189 réponses à ce sujet

[el-jasho]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ignoble Fat Man wrote...

Sylvius is a troll. He does jump to conclusions. Notice his lack of question marks as an example of making statements and not asking questions. Sometimes he does try to make his statements questions but obviously is drawing conclusions before getting answers.

DA2 is a game not a life simulator.

Sylvius is not a troll. I hate it when people say that. Just because he's unreasonable in his refusal to compromise what he sees as the lifeblood of CRPGs doesn't mean he's a troll.

Does make him hard quite hard to deal with though

[David Gaider]

KratosAuron wrote...
I think that Bioware should think about adding Hawke (or the next protaganist for that matter) to the party banter. They gave Hawke a voice so they expect me to believe that my companions will only talk randomly amongst each other and only include Hawke when they want something. It happened so rarely in DA:O. and it was always a full blown conversation. I just think it would add to the realism and connection I am supposed to feel for Hawke and my companions.

What do you think?

We didn't do a great deal of that in DA2, but we're playing with the idea a bit more now. The thing is primarily to avoid the line where we cross into a "full-blown conversation" where the player's character is saying things they would never say and instead have a situation where the party member is doing the majority of the talking... but it's still at least them talking to the player as opposed to simply another party member, with the player's responses dictated by their dominant personality.

[Dominus]

Interesting food for thought. It's certainly something worth exploring. Sounds like a bit of a balancing act from a writing perspective...

Modifié par DominusVita, 07 mars 2011 - 06:26 .

[mesmerizedish]

David Gaider wrote...

We didn't do a great deal of that in DA2, but we're playing with the idea a bit more now. The thing is primarily to avoid the line where we cross into a "full-blown conversation" where the player's character is saying things they would never say and instead have a situation where the party member is doing the majority of the talking... but it's still at least them talking to the player as opposed to simply another party member, with the player's responses dictated by their dominant personality.

I'm okay with responses like "Yes," "No," and "You don't say?" (Sylvius probably isn't even okay with that ) What I don't want is my character saying... well, anything of substance without my input. I'm supposed to be this character, so even if I'm forced to choose from a short list of lines, I want to be able to choose from that short list of lines

[Mad Method]

You know you can just dump in a dialogue wheel without making a cutscene. If you don't respond quickly enough you're assumed to be silent for whatever reason the character may think.

[Ignoble Fat Man]

A troll argues for the sake of it with no productive outcome.  If he has a certain vision of a CRPG then he should find the games he likes to play and purchase them.

DA2 was developed with a certain style in mind.  Yes he might disagree with the style but arguing about it continually doesn't change the fact that his vision of Dragon Age and the BioWare development teams are not the same.  He can always purchase games that fall into his category but instead he would rather Dragon Age conform to what he wants instead of follow the vision of BioWare and its Developers.  So, yes he is trolling because he is not trying to be constructive with his statements he is trying to generate anger and confrontation with BioWare and amongst its customers.

[bill4747bill]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

bill4747bill wrote...

Solution that would perhaps please Sylvius:

A toggle for 'Hawke Banter Involvement'

Options are good, right?

Options suck, but toggles fix everything

True, but we can call using a toggle an option.

[mesmerizedish]

Filament wrote...

I remember one banter in Origins where Alistair was gossiping with one of the other companions and he said, "Look, he (the Warden)'s not even listening!"

I think, ideally, the way banter would work would be that there would be a sort of "listen in" button that shows up, like the interrupt button, and if you choose that it becomes a full-blown conversation with the possibility of choosing options where appopriate. Otherwise the companions act as if the PC isn't listening.

If they really wanted to involve the PC with party banter, I think this is a good way to do it. I wouldn't complain at all if they just kept it entirely NPC-involved, though.

[Mad Method]

Filament, that's a good idea but I also think party members should be allowed to try to start banters with you (and vice-versa).

Ignoble Fat Man wrote...

[snip] He can always purchase games that fall into his category but instead he would rather Dragon Age conform to what he wants instead of follow the vision of BioWare and its Developers.  So, yes he is trolling because he is not trying to be constructive with his statements he is trying to generate anger and confrontation with BioWare and amongst its customers.

What you just said made so little sense I was reminded of this: http://tvtropes.org/...nsaneTrollLogic

Modifié par Mad Method, 07 mars 2011 - 06:46 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ignoble Fat Man wrote...

Sometimes he does try to make his statements questions but obviously is drawing conclusions before getting answers.

For anyone following along at home, the above is an excellent example of jumping to conclusions.

David Gaider wrote...

The thing is primarily to avoid the line where we cross into a "full-blown conversation" where the player's character is saying things they would never say

It's good to know you're keeping that pitfall in mind.

[mesmerizedish]

Ignoble Fat Man wrote...

So, yes he is trolling because he is not trying to be constructive with his statements he is trying to generate anger and confrontation with BioWare and amongst its customers.

Mad Method already called you out on being unintelligible, so I won't bother. I do want to answer this, though.

Sylvius is trying to be constructive. He has goals, valuable goals, that he hopes to achieve via inciting intelligent discussion between intelligent people. Since you clearly have no interest in being a part of such discussions, your post serves no pupose but make stupid people pissed off at Sylvius. Hey. That actually kinda sounds like trolling

[Beerfish]

Ignoble Fat Man wrote...

Sylvius is a troll. He does jump to conclusions. Notice his lack of question marks as an example of making statements and not asking questions. Sometimes he does try to make his statements questions but obviously is drawing conclusions before getting answers.

DA2 is a game not a life simulator.

I disagree, he's one of the few people that consistently posts contraian views that I wouldn't classify as a troll.  I don't agree with the majority of what Sylvius says but there are just a whole bucket load of real trolls to look at before him.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius is not a troll. He has a consistent, honest, and well-reasoned position based upon his particular interests and playstyle. His position is simply idiosyncratic.

And I pretty much always disagree with him.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 mars 2011 - 06:45 .

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It's good to know you're keeping that pitfall in mind.

I think your bar of "things my character would never say" is set in a far different place from where we set it, however. You want to micromanage every single word out of your character's mouth, and that's not going to happen anytime soon. That said, having the player character express beliefs or opinions that the player didn't choose (outside of flavor provided by the player's chosen tone)... yes, that would definitely cross a line.

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius is not a troll. He has a consistent, honest, and well-reasoned position based upon his particular interests and playstyle. His position is simply idiosyncratic.

And I pretty much always disagree with him.

I love how all of us who rush to defend Sylvius almost always disagree with anything he says

[JasmoVT]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
So saying that you want 100% control is something you just won't have the way I see it. You may have found origins that you liked in DAO and options that you preferred to take in conversations, but you still never had 100% control. My opinion? I'm perfectly fine with this. I love the characters that I create, and I love the directions the developers take them. I don't need 100% control in DA2. No one had it in Origins, so it isn't necessary in DA2 either.[/quote]
A I've alrady explained, DAO gave us 100% control within a limited range of possible behaviour.  But everything we did was something we chose to do.

This involuntary party banter system denies us that.  Just as the paraphrase system does.[/quote]

...and here I would have thought you were familiar with the phenomenom of things coming out of peoples mouths without their really thinking about them.

[David Gaider]

Filament wrote...
Isn't that sort of what happens when you walk over a trigger and a conversation starts automatically? (like "Wait... where are we going?")

No. Banter is ambient (as in non-cinematic) dialogue... meaning you continue to move about and do whatever else you're doing while the conversation is taking place. We cannot bring up the dialogue wheel during such conversations (yet, anyhow).

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius wants absolute control of his character to the extent - at least as far as I can follow - that the game never overtly contradict a character choice he's made in his head. So I can see how this concept bugs him.

Personally I've viewed cRPG characters - even the protagonist - as more of a cooperative endeavor between the player and the writer. The writer creates all the paths, the player chooses which one his character would take. Sylvius wants to ensure that the game never tells him the path he's on doesn't exist, because for him it does. I can understand that, just as I'm sure at this point he understands my position - but I don't think either of us would really like to play a game designed for the other.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
I love how all of us who rush to defend Sylvius almost always disagree with anything he says [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

That's either indicative of our disagreements being respectful, or maybe we've just been so successfully hooked by his trolling that we refuse to admit we've bitten down hardest on the bait.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 mars 2011 - 06:50 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ignoble Fat Man wrote...

A troll argues for the sake of it with no productive outcome.

You can only think I'm doing that, though, if you know what my desired outcome is.

If he has a certain vision of a CRPG then he should find the games he likes to play and purchase them.

Those games, for the most part, don't exist.  I play the games which come closest, and those are generally BioWare games.

DA2 was developed with a certain style in mind.  Yes he might disagree with the style but arguing about it continually doesn't change the fact that his vision of Dragon Age and the BioWare development teams are not the same.

DA2's done.  I couldn't possibly be trying to change it.

But future games haven't yet been designed.

So, yes he is trolling because he is not trying to be constructive with his statements he is trying to generate anger and confrontation with BioWare and amongst its customers.

Once again, you're jumping to conclusions.

I am most certainly not trying to anger BioWare.  I'm trying to move the margins of public opinion regarding game features.  This means I offer arguments in favour of the features I like, while also pointing out the absurdity of arguments in favour of or justifications for the features I dislike.

When people argue for the features they like, they tend to ignore the opportunity costs associated with having those features, so I point those out as well.

I also want to present a balanced view of new features.  So when we gain the ability to have the PC's family resemble the PC regardless of the PC's skin-tone (and people hailed that as a new feature), we also lost the ability to have those skin-tone differ.  It fell to me to point that out.

[colejossart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

I see the problem. You assume we didn't.

If you did, I had better have some control over it.

I highly doubt we will.

[danteliveson]

David Gaider wrote...

Filament wrote...
Isn't that sort of what happens when you walk over a trigger and a conversation starts automatically? (like "Wait... where are we going?")

No. Banter is ambient (as in non-cinematic) dialogue... meaning you continue to move about and do whatever else you're doing while the conversation is taking place. We cannot bring up the dialogue wheel during such conversations (yet, anyhow).

But will dialogue be cut off by other npc conversations like Mass Effect 2??

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius wants absolute control of his character to the extent - at least as far as I can follow - that the game never overtly contradict a character choice he's made in his head. So I can see how this concept bugs him.

Personally I've viewed cRPG characters - even the protagonist - as more of a cooperative endeavor between the player and the writer. The writer creates all the paths, the player chooses which one his character would take. Sylvius wants to ensure that the game never tells him the path he's on doesn't exist, because for him it does. I can understand that, just as I'm sure at this point he understands my position - but I don't think either of us would really like to play a game designed for the other.

What we all need is a game that can actually consider and react appropriately to literally any choice the player makes. Hard AI anyone?

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 07 mars 2011 - 06:51 .

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
DA2's done.  I couldn't possibly be trying to change it.

But future games haven't yet been designed.

I think I can safely tell you that we will never design a game the way you would like, and indeed never have, except purely by accident. About all you've convinced me of to date, anyhow, is that your views are idiosyncratic.