense in the long run.

[Pcrews]

The dialogue wheel provides all the same types of responses as DAO, just in a different format. Why do people care whether others read or just look at the symbols. Worry about yourselves and how you will enjoy the game.

[TEWR]

sevalaricgirl wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Also, I thought the demo delivered perfectly myself. While the whole sibling death is a writing technique used a lot in stories, it's how it's delivered in each story that keeps it from becoming trite, which you guys got perfect for here. I even started to tear up, and only maybe 4 other video games have made me either tear up or actually cry.

Actually, I thought Wesley's death was more poignant than Carver/Bethany as did many others who played the demo.  It is more emotional to watch Aveline have to help her husband kill himself than having sibling Hawke killed by the ogre.  There was no emotion there for me or my fellow gaming son and if you read the forum, many people felt the same way.

well, not to be rude or anything, but how other people felt doesn't matter to me. I found Carver's/Bethany's death just as painful and saddening as Aveline killing her husband. It was pretty emotional to me. A sibling who sacrifices his/her own life, just to protect his/her mother, knowing full well that he/she most likely won't survive. That's tearjerking, given that both Hawke and Carver had fled from Ostagar.

But as I said, the opinions of other people will not change how I felt.

[DJ0000]

Adhin wrote...

I think the pictures are a good way to handle it, that is, if you know what the pictures mean. If you don't realize there directly tied to intent and don't bother reading the manual to link them together I can see them being a bit.. confusing. Partly because most of them aren't faces with expressions. Which I'm kinda glad for cause that would be awkward for most of them, and also be a bit confusing.

Either way they've said there detailed out in the manual so, thats what ill be reading while I load it to the HD. Make sure i know what they all mean prior to playing. Should make it all make more sense in the long run.

For me it's not that simple. Lets say I'm talking to some mages who I don't agree with and I click the start a fight button and my charecter says something like "For the Chantry!". I would absolutely despise that. I think giving the full lines better gives an indication of the exact tone of the line, but at the same time I understand that making people select an option and then having the charecter say the exact same thing would be totally redundant.

I am however willing to play the game before aking my final jusgement but it does have me slightly worried that I may end up having to load a few times because I make the wrong choice because I didn't understand the option.

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

An implication is an assertion not directly stated.

If it's indirectly stated, I'd agree with you.

The only implication that matters is that where the implied statement is logically guaranteed by the explicit content.  And that's not the case, here.

You're conflating two mutually exclusive uses of the word "implication".

No, they're not mutually exclusive.  The question implies that the man was beating his wife at some point. 

THe explicit content is the interrogative asking whether or not the man was beating his wife.  The implied statement is that the man beat his wife at some point. 

THe implication is guaranteed by the content of the questions, presuming the questioner is not lying about it in the first place.

I see no problem here.

[AlanC9]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

sevalaricgirl wrote...

even the whole line and then voice it.

And I absolutely can't stand that. It's almost as bad as the silent PC, which is the worst.

And Bio actually tested both systems. The focus groups agreed with Upsettingshorts, not sevalaricgirl.

[AlanC9]

DJ0000 wrote...
For me it's not that simple. Lets say I'm talking to some mages who I don't agree with and I click the start a fight button and my charecter says something like "For the Chantry!".

That's a problem with the dialog system only if the paraphrase doesn't imply that you're on the Chantry side. Otherwise, it's a symptom of the general RPG issue that you only get the lines the devs did write, not  the ones you wish they had written.

[AkiKishi]

Another negative seems to be that a Hawke who does not stick to a particular path appears to have multiple personalities because of the inflection the VO's put on the various tones.

[tmp7704]

AlanC9 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

sevalaricgirl wrote...

even the whole line and then voice it.

And I absolutely can't stand that. It's almost as bad as the silent PC, which is the worst.

And Bio actually tested both systems. The focus groups agreed with Upsettingshorts, not sevalaricgirl.

Which totally means the right conclusion to draw from it is to make that way mandatory for everyone, and if you happen to have the opposite preference then well, too bad for you.

[DJ0000]

AlanC9 wrote...

DJ0000 wrote...
For me it's not that simple. Lets say I'm talking to some mages who I don't agree with and I click the start a fight button and my charecter says something like "For the Chantry!".

That's a problem with the dialog system only if the paraphrase doesn't imply that you're on the Chantry side. Otherwise, it's a symptom of the general RPG issue that you only get the lines the devs did write, not  the ones you wish they had written.

I understand what you mean and you make a very good point. I was just saying that in the demo there were a couple of times when the options didn't quite imply what I thought they meant I'm just hoping that the storyline choices are nice and clear.

I still have faith in BioWare and hopefully that will be rewarded..

[The Gentle Ben]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maconbar wrote...
Are there fewer dialogue options in DA:2 compared to DA:O?

Per discusson they are exactly the same in number.

This may be true, and isn't a primary problem (for me), by all means have a UI with the investigate feature, but I don't like the way it functionally appears to limit possibilities for dialogue progression to 3 (sometimes more progression options could be appropriate and the Wheel doesn't support that well). Basically I don't see why it has to be configured as a wheel with three options (spokes?). Also the options subsequent linkage to tone targeting is potentially problematic, which is why I would have preferred a wider range of potential emotions (as opposed to 3 primary), so as to write and then assign (a tone) as opposed to assign (a tone) and then write. This is why I would have preferred a scaling metric for the dominant tone (which I think is a great initial concept. Also you could still only have 3 dominant tones (although 5 would be better, hybrid tones FTW) for resource concerns) as opposed to a counter.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Whether or not the inclusion of the voiceover meant that we don't get a conversation between Bob and Ted is the typical criticism.

This isn't really my concern unless the protagonist is named Bob. I feel the resources will be found to implement the designed plots. My only issue with VO is a worry that its adoption (which I still advocate (I mean if you're going to have cinematics it just doesn't work otherwise)) will consign us to defined protagonists (which are fine on a case by case basis), and as a result limit us entirely to the human perspective, which I tend to find the least interesting within fantasy settings.

sevalaricgirl wrote...
even the whole line and then voice it.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
And I absolutely can't stand that. It's almost as bad as the silent PC, which is the worst.

Which I get, or at least acknowledge that you (and potentially the majority) must feel this way. I found your discussion with Sylvius enlightening. The main problem for me is that the paraphrase system makes me treat dialogue far more akin to combat. I save before it and load if I dislike the outcome. I'm usually okay with this, but my tolerance level decreases dramatically once I start encountering examples where the output is sufficiently discordant to my intent. I'm not advocating the removal of paraphrases, and I don't even know if I would use a full-text opt-in option if it were provided, but the more of the above cases I encounter the more likely it would become.

I'm trying to tread carefully here, but I'm probably going to doom a few kittens along the way. I'm a computer scientist (among other things) and while it's beyond possible there's something in play that I don't understand, the fact that the subtitles are linked to the paraphrases appears to be self evident, as they trigger on selection. As this is the case, it seems (to my mind) that the inclusion of a full-text display bubble/box/field for hover/mouse-over would not have been a difficult inclusion and would neatly solve (or mitigate) many people's problems with the system. The main problem would probably be testing, as the check would likely have to be performed on a dialogue by dialogue basis (still depending on how the system is configured a simple iterative test case could run through the dialogue trees to identify proper vs. improper flagging). I suppose its resource requirements would be comparable to the helmet/no helmet feature.

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 27 février 2011 - 06:41 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Well, this is really the only situation i could think of where the intent couldn't be conveyed through text, any other (like happiness or anger which you mention) seem rather simple as long as the writer is being careful.

I'm not sure. I think you could try and use exclamation and context to indicate something, but I still thing you run into the problem of ambiguity. Take this sort of line:

"How could you?"

Would this allow me to play a stoic PC? Could I choose this line if I wanted to actually know the literal detail, or would it always be taken as an indicaton of being hurt? Without tone, I have to guess.

We shouldn't be unfair to the writing process, though. Like I said above: context does a lot to disambiguate. But I think it does this universally. The context allows you to infer what the action/reaction is going to be.

In the wheel (in DA2) the tone icon then tells you how it is going to be said and the paraphrase gives you an idea of what will be said.

Where you and I will disagree is how much it actually matters what the content of what you say is (in a game). I'd happily agree with you in principle that when we actually speak, how we word things matter. But in a game, how a thing is worked is only tangentially related to how my character would say it. I always have to compromise on speech; so not knowing the precise dialogue in advance is to me no loss at all, while VO as a whole does very much work.

To summarize: I think silent VO always has a consistent implicit tone, which is the tone the writers give the line as they write it to have NPCs react to it. I also think that none of the dialogue options are ever really representative of what my character would say in an ideal world, so I always have to choose the best of a bad lot. Beyond that, I think VO brings several design benefits to the table.

Although if your point is that while this is "only" one such situation, it can be frequent enough to make it a quite common problem then yes, that's probably a fair objection. I think these ways i mentioned can be used to mark the intent are a way to address it, though. Or it could be the intent icons, they're simple and functional after all.

Right. But intent icons don't actually avoid the 3 path RPG. According to David Gaidner, there are 12 tone indicators in DA2. That's not much different than what you could realistically get in a silent VO game, so to address the OP, I don't think a "3 path" RPG system is at all dependent on VO.

I think it is just a design constraint, since you need coherent NPC reactions and so you need predictable and known PC tones to react to, which means reduced expression (in terms of what the PC can say).

Hmm but isn't this one tied just to the VO, not really the paraphrase? I don't think having full text of your responses rather than paraphrases would in itself prevent the character from having voice and so he/she would still be able to take the active role. There's of course the issue of people possibly skipping the VO because they already know the text, but #1 that still doesn't prevent the character from being active in the first place and #2 that's why i'd rather have the full text as option for these who value precision over the element of surprise when it comes to what their character gets to say.

Right. I think that building the case for VO is important, though. If you and I are agreed that we're implementing VO, then we have a practical debate about the best way to implement it.

#2 I know is a problem for you, but as I tried to address above, it's not really the surprise that's a problem but rather your belief about neccesary control for an RPG that is your obstacle, and my argument (actually, I don't think that's accurate - let's say my confusion, instead) is that you could never to it in DA:O or any silent RPG released in the first place.

Well, i have to disagree with this based on the experience with DA2 demo -- the possibility that paraphrase didn't match the line entirely caused me to hesitate and second-guess while picking my responses, which slowed me down and introduced element of frustration which reduced enjoyment. And if reduction of enjoyment is recognized as problem where it comes to "reading twice" then it's only fair to recognize it as problem here. As such, removing this problem can certainly have value, imo.

Oh, I understand how you feel entirely. This is how I feel about silent VO. This is why I dislike it - because I'm constantly trying to figure out what exactly my PC will say. Tone is just such an important thing... and it's not just tone. Sometimes it's the entire character.

Take the Morrigain romance. One of my PCs was not really a believer in love. But he did believe in fidelity. Morrigain, at least prima facie, doesn't. But you can never have a debate about an exclusive sexual relationship without talking about love, with you as the initiator of love. There's just a fixed conversation there that isn't available for my PC.

So I'm left with two choices: either take a casual path, which is not what my PC would do, or initiate an "I love you" path, which is not what my PC would do. In the end, I went with what was close, despite the issue.

This effect happens because what my character says matters to me as much as what effect it has in the world -- i treat it as reflection of their personality so when character says something that i don't think they'd say being what they are, it creates a jarring gap, a sense of disconnection from the person in the game.

Right. And I think, like I said, this is part of our disagreement. I tread personality like an orientation. Basically, if Hawke's persnality is will he use an aggresive tone or angry tone when talking to Bethany? DA2 actually closely captures my intuition about personality, which is why I really like the system. What Hawke says has nothing to do with personality.

In fact, despite my saying that wording matters, I think that's more a matter of purpose than personality. I don't think the words you choose say something about you in most cases.

It looks your reply got cut off at this point, unfortunately

Yes. I wrote what I was going to say in the first parapgraph above. Mistakes happen?

[In Exile]

The Gentle Ben wrote..

This may be true, and isn't a primary problem (for me), by all means have a UI with the investigate feature, but I don't like the way it functionally appears to limit possibilities for dialogue progression to 3 (sometimes more progression options could be appropriate and the Wheel doesn't support that well). 

According to David, this was the case in DA:O as well. You often had 3 choices. Sometimes you had 4, but 1 was a trap choice, in that it would just skip part of the conversation. Other times 2 of the choices led to the same line, but were worded differently. I don't think the wheel gives you a material difference in content, and does have the advantage of tiping you off on when dialogue "moves foward".

It makes it more artificial... but I think it needs to be more artificial and game like to an extent to better model the kind of control we have in real conversations, since in part we end them at our leisure.

Basically I don't see why it has to be configured as a wheel with three options (spokes?). Also the options subsequent linkage to tone targeting is potentially problematic, which is why I would have preferred a wider range of potential emotions (as opposed to 3 primary), so as to write and then assign (a tone) as opposed to assign (a tone) and then write. This is why I would have preferred a scaling metric for the dominant tone (which I think is a great initial concept. Also you could still only have 3 dominant tones (although 5 would be better, hybrid tones FTW) for resource concerns) as opposed to a counter.

How can you write without assigning a tone? As a linguistic problem, I'm willing to stake a lot on the fact that people likely come up with the broad outline of what they want to say before they actually word it.

[The Gentle Ben]

In Exile wrote...
How can you write without assigning a tone? As a linguistic problem, I'm willing to stake a lot on the fact that people likely come up with the broad outline of what they want to say before they actually word it.

You misunderstand me (or perhaps are deliberately misconstruing my position). I'm not claiming that you can write without a tone. My point was that due to the focus on three primary tones, responses are targeted to those tones firstly and the situation secondly. I would prefer if the focus was on merely writing reasonable responses/reactions to the situation and then determining the tone (icon/category) that best fit the writen line as opposed to trying to write responses to fill a category.

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 27 février 2011 - 07:09 .

[The Gentle Ben]

In Exile wrote...
I don't think the wheel gives you a material difference in content, and does have the advantage of tiping you off on when dialogue "moves foward".

I acknowledge that advantage but don't believe it exclusive to the wheel interface as constructed. As I said this is not a major concern (and more a theoretical than a practical one), but the fact that the system is structurally limited (sortof, I realize it's not entirely) to three can be problematic in cases where more than three options reasonably could/should be supported. Also, the fact that it is so explicitly arranged around a 3 response interface holds the additional concern of categorizing those slots/responses to a degree that can be subconsciously (or even explicitly) limiting to the writers in terms of the expressions/implementations of alternate intents.

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 27 février 2011 - 07:20 .