148 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

Zanallen wrote...

Once again, the best solution would be to just have a toggle or mouse over option that revealed the full line. Shouldn't be too difficult if the full line was shown in the recap text box.

Especially since all the lines are available as text for localizations anyway. So, there wouldn't be any extra work involved in creating them.

[MorrigansLove]

Blastback wrote...

I'd go with keeping the paraphrase, but if you highlight it with your mouse or thumbstick, it will display the full text.

Brilliant Idea!

[Arthur Cousland]

Many times, my sarcastic Hawke will sound like an a-hole after picking the sarcastic response, where I thought he would have said something funny.

For the most part, the dialogue wheel works fine, but there are many times when something else is said other than what was intended. When I want to play it safe, I feel like I need to pick the diplomatic/nice response just so the npc speaking to Hawke doesn't get upset when I just wanted him to say something funny, but it comes across as insensitive or disrespectful.

I don't think paraphrasing needs to go away; just improved.

[Mr.House]

as long as I can still use 1,2,3,4,5,6 to pick the dialog like in DAO/DA2, I don't care

[LadyofRivendell]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

Many times, my sarcastic Hawke will sound like an a-hole after picking the sarcastic response, where I thought he would have said something funny.

This happened to me so many times >.> It's really what started my gripe with the paraphrasing.
Like others said, I don't think it needs to be done away with, just improved. Why not paraphrase what's actually going to be said, instead?

[dheer]

Dubya75 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
The paraphrasing makes the PC feel even more like an NPC. Only a lunatic is surprised by their own words. That being said, I know why they do it. Up to this point, picking the right choice to get the reaction you wanted has been part of the game. In Origins that was because sometimes people don't take your words as you mean them, while in DA2, it was because sometimes you say something different than was implied. It they're going to paraphrase, they should get rid of the uncertainty as to what results your words would have. It's unfortunate, since that was a good part of gameplay in Origins, but with paraphrasing, it's just too alienating. If they insist on having a voiced character, they need to make choices clear enough that you're never thinkin 'wtf is coming out of my mouth?'

Can't say I ever thought this in DA2. Paraprhrasing (although room for improvement) is clear enough together with the tone Icons.

It happened enough to me that I had to save every time I thought there was going to be a conversation so that I could reload and test each one to try to actually match what my character would say. It ended up being a giant pain in the ass that got in the way of me actually being able to roleplay.

[FieryDove]

Yes it needs to go far far away.

If I don’t know what my character is going to say it no longer *is* my character. But then I’m old fashioned I guess, reading doesn’t bother me.

[Salaya]

Dubya75 wrote...

...

The exact opposite could be just as stong an argument: I don't like to read, instead I love the voiced protaginist.
I don't need to know exactly what my character is going to say, I like to hear what he says...
If devs want to appeal to masses, then the voiced protagonist is definitely the way to go.
Paraphrasing is a clear step in the right direction, as well as the tone icons.

If people want text-based games where they can use their imagination more, then table-top RPGs is what they should go for, not this.

No, no. I didnt said that full text appeals more public (in that case your con-argument would work). I said that the option to have full text appeals more public. My point is: I don't care paraphrasing if the option to ignore it and show full text its still present. That way, both parts of the public are pleased, wich, obviously, appeals more people than just one of the parts

[Tirfan]

dheer wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
The paraphrasing makes the PC feel even more like an NPC. Only a lunatic is surprised by their own words. That being said, I know why they do it. Up to this point, picking the right choice to get the reaction you wanted has been part of the game. In Origins that was because sometimes people don't take your words as you mean them, while in DA2, it was because sometimes you say something different than was implied. It they're going to paraphrase, they should get rid of the uncertainty as to what results your words would have. It's unfortunate, since that was a good part of gameplay in Origins, but with paraphrasing, it's just too alienating. If they insist on having a voiced character, they need to make choices clear enough that you're never thinkin 'wtf is coming out of my mouth?'

Can't say I ever thought this in DA2. Paraprhrasing (although room for improvement) is clear enough together with the tone Icons.

It happened enough to me that I had to save every time I thought there was going to be a conversation so that I could reload and test each one to try to actually match what my character would say. It ended up being a giant pain in the ass that got in the way of me actually being able to roleplay.

This. Having to do atleast 2 reloads in every single conversation is not fun.

[Zanallen]

Filament wrote...

...Hurr, what you said? I no ken read! I ask my bruther read it but he ain't so bright neither!

Yep. We ain't gots no fancy lurnin'. We needs da voice pro..protanagist or else we ain't knowin' wut be said.

[ipgd]

Salaya wrote...


No, no. I didnt said that full text appeals more public (in that case your con-argument would work). I said that the option to have full text appeals more public. My point is: I don't care paraphrasing if the option to ignore it and show full text its still present. That way, both parts of the public are pleased, wich, obviously, appeals more people than just one of the parts

That's not how it works, though. Paraphrasing exists to address a specific issue: repetition in the voice acting. If the full line is included, there is no longer any point to the paraphrasing. Including the full text only appeals to people who want the full text. You can't really have both, without rendering the paraphrasing superfluous and reintroducing the very issue that motivated the developers to use paraphrasing in the first place.

It's all fine and dandy if you just prefer seeing the full line, but this isn't actually a compromise or a solution to any problem but your own.

[Salaya]

ipgd wrote...

...

That's not how it works, though. Paraphrasing exists to address a specific issue: repetition in the voice acting. If the full line is included, there is no longer any point to the paraphrasing. Including the full text only appeals to people who want the full text. You can't really have both, without rendering the paraphrasing superfluous and reintroducing the very issue that motivated the developers to use paraphrasing in the first place.

It's all fine and dandy if you just prefer seeing the full line, but this isn't actually a compromise or a solution to any problem but your own.

That would be true, if the only motive for paraphrasing was the repetition. I don't think thats the case. 

Anyway, apart from that. Even if your statement was true, I don't see why giving the option of switching between two modes that appeal to different public could be considered as " a compromise or a solution to any problem but your own."

The existence of the paraphrasing because the repetition problem does not negate the existence of people as me (not only me, as this thread proves) that prefers full text option. As long as there is people who does not consider the repetition a problem, the option to switch would be a compromise between the two perspectives

[FieryDove]

Filament wrote...

...Hurr, what you said? I no ken read! I ask my bruther read it but he ain't so bright neither!

I like books...you like movies? We can still be friends. Or maybe fiends...if it's a Monday.

Oh and  back at ya.

(humor SEE? for the wanna be mods trying to get me banned)

Modifié par FieryDove, 21 août 2011 - 06:38 .

[ipgd]

Salaya wrote...

That would be true, if the only motive for paraphrasing was the repetition. I don't think thats the case. 

Anyway, apart from that. Even if your statement was true, I don't see why giving the option of switching between two modes that appeal to different public could be considered as " a compromise or a solution to any problem but your own."

The existence of the paraphrasing because the repetition problem does not negate the existence of people as me (not only me, as this thread proves) that prefers full text option. As long as there is people who does not consider the repetition a problem, the option to switch would be a compromise between the two perspectives

That is the primary reason I have seen them identify.

Besides, paraphrases weren't exactly done in response to player complaints. They were implemented because the developers saw people in focus testing skipping through player VA and decided they wanted to directly address that player behavior. They didn't want people to skip the player VA after reading the full line. From what I understand, placating people complaining about it wasn't the issue.

Arguing that seeing the full line is more important that avoiding repetition in dialogue is one thing, but you can't exactly sell it as a compromise when it does not address the actual issue that instigated paraphrases in the first place.

Modifié par ipgd, 21 août 2011 - 06:53 .

[Xewaka]

ipgd wrote...
That's not how it works, though. Paraphrasing exists to address a specific issue: repetition in the voice acting. If the full line is included, there is no longer any point to the paraphrasing. Including the full text only appeals to people who want the full text. You can't really have both, without rendering the paraphrasing superfluous and reintroducing the very issue that motivated the developers to use paraphrasing in the first place.
It's all fine and dandy if you just prefer seeing the full line, but this isn't actually a compromise or a solution to any problem but your own.

As I have asked you many times: If repetition is an issue to you, why would you use the option that reveals the full line and thus causes the issue for you? You can easily avoid the repetition problem by not using the full line option. The fact that you use said option shows that, given the choice, you prefer to have access to the full line and bear with the repetition than to use the paraphrase only to avoid it.

ipgd wrote...
They were implemented because the developers saw people in focus testing skipping through player VA and decided they wanted to directly address that player behavior. They didn't want people to skip the player VA after reading the full line.

That was their first mistake. They shouldn't force people to play only the way they want them to play. The "Death of the author" concept does not apply only to novels. If anything else, due the interactive nature of the videogame medium, it should be even more prevalent. The most important experience is the one the player plays, not the one the designer designs.

Modifié par Xewaka, 21 août 2011 - 06:55 .

[ipgd]

Xewaka wrote...

As I have asked you many times: If repetition is an issue to you, why would you use the option that reveals the full line and thus causes the issue for you? You can easily avoid the repetition problem by not using the full line option. The fact that you use said option shows that, given the choice, you prefer to have access to the full line and bear with the repetition than to use the paraphrase only to avoid it.

Because, again, what the players actually do and what the players can be blamed for are separate issues. If they were trying to address complaints from the players about repetition in dialogue, that would be an actual option -- "here, if you don't like it, check this toggle, you can't blame us for this anymore". If they actually care about player behavior (which is the reason they have given for implementing paraphrases in the first place), then only what players actually do has any relevance to the issue. If players are still skipping through the player VA, and they care about that, it's still an issue for them.

Aaaand again, I am not explicitly defending paraphrases here, I'm just saying this isn't actually a compromise because it would end up being functionally identical to the full line system for the developers' concerns.

Modifié par ipgd, 21 août 2011 - 07:02 .

[HopHazzard]

I prefer paraphrasing, though there is room for improvement. When I read, I hear what I'm reading in my head, so reading the line and then having the character speak it is both redundant and annoying. It's why I stopped playing Risen in under an hour.

[willholt]

ipgd wrote...



 If players are still skipping through the player VA, and they care about that, it's still an issue for them.

Surely what that should bring into question is the validity of having a voiced PC in the first place.

If (when given the option) players are skipping the voiced bit because they already know what is going to be said, that should tell them that players are more interested in the message than the medium through which it's delivered. If they were more interested in hearing it, rather than reading it, they wouldn't skip it

The fact that (despite this) they are still insisting that the voiced PC is necessary, and that a player should put up with a system that continuosly misleads them... well... it strikes me as a tad bizarre. Adding a layer of redundancy to a system, because you insist on keeping it, and without that layer people will not use it, is equally as bizarre.

Modifié par willholt, 21 août 2011 - 07:08 .

[Ianamus]

ipgd wrote...
If they actually care about player behavior (which is the reason they have given for implementing paraphrases in the first place), then only what players actually do has any relevance to the issue. If players are still skipping through the player VA, and they care about that, it's still an issue for them.

But it dosent matter if Bioware have an issue with it! It's an option that many people want, and just saying "Oh, we're not going to include that option because we don't want players playing our game that way" would just be stupid. We're the ones buying the game, we can play it how we want. 

If your still going to fuss, then make the toggle turn of the protagonists voice as well! There! problem solved <_<

willholt wrote...

Surely what that should bring into question is the validity of having a voiced PC in the first place.

If (when given the option) players are skipping the voiced bit because they already know what is going to be said, that should tell them that players are more interested in the message than the medium through which it's delivered. If they were more interested in hearing it, rather than reading it, they wouldn't skip it

The fact that (despite this) they are still insisting that the voiced PC is necessary, and that a player should put up with a system that continuosly misleads them... well... it strikes me as a tad bizarre. Adding a layer of redundancy to a system, because you insist on keeping it, and without that layer people will not use it, is equally as bizarre.

This, pretty much. And if people can't be bothered to read, then just why are they buying a game that is full of dialogue options?

Modifié par EJ107, 21 août 2011 - 07:26 .

[Salaya]

ipgd wrote...

..

Because, again, what the players actually do and what the players can be blamed for are separate issues. If they were trying to address complaints from the players about repetition in dialogue, that would be an actual option -- "here, if you don't like it, check this toggle, you can't blame us for this anymore". If they actually care about player behavior (which is the reason they have given for implementing paraphrases in the first place), then only what players actually do has any relevance to the issue. If players are still skipping through the player VA, and they care about that, it's still an issue for them.

Aaaand again, I am not explicitly defending paraphrases here, I'm just saying this isn't actually a compromise because it would end up being functionally identical to the full line system for the developers' concerns.

So, we have two problems. The first one is about player behaviour: they skip full line dialogues because repetition. And they try to solve the problem with the paraphrasing.

And now, we have another problem, this one comes not from behaviour but for preferences. There is actually many people complaining about the paraphrasing. They state "We prefer full lined text over the new system".

Since the issue now is a conflict between two problems, why giving the option to switch between the two modes is not a compromise within players? The people that skip full line dialogues could switch to paraphrasing. And the ones who don't, or just prefer the other option, can keep the full text. 

It is a compromise between what the players actually do and what players actually demand. That one part of the problem comes from behaviour does not make the issue incompatible. Or, at least, thats what I think. 

[ipgd]

willholt wrote...

Surely what that should bring into question is the validity of having a voiced PC in the first place.

If (when given the option) players are skipping the voiced bit because they already know what is going to be said, that should tell them that players are more interested in the message than the medium through which it's delivered. If they were more interested in hearing it, rather than reading it, they wouldn't skip it

The fact that (despite this) they are still insisting that the voiced PC is necessary, and that a player should put up with a system that continuosly misleads them... well... it strikes me as a tad bizarre. Adding a layer of redundancy to a system, because you insist on keeping it, and without that layer people will not use it, is equally as bizarre.

But that is not a compromise. That is asking them to entirely change their design principles to cater to your preferences. Which is an argument you can make, but you can't really sell it as a compromise that will satisfy all parties.

Personally, I think time is better spent thinking of actual improvements to the system that work within the boundaries of those design decisions than futilely railing against what is already been repeatedly established as a set in stone direction for the Bioware teams (i.e. that player VA is staying and avoiding dialogue repetition is going to continue to be a priority for them). You're entitled to not like what they're doing, but it's... not going to change, so what's the point?

And as someone who creates stuff, I've never bought into the idea that what the audience wants is inherently more important than what the creator wants. If developers never make any choices because they wanted to, even if it may not be the most appealing option to their consumers, there would be exactly one kind of game and I can pretty much guarantee none of us would be the target audience.

[Dormiglione]

Zanallen wrote...

Once again, the best solution would be to just have a toggle or mouse over option that revealed the full line. Shouldn't be too difficult if the full line was shown in the recap text box.

This and remove the icons in the wheel.

[Ianamus]

ipgd wrote...

But that is not a compromise. That is asking them to entirely change their design principles to cater to your preferences. Which is an argument you can make, but you can't really sell it as a compromise that will satisfy all parties.

How is a toggle that let's you choose to play either way not a compromise between people who want full text and those who don't??  

How would it not satisfy everybody?? 

Modifié par EJ107, 21 août 2011 - 07:29 .

[Lord Gremlin]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I think one of the worst ideas for an RPG is to have a line of dialogue listed that never actually has the character saying what's actually written. It's the source for many complaints by fans who feel that Hawke isn't "their" character, since part of the problem is that he's saying lines that the player never intended for him (or her) to say. Am I the only one who feels the paraphrasing needs to be done away with?

My thoughts exactly.