447 réponses à ce sujet

[tallon1982]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

The voiced protagonist is flawed but I certainly prefer following the conversation to having it go completely wrong.

I would rather have it go wrong than not go at all.

The DA2 dialogue options are so specific that I routinely am faced with no acceptable options.  None of the paraphrase-icon combinations are acceptable.

That has never before happened to me in a BioWare game.  In the ME games I could always tell which line I wanted, but then I was routinely surprised by what Shepard said.  And in DAO the Warden always said exactly what I wanted exactly the way I wanted it, and then the NPC reactions were sometimes confusing.

But of those three options, only the DAO doesn't break the PC.  ME breaks the PC because he says things the player didn't intend.  And DA2 breaks the game because the player cannot choose any of the options without violating his character's design.

In terms of controlling your character and having him act as you would like him to act, DAO is cleraly the best system of the three.  That is not to say that DAO is perfect - there is plenty of room to improve the reactivity of the PC in DAO (perhaps through the use of some sort of pausable interrupt system - In Exile and I hashed out a really quite good one in another thread) - but the failings of the DA2 and ME systems are obviously absent from DAO.

I think this again goes down to the time constraints along with the funding required. DAO was better because you didn't need to throw money into a fully voiced protagonist. When you start adding a voice you've got to balance the budget so to speak and end up compromising for what sounds good or would be considered acceptable for the selected dialogue. I don't have issues one way or the other with the whole voiced or non voiced debate. I do think if you're going to do voiced options I'd like to know what's going to be said since when we have the written out choices with the non voiced protagonist we know what's being said.  The wheel could still be used in that you pick the line you want to say then the tone or whatever. I don't know...I think I'm rambling again.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Haexpane wrote...

They could replace the text with SIMS-speak non-language and the game would not change one bit.

Ok, maybe a little. The Aveline side quests would be 100x less annoying if I didn't have to see what she was whining about.

With all due respect, that is a blasphemous idea. I think people would not take the game seriously even if the other elements were amazing, Simlish is ****ing hard to understand without the emoticons in the games.

[John Epler]

Haexpane wrote...

The AP did bring up how much time and effort is involved in making the cinematic stuff.

Clearly in the "old" days of BG2, you didn't have that cost.

So I guess the question is - Are more "dynamic" dialog cutscenes worth it? AKA what we gained vs. what we lost compared to DAO? I don't know the cost so I can't say for certain.

There are two solutions to this problem - use the 'cheaper' option (less dynamic conversations), or make the cinematic approach itself cheaper. There are certainly improvements that can be made in this area - non 'action' lines can be handled by better and more robust procedural systems, for example, to keep the developer from having to spend many resources on those while still allowing for them to look 'interesting'. We already have a procedural gesture system in the DA toolset, for example, that adds gestures to particular lines. It's one area of development, and there are certainly many, many others.

[Sylvius the Mad]

YohkoOhno wrote...

The problem Sylvius is that for most people, role assumption is more important than actually controlling and internalizing all of the character's motivations.

But that position is logically inconsistent.  If I'm just assuming the role of a pre-existing character, how is it I get to make choices on his behalf?  If I'm not in control of his personality, then I shouldn't be making any decisions for him at all.  I shouldn't get to decide what weapons he uses.  I shouldn't get to decide which quests he accepts.  Because to do that requires that I understand his personality well enough to maintain a coherent set of preferences for him.

And I can only do that if I built the personality from scratch myself.

You seem to be stretching the limits of the games as presented to keep your internal views of the character as more important.

I'm trying to keep the character's views and the coherence of his personality as most important.

Let me ask.  How do you decide whether Hawke accepts payment for a quest?  If you're not in control of his personality, what possible justification could you have for your choice?

You keep talking about role-assumption as opposed to roleplaying.  But as long as these games are called roleplaying games, I'm going to demand roleplaying.

[YohkoOhno]

There are two solutions to this problem - use the 'cheaper' option (less dynamic conversations), or make the cinematic approach itself cheaper. There are certainly improvements that can be made in this area - non 'action' lines can be handled by better and more robust procedural systems, for example, to keep the developer from having to spend many resources on those while still allowing for them to look 'interesting'.

That's an exciting future. Eventually, I can see a Bioware game having the flexibility of Spore--maybe a world is autogenerated with some major plot differences and political differences and monster differences each time or based on custom settings.

This is a dream and likely 1 decade away, especially since it takes a whole lot of work to create a very cohesive story that way, but I see that kind of thing as the ultimate dream.

[Sylvius the Mad]

tallon1982 wrote...

I think this again goes down to the time constraints along with the funding required. DAO was better because you didn't need to throw money into a fully voiced protagonist.

Yes it was.  Full stop.

JohnEpler wrote...

There are two solutions to this problem - use the 'cheaper' option (less dynamic conversations), or make the cinematic approach itself cheaper.

Only one of those solutions actually fixes the problem.  The other one just makes the problem smaller. 

[Genly]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Genly wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

I
feel there is a certain level of truth in what Auto said. You don't
need icons to tell the intent of a sentence. If you do, then I doubt
that individual is literate.

As much as I prefer DA:O over
DA2 conversation system, this is something I'll have agree to disagree.
Written text speech alone sometimes is not enough to tell the intent,
for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Now how much this affects the game
itself and if/how to address this ingame is debatable.

I guess that this "problem" is a subjective one, then?

Well, yes. Actually, reading the last responses, people can't even agree on what the problem is. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie]

We shouldn't be able to have full control on the reactions
of NPCs/companions anyway. The problem, as I see it, happens when an
unexpected companion's response was caused because he misinterpreted it,
not because of his own personality/plot/etc.

For example, let's say for DA:O style,
you have to choose a text line to say something to Anders, then you
pick one that you intend to be a joke. But instead the game "chooses"
for you a serious tone, making Anders angry and you lose friendship.
Now, let's say you say that same thing to Aveline: even if she knows
you're joking, she might react badly anyway. In both cases, their
responses were "unexpected", but in the first case, it was a flaw of the
"system",

Now how much that happened in DA:O? Maybe once or twice with me, but I always play the good, hero option anyway. While with the DA2 icons, you always know at least your tone, which should impact the NPCs/companions' view of your character.

[YohkoOhno]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But that position is logically inconsistent.  If I'm just assuming the role of a pre-existing character, how is it I get to make choices on his behalf?  If I'm not in control of his personality, then I shouldn't be making any decisions for him at all.  I shouldn't get to decide what weapons he uses.  I shouldn't get to decide which quests he accepts.  Because to do that requires that I understand his personality well enough to maintain a coherent set of preferences for him.

That's not how a lot of people play these games, just look at MMORPGS and how some people play them.

You can control the character based on how you interpret the personality based on what you know about it.  Or you can just decide to choose the option because you would prefer to see how the story went that way.  I'm not sure what you are arguing there. I see nothing illogical about making a choice like that in the game.

You keep talking about role-assumption as opposed to roleplaying.  But as long as these games are called roleplaying games, I'm going to demand roleplaying.

The problem is word-definitions change over time. So all the ranting and demanding won't change that. I mentioned Gygax saying RPGs were not just role-playing but role-assumption because I wanted to emphasize that even the people who coined the terms used for these games understood that difference (even if you don't personally accept it yourself). In the early days of tabletop RPGs, you had tournament modules where the characters were pre-defined, so having control over your character's story was not even important in many of the early released modules. Words change over time.

And I just think this is the trend for all RPGs. It seems a lot of Bioware fans love The Witcher even though you have less internal control of that character (especially the backstory) than you do in Mass Effect. If this wasn't working for the genre, then people would go back to silent protagonists and isometric views, but apparently it is appealing enough to people.

I also suspect that most people saw RPGs as hack-and-slash and didn't care about the story aspects of it. I think the release of Diablo and the first MMOs really proved that most people don't even want to RP, otherwise more role-and-story intensive behavior would occur.

I'm just glad that Bioware and other game companies still care about story. I fear that we are a minority and could lose out. And I actually prefer having more pre-defined choices if they make the game a more enjoyable and immersible experience. Obviously Bioware sees this based on feedback and sales.  I think the rise of MMOs and Social games might be a threat to those that prefer deep story, so I am greatful for what I can get.  Heck, WoTC first copied Diablo elements then copied World of Warcraft elements, so even the Table-top games aren't the same anymore.

Rather than complain to Bioware in a pedantic way, I suggest finding games you might like instead. Might and Magic, Gothic, some of the Indie games that are BG like. Voting with your wallet is what will make the impact.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 31 mai 2011 - 11:13 .

[Tommy6860]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

I feel there is a certain level of truth in what Auto said. You don't need icons to tell the intent of a sentence. If you do, then I doubt that individual is literate.

Except (and I'm not the only one) when you read a line in a completely different tone than what was intended, leaving the player confused and lost. Trying to joke? Guy is offended! Trying to be nice? Guy takes it as sarcasm and hates you! Trying to be offensive? Guy thinks it's a joke!

The voiced protagonist is flawed but I certainly prefer following the conversation to having it go completely wrong.

You just described they way it works with DA2 in a nutshell.

[YohkoOhno]

I think it will be rarer to see the silent protagonist in any games, as the medium has changed just like TV changed the role of drama to mass audiences. Some people back then lamented the loss of descriptions for the set pieces. But the world changes, and we have to adapt.

[Tommy6860]

While I liked a few of the insights regarding Gaider's past accomplishments intertwined with today's gaming output, it really wasn't that revealing as far as DA2 goes. When I finished reading the article, I knew that this interview was done at around the time of DA2's release. I would rather had that this interview been done within a frame of at least a month after DA2's release, and I bet the interview would have been more expositive.

[Morroian]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Except (and I'm not the only one) when you read a line in a completely different tone than what was intended, leaving the player confused and lost. Trying to joke? Guy is offended! Trying to be nice? Guy takes it as sarcasm and hates you! Trying to be offensive? Guy thinks it's a joke!

The voiced protagonist is flawed but I certainly prefer following the conversation to having it go completely wrong.

You just described they way it works with DA2 in a nutshell.

Not IMHO, I can honestly say that 100% of the time in DA2 the dialogue was delivered with the intent I wanted in terms of how the line was delivered (angry, snarky etc.). A lot of the time the actual dialogue didn't match up with the paraphrase very well but thats a different issue.

Modifié par Morroian, 01 juin 2011 - 01:08 .

[Genly]

Tommy6860 wrote...
You just described they way it works with DA2 in a nutshell.

I honestly haven't noticed that. Even when you consider an obviously poor (and funny hehe) example of the paraphrasing ("I'm a mage" -> "I have mage friends"), the end resultlng meaning is the same. Even if it completely destroys my sense of roleplaying , Anders will still like me, NPC should know I support mages and not his ideas, etc.

[fightright2]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

I feel there is a certain level of truth in what Auto said. You don't need icons to tell the intent of a sentence. If you do, then I doubt that individual is literate.

Except (and I'm not the only one) when you read a line in a completely different tone than what was intended, leaving the player confused and lost. Trying to joke? Guy is offended! Trying to be nice? Guy takes it as sarcasm and hates you! Trying to be offensive? Guy thinks it's a joke!

The voiced protagonist is flawed but I certainly prefer following the conversation to having it go completely wrong.

You just described they way it works with DA2 in a nutshell.

+10 to Tommy. *

*Fixed

[Morroian]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

I'd rather have a silent PC. It's much more cost-efficient and allows me to project my own voice onto the character. A voiced PC kind of breaks my immersion in a RP'ing game(much like Shepard, Geralt and Michael Thorton does). And the less dynamic conversations seems to be the best way to go.

I don't mind them doing this so long as every character is silent or at most have it done like in BG2.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Autolycus wrote...

We're seriously still discussing the dialogue? Jesus Christ...how dumb does the game need to be to please people?

We have had silent protagonists for 20+ years.....no one bothered then...no one complained about or picked the wrong dialogue options then....

And more importantly....no need for stupid little icons telling us what the sentence portrayed...but then...well...English language and reading skills have degenerated lately I guess....

But people did complain. I remember reading a lot about it on different forums after DAO. Especially players who accidentally ended up in a romance with Zevran. So clearly to a lot of people this was a problem. Now I'm not saying that DA2 did it better. Now we know how the PC will deliver the line but not what the PC will actually say.


I prefer voiced over silent PC. My problem with the silent PC, in DAO, is that my wardens stand around with no facial expression. At all. When s/he did happen to sport some kind of expression I found it pretty cringeworthy (running up to Wynne). If BioWare decide to bring back the silent PC I hope they will do it with facial expression. With Baldur's Gate this was never a problem for me because we never saw our character's face.

[LobselVith8]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Considering Sketch says "don't hang out with storytellers. Never know what they'll say." I bet Bioware placed that quest in there just as a last resort.

"Varric lied! Hawke actually did investigate Leandra's death! Varric just thinks Hawke is an enormous putz and wants to make him seem that way!"

So Hawke was really a proactive and intelligent character, he was simply smeared by Varric? Jealous over Merrill's affections for Hawke, perhaps?

[TEWR]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

I'd rather have a silent PC. It's much more cost-efficient and allows me to project my own voice onto the character. A voiced PC kind of breaks my immersion in a RP'ing game(much like Shepard, Geralt and Michael Thorton does). And the less dynamic conversations seems to be the best way to go.

I like the voice, and one of my reasons for it is.... pretty far out there. But let me try my best to make this.... oh who am I kidding it will sound insane.


There's this movie with Robin Williams called What Dreams May Come. It's one of my favorite movies. In it, Robin Williams plays a doctor who loses his kids in I think an accident (haven't watched it for a while now). His wife and he grieve, and one day he loses his life while trying to help the victim of an accident on a highway during a storm. he goes to Heaven and is told that his Paradise can be whatever he wants. Eventually his wife commits suicide because she can't handle the loss and Robin Williams' character journeys to Hell itself to rescue her and take her to Heaven. Kinda romantic really and also very beautiful.

Well, that was exactly how I always viewed Heaven. So when I die, if I go to Heaven and that's what it is like, then one day if I'm bored I might make a Thedas as my paradise and then I'll pretty much pull a Flemeth in that I'll be in multiple places at once (meaning I'll be The Warden, Hawke, etc..). Now I wouldn't immediately make a Thedas Heaven because that would be.... well why would I want to go to Heaven and then face down Darkspawn? Seems.... weird.

I don't care how I sound (within reason. I do NOT want to sound like Gilbert Gottfried) so long as I still have control over who I am. Voice and personality to me are two different things in a video game. So were I Hawke, the voice would have no effect on who I am.

It's really just a means of finding a good way to allow us to roleplay our characters while maintaining the voice. There has to be either a balance or more of a shift towards the roleplaying side.


Now I bet I've probably made more than a few people back away slowly with this post

[Ibanez gio]

Does anyone have any info on the new patch that just updated today on the 360?

[Genly]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Now I bet I've probably made more than a few people back away slowly with this post

Would you really make Thedas your paradise?

*backs away slowly*