833 réponses à ce sujet

[ReshyShira]

I'd really rather that the protagonist be completely silent like in origins. A terrible voice actor can ruin the game for me if it's attached to the protagonist.

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Wait, you didn't play DA2's Hawke rigidly conforming to only selecting Direct/Diplomatic/Sarcastic each time only for the sake of it did you? Like say you might with Shepard and Paragon/Renegade?

My first playthrough was about 95% diplomatic Hawke. My second was mostly snarky with some aggressive tossed in.

For me, breaking tone in DA II was more a break of character than switching from Paragon to Renegade in the ME series. Shepard is fairly dominant and assertive whether she's telling you that she's going to shoot you if you get in her way or telling you that she respects your objections and will cooperate with you.

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I can dispute that it's a problem inherent to VO or paraphrases.
I'm in the "it's an issue of execution, not concept" camp on that one, and you know that too.

We've had this discussion several times. But I'll do a step-by-step logical argumentation as to why the paraphrase is conceptually flawed, and feel free to point at which step the logic fails.

1) A dialogue choice system is intended to allow the player to adequately choose the line that best fits the character concept he's playing (wether his own or one defined by the authors).
2) In order to adequately make this choice, the player needs sufficient information on what tone, content and intent will each line deliver.

If we can agree on these points, let's continue:
3) Paraphrases, due to their very nature, have a hard limit on the amount of space they can take in the UI. This limitation means they have a maximum amount of characters allowed.
4) The line the character will deliver is not submitted to these limitations.
5) The longer the line is, the more content it has, and more varied can the tone and intent become.
6) Since the paraphrase cannot surpass a certain limit, an increasing amount of information is lost depending on the complexity of the line.
7) Since information is lost, paraphrases fail to comply to 2) as expressed earlier.
8) As brevity is a neccessity for a paraphrase, they cannot be made to comply to point 2.

Therefore, conceptually, paraphrases cannot work as an adequate dialogue choice system.

Modifié par Xewaka, 24 mars 2012 - 10:17 .

[Meris]

Your transparent attempts to portray this playstyle as invalid are also not working, by the way.

Do I have to quote myself when I said that I find nothing inherently wrong with the concepts drawn for Dragon Age II except that when they betrayed a substancial (and I'd argue a majority) of the official fanbase?

Probably because they think it makes a better game that takes advantage of the medium.

Or because, and I'm quoting, 'they believe there are similarities between the new design direction and Call of Duty' as well as wish to 'sell 10 million copies' by seeking a 'wider audience'.

The concept I said wasn't problematic was paraphrase + voice over.

Paraphrase is a problem because it doesn't stay true to the Content of the line. They won't take it out because it would be boring to see your character acting like you read he would. that's a problem with the execution of voice acting, but since voice acting comes with paraphrasing then its a problem with the conception of voice acting - not to substitute player agency but rather to provide a graphical experience to support it.

[hoorayforicecream]

Xewaka wrote...

We've had this discussion several times. But I'll do a step-by-step logical argumentation as to why the paraphrase is conceptually flawed, and feel free to point at which step the logic fails.

1) A dialogue choice system is intended to allow the player to adequately choose the line that best fits the character concept he's playing (wether his own or one defined by the authors).
2) In order to adequately make this choice, the player needs information on what tone, content and intent will each line deliver.

If we can agree on these points, let's continue:
3) Paraphrases, due to their very nature, have a hard limit on the amount of space they can take in the UI. This limitation means they have a maximum amount of characters allowed.
4) The line the character will deliver is not submitted to these limitations.
5) The longer the line is, the more content it has, and more varied can the tone and intent become.
6) Since the paraphrase cannot surpass a certain limit, an increasing amount of information is lost depending on the complexity of the line.
7) Since information is lost, paraphrases fail to comply to 2) as expressed earlier.
8) As brevity is a neccessity for a paraphrase, they cannot be made to comply to point 2.

Therefore, conceptually, paraphrases cannot work as an adequate dialogue choice system.

By this logic, it is impossible for any dialogue system to be adequate in expressing any dialogue beyond what the UI will allow, paraphrased or not. Therefore, unless all dialogue is UI-limited, there can be no truly adequate dialogue choice system.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 24 mars 2012 - 09:05 .

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
By this logic, it is impossible for any dialogue system to be adequate in expressing any dialogue beyond what the UI will allow, paraphrased or not. Therefore, unless all dialogue is UI-limited, there can be no truly adequate dialogue choice system.

Full line is adequate.

[hoorayforicecream]

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
By this logic, it is impossible for any dialogue system to be adequate in expressing any dialogue beyond what the UI will allow, paraphrased or not. Therefore, unless all dialogue is UI-limited, there can be no truly adequate dialogue choice system.

Full line is adequate.

False. There can easily exist dialogue (including action, intent, tone, etc.) that goes beyond the amount of space that UI can allot. This goes against your posit #2 from above, ergo full line is inadequate. In order for your statement of "full line is adequte" to be true, you must prove that it is impossible for there to be a dialogue choice that can extend beyond the UI space allotment.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 24 mars 2012 - 09:09 .

[Meris]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
By this logic, it is impossible for any dialogue system to be adequate in expressing any dialogue beyond what the UI will allow, paraphrased or not. Therefore, unless all dialogue is UI-limited, there can be no truly adequate dialogue choice system.

Full line is adequate.

False. There can easily exist dialogue (including action, intent, tone, etc.) that goes beyond the amount of space that UI can allot. This goes against your posit #2 from above, ergo full line is inadequate. In order for your statement of "full line is adequte" to be true, you must prove that it is impossible for there to be a dialogue choice that can extend beyond the UI space allotment.

Some old RPGs would often have upwards to 20 dialogue options with as much content as any line from DA:O as well as description of actions. Needless to say, the UI was much worse on those old RPGs.

Furthermore, arguing that full line is inadequate for the RPG experience is arguing against the existance of DA:O as well as the entire decades old tradition that it drawed upon.

Modifié par Meris, 24 mars 2012 - 09:20 .

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
By this logic, it is impossible for any dialogue system to be adequate in expressing any dialogue beyond what the UI will allow, paraphrased or not. Therefore, unless all dialogue is UI-limited, there can be no truly adequate dialogue choice system.

Full line is adequate.

False. There can easily exist dialogue (including action, intent, tone, etc.) that goes beyond the amount of space that UI can allot. This goes against your posit #2 from above, ergo full line is inadequate. In order for your statement of "full line is adequte" to be true, you must prove that it is impossible for there to be a dialogue choice that can extend beyond the UI space allotment.

At the risk of sounding tautological, the fact that the UI shows the full line proves that the UI can allot the full line. The burden to prove that a single line of dialogue can exist that it is impossible to fit in any UI lies on you.

[Cutlasskiwi]

I was planing to write a lengthy post about this but it no longer seem necessary. I applaud Upsettingshorts for explaining it way better than I could have done. I'll just go and make some coffee instead.

[AkiKishi]

Someome should dig out that screen shot of PST.

It's fundamental to first person roleplaying that you know what you will say before you say it. Even if it's misunderstood by the other party.

[Meris]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Someome should dig out that screen shot of PST.

It's fundamental to first person roleplaying that you know what you will say before you say it. Even if it's misunderstood by the other party.

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9...383028_700b.jpg ? It was quite popular back then but is hardly the best example.

Its fundamental to roleplaying to actually know your choices before making them.

Modifié par Meris, 24 mars 2012 - 09:28 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
By this logic, it is impossible for any dialogue system to be adequate in expressing any dialogue beyond what the UI will allow, paraphrased or not. Therefore, unless all dialogue is UI-limited, there can be no truly adequate dialogue choice system.

Full line is adequate.

False. There can easily exist dialogue (including action, intent, tone, etc.) that goes beyond the amount of space that UI can allot. This goes against your posit #2 from above, ergo full line is inadequate. In order for your statement of "full line is adequte" to be true, you must prove that it is impossible for there to be a dialogue choice that can extend beyond the UI space allotment.

At the risk of sounding tautological, the fact that the UI shows the full line proves that the UI can allot the full line. The burden to prove that a single line of dialogue can exist that it is impossible to fit in any UI lies on you.

Wrong. You must prove that the full line can, in fact, contain all possible actions, intents, tones, and dialogue without extending past the boundary of the UI. There's more to dialogue (as David Gaider said) than simply the words being delivered. There's also action, intent, tone, etc.

It's really quite simple. Give me any UI limit, and I can create a dialogue with tone, action, intent, etc. that extends beyond that limit. Therefore, since there exists a dialogue that is incapable of being properly expressed within a given UI limit, the dialogue choice system is inadequate as defined by you. In order for any dialogue system to be adequate, the UI system (which, you have posited, is finite) must be capable of expressing all possible dialogues. As long as there exists at least one possible dialogue that cannot be expressed by that system, the system is inadequate.

[Meris]

The UI must be able to deliever what dialogue the writers would write for it - as they have for decades. Not whatever you can conjure.

And Paraphrasing is inadequate because its unable to actually show dialogue as is actually delievered by BioWare's character.

Modifié par Meris, 24 mars 2012 - 09:30 .

[Maria Caliban]

Meris wrote...

I put forward that advocates of voice acting just put more value on the graphical experience of the game. One side favor BioWare's choice for a more cinematic experience while the other would rather the literary one.

There's nothing literary about a silent protagonist. The biggest difference between a viewpoint character in a novel and the main character of a film is the transparency of the character's mind.



In a film, if character A loves character B, they need to show it. The actor has to change their body language to convey desire or intimacy. A really good actor can portray someone who acts indifferent or uninterested while also coming off as secretly caring for another.

A novel can give you explicit information about the thoughts and emotions of a character. It can tell you, in abundance, everything that's going on below the surface. A game can't do that. You could have voice over, as in Achronox, or read aloud diary entries, as in BioShock, but that's no more than film does. The reason BioWare likes cinematic storytelling is that human voice, body language, and facial expression give interaction nuance that textual dialogue lacks.

Books have the most complex level of characterization possible*, which would be the opposite of blank slate characters like Buldar's Gate or Skyrim.

*And before a cinephile objects, more complex != better or more engaging.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 24 mars 2012 - 09:44 .

[AkiKishi]

Meris wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Someome should dig out that screen shot of PST.

It's fundamental to first person roleplaying that you know what you will say before you say it. Even if it's misunderstood by the other party.

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9...383028_700b.jpg ? It was quite popular back then but is hardly the best example.

Its fundamental to roleplaying to actually know your choices before making them.

Well if you are approaching it as director or puppet master, it only matters that you can choose the outcome. How you get there does not really matter, that is down to the character.

[Meris]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Meris wrote...

I put forward that advocates of voice acting just put more value on the graphical experience of the game. One side favor BioWare's choice for a more cinematic experience while the other would rather the literary one.

There's nothing literary about a silent protagonist. The biggest difference between a viewpoint character in a novel and the main character of a film is the transparency of the character's mind.

Given the focus of your post, you have a problem with the word I chose. When I say 'literary' I mean that the game doesn't hope to tell you the entire story, instead relying more on your mind to imagine a big part of it - such as your character. That would then be in direct opposition to a game that doesn't leave the protagonist's actions to your imagination, thus being more 'cinematic'.

[Meris]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Meris wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Someome should dig out that screen shot of PST.

It's fundamental to first person roleplaying that you know what you will say before you say it. Even if it's misunderstood by the other party.

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9...383028_700b.jpg ? It was quite popular back then but is hardly the best example.

Its fundamental to roleplaying to actually know your choices before making them.

Well if you are approaching it as director or puppet master, it only matters that you can choose the outcome. How you get there does not really matter, that is down to the character.

And what if the character has the pretense of being yours, or your creation?

[AkiKishi]

Meris wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Meris wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Someome should dig out that screen shot of PST.

It's fundamental to first person roleplaying that you know what you will say before you say it. Even if it's misunderstood by the other party.

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9...383028_700b.jpg ? It was quite popular back then but is hardly the best example.

Its fundamental to roleplaying to actually know your choices before making them.

Well if you are approaching it as director or puppet master, it only matters that you can choose the outcome. How you get there does not really matter, that is down to the character.

And what if the character has the pretense of being yours, or your creation?

Then I would find it very frustrating.

[Meris]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Meris wrote...

And what if the character has the pretense of being yours, or your creation?

Then I would find it very frustrating.

Then you can understand when I read that Hawke is a 'blank slate'. I can understand when you are strictly discussing the advantages and disadvantages of voice over, which I despise in Dragon Age, and can see how and why each half of the fanbase has its preferences. But withholding what your protagonist actually says and then making your character talk without your input is just wrong, even advocates of the voice acting see this so it puzzles me when anyone doesn't because a hypothetical UI might not be able to adequately show hypothetical dialogue options - even though it has for decades.

[AkiKishi]

Meris wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Meris wrote...

And what if the character has the pretense of being yours, or your creation?

Then I would find it very frustrating.

Then you can understand when I read that Hawke is a 'blank slate'. I can understand when you are strictly discussing the advantages and disadvantages of voice over, which I despise in Dragon Age, and can see how and why each half of the fanbase has its preferences. But withholding what your protagonist actually says and then making your character talk without your input is just wrong, even advocates of the voice acting see this so it puzzles me when anyone doesn't because a hypothetical UI might not be able to adequately show hypothetical dialogue options - even though it has for decades.

Yes I can understand it because I felt much the same way in DA2. Although my preference is for silent protagonists if that is not the case I want them to be as far from a "blank slate" as possible.

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Wrong. You must prove that the full line can, in fact, contain all possible actions, intents, tones, and dialogue without extending past the boundary of the UI. There's more to dialogue (as David Gaider said) than simply the words being delivered. There's also action, intent, tone, etc.

It's really quite simple. Give me any UI limit, and I can create a dialogue with tone, action, intent, etc. that extends beyond that limit. Therefore, since there exists a dialogue that is incapable of being properly expressed within a given UI limit, the dialogue choice system is inadequate as defined by you. In order for any dialogue system to be adequate, the UI system (which, you have posited, is finite) must be capable of expressing all possible dialogues. As long as there exists at least one possible dialogue that cannot be expressed by that system, the system is inadequate.

Since you insist on basing your argumentation in reductio ad absurdum, I will bow out from the discussion.
I could argue however that any infinite example you provide that breaks the full line UI breaks the game itself, hence it is not a valid case for the argument.
There's a finite space for the dialogue delivery, which you are conviniently forgetting.

Modifié par Xewaka, 24 mars 2012 - 10:26 .

[ademska]

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Wrong. You must prove that the full line can, in fact, contain all possible actions, intents, tones, and dialogue without extending past the boundary of the UI. There's more to dialogue (as David Gaider said) than simply the words being delivered. There's also action, intent, tone, etc.

It's really quite simple. Give me any UI limit, and I can create a dialogue with tone, action, intent, etc. that extends beyond that limit. Therefore, since there exists a dialogue that is incapable of being properly expressed within a given UI limit, the dialogue choice system is inadequate as defined by you. In order for any dialogue system to be adequate, the UI system (which, you have posited, is finite) must be capable of expressing all possible dialogues. As long as there exists at least one possible dialogue that cannot be expressed by that system, the system is inadequate.

Since you insist on basing your argumentation in reductio ad absurdum, I will bow out from the discussion.
I could argue however that any infinite example you provide that breaks the full line UI breaks the game itself, hence it is not a valid case for the argument.
There's a finite space for the dialogue delivery, which you are conviniently forgetting.

what? relearn your logical fallacies - or at least when to apply them, mr. philosophy.

your position was that the paraphrase system does not adequately convey all information needed to roleplay proactively (rather than ex post facto). your subsequent statement that a full line of written dialogue is adequate to solve this problem is an arbitrary line in the sand, and more importantly, it's false. if full dialogues were adequate to convey all information needed to roleplay, then in the most extreme example, no astute player would ever ninjamance leliana.

or do you disagree that da:o's dialogue ever conveyed something other than the tone you assumed you picked? if you do not disagree, then you must acknowledge that your assertion (that full dialogue lines are adequate) is false.

your argument has a logical flaw, and @hoorayforicecream pointed it out.

[Meris]

Tone indication was a problem in DA:O and it wasn't solved in DA2 via paraphrases, rather the tone icons. However, ninjamancing Leliana was a much less prevalent problem than not knowing your dialogue choices.

Modifié par Meris, 24 mars 2012 - 11:16 .

[ademska]

i will not argue with you about active vs reactive roleplay because it will just look like a more lowercase version of your argument with @upsettingshorts, but the fact that you assert that tone indication was a problem in dao (and thus assert that full written dialogue lines are not adequate to meet @xewaka's standard of active roleplay) proves @xewaka's conclusion false and his logic faulty.

there is no universal truth or correct argument, because like shorts said over and over, this is all a matter of personal gameplay preference.

and meris, xewaka? our preferences are very, very different.