342 réponses à ce sujet

[hero 2]

You just need to make it clear what the character is going to say. In DA:O, for example, I read many lines as being different in tone to what my character said, whereas in DA2, I felt much more immersed because the tone indicator (nice, jovial, stern) was there to guide me. If you choose to go the way of adding more dialogue options (and personally, I don't consider them necessary), then an indicator icon at the side to show what tone they will be said in would be a huge boon.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So what they need to satisfy people who felt that DAO failed is offer more information about tone, and what they need to satisfy people who think DA2 failed is offer more information about content.

To satisfy me, I need to know that the character will not say things I don't expect him to say. I don't care how he says them; I care that he says them.

If I choose a paraphrase that asks a question, I need the character to ask that specific question. He can ask it at length - I don't care - but he cannot make any assertions. Similarly, if I select a paraphrase than makes an assertion, I need the character to assert that thing - but he cannot make other assertions not indicated in the paraphrase.

[EricHVela]

The dialog wheel is a spoiler IMHO. No matter what, it tells me exactly what I'll achieve with the NPC just by the location of them. I want the 1-6 lines akin to DA:O and KotOR as an option without hints.

I'm okay with summaries as long as they accurately represent the tone (and content) of the response. If they cannot do that, then give me the response verbatim.

[hero 2]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

So what they need to satisfy people who felt that DAO failed is offer more information about tone, and what they need to satisfy people who think DA2 failed is offer more information about content.

To satisfy me, I need to know that the character will not say things I don't expect him to say. I don't care how he says them; I care that he says them.

If I choose a paraphrase that asks a question, I need the character to ask that specific question. He can ask it at length - I don't care - but he cannot make any assertions. Similarly, if I select a paraphrase than makes an assertion, I need the character to assert that thing - but he cannot make other assertions not indicated in the paraphrase.

I don't want to have lots of text on the dialogue wheel, so how about this compromise: a popup that details exactly what the character will say on hover-over each dialogue option? (with an option to turn off preview popups in the options menu)

Modifié par hero 2, 28 juin 2012 - 05:44 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

hero 2 wrote...

I don't want to have lots of text on the dialogue wheel, so how about this compromise: a popup that details exactly what the character will say on hover-over each dialogue option? (with an option to turn off preview popups in the options menu)

That's a fine suggestion, but it's already been explicitly rejected by the DA team.

I have no idea how they intend to improve the paraphrases.

[deuce985]

I've said this before but I'd really like more control over my tone. I liked the icon system they used in DA2. I just want more control over tone besides three personality types. I want emotional tones like sad, angry, etc. Now obviously they're not going to be able to do that each time the wheel comes up...so limit it to only emotional situations. Like a tragedy comes. The player should be able to react to that tragedy in the emotional tone he chooses.

That's one of the biggest things I'd like to see changed in DA3 on the dialogue wheel.

[joyner1229]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Ok, but did you also consider that many people liked the tree?  Did you do market research (i.e. surveys/polls/focus groups) before you made the drastic decision to replace it?  I don't know...  It just seems like there are quite a few people who liked the tree on these boards, as well.  

A first person fantasy series meant to be a spiritual successor to BG vs. futuristic, sci-fi shooter/3rd person RPG hyrbid.  Not everything's going to translate, right?  I mean, why not put Shale and Blood Wound in Mass Effect?  I prefer those things over Kaidan and using biotic detonations...  They're different games with (supposedly) different identities.  Again, I would be okay if you adapted the wheel more (like many people are suggesting in this thread), but it was nearly copy and pasted, and there seems to be resistance from you guys to fixing one of the main gripes people have about the wheel (i.e. not being able to say what they want in an RPG).  

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I really think continuing to drift away from Origins, the beginning of the series (and which I would say most people consider the highlight of the series so far) is not going to improve relations with the fans...

[Spedfrom]

I feel one of the problems you have Bioware, is that you think your Mass Effect players are your Dragon Age players. If not so, why would you have implemented the dialogue wheel so similarly even to that series? They're different franchises yet you're standardizing features between them. That is a wrong approach.

I have Mass Effect 1 and 2 for the PC and lord knows I'm into science fiction. But for some reason that I can't quite grasp (and it has more to do with mechanics than lore/scenarios/characters), I can't for the life of me get into that series. I have tried it often, especially with ME1 as I loathe going into a series midway, but cannot commit to those games whereas I absolutely loved DAO and tolerated DA2 (for the expectations of lore, plot and scenarios - all mostly fumbled expectations).

In essence: Dragon Age should have mechanics that fit Dragon Age, not mechanics that market Bioware's name and brand.

[deuce985]

Spedfrom wrote...

I feel one of the problems you have Bioware, is that you think your Mass Effect players are your Dragon Age players. If not so, why would you have implemented the dialogue wheel so similarly even to that series? They're different franchises yet you're standardizing features between them. That is a wrong approach.

I have Mass Effect 1 and 2 for the PC and lord knows I'm into science fiction. But for some reason that I can't quite grasp (and it has more to do with mechanics than lore/scenarios/characters), I can't for the life of me get into that series. I have tried it often, especially with ME1 as I loathe going into a series midway, but cannot commit to those games whereas I absolutely loved DAO and tolerated DA2 (for the expectations of lore, plot and scenarios - all mostly fumbled expectations).

In essence: Dragon Age should have mechanics that fit Dragon Age, not mechanics that market Bioware's name and brand.

I agree with some of this.

Fantasy players are looking for different things in their game. I hate to generalize players but I'm just going to say it from personal experience. I think Bioware is underestimating exactly where the majority of their sales come from in the DA franchise. Mass Effect, although rough in the first game, still had far more appeal than when the Dragon Age franchise started out.. So people saw the general direction ME was going in ME1 and they broadened the appeal in ME2. DA2 didn't if you look at sales.

Bioware should look at DA:O more and see that this game was a critical and commerical success. DA2 sold far less than DA:O. That's a fact, no disputing it.

I think a huge problem that people had with DA2 was player/character agency and the combat. My ex-gf use to love RPGs too but she couldn't get into Mass Effect. She wasn't into ARPGs that were faster paced. She needed a RPG that was slower for her where she could think everything out and manage it. That's why she liked Final Fantasy games with the turn-based formula.

Has there ever been a fantasy ARPG with similar combat to DA2 and sold 4 million+? I'm talking about a big commercial success. Nothing really comes to mind.

I think a lot of people feel that DA2 is streamlining too much for that broader appeal and stripping things like player agency. And then cranking the combat speed up doesn't help with crazy animations and exaggerated gore. Would that be a fair assumption for most people?

I personally like both DA:O and DA2. I felt DA:O was much better but DA2 was a good game in itself too. I still feel that Bioware did some things right in DA2 and they can learn from them. The best game they can possibly make in my mind is something between DA:O and DA2. I think that would align with my own personal tastes more.

Modifié par deuce985, 28 juin 2012 - 08:14 .

[labargegrrrl]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

labargegrrrl wrote...

no, i get that.  i'd simply like to know whether MY character intends to flirt or not.  that's part of what i liked about the feature.  i also liked the fact that i knew that i had to basically draw the line and tell him to f*ck off to ensure he wouldn't take things the wrong way in the future.  i knew when MY lines were going to come off as flirty, heartbreaking, or just...me. 

How I intend my lines and how the NPCs take my lines should be different things.  DA2's icons made it impossible for me to be misunderstood.  I couldn't ever fail in dialogue.  That's a huge problem.

DAO let me be flirty or funny or intimidating whenever I wanted to be, and sometimes it didn't work and my PC ended up feeling like an idiot.  That's good emergent gameplay.  DA2 had none of it.

if feeling like an idiot is what makes you feel like you have good emergent gameplay, then you must have played a different DA2 than i did!  lol!  there were a number of occasions where i was half tempted to either b*tch slap my hawke for being a moron, or had to resist the temptation to go back a save.  or five.

i also feel like everyone is misunderstanding me totally about how i felt about DAO.  i DO know how to read, i DO know how to think.  so, yes, i felt like i had the options to be THAT warden.  and i totally loved the game.  but i felt like i not only had the option to be THAT hawke in DA2, but also had additional context to be THAT hawke in.  she felt more real to me.  but, then again, i'm very much a primate drawn to shiny objects.

it's a preference thing, not a hate thing. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

labargegrrrl wrote...

if feeling like an idiot is what makes you feel like you have good emergent gameplay, then you must have played a different DA2 than i did!  lol!  there were a number of occasions where i was half tempted to either b*tch slap my hawke for being a moron, or had to resist the temptation to go back a save.  or five.

That's you thinking your character is an idiot.  That's different.

I was talking about my character thinking he is an idiot.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 28 juin 2012 - 11:21 .

[Fast Jimmy]

 A little bit off topic, but why does it seem like anytime the dialogue wheel comes up, DG reminds me of...

https://encrypted-tb...0GTWM0wnLQaBhg 
I am altering the wheel...

...pray I don't alter it further!

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 juillet 2012 - 11:30 .

[FoggyFishburne]

Agree. The dialogue wheel belongs in Mass Effect. Let Dragon Age do its own thing.

[Androme]

And the sad part is, BioWare simply gives us the finger, claims that everything we say is rubbish internet forum-rage, and continues to think that what they want to do is what we want, we just don't know it yet.

Oh, yeah, no recycled dungeons, character customization and decisions that matter (doubting that last one though), good job, but how about something as simple as getting rid of the goddamn dialogue wheel? Seriously.

[Hayllee]

Wulfram wrote...

What I generally felt I lacked was a clear indication of intensity - is Aggressive Hawke going to be a bit miffed, simply forceful or start chewing the scenery, is Sarcastic Hawke going to make a mild witticism to ease the tension or say something outrageous?

The subcategories of tones didn't seem to help me much as far as that went.

Yes. There is a certain.. part in the game that another character is like "Why would you say that at a time like this? :?" to witty Hawke, so I had to reload because it was just weird.

Modifié par Hayllee, 29 juin 2012 - 01:51 .

[Spedfrom]

Wulfram wrote...

What I generally felt I lacked was a clear indication of intensity - is Aggressive Hawke going to be a bit miffed, simply forceful or start chewing the scenery, is Sarcastic Hawke going to make a mild witticism to ease the tension or say something outrageous?

The subcategories of tones didn't seem to help me much as far as that went.

This is an absolutely crucial matter if Bioware insists on keeping the dialogue wheel with the paraphrases (urgh!) and the icons. Often times I was completely taken aback by the intensity of what my schizophrenic (not because I wanted to roleplay him as such) Hawke said, or how what he said had little to do to what the paraphrase suggested.

Another problem was when, for example, after being diplomatic I think I needed to be more aggressive to get my point across, but my Hawke just blurbed out something in a tone that was way beyond my intent and too far out from the previous line. "Easy there cowboy! I just wanted to put some strength on it, not threathen to kill him, his family and pets", was usually my reaction to these instances. Hence why I call him "schizophrenic" as I frequently felt that my Hawke wasn't actually my character, because I couldn't roleplay him as I wanted to. He always managed to sweep the carpet under my feet and not in a good way. 

Bioware, if you say each of the 3 attitudes (diplomatic, sarcastic, aggressive) had 3 sub-categories themselves, then you need to make those *SIX* options available to us to choose from. If you must keep the damn wheel, then you have to give us quantity and diversity and allow us to know what those are so we can choose what we best feel is correct or best suited.

[Pasquale1234]

Or we could just.... I dunno.... maybe imagine the protag's response in a way that best suits the personality of the character we are playing instead of listening to the VA's interpretation of the line. I guess that kind of futuristic technology won't be available for awhile yet.

Oh, wait...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Or we could just.... I dunno.... maybe imagine the protag's response in a way that best suits the personality of the character we are playing instead of listening to the VA's interpretation of the line. I guess that kind of futuristic technology won't be available for awhile yet.

Oh, wait...

I agree we can do that.  But I'm concerned that the flow of events within the game will assume details of the dialogue which we are discarding.

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

[Allan Schumacher]

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

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

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

[Pasquale1234]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

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

True - so in that case, it's a player agency problem, and I think it stems in part from the writers assuming the player's motivations for choices made.

[TonberryFeye]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

The paraphrasing causes problems as well, but here's an example:

In Origins, you might have a situation where the Warden has been taken advantage of by someone and they say "you'd have done the same."

Let us imagine one of the reactions is "touché".

With Origins, how that is delivered is up to me. It might be bitterly, sarcastically, or it might even have a begrudging hint of respect.

The problem with DA2 is that "touché" has a jester mask next to it, and when I click it Hawke adopts a 'stoned idiot' tone and says, "you're right, I totally would have!"

If you have a silent protagonist, it's a lot less likely that things will be taken the wrong way. Sure, you can't always say what you want, but if I pick a reaction thinking "what would I say if I was genuinely impressed with this guy?" or "what would I say if I was outright horrified?" then the game will rarely lead you astray. Often, a selection can be taken multiple ways, and the conversation still works if either of them were applied.

With Hawke... what he said is often entirely different to what I was led to believe he would say. Worst of all, each personality type had only one reaction. If you pick another, Hawke suddenly changes personality. The Warden never did that. The Warden did not change from psychotically angry to a soppy fool in the space of one line. Instead, just like a real person, their tone shifts from psychotically angry to "angry, but aware the other guy has a point," then just annoyed, and so on through the conversation.

In fact, the problem Hawke has is visible when dealing with party members in Origins as well; they can utterly despise you, and this will be clear when you greet them, but then they suddenly go back to "yeah, I'm happy to talk to you about anything" mode. It's jarring, and especially noticable when people are meant to be mad at you.

Seem to have wandered off topic there, so a closing point: it's much easier for me to 'reimagine' what a silent protagonist might have said to explain the NPC reaction than it is with a voiced one. I don't expect every possible reaction to be available and flawlessly executed, but I do expect to be able to get through a playthrough without my character's own behaviour being a complete surprise to me.

[DarthEmpress]

I liked DA2's dialogue system better than ME's because I felt like they gave us a little more control over Hawke's personality than Shepard's. I wouldn't wholly give up on the dialogue wheel but I wish they'd make it less like a medieval ME clone and more unique. There has to be other workable ways to do dialogue than what we've seen so far...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

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

Yes, but with the silent protagonist you're more likely to write the option so that I can tell that's what I'm choosing.

The issue with the paraphrase isn't the restriction; it's the surprise.

In the DA2 example to which I refer, the options presented (in response to the slaver question "Can I go now?") were:

Yes (action arrow icon)
No (attack icon)

So I knew that Hawke would attack the slavers if I said no.  My first choice was to be nice to the slavers, so I didn't choose that option.  But the "Yes" paraphrase still causes Hawke to antagonise the slavers.  If I had known I would have to antagonise the slavers in any event, I could choose the form of assault (verbal vs. physical) which suited my character more.

The paraphrase is sufficiently obfuscatory that the player can, in good faith, choose between dialogue options based on the wrong criteria.  Based on the paraphrases, I thought the meaningful difference between those two options was a difference in kind, when in fact it was a difference in degree.

I explained this to Epler some months ago:  I don't think it matters that the game forces us to follow a specific path.  I think it matters that the game lets us follow the path, rather than dragging us along it against our will.  It's the difference between riding a bus and driving that same bus.  You follow the same route either way, but the driver is in control of the journey.  We should be the driver, not the passenger.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 30 juin 2012 - 04:41 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Thinking about this a little further, my problem with dialogue wheel outside of the voiced PC is its pigeon-holing of responses. I can either be paragon, renegade or smart-donkey, but not everything is broken down that neatly.

For instance, in DA:O, when talking with Wynne, she begins telling you a story about the Grey Wardens, and your character can keep bringing up gryphons like a five year old kid. Would this be a sarcastic/snarky statement? I don't think so, because it seemed to me like your character was being a genuinely excited goofball. Its certainly not aggressive. And its definitely not diplomatic, since it gets on Wynne's nerves and lowers her approval of you.

Then, later, she asks you which battle she was describing and you have a variety of answers, ranging from playing like you don't understand which battle, to answering wisely that it was all Grey Warden battles, and none at all.

Is "wise" a conversation option in the wheel? Is being a goofball? I don't know how my aggressive Hawke would have sounded answering a question with philosophical introspection, but I'm going to assume it would have been pretty jarring.

The point is - natural conversation is not suited to the dialogue wheel. That's probably why ME3 has so much Auto-dialogue to it. There's nothing particularly renegade about saying you're ready to start a mission. There's nothing inherently paragon about saying that you need more time to prepare.

The reason writing for DA2 felt so much more rigid is because we were given the freedom to have organic conversations in DA:O, where our responses were varied and logical, instead of the response being jammed into a set personality tone choice. I wouldn't say hardly any of the dialogue options in DA:O could fit into a clean-cut "Aggressive", "Diplomatic" or "Snarky" type. They were just responses, honest possible answers or follow ups to the dialogue being stated.

I don't know much about the in-house workings of video game design, so I'm not sure if the dialogue wheel makes people's job easier over there or not from a development/programming point of view. But from both a writing point of view and a player point of view, it seems pretty limiting.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 juin 2012 - 05:07 .

[Wulfram]

I'm pretty sure goofball comes under "charming" in DA2 - purple, but with the diamond symbol rather than the face. Snarky hawke isn't in fact always snarky, sometimes they're just lighthearted.

While the wise answer was stat based IIRC, and would therefore probably get a star icon.

Modifié par Wulfram, 30 juin 2012 - 05:33 .