992 réponses à ce sujet

[bloodyfall]

you are playing a character, not playing yourself. Be happy that you get dialog choices period. bioware is the only rpg developer that lets you make any choices as far as character developments go (other than bethesda but they don't do it nearly as well/ every character i play feels like he has zero personality). thats why i love bioware games. There is no debate to be had if the choice was would you like to make choices or would you like the characters to be fully developed without your say-so? Who cares if those choices are put into a wheel.

[The Gentle Ben]

bloodyfall wrote...
you are playing a character, not playing yourself.

I agree. Your point? Characters (or good ones at any rate) still have underlying characteristics, traits and personalities that combine to create a consistent persona. To what degree the options allow, support and react to such personas is one means of evaluating the implementation of the dialogue, plot and character development systems.

bloodyfall wrote...
Be happy that you get dialog choices period.

We are ... I guess? This statement contains about as much intellectual depth as: "Be happy you have food. What you want better food? You insatiable ingrate!" The contention under discussion is whether or not the dialogue system as constructed is: A.) optimal; B.) can be improved; and C.) in what manner. Being glad you have something is not the same as being completely happy with what you are provided, as that tends to indicate a lack of desire for improvement, and I doubt even Bioware is entirely content with the current system.

bloodyfall wrote...
bioware is the only rpg developer that lets you make any choices as far as character developments go.

While almost certainly incorrect, okay? That doesn't mean their implementations are flawless or cannot be scrutinized to their potential improvement.

bloodyfall wrote...
There is no debate to be had if the choice was would you like to make choices or would you like the characters to be fully developed without your say-so?

This goes back to my food example.

bloodyfall wrote...
Who cares if those choices are put into a wheel.

People care to the extent that they are unsatisfied with the offerings, or wonder if a better alternative interface/system exists. I can understand having a contradictory opinion with those who are critiquing the wheel/paraphrase system, but expressing anger that the discussion is even being had seems ... strange to me.

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 27 février 2011 - 08:30 .

[Nilbog79]

It seems The Witcher (another rpg) has a system where you have a voiced protagonist but the dialogue choices list exactly what the protagonist will say. So if one of the options is "We have to go", you click on it and the main hero will say "We have to go". It seems like such a system would at least solve the paraphrasing problem, while still keeping the voiced main hero.

[In Exile]

The Gentle Ben wrote...
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.

I did misunderstand. So what you're saying, essentially, is that the way they're handling tone right now is "game-y" and so makes conversations feel contrived. You'd rather there'd be cases where you didn't have one kind of dialogue option available at all, as context warranted?

If so, I agree with you. In principle. The problem is, how do you implement this sort of thing and retain a consistent voice and not make players feel even more railroaded with a particular kind of expression?

The Gentle Ben wrote...
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.

Technically, the wheel has 6 slots. With an investigate hub, they could have 5 options (ME2 does this sometimes). I don't think it is any worse that the character limit on the paraphrase or the character limit in the old DA:O blurbs.

I just don't see the list as inherently better UI, because all it does is add the investigate options to the main hub when they're available. I don't think the writers write with a limit on your options in mind, though they may have done this in Mass Effect (where 3 options - paragon/neutral/renegade) made sense.

In general, though, I think we find 3 options as the basis not beacuse of the wheel, but rather because that's the most cost justified and manageable approach.

[The Gentle Ben]

In Exile wrote...
I just don't see the list as inherently better UI, because all it does is add the investigate options to the main hub when they're available. I don't think the writers write with a limit on your options in mind, though they may have done this in Mass Effect (where 3 options - paragon/neutral/renegade) made sense.

I'm not particularly advocating a return to the Origins List, why not a resizable box (you can even keep the intent icon in place), I don't really care, just something with a greater degree of flexibility might be less constraining both functionally and to the writers' approach.

In Exile wrote...
In general, though, I think we find 3 options as the basis not beacuse of the wheel, but rather because that's the most cost justified and manageable approach.

I'm fairly certain you're correct, which is why my objection was more conceptual/theoretical than immediate/practical in its outlook. My main concern is that the developers not become locked in to the interface (with its limitations) per say, and evaluate the feasability of increased responses on a project by project basis.

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 27 février 2011 - 09:01 .

[Nilbog79]

In Exile wrote...

The Gentle Ben wrote...
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.

I did misunderstand. So what you're saying, essentially, is that the way they're handling tone right now is "game-y" and so makes conversations feel contrived. You'd rather there'd be cases where you didn't have one kind of dialogue option available at all, as context warranted?

If so, I agree with you. In principle. The problem is, how do you implement this sort of thing and retain a consistent voice and not make players feel even more railroaded with a particular kind of expression?

The Gentle Ben wrote...
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.

Technically, the wheel has 6 slots. With an investigate hub, they could have 5 options (ME2 does this sometimes). I don't think it is any worse that the character limit on the paraphrase or the character limit in the old DA:O blurbs.

I just don't see the list as inherently better UI, because all it does is add the investigate options to the main hub when they're available. I don't think the writers write with a limit on your options in mind, though they may have done this in Mass Effect (where 3 options - paragon/neutral/renegade) made sense.

In general, though, I think we find 3 options as the basis not beacuse of the wheel, but rather because that's the most cost justified and manageable approach.

I believe investigative options, no matter how many there are, have to be neutral and do not move a conversation forward. They are just an optional request for further information.

[The Gentle Ben]

In Exile wrote...
So what you're saying, essentially, is that the way they're handling tone right now is "game-y" and so makes conversations feel contrived. You'd rather there'd be cases where you didn't have one kind of dialogue option available at all, as context warranted?

Essentially yes.

In Exile wrote...
If so, I agree with you. In principle. The problem is, how do you implement this sort of thing and retain a consistent voice and not make players feel even more railroaded with a particular kind of expression?

I must admit I fail to see the problem as you describe it. Write options as they come logically, assign them on the scale where they fall. Does it matter fundamentally, say, if you have two aggressive responses (with different areas of focus) and 1 diplomatic, as opposed to the need to fill the charming/humorous spoke.

I'll even use this opportunity to combine my two points. We'll use the scene following Carver's death as an example. Even though it's been examined exhaustively by this point, it seems a worthy illustration. Your mother is crying over his body, our existing choices are:
1. He risked himself to save us. (Diplomatic)
2. He's with father now (Charming)
3. We're wasting time (Aggressive)

Why not add option 4. Vengeance: "These souless bastards will pay" (Aggressive) It was the option, I myself and (apparently) others were looking for. If the reason for its ommission were either 1.) we've filled the three spokes, or 2.) we already have an aggressive option, then I view that as a mark against the dialogue interface as implemented.

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 27 février 2011 - 09:18 .

[AlanC9]

Nilbog79 wrote...

It seems The Witcher (another rpg) has a system where you have a voiced protagonist but the dialogue choices list exactly what the protagonist will say. So if one of the options is "We have to go", you click on it and the main hero will say "We have to go". It seems like such a system would at least solve the paraphrasing problem, while still keeping the voiced main hero.

Yep, except that Bio's focus group testing showed that people preferred paraphrases to reading the exact line they're going to hear the character say next.

[AlanC9]

The Gentle Ben wrote...
I'll even use this opportunity to combine my two points. We'll use the scene following Carver's death as an example. Even though it's been examined exhaustively by this point, it seems a worthy illustration. Your mother is crying over his body, our existing choices are:
1. He risked himself to save us. (Diplomatic)
2. He's with father now (Charming)
3. We're wasting time (Aggressive)

Why not add option 4. Vengeance: "These souless bastards will pay" (Aggressive) It was the option, I myself and (apparently) others were looking for. If the reason for its ommission were either 1.) we've filled the three spokes, or 2.) we already have an aggressive option, then I view that as a mark against the dialogue interface as implemented.

Yeah. If that's the reason.

What if they didn't do option 4 because they .... just didn't do an option 4? If DA2 had DAO's dialogue system, that's no guarantee at all that you would have had that option.

[The Gentle Ben]

AlanC9 wrote...

Nilbog79 wrote...
It seems The Witcher (another rpg) has a system where you have a voiced protagonist but the dialogue choices list exactly what the protagonist will say. It seems like such a system would at least solve the paraphrasing problem, while still keeping the voiced main hero.

Yep, except that Bio's focus group testing showed that people preferred paraphrases to reading the exact line they're going to hear the character say next.

People as in some people, ostensibly the majority of people, but hardly all people. Some people prefer the full-text option, and for some people (not myself) the paraphrase is a deal-breaker or a major detriment, so the degree to which Bioware wishes to support the preferences of those individuals is a calculation they have to make.

[shelledfade]

wowpwnslol wrote...

It's worse. Made for ADD kids too lazy to read, so they even added pictures. I hate ME style dialogue "wheel" it screams console oversimplification.

Agreed.

[The Gentle Ben]

AlanC9 wrote...
What if they didn't do option 4 because they .... just didn't do an option 4? If DA2 had DAO's dialogue system, that's no guarantee at all that you would have had that option.

That's always a possibilty. My basic point is that a more flexible system leads to more flexible options, and that combining tone-targeting with the wheel interface may have led to a decrease in otherwise rationale offerings.

[AlanC9]

The Gentle Ben wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Nilbog79 wrote...
It seems The Witcher (another rpg) has a system where you have a voiced protagonist but the dialogue choices list exactly what the protagonist will say. It seems like such a system would at least solve the paraphrasing problem, while still keeping the voiced main hero.

Yep, except that Bio's focus group testing showed that people preferred paraphrases to reading the exact line they're going to hear the character say next.

People as in some people, ostensibly the majority of people, but hardly all people. Some people prefer the full-text option, and for some people (not myself) the paraphrase is a deal-breaker or a major detriment, so the degree to which Bioware wishes to support the preferences of those individuals is a calculation they have to make.

And they've made that calculation.

I notice that the people who are violently opposed to VO don't try to say they're in the majority anymore. Usually they'll say something like the "core fanbase."

"The really important fans dislike this feature, and Bio should have listened to us rather than all these other idiots."

[The Gentle Ben]

Sigh, are you just trying to be offensive?

I've noticed a tendency for people to lump other people into categories they don't belong in with no evidence as a simplistic means of dismissing their arguments.

I'm not opposed to VO, never bother to claim I'm in the majority (as what I'm concerned about is rationality, quality and practicality), and have never dismissed the preferences of fans that disagree with me. Although, I am close to dismissing your opinions.

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 27 février 2011 - 09:56 .

[AlanC9]

The Gentle Ben wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
What if they didn't do option 4 because they .... just didn't do an option 4? If DA2 had DAO's dialogue system, that's no guarantee at all that you would have had that option.

That's always a possibilty. My basic point is that a more flexible system leads to more flexible options, and that combining tone-targeting with the wheel interface may have led to a decrease in otherwise rationale offerings.

Or it increased them, since Bio now needs to make sure there are always three options present.

Or it did nothing much at all, except  draw our attention to the essentially arbitrary nature of RPG dialogue, whether voiced or not.

I considered trying to analyze DAO's dialog files, but I can't think of any coherent way to distinguish action choices from character-defining lines.

[Morroian]

Nilbog79 wrote...

It seems The Witcher (another rpg) has a system where you have a voiced protagonist but the dialogue choices list exactly what the protagonist will say. So if one of the options is "We have to go", you click on it and the main hero will say "We have to go". It seems like such a system would at least solve the paraphrasing problem, while still keeping the voiced main hero.

This is seen as redundant and the majority of people would fast forward through the actual spoken scene. However I do think to appease those who want it it should have been added, I doubt it would have taken much effort.

[DocSun]

Clonedzero wrote...

in all honesty, its not that different from what origins was like. its just not all listed out.<br />
<br />
(nice continue option)<br />
(snarky continue dialogue option)<br />
(mean continue dialogue option)<br />
(ask clarifying question dialogue option #1 i.e investigate)<br />
(ask clarifying question dialogue option #2 i.e investigate)<br />
(ask clarifying question dialogue option #3 i.e investigate)<br />
(stab the dude dialogue option)<br />
<br />
its just presented in a wheel this time.

QFT seriously why do people have a problem with this...

[Maconbar]

The Gentle Ben wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Nilbog79 wrote...
It seems The Witcher (another rpg) has a system where you have a voiced protagonist but the dialogue choices list exactly what the protagonist will say. It seems like such a system would at least solve the paraphrasing problem, while still keeping the voiced main hero.

Yep, except that Bio's focus group testing showed that people preferred paraphrases to reading the exact line they're going to hear the character say next.

People as in some people, ostensibly the majority of people, but hardly all people. Some people prefer the full-text option, and for some people (not myself) the paraphrase is a deal-breaker or a major detriment, so the degree to which Bioware wishes to support the preferences of those individuals is a calculation they have to make.

And BW is well aware of that. Gaider has written repeatedly about the compromises associated with VO +paraphrasing.

[AtreiyaN7]

shelledfade wrote...

wowpwnslol wrote...

It's worse. Made for ADD kids too lazy to read, so they even added pictures. I hate ME style dialogue "wheel" it screams console oversimplification.

Agreed.

I don't agree. You know what's easy? Easy is reading a couple of lines of text where everything is spelled out for you in detail. One could argue that the paraphrase system requires you to be able to understand nuance and make the mental connections between vocal tone (via the intent icon) and the paraphrases.

[The Gentle Ben]

AlanC9 wrote...
Or it increased them, since Bio now needs to make sure there are always three options present.

Or it did nothing much at all, except  draw our attention to the essentially arbitrary nature of RPG dialogue, whether voiced or not.

Sure, but at the very least, the system's adoption appears to have conceptually limited dialogue progression to three options (whether that is more/less/equal on average to DA:O or not) and further delineated those options to match specific tones. I don't believe those points are up for debate, and it seems reasonable for some to consider those structural limitations problematic.

[The Gentle Ben]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
One could argue that the paraphrase system requires you to be able to understand nuance and make the mental connections between vocal tone (via the intent icon) and the paraphrases.

I agree with this. I think the paraphrase system is actually more challenging on average, which is fine so long as the dialogue implementations are presented clearly enough to be able to accurately anticipate outcome within an acceptable range.

[AlanC9]

The Gentle Ben wrote...

Sigh, are you just trying to be offensive?

Not trying, no. I didn't mean to imply that you were in that category.

But we both know that category exists.

[Demo-Mike]

No, this is not good system...

Give options

[Morroian]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I don't agree. You know what's easy? Easy is reading a couple of lines of text where everything is spelled out for you in detail. One could argue that the paraphrase system requires you to be able to understand nuance and make the mental connections between vocal tone (via the intent icon) and the paraphrases.

QFT

[Nilbog79]

Morroian wrote...

Nilbog79 wrote...

It seems The Witcher (another rpg) has a system where you have a voiced protagonist but the dialogue choices list exactly what the protagonist will say.  It seems like such a system would at least solve the paraphrasing problem, while still keeping the voiced main hero.

This is seen as redundant and the majority of people would fast forward through the actual spoken scene. However I do think to appease those who want it it should have been added, I doubt it would have taken much effort.

I'm guessing it will be technically quite easy, if time consuming, to mod. I dislike the wheel system as a whole, but for a lot of people it seems paraphrasing is the main problem with it.

Modifié par Nilbog79, 27 février 2011 - 10:22 .