103 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

I think that mocking is easy enough. There's a couple of specific examples were mocking was intended by design. And furthermore mocking can be achieved especially well when the person being mocked doesn't realize it.

Not having a voice leaves a plethora of options open for interpretation.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 19 avril 2012 - 10:41 .

[Maria Caliban]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I guess my question is:

What specifically is wrong with them?

What's specifically wrong with icons is that they demand a set of standard responses. You can ask a player to memorize 10 icons at most wherein they already know several thousand words.

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
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.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 19 avril 2012 - 11:37 .

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I think that mocking is easy enough. There's a couple of specific examples were mocking was intended by design. And furthermore mocking can be achieved especially well when the person being mocked doesn't realize it.

There's a difference between being sarcastic and trolling. Leading someone on without them knowing it might well be very fun trolling, but it isn't being sarcastic.

I like my characters to stand out. And no VO is directly opposed to this. It makes the PC a background prop whenever anything important happens. Which is why Carth/Alistair/Random NPC 56 speak for you.

[the_one_54321]

The going exchange rate for stand-out sarcastic characters is "significant development costs" and "large cuts in content volume."

Yeah, yeah, I know they insist that the volume of dialog is there. But the quantity of lines does not directly extrapolate to the general freedom of character interpretation. There are no more than 3 Hawkes, total. Plus player imagination, between the lines.

[Deviija]

I rather have a list of responses to choose from like standard silent protagonist games offer. At least this way my PC is not beholden to a slim set of responses and voice acting and production costs. Several responses may lead to the exact same follow-up discussion lines and outcomes, but at least I am able to have more options to roleplay my character as my own. Motivation, reasoning, and tone of my own mental voice indulgence.

Not trying to turn it into yet another 'voiced vs. silent protag' thread, but it is related. Voiced means more limited responses since they have to be voice acted. And it's expensive. Having a 'Snarky, Diplomatic, Aggressive'/Paragon, Renegade, Neutral spread is what it is. Still limiting. Especially when they're all saying the same general thing, just in different ways. If different intents and reasoning (motivation) in each 'tone' response, then it could help diversify things. But again, some people might want to be aggressively deceptive vs. diplomatically deceptive, or save a party member out of love for them vs. wanting to kill a villain in vengeance and the rescuing the companion part is just a fringe result.

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The going exchange rate for stand-out sarcastic characters is "significant development costs" and "large cuts in content volume." 

Yeah. They go do something like "remove neutral tones" and "tighten-up the PC's backstory". Which would concidentally be cuts that I favour anyway to free up zots. because I don't think either element actually leads to any freedom at all. 

Yeah, yeah, I know they insist that the volume of dialog is there. But the quantity of lines does not directly extrapolate to the general freedom of character interpretation. There are no more than 3 Hawkes, total. Plus player imagination, between the lines.

You're talking to the wrong person about character freedom. I don't believe in the fan-fiction + invent your own pitch = freedom idea.

So, for example, I don't think you get more than 2 characters in DA:O, full stop, irrespective of the Origins because of how the personalities converge post-Ostagar and how pre-written they are start.

[In Exile]

Deviija wrote...

I rather have a list of responses to choose from like standard silent protagonist games offer. At least this way my PC is not beholden to a slim set of responses and voice acting and production costs. Several responses may lead to the exact same follow-up discussion lines and outcomes, but at least I am able to have more options to roleplay my character as my own. Motivation, reasoning, and tone of my own mental voice indulgence.

Not trying to turn it into yet another 'voiced vs. silent protag' thread, but it is related. Voiced means more limited responses since they have to be voice acted. And it's expensive. Having a 'Snarky, Diplomatic, Aggressive'/Paragon, Renegade, Neutral spread is what it is. Still limiting. Especially when they're all saying the same general thing, just in different ways. If different intents and reasoning (motivation) in each 'tone' response, then it could help diversify things. But again, some people might want to be aggressively deceptive vs. diplomatically deceptive, or save a party member out of love for them vs. wanting to kill a villain in vengeance and the rescuing the companion part is just a fringe result.

This isn't about silent v. VO. It's really about whether mental fantasy counts as content.

I don't think it does. So where you look at DA:O and think "Woo! Freedom! I can make up my own content!" , I just don't see content. Which is where you get the fundamental divide. Because I'm not asking for different content, from my POV - I'm asking for there to be content in the first place.

[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 .

[Fraevar]

@Allan: I noticed this a lot with DA2 - seems to be that because Mass Effect set the standard, as it were, a lot of people tend to gravitate towards sticking to just one side of it. But more often it's very hard to gauge if it's appropriate to say a given thing in a given situation with the DA2 dialogue system. More often than not, Hawke would say something looney even if it was grossly inappropriate but no one would comment on it. There wasn't any incentive to stop and think about what kind of response was appropriate for a given situation, like in say, Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

[Kidd]

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!


I like the tonal icons when they work, which is most of the time. There are a few instances in the game (the quest in the Fade if you bring Anders for instance iirc) where the crossed swords icon is used to show combat will happen if I pick a certain option, even though the line itself is not actually an attacking line.

If the crossed swords icon means the same thing as my character attacking, that is great. But if my character tries to talk someone down and is then attacked from failing at it, that reply should -not- be adorned with crossed swords imho since my intention was not to fight. For a comparison where this is done right, look at the heart icons during dialogue with [unromanceable NPC]. These show Hawke's intent, not the consequences of her actions.

As long as my tonal intent is shown, all is great. I remember being slightly confused with some chats with Alistair in DAO where one dialogue, making fun of him was rewarded and in the other, he said I was a heartless jerk. Yet for me, I had read both lines in the same voice. Obviously this was not the case for the writer, and the writer's intent must shine through. Am I poking fun, or am I downright insulting? With words alone, it's sometimes very hard to know. That's why the internets invented smileys! ^^

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 19 avril 2012 - 11:39 .

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...
So, for example, I don't think you get more than 2 characters in DA:O, full stop, irrespective of the Origins because of how the personalities converge post-Ostagar and how pre-written they are start.

Well, you don't, certainly. Actually, I don't get much more than 2 either, if even that. I usually play roughly the same guy. But for others? Well, it's a plain fact that you can't dictate what they are able to imagine if the game doesn't.

In Exile wrote...
It's really about whether mental fantasy counts as content.

It actually doesn't matter if it's content or not. If a person is able to play, then a person is able to play. If the game is restrictive, then it is restrictive.

[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 .

[the_one_54321]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
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.

Keep in mind that I also said "plus player imagination between the lines." 

The point is that only with a voiced PC does the game actually demonstrate to you exactly what you said and how you said it. And with the VAs performing from a set list of toned responses, the variation is strictly limited.

[Kidd]

Allan, quick question that's off-topicishly relevant since it happened in this topic. Through what kind of witchcraft did you kidnap Maria Caliban's post? =)

I take it the forums glitched somehow? Never seen it do a number like that before =O

[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 .

[Kidd]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

That's okay. Just in the future, remember that with great power comes great responsibility! Thwip on - we appreciate having you around =)

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Well, you don't, certainly. Actually, I don't get much more than 2 either, if even that. I usually play roughly the same guy. But for others? Well, it's a plain fact that you can't dictate what they are able to imagine if the game doesn't. 

Like I said: other people's mental fantasy is not an issue. What is an issue, however, is paying 60$ for someone's mental fantasy instead of a feature I'd enjoy. Hence I'm here.

In Exile wrote...
It actually doesn't matter if it's content or not. If a person is able to play, then a person is able to play. If the game is restrictive, then it is restrictive.

I object to your use of the word "play". Not to mention that "if the game is restrctive" doesn't make sense. You can use your imagination to literally invent any content or option you want. If imagined content counts, then DA2 has as many options as you can invent happening,

[Meris]

In Exile wrote...

I object to your use of the word "play". Not to mention that "if the game is restrctive" doesn't make sense. You can use your imagination to literally invent any content or option you want. If imagined content counts, then DA2 has as many options as you can invent happening,

So you think that Imagination doesn't count?

[In Exile]

Meris wrote...
So you think that Imagination doesn't count?

Of course not. Which I don't mean in a demeaning way. But whatever content people make up in their head isn't content in-game, and I prefer either unrestrained imagination (so I can write, and imagine what I want) or in-game content.

I view imagination in video-games the way many on these forums view so-called casual RPGs as the worst of both worlds.

[Meris]

In Exile wrote...

Meris wrote...
So you think that Imagination doesn't count?

Of course not. Which I don't mean in a demeaning way. But whatever content people make up in their head isn't content in-game, and I prefer either unrestrained imagination (so I can write, and imagine what I want) or in-game content.

I view imagination in video-games the way many on these forums view so-called casual RPGs as the worst of both worlds.

Well, here's my answer to you from the Silent X Voiced poll.

Meris wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I hate this argument, so so much. 

Is it because you fail to comprehend that voice and silence both have their advantages?

David Gaider: I think the medium is quickly moving toward being far more cinematic than it was—which is both good and bad, I think. It’s good in that we can show as much as we tell, now. Bad because we suddenly have to show, and less can be left to the imagination … something which, in many ways, we will never be able to compete with. Far be it from me to be a Luddite, however. This is the direction the technology is moving, and hopefully we’ll reach a point where creating the cinematics is inexpensive enough that we can branch out as much as we did when it was primarily text we were working with. 

So BioWare is wise enough to understand both the role of Imagination with the silent protagonist, as well as their more practical advantage of being capable of branching more than BioWare currently (or ever) has. They have simply made a option, confident that cinematics and cutscenes are more engaging (and certainly more marketable, wink wink nodge nodge), and Mr. Gaider hopes that one day they'll be able to do Voice without sacrificing content and choice/consequence. But currently they don't and I don't think they ever will - cinematic technology isn't the only part of game development that is evolving and new storytelling techniques unique to non-cinematic heavy games both exist and will be created, and vice versa.

Its two equally viable styles.

http://www.fantasy-m...batich/#respond 

To which I add: While I believe there's a limit between writting fan-fiction and interpreting a story at your leisure, I believe you're wrong. Imagination doesn't need to be unrestrained to be effective. It, according to BioWare and decades old tradition in CRPG roleplaying (and me \\o/, whoever I am), has its role whenever the story is presented with ambiguity.

Modifié par Meris, 20 avril 2012 - 12:33 .

[Piecake]

Korusus wrote...

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

I guess my OP was a bit confusing since I kinda danced around the BG2 example so that i wouldnt spoiler it.  Basically, what i mean when i say i want to decide my motivation in dialogue choices, is that that I want to decide my motivation for the BIG choices, like why do I want to become the champion?  or, as in BG2, why do i want to kill this evil dude who has kidnapped my companion?  Minor stuff like why am i taking this quest, or killing this minor enemy, or talking to some old dude, I really dont care about.  Motivation for the big stuff is what I meant.  

As for tones, I think, the problem, like others have pointed out, was that there were only a few of them, and the vast majority of the time it was either aggressive, diplomatic or snarky.  Thats not good.  It also felt that the tone would indicate the consequences, and not inent, because 95% of the time, your intent came true.  I dont think thats a good ratio (havent played the game in a while, so that might be a bit off, but that was/is my impression of the game)

I havent played the new Deus Ex, but that convo system does look interesting

[Morroian]

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)?

Icons are generally fine IMHO, its the paraphrasing thats more the issue. TOR and ME have the same issue. There was a comment from a dev, before DA2 was released IIRC, that the way the paraphrase was implemented was as the beginning of the dialogue but was unsaid. If this is true, and it seems to be so in both DA2 and TOR, then thats a mistake. It should properly summarise the dialogue, if you need more resources to put more work into paraphrasing then so be it, it should come with the territory once you decide to use paraphrasing. 

[Korusus]

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.

I think your desire not to metagame is admirable, but not necessarily a widespread opinion.

I do agree with you though, if the icons had been removed and the tones randomly placed on the dialogue wheel that would lead to a less schizophrenic feel, but that would have to be coupled with decent paraphrasing.  I still would rather there be more than 3 tones and that they not be the end-all-be-all to how your character develops.

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.

[Meris]

Korusus wrote...

I think your desire not to metagame is admirable, but not necessarily a widespread opinion.

For the whole act I managed to survive in DA2, I also did not metagame my responses. I'd say that the way DA2 presented dialogue followed the same phylosophy behind the dialogue choices of Origins, which would, in turn, do kind of diminish metagaming greatly.

[Korusus]

Meris wrote...

Korusus wrote...

I think your desire not to metagame is admirable, but not necessarily a widespread opinion.

For the whole act I managed to survive in DA2, I also did not metagame my responses. I'd say that the way DA2 presented dialogue followed the same phylosophy behind the dialogue choices of Origins, which would, in turn, do kind of diminish metagaming greatly.

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.)