833 réponses à ce sujet

[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 .

[AkiKishi]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Frankness +1

In that case please put me down for "action mode" although the name was quite misleading.

[Pasquale1234]

David Gaider wrote...

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).

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

Thanks.

[upsettingshorts]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Not to mention - and I can really only speak for myself but wouldn't be surprised if this was common - many of us in favor of various systems, up to and including the voiced protagonist, may have already felt as if we've explained our position coherently and consistently enough to the extent that we're either satisfied that we've been heard, or feel as if BioWare already endorses a similar position anyway.  So there's less reason to keep up any effort restating repeated arguments in thread after thread on the same subject.

If the tables were turned, things would be different.

[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.

[zyntifox]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I really hope you add this feature. The voiced protagonist really hurts my ability to role-play.

[hoorayforicecream]

I just wanted to pitch in a little.

Regarding dialogue, I think that the main issue is clarity. I didn't feel there was something wrong with the system in general, but that the tone and results weren't always what I expected them to be. Enacting a systemwide change to things that are on a case-by-case basis is probably a mistake... I've tried that in the past, and it ends up being a 90% solution. Then you refine the situation, and it goes to 99%. Then 99.9%, and so on, but it's nearly impossible to catch every last one.

Perhaps the solution is to come at it from a different angle. The main complaint (IMO) from this is the character doing something that the player did not expect or want. So how about a 'rewind to last choice' feature instead? If you make a choice that jars you out of it, back it up and pick something else.

You're never going to be out of the woods with something like trying to hand [Mage] in to [Templar] and not being able to, though. That one was just really terrible.

Edit: Regarding a toggle, you could enable 'backdoor' support. Something in a .ini file that you edit to turn off player VO. It's "sort of" supported, but not officially, like the archery change patch back in the DAO days. It's like the bonus mode in the PS2 game "Rise to Honor", where you can play the game as a roasted duck. There are parts of the game that are incompletable as a roast duck since you're too small... but who cares? It isn't officially supported, but it's just there as a 'back door' option for those who find it and are interested.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 22 mars 2012 - 04:21 .

[Pasquale1234]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Edit: Regarding a toggle, you could enable 'backdoor' support. Something in a .ini file that you edit to turn off player VO. It's "sort of" supported, but not officially, like the archery change patch back in the DAO days. It's like the bonus mode in the PS2 game "Rise to Honor", where you can play the game as a roasted duck. There are parts of the game that are incompletable as a roast duck since you're too small... but who cares? It isn't officially supported, but it's just there as a 'back door' option for those who find it and are interested.

That might be a nifty solution for PC players, but wouldn't really help console users.

@David - thanks for the thoughtful response.

As I'm sure you already know, there are quite a few players who are wanting the protag to be non-voiced.  Providing a toggle to turn off the PC VO may be a way to help such players enjoy a game in a way that better suits their playstyle.  I do hope that its implementation will be duly considered.

Thanks again.

[CarlSpackler]

David Gaider wrote...
 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.

Thanks David for taking time to answer questions here. 

I'm a little late to the conversation and maybe other folks have brought this up and I haven't noticed (since I didn't read through the entire thread.)  But I would like to say that I for one would prefer input anytime my character speaks.  You mention the back-and-forth and I understand what you are saying in terms of trying to give the scene a more cinematic flow or perhaps "better" flow as believed by the designers.  I don't know how many other folks feel as I do, but anytime my pc responds without my input I either have a negative or neutral reaction where anytime the game asks for my input I see it as a positive moment that furthur connects me into the character.  So to sum up even though pausing to ask for my input during an ongoing conversation may bring the cinematic flow to a screaching halt, the net effect for me as a gamer would be I believe a better experience. 

[hoorayforicecream]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Edit: Regarding a toggle, you could enable 'backdoor' support. Something in a .ini file that you edit to turn off player VO. It's "sort of" supported, but not officially, like the archery change patch back in the DAO days. It's like the bonus mode in the PS2 game "Rise to Honor", where you can play the game as a roasted duck. There are parts of the game that are incompletable as a roast duck since you're too small... but who cares? It isn't officially supported, but it's just there as a 'back door' option for those who find it and are interested.

That might be a nifty solution for PC players, but wouldn't really help console users.

It's not intended to. I'm pretty sure the archery changes and the toolset didn't go through to the consoles either, but we got those anyway.

That's the whole point - the choice is already made. They've decided, and that's it. That decision is probably above David's pay grade; a decision that affects the game's direction of this magnitude is most likely a Mark Darrah + executives decision. Arguing with David about this is most likely a futile effort... even if you manage to convince him, it's still not his decision to make. The best you can hope is that he goes to his boss (Laidlaw), who has to be convinced to go to his boss (Darrah) to actually make that decision. I seriously doubt that's in the cards.

We can do our part and help refine the system within the given parameters, or we can ignore the constraints by going a different way altogether. As a dev, the latter is far less valuable than the former, because the latter is almost guaranteed to be relegated to the wish list, while the former actually has a much better chance of making it in.

[Dutchess]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I agree the toggle-option would probably not work all that well, because it doesn't actually solve the issue people have with the voiced PC. The PC will still say things beyond the player's control in auto-dialogue, and could still say something in a different way than the player was expecting. The only difference is you don't hear the PC say it, but you read it in the subtitles. 
So personally I don't see the usefulness of such an option. 

[DahliaLynn]

CarlSpackler wrote...

I'm a little late to the conversation and maybe other folks have brought this up and I haven't noticed (since I didn't read through the entire thread.)  But I would like to say that I for one would prefer input anytime my character speaks.  You mention the back-and-forth and I understand what you are saying in terms of trying to give the scene a more cinematic flow or perhaps "better" flow as believed by the designers.  I don't know how many other folks feel as I do, but anytime my pc responds without my input I either have a negative or neutral reaction where anytime the game asks for my input I see it as a positive moment that furthur connects me into the character.  So to sum up even though pausing to ask for my input during an ongoing conversation may bring the cinematic flow to a screaching halt, the net effect for me as a gamer would be I believe a better experience. 

Aside from completely agreeing with this, I will add that I'm not entirely sure why I feel disconnected from Hawke.
It could either be because (she) has a voice, the paraphrasing, or a combination of the two.
A disconnection further explained  here under "Dialogue wheel", in addition to this I feel autodialoguing would only serve to further disconnect me from the character, and would certainly not mind the sacrifice of cinematic flow within a conversation for a more personal involvement in every part of the PC's actions.

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 22 mars 2012 - 05:19 .

[Jonathan Seagull]

As someone who was largely okay with the existing DA2 system, I agree with hoorayforicecream that the main issue is clarity. I'm fine with paraphrases, so long as they (and the tone) clearly and accurately communicate what the PC is going to say or do. Now, most of the time this wasn't a problem for me, but there were a couple times it definitely was. For example, at one point Anders was going on about templars oppressing mages, and I had an aggressive option to say something like "This has to stop." I honestly had no idea if I was going to ne aggressive towards Anders, telling him to knock it off; or if I was going to aggressively agree with him that we have to do something about the templars.

As for the toggle, I believe Mr. Gaider makes good points. Using Hawke as an example: Sure, there could be a toggle to turn off the his voice. But then you're left with the slightly odd experience of watching Hawke "speak silently." Some might be fine with that, while others may still be upset if Hawke is visibly expressing himself in a way they don't like.

So then it could be argued that a way around those things is to also skip the cinematic of Hawke speaking. After all, you can already skip any line of dialogue. But this also has a couple problems. For one, even if Hawke performs a relatively neutral action like walking to another spot during his dialogue, that could be jarring if skipped. The conversation could quickly become very choppy and awkward.

And of course, if you eliminate that space in the conversation, you do in fact necessitate having the full text of each response available prior to making the choice. Which, to be sure, many people would be in favor of anyway. However, when you start stacking the number of changes like that, I think it becomes something that's a bit more difficult to implement.

[Pasquale1234]

renjility wrote...

I agree the toggle-option would probably not work all that well, because it doesn't actually solve the issue people have with the voiced PC. The PC will still say things beyond the player's control in auto-dialogue, and could still say something in a different way than the player was expecting. The only difference is you don't hear the PC say it, but you read it in the subtitles. 
So personally I don't see the usefulness of such an option. 

I'd agree that, by itself, it would not solve the entire issue.

We've had quite a bit of other discussion in this thread (and others) asking for full text to be displayed and auto-dialogue nixed altogether or at least used minimally.  I remain hopeful that they might find a way to provide us with greater control over the PCs behavior, and greater transparency (full text rather than paraphrases) is a huge part of that.

Jonathan Seagull wrote...

As for the toggle, I believe Mr.Gaider makes good points. Using Hawke as an example: Sure, there could be a toggle to turn off the his voice. But then you're left with the slightly odd experience of watching Hawke "speak silently." Some might be fine with that, while others may still be upset if Hawke is visibly expressing himself in a way they don't like.

That has also been discussed before.  The ideal is to turn off the cinematics along with PC VO.

I don't think you can entirely avoid seeing the protag express himself in a way you don't like.  I've read the thread requesting feedback on cinematics, and there are those who want more expression, some less, some disagree with a facial expression Hawke used in a particular scene, etc.  It simply is not possible to capture all of the various permutations for the ways that individual players want to define the character, so the devs have to impose a lot more control over who that character is in order to provide this more cinematic experience.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 22 mars 2012 - 05:40 .

[girininjoo]

GardenSnake wrote...

Forget auto-dialogue altogether, I'm still in the silent-PC camp. There's not much more I can say. I honestly don't see a reason why having the game be less 'cinematic' is a problem in this day and age. I'm only one person and my opinion can't count for much, but I really do feel more attached to the character I'm playing when I myself can make up how they voice their response. A friend of mine on the forums Brockolloly once mentioned that he found it interesting how Bioware was planning on taking their two franchises (ME and DA) in two different directions. One being more cinematic, and the other being more player driven. I don't see why it all has to be the same but in different settings with different stories and characters.

But that's just me.

I agree. Silent is the only way to feel in charge of your character. Or at least give us the full text lines to choose from! Most of the time I felt angry about the actual line after I chose the option in DA2, I kept reloading and trying quite often all versions.

[jackofalltrades456]

Although I heavily prefer a silent protagonist over a voiced one, it's really not enough to kill the roleplay experience for me.

The auto-dialogue and the paraphrased text wheel are a different story. I've hated those features ever since they first appeared in Mass Effect 1. I can't stand when my character speaks for himself or getting awkward dialogue as a result of a misinterpreted text on the text wheel. Just give me a preview of what I'm going to say.

I can't imagine that the auto-dialogue would be as bad it was in Mass Effect 3 though. That just destroyed the game for me.

[Leafs43]

The only difference between the wheel system and the dialog in DAO is the dialog option might contain an extra sentence. But its not as if you choose your own dialog. The dialog is pre-written and you have to choose between it. A voice actor could read your dialog choice and it would be the literal same response from the dialog wheel.

Other than that, there is literally no real quantifiable difference.

The whole ordeal is making a mountain out of a mole hole.

[BubbleDncr]

The one thing I'll say in regard to dialog wheels, is that I think they subconsciously make me always pick similar responses. Even without the icons, I always know that top is nice, middle is neutral, bottom is mean. So I end up thinking "I'm gonna play as mean Hawke" and always pick the bottom option. Sure, I'll read the other options, but I pretty much know I'm gonna end up picking the bottom choice 90% of the time.

In Origins where it was a list with the full line, I felt like I actually had to think about which choice I wanted to make - so there was less of the feeling of being on auto-pilot between 3 personalities.

[Leafs43]

BubbleDncr wrote...

The one thing I'll say in regard to dialog wheels, is that I think they subconsciously make me always pick similar responses. Even without the icons, I always know that top is nice, middle is neutral, bottom is mean. So I end up thinking "I'm gonna play as mean Hawke" and always pick the bottom option. Sure, I'll read the other options, but I pretty much know I'm gonna end up picking the bottom choice 90% of the time.

In Origins where it was a list with the full line, I felt like I actually had to think about which choice I wanted to make - so there was less of the feeling of being on auto-pilot between 3 personalities.

Actually DA2, one of the positives is it really mixed up the choices in the wheel in a sense that you had to know the character you're talking to and what there reaction would be.


Choosing the "bad" response is actually the good choice in many cases.  If you went 100% "good" responses, you'd probably make more rivals than friends.

Modifié par Leafs43, 22 mars 2012 - 05:55 .

[Corto81]

David Gaider wrote...

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).

Although I think it's a shame because the silent protagonist offers more creativity to a player, I think we understand Bioware isn't gonna stray from that course, and that's fine IMO, as long as the execution is good.

As a comparison...
ME1 was a proper RPG with a VO toon.
And ME1 was the reason why the series caught on so much.
(ME2 and ME3... Honestly if one of them was ME1, the franchise would not have been as popular, it just lost most of its RPG elements, turned into an action-adventure... And there are much better action-adventure / interactive movie / shooter game)

Similarly, Origins was a proper RPG, and THAT'S what got people hooked.
They cared for the world, they cared for the people.

I mentioned earlier, Origins human story, for example.
You gave me time to get to know my parents, my dog, my brother, my nephew, the librarian, the cook, some other nobles, some kids, etc.
I was sold and hooked even before Arl Howe turned.
I careed.

And then the Ostagar cut-scene happened, like I said, the single most nerd-goosebumping in any RPG I've ever seen. Not BG, not ES, not Witcher, not PS:T, nothing ever moved me as that cutscene.
The build up to it was slow but engaging, people felt real, afraid, etc.

If you guys make us care like that, I honestly don't think it matters if the protagonist is voiced or not.

As long as the VO and the cut-scenes don't get in the way of a quality RPG experience and a deep, "real" world with quality content, it won't matter.
As long as you guys go out and make a proper, deep, engaging RPG that made you famous in the first place, noone's gonna care if the combat is more action-themed (let's face, the click-and-point days are over, be it DA, Skyrim, Witcher, etc.) or if the main toon is voiced.

Modifié par Corto81, 22 mars 2012 - 05:59 .

[DahliaLynn]

Leafs43 wrote...

The only difference between the wheel system and the dialog in DAO is the dialog option might contain an extra sentence. But its not as if you choose your own dialog. The dialog is pre-written and you have to choose between it. A voice actor could read your dialog choice and it would be the literal same response from the dialog wheel.

Other than that, there is literally no real quantifiable difference.

The whole ordeal is making a mountain out of a mole hole.

None of this is not about choosing your own dialogue. It is about being given a clearly written selection, knowing exactly what is to be said, and thinking about it before making your choice . Paraphrasing/wheel can lead to surprises and contribute to a feeling of "watching a show" as opposed to feeling like you are involved in it.

[Atakuma]

I have a suggestion. I know you guys at bioware apparently hate, this but how about using actual words from the dialogue in the paraphrase occasionally? I think this would really help with the clarity of the paraphrases without the redundancy of just copying the dialogue.

[Wulfram]

Are we likely to have the same basic set of three tones?

[Leafs43]

DahliaLynn wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

The only difference between the wheel system and the dialog in DAO is the dialog option might contain an extra sentence. But its not as if you choose your own dialog. The dialog is pre-written and you have to choose between it. A voice actor could read your dialog choice and it would be the literal same response from the dialog wheel.

Other than that, there is literally no real quantifiable difference.

The whole ordeal is making a mountain out of a mole hole.

None of this is not about choosing your own dialogue. It is about being given a clearly written selection, knowing exactly what is to be said, and thinking about it before making your choice . Paraphrasing/wheel can lead to surprises and contribute to a feeling of "watching a show" as opposed to feeling like you are involved in it.

Maybe in Mass Effect that is true.  But DA2 did the wheel right.

They make it very clear what your character will say, but there are many options to flesh out the dialog and options (like sheriff star type choices and notably a ton of other questions you can ask NPCs)

People hated the system before it was even installed into DA2.  So they just jumped to the conclusion its exactly like Mass Effect, when it clearly was not.  DA2's wheel system is superior to Mass Effects wheel system.