7 réponses à ce sujet

[Piecake]

 I think this has been an occuring problem in recent bioware games.  We, as players, arent able to pick our characters motivation, we are only able to pick his tone.  We do not get to decide WHY he is doing the things he is doing.  We only get to pick whether he is a dbag or a goody goody while he is doing those things (or now crack jokes while doing it as well).  

This, I think, is a problem since I find only being able to pick tone very superficial.  What I mean is, is that you do not get to decide the why, you only get to decide how he acts.  I would like to decide both why and how my character acts.  

Now, all of the dialogue chocies do not have to keep on reiterating your motivation, and tone definitely havs a place (so long as motivation dialogue feels significant).  I also feel like it would give greater weight to tone choices because those choices will reflect your motivation.  Meaning that if you choose your motivation to be revenge, you will most likely not go with a goody goody tone in another dialouge.  You will want to keep it consistent.

The benefit of having motivation as a significant part of the dialogue choices is that it will make your character feel more like your own.  You are deciding its motivation.  You are deciding why your character is doing what he is doing.  Not Bioware.  This, I think, would help alleviate some of the frustraitions people have had with the voiced protaganist and the dialogue wheel.  They dont feel like their character is their own.  I know if I was able to decide my character's motivation, even if the game was fully voiced, had a dialogue wheel, etc, that character would feel more like my own.  More like my own creation, since i am deciding something more fundemental to his character than how he acts around people.  I am deciding why he acts.

I also think that choosing motivation would make those dialogue choices feel more significant than choosing tone, even if those choices do not impact anything in the game world.

Now, I realize that this would probably limit some of the stories you could tell since you would need to create a scenario where at least two different motivations are plausible, but I would definitely like to see it happen since I think it would be an excellent way - while keeping all your current systems (VA, dialogue wheel, etc) - to make the player feel like he is more agency, feel like he has more control over creating his character, or lets him more easily believe he is is character.

Modifié par Piecake, 16 avril 2012 - 07:19 .

[Allan Schumacher]

To derail this only slightly I have a question re: Icons.


I personally don't mind them,especially in the context of things like romances. I remember my friend telling me about how all he wanted to do was be nice to Jacob in Mass Effect, and unfortunately the line ended up coming across excessively flirty and he wasn't expecting that at all.

I can understand some complaints in some contexts. Like, the idea that showing the swords (this option will lead to combat) maybe gives the player too much clairvoyance on what is going to happen, and prevents any surprise that may occur in that combat suddenly occurs. It undermines the players having to accept the consequences of their actions.

I liked the icons in general though because it helps the player make a better informed decision about how the line is going to be delivered. I.e. the fists show that it's a more aggressive type of response, because for me part of what makes me choose my response is based upon my anticipation of how the game will react to it. If I want to make a snide remark, and I read a paraphrase (or a full line) as sarcastic, but the game doesn't respond as so, then the effect is lost.

I have always found this to be a "problem" in RPG games, whether it be Alpha Protocol, Fallout, Baldur's Gate, or Dragon Age. I typically find myself picking a response more along the lines of the type of emotion I'd like to convey, rather than the specifics of the words, because I've always had this understanding that no game is ever going to be able to provide me with the specific words I'd want to use.

But then, I've also never really compared story-driven CRPGs to be as much of a parallel for PnP experiences that I know a lot of other people have. Depending on the game, sometimes by a significant amount (I never considered Shepard in Mass Effect to really be "my Shepard" at any point during the trilogy).

[Allan Schumacher]

I guess my question is:

What specifically is wrong with them? With a follow up: Are there any alternatives that you could suggest the provide greater context so that the player doesn't end up doing anything that is grossly unexpected (like suddenly romancing a character or other aspects like that)?

I see the icons as being an abstraction of the [Attack] type side notes that would exist along the text lines of CRPGs a decade ago.

[Allan Schumacher]

For example, in DA:O, you can "imagine" that the PC is actually a shapeshifting alien investigating Thedas from the planet Zarblox 99, who just happened to secretly kill and eat the actual appropriately raced/gendered PC right before you started the game.

A game is responsive and realistic when it reacts to you. You can "imagine" consquences for all of your choices that have no consequences in DA2 in the 3-year gaps, but no one's about to laud that as any sort of meaningful feature.

I don't think this would require any sort of explicit "motivation" mechanics to dialogue choices. In order to reflect this, I don't think we'd need a "I'll help you [Lie]" but rather allow the player to say "I'll help you" and then not force the player to help. This could be simply outright ignoring (providing appropriate reaction may or may not be a requirement), to explicit betrayal (later saying "I decided to not help you").

In other words, does this really require a difference to how our conversation system is presented to the player, or something we can fix by how we write/design content?

[Allan Schumacher]

Korusus wrote...

The problem with DA2's icon system is it was 99% of the time an ABC choice of Diplomatic/Sarcastic/Aggressive.  That's predictable and boring.  And unless you're playing a scizophrenic character, you as a player are likely to always pick the Diplomatic/Sarcastic/Aggressive choice (the same way in Mass Effect you always pick the Paragon/Renegade).

Is this an issue with the conversation system, or more an issue with providing feedback for the consequences of player decisions?  I, personally, don't care for a game telling me I get +Paragon or +Rivalry for any of my decisions.  But I'm also the type of person that in no way always picks Paragon/Renegade because I consider that to be kind of metagaming and is just myself placing an artificial constraint on how my character should behave.  My favourite overall RPG character experience is probably the original KOTOR where I decided that I would not play to have any sort of focus on choosing light or dark side options and it was so phenomenally fun that I haven't done it since.

As for the schizophrenia, that sounds more like issues with how the voice acting is done.  If the writing had been the same, but the icons removed and the position on the wheel randomized (so it's not predictable), I don't think you'd find the responses any more or less schizophrenic, even though there's no icons at all.

It's the same problem with SWTOR in that if you want to maximize your light/dark points you're always going to select the icon you want, ignoring what line is actually delivered regardless of the paraphrase.  SWTOR makes it an option to turn off the alignment gain icons.

Again, I think this is the same issue, and the core issue being whether or not the game should provide explicit feedback for the consequences of their actions.  I remember it being a very common complaint back in KOTOR about whether or not particular lines should award light or darkside points.

I much prefer SWTOR's where you may not always know which option is the best for your character (but SWTOR's implementation of the dialogue wheel is much, much better and smoother than in any other game, and allows you to start over if you feel you made a bad dialogue choice that was not in line with your character)

I don't know if I like the idea of "what's best for your character" and I don't know if I've ever really gotten that point in games with the dialogue wheel, with the exception of the obvious blue/red paragon/renegade choices that occur in Mass Effect.  But that's similar to having one of the dialogue responses in PST being a paragraph while the other 4 are one sentence.  It's kind of obvious I passed a skill check which has allowed for a much more beneficial response.

SWTOR: Voiced protagonist, no tonal icons.  The difference being that
most of the paraphrasing in SWTOR is logical and works, whereas the
paraphrasing in DA2 was lazy, misleading, and depended entirely on the
tonal icon for context.

Hmmm, I find myself getting burned on SWTOR responses a lot more than even Mass Effect.  Though my friend and I made a "never cancel a conversation under any circumstances" stance which usually leads to it providing fun humor to the game so I just roll with it.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 19 avril 2012 - 11:22 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

With a follow up: Are there any alternatives that you could suggest the provide greater context so that the player doesn't end up doing anything that is grossly unexpected (like suddenly romancing a character or other aspects like that)?

Yes. The Dues Ex system that I posted on the first page.

I actually enjoy the Deus Ex system (the responses themselves remind me a lot of Alpha Protocol as well, which is probably my favourite conversation system in any game.  (I also like the usage of the conversation system as a type of confrontation too).

Although the Deus Ex conversations where very directed with a specific goal (in the excellent confrontations), or just sort of standard with often binary responses (in the general conversations).

   

I see the icons as being an abstraction of the [Attack] type side notes that would exist along the text lines of CRPGs a decade ago.

The word 'attack' is more abstract than a picture of two swords crossing.

If the word 'attack' is more abstract then the picture of two swords crossing must be clearer
(This is a pithy response.  I understand what you meant).

There are no more than 3 Hawkes

I disagree with this.  I don't think it's implicit that the game leads people to to continuously pick one of the three options, since I never found myself doing that.  Perhaps I'm unique in that regard, but then what is it that is different about how I play and why do others find themselves susceptible to picking one of "the three Hawkes" or always being Paragon/Renegade, or to be all Lightside/Darkside.

And I use the KOTOR example to show that this occurs in games with fully laid out lines of dialogue, so I feel it's not a symptom of the dialogue wheel or the icons, but how people respond to other game mechanics.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 19 avril 2012 - 11:41 .

[Allan Schumacher]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

EDIT: Whoah, I  might've been smoking something without knowing, but wasn't the post above Maria Caliban's and not Allan's just before I wrote this post? It's definitely Allan's now. Who's smoking, me or BSN's residential VI? =D

EDIT2: The post disappeared! Witchcraft! To the Circle with you!

Sorry, this is me being completely noob as a I DO have moderator status on this board (I've been posting on ME3's board a lot where I don't have such power), so right beside "Quote" is "Edit" and when responding to Maria I accidentally clicked "Edit" and all sorts of stupid, stupid stuff happened which confused the crap out of me.  Lesson learned though (checks to see that it says "Add reply" up at the top.  Indeed it does)

Maybe I should stay away....  HAHA.  Sorry everyone

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 19 avril 2012 - 11:44 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Korusus wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Perhaps I'm unique in that regard, but then what is it that is different about how I play and why do others find themselves susceptible to picking one of "the three Hawkes" or always being Paragon/Renegade, or to be all Lightside/Darkside.

I read your posts both here and on ME3 forums, so I think actually you are a bit of a unique case.  ME rewards you for consistenly picking Renegade or Paragon.  SWTOR rewards you for consistently picking Lightside/Darkside (although they're supposedly adding neutral gear).  And it could be argued that the instances in DA2 where you character says a line based on the tone you most often choose is a good metagaming motivation to consistently pick the same tone throughout.

This is a fair point.  For myself, the story is the reward for how I play, so things like bonuses for being max light/dark don't really appeal to me.  I'm not a fan of explicitly rewarding a type of play, although if we're going to, we need to be as fair as possible (I think that the idea of Rivalry/Friendship is in the right progression.  Alpha Protocol had something similar).

I like that SWTOR lets you start the conversation over because I do find knowing exactly what my character is going to say is important.  It's integral to my roleplay experience.  Otherwise it begins to feel too much like I'm watching a movie /shrug.

We mostly started the "never restart a conversation ever" just as a rule to never restart a conversation simply because one of us didn't like the outcome of one of our comments.

I also never play TOR solo either though.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, but I will disagree.  I think
the icons epitomize metagaming and encourage it.  Especially when
combined with the tone-based autodialogue.  If I'm to make a choice, let
it be because I'm choosing what my character is saying (Origins) and
not just how my character is saying it (DA2, where you never know what
Hawke is going to say, not really...never...not ever.)

I guess the question then becomes "Are people like Allan in the minority enough that such metagaming tools are mostly a benefit to the game?"

I'm actually pretty indifferent to the wheel itself, and not particularly "yay or nay" to the wheel or to full lines of text.  For myself, the biggest advantage of the wheel is that I turn subtitles off and actually listen to what my character says.  There are pros and cons to both systems IMO.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 20 avril 2012 - 03:14 .