1502 réponses à ce sujet

[Xewaka]

ipgd wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Since I doubt that Bioware set out to write obtuse paraphrases, that's not really something we can expect.  There'll always be some paraphrases which won't translate right to some people.

Just because they didn't set out to do so doesn't mean they can't refine their methodology. Player VA in general is a relatively new thing for Bioware's games, and something they can conceivably improve. There's a difference between a concept that is completely unworkable on a fundamental level and one that is just not executed as well as it could be, and I am of the opinion that paraphrases fall in the latter category. Now excuse me while Wakka disembowels me.

Maths say paraphrases fall in the former category. You simply cannot express a complex statement in 30 characters space. Therefore paraphrases cannot express complex statements. And since a conversation is composed of these, you cannot feasibily offer a conversation choice with a paraphrase. At best, you can offer educated guesses, and that is not enough. Being suprised by your character in a RPG is a net negative experience, at least if your intention is to roleplay a character.

Added question to the staff, because I'm curious: How many of the staff play RPG (the real deal, PnP stuff), and which ones would you name as your references for your game design?

Modifié par Xewaka, 07 août 2011 - 08:53 .

[G00N3R7883]

I'm impressed by the level of feedback coming from the Bioware devs in this thread. It gives me some confidence that the community's concerns are being considered.

I have another question for Mike, regarding the structure of the story, the year 1 / year 3 / year 7 format, and the jumping back and forth between Varric/Cassandra, and those "past" years. That kind of structure doesn't work too well in my opinion, I prefer a story that just starts at the beginning and unfolds in a linear fashion, like all your other games do. The two main negatives this caused for me in DA2 were:

It hurt the impact of certain moments, because I already knew what was going to happen. For example, I lost Carver in the deep roads at the end of chapter 1. But before I entered the deep roads, I had a scene where Varric said to Cassandra something like "if Hawke knew what was down there, he never would have taken his brother". That was pretty much saying "Hey player, this character will die on this level". So when it happened, I was expecting it, and it didn't have the emotional impact it should have had. By contrast, losing mother did have impact, because there was no advance warning (sure she was in danger, but I still had some hope I could save her). There was also a quest in chapter 3 (I think) when some mages kidnapped a companion and took them to the area outside Kirkwall. It seemed to be a random companion, my first playthrough it was Varric, second time it was Bethany. Anyway, first time I saw Varric laying on the ground motionless, I thought "oh my god is he ... no he's fine, I already know Varric cannot possibly die at any time because he's the narrator". The remainder of the scene had no tension for me.

After each time jump between chapters/years, there was a disconnect between me and Hawke, because we had different levels of knowledge regarding the events in the world. I try to play RPGs as if my character is me, but its hard to do that when things have happened that I don't know about, and when NPCs are coming up to me saying "hey Hawke do you remember me from that time we met off screen?"

So my rather long winded question is, do you feel that this story structure worked, and is it something you would do again, whether in DA3 or another game, or would you go back to a more linear style of progression?

This thread is a bit of an interrogation, so I also wanted to ask a more light hearted question. I was wondering if any of the Bioware devs have a particular favourite quest in DA2, and why? Mine was the Avelline/Donnic romance quest. I found it refreshing that a companion could fall for someone other than my character, and I just thought the dialogue was hilarious.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]David Gaider wrote...

Cinematic dialogue can happen "out in the world" if it's a place where we can be certain of the location.  It won't be wherever and whenver the player feels like, however. That's simply not on the table.[/quote]
Therefore, dialogue shouldn't be cinematic.

The logic is simple.

Non-interactive dialogue is a complete non-starter.  It shouldn't ever happen.
[quote]David Gaider wrote...

You can have "unstaged" dialogue... but if you use pre-set cameras without knowing the area you're working in you run the risk of cameras being blocked by objects or other area geometry. The only realistic option in those instances is to go with a single camera showing the character directly in front of the PC and never switching.[/quote]
You've had games before where the camera was smart enough to zoom in automatically if it was going to pass through a wall or the edge of a level.  ME's camera does this.

Why can't the cameras do the same thing during cinematics?  Why do cinematics require 'pre-set" cameras?

And if you must use cinematics and cutscenes, please let us disable depth of field effects.  John talked about how this was entirely possible before DA2 came out, but also mentioned that DA2 wasn't likely to have this feature because Programming was overtasked.  I'd like to see this feature prioritised for future titles.
[quote]Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Exactly the point. Banter presents dialog in one way. Cinematic dialog presents it in another. The two are consistent in the quality of presentation they provide: one is completely interruptive to free play and a different "mode" for the game, the other is layered cleanly on top of gameplay with minimal interruption except the interruption you choose to create for yourself by pausing to listen.[/quote]
Interactive ambient dialgue is basically what I want all dialogue in the game to be.  I don't want cinematic dialogue ever.  I would rather play a game with NWN's dialogue system than with DAO's dialogue system (and either is vastly superior to DA2's dialogue system).
[quote]Let me try to give an example to help explain. If we allow conversation with followers anywhere, we have to write and create conversations that work anywhere. This means Merril can never glance at her book. Fenris can never throw a wine bottle.[/quote]
Fenris could always throw a wine bottle.  If Hawke can magically produce the murder knife out of nowhere, Fenris can create wine.
[quote]Mike Laidlaw wrote...
[quote]fchopin wrote...

What about having a toggle to show the full text of what our character will say? is there any chance of this happening?[/quote]
I'll consider it.[/quote]
What about having a toggle to disable the PC's voice?
[quote]Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Poster: "I want to be able to do EVERYTHING."
Dev: "We can't do everything."
Poster: "But you could do everything if you just did X"
Dev: "Then we could not do Y."
Poster: "I don't care about Y / I don't value Y as highly as X / X would make the game better for me"
Dev: "Understandable, but we've chosen to consider Y a priority. That said, we will be doing Q, which goes some way to X."
Poster "Q is not enough / Q is a dumb approach / Q is not X, and I really want X"
Dev: "Understandable, but in the interests of giving people an answer, we are going with Q."
Poster: "Not enough! You do not listen to your fans!"[/quote]
I would like to think that I usually explain (in considerable detail) why Y is a bad idea and will prevent any number of other valuable features from working in the ways they have previously.
[quote]Mike Laidlaw wrote...
[quote]Andaril78 wrote...

And we have big problems with your banter system. Why? Because the PC is almost 100% of the time in the front BUT the party banter is behind you.[/quote]
I'm aware of this problem, and we will be looking into it.[/quote]
Easy solution.  Put the subtitles in the UI, rather than floating over the characters' heads.

Might I suggest a text box?  While you're at it, maybe drop some combat feedback in there, too.
[quote]Brockololly wrote...

Thats a big one but just another thing absent in DA2 for no apparent reason.  I'd love to have the dialogue log back and maybe even add a combat log.[/quote]
Yes, this.  Very much so this.
[quote]phaonica wrote...

I wonder if the dialog choices would be more intuitive if tied to actions instead of tones. For example, instead of 'diplomatic' and 'sarcastic' our option icons would be more like: agree, disagree politely, disagree agressively, insult, joke, comfort, etc.[/quote]
This is certainly something worth investigating.
[quote]rak72 wrote...

I don't think anyone is saying no to cinematic[/quote]
I am.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 août 2011 - 09:18 .

[Fallstar]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Hm. Fair enough. I suppose being able to talk to my companions anywhere isn't as important to me as just wanting to have more player-initiated dialog with them. Though I wonder if you don't have the resources to add "anywhere" conversations, where the resources for adding more "camp" conversations comes from.

It's not so much adding new ones as saying "if we can have 10, where do we have them?"

And to be clear, nothing Dave or I have said rules out things like the Awakening dialogs out in the world. Those are totally possible.

I'd just like to say that this was a feature in Awakening that was really great; when you find an object in the world that should mean something to a companion, it's really immersive and develops the character when you actually have a full cinematic conversation with that character. Perhaps rather than being able to talk to companions any time in 'full' dialogue whilst out in the world, we could have one or two of these objects that instigate a conversation? That way you have the static environment that allows for all the cinematic presentation etc. In an ideal world, we could have

Companions full dialogue at 'base'
Object/Environment instigated full dialogue 'out in the world'
Ambient party banter

[Dormiglione]

Sylvianus wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

b1322 wrote...

I must admit that now I am really confused about the conversation system. Yesterday, I got the impression from Mike that there would be additional dialogues at least at camp or some homebase and that it would be possible for examble to kiss my LI anytime I wanted but now it doesnt sound like that will be likely either. I know Bioware cant tell us too much of how it is going to be but I would appreciate just a little hint so that I will know if I will buy da3 or not, because if the dialogues are going to be limited like in da2 again, then I definitely wont be buying it.
I am sorry if the questions seems repeated and if I am too thickheaded to understand it all 


Edit: And I dont mean party banter as part of the dialogues but actually dialogues.

Generally: Any time? Yes. Any where? No.

This would be a great improvement compared to the conversation system in DA2.

This system will work fine for me.

It allows a certain logic, a certain freedom, a certain facility. ( fixed location, cinematics )

Same here, sure i would prefer DAO style back, but "Generally: Any time? Yes. Any where? No." would also work fine for me.

[Dormiglione]

b1322 wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

b1322 wrote...

I must admit that now I am really confused about the conversation system. Yesterday, I got the impression from Mike that there would be additional dialogues at least at camp or some homebase and that it would be possible for examble to kiss my LI anytime I wanted but now it doesnt sound like that will be likely either. I know Bioware cant tell us too much of how it is going to be but I would appreciate just a little hint so that I will know if I will buy da3 or not, because if the dialogues are going to be limited like in da2 again, then I definitely wont be buying it.
I am sorry if the questions seems repeated and if I am too thickheaded to understand it all 


Edit: And I dont mean party banter as part of the dialogues but actually dialogues.

Generally: Any time? Yes. Any where? No.

This would be a great improvement compared to the conversation system in DA2.

Yes I think so too, I am curious though how much dialogue we will get and I am not so excited about da3 anymore. To me, what made origins so great was the ability to talk with the other companions whenever I wanted to combined with the romances, it made the game a different and special kind of game which stood out from the rest of the games out there. Now, it seems like they are going in the more "ordinary" kind of game direction, just my opinion.

There are various reasons why DA3 will not be a day one purchase for me. One of them is the conversation system.

[Dormiglione]

Xewaka wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Since I doubt that Bioware set out to write obtuse paraphrases, that's not really something we can expect.  There'll always be some paraphrases which won't translate right to some people.

Just because they didn't set out to do so doesn't mean they can't refine their methodology. Player VA in general is a relatively new thing for Bioware's games, and something they can conceivably improve. There's a difference between a concept that is completely unworkable on a fundamental level and one that is just not executed as well as it could be, and I am of the opinion that paraphrases fall in the latter category. Now excuse me while Wakka disembowels me.

Maths say paraphrases fall in the former category. You simply cannot express a complex statement in 30 characters space. Therefore paraphrases cannot express complex statements. And since a conversation is composed of these, you cannot feasibily offer a conversation choice with a paraphrase. At best, you can offer educated guesses, and that is not enough. Being suprised by your character in a RPG is a net negative experience, at least if your intention is to roleplay a character.

Added question to the staff, because I'm curious: How many of the staff play RPG (the real deal, PnP stuff), and which ones would you name as your references for your game design?

I agree with you that 30 characters cant express a complex statement. But its simple to write a paraphrase that is not misleading.

Just two examples, i hope that i remember it right:

1) Hawke talks to Cullen. On Paraphrase was "im a mage", Hawke said: "i have friends that are mages". A paraphrase like "my friend are mages" had been more appropriate.

2) As Merril had to kill the dalish keeper because she was possessed, the group walked out of the cave and the elves were there.
One of Hawkes paraphrase was "i take responsibility", Hawke said: " i will take care that merril will never..". Better paraphrase "Merril comes with me"

Thats what made me angry was not the paraphrase system itself, it was the issue that too many times, the paraphrase that i had choosen and that what Hawke said, didnt match.

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Just a note, for those who are now following the videos, episode 5 calls for support to encourage more community driven content in games and is looking for support to send a message to developers that games which allow for the delivery of community created content can be a long term and powerful success.

Considering this thread is all about (or was) dialogue with developers I would love to hear some of your thoughts on the newest episode

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 07 août 2011 - 11:03 .

[Achkas]

I don't think it would hurt for DA designers, especially if they're considering how they might get new players and fans for the game whilst not alienating others, to look at an alternative dialogue system. I see the shortcomings of DA:O dialogue trees, but the wheel where there are clearly diplomatic, sarcastic, and angry responses most of the time just felt overly simplistic and limiting, and really broke immersion for me. The system where it sort of translates what you think the character will say into a longer sentence -- often Hawke said something which did not seem to match what I had selected at all, just like in Mass Effect -- is weak and just unenjoyable.

I think one of the best models for dialogue in this series would perhaps be something like that found in Quantic Dream's Heavy Rain. Where cinematic and very watchable cut scenes are organised and play out differently through dialogue options. I think many RPGs are ridiculous in the flows of conversation they present; that you can say most dialogue options, often randomly shifting topic, and the NPC just responds as if the conversation is a normal one, when people do not speak like that in real life. The beauty of Heavy Rain's dialogue system is that it presented a degree of choice -- it made you feel like each line you were speaking was itself a 'choice' in the game, and speaking from experience of having several non-gamer friends really enjoy playing Heavy Rain and watching others play it, I think this could be a really good thing in a fantasy game like DA3. Just something to consider, as I for one would love to see a dialogue system like this. It makes dialogue less boring also, especially the time-dependent aspect of Heavy Rain dialogue, where if you do not choose an option within a certain time limit your silence was often taken as a choice in itself, or your character defaulted to a certain response.

[Xewaka]

Dormiglione wrote...
I agree with you that 30 characters cant express a complex statement. But its simple to write a paraphrase that is not misleading.
*Examples snniped*
Thats what made me angry was not the paraphrase system itself, it was the issue that too many times, the paraphrase that i had choosen and that what Hawke said, didnt match.

And that is because the paraphrases, due to their limited space nature, cannot properly express what the full statement will be.

Modifié par Xewaka, 07 août 2011 - 12:05 .

[blothulfur]

Better antagonists.

I'm sick of facing morons and ineffectual madmen, what possible satisfaction can be gleaned from defeating such people. Sarevok had a plan and an agenda, Irenicus was obsessed but implemented his schemes with machiavellian ingenuity, Branka was power hungry and ruthless to a psychotic level but she had her reasons and logic and I respected them all the more for this and thus by orchestrating their downfall my character became all the more potent.

I'm not saying there's not a place for madmen and brutes as antagonists but they can't be held up as worthy foes compared to a manipulator who provides a worthy challenge through forethought and planning or even bests the main character. Oh and by the Qun don't make us have to settle everything through more waves of awesome, a simple recitation of the counter measures the villains has set into place, the fact that they've won and will now withdraw or a rousing speech explaining their motivations and philosophy can be just as effective as another boss fight and if i've already destroyed the villains schemes, his power base and his compatriots rendering him impotent and innefectual just let me walk away after explaining this in as smug and knowing a manner as possible.

Of course bloodshed should always be a viable option for the more bloodthirsty or those who are just averse to letting business remain unconcluded.

[Morroian]

Yuqi wrote...

 I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, but I thought I would.

Is it possible  to have the 'Conversation history feature' back in future installments, please?

I vote for this as well.

[ipgd]

Xewaka wrote...

Maths say paraphrases fall in the former category. You simply cannot express a complex statement in 30 characters space. Therefore paraphrases cannot express complex statements. And since a conversation is composed of these, you cannot feasibily offer a conversation choice with a paraphrase. At best, you can offer educated guesses, and that is not enough. Being suprised by your character in a RPG is a net negative experience, at least if your intention is to roleplay a character.

Is there some sort of blood writ that prevents them from expanding the limit beyond 30 characters as necessary? Of course they're not done optimally now, which is why they need to be improved, and improvement involves changes to the way they are currently handled. Which may include but is not limited to longer paraphrases, and possibly dropping that in-house rule where they cannot repeat any of the words from the actual text in the paraphrase. 

[b1322]

So Mike, another fun one for You, will DA3 continue with the wheel sort of dialogue system like in DA2 or will it be like in DA1? If You can tell me that is

Modifié par b1322, 07 août 2011 - 01:50 .

[Xewaka]

ipgd wrote...
Is there some sort of blood writ that prevents them from expanding the limit beyond 30 characters as necessary? Of course they're not done optimally now, which is why they need to be improved, and improvement involves changes to the way they are currently handled. Which may include but is not limited to longer paraphrases, and possibly dropping that in-house rule where they cannot repeat any of the words from the actual text in the paraphrase. 

What you're asking for sounds an awful lot like using the full line. Mind you, I'd very much prefer to see the full line rather than be lied to by the interface, but I understand this won't be done due to subvocalization problems.
Then again, solving the subvocalization issue with the paraphrases is a textbook example to illustrate the spanish phrase "Es peor el remedio que la enfermedad", "The cure is worse than the illness".

Modifié par Xewaka, 07 août 2011 - 02:03 .

[R0vena]

DuskWarden wrote...

I'd just like to say that this was a feature in Awakening that was really great; when you find an object in the world that should mean something to a companion, it's really immersive and develops the character when you actually have a full cinematic conversation with that character. Perhaps rather than being able to talk to companions any time in 'full' dialogue whilst out in the world, we could have one or two of these objects that instigate a conversation? That way you have the static environment that allows for all the cinematic presentation etc. In an ideal world, we could have

Companions full dialogue at 'base'
Object/Environment instigated full dialogue 'out in the world'
Ambient party banter

The problem in Awakening style dialog is you need to bring specific party members to specific locations. Otherwise you just miss the conversation. 

[Ashanasu]

What a welcome thing that developers are interacting with fans more...I like this.


The earlier discussion about stripping the RPG from DA and making the game more actiony or consolized was interesting to me.

The conversation instantly brought a few scenarios into my mind

I have a dexterity of 80 yet perceive no impact on my gameplay. My expectation is to be nigh unhittable because of the sacrifices I have made to get my dexterity this high. Yet I see no reward.

Another example is with skill checks during dialog. those are few and far between...

I guess the bottom line of what I am trying to say is that if I make sacrifices to build my character in a certain way, the gameplay rewards should be clear and ongoing.

That is what I perceive as the stripping of the RPG in DA.

[nitefyre410]

Mike,

Something that has been brought up in other threads. Alot of us would like to see the return of duel wielding warrior and archery for a warrior( I prefer they use only Crossbows) but also the expansion of weapon varity and skill sets for both Warriors and Rogues. Things like Pole-arms, fist weapons, Thrown weapons, Hand to Hand combat could we see these things in the future games?

[ipgd]

Xewaka wrote...

What you're asking for sounds an awful lot like using the full line. Mind you, I'd very much prefer to see the full line rather than be lied to by the interface, but I understand this won't be done due to subvocalization problems.
Then again, solving the subvocalization issue with the paraphrases is a textbook example to illustrate the spanish phrase "Es peor el remedio que la enfermedad", "The cure is worse than the illness".

What I'm asking for is paraphrases that are more accurate while remaining non-repetitive enough that I'm not immediately inclined to skip through the player VA (you know, an improvement to the current system, not a complete throwback). There is obviously no solution to this problem that will please everyone, and they've repeatedly stated they are not going back to the silent PC, so it seems more productive to suggest actual solutions to improving paraphrases rather than futilely calling for them to be removed all together, or proposing toggles that solve your gripes, but ressurect the very issues that caused them to decide to use the paraphrase system and in effect render them entirely pointless in the area they are intended to resolve.

Just because the problems that incurred paraphrases in the first place are not personal problems for yoooouuuu does not mean they aren't problems the developers still need to contend with in whatever decisions they make regarding paraphrasing

[Giltspur]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I would actually like to see "group character building" moments like those in the game. We never had them in DAO due to the nature of the quest, but they were definitely hinted at in DA2, and I would love to see such moments built into the game.

Imagine, for example, a noble's vote similar to the Landsmeet. Using DA2 as an example, let's say that the nobles are meeting to vote for a new Viscount, and Hawke wants to influence the vote in a particular way (say, noble A is the one you want in power, because noble B is bad, like Arl Howe or something). The night before the vote, there's a grand gala ball, and all of the companions are in attendance. There are X key voters Hawke needs to convince to vote for A. Well, each one has a specific quest that you need to do (bring me this, convince X to stop doing Y, persuade Z to have an affair with me, etc.), and Hawke's companions can help brief her on what's going on. Isabela has the lowdown on Colonel Mustard, Merrill accidentally wandered into Lady Peanut Butter's estate and overheard something, Varric plays cards with Lord Jellyroll, etc.

Hawke is on a mission, but the player gets to see the living side of Kirkwall, with nobles and machinations and stuff, as well as sides of the companions that are hinted at by others, but not brought up in direct conversation. Maybe Hawke can even try to get the companions to speak to the people directly, e.g. ask Isabela to steal an item, ask Anders to cause a scene, call Aveline to arrest someone, etc. Depending on how you use them, they can gain rivalry or friendship as well (make Isabela do something she doesn't wish to, vs make her do something she does want).

We get a chance to see our loyal followers behaving in a new environment, get to know them, and get the feeling of the nobility as more than just the faceless people we rescued from the Qunari, but people with individual goals and aims that must be directed.

In the imaginary DA2 I thought of back before I knew its plot, I imagined there would be a Landsmeet moment like the above on the way to viscount.  Maybe Orlais (not confirmed location for DA3 of course) can have gala chicanery at least.  And it would be cool if it's not just a bunch of quest givers to complete quests in the affirmative for but rather a bunch of rivals that react to your decisions and change the available content for you. 

Or at least someone named Lord Jellyroll.

At least.

Also the idea of picking companions to do various tasks appropriate to their skill set is cool.  Kind of a combination of the party split of DAO at Denerim and the end sequence of ME2.

Modifié par Giltspur, 07 août 2011 - 02:50 .

[Xewaka]

ipgd wrote...
Just because the problems that incurred paraphrases in the first place are not personal problems for yoooouuuu does not mean they aren't problems the developers still need to contend with in whatever decisions they make regarding paraphrasing.

Just because ambiguity and lack of precision are not personal problems for yoooouuuu does not mean they aren't problems the developers still need to contend with in whatever decisions they make regarding a working UI for the critical in-character decision making process.

As far as I know, full line wasn't a problem in Monkey Island 3.
It wasn't a problem in Full Throttle.
It wasn't a problem in Grim Fandango.
It wasn't a problem in Sam'n'Max Hit the Road.
Or at the very least, if it was a problem, the developers found it was better to stick with it than attempt a new solution that raises more problems than it solves.

Modifié par Xewaka, 07 août 2011 - 02:52 .

[axl99]

Still depends on how long the response is and how it will fit in with UI. The less clutter, the better.

Heavy Rain and Alpha Protocol were simple in the sense they just gave us context or conversational approaches to choose when talking to people or just thinking about themselves.

[ipgd]

Xewaka wrote...

ipgd wrote...
Just because the problems that incurred paraphrases in the first place are not personal problems for yoooouuuu does not mean they aren't problems the developers still need to contend with in whatever decisions they make regarding paraphrasing.

Just because ambiguity and lack of precision are not personal problems for yoooouuuu does not mean they aren't problems the developers still need to contend with in whatever decisions they make regarding a working UI for the critical in-character decision making process.

They are problems for me, which is why I want to see more accurate paraphrases that go to some degree to alleviate the problems yoooouuuu raise without completely defeating the point of paraphrases entirely. Of course you aren't going to be satisfied unless you see the line full stop, but that's not going to happen, so let's have better paraphrases that reduce instances of confusion instead of rattling about the monkey cage to no avail.

As far as I know, full line wasn't a problem in Monkey Island 3.
It wasn't a problem in Full Throttle.
It wasn't a problem in Grim Fandango.
It wasn't a problem in Sam'n'Max Hit the Road.
Or at the very least, if it was a problem, the developers found it was better to stick with it than attempt a new solution that raises more problems than it solves.

Repetition with voiced lines has always been a problem, but not one that has a neat little cure-all that satisfies everyone. Obviously a studio that has prioritized reducing repetition in player VA is going to continue to be concerned by repetition in player VA, so solutions that bring repetition in player VA right back are not actually solutions for them when they have demonstrated that repetition in player VA is enough of a priority for them to take away the full line in the first place. And as they have repeatedly explained, repetition in player VA is going to continue to be a priority for them, so suggesting that it stop being a priority for them is not a solution, either.

Modifié par ipgd, 07 août 2011 - 03:10 .

[Dragoonlordz]

ipgd wrote...

Repetition with voiced lines has always been a problem, but not one that has a neat little cure-all that satisfies everyone. Obviously a studio that has prioritized reducing repetition in player VA is going to continue to be concerned by repetition in player VA, so solutions that bring repetition in player VA right back are not actually solutions for them when they have demonstrated that repetition in player VA is enough of a priority for them to take away the full line in the first place. And as they have repeatedly explained, repetition in player VA is going to continue to be a priority for them, so suggesting that it stop being a priority for them is not a solution, either.

You used the word repetition seven times in one paragragh -> irony.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 07 août 2011 - 03:12 .

[ipgd]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You used the word repetition seven times in one paragragh -> irony.

Yes, dear, that was the point.