21 réponses à ce sujet

[terdferguson123]

Hey guys, I just recently finished DA2 again and quite enjoyed it aside from a few things. There is one thing that I did find to slightly get on my nerves that I would like to see changed in DA3. And that is the Dialogue Wheel. Let me explain:

1.) Now, the Dialogue Wheel works perfectly fine in Mass Effect, and I like it in that series. But, I also feel like Mass Effect is meant to have more defined right and wrong choices than Dragon Age. One of my favorite things about Dragon Age Origins, was that the choices were not any kind of order by "good", "witty", or "evil". Because it didn't have an order, I ended up choosing the choices more that I thought were best, rather than sticking with always picking the good or the witty option for every single choice. My point is, it's too easy to get into a routine with the dialogue wheel, of always picking the same archetype. It's hard to explain, but for me it breaks immersion a bit.

2.) Having choices that follow an archetype in every conversation can be a little offputting in my opinion. There are times that the witty or charming option just doesn't fit with the scenario present. And while, sure, you don't have to pick that option, it leads back to what I said earlier about the wheel being too easily to fall into a preset "character".

It's a bit of a difficult sensation to describe, but the best way I can put it is that in comparison to how the choices were presented in origins, it makes you feel less like your playing your character, and more like your playing Bioware's vision of the character.

Did the Dialogue Wheel sort of break immersion for anyone else? If so, what could Bioware do to make it better for DA3?

[John Epler]

Well, technically, there weren't just three personality tones in DA2, but rather three categories that themselves contained variations on those tones. However, we'll readily admit that it wasn't always completely clear that this was the case.

The writers are aware of these problems, I can tell you that much, and I would expect that, going forward, we'll be trying to keep the options available more suited to the conversation in question. That's not to say that you can't, occasionally, be entirely inappropriate, but it's certainly something we can improve upon - and I've seen our ideas for doing so, and I feel that they'll answer a lot of these concerns.

[Allan Schumacher]

I just don't understand why they're so obsessed with it.

There was actually a large amount of feedback about people being disappointed that it wasn't present in DAO after they had experienced it for Mass Effect.

I don't know the total breakdown of all the feedback though.

[Allan Schumacher]

Xewaka wrote...

Conversely, there was a non-insignificant part of the player base dissapointed that the paraphrases were in DA 2 when they were mercifully absent from DA:O.

You have had a large amount of feedback about people being disappointed
that race selection wasn't present in DA2 after they had experienced it
for DAO yet weve been told there are no plans to bring it back.

Plus
you had a fair bit of feedback about how people dont like the dialogue
wheel in DA2 and want to go back to a full written text system.

If you felt that I was unaware of these perspectives then I can assure you I am not.

How do you propose we reconcile the differences between these two groups?

[Allan Schumacher]

Interesting. Thanks!

[Allan Schumacher]

In DAO the warden's voice was yours, you were not limited to three tones because you set them in your mind

Did you ever run into instances where you imagined a response being sarcastic, but the NPC responded in a way that reflected that it was an actual threat? This was always my biggest concern over the full line dialogues is that I'd still make "mistakes" in interpreting the intention of the line.

A game like PST ameliorated this by often adding additional text to indicate if you were lying and so forth, though I think they did stuff like this more so that the character's D&D morality would be reflected.

[Allan Schumacher]

Xewaka wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In DAO the warden's voice was yours, you were not limited to three tones because you set them in your mind

Did you ever run into instances where you imagined a response being sarcastic, but the NPC responded in a way that reflected that it was an actual threat? This was always my biggest concern over the full line dialogues is that I'd still make "mistakes" in interpreting the intention of the line.
A game like PST ameliorated this by often adding additional text to indicate if you were lying and so forth, though I think they did stuff like this more so that the character's D&D morality would be reflected.

See, the thing is: it is the NPC reaction what surprises you. However, with paraphrases, it is your own character that surprises you. You can guess which situation is more likely to break your character.

For me, both are equally breaking.  I've always picked the dialogue option the best went along with the general theme of how I wanted to respond, which always had me critiquing just what the writers were intending with the particular line of dialogue.

That is a problem for/with the NPC. You can't control how they think/react.

I disagree emphatically.  On these very boards I have people misinterpreting what is a sassy comment of mine and me having to immediately go into damage control.  People often require the use of emoticons in order to understand that a comment isn't sarcastic or genuine.  It's an inherent limitation with relying purely on the written word.  I have literally lost friendships because what I meant to be fun, sassy comments were being taken literally.


I can say "Wow that's awesome" in at least two different ways which convey exceptionally different meanings which the overwhelming majority of my daily face-to-face interactions with people is NOT misunderstood.  In CRPGs, I don't have the option to emphasize syllables, place inflection on various words, or utilize body languages and eye contact to convey the message that I am meaning to send, when all of these are vital to providing communication, and it's been a serious issue with written communication forever.  Social psychologists feel that around two thirds of communication between a speaker and his audience is non-verbal, and it's been completely absent in CRPGs for as long as I can remember.

The Ultima and Wizardry games were driven by keywords, which meant that I could fill in the blanks on what my character may have said but only based upon the response that the NPC provided.  Morrowind and Oblivion also behaved this way, though I think Skyrim is different.  I do think that a fully written line is much better than a keyword.

I consider the non-verbal components so vital that I've always had to have some level of suspension of disbelief when playing CRPGs.  It's also why I have always struggled to find them a good analogue to PnP RPGs.  I've always been restricted to the options that the game designers provided me.  I don't think it's as acceptable to just dismiss a companion NPC misinterpreting a sassy remark that I make as being a typical standard miscommunication in real life.  This is someone that I've presumably been adventuring with for some time.  Ideally I'd love for it to tie into the personality idea that DA2 had, where a sassy remark from a character that is typically sarcastic is taken appropriately.  Though many have mentioned they feel the personalities restrict their roleplaying, and there's probably additional restrictions that come into play.


I think my favourite conversation system ever belongs to Alpha Protocol, both in terms of how the conversations lay themselves out (easily the closest thing to a fluid conversation I've seen in video gaming) and the level of variation provided.  I also think the voice actor did a fantastic job of keeping grounded enough that changing tones mid conversation didn't result in a significantly different way of speaking.  I really wish some of the gameplay mechanics were better received because THAT was a game I wanted more of for sure.

[Allan Schumacher]

mr_luga wrote...

Just remove the freaking paraphrasing. It's not sorcery, Deus Ex HR pulled it off. Witcher 2 didnt have a wheel, and gasp! People liked that game too! magic!

It baffles the mind how a bigger company with more resouces, are somehow unable to pull off things like this, but smaller companies can

So just a single word or phrase denoting how you'd respond, like how DEHR did it, is satisfactory for you.

[Allan Schumacher]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

DEHR actually allowed you to see the entire line of dialogue. So yes, DEHR is more than satisfactory for me.

Did it actually do that?  I don't remember that.  I might just be confusing the dialogue "conflicts" but it doesn't in those cases:

http://youtu.be/XleGcKfgN4M?t=7m42s

EDIT: Dave of Canada points this out too.

Also, i don't find NPC's misinterpreting what my character said character breaking. I don;t know how anyone could. How your character said something is how he said something, an NPC's reaction cannot anc does not change that.

You've never had someone take an email or a written forum post you made and had it misinterpreted?  Imagine any book where every single line of dialogue is simply prefaced with "he/she said."  Never "He said sarcastically" or anything like that.

It's very different for me to genuinely say "I think you're a nice person" compared to sarcastically saying "I think you're a nice person."  In most of my daily face to face interactions, I can safely say something sarcastic to a peer and they know I'm being sarcastic based on all the non verbal clues, on top of the intonation or other variations I employ to actually deliver the line.

Your character saying something you did not intend, however, is character breaking.

At it's core though, it's "your character picking from a list of designer given choices."  I have a feeling that in many cases people end up picking the one that is "close enough" rather than specifically what they want to say

How the NPC interprets something and how your character says something are two different things at their very core.

How your character says something feeds into the expected response.  If I'm talking to Alistair and he and I have been sassy, I should be able to say "I think you're being stupid" and not have him be offended.  How does the gamer actually tell Alistair genuinely that he thinks Alistair is being stupid with the same dialogue line, if the game designer has ascribed "I think you're being stupid" as being sarcastic.  Vice versa if the designer has indicated that the line is to be taken as a serious critique.

If I say to Alistair "I think you're being stupid" and we've been friends for a while (and Alistair is a sassy guy himself), but the game responds as though I'm being serious and he reacts as though he's offended, I end up inferring that the delivery of my line wasn't as I intended.  I bases this inference on the fact that I can be sarcastic to my friends in real life and they aren't offended by it.

[Allan Schumacher]

There can be indeed such a problem in the conversion from spoken dialogue to written text. But if you then paraphrase that text, then even more gets lost, not less.

That's fair, and it's becoming more apparent that how I played through the Infinity Engine games may not be very well aligned with how other people did.


In Baldur's Gate 2, if I was hostile in response to an NPC, I'd pick the dialogue option that seemed to be the most hostile. What words were used were actually inconsequential... I always dissected the intent of each line. Some say that they don't like the paraphrase system because the hostile response may be TOO hostile. Though isn't it just as much of an indictment of a full text system (and really CRPGs in general) if you look at the hostile option and go "whoa that's too intense" and end up having to pick a different line of dialogue instead?


Since I always picked full lines based on intent, I wasn't too set back with games like Alpha Protocol or Mass Effect. Yes, there ARE situations where I may pull out a gun or something which I think can be better conveyed. That IS a negative, but for myself as a gamer, it's offset by the positive that I get to see, listen, and respond to the dialogue when it happens (In TOR specifically I found this led to a lot of hilarious moments with my friend, but I can understand that some people still feel that that takes away from the degree of control they want to exercise).

In the end, I find myself ambivalent about the dialogue wheel. There are some aspects that I think are beneficial to my game experience, at pretty low cost.

By the same token, if I'm ambivalent about it, maybe I shouldn't bother getting involved since ultimately I don't feel like I'm that affected if they go full text

[Allan Schumacher]

Brockololly wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Though isn't it just as much of an indictment of a full text system (and really CRPGs in general) if you look at the hostile option and go "whoa that's too intense" and end up having to pick a different line of dialogue instead?

Thats one thing I really like about full text dialogue options though, is that you can look at all the possible options and go "Whoa! Thats too intense!" knowing that what you're seeing is the actual thing your PC will say. The fun then becomes guessing how a given NPC will react to that line.

See, I see this as a bit of a disconnect.  Is it because of prior experience that someone is more accepting of not having a dialogue line that is actually appropriate for what you're looking for.

By the same token, if you're okay and find enjoyment in that, is it not fair for someone to pick the sassy option on a dialogue wheel and then wait in anticipation for the specific words to be said?  I don't recall anything specific from DA2, but there were some moments in TOR that actually had me (and the friend playing with me) just howling.

Or being able to at least appreciate the writing of other dialogue choices without necessarily picking them. I know thats one reason I like full text dialogue in RPGs, is that I can read all the options and appreciate all the lines, like maybe some totally crazy or funny ones, even if I don't end up choosing them. You can't do that with the paraphrases.

You know, for myself as a gamer, this is probably the best point I've read in support of full dialogue lines hahaha.  There have been times that I read the full list and see an option that just makes me laugh out loud, though there's little chance that I'll actually pick that line (at least without save scumming it).

Well played sir!

[Allan Schumacher]

See... I laughed at that and immediately linked it to a friend XD. In fact, the same friend I play TOR with <.<

[Allan Schumacher]

I certainly don't feel that the two are mutually exclusive.

[Allan Schumacher]

I loved the "conversation encounters" in DEHR.

[Allan Schumacher]

FedericoV wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Witcher2/Deus Ex:HR and Uncharted are worlds appart. Both DX:HR and Witcher have RPG combat. Uncharted does not. Drake is as good as I am from the start to the finish.

Imho, in term of combat, TW2 suffers in many ways of the same compromises of DA2, just on a smaller scale since it's not a party based game. It's just the aestetic of TW2 combat (and a good dose of voluntary blindess from the fans) that saves it from the criticism DA2 received (at least DA2 never used blatant QTE sequences in boss fights as far as I can remember). I have still to play DX:HR so I cannot comment on it.

I know that those games are still worlds apart from the like of Uncharted because of RPG combat. That's exactly the point I was trying to make and that's the problem. That's why Uncharted sell like chocolate while aRPGs struggle to achieve the same level of popularity and appeal. And that's why Skyrim outsell even the Uncharted and the Assassin Creed. I could be wrong off course but in my opinion, RPG combat is not the most adequate tool for the kind of storydriven/cinematic experiences these games wants to create.

I'll add that the "RPG combat" of Alpha Protocol is likely the reason why it wasn't as successful (as sad as that makes me).

[Allan Schumacher]

So you're saying we should blame the Mass Effect team for ruining BioWare?

No, I'm saying that there are fans of our games that preferred the dialogue wheel over the full text lines.

So saying that it was included "because a large amount of people was disapointed that it wasn't present in DAO" is hardly a justification, specially since I consider the dialog wheel a "core element of the game".

I would like to think that Bioware, as an experienced developer, took other things into consideration before deciding that they would include the wheel in the next DA.

Hmm, I didn't mean to say it was the "only" reason. But since someone asked "why we were so obsessed with it" I felt it prudent to point out that we're not just ostensibly doing it to be difficult and that there are fans out there that actually prefer it.

[Allan Schumacher]

But they were apparently unaware of that preference prior to ME.

Being unaware that you want something is not materially different from not wanting it.

I fail to see your point. These people preferred the dialogue wheel from Mass Effect and felt it was an improvement over how conversations are done in RPGs. When they played Dragon Age, they felt it was a regression.

If you wish to conclude that this is all Mass Effect's fault, then that's your prerogative.

I have no desire to get into a semantic argument with you.

[Allan Schumacher]

If I imagine my Hawke was polite when dealing with slavers, and ignore the voiced line where he sneers derisively, what do I do if the game later forces Hawke to oppose the slavers?

The issue here is more Hawke being forced to oppose the slavers, isn't it?

If it's a silent protagonist and you imagine yourself being polite, yet are still forced to oppose the slavers, you get the same issue.

[Allan Schumacher]

While I don't mind a timer (I think it worked well enough in Alpha Protocol), some of the concerns I have about it is more about accessibility.

I remember reading up on people that had a hard time with Alpha Protocol because they only had a subtitle translation (i.e. not English, French, German) and given how the subtitles were shown to prevent subtitles from providing an advantage, they found it difficult to keep up with the conversation.

There's other things that a timer can impact, and I think that unless the goal is to have players be quick on their feet (I think it worked well in AP because the game wanted you to be a spy and make quick decisions), it's something that I'm not sure I would fully support.

[Allan Schumacher]

Plus in mass effect they had alot of information or option availiable if you did an interupt, so if I didn't press the button I missed out on content. So I shouldn't have to press a button for something random to happen just to see more content.

This is an issue regardless of whether or not it's an interrupt. In fact, by taking the interrupt, you often sacrifice a different type of content because the conversation now flows differently. It's simply a choice, and if we're to provide choices for the gamer then there's going to be some level of content that isn't experienced.

[Allan Schumacher]

I dont mind having content that is cut off if I choose a path or option,
its the problem of the interupt that I have no idea what will happen
when I choose it and it could be totally inapropiate for what my
character would do.

If the interupt was clearly defined and I knew what my character would do when I pressed it fine.

That's fine and a fair criticism.

Given the "sudden" nature of the interrupts, what could be done to have made them provide more information?

On some level I found Mass Effect's pretty easy to predict given the type of person a Paragon/Renegade will be, but it's not perfect that way. What improvements would you like?

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:03 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I got the impression that by reading the dialogue lines, he was able to get an idea of what exactly happened at Dxun, even though the player only picks one line.

It's like reading the character's thoughts.