305 réponses à ce sujet

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

No he wasn't. That wouldn't even make sense. Once again, you do know what redundancy means, right? He said that having the full script and then a voice over was redundant. He was going by the assumption that your picture of the old system + intent icons included a voiced PC. If your proposed system didn't have a voiced PC, then you probably should have stated such.

[Zanallen]

bti79 wrote...

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.

The dialogue options that you choose from have an established tone and intent, no matter if the PC is voiced or silent. That's why the NPCs react as they do. Even if your PC never "said" anything, they still "hear" it with the scripted intent/tone. That's why how you want the character to say something doesn't matter. The videogame script doesn't register the tone/intent YOU wanted. It only registers that present in the game. The icons added to DA II are designed to help you understand how the game is going to perceive your response.

[Rockpopple]

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

No he wasn't. That wouldn't even make sense. Once again, you do know what redundancy means, right? He said that having the full script and then a voice over was redundant. He was going by the assumption that your picture of the old system + intent icons included a voiced PC. If your proposed system didn't have a voiced PC, then you probably should have stated such.

I - seriously, thanks for that. I was starting to think I was typing in a different language or something. 

[fightright2]

For me, knowing exactly what my character is saying is important. I find I prefer an RPG without the VO, it allows me to apply my own voice and tone for my own perception and to me that seems more realistic as well as expressive.
It allows me to connect with those that I am engaged in conversation with and thus it allows me to immerse into the world better.
When I hear he VO, I find myself cringing over the tone and add that with the surprise of what actually was stated as opposed to the paraphrase...it just irked me throughout the dialogue that I couldn't get into the feel of the story.

[bti79]

Zanallen wrote...

The dialogue options that you choose from have an established tone and intent, no matter if the PC is voiced or silent. That's why the NPCs react as they do. Even if your PC never "said" anything, they still "hear" it with the scripted intent/tone. That's why how you want the character to say something doesn't matter. The videogame script doesn't register the tone/intent YOU wanted. It only registers that present in the game. The icons added to DA II are designed to help you understand how the game is going to perceive your response.

That's not the impression I got from playing DA2. Why would Hawke say something in a witty tone if I did not chose the "witty" option? Maybe it was intended that way - but just doesn't work well?

In any case, obviously the game can not register something that only exists in my mind - which is why I got the impression from DA:O that the NPC's reacted to what was being said only. I don't think there was an invisible scripted tone/intent - the NPC's reacted exactly to the words.

In any case.. it simply worked so much better for me. I felt distant to Hawke in particular because of the voiced PC and dialogue wheel. I felt like an invisible bystander giving Hawke advices on the general direction to go, but never felt like Hawke was my character.

[Zanallen]

bti79 wrote...

That's not the impression I got from playing DA2. Why would Hawke say something in a witty tone if I did not chose the "witty" option? Maybe it was intended that way - but just doesn't work well?

In any case, obviously the game can not register something that only exists in my mind - which is why I got the impression from DA:O that the NPC's reacted to what was being said only. I don't think there was an invisible scripted tone/intent - the NPC's reacted exactly to the words.

In any case.. it simply worked so much better for me. I felt distant to Hawke in particular because of the voiced PC and dialogue wheel. I felt like an invisible bystander giving Hawke advices on the general direction to go, but never felt like Hawke was my character.

And you are entitled to your opinions of course. I was just pointing out that it isn't a fault with the voiced PC as a whole, but one with how dialogue currently works with scripted games. Its the same reason people accidently hit on Zevran without meaning to.

As to your first issue, was "witty" your dominate personality? If so, things like the decision (arrow icon) choices were influenced by your dominate personality to create a more fluid, consistant character.

[Zem_]

Rockpopple wrote...
I - seriously, thanks for that. I was starting to think I was typing in a different language or something. 

From context he seems to be interpreting the word "redundant" as "unwanted".  It is sometimes used that way but usually to refer to something that is unnecessary or unwanted because it is a duplication of effort.  But yeah, I'm not sure how much clearer this can be made.  Reading the line and then hearing it spoken is effectively hearing it twice.  As though you are offstage whispering to the lead actor his lines... and then he speaks them.  There is no such redudancy with silent protagonist because you don't hear the line spoken back.  In effect, once you select it, it's already been said.

There.. now I've tried.

All this said however, none of it means that because it is redundant everyone will have a problem with that.  Some would.  Apparently Bioware assumed most would.  It would definitely be a good idea to add them back as captions when you rollover the paraphrase though.  As an option you can turn on at least.

[bti79]

Zanallen wrote...

And you are entitled to your opinions of course. I was just pointing out that it isn't a fault with the voiced PC as a whole, but one with how dialogue currently works with scripted games. Its the same reason people accidently hit on Zevran without meaning to.

As to your first issue, was "witty" your dominate personality? If so, things like the decision (arrow icon) choices were influenced by your dominate personality to create a more fluid, consistant character.

We're all entitled to our opinions. I still have to disagree. The voiced PC was a major part in ruining the DA2 experience for me. I cringed most of the time Hawke spoke, because it was not how I would have played the character. Sometimes it's better to leave some blanks for the players own mind to fill - and that is exactly why silent PC is better. A voiced PC railroads the player into a specific state of mind created by the writer. In origins there were much more blanks to fill in terms inten/tone and motivation.

As for the first issue - maybe. I couldn't say really. I went with it one dialogue at a time. I suppose it's a good illustration though of what is wrong; the game shouldn't 'create a consistant character' - that's my job as a player! I'd call it character railroading.

Modifié par bti79, 04 mai 2011 - 04:24 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

No he wasn't. That wouldn't even make sense. Once again, you do know what redundancy means, right? He said that having the full script and then a voice over was redundant. He was going by the assumption that your picture of the old system + intent icons included a voiced PC. If your proposed system didn't have a voiced PC, then you probably should have stated such.

That is not the impression he gave with his response to my picture. Of which my post was set in the way of 'want something like... <showed picture>' followed up with possabilities. Now I could of tried re-wording it but the empty line below the picture was supposed to seporate it enough I thought as opposed to putting the text along side the phrase 'want something like <insert text> then example via picture'. He misunderstood what I meant then by looks of it, and to me came across as a reaction to his comment about my post that he was talking about what I wanted aka the picture. Which is why if you read my replies not a single time did I say having both wouldn't be redundant as you put it, but that each system is not redundant.

[AkiKishi]

Having someone voice what you already read is redundant. The big difference between voiced and unvoiced is the character is what you make it when it's not voiced.

That said having a non voiced character in a cut scene is very strange. I'd rather split the difference and have a number of voices but only having the cutscenes voiced not the actual conversations.

[Zanallen]

bti79 wrote...

We're all entitled to our opinions. I still have to disagree. The voiced PC was a major part in ruining the DA2 experience for me. I cringed most of the time Hawke spoke, because it was not how I would have played the character. Sometimes it's better to leave some blanks for the players own mind to fill - and that is exactly why silent PC is better. A voiced PC railroads the player into a specific state of mind created by the writer. In origins there were much more blanks to fill in terms inten/tone and motivation.

As for the first issue - maybe. I couldn't say really. I went with it one dialogue at a time. I suppose it's a good illustration though of what is wrong; the game shouldn't 'create a consistant character' - that's my job as a player! I'd call it character railroading.

Ah, see, that's where we differ. I feel that, no matter how I interpret the specific line of dialogue, the game has a set intent/tone tied to that option. Its a limitation held by the scripted dialogue within games. It is the reason that the tone icons were implemented in the first place, also the reason that DA:O has [Lie] or [Sarcasm] notes. I also feel that character consistancy is more important to my "immersion" than personal choice. A character who is usually a jackass should continue to be a jackass while under stress and not suddenly become a master diplomat or saint.

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

That is not the impression he gave with his response to my picture. Of which my post was set in the way of 'want something like... <showed picture>' followed up with possabilities. Now I could of tried re-wording it but the empty line below the picture was supposed to seporate it enough I thought as opposed to putting the text along side the phrase 'want something like <insert text> then example via picture'. He misunderstood what I meant then by looks of it, and to me came across as a reaction to his comment about my post that he was talking about what I wanted aka the picture. Which is why if you read my replies not a single time did I say having both wouldn't be redundant as you put it, but that each system is not redundant.

And that's why I said you were arguing about completely different things. Also, voiced PCs or full, non-voiced dialogue by themselves cannot be redundant. It is only when you combine them that redundancy occurs.

[Zem_]

bti79 wrote...
In any case, obviously the game can not register something that only exists in my mind - which is why I got the impression from DA:O that the NPC's reacted to what was being said only. I don't think there was an invisible scripted tone/intent - the NPC's reacted exactly to the words.

There was absolutely a scripted intent to every line of dialogue in DAO.  How could there not be?  It's a computer.  it does not understand natural language.  The script writer wrote the line and then linked it to a response in the NPCs list of dialogue or to some action (e.g. "End conversation" "Open shop window" "Go hostile and attack PC" etc.).

What you may be thinking is that in DAO there was not a formalized attempt to make sure every conversation featured a choice from one of the three major personality types defined in DA2.  And that's probably true.  Nevertheless, you could go back and attach an icon from DA2 and a suitable paraphrase to every single line of fully written dialogue in DAO and slap them onto the wheel.  Functionally, it would change nothing.

The intent of the wheel should not be that "diplomacy always works" and "aggression always leads to battle".  You could say these should be more likely outcomes of following those paths, but it should not be a guarantee.  If it was, it was a failure of scripting, not a problem with the wheel.  The wheel is just a user-interface widget, just as is the list of text.

[bti79]

Zanallen wrote...

Ah, see, that's where we differ. I feel that, no matter how I interpret the specific line of dialogue, the game has a set intent/tone tied to that option. Its a limitation held by the scripted dialogue within games. It is the reason that the tone icons were implemented in the first place, also the reason that DA:O has [Lie] or [Sarcasm] notes. I also feel that character consistancy is more important to my "immersion" than personal choice. A character who is usually a jackass should continue to be a jackass while under stress and not suddenly become a master diplomat or saint.

Yes, they did exists in DA:O but were few and far inbetween. I suppose that's a matter of personale preference. I agree that a character wouldn't turn around like that - but the point is that this should be left up to the player to decide or at least create the illusion that it's up to the player. That is the very core of RPG to me, and that was lost in DA2.

[bti79]

Zem_ wrote...

There was absolutely a scripted intent to every line of dialogue in DAO.  How could there not be?  It's a computer.  it does not understand natural language.  The script writer wrote the line and then linked it to a response in the NPCs list of dialogue or to some action (e.g. "End conversation" "Open shop window" "Go hostile and attack PC" etc.).

What you may be thinking is that in DAO there was not a formalized attempt to make sure every conversation featured a choice from one of the three major personality types defined in DA2.  And that's probably true.  Nevertheless, you could go back and attach an icon from DA2 and a suitable paraphrase to every single line of fully written dialogue in DAO and slap them onto the wheel.  Functionally, it would change nothing.

The intent of the wheel should not be that "diplomacy always works" and "aggression always leads to battle".  You could say these should be more likely outcomes of following those paths, but it should not be a guarantee.  If it was, it was a failure of scripting, not a problem with the wheel.  The wheel is just a user-interface widget, just as is the list of text.

When my PC in DAO said something I found the NPC's to react to the words being said, and not some built in script of it being said with a specific intent presumed by the game or some specific tone. Because this usually did not exist in DAO - they were blanks filled out by the players own imagination. I nthe few cases they did exist, they never took me by surprise.

Modifié par bti79, 04 mai 2011 - 04:51 .

[Sussurus]

Zem_ wrote...

The intent of the wheel should not be that "diplomacy always works" and "aggression always leads to battle".  You could say these should be more likely outcomes of following those paths, but it should not be a guarantee.  If it was, it was a failure of scripting, not a problem with the wheel.  The wheel is just a user-interface widget, just as is the list of text.

Yes this is what it should be, at least how I'd like it to be anyway.

You via the character intend to be witty, agressive, blunt, charming, etc.. whether it is with a wheel a text selection or other tool.
The actual intent should not mean automatic success, in DA:O this was largely handled by cunning and skills.
In DA:2 it was by the character saying something other than you thought was going to be said.

The only issue was that often even if you failed with your pick to do what was implied originally.
The action itself did not fail, or at least not on the most part outside of personality cutscenes and selections.

I like being suprised, not knowing if my acts will go the way I think.
But require the knowledge that if the character fails another outcome takes place.
Not the same one as if I had gotten the result I intended.

Modifié par Sussurus, 04 mai 2011 - 04:50 .

[infernalserpent]

Zanallen wrote...

Ah, see, that's where we differ. I feel that, no matter how I interpret the specific line of dialogue, the game has a set intent/tone tied to that option. Its a limitation held by the scripted dialogue within games. It is the reason that the tone icons were implemented in the first place, also the reason that DA:O has [Lie] or [Sarcasm] notes.

That's my impression as well. There has to be some kind of tone flag for each line of PC dialogue so that NPC actions and dialogue trigger correctly. The wheel's icons surface those flags to us, but they were always there, in DAO as well as DA2 (or that's how I would have coded it, anyway ). In that respect, nothing's changed between the two games except exposing a mechanic, which we can use to craft a more consciously consistent character if we want.

ETA: Damn, ninja'd. You snooze, you lose on posting!

Modifié par infernalserpent, 04 mai 2011 - 04:50 .

[Dragoonlordz]

In DAO the devs said, and I agree; the silent protaganist was designed that way for a first person type immersion and that ME system of VO and wheel (now includes DA2) was for third person style immersion. Hence my signature below quotes them. I play RPG's from a first person style roleplay which is why I prefer silent and hence made that picture before showing how adding an emotion based symbol (icon) could have worked for DAO without the need for VO. That is the system I would prefer over VO ME/DA2 system.

My other point which made in my post relates to the UI itself that the wheel design was not that of a fantasy sword/spells and D&D/BG styling. This broke immersion even more for me. Hence why the suggestion of changing to match the fonts and styling of DA not imported style of ME.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 mai 2011 - 04:57 .

[erynnar]

fightright2 wrote...

For me, knowing exactly what my character is saying is important. I find I prefer an RPG without the VO, it allows me to apply my own voice and tone for my own perception and to me that seems more realistic as well as expressive.
It allows me to connect with those that I am engaged in conversation with and thus it allows me to immerse into the world better.
When I hear he VO, I find myself cringing over the tone and add that with the surprise of what actually was stated as opposed to the paraphrase...it just irked me throughout the dialogue that I couldn't get into the feel of the story.

Those were the same problems I had. I couldn't put myself into the world and be Hawke. So I really am not connected as much to the characters or Hawke. And it was so immersion breaking for me. I finally just had to settle for it being a click on movie rather than trying to be in the story.

Not nearly as enjoyable. But then the good Dr.s knew that when they decided not to use it in DAO. There was a very good reason for it.

And I snoozed and lost when Dragoonlordz beat me to it yet again. ROFL!

Modifié par erynnar, 04 mai 2011 - 04:55 .

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

In DAO the devs said, and I agree; the silent protaganist was designed that way for a first person type immersion and that ME system of VO and wheel (now includes DA2) was for third person style immersion. Hence my signature below quotes them. I play RPG's from a first person style roleplay which is why I prefer silent and hence made that picture before showing how adding an emotion based symbol (icon) could have worked for DAO without the need for VO. That is the system I would prefer over VO ME/DA2 system.

My other point which made in my post relates to the UI itself that the wheel design was not that of a fantasy sword/spells and D&D/BG styling. This broke immersion even more for me. Hence why the suggestion of changing to match the story/mechanics of DAO not the mechanics/story of which was imported from aka ME.

That's fine. I personally prefer a voiced protagonist, but that's just my opinion. Unfortunately, the debate of voiced/silent is all over the place as both have their merits/issues.

[bti79]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

In DAO the devs said, and I agree; the silent protaganist was designed that way for a first person type immersion and that ME system of VO and wheel (now includes DA2) was for third person style immersion. Hence my signature below quotes them. I play RPG's from a first person style roleplay which is why I prefer silent and hence made that picture before showing how adding an emotion based symbol (icon) could have worked for DAO without the need for VO. That is the system I would prefer over VO ME/DA2 system.

My other point which made in my post relates to the UI itself that the wheel design was not that of a fantasy sword/spells and D&D/BG styling. This broke immersion even more for me. Hence why the suggestion of changing to match the fonts and styling of DA not imported style of ME.

Very well put. I think you nailed it exactly to the point - DA2 is a third person style game, like ME. This is the most fundamental and disappointing change the devs made IMO.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Addai67 wrote...

Spoken only for yourself, of course.

*clings to Bethesda*

Nope, I'm speaking for plenty of people out there.  Bethesda's games are made differently, so I'm fine with a less cinematic feel there, and there for a voiceless protagonist. 

However... if the Dragon Shouts in Skyrim are really going to be shouts....  Wonder if we'll be picking a voice in Skyrim after all?  :)

[fightright2]

@ OP
Make a poll.

[Addai]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Spoken only for yourself, of course.

*clings to Bethesda*

Nope, I'm speaking for plenty of people out there.  Bethesda's games are made differently, so I'm fine with a less cinematic feel there, and there for a voiceless protagonist. 

However... if the Dragon Shouts in Skyrim are really going to be shouts....  Wonder if we'll be picking a voice in Skyrim after all?  :)

You're not speaking for everyone- that is the point that I really shouldn't have to spell out.

I don't mind some voice effects in combat.  It's not material to a character and you can pretty much tune it out.

Modifié par Addai67, 04 mai 2011 - 05:23 .

[Addai]

Zanallen wrote...

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.

I can at least have the illusion that the PC is reacting as I think she should.