Options like [Placate], [Demand], [Change Subject], [Flirt], or [Inquire] are even better than paraphrases for me.
I'm inclined to agree.
In DA2 I would often choose a line in an attempt to do something in particular, only to have Hawke pursue a completely different goal.
Telling us what the PC is going to try to do is better than hinting vaguely at how it will be done.
Ideally, I'd like to know exactly how that thing will be done, as well, but even Maria's suggestion on it's own would, I think, be an improvement on DA2.
And I agree too. Making the intent/purpose clear. And this idea is not new. It existed already in at least one game with silent protagonist and full lines, from a developer called Troika. (it's pointless to improve DA2 though, ...since it contains few meaningful choices and art direction sux)
Options like [Placate], [Demand], [Change Subject], [Flirt], or [Inquire] are even better than paraphrases for me.
I'm inclined to agree.
In DA2 I would often choose a line in an attempt to do something in particular, only to have Hawke pursue a completely different goal.
Telling us what the PC is going to try to do is better than hinting vaguely at how it will be done.
Ideally, I'd like to know exactly how that thing will be done, as well, but even Maria's suggestion on it's own would, I think, be an improvement on DA2.
And I agree too. Making the intent/purpose clear. And this idea is not new. It existed already in at least one game with silent protagonist and full lines, from a developer called Troika. (it's pointless to improve DA2 though, ...since it contains few meaningful choices and art direction sux)
Unlike DA2 , Adam does not follow a conversation path. As it says in the description , you tell people what they want to hear to get the job done.
A one word system won't work as long as you have that Paragon/Renegade, Ally/Rival simplifying things.
Correct me if I am wrong, but in deus we had also the full line. And not only Maria's suggestion, right ?
example : [Flirt] + sentence given to the player to inform him about what he is going to say.
In places.
And since Bioware does not want the full line, what folks want is only [ flirt][snarky] [ polite], etc etc, without any line to explain a bit more what our character is going to say ?
I don't see how it could be better to know what our character is going to say and how he is going to tell it. You know he will flirt but that's it, that's not satisfying. With the paraphrase, you know he is going to flirt and you have an idea how he is going to tell it.
And if Bioware wants to put two flirt options in the dialogue . Does he need to look in the dictionary all the synonyms the closest to the word [flirt] ?
And without the full line, that seems really redundant. I imagine, each conversation in the game during forty hours... [ flirt ] [ polite] [ snarky] [ agressive]
Correct me if I am wrong, but in deus we had also the full line. And not only Maria's suggestion, right ?
example : [Flirt] + sentence given to the player to inform him about what he is going to say.
In places.
And since Bioware does not want the full line, what folks want is only [ flirt][snarky] [ polite], etc etc, without any line to explain a bit more what our character is going to say ?
I don't see how it could be better to know what our character is going to say and how he is going to tell it. You know he will flirt but that's it, that's not satisfying. With the paraphrase, you know he is going to flirt and you have an idea how he is going to tell it.
And if Bioware wants to put two flirt options in the dialogue . Does he need to look in the dictionary all the synonyms the closest to the word [flirt] ?
And without the full line, that seems really redundant. I imagine, each conversation in the game during forty hours... [ flirt ] [ polite] [ snarky] [ agressive]
The point they were making is paraphrasing is sometimes really bad at showing intent. Snarky response in DA2 after you siblind get's killed is something along the lines of "Well at least Father has company now". That's not refelcted in the paraphrase and is not only not snarky, it's downright inhumane.
If you use a single word, that word relfects the intent. If the word says placate, that's what the option does. The text line is almost incidental. You would not have two flirt or other duplicate options because they would do the same thing.
Alpha Protocol did something similiar and aside from bugs and clunky combat engine that was a heck of a game.
(warning suggestive sexual content)
AP was on a timer too so you always felt pressure which went along well with what the game was going for.
Correct me if I am wrong, but in deus we had also the full line. And not only Maria's suggestion, right ?
example : [Flirt] + sentence given to the player to inform him about what he is going to say.
In places.
And since Bioware does not want the full line, what folks want is only [ flirt][snarky] [ polite], etc etc, without any line to explain a bit more what our character is going to say ?
I don't see how it could be better to know what our character is going to say and how he is going to tell it. You know he will flirt but that's it, that's not satisfying. With the paraphrase, you know he is going to flirt and you have an idea how he is going to tell it.
And if Bioware wants to put two flirt options in the dialogue . Does he need to look in the dictionary all the synonyms the closest to the word [flirt] ?
And without the full line, that seems really redundant. I imagine, each conversation in the game during forty hours... [ flirt ] [ polite] [ snarky] [ agressive]
The point they were making is paraphrasing is sometimes really bad at showing intent. Snarky response in DA2 after you siblind get's killed is something along the lines of "Well at least Father has company now". That's not refelcted in the paraphrase and is not only not snarky, it's downright inhumane.
If you use a single word, that word relfects the intent. If the word says placate, that's what the option does. The text line is almost incidental. You would not have two flirt or other duplicate options because they would do the same thing.
Alpha Protocol did something similiar and aside from bugs and clunky combat engine that was a heck of a game.
(warning suggestive sexual content)
AP was on a timer too so you always felt pressure which went along well with what the game was going for.
I understand, but DA2 is DA2. We could have the same issue with this system if it weren't really worked.
[ flirt ] => " oooh I love your shoes, Where did you buy them ? "
Not really what the player expected when he picked this option and the intent wasn't really about flirt in this example. And he wonder if it wouldn't have been better for his character with another option. It could be the same.
Now, in Mass effect for example, I had several ways to seduce Ashley. Paraphrase : one showing that the character is going to say something naive close to" I want you with me in my life " another , another about love but using jokes this time. How the one word system could do the same ? I feel It would be like DA2, just one option like with the heart icon. What already bothered me.
And your video showed me that yes, it seems worse. [Angry.] I have no idea what he could say and if it suits me while with the paraphrase I have something more elaborated.
The intent without any line isn't satisfying to me, but to each its opinion.
Sylvianus wrote... [ flirt ] => " oooh I love your shoes, Where did you buy them ? "
Not really what the player expected when he picked this option and the intent wasn't really about flirt in this example. And he wonder if it wouldn't have been better for his character with another option. It could be the same.
Now, in Mass effect for example, I had several ways to seduce Ashley. Paraphrase : one showing that the character is going to say something naive close to" I want you with me in my life " another , another about love but using jokes this time. How the one word system could do the same ? I feel It would be like DA2, just one option like with the heart icon. What already bothered me.
And your video showed me that yes, it seems worse. [Angry.] I have no idea what he could say and if it suits me while with the paraphrase I have something more elaborated.
The intent without any line isn't satisfying to me, but to each its opinion.
Maybe, We could have both paraphrase and intent ?
That's kind of the point of having a single word. You don't have any expectations beyond what the word gives. You want the character to flirt, the nature of flirting is entirely in the hands of the character.
What makes a paraphrased line satisfying? It rarely has anything to do with the final line that is delivered.
You might be able to do that, but try constructing a sentence that contains the intent word.It really does not work in most cases. Angry means an angry response. In paraphrase it's quite easy to think you are selecting something and ending up with something else.
And I agree too. Making the intent/purpose clear. And this idea is not new. It existed already in at least one game with silent protagonist and full lines, from a developer called Troika.
With a silent protagonist and ful lines, I think showing the intent is counter-productive.
But with a voiced protagonist and paraphrase, where perfect knowledge of the line we're choosing is denied us, I'd like instead perfect knowledge of what the PC is trying to achieve.
Giving us both at the same time, though, unnecessarily restricts the PC.
What makes a paraphrased line satisfying? It rarely has anything to do with the final line that is delivered.
That is only your opinion, not a fact. I was satisfied. I do not have often an issue with the paraphrase. What I understood with the paraphrase, was often delivered in the final line. I'm not saying you can't read, my opinion and my experience is simply different from yours. Also I don't forget who are those who are complaining, and where I am in this topic. So when people tend to generalize about the wheel or paraphrase or voiced protagonist bad and all, allow me to be cautious and detached.
And I agree too. Making the intent/purpose clear. And this idea is not new. It existed already in at least one game with silent protagonist and full lines, from a developer called Troika.
With a silent protagonist and ful lines, I think showing the intent is counter-productive.
But with a voiced protagonist and paraphrase, where perfect knowledge of the line we're choosing is denied us, I'd like instead perfect knowledge of what the PC is trying to achieve.
Giving us both at the same time, though, unnecessarily restricts the PC.
Lol, you've played too much DA2. I know, it's easy to slip into the assumption that the dialog is just dialog. But Bloodlines didn't work that way. Your dialog choice actually had a big impact on the game. So, knowing what you where trying to do, was not counterproductive at all.
When I read the full text in DA:O, I was able to see all the options to choose from. Seeing my choices and decision I had to make is what wracked me inside. What would Alistair/Morrigan respond with if I said that? I had to debate my decision and wonder how they would react to it. So I focused more on their reaction as opposed to... my character's.
I felt in DA3 I was worried more on what I would say than what the companions would reply with.
I understand the logistical reasons concerning full text and the UI but I feel you should fight for it because it adds more than it would take away. Thank you for reading through this. I look forward to DA3
Modifié par Jalapeño Saffy, 06 avril 2012 - 01:16 .
the_one_54321 wrote... Including a female PC automatically doubles the cost of the voice acting.
Who says the game needs to have a voiced protagonist?
Not me!
This is why I keep saying that voicing the PC is the source of all the problems!
Just a wonder, but is there any real positive to having a voiced PC in a "hardcore" RPG like DA(was supposed to be), NWN, BG, etc? It just seems to create problems without providing any real benefit. Is it that hard to use imagination to fill in the blanks instead of having everything your charcater does explained to you? When they had silent protagonists before were RPGs terrible?
Corto81 wrote... I think the issue many people seem to have ( and me personally) is that Hawke ends up a mish-mash, a character that's suppose to feel mine, but always ended up feeling Bioware's.
Witcher, PS:T, Vampire, and a Hawke-molded Shepard (or vice-versa) always felt mine, despite being (half)set characters.
Is it possible that the difference was that you expected it to work as Origins did, and thus the feeling you got was due to the disparity in the execution styles, versus the lack of similar expectations you had with those other titles? Or do you think it's down to the actual execution? I imagine the answer would be debateable, depending on who's answering, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
I agree with Corto81. As for why... Yes it worked differently to Origins, but I knew I'd be playing a pre-made character from the get go (much to my chargin), so I'd say mostly execution. The game was fun until the faster combat got old, the waves got boring, the maps were recycled, most of the items were useless and most relevant to this topic, my character would say very different things to what I expected and then often without any input from me. Maybe the flaws compouned to make them all seem bigger thus the disconnect from my character seems worse.
David Gaider wrote...
I like the dominant tone as well, though it's interesting reading some of the comments about how it could be improved. I get that some people just don't want it at all-- or anything even similar-- and while I respect their opinion, removing the system entirely just isn't going to happen.
That is... unfortunate. There goes my main suggestion on how to improve the frustration that was conversation in DA2. It's been said before, I'll say it again. Between the dominant tone, auto-dialogue and the choices on wheel being almost, but not quite, entirely the opposite of what you thought you were going to say, I found myself worring more about what my character was going to actually say (despite my "choices") than I did what they NPC response would be. That's not a fun way to play an RPG. If I as a human being can be diplomatic in one situation and a sarcastic bastard in another, why can't my character whose actions I'm supposedly deciding do the same?
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.
Ok, full written dialogue on mouse over for the wheel is out, and I get your reasons. Could we get as a compromise a more detailed intent of what the selection's meant to do on mouse over? Doesn't have to be much and probably only an extra line or three at most. Especially if it shows what the dreaded dominant tone will turn it into.
brushyourteeth wrote... Since you're interested in our opinions Mr. Gaider, I'd like to point out the "charming" option as a real issue. Usually, I didn't find it charming at all, but rude and egotistical, or completely inappropriate for the moment (as in a certain tragic event during the prologue, for example).
I agree, though it's a toss-up whether the problem is with the name of the tone (and thus the expectation from that) or the consistency of the tone itself. A little of column A and a little of column B, I suspect.
I also loved the idea of the friendship/rivalry system, although I found it limiting in that I couldn't always express affection or dislike for a companion when I wanted to.
I commented earlier on the issue with the current system, and I'd say your issue is an outgrowth of this. I know some people seem to favor the idea of adding more vectors to the relationship, trying to chart it along several different paths, but I'd resist making the system more complex. Complexity, particularly in something which is abstracted out of necessity (as a relationship must be), isn't better... just as simplicity doesn't mean the relationship its abstracted must be simple. So long as it's something that can be easily understood by both the writers and the users, and is consistent in its implementation, I'd be happy.
Complexity isn't always better, but sometimes a little bit goes a long way. The friendship/rivalry system in DA2 was rather confusing, with regards to sometimes having to be mean to your companions just to gain rivalry points - while what the system is aiming for is more like fundamental disagreement.
Having 2 axes (and no more, because complexity would increase exponentially) would be a major improvement to the system: 1 axis for like/dislike and 1 for agree/disagree With that system you have 4 quadrants: like/agree: friend like/disagree: rival dislike/disagree: enemy dislike/agree: cold ally
You could get a lot of potential from that...:innocent:
the_one_54321 wrote... Including a female PC automatically doubles the cost of the voice acting.
Who says the game needs to have a voiced protagonist?
Not me!
This is why I keep saying that voicing the PC is the source of all the problems!
Just a wonder, but is there any real positive to having a voiced PC in a "hardcore" RPG like DA(was supposed to be), NWN, BG, etc? It just seems to create problems without providing any real benefit. Is it that hard to use imagination to fill in the blanks instead of having everything your charcater does explained to you? When they had silent protagonists before were RPGs terrible?
I do not understand the push for voiced PC. Is this to keep up with some kind of trend? The money/resources they would be able to be used elsewhere would benefit from a silent PC. RPGs were incredible without voiced PCs, and without ANY voices at all. I play older games all the time. Voiced PC just breaks my immersion in a RPG.
Well, there certainly isn't any excuse to (try and) say that 'a silent protagonist isn't profitable in this market,' considering the successes of various silent protagonist titles over the past several years. DA:O, too, is one of those titles. New Vegas sold high units. Skyrim sold high units. Not only did these games move a number of units, they also received acclaim and a host of positive reviews as well. People are quite willing to spend money on games with silent protagonists and enjoy them.
Well, there certainly isn't any excuse to (try and) say that 'a silent protagonist isn't profitable in this market,' considering the successes of various silent protagonist titles over the past several years. DA:O, too, is one of those titles. New Vegas sold high units. Skyrim sold high units. Not only did these games move a number of units, they also received acclaim and a host of positive reviews as well. People are quite willing to spend money on games with silent protagonists and enjoy them.
I would really like a dev to answer why a voiced PC is so important to them. Maybe someone will ask at PAX (wish I was going I'd totally ask!)
Well, there certainly isn't any excuse to (try and) say that 'a silent protagonist isn't profitable in this market,' considering the successes of various silent protagonist titles over the past several years. DA:O, too, is one of those titles. New Vegas sold high units. Skyrim sold high units. Not only did these games move a number of units, they also received acclaim and a host of positive reviews as well. People are quite willing to spend money on games with silent protagonists and enjoy them.
Why don't we just compromise and give an option to turn off PC voice actors. I personally love voice acting when it includes the likes of Jennifer Hale, I know in DA2 one of the few good things was that I could wear hood, but have the option not to see it. So with an option button, VA lovers get what they want and VA haters get what they want simple. Done. Next problem.
Well, there certainly isn't any excuse to (try and) say that 'a silent protagonist isn't profitable in this market,' considering the successes of various silent protagonist titles over the past several years. DA:O, too, is one of those titles. New Vegas sold high units. Skyrim sold high units. Not only did these games move a number of units, they also received acclaim and a host of positive reviews as well. People are quite willing to spend money on games with silent protagonists and enjoy them.
You know what is wrong with your comment? It is that it has to be made in the first place.
Why don't we just compromise and give an option to turn off PC voice actors.
This is something that I (and others) have asked for.
Sorry if I'm repeating it lol I just jumped right in to the convo, but I think this is the best course of actions. I think more of the post on the site should be compromise rather than "let’s take out VA completely for everyone.". The games should fit to all playing styles that is the point of choice lol!
...since it contains few meaningful choices and art direction sux)
Retour en haut
but to each its opinion. 
