305 réponses à ce sujet

[Harid]

Until they have some sort of system to modulate voices or pick better main character voice actors. . .I would like to do away with the dialogue wheel.

It tends to push you into meta gaming more than any other option.

[Kidd]

Goldanna came up earlier in this thread, so I went to youtube, captioned the convos and put it into DA2 icons. It was pretty easy, though perhaps it wasn't perfect at all times so maybe I should've spent more time. But you'll see it's not as strange as you might think =)

http://img705.images...88/daoinda2.jpg

li009 wrote...

Screw whomever invented the wheel....jokes aside, you guys kinda summed it up. I wish they would go for some kind of compromise,find a way to make the spoken line/s clearer or at least less good/bad oriented. Hell I'd even agree for an illusion of moral diversion. Ignorance is a bliss. unfortunately pasimism has consumed me and I think that this new dialogue interaction is here to stay, without many changes to be implented.

I don't see how it's good/bad. When you face someone talking to a desire demon, would it be "good" to start talking with diplomatic options? How about when she wants to make claims about your party members/friends, am I "bad" for picking an aggressive option?

Corto81 wrote...

I dislike the dialogue wheel in RPG games because:
- you get less choices

Not true. The old system had a 6 options maximum limit, while the new one has an 11 options maximum limit. There are conversations in DA2 where you have three options to the right, one to the left + investigate on the left which includes 4 options within it aside from "return". That makes 8 options, and it'd be completely impossible within the DAO engine. Sure, these situations rarely come up, but that's because 3-4 options are usually enough.

Harid wrote...

Until they have some sort of system to modulate voices or pick better main character voice actors. . .I would like to do away with the dialogue wheel.

It tends to push you into meta gaming more than any other option.

How does it make you meta-game? I'm quite happy to know the tone I'm using when I pick my answer will attempt to ****** the other person off, this makes for better role play to me (whether they get angry or not is up to them, of course). Not to mention, I can decide when I pull out my swords without having my character do it for me when I just wanted to shout hostility without going all the way.

[Corto81]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

I dislike the dialogue wheel in RPG games because:
- you get less choices

Not true. The old system had a 6 options maximum limit, while the new one has an 11 options maximum limit. There are conversations in DA2 where you have three options to the right, one to the left + investigate on the left which includes 4 options within it aside from "return". That makes 8 options, and it'd be completely impossible within the DAO engine. Sure, these situations rarely come up, but that's because 3-4 options are usually enough.

Huh?

I'm not talking just the single choices, but overall how many responses you have.
Voice-acting is expensive and severely limits the amount of responses your PC has.

Hawke doesn't have anywhere near the amount of text your Warden does.

[Kidd]

Sure she does, I'd wager probably even more. On a per-dialogue basis that is, since the game is overall shorter and has less content in it compared to Origins.

[Dubya75]

Supernallaw wrote...

I had originally not had a problem with the dialogue wheel in mass effect and DA2 but after starting to play DA:O, I realized how inferior it really is.  There are a couple reasons I believe this.  In DA:O, the list of dialogue choices allowed me to pick the sentence I would like to actually say.  The results would be sometimes clear, but often I would not know ahead of time what the responses would be.  Many times, the dialogue options would not simply go into an obvious "right or wrong" pattern but would flesh out to build character personalities.  The difference when using a dialogue wheel is quite obvious because all options are either inquisitive to uncover information or have a good/neutral/evil alignment.  In mass effect and DA2, I found myself simply builiding an evil character and only selecting the bottom choice every time.  This is much less enjoyable, in my opinion, compared to actually reading the options and selecting the response I would actually want to say in my character's situation.

However, even if I wanted to play DA2 and ME like DA:O by choosing a response I liked, it would not be possible because all the dialogue options are simplified to 1-3 word descriptions.  Sometimes these are accurate summaries, but MANY times I would choose a dialogue option and then be baffled about what my character was actually saying.  The dialogue wheel makes the choices more confusing, and forces alignment to be either good/neutral/evil whereas the dialogue options allowed for much more complex character development.

To give a brief example of this without spoiling parts of DA:O, in Alistair's character quest to meet someone, he is greeted strangely by the person and the player is allowed to choose a way to respond.  None of these responses could be properly labeled with an alignment because the situation is complex and there is no way to plan Alistair's reactions to your response choice.  This is an example of how much more complex the dialogue options can be without the dialogue wheel and it is times like these that I appreciate not being forced to use one and only select dialogue based on its orientation on the wheel.

Don't blame the dialogue wheel, that is simply a presentation, an interface. The way dialogue works in DA2 has nothing to do with the shape of the dialogue interface (I would have loved to see people's opinion if the wheel was a square or a list).
Would you have had the same opinon if the dialogue options were presented in exaclty the same fashion as Origins but with the addition of Hawke verbally expanding on the chosen response?
On paper, the script and dialogue branches of DA2 would be indistinguishable from that of Origins. The only differene being that dialogue in DA2 may not go as deep as in Origins or that there may not be as many branching options.
This is a WRITING issue, not a dialogue wheel issue.
It's like saying a glass of green coloured water tastes better than a glass of clear water. Silly really, isn't it.

[88mphSlayer]

Zanallen wrote...

Nameless2345 wrote...

Why do people keep talking about "alignment" and "good, neutral, evil" options?
These things have NOTHING to do with dialogue system in DA2.
Top responce isn't "good" - usually it has olive branch, and that means being diplomatic.
Bottom responce isn't "evil" - usually it is red something, and that means being direct, agressive.

Honestly? Its the simplest way to describe the system. It does it a disservice, yes, but its just easier to use terms like good and evil than diplomatic and aggressive.

he is right anyways, DA2's system is less about good vs. evil than it is just social communication and building up rivalries/friendships

choosing a "path" doesn't work either, sometimes rival responses can be used to build friendships and sometimes friendly responses just ****** off companions

i think people are expecting games to be extremely binary nowadays like the dialogue system is just enough game

[DragonRageGT]

Nameless2345 wrote...

Why do people keep talking about "alignment" and "good, neutral, evil" options?
These things have NOTHING to do with dialogue system in DA2.
Top responce isn't "good" - usually it has olive branch, and that means being diplomatic.
Bottom responce isn't "evil" - usually it is red something, and that means being direct, agressive.

If you really want to know what that's all about: (they influence some dialogue options later by forming your Hawke's personality.

http://dragonage.wik.../Dialogue_wheel

[Dragoonlordz]

@KiddDaBeauty

I would prefer something like this.



***Another possibility is the following***

a) All options can be voiced including more character origins (require more time recording from VA's but still possible). 
Sliders to alter the voices (pitch, tone etc).
c) Variations/more in cinamatics based on choices made (if required, even though would require more time).

** Everyone agrees more time was needed on Dragon Age 2 and (most) of us would be very willing to wait 6 months or year extra to have the best quality product than a rush to release. Saying the extra time is a waste or not important is not a valid excuse. In the end the basic fact is the wheel in DA2 is a scifi wheel in design it is not a sword and spells fantasy font and styling. I am not a fan of investigate option mode, it says to me none of this side options make any difference, and make no difference in advancement in either the plot or dialogue. They become an optional extra more inline with a chore and limits care and thoughtfulness I am in choosing what to say therefore has a negative effect on immersion.


***Edited for clarification***

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 mai 2011 - 05:02 .

[Zem_]

Corto81 wrote...

I'm not talking just the single choices, but overall how many responses you have.
Voice-acting is expensive and severely limits the amount of responses your PC has.

Hawke doesn't have anywhere near the amount of text your Warden does.

You can't pin that on voice acting.  DAO had full voice for all NPCs AND they spent how many years developing the game?  DAO simply has more content because they spent a LOT more time and money making it.  Look at all the short-cuts in DA2.  Re-used maps.  Smaller maps.  Waves of combatants to pad the gameplay time and make up for there just being LESS of everything to explore your way through.

Yes, VO for the PC adds more expense, but the same argument applies to NPC voice-overs, 3D graphics, in other words just about any modern production quality.  Getting rid of them will make the game cheaper.  Shall we go back to tile-based 2D?  I'm sure that would make some people happy but it wouldn't sell outside that niche.. so it isn't happening.

[Rockpopple]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

@KiddDaBeauty

I would prefer something like this.



a) All options can be voiced including more character origins (require more time recording from VA's but still possible). 
Sliders to alter the voices (pitch, tone etc).
c) Variations/more in cinamatics based on choices made (if required, even though would require more time).

** Everyone agrees more time was needed on Dragon Age 2 and (most) of us would be very willing to wait 6 months or year extra to have the best quality product than a rush to release. Saying the extra time is a waste or not important is not a valid excuse. In the end the basic fact is the wheel in DA2 is a scifi wheel in design it is not a sword and spells fantasy font and styling. I am not a fan of investigate option mode, it says to me none of this side options make any difference, and make no difference in advancement in either the plot or dialogue. They become an optional extra more inline with a chore and lmits care and thoughtfulness I am in choosing what to say therefore has a negative effect on immersion.

Yeah.... Redundant mechanics are still redundant. Even the Sainted CDProjektRed - or however they're spelt - figured this out for The Witcher 2.

Anyway, I truly doubt a simple font change would change the minds of people heck-bent on disliking either the dialogue wheel or even the concept of a voiced-protagonist in RPG games. It truly comes down to preference - either you like the format of paraphrased dialogue in a wheel that branches out, or you don't. The system itself is sound - both systems are sound, actually. It's all about personal preference. 

[Dragoonlordz]

Rockpopple wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

@KiddDaBeauty

I would prefer something like this.

Yeah.... Redundant mechanics are still redundant. Even the Sainted CDProjektRed - or however they're spelt - figured this out for The Witcher 2.

Anyway, I truly doubt a simple font change would change the minds of people heck-bent on disliking either the dialogue wheel or even the concept of a voiced-protagonist in RPG games. It truly comes down to preference - either you like the format of paraphrased dialogue in a wheel that branches out, or you don't. The system itself is sound - both systems are sound, actually. It's all about personal preference. 

Highlighted part you were supposed to read. Your response requires a "No s**t... Sherlock" moment.

I will also point out neither mechanics are redundant, you even said yourself it's preference, so you have so see your own hypocrisy in your reply. A change of styling does affect gameplay and font is part of what styling is. If was changed it would tick off the list one of the many 'flaws' imho in the game.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 mai 2011 - 03:00 .

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Highlighted part you were supposed to read. Your response requires a "No s**t... Sherlock" moment.

I will also point out neither mechanics are redundant, you even said yourself it's preference, so you have so see your own hypocrisy in your reply. A change of styling does affect gameplay and font is part of what styling is. If was changed it would tick off the list one of the many 'flaws' imho in the game.

But reading the full dialogue line and then listening to it being said IS redundant. That's why it was scrapped. Focus groups didn't like it. I have heard that Witcher 2 is scrapping it in favor of a paraphrase system as well, though I haven't seen any confirmation. Now, some form of compromise could work. David mentioned a good option last week or so.

[Rockpopple]

Edit: 

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Highlighted part you were supposed to read. Your response requires a "No s**t... Sherlock" moment.

I will also point out neither mechanics are redundant, you even said yourself it's preference, so you have so see your own hypocrisy in your reply. A change of styling does affect gameplay and font is part of what styling is. If was changed it would tick off the list one of the many 'flaws' imho in the game.

But reading the full dialogue line and then listening to it being said IS redundant. That's why it was scrapped. Focus groups didn't like it. I have heard that Witcher 2 is scrapping it in favor of a paraphrase system as well, though I haven't seen any confirmation. Now, some form of compromise could work. David mentioned a good option last week or so.

Exactly. I didn't think that'd be so hard to understand. Maybe coming from someone else it'll finally get through.

Edit #2 - Wow. Guess I was a little too  hopeful there. 

Modifié par Rockpopple, 04 mai 2011 - 03:11 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Highlighted part you were supposed to read. Your response requires a "No s**t... Sherlock" moment.

I will also point out neither mechanics are redundant, you even said yourself it's preference, so you have so see your own hypocrisy in your reply. A change of styling does affect gameplay and font is part of what styling is. If was changed it would tick off the list one of the many 'flaws' imho in the game.

But reading the full dialogue line and then listening to it being said IS redundant. That's why it was scrapped. Focus groups didn't like it. I have heard that Witcher 2 is scrapping it in favor of a paraphrase system as well, though I haven't seen any confirmation. Now, some form of compromise could work. David mentioned a good option last week or so.

It's not redundant, people want to know what he will say in order to pick the correct choices. Paraphasing does not do this and that is why they are looking into changing it so the hover cursor or option shows full choice because a lot of people do not like it. The irony is focus groups are smaller than even these forums therefore any result they give is less credible than here. Going by what has been said here by a huge amount of people, enough to prompt looking into changing the system is valid enough reason to say it did not work well. If it was redundant they wouldn't be wasting time changing it.

Edit #2 - Wow. Guess I was a little too  hopeful there. 

Read again because as long as people care it will never become redundant until they stop caring.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 mai 2011 - 03:17 .

[bti79]

I agree completely with OP. The dialogue wheel was a bad move, I prefer to be able to see in advance exactly what my character is going to say. The dialogue wheel creates a distance between the PC and the player.

In addition I dislike the voiced PC. Quite often I was dissatisfied not only with what Hawke said, but also the tone in which he said it.

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Highlighted part you were supposed to read. Your response requires a "No s**t... Sherlock" moment.

I will also point out neither mechanics are redundant, you even said yourself it's preference, so you have so see your own hypocrisy in your reply. A change of styling does affect gameplay and font is part of what styling is. If was changed it would tick off the list one of the many 'flaws' imho in the game.

But reading the full dialogue line and then listening to it being said IS redundant. That's why it was scrapped. Focus groups didn't like it. I have heard that Witcher 2 is scrapping it in favor of a paraphrase system as well, though I haven't seen any confirmation. Now, some form of compromise could work. David mentioned a good option last week or so.

It's not redundant, people want to know what he will say in order to pick the correct choices. Paraphasing does not do this and that is why they are looking into changing it so the hover cursor or option shows full choice because a lot of people do not like it. The irony is focus groups are smaller than even these forums therefore any result they give is less credible than here. Going by what has been said here by a huge amount of people, enough to prompt looking into changing the system is valid enough reason to say it did not work well. If it was redundant they wouldn't be wasting time changing it.

Sigh, you know what redundant means, right? I'm not saying that the paraphrase system is perfect. However, I am saying that the act of reading a line of dialogue and then having the exact same line of dialogue repeated back to you is redundant. That's what people didn't like. It was pointless. How do we combat this? Well, we can use a paraphrase(the option chosen), we could not have a voiced PC, or we could try something different like: Having only the first line of the exact dialogue shown and then the VO expands upon it or having a toggle or "mouse over" that shows you the exact dialogue line that the paraphrase is linked to (Perhaps in the same box that the "last sentence" dialogue appears in).

[Rockpopple]

^ Again you're only 100% right.

Except the mouse-over wouldn't help console players. But I like the option of the first line or the first few words of the first line followed by an ellipses.

And I've seen video of the Witcher 2 and they do indeed use a paraphrase system. Redundant systems are redundant.

[Zanallen]

Rockpopple wrote...

^ Again you're only 100% right.

Except the mouse-over wouldn't help console players. But I like the option of the first line or the first few words of the first line followed by an ellipses.

And I've seen video of the Witcher 2 and they do indeed use a paraphrase system. Redundant systems are redundant.

I figure keeping the stick pointed at one option for a few seconds or so would active the mouse over concept.

[Dragoonlordz]

Rockpopple wrote...

^ Again you're only 100% right.

Except the mouse-over wouldn't help console players. But I like the option of the first line or the first few words of the first line followed by an ellipses.

And I've seen video of the Witcher 2 and they do indeed use a paraphrase system. Redundant systems are redundant.

They will probably get the same reaction as Bioware are getting now.

a) Some people here have been asking to do away with the paraphrasing.
Some people have said here that they like VO.

Both then equal a 'need or desire' for the features. The former version of full non paraphrased is not redundant anymore so than applying the same redundancy to VO. Both are wanted therefore neither are redundant, as I already said it doesn't become redundant until people no longer want it. 

[Addai]

bti79 wrote...

I agree completely with OP. The dialogue wheel was a bad move, I prefer to be able to see in advance exactly what my character is going to say. The dialogue wheel creates a distance between the PC and the player.

In addition I dislike the voiced PC. Quite often I was dissatisfied not only with what Hawke said, but also the tone in which he said it.

For my money it's the voiced PC that takes away most of the control.  Once you have that, it doesn't matter how the interface is set up.  You're taking a shot in the dark as to how the scene is going to run and might as well sit back and stop worrying about "roleplaying" except as regards major plot decisions- of which Hawke had almost none that mattered anyway.

Modifié par Addai67, 04 mai 2011 - 03:36 .

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...


They will probably get the same reaction as Bioware are getting now.

a) Some people here have been asking to do away with the paraphrasing.
Some people have said here that they like VO.

Both then equal a 'need or desire' for the features. The former version of full non paraphrased is not redundant anymore so than applying the same redundancy to VO. Both are wanted therefore neither are redundant, as I already said it doesn't become redundant until people no longer want it. 

Ugh, you two are arguing completely different things. Look, the redundancy only comes from reading the response and then listening to the response. Having one group wanting to know the response a head of time and another group wanting a voiced PC have nothing to do with that. As I said, there are ways to have both without suffering from the redundancy.

[Zanallen]

Addai67 wrote...

bti79 wrote...

I agree completely with OP. The dialogue wheel was a bad move, I prefer to be able to see in advance exactly what my character is going to say. The dialogue wheel creates a distance between the PC and the player.

In addition I dislike the voiced PC. Quite often I was dissatisfied not only with what Hawke said, but also the tone in which he said it.

For my money it's the voiced PC that takes away most of the control.  Once you have that, it doesn't matter how the interface is set up.  You're taking a shot in the dark as to how the scene is going to run and might as well sit back and stop worrying about "roleplaying" except as regards major plot decisions- of which Hawke had almost none that mattered anyway.

That doesn't make any sense. How does the voiced protagonist remove your control? I'll give you the paraphrase, but there are ways to fix that. Even with a non-voiced PC, you don't have control over the scene since you never know how the NPC will respond to what you're saying.

[bti79]

Addai67 wrote...

For my money it's the voiced PC that takes away most of the control.  Once you have that, it doesn't matter how the interface is set up.  You're taking a shot in the dark as to how the scene is going to run and might as well sit back and stop worrying about "roleplaying" except as regards major plot decisions- of which Hawke had almost none that mattered anyway.

Good point I agree that voiced PC is as bad as dialoge wheel. I suppose without voiced PC the dialogue wheel couldn't exists. Clearly I'd prefer to lose the voiced PC, but if Bioware is fixed on keeping that, the very least they could do is to loose the dialogue wheel.

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...


They will probably get the same reaction as Bioware are getting now.

a) Some people here have been asking to do away with the paraphrasing.
Some people have said here that they like VO.

Both then equal a 'need or desire' for the features. The former version of full non paraphrased is not redundant anymore so than applying the same redundancy to VO. Both are wanted therefore neither are redundant, as I already said it doesn't become redundant until people no longer want it. 

Ugh, you two are arguing completely different things. Look, the redundancy only comes from reading the response and then listening to the response. Having one group wanting to know the response a head of time and another group wanting a voiced PC have nothing to do with that. As I said, there are ways to have both without suffering from the redundancy.

Actually we are arguing about one thing he claimed that the former system pre-paraphrasing was redundant. I am saying it was not and was down to preference which system people liked. The fact is people liked the old system just like people like the new system so neither system can be claimed to be redundant. You came along and said combining them both is redundant he jumped on your bandwagon and tried taking a new approach because he had nowhere else to hide with regard to his initial comment. In the end you are arguing from a different standpoint to what he and me were arguing about and discussed.

Yeah.... Redundant mechanics are still redundant. Even the Sainted CDProjektRed - or however they're spelt - figured this out for The Witcher 2.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 mai 2011 - 03:48 .

[bti79]

Zanallen wrote...

That doesn't make any sense. How does the voiced protagonist remove your control? I'll give you the paraphrase, but there are ways to fix that. Even with a non-voiced PC, you don't have control over the scene since you never know how the NPC will respond to what you're saying.

Makes a lot of sense to me. Quite often Hawke would say something in a completely inappropriate tone, ocmpletely out of touch with how I wanted him to say it. WIth a silent PC you never get this disharmony, and the NPC's react  to what you say, not how it's being said.