833 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

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.

That's because it wasn't snarky.

Snarky is the mask. The Diamond -- which was the line where you hear "At least father has company now" -- is Charming.

Which didn't strike me as being inappropriate. A common thing said when a loved one dies is that they'll at least be with the other loved ones that have passed on, both friends and family.

[Rorschachinstein]

Choice to turn off PC voices. No. Victory or death. Everything or nothing.

[the_one_54321]

wsandista wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Deviija wrote...

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?

You are preaching to the quoir, man. I've been saying this in various threads for the last two weeks or more.

These games were awesome before they had more than 32bit sound. There were no voices at all. Just text. A game from over a decade ago had me in tears with nothing but blocky polygons, background art, and text.

And the real crux of the matter; voice acting is expensive.The devs here have mentioned several times the volume of work and money that went into voicing all of Shepard's and Hawke's lines. That doesn't even create more content in the game. It only creates a style of presentation. A style that brings with it a severe limitation on the volume of variable presentation.

[Reznore57]

DA2 was the first game with a voiced protagonist for me ( I discover Mass Effect because i got ME2 for free for buying DA2) and i really liked it.
I loved the snarky /charming personality .
Of course sometimes hawke cracked a line that surprised me ,and it's kinda bad when he/she says the opposite of what you wanted.But it didn't happen too often so it wasn't a problem for me.
There was also a bit of auto dialog ,the one i remember not liking was the ending speach.
My Hawke went snarky/charming , i thought the speech was a bit meh , than i saw the diplomatic , agressive on youtube , I thought the diplomatic was way better , and wish i could deliver it.
I don't know why they decided to do it that way , maybe to keep a certain flow , but taking away the ability to interract in a crucial moment is mostly not a good idea.

The other thing i would like to add is as much as i like building the personality of my avatar throught different voice acting ,what you are is also shaped by your actions and decision , and i love DA2 but that balance beetween talking and action/decision wasn't there.

[Sylvius the Mad]

bEVEsthda wrote...

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.

But look at DAO's dialogue.  There you could choose any line and intend literally anything with it.  If your intent matched that of the writers, you'd succeed.  If it didn;t, you'd get a different reaction from what you were expecting, and that created yet more roleplaying opportunities.

Tying the line to the intent means that the player cannot have his PC try to do things in a way not first imagined by the writers.

There's an exchange in DAO where the Warden is talking to Leliana, and he can speak a very cheesy pick-up line.  I gather that this line was intended to be delivered unseriously, as a joke.  Delivered that way, Leliana's response is amused, recognising the joke as funny.

But if the Warden has no social skills, and instead uses that same line as a serious attempt to flirt with Leliana, then Leliana's amused response (which is identical) becomes mocking (in the eyes of the Warden, who wasn't looking for laughs), embarrassing him and likely causing him to flee.

If the game made the PC's intent explicit, then it wouldn't be possible for the PC to use that line to achieve any end other than the one chosen by the writers.

That DAO worked as it did in this regard is one of the game's greatest strengths, I think.  I sent David fan mail about because it was so well done.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 06 avril 2012 - 06:42 .

[AkiKishi]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

That's because it wasn't snarky.

Snarky is the mask. The Diamond -- which was the line where you hear "At least father has company now" -- is Charming.

Which didn't strike me as being inappropriate. A common thing said when a loved one dies is that they'll at least be with the other loved ones that have passed on, both friends and family.

That's even worse.

[AkiKishi]

Sylvianus wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

If it was only my opinion there would not be 30 page thread on the failings of the paraphrase system. Nor would there have been a need for intent icons in DA2.

[Cyne]

Great topic. This bothered me in mass effect 3, whole chunks of time would pass without any player involvement, it was like watching a movie. I like my games to be interactive! it was not too bad though since the mini movies were excellent, but still. I want to be an active participant in everything my character does or says, and not a passive observer. It is deeply immersion-killing, and tends to make the game feel overly scripted.

[Knight Templar_]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But look at DAO's dialogue.  There you could choose any line and intend literally anything with it.  If your intent matched that of the writers, you'd succeed.  If it didn;t, you'd get a different reaction from what you were expecting, and that created yet more roleplaying opportunities.
.

When playing DA2 recently I found myself wishing that DA2 worked like this. The number of times I came across a dialog option that had the words I wanted but not the tone I wanted to use was annoying.

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

That's because it wasn't snarky.

Snarky is the mask. The Diamond -- which was the line where you hear "At least father has company now" -- is Charming.

Which didn't strike me as being inappropriate. A common thing said when a loved one dies is that they'll at least be with the other loved ones that have passed on, both friends and family.

That's even worse.

...Because it's a huge chunk of Hawke personality that we don't get to choose or control, just explore, discover, - a movie, a book, no role play (as some of us define it).

[Curlain]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

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.

But look at DAO's dialogue.  There you could choose any line and intend literally anything with it.  If your intent matched that of the writers, you'd succeed.  If it didn;t, you'd get a different reaction from what you were expecting, and that created yet more roleplaying opportunities.

Tying the line to the intent means that the player cannot have his PC try to do things in a way not first imagined by the writers.

There's an exchange in DAO where the Warden is talking to Leliana, and he can speak a very cheesy pick-up line.  I gather that this line was intended to be delivered unseriously, as a joke.  Delivered that way, Leliana's response is amused, recognising the joke as funny.

But if the Warden has no social skills, and instead uses that same line as a serious attempt to flirt with Leliana, then Leliana's amused response (which is identical) becomes mocking (in the eyes of the Warden, who wasn't looking for laughs), embarrassing him and likely causing him to flee.

If the game made the PC's intent explicit, then it wouldn't be possible for the PC to use that line to achieve any end other than the one chosen by the writers.

That DAO worked as it did in this regard is one of the game's greatest strengths, I think.  I sent David fan mail about because it was so well done.

I'm not sure but I think there has been a misinterpretation of VtM: Bloodlines dialogue in this exchange.  It doesn't give intent at all in the dialogue options except in relation to skill or stat converstation options (basically persausion, seduction and intimidation options in conversation), which brough in your character's skills that were relevent to a conversation.  In that case (much like a persaude and intimidation options in DA:O) you could attempt to use your character's skill in that area (or lack of it), and of course depending on how able you have built you character in that area, and the npc in question, you could suceed or fail.  Which has been a part of RPGs in dialogue for a long time, and I definitely support bringing a character's abilities and stats into dialogue where it's relevent.

Anyhow, I could be wrong, but I think there has been a misunderstanding in this exchange, in that VtM: Bloodlines doesn't indicate intent or writer direction directly in it's conversation options.

Modifié par Curlain, 06 avril 2012 - 11:55 .

[bEVEsthda]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

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.

But look at DAO's dialogue.  There you could choose any line and intend literally anything with it.  If your intent matched that of the writers, you'd succeed.  If it didn;t, you'd get a different reaction from what you were expecting, and that created yet more roleplaying opportunities.

Tying the line to the intent means that the player cannot have his PC try to do things in a way not first imagined by the writers.

There's an exchange in DAO where the Warden is talking to Leliana, and he can speak a very cheesy pick-up line.  I gather that this line was intended to be delivered unseriously, as a joke.  Delivered that way, Leliana's response is amused, recognising the joke as funny.

But if the Warden has no social skills, and instead uses that same line as a serious attempt to flirt with Leliana, then Leliana's amused response (which is identical) becomes mocking (in the eyes of the Warden, who wasn't looking for laughs), embarrassing him and likely causing him to flee.

If the game made the PC's intent explicit, then it wouldn't be possible for the PC to use that line to achieve any end other than the one chosen by the writers.

That DAO worked as it did in this regard is one of the game's greatest strengths, I think.  I sent David fan mail about because it was so well done.

It's a fascinating way to look upon this as an intentional feature of the game. First, I understand perfectly what you mean, and my policy is always to stand by my choices and mistakes, the first time through a RPG. So I've experienced this, and elected to understand/accept it in precisely the manner you describe.

In the case of Bloodlines, much of the explicit dialog is clearly just sort of representative for a more involved conversation that has to take place in the player's head, not to mention the message/information that is transfered not by the words alone, but by the way of saying it. Most Morrowind/Skyrim relations are an extreme example of this. And intent is not an overriding 100% switch. There's still a hit&miss in how your line will be received, which results in the same roleplay situations you describe.
 
And to some varying degree this (that dialog is just a representative for the full communication) is true for all cRPGs, including DAO. And that is in any case somewhat present in the back of my head, when I play these games.
As intent works, it indicates how the line will be delivered by your char. I understand that you see this in a manner of the protagonist being silent - removing it leaves more space for the player and roleplay - and that is somewhat true. But this is also a gameplay element, in dialogs which have to have a limited complexity, where player control is pretty important.
So I do not agree. It has value, but the gameplay component has greater value. Hands down, no contest.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 06 avril 2012 - 12:08 .

[bEVEsthda]

Curlain wrote...

I'm not sure but I think there has been a misinterpretation of VtM: Bloodlines dialogue in this exchange.  It doesn't give intent at all in the dialogue options except in relation to skill or stat converstation options (basically persausion, seduction and intimidation options in conversation), which brough in your character's skills that were relevent to a conversation.  In that case (much like a persaude and intimidation options in DA:O) you could attempt to use your character's skill in that area (or lack of it), and of course depending on how able you have built you character in that area, and the npc in question, you could suceed or fail.  Which has been a part of RPGs in dialogue for a long time, and I definitely support bringing a character's abilities and stats into dialogue where it's relevent.

Anyhow, I could be wrong, but I think there has been a misunderstanding in this exchange, in that VtM: Bloodlines doesn't indicate intent or writer direction directly in it's conversation options.

You're of course correct. In Bloodlines it is in relation to skills and stats. The intent is what the char attempts to achieve, not what the dialog option will achieve. And that is how it should be for any such intent system, regardless if it's coupled to skills or not.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 06 avril 2012 - 12:13 .

[AkiKishi]

..

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 avril 2012 - 12:27 .

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...
...Because it's a huge chunk of Hawke personality that we don't get to choose or control, just explore, discover, - a movie, a book, no role play (as some of us define it).

I'm fine with that as long as it's made clear that Hawke is his own person and I'm just choosing the path. Otherwise I want the openess of DA.

I remember playing KOTOR , working out the big secret then finding it frustrating because until the story said it was ok I could do nothing. Similiar thing happened in FFX, but because Tidus was Tidus I never felt the frustration I did in KOTOR.

[wsandista]

the_one_54321 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Deviija wrote...

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?

You are preaching to the quoir, man. I've been saying this in various threads for the last two weeks or more.

These games were awesome before they had more than 32bit sound. There were no voices at all. Just text. A game from over a decade ago had me in tears with nothing but blocky polygons, background art, and text.

And the real crux of the matter; voice acting is expensive.The devs here have mentioned several times the volume of work and money that went into voicing all of Shepard's and Hawke's lines. That doesn't even create more content in the game. It only creates a style of presentation. A style that brings with it a severe limitation on the volume of variable presentation.

Yeah what really confuses me is how they seem to think that if they just tweak the Voiced PC things will get better, when the voiced PC is the problem. Just thinking about it here are 5 reasons voiced PC is not a good idea.
5.It is more expensive than a silent PC
4.It confuses the player when misleading/incomplete paraphrases are used
3.Autodialouge inevitably occurs, which removes control from the player's hands
2.It takes away choice of intent away from the player
1.It limits the PC voice options, where might have imagined two different characters to have dramatically different voices, with a voiced PC they now sound the same

[Leomerya12]

Bioware, you're doing great.

Modifié par Leomerya12, 01 mai 2012 - 12:47 .

[Laverick]

I liked the auto-dialogue in DA2, it was kept short and sweet, and in six playthroughs there was never an instance where it went against what my character would have said.

ME3's auto-dialogue was poor due to over-use. The more you rely on auto-dialogue the higher the risk that it doesn't fit with the character. Avoid ME3 style auto-dialogue for sure.

[Malsumis]

From David's responses it's pretty clear what the problem is for many of us. It's 'cinematic experience'.

It's bioware's push of 'cinematic experience' which requires a voiced PC.

[wright1978]

Laverick wrote...

I liked the auto-dialogue in DA2, it was kept short and sweet, and in six playthroughs there was never an instance where it went against what my character would have said.

ME3's auto-dialogue was poor due to over-use. The more you rely on auto-dialogue the higher the risk that it doesn't fit with the character. Avoid ME3 style auto-dialogue for sure.

Small amounts of auto-dialogue which doesn't infringe on character can  work as in ME2 or DA2. Unfortunately ME3 shows what happens the priority shifts to removing dialogue choice(because dialogue is clunky apparently) and making the free flow of cinematics the priority. Crazy as far as i'm concerned as i go to the movies to watch free flowing cinematics and i play RPG's to get interactive in shaping my character.

[Meeya]

why not just give us 3 to 4 voices to choose from at the beginning of the game?

[In Exile]

wsandista wrote...
Yeah what really confuses me is how they seem to think that if they just tweak the Voiced PC things will get better, when the voiced PC is the problem. Just thinking about it here are 5 reasons voiced PC is not a good idea.
5.It is more expensive than a silent PC
4.It confuses the player when misleading/incomplete paraphrases are used
3.Autodialouge inevitably occurs, which removes control from the player's hands
2.It takes away choice of intent away from the player
1.It limits the PC voice options, where might have imagined two different characters to have dramatically different voices, with a voiced PC they now sound the same

Here are 5 that it is.

1. Your fan-fiction isn't my in-game content. The silent character isn't "room to imagine" any more than the 3 year gaps where nothing happens is "gameplay". Just because I can use my imagination doesn't mean Bioware is entitled to send me pencil and paper instead of a game.

2. The lack of pragmatics is just as bad. Plain text can't convey tone. And NPCs respond to tone.

3.  No, it doesn't. Mass Effect 1 didn't have auto-dialogue. And text only games don't have to have dialogue choice.

2. The hell? If I want to be sarcastic and every single NPC plays it straight, that's certainly taking away choice over my intent.

1. Your mental fantasy isn't my in-game content. And more importantly, you can imagine whatever voice you want. Turn off the sound. Then you get the best bang for your imagination buck - you can imagine what spells sound like, what the NPCs sound like...

[David Gaider]

wsandista wrote...
Yeah what really confuses me is how they seem to think that if they just tweak the Voiced PC things will get better, when the voiced PC is the problem.

The use of a voiced PC is fundamental to our design. Yes, it comes with disadvantages, but so does a silent PC... and, in our opinion, the silent PC works less well with cinematics... which is also a fundamental part of our design. Seeing as that's the case, we'll embrace the advantages that a voiced PC offers. We'll certainly tweak our approach, and feel free to make suggestions to that effect, but what we won't do is mitigate those advantages by trying to appeal to people for whom the voiced PC is a non-starter.

So if your preference is a silent PC and/or a lack of cinematics, that's fine-- but it's not a conversation that's going to go anywhere. There's really no need for confusion on that front.

[Darth Krytie]

I was just actually talking with the Ex about this stuff today. The silent protag/invent your own tone doesn't always work. He was telling me how when he chatted with Zevran, some of the dialogue he picked in a thought of being deadpan/sarcastic/witty, ended up initiating the romance, which surprised him. (He said, hey, let's go with that, then) So, yes, you can imagine your tone with a silent protag, you can make it whatever you want, but the companions/npcs might not be on the same page with you.

[upsettingshorts]

Darth Krytie wrote...

So, yes, you can imagine your tone with a silent protag, you can make it whatever you want, but the companions/npcs might not be on the same page with you.

Which would be fine, if - as in real life situations where misunderstandings take place - you could correct yourself.

In Dragon Age: Origins (for example) your options are to go with the misinterpetation or reload your game and try again.  You know, the same options people who hate the paraphrases in voiced games have when they feel the preview line has misled them.

In a sense both "camps," pro-VO and pro-Silent, probably don't have as wildly different experiences as they like to believe.  Both value the options one approach opens up, and feel as if the drawbacks aren't all that bad. We run into problems on the forums - in terms of hostility - when people on one side or the other assert that what the other values doesn't exist, or that only idiots would prefer it the other way.

Remove those assumptions from the discussion and all it really comes down to is what DG just said.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 02:51 .