342 réponses à ce sujet

[Fortlowe]

Always the same old refrains. "Why not just use the same system from DA:O?" or "I liked TW2/ Skyrim. Why can't Bioware just make that game?". Maddening.

[joyner1229]

That's not what either of us were saying. You just feel the need to label all forumites as people who want BW to re-release DA:O with a 2 on the box. As I believe I said to you before, there are plenty of suggestions in this thread of how to move forward.

[AkiKishi]

joyner1229 wrote...

I'm still not seeing how that is not semi-fixed. Certain aspects are clearly fixed here, but you're directly influencing how he develops and different players can end up with a different Geralt. I think a fixed identity is different from a fixed PC. I mean Warden is just that: a Grey Warden, no matter what. The Origins are "fixed" as well. Every Human Noble is the youngest Cousland. But everyone develops their Warden differently through the course of the game.

To me, fixed is...well, the last FF I played was FFXII. The player does not influence the PC at all. They make their own decisions, have set relations with other characters, and go in one direction. I consider this fixed.

Now in regards to DA2, I don't think Hawke being semi-fixed is why they were railroaded. Commander Shepard is semi-fixed, but not does not face the severe limitations Hawke does. I just think the choice element in DA2 was poorly done.  Having to face the two bosses at the end of the game is a perfect example. Hawke does make a clear and seemingly important choice, but the game ignores it.

That's plot fixing , you tell a story you don't want anything to change how it's told.In FFX Tidus must like Yuna for the story to work, you can't choose Riku.
Character fixing is where you give the character an identity and determine everything about it in advance and link it to the game. Geralt is addressed by his first name because it can't be changed. Likewise people comment on his appearence because it can't be changed. DA2 only does this cosmetically, you can have a first name, which no one will ever call you by and have an appearence that no one will ever comment on.

With any semi fixed character it depends on how in tune your idea of the character and the written character are. In ME2 Shepard will work for Cerberus whatever happens. Nothing you can do about it just like in Arrival Shepard will blow up the relay, again nothing you can do about it.

[joyner1229]

How is Tidus having an attraction to Yuna not a fixed part of his character? How is Vaan wanting to be a sky pirate not a fixed part of his character? These things relate to the plot, yes. But to say these aren't fixed aspects of their character doesn't make sense.

Your definition of character vs. plot fixing seems off to me. Plot fixing to me is saying no matter what, A,B, and C will happen in the story. The archdemon will be defeated, no matter what you do. The Landsmeet will happen, no matter what you do. These are plot points.

Character fixing: a part of a character being fixed, and like I said, this can relate to the plot. Every character is fixed to an extent. But how much they are is where games differ. As I said, fixed identity=/=fixed PC. Human Noble is the youngest Cousland, no matter what. If two players can end up with a different PC by making different choices, I don't know how you can call that fixed. You can make no decisions about Vaan's character, how he develops, or what actions he takes. Putting this up against Geralt, how can you say Geralt is fixed if there is still room for the PC to influence his actions?

Modifié par joyner1229, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:55 .

[AkiKishi]

joyner1229 wrote...
 I don't know how you can call that fixed. You can make no decisions about Vaan's character, how he develops, or what actions he takes. Putting this up against Geralt, how can you say Geralt is fixed if there is still room for the PC to influence his actions?

Seems we are looking from opposite directions.

Vaan cannot influence the story he is in, Geralt can. It's the plot being influenced not the character. Geralt will always be the same guy with the same look and the same background. But the story he experiences can change.

[Pasquale1234]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Vaan cannot influence the story he is in, Geralt can. It's the plot being influenced not the character. Geralt will always be the same guy with the same look and the same background. But the story he experiences can change.

Which is all nice and dandy, but since Geralt isn't a character that interests me, I have no intention of ever playing TW.  Ditto Shepard and ME.  Etc.

[Fredward]

joyner1229 wrote...
That's not what either of us were saying. You just feel the need to label all forumites as people who want BW to re-release DA:O with a 2 on the box. As I believe I said to you before, there are plenty of suggestions in this thread of how to move forward.

You have to admit though, conversations/arguments in this forum tend to go in circles. That never stop. Ever. Repetitive circles. Circles that repeat. In a repeatable fashion. That repeat. Again. And again...

And again... Oh gawd Waiting for Godot flashbacks.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Seems we are looking from opposite directions.

Vaan cannot influence the story he is in, Geralt can. It's the plot being influenced not the character. Geralt will always be the same guy with the same look and the same background. But the story he experiences can change.

I would happily accept a fixed plot if I could still design the character myself.

[Fast Jimmy]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

joyner1229 wrote...
That's not what either of us were saying. You just feel the need to label all forumites as people who want BW to re-release DA:O with a 2 on the box. As I believe I said to you before, there are plenty of suggestions in this thread of how to move forward.

You have to admit though, conversations/arguments in this forum tend to go in circles. That never stop. Ever. Repetitive circles. Circles that repeat. In a repeatable fashion. That repeat. Again. And again...

And again... Oh gawd Waiting for Godot flashbacks.

It is a cycle that has repeated more times than you can fathom.

[Tpiom]

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.

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.

Old quote (~21 days) but I must replay to it... I also read all the options and appreciate the lines, in fact - Obsidian did this wonderfully in Knights of the Old Republic II. They used all the lines to develop the sorroundings or the characters with it. Here's an example:

1. This is Dxun... the heart of the Mandalorian crusade.
2. I remember - we charged the line. The losses were... terrible.
3. We had to charge. Our forces were fully committed - we would either win the battle, or lose the war. There was no real choice.
4. The battle is an invaluable opportunity. We will fight on.

I think all of them led to the same response, so it didn't matter what you picked. But you got so much info from the player's dialogue. This is something Bioware has yet to use to its full extent. Although... they can't do it using the new paraphrasing.

Modifié par Tpiom, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:04 .

[Pasquale1234]

Tpiom wrote...

Old quote (~21 days) but I must replay to it... I also read all the options and appreciate the lines, in fact - Obsidian did this wonderfully in Knights of the Old Republic II. They used all the lines to develop the sorroundings or the characters with it. Here's an example:

1. This is Dxun... the heart of the Mandalorian crusade.
2. I remember - we charged the line. The losses were... terrible.
3. We had to charge. Our forces were fully committed - we would either win the battle, or lose the war. There was no real choice.
4. The battle is an invaluable opportunity. We will fight on.

I think all of them led to the same response, so it didn't matter what you picked. But you got so much info from the player's dialogue. This is something Bioware has yet to use to its full extent. Although... they can't do it using the new paraphrasing.

You bring up a point that I think is very important.

It doesn't really matter to me that multiple dialog lines might lead to the same response from the NPC / game world.  Having more options supports more granular control in defining the character's personality, beliefs, characteristics, etc. and how s/he would express him/herself and relate to the world.  IOW, better role-playing.

[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.

[bEVEsthda]

From my perspective, what worries me with dialogue wheel, is to be surprised.

That aspect may perhaps be helped, if it ceased to be an intentional goal. To surprise me. As I gather, from an interview with the doctors, was actually the very misguided case of DA2.

That's the negative part of dialogue wheel. It may be helped, perhaps.

Now the positive part of full dialogue lines, is that it allows me: time and contemplation - to make one of the optional dialogue lines, my char's own, personal. In my head, of course.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I think both points were made.

Obsidian does tend to favour the approach of having the player discover his character throughout the game (an approach I dislike), and for that the use of dialogue options as exposition is quite valuable.  KotOR2 was very heavy-handed in this, and I think the game suffered badly as a result.

Obsidian also tends to treat dialogue options not just as things the PC can say, but as true things the PC can say, which is why they so often explicitly identify lying.

These are both reasons I have generally preferred BioWare games over Obsidian/Black Isle games.  BioWare has tended to leave more ambiguity in the dialogue options.

This is partly why the introduction of the voice was so jarring.  If Obsidian did it, it would be a strengtheningh of their pre-existing approach to game design.  But for BioWare, it was a 180° change.

[Fortlowe]

joyner1229 wrote...

That's not what either of us were saying. You just feel the need to label all forumites as people who want BW to re-release DA:O with a 2 on the box. As I believe I said to you before, there are plenty of suggestions in this thread of how to move forward.

There you go again. Simply possessed by the notion that you know what I'm thinking, aren't you. When you dodn't know me from the man on the moon. Stop that. It's weird. Anyways, I was commenting on this forum about how this thread just seems to bring up the same tired tropes again and again. 

Trying to punch wholes in the present dialoge system from DA2, in thinly veiled attempts to lobby for the return of the DA:O system. And of course the ever present arguement as to the nature of role playing, when someone feels the completely useless hope that the old system may return is threatened. It's not. Good riddance I say. The dialogue system from DA2, at it's core, works perfectly well. Is it perfect? Hell no. It suffered from the same problem the rest of the game did; a lack of polish. I'm simply suggesting polishing that lump of coal into a gem. 

I don't see where anyone has even suggested that the present system could work with changes beyond 'Just do what DA:O did' in some shape or form. So, if I've missed something, please do tell. What are some of these groundbreakingly progressive leaps forward for the current dialogue system listed in this thread that I've overlooked? I'd love to talk about them. 

Modifié par Fortlowe, 04 juillet 2012 - 02:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

That's true with dialogue options, as well.

The problem with interrupts was the lack of detailed information about what we were choosing, and the timer.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 juillet 2012 - 06:30 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fortlowe wrote...

But urgent situations should require urgent decisions.

Urgent situations require split second decisions on the part of the character, not the player.  Your mistake is in your conflation of the two.

That the player isn't hurrying doesn't mean the character isn't.  I do not understand why you think the player should ever be forced to make decisions in real-time.

Any roleplaying game should be playable by a quadriplegic - playable slowly, but playable.  Any game that fails to meet that standard has failed as a roleplaying game.  The player's physical attributes should never matter.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fortlowe wrote...

If the question is what do those that favor either of the the old systems have to gain from a time based dialogue system, well I think on the format in question, video games, active realtime immersion will always be far more entertaining than passive methodical and deliberating.

And that's where you're wrong.  The methodical deliberation is the part that is fun.  By replacing that with rushed guessing, youre ruining the game.  You're removing the fun part of the game, and replacing it with a system that is not fun.

The whole point of these games is to be fun, is it not

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 juillet 2012 - 06:32 .

[Fortlowe]

Not rushed, but reactive. Being expected to match the pace of the story. I do not think a timer reduces the choices to guessing. I think it invites you to sympathize with your choices. I WANT to feel like there is something at stake when I make a choice beyond how I want my epilogue to turn out.

Ultimately, the argument you are making, Sylvius, is the virtue of Meta gaming. Meta gaming is an entirely intellectual pursuit, as you have mentioned. Not invalid or even unpopular. I do it myself. But not on the first playthrough. Or even the second. We won't agree on this, because we have opposing goals when we play. I want to be emotionally invested. You want to be detached. This is a discussion for a different thread though.

My questions are: How do we alter the wheel to improve the game? And how CAN a timer work and be accessible?

[Kidd]

Fortlowe wrote...

Not rushed, but reactive. Being expected to match the pace of the story. I do not think a timer reduces the choices to guessing. I think it invites you to sympathize with your choices. I WANT to feel like there is something at stake when I make a choice beyond how I want my epilogue to turn out.

I went afk on Virmire for several minutes once, thinking hard about what my character would do in that sadistic choice. That's certainly feeling there's something at stake.

Fortlowe wrote...

Ultimately, the argument you are making, Sylvius, is the virtue of Meta gaming. Meta gaming is an entirely intellectual pursuit, as you have mentioned.

Nah, these aren't the same things. Sylvius has a lot more of a left-brain approach to role playing than most have, but it's not at all metagaming. If anything, he analyses very carefully what information is available to his PC, what his PC's background is and how they think and then make a logical conclusion to how the character would reply or act in light of that. Even if he knows it is a "bad" decision from playing the game before, he will not use that information to influence his choice.

Metagaming is when I pick to play a human noble instead of human magi because I want my character to marry Alistair in the end, making sure to pick dialogue choices that will lead to that end no matter what my character would actually say in all those moments leading up to that choice.

[Fortlowe]

And it took two thirds of the game to build up to that amount of anxiety. What if that choice had happened in the first act instead, when Ash and Kaidan were just names on the roster? More, closely, what if Hawke had to chose which sibling to save during the prologue? With only a limited amount of info about each one at the very beginning of the game, a timer would make that decision as much of a nail biter as the Virmire situation. Alas, no choice and no timer.

[FenrirBlackDragon]

Fortlowe wrote...

And it took two thirds of the game to build up to that amount of anxiety. What if that choice had happened in the first act instead, when Ash and Kaidan were just names on the roster? More, closely, what if Hawke had to chose which sibling to save during the prologue? With only a limited amount of info about each one at the very beginning of the game, a timer would make that decision as much of a nail biter as the Virmire situation. Alas, no choice and no timer.

That reminds me a lot of the begining of Fable 3, where you're forced to choose between your character's childhood sweetheart or random protesters, You don't know much about them, and you only have a limited amount of time to choose or both of them die.  (Granted, Fable 3 wasn't a great game, but that ideak was interesting.)

It would be interesting to see an implimentation like this, that way you're not stuck with one or the other based on your class. I would have liked to have Bethany with my mage or Carver with my Rogue. Why not? It doesn't exist yet, but it's not that hard to impliment. And it would add more tension to the game and you might be wondering afterward if you made the right choice.

[Fortlowe]

That's a really good example, too. And as much as it pains me to say it, because I would love to have had a choice between the siblings, obviously, that choice could still have resulted in the same result not choosing did. If I chose to save one of them, but the narrative demanded the other survive. Imagine how wonderfully complicated it would have become if I tried to save one, and failed, and Aveline saved the other.

But that's besides the point. Illustrated beautifully at the beginning of Fable III is the merit of the timer. How it can amplify the significance of a decision. That's why I keep bringing it up (and to address the actual topic as opposed to those same old refrains). Building the wheel on a time based system is not going to take anything away from the game. It would add another layer of complexity to it.

Speaking of adding complexity, one poster (just one unfortunately) did make a suggestion concerning adding controls to the wheel over body language. Not just a label, but a description like: rolls eyes or winks or mutters. I think this idea is worth examining.

Modifié par Fortlowe, 04 juillet 2012 - 05:57 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fortlowe wrote...

Not rushed, but reactive. Being expected to match the pace of the story.

Pacing is NOT BioWare's job.  The player should control the story's pacing.

I do not think a timer reduces the choices to guessing. I think it invites you to sympathize with your choices. I WANT to feel like there is something at stake when I make a choice beyond how I want my epilogue to turn out.

You misunderstand.  I'm not taking my time because I want to control the outcomes.  i'm taking my time because I want to ensure the coherence of my character.  I may well know that the option I'm choosing will result in my character's defeat, but if that's the choice he would make I want to choose that one.

But if I'm rushed, I might get that wrong.  My first instinct is to protect my characters, because I like them, but simply getting through the game isn't my primary gameplay objective.  I want to play a specific character to see what happens, and if I'm not permitted the time necessary to ensure that the choices I'm making are in-character for my PC, then the coherence of that character is not assured.

Ultimately, the argument you are making, Sylvius, is the virtue of Meta gaming. Meta gaming is an entirely intellectual pursuit, as you have mentioned. Not invalid or even unpopular. I do it myself. But not on the first playthrough. Or even the second. We won't agree on this, because we have opposing goals when we play. I want to be emotionally invested. You want to be detached. This is a discussion for a different thread though.

Again, you misundertand my objective.  I specifically want to avoid metagaming.  My genre-savvy may well tell me what the outcomes of the available options are, but my genre-savvy should never influence my character's behaviour.

Even on subsequent playthroughs, I need more time to make choices.

Furthermore, I simply don't enjoy frantic action.  I find it stressful, which is exactly what I don't want in a leisure activity.  Adding a dialogue timer would introduce frantic action into dialogue.  I already pause Mass Effect to aim - I don't want to do any gaming activity in real-time (with the possible exception of inventory management - I like the incentives that creates and the ability to avoid that time pressure by planning ahead and managing my inventory well).

Also, we already have an ambiguity problem with the paraphrases.  It's often very difficult in DA2 (I would argue it is often impossible) to tell what the available dialogue options mean.  Adding a timer would make it even more difficult to determine which option we want, even without roleplaying concerns.

My questions are: How do we alter the wheel to improve the game?

Make the paraphrases more informative.

And how CAN a timer work and be accessible?

A timer cannot work.  A timer is antithetical to roleplaying (just like action combat is).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 juillet 2012 - 04:54 .

[Fortlowe]

Pacing is ABSOLUTLY  Biowares job. It's the job of any storyteller. And make no mistake, as much agency as you or I may claim we want in a game, the game is the dev's story. All we do with it is a high form of playing Tetris. I really don't want to get into a debate about meta gaming, or any other facet of the the old "What is an RPG" arguement, because I want to discuss the topic, so I'm just going to post this:

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself. 

-Wikipedia.

We can agree that we'll both read that definition differently and continue to disagree on what it means and move on. 

I emphatically disagree that a timer is antithetical and that it robs you of the time needed to make a rational decision.  It is abrasive to you're desires, but  having a finite amount of time to weigh your options does not mean that an 'out of character' descision will be made. Indeed, if protecting your character is your primary concern, then I can go ahead and guaruntee you that unless you turn off the machine, you character is gonna make it to the end. 

You prefer the DA:O system. I'm not discussing that system. The topic is not addressing that system. The dialogue wheel is the subject at hand. If the sum total to the discussion of altering the wheel you have is 'Make the paraphases more informative', then so be it. I believe you could contribute more, considering your knack for analysis, but if your agenda is to regress the series back to the DA:O (or an even older system) dialogue system, then naturally that would be all you have to contribute.

However, simply dismissing a suggestion that actually entertains the topic, with no more retort than a nice 'college sized' descriptor and a handwave does nothing  to progress the subject matter. 

Modifié par Fortlowe, 04 juillet 2012 - 06:11 .