342 réponses à ce sujet

[jillabender]

Fortlowe wrote…

That's exactly why I wanted to steer this thread back on topic. Unless we address our concerns specifically, instead of saying over and over again that DA:O is super and DA2 isn't, then the Dev's are just going to tune us out.

I didn't like situations like that either. And it can be completely attributed to the shallowness of the wheel. The wheel can work, but is needs work.

I take your point – I could have phrased that more to the purpose. To summarize, I'd like to see the dialogue wheel offer the opportunity for the PC to convey the same information using a variety of tones, and it sounds like your suggestion could go a long way toward achieving that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fortlowe wrote...

That's good! A rewind, like a pause is a compromise I could definitely live with. I'd probably even use it from time to time. That doesn't render the timer moot, though. The timers purpose is to enliven the wheels connection to the game, not to make the game a burden. If I need to pause it or rewind it, from time to time? Fine! Life happens. But keeping the momentum of the narrative going is a worthy pursuit.

A pause button would effectively make the timer optional.  I'd be okay with that.  I'd just pause every single dialogue event, just as I pause moment to moment in combat (I did this even in ME, and aimed while paused).

Pausing would also let me control the pacing, which is something I very much want.

Fortlowe wrote...

The wheel can work, but it needs work.

I won't dispute that the wheel needs work, and I'll certainly allow that it's possible that it can work, though I have yet to see any evidence that it can work adequately.

I do not understand, though, why it was implemented in the first place.  From my point of view, it is worse than what it replaced in literally every respect.  This is why I so often revert to discussing pre-wheel mechanics - because they were unequivocally superior.  Any attempt I make to improve the wheel is an attempt to restore pre-wheel gameplay: deep roleplaying where the player is in full control of his character's behaviour.  How we get that gameplay is immaterial - be it a wheel or otherwise - but it is that gameplay I'm trying to recapture.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 juillet 2012 - 12:58 .

[Sir JK]

A pause and repeat feature I could see working, I've played games where one could pause the cinematics and it was a neat feature. Also very good if you accidentally skip over a segment. I do think it'd be antiethical to the very notion of a timer though. If can go around the imposed time limit by simply pausing then the timer isn't really doing anything, is it?
I can see a pause feature being a nice addition and I can see a binary time-limited choice a lá the interruppts. But I cannot see both working side by side. And between the two I'd rather have the pause+repeat than the timer.

Similarily, I doubt that being able to choose the tone for every line is very realistic. It'd -at least- triple the amount of voicework already in place. Ideally, yes. But I doubt it'd work very well. I think the best we can hope for is similar lines along the different tones.
I do however think that choices of tone and coices of course-of-action, opinion and stances should be distinctly separated. This is already somewhat in place, but at times the choice of a tone led to the (unannounced) expression of a opinion and stance and I do think the system would benefit from less of that.
In a way... first you choose the course of action and then the tone. Or first you choose a tone and then the opinion. In both cases it'd be two lines (separated from one another with a npc lines) and two prompts.
So if I talk to slavers and choose aggressive tone and then let them go, I know my character will be aggressive towards them but still allow them to leave... grudgingly. Whereas if I do the same thing with diplomatic tone, whatever the PC thinks the PC keeps to him/herself and just curtly tells them to leave.

It still needs to be more informative, but I think it could work and they've already done a similar thing in many cases.

Sylvius: Could you perhaps breakdown what the previous system allowed into a point-by-point format (without value) so we could incorporate that into the discussion and see if we come up with solutions to address them?

Modifié par Sir JK, 05 juillet 2012 - 06:58 .

[joyner1229]

Fortlowe 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.

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. 

You've missed something.  Quite a bit, actually.  But first, a few steps back.  If people prefer the first, why should they not make comparisons to a sequel that made radical deviations?  They have the right to say so and/or argue in favor of some sort of return to the first.  If you don't like it, why lurk around and complain about it?  

You'd like to think you know every forumite and their intention.  You don't.  Like I said, stop lumping everyone into one category: those who will only be placated by the return of the Origins tree.

Now, if you can't go back and see the many suggestions people have made for improving the wheel, your loss.  Off the top of my head, some include:

• Less/more accurate paraphrasing
• A toggle to be able to see the full line if you want or to just see the paraphrase if you want
• A predominant tone chosen at the beginning so that Hawke doesn't jump around and sound like he/she has multiple personalities
• Within these tones, your dialogue lines can be different
• Some have argued for no icons, while some have argued for the icons, but more clear
• And more, really this was pages ago

So, if you go back (admittedly the topic has strayed) you will clearly see there were actually a lot of suggestions for improving the wheel.  Go ahead.  I'm sure you can do it.  

Modifié par joyner1229, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:30 .

[joyner1229]

Fortlowe wrote...

The wheel can work, but it needs work. 
I won't dispute that the wheel needs work, and I'll certainly allow that it's possible that it can work, though I have yet to see any evidence that it can work adequately.

I do not understand, though, why it was implemented in the first place.  From my point of view, it is worse than what it replaced in literally every respect.  This is why I so often revert to discussing pre-wheel mechanics - because they were unequivocally superior.  Any attempt I make to improve the wheel is an attempt to restore pre-wheel gameplay: deep roleplaying where the player is in full control of his character's behaviour.  How we get that gameplay is immaterial - be it a wheel or otherwise - but it is that gameplay I'm trying to recapture.

There is a limit, though, with resources.  The more "cinematic" a game becomes, the more those options are going to go.  A voice, for example.  A voiced PC is not a bad thing, but unless a company has mad resources (time/money), there's a limit to how much you can choose for your PC to say, which limits role-playing, of course.  

One thing I was thinking of was a PC that maybe had more neutral options in conversations that weren't tied to personality at all and then drawing back on some of the personality defining ones.  Basically, being free to just talk would allow more freedom, but occasionally you could offer aid or threaten someone to build the predominant tone.

Modifié par joyner1229, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:30 .

[Kail Ashton]

text wheels fine, pointless thread is pointless

[Fredward]

Kail Ashton wrote...

text wheels fine, pointless thread is pointless

Ironic comment is ironic.

[Fortlowe]

@ SirJK: I can understand how pausing and rewinding might seem antithitcal to the timer. I'll refer to Sylvius' example; the combat. In combat you can charge in scrap like the devil and let the chips fall where they may (like I do!) or you can pause and dissect every stage of the fight (like Sylvius does!) . Or any amount of pausing and not pausing in between them. Both are valid approaches. And in either case, ultimately the fight moves forward whether you like it or not. Having control over pausing the fight doesn't change that. I'm suggesting using that same philosophy in a much more dynamic and active conversation wheel. 

Yes. Shaping the tone of the phrase is asking a lot. But the system we've begun constructing could handle it, I think. Perhaps it's a matter of degree? Not every phrase option or even every conversation would to have the option to select tone. I'd say limit the option mostly to things like 'questioning beliefs' and main plot convos. But you raise a valid point about how much space the VO will take up on disc. I wish I had a way to answer that in an informed way. Does anyone have an idea of just how large a percentage of the disk space the VO content from DA:O and DA2 represented respectively? It would be good info to have.

@ Joyner: I read the whole thread Joyner. Top to bottom. But, you've brought up some points so lets discuss. 

• We've been talking about paraphrasing. I think it's understood that for it to work (and it's got to because it's the system we'll get) it'll just take a lot of writing and rewriting and QA testing on control groups until every phrase and its adjoinging line are nearly perfectly aligned.
• There's not going to be a toggle. I've even entertained that as a solution and I know it can't happen. what the voiced protagonist can say in ten seconds, may take up half the monitor. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Hell, hopefully I'm mistaken, but I doubt it.
• A difference in tone offering differing dialogue is already the case. And something of frequent a pain in the tuckus at that. This is why we're suggesting limited control over tone and a shift in how the icons function from being personality values to being phrase descriptors. 
• Neutral conversation options should be more prevelant. I won't argue that. But that goes more to story telling than the function of the wheel. However, i'd like to point out that by default, with a timer if no option is selected before time runs out then you have been nuetral

@Sylvius: Please don't derail us, man. But yes. So that we can have two 'controls', if you have time could you give us an objective breakdown of the two current dialogue systems. No pro's and cons, just nuts and bolts. Perhaps cherry picking is in order. 

[Fortlowe]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Kail Ashton wrote...

text wheels fine, pointless thread is pointless

Ironic comment is ironic.

[Pasquale1234]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A pause button would effectively make the timer optional.  I'd be okay with that.  I'd just pause every single dialogue event, just as I pause moment to moment in combat (I did this even in ME, and aimed while paused).

Pausing would also let me control the pacing, which is something I very much want.

Sir JK wrote...

A pause and repeat feature I could see
working, I've played games where one could pause the cinematics and it
was a neat feature.

I'd love to be able to pause and rewind - not only the dialogues, but also (and especially) the cutscenes.

I am frequently interrupted while gaming, and found myself constantly fighting for control of DA2's pacing.  There were quite a few times when I ended up shutting down the PS3 to reboot / reload instead of playing through some sequence to get to a place where I could reload (and then having to play through it all again.)  I don't remember ever playing a game that was so intrusive in the way it kept taking control (player agency) out of my hands.

Any game I have to fight with is a game I'm not going to want to play.  Giving the player better tools to control pacing would be a wonderful thing.

And I think it's become even more important as games have become more cinematic.  We do, after all, have the ability to pause and rewind other video media.

Edited to fix quotes...

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 05 juillet 2012 - 05:22 .

[Sir JK]

Fortlowe, I see what you mean. But I don't think it works well. The only advantage of the timer is the time constraint and that one does not exist with a pause. The only thing a timer will thus do is force you to sit on your toes to pause at every dialogue prompt, which still means I have to fixate my attention on the interface, not the character(s). So despite that I have more time to make a choice, I still sit on the same problem I had before: namely unwanted focus on the interface.
If it would automatically pause, then that problem would be eliminated... but then you'd have to manually start the timer. Which is counterproductive to the goal.
I just can't see it working satisfactory with a timer and a pause. Either or, sure. But not both.

Your analogy with combat would work if the combat would be time limited, but it isn't; it is limited by resources which deplete as a function of time. The value of a pause there is to allow asserting control over the situation without worrying of depleting resources and changing situations meanwhile. Time is merely a contributing factor.

And yes, that's one reason why mutiple tones for every line (and by extent multiple lines per prompt). Another is that'd it be a hazzle to make it work properly. Not to mention that it'd probably mean more animation as well. It's a lot of work and well... we could probably do just as well without -that- level of detail. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it. But let's try to stick on the things that seem a little realistic?

[Fortlowe]

The thing is I've seen it work, SirJK. I prefer not to bring up other games, for risk of derail, but it works perfectly well in 'The Walking Dead' game. A dynamic, timer based dialogue interface works brilliantly there. The system it uses obviously owes a lot to games like DA and ME, but they took those fundamental concepts and experimented with them until they had something that is at once less invasive, more gripping, and more sophisticated.

I think, some way, somehow the dialogue wheel in DA has to evolve as well. And what may currently seem unrealistic, could very well be the direction the wheel should go. There are some parts that we know for certain are going to be there: paraphrases, icons, and weighted options.

Beyond that, I think we have loads of room for alteration. A timer, limited control over ambient activity, limited control over tone, and interupts are all doable, I think.

[Sir JK]

Oh, timers absolutely. Just not timers -and- pause in the same system. That's what I meant.

But apart from that I largely agree.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

Oh, timers absolutely. Just not timers -and- pause in the same system. That's what I meant.

If you want the pressure of the timer, then don't pause.

That the pause exists does not force you to use it.  But everything in the game should be pausable.  Cutscenes should be pausable.  Dialogue should be pausable.  Combat should be pausable.  Sometimes players need to pause the game.

Furthermore, I insist that the timer is a terrible feature, so it needs to be optional.  The pause makes it optional.  But you're saying that the existence of the pause destroys the timer, and that's not true.  You can choose not to pause.

[Sir JK]

I guess I am not making myself clear.

I do not have problems with a pause system. I do not have a problem with a timer (okay... some).

But I cannot see them going together. Because the problem the pause is supposed to to fix is that I can focus on what my character is supposed to do rather than the interface. But with a timer and a pause I still have to focus on the interface. I have to manually pause at every prompt. That's the problem.

A timer, with or without a pause, requires me to focus on the interface so I don't miss when I am supposed to react (whether that is to pause it or to choose is immaterial). Which means I have to combat the GUI more and enjoy the dialogue less.

The only way to solve that would be to ensure that the pause automatically kicks is, which for all intents and purposes means we might just as well skip it.

If the dialogue wheel is to be improved, it needs to be made as unobtrusive on the gameplay as possible. And I don't see a combination of time and pauses solving that. Yes, it does solve the "not having enough time to weigh my options thing". But it does not solve the "must pay attention to the interface in case a timer shows up"-issue.

That's my problem with the combination.

[Sylvius the Mad]

For comparison, referring to the dialogue options only:

DAO

The player could choose with full knowledge of the content he was selecting.
The tone of each line was not indicated, thus making NPC responses less predictable.

DA2

The player did not know the full content of the line he was selecting.
The tone of each line was indicated, making NPC responses more predictable.


Whether any of those features is better than the corresponding feature is open for debate.  Some people prefer the surprise offered by the DA2 paraphrases, while others feel that they need total knowledge of their options.  Some people value the increased predictability of NPCs, while others feel that makes conversations feel contrived and they'd rather NPCs behaved less predictably.

All of the arguments in favour of the timer, pause, or rewind features apply equally to both DAO and DA2.  Adding a timer to either game would have a similar effect in controlling pacing.  Adding a pause to either game would have a similar effect of allowing the player to attend to real-world issues.  Adding a rewind feature to either game would have a similar effect of preventing unpredictable outcomes from becoming character-breaking.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 juillet 2012 - 06:59 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

I guess I am not making myself clear.

I do not have problems with a pause system. I do not have a problem with a timer (okay... some).

But I cannot see them going together. Because the problem the pause is supposed to to fix is that I can focus on what my character is supposed to do rather than the interface. But with a timer and a pause I still have to focus on the interface. I have to manually pause at every prompt. That's the problem.

A timer, with or without a pause, requires me to focus on the interface so I don't miss when I am supposed to react (whether that is to pause it or to choose is immaterial). Which means I have to combat the GUI more and enjoy the dialogue less.

The only way to solve that would be to ensure that the pause automatically kicks is, which for all intents and purposes means we might just as well skip it.

If the dialogue wheel is to be improved, it needs to be made as unobtrusive on the gameplay as possible. And I don't see a combination of time and pauses solving that. Yes, it does solve the "not having enough time to weigh my options thing". But it does not solve the "must pay attention to the interface in case a timer shows up"-issue.

That's my problem with the combination.

Ah, I see.  I didn't realise you were anti-timer.

I'm also anti-timer, but I also don't mind using the interface.  I do mind the interface changing, so as long as the pause option was presented consistently it wouldn't trouble me.

[Pasquale1234]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

For comparison, referring to the dialogue options only:

DAO

The player could choose with full knowledge of the content he was selecting.
The tone of each line was not indicated, thus making NPC responses less predictable.

DA2

The player did not know the full content of the line he was selecting.
The tone of each line was indicated, making NPC responses more predictable.


Whether any of those features is better than the corresponding feature is open for debate.  Some people prefer the surprise offered by the DA2 paraphrases, while others feel that they need total knowledge of their options.  Some people value the increased predictability of NPCs, while others feel that makes conversations feel contrived and they'd rather NPCs behaved less predictably.

Which is probably why debate may be ultimately pointless - different strokes and all.

Another option I've seen kicked around is that compass that CrustyBot has posted multiple times.  Generally, it replaces tone with intent.  I'm much more interested in selecting what the protag will say (actual content) than how the protag will say it (tone), but I think that intent may come closer to approximating content than tone does.

It still imposes limits on your ability to control the protag's behavior - just as any other type of dialog selection system short of full text.

[Sir JK]

I do not agree that lines with intent rather than tone are neccessarily better. They are different yes. But a character could use a humorous tone for multiple reasons; to mock, to improve the mood, to point out how ridiculous the situation is, etc. Wheras if the line simply was tagged as [mock], there is only one possible interpretation. It is much more clear, yes. But covers much less. So this would be one additonal step away from the ambigouty of the silent PC system. A tone-line could, under ideal circumstance, cover a few more situations/personalities than a intent line could.

Ideally, there's separate prompts for intent/course of action and emotion/reflection. Something along those lines is already in place too, but needs more refinement I think. That way our characters can decide what to do and then give their reflections of it separately. Action and emotion.

Also, do note that even full text imposes a limit to character expression unless full text means you literally spell out body language, tone and facial expression in the line description. Non-verbal communication is generally not included in such systems. This might be more plapable limits to some, but it is a limit nonetheless. That such communication is accounted for is to me the greatest strength of the voiced wheel system. So yes, unless you mean "novel-level full text" (which probably means that five options would cover the entire screen...or more), even that system has it's limits.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

Also, do note that even full text imposes a limit to character expression unless full text means you literally spell out body language, tone and facial expression in the line description.

In DAO's system, there wasn't body language or facial expression, for the most part, because conversations wern't as cinematic.

Moreover, since I don't think tone or body language conveys information, I don't find that information relevant.  This is part of the NPC predictability I mentioned - DA2's NPCs are more preditable because they (according to some) are reacting to the tone, and the tone is made known to the player in advance.  DAO's NPCs are less predictable because the mechanics of their reactions are kept hidden from the player.

I prefer DAO's approach, because I don't think the mechanics of other people's reactions are knowable.  DA2 made explicit something I shouldn't have at all.

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Another option I've seen kicked around is that compass that CrustyBot has posted multiple times.  Generally, it replaces tone with intent.  I'm much more interested in selecting what the protag will say (actual content) than how the protag will say it (tone), but I think that intent may come closer to approximating content than tone does.

It still imposes limits on your ability to control the protag's behavior - just as any other type of dialog selection system short of full text.

I proposed a double-choice dialogue system some time ago.  You can read it here.  By uncoupling the text from the intent, we're then free to pursue dialogue objectives (persuasion, intimidation, flirtation) by whatever means we deem appropriate for our characters.  This is something I think was lost in DA2 when we were forced to use only the Heart icon options to flirt, or the Mask icon options to be funny.  My proposal would allow us to use any of the available dialogue options to flirt or make jokes, and it would remove the predictabilty of NPC reactions offered by DA2's wheel.  If my character tries to joke, but does it badly, then he won't get any laughs.

[Pasquale1234]

Sir JK wrote...

I do not agree that lines with intent rather than tone are neccessarily better. They are different yes. But a character could use a humorous tone for multiple reasons; to mock, to improve the mood, to point out how ridiculous the situation is, etc. Wheras if the line simply was tagged as [mock], there is only one possible interpretation. It is much more clear, yes.

I agree that a humorous or snarky line can be several different things, and I see that as a problem.

And I guess clarity is my goal.  If I can't have full text (and we've already been told it's a no-go), the next best thing is to know the intent of the line.

Also, do note that even full text imposes a limit to character expression unless full text means you literally spell out body language, tone and facial expression in the line description. Non-verbal communication is generally not included in such systems.

I would suggest that intent might actually do a better job of setting expectations for character expression than mere tone.  To use the examples you've provided, I would expect a line intended to mock to be delivered differently (nanny-nanny-boo-boo) than a line intended to improve the mood (friendly and compassionate).  What we might not know prior to selecting the line is that it will be humorous.

ETA:

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I proposed a double-choice dialogue system some time ago.  You can read it here. 

Interesting.  I think it could be very effective, but difficult to program, because each line would likely need to have a different set of intent choices, and vice-versa.  I would imagine, for example, when you select an intent, valid lines become available for selection, and when you select a line, valid intents for that line become available - so those menus would need to be dynamic.  It would also add some complexity, and BioWare seems intent on simplification.

It could have some UI challenges, too.  I would expect the player would need to select both intent and line and be able to change them until satisfied with the combination, and then use some other button to enter that choice.

So much simpler to just [Persuade] line or [Threaten] line or [Lie] line, etc.

PS We're going to some pretty extreme lengths to try to overcome the inherent failing of the dialogue wheel they just aren't willing to give up...

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 06 juillet 2012 - 12:20 .

[jillabender]

Sir JK wrote…

I guess I am not making myself clear.

I do not have problems with a pause system. I do not have a problem with a timer (okay... some).

But I cannot see them going together. Because the problem the pause is supposed to to fix is that I can focus on what my character is supposed to do rather than the interface. But with a timer and a pause I still have to focus on the interface. I have to manually pause at every prompt. That's the problem.

That's a good point. However, I wouldn't personally find the addition of both a timer and a pause function to be too obtrusive as long as I could pause the timer by pressing a single button on my keyboard.

Perhaps an option could also be added to hide the timer from view – some players might enjoy the option to know that there's a time limit on their decision without knowing exactly how much of it has passed, since that would put them even more in the character's position.

Sir JK wrote…

I do not agree that lines with intent rather than tone are neccessarily better. They are different yes. But a character could use a humorous tone for multiple reasons; to mock, to improve the mood, to point out how ridiculous the situation is, etc. Wheras if the line simply was tagged as [mock], there is only one possible interpretation. It is much more clear, yes. But covers much less. So this would be one additonal step away from the ambigouty of the silent PC system. A tone-line could, under ideal circumstance, cover a few more situations/personalities than a intent line could.

Personally, I would be okay with icons showing either tone or intent, as long as I'm able to choose tone or intent separately from the information I want the character to convey, or the point I want the character to make. As Sylvius pointed out, the goal my character is trying to achieve (to persuade, to intimidate, to reassure, to threaten, to flirt etc.) is different from the manner in which he or she goes about doing it, and ideally, the dialogue system should reflect that.

Modifié par jillabender, 06 juillet 2012 - 01:07 .

[Night Dreams]

I don't get why the dev's reckon that we'd hate having full text. Pretty much everyone on here seems to agree it would be better hearing your character repeat what was just said rather than click an option and find that they say something completely different from what you intended.
Can't they listen to what we want for a change, and not what they want?? Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed DA2, but sometimes they need to do more than simply listen to us, they need to take our feedback into direct consideration.
Personally, I would hate going back to a silent protagonist, but I still want the diversity of options like we use to have. The issue here is not about having a voiced protagonist or a silent one. Its that whatever we get has to be able to be more dynamic and suitable for what we make our characters to be.
I hope that makes sense.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I proposed a double-choice dialogue system some time ago.  You can read it here. 

Interesting.  I think it could be very effective, but difficult to program, because each line would likely need to have a different set of intent choices, and vice-versa.  I would imagine, for example, when you select an intent, valid lines become available for selection, and when you select a line, valid intents for that line become available - so those menus would need to be dynamic.  It would also add some complexity, and BioWare seems intent on simplification.

It could have some UI challenges, too.  I would expect the player would need to select both intent and line and be able to change them until satisfied with the combination, and then use some other button to enter that choice.

So much simpler to just [Persuade] line or [Threaten] line or [Lie] line, etc.

Yes, but that would require more options, and those don't fit on the wheel.  To get more combinations, we'll have to uncouple the choices.

I don't think it would be too difficult to program, because the consequences would stem from either the line or the intent, depending on the writer's preference right then, but it would be quite difficult to document in a way people could understand.  Luckily, BioWare's pretty much stopped documenting anything, so that doesn't matter.

PS We're going to some pretty extreme lengths to try to overcome the inherent failing of the dialogue wheel they just aren't willing to give up...

I don't disagree.  I think the wheel has, so far, been an unrelenting failure, but they say they want to keep it so I'm trying to find ways to make it work.

[Sir JK]

Sylvius:
Yes, I've understood that is your preference. As you might gather, mine is the opposite (have to do with that I am a very expressive person and wear my emotions on my sleeve, I suspect). Partly because of this the warden comes across as an emotionless stonewall to me. I lack the ability to express the amount of emotion I desire ingame.
But that is a preference and is only tangentially related to this discussion. But viewed in that light perhaps you understand why I brought up the lack of tone and bodylanguage as a limitation of the full text? Since it isn't expressed in that system I am thus limited from acting out those emotions in a manner that the game reacts to. Which hurts my immersion
To you that might be an acceptable limitation, to me it is less so. Ideally, we can in this debate come up with an idea that is acceptable to us both.

Choosing line and intent separetely is agreeable to me, however. Done well it could work extremely well. It's rather close to the current system too, so I think it might be possible to pull off too. I doubt it would apply to every single option, but I could see it working that you first choose one - npc line - choose the other.

Pasquale: Yes, that is indeed true for extremes. But what about when using sarcasm. There only the exact wording and context could tell the difference between a joke and mocking. How you deliver a line is often just as carefully chosen as the words you use (or not... in the case of passioned outbursts).

That said, yes... some intent lines probably need to be spelled out. I'm not too fond of the classical persuade system (I'd rather see persuasion as a process of step-by-step convincing someone. Meeting their arguments, presenting yours, dispelling doubts and so on. Multiple lines) , but if it remains then clearly it's option need to be indicated by intent. There are other cases where this applies too, such as when initiating combat.
But generally I prefer tone since it allows us to choose the intent for our own characters ourselves(in theory. Didn't always work out so well in DA2, but sometimes it did). But again, a preference. Not an objective fact.

Jilla: Hmmm... then how would you be made aware that the option is time limited? I'm not opposed to the idea beyond my mere opposition to a timer. But how would the existance of a time limit be communicated if it isn't shown on the interface?

Night dreams: In several cases, I experienced voiced full lines as very very jarring. At one time I managed to read the line 32 times before it had been fully spoken. Needless to say, I was pretty sick of it at that point. Generally I just started skipping over the lines after having chosen them after a while. So while full text sounds good, I've yet to see it work satisfactory. DE:HR came close though, but they seemed to have some sort of mix between a paraphrase and a full text there.