130 réponses à ce sujet

[Zem_]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

Zem_ wrote...

 I think if anything it should track NOTHING and just let me pick from all available dialogue options at any given time.  The more it tracks and modifies your available options depending on what IT thinks your personality is, the less actual freedom you have.

Why do you have less freedom that way?  Either way the game is presenting you with dialouge options.  I am proposing a system where you are given some control over the dialouge options.  I don't think I understand your logic on this one, please explain.

Look at it this way.  Every possible dialogue choice has to be written and fully-voiced beforehand.  So there exists the set of all possible dialogue choices for any given conversation.  What does personality tracking ADD to this?  Answer: Nothing.  It can only take away from it.  It can only restrict my choices to a subset of all possible dialogue options.  e.g. If you decide I've been too atheistic, you decide not to give me a dialogue option that is pro-Maker.

Keep in mind though I am not talking about reputation.  I'm talking about personality.  So even what DA2 does right now with the diplomatic, sarcastic, and aggressive behavior tracking isn't really something I much like.  I don't think they were too heavy-handed with it, so it's not a huge deal, but I still think it's unnecessary.  Let ME track my personality.  If the game wants to keep track of my deeds, that's fair game.  But not my personality traits.

[Zem_]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wherever DA2 has 6 options, DAO have 6*n options.

I've got it!  Simply add a checkbox to silence the protagonist!  The paraphrase system is actually better then because it only hints at what you're saying and without the voice acting to interfere you can imagine you're saying whatever you want that loosely matches the paraphrase hint.

[Hatchetman77]

Zem_ wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...

Zem_ wrote...

 I think if anything it should track NOTHING and just let me pick from all available dialogue options at any given time.  The more it tracks and modifies your available options depending on what IT thinks your personality is, the less actual freedom you have.

Why do you have less freedom that way?  Either way the game is presenting you with dialouge options.  I am proposing a system where you are given some control over the dialouge options.  I don't think I understand your logic on this one, please explain.

Look at it this way.  Every possible dialogue choice has to be written and fully-voiced beforehand.  So there exists the set of all possible dialogue choices for any given conversation.  What does personality tracking ADD to this?  Answer: Nothing.  It can only take away from it.  It can only restrict my choices to a subset of all possible dialogue options.  e.g. If you decide I've been too atheistic, you decide not to give me a dialogue option that is pro-Maker.

Keep in mind though I am not talking about reputation.  I'm talking about personality.  So even what DA2 does right now with the diplomatic, sarcastic, and aggressive behavior tracking isn't really something I much like.  I don't think they were too heavy-handed with it, so it's not a huge deal, but I still think it's unnecessary.  Let ME track my personality.  If the game wants to keep track of my deeds, that's fair game.  But not my personality traits.

But I thought that all you cared about was the reaction, not the intent of the main character. 

Zem_ wrote...
To me it really just matters how the NPC reacts

Now all of a sudden you care about being able to put your own personality to the charcater and attach your  own meaning to what was said when you fought against it in a previous post. 

Zem_ wrote...
And seriously, do people really do this? A few of you maybe, but I refuse to believe many out there are playing Origins, reading each line, rewriting it in their heads to mean the same thing but use different words, and then imagining they said that instead. I mean really?

According to you, the main character isn't you anyway, so why do you care what his beliefs are, or what they can be.  Having the player control a character arc is no different from a writer controlling a character arc.  
 

Zem_ wrote...
And the fact that the character is Hawke and not YOU doesn't? The Warden and not YOU?

Now you change your argument from the character not being able to be able to control their personality at all because that is the domain of the scriptwriter to not liking the proposed system because you wan to control your own personality.  So which is it?

Zem_ wrote...
Another way to look at it is this. By reading the exact words you're playing the game of deciding what the script writer intended with each line....

[Hatchetman77]

Hatchetman77 wrote...
Then I don't think there is anything more I can say to describe it to you.  I thought I explained why fully voiced avatars hurt the immersion of people who play the game differently than you may play it as best as I could.  I understand you may find the fact that people impart personalities on to their avatars to be a silly concept... 

 

Zem_ wrote...
Nope.  Never said that.  I think being able to craft your character's personality is a great idea.  So let's skip the rest of this misunderstanding and get to this part below...

I have no idea where I could have gotten that misunderstanding...

Zem_ wrote...
And seriously, do people really do this? A few of you maybe, but I refuse to believe many out there are playing Origins, reading each line, rewriting it in their heads to mean the same thing but use different words, and then imagining they said that instead. I mean really?

Nice way to evade the rest of the post though.

Modifié par Hatchetman77, 15 avril 2011 - 03:16 .

[We Tigers]

Within your example, I'd choose the second option, and then I'd kill him.

But using the DA2 model, I wouldn't be allowed to kill him unless I chose option 3, and that's part of the problem.  I choose to kill him, and thus select the Crossed Swords paraphrase, and then am immediately subjected to Hawke making a statement that doesn't reflect his views.

Your example demonstrates quite clearly, I think, how superior the full-text options are.

Gotcha. What I was going for with the example is that the crossed swords icon is no different from the statements in DA:O that ended with [Attack them]. I should have included that. There are several instances I remember from DA:O wherein your dialogue decision determines whether or not you can kill someone; sometimes you won't get the option to start conflict at all without a particular dialogue choice. I'm guessing you'd say that's more a reason to do away with those kinds of scenarios than anything else, and a separate item from paraphrase vs. full text.

Oh, and you are welcome to exploit my example however you like. Just be sure to bring it back before the end of Act 2, or that big horned dude is gonna be even more super-mega pissed than usual.

[Siegdrifa]

I don't minde voiced character when it's well done.

I also don't minde playing a character with somewhat a choosen personnality if it's well made.

I can have a lot of fun playing a character like an actor is playing a role, we don't ask Brad Pit to be Brad PIt in his movies.
Asking the player to play along is fine if it turn to be fun / cool / surprising in a good way.

I'm more concerned about the voiced interpretation.
In DA2 for femal Hawk, she play 3 hawk, the good one, the sarcastic one, and the rude one, it's realy painfull for me to mix the choice because i feel too much that it isn't the same personnality speaking.

In ME i don't have this problem, most of he time, being paragon, paragade or even renegade don't kill the character.
There is only one Shepard even if she can be paragon or renegade.
It's like for every body, sometimes you are in good mood, and sometimes you are in bad mood, it's still you but with a different lightning.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 15 avril 2011 - 03:29 .

[Spartansfan8888]

Hawke doesn't really give more freedom to the character than The Warden because ultimately any origin still is the persona of "The Warden." With more character/story driven games like DAO and DA2 the main character has to be a bit more pre-defined than something like NWN. My opinion anyway

[elearon1]

Zem_ wrote...
 Every possible dialogue choice has to be written and fully-voiced beforehand.  So there exists the set of all possible dialogue choices for any given conversation.  What does personality tracking ADD to this?  Answer:

Replayability.

[Zem_]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...
Then I don't think there is anything more I can say to describe it to you.  I thought I explained why fully voiced avatars hurt the immersion of people who play the game differently than you may play it as best as I could.  I understand you may find the fact that people impart personalities on to their avatars to be a silly concept... 

 

Zem_ wrote...
Nope.  Never said that.  I think being able to craft your character's personality is a great idea.  So let's skip the rest of this misunderstanding and get to this part below...

I have no idea where I could have gotten that misunderstanding...

Zem_ wrote...
And seriously, do people really do this? A few of you maybe, but I refuse to believe many out there are playing Origins, reading each line, rewriting it in their heads to mean the same thing but use different words, and then imagining they said that instead. I mean really?

Nice way to evade the rest of the post though.

Sorry. I'm not going to follow every hatcheted quote of mine attached to another wild misinterpretation.  I'd be here all day writing the follow-up.  Call that evasion if you like.  Way to live up to that nickname of yours by the way.

I have said all along that I don't believe in imagining my character saying anything other than what is written in the dialogue that I am shown.  How you get from there to me not wanting ANY control over personality is something I can't help you with.  It makes no sense whatsoever for the very simple reason that there are MULTIPLE script lines to choose from in any given dialogue.  Using the lines as written in NO WAY limits you to a single predefined character personality.    I choose my character's personality by selecting the lines that match as closely as possible what I am shooting for with that character. 

None of that requires making up my OWN lines and then ignoring the NPC's reaction when it doesn't match. When I say only the reaction matters, it's *because* I don't believe in making up my OWN lines.  I don't want to do that and then have an NPC react in a way not consistent with the line I just made up in my head so... I don't do it.   You do apparently.   Congrats.  Have a cookie.  

And speaking of evasion... how about that idea of not tracking any personality traits at all?

[Zem_]

elearon1 wrote...

Zem_ wrote...
 Every possible dialogue choice has to be written and fully-voiced beforehand.  So there exists the set of all possible dialogue choices for any given conversation.  What does personality tracking ADD to this?  Answer:

Replayability.

How does this ADD replayability?  Having all the options let's me choose my path through the game but I can still choose only one path.  If I want to play it a different way, I have to play through again.  And remember, I am only talking about dialogue options relating to personality here.  If there are mutually exclusive paths, for example siding with mages or templars in the tower in Origins, then I am certainly not suggesting you should be able to nuke the tower early in the game and then have the mages on your side later.  That's a plot branch, not a personality trait.

Actions should have consequences.  Being sarcastic in five separate conversations should not prevent me from being diplomatic in yet another, completely unrelated one.  That makes no sense whatsoever.

[aduellist]

Merci357 wrote...

aduellist wrote...

Let me put in something that hasn't really been touched on yet. One whole gender option has been eliminated for me in this game because the PC is voiced. I cannot play a male Hawke, I find the voice incredibly irritating. This wouldn't be an issue with a silent protagonist. So, yes, voiced PC does limit player options.

That's my only problem with a voiced PC. I do like voiced PCs, a lot. It's for me far more engaging to play (or direct, would be more fitting) a character that has a voice, emotions, looks alive.

Video games are a visual medium, and BioWare has a cinematic style. A voiced character fits their games. I don't mind my silent wanderer or courier in the Fallout games for example - I don't see him/her in dialogues, I don't have to look in a blank, emotionless face. I do mind my very visible silent Warden, though, often relegated into a cutboard statist.

However, a voiced PC has one huge problem. I neither like the male Shepard nor the male Hawke voice. The former is incredibly dull, and the later very irritating. I do happen to like both female voice actors, so I can play these games and have fun. Sooner or later there will be a game were I don't like any voice actor, and that game, as great as it might be, will be unplayable for me.

That said, I don't think BioWare will go back to a silent PC, ever. Like it or not, but the majority either prefers a voiced PC or is at least indifferent to it. This Poll indicates this, at least, with a decent sample size.

I concur that Bioware will probably keep voiced PC.  A lot of people want it.  Given that, in all probability, resources will never be available to offer multiple options for choice of character voice, I would be happy with a config option that gives me the ability to turn off the PC voice and only the PC voice.  Muting all dialog, which i can do now, is akin to killing a gnat with a sledgehammer.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zem_ wrote...

I've got it!  Simply add a checkbox to silence the protagonist!  The paraphrase system is actually better then because it only hints at what you're saying and without the voice acting to interfere you can imagine you're saying whatever you want that loosely matches the paraphrase hint.

I've been asking for that for some time.  But then the paraphrases need to be written better.  As it stands in DA2, often they're the wrong sort of sentence (the paraphrase will be a question, but then the spoken line will be an assertion), and then the NPCs will all react to the assertion.

With paraphrases that better match the full line, I would happily just disable the voice and play the game without ever knowing what the full line is.

I still think the full text is better, as it offers me a more detailed look at the literal content of the line, but I'd much rather not know what the full line is if I'm not allowed to see it before I choose my option.

[Sylvius the Mad]

aduellist wrote...

I concur that Bioware will probably keep voiced PC.

Even if they come right out and say they're keeping the voiced PC, I'll keep asking for a silent PC.

[Harid]

I am pretty sure they already did.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Harid wrote...

I am pretty sure they already did.

People keep saying that, but no one has a quote.

Snd regardless, it wouldn't change my preference.

[Harid]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Harid wrote...

I am pretty sure they already did.

People keep saying that, but no one has a quote.

Snd regardless, it wouldn't change my preference.

Search options on these forums are lousy for one.

As I can recall, it was in another post you made complaining about voiced characters made before the release of Dragon Age II.

I tend to agree with you, giving the lousy choices they make for main characters, coupled with the fact that I play dark skinned characters and the diction is just off when they talk because of it, but, I am pretty sure you are not going to change Bioware's mind.

But keep fighting the good fight.  (I am not being facetious.)

[Remmirath]

There are two main problems with having a voiced PC in my mind.

The first is that you can't predict how they're going to say something, and that has a huge impact on what the line actually means - it could turn it from something your character certainly would say to something they certainly wouldn't.

The second is that the voice might not fit the character you want to play, and also that it limits replayability a good deal - essentially to twice, for me - because there is only one option for each gender.

The dialogue wheel and the paraphrasing are a seperate issue, in my mind, and one that doesn't necessarily come with the others. There's nothing stopping them from switching the paraphrase system while keeping the voice, or keeping the paraphrase while eliminating the voice.

I much prefer not having a voice for the PC (certainly not until such a time as it can be customised to the same extent as the appearance, and we would also have some reasonable indication of the way the line would be said ahead of time - the icons were a help to that), and also not having the paraphrase. I wouldn't mind if the lines were a bit more generic if it was understood that wasn't exactly what your character was saying, but if the NPC is going to react to the full line (thus making it obvious the PC did say that) then I want to see the full line ahead of time.

I do think it is possible to roleplay despite the voice, at least if you get lucky and the voice fits the character you had in mind. It is, however, signifcantly harder, and sometimes you have to outright ignore things that happened and just think to yourself that your character wouldn't've said that (which is certainly not preferable).

I really do think that a PC voice toggle would be the best solution, particularly if choosing 'no PC voice' would just present the options as they actually are instead of the paraphrases. I don't expect that to be happening, sadly.

[Shadowlit_Rogue]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Harid wrote...

I am pretty sure they already did.

People keep saying that, but no one has a quote.

Snd regardless, it wouldn't change my preference.

It's definitely an interesting argument, and it touches on a wide range of "gaming philosophies," if you will. There was that wide gap between the release of games like KotOR and Jade Empire and more recent releases where most of the RPGs I played had a voiced protagonist. Then I got Fallout 3 and DA:O in the same year (didn't have a 360 for a while), and I remembered how much I missed "filling in the blanks."

I still think there's room in the market for an RPG like DA:O. Heck, my dream (if BioWare really, really wants to continue with Hawke (which I'm not totally up for)) is for BioWare to license out the property to Obsidian Entertainment and have them make something similar to DA:O in the same universe. They'd probably do fantastic work. /end-dream

[Zem_]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I still think the full text is better, as it offers me a more detailed look at the literal content of the line, but I'd much rather not know what the full line is if I'm not allowed to see it before I choose my option.

Seems like they could also then have an option to display the full dialogue line at the top of the screen while you roll-over the various choices on the wheel.

I don't see why they couldn't do this.  It would cost them just about nothing to implement. 

[Harid]

Shadowlit_Rogue wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Harid wrote...

I am pretty sure they already did.

People keep saying that, but no one has a quote.

Snd regardless, it wouldn't change my preference.

It's definitely an interesting argument, and it touches on a wide range of "gaming philosophies," if you will. There was that wide gap between the release of games like KotOR and Jade Empire and more recent releases where most of the RPGs I played had a voiced protagonist. Then I got Fallout 3 and DA:O in the same year (didn't have a 360 for a while), and I remembered how much I missed "filling in the blanks."

I still think there's room in the market for an RPG like DA:O. Heck, my dream (if BioWare really, really wants to continue with Hawke (which I'm not totally up for)) is for BioWare to license out the property to Obsidian Entertainment and have them make something similar to DA:O in the same universe. They'd probably do fantastic work. /end-dream

As long as someone else does all of the coding and bug checking and so forth, I would not have a problem with this.

As a console game, I don't trust Obsidian.  At all.

Modifié par Harid, 15 avril 2011 - 07:50 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zem_ wrote...

Seems like they could also then have an option to display the full dialogue line at the top of the screen while you roll-over the various choices on the wheel.

I don't see why they couldn't do this.  It would cost them just about nothing to implement. 

It would change how they write the dialogue.  Or at least, how they can write the dialogue.

Because DA2 will let the PC act without player input, there can be long back-and-forth exchanges triggered by a single player input (one wheel selection).  Whereas, being able to choose the full line each time would require that they never do this, and instead have every utterance by the PC triggered by the player.

But as long as they're willing to lose those long non-interactive sequences (which they should anyway, because non-interactivity is the opposite of a game), you're right that there's no extra writing required.  Just UI design (and testing).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zem_ wrote...

 I think if anything it should track NOTHING and just let me pick from all available dialogue options at any given time.  The more it tracks and modifies your available options depending on what IT thinks your personality is, the less actual freedom you have.

Oh, and I agree entirely with this.

The game should always let the player choose where there are options.  There's no possible benefit that outweighs player agency on this front.

[ransompendragon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Zem_ wrote...

I've got it!  Simply add a checkbox to silence the protagonist!  The paraphrase system is actually better then because it only hints at what you're saying and without the voice acting to interfere you can imagine you're saying whatever you want that loosely matches the paraphrase hint.

I've been asking for that for some time.  But then the paraphrases need to be written better.  As it stands in DA2, often they're the wrong sort of sentence (the paraphrase will be a question, but then the spoken line will be an assertion), and then the NPCs will all react to the assertion.

With paraphrases that better match the full line, I would happily just disable the voice and play the game without ever knowing what the full line is.

I still think the full text is better, as it offers me a more detailed look at the literal content of the line, but I'd much rather not know what the full line is if I'm not allowed to see it before I choose my option.

I agree here. At first I was only thinking of a toggle for the dialogue wheel itself - to show the paraphrase or show the whole line. But being able to toggle both would be a step in the right direction.

I much more prefer the DAO model -- and I don't think it should be called "silent protagonist" -- I always "hear" my characters conversation and in fact have many "conversations" that aren't explicitly in the game -- e.g. who to take to the mages tower - why do I choose them, does Alastir (can't spell tonight) argue that he should go and not Sten? What will the remaining party members tackle in the meantime?

In fact, that is what I would rather be doing now...

[Nightwriter]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
I like your idea about tracking atheism vs faith in the Maker, but again, what about religiously neutral or conflicted Hawkes?

It can be determined by flagging different dialouge options.  For example, I noticed in Origins there are a lot of dialouge options regarding the Maker.  You have the option of saying "Go with the Maker" several times.  Conversations with Leliana also have options to pick your views on faith.  There is a conversation with Wynne at Ostragar where you can acknowledge that many Chantry stories may only be stories. I began thinking that tracking your responses to these questions could give you a pretty good idea where your character stands.  I know I did in my head when I was roleplaying in Origins.  You can express belief in the Maker yet scepticism of the Chantry and their motives in different conversations with different people.  That could affect dialouge options when you talk to the Reverened Mother.  At character creation you may even have the option to set the starting point for these flags so you can create a Hawke with completley different sensabilities than another Hawke (Hawke's views on sexuality may be one of these settable flags as well and the game may acknowledge that, so the game knows that being nice to Anders =/= flirting with him if you pick that you are straight.  However picking the heart options could change that straight sensability and your character started with to become bisexual).

While that may sound a bit complex, it's important to note that only certain NPC's will care about certain sensabilities and different dialouge will only be affected by one or two sensabilities.  Many pieces of choosable dialouge would not be affected by any of them.  Talking to the Reverened Mother in the Chantry may cause the game to pull up a single flag on your character profile of "Maker Views",  replacing dialouge options of a character with faith with dialouge options of a character without faith.  Also, BioWare was famous for using the same response for multiple conversation choices on the dialouge tree in Origins so I don't think that would change under this system as well.  Even so, not all dialouge options on the wheel would change.  I can't imagine the smartass options changing much no matter what your views.  So basically any conversation affected by this would have a couple of extra lines of dialouge per dialouge wheel selection, assuming the selection is even affected at all by the character's beliefs. So continuing our example, now the next part of the conversation with the Reverened Mother may be more about the Chantry which is a completly different flag, and having differing opinions on the two topics would make your character conflicted.  You could have faith in the Maker and not in the Chantry, where dialouge options appear where you tell the Reverened Mother what YOU think Andraste or the Maker would think of a certain situation dispite the Chantry thinking otherwise.  This is opposed by a charcter of faith arguing out of context of the religion (ie. saying "but Reverened Mother, didn't Andraste say....").  Or say you bluffed your views on believing in the maker but firmly support the Chantry.  Now your character supports the Chantry as a social institution and not as a religious institution.  While that may not change any dialouge options, it could be flagged for later when your religious beliefs may be questioned, especially when it is by someone like the guardian of the Sacred Ashes from Origins.   

I have to admit, that is pretty fascinating. The idea of it is exciting.

But as a layman who has no real conception of what is or isn't doable in a videogame, I ask: is this even possible, given current resources and development limitations?