436 réponses à ce sujet

[Xewaka]

Atakuma wrote...
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.

Ah, so the paraphrase system is there to be completely useless or even counterproductive. Good to know.
To elaborate: What use is a dialogue system that doesn't let me know what my character will say? 

Modifié par Xewaka, 06 novembre 2011 - 09:23 .

[Pedrak]

Although I was against the voiced pc in DA2, I must admit it didn't annoy me as much as I thought it would. Still voting for silent pc for practical reasons though (more content, more dialogue options, longer game).

[nightscrawl]

MerinTB wrote...

I'm pretty sure this is "save scrumming" and developers hate it more than I do.  But I definitely don't see this as playing the game so much as "playing" the game, if you get the distinction.  I might as well use a strategy guide or walkthrough at this point.

I quicksave constantly, usually over 1000 times per game. I got into this habit when I played Neverwinter Nights and occasionally had game lockups due to overheating on an older computer. On one occasion, I had to replay most of an entire chapter. Hitting the button is just part of play for me now. So, I also do the whole Quicksave/Reload thing for dialogue, even though I have played it several times now. It allows me to experiment with dialogue responses, especially where the meta-game of rivalry/friendship points are concerned.

Playing through the game for the first time, I can see how devs don't want players to do that because it takes away the real impact of choices that you have to make during the game. However, on the second or higher playthrough, I don't see what they would care, in fact, it adds to the replay value for me to be able to do that.

Since you mention using a guide above, I'll point out that in a recent play of DAO when I played it with the specific goal of importing it into DA2 where certain choices were made and relationships built up I used the DAwiki as a guide for pretty much all of the companion conversations. However, since this was the fifth or so time I had played it, I don't really feel that I did myself a disservice in doing this.

All of that aside, I sometimes am puzzled by a companion's response to what I thought was a harmless sentence (even after I heard Hawke say it.)

Xewaka wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
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.

Ah, so the paraphrase system is there to be completely useless or even counterproductive. Good to know.
To elaborate: What use is a dialogue system that doesn't let me know what my character will say? 

*Sigh* it does have a purpose, and I'll just quote myself here from another thread...

True, the voiced protagonist system has flaws, but I think that for the most part the dev team is aware of what they are and is working to address some of those issues. If nothing else, the tremendous amount of (constructive) feedback on these forums has probably helped quite a bit.

I can understand how the dialogue wheel with six different icon types is daunting at first, but it's logical if you understand how it works. There are three core icons that determine personality, and then three secondary icons that determine tone. The very first dialogue option you make in the game during the prologue (telling your brother/sister to attack or step aside) determines your initial personality. You are then able to alter it over time with your dialogue choices.

In addition, the strength of your personality type will also determine what you hear if you choose an option that deviates from your normal tone. For example, a diplomatic/nice (green/blue) Hawke who picks a direct (red) choice will typically say the line in a nicer tone than a Hawke who has a purely aggressive personality. So you see, there are variations that are allowed within each type.

I think they probably determined that having a paraphrase system using the personality and tone icons would be far less complicated than several nested dialogue trees with multiple personality types. Also, even a Hawke of a certain personality might want to deviate from that for whatever reason. When talking to Lia about Kelder, an aggressive or snarky Hawke might want to be a bit nicer to a girl who has just been through a horrible ordeal.

Quoting myself again...

While I've been frustrated myself on many occasionas regarding paraphrasing - it's why I quicksave before major dialogue scenes - this is a result of the personality trying to interact with the tone of your own Hawke. I think that Bioware probably thought it would be simpler to just have paraphrased dialogue options, instead of trying to code every personality/tone option and the linking that into the actual lines of text your character could say. Hell, for all we know, they could have tested it out and found that it was so riddled with bugs, or the potential for other problems that they went with the paraphrases.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 06 novembre 2011 - 03:51 .

[MerinTB]

nightscrawl wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
I'm pretty sure this is "save scrumming" and developers hate it more than I do.  But I definitely don't see this as playing the game so much as "playing" the game, if you get the distinction.  I might as well use a strategy guide or walkthrough at this point.

I quicksave constantly, usually over 1000 times per game. I got into this habit when I played Neverwinter Nights and occasionally had game lockups due to overheating on an older computer. On one occasion, I had to replay most of an entire chapter. Hitting the button is just part of play for me now. So, I also do the whole Quicksave/Reload thing for dialogue, even though I have played it several times now. It allows me to experiment with dialogue responses, especially where the meta-game of rivalry/friendship points are concerned.

Playing through the game for the first time, I can see how devs don't want players to do that because it takes away the real impact of choices that you have to make during the game. However, on the second or higher playthrough, I don't see what they would care, in fact, it adds to the replay value for me to be able to do that.

Since you mention using a guide above, I'll point out that in a recent play of DAO when I played it with the specific goal of importing it into DA2 where certain choices were made and relationships built up I used the DAwiki as a guide for pretty much all of the companion conversations. However, since this was the fifth or so time I had played it, I don't really feel that I did myself a disservice in doing this.

I won't do any of this... on my first time through an RPG.  Usually I'll do very little to none on a second playthrough.  But if I play an RPG a third time then I'm apt touse a strategy guide or walkthrough, and do a little meta-gaming to get at specific results.

I was specifically referring to a first playthrough and people doing the quick save, not like the result, quick load.  If you've gone through the game once without doing it, I don't think anyone should care how you play the game a second time either.  But on a first play, using YouTube videos or saving and reloading just to see different results, IMO, ruins part of the gameplay experience.  What do your choices matter if you can take them back so easily.

As I've said many times before, I completely understand the desire of some developers for wanting save points and no manual saving.  I don't agree with it, but I think the reasoning is absolutely rational and understandable.

All of that aside, I sometimes am puzzled by a companion's response to what I thought was a harmless sentence (even after I heard Hawke say it.)

Especially in DA2... without a strategy guide there's almost no way to guess reactions from companions.  While one could argue that makes the companions more "realistic", I simply see it as an artifcact of the change of focus on dialog choices.  Dialog choices now are "story choices" with "party member impact", as opposed to "helping you, the player, shape your character how you want them to be."

[Brockololly]

MerinTB wrote...
Especially in DA2... without a strategy guide there's almost no way to guess reactions from companions.  While one could argue that makes the companions more "realistic", I simply see it as an artifcact of the change of focus on dialog choices.  Dialog choices now are "story choices" with "party member impact", as opposed to "helping you, the player, shape your character how you want them to be."

Yeah, I mean, when you can't clearly know what the player character is going to say or how they'll say something, its next to impossible to judge/guess how any NPC is going to react to what the PC is going to say.

[Zjarcal]

Brockololly wrote...

Yeah, I mean, when you can't clearly know what the player character is going to say or how they'll say something...

It's impossible to judge how things will be "said" with a silent PC. Imagine it all you want, the companions will "hear" things the way the devs want them to be heard.

... its next to impossible to judge/guess how any NPC is going to react to what the PC is going to say.

Just as it was in DAO and every single RPG I've ever played. You can never be sure how NPCs will react to what you say.

[KnightofPhoenix]

There should be a "Don't really care / don't mind either" option.

[Brockololly]

Zjarcal wrote...
It's impossible to judge how things will be "said" with a silent PC. Imagine it all you want, the companions will "hear" things the way the devs want them to be heard.

By that logic, why have dialogue choices at all? Why not just boil them down to seeing the scripting of the dialogue trees behind the scenes to pick the instant win button that gets whatever it is you want out of the NPC you're talking to?

My point is, its about being able to maintain a semblance of agency in being able to effectively role play a given PC. How BioWare did things in DA2, as a player, I am not sure what the PC is not only going to say, but its inconsistent in how the PC will sound in saying it. With something like DAO, I could see the entirety of every available dialogue choice for the PC and judge which one would be best and based on reading and comparing all of them, infer whatever tone I wanted to the dialogue.

Yes, its still dependent on whatever the writers want out of the line, which is reflected in the NPC's response. For me, I find it far more enjoyable and gratifying when I can see the not only the full text, but being able to see the full text of every response for the PC and make a choice based on that, not paraphrases and meaningless icons. Its about maintaining the illusion of being able to roleplay how you want without necessarily realizing that all the dialogue choices are just scripted a certain way into the dialogue trees no matter what. 

Zjarcal wrote...
Just as it was in DAO and every single RPG I've ever played. You can never be sure how NPCs will react to what you say.

Sure, but when you don't have any certainty in what your PC is going to say, the entire point of conversation might start out on a false premise. If you can't have confidence in what your PC is going to say and they say something that you didn't want them to say at the start, then the NPC is simply responding to something you didn't want to say in the first place. It just snowballs. Of course, you don't know how an NPC is going to react, but you should have confidence in knowing what your PC is going to say.

[Xewaka]

nightscrawl wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
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.

Ah, so the paraphrase system is there to be completely useless or even counterproductive. Good to know.
To elaborate: What use is a dialogue system that doesn't let me know what my character will say? 

*Sigh* it does have a purpose, and I'll just quote myself here from another thread...

True, the voiced protagonist system has flaws, but I think that for the most part the dev team is aware of what they are and is working to address some of those issues. If nothing else, the tremendous amount of (constructive) feedback on these forums has probably helped quite a bit.
I can understand how the dialogue wheel with six different icon types is daunting at first, but it's logical if you understand how it works. There are three core icons that determine personality, and then three secondary icons that determine tone. The very first dialogue option you make in the game during the prologue (telling your brother/sister to attack or step aside) determines your initial personality. You are then able to alter it over time with your dialogue choices.
In addition, the strength of your personality type will also determine what you hear if you choose an option that deviates from your normal tone. For example, a diplomatic/nice (green/blue) Hawke who picks a direct (red) choice will typically say the line in a nicer tone than a Hawke who has a purely aggressive personality. So you see, there are variations that are allowed within each type.

I think they probably determined that having a paraphrase system using the personality and tone icons would be far less complicated than several nested dialogue trees with multiple personality types. Also, even a Hawke of a certain personality might want to deviate from that for whatever reason. When talking to Lia about Kelder, an aggressive or snarky Hawke might want to be a bit nicer to a girl who has just been through a horrible ordeal.

Please. Do not assume I am incapable of understanding how the wheel works. I know how it works. That's why I know it is useless and counterproductive to the purpose of playing my character. I am robbed control of what will my character say, which is the most basic feature of a role-playing game: In-character based decision making. No, sorta kinda maybe knowing half the gist of how my character will express a concept that might be tangentially related to at most five words that the writer came up with following seven logic leaps does not constitute "knowing what my character will say". Therefore, control over the tone of the answer is useless, because the answer itself is unknown, which makes the tonal knowledge useless.
Despite what you seem to assume, I mixed up quite a bit my Hawke's answers, being particularly aggresive when she felt her family under threat, being diplomatic when in socially awkward situations, and being a buffon when she could get away with her. Still, I would never be sure what would Hawke's actual action be. I have had Hawke stab a dude when I clearly didn't pick the "Combat" option, I had Hawke said the literal opposite of what the paraphrase said: (Paraphrase: "I take responsibility". Spoken Line: "MERRILL TOTALLY DID IT, GUYS!"). This was the norm during my whole playthrough. I had to force myself to finish the game. Simply put, paraphrases DO NOT WORK.

nightscrawl wrote...
Quoting myself again...

While I've been frustrated myself on many occasionas regarding paraphrasing - it's why I quicksave before major dialogue scenes - this is a result of the personality trying to interact with the tone of your own Hawke. I think that Bioware probably thought it would be simpler to just have paraphrased dialogue options, instead of trying to code every personality/tone option and the linking that into the actual lines of text your character could say. Hell, for all we know, they could have tested it out and found that it was so riddled with bugs, or the potential for other problems that they went with the paraphrases.

How can you say with a straight face that the Dialogue Wheel and the paraphrases work when you yourself admit you must reload each conversation to have some knowledge of how will your character act during the conversation? Can you not see this is terrible design?
I do not reload a conversation because I got an unexpected answer from an NPC. I do not control them. I do not expect to be prescient and know their every move. But how can I play when I cannot know how the character I take full control of will act? What purpose serves my presence in the game then?

Modifié par Xewaka, 06 novembre 2011 - 06:54 .

[Atakuma]

Xewaka wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
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.

Ah, so the paraphrase system is there to be completely useless or even counterproductive. Good to know.
To elaborate: What use is a dialogue system that doesn't let me know what my character will say? 

It works just fine for people who aren't completely hung up on the exact wording of the dialogue. Each line was written with an intended tone, all options are going be diplomatic/humorous/agressive and  NPCs are going to respond to it accordingly, knowing the full line won't change that and Bioware does it this way to avoid redundancy.

[SpockLives]

Atakuma wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
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.

Ah, so the paraphrase system is there to be completely useless or even counterproductive. Good to know.
To elaborate: What use is a dialogue system that doesn't let me know what my character will say? 

It works just fine for people who aren't completely hung up on the exact wording of the dialogue. Each line was written with an intended tone, all options are going be diplomatic/humorous/agressive and  NPCs are going to respond to it accordingly, knowing the full line won't change that and Bioware does it this way to avoid redundancy.

Exept that the paraphrasing fails horribly at conveying the tone on several occasions.  If the paraphrasing were simply more accurate, I would not complain.  Take this in-game example.  Hawke is talking to a templar who takes the whole "death to apostates" thing to the extreme.  One of the paraphrase options is "I'm a mage."  To me, that paraphrase indicates that I am trying to force an immediate confrontation (and possibly even a fight) with the templar.  But that's not even close.  Hawke actually says, "Not all mages are evil." 

What is said and what is paraphrased are not even close in several examples.  I wanted to throw my identity in that templar's face and make him deal with it.  The game misleads players through vague and confusing paraphrasing.

[Atakuma]

SpockLives wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
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.

Ah, so the paraphrase system is there to be completely useless or even counterproductive. Good to know.
To elaborate: What use is a dialogue system that doesn't let me know what my character will say? 

It works just fine for people who aren't completely hung up on the exact wording of the dialogue. Each line was written with an intended tone, all options are going be diplomatic/humorous/agressive and  NPCs are going to respond to it accordingly, knowing the full line won't change that and Bioware does it this way to avoid redundancy.

Exept that the paraphrasing fails horribly at conveying the tone on several occasions.  If the paraphrasing were simply more accurate, I would not complain.  Take this in-game example.  Hawke is talking to a templar who takes the whole "death to apostates" thing to the extreme.  One of the paraphrase options is "I'm a mage."  To me, that paraphrase indicates that I am trying to force an immediate confrontation (and possibly even a fight) with the templar.  But that's not even close.  Hawke actually says, "Not all mages are evil." 

What is said and what is paraphrased are not even close in several examples.  I wanted to throw my identity in that templar's face and make him deal with it.  The game misleads players through vague and confusing paraphrasing.

You obviously didn't pay attention to the tone icons at all, so that's entirely your fault.

[Ryzaki]

Atakuma wrote...

SpockLives wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
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.

Ah, so the paraphrase system is there to be completely useless or even counterproductive. Good to know.
To elaborate: What use is a dialogue system that doesn't let me know what my character will say? 

It works just fine for people who aren't completely hung up on the exact wording of the dialogue. Each line was written with an intended tone, all options are going be diplomatic/humorous/agressive and  NPCs are going to respond to it accordingly, knowing the full line won't change that and Bioware does it this way to avoid redundancy.

Exept that the paraphrasing fails horribly at conveying the tone on several occasions.  If the paraphrasing were simply more accurate, I would not complain.  Take this in-game example.  Hawke is talking to a templar who takes the whole "death to apostates" thing to the extreme.  One of the paraphrase options is "I'm a mage."  To me, that paraphrase indicates that I am trying to force an immediate confrontation (and possibly even a fight) with the templar.  But that's not even close.  Hawke actually says, "Not all mages are evil." 

What is said and what is paraphrased are not even close in several examples.  I wanted to throw my identity in that templar's face and make him deal with it.  The game misleads players through vague and confusing paraphrasing.

You obviously didn't pay attention to the tone icons at all, so that's entirely your fault.

..Except that conversation option has those three swirly things which granted wasn't a swords thing to be honest. But still I thought he would at least say you know...he's a mage. No matter how stupid it was. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 novembre 2011 - 07:29 .

[Zanallen]

Ryzaki wrote...

..Except that conversation option has those three swirly things which granted wasn't a swords thing to be honest. But still I thought he would at least say you know...he's a mage. No matter how stupid it was. 

So it used his dominate tone. Judging from the sound of it, he was diplomatic.

[Ryzaki]

Zanallen wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

..Except that conversation option has those three swirly things which granted wasn't a swords thing to be honest. But still I thought he would at least say you know...he's a mage. No matter how stupid it was. 

So it used his dominate tone. Judging from the sound of it, he was diplomatic.

Eh that doesn't really make it any less confusing. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 novembre 2011 - 07:37 .

[Zanallen]

Ryzaki wrote...

Eh that doesn't really make it any less confusing. 

That's why I have been advocating for a toggle for full line or the full line appearing if you hover over the option for a couple seconds.

[Xewaka]

Atakuma wrote...

SpockLives wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
It works just fine for people who aren't completely hung up on the exact wording of the dialogue. Each line was written with an intended tone, all options are going be diplomatic/humorous/agressive and  NPCs are going to respond to it accordingly, knowing the full line won't change that and Bioware does it this way to avoid redundancy.

Exept that the paraphrasing fails horribly at conveying the tone on several occasions.  If the paraphrasing were simply more accurate, I would not complain.  Take this in-game example.  Hawke is talking to a templar who takes the whole "death to apostates" thing to the extreme.  One of the paraphrase options is "I'm a mage."  To me, that paraphrase indicates that I am trying to force an immediate confrontation (and possibly even a fight) with the templar.  But that's not even close.  Hawke actually says, "Not all mages are evil." 
What is said and what is paraphrased are not even close in several examples.  I wanted to throw my identity in that templar's face and make him deal with it.  The game misleads players through vague and confusing paraphrasing.

You obviously didn't pay attention to the tone icons at all, so that's entirely your fault.

Let me repost what I posted a few posts back:
Sorta kinda maybe knowing half the gist of how my character will express a concept that might be tangentially related to at most five words that the writer came up with following seven logic leaps does not constitute "knowing what my character will say". Therefore, control over the tone of the answer is useless, because the answer itself is unknown, which makes the tonal knowledge useless.

Modifié par Xewaka, 06 novembre 2011 - 07:45 .

[Atakuma]

Zanallen wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Eh that doesn't really make it any less confusing. 

That's why I have been advocating for a toggle for full line or the full line appearing if you hover over the option for a couple seconds.

If they were going to do a full line they would most likely get rid of paraphrases all together and just leave the icons rather than implementing the dreaded toggle.

[Zanallen]

Atakuma wrote...

If they were going to do a full line they would most likely get rid of paraphrases all together and just leave the icons rather than implementing the dreaded toggle.

Eh, the reason they use the paraphrase system is due to negative feedback concerning the repetitiveness of reading the line and then having the same line recited back to you. There are also dialogue length issues when using the wheel. I have suggested that, when the player hovers over an option for a few seconds, the full dialogue line appears in the same chatbox that houses the last NPC line or perhaps just under the wheel in a second chatbox. People who hate the repetitiveness and don't mind not knowing the full line will be happy and so will people who don't mind repetitiveness, but what to know the full line. It solves both issues and would only take a little more effort on Bioware's behalf.

[Atakuma]

Xewaka wrote...

You obviously didn't pay attention to the tone icons at all, so that's entirely your fault.

Let me repost what I posted a few posts back:
Sorta kinda maybe knowing half the gist of how my character will express a concept that might be tangentially related to at most five words that the writer came up with following seven logic leaps does not constitute "knowing what my character will say". Therefore, control over the tone of the answer is useless, because the answer itself is unknown, which makes the tonal knowledge useless.

First, It certainly is useless to someone who will not accept anything less than the exact wording of every line of dialogue and second, that quote wasn't aimed at you, so why are you responding to it out of context?

Modifié par Atakuma, 06 novembre 2011 - 07:56 .

[Relshar]

I would rather have a good RPG with a silent PC rather than a substandard one that DA:2 is.

[SirOccam]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

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.

What does that even mean?  I've heard this said a lot on defense of DA2's dialogue system, but what you're saying is meaningless.  How can the paraphrase represent the intent and yet leave the player completely in the dark as to what is going to be said?

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.

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.

[Zjarcal]

Brockololly wrote...

Its about maintaining the illusion of being able to roleplay how you want without necessarily realizing that all the dialogue choices are just scripted a certain way into the dialogue trees no matter what. 

Well, different strokes obviously, but that illusion was never broken for me.

Nevertheless, the option many people have mentioned about having the full line show up if you highlight the paraphrase for a certain amount of time seems like a fair solution to me.

Brockololly wrote...

Sure, but when you don't have any certainty in what your PC is going to say, the entire point of conversation might start out on a false premise. If you can't have confidence in what your PC is going to say and they say something that you didn't want them to say at the start, then the NPC is simply responding to something you didn't want to say in the first place. It just snowballs. Of course, you don't know how an NPC is going to react, but you should have confidence in knowing what your PC is going to say.

Eh, what can I say, different strokes again... to me it's about how the whole thing plays out, not just the initial line from the PC. Perhaps it's because to me the "full dialogue" with a silent PC has never really been that much more satisfying than a paraphrase, since it's still only one short line, whereas with a voiced PC it sometimes becomes a back and forth interaction that I find much more enjoyable. Having the full line really wouldn't make that big of a difference to me.

Bear in mind that I also don't mind one bit to reload constantly to see all the different outcomes, something I did with every conversation in DAO. Given that I play that way, I usually do a scene two or three times before settling on how I want it to "officially" play out (and no, that's not so I can get the "best" outcome). With that in mind, finding out what the PC said in the actual scene was no problem to me since I was usually going to reload anyway (not that I felt there was much difference between the actual line and the paraphrase anyway).

Granted I won't claim that my way is an ideal of way playing, but it's part of the reason why I'm just not bothered by paraphrases (though I admit they could be better).

Modifié par Zjarcal, 06 novembre 2011 - 08:14 .

[Atakuma]

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.

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.

Exactly, I just think that people are misinformed about what the system is supposed to do. I'm not saying that you have to like it, just that it works as intended.