342 réponses à ce sujet

[jillabender]

Sir JK wrote…

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 existence of a time limit be communicated if it isn't shown on the interface?

I guess I was envisioning that the timer would always appear at the beginning of responses that are time-limited, and that the player would have the option to hide the timer with the push of a button.

[Pasquale1234]

Sir JK wrote...

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.

For me, the Warden worked much better because I could role-play those expressions in whatever way suited the character I created instead of feeling limited to the writer's and animator's interpretation of how Hawke would react.  Different playstyles, I suppose.

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).

Hmm... I dunno.  I guess I feel like mostly the exact words are chosen, and the delivery is highly subject to a person's general mood or emotional state at the time - that, or actual intent.  If, for example, you feel angry but want to present something in a diplomatic way, then you might allow your intent to be diplomatic to override the anger you are feeling.

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) ,

That is the way it generally works IRL, but I'm okay with some abstractions in games, like reducing an otherwise lengthy process to a single line / choice.  I think it could get pretty tedious to have to select line after line after line to accomplish a single intent - and it would also create a lot more branching in the dialogues, which can become exponentially more development work.

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.

It seems that you are using the terms (tone and intent) interchangably here, but I have been interpreting them to be very different things.

One of my biggest beefs with the tone / paraphrase system is that I never felt like I was choosing what Hawke would actually say - only the tone in which s/he said it.  I felt like my options were, for example, to agree agreeably, agree snarkily, or agree disagreeably.  Is there really a difference in intent with those 3 options, or only tone?  For me, a real choice in intents would be to agree, disagree, ask for more information, or sleep on it.

Which brings up another possibility - maybe they chose the tone system instead of an intent system to cover up some rails and make you feel like you were making more choices than you actually were...

[Sir JK]

Pasquale:

Indeed, It's my hope that we could find a system that would go a way to satisfy both playstyles. One that grants freedom to those who desire that and grants the ability to express and get a reaction for those that wish that.

And I'm sorry I was unclear, I did not mean to imply that I use intent and tone interchangably. Rather I prefer tone because then I can assume the intent is whichever I want. The intent would be imagined, private and only expressed through what the characters phrase. But what I choose ingame would be the tone. That was what I meant.

But I understand your concern, but I wonder if it isn't a failing of the wheel as much as a failing of the writing in that case. Really, there's nothing inherent in the wheel itself that prevents you from diagreeing. If the dialogue gave you a choice whether to agree, disagree, investigate or decide later first and then asked for a tone when the npc challenges your decision (or vice versa), I think we both could be satisfied. Thus we have a choice of both intent and tone, not for the same line perhaps but regarding the same issue. A nice compromise I think.

An idea I've been juggling with would be to have dialogue specific tone rather than generally applied tone. That way the discussion could be tailored to the individual conversation rather than generally. Covering that sometimes you're upset, sometimes you're sad and sometimes you're just plain content and one feel differently for different subjects (and so on).

As for choosing tone to cover up rails. No, I doubt it. It's just that intent is situation specific and you cannot build a generally applied coherent system out of specifics. Tone is used for multiple purposes and thus they can stick to three. They'd need far more for intent and couldn't build a system similar to the "dominant tone" with it. Tone can just be more generaly applied, I doubt there's more to it than that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

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.

I think you're mistaken when you say that the game isn't reacting to your tone or body language.  From an in-character perspective, its the NPCs reacting, not the game (the game doesn't exist), and the NPCs do react.  That's unequivocally true.  When your PC does something, the NPCs respond.  That's a reaction.

You seem to think that because the NPCs always react the same way (because the game doesn't know what body language or tone you've chosen) that they're simply not reacting to those added details.  And from the player's perspective, that's obviously true, but that's not true from the PC's perspective at all.

The only way you could find the NPC reactions to your imagined tone and body language lacking is if you think that the NPCs should react to your tone or body language in some predictable way, and that's not a defensible position.  As long as you can't read their minds (in character), then you cannot know why they reacted the way they did.  Maybe this particular iteration of Alistair finds some detail of your behavious offensive.  Maybe Leliana just received bad news, and it is distracting her from noticing your sarcasm.  You can't know other people's thoughts, so you can't know why they behave as they do.

The minds of others are and will always remain a complete mystery to you.  It is because you've assumed otherwise that you find the lack of responsiveness jarring.

[Sir JK]

In that matter we will have to agree to disagree, my friend. I am of a completely different philosophical opinion. I am not opposed to playing someone who isn't very empathic, but I want that to be my choice. Similarily, I desire the illusion that I can choose to have my character display an emotion and have the others react to it. Basically, I desire a bit of acting.
The voiced system have thus far allowed this to me, the voiceless have not.

Regardless, I understand that this is not desireable to everyone (or that the alternative is preferable) and accept that. I merely wished to point out that the full text does in fact have a limitation:
It does not allow the outwards expression of emotion to be displayed on the PC's side.

This is neither good or bad on it's own. It's simply just that. A limit to what the system allows.
Let's steer our attention back to the wheel shall we? If you wish to discuss this philosophical stance of mine, please do send it in a private message.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

In that matter we will have to agree to disagree, my friend. I am of a completely different philosophical opinion. I am not opposed to playing someone who isn't very empathic, but I want that to be my choice. Similarily, I desire the illusion that I can choose to have my character display an emotion and have the others react to it. Basically, I desire a bit of acting.
The voiced system have thus far allowed this to me, the voiceless have not.

Regardless, I understand that this is not desireable to everyone (or that the alternative is preferable) and accept that. I merely wished to point out that the full text does in fact have a limitation:
It does not allow the outwards expression of emotion to be displayed on the PC's side.

This is neither good or bad on it's own. It's simply just that. A limit to what the system allows.
Let's steer our attention back to the wheel shall we? If you wish to discuss this philosophical stance of mine, please do send it in a private message.

The wheel doesn't add anything in terms of having the NPCs react to your character's tone or body language.  They still react, and the mechanism by which they do so is still a mystery to the PC.

We have exactly as much of that illusion you describe with the wheel as without.

[force192]

I've never really had a problem with the dialogue wheel. I would always pick the option that would best represent what I would say in that situation. I know some people dislike the paraphrases but I was always able to get a good idea of what my character would say. I do think (and I've even suggested to BioWare) that BioWare should add an option to show the full line of dialogue for those people that dislike not knowing exactly what there character will say.

[Sylvius the Mad]

force192 wrote...

I've never really had a problem with the dialogue wheel. I would always pick the option that would best represent what I would say in that situation. I know some people dislike the paraphrases but I was always able to get a good idea of what my character would say.

That only tells us that you didn't have a particularly good idea of what your character would say.

I remember in school there would be multiple choice tests where the instructions would say "Choose the best answer."  That was an incredibly confusing instruction.  the best answer is a correct answer.  Some of the answers are right and some of the answers are wrong, and never the twain shall meet.

That's exactly how dialogue options work.  Some of them are things your character can say without breaking his personality, and others are things your character cannot say without breaking his personality.  The probelm with the paraprhases was the inability to determine which lines were things the PC could not say.

[wsandista]

You know after thinking about this for quite a while I have come to a conclusion about the dialogue wheel. It will not work effectively so it would be best to just scrap it. It can't provide the clarity that full text does, and is inferior to other systems built for a voiced PC(Witcher and Deus EX: Human Revolution). Better to replace it with Crusty's intent compass, AISI it would be better to know why the PC is saying the line then to have a vague idea of the tone being used.

Modifié par wsandista, 07 juillet 2012 - 07:14 .

[Sir JK]

Sylvius:
No that is correct. The wheel in itself does not add all those subtle non-verbal reactions or expressions. It's a feature of the cinematics and the voice, not the wheel itself. The only thing the wheel did was display in which tone a line was spoken (and also body language, facial expression) which informed me what I could expect in terms of emotional expression on my character's behalf (and not once have the wrong tone/emotion been expressed for me).

This is to me a strength of the system that allows me to immerse myself into the setting and character much better. If the same thing could be displayed in a full text or another system, I would also find that a strength.

I suspect we both find the value in this different since it is fairly clear that you and I have radically different roleplaying styles.

[TonberryFeye]

I've started Deus Ex: Human Revolution lately, and I am very impressed with their system: "This is what you are going to say, and this is the emotional tone you are going to say it with." I like that. It's an excellent system. Why won't BioWare do something like that? Is intelligence not allowed there anymore?

[joyner1229]

Sir JK wrote...

Sylvius:
No that is correct. The wheel in itself does not add all those subtle non-verbal reactions or expressions. It's a feature of the cinematics and the voice, not the wheel itself. The only thing the wheel did was display in which tone a line was spoken (and also body language, facial expression) which informed me what I could expect in terms of emotional expression on my character's behalf (and not once have the wrong tone/emotion been expressed for me).

This is to me a strength of the system that allows me to immerse myself into the setting and character much better. If the same thing could be displayed in a full text or another system, I would also find that a strength.

I suspect we both find the value in this different since it is fairly clear that you and I have radically different roleplaying styles.

I see what you mean about the cinematics, but there weren't times in DA2 when you were surprised?  I gave this example a while back, but when you first meet Isabella in the Hanged Man and she asks you to do a favor, I chose the "joking" response that said "You, too?" on the wheel, thinking joking with Isabella would go over well.  Instead, Hawke says in a very annoyed, whiny voice and with a cross look on his face, "Can't anyone fix their own lives around here!?"  This to me breaks immersion immediately because there is a disconnect between what I want to say and what Hawke says.  There is potential for misunderstandings in both systems, and I don't believe it is directly tied to what format the dialogue is in.

I also mentioned that these differences stem from first-person vs. third-person role-playing.  People who want to put themselves directly in their character's shoes will always be at odds with the wheel as it is now.  It's like being in a play, and you go to say your line but something totally different comes out of your mouth and then you start talking without wanting to (with auto-dialogue).  On the other hand, for people who just want to guide Hawke, it's fine because it's not you.  It's like a director of a play saying "Ok, now go over there.  Talk to that guy."

I think this thread is at the point where we've kind of pooled the good and the bad, the people who like the wheel and the people who don't and why.  And we've made suggestions on how the wheel can be adapted to find a middle ground.  However, I don't think the developers will make these changes.  They've pretty much shot down the full line display and confirmed the wheel.  I think they've already set a course, and at this point we can just hope they took some feedback and it turns out well.  

Modifié par joyner1229, 07 juillet 2012 - 02:39 .

[Sir JK]

Oh absolutely. That the wheel provides insufficient or misleading information for some is definantely cause for improvement. I have never suffered the problem myself, but that does not mean it does not exist. I proposed earlier that each line could be accompanied with a set of small icons that describe what else is included in a line. Thus you don't have to write every little thing but hopefully it'll provide more information for those that need it. Coupled with an improved paraphrase system I think it could work decently.

Hmm... I think I fall somewhere between your two suggested play styles. I shift between first and third person.

But I disagree that they won't care for what we discuss here. Call me an optimist but I do think they are reading and taking into account what we're debating. They might not act upon it (or they are, but can't get it to work and we'll never know), but that does not mean the debate is pointless. If nothing else we clarify one another's positions to each others and maybe even come to new conclusions about our own opinions.

[joyner1229]

Well all this talk about the wheel had me dust off my copy of DA2. And this is confusing... When you meet Flemeth and she saves you, the diplomatic option is, "Thank you for your help." When I chose it, Hawke says, "I don't know what we would have done if you hadn't come." Now, the difference here is minute and certainly not jarring, but it begs the question: Why not just have Hawke say "Thank you for your help" or why not have the wheel just say, "I don't know what we would have done..." I'm still trying to wrap my head around the why here...

In terms of role-playing, first or third is a matter of preference. My personal problem is the fact that Origins started the series very much as first-person, so people (like myself) got used to that sort of freedom. Mass Effect is third-person so I can't complain about Shepard being too fixed because that's how the series started and was their intention to begin with. Again, I think there is a potential to make both parties reasonably happy, but I'm not sure they will do it.

I don't mean to say the developers don't care, but they are already well under way it seems, so even if they do read this feedback, it might not be technically feasible to implement some of these changes at this point. Similarly, they might just not consider it a priority when there are a lot of other changes that people want to see from DA2 and might be considered more urgent (no reused areas being a big one). It is nice to see where other fans stand, though.

Modifié par joyner1229, 07 juillet 2012 - 06:46 .

[Pasquale1234]

joyner1229 wrote...

Well all this talk about the wheel had me dust off my copy of DA2. And this is confusing... When you meet Flemeth and she saves you, the diplomatic option is, "Thank you for your help." When I chose it, Hawke says, "I don't know what we would have done if you hadn't come." Now, the difference here is minute and certainly not jarring, but it begs the question: Why not just have Hawke say "Thank you for your help" or why not have the wheel just say, "I don't know what we would have done..." I'm still trying to wrap my head around the why here...

It's my understanding that they felt that having the VA repeat anything the player had just read was undesirable.  I believe they even had a rule that the paraphrase could not contain any of the words in the actual dialogue to be spoken.  Some players seemed to enjoy the surprise and discovery of Hawke's personality, while others find it jarring and out-of-character for the Hawke they thought they were playing.

In terms of role-playing, first or third is a matter of preference. My personal problem is the fact that Origins started the series very much as first-person, so people (like myself) got used to that sort of freedom. Mass Effect is third-person so I can't complain about Shepard being too fixed because that's how the series started and was their intention to begin with. Again, I think there is a potential to make both parties reasonably happy, but I'm not sure they will do it.

Yes, the franchise has morphed into something entirely different than what it started out as.  And it only took one additional game to do that.

I don't mean to say the developers don't care, but they are already well under way it seems, so even if they do read this feedback, it might not be technically feasible to implement some of these changes at this point. Similarly, they might just not consider it a priority when there are a lot of other changes that people want to see from DA2 and might be considered more urgent (no reused areas being a big one). It is nice to see where other fans stand, though.

Honestly... I don't think there is anything new here.  A lot of the same things were discussed in threads a year ago.

[Sir JK]

On paraphrases: Indeed, while saying that line is a very round-about way of saying thank you I can understand it being much too differing for some people. While having someone read something to you that you're well capable of reading on your own much faster is jarring, that does not mean the paraphrases couldn't be similar. I do think that a rule saying that they cannot contain the same words is a mistake. There's no real need to have them differ that much. In the example given a Thank you would have sufficed, possibly in a similar variant such as: "I am very grateful for your assistance" or "Thank you very much for saving our lives". Both I feel are closer to the actual paraphrase but not too similar to the line.

On the debate itself: If there's any point our discussions here have a possibility to bear fruit, it's now. Once the game starts to be revealed it's generally too late for sweeping changes.

[InfinitePaths]

How bout 3 aggresive opetions,3 humurs options and 3 diplomatic options,this way we can pick between them

[Sylvius the Mad]

joyner1229 wrote...

Well all this talk about the wheel had me dust off my copy of DA2. And this is confusing... When you meet Flemeth and she saves you, the diplomatic option is, "Thank you for your help." When I chose it, Hawke says, "I don't know what we would have done if you hadn't come." Now, the difference here is minute and certainly not jarring, but it begs the question: Why not just have Hawke say "Thank you for your help" or why not have the wheel just say, "I don't know what we would have done..." I'm still trying to wrap my head around the why here...

That's not a minute difference.  In the paraphrase, Hawke is offering polite thanks.  In the spoken line, Hawke is admitting weakness.  Those are not sufficiently similar.  If I'm playing a character who never admits his own failings, I shouldn't choose that line, but the paraphrase doesn't give me enough information in order to avoid it.