833 réponses à ce sujet

[brushyourteeth]

BobSmith101 wrote...

In the case of DX:HR since there is no way you can play Adam wrong, most of the time that one word is enough. Works better than tone too since it's directly related to the nature of the response.
When it comes to the speech challenges, the seeing the full text helps you to figure out the best response for that persons personality.

Best of both worlds in my book. Most of the time I want to hear Adam act. But sometimes I need to have more detail. DA2 really double fails on this.

Depending on the hover time Mike Laidlaw might even be able to get on board with this one, there is nothing at all that requires you to see the full text unless you want it.

I think that's brilliant.

Just out of curiousity though, what do you mean when you say there is no way you can play Adam wrong? You mean he's able to successfully impress or persuade no matter which option you choose, or that every option potentially suits his character? I

[AkiKishi]

brushyourteeth wrote...
I think that's brilliant.

Just out of curiousity though, what do you mean when you say there is no way you can play Adam wrong? You mean he's able to successfully impress or persuade no matter which option you choose, or that every option potentially suits his character? I

Well being a fixed character everything is written for Adam. Regardless of the option, it's consistent with the character. As the player you can direct the game any way you choose, play nice , or not or mix things up.

In the case of DA, there were some options that just never worked for a certain idea of who your Warden was. DA2 is kind of like a hybrid. We have a fixed character Hawke, who is also trying to be the players character, with varying degrees of success.It's like you have two versions of Hawke, the real one and the one in the players head.If those two ideals are too far appart there is disconect. Where as there is only ever one Adam so it's not an issue.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 02 mai 2012 - 03:44 .

[brushyourteeth]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Well being a fixed character everything is written for Adam. Regardless of the option, it's consistent with the character. As the player you can direct the game any way you choose, play nice , or not or mix things up.

In the case of DA, there were some options that just never worked for a certain idea of who your Warden was. DA2 is kind of like a hybrid. We have a fixed character Hawke, who is also trying to be the players character, with varying degrees of success.It's like you have two versions of Hawke, the real one and the one in the players head.If those two ideals are too far appart there is disconect. Where as there is only ever one Adam so it's not an issue.

This makes me really interested to play DX and see for myself the difference between Adam and Hawke, and how the dialogue options were all consistent for one but not the other. I imagine the difference is subtle, but still pivotal and I find that really intruiging.

Of course, I can only speak for myself but I was way critical of Hawke because after coming away from having origins options I really felt limited by the whole semi-fixed protagonist situation. I've just recently come to terms with my feelings and decided that Hawke is fixed, and I'm just sort of the little ange/devil sitting on her shoulder and influencing her decisions. I embrace the fact that she's much more like Shepard than the Warden. It helps me like her better than I did before.

[Archer]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Personaly i think this is good news for the game, i am 100% behind the voiced protagonist.

From an RPG perspective i have always found my character to be far more imersive with a voice. Some examples, KOTOR, KOTOR 2 and Dragon Age Origins are all games i love but i just find so jarring  for my character to stand there with the same bland expression on his or face when something epic is happening in the framework of the story. I have mentioned this before but the silent Warden didnt work for me on a narrative level. Alistair- the man who doesnt want to leed delivering the rallying speach before the battle of Denerim? My Warden should have delivered that speach, Its an epic and defining moment within the game. In many ways this is what you have spent the majority of the game working towards yet the Warden is reduced to staring silently of into the distance.

Take Mass Effect. Ignore the issues with auto dialogue in ME3 for a moment. This works. Imagine how you might have felt before heading of to the Suicide Mission if Shep had stood silently in the briefing room with a blank expression on his face while Miranda makes a speach to rally the team or Jacob delivers the rallying speach before heading of for the final fight in the base.

I am not even againsnt auto dialogue to a degree. I had no issues with this in DA2. The whole "tone" that Hawke can adopt depending on earlier choices makes a big difference to this. While Hawke may make a statement i havent told him to make, the fact that my sarcastic Hawke or my Angry Hawke deliver the line in a way that reflects the personality i have opted to play with works for me and doesnt spoil my immersion. Again using ME3 as an example, this is where the auto dialogue failed. Shepard in ME3 is more fleshed out as a character compared to ME1 and ME2, but in ME3 he's fleshed out as Biowares Shepard and not the Shepard i played in ME1 and 2. If however, Shepard had a "tone" as Hawke did, this still could have worked, i.e the game noting for example that my Shepard is a Renegade and have Shepard deliver any auto dialogue lines in a style that fits this.

Really i think all this boils down to one key issue and thats the type of Game that Bioware makes now. I enjoy RPG games but the main draw of RPG games for me has always been the story. To my mind this is what Bioware do now. Their games contain "traditonal" RPG elements but what they are making is an interactive cinematic story. Its what drew me to Mass Effect, KOTOR, DAO and DA2. A well written story that i can participate and interact with.

So a voiced character is a win for me, autodialogue i can except to an extent if its done well and fits in with the syle and tone i have been playing my character. The key issue for me is with the actual dialogue wheel itself. The wheel while not displaying the full line of text the character is going to deliver needs to find some middle ground that gives us a clearer idea of how the character will respond. The Sarcastic or Angry symbols for example in DA2 were a good start but theres still some room for improvement.

[nightscrawl]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Thanks! Another quote about this issue to add to my collection of such quotes. >


As an aside, I had a weird dream that you changed your BSN pic to some weird bunny thing. I was scrolling through the forums looking for your lightning pic, confused about not finding it. o_O

[wsandista]

In Exile wrote...

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...

To respond
1. Did I ever say that what my PC does is what yours does? No, I did not say that, you are impling that I'm forcing my preceptions of what my character does on everyone else when I am not. I'm simply elaborating on a PC's story using both my imagination tempered with context from the game.
2.Of course plain-text doesn't convey tone, the player imagines the tone used for the dialogue, NPCs can misunderstand your intention due to the ambiguous tone, but several times in DAO you have the option to clarify
3.ME didn't have much auto-dialouge(have to replay to verify but i do remember alittle), but it did creep into ME2 and saturated ME3, and when text-only has no choice, it is usually "continue" or "goodbye"
2. NPCs are not you, you do not choose how they respond, the writers who wrote the character do, they may play it straight because that fits in to their character
1. I never said I wanted everything to be silent, where did this come from? When you play a game with a silent PC do you assume they commuincate telepathically or something? Your mental fantasy that all silent PCs are telepathic isn't my in-game content.

Modifié par wsandista, 03 mai 2012 - 04:47 .

[Alodar]

David Gaider wrote...

So, here's a good place to bring up a couple of issues-- because you touch on two options which we have discussed and are discussing. It's difficult to convey the meat of those discussions, however, because there's one big misconception I often see on these forums:

Namely that the dialogue options in DA2 were simply the dialogue options in DAO with paraphrases attached. This is not true. Good writing for a silent protaganist is not the same as good writing for a voiced protaganist. Why? Because with a voiced protaganist there is actual acting involved.

Let's say I have the option where the text pops up after a delay, providing you the full line of what follows. What if the actual meaning of that line is conveyed via emotion or gesture? That's often the case, and indeed we'd like to do that more and not less. You could also be seeing the first line of an exchange, as opposed to getting the gist of the entire exchange from it. So you'd be seeing something that could still not be the improvement you think it is, as the PC's dialogue is not written the same as DAO's was.

This is not to say that there are less options, as that is also a misconception, but the style is certainly different-- and must be.

Insofar as the "thought process" thing goes, I've seen that... and there are several versions of that which are possible-- ranging from the explicit text on pop-up (so explaining exactly what you do or exactly what you intend to say). This, however, also has some weaknesses. One that you still have the length limit on the GUI. A long, rambly line explaining a thought process is not an improvement... it would still need to be short, or you've turned the GUI into a big ol' mess (well-intended or not). You also run into an issue in tone options (present in both DAO and DA2) where the intent of each option is the same even if the tone is not... so do you really want to see three versions of [Explain the plot]? You could say "well don't write it like that", but I'm telling you "that's how we write it and always have"... so it's a potential issue.

There's more to it, though I'm afraid some of it would be hard to explain as it risks sounding kind of arrogant-- we have to make certain assumptions about how "the average player" plays their game, which is not true for everyone even though we have to make something as one-size-fits-all as we can. So I don't want to get into that. Ideally when we reach the point where we have something to show, I'd like to engage the community and get feedback on those options.

Even though, at the end of the day, we'll still need to pick only one. And that may indeed not be one that you personally like. But we exist to enrage, and I do so like to fulfill my raison d'etre.

I played sarcastic Hawke in Dragon Age 2.
Sarcastic Hawke was very funny and entertaining, but he was never my character.
Certainly DA 2 made a number of choices that pushed me away from Sarcastic Hawke being my character but never knowing what Hawke was going to say and often being surprised by the words Hawke used was the tipping point.


I was role-watching, not role playing.



My solution is relatively pain free, but it does involve the dreaded toggle.

Toggle:  Subtitles for future dialogue choices(Y/N)
As long as subtitles are an option all spoken dialogue exists as text. Not a single extra word need be typed.
If the toggle was chosen, right clicking, or middle clicking, or hovering over a paraphrase would bring up the text that the paraphrase leads to in the exact same place the subtitle would go -- no special GUI needed.
Players who like the paraphrase get the paraphrase. Players who don't, get to choose what words their character will use. Win-Win. And a low cost Win-Win to boot.


Yes, I understand dialogue intended to be spoken is written differently than dialogue that is intended to be read -- however I contend that the disconnect of -- "That's not not the tone I imagined" would be far less than "My character would never say that."

To me it's the difference between role-playing and role-watching.


Voiced protagonists are here to stay -- they have their strengths.
I contend that there is a viable low-cost system that doesn't alienate those who want to choose their words more carefully that takes nothing away from the paraphrase system.

Alodar

Modifié par Alodar, 03 mai 2012 - 05:03 .

[wsandista]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Here is a suggestion to help mitigate what I believe is the main problem created by the voiced PC, which is misrepresentation of what the PC is about to say with the dialogue option
Instead of having paraphrases hinting at a certain response on the dialouge wheel, explicitly express them with options like [Flirt], [Persuade], or [Reassure] for the intent of the line, then provide the choice of tone after intent has been selected. I know it would be difficult to implement but it would mitigate what I see as the biggest weakness of the voiced PC. By doing this you can have a more cinematic game that flows well, but also avoid the WTF moments that occur when the player selects an option and gets a dialogue that was not what they intended.

Modifié par wsandista, 03 mai 2012 - 04:51 .

[Cantina]

I think another thing needs to be pointed out, not just with auto dialogue. Going through Dragon Age 2 (again) and I noticed there are a couple of parts were your character seems to have psychic abilities.

Both have to do with asking Anders in the dialogue wheel.

First one pops up if you take Anders with you for the amulet quest. Your character has the chance to ask him his opinion on Flemth, but Hawke does not say, "Anders, what is your opinion."

Second one happens in Act 2, when doing the quest "Family Matters." Again, if you take Anders with you, you have the option in the dialogue wheel to ask "Anders, can you do something?"

In both cases, your character says nothing, but Anders responds as if you did say something. If you ask other companions to help or give their opinion on something, your Hawke character speaks, then whomever you asked follows up with dialogue.

Not exactly sure if this was an over-sight on the developers part, but I'm hoping this does not come up in Dragon Age 3.

[nightscrawl]

wsandista wrote...

Here is a suggestion to help mitigate what I believe is the main problem created by the voiced PC, which is misrepresentation of what the PC is about to say with the dialogue option
Instead of having paraphrases hinting at a certain response on the dialouge wheel, explicitly express them with options like [Flirt], [Persuade], or [Reassure] for the intent of the line, then provide the choice of tone after intent has been selected. I know it would be difficult to implement but it would mitigate what I see as the biggest weakness of the voiced PC. By doing this you can have a more cinematic game that flows well, but also avoid the WTF moments that occur when the player selects an option and gets a dialogue that was not what they intended.

Just to clarify: you don't think there should be any textual indication of what will come out of your character's mouth at all, only a word representing intent, and possibly an icon or some other thing to show tone?

I think some of that would be mitigated yes, but not all. I could still see myself reloading a lot even with these choices, unless every single line had an intent. For example, one of the most horrified moments I've had was the first time playing a sarcastic Hawke. I made a real effort to pick mostly purple options. However, not all purple options are equal. When I took the human remains to Emeric at the end of The First Sacrifice the sarcastic option has you commenting about boneless corpses flopping around. Unless the intent was [mock] or [inappropriate joke] or something along those lines, I don't see how my horror at hearing that line would have been mitigated.

[AkiKishi]

nightscrawl wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Here is a suggestion to help mitigate what I believe is the main problem created by the voiced PC, which is misrepresentation of what the PC is about to say with the dialogue option
Instead of having paraphrases hinting at a certain response on the dialouge wheel, explicitly express them with options like [Flirt], [Persuade], or [Reassure] for the intent of the line, then provide the choice of tone after intent has been selected. I know it would be difficult to implement but it would mitigate what I see as the biggest weakness of the voiced PC. By doing this you can have a more cinematic game that flows well, but also avoid the WTF moments that occur when the player selects an option and gets a dialogue that was not what they intended.

Just to clarify: you don't think there should be any textual indication of what will come out of your character's mouth at all, only a word representing intent, and possibly an icon or some other thing to show tone?

I think some of that would be mitigated yes, but not all. I could still see myself reloading a lot even with these choices, unless every single line had an intent. For example, one of the most horrified moments I've had was the first time playing a sarcastic Hawke. I made a real effort to pick mostly purple options. However, not all purple options are equal. When I took the human remains to Emeric at the end of The First Sacrifice the sarcastic option has you commenting about boneless corpses flopping around. Unless the intent was [mock] or [inappropriate joke] or something along those lines, I don't see how my horror at hearing that line would have been mitigated.

I'd say that's another advantage of DX:HRs intent word, over the tone icon. Tone is harder to pin down since everyone will have their own idea of what a particular tone is. However if the keyword is "Appease" , it's very clear what will happen if you click that option. Even if you don't know the exact words, the intent is absolutely clear.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 mai 2012 - 10:35 .

[wsandista]

BobSmith101 wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Here is a suggestion to help mitigate what I believe is the main problem created by the voiced PC, which is misrepresentation of what the PC is about to say with the dialogue option
Instead of having paraphrases hinting at a certain response on the dialouge wheel, explicitly express them with options like [Flirt], [Persuade], or [Reassure] for the intent of the line, then provide the choice of tone after intent has been selected. I know it would be difficult to implement but it would mitigate what I see as the biggest weakness of the voiced PC. By doing this you can have a more cinematic game that flows well, but also avoid the WTF moments that occur when the player selects an option and gets a dialogue that was not what they intended.

Just to clarify: you don't think there should be any textual indication of what will come out of your character's mouth at all, only a word representing intent, and possibly an icon or some other thing to show tone?

I think some of that would be mitigated yes, but not all. I could still see myself reloading a lot even with these choices, unless every single line had an intent. For example, one of the most horrified moments I've had was the first time playing a sarcastic Hawke. I made a real effort to pick mostly purple options. However, not all purple options are equal. When I took the human remains to Emeric at the end of The First Sacrifice the sarcastic option has you commenting about boneless corpses flopping around. Unless the intent was [mock] or [inappropriate joke] or something along those lines, I don't see how my horror at hearing that line would have been mitigated.

I'd say that's another advantage of DX:HRs intent word, over the tone icon. Tone is harder to pin down since everyone will have their own idea of what a particular tone is. However if the keyword is "Appease" , it's very clear what will happen if you click that option. Even if you don't know the exact words, the intent is absolutely clear.

Yes, but I would like a tone option as well, "Appease" or "Persuade" can be radically different between 2 diffenent tones, and since I usually create characters with vastly different personalities, it helps reinforce their differences, even if they make the same choices on a number of things.

[AkiKishi]

wsandista wrote...

Yes, but I would like a tone option as well, "Appease" or "Persuade" can be radically different between 2 diffenent tones, and since I usually create characters with vastly different personalities, it helps reinforce their differences, even if they make the same choices on a number of things.

Well that is part of the problem of trying to do a cinematic game with an unknown factor. The idea of your own character and cinematic games are almost at odds with each other.

In DX:HR you can choose what to do, but you can't choose how to do it. While you can play the game many times in many different ways. It's still Adam, it's not a different character. This is the problem with the likes of DA2. The character is Hawke, regardless of what you make him look like or say, there is only one Hawke. Trying to work around that and create your own character within that frame work is what causes the conflicts. It's an imperfect system, doing something it was not really created to do. Many people will prefer it, and will find the trade off worthwhile. But as long as it's giving you a fixed protagonist, while at the same time not. There will always be conflicts between the players idea of the character and the official character.

[wsandista]

BobSmith101 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Yes, but I would like a tone option as well, "Appease" or "Persuade" can be radically different between 2 diffenent tones, and since I usually create characters with vastly different personalities, it helps reinforce their differences, even if they make the same choices on a number of things.

Well that is part of the problem of trying to do a cinematic game with an unknown factor. The idea of your own character and cinematic games are almost at odds with each other.

In DX:HR you can choose what to do, but you can't choose how to do it. While you can play the game many times in many different ways. It's still Adam, it's not a different character. This is the problem with the likes of DA2. The character is Hawke, regardless of what you make him look like or say, there is only one Hawke. Trying to work around that and create your own character within that frame work is what causes the conflicts. It's an imperfect system, doing something it was not really created to do. Many people will prefer it, and will find the trade off worthwhile. But as long as it's giving you a fixed protagonist, while at the same time not. There will always be conflicts between the players idea of the character and the official character.

Absolutely, which is why I prefer a player-defined silent protagonist because I think immersion is more important than cinematics. Unfortunately for me DA3 is surely going to have a voiced PC so the best I can hope for is the pick intent then tone idea I suggested, or at least ME, which seems to me what DA2 was trying to utilize, but wasn't implemented as well, IMO.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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

That's your fan-fiction.

The NPCs respond.  The suggestion that they are responding to tone is purely your invention.

You can't have it both ways.  Either you value the player's input or you don't.  You say you don't, but then you invent content just the same.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Okay, I can work with that.

The voice itself is still a problem, as it limits the delivery of any given line to the tone you guys imagined, but let's work within these constraints.

If the PC is absolutely going to be voiced, then it's now even more important than it was with a silent protagonist to inform the player of what his character's options are.  DA2 failed very badly in this regard.  DA2's paraphrases often bore little or no resemblance to their associated line, and the icons that denoted tone were very poorly defined (or poorly doumented - maybe you guys had really precise definitions, but the player didn't know what they were).

Your goal should be to have the PC's behaviour, both in speech and actions, never surprise the player.  It should happen literally zero times.

Also, people here sometimes refer to the Legacy DLC as a sign of what changes you're looking to make, but there was one new feature in Legacy which I think was an unmitigated distaster: the unprompted ambient dialogue.  In Legacy, Hawke spoke without the player having any direct input at all nor even knowing it was going to occur.  This absolutely cannot happen.  Please do not do this ever again.

Now, here's my question.  Do you (you being BioWare, specifically with regard to the development of future games in this franchise) hold that it is the player's job, and the player's job alone, to construct his PC's personality within the constraints of the game's narrative?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Incidentally, I previously offered a proposal as to how you could write better paraphrases. I suggested that the paraphrases should be written by someone other than the person who wrong the actual dialogue, and should be done line-by-line in ingorance of each line's place within a conversation.

This would maximise the chances of any given player undestanding what the associated line would say by not relying on some supposed interpretation of the previous lines to offer context.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

But what about the ability to correct what you've said?

In ME and DA2, the PC might actually say something you didn't mean him to say.  You're not allowed to correct that.  How is that better?

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But what about the ability to correct what you've said?

In ME and DA2, the PC might actually say something you didn't mean him to say.  You're not allowed to correct that.  How is that better?

I'm not saying it's better, I'm saying a similar problem exists in both approaches.

In full text/no-VO, you cannot correct misinterpretations based on tone or intent.  Part of this is due to the fact that the writers have stated the lines have an implicit tone that the NPCs react to, and while we're free to interpret this any way we like, it does mean that there is additional included data in the selection that is obfuscated by the approach.

In paraphrase/VO, you cannot correct misinterpretations based on line content, or put another way, saying something unexpected.  As many - yourself included - have pointed out, the paraphrases by their very nature obfuscate data, the content of the full line.

Some have argued - correctly, I think - that a combination of a full line preview and a tone icon would do away with much in the way of misunderstandings, but it runs into similar subvocalization and writing issues as have been discussed along such lines previously.

In any event, it is evident to me that no consistent approach will please everybody.  An oft-complimented system, DX:HR, is best described as being inconsistent in its approach, and seems to have generated less complaints, at least around the boards.  So... it's not as simple a problem as this board often treats it as.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 mai 2012 - 06:22 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In full text/no-VO, you cannot correct misinterpretations based on tone or intent. 

In order for this top be a problem, though, you first must assume that such mistepretations exist.

Part of this is due to the fact that the writers have stated the lines have an implicit tone that the NPCs react to, and while we're free to interpret this any way we like, it does mean that there is additional included data in the selection that is obfuscated by the approach.

No it doesn't.  The writers have said that they write assuming a paroticlar tone, but the tone isn't there.  Moreover, since we're never aware of what that tone is, we can't even be sure how the NPC reaction relates to it.

The misinterpretation problem is one of your own making.

In paraphrase/VO, you cannot correct misinterpretations based on line content, or put another way, saying something unexpected.  As many - yourself included - have pointed out, the paraphrases by their very nature obfuscate data, the content of the full line.

Right.  This is demonstrably true.  The player cannot know what the line will say, so if it says something the player didn't want to say there's no way to correct it.

My problem is real.  Your propblem is illusory.

Some have argued - correctly, I think - that a combination of a full line preview and a tone icon would do away with much in the way of misunderstandings, but it runs into similar subvocalization and writing issues as have been discussed along such lines previously.

I have very little sympathy for the subvocalisation argument.

As for the writing, yes, there are differences between good writing for a voiced PC and good writing for a silent PC, but those differences don't require extensive back-and-forth exchanges.

The goal should always be to give the player as much information as possible about the option he's selecting.  Unless the design intent is for the player not to design his character's personality, the PC's behavior cannot ever suprise the player.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In order for this top be a problem, though, you first must assume that such mistepretations exist.

The misinterpretation problem is one of your own making.

My problem is real.  Your propblem is illusory. 

I refuse to acknowledge or accept your interpretation of human interaction.  It is deeply flawed and contradicts eons of evidence to the contrary in favor of your own experience and standards. 

At best, you're being obtuse.  At worst, you're being insulting.

Perspectives beyond yours exist.  They are extremely common.  You either need to learn to accept this and drop your crusade to convince all other humans that they are really Vulcans on the inside, or at least pretend like you give a damn that other peoples' experiences matter.  Your attitude on the subject makes it clear that you do not.

So here's some advice:  For such discussions, it would be more productive for you to at the very least allow yourself to acknowledge a "hypothetical" assumption, that we are not making things up when we describe interactions the way we do.  We are not going to ignore our own life experiences to fit our judgments into the tight box that would make them relatable to you.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I have very little sympathy for the subvocalisation argument.

Too bad.  It made playing TW1 excruciating for me.  That makes it valid to my experience.

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

The goal should always be to give the player as much information as possible about the option he's selecting.  Unless the design intent is for the player not to design his character's personality, the PC's behavior cannot ever suprise the player.

I'll agree to that basic principle, but I have far different standards for what constitutes a surprise than you do, because I acknowledge other forms of misinterpretations exist than those purely based on word choice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I refuse to acknowledge or accept your interpretation of human interaction.  It is deeply flawed and contradicts eons of evidence to the contrary in favor of your own experience and standards. 

At best, you're being obtuse.  At worst, you're being insulting.

Perspectives beyond yours exist.  They are extremely common.  You either need to learn to accept this and drop your crusade to convince all other humans that they are really Vulcans on the inside, or at least pretend like you give a damn that other peoples' experiences matter.  Your attitude on the subject makes it clear that you do not.

So here's some advice:  For such discussions, it would be more productive for you to at the very least allow yourself to acknowledge a "hypothetical" assumption, that we are not making things up when we describe interactions the way we do.  We are not going to ignore our own life experiences to fit our judgments into the tight box that would make them relatable to you.

I'm not suggesting you should ignore your experiences, or that they didn't happen.

I'm saying you've misinterpreted nearly all of them.

I'll agree to that basic principle, but I have far different standards for what constitutes a surprise than you do, because I acknowledge other forms of misinterpretations exist than those purely based on word choice.

And I'll concede that.  This is why I dropped my crusade against the tone icons.  Some people really seem to want to know what tone the writers expect them to use.  Given that, I don't begrudge you that information.

I begrudge you making that information mandatory, however.  Interpretations other than your exist.  If I want to interpret a line based solely on word choice, then I should be able to do that.  Any paraphrase should allow for that possibility, and give me the information I need to deduce word choice (and sentence structure).

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm not suggesting you should ignore your experiences, or that they didn't happen.

I'm saying you've misinterpreted nearly all of them.

But experience has consistently taught me otherwise.  When I've thought, "I have been misinterpreted based on my tone" and changed my tone - but not necessarily the content - the person I was speaking with has re-evaluated their interpretation of what I had said.  This happens all the time, even more often than word choice errors, leading frequently to comments like, "I know what you meant" after someone has chosen the wrong word to express an idea.  Because tone, intent, and context are frequently of impossible-to-overstate importance.

You could say, within reason, that they didn't actually know what that person meant when they used the wrong word.  That happens too, and further evidence usually makes it clear either way if they understood or not.  A conversation can be cooperative as well as adversarial.

Like I keep saying, just because you can't see the evidence for yourself doesn't mean it isn't there and can't be evaluated by others.  It's almost entirely empiricism, that means it isn't always entirely rational.

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

I begrudge you making that information mandatory, however.  Interpretations other than your exist.  If I want to interpret a line based solely on word choice, then I should be able to do that.  Any paraphrase should allow for that possibility, and give me the information I need to deduce word choice (and sentence structure).

That's why I frame my arguments as one of preference, such as with the 1st vs. 3rd person argument.  

I recognize and routinely acknowledge that if I'm "winning" the battle when it comes to how BioWare is moving dialog in their games, someone is also "losing."  The difference is, I think, that I'm pretty much convinced that there are few mutually satisfactory compromises.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 mai 2012 - 07:01 .

[mopotter]

I like the flow of the conversations with a character who actually talks, and being able to interrupt with a hug or a fist. But, I do have these stipulations: 3 or even 4 definite tones with different sentences for each. Not the same sentence for polite, neutral/sarcastic, rude. If I'm going to play more than once, I want different dialog for each character from the heroic girl scout type to the I don't care about anyone but me - character. It's jarring to have different character types all saying the exact same thing.

And some cinematic scenes are ok, but lets make sure there is more player action than movie action.

ME3 carried the auto dialogue way way too far and misplaced the neutral option. I enjoyed both DA and DA2. Have to say I'm looking forward to DA3. Nice to have something to look forward to. Voiced or silent, I'd put my vote on voiced, if it's done well.

[upsettingshorts]

@Sylvius:  I think one such compromise is distilling the two perspectives' issues with autodialog into one:

You say you never want to be surprised by what the PC does.
I say I always want choices for my PC that the game reacts to.

Autodialog fails both of these by never offering a choice in the first place, so I don't get to guide my character down even a restricted set of choices, and you are surprised by what they say.

Both sides can agree it represents a fundamental loss of opportunity to make a choice.

It is a problem. I can accept it somewhat if it is very neutral and is only utilized when say... turning in fetch quests. Then I'd just be glad as long as it wasn't horrifically broken like DA2. I recognize that such quests are included to pad content and give more for completionists to do at a low zot cost, and the zot cost would increase rather dramatically if each time a full conversation had to be implemented.  But it's still an issue when the dialogues are completely incongruous to the context, such as could happen often in DA2.

That's an example of where both perspectives can have different problems with the same issue.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 mai 2012 - 07:20 .