833 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

Koire wrote...

I think I disagree. I liked how it was handled in DA2 (lines depending on your personality).

I am on this idea. However, it shouldn't be more than one liners where all option would basicially say the same thing. ME3 went overboard with the autodialog.

[Wulfram]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Don't like it ,but I don't see them going back either. KOA was unvoiced and for the most part pretty good. Certain scenes definately lacked though because of that. Of course you could design the game to avoid those sorts of scenes. Inspirational speeches without a voiced protagonist just come across as "wrong".

This thread isn't about voiced vs unvoiced.  It's about how much control you have over the voiced protagonist.

Shepard's speech when he takes command of the Normandy in ME1 was pretty good, because you were allowed a role in shaping what they were like.  Hawke's speech at the end of DA2 was tremendously annoying, because there's no player input in it whatsoever.

[AkiKishi]

Wulfram wrote...
This thread isn't about voiced vs unvoiced.  It's about how much control you have over the voiced protagonist.

Shepard's speech when he takes command of the Normandy in ME1 was pretty good, because you were allowed a role in shaping what they were like.  Hawke's speech at the end of DA2 was tremendously annoying, because there's no player input in it whatsoever.

I was annoyed at ME3 because my Shepard of pevious games disapeared and got replaced by a stranger. However, if the character is a stranger anyway I don't think I would feel that way.
I do think the VA in ME3 was better and I put that down to the actors having more than "sound bites" to work with. I also think the cutscenes were a step in the right direction ,but still wooden compared to something like FFXIII-2.

This is kind of the problem with cinematic vs roleplaying. In BG the game took place in your head most of the time, the little sprites were far too small for faces, never mind facial expressions.

If you need to allow for any number of reactions, then you need to be much more generic than if you know exactly what is coming. One way to deal for example is to put the C&C in the actions rather than the dialogue (FF and JRPGs do this).Bottom line is I don't think there is an answer that will make everyone happy and the more cinematic something becomes the more you probably have to sacrifice player agency with regard to conversation.

[Xewaka]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Yes please.
ME3 is atrocious, going 3-4 minutes of Shepard talking without prompt.

I resemble this statement.
Every time the character acts or speaks without player prompt is a time you destroy player agency in the game.

[Lord Gremlin]

Agreed. This will be one of the things I'll be asking around when DA3 comes out. If autodialogue is included this is a strict no-buy, sale or otherwise.
In an RPG like this player control over main character is very important. If it's my character, he or she should never do something I didn't make him/her do.
TBH you should man up and get rid of voiced PC too, since you can't afford to record as much dialogue as needed for proper RPG.

[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.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

We need to know what the content will be before we can choose it, David.  I don't see how that can work with back-and-forth exchanges of that sort.

[Lucy Glitter]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Wha? I... this is...



Re-posting in bigger thread so everyone will see the good news. 

Oh lord~

[AkiKishi]

The way I read it it would be an "intent" system rather than a directly worded reply. Perhaps not the direction you would choose. But with acess to 4 face buttons and shoulder buttons you could easily have a variation on the P/R system in ME3. rather than having pauses in conversation you would respond to on screen prompts. You would lose in regards to reading lines, measuring responses and then picking, but you would gain in a very fluid interactive conversation type almost to the point of a pre planned cutscene.

[Korusus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

We need to know what the content will be before we can choose it, David.  I don't see how that can work with back-and-forth exchanges of that sort.

Exactly.  The idea that I would make a selection at the beginning (with a paraphrased dialogue wheel choice) and that selection then determines the next 4 or 5 lines of dialogue the character says in that exchange...that's not at all what I want.  That's as bad as auto-dialogue...

We want to play the game, not watch it.

[Wulfram]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Very good to hear, thanks.

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?

[esper]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

If it is more than one or two line long, it begins to be jarring.
Example: 
I wold be okay with these scenerio: 
We hear a girl crying and click on her to interact and protagonist automatically ask what the problem is (bonus if they way they phrase it reflect the base personality). That is all right. After all I clicked on the girl to interact afterall.

Not all right
An enemy threathens the protagonist and they immedieatly reacts hostile towards the enemy and enage in a back and forth discussion that goes on for more than one sentes after me setting the tone off it.  This is not all right.

To take a minor da2 examples so beware of spoilers:
Party are heading to the Grand Cleric to more and less accuse her off stuff. Companions express concern and Hawke says what basically boils down to: We're doing it. (Again it differed on their concern) - To this point it is still all right because Hawke is saying we're doing the mission which I've accpeted to continue by entering the chantry.

Then we have the final speech, but who says that my Hawke would choose her base personality at this key moment in the story. In fact who says that she would be consistent with just one mood there. I way prefer how it was done in me1. Where we picked every line in the speech.

So to some up: Keep autodialog short, and to the not important and non emotional moment.

[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.

[LegendaryBlade]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Wha? I... this is...



Re-posting in bigger thread so everyone will see the good news. 

Oh lord~

My reaction exactly. Less Dragon Effect more Dragonage

Modifié par LegendaryBlade, 20 mars 2012 - 07:45 .

[Xerxes52]

I think it was handled pretty well in DA2. While there was some auto-dialogue, it was based off the attitude your protagonist usually took (nice, humorous, aggressive), and auto-dialogue certainly didn't comprise the majority of the dialogue in-game.

If it stays similar to that, that would be great.

[esper]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

About tone. Would it be possible to store what kind of mood/tone the protagonist uses towards the specific companions and say key persons/group. So that the eventual autodialog and comments reflected that.
Such as Hawke is more diplomatic towards Anders, but aggressive towards Sebastian so when we have autodialog or banter Hawke will continue to speak to them like that. Will I didn't mind Hawke's banter in legacy and mark of assassin (I always found it irritating being silent when the group is basically talking about you sometimes) I would like the game not to assume that I am speaking the same way to all my companions. Also it would be gold if the companions acknowlegde the difference.

Of course I know that would take a lot of work and dialog and space and zots (or whatever you're calling them), but I am assuming we're in the crazy idea phase.

 

[AkiKishi]

Xerxes52 wrote...

I think it was handled pretty well in DA2. While there was some auto-dialogue, it was based off the attitude your protagonist usually took (nice, humorous, aggressive), and auto-dialogue certainly didn't comprise the majority of the dialogue in-game.

If it stays similar to that, that would be great.

Problem with that is it tends to be a single state, so you can't change it for specific instances like companions, factions etc.

[Dave of Canada]

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. More things to populate the wheel would be nice, if only to avoid picking the Aggressive answer expecting anger but be surprised as Hawke talks about loving violence.

And removing personality from being involved in the "persuade" system, dislike having to metagame my character into Aggressive Hawke a lot quicker than I normally would so I can make my "in-character" decision of siding with Petrice.

[esper]

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. More things to populate the wheel would be nice, if only to avoid picking the Aggressive answer expecting anger but be surprised as Hawke talks about loving violence.

And removing personality from being involved in the "persuade" system, dislike having to metagame my character into Aggressive Hawke a lot quicker than I normally would so I can make my "in-character" decision of siding with Petrice.

I don't mind the persuade being personality oriented, that is better than 5-tier autowin from da:o. However, do not make joining an faction dependning on persuade. I don't see why you need to be agressive to kill someone (which was what that persuation was) after all by act 2 Hawke have killed a lot no matter what.

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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.

[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.

[The dead fish]

esper wrote...

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. More things to populate the wheel would be nice, if only to avoid picking the Aggressive answer expecting anger but be surprised as Hawke talks about loving violence.

And removing personality from being involved in the "persuade" system, dislike having to metagame my character into Aggressive Hawke a lot quicker than I normally would so I can make my "in-character" decision of siding with Petrice.

I don't mind the persuade being personality oriented, that is better than 5-tier autowin from da:o. However, do not make joining an faction dependning on persuade. I don't see why you need to be agressive to kill someone (which was what that persuation was) after all by act 2 Hawke have killed a lot no matter what.

This system is bad. You can't create a grey character, like I said. It is either black or white, parangon or renegade, diplomat or agressive.

In DAO, I, played a parangon guy, It didn't prevent me to choose to kill Connor, because I thought It was the best solution against the odds. With something like DA2, I couldn't kill him, because I'm often diplomat, so I can't decide something like that.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 20 mars 2012 - 08:10 .

[Heather Cline]

I support this movement for those who will be buying said DA3.

[c_cat]

I think the amount auto-dialogue in DA2 is fine. There was some surprises but mostly the different tones worked. In ME3 the intro feels more like a briefly interrupted film than playing a game. I'm not really sure if it gets better or if you just adapt to it later in the game.

[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.