159 réponses à ce sujet

[Fallstar]

Malanek999 wrote...

If it is supposed to be your character, you don't want to be surprised at what is said.

This is what it comes down to at the end of the day. Its my character, who I want to role play as, and a vital part of that is being able to choose what my character will say.

[StanojeZ]

re: unexpected dialogue

In the real world, people are regularly surprised by what comes out of their own mouths.

Consider it a bit of realism. : )

[Sylvius the Mad]

StanojeZ wrote...

In the real world, people are regularly surprised by what comes out of their own mouths.

I flatly deny that this is true.  It certainly doesn't happen when I speak, and if it did I would immediately be able to correct myself.

[Xewaka]

What is this.
I don't even.

How can people actually consider being surprised by a character you're supposed to play as a *positive* thing? The amount of dumbness in that statement is brain frying.
Seriously. You cannot roleplay a character if you lack such basic control over its behavior.

[PsychoBlonde]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

I didn't mind the DA2 dialogue system too much, though there were a few instances where my sarcastic Hawke would come across as an a**hole, when I intended for him to say something funny. In this case, I have to recall dialogue from previous playthroughs just to keep my Hawke from saying something unintended.

It bothers me more when people react as though Hawke had said something extraordinarily offensive--and to me, it sounded more awkward.  Or, conversely, when Hawke actually DID say something painfully offensive, and the reaction was more along the lines of "not right now" instead of "geez, you're a jerk".

I don't care whether they do voiced or not or do the tone thing or not.  What I don't like much is that they did NOT do what they said they would, with you getting reactions from people based on the "choice" dialog options rather than the tone options.  There are a significant number of conversations in the game (how the whole scenario with Maraas is supposed to play out, for instance) where the ONLY thing that matters is either the tone you take in that conversation or your predominant tone (or what companions you have with you), and the "choice" options mean NOTHING.  Boo.

In all honesty, I would not mind setting a tone for my character as part of character creation and then only choosing "choice" options if they actually did things the way they said they would.  Even better, I'd like to set a tone and then have options based strictly on that tone--this would have the additional benefit that you wouldn't even get to see the paraphrases for other tones.  Subsequent playthroughs could be very different. 

[PsychoBlonde]

Xewaka wrote...

How can people actually consider being surprised by a character you're supposed to play as a *positive* thing? The amount of dumbness in that statement is brain frying.
Seriously. You cannot roleplay a character if you lack such basic control over its behavior.

I'd say the amount of "dumbness" in your statement is what's brain-frying.  No matter what they do, you're going to get the conversation options that the devs wrote.  Since you haven't seen them before, they are a surprise--and maybe an unpleasant one, considering that you may get four options all of which strike you as incredibly lame.  So what difference does it make whether you get surprised after or before you pick the option?  You have the same amount of control either way, i. e., not much.  Worse, since you have no idea of how the PC was thought to have delivered those lines by the devs, you can very often be surprised by the NPC reaction to it.

One way is not inherently superior to the other.  There are limitations on both and benefits of both.

That, and how are you "supposed" to do this or that?  As a player of *actual* role-playing games, I know the difference between playing a character I REALLY have control over and simply DIRECTING a character that, ultimately, the game developers have control over.  I'm not dumb enough to confuse the two, nor do I expect that a computer game, limited as it is by the fact that it is NOT A HUMAN BEING, can provide the kind of depth of consideration that a human GM can do.  Framing your expectations in terms of this kind of role-playing is *imbecile*.

[PsychoBlonde]

StanojeZ wrote...

Or as dramatic, or as sad.

That's why paraphrasing dialoge choices is better than writing them out fully - it undercuts the actual delivery, which is where the emotion happens. No paraphrasing means no surprise. And without surprise, there won't be a lot of humor.

As a side note, I tend to play my text-driven characters as being very deadpan as a result of this.  Granted, this is a character type I enjoy, but sometimes it's nice to try something different.

[Sylvius the Mad]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

So what difference does it make whether you get surprised after or before you pick the option? 

If you knw what they are before you choose one, you can choose the onle that actually suits what you want your character to do.

Too often in DA2 the surprise wasn'tthat the line was different, but that it was completely inappropriate for that Hawke.

You have the same amount of control either way, i. e., not much.  Worse, since you have no idea of how the PC was thought to have delivered those lines by the devs, you can very often be surprised by the NPC reaction to it.

I do not care how the NPCs react to the line.  I'm not playing the NPCs.  I'm playing the PC, and he should do what I want him to do.

[Xewaka]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
How can people actually consider being surprised by a character you're supposed to play as a *positive* thing? The amount of dumbness in that statement is brain frying.
Seriously. You cannot roleplay a character if you lack such basic control over its behavior.

I'd say the amount of "dumbness" in your statement is what's brain-frying.  No matter what they do, you're going to get the conversation options that the devs wrote.  Since you haven't seen them before, they are a surprise--and maybe an unpleasant one, considering that you may get four options all of which strike you as incredibly lame.  So what difference does it make whether you get surprised after or before you pick the option?  You have the same amount of control either way, i. e., not much.  Worse, since you have no idea of how the PC was thought to have delivered those lines by the devs, you can very often be surprised by the NPC reaction to it.
One way is not inherently superior to the other.  There are limitations on both and benefits of both.
That, and how are you "supposed" to do this or that?  As a player of *actual* role-playing games, I know the difference between playing a character I REALLY have control over and simply DIRECTING a character that, ultimately, the game developers have control over.  I'm not dumb enough to confuse the two, nor do I expect that a computer game, limited as it is by the fact that it is NOT A HUMAN BEING, can provide the kind of depth of consideration that a human GM can do.  Framing your expectations in terms of this kind of role-playing is *imbecile*.

Knowing what the character will say beforehand actually allows enough wiggle room to adjust the presented options to the character, thus allowing a minimum amount of character breaking. You might believe it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission, but I'd rather the dialogue asked for permission (and allowed me to review which options would be less character breaking, and thus compromising to keep the game flowing) than forgiveness, after utterly destroying any semblance of control and forcing me to reload or to live with this stranger in my screen.
The NPCs are not mine to control, they can react however they well damn please, and it won't bother me, because they are not my characters. My character might find their reaction odd, but I can build from there.

And well, since I'm still having PnP RPG sessions every wednesday night, I am aware of the limitations of the computer medium compared to it. I am also aware of the workarounds, and how DA 2 decided to ignore them completely.

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 novembre 2011 - 12:50 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

For example, there is a conversation with a slaver in DA2 where I chose the option not to kill him, because I didn't see why Hawke would have any ill will toward the guy at all.

But the option not to kill him cause Hawke to behave very aggressively toward the slaver, attempting to frighten him away.

Had I known that Hawke was going to be anti-slaver before I made the selection, I would have had Hawke kill the slaver. Hating the slaver and letting him go was incompatible with my character design. But I couldn't tell from the paraphrases that Hawke hated the slaver, so I chose the wrong option.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 novembre 2011 - 09:26 .

[Fallstar]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

How can people actually consider being surprised by a character you're supposed to play as a *positive* thing? The amount of dumbness in that statement is brain frying.
Seriously. You cannot roleplay a character if you lack such basic control over its behavior.

I'd say the amount of "dumbness" in your statement is what's brain-frying.  No matter what they do, you're going to get the conversation options that the devs wrote.  Since you haven't seen them before, they are a surprise--and maybe an unpleasant one, considering that you may get four options all of which strike you as incredibly lame.  So what difference does it make whether you get surprised after or before you pick the option?  You have the same amount of control either way, i. e., not much.  Worse, since you have no idea of how the PC was thought to have delivered those lines by the devs, you can very often be surprised by the NPC reaction to it.

One way is not inherently superior to the other.  There are limitations on both and benefits of both.

That, and how are you "supposed" to do this or that?  As a player of *actual* role-playing games, I know the difference between playing a character I REALLY have control over and simply DIRECTING a character that, ultimately, the game developers have control over.  I'm not dumb enough to confuse the two, nor do I expect that a computer game, limited as it is by the fact that it is NOT A HUMAN BEING, can provide the kind of depth of consideration that a human GM can do.  Framing your expectations in terms of this kind of role-playing is *imbecile*.

When calling someone an imbecile, it often helps to do so in a way that doesn't make you look like one. Your last line should read "...role-playing is *imbecilic*". 

Whether or not you can role play in a crpg to the same standard as in a table top game is irrelevant. Being able to see what your character says is superior in terms of role playing capability to not being able to see what your character says. It is a limitation of both systems that you can only pick from a few lines, but at the very least I want to be able to know that when I pick a line, I am actually choosing that dialogue, rather than some other dialogue that is based on another person's subjective interpretation of that line. What David Gaider, or whoever wrote the paraphrase, thinks is an obvious connection between the paraphrase and the actual dialogue, may not be to someone else (i.e. me).

Since the devs must write the full dialogue trees before the paraphrases anyway, writing paraphrases takes valuable developer time, which could have been spent polishing other aspects of the story. Even if you think having shorter dialogue options is superior to the full text, do you think that this is worth the time it takes? 

[bEVEsthda]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

How can people actually consider being surprised by a character you're supposed to play as a *positive* thing? The amount of dumbness in that statement is brain frying.
Seriously. You cannot roleplay a character if you lack such basic control over its behavior.

I'd say the amount of "dumbness" in your statement is what's brain-frying.  No matter what they do, you're going to get the conversation options that the devs wrote.  Since you haven't seen them before, they are a surprise--and maybe an unpleasant one, considering that you may get four options all of which strike you as incredibly lame.  So what difference does it make whether you get surprised after or before you pick the option?  You have the same amount of control either way, i. e., not much.  Worse, since you have no idea of how the PC was thought to have delivered those lines by the devs, you can very often be surprised by the NPC reaction to it.

One way is not inherently superior to the other.  There are limitations on both and benefits of both.

That, and how are you "supposed" to do this or that?  As a player of *actual* role-playing games, I know the difference between playing a character I REALLY have control over and simply DIRECTING a character that, ultimately, the game developers have control over.  I'm not dumb enough to confuse the two, nor do I expect that a computer game, limited as it is by the fact that it is NOT A HUMAN BEING, can provide the kind of depth of consideration that a human GM can do.  Framing your expectations in terms of this kind of role-playing is *imbecile*.

Sorry, I'm afraid I'll have to be utterly and completely on Xewakas side on this.
On anything concerning "dumbness" and *imbecile* as well, even if I wouldn't put it in those words.

[StanojeZ]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

StanojeZ wrote...

In the real world, people are regularly surprised by what comes out of their own mouths.

I flatly deny that this is true.  It certainly doesn't happen when I speak, and if it did I would immediately be able to correct myself.

Sorry, but that's not how human speech works. We are not always perfectly aware of what we will say. There's a good amount of science to back me up on this.

So you've never fumbled for words when nervous? Never in your life have you misspoken when in a hurry or under stress? You've never said something in anger that you regretted immediately, but the truth of which shocked you? You've never let out a cry of surprise when hurt?

[Sylvius the Mad]

StanojeZ wrote...

Sorry, but that's not how human speech works. We are not always perfectly aware of what we will say. There's a good amount of science to back me up on this.

So you've never fumbled for words when nervous? Never in your life have you misspoken when in a hurry or under stress? You've never said something in anger that you regretted immediately, but the truth of which shocked you? You've never let out a cry of surprise when hurt?

I tend to compose complete sentences before I speak.  I'm aware this is atypical.

But more importantly, if I were to say entirely the wrong thing, I could correct myself.  DA2, however, behaves as if Hawke fully intended to say whatever it is he said, even if the player is shocked and appalled by it.

So you've never fumbled for words when nervous?

When I'm nervous, I just stop talking.  If someone wants to hear what I have to say, he's going to have to wait.

The vast majority of my interaction with others happens in writing.

[Fallstar]

StanojeZ wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

StanojeZ wrote...

In the real world, people are regularly surprised by what comes out of their own mouths.

I flatly deny that this is true.  It certainly doesn't happen when I speak, and if it did I would immediately be able to correct myself.

Sorry, but that's not how human speech works. We are not always perfectly aware of what we will say. There's a good amount of science to back me up on this.

So you've never fumbled for words when nervous? Never in your life have you misspoken when in a hurry or under stress? You've never said something in anger that you regretted immediately, but the truth of which shocked you? You've never let out a cry of surprise when hurt?

Sorry, but its a pet peeve of mine when people say "science backs me up on this" or "but actually science proves I'm right" and you get the picture. Well, what science? Which journals and issue numbers were the papers printed in, as I might be interested in reading them, or find that what the researchers did does not in fact prove to me what they appear to prove to you.

[Anomaly-]

StanojeZ wrote...

Sorry, but that's not how human speech works. We are not always perfectly aware of what we will say. There's a good amount of science to back me up on this.

So you've never fumbled for words when nervous? Never in your life have you misspoken when in a hurry or under stress? You've never said something in anger that you regretted immediately, but the truth of which shocked you? You've never let out a cry of surprise when hurt?

On top of what Sylvius said, there are very few people who would experience one of those things every single time someone talked to them, and I sure didn't intend to roleplay that.

[StanojeZ]

Sorry, but its a pet peeve of mine when people say "science backs me up on this" or "but actually science proves I'm right" and you get the picture. Well, what science? Which journals and issue numbers were the papers printed in, as I might be interested in reading them, or find that what the researchers did does not in fact prove to me what they appear to prove to you.

Been a while since I read it, but I'd recommend to start with Marvin Minsky's Society of Mind and go from there (to both his supporters and detractors). I'm not going to provide academia-style citations for a forum post about a game where you pretend to be a wizard. Asking for such is an utter category error on your part.

[StanojeZ]

On top of what Sylvius said, there are very few people who would experience one of those things every single time someone talked to them, and I sure didn't intend to roleplay that.

Yeah, and since I put a smiley after the line where I brought up the unreliability of speech, I was being 100% serious about this being a deliberate element of realism in the game's dialogue system.




Like, totally.

[Anomaly-]

StanojeZ wrote...
Yeah, and since I put a smiley after the line where I brought up the unreliability of speech, I was being 100% serious about this being a deliberate element of realism in the game's dialogue system.

Your first post, yes. Afterward, you defended it. In that case, I'm not sure what point you were making, as the discussion was clearly in regards to the game.

[StanojeZ]

No, I defended the notion that humans do not have perfect foreknowledge of their own speech acts.

I never defended my joke that the dialogue system is a nod to this.

Those are two separate points, and you conflated them here, Anomaly-.

[StanojeZ]

EDIT: double post, deleted

Modifié par StanojeZ, 11 novembre 2011 - 11:29 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

StanojeZ wrote...

Or as dramatic, or as sad.

That's why paraphrasing dialoge choices is better than writing them out fully - it undercuts the actual delivery, which is where the emotion happens. No paraphrasing means no surprise. And without surprise, there won't be a lot of humor.

Stuff like this makes me wonder how people get any emotional enjoyment out of books.

[KilrB]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

StanojeZ wrote...

Or as dramatic, or as sad.

That's why paraphrasing dialoge choices is better than writing them out fully - it undercuts the actual delivery, which is where the emotion happens. No paraphrasing means no surprise. And without surprise, there won't be a lot of humor.

Stuff like this makes me wonder how people get any emotional enjoyment out of books.

Or out of replaying the game once you know the PC's response to each paraphrase?

I quess it's just no more fun at all after that.

[StanojeZ]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

StanojeZ wrote...

Or as dramatic, or as sad.

That's why paraphrasing dialoge choices is better than writing them out fully - it undercuts the actual delivery, which is where the emotion happens. No paraphrasing means no surprise. And without surprise, there won't be a lot of humor.

Stuff like this makes me wonder how people get any emotional enjoyment out of books.

Are there a lot of books where you see several possible lines of dialogue in advanced and largely devoid of context, and then flip the page to see which one the author selected?

[Anomaly-]

StanojeZ wrote...

No, I defended the notion that humans do not have perfect foreknowledge of their own speech acts.

I never defended my joke that the dialogue system is a nod to this.

Those are two separate points, and you conflated them here, Anomaly-.

They are separate, yes, but you branched off to the second point from the first, and I just assumed we were still

Nevermind, I'm tired. I admit being in the wrong here. The problem is I quoted you when I should have quoted Sylvius.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 12 novembre 2011 - 01:57 .