833 réponses à ce sujet

[Meris]

Just as Paraphrasing and Voice Over aren't inseparable, Tone-indicatting icons and full lines aren't mutually exclusive.

Furthermore full-lines ARE and HAVE ALWAYS BEEN capable of transmitting the Tone on their own, while paraphrases are unable to transmitting the entirety of the Content.

And I'm pretty sure Hooray was arguing that you can make a dialogue so extensive that it breaks the UI.

Yes, our preferences are very different and I wish BioWare wouldn't just toss my side of the table away in a search of a wider audience. Especially since a Silent Protagonist is one trademark of Baldur's Gate's era, a spirit upon which this IP was founded.

Couldn't they just keep the not very innovative innovations to other IPs?

Modifié par Meris, 24 mars 2012 - 11:42 .

[bEVEsthda]

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.

<SNIP>

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.

While this response seem to have occured due to an inexplicable misread of "literary", and is easy enough to understand and reasonable, it did spur a lot of objections in the back of my mind. Like that it may be true for you, but it isn't true. Because what is not stated at all, can be the most complex level of all.

Many of the most impressive, and haunting scenes I've ever read in novels and short stories, contains no description of feelings or thoughts at all. It all just comes from dialogue and situation, maybe an observation of some detail.

Similarily, in some of the most tense and emotionally powerful movie scenes ever, the actor/actress doesn't move the face at all. And may be entirely silent, or reveal no emotion at all in the voice.

It's all there because the audience knows it's there. It's in the their heads. And it gets amplified by the lack of explicit outlet on the screen. In fact it's always in the head, and only in the head. Regardless.

The "blank slate characters" in BG and Skyrim are infinitely complex. I'm sorry you never experienced this.

...But certainly,  I would rather have wanted Bioware to write all the dialogue in Morrowind and Skyrim, and taken thousands of man years to do it.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 24 mars 2012 - 11:49 .

[Maria Caliban]

I don't think ninjamancing Leliana is a good counter-example. You can't say that the full line carried the wrong tone, when it's just as likely that Leliana misinterpreted the Warden's meaning. For a female Warden, the hair conversation was a functional model of one person attempting to gauge another's interest and possibly coming to the wrong impression.

A better example is the first post-sex scene conversation with Leliana when you wake up and she's staring at your eyelashes. There's a choice that says that Leliana has gone crazy. Taken straight-forwardly, it's an insult, and a pretty cutting one given that Leliana has trouble with people thinking she's crazy. There's nothing to indicate to the player that it's said jokingly.

bEVEsthda wrote...

The "blank slate characters" in BG and Skyrim are infinitely complex. I'm sorry you never experienced this.

I can't experience something that only exists in your mind.

What you're saying is that the characters in 'Fun with Dick and Jane' are as complex as those in 'As I Lay Dying' because you could imagine a complexity that doesn't exist on the page. In fact, they're infinitely complex because the text will never interfere with your imagination.

Maybe if I were a college freshman and extraordinary high, I'd think you were deep, man, deep, but as is, I think that's inane. Calling it 'literary' suggests you don't really have an appreciation for literature, but just want to swipe the word for your silent protagonist argument.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 25 mars 2012 - 12:02 .

[Meris]

I *think* some people also complained about ninja-romances with Zevran but I can't remember that since I never romanced him. Regardless, to say that very rare moments when the tone of a full-line was ambiguous is a point for paraphrasing doesn't sound right to me when it was the tone-indicator icons that solved this problem, not paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing X Full-line is about content presentation, not intent or tone.

In the old way you'd have something like <XXXXXXXXXXXX (Flirt)>, not unlike <apporach him and hug (Steal)> or even better <XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (Lie)>.

Modifié par Meris, 24 mars 2012 - 11:54 .

[adlocutio]

ademska wrote...
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.

This statement is untrue. To roleplay I only need to understand what my character is going to do, and I the player define why the character does it. If that behavior is misinterpreted by Leliana, it's still roleplaying.  I can't control how others (mis)interpret what I do or say. I'd even offer that, since Leliana is a dyed-in-the-wool romantic, and since Zevran is so amorous, it is conceiveably within character for them to assume romantic intent from a platonic statement.  The reality is, this is just bad game design, and not a flaw in the the system's ability to convey relevant information.

Edit: Ninja'd by Maria Caliban
Edit Edit: Actually, even in Maria's example of the post-sex dialogue with Leliana, she could still misinterpret (perhaps intentionally) "you're crazy" to be a joke, even if it's meant literally.  The flaw in all of these situations mentioned is not the dialogue system, it's that the player isn't given a chance to clarify like a normal person would. Just bad game design.

Modifié par adlocutio, 25 mars 2012 - 12:06 .

[ademska]

@Maria, there, thank you, that's a much better example. it's been a while since i play da:o.

what @hooray meant by 'dialogue', and the reason i continue to distinguish between 'dialogue' and 'written dialogue', is that there is a difference between a single sentence of written dialogue and the full body language and acted tone that comes with speech in a visual medium.

that completeness is what @hooray meant by 'dialogue', and it is impossible to convey through a game's text UI, since it transcends text.

full-line written dialogue is technically more capable of transmitting full range of dialogue than paraphrase alone, which is why da2 attempted to make up for that disconnect by offering a tone indicator. knowing hawke's next line would be delivered sarcastically, charmingly, kindly, diplomatically, aggressively, etc

in origins, we saw a gap between written word and tone, but not between paraphrase and actual spoken words. in 2, we saw a gap between paraphrase and actual spoken words, but not between written word and tone.

the difference between you and me still boils down to a matter of preference borne of how we interpret and rationalize these gaps, what they mean for the protagonist character, and the methods by which we role-play. it's a very fundamental and likely unchangeable difference.

unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a compromise.

my side is in the majority as far as far as the pool of all game consumers goes, and my style of immersion is the current market trend. developers may be in part artists, but don't forget that they are commissioned artists. they will develop for whatever group will give them the most benefit while still allowing them to retain some degree of vision. that's just economics.

edit: i am not arguing for or against full lines. my earlier posts were only disproving xewaka's statement that full lines are adequate to meet his own standards, when by his logic they are not.

Modifié par ademska, 25 mars 2012 - 12:15 .

[Maria Caliban]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Many of the most impressive, and haunting scenes I've ever read in novels and short stories, contains no description of feelings or thoughts at all. It all just comes from dialogue and situation, maybe an observation of some detail.

Similarily, in some of the most tense and emotionally powerful movie scenes ever, the actor/actress doesn't move the face at all. And may be entirely silent, or reveal no emotion at all in the voice.

But you're talking about a scene. Not the entire work. In those movies and novels there were hundreds or dozens of scene with emotion. The sudden lack increased the intensity of the moment, just like when during a dramatic scene the music rises and rises -- and then everything goes quiet.

If you can give me the name of some fabulous full-length works where we're never shown the thoughts and emotions of the character, I'd be happy to check them out. After all, you're not asking for the PC to stop talking *sometimes* but *all times.*

[bEVEsthda]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I don't think ninjamancing Leliana is a good counter-example. You can't say that the full line carried the wrong tone, when it's just as likely that Leliana misinterpreted the Warden's meaning. For a female Warden, the hair conversation was a functional model of one person attempting to gauge another's interest and possibly coming to the wrong impression.

A better example is the first post-sex scene conversation with Leliana when you wake up and she's staring at your eyelashes. There's a choice that says that Leliana has gone crazy. Taken straight-forwardly, it's an insult, and a pretty cutting one given that Leliana has trouble with people thinking she's crazy. There's nothing to indicate to the player that it's said jokingly.

bEVEsthda wrote...

The "blank slate characters" in BG and Skyrim are infinitely complex. I'm sorry you never experienced this.

I can't experience something that only exists in your mind.

What you're saying is that the characters in 'Fun with Dick and Jane' are as complex as those in 'As I Lay Dying' because you could imagine a complexity that doesn't exist on the page. In fact, they're infinitely complex because the text will never interfere with your imagination.

Maybe if I were a college freshman and extraordinary high, I'd think you were deep, man, deep, but as is, I think that's inane. Calling it 'literary' suggests you don't really have an appreciation for literature, but just want to swipe the word for your silent protagonist argument.

Umm,?  I didn't call anything 'literary'.  And you still seem to misread the intention of that word. I think 'literal' was the meaning. I suppose Meris has to explain that though. As for the rest, you seem annoyed, rather than having any interest in understanding my meaning, so I'm leaving you to it.

EDIT: I see you did understand my meaning, from your later post.
That is correct. The whole story is necessary. Otherwise the audience cannot know. Lot's of scenes with emotions are not necessary though. A story can be quite impassive throughout, as long as it provides the situation and knowledge.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 25 mars 2012 - 12:22 .

[ademska]

adlocutio wrote...

ademska wrote...
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.

This statement is untrue. To roleplay I only need to understand what my character is going to do, and I the player define why the character does it. If that behavior is misinterpreted by Leliana, it's still roleplaying.  I can't control how others (mis)interpret what I do or say. I'd even offer that, since Leliana is a dyed-in-the-wool romantic, and since Zevran is so amorous, it is conceiveably within character for them to assume romantic intent from a platonic statement.  The reality is, this is just bad game design, and not a flaw in the the system's ability to convey relevant information.

Edit: Ninja'd by Maria Caliban
Edit Edit: Actually, even in Maria's example of the post-sex dialogue with Leliana, she could still misinterpret (perhaps intentionally) "you're crazy" to be a joke, even if it's meant literally.  The flaw in all of these situations mentioned is not the dialogue system, it's that the player isn't given a chance to clarify like a normal person would. Just bad game design.

i do not rationalize the flaw as misinterpretation, because ONCE AGAIN your camp and my camp have very different perceptions and styles of immersion in role-playing games.

one is not necessarily more valid than the other, but it does mean we cannot relate to each others' arguments.

[adlocutio]

Maria Caliban wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

The "blank slate characters" in BG and Skyrim are infinitely complex. I'm sorry you never experienced this.

I can't experience something that only exists in your mind.

What you're saying is that the characters in 'Fun with Dick and Jane' are as complex as those in 'As I Lay Dying' because you could imagine a complexity that doesn't exist on the page. In fact, they're infinitely complex because the text will never interfere with your imagination. 

I think what bEVEsthda is trying to say is that anything which is not explicitly contradicted by the game is valid for roleplaying purposes, and since there are an infinite number of things (about the protagonist, i.e. what his or her motives, thoughts, emotions, ambitions, backstory are - think "how did I get arrested before the beginning of the game and why") not explicitly contradicted by the game, the possibility for protagonist variation is theoretically limitless. 

But, as you implied in our earlier conversation, the more "theoretically limitless" a protagonist is the less the game can react to specific things about the character. And I think you value those reactions or interactions over the freedom to define the protagonist, no?

[adlocutio]

ademska wrote...
i do not rationalize the flaw as misinterpretation, because ONCE AGAIN your camp and my camp have very different perceptions and styles of immersion in role-playing games.

one is not necessarily more valid than the other, but it does mean we cannot relate to each others' arguments.

Umm. Don't put me in a "camp." I used the word "conceiveably" - that doesn't imply I believe it to be correct.  I said it's bad game design. And a bad example for your point.  But even so, it doesn't have to be a rationalization for Leliana's behavior to be assumed a "misinterpretation."

The fact is, your imagination has to bridge an uncountable number of gaps in order for any roleplaying in any game to be possible. To draw the line for "rationalization" at the aforementioned point is arbitrary.

[bEVEsthda]

Maria Caliban wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Many of the most impressive, and haunting scenes I've ever read in novels and short stories, contains no description of feelings or thoughts at all. It all just comes from dialogue and situation, maybe an observation of some detail.

Similarily, in some of the most tense and emotionally powerful movie scenes ever, the actor/actress doesn't move the face at all. And may be entirely silent, or reveal no emotion at all in the voice.

But you're talking about a scene. Not the entire work. In those movies and novels there were hundreds or dozens of scene with emotion. The sudden lack increased the intensity of the moment, just like when during a dramatic scene the music rises and rises -- and then everything goes quiet.

If you can give me the name of some fabulous full-length works where we're never shown the thoughts and emotions of the character, I'd be happy to check them out. After all, you're not asking for the PC to stop talking *sometimes* but *all times.*

I repost this respons here for added visibility:
 
I see you did understand my meaning, from your later post.
That is correct. The whole story is necessary. Otherwise the audience cannot know. Lot's of scenes with emotions are not necessary though. A story can be quite impassive throughout, as long as it provides the situation and knowledge.

I prefer silent protagonist, yes. I prefer that to what DA2 offered in, any way.
The good point is that the literal text you read and choose, is the only response your character makes. So it cannot destroy your role.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 25 mars 2012 - 12:29 .

[ademska]

adlocutio wrote...

ademska wrote...
i do not rationalize the flaw as misinterpretation, because ONCE AGAIN your camp and my camp have very different perceptions and styles of immersion in role-playing games.

one is not necessarily more valid than the other, but it does mean we cannot relate to each others' arguments.

Umm. Don't put me in a "camp." I used the word "conceiveably" - that doesn't imply I believe it to be correct.  I said it's bad game design. And a bad example for your point.  But even so, it doesn't have to be a rationalization for Leliana's behavior to be assumed a "misinterpretation."

The fact is, your imagination has to bridge an uncountable number of gaps in order for any roleplaying in any game to be possible. To draw the line for "rationalization" at the aforementioned point is arbitrary.

'camp' carries some political stigmas, but i don't mean it as any sort of insult. you seem very firmly entrenched in your own perceptions of interaction in role-playing games, and you share that perception with other people. my perceptions are different and also shared by other, different people.

'rationalization' is also a potentially charged term, so to clarify: i am aware that you do not accept your views as universally correct - we're all adults here - but they are your views, ones that you subscribe to fully even if you do not insist others follow. to wit, when i play games i do not personally view tone gap as another character's misinterpretation. i view it as an outright, immersion-breaking flaw. neither is more correct than the other.

what it boils down to is that my arbitrary line of imagination and rationalization is not just different than yours. it's on a completely different plane. there is a fundamental difference in how we play games, and thus we cannot relate to each others' arguments.

Modifié par ademska, 25 mars 2012 - 12:47 .

[bEVEsthda]

adlocutio wrote...

I think what bEVEsthda is trying to say is that anything which is not explicitly contradicted by the game is valid for roleplaying purposes, and since there are an infinite number of things (about the protagonist, i.e. what his or her motives, thoughts, emotions, ambitions, backstory are - think "how did I get arrested before the beginning of the game and why") not explicitly contradicted by the game, the possibility for protagonist variation is theoretically limitless. 

But, as you implied in our earlier conversation, the more "theoretically limitless" a protagonist is the less the game can react to specific things about the character.

That was/is the assumption under it all.
 
What I wanted to demonstrate is that it's all in your head. The experience. Regardless if the game plays any explicit representations of 'reactions' or 'drama' or not.

I might be wrong about that it's meaningful to demonstrate this to someone who want to explore and savor those very reactions.
I might be mistaken. Maybe we 'voiced' and 'silent' protagonist groups are that different.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 25 mars 2012 - 12:55 .

[Maria Caliban]

ademska wrote...

it's a very fundamental and likely unchangeable difference.

I'd bet that the average gamer doesn't care one way or another. There are popular games with voiced protagonists and there are popular games without them.

It's like third-person limited and third person omniscient. The average reader knows what it is and might like or dislike it, but once they get into the story, it's something that fades into the background.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 25 mars 2012 - 01:03 .

[adlocutio]

ademska wrote...

No sort of insult was taken, at all. But you assumed I thought a certain way that wasn't evidenced by what I said. My personal preferences were really irrelevant, and you shouldn't assume we're on a "completely different plane" because of my post, nor that I cannot relate to your argument.  It's just not true.

My preferences for a game vary based on the game.  If a game purports to be a RPG, I expect to be able to roleplay, and I expect the game to allow me to control the protagonist. When I can't control the protagonist, and the game is doing this for me, and I don't know what the character will say or do, then I can't be said to be roleplaying, right?  Bioware is roleplaying, and I'm along for the ride.  Autodialogue is the perfect example of this (as a not-too-subtle way of bringing this back on topic). 

Edit: That's not to say I didn't enjoy ME3. Quite the contrary. Just that when it's marketed as a RPG and I can't actually roleplay, then I was misinformed, and my expectations are off, and it affects my enjoyment of the game. 

Call it something else and I won't complain about it not being a RPG. Call it a pseudo-RPG, or an RPGesque Story-Driven 3PS.

Modifié par adlocutio, 25 mars 2012 - 01:25 .

[bEVEsthda]

Well, anyway. We're stuck with voiced protagonist. (We can only hope Bioware doesn't use it to destroy too much role play.)

And autodialogues are bad.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Meris wrote...

I *think* some people also complained about ninja-romances with Zevran but I can't remember that since I never romanced him.

Yeah, that happened. On one side it was people not reading between the lines, and on the other it was the language barrier/lost in translation. Then, of course, people just not understanding their own dialogue choices.

If the PC has triggered Zevran's romance in previous dialogue, at a certain point on the approval scale he offers (in suitably seductive tones) the PC a massage in his/her tent. He then asks, very pointedly, that if the opportunity comes to 'move past the massage', then what? The PC has a few choice options that will either lead to or avoid the sex scene, but none explicitly state "Duh, we'll have sex."

Icons seem to have cleared a bit up*, though I think some people were still upset about Anders flirting with them in DA2.

*I miss the mystery, I gotta say. :/

[Maria Caliban]

The Zevran ninjamance happens because people don't understand 'want a massage in my tent?' as a come-on. Not a failure of the full text dialogue system at all.

[Rorschachinstein]

I don't want companions talking to a cardboard box. Audio dialogue= interesting PC

[nightscrawl]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I'd like to see a source for that first statement. I've never seen any of the devs say they dislike people reloading to make different choices.

Here is one such statement. Yes, I know that John Epler doesn't specifically state that they dislike it when players reload, but it is a reference, and the most recent one I've seen which is why I made the point in the first place. I've seen others in the past, but I can't source them. The gist of it is (not that they will remove the ability to reload) that they want people to realize the impact of their actions as they are going along in the story. Being able to reload trivializes some decisions.


There is some really great discussion going on in this thread!

Rorschachinstein wrote...

I don't want companions talking to a cardboard box. Audio dialogue= interesting PC

I don't think it's auto-dialogue vs a dumb character, rather it's people being annoyed that their character says something they have no input on.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 25 mars 2012 - 07:46 .

[Uccio]

Well, if that happens then I simply will not buy the game. I did not buy ME3 (for many reasons, this being one of them) and I will not buy Dragon Effect 3 either. There are other games to play while I want for some other gamehouse to step forward and do a real rpg for us who appreciate it.

[nightscrawl]

adlocutio wrote...

ademska wrote...
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.

This statement is untrue. To roleplay I only need to understand what my character is going to do, and I the player define why the character does it. If that behavior is misinterpreted by Leliana, it's still roleplaying.  I can't control how others (mis)interpret what I do or say. I'd even offer that, since Leliana is a dyed-in-the-wool romantic, and since Zevran is so amorous, it is conceiveably within character for them to assume romantic intent from a platonic statement.  The reality is, this is just bad game design, and not a flaw in the the system's ability to convey relevant information.

Edit: Ninja'd by Maria Caliban
Edit Edit: Actually, even in Maria's example of the post-sex dialogue with Leliana, she could still misinterpret (perhaps intentionally) "you're crazy" to be a joke, even if it's meant literally.  The flaw in all of these situations mentioned is not the dialogue system, it's that the player isn't given a chance to clarify like a normal person would. Just bad game design.

This is why I felt that the explicit flirt icons in DA2 were helpful. During one of my DAO plays I ninjamanced Leliana because I talked to her as I would any of my close girl friends. She interpreted it as romantic interest, much to my dismay. I was more careful with her in subsequent plays knowing that was a possibility.

I don't think that it has to be one way (DAO style) or the other (DA2 style). Why can't there be a meeting in the middle? Since they are going to continue with the voiced PC, there needs to be a way of telling the player what their character is going to say and how they are going to say it in the most efficient way possible to allow the player to make the choice that is right for them.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Icons seem to have cleared a bit up*, though I think some people were still upset about Anders flirting with them in DA2.

It can be avoided, but only if 1) you know about it before hand (scroll down for the bit about paraphrasing and other dialogue stuff), OR 2) stumble on it blindly.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 25 mars 2012 - 08:18 .

[AkiKishi]

It's not possible to roleplay with the paraphrase system. You know what you are going to say before you say it, and the paraphrase system is somewhat random and leads to a lot of player/character disconects.
That being said you don't need to roleplay to become immersed in a game. You can easily become immersed in Final Fantasy even though the characters are interacting on their own.
If your goal is immersion in the game, then the more complete the character the better.

The general downside of a game that allows a lot of roleplaying is it's a personal experience. A lot of if takes places in the mind of the player. Which is great for the player, but also makes it impossible to apply as a standard.

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...
If your goal is immersion in the game, then the more complete the character the better.

This doesn't ring true to me.  I don't think there's any difference in the degree of immersion, - if it's achieved.

But it seems like there are things to think about for awhile.
I don't play games for either movie- or book experiences. Some people obviously do, since they use these as examples all the time, for how they relate to games.

If that catches on as some kind of standard, for how games are made, that would be tragic in my view.
There should be resistance towards that. Bethesda is a bastion. But I'm also thinking the consolification of games is a threat that lead gamers relating towards like movie-experiences. There used to be more games with simulation content. Simulation - not observation - is the key.