436 réponses à ce sujet

[SirOccam]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Because the intent and the actual line are two different things. If the intent is to say a nice thing, then it doesn't matter (in theory) what that nice thing actually IS, necessarily. I'm not saying it works 100% of the time, but there is a purpose for it.

But a person, when speaking, doesn't decide to say something nice and then speak without knowing what the nice thing is.

True, but an NPC in a video game is not really comparable to a human conversant. If the thing is "a nice thing," then the NPC will respond to this "nice thing" appropriately.

A person attempts to be nice by using a particular sequence of words.  Whether they chose the right words is a different question, but each person might select different words to try to achieve the same result (being nice).

The paraphrase system forces us all to be exacty the same nice person, but worse, we don't get to know which nice person that is until after the fact.

We would still all be forced to be the same nice person even with the entire line printed out. In any case, I maintain that it's enough for one to know one IS a nice person period, as opposed to, say, a snarky or aggressive one, for example.

For example, if you want to be confrontational to an NPC who is disparaging Fereldens, you could say "Hey! I'm a Ferelden!" or "Watch your mouth!" and they both serve the same purpose. Yes, it's a significant loss of detail, but in most cases, that level of precision isn't necessary, even if some people would prefer to have it anyway.

If I'm trying to keep that I'm Fereldan a secret, that's a very important detail.

But if the game doesn't support keeping Fereldan-ness a secret, through other dialogue or events, then it's a moot point. There's actually a perfect example of this in DAO. When my Warden got attacked by the group of villagers upon leaving Lothering, the "leader" of the group says "We heard what was said. You're a Warden" and so forth. I recalled seeing dialogue options, such as upon meeting Leliana, where it looked like keeping your Wardenhood on the DL was an option, so my next time through, I chose all of those. It did nothing. I still always get jumped by that group. They still always "heard what was said," even if I specifically went out of my way to avoid saying it. So yes I would have liked to keep that a secret, at least for some of my Wardens, but if the game doesn't recognize my actions (or inaction), then it's relatively meaningless. I moved on.

And besides, if BioWare wanted to support such a choice, they easily could, even with paraphrasing.

And besides again, if you want to keep your being a Fereldan a secret, the wise move would be not to be confrontational about it in the first place, but that's neither here nor there.

I think the DAO style of dialogue matches real-world dialogue better.  DAO's system is now conversations actually work.  DA2's system is a collection of seemingly random behaviour that should only occur within mental health faclities.

I think you're massively exaggerating, but to each his own. I had a couple moments of minor confusion, but all in all it was a huge improvement over ME's wheel, and the benefits over DAO's system (including getting to hear the voiced delivery of the lines and more natural-feeling conversations) were well worth what minor drawbacks there were.

Modifié par SirOccam, 07 novembre 2011 - 05:11 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

I don't personally think it's awkward, but gamers have complained such and the wheel is considered to be "easier" for analog sticks.

ME (outside of dialogue) had a completely different UI on the PC compared to the console.  That's the standard that should be used going forward.  Give each platfrom a UI that works for its input devices.

I very much want them to number the dialogue options again so I can more easily use the keyboard to choose among them.  I typically take my hand off of my mouse during dialogue.  Having to go back to my mouse to select options, or having to work out which option is which number each time (rather than just reading it) slows me down significantly (and, of course, not having my hand on the mouse during conversations badly damaged ME2 by making it impossible for to trigger interrupts). 

Radial menus tend to appear mostly in console games, in genres with traditionally heavy menus such as strategy or RPG. The radial menu, used in conjunction with the analogue stick, allows quick access to a large number of menu options with a small number of button presses. " - http://www.giantbomb...al-menu/92-737/ 

I do believe NWN made heavy use of radial menus, as well, despite being PC only.  Though they were quite complicated, with multiple expanding layers per menu.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

We would still all be forced to be the same nice person even with the entire line printed out.

No, we wouldn't.  Even ignoring the possibility of delivering the lines differently, Two different PCs might choose different lines in their respective attempts to be nice.

In any case, I maintain that it's enough for one to know one IS a nice person period, as opposed to, say, a snarky or aggressive one, for example.

I can't imagine wanting to play any character who was so shallow as to be adequately described in so simple a manner.

But if the game doesn't support keeping Fereldan-ness a secret, through other dialogue or events, then it's a moot point. There's actually a perfect example of this in DAO. When my Warden got attacked by the group of villagers upon leaving Lothering, the "leader" of the group says "We heard what was said. You're a Warden" and so forth. I recalled seeing dialogue options, such as upon meeting Leliana, where it looked like keeping your Wardenhood on the DL was an option, so my next time through, I chose all of those. It did nothing. I still always get jumped by that group. They still always "heard what was said," even if I specifically went out of my way to avoid saying it.

Why do you insist that they heard you say it?  Or that they weren't just lying?

It's not a moot point at all.  Even if this specific dialogue event doesn't let me keep my Fereldan-ness a secret, I need to know that before I make my selection so I can then choose based on some relevant criterion.  If the paraphrases suggest that I can keep my Fereldan-ness a secret, then that's what will drive my selection.  If, however, I know that I cannot keep my Fereldan-ness a secret, then I move on to another criterion.

So yes I would have liked to keep that a secret, at least for some of my Wardens, but if the game doesn't recognize my actions (or inaction), then it's relatively meaningless. I moved on.

Isn't that your character is secretive important to you?  If that isn't a relevant character trait, why did you bother?

The roleplaying itself is the whole point of the gameplay.  What the gameworld does with your roleplaying is, at best, a secondary concern.

And besides, if BioWare wanted to support such a choice, they easily could, even with paraphrasing.

But with paraphrasing, we couldn't know if they'd supported that choice until after we'd already made our selection.

And besides again, if you want to keep your being a Fereldan a secret, the wise move would be not to be confrontational about it in the first place, but that's neither here nor there.

Unfortunately, that's not the sort of choice DA2 typically allowed you to make.  Hawke's support or opposition to a great many things was written in stone before you ever saw the dialogue hub.  My Hawke was unable to approve of Fenris's killing of Hadriana, for example.  Apparently the writers didn't think it plausible that any Hawke could generally oppose his global anti-mage stance, but still approve of killing the people who enslaved him.

I think you're massively exaggerating, but to each his own.

Hawke says things that apparently he doesn't know he's going to say until after he has said them.  It certainly seemed crazy to me.

I had a couple moments of minor confusion, but all in all it was a huge improvement over ME's wheel, and the benefits over DAO's system (including getting to hear the voiced delivery of the lines and more natural-feeling conversations) were well worth what minor drawbacks there were.

Again, I think DAO's conversations felt far more natural.  In a real conversation, I don't need to listen to what I'm saying or watch my own body language to interpret my own behaviour.  I know what my behaviour ios before I've done it, so watching at again is redundant.  How the Warden acts and delivers the lines is determined by me while I'm making my selection.

Having to watch Hawke act and speak is just as redundant and repetitive as having to listen to the same line I've just read would have been if they hadn't used the paraphrases.  Apparently they were willing to employ an obfuscatory mechanic to eliminate one type of redundancy, but they went to great expense to create another.

[SirOccam]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

We would still all be forced to be the same nice person even with the entire line printed out. [/quote]
No, we wouldn't.  Even ignoring the possibility of delivering the lines differently, Two different PCs might choose different lines in their respective attempts to be nice.[/quote]
I agree on ignoring that first part, but I'll get to it later. 

If BioWare are going to put in two nice-sounding lines for a full-dialogue-choosing game, they could do the same for a paraphrase-choosing game. So all I'm saying is that if we're "forced" to do it in DA2, then we would be forced to do it with full dialogue. If we would not be forced to do it with full dialogue, then we don't necessarily have to be forced to do it with paraphrasing.

[quote]
[quote]In any case, I maintain that it's enough for one to know one IS a nice person period, as opposed to, say, a snarky or aggressive one, for example.[/quote]I can't imagine wanting to play any character who was so shallow as to be adequately described in so simple a manner.[/quote]
It's simply being practical. A cRPG can't support the kind of bounded-only-by-your-imagination freedom that a PnP with attached DM can. BioWare have finite resources, and they can't account for every possible whim of every possible player. It's only reasonable that they choose a few broad categories and support them well.

So I know what you're going to say now, and it has to do with voiceless delivery and the player's imagination. And this is where that thing we ignored earlier comes into play. What it boils down to is this: I am content to acknowledge that the writers ultimately have the control. I don't think it's selling myself short to accept that I am playing in their world. I can't have limitless freedom, nor should I expect it. It's not a bad thing. It's the tradeoff for choosing to play a cRPG and not a PnP RPG. I don't want a sandbox game where I can futz around and do almost anything I choose, but never get any feedback from the game based on it. I also don't want a linear story game, where I just play a bit, watch a cutscene, play a bit, another cutscene, etc. Not that games from either of those genres aren't fun. But when it comes to my favorite genre, and what has become my favorite game development studio, I need a mix.

I really like the Dragon Age universe. I really like the Mass Effect universe too. I want to play a game where I get to play in those universes and have those universes play with me too, so to speak. I want to see the writers' story unfold. If I just wanted them to create the sandbox, then I would play the DA PnP (which, don't get me wrong, I would be open to trying). But I want to see the talent of the writers, designers, animators, and voice actors as well. I want to be able to move about, but within the lines the developers have set. Again, it's not a bad thing.

This idea that you can have essentially an infinite number of variations of the story by thinking about a particular line delivered in a slightly different way is one that simply doesn't work for me. If that's your thing, then more power to you, but as I've said before on the topic, it doesn't really mean anything if the game doesn't know about it. I think trying to go outside the bounds of the game, although apparently entertaining for some people, is ultimately fruitless. "Yay, PC1 said that line deadpan, and PC2 said it with a slight chuckle at the end." That's not something I can get excited about. At least not until I amass a fortune and can pay David Gaider to be my personal DM on retainer.

Sorry for rambling...I know we've been down this road before, and I'm not sure how to express myself better. (So apparently I turn to the shotgun method.)

[quote]
[quote]But if the game doesn't support keeping Fereldan-ness a secret, through other dialogue or events, then it's a moot point. There's actually a perfect example of this in DAO. When my Warden got attacked by the group of villagers upon leaving Lothering, the "leader" of the group says "We heard what was said. You're a Warden" and so forth. I recalled seeing dialogue options, such as upon meeting Leliana, where it looked like keeping your Wardenhood on the DL was an option, so my next time through, I chose all of those. It did nothing. I still always get jumped by that group. They still always "heard what was said," even if I specifically went out of my way to avoid saying it.[/quote]Why do you insist that they heard you say it?  Or that they weren't just lying?

It's not a moot point at all.  Even if this specific dialogue event doesn't let me keep my Fereldan-ness a secret, I need to know that before I make my selection so I can then choose based on some relevant criterion.  If the paraphrases suggest that I can keep my Fereldan-ness a secret, then that's what will drive my selection.  If, however, I know that I cannot keep my Fereldan-ness a secret, then I move on to another criterion.[/quote]
They didn't necessarily have to hear me say it, but whatever the case, word gets out no matter what.

[quote]
[quote]So yes I would have liked to keep that a secret, at least for some of my Wardens, but if the game doesn't recognize my actions (or inaction), then it's relatively meaningless. I moved on.[/quote]
Isn't that your character is secretive important to you?  If that isn't a relevant character trait, why did you bother?

The roleplaying itself is the whole point of the gameplay.  What the gameworld does with your roleplaying is, at best, a secondary concern.[/quote]
It's important to me if it has any possibility of changing anything in the game. Like I said before, I play these games not like I'm in charge, but rather like I'm working with the game to produce an entertaining story. Details that have no repurcussions in-game--positive, negative, or otherwise--just aren't worth it to me. If my Warden being secretive does not and cannot affect anything in the game, then it's as you say: why bother?

I thought keeping it a secret would potentially be interesting, not because my Warden was necessarily secretive, but because I wanted to see what would happen (or not happen) if I did it. I think my objective in these games is to create a compelling story, and that means working with the game and its limits, not against them. If being secretive could affect the game in an interesting way, then sure I'd make a secretive Warden.

[quote]
[quote]And besides, if BioWare wanted to support such a choice, they easily could, even with paraphrasing.[/quote]
But with paraphrasing, we couldn't know if they'd supported that choice until after we'd already made our selection.[/quote]
Same goes for if they printed the entire line.

[quote]
[quote]And besides again, if you want to keep your being a Fereldan a secret, the wise move would be not to be confrontational about it in the first place, but that's neither here nor there.[/quote]Unfortunately, that's not the sort of choice DA2 typically allowed you to make.  Hawke's support or opposition to a great many things was written in stone before you ever saw the dialogue hub.  My Hawke was unable to approve of Fenris's killing of Hadriana, for example.  Apparently the writers didn't think it plausible that any Hawke could generally oppose his global anti-mage stance, but still approve of killing the people who enslaved him.[/quote]
And my point all along has been: how is that the fault of paraphrasing? If they printed out the full lines, they would still be just as capable of omitting a way to approve of the killing. There are a lot of things that the game doesn't support. Maybe that's a particularly egregious one, I don't know. But they can't support everything, either with paraphrases or full lines, and that's okay.

[quote]
[quote]I think you're massively exaggerating, but to each his own.[/quote]Hawke says things that apparently he doesn't know he's going to say until after he has said them.  It certainly seemed crazy to me.[/quote]
He knew what he was going to say (ostensibly). You didn't.

[quote]
[quote]I had a couple moments of minor confusion, but all in all it was a huge improvement over ME's wheel, and the benefits over DAO's system (including getting to hear the voiced delivery of the lines and more natural-feeling conversations) were well worth what minor drawbacks there were.[/quote]
Again, I think DAO's conversations felt far more natural.  In a real conversation, I don't need to listen to what I'm saying or watch my own body language to interpret my own behaviour.  I know what my behaviour ios before I've done it, so watching at again is redundant.  How the Warden acts and delivers the lines is determined by me while I'm making my selection.

Having to watch Hawke act and speak is just as redundant and repetitive as having to listen to the same line I've just read would have been if they hadn't used the paraphrases.  Apparently they were willing to employ an obfuscatory mechanic to eliminate one type of redundancy, but they went to great expense to create another.[/quote]
I think it's more natural to be able to show some emotion, and not just stand there blank-faced. To have my character feel as alive as those around him. In a real conversation, our options are infinite. In a computer game, they are not. It sort of feels like I take that inherent layer of separation for granted, while you pretend it's not there. I'm not sure which is the right way, in fact there probably is no right way, but it feels like my way will lead to less disappointment with cRPGs in the future.

Modifié par SirOccam, 07 novembre 2011 - 07:03 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

If BioWare are going to put in two nice-sounding lines for a full-dialogue-choosing game, they could do the same for a paraphrase-choosing game.[/quote]
You're missing the point.  I'm saying that different PCs could choose different lines in an attempt to sound nice.  Whether the NPCs think either of the lines sound nice is a different question.  BioWare may write only one line that is received by the NPcs as sounding nice, but that shouldn't require that the PC, when trying to be nice, use that line.
[quote] So all I'm saying is that if we're "forced" to do it in DA2, then we would be forced to do it with full dialogue. If we would not be forced to do it with full dialogue, then we don't necessarily have to be forced to do it with paraphrasing.[/quote]
The difference with the paraphrase as intent model is that we're choosing the nice line BioWare sees, not the nice line our PC sees.  Every PC who wants to be nice will use the same line in DA2, and in each case they'll all succeed or they'll all fail.

In DAO, different PCs can choose different lines and see different outcomes from their attempts.

For all this talk of how DA2 is more responsive to choices, in this case it forces the same successes and the same failures upon all PCs of the same intent, while DAO does not.
[quote]I really like the Dragon Age universe. I really like the Mass Effect universe too. I want to play a game where I get to play in those universes and have those universes play with me too, so to speak.[/quote]
I want the same thing.  We just disagree about what sort of game features provide that.  I don't think DA2's design allows me to play at all, because I never know from one line to the next what Hawke is going to say or do.

But In DAO, I know exactly what the Warden is going to say and do.
[quote]At least not until I amass a fortune and can pay David Gaider to be my personal DM on retainer.[/quote]
I would use my fortune to buy EA, sell off most of its parts, and use the proceeds to fund BioWare's development of a game built to my standards (which I think would actually be pretty cheap to make, compared to these modern titles).

Because PnP doesn't meet my standards.  It fails by requiring the presence of other people.
[quote]They didn't necessarily have to hear me say it, but whatever the case, word gets out no matter what.[/quote]
You can't control other people's behaviour (or knowledge).  Having events proceed apace no matter what you do was one of the things I liked about DA2's story.

I went into considerable detail in my review.
[quote]It's important to me if it has any possibility of changing anything in the game. Like I said before, I play these games not like I'm in charge, but rather like I'm working with the game to produce an entertaining story.[/quote]
So you're not roleplaying your character?  Perhaps because you think such a thing is impossible?

As I've said before, the whole point of an RPG is roleplaying.  If it doesn't allow roleplaying as its primary design goal, then it fails.
[quote]If my Warden being secretive does not and cannot affect anything in the game, then it's as you say: why bother?[/quote]
It affects his decision-making.  His decision-making is something that takes place within the game world.
[quote]I thought keeping it a secret would potentially be interesting, not because my Warden was necessarily secretive, but because I wanted to see what would happen (or not happen) if I did it. I think my objective in these games is to create a compelling story, and that means working with the game and its limits, not against them. If being secretive could affect the game in an interesting way, then sure I'd make a secretive Warden.[/quote]
Ah, so you're definitely not roleplaying, then.  You're metagaming.
[quote]Same goes for if they printed the entire line.[/quote]
That only makes sense if you think you can predict NPC reactions with perfect accuracy.

And that's an absurd position.
[quote]And my point all along has been: how is that the fault of paraphrasing? If they printed out the full lines, they would still be just as capable of omitting a way to approve of the killing. There are a lot of things that the game doesn't support. Maybe that's a particularly egregious one, I don't know. But they can't support everything, either with paraphrases or full lines, and that's okay.[/quote]
That isn't the fault of the paraphrasing.  But it's evidence that DA2 fails in all the same ways that DAO fails, plus it invented several new ways to fail which DAO avoided.
[quote]He knew what he was going to say (ostensibly). You didn't.[/quote]
If he's my character, then I'm solely responsible for populating his mind.  It cannot be possible for him to know things I don't know that he knows.

If he does, then he cannot be roleplayed.
[quote]I think it's more natural to be able to show some emotion, and not just stand there blank-faced. To have my character feel as alive as those around him. In a real conversation, our options are infinite. In a computer game, they are not. It sort of feels like I take that inherent layer of separation for granted, while you pretend it's not there.[/quote]I don't need to pretend it's not there.  When I'm in character, there's no separation at all.  I, the player, cease to exist.  My preferences have no relevance.  Only the character matters.

DA2, however, keeps throwing me out of character by having him act differently from how I chose.  It enforces that separation.  I've made a concerted effort to avoid using the word "immersion" on these fora for over a year now, but this is the very definition of immersion-breaking.  The player cannot immerse himself within his character (this roleplaying style was once described as the willful induction of psychosis) for any length of time without the game kicking him out again.
[quote]I'm not sure which is the right way, in fact there probably is no right way, but it feels like my way will lead to less disappointment with cRPGs in the future.[/quote]
Your way is entirely incompatible with RPGs, c or otherwise.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 novembre 2011 - 07:33 .

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
"I want you Thane" was corrected in DA2 with the tone icon.
Because people were critical of more subtle paraphrasing leading to ninjamancing.
Let no-one accuse BioWare of not trying to improve their paraphrasing/dialogue wheel.

It is possible to polish a turd. You end with a shiny turd. It's still a turd. Pardon the crudeness.

[Morroian]

Xewaka wrote...

It is possible to polish a turd. You end with a shiny turd. It's still a turd. Pardon the crudeness.

So its a turd in TW2 and DXHR?

[Xewaka]

Morroian wrote...
So its a turd in TW2 and DXHR?

I haven't played (nor intend to) TW2. I have played DX:HR, and this last one does not use paraphrases, opting to show the full line. It is a vastly better method.

[upsettingshorts]

DXHR doesn't always show the whole line. It shows as much as it can typically fit in the GUI - which is often, but not always the whole line. Occasionally Jensen will ramble on for a paragraph. And I still hated it almost as much as TW1, I can see why it would have its supporters though.

Edit:  I do also seem to recall instances of paraphrases for Jensen, especially in cases where someone asks him how he feels.  The example that's coming to mind right now is when Dr. Whatsherface's mother is talking to him outside of Sarif, and asks him what he thinks about being made into a machine.  

TW2 uses paraphrases, it just doesn't use a wheel or tone icons - as far as I can remember anyway, I didn't get far. It seems objectively worse than either ME or DA2 because at least with the former there's some predictability in the sense of Upper Right/Lower Right, and the latter attempts to inform the user with tone icons.  If TW2 manages to be easier to predict, in my opinion, it is due to a more fixed character.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 novembre 2011 - 09:13 .

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
DXHR doesn't always show the whole line. It shows as much as it can typically fit in the GUI - which is often, but not always the whole line. Occasionally Jensen will ramble on for a paragraph. And I still hated it almost as much as TW1, I can see why it would have its supporters though.

Agreed, it does not always show the full line. It still shows vastly more information on what Jensen will say, thus rendering the very occasional misplaced bit bearable.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Edit:  I do also seem to recall instances of paraphrases for Jensen, especially in cases where someone asks him how he feels.  The example that's coming to mind right now is when Dr. Whatsherface's mother is talking to him outside of Sarif, and asks him what he thinks about being made into a machine. 

I think it is more accurate to say that sometimes Jensen speaks the piece in the dialogue choice, the other party replies, and Jensen speaks again without input to keep the conversation flowing. I do not seem to recall more inexactitudes than that.
Still, the system was good enough that it allowed for actually involved Dialogue Boss Battles.

[Pedrak]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TW2 uses paraphrases, it just doesn't use a wheel or tone icons - as far as I can remember anyway, I didn't get far. It seems objectively worse than either ME or DA2 because at least with the former there's some predictability in the sense of Upper Right/Lower Right, and the latter attempts to inform the user with tone icons.  If TW2 manages to be easier to predict, in my opinion, it is due to a more fixed character.

That's about right (except TW2 isn't a bad game). The fact is, you don't have the same concerns with role-playing and coherency seen in DA2 because in TW you are a pre-fixed character with a certain personality. No matter which answer you choose, no matter how inaccurate the paraphrase is, Geralt never surprises.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Atakuma wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

petercrook60 wrote...

i voted for voice, but they sure need for the voice to say what was written..

The voting results wouldnt be so close if the paraphrase system properly conveyed what the character would say, DA2 paraphrase system is so bad they could have only used the tone icon and players would have been no more suprised by what Hawke said more then half the time.

The paraphrase system isn't supposed to convey what the character is going to say, it's there to show the intent and tone of the dialogue.

Which pretty much makes the paraphrasing system not just useless, but actively counter-productive.  What my character says is at least as important as the "intent" and "tone". 

[Killjoy Cutter]

SirOccam wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Hawke says things that apparently he doesn't know he's going to say until after he has said them.  It certainly seemed crazy to me.

He knew what he was going to say (ostensibly). You didn't.

And that's part of the problem.  If I'm playing Hawke, I need to know what Hawke is going to say for each choice, and make those dialogue choices with full knowledge of what's going to come out of Hawke's mouth.

[MerinTB]

The paraphrase system is ineffective and makes me enjoy the game less. It doesn't give me what I want for controlling my character and pulls me out of the game.

Every game that uses it (yes, including a personal favorite of mine, Alpha Protocol, which doesn't ACTUALLY paraphrase but just gives intent alone (IMO, if you are going this route, just COMPLETELY go this route - it's how I choose ME dialog responses ANYWAY)) makes me like the game that much less.

[Riknas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
*snip* A Whole Lot

Perhaps it's a broken record to say rather than having a flawed arugment, you're missing the point of my argument entirely. You are vouching for a very specific system that does not exist in either game. I suppose that is my own fault for not being more specific. Personally, it does not bother me that the system you want is not there, and that's the crux of the argument: your ideal system (which you often tout as the only logical system) is impossible, and is simply not the direction Bioware hopes to go, whether you like it or not. It's not being, "wrong" or "bad", it's just different.


But first, let's address where you tell me that you actually have no choice in DA2. This is not true, and you know it. Have you ever read a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book? Or, you know, played any game that was not an RPG? Such as a First Person Shooter or Real Time Strategy? Those are games with no choice, you either play or you don't. In Dragon Age 2 you still have things you can do and say, this is your Hawke who may joke about some things, or be direct and aggressive with other things. Perhaps he supports the qunari, but also hates regular mages. You can still decide why he said these things just as well. Your entire argument is rooted in, "I want this choice, but I don't haveit." Nothing (barring you being rich enough to hire someone to make a video game for you) will actually make that change though. So instead you go onto say why not catering to your needs is a flawed and stupid choice, which comes across as selfish and ignorant. In this case, the majority of people want voice acting, and they'll get it. That's consumer sovereignty.

You argue with Sir Occam that Pen And Paper does not suit you, you need a
video game instead. We then find out that Bioware games do not suit you
enough either.  We then run into the situation that ultimately your
standards are not what other people want to satisfy, and that is no
one's fault (Not even yours).

Role playing is applied very vaguely in different fashions. At it's most basic, it's playing a role. It could be one you came up with yourself, which I have done in DAO.  However, it can also be assuming a role given to you, and working within the confines of this role. To some it just means "leveling up" as an option. You can go around saying to other people that they're roleplaying wrong, but that doesn't actually make you any more right.

Modifié par Riknas, 07 novembre 2011 - 04:45 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riknas wrote...

Perhaps it's a broken record to say rather than having a flawed arugment, you're missing the point of my argument entirely. You are vouching for a very specific system that does not exist in either game.

Except it does exist in DAO, and ideed has in the majority of BioWare's games.  That's my point.  It's a feature we had that has been taken away.

But first, let's address where you tell me that you actually have no choice in DA2. This is not true, and you know it. Have you ever read a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book?

Sure.  And if that's all you want from a game, then I can see why DA2 satisfied you.

Or, you know, played any game that was not an RPG? Such as a First Person Shooter or Real Time Strategy? Those are games with no choice, you either play or you don't.

But how you play it is up to you.  I don't like real-time strategy games (at all - the action is far too frantic for my tastes), but a turn-based strategy game is absolutely playable as I describe.  You can adopt a strategy based not on what will win the game, but instead based on what is "in character" for the role you're trying to play.  From the game's perspective, that strategy will succeed or fail, but from a roleplaying perspective you have alreday succeeded just by trying out that role.

RPGs have no winning conditions.  This was even made explicit in the opening pages of some AD&D rulebooks.  There was a heading that said something like "How Do I win?", and the answer was that you didn't, because that wasn't the point.  The point of a roleplaying game is to roleplay.  Full stop.  That's all that matters.

( In Dragon Age 2 you still have things you can do and say, this is your Hawke who may joke about some things, or be direct and aggressive with other things. Perhaps he supports the qunari, but also hates regular mages. You can still decide why he said these things just as well.

No, you can't.  To do that, you would need to know what Hawke was going to say so that you could avoid him saying things that contradict your posited justification for any previous choices.

What you're suggesting is only possible in DA2 moment-to-moment, as DA2 does not support the creation and implementation of a coherent character concept throughout the entire game.  Each time you make a choice you can decide why that choice is being made, but the spoken line (which you didn't choose) could well contradict your justification for that choice, or indeed any previous choice you've made.

Your entire argument is rooted in, "I want this choice, but I don't have it."

Yes.  DAO allowed a vastly broader range of character personalities.  That's my point.  DA2 offers the player far fewer roleplaying choices.

We know BioWare can make a game that allows more roleplaying, because they've done it several times.

 Nothing (barring you being rich enough to hire someone to make a video game for you) will actually make that change though. So instead you go onto say why not catering to your needs is a flawed and stupid choice, which comes across as selfish and ignorant. In this case, the majority of people want voice acting, and they'll get it. That's consumer sovereignty.

I certainly can't change that by staying quiet.  I'm here to move the margins of public opinion.  By moving the margins, I move the median, and BioWare targets the median.

[Riknas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sure.  And if that's all you want from a game, then I can see why DA2 satisfied you.

But how you play it is up to you.  I don't like real-time strategy games (at all - the action is far too frantic for my tastes), but a turn-based strategy game is absolutely playable as I describe.  You can adopt a strategy based not on what will win the game, but instead based on what is "in character" for the role you're trying to play.  From the game's perspective, that strategy will succeed or fail, but from a roleplaying perspective you have alreday succeeded just by trying out that role.

Well sure, if you want to be thick like the stone, sure.  You can play anygame how you want, even if you don't 'win' so long as you feel happy with yourself.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
RPGs have no winning conditions.  This was even made explicit in the opening pages of some AD&D rulebooks.  There was a heading that said something like "How Do I win?", and the answer was that you didn't, because that wasn't the point.  The point of a roleplaying game is to roleplay.  Full stop.  That's all that matters.

Now hold on for just a moment. RPGs have long since developed since AD&D. That was their goal in AD&D. We've already since established that this is not actually DND, and much as some of us may love the late Gary Gygax, he had no right to decide what all RPGs would be. You can say that's all that matters, but Game is already in the acronym. In AD&D you had purchased a rulebook, more or less, and given the tools to make whatever story you want. Should you feel so compelled in the future you could purchase stories that you did indeed "complete" or "finish". That was marketing talking to you on the principles, "You can tell any story, it will still be valid."

When we play Dragon Age however we are not buying a ruleset, or a blank book to write it. This is a story we purchased that works as the developers had in mind. The closest you can get to the experience you want is to actually use the toolset that came with DA:O (The power is at your fingertips you know) or actually learn basic coding should you feel compelled to use DA2 instead.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Your entire argument is rooted in, "I want this choice, but I don't have it."

Yes.  DAO allowed a vastly broader range of character personalities.  That's my point.  DA2 offers the player far fewer roleplaying choices.

We know BioWare can make a game that allows more roleplaying, because they've done it several times.

Ah, and there it is. You used the term "fewer". There are choices, which for lord knows how long you were saying you had none. If we used the Deus Ex: Human Revolution system, which used paraphrasing and scrollover text that gave you the whole of the dialogue option. Would that make it more satisfactory? If so, then we found an excellent compromise. If not, there is a different argument at hand, and we should discard this discussion.
These choices we have are the ones that go past the illusion. Just as you told me to  mentally edit, "By the stone" into my dialogue choices, you are perfectly capable as an intelligent human being to insist that you know your character's actual delivery.

If it is just a matter of adding more without actually removing our content for your preferred content,(the wheel itself, or the icons) we can work together on that. The voiced character that we can control was introduced by Mass Effect, but has been further developed and improved upon by Bioware (With intent Icons, and Dominant Personalities), as well as other studios (Eidos Montreal, CD Projekt Red).

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I certainly can't change that by staying quiet.  I'm here to move the margins of public opinion.  By moving the margins, I move the median, and BioWare targets the median.

This, is true, and I suppose I can respect that. Even so,  your attitude often makes you a less than sympathetic audience.

Modifié par Riknas, 07 novembre 2011 - 09:11 .

[Fallstar]

We're at 53% to 47% in favour of voice acted but with access only to paraphrases rather than dialogue lines. If the percentages reach 52% to 48%, the difference becomes statistically irrelevant and we can say the community is perfectly split. Which would be pretty funny in my view.

Also, my opinion (didn't want to bias people earlier) : I think that having proper dialogue lines with a silent PC is by far preferable to a voiced PC. However, I could enjoy a game with a voiced PC almost as much as silent PC - what matters is the fact that we have paraphrasing. That you don't know what your character will say when you pick a dialogue option in a role playing game where that dialogue can have (or at least should have) significant outcomes on plot is unacceptable in my eyes. At the bare minimum we should be able to hover over the dialogue option and have the the actual dialogue there to read. But if you include that system, of course everyone will either be arsed to read the actual dialogue line rather than a vaguely similar paraphrase, or if too impatient to hover over the line, will skip the dialogue anyway. This kind of situation shows the redundancy of having paraphrases. They are unnecessary, and are a waste of developer resources, and as long as they are associated with the voiced PC, my vote lies with the silent PC.

The figues:

Voiced PC with paraphrasing: 238 Votes, 53%

Silent PC with full dialogue tree: 212 Votes, 47%

Thats 450 votes, which is a pretty represntative sample of Dragon Age players who use the forums. It is quite likely that these figures would be different for the entire DA audience.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 07 novembre 2011 - 09:23 .

[LukaCrosszeria]

 I actually found it rather enjoyable not knowing exactly what Hawke was going to say, that made it all the more fun to find out. I must admit there were a few instances though where he said something horribly inappropriate. The paraphrasing needs a bit more fine-tuning.
But I could never go back to a silent protagonist, I'm spoiled by M!Hawke's snarky voice 

[Fallstar]

LukaCrosszeria wrote...

 I actually found it rather enjoyable not knowing exactly what Hawke was going to say, that made it all the more fun to find out. I must admit there were a few instances though where he said something horribly inappropriate. The paraphrasing needs a bit more fine-tuning.
But I could never go back to a silent protagonist, I'm spoiled by M!Hawke's snarky voice 

And did those horribly inappropriate instances outweigh what was for you a positive in not knowing exactly what Hawke has to say? If my character says something completely different to my intention, I know it would for me.

[DadeLeviathan]

Silent with dialogue. As fun as voiced can be, it kills a lot of the role-play for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riknas wrote...

Now hold on for just a moment. RPGs have long since developed since AD&D. That was their goal in AD&D. We've already since established that this is not actually DND, and much as some of us may love the late Gary Gygax, he had no right to decide what all RPGs would be. You can say that's all that matters, but Game is already in the acronym. In AD&D you had purchased a rulebook, more or less, and given the tools to make whatever story you want. Should you feel so compelled in the future you could purchase stories that you did indeed "complete" or "finish". That was marketing talking to you on the principles, "You can tell any story, it will still be valid."

When we play Dragon Age however we are not buying a ruleset, or a blank book to write it. This is a story we purchased that works as the developers had in mind.

The story the developers write is merely a backdrop to the story that the player creates as he develops his character.  It's an important piece of the backdrop to be sure - a game without a running narrative to tie all the events together isn't very good - but it's still backdrop.

The closest you can get to the experience you want is to actually use the toolset that came with DA:O (The power is at your fingertips you know) or actually learn basic coding should you feel compelled to use DA2 instead.

That would give me too much control over the other characters and the events within the setting.  I want to roleplay within a living world.  If I design the world, how can I know I didn't design it to cater specifically to my character?

The only way to avoid that problem is to have the world part of the story written by one group (the designers) and the PC part of the story written by another (the player).  Keeping those two things separate is vital.

Ah, and there it is. You used the term "fewer". There are choices, which for lord knows how long you were saying you had none

Zero is fewer.

I still maintain that the player cannot make any choices at all during DA2's dialogue.  The player can make choices about equipment and skills and travel in DA2, yes, but nothing like the literally thousands of choices available within DAO.

If we used the Deus Ex: Human Revolution system, which used paraphrasing and scrollover text that gave you the whole of the dialogue option. Would that make it more satisfactory? If so, then we found an excellent compromise. If not, there is a different argument at hand, and we should discard this discussion.

That would be better (though ideally I wouldn't have to wait for to scrollover at all, and just see the full text right away), but we would still have the problem of the voice.

So yes, the DXHR system would be better, but it would still be far less good than what we had in DAO (and KotOR, and NWN, and BG).

These choices we have are the ones that go past the illusion. Just as you told me to  mentally edit, "By the stone" into my dialogue choices, you are perfectly capable as an intelligent human being to insist that you know your character's actual delivery.

Yes, but as soon as I'm discarding explicit content, I may as well just stop playing the game and go write fan fiction.  the effect would be the same.

The framework the game provides is important.  It's the reason I'm playing a CRPG at all, rather than just rolling dice by myself.

If it is just a matter of adding more without actually removing our content for your preferred content,(the wheel itself, or the icons) we can work together on that. The voiced character that we can control was introduced by Mass Effect, but has been further developed and improved upon by Bioware (With intent Icons, and Dominant Personalities), as well as other studios (Eidos Montreal, CD Projekt Red).

The PC voice needs to be optional.  Having now seen ME, ME2, and DA2 use a voiced protagonist, it's clear that a voiced protagonist simply cannot work.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sareth Cousland wrote...

Basically, a good compromise would be full written sentences + voice, and ideally several voices to choose from.

Is anyone actually asking for more voices?

I think a good compromise is just the one voice, plus the ability to turn it off.