103 réponses à ce sujet

[TheJediSaint]

To make my point another way, I don't think it's necessary for the player to be able to "tell" the game their character's motivations, because the player can "show" them through the actions and tones that they select.

Someone motivated by revenge will likely be more aggressive, while someone motivated by greed will more often make "mercenary" choices. A person motivated by a mentor will likely try to make choices that they think their role-model would make. I don't think the player needs a special dialgoue option in order to express their character's motivation.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 16 avril 2012 - 03:48 .

[Piecake]

Well, for those who think it would limit you, what do you think of Maria's suggestion of having a

"I dont want to talk about it option!" (or maybe not something that rude) for the people who want to use a different motivation than the game offers?

And when I say significant, I dont mean, having 50% of the dialogue choices reiterate my motivation. I just want it to FEEL significant. If bioware can pull that feeling off in 2, 10, 20, or 100 dialogue choices, then fine by me.

As for a system where the game tracks your motivation and the game later reacts to your choice, I think that would be awesome. If bioware doesnt want to do that though, fine.

A new system would make it better, but i dont think is necessary if they want to do something like this since its all about developing your character.  And honestly, Ive always had a very difficult time of making stuff up about my character in my head that isnt reflected or reacted to in the game world at all (be it dialogue choices or stuff that the characters say to you). Having dialogue choices like this would help me role play him, help me personalize him/her more, and give him more depth

Modifié par Piecake, 16 avril 2012 - 03:55 .

[esper]

TheJediSaint wrote...

"Motivation" to me strikes me as something that exists in the realm of the player's imagination. For example, in DA2, I decided from the start that Hawke's primary motivation was the welfare of his family. Therefore, he chose to keep Bethany home while he ventured into the Deep Roads, became active in the Mage Underground after she was forced into the Circle, and chose to save the Mages in the endgame so that he could protect her.

As such, I'm not really that concerned about being able to choose a motivation in-game. I just keep motivations that I've decided for my PC in mind when it's time to make in-game decisions.

This is how it feels for me too.
Added with the fact that I think that motivation is far too complex and fluid to actually choose in a simple dialog choice
.
My Hawkes wanted to keep her promise to her father (keep family safe), help her fellow mages and better Kirkwall. Those three were her primary motivation, but she as the years went by 1. proved impossible and morphed to care about her group instead and 3 just stopped being important to her as 2 became the one thing she really cared about and she was fully prepared to sacrifice 3 for it. And that is just her primary motivation, we have not even talked about Li's, friendships, people who just pisses her off or people she feels she owe something or other small reasons.
All of those affect her overall motivation for her decesions and such I am not sure how Bioware could provide me with a satisfying motivaiton system.

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

[LIE] NO, MAN THE DIALOGUE WHEEL IS FINE.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I'd love to have opportunities to state motives per the examples given, but frankly, I would settle for not having the dialogue make any assumptions about my character's motives.

That too! ;D

[Kidd]

I agree with this. Though I fail to come up with any examples from DA2 right now (totally in a Mass Effect phase atm, sorry!), I know there are times where Hawke alludes to a motivation I might not have thought of. The revenge/rescue choice from BG2 is truly a great mirror of the situation. The game hardly changes at all no matter what you pick (does it do -anything-? I don't remember it ever being a factor), but it feels good for the player to get to tell the game world what they're thinking.

There's a choice at the end of ME2 for instance where Shepard gives a very exact motivation if you choose to do something. One of my Shepards who chose that answer did not choose it for the reason Shepard said, and it felt pretty darn weird.

Of course I understand that you can't have some 3-4 motivations for every single time the wheel comes up, but in some situations it'd certainly be welcome to choose between at least two. "Am I helping this person out of the good of my heart, or am I doing it for money?" is more or less the only motivation I can remember DA2 ever asking us aside from general, broad strokes talks in private with our companions. Speaking of which, that scene where Varric asks what you want to do in life? Amazing scene. More of that, please! I like when people ask me questions =)

[paul165]

I disagree with this idea sorry. I don't mind the game assigning actions to me (within reasonable limits) but assigning motivations for me is a step too far into the developer defining the character for me. It's not that they wouldn't do a decent job it's that I don't want them to try.

For instance - minor ME3 spoiler
Assigning an action -Shepard needs to stop the Reapers is absolutely fine
Assigning a motivation -having nightmares about a kid dying not OK in my opinion. My Shepard didn't care at all about that kid and the game should not have said that they did.

**DA2 spoiler warning for completeness**
Or from DA2 my Hawke sided with the Templars for various headcanon reasons (Meredith saved my life, Orsino was inciting public disorder, the blood mages HURT MY SISTER). Could the developers predict all that? No. Should they be expected to? No - after all the NPCs only know and only care about what you did.

Modifié par paul165, 19 avril 2012 - 08:01 .

[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).

[nightscrawl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

I think you forgot to ask your question .

In general though, I also like the icons. To use your specific examples of flirting/romance I tend to go back to Leliana in DAO. I tended to have conversations with her that are like those I have with my close girl friends, unfortunately, that can end up in a ninjamance if you aren't really careful with your choices. I like the heart icon because your intent of initiating a romance with this character is crystal clear. The swords/combat icon is also used well. If I am talking to someone and I'm going to stab them or punch them, I know that I'm going to do that. There is no surprise involved.

I think the solution is to use a combination of icons and text that will convey what you are going to say as well as your intent/tone so that you can make the right decision for yourself as a player. I would immensely prefer icons in addition to full text mouseover bubbles, but I am willing to wait and see what solution they develop to enhance clarity, which was somewhat lacking in DA2.

[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.

[In Exile]

TheJediSaint wrote...

"Motivation" to me strikes me as something that exists in the realm of the player's imagination. For example, in DA2, I decided from the start that Hawke's primary motivation was the welfare of his family. Therefore, he chose to keep Bethany home while he ventured into the Deep Roads, became active in the Mage Underground after she was forced into the Circle, and chose to save the Mages in the endgame so that he could protect her.

As such, I'm not really that concerned about being able to choose a motivation in-game. I just keep motivations that I've decided for my PC in mind when it's time to make in-game decisions.

I just wanted to chime in how much I disagree with this rationale. Anything that is "in the realm of imagination" is just fan-fiction. You can always "imagine: something that is in the game.

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.

Modifié par In Exile, 19 avril 2012 - 09:18 .

[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?

[In Exile]

Dakota Strider wrote...
Exactly.  Those silly roleplay crutches were an insult to rpg players.  It is granted, that in a computer rpg, you are going to have a limited amount of choices (though, the more choices, the better).  But a person should be able to read the choice, to see if it feels most like what he/she wants to say in the situation, and then live with that choice, without some lame player aid pointing them in the appropriate color-coded direction.

It has nothing to do with "insulting" or "silly crutches" and everything to do with actually meaningfully conveying information. Let's learn something called "pragmatics", which is an area that concerns very important modifiers to speech. Suppose we the following set of words: "That was a good idea" 

Does this sentence mean one thing? Nope! It could say (to get diametrically opposed effects):

That was a good idea!
That was a good idea?

We've created punctuation specifically to get across intent. But punctuation doesn't do enough work to get at all possible intent. Consider: "That was a good idea." Could be taken to mean lots of different things (again, keeping it simple and restricting to two cases):

That was a good idea. :happy:

That was a good idea. <_<

Moreover, in PRGs you have the other person reacting to you. So let's say you think the line "That was a good idea" says "That was a good idea. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie]"  and you pick it. The reaction is:

"Well, there's no need to be sarcastic."

So what do you do now? You didn't get the choice you wanted. It was OOC, and only happened because the text failed.

Well, you could correct the misunderstanding (if it was RL). But video-games don't give you the option. So you either bite the bullet on the choice or re-load.

And that's not even to get at the really superior function of the wheel: investigate options. There are lots of times in RPGs (using the list dialogue) where you can move a conversation tree forward by asking a question while there are still other questions you might be interesting in asking that get closed off. How does that even remotely make sense? By separating the conversation triggers from information, the wheel (just structurally) does lots of work to disambiguate the content of the dialogue.

[Maria Caliban]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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).

So... what is the question?

[In Exile]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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?

To be serious for a second, I think there are two layers here: the information to the player, and the actual in-game content. When I say information to the player, I mean, information regarding what is and isn't possible in-game.

If I see an option that says" [Lie] I will help you" then (as a player) I'm tipped off that I can lie and not help. It gives me a better sense of what the game allows and doesn't allow. Since RPGs tend toward multiple solutions to a given encounter, I think the experience is enriched when the player is tipped-off to what options are possible.

I also think that, generally, that options to drop quests (if they have unique reactions and outcome later, obviously within reason & zot allocation) are worthwhile in and of themselves, rather than the way DA2 handled them, i.e. with Hawke sort of playing it off as being too busy.

Edit:

To actually respond to the question (seems like I got caught up and forgot) I think that a motivation mechanic, actively tracked, adds depth. It's true that it restricts options, but I think fewer and deeper options >> many swallow ones. ME3 has some very nice short interactions where people engage Shepard on his/her mental state.

If there are multiple motivations (say 3) available, and companions/LIs ask the player about those motivations at the game throughout key junctures, then I think that's the kind of thing that (1) builds attachment; and (2) encourages the player to re-play the game and build word of mouth in general.

Modifié par In Exile, 19 avril 2012 - 09:37 .

[BubbleDncr]

I don't have a problem with icons or having things like, (Lie), (Flirt), (Attack), (Persuade), etc in parenthesis. The more information I have about what my character is going to do when I choose a dialog option, the better.

Because even in Origins, before voice acting a paraphrasing existed - it doesn't really matter what crazy backstory I came up with in my head and my excuse for choosing the dialog option I chose was - the writers wrote the dialog with a specific intent, and the reaction of the NPCs matches that intent. I feel like full lines of dialog are the best way to express what the intent of a line is, but for some reason Bioware doesn't want to do that and have voice acting.

I would much rather be hit over the head with icons and parenthesis that make sure I know what each dialog option is going to be, than to have to save before every conversation just in case I end up saying something I didn't intend to say.

[Korusus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

There's nothing specifically wrong with icons (other than as you mentioned, the fight is about to break out scenario).

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).  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.  The problem with DA2 and ME is that you always know, regardless of the icons, which choice you want (Top is Diplo, Middle is Sarc, Bottom is Aggro).  It's a problem only made worse by the pavlovian response of "See correct icon, choose that option".  

Really DA2's dialogue system doesn't even need the paraphrasing.  They were wildly misleading anyway, and I think most players always stuck with the same tone throughout for whatever character they were playing.  

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)

Also, I love the idea of allowing the player to assign motivation.  

Ugh, the more I talk about this the more I hate the dialogue wheel and all of its myriad limitations.

Modifié par Korusus, 19 avril 2012 - 09:55 .

[nightscrawl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

The [Attack], [Lie], [Intimidate/Persuade], etc parts but only with icons rather than explicit words I think are the most basic function of how the icons exist in DA2. The other important function, and one that must be discussed if we're talking about icons, is the presentation of tone with a voiced PC -- this isn't an option, we ARE going to have it, so this thread isn't the place to argue it's merits or faults.

Because the PC is voiced, you have to have something that is going to convey the tone of your response to someone so you don't forecast your character saying something nice, click a button, and he says something mean. With a voiced PC, this is really the main function of the tonal icons, whereas the verbal icons (lie, attack) have a literal meaning.

People who dislike the icons may also dislike the voiced PC. But I would suggest that with a voiced PC there is no other way to show the tone of the piece of dialogue that your character is going to say. You cannot simply imagine the tone, as you could in DAO, since you hear it after picking the choice.

[Korusus]

nightscrawl wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Because the PC is voiced, you have to have something that is going to convey the tone of your response to someone so you don't forecast your character saying something nice, click a button, and he says something mean. With a voiced PC, this is really the main function of the tonal icons, whereas the verbal icons (lie, attack) have a literal meaning.

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.  

Just pointing out voiced protag /= tonal icons.

I have no problem with icons indicating tone, as long as we have a vast number of them and aren't limited to only three preset, unchanging tonal choices.

Like the OP said, instead of using tone as the demarcating choice, use motivation or intent instead (combined with better paraphrasing or w/e)

Modifié par Korusus, 19 avril 2012 - 10:19 .

[the_one_54321]

Just tell me exactly what I'm going to say and how I'm going to say it. Because that's what I want to know.

If you won't tell me that, then leave room for me to imagine whatever I want into that space.

In other words, voicing the PC is a horrible idea.

[In Exile]

nightscrawl wrote...

People who dislike the icons may also dislike the voiced PC. But I would suggest that with a voiced PC there is no other way to show the tone of the piece of dialogue that your character is going to say. You cannot simply imagine the tone, as you could in DAO, since you hear it after picking the choice.

This is meaningless DA:O, unless you assume everyone around you is unhinged or stupid. Because they still have to respond to you, and if your fantasy mental tone doesn't match what they say, that's a serious problem.

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...
People who dislike the icons may also dislike the voiced PC. But I would suggest that with a voiced PC there is no other way to show the tone of the piece of dialogue that your character is going to say. You cannot simply imagine the tone, as you could in DAO, since you hear it after picking the choice.

This is meaningless DA:O, unless you assume everyone around you is unhinged or stupid. Because they still have to respond to you, and if your fantasy mental tone doesn't match what they say, that's a serious problem.

I think that their responses are generally neutral enough that it's only the extreme choices (read: I'm such a great guy or I'm such unbelievable jerk) that lead to responses that are uninterpretable. For the most part, you can insert tone as you please and it breaks nothing.

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
I think that their responses are generally neutral enough that it's only the extreme choices (read: I'm such a great guy or I'm such unbelievable jerk) that lead to responses that are uninterpretable. For the most part, you can insert tone as you please and it breaks nothing.

Unless you're not being neutral. I get that some people really like to be neutral. But I don't like neutral characters. I like characters with personality. Characters who mock, for example. And that's not allowed in DA:O. I also like characters that talk about themselves. And those options just full stop doesn't exist in DA:O. And that's also related to silent VO, because once you get people "imagining" their choices, they insist that the content of dialogue is consistent with their head-cannon, which means you get very narrow situation specific responses and that's it.

There's a difference between tone and pitch. Yes, you can imagine whatever pitch you want. But you can't imagine whatever tone, unless you're getting variants of polite, because stepping outside of that, to e.g. angry or sarcastic, lends to different responses and interactions.

Which then gets you an incredibly reactive protagonist, scene-by-scene, as all the major plot work has to be done by other characters who do have voices for the cinematics. KoTOR and DA:O being great examples of this. The actual drivers of any scene were Carth and Allistair respectively (and occasionally Bastilla in KoTOR).

Modifié par In Exile, 19 avril 2012 - 10:39 .