27 réponses à ce sujet

[Rurik948]

The only purpose of this post is to ask Bioware not to include protagonist Auto-dialogs in Dragon Age 2.   Mass Effect 3 was extremely frustrating for the players who like RPG story-telling.  Auto-dialog kills immersion, sense of partisipation and interactivity.  Since Mark Darrah invited players for a disccusion about their preferences this topic can be a part of it.  I would greatly appriciate if people with similiar opinion will write in this post.  

[David Gaider]

Korusus wrote...
Agree. Just say NO to auto-dialogue. DA2 had a little bit of auto-dialogue that was determined by what "tone" you picked most often, but ME3 took that concept to an absurd level. Keep that nonsense in Mass Effect where it belongs, auto-dialogue has no place in Dragon Age.

I haven't finished playing ME3 to completion, but while I wouldn't call it "nonsense" I think I can safely say that future DA content won't go that route. Shepherd is a bit more of a set character than we like to do in DA, and I'm not sure that style is really compatible. I'm okay with dialogue having more of a "scene" asscoiated with it (ie. those sections where there's some back-and-forth conversation, and you're not picking every response), but personally I'd prefer if it came as a result of a direction the player already provided.

[David Gaider]

Wulfram wrote...
Though I guess I shouldn't get carried away and assume that this implies a reduction in the dominant tone dialogue which we saw in DA2?

We're still playing with exactly what we're going to do on this front, and with the use of the wheel in general, but no-- I wouldn't make that assumption. If you have suggestions on the use of tone, or the use of the dominant tone in particular, I'd like to hear them.

If, however, one's suggestion is "present the dialogue exactly as you did in DAO", then I'm afraid that's not really in the cards. I'm not going to display the full line of dialogue in a voiced-PC system. There are, however, alternatives to the way we did it in DA2.

[David Gaider]

Dave of Canada wrote...
More non-personality icons would be nice, I felt certain scenes (Leandra scene comes to mind) could've benefitted greatly from angry / happy / sad tones rather than putting it on Diplomatic / Sarcastic and Aggressive.

Funny you mention this, because we were having this discussion just the other day-- identifying that sometimes a "reaction" or an "emotion" is necessary, as opposed to a "tone". Needs to be context-sensitive, but the Leandra scene you mention did come up as an example.

[David Gaider]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Doesn't that leave a disconnect between what the the player wants his (or her) character to say, and what the protagonist actually says? If the protagonist ends up saying entire lines of dialogue that are different than what's actually chosen, it ends up running the risk of saying something entirely different than what was intended - which was the primary problem with the paraphrasing in Dragon Age II.

Let me be frank: there is no solution which will be the catch-all that satisfies everyone. Ideally we could look at some options where the player can set preferences (the dreaded toggle), but that's not going to be an option where we are writing two or three versions of the paraphrase for every single response in the game. That would be mind-boggling. There is a point where we're going to have to pick a route and try to implement it in the best way we can.

Again, this is something that we'll have to eventually show to convey our meaning, but we've some options. They all have their benefits and drawbacks-- and, yes, I agree not everyone is going to like them all equally, but then again y'all are hardly interchangeable.

[David Gaider]

RosaAquafire wrote...
Also, David, I agree that the dialogue wall isn't a great option with voice protagonist. And I do still want voiced protagonist over the full line -- BARELY. But I've seen a lot of great suggestions, like making the full line appear after a five second (or longer) mouseover, or the [Say that you think he's handsome.] or [Say that you appreciate the thought but would rather do it on your own.] dialogue compass idea that's been brought up in the other thread.

So, here's a good place to bring up a couple of issues-- because you touch on two options which we have discussed and are discussing. It's difficult to convey the meat of those discussions, however, because there's one big misconception I often see on these forums:

Namely that the dialogue options in DA2 were simply the dialogue options in DAO with paraphrases attached. This is not true. Good writing for a silent protaganist is not the same as good writing for a voiced protaganist. Why? Because with a voiced protaganist there is actual acting involved.

Let's say I have the option where the text pops up after a delay, providing you the full line of what follows. What if the actual meaning of that line is conveyed via emotion or gesture? That's often the case, and indeed we'd like to do that more and not less. You could also be seeing the first line of an exchange, as opposed to getting the gist of the entire exchange from it. So you'd be seeing something that could still not be the improvement you think it is, as the PC's dialogue is not written the same as DAO's was.

This is not to say that there are less options, as that is also a misconception, but the style is certainly different-- and must be.

Insofar as the "thought process" thing goes, I've seen that... and there are several versions of that which are possible-- ranging from the explicit text on pop-up (so explaining exactly what you do or exactly what you intend to say). This, however, also has some weaknesses. One that you still have the length limit on the GUI. A long, rambly line explaining a thought process is not an improvement... it would still need to be short, or you've turned the GUI into a big ol' mess (well-intended or not). You also run into an issue in tone options (present in both DAO and DA2) where the intent of each option is the same even if the tone is not... so do you really want to see three versions of [Explain the plot]? You could say "well don't write it like that", but I'm telling you "that's how we write it and always have"... so it's a potential issue.

There's more to it, though I'm afraid some of it would be hard to explain as it risks sounding kind of arrogant-- we have to make certain assumptions about how "the average player" plays their game, which is not true for everyone even though we have to make something as one-size-fits-all as we can. So I don't want to get into that. Ideally when we reach the point where we have something to show, I'd like to engage the community and get feedback on those options.

Even though, at the end of the day, we'll still need to pick only one. And that may indeed not be one that you personally like. But we exist to enrage, and I do so like to fulfill my raison d'etre.

Modifié par David Gaider, 20 mars 2012 - 08:51 .

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Half of the problems with DA2's dialogue system could be eliminated by giving us full-text dialogue options, but the other half are caused by the voice.

I've explained above why full-text dialogue is not the answer, though the problem still relates in that case to player VO as well. If player VO is your issue, however, then that is simply a non-starter. There are benefits that come with player VO as well as weaknesses, but on the whole we feel that the benefits outweigh the weaknesses. That is going nowhere, and there's no point dilly-dallying around it if that's where your enjoyment breaks down.

[David Gaider]

Xewaka wrote...
Add a "[dismissive hand gesture]" tag at the end of the subtitle. Add a "[Smirking] at the beginning. If that information is so important, give it to us.

Possibly, though the room on the GUI is not infinite. Like I said, it's a potential issue, and not necessarily a deal-breaker. It is the kind of issue, however, that needs to come out as a result of using it and not one that can be solved theoretically.

[David Gaider]

Corto81 wrote...
Honest question here, David, can you give us a short answer as to why you guys believe the voiced protagonist is necessary? Or better than a silent protagonist?

Almost all of the legendary RPGs had silent protagonists (off the top of my head, I think Witcher series and Vampire series had voiced ones, but with a SET character - Geralt, Christoph, etc.).
BG, PS:T, NWN, IWD, Morrowind, Oblivion, KOTOR, etc etc etc.

Even the most recent ones to achieve major success had silent protagonists and very few complaints were raised about it.
Skyrim, KOA:R, DA:Origins, etc.

So yeah... Why do you guys feel that strongly that voiced character is a MUST, when it so obviously hampers your budget and takes away time from adding content and depth to the game?

Because, content > cosmetics.

I don't think a voiced protaganist is fundamentally better than a silent one. Each approach has its advantages as well as its drawbacks. The problem as we saw it was with Origin's approach: with the game having such a huge cinematic element to its storytelling, having a silent PC when the rest of game's characters were fully-voiced was an issue.

Was it an issue to someone who enjoyed the game overall? Of course not. Sometimes I think there's an element to fans where they blend things they enjoy or hate together-- they forget it's possible to enjoy something despite its weaknesses-- but I'm not going to presume to tell the individual what they should or should not prefer. The difference here is with regards to the kind of game we wanted to make. A game doesn't have to be cinematic in order to be enjoyable, and an RPG even less so, but that's what we want-- for many reasons, right from those top-level marketing folks down to the team level. I won't get into it beyond that. but this is where BioWare has been heading for a long time... and while someone may not agree with that approach and thinks we should be making an RPG of a flavor closer to their personal preference (and that's fine), that is simply what we do.

[David Gaider]

eyesofastorm wrote...
I just have one question:  Does a voiced protagonist mean a fixed protagonist?  

Depends on what you mean by "fixed". There are some people who would say that DA2 has a fixed protaganist, while others felt they had enough control over how their PC developed. I would say there is a range of customizability possible with a voiced protaganist, though every level of such comes with an associated cost-- both a physical cost (like the amount of voiceover) as well as a cost to the solidity of the story.

In my personal opinion, there are some sacrifices that moving to a completely fixed protaganist which go against the kind of game DA is... I wouldn't even say "which go against what RPG's should be", as you can have a great RPG (and there have been such) which have very fixed protaganists with a set name and set background which allow you to afterwards develop the character in a manner of your choosing. "Planescape: Torment" comes to mind.

[David Gaider]

Corto81 wrote...
I think the issue many people seem to have ( and me personally) is that Hawke ends up a mish-mash, a character that's suppose to feel mine, but always ended up feeling Bioware's.

Witcher, PS:T, Vampire, and a Hawke-molded Shepard (or vice-versa) always felt mine, despite being (half)set characters.

Is it possible that the difference was that you expected it to work as Origins did, and thus the feeling you got was due to the disparity in the execution styles, versus the lack of similar expectations you had with those other titles? Or do you think it's down to the actual execution? I imagine the answer would be debateable, depending on who's answering, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

[David Gaider]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Hell, least DA2 had little back-and-forths based on the selection you did earlier. That's about as much "auto-dialogue" that I'm fine with, as the player was still able to guide the conversation. In a good mood with your friend? Be humoristic! You're pissed off at them? Rawr, tell them to go screw themselves!

Right-- the only time in DA2 where you didn't have the option to select your tone was in the "choice" wheels. You'd be presented with your choice of action, but the tone Hawke actually used was your dominant one. In regular conversation, you'd still get to choose your tone of response regardless of your dominant tone.

The only way to get around that would be to present tone/action combinations-- so if you chose to, say, attack then your tone would automatically be aggressive. Occasionally we might present actions that were the same but had more than one tone... but we could not offer every action in all three tones (three choices x three tones = too many... and that's ignoring the fact that we often offer more than three... particularly when you take into account follower options and investigates), nor would we ever break a choice into a new hub where you pick your tone. That's simply not going to happen.

The other option would be to have action choices always result in a "neutral" tone, the same as we do with investigates (and what we did in Origins). I suspect that would please some folks while pleasing others less, however... and the folks it pleases probably aren't fans of their PC speaking for them to begin with so it's debateable how much this would actually appease their basic concern. But that's speculation on my part.

[David Gaider]

kcwME wrote...
Character-specific tracking for the Protagonist’s dominant tone.


The Problem: Tracking just one tone doesn’t leave room for diverse PC relationships.

I was doing an “aggressive” Hawke who only liked those in her inner circle. She considered Isabela in that circle and regularly chose the “sarcastic” tone when interacting with her. However, in one conversation things went awry. Isabela offered to go drinking and I was all prepared for the wheel to come up so I could gladly accept. But instead my Hawke auto-dialogued a scathing no and I got +5 Rivalry points.



The Suggestion: Track the overall tone, but when talking to important, repeat characters—track it separately.

So I can have an overall “aggressive” tone but have a “sarcastic” tone specifically at Isabela. Or be a saint most of the time but a jerk to my sister. That way I’m not blindsided when the need for auto-dialogue arises. Of course, you wouldn’t do this for everyone but for the Companion characters this would be really nice.

Though it really comes down to how much auto-dialogue DA3 will have. If it’s minimal then there really isn’t much need for this. But if things are going to be increasingly cinematic and scripted, then this would be awesome. Just my $.02.

Just a comment on this, as this suggestion was mentioned before in the thread (I think-- I've lost the ability to follow every post here, by now):

The auto-dialogue will be minimal in the future, as you mention. So it's possibly a moot point. Regardless, character-specific tracking of tone is problematic anyhow. Why? Because the people that it would potentially to appease (ie. those who have issues with the points at which tone is assumed, minimal or not) would still have a problem with this because they'd have no more visibility into what tone was being used towards those characters than before.

Example: Anders did some things I didn't like in a plot, and thus I responded to him aggressively. This tipped me over into being aggressive towards Anders (I don't talk to him, much), and thus the next time I speak with him there's some aggressive-toned dialogue-- even though, in my mind, I'm no longer mad at himand I've been picking humorous choices elsewhere and had no idea that picking those options with Anders earlier would change anything.

So, for the person who's already over-thinking this and desires more micro-management of their character's dialogue (which they're not getting by the mere existence of auto-dialogue), this doesn't actually address their issue. And that's ignoring the fact that implementing such a system would make a level designer's black little heart shrivel.

Modifié par David Gaider, 22 mars 2012 - 03:06 .

[David Gaider]

Cyr8 wrote...
From what I can gather from the comments from the users and the replies by David Gaider, it seems like people are asking for the changes they want while David is basically defending the choices that were made in Dragon Age II.

Not defending so much as addressing some of the ideas for changes-- if I can. As I've mentioned a few times, some of these things are in the process of change and thus not everything is off the table. The amount of and use of auto-dialogue (the tones in particular) is one such. I may not be at the point where I can discuss specifics, but when something is suggested which I can speak to I'll do so.

Some things are indeed off the table, however-- such as the use of a silent protaganist. That's simply not going to happen, so there's no reason for me to encourage conversation down that path if it's a dead end. I would hope that kind of frankness is something the average person would appreciate, as I could indeed simply nod my head and say "yes that's a good point, we'll consider it". Which would be a lie, if a nicer one. I find it more useful to say when things are still in flux, and point out issues that I foresee if not always the solutions (as I don't have all the answers).

Beyond that, the thing to keep in mind is that the people who suggest changes are the ones who had big problems with the system. The people who did not have problems are not here, and probably would not be looking for threads like this to post in-- at least until the system changed and now they have a problem with whatever's been changed. That's universally true, and not specific to DA, and thus it really shouldn't be surprising that everyone you see on a thread regarding a complaint about the dialogue system is... complaining about the dialogue system. It's a self-selecting group of people involving themselves in the discussion. Which is okay, so long as one's perception on it is not skewed.

I do see issues for myself, however (hence why I'm here-- discussing such an issue with a group consisting of people who are entirely content with the status quo would not be useful, either). I think there are always issues, to an extent (I've yet to see a "perfect" system), and will always try new things-- and, yes, defend them when I think they're the right way to go. I'm the one who has to do the work to implement them, after all.

Modifié par David Gaider, 22 mars 2012 - 03:20 .

[David Gaider]

Pasquale1234 wrote...
Are you able to address the status of the request for a toggle to turn off the PC VO at this time?

I'm not certain how well that would work. We could turn off the VO, but not the cinematics involved... so it would result in a weird pantomime (reading the VO via subtitles, I suppose). There's an element that would definitely be missed, considering what we write changes when we know at least part of the meaning is conveyed via the voice acting.

So, to be honest, what that question boils down to is: "Would you, as developers, be willing to put in a toggle so a player could experience the game other than as intended and in a potentially detrimental way?" And the answer is... maybe? I don't know. Part of the issue would be that any toggle we put in thus becomes something which we have to consider a legitimate way to play the game, and thus have to support (and by "support" I don't mean encourage but rather support technically as well as stylistically). We also have to ask ourselves whether this is something being asked for because those asking for it want the game to be something other than it really is, and whether offering it would actually give them that or just make it a more frustrating experience.

We can't, after all, deliberately put in things that we don't think work very well but use the excuse "it's optional". How many people, after all, might take that option because of what they think it will do, only to unintentionally lessen their experience?

Not being the person who would make the call on such a feature, I can't give you an answer. But that's the conversation I'd foresee. Hope that offers some insight.

[David Gaider]

Taxonomy wrote...
I liked the DA2 system! Dominant tone and all, too - it really shined on multiple playthroughs; you got the sense that your Hawke had a different personality, rather than just was making different choices.

I like the dominant tone as well, though it's interesting reading some of the comments about how it could be improved. I get that some people just don't want it at all-- or anything even similar-- and while I respect their opinion, removing the system entirely just isn't going to happen.

Along those lines, please please please do not have ME3 levels of auto-dialog. They killed my sense of agency and connection to Shepard. Along with those last 10 minutes, auto-dialog was my #1 problem with ME3.

As I said earlier, that's not the plan for DA-- whatsoever. The only auto-dialog we tend to do is either a continuation of something you just picked (so you select an option and there's a back-and-forth exchange that results) or the dominant tone-based line that results from selecting an action choice (which I wouldn't really consider auto-dialog, but considering you have less control over the resulting line than in tone choices I imagine many would). That was the level in DA2, and while we might end up changing how it works in the future at the very least we would be using this as the base from which to work-- not ME3.

Modifié par David Gaider, 04 avril 2012 - 04:01 .

[David Gaider]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...
It would be great David if the choices you get to make really made an impact to how the story in regards to your companions evolves. DA2 was much more preset than DAO in regards to companions.

Is that what you meant by your reply?

I'm actually not certain how you're connecting companion evolution to the amount of auto-dialog, to be honest. So I guess my response would be, no, that's not at all what I meant by my reply.

[David Gaider]

bEVEsthda wrote...
You do your job, of course, but do you like this better? Now that you get to narrate and serve your stories in greater detail, rather than leaving space for the player?

I'm not sure there's a response I could give you which you would appreciate. The implication behind your question is that someone would have to be forced to implement dialog in this manner, since nobody could like it otherwise? Which may not be what you intended, but that's certainly how it sounds.

I see benefit in both approaches. I like a silent protaganist just fine. I think it works less well in a fully-cinematic game-- which itself I also consider not a necessity but a different approach-- and, if anything, I think it's half-measures that hamper a game. Either approach works for an RPG, and I suspect most fans who try to sell one or the other as necessary-for-RPGness actually mean necessary-for-Dragon Age because that's the expectation built from DAO. Which is fair; we change the formula at our own risk. Regardless, there's lots of things we're likely to change... but our basic approach is not one of them. If that's a deal-breaker for someone, then they should consider themselves duly informed-- especially since we've never implied otherwise-- though I would suggest waiting until we show what we're actually working on, and how we're going about it, before someone jumps to conclusions.

It goes without saying, however, that no matter what we do it's hardly going to magically satisfy everyone.

[David Gaider]

slashthedragon wrote...
Mr. Gaider, most everyone here wants to know exactly what their character is going to say and do not want paraphrases. Can you please consider that? If not, please tell us why.

I understand there's a lot of people in this thread who have expressed that desire, but please understand that doesn't mean it's by any means universal. That it's not universal doesn't mean your opinions are irrelevant, but there may only be so much we can do that would actually address the concern.

Insofar as what I feel about the subject, I'd suggest reading some of my comments in this thread. There are still many things which are open to change with regards to our approach-- but the basic premise is not one of them.

[David Gaider]

slashthedragon wrote...
I just don't understand.  DA:O, the more popular of the two DA games, had full sentences. 
If it's an issue of resources or something, then just tell us that.
If it's that you are trying to lure in a new player base, that is just spitting on current fans and RPG fans.
If it's just because one or two people in the company like it, then that's just insane.
People are already saying they won't preorder until they know is done right in the game.  Maybe BW doesn't think these forums are representative of the consumer base they want.  If so, then you might as well just shut down these forums.

That's a rather all-or-nothing attitude, with which I'm afraid I can't agree-- even if I see the sentiment behind it. DAO was not necessarily more popular solely because it had a silent protaganist or full sentences instead of paraphrases on its interface. And "spitting" on RPG fans because we're changing our approach to the dialogue-- as if there were no overlap in the fans, or nobody who likes RPG's could possibly like what we're doing-- is rather misleading.

I'm happy to listen to what people are suggesting. As I've said before, there's numerous permutations which such an approach can take. If someone is dead set against the very concept of it, however, then there's not much of a conversation to be had. These forums are open to people with a wide range of opinions even so, as should be clear from any conversation on a given topic, so I don't see the need to shut them down.

I appreciate your passion, regardless. Hopefully you'll take part in the conversation as it develops, and see something of value in where we're going.

[David Gaider]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...
I felt that in DA2 a lot of companion interaction was connected to auto-dialog. The choises you had to interact with your character were very limited unlike the ones in DAO. The auto dialog triggered in scenes when you're interacting with your companions were few and you had no real control over it.

My question would be will there be more influence in the dialog with your companions.

Then I'm afraid I still don't understand what you're referring. The choices with followers were not more limited, from where I'm sitting, and certainly had nothing to do with the interface... and I don't recall there being auto-dialog in the follower relationships, at least insofar as I understand what most people here are calling auto-dialog.

So I think we may be talking about two different things. Sorry.

[David Gaider]

Cultist wrote...
After DA2 disaster and ME3 ending controversity people are already suspicious about BioWare and future products. Maybe it's time to end risky experiments and make a use of a proven approach that actually was praised by consumers?

Ignoring that DA2 war hardly a "disaster" any more than DAO was universally praised, as the selective perception in both sentiments is a little misleading, I understand what you're saying. In the end, it is naturally everyone's prerogative to determine whether a coming game is what they're interested in-- as it is a company's prerogative to determine what is the level of risk they wish to undertake.

Personally, I can only speak from the development side. I don't really see how some of the comments being made-- which boil down to someone must either a) dislike RPG's, be insane or c) be stupid to like the approach we're taking-- are particularly helpful, but if someone feels they need to vent their desires then so be it. As I've said before, I like the discussion and find some of it informative. So there you go.

[David Gaider]

bEVEsthda wrote...
- Are you going to implement the dialog-wheel and voice, in different ways than DA2? Different with the intention to change what was deal breaking with the last version?  (I'm not asking how or if you'll succeed, I'm asking about intent).

There will be a wheel interface and voiced protaganist, of that I have little doubt. As to the implementation of such, there are still a number of options we're considering. I've laid out my thoughts on some of the options suggested in this thread-- they have merit, but also drawbacks which I can't discount. As does any implementation, really, but that shouldn't be earth-shattering news.

Modifié par David Gaider, 04 avril 2012 - 07:40 .

[David Gaider]

brushyourteeth wrote...
Since you're interested in our opinions Mr. Gaider, I'd like to point out the "charming" option as a real issue. Usually, I didn't find it charming at all, but rude and egotistical, or completely inappropriate for the moment (as in a certain tragic event during the prologue, for example).

I agree, though it's a toss-up whether the problem is with the name of the tone (and thus the expectation from that) or the consistency of the tone itself. A little of column A and a little of column B, I suspect.

I also loved the idea of the friendship/rivalry system, although I found it limiting in that I couldn't always express affection or dislike for a companion when I wanted to.

I commented earlier on the issue with the current system, and I'd say your issue is an outgrowth of this. I know some people seem to favor the idea of adding more vectors to the relationship, trying to chart it along several different paths, but I'd resist making the system more complex. Complexity, particularly in something which is abstracted out of necessity (as a relationship must be), isn't better... just as simplicity doesn't mean the relationship its abstracted must be simple. So long as it's something that can be easily understood by both the writers and the users, and is consistent in its implementation, I'd be happy.

[David Gaider]

Sylvianus wrote...
Yes I do, because they need to convince all those who are screaming for full sentence, they need to show that it can work too with paraphrase.  If they won't give you what you want exactly, ( silent protagonist, full sentence ) they will do everything they can  to fix your biggest reasons to complain

To a point, perhaps. There is a point where trying to address an issue with half-measures which will ultimately never be satisfying to those who refuse to accept the very premise of what you're doing can be counter-productive, but this does not mean we won't look at options.

I explained my issue with full sentences earlier in this thread, so I won't repeat them. I do notice, however, that anyone who references what I said tends to refute the premise-- as opposed to trying to understand what I'm saying and offer a compromise-- which is pretty telling. I suppose, from their perspective, we're doing the same thing... but we really can't help that, as we're the ones making the game. So, yeah.