342 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

That's more to do with how the dialogue wheel is used. In other games that use a wheel the conversation is quite different. This is more to do with the 3 path conversation that Biowarer uses with the dialogue wheel rather than anything wrong with the concept of organising things around a wheel itself.



Heres one from another game since it lacks the very obvious 3 path conversation it's not any different than if you just listed the options.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 30 juin 2012 - 06:38 .

[CELL55]

I like the voiced PC because it really helps me get drawn into the world. I used to be fine without it, but Mass Effect made me a gourmet and it became actively harmful to my personal involvement in the story line of Dragon Age not to hear my character voiced. It's like night and day for me; voiced PCs are just SUCH a major improvement for me.

As for full text vs. paraphrase, I'm not quite as sure where to weigh in other than to say I need to know two things. 1. WHAT is my character going to say, and 2. HOW is my character going to say it. Full text and paraphrase both had times where my character did something unintentional (which I think DA2's Diplomatic, Humorous, and Aggressive Icons helped, but didn't fix) and I would be forced to reload a save and try to get my character to say what I wanted them to say. That's why I've been so reluctant to try out SWTOR, because you can't reload an MMO to make conversation choices that you want.

[Fortlowe]

I've been playing 'The Walking Dead' and I am very impressed with the game, especially how it handles dialogue. Most of the conversations are timed and many are outright dynamic. Consequences, much like in real life are both immediate and long gestating. I could imagine Dragon Age having a similar system, along with dynamic interrupts of companion chatter. How many times have you wanted to take an active part in some of the humorous background chatter your companions were having? What if you got a prompt to do just that? And even better, what if that interaction was determined by your PC's personality? I'd like interrupts introduced to the series in any form, but getting involved with companion chatter seems to me a novel way to introduce it to Dragon Age.

Back to the dialogue options though and how cribbing from 'The Walking Dead' is not a bad idea. Another thing that series has going for it is that usually during these conversations, one or both parties are doing something while they are talking. Kinda like in real life. Looking back on both of the Dragon Age games, the conversations seem so wooden because the P Cand the NPCs kinda just drop whatever they are doing and have a chat. Have them doing something, and better yet, let the player take part in it. Chopping wood. Feeding chickens. Sharpening blades. Crafting potions. Doing paperwork. Tending a campfire. Playing fetch with dog. Etc. Etc. Mundane tasks that the player or NPC or both can take part in during the conversation.

Those are some of my thoughts on the matter. Allan Schmacher, if you're reading this and you haven't played it, I very much suggest 'The Walking Dead' game. The way that conversations are executed is extremely compelling and worth taking note of.

[Wulfram]

As far as timed conversations go, I'd just say that it's annoying enough to not be able to pause during dialogue and cutscenes already.

[Fortlowe]

Annoying? Strange. I find it a bit disconnecting being able to mull over exactly how I would respond. Seems like cheating. Adding a timer and clearly labelled responses (hostile, diplomatic, jovial, etc) would keep the player emotionally invested in the conversations, I think.

[TonberryFeye]

Fortlowe wrote...

Annoying? Strange. I find it a bit disconnecting being able to mull over exactly how I would respond. Seems like cheating. Adding a timer and clearly labelled responses (hostile, diplomatic, jovial, etc) would keep the player emotionally invested in the conversations, I think.

The problem with timed dialog is this:

Let's say an NPC says "So, what's your opinion on the Chantry?"
My instinctive reaction is to say "I think there is too much corruption within the Chantry."

The problem is that the game's options are:
"I am a devout believer."
"I don't believe in the Maker."
"What's the Chantry again?"

None of these gel with what I want to say, so I need to take some time and study what information is on hand to find the one closest to what I wanted. That isn't easy with a ticking clock hanging over me.

[Wulfram]

Fortlowe wrote...

Annoying? Strange. I find it a bit disconnecting being able to mull over exactly how I would respond. Seems like cheating. Adding a timer and clearly labelled responses (hostile, diplomatic, jovial, etc) would keep the player emotionally invested in the conversations, I think.

I don't mean from a gameplay point of view, I mean from a convenience point of view.

If I have to interrupt my game playing, I don't want to have to miss a whole bunch of stuff, or come back to discover that the guy I was talking to has taken offence at my silence and killed everyone.

If nothing else, it makes me a more sociable person if I can put Anders on hold if my family wants to talk to me.

TonberryFeye's point is valid enough too.  We're not coming up with what our response would be, we're attempting to fit our characters response into 3 paraphrased choices, which isn't necessarily all that easy.

[Fortlowe]

Well that's just a question of how well the writers convey how you feel about the subject. With the three options you have there, timed or no your nuanced opinion on the matter is not represented here. Futhermore, though I am in favor of a timed system, there is room for flexibility, I think. Some talks simply aren't a pressing, and there less demanding of a quick response (ie, long time bar). Some conversations may not need to be timed at all (LI talks, one and done convos). To really spice it up sometimes if the the bar runs out, instead of some automatic selection, the other party just insults you or asks if you heard them and it starts over with the same responses.

It's a system that, given enough creative thought and polish (as demonstrated by 'The Walking Dead'), has the potential to liven up the whole series, I think.

Modifié par Fortlowe, 04 juillet 2012 - 02:35 .

[Fortlowe]

@Wulfram: I can understand that the timed conversations, could be inconvenient, however, I think the solution there would be simply incorporating an auto save feature that saves before any conversation takes place.

[Kidd]

Fortlowe wrote...

Annoying? Strange. I find it a bit disconnecting being able to mull over exactly how I would respond. Seems like cheating. Adding a timer and clearly labelled responses (hostile, diplomatic, jovial, etc) would keep the player emotionally invested in the conversations, I think.

What if I'm playing a character that isn't very much like myself and I need to sit down and think for a moment to answer a particularly difficult question? Ie a question with many layers, which I as a person can answer quickly of course, but I need to think about my character's feelings for a while to really sort out how they would feel.

During a game of a pen&paper RPG, I find most groups will allow a timeout like that if it leads to better role playing as long as it's not taken often or take ages. Let my own immersion be what's hurt if I'm a slow meathead, but please don't hurt my canon.

[Wulfram]

They could make the dialogue timer a toggle

(sorry kittens)

[Fortlowe]

Good question, Beauty. I'm of the school of thought that, at least on the first playthrough, you play it the way that feels right for you personally; regardless of what the consequences those choices might result in. Because the first time you play through, you've very little indication what those consequences might be.

The next time, maybe you'll want to playthrough a little harder or more diplomatic or with a different philosophy or political stance. Cool! It's why Bioware is so good at what it does. Choice. But I don't think a timer is going to rob you of the ability to play from an opposing perspective, Beauty. It just serves to keep that perspective honest I think, instead of methodical and overly deliberate.

@Wulfram: I'm completely opposed to the idea of a toggle. The kind of commitment the device will require for it to be anything other than a throw away gimmick, forbids a toggle. I really want you to play 'The Walking Dead' game Wulf. Well worth the price of admission, and you'll have a far clearer idea of what I think Bioware should be going for with dialogue in their games going forward. If they could do that in a downloadable game, then Bioware, if they are suitably creative and ambitious enough, could take that formula and run with it. If all they do instead is, as all the forumites seem to constantly demand, do the same thing they did in DA:O and all the games prior to that, the risk, no they guarantee that they'll be left behind.

[joyner1229]

Fortlowe wrote...

Good question, Beauty. I'm of the school of thought that, at least on the first playthrough, you play it the way that feels right for you personally; regardless of what the consequences those choices might result in. Because the first time you play through, you've very little indication what those consequences might be.

The next time, maybe you'll want to playthrough a little harder or more diplomatic or with a different philosophy or political stance. Cool! It's why Bioware is so good at what it does. Choice. But I don't think a timer is going to rob you of the ability to play from an opposing perspective, Beauty. It just serves to keep that perspective honest I think, instead of methodical and overly deliberate.

@Wulfram: I'm completely opposed to the idea of a toggle. The kind of commitment the device will require for it to be anything other than a throw away gimmick, forbids a toggle. I really want you to play 'The Walking Dead' game Wulf. Well worth the price of admission, and you'll have a far clearer idea of what I think Bioware should be going for with dialogue in their games going forward. If they could do that in a downloadable game, then Bioware, if they are suitably creative and ambitious enough, could take that formula and run with it. If all they do instead is, as all the forumites seem to constantly demand, do the same thing they did in DA:O and all the games prior to that, the risk, no they guarantee that they'll be left behind.

I don't think it's fair to impose a timer on people who want to take more time to choose their responses.  I mean, I see where you're coming from, but that's kind of telling someone how they should play their game.  You have the option to pick a choice quickly so others should have the option to pick a choice slower.

I like the idea of doing something while talking, though.  In both games there is a bit too much standing around.  And from what I've gathered, while some forumites want exactly what was in Origins,  many just want to keep their player agency.  Origins allows more control and less pidgeon-holing than DA2's version of the wheel, which is why many prefer it.  There are many suggestions in this thread on how to update the tree or fix the wheel that don't involve BW copy and pasting from Origins.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fortlowe wrote...

Annoying? Strange. I find it a bit disconnecting being able to mull over exactly how I would respond. Seems like cheating. Adding a timer and clearly labelled responses (hostile, diplomatic, jovial, etc) would keep the player emotionally invested in the conversations, I think.

Absolutely not.

The player doesn't need to be emotionally invensted in the conversations.  I see roleplaying as a purely intellectual exercise, so my emotions are irrelevant.  But if I'm playing a character whose opinions and thought processes are radically different from my own, it might take me some time to work out what decision he would make.

How my character behaves shouldn't change based on how quickly I can think.

His stats matter.  My stats don't.

[Fortlowe]

I don't see what role fairness plays in this at all. Nothing is being imposed. You would still have options and those options would be clearly marked as to the tone they would convey. If you don't like the result of the choice you made, revert to the aforementioned autosave marked just before the conversations start. All this mechanic does is add a sense of urgency and life to the conversations. I tire of characters talking "at" one another. To me, player agency means actually being a part of the story. Not dictating it from on high.

And as far as the system from DA:O? It's stagnant and obsolete. People are talking to their phones and it answers back, nowadays. Fill in the blank just will not cut it anymore.

@ Sylvius: No insult intended here, but your lack of emotional connection to the narrative makes you a minority, Sylvius. I would argue most players AND devs want emotional investment in the game. Also I would like to clarify, not ALL the conversations would require this mechanic. Most would benefit from it, but even most of those should not require the split second decision making I think is being understood here. But urgent situations should require urgent decisions.

Modifié par Fortlowe, 04 juillet 2012 - 02:37 .

[joyner1229]

Someone shouldn't have to reload because you feel that having more time makes their responses less genuine. Like I said, if you have to have that sense of urgency in order to feel immersed, great. Choose your answers quickly. Other people shouldn't have to play their character that way. You can have it both ways, by not having a timer. I highly doubt this would ever be implemented for that reason, among others. Player agency indeed means being a part of the story, but also having control of your character and how you play them within that story.

The tree is not obsolete, but the tree copy and pasted from Origins is showing its age. As I said, people have suggested numerous ways to improve/update it or fix the dialogue wheel. There needs to be a dynamic sense of involvement while maintaining control. The thing about Origins' system is it leaves plenty of room for players to fill in the blanks and shape their character/story. Personally, it's easy for me to be immersed because of this. In DA2, not only do you lose control (there are essentially three Hawkes to play; you don't really shape him/her), but you don't even know what you're going to say. The ideal is dynamic story-telling WITHOUT losing player control, and I would argue the tree in Origins accomplishes this much better than the wheel in DA2 even if scenes are static.

Several threads exist around the board about the wheel I believe, and I hope BW is taking away some of the major suggestions that keep being reiterated...

Modifié par joyner1229, 02 juillet 2012 - 04:53 .

[Fortlowe]

I shouldn't have to play a tabletop RPG because that's what you want to play. I want play a video game. I only doubt this won't be implemented, for the same reason it wasn't before: the forumites keep demanding the same stale gameplay mechanics over and over.

[joyner1229]

Fortlowe wrote...

I shouldn't have to play a tabletop RPG because that's what you want to play. I want play a video game. I only doubt this won't be implemented, for the same reason it wasn't before: the forumites keep demanding the same stale gameplay mechanics over and over.

Let me ask: why must you absolutely have this timer?  Like I said, how is other people being able to choose slower than you hurting your experience?  Do you not still have the ability to choose responses quickly and based on your gut?  

Also, you're getting mad for no reason.  Deep breaths.  Please read my post again.  There is a way to keep both dynamic story-telling and player control without necessarily sticking to the tree from Origins (especially since it's confirmed the wheel will return).  People have made solid suggestions here.  You seem to have a vendetta against people who prefer the old way and are combative because of this.  There is middle ground.  

Also, fun fact: Dragon Age is touted as the spiritual successor to BG...which is based on D&D rules...D&D...a table-top RPG.  

[joyner1229]

And if you think BSN forumites are the only reason a timer won't be implemented (how many games have timers for conversations?), I'm not sure what to say...

[Fortlowe]

It's more than just a timer. It's actively taking part in the dialogue of a story. It's being expected to think in terms of the moment instead of the epilogue. If my PC has to chose between one life or another or both could die (key word 'could') I want that choice to feel as urgent as it is. And you don't know if I'm upset or not, so please do not assume to be aware of my state of mind. That whole 'spiritual successor' thing was flimsy the first time it was uttered and is more evidence of the franchises possible impending obselesence, unfortunately.

Modifié par Fortlowe, 04 juillet 2012 - 02:40 .

[joyner1229]

You haven't answered the question because it does not hurt you at all if other people don't choose responses as fast as you. You can still think in the moment and other people can think of the epilogue if they want. A timer is a way to force people to play their character how you want. Unlike the tree vs. wheel debate or voiced vs. silent PC debate, both parties can win by having no timer. You choose fast, they choose slow. What's the problem again??

Sorry, the whole tabletop comment sounded pretty angry/personal (?). haha. Maybe you didn't mean it that way. Funny, DA:O was a commercial and critical success despite its traditional RPG throwback (not perfectly) style. DA2, an attempt at modernizing the concept, has not sold nearly as much, was not favored as much by critics, and has fragmented the base. I would argue any obsolescence is not through the fault of Origins.

Back to the original point, the wheel is confirmed. The question: how to create a dynamic conversation system with the wheel that still allows player control without pigeon-holing people into three molds and giving just the illusion of choice? Plenty of suggestions here. Personally, I would say a timer is not necessary. But feel free to disagree.

Modifié par joyner1229, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:21 .

[Allan Schumacher]

While I don't mind a timer (I think it worked well enough in Alpha Protocol), some of the concerns I have about it is more about accessibility.

I remember reading up on people that had a hard time with Alpha Protocol because they only had a subtitle translation (i.e. not English, French, German) and given how the subtitles were shown to prevent subtitles from providing an advantage, they found it difficult to keep up with the conversation.

There's other things that a timer can impact, and I think that unless the goal is to have players be quick on their feet (I think it worked well in AP because the game wanted you to be a spy and make quick decisions), it's something that I'm not sure I would fully support.

[SirGladiator]

If we're talking about a timer, couldn't there simply be a pause button? If you like the timer, and you want to be forced to make quick decisions, you simply don't ever use the pause, and maybe the average player likes the added excitement of a limit, but sometimes just needs more time, so they use pause occasionally. And if you hate the timer, you can pause frequently. I don't really have an opinion on a timer pro or con, although I do find the idea interesting, but if you do a timer, and include a pause option, then everybody wins, at least to some degree.

[Fortlowe]

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

[Kidd]

Fortlowe wrote...

Good question, Beauty. I'm of the school of thought that, at least on the first playthrough, you play it the way that feels right for you personally; regardless of what the consequences those choices might result in. Because the first time you play through, you've very little indication what those consequences might be.

The next time, maybe you'll want to playthrough a little harder or more diplomatic or with a different philosophy or political stance. Cool! It's why Bioware is so good at what it does. Choice. But I don't think a timer is going to rob you of the ability to play from an opposing perspective, Beauty. It just serves to keep that perspective honest I think, instead of methodical and overly deliberate.

Yeah I tend to do self-inserts on my first playthrough as well =) On those, I don't think a timer would hurt me much. It probably wouldn't add anything to my experience, but it wouldn't detract anything either. But for future playthroughs, it will.

As an example of what I mean, there's my old D&D 3.5 necromancer. Upon creation, I had her major idea worked out and all as usual - her character concept was done. After a while of playing I came to realise I should have Ray of Enfeeblement memorised at all times, and never use it unless I have a very good reason to. Why? Because this character would (at least at the point she was early in the campaign) never perform a heroic sacrifice, her own survival trumped -anything- else and she didn't give one damn about the lives of others.

If push came to shove and the party would have an issue, her plan was to fire the Ray of Enfeeblement on the party's fighter. He would be unable to move under the weight of his armour and she would likely be able to get away free while the monsters swarmed the poor man in plate mail.

Such a decision does not come naturally to me. Yet it should come naturally from my character. Is it possible I could have my character act properly at all times even with a timer? Maybe, after all my imagination isn't the limit - the dialogue options are. But I would prefer not to take that chance. I'd probably end up playing like I always do otherwise, which is pick dialogue options within a few seconds - often before the other party has finished their voiced line even - and have a constant flow of dialogue most of the time. With only certain choices having me thinking for a bit, or perhaps using the pause to go AFK and do something that requires somewhat immediate attention.

In the end, I suppose I would not mind a toggle at all, but I'd keep it Off at all times just in case.