833 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Any line length limits we apply are self-imposed, based on what we think makes for a useable and attractive interface.

Putting the wheel in the middle of the screen is certainly one such self-imposed limit.

[upsettingshorts]

@Sylvius:

Your proposal - provided we stick with existing conventions, for simplicity's sake 3 tones and 3 lines - would triple the amount of zots and voiceacting required.
 
(edited out due to reply)

Provided the zots aren't dramatically increased, this could only be accomplished my reducing the number of conversations by a significant amount.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 avril 2012 - 11:53 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

My proposal didn't uncouple the tone from the line, just the intent. They'd still just voice each line once, but how the PC used that voiced line would differ based on the second layer of player input.

[wsowen02]

Mr. Gaider,
I don't post much but since you are obviously watching this thread I wanted to take the opportunity to say that I really enjoy your work (Silent Grove is great so far) but also to throw my support behind the purpose of this thread.  The amount of auto-dialogue in Mass Effect 3 was incredibly disappointing.  In the first 2 games, Shepard was a very malleable character that allowed me to respond to each situation as I wanted.  In ME3, I was given, at most, 2 or 3 opportunities per cutscene to pick either a Paragon or Renegade response.  And even while playing Renegade, Shep spends half the game moping and wearing his/her heart on his/her sleeve.  Very disappointing.  I don't know if it was because they decided to make Shepard into an actual character (at the end of the series for some reason) or if someone over there is truly delusional enough to believe that if they just tweak the game a little bit here and there all of those Call of Duty players will totally buy this game.  Whatever the reason, it didn't work there and it won't work here.
Also, I'd love to see Morrigan and Leliana again and in significant roles.  Loves those two! 

Again, let me reiterate how much I've enjoyed the Dragon Age games and your work and I am very excited to see where you take the series next.

Modifié par wsowen02, 04 avril 2012 - 11:58 .

[upsettingshorts]

I'm not sure how that would actually accomplish anything, then. Tone and line, taken together, convey intent.

[bEVEsthda]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

@Sylvius:

Your proposal - provided we stick with existing conventions, for simplicity's sake 3 tones and 3 lines - would triple the amount of zots and voiceacting required.
[b]

EDIT: likewise deleted

Provided the zots aren't dramatically increased, this could only be accomplished my reducing the number of conversations by a significant amount.

That's the problem with asking for too much. It won't work.
But as I was pondering this, I had another idea: Replace most (really most) of these choices by silence. I don't mean 'silent protagonist'. I mean the protagonist keeping the mouth shut.

Maybe too much challenge (or at least uncomfortably difficult) for the writers?

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 04 avril 2012 - 11:59 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm not sure how that would actually accomplish anything, then. Tone and line, taken together, convey intent.

But each person does that differently, depending on his personality and how he views his audience.

I'm suggesting that the player could have his character be diplomatic, or dismissive, or direct using any one of the voiced lines, and the NPC would react to the intent rather than the line itself.

That would give you reactivity in all three of the categories I described, while allowing the player to choose how his character attempted any particular conversational feat.

If your PC would us sarcasm to persuade, then you can do that.  If your PC would use diplomacy to persuade, then you can do that too.

This would undo the severe restriction first imposed upon us by the addition of the voiced protagonist without eliminating any details of gameplay currently enjoyed by fans of the voiced protagonist.

[Darth Krytie]

I am not sure how to find a middle ground, but I do know I don't want a character who seems to be suffering from 'flat affect' and I would like some sort of emotion in line-delivery...something to indicate there's a difference between needing to avenge someone's death and the cat puked on the floor again. And I don't want that difference to be inside my brain. If I wanted to roleplay solely using my brain, I'd go into my mind palace and do it that way.

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.  

These expectations predate Mass Effect. They're from NWN, KotOR, and Jade Empire.

And they're BioWare's fault.

I played Jade Empire fully willing to embrace a different morality. They told my Open Palm was about social order and Closed Fist was about individualism. Why was supporting slavery a Closed Fist choice? In the Jade Empire, slavery is endorsed by the Empire itself. There's supposed to be a clear hierarchy with the Emperor at top and slaves at the bottom.

But it the top blue option, so the writer decided it needed to be 'good'.

Mass Effect didn't help. I've yet to see a non-moral definition of Paragon and Renegade that matches what the options actually do. A Renegade will do 'anything' to get the job done. The Alliance orders you to placate a pirate so the Alliance can mine a planet he's set up base on. The Renegade option is to shoot him.

Yeah, that's not getting the job done.

Paragons do things 'by the book.' Bring Down the Sky has a choice where you save civilians or kill a terrorist. You're told that the Alliance doesn't negotiate or compromise with terrorist, but the Paragon option is to negotiate and compromise.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 05 avril 2012 - 12:05 .

[lx_theo]

Dear Bioware,

I entitle this post... How autodialogue instances should work...

The ultimate failing of the autodialogue system is in fact that it forces your dominant tone from the rest of the game to be how you react in a situation. For the character personality you choose to roleplay, this isn't always the option that works with it.

The solution I see is this: Keep track of tone in different situations, rather than in general. Is the PC being threatened? Maybe this situation makes them prompt more aggressive answers than their normal sarcastic self. This should be tracked. Are they talking to a friend instead of just anyone and therefore much more nice in their tone than their normal aggressive self? Stuff like those should be kept track of and used accordingly.

This seems like the logical evolution of what I believe is one of the best dialogue systems I've seen in gaming.

Sincerely,
LX_Theo

[Sylvianus]

The dominant tone doesn't bother me as long it doesn't affect what I can decide.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Fully voiced game > Fully text game >>>>>>> Silent protagonist

IFF you could produce a fully voiced game that included the same level of player control that a fully text game offers, or a silent protagonist offers, then I would agree with you.

But they will not do that. Because it's, plain and simple, too damn expensive. Every separate interpretation of the PC is a whole new script, is a whole new set of dialog. There were only 2 Shepards + player imagination. There were only 2, maybe 3 Hawkes + player imagination. This is not rhetoric, this is the way the games were produced.

The more you hammer down a complete and detailed voiced protagonist, the less the player is able to control the PC. Has nothing to do with preference or immersion. It's because doing otherwise just costs too darn much.

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

Not being patronizing or condescending. I was dead serious. That really sucks. I can't imagine how much less fun 80% of the games I have played would be if 25-50% of the enjoyment wasn't out of my own head.

senorfuzzylips wrote...
........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?

Maybe I enjoy banging my head against the wall. Maybe I'm not pragmatic enough to just give up. Maybe I'm silly/stupid enough to hope that they might actually start taking their game back to where it came from and offer some genuine control over the character instead of offering a "cinematic experience." 



*addendum
In all seriousness, every single trend in gaming over the last 5 years has pointed to a desperate need for higher revenue streams. Every move, every change, every string of connected dots says "we need more money to stay in the black." 

Saying "we're going to voice every line of the PC" is just like saying "we're going to tie lead weights around our feet before the race starts." It's all about  money, and voice acting for the PC is one huge chunk of money spent away right at the word go. It doesn't make any sense, in so far as practicality goes. Get rid of the PC voice and a whole pile of other problems disappear right along with it.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 05 avril 2012 - 12:29 .

[upsettingshorts]

Let me put it another way, perhaps this will explain why it is patronizing:

Me: "There is no God. Praying has no value to me whatsoever."
You: "God is great, your life must be so awful without prayer."

Edit for clarity:  What you claim has value does not exist for me.  Therefore stating, as a matter of fact no less, that I am missing out on something I don't acknowledge exists is patronizing because it dismisses the idea that my experience (in this case, "Fun") is equal to yours, and is therefore deficient.  

Disclaimer: The above is not meant to be serious commentary on religion.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 avril 2012 - 12:31 .

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Let me put it another way, perhaps this will explain why it is patronizing:

Me: "There is no God. Praying has no value to me whatsoever."
You: "God is great, your life must be so awful without prayer."

Disclaimer: The above is not meant to be serious commentary on religion.

If it bothered you, I'm sorry. I meant what I said, but didn't intend to use it as an insult.

[Maria Caliban]

Jesus saves. All others take full damage.

[bEVEsthda]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Let me put it another way, perhaps this will explain why it is patronizing:

Me: "There is no God. Praying has no value to me whatsoever."
You: "God is great, your life must be so awful without prayer."

Disclaimer: The above is not meant to be serious commentary on religion.

Excuse me, but just out of curiosity: Why are you posting in this thread?

[Deviija]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Jesus saves. All others take full damage.

Rocks fall, everyone (else) dies.  

Modifié par Deviija, 05 avril 2012 - 12:35 .

[upsettingshorts]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Let me put it another way, perhaps this will explain why it is patronizing:

Me: "There is no God. Praying has no value to me whatsoever."
You: "God is great, your life must be so awful without prayer."

Disclaimer: The above is not meant to be serious commentary on religion.

Excuse me, but just out of curiosity: Why are you posting in this thread?

Excuse me, but just out of curiosity:  Who appointed you amateur volunteer moderator?

I have replied on topic.  Only Maria has responded and since I largely agree with her there's little to follow up on at this time.  I am responding to people who I am engaged in a discussion with.  Report me if you believe I am spamming the thread, otherwise I would ask you kindly leave the moderating to the moderators.

[bEVEsthda]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Let me put it another way, perhaps this will explain why it is patronizing:

Me: "There is no God. Praying has no value to me whatsoever."
You: "God is great, your life must be so awful without prayer."

Disclaimer: The above is not meant to be serious commentary on religion.

Excuse me, but just out of curiosity: Why are you posting in this thread?

Excuse me, but just out of curiosity:  Who appointed you amateur volunteer moderator?

I have replied on topic.  Only Maria has responded and since I largely agree with her there's little to follow up on at this time.  I am responding to people who I am engaged in a discussion with.  Report me if you believe I am spamming the thread, otherwise I would ask you kindly leave the moderating to the moderators.

Oh I don't think you're spamming. I never thought you were spamming.

[lx_theo]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Let me put it another way, perhaps this will explain why it is patronizing:

Me: "There is no God. Praying has no value to me whatsoever."
You: "God is great, your life must be so awful without prayer."

Disclaimer: The above is not meant to be serious commentary on religion.

Excuse me, but just out of curiosity: Why are you posting in this thread?

Excuse me, but just out of curiosity:  Who appointed you amateur volunteer moderator?

I have replied on topic.  Only Maria has responded and since I largely agree with her there's little to follow up on at this time.  I am responding to people who I am engaged in a discussion with.  Report me if you believe I am spamming the thread, otherwise I would ask you kindly leave the moderating to the moderators.

Oh I don't think you're spamming. I never thought you were spamming.

I have a question for you, why did you even ask that question? It sounds as though you believe that only people who see a problem in the system are people who should comment and make suggestions in the discussion. If that impression is wrong, feel free to clarify as to why it was asked.

[upsettingshorts]

I have another question: Can we define auto-dialog?

Is it the responses during ambient conversations? Such as when the camera does not move from the usual over-head view. These I would argue are simply an improvement upon the crappy fetch quest auto-dialogs in DA2 where you could be returning a a relative's remains to someone and Hawke might say, "Here's your lost garbage."  Fetch quests are cheap filler content, if that cheap filler content can be made less completely absurd (see Hawke) and more basic but with auto-dialogs (see Shepard in ME3) that's acceptable to me.  They are not a core component of the game and are there to pad XP and wealth and such.  The interactions are with anonymous, forgettable NPCs who exist to give us bonus loots, not pursue characterization.  That's a tradeoff, I understand, and not everyone is interested in making it.  I'm okay with it though.

Is it the typical BioWare conversations where there are fewer instances to input player choice within a conversation? Such as:

Choice 1:
Talk talk
Choice 2
Talk talk

vs.

Choice 1
Talk talk
Talk talk

While limiting choice allows conversations to "flow" better, I do indeed see the problem with these kinds of choice limitations because it's not even a question of presentation (full text vs. paraphrase, for example) it's simply a reduction in number of options which seems worse for all parties, except people who would have chosen (in ME3 at least) Action mode as opposed to RPG mode.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 avril 2012 - 12:52 .

[Maria Caliban]

I sometimes feel as though some posters in this forum would call a meal bad if a few of the peas touched the mashed potatoes.

[TEWR]

I would define auto-dialog as any instance where the protagonist speaks without my input, at any time in any form.

In banter, where he's responding to a topic. I may enjoy what's said, but not how it's said without my input.

But I doubt there's any easy way to fix that, so I can probably let it slide. Perhaps even ignore what the PC says and substitute it for something else if I didn't like it.

But then I might also define it -- or maybe I already said I viewed it as such earlier. My memory's pretty bad sometimes -- when I pick an option and auto-dialog ensues to display a back and forth with an NPC. I pick an option, Hawke says something, the NPC says something, Hawke says something in response to the NPC without my input.

For a time, I viewed that as merely a continuation of the dialogue and not a case of auto-dialog. And perhaps if I played DAII again and had it fresh in my mind, I'd more then likely recant my belief that it is auto-dialog and go back to seeing it as a continuation, if I did state earlier in this thread that it's auto-dialog to me.

The party banter without my input I definitely see as auto-dialog. The NPC back-and-forth I don't recall if I said I viewed it as such, so I'd rather not say I do or don't view it as such right now.

I think my main problem stems more from the dominant personality/tone that makes the auto-dialog sometimes not work for me, because of how earlier in the thread I claimed that it didn't feel... natural at times.

Perhaps I should abstain from the auto-dialog discussion, merely because I don't have a fresh memory of DAII to work from.

Yea, I think I'll bow out for now.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 avril 2012 - 01:03 .

[the_one_54321]

I never asked for mashed potatoes in the first place. Two years ago, I was sitting here happily enjoying my peas.