833 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm aware of the quote, and Brockolololololololy has brought it up a few times in response to my arguments.

I find it hard to reconcile with the games they were actually making.  As someone who has disputed what BioWare personnel have said versus what they've done on many occasions, you must understand how I can confidently hold a position that's contrary to what Dr. Ray has stated.

To be fair to Ray, he made that remark prior to the release of DA2, when Dragon Age did still offer something like a first person narrative.

Even still, I've pointed to things like the voice/paraphrase as being the key step towards an explicitly third person experience, so it's possible that they simply decided to move completely in that direction after Origins.  That's not something I can know for sure.

If they are doing that, it would be nice if they'd tell us.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

We're all ultimately selfish here and I don't feel any obligation to advocate compromises that would diminish my experience.

Would they, though?  I generally try to offer suggestions that wouldn't diminish your gameplay experience at all.  And wherever people claim they would, I generally try to point out where I think their reasoning has failed.

I want to improve my gameplay expeience without diminishing yours, because BioWare has an interest in not diminishing yours, so suggestions that don't do that are more likely to be considered.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 avril 2012 - 11:04 .

[TheComfyCat]

They're clearly not going back to the silent protagonist. Why not figure out how to make the VO/ dialogue wheel system better rather than whining about what isn't going to change?

I like the idea of including emotional indicators, or at least further indications of intention, like: charming (serious/ suave), sarcastic (good humor/ snide), etc.

I think giving us a better, more specific indication of the tone/ intent of the paraphrase might alleviate some of the irritation of the player character saying something surprising and unwanted due to ambiguous paraphrases (at least for those of us that generally like the VO/ dialogue wheel system).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Darth Krytie wrote...

I actually find the opposite. It always threw me out of immersion when my character's face looked utterly blank even as her lines were angry or sad. She looked like she was checking out the sportspage of the newspaper. I prefer a line delivered angrily when my character is angry.

But what about when your character isn't angry?

That's the problem.  The voiced protagonist will deliver lines angry even when I don't think he's angry.  How do we resolve that?

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I have never been able to imagine content and have the game react to what exists solely in my head.

I'm very sorry. That must have made playing a lot of games a lot less fun.

senorfuzzylips wrote...
They're clearly not going back to the silent protagonist. Why not figure out how to make the VO/ dialogue wheel system better rather than whining about what isn't going to change?

Because, quite honestly it's the voice acting that has created these problems. Getting rid of it gets rid of the problems.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 04 avril 2012 - 11:08 .

[The Elder King]

I could enjoy both silent PC and voiced PC. The fact is that Bioware implemented the voiced PC in a way (ME, ME2 and DA2) in which a lot of time the paraphrases don't show well what the PC will say.
That's why I want to have full sentences, or an optional pop-up, or the DE:HR system. I want to know what the PC will say. Or at least make the paraphrases in a way that show well how the PC will respond (though I don't know if this will be possible).

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The issue of distinction and confusion and/or immerision is one that has come up specifically because game makers started putting voices in games.

Have you never read my posts where I've basically said this:

Fully voiced game > Fully text game >>>>>>> Silent protagonist

But that's only regarding personal immersion. The reasons I prefer the voiced protagonist to silent ones is due to the whole 3rd/1st person narrative thing, and the PnP vs. choose-your-own-adventure thing. Neither technically has anything to do with whether the game is fully voiced or fully text, but about expectations of control.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I have never been able to imagine content and have the game react to what exists solely in my head.

I'm very sorry. That must have made playing a lot of games a lot less fun.

Your patronizing condescension is not appreciated, it just comes off as petulant. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 avril 2012 - 11:11 .

[TEWR]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

I actually find the opposite. It always threw me out of immersion when my character's face looked utterly blank even as her lines were angry or sad. She looked like she was checking out the sportspage of the newspaper. I prefer a line delivered angrily when my character is angry.

But what about when your character isn't angry?

That's the problem.  The voiced protagonist will deliver lines angry even when I don't think he's angry.  How do we resolve that?

Get rid of the dominant personality system. Or autodialog at least.

Which brings us right back to square one.

I wasn't a fan of the dominant personality system, simply because something about it really didn't seem.... natural to me. Autodialog compounded my issue with it.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 avril 2012 - 11:13 .

[TheComfyCat]

the_one_54321 wrote...

senorfuzzylips wrote...
They're clearly not going back to the silent protagonist. Why not figure out how to make the VO/ dialogue wheel system better rather than whining about what isn't going to change?

Because, quite honestly it's the voice acting that has created these problems. Getting rid of it gets rid of the problems.

........but no matter what you say, or how good you think your argument is, they're not going to change it. Why keep banging your head against the wall?

[Darth Krytie]

senorfuzzylips wrote...

They're clearly not going back to the silent protagonist. Why not figure out how to make the VO/ dialogue wheel system better rather than whining about what isn't going to change?

I like the idea of including emotional indicators, or at least further indications of intention, like: charming (serious/ suave), sarcastic (good humor/ snide), etc.

I think giving us a better, more specific indication of the tone/ intent of the paraphrase might alleviate some of the irritation of the player character saying something surprising and unwanted due to ambiguous paraphrases (at least for those of us that generally like the VO/ dialogue wheel system).

A very good point. I do think the dialogue wheen can be fine-tuned and the paraphrasing done more consistently. I do like having a tone...Though, there are times like...my Hawkes were generally sarcastic, but there were situations where sarcastic tone doesn't fit...ie Leandra...It'd be nice to have a more tailored reaction to those situations.

There's not much of Mass Effect I'd want in Dragon Age, though I do enjoy both series. I like keeping them fairly separate...However, I do like the interrupt system. I wouldn't want it to be renegade/paragon type distinctions...but perhaps sometimes, you can press "y" or the equiv and you can punch someone to shut them up in the middle of a scene. That'd tickle me pretty much forever.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

If I select the BE ANGRY dialog option for my character, and that character does not appear to be angry, then it failed to react.

That would appear to be an argument againsdt detailed visuals of your character.  Earlier sprite-based games didn't show your character's face, so the game wasn't failing to show him angry as much as it just wasn't showing him.

Was that better?

I have never been able to imagine content and have the game react to what exists solely in my head.

 
Sure you have.  You can do it in DAO.  You deliver a line angrily, and the NPC reacts to that angry line.  You deliver a line pollitely, and the NPC reacts to that polite line.  It worked brilliantly.

[Darth Krytie]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

I actually find the opposite. It always threw me out of immersion when my character's face looked utterly blank even as her lines were angry or sad. She looked like she was checking out the sportspage of the newspaper. I prefer a line delivered angrily when my character is angry.

But what about when your character isn't angry?

That's the problem.  The voiced protagonist will deliver lines angry even when I don't think he's angry.  How do we resolve that?

I'd say, choose a tone that's not angry? There's got to be a line between standing there like you're checking out whether the Pats made the playoffs and raging even when you don't want your character to be.

Modifié par Darth Krytie, 04 avril 2012 - 11:13 .

[bEVEsthda]

Restraint wrote...

I find the idea that one can't roleplay as, identify with, or get into the head of a character if you don't know exactly what they're going to say before they say it inexplicable. I've never been stopped from identifying with the protagonist of a book because I can't divine every line of dialogue before I read it on the page.

Well, you may have misunderstood that that idea has been expressed.
You're yet another example of one who, in your way of putting this, reveal the big difference.
"identify with". "I've never been stopped from identifying with the protagonist of a book ."

Your perception of roleplay is that it's the same as how you relate to a character in a book (or a movie, since it's the same thing, but some people get so excited when I say "movie"). That's how you do it.

But that's not how those, who so annoy you and others by using "role play" for something different, do it.
I don't watch or explore a character or role. I create and fall into the role, which means I know the role's thoughts and feelings on all matters, before the plot explicitly reveals it by dialog. Of course this doesn't work if the character does/says something completely different. Knowing what one chooses as exactly as possible is desirable. And preferably there shouldn't be any additional message beyond that. With a silent protagonist there isn't. While a spoken line often carries more messages than contained in the words alone.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 04 avril 2012 - 11:27 .

[slashthedragon]

Someone post the dialogue compass pic again. That seemed like a fair compromise.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

If I select the BE ANGRY dialog option for my character, and that character does not appear to be angry, then it failed to react.

That would appear to be an argument againsdt detailed visuals of your character.  Earlier sprite-based games didn't show your character's face, so the game wasn't failing to show him angry as much as it just wasn't showing him.

Was that better?

But I want reactivity.  Reactivity is even more important to me than control.

As such, ambiguity is totally insufficient and unsatisfying.  This answer might also help explain how I don't understand your position below:

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

Upsettingshorts wrote... I have never been able to imagine content and have the game react to what exists solely in my head. 

 
Sure you have.  You can do it in DAO.  You deliver a line angrily, and the NPC reacts to that angry line.  You deliver a line pollitely, and the NPC reacts to that polite line.  It worked brilliantly.

That I have no idea what you're talking about is evidence that I did not.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 avril 2012 - 11:15 .

[bEVEsthda]

senorfuzzylips wrote...

They're clearly not going back to the silent protagonist. Why not figure out how to make the VO/ dialogue wheel system better rather than whining about what isn't going to change?

That's the idea. And also what was going on. Until some people came on and started pick on people who don't fully embrace the VO/wheel.   ...Then people try to explain where they are viewing things from, ...as a service. Then they can continue to... ehm "argue". (Maybe they are trying to provoke DA2 critics so they can be permabanned? Who knows?) It's no whining. Neither is giving views on HOW to make the VO/wheel work.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 04 avril 2012 - 11:26 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

I actually find the opposite. It always through me out of immersion when my character's face looked utterly blank even as her lines were angry or sad. She looked like she was checking out the sportspage of the newspaper. I prefer a line delivered angrily when my character is angry.

Agreed.

I've said the same thing many times.

senorfuzzylips wrote...

They're clearly not going back to the silent protagonist. Why not figure out how to make the VO/ dialogue wheel system better rather than whining about what isn't going to change?

Because TRUE role-playing is at stake.

If you disagree then you've never TRULY role-played.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 04 avril 2012 - 11:30 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But I want reactivity.  Reactivity is even more important to me than control.

As such, ambiguity is totally insufficient and unsatisfying.  This answer might also help explain how I don't understand your position below:

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

Upsettingshorts wrote... I have never been able to imagine content and have the game react to what exists solely in my head. 

Sure you have.  You can do it in DAO.  You deliver a line angrily, and the NPC reacts to that angry line.  You deliver a line pollitely, and the NPC reacts to that polite line.  It worked brilliantly.

That I have no idea what you're talking about is evidence that I did not.

Re-reading an eaerlier post of yours, I'm not entirely clear what you mean by reactivity.

Do you mean you want the NPCs to react to your character, or that you want the game (or your character) to react to your (the player's) inputs?

My response assumed you were concerned with NPC reactions, so that's the context in which I'll answer now.

From a metagame standpoint, if you choose dialogue option A, the NPC responds with reply B.  That never changes, no matter what delivery of option A you imagine.

But, from an in-character perspective, when you deliver dialogue option A angrily, you perceive the NPC's cold delivery of reply B quite differently from how you would have you delivered dialogue option A politiely.

That's the reactivity I see and enjoy very much in the silent protagonist games.

[Restraint]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Well, you may have misunderstood that that idea has been expressed.
You're yet another example of one who, in your way of putting this, reveal the big difference.
"identify with". "I've never been stopped from identifying with the protagonist of a book ."

Your perception of roleplay is that it's the same as how you relate to a character in a book (or a movie, since it's the same thing, but some people get so excited when I say "movie"). That's how you do it.

I haven't misunderstood. I'm aware that the cause of all these arguments comes from the difference between first and third person perspective, all of which has been covered in excruciating detail by Upsettingshorts and no doubt many others. What I don't think some people are willing to accept is that for a long time Bioware's games have been designed from the ground up to accommodate the third person perspective, and I don't think the sainted DA:O is an exception to that. 

But that's not how those, who so annoy you and others by using "role play" for something different, do it.

You're just projecting here.

[upsettingshorts]

@bEVEsthda

Well, it'd be boring for me to simply say: Better execution.

I think I mentioned - earlier in the thread, though - that dropping the house "don't use any words from the full line in the paraphrase itself" rule might improve things.

Furthermore, some issues with the wheel stem from expectations drawn from Mass Effect. By that I mean, many players - if the board after DA2's release is evidence of anything - seemed to think that Diplomatic/Charming/Direct was the same as Paragon/Renegade and something to be followed at all times rigidly, or at least that Diplomatic was "good" and Direct was "bad."  Not to mention the lack of feedback as to what personality this was leading towards confused and frustrated many players, something I think ought to be rectified if the next game uses the dominant personality system again.  

The tone icons themselves represented a step forward I think - especially when compared to Mass Effect's limited and broken Paragon/Renegade dichotomy - although their implementation could be improved by better documentation and more consistent application. Furthermore a couple of them, the neutral-colored "Star" options for example were confusing because it wasn't made clear how or why we had access to them and what we did to unlock them, and since they indicated a special action they lacked the usual tone icons that were more informative.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Do you mean you want the NPCs to react to your character, or that you want the game (or your character) to react to your (the player's) inputs?

Both. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 avril 2012 - 11:37 .

[David Gaider]

Darth Krytie wrote...
I think David also mentioned there's a character limit they have to work with when using the dialogue wheel.

Yes and no. If we want to cram more information on the GUI, we certainly can-- we can elect to have lines wrap, and even have lines which are longer than can be displayed truncated and displayed fully on mouse-over.

Any line length limits we apply are self-imposed, based on what we think makes for a useable and attractive interface. And both those elements are not to be underestimated-- ideally the amount of information would be set by the user, but that's not always feasible, so GUI designers need to balance a lot of elements.

[Darth Krytie]

David Gaider wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...
I think David also mentioned there's a character limit they have to work with when using the dialogue wheel.

Yes and no. If we want to cram more information on the GUI, we certainly can-- we can elect to have lines wrap, and even have lines which are longer than can be displayed truncated and displayed fully on mouse-over.

Any line length limits we apply are self-imposed, based on what we think makes for a useable and attractive interface. And both those elements are not to be underestimated-- ideally the amount of information would be set by the user, but that's not always feasible, so GUI designers need to balance a lot of elements.

Thanks for the clarification. Balancing stuff like that can be such a pain...God, I don't envy your job sometimes.

[slashthedragon]

David Gaider wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...
I think David also mentioned there's a character limit they have to work with when using the dialogue wheel.

Yes and no. If we want to cram more information on the GUI, we certainly can-- we can elect to have lines wrap, and even have lines which are longer than can be displayed truncated and displayed fully on mouse-over.

Any line length limits we apply are self-imposed, based on what we think makes for a useable and attractive interface. And both those elements are not to be underestimated-- ideally the amount of information would be set by the user, but that's not always feasible, so GUI designers need to balance a lot of elements.

Self imposed? ....
At the very least do mouse overs.  Make most everyone happy.

[Sylvianus]

For the sake ot this discussion, I'd like to understand. What is not negotiable actually, except the silent protagonist ?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Darth Krytie wrote...

I'd say, choose a tone that's not angry?

But they've coupled the tone with the line.  I cannot choose a tone that isn't angry without choosing a different line.  If the content of the lines are materially different, then the incorrect tone becomes an unsolvable problem.

There's got to be a line between standing there like you're checking out whether the Pats made the playoffs and raging even when you don't want your character to be.

Indeed.  I'd like to find it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Do you mean you want the NPCs to react to your character, or that you want the game (or your character) to react to your (the player's) inputs?

Both.

Okay, well I've given you a path to the first one.

As for having your character react to you input, I'd say that simply requires an even finer level of control.  After all, you don't want your character to act angry when you don't want him to be angry.  Uncoupling the line and the character's intent in delivering it, as I proposed in this thread, might help with that.