342 réponses à ce sujet

[ianvillan]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Cirram55 wrote...

To sum up, you who delve deep in the forum, should always think that a fan might not really know what he's talking about. Not because s/he's stupid, but because you are the professinals, fans may give you ideas, but it's up to you to consider them and "study" them, whether they're appropriate or just wild wishes. Kinda like the Alistair cameo. Useless. Many wanted it but it was only fan service, and could be summarized as "Swooping is bad".

The professionals developers then get criticized by the fan base saying that the developers do not listen to the fans and are ignoring their suggestions because none of them are implemented in the game. The forum is also not the only way that Bioware gathers data. Some gamers choose to turn off the data collection mechanism in DAO. That will automatically give a skewed view of the demographics in favor of those who left it on or did not know it existed.

So many times the developers have to go with their outlook and vision with the product. The product gets released and then the criticism starts coming because the fan base did not like something much like what happened with DA2. Much of it justified but some unjustified. Some developers ignore the fan base and simply put out the product they want to produce. The fan base can like it or lump it.

Bioware actually listens to the fans, but that can cause some disappointment when suggestions do not get incorporated.

Your right in what you say and it is a hard balancing act for Bioware to manage, Bioware has been one of the best developers for listening to fans and incorperating their ideas.

It just seems that the last few games Bioware has developed that they have gone out of there way to eliminate any RPG elements it can no matter what it does to the games or what the fan base may want.

It just seems to me that the marketing department has too much say over the development of the game and what can and can't be included.

[aries1001]

I fully support the dialogue wheel in DA games. I think some of - many of us? perhaps - have forgotten how frustrating it is to see written dialogue and choose from line 1-4 and then not remembering how far you gotten e.g. which conversations you've already had with the npc woth whom you're talking.

Try replaying NWN or Shadows of Undrentide and you'll see what I mean. The wheel at least closes of some conversations while opening up others. And it is much easier to tell where you are in the conversations with the npcs.

[Cirram55]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The professionals developers then get criticized by the fan base saying that the developers do not listen to the fans and are ignoring their suggestions because none of them are implemented in the game. The forum is also not the only way that Bioware gathers data. Some gamers choose to turn off the data collection mechanism in DAO. That will automatically give a skewed view of the demographics in favor of those who left it on or did not know it existed.

So many times the developers have to go with their outlook and vision with the product. The product gets released and then the criticism starts coming because the fan base did not like something much like what happened with DA2. Much of it justified but some unjustified. Some developers ignore the fan base and simply put out the product they want to produce. The fan base can like it or lump it.

Bioware actually listens to the fans, but that can cause some disappointment when suggestions do not get incorporated.

Actually that is what I was trying to say. They know they can't please everyone, so they have to make choices.
They also know, though, that the wheel does not work well as it is now, hence them asking for suggestions.

What I'd like to know from them is: is keeping the wheel really worth the trouble?
From my perspective as a gamer, no, the answer is no. Because it is not aesthetically pleasing, it's not meant to work for RPGs that don't feature a set PC, and brings a bunch of other problems we wouldn't have if we kept the classic dialogue tree.

However, they're going to keep it, and I'm not enough stubborn to assume they will change their mind because a few fans say so (as you said we're not the only DA player in this world, even though we should represent a good sample of their average fanbase).
That said I am willing to point out my issues with the dreaded wheel, accompanying my opinions with my discontempt for the whole idea of the wheel itself.

Still, I feel it is important at least to try to make clear that - strictly imo, of course - developers should not mollycoddle fans for the sake of it (hence the comparison with DAII cameos). They should have foreseen the problems coming from an eventual wheel implementation into DAII.
And by this I mean that Bioware employees here should listen - and this is not a problem as far as I can see -, but they shouldn't guarantee everything to everyone.

Nevertheless, I feel that the wheel was a step back, and they made a mistake in putting it into the DA series, for all the reasons I said before, i. e. it's not meant for pure RPGs (even TW2 that featured a fixed protagonist didn't have it). And if the thing is changing for DA, then just say so.

Modifié par Cirram55, 12 juin 2012 - 08:59 .

[Nomen Mendax]

Xewaka wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...
Those are the ones I really don't understand.  Why do they need to rephrase a dialogue choice that would fit on the wheel in the first place?

The official response is "To avoid subvocalization issues".

Thanks - so in fixing one problem they caused another - c'est la vie!

aries1001 wrote...

I fully support the dialogue wheel in DA games. I think some of - many of us? perhaps - have forgotten how frustrating it is to see written dialogue and choose from line 1-4 and then not remembering how far you gotten e.g. which conversations you've already had with the npc woth whom you're talking. 

Try replaying NWN or Shadows of Undrentide and you'll see what I mean. The wheel at least closes of some conversations while opening up others. And it is much easier to tell where you are in the conversations with the npcs.

But it's really easy to fix that with a traditional dialogue box - you can grey out (or even remove) conversation options that you've already chosen.  I don't think there is anything that you can do with the wheel that you can't do with a dialogue box. 

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 12 juin 2012 - 09:16 .

[Morroian]

Cirram55 wrote...

Nevertheless, I feel that the wheel was a step back, and they made a mistake in putting it into the DA series, for all the reasons I said before, i. e. it's not meant for pure RPGs (even TW2 that featured a fixed protagonist didn't have it).

Yes it did. As for not being meant for a pure rpg, what is a pure rpg? I role played fine in DA2. The wheel is just a UI element ISTM that the real issue for most people is the paraphrasing and the voiced protag. I prefer the voiced protag but I admit that it does limit the role playing options in comparison to silent.

The reason for the wheel is that it works better for consoles.

[Nomen Mendax]

Morroian wrote...

The reason for the wheel is that it works better for consoles.

Why? (If I had a tone icon here it would be questioning rather than antagonistic, I don't have a console).

[ianvillan]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...
Those are the ones I really don't understand.  Why do they need to rephrase a dialogue choice that would fit on the wheel in the first place?

The official response is "To avoid subvocalization issues".

Thanks - so in fixing one problem they caused another - c'est la vie!

They also had to add tone icons because of complants about paraphasing which inturn also caused problems of it seeming like a good, neutral and bad playstyle.

[Cirram55]

Morroian wrote...

Cirram55 wrote...

Nevertheless, I feel that the wheel was a step back, and they made a mistake in putting it into the DA series, for all the reasons I said before, i. e. it's not meant for pure RPGs (even TW2 that featured a fixed protagonist didn't have it).

Yes it did. As for not being meant for a pure rpg, what is a pure rpg? I role played fine in DA2. The wheel is just a UI element ISTM that the real issue for most people is the paraphrasing and the voiced protag. I prefer the voiced protag but I admit that it does limit the role playing options in comparison to silent.

The reason for the wheel is that it works better for consoles.

I could not roleplay within the limits of the wheel. This is why I say that Hawke was a set character.
In DAO the warden's voice was yours, you were not limited to three tones because you set them in your mind, and personalities were much more unique and varied (the only limit I can think of was the number of lines the game gave at your disposal, but this is a compromise that I consider "natural" or unavoidable). Now, since BW thinks that voiced protagonist and wheel are so very very fancy, I have to deal with it. No problem with that. But then why is the wheel in DAII so disfunctional?
A tool is causing problems, and yet noone seems to want to remove it.

I don't know if the wheel works better for consoles, I only play on PC, but that is no excuse or a poor one.
It's like the entire philosophy behind DAII: who cares if it's not almost perfection? good is acceptable.

Modifié par Cirram55, 12 juin 2012 - 09:31 .

[brushyourteeth]

One thing that would help would be largely getting rid of auto-dialogue.

I thought the dominant personalities were a really cool concept in DAII, but it proved to be completely roleplay-breaking. Once your character got "locked in" to a particular personality type he/she was effectively outside your control. Instead of getting to custom design our protagonist from a complex mix of dialogue choices (a la DA:O) we now had to effectively conform to one even when we didn't want to - for the rest of the autodialogue definitely, and for our conscious dialogue choices if we didn't want Hawke to seem like he/she had MPD (because they would now conflict with said auto-dialogue.)

Cool idea - not ideal for roleplaying.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 12 juin 2012 - 09:37 .

[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.

[Xewaka]

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.
I never felt concerned about an NPC misinterpreting my character: failures of communication happen. However, misinterpreting my own character, that is not that easily handwaved, because it is my character, yet the action he just performed was not what the dialogue option led me to believe it was. It is a terrible failure, and one unavoidable with paraphrases.

[FieryDove]

Morroian wrote...


The reason for the wheel is that it works better for consoles.

So ToR is going to consoles too? Interesting.

Allan Schumacher wrote...


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.

That is a problem for/with the NPC. You can't control how they think/react. But to remove what your character is *really* going to say to try and fix that is not really conductive for rping. There must be a better way than the wheel. I know, triangles!

[Persephone]

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.

There's the word, reflection.

Something that bugs me in DAO is: Sure, you often get 5-7 ways to say something. Yet even with those, there are only two ways the NPC will react to it and the differences weren't exactly great. With three very different lines leading to the exact same response, I was a bit miffed. Esp. when I intended my response to be snarky, read it that way, yet the NPC/Companion took it very differently.

It's isn't always like that. Plot important conversations (I.E. the Landsmeet) were more varied. But the issue still remains IMHO.

What I loved in DAII was the personality building, Hawke developing a tone.,...my snarky Hawke choosing a blue option on occasion was still delivered with a slightly snarky edge. I loved that. The reactivity, even reflected in banters, was excellent. Esp. compared to DAO's "tape on shuffle" banters. that reflected very little except romances. And even there DAII outdid DAO. Romancing Fenris first and the choosing Anders? There are banters between Anders and Fenris reflecting that. Whereas in DAO, once the romance was over, it was completely forgotten by everybody. Another case for DAO failing at being reactive: Executing Alistair. NOBODY mentions it. Not even WYNNE or Leliana.

[ianvillan]

brushyourteeth wrote...

One thing that would help would be largely getting rid of auto-dialogue.

I thought the dominant personalities were a really cool concept in DAII, but it proved to be completely roleplay-breaking. Once your character got "locked in" to a particular personality type he/she was effectively outside your control. Instead of getting to custom design our protagonist from a complex mix of dialogue choices (a la DA:O) we now had to effectively conform to one even when we didn't want to - for the rest of the autodialogue definitely, and for our conscious dialogue choices if we didn't want Hawke to seem like he/she had MPD (because they would now conflict with said auto-dialogue.)

Cool idea - not ideal for roleplaying.

I know the Mass Effect and Dragon Age teams are seperate but they do seem to copy each other, but the amount of auto-dialogue in ME3 was staggering and it is a scary thought that the DA team may go the same route.

[Cirram55]

brushyourteeth wrote...

One thing that would help would be largely getting rid of auto-dialogue.

I thought the dominant personalities were a really cool concept in DAII, but it proved to be completely roleplay-breaking. Once your character got "locked in" to a particular personality type he/she was effectively outside your control. Instead of getting to custom design our protagonist from a complex mix of dialogue choices (a la DA:O) we now had to effectively conform to one even when we didn't want to - for the rest of the autodialogue definitely, and for our conscious dialogue choices if we didn't want Hawke to seem like he/she had MPD (because they would now conflict with said auto-dialogue.)

Cool idea - not ideal for roleplaying.

Oddly enough, in one playthrough I wanted to experience the good and snarky personae at the same time.
So I ended up with a bipolar Hawke who had a serious detachment disorder.
It also happens, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, when you go for a good/direct personality.

The system is broken because you have "theorically" 6 options, but the game recognizes only half of them.

[Persephone]

brushyourteeth wrote...

One thing that would help would be largely getting rid of auto-dialogue.

I thought the dominant personalities were a really cool concept in DAII, but it proved to be completely roleplay-breaking. Once your character got "locked in" to a particular personality type he/she was effectively outside your control. Instead of getting to custom design our protagonist from a complex mix of dialogue choices (a la DA:O) we now had to effectively conform to one even when we didn't want to - for the rest of the autodialogue definitely, and for our conscious dialogue choices if we didn't want Hawke to seem like he/she had MPD (because they would now conflict with said auto-dialogue.)

Cool idea - not ideal for roleplaying.

I thought it was rather realistic as people don't switch personalities at random in real life either. Having earlier behavior reflected (An aggressive character trying to be diplomatic shouldn't work simply because they want it to) is a good thing. Could it do with some tweaking? Sure. But IMHO it was way more immersive than the Warden's multiple personality disorder. (Joking!)

[Cirram55]

ianvillan wrote...

I know the Mass Effect and Dragon Age teams are seperate but they do seem to copy each other, but the amount of auto-dialogue in ME3 was staggering and it is a scary thought that the DA team may go the same route.

David Gaider said that the amount of auto-dialogue will be the same as DAII, for good or ill.
Namely it will be tied to your personality.

Say hi mentally deficient new protagonist!
Hopefully they'll do better this time around, the concept wasn't entirely bad.

Modifié par Cirram55, 12 juin 2012 - 10:12 .

[Persephone]

Cirram55 wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

I know the Mass Effect and Dragon Age teams are seperate but they do seem to copy each other, but the amount of auto-dialogue in ME3 was staggering and it is a scary thought that the DA team may go the same route.

David Gaider said that the amount of auto-dialogue will be the same as DAII, for good or ill.
Namely it will be tied to your personality.

Say hi mentally deficient new protagonist!
Hopefully they'll do better this time around, the concept wasn't entirely bad.

Having one personality is IMHO preferable to a multiple personality disorder. Those are scary!

[FieryDove]

Persephone wrote...


I thought it was rather realistic as people don't switch personalities at random in real life either. Having earlier behavior reflected (An aggressive character trying to be diplomatic shouldn't work simply because they want it to) is a good thing. Could it do with some tweaking? Sure. But IMHO it was way more immersive than the Warden's multiple personality disorder. (Joking!)

Depends on the person.

I wanted to play nice (diplo) with friends/family, snarky with templars and clerics alike and agressive to thugs, insane blood mages or anyone who I deem ebil or threatens me. The game exploded from all the changes. Even if one used a set tone like sarcastic/aggressive most times, choosing investigate/other options sounded way off for those types of characters.

Just imho.

[Persephone]

FieryDove wrote...

Persephone wrote...


I thought it was rather realistic as people don't switch personalities at random in real life either. Having earlier behavior reflected (An aggressive character trying to be diplomatic shouldn't work simply because they want it to) is a good thing. Could it do with some tweaking? Sure. But IMHO it was way more immersive than the Warden's multiple personality disorder. (Joking!)

Depends on the person.

I wanted to play nice (diplo) with friends/family, snarky with templars and clerics alike and agressive to thugs, insane blood mages or anyone who I deem ebil or threatens me. The game exploded from all the changes. Even if one used a set tone like sarcastic/aggressive most times, choosing investigate/other options sounded way off for those types of characters.

Just imho.

Agreed. Hence my comment on the system needing a few tweaks. It's a step in the right direction but it still needs work.

[brushyourteeth]

Persephone wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

One thing that would help would be largely getting rid of auto-dialogue.

I thought the dominant personalities were a really cool concept in DAII, but it proved to be completely roleplay-breaking. Once your character got "locked in" to a particular personality type he/she was effectively outside your control. Instead of getting to custom design our protagonist from a complex mix of dialogue choices (a la DA:O) we now had to effectively conform to one even when we didn't want to - for the rest of the autodialogue definitely, and for our conscious dialogue choices if we didn't want Hawke to seem like he/she had MPD (because they would now conflict with said auto-dialogue.)

Cool idea - not ideal for roleplaying.

I thought it was rather realistic as people don't switch personalities at random in real life either. Having earlier behavior reflected (An aggressive character trying to be diplomatic shouldn't work simply because they want it to) is a good thing. Could it do with some tweaking? Sure. But IMHO it was way more immersive than the Warden's multiple personality disorder. (Joking!)

I think it held promise, but in the end my guess is it'd be much more beneficial to scrap it than to try to perfect it. If I were to try to roleplay as myself (which many people do) I'd be sarcastic with my friends, diplomatic with my superiors (especially in Acts 1 and 2) and aggressive toward scum like Petrice. So where does that leave my Hawke? People rarely fit into neat, prepackaged boxes. Most likely I would end up being accidentally mean to my friends or accidentally sarcastic with people I wanted to rip apart with my bare hands.  Like I said, I was really impressed with the idea, but not with how the execution of it took away player control.

Though I will say one auto-dialogue I wouldn't have changed for anything in the world was Hawke's "Maker, she's bad at this!" during "The Long Road." Priceless!

[Cirram55]

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.

Not that I seem to remember. I think it is due to the fact that the lines were so ambiguously written that I, as a player, could easily perceive them in any way I intended to, and the NPC would do as well, so that their answer always seemed fitting.
It could seem extreme, but not once I thought "Wait Leliana I didn't mean that! I meant that I hate you, you hypocrit minx!", because it all worked out in the dialogue I had in mind; a dialogue, I'd like to point out, that Bioware didn't entirely know was in their game, because a silent protagonist offered me much more choice and roleplaying, and ultimately, the chance to write my own one.

[Cirram55]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I think it held promise, but in the end my guess is it'd be much more beneficial to scrap it than to try to perfect it. If I were to try to roleplay as myself (which many people do) I'd be sarcastic with my friends, diplomatic with my superiors (especially in Acts 1 and 2) and aggressive toward scum like Petrice. So where does that leave my Hawke? People rarely fit into neat, prepackaged boxes. Most likely I would end up being accidentally mean to my friends or accidentally sarcastic with people I wanted to rip apart with my bare hands.  Like I said, I was really impressed with the idea, but not with how the execution of it took away player control.

Though I will say one auto-dialogue I wouldn't have changed for anything in the world was Hawke's "Maker, she's bad at this!" during "The Long Road." Priceless!

What would you think of a system that in some sort of fashon records you personality for, say, each of your companions? I mean, the game remembers that you hate Isabela and you're always violent with her (you bastard); but the game also aknowledges that with Anders you are kind and flirtatious because you're pro-mage. Vice versa for Fenris and so on.

Would it work?
Could it be extended to any other NPC?
Would it be worth it?

Modifié par Cirram55, 12 juin 2012 - 10:27 .

[Nomen Mendax]

Cirram55 wrote...

What would you think of a system that in some sort of fashon records you personality for, say, each of your companions? I mean, the game remembers that you hate Isabela and you're always violent with her (you bastard); but the game also aknowledges that with Anders you are kind and flirtatious because you're pro-mage. Vice versa for Fenris and so on.

Would it work?
Could it be extended to any other NPC?
Would it be worth it?

I'm sure you could do it, and I think it would work fine for companions, I'm also fairly sure it wouldn't be worth it. The biggest problem I would foresee (other than all of the actual work that goes into recording the data) is once you start analyzing your dialogue choices by companion and by faction (templar, mage, bandit, guards and so on) you aren't going to have many dialogue choices to analyze.

Having the game making choices for me is something that I just don't want, I don't mind it picking a tone for trivial parts of conversations (at least not very much) but I do mind it if its going to say that I can't be diplomatic with someone I might respect just because I've been aggressive with people who I despise.

[Brockololly]

Xewaka wrote...
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.
I never felt concerned about an NPC misinterpreting my character: failures of communication happen. However, misinterpreting my own character, that is not that easily handwaved, because it is my character, yet the action he just performed was not what the dialogue option led me to believe it was. It is a terrible failure, and one unavoidable with paraphrases.

Exactly. Any surprises should come from how the NPC reacts to the actions/words of your PC. The player shouldn't be surprised by what the PC says.