833 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth Krytie]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

They'd also take the plate, brain the chef with it, and then report the restaurant to the Health Department.

[Iosev]

I've never really had a problem with the auto-dialogue. On many occasions it serves to reduce the amount of pauses or breaks within a conversation, in turn creating more realistic conversations (e.g., the inclusion of brief retorts, continuing a line of thought, bridging one line of dialogue to another, etc.).

Another major type of auto-dialogue was used to express the dominant personality type of your character, and after replaying the game at least once with each dominant personality, I have to say that I enjoyed the differing auto-dialogue. For example, going from playing a sarcastic Hawke in one playthrough to playing an aggressive Hawke in another felt like playing drastically different characters.

The final, major type of auto-dialogue that I can think of occurs outside of dialogue cutscenes, such as during party banter, completing fetch quests, and so on. On those occasions, I imagine that it's either auto-dialogue or none, and well, I prefer something over nothing.

Modifié par arcelonious, 05 avril 2012 - 01:32 .

[TheComfyCat]

It definitely seems like there are degrees of auto-dialogue. There's the less obtrusive types, such as the ME3 fetch quest, or when Hawke is involved in party banter. Then there's the more annoying (to me, anyway) ME3 cut scene type where you start with a dialogue wheel, but only rarely get the opportunity to provide input on what you want Shepard to say. Of course, ME3's companion dialogue system has other problems not really encountered in the DA games, such as being forced to be friends with everyone.

The style of auto-dialogue Shepard had with people on the Normandy (I'm talking about the ones without a dialogue wheel), if included in a DA game, would be much more troublesome due to the more nuanced relationships you can have with companions in DA games, even if you have the protagonist respond in their dominant tone rather than with a stock response.

Aside from the fetch quest auto-dialogue, there's nothing ME3 did with companion dialogue that I'd like to see in a DA game. I don't need a dialogue wheel for each and every single sentence, but would certainly like to see it more than once or twice during a long sequence of back and forth dialogue.

Modifié par senorfuzzylips, 05 avril 2012 - 02:06 .

[Sylvianus]

David Gaider said and repeated that if there's auto-dialogue, it would be more like DA2 than anything else, and not at all like M3. Did the level of auto-dialogue in DA2 bother you ? The dominant tone ? Did you like it , do we need to change some things ? Should auto-dialogue be the same level as in DA2 ? Do we need to remove that ? Can you accept that Hawk can talk or react with his companions without you ? ( Party banters )

[Maria Caliban]

BioWare* wants to use auto-dialogue to improve the rhythm and pace of certain conversations. This is especially true for dramatic! moments! when they want to affect a specific feel or when they want to get a larger chunk of exposition/context out of the way.

I can’t help with the dramatic moments, but I wonder if they might follow the Witcher 2 with the exposition? In it, there are regular conversations where you ask questions and get answers, but there are also times when you’re given a specific task and the person you’re with talks at you as you do it.

The camp tours, for example, at the beginning of Chapter 2. You’re told to follow an NPC and said NPC will converse with you as you do so. Geralt will occasionally give an ‘uhm’ or a short comment. The thing is that the player still feels in control as this isn’t a passive cutscene. Occasionally, the walk will be interrupted with a monster popping up that you need to kill or a simple activity like ‘raise the gate’ that involves mashing the space bar a dozen times.

The PC is still saying something without player input but it’s not as… noticeable. It still feels like you’re playing a game, not watching a movie. That people complain specifically about ME 3's auto-dialog, and not instances where Hawke interjected in party banter ("Isabela!" or this) I think that's an important distinction.

*This is what I’m guessing.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 05 avril 2012 - 02:28 .

[Sylvianus]

When people are complaining about M3, and not DA2 about auto-dialogue, yes that means for me that DA2 is a good example of what we need as level of auto dialogue. Useful and not too much at the same time.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 05 avril 2012 - 02:38 .

[TheComfyCat]

Sylvianus wrote...

David Gaider said and repeated that if there's auto-dialogue, it would be more like DA2 than anything else, and not at all like M3. Did the level of auto-dialogue in DA2 bother you ? The dominant tone ? Did you like it , do we need to change some things ? Should auto-dialogue be the same level as in DA2 ? Do we need to remove that ? Can you accept that Hawk can talk or react with his companions without you ? ( Party banters )

Yes, I understand. I was responding to a post on the previous page by Upsettingshorts asking for a definition of auto-dialogue... you have to agree on a definition of something if you want to have meaningful conversation about it, after all. But I agree that DA2 is a better baseline.

Basically, I think the more subtle auto-dialogue that occurs in a back and forth conversation that was initiated by the dialogue wheel can be improved by improving the tone descriptions. As I said a couple pages back, this means including emotional indicators, or at least further indications of intention, like: charming (serious/ suave), sarcastic (good humor/ snide), etc. This way you're not as surprised by what the protagonist says.

I don't mind Hawke joining banter, because it's generally pretty limited and amusing. I also don't mind the dominant tone, because it helps with the flow of conversations, and potentially allows for dialogue during cutscenes that's not just stock dialogue. Limited and strategic use of auto-dialogue is a good idea, but the danger of overdoing it is always present, since it's quite clear that player agency (or at least the pretense of agency) is something DA fans greatly desire.

[wsandista]

Maria Caliban wrote...

BioWare* wants to use auto-dialogue to improve the rhythm and pace of certain conversations. This is especially true for dramatic! moments! when they want to affect a specific feel or when they want to get a larger chunk of exposition/context out of the way.

I can’t help with the dramatic moments, but I wonder if they might follow the Witcher 2 with the exposition? In it, there are regular conversations where you ask questions and get answers, but there are also times when you’re given a specific task and the person you’re with talks at you as you do it.

The camp tours, for example, at the beginning of Chapter 2. You’re told to follow an NPC and said NPC will converse with you as you do so. Geralt will occasionally give an ‘uhm’ or a short comment. The thing is that the player still feels in control as this isn’t a passive cutscene. Occasionally, the walk will be interrupted with a monster popping up that you need to kill or a simple activity like ‘raise the gate’ that involves mashing the space bar a dozen times.

The PC is still saying something without player input but it’s not as… noticeable. It still feels like you’re playing a game, not watching a movie. That people complain specifically about ME 3's auto-dialog, and not instances where Hawke interjected in party banter ("Isabela!" or this) I think that's an important distinction.

*This is what I’m guessing.

I could deal with banter auto-dialouge, but it still isn't optimal for my taste. There are a few instances of auto-dialouge in DA2 that are quite annoying, but nowhere near the 5 minute blocks in ME3. I think the DA team needs to decide if they want a cinematic game that flows seemlessly or a more immersive game where dialouge seems awkward to some, since by trying to compromise they will probably just disappoint everyone.

[Brockololly]

Maria Caliban wrote...
The PC is still saying something without player input but it’s not as… noticeable. It still feels like you’re playing a game, not watching a movie. That people complain specifically about ME 3's auto-dialog, and not instances where Hawke interjected in party banter ("Isabela!" or this) I think that's an important distinction.

I'd agree with that as far as replacing completely non interactive cinematic cutscenes with moments of dialogue where the player is still in control of their PC and you have a minimal amount of dialogue from the PC.

I don't really care much for the banters though where Hawke would chime in. I'd like to have the PC join in on the banter, but too often when banter in general triggers, I'm focused on something else in terms of gameplay, not dialogue. That leads to missing a bunch of the banter, or having banter get cut off as you explore. The problem with Hawke or the PC joining in the banter is that as DA2 did it, its completely detached from any kind of player initiation so I'd often end up having a moment where I'm thinking "Who is talking?" when Hawke would join in on the banter, because its entirely unprompted and my focus is elsewhere.

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

It totally ruined the meal's feng shui.

ruined.

of all the worst things that could happen, this is THE. WORST. POSSIBLE. THING.

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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

Subtle sarcasm, or deadpan humour or bluff are a few easy to imagine cases where the "line + tone" can be decoupled from actual intent. That in addition to the use Sylvius has outlined... i suppose these two would conflict, though.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 avril 2012 - 03:32 .

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

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

That limit exists only because they put the wheel in the middle of the screen (rather than at the edge, which would allow for longer lines), because the paraphrases are somehow allergic to word wrapping, and because the console manufacturers insist on accommodating 640*480 displays.

If i'm not mistaken the line length limit in DA2 is actually equal to what it was in DAO. Having dialogue wheel in the middle of screen doesn't affect anything in that regard.

Incidentally it also makes the argument that "we have line length limit and that allows us only do so much" rather hollow -- as DAO with the same line length limit did manage to present dialogue choices verbatim.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 avril 2012 - 03:42 .

[TheComfyCat]

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.

[Morgora]

Would it be possible to use the dialog wheel of DA2, have increased choices of dialog like in DA:O, add a better description type, and a little extra text? Basically, I'd like to see four or five relevant choices to whatever the discussion is about. (I'm no writer so please excuse the bad writing.)

Example:

NPC says: You must make a choice!

Player says:

[Diplomatic]: I'm sure we can reach an agreement.
[Snarky]: What part of no don't you understand?
[Aggressive]: It's my way or the high way!
[Seductive]: I'm sure we can come up with a mutually beneficial arrangement.
[Joking]: Agreement? What agreement?
[Love]: What kind of agreement?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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

I would define it as any spoken lines from the PC that were not initiated by the player.  In DA2, I think the only instances of auto-dialogue were the fetch quest responses and the ambient conversations in Legacy (I don't know if those reappear in MotA).

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."

In many respects, I think the ambient conversations are an improvement on the cinematic conversations.  I wish all of the conversations were ambient conversations.  Leaving the camera alone is something I asked how to do prior to DAO's release (I expected a far less invasive dialogue system).

But , but the auto-dialogue part is not one of those respects.  Those ambient conversations feature auto-dialogue, and auto-dialogue is bad.

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.

Fetch quests would be even better if they featured ordinary conversations at the end, thus allowing the player some measure of control over what his PC does with the quest item.

DA2's fetch-quests were arguably even worse than auto-dialogue, as they were auto-quest completion.  You couldn't ask questions abotu the item, or haggle over price, or do any of the things that typically happen when completing a quest.  The quest just got completed.

Now I know that you don't particularly value control, but surely having the quests auto-complete doesn't actually provide you with greater value than being able to have a proper conversation.

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.

I would not call those back and forth exchanges auto-dialogue, though they are relevantly similar to auto-dialogue wherever the subsequent PC responses are not predictable based on the paraphrase selected.

If BioWare can find some way to make the paraphrases more informative, and if they can offer the player some cotrol over the ambient conversations, I'd say the auto-dialogue problems as they exist in DA2 would disappear completely.

[mesmerizedish]

I've been playing Neverwinter Nights 2 lately, and have realized that I really, really miss the dialogue box that doesn't actually shift into a separate game mode for conversations.

I think the cinematic cutscene style of conversation has its place, but going back and experiencing the alternative, I think it's used *far* too much in Origins and in DAII.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If BioWare can find some way to make the paraphrases more informative, and if they can offer the player some cotrol over the ambient conversations, I'd say the auto-dialogue problems as they exist in DA2 would disappear completely.

Do you mean to say you don't object to the very premise of paraphrase, but only to the fact that, as it has been implemented by BioWare so far, you have found that the paraphrase did not provide you with the information required to make an informed decision regarding your character's dialogue? If so, I agree.

But, you have used in the past the example of a character who never ends a sentence with a preposition. I don't think any paraphrase system can account for such a character quirk. I also think that the benefits of lowering the standard to something more acceptable (e.g. appeasing the people who are psychologically incapable of enjoying full-text prior to hearing spoken VO) outweigh the drawback of not letting you roleplay a character who never ends his sentences with a preposition.

Ending more agreeably, though: while the problem has not been as wide-spread to my experience as it has to yours, there is a significant problem with the paraphrases simply not giving me enough information.

[nightscrawl]

bEVEsthda wrote...

David. mildly OT. Just mentioning:

It's possible to modulate/distort a voice (like for instance in a recorded, voice acted dialog), to a completely different voice. There are a number of software that can do this.

I don't know how zots- feasible it is. I assume there might be patent issues if you make the software yourself, or licence fees if you purchase a solution. But I believe there actually is one game that has a feature like this. EVE online. But while I have played that game, I never tried that feature, so I can't say much about it.

It's something for customization. Worth it or not, I don't know. For me personally, honestly probably not. Depends on how disturbing the actor's voice is (and how worthwhile the game is otherwise), I suppose.

You can also just use an actor who can do multiple voices, accents, and speech patterns. They're out there, you can hear a few of them throughout both DA games.

The problem with doing post production work on a voice like that is if the actor delivers all of the lines in the same way from character to character, it will sound fake. The reason it will sound fake is because of speech patterns (and in the case of DA games, various accents) that can't be taken away by post production voice modulation, without extensive editing of the content, which might be more work than it's worth. A striking example, to me, is the actor who plays Justice. He also played Martin (Isabela's contact) in DA2, and I heard it right away because their accent and speech pattern is the same, even though he changes his tone for each character.

When I hear a voice that sounds familiar, it strikes something in my brain, a piece of dialogue or even just a single word, and I play it over and over in my head until I make the right connection. This happens with movie/tv and commercial narration as well as video games. With live action, I tend to look at peoples' mouths when they talk, so that also adds to my mental replay. That's not to say that everyone will hear these similarities as I do, but it can be a factor.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Can you put the wheel at the edge of the screen so that there will be more space for the options?  With the wheel in the middle of the screen, the maximum length of the options is simply too short to contain enough information.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Though DE seems to have more of a dialogue diamond.

Well the space issue is actually one benefit of using a dialogue WHEEL. There are some interrogative scenes where there are up to six different options arrayed around the wheel. If there is a fixed geometric design, or if it's not in the center, that is more difficult.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would argue that the full text (with action descriptions) is always required in order to understand what your character is going to do.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

One could possibly argue that the one-word option is slightly better in some ways then a paraphrase, because it gives you the state of mind your character is going to use. Bribery is quite literally bribery. Placating a person means you want to placate them and try and calm the situation down a peg.

I'm not sure about this. I see the point, but there would still be people who weren't happy that they didn't get to choose exactly what their character would say.

From that Deus Ex screenshot, one of the options on the diamond is "Bluff." One of the major bluff scenes in DA2 involves having Varric step in and make up something for you, so in a sense that's not so bad because it's another person talking. However, if you were to hit Bluff, and your character went on at length akin to The Corbomite Maneuver, you might not be pleased as you had only expected something more basic.

On the other hand, I can see how a one-word intent is better than a paraphrase because there isn't the expectation built on the paraphrase. BUT, one could argue that in DA2 the various icons are a substitution for the single word, even if it was a bit confusing since there were so many. I almost never pick the Aggressive Fist unless there is a situation where Hawke is/should be really pissed, and limit my red options to the Direct Gavel most of the time.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 05 avril 2012 - 07:30 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I've been playing Neverwinter Nights 2 lately, and have realized that I really, really miss the dialogue box that doesn't actually shift into a separate game mode for conversations.

During DAO's development, it never occurred to me that it wouldn't be using strictly ambient conversations and a visible text box like NWN.  I probably asked David dozens of questions that made no sense to him because he knew they'd be using cinematic conversations, but I didn't.

I think the cinematic cutscene style of conversation has its place

I don't.  It offers me literally nothing I want that ambient conversations didn't already grant me.

Do you mean to say you don't object to the very premise of paraphrase, but only to the fact that, as it has been implemented by BioWare so far, you have found that the paraphrase did not provide you with the information required to make an informed decision regarding your character's dialogue?

Of course.  A tool is valuable or not depending solely on what it can do.

If so, I agree.

Good.

But, you have used in the past the example of a character who never ends a sentence with a preposition. I don't think any paraphrase system can account for such a character quirk. I also think that the benefits of lowering the standard to something more acceptable (e.g. appeasing the people who are psychologically incapable of enjoying full-text prior to hearing spoken VO) outweigh the drawback of not letting you roleplay a character who never ends his sentences with a preposition.

Let's try to get a paraphrase system that isn't completely useless.  Once we're there, then we can worry about perfection.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 avril 2012 - 07:55 .

[TEWR]

I'm not sure about this. I see the point, but there would still be people who weren't happy that they didn't get to choose exactly what their character would say.

Of course. I never stated there wouldn't be people that hated choosing only an "action" icon and nothing more. Merely that some people might see it as better.

I more then likely, wouldn't. I would most likely hate it. But other people, well they might end up feeling differently.

EDIT: And I just remembered I said I was going to bow out of this thread. Oops...

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 avril 2012 - 07:55 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Darth Krytie wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

They'd also take the plate, brain the chef with it, and then report the restaurant to the Health Department.

Because the plate is the proof that the chef's brain is not working properly. People ordered mashed potatoes, instead this chef thinks it's cool to serve peas just because a group of people like peas.

[esper]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

They'd also take the plate, brain the chef with it, and then report the restaurant to the Health Department.

Because the plate is the proof that the chef's brain is not working properly. People ordered mashed potatoes, instead this chef thinks it's cool to serve peas just because a group of people like peas.

Even if the Chef's brain wasn't working proberly you would get arrested for smashinh him with the plate. Such behaviour is simply not excuseable no matter what he served you.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The PC is still saying something without player input but it’s not as… noticeable. It still feels like you’re playing a game, not watching a movie.

It's noticable enough to break my connection with my supposely character. Why? Because everytime Hawke open her mouth, she makes an idiot expression. I don't want her to be happy-go-lucky type person ignoring everything she had been through with such ridiculous expression or emotion? How can I make her look at least don't smile happily? It's really ****** me off to see a character that act as if nothing happen to her family.  I don't roleplay in that kind of behaviour.

Maria Caliban wrote...
That people complain specifically about ME 3's auto-dialog, and not instances where Hawke interjected in party banter ("Isabela!" or this) I think that's an important distinction.

*This is what I’m guessing.

I complaint about Hawke's auto-dialogue since day 1 release day.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 05 avril 2012 - 08:31 .

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
...But, I must admit, that for those who are playing as themself, It migh be more difficult for them to accept this system.

I would be very surprised if anyone was playing the character "as themselves".   ...Not impossible, perhaps.

But oneself, or a role, doesn't matter. It's the same. So the difficulties you see for us are the same.

Mission accomplised.

I'm in agreement with Dave about the DX:HR screenshots being a little missleading. Adam often goes into monlogues that makes Shepards look like soundbites. Even if you have looked at the dialogue as written. It has no negative impact on the game, but then I'm not trying to be Adam in DX:HR only take the story in the direction I choose.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

esper wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

They'd also take the plate, brain the chef with it, and then report the restaurant to the Health Department.

Because the plate is the proof that the chef's brain is not working properly. People ordered mashed potatoes, instead this chef thinks it's cool to serve peas just because a group of people like peas.

Even if the Chef's brain wasn't working proberly you would get arrested for smashinh him with the plate. Such behaviour is simply not excuseable no matter what he served you.

You are right. It's not the right thing to do. Still it's the chef's
brain that need to be fixed and not the people who ordered the mashed
potatoes.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 05 avril 2012 - 08:34 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Same reason that Fallout/New Vegas etc. does Silent Protagonist. I'm trying to think of a voiced game that uses full sentences but I'm coming up empty. Either because I can't remember having played one, or because there are none.

They exist. One example, the Monkey Island games from 3 onwards, including Tales of Monkey Island, were full sentences and voiced. Personally I almost always listened to Guybrush's VA because he's awesome, so the assumption that full sentences would render VOs superfluous or entirely skippable doesn't hold much water for me.

Not that I wouldn't skip them in an RPG though, given the chance. It's not a matter of good or bad VO there, just RP preferences.