833 réponses à ce sujet

[Pzykozis]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The auto-dialogue is fine provided everything Shepard says is perfectly in-character, my Renegade Xenophobic Pro-Cerberus Shepard on the other hand would've been completely out of character for pretty much the entire time. Least with the ME1/ME2/DA2 system, you're able to decide how your character responds in the conversation.

Hell, least DA2 had little back-and-forths based on the selection you did earlier. That's about as much "auto-dialogue" that I'm fine with, as the player was still able to guide the conversation. In a good mood with your friend? Be humoristic! You're pissed off at them? Rawr, tell them to go screw themselves!

ME3's system just assumes what you would've picked and goes with it. I hate X character but Shepard is telling them they're best friends.

"STOP IT, STOP IT!"

Haha, well that'll be another thing to look forward to when I get around to picking ME3 up. I'd say that really the dominant tone / if they could do it factoring in prior choices regarding the subject thereby customising the auto-dialogue really saves it, in this case it's just a matter of it being poorly implemented in ME3, because I don't really have an issue with the system itself I see it as basically performing a good function, with ok there are drawbacks but its a matter of implementation, I mean would you have been bothered by the auto dialogue if for example it knew you'd been a dick to X character and so the auto-dialogue basically had you hating on them in a contextually sensical form?

Modifié par Pzykozis, 21 mars 2012 - 05:51 .

[David Gaider]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Hell, least DA2 had little back-and-forths based on the selection you did earlier. That's about as much "auto-dialogue" that I'm fine with, as the player was still able to guide the conversation. In a good mood with your friend? Be humoristic! You're pissed off at them? Rawr, tell them to go screw themselves!

Right-- the only time in DA2 where you didn't have the option to select your tone was in the "choice" wheels. You'd be presented with your choice of action, but the tone Hawke actually used was your dominant one. In regular conversation, you'd still get to choose your tone of response regardless of your dominant tone.

The only way to get around that would be to present tone/action combinations-- so if you chose to, say, attack then your tone would automatically be aggressive. Occasionally we might present actions that were the same but had more than one tone... but we could not offer every action in all three tones (three choices x three tones = too many... and that's ignoring the fact that we often offer more than three... particularly when you take into account follower options and investigates), nor would we ever break a choice into a new hub where you pick your tone. That's simply not going to happen.

The other option would be to have action choices always result in a "neutral" tone, the same as we do with investigates (and what we did in Origins). I suspect that would please some folks while pleasing others less, however... and the folks it pleases probably aren't fans of their PC speaking for them to begin with so it's debateable how much this would actually appease their basic concern. But that's speculation on my part.

[Kavatica]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I expected Hawke to say the things I told him to say, and he didn't do that.  Instead, he said things that bore only a passing resemblance to things I told him to say, and often directly contradicted my reasons for giving him that instruction in the first place.

"I hate slavers. >:I"
*sells Fenris to Danarius*

Maybe Hawke hated slavers but hated Fenris more? Ha ha. Poor Fenris.

[AkiKishi]

wsandista wrote...
I think I know, The "Action-RPG" crowd needs to have a voiced protagoinst so they can avoid actual roleplaying, and instead focus on plowing through the story as quickly as possible to get to the combat.

You can't get much more action RPG than KOA and from what I understand it had a very good reception. The price is still holding at Amazon UK a month on (ME3 is already down £5).

You can't really say it skimps on the story either, there are so many investigate options in each conversation, more pop up as you activate things in the wheel.

[eyesofastorm]

So then another fixed protagonist, yes?

[LobselVith8]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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 expected Hawke to say the things I told him to say, and he didn't do that.  Instead, he said things that bore only a passing resemblance to things I told him to say, and often directly contradicted my reasons for giving him that instruction in the first place.

I felt that way. I remember when I had Hawke tell Elthina "You're useless," thinking he could criticize what she's done in her role as Grand Cleric, and instead Hawke said, "Get out of my way!" That's some pretty bad paraphrasing, and it went against the reason I chose that dialogue option in the first place.

Having Hawke auto-speak lines, and give opinions outside of my control, was also grating. If he doesn't speak the lines I want him to, and he speaks outside of my control, then I don't feel like he's my character. It's why I prefer the silent protagonists in Origins, Fallout, and Skyrim, where I don't need to wonder what my protagonist will actually say or think if I chose particular lines of dialogue. I know that it's been said time and again that Dragon Age won't return to silent protagonists, but I certainly dislike the implementation done in Dragon Age II, and if the paraphrasing is going to continue, I don't think Dragon Age III will be any different than Dragon Age II in leaving me disconnected from the protagonist.

[PsychoBlonde]

David Gaider wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Though I guess I shouldn't get carried away and assume that this implies a reduction in the dominant tone dialogue which we saw in DA2?

We're still playing with exactly what we're going to do on this front, and with the use of the wheel in general, but no-- I wouldn't make that assumption. If you have suggestions on the use of tone, or the use of the dominant tone in particular, I'd like to hear them.

If, however, one's suggestion is "present the dialogue exactly as you did in DAO", then I'm afraid that's not really in the cards. I'm not going to display the full line of dialogue in a voiced-PC system. There are, however, alternatives to the way we did it in DA2.

My personal suggestion along these lines (and I know this would add work and probably consume prodigious zots), would be to have you set your personality at the beginning of the game.  Then you can have options--perhaps a smaller number of options, in fewer circumstances--but options *based off that personality*.  So an aggressive character can still be conciliatory (in the sense that they want to work out the problem), but it's angry, nasty, sharp-toned confrontation instead of, say, extravagant mockery or gentle persuasion.

You could also do a couple of other things with this scenario:

a.) bring back differing character prologues (kinda?) and have them be based around your "base personality" choice (or even have them be WHERE you made your base personality choice--I kinda like this idea better, in fact).  Depending on whether you guys decide to include multiple races for the progagonist, you could still have most races use (almost) the same prologues provided you based it more around class than race.

b.) bring back or otherwise include persuasion-type options.  I like these in dialog a lot, but I'm not 100% behind the way they were handled in O or 2.  I'm fine with the removal of skills, but I felt that the way it determined your dominant tone (and the fact that in some places having an option at all came off only one tone) just didn't work out very well.  I'd rather have the availability of persuasion-type options be based off how you've been acting toward the scenario participants.  Did you help them with their problems?  Did you give them the brush off?  I realize, mechanically, this will be more difficult to represent.  However, if you must have a mechanical means for it (and you must, because this is a COMPUTER game), why not have ongoing persons/groups that you interact with mutiple times have something like a "trust" meter?  Or maybe "respect", since if you want to allow for Evil Protagonist or at least Jerk Protagonist, trust might not be the right word.  That would get changed as a result of certain activities.  This could end up with some really interesting options, especially if you put in things, as with companions, where adding to one meter means subtracting from another.  Getting BOTH factions to support you enough to go along with the Persuasion option might entail some serious pick-and-shovel work.  It'd also allow for some really organic confluences of events, where you were able to get A but not quite B and so forth.

Some other notes:

Don't put in "special" options that don't accomplish anything, i.e. that exist for no purpose other than to further characterize an NPC.  I'm thinking specifically here of the star option in Shepherding Wolves when Hawke can say "The Arishok won't like this" and the Arvaarad tells you, in essence, "He won't care."  Boo.  If you want to make the point that the Arishok won't care, have it be an investigation option, not a "special dialog option".

Do what you said you were going to do in DA2 and have the choice options and tone options be distinct.  (Er, depending on how you decide to do it . . .)  There are SEVERAL places in DA2 where your tone does, in fact, determine what happens, and you never actually get a "choice" option.  Boo.

Don't put in an apparent choice that leads to the same line of dialog.  Continue button is fine.  People seem to prefer it to auto-dialog, in fact.

Also we need to be able to flirt with NPC's more.  And embarrass them.  Especially Qunari.  It'll be good for them.  Or creep them out.  Fun either way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I felt that way. I remember when I had Hawke tell Elthina "You're useless," thinking he could criticize what she's done in her role as Grand Cleric, and instead Hawke said, "Get out of my way!" That's some pretty bad paraphrasing, and it went against the reason I chose that dialogue option in the first place.

That's actually an example of one of my biggest ocmplaints about how the paraphrases were done.  The paraphrases and the lines they represented were often different kinds of sentences.

In this case, the paraphrase was a declarative sentence, while the actual line was imperative.

That should never happen.  That should be one of the rules the writers follow when writing the paraphrases.

Another option - and one I've suggested before - is to have all of the paraphrases written by a different writer without any knowledge of the context.  That way the paraphrase would more closely match what the line actually said, as opposed to how the writer imagined the line would be used.

[schalafi]

I really liked the voiced protagonist in DA2. It always frustrated me that the written dialogue kept my pc's back turned to me all the time, while all my npc's were facing me; it was nice to see her face for a change when talking. Also, having played the game many times it's obvious that you eventually can pick the response that best suits what you want to say , even through trial and error, if necessary. If I was uncertain, I just quick saved before choosing. Please keep the dialogue wheel!

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

nor would we ever break a choice into a new hub where you pick your tone. That's simply not going to happen.

I'd like to choose not only the tone separetely, but also the intent separately.

So, if I wanted Hawke to flirt with Isabela, I'd choose the line, then the tone, then the fact that I was flirting.  If the game needs to know that I'm flirting (and I don't think it does, but DA2 appeared to disagree with me), then I don't want that I'm flirting to have a necessary connection to what it is I'm saying.

To which of the three Isabela responds would be up to you.  I honestly don't care.  Expression is vastly more important than reaction.

[Sylvius the Mad]

schalafi wrote...

If I was uncertain, I just quick saved before choosing. Please keep the dialogue wheel!

You can't save during dialogue.

[Kavatica]

schalafi wrote...

I really liked the voiced protagonist in DA2. It always frustrated me that the written dialogue kept my pc's back turned to me all the time, while all my npc's were facing me; it was nice to see her face for a change when talking. Also, having played the game many times it's obvious that you eventually can pick the response that best suits what you want to say , even through trial and error, if necessary. If I was uncertain, I just quick saved before choosing. Please keep the dialogue wheel!

They have confirmed that we will get a voiced protagonist and it looks like some form of a dialogue wheel.

How did you quick save before choosing? A lot of the time I didn't have a chance, since the cutscene started before I could save. It was easier on repeat playthroughs (because you know when the scenes are coming) but on my first playthrough I found myself playing it safe a lot because I didn't have a way to take back whatever I said if it went badly.

[Kavatica]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

My personal suggestion along these lines (and I know this would add work and probably consume prodigious zots), would be to have you set your personality at the beginning of the game.  Then you can have options--perhaps a smaller number of options, in fewer circumstances--but options *based off that personality*.  So an aggressive character can still be conciliatory (in the sense that they want to work out the problem), but it's angry, nasty, sharp-toned confrontation instead of, say, extravagant mockery or gentle persuasion.

I quite like this idea. I also missed the persuade/intimidate options that I had in DAO and it would be nice to see something like that come back again - dialogue options based on how you have leveled up your character.

But to add to what you are saying - I thought my aggressive Hawke was conciliatory in quite a lot of the scenes in DA2. Just because she was aggressive doesn't mean she wasn't trying to work out the problem...she was just impatient in how she went about doing it.

Modifié par Kavatica, 21 mars 2012 - 06:37 .

[schalafi]

Kavatica wrote...

schalafi wrote...

I really liked the voiced protagonist in DA2. It always frustrated me that the written dialogue kept my pc's back turned to me all the time, while all my npc's were facing me; it was nice to see her face for a change when talking. Also, having played the game many times it's obvious that you eventually can pick the response that best suits what you want to say , even through trial and error, if necessary. If I was uncertain, I just quick saved before choosing. Please keep the dialogue wheel!

They have confirmed that we will get a voiced protagonist and it looks like some form of a dialogue wheel.

How did you quick save before choosing? A lot of the time I didn't have a chance, since the cutscene started before I could save. It was easier on repeat playthroughs (because you know when the scenes are coming) but on my first playthrough I found myself playing it safe a lot because I didn't have a way to take back whatever I said if it went badly.

Obviously, in my first playthrough I made some bad choices because of the paraphrasing, but I learned what to pick, and what was not what I wanted to say in my next play throughs. And yes, you get to know when to quick save after a few playthroughs, and I quick save pretty often anyway.

[schalafi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

schalafi wrote...

If I was uncertain, I just quick saved before choosing. Please keep the dialogue wheel!

You can't save during dialogue.

True, but if you play it more than once, you remember when a quick save may be necessary.

[Dejajeva]

I don't like tone stackings like there were in DA2. I don't mind how the wheel functions really- but I don't like that once I've chosen sarcastic a few times, that's my dominant tone. Especially when there are situations when sarcastic is seen as unemotional or even not quite angry enough. I hope this makes sense.

[AkiKishi]

Kavatica wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

My personal suggestion along these lines (and I know this would add work and probably consume prodigious zots), would be to have you set your personality at the beginning of the game.  Then you can have options--perhaps a smaller number of options, in fewer circumstances--but options *based off that personality*.  So an aggressive character can still be conciliatory (in the sense that they want to work out the problem), but it's angry, nasty, sharp-toned confrontation instead of, say, extravagant mockery or gentle persuasion.

I quite like this idea.

Front loading a personality has a lot of advantages. I'm not really sure how you could do it in a transparent manner but it some sort of personality test at the begining might do the trick.

The advantage of being able to know what was going to happen before it happened would be of great benifit in scripting active cutscenes.  this sort of thing could not be done without knowing the script. This is why cutscenes in ME3 come across a wooden a lot of the time even with the extra auto dialogue.

Roleplaying in the first person sense does appear to require a silent protagonist and being a something rather than a someone. None of which appears to be the case for DA3.

[Kavatica]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Front loading a personality has a lot of advantages. I'm not really sure how you could do it in a transparent manner but it some sort of personality test at the begining might do the trick.

I like the previously mentioned idea of setting this up with choices that you make in your origin story. In some ways, once I knew how the dominant tone thing worked, I was able to do this with Hawke in Lothering (you can basically set your dominant tone after your first few responses with your family when you are running through Lothering). But it would be nice if there was a way to do this consciously - based on choices that your character makes. I definitely didn't do it consciously in my first playthrough because I had no clue the dominant tone thing even existed.

Modifié par Kavatica, 21 mars 2012 - 06:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

schalafi wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

schalafi wrote...

If I was uncertain, I just quick saved before choosing. Please keep the dialogue wheel!

You can't save during dialogue.

True, but if you play it more than once, you remember when a quick save may be necessary.

The game needs to work the first time through.

It also needs to work the 10th time through.

[AkiKishi]

Kavatica wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Front loading a personality has a lot of advantages. I'm not really sure how you could do it in a transparent manner but it some sort of personality test at the begining might do the trick.

I like the previously mentioned idea of setting this up with choices that you make in your origin story. In some ways, once I knew how the dominant tone thing worked, I was able to do this with Hawke in Lothering (you can basically set your dominant tone after your first few responses with your family when you are running through Lothering). But it would be nice if there was a way to do this consciously - based on choices that your character makes. I definitely didn't do it consciously in my first playthrough because I had no clue the dominant tone thing even existed.

I'm not sure there will be an origin story. But there will be a prologue of some kind which might work.

[Kavatica]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I'm not sure there will be an origin story. But there will be a prologue of some kind which might work.

I kind of think of those as the same thing. A way of setting up who your character is and how they fit in the world around them. If there isn't some version of this, I would be surprised. But I am hopeful for a longer "prologue" in DA3 than we got in DA2. I want to be able to know more about my character, who she is, and where she comes from, from the get-go.

[Corto81]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

It's a bit of both, I think.

Origins was very, hmmm, old-school, but it works. For me, personally, game depth and the sense that the game world is real goes a long way to rounding off the protagonist itself.
While Origins wasn't as open to exploration as a Skyim is, it felt real because of the level of detail and how the story developed. The lore, the books, the people that existed in cities without being obviously there as fillers like in DA2, etc.
The human story, for example. You got to know your parents, your brother, your dog, your libriarian, some random children, some noblemen, etc.
BEFORE the game started for real, I was sold, and I cared.
And the cut-scene before the Ostagar battle, music included, was the single most nerd-goosebumping moment I've ever experienced in any game. It was THAT good.
The build-up, slow but engaging, the characters, dead ones and living, the young king, Loghain, Grey Warden initiation, etc.
The writing made a basis for my character, I cared before I ever got to truly flesh him out later in the game.

DA2 didn't have that. I never really cared about Hawke (despite my general dislike for DA2 compared to Origins, I did play through DA2 three times, so it's not as if I tried and gave up).
He was detached from his mother, his sibling, his companions didn't talk to him except in certain place, he just felt staged and fake.
To be clear, that's how I perceived it, there are many people who love Hawke - just not nearly as many that loved the Warden - from the feedback I've seen and read, anyway.

So, despite the voiced protagonist having obvious limitations (you can't role-play a coward with a high-piched voice, or a growly fat-man with a sever cough or something, Hawke's voice would never fit, etc.), I think it CAN be done (in Mass Effect, Shepard worked IMO, even if the 3rd game was a bit of a mess at the end and made you lose touch with Shepard).

But yeah, in the end, if you guys make everything else in the game as deep and engaging as in Origins (plot was classic, but was just a cover for politics and Loghain, dwarven clans, werewolves and elves, etc. / believable, real, likeable characters with genuine concerns and struggles and character growth - as opposed to DA2 when most were immature and one-dimensional, etc etc) I don't think it'll even matter whether the character is voiced or not.
For all the people who found Origins great and wanted a voice protagonist, but ended up not caring about because the game was engaging and deep... You'll have the same reaction if DA3 is great and people who want a silent protagonist won't mind that their character has a  voice this time.

This universe you built is truly among the best I've seen in fantasy (and I love the genre, games, books, TV, movies, I devour it), it's deep, complex and most importantly, feels real.
Origins, subsequent books and lore, all felt "real".

DA2 just didn't. It felt bland, cheap, staged. Fake.

Obviously, you guys have deadlines and orders from above, and I never take it personally when a game doesn't live up to my expectations.
But in this case, it was more of a disappointment that the RPG elements were stripped, world felt fake, quests and NPCs felt like they existed so I can get levels and XP instead of being there "for real", companions suddenly went from wonderfully complex yet believable in Origins to mindblowindly naive, immature and forced in DA2, etc...
Point is, Hawke's voice only ended up adding to the disappointment.
It wouldn't have mattered if I voiced him myself.
(obviously, most of the flaws I'm talking about here have nothing to do with writing anyway, but trying to describe my thoughts on the VO)

...

Sorry for the long reply.

TL, DR?

In short, the voiced protagonist CAN be pulled off IMO, and won't be an issue (even if it's somewhat limiting to role-playing) if the game is as good, deep, etc. as Origins was.



(I know there are about 4 people on the planet who didn't enjoy DA:O, but the majority thought it was a masterpiece... Critics, fans and to my knowledge, sales, all confirm it.)

[AkiKishi]

There are a lot of crtitics of Origin but it almost always comes down to the game system and not the roleplaying/story.

[Kavatica]

Corto81 wrote...

In short, the voiced protagonist CAN be pulled off IMO, and won't be an issue (even if it's somewhat limiting to role-playing) if the game is as good, deep, etc. as Origins was.

Although I don't agree with everything you are saying here, I do very much agree with this statement.