767 réponses à ce sujet

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...

When the protagonist is pre-generated I care more about what the point of what they will say will be, more than I care about the words they use.
I need to know things like Aggresive -Placate etc. But I don't need to know the lines Adam will use to get that across.
I prefer the intent word because it comes across as more solid than a "tone" which is subjective.

Intent is also more focused than paraphrasing even when combined with a tone icon.

I don't see why the protagonist need to be pre-generated for that.
"intent" could work.  I can see that.

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...
[/i]I don't play RPGs to discover about Hawke, as Psychoblonde clearly does ("I quite like being surprised"). I wouldn't choose to play either DA2 or TW2, or any RPG like that. That I did, was the outcome of a chain of events. I have no interest in playing Hawke or Geralt. I'd rather play Max Payne. I'd rather do something else.

Some people like to characterize the difference in playing styles as "first person" or "third person". I don't like those labels, even if those people mean the same thing. It's too prone to misunderstandings, since those terms are already used for something else. The temptation to assume analogies, for those who don't understand, is too great.
I also don't like it, because first or third person have absolutely nothing to do with the heart of the matter. I would like to regard most of my protagonists as being "third person", but they absolutely aren't, by the above characterization.

Whether you play that way or not that is what happens. Because that is how the story is written.

Paraphrasing completely removes the imagine yourself as the character method(first person). Unless you don't know what you are going to say before you say it. Older games simply gave more spaces, it was not intentional in most cases , which is why as technology has improved the spaces have been filled with voice acting and more defined characters.

Anything pre-generated is like an acting/directing role(third person). Where as in DA:O I saw the written dialogue more of a guideline rather than the actual words my character would say,voice acting will give you a canon version whether you like it or not.

Trying to play a game with paraphrasing in first person and having expectations of your character is only going to lead to disapointment unless your character and the designers are somewhat in sync anyway. I found this with ME/2 but ME3 competely destroyed it with the autodialogue. In DA2 however my idea of Hawke and Biowares were almost always at odds.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 23 juin 2012 - 11:49 .

[Cirram55]

bEVEsthda wrote...
The question, this thread asks, is from my perspective all wrong. It should be "is SP a must"? That is what Bioware have chosen to challenge. We already know that VO is NOT a must, it's just a WILL be for DA3.

This is interesting.
As I said, I understand their shift from defining a character to exploring one, but I have little interest in the latter if it's done like in DAII. Hawke felt like the result of an hybrid, and yet a child that had nothing of his parents.

They have expressed a desire to accomodate "old fans".

I am one of those fans, and I hope they can fix the wheel.
Dialogue was what bugged me the most in DAII, but I'm open to anything they will add to it to make it better. It does seem, however, a painful job. I don't envy them.

Modifié par Cirram55, 23 juin 2012 - 11:53 .

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
[/i]I don't play RPGs to discover about Hawke, as Psychoblonde clearly does ("I quite like being surprised"). I wouldn't choose to play either DA2 or TW2, or any RPG like that. That I did, was the outcome of a chain of events. I have no interest in playing Hawke or Geralt. I'd rather play Max Payne. I'd rather do something else.

Some people like to characterize the difference in playing styles as "first person" or "third person". I don't like those labels, even if those people mean the same thing. It's too prone to misunderstandings, since those terms are already used for something else. The temptation to assume analogies, for those who don't understand, is too great.
I also don't like it, because first or third person have absolutely nothing to do with the heart of the matter. I would like to regard most of my protagonists as being "third person", but they absolutely aren't, by the above characterization.

Whether you play that way or not that is what happens. Because that is how the story is written.

Paraphrasing completely removes the imagine yourself as the character method(first person). Unless you don't know what you are going to say before you say it. Older games simply gave more spaces, it was not intentional in most cases , which is why as technology has improved the spaces have been filled with voice acting and more defined characters.

Anything pre-generated is like an acting/directing role(third person). Where as in DA:O I saw the written dialogue more of a guideline rather than the actual words my character would say,voice acting will give you a canon version whether you like it or not.

Trying to play a game with paraphrasing in first person and having expectations of your character is only going to lead to disapointment unless your character and the designers are somewhat in sync anyway. I found this with ME/2 but ME3 competely destroyed it with the autodialogue. In DA2 however my idea of Hawke and Biowares were almost always at odds.

I think that you made this post at all, is maybe that you missed the central gist and purpose of my long post?

To discuss anyway, as is merited, I'd say it can be as you say. DA2 didn't work. That is not the question. The question is rather if it can be in any other way.

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
[/i]I don't play RPGs to discover about Hawke, as Psychoblonde clearly does ("I quite like being surprised"). I wouldn't choose to play either DA2 or TW2, or any RPG like that. That I did, was the outcome of a chain of events. I have no interest in playing Hawke or Geralt. I'd rather play Max Payne. I'd rather do something else.

Some people like to characterize the difference in playing styles as "first person" or "third person". I don't like those labels, even if those people mean the same thing. It's too prone to misunderstandings, since those terms are already used for something else. The temptation to assume analogies, for those who don't understand, is too great.
I also don't like it, because first or third person have absolutely nothing to do with the heart of the matter. I would like to regard most of my protagonists as being "third person", but they absolutely aren't, by the above characterization.

Whether you play that way or not that is what happens. Because that is how the story is written.

Paraphrasing completely removes the imagine yourself as the character method(first person). Unless you don't know what you are going to say before you say it. Older games simply gave more spaces, it was not intentional in most cases , which is why as technology has improved the spaces have been filled with voice acting and more defined characters.

Anything pre-generated is like an acting/directing role(third person). Where as in DA:O I saw the written dialogue more of a guideline rather than the actual words my character would say,voice acting will give you a canon version whether you like it or not.

Trying to play a game with paraphrasing in first person and having expectations of your character is only going to lead to disapointment unless your character and the designers are somewhat in sync anyway. I found this with ME/2 but ME3 competely destroyed it with the autodialogue. In DA2 however my idea of Hawke and Biowares were almost always at odds.

I think that you made this post at all, is maybe that you missed the central gist and purpose of my long post?

To discuss anyway, as is merited, I'd say it can be as you say. DA2 didn't work. That is not the question. The question is rather if it can be in any other way.

Yes. For example having a character like Geralt as the protagonist would get rid of having a personal and official version of the character competing with each other. That would solve my problem, just like puting ME3 into "action" mode and playing like a JRPG solved my problem with Shepard.

Could it be done in a way that allows first person rolepaying again ? Probably not. Cinematic presentation and first person roleplaying are opposites. Cinematics benifit from detail. First person roleplaying needs spaces and ambiguity.

[element eater]

CrustyBot wrote...

It's a must for BioWare, everything else is irrelevant.

sigh... so true unfortunately

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Yes. For example having a character like Geralt as the protagonist would get rid of having a personal and official version of the character competing with each other. That would solve my problem, just like puting ME3 into "action" mode and playing like a JRPG solved my problem with Shepard.

See, this is why I dislike the use of "first" and "third" person for this. Because there is something wrong here. I can only assume that you always play these games mainly in exploring manner, regardless if you assume them as first person or third person. That seem to be the only reason you can see this as a minor detail to be solved this way.

Could it be done in a way that allows first person rolepaying again ? Probably not. Cinematic presentation and first person roleplaying are opposites. Cinematics benifit from detail. First person roleplaying needs spaces and ambiguity.

Of course these are some of the problems. That is rather obvious. "Probably not"? Well, you sure have a good argument there. That is the reason all this (wheel, voiced, paraphrases) is such a big issue on these forums.

We'll see. I really don't think there is any big interest, or market demand, in only cinematic presentations though. There's never been, and I don't think there will ever be either. If that is all what Bioware is betting their future on, they're a done deal. They have to bring something else.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 23 juin 2012 - 12:25 .

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...

See, this is why I dislike the use of "first" and "third" person for this. Because there is something wrong here. I can only assume that you always play these games mainly in exploring manner, regardless if you assume them as first person or third person. That seem to be the only reason you can see this as a minor detail to be solved this way.

Of course these are some of the problems. That is rather obvious. "Probably not"? Well, you sure have a good argument there. That is the reason all this (wheel, voiced, paraphrases) is such a big issue on these forums.
We'll see. I really don't think there is any big interest, or market demand, in only cinematic presentations though. There's never been, and I don't think there will ever be either. If that is all what Bioware is betting their future on, they're a done deal. They have to bring something else.

I played DA:O in first person because I could. The lines I saw more as suggestions rather than the words the character actually spoke, because there was nothing to tell me otherwise. I created the characters and the only thing that DA:O really imposed was being a Warden, which each character came to terms with in their own way.

Trying to do that in DA2 would be futile. Although I did try it at first It was clear very early on that Bioware had their own idea of Hawke and I was wasting my time. With Witcher2 I never even attempted to "create" Geralt or project anything on to him since the game was very clear about his nature. Rather I approached it like an acting/directing role and enjoyed the character.

The majority of games are cinematic. If a game is not then it needs to be stellar (like Skyrim). Skyrim does not use cinematic presentation so it's not really missed. Since Bioware are pretty clear on the whole cinematic thing. I don't see a solution that goes back to how I was playing in DA:O.

[ianvillan]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I played DA:O in first person because I could. The lines I saw more as suggestions rather than the words the character actually spoke, because there was nothing to tell me otherwise. I created the characters and the only thing that DA:O really imposed was being a Warden, which each character came to terms with in their own way.

Trying to do that in DA2 would be futile. Although I did try it at first It was clear very early on that Bioware had their own idea of Hawke and I was wasting my time. With Witcher2 I never even attempted to "create" Geralt or project anything on to him since the game was very clear about his nature. Rather I approached it like an acting/directing role and enjoyed the character.

The majority of games are cinematic. If a game is not then it needs to be stellar (like Skyrim). Skyrim does not use cinematic presentation so it's not really missed. Since Bioware are pretty clear on the whole cinematic thing. I don't see a solution that goes back to how I was playing in DA:O.

Another game that wasn't cinematic or used voice was KOTOR and that game was praised won many awards pulled in many new players to the PRG genre and still has fans asking for a sequel. I would also say that KOTOR was better than DA2 in almost every aspect.

So what has Bioware got against that type of game when it has been proved to be successfull and if given time and effort attract new players. Bioware just seems to be interested in getting rid of any RPG type systems and making copys of other companies games.

[AkiKishi]

ianvillan wrote...
Another game that wasn't cinematic or used voice was KOTOR and that game was praised won many awards pulled in many new players to the PRG genre and still has fans asking for a sequel. I would also say that KOTOR was better than DA2 in almost every aspect.

So what has Bioware got against that type of game when it has been proved to be successfull and if given time and effort attract new players. Bioware just seems to be interested in getting rid of any RPG type systems and making copys of other companies games.

Technology has a lot to do with it , which is why examples like KOTOR and BG don't really offer anything because they are from a different era.

Here is what SquareEnix is shooting for next generation
A character with a blank expression like in KOTOR , not really an option anymore.

[jillabender]

bEVEthesda wrote…

… a good deal of us don't turn to RPGs to consume a story and a protagonist. A cRPG is for us a tool for doing something different. A toy for us to create a make believe-person, and build that person's personal story. We need to define that person. And while the game-world, and events around that person, of course will guide and shape that story, we also want to define the experience of that broadline story. Making just a few interactive choices in a movie, here and there, is not enough. Any choices and expressions need to be anchored in a personality we define.

Thank you, that's what I was trying to get across as well. That's the kind of experience that I found in DA:O, and that I found myself missing in DA2.

While I can't help but feel it's a shame that the Dragon Age series is moving away from the kind of storytelling that I and bEVEthesda enjoyed in Origins, I'm inclined to think that trying to provide the kind of experience that DA:O did using a voiced protagonist is most likely futile. I'd prefer that they find new ways to tell the story using a voiced protagonist.

Modifié par jillabender, 23 juin 2012 - 03:37 .

[Brockololly]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Technology has a lot to do with it , which is why examples like KOTOR and BG don't really offer anything because they are from a different era.

Here is what SquareEnix is shooting for next generation
A character with a blank expression like in KOTOR , not really an option anymore.

I agree that tech has something to do with it, but at the same time, you have to look at the tradeoffs. I mean, modern BioWare games have never been that great visually. Even the "digital acting" in BioWare games isn't much to write home about and at worst it ends up with horrifically creepy moments with characters stuck in the Uncanny Valley.

I think its more that you absolutely could still use a silent protagonist to great effect in an RPG, even a cinematic RPG. I think Origins even did a decent job of it, but that they could have done a better job of minimizing moments where you were forced to look at the blank faced PC. Thats an issue of BioWare not getting the most out of what they were trying to do. Why not switch to a first person view when you enter conversations and susbequently increase the focus on the animations of the person the PC is conversing with, similar to the Deus Ex Human Revolution dialogue battles? Or allow for some means for the player to control the PC's body language during a conversation with something akin to interrupt triggers, so you don't end up with blank faced PCs?

Or look at the old Infinity engine games and Wasteland 2 coming up- the minimal use of VO or lack of VO works there because the isometric view stayed consistent and marginalized the need for detailed cinematics.

Its more that BioWare wants to push their cinematic presentation which for them only means using VO everything because the voiced PC/dialogue wheel/paraphrases are their Sacred Cow. I just think thats wasting a tremendous opportunity to try different means of presenting an RPG. Supposedly BioWare is all about making the best story driven games, yet they seem stuck on presenting all stories the exact same way. Thats the nice thing about Obsidian games at least is that they don't rest on their laurels in coming up with ways to present stories and present RPGs in different fashions. And it makes sense, since its silly to think that every possible story would benefit from cinematic presentation and voice acted everything. I just think its a tremendously wasted potential for BioWare's games to not try something different. I'd love to see a BG style isometric view party based RPG set in the DA world. But that's not going to happen.

Modifié par Brockololly, 23 juin 2012 - 03:53 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Vormaerin wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...
  I remember many time in Origins where I was interacting in my own way and speaking in my own voice. 

Then you must be one of the lucky ones whose "own way" matched what the devs wrote.  That doesn't happen very often in my experience.

The only way I would be lucky is if I said this about Hawke in DA2.  The character that I created that I roled played as myself didin't have a VO or cinematics interacting with the npcs.  The hero of DA2 did.  The fact that my mind created the interaction I was having in Origins doesn't have anything to do with what the devs wrote.  I just naturally supplied the interaction.

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Technology has a lot to do with it , which is why examples like KOTOR and BG don't really offer anything because they are from a different era.

Here is what SquareEnix is shooting for next generation
A character with a blank expression like in KOTOR , not really an option anymore.

I'm so unimpressed. In fact I think, if anything, I'm disgusted.

KotOR and BG offers gameplay that is in the stratosphere, compared to DA2 and this movie drivel.
They also offer the holy grail, the crucial factor, being able to define the character and story.

And as much as I understand you love Square Enix, and CGI movies, I'd be really sad to see Bioware sink all the way down to Square Enix' level. And I'd certainly never buy a game like that. Unless DA3 turns out to be one, and I end up buying it out of mistake or curiosity.
 
But frankly, I highly doubt Bioware is aiming so low. I cannot imagine that. In fact I don't even think SqE is any longer. I'm sure they realized how small the market was for movies several years ago, and have been working on diversing their act since.

[Jerrybnsn]

bEVEsthda wrote...

"tldr" version: The question, this thread asks, is from my perspective all wrong. It should be "is SP a must"? That is what Bioware have chosen to challenge. We already know that VO is NOT a must, it's just a WILL be for DA3.

My whole purpose of this post was to discuss specifically about the merits of VO in the Dragon Age series because it was used as the main reason why we would not be able to have race options. As has been stated by Mr. Gaider, the existence of VO was not the reason we did not receive race options in DA2. Race options were cut for presenting a stronger storyline.

[bEVEsthda]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

"tldr" version: The question, this thread asks, is from my perspective all wrong. It should be "is SP a must"? That is what Bioware have chosen to challenge. We already know that VO is NOT a must, it's just a WILL be for DA3.

My whole purpose of this post was to discuss specifically about the merits of VO in the Dragon Age series because it was used as the main reason why we would not be able to have race options. As has been stated by Mr. Gaider, the existence of VO was not the reason we did not receive race options in DA2. Race options were cut for presenting a stronger storyline.

I perfectly understand.
My purpose wasn't to attack the thread, but to kidnap it.

[Jerrybnsn]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

"tldr" version: The question, this thread asks, is from my perspective all wrong. It should be "is SP a must"? That is what Bioware have chosen to challenge. We already know that VO is NOT a must, it's just a WILL be for DA3.

My whole purpose of this post was to discuss specifically about the merits of VO in the Dragon Age series because it was used as the main reason why we would not be able to have race options. As has been stated by Mr. Gaider, the existence of VO was not the reason we did not receive race options in DA2. Race options were cut for presenting a stronger storyline.

I perfectly understand.
My purpose wasn't to attack the thread, but to kidnap it.

Oh no, I never took it as an attack.  I was just reiterating why I felt the need to discuss the merits of VO in the DA series.  I have another thread on if race options are a must, but perhaps we need to expand our discussion to the merits of a silent voiced protagonist in the DA series.  But then again, if you're not going to have VO than the only other option is an SP. So maybe we should just stick with this one.

silent-voiced protagonist?  Wow talk about an oxymoron

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 23 juin 2012 - 05:06 .

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Technology has a lot to do with it , which is why examples like KOTOR and BG don't really offer anything because they are from a different era.

Here is what SquareEnix is shooting for next generation
A character with a blank expression like in KOTOR , not really an option anymore.

I'm so unimpressed. In fact I think, if anything, I'm disgusted.

KotOR and BG offers gameplay that is in the stratosphere, compared to DA2 and this movie drivel.
They also offer the holy grail, the crucial factor, being able to define the character and story.

And as much as I understand you love Square Enix, and CGI movies, I'd be really sad to see Bioware sink all the way down to Square Enix' level. And I'd certainly never buy a game like that. Unless DA3 turns out to be one, and I end up buying it out of mistake or curiosity.
 
But frankly, I highly doubt Bioware is aiming so low. I cannot imagine that. In fact I don't even think SqE is any longer. I'm sure they realized how small the market was for movies several years ago, and have been working on diversing their act since.

Thats a real time demo not CG. That's going to be the next generation and that moves things further into movie land and further away from being blank. And if Bioware want to do cinematic games that is where Bioware are heading.

It's a tech demo not a game so why would you be expecting gameplay?

Modifié par BobSmith101, 23 juin 2012 - 05:11 .

[Dakota Strider]

bEVEsthda wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Technology has a lot to do with it , which is why examples like KOTOR and BG don't really offer anything because they are from a different era.

Here is what SquareEnix is shooting for next generation
A character with a blank expression like in KOTOR , not really an option anymore.

I'm so unimpressed. In fact I think, if anything, I'm disgusted.

KotOR and BG offers gameplay that is in the stratosphere, compared to DA2 and this movie drivel.
They also offer the holy grail, the crucial factor, being able to define the character and story.

And as much as I understand you love Square Enix, and CGI movies, I'd be really sad to see Bioware sink all the way down to Square Enix' level. And I'd certainly never buy a game like that. Unless DA3 turns out to be one, and I end up buying it out of mistake or curiosity.
 
But frankly, I highly doubt Bioware is aiming so low. I cannot imagine that. In fact I don't even think SqE is any longer. I'm sure they realized how small the market was for movies several years ago, and have been working on diversing their act since.

Agreed.   Went to that link, and watched that movie, too.  Where is the game?  Its a high quality cartoon, and thats about it.  I will not pay $60+ for a cartoon movie, that I occassionally get to interact with.

[Jerrybnsn]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Thats a real time demo not CG. That's going to be the next generation and that moves things further into movie land and further away from being blank. And if Bioware want to do cinematic games that is where Bioware are heading.

It's a tech demo not a game so why would you be expecting gameplay?

I'm a little suspicious that will be what real time gamr play will look like.  Will the unreal4 engine actually provide the different dramatic camera angels as well?  I suspect that that is what a cutscene is like.  However, it is a great improvement for graphics. 

[AkiKishi]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Thats a real time demo not CG. That's going to be the next generation and that moves things further into movie land and further away from being blank. And if Bioware want to do cinematic games that is where Bioware are heading.

It's a tech demo not a game so why would you be expecting gameplay?

I'm a little suspicious that will be what real time gamr play will look like.  Will the unreal4 engine actually provide the different dramatic camera angels as well?  I suspect that that is what a cutscene is like.  However, it is a great improvement for graphics. 

It's wise to be cautious. Although it's not really much more than the same jump from PS2 to PS3 so it's not unbelievable like a certain E3 demo was.. Although I'd be very happy if I turned out to be wrong on that.

Camera angles are always the thing, comes up a lot in FIFA, sure you can make the game look great but I only ever play in the tele mode anyway. Part of the reason they ditched the iso cam in DA2 had to do with camera angles.

[TonberryFeye]

Absolutely not!

Part of the charm of a silent protagonist is that I decide what (s)he sounds like. For me, Male Hawke sounded wrong, and Female Hawke only sounded right when being a smart-arse.

I'd rather have DA3's lead be silent than sound wrong.

[Sylvius the Mad]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

There's also the fact that it's kind of . . . redundant to first read the lines and then click on it and hear the PC just read the line you already read.

This is why I think the voice is unnecessary.  Either it provides no new information, or it provides the wrong information.  There's no upside to the voice at all.

There are also a large number of other potentials that they used somewhat but not fully.  For instance, with the paraphrase system you can put the PC in the role as exposition source, instead of pretty much being forced to have conversations that look like this:

NPC: And then we had the besnargnblurgle.
1.  What's a besnargnblurgle?
2.  Get to the point.
3.  Screw your besnargnblurgle.

Which I consider to be a huge waste of time and space as well as establishing the PC firmly as the most clueless person in the entire universe.

Wait.  You assume that just because the PC asks about something the PC doesn't already know that thing?  Why?

The dialog options in Origins were often amazingly frustrating to me, personally, because there was never, ever, NOT EVEN ONCE, this option:

5.  Seriously?  SERIOUSLY?!  Are you really so dense that you cannot see how that statement/metaphor you just made is full of contradictions and misapplications?  GOOD GRAVY.  YOU PEOPLE ARE ALL IDIOTS.  ARE YOU SERIOUSLY GOING TO ARGUE WITH ME ABOUT THIS STUPID CRAP?!  How about this then.  Take your stupid Blight and SHOVE IT RIGHT UP YOUR ASS.  If ya'll can't see the big picture and figure out how to get along, I wash my hands of you. I hope the Archdemon personally sits on your stupid fat head.

Granted, it might have been a short game if they'd done that, but, I tell you, I wanted to say that a LOT.  But they wouldn't let me.    Sadface.

DA2 wouldn't let you do that, either.  Since neither dialogue system supports that, DAO's failure on that point is irrelevant.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

If you can please explain what the paraphrases add that'd be great.

I've done this before. Considering most of the same people are here who were there when I explained it last, arguing the same points, I don't imagine there's much point repeating myself. Considering it's not a change we're considering, it's not really a useful conversation to have again. Perhaps someone can dig up a link for you.

If this paraphrase system is so important, could you at least add a popop when we hover over or highlight a paraphrase that shows the dialogue so that we can also read the actual dialogue.

No, we looked at that. Extensively, actually, as it was an idea brought up on the forums and it bore investigation. Considering the way we write for the voiced PC, showing you the following line doesn't always give you the information you think it would. Often it does, sure, but with paraphrases we're talking about frequency of disconnect... and the frequency is no less when we show the following lines unless we change how we write the voiced PC to make it the same as the silent PC (and thus lose the advantages of such). There is no improvement.

So far, my only positive takeaway from this conversation is that you seem to recognise that DA2's dialogue needed some improvement, and that you think that improvement is possible.

And again, if that improvement doesn't involve giving us more information about what the PC is going to say or so, I'm going to have to ask how to use the dialogue system once you ultimately show it to us.

Because right now I have no idea how these games are supposedto be played.

[Sylvius the Mad]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

My response to this is to ask "why"?

Because otherwise you can't know whether the line you're choosing will break your character.

With full text, we can see which lines are things our character would never say, and avoid those lines.  With paraphrases, we can't tell which lines fall in that category, so we select them accidentally.