778 réponses à ce sujet

[wsandista]

Cultist wrote...

BG2 handled party banter just fine - companion initiated a conversation and you can choose different dialogues as you wish, no problem at all. Dragon Age 2 - you were stripped of ALL control of what hawke will answer in that banter. That's like new step for autodialogues.

Didn't NWN expansions do this as well? I remeber that HoD did and I liked it quite a bit.

[Cultist]

NWN overall got very poor henchmen system and focused mostly on PC. Conversation with drow was nice but still lacking compared to BG2.

[Pasquale1234]

jillabender wrote...

In DA:O, I feel as though I'm an actor stepping into the role of a character that I created to fit into the story. The fact that some things about my character are pre-determined doesn't take away from that for me, because I see the backstories, situations, and dialogue that the game provides for my character as starting points for me to build on as I'm imagining that character.

Beautifully stated.

I think the biggest barrier to doing that with Hawke may have been the paraphrase system (in combination with the auto-actions), and never knowing what the character would say or do.  I expect reasonable restrictions on character agency (like not being able to murder-knife certain characters or standing there when Cullen pays a special visit to Gamlen's), but I haven't figured out how to role-play a character when I never really know what that character is going to do...

[philippe willaume]

AmstradHero wrote...

philippe willaume wrote...
hello

I think that you are missing Sylivius point though.
I liked the dialogue wheel, because i did not have the "bugger i did not think i was going to say it like that" that i had in DA:0.
That being said the issue; I think is with the fact that in DA2 you are de facto choosing how it will be received by the interlocutor rather than how you intend to say it. I.e. you can almost always guaranty the result

Then that's a failing of the writing and characterisation rather than the system itself. In Alpha Protocol, which is what I'm citing as these examples, you can dictate your intent, but you cannot know how that will be received. To argue that there is no intent in the DA:O is a fallacy, and I've argued this point with Sylvius before.

It is a fact that (BioWare) games order their responses from "nice at top" to "bad at bottom". It's been this way since the original Baldur's Gate, and persists to this day. Top responses are reconciliatory, whereas bottom responses are aggressive. There is how it is intended by the authors because it provides a consistent guide for the player on the character's delivery/intent when no other means exists to do this. The interpretation of NPC of these lines is indicative of this.

philippe willaume wrote...
what the dialogue in DA:O had was an uncertainty of the effect. That did not came from the tone, that came from how well it was received by the interlocutor.

Again, this is not an inherent result of the dialogue system, but as a result of the writing of the individual games. It should be entirely possible for characters to respond appropriately to different tonal decisions based on their character. Arguably this does occur to some degree - Isabela certainly favours a snarky character over a goody-two-shoes or a warmonger. Sylvius's issues with the DA2 dialogue stem from an inbuilt bias and personal perception of the unvoiced protagonist that does not actually match with the reality of the intent of the writers, and this can be seen through the reactions of NPCs to the dialogue choices.

philippe willaume wrote...
If you cumulates that with the sparser dialogue opportunities you have the feeling that if you played the end of Army of darkness, in DA: you would be able to pick all the dialogs lines in.
DA:2 you get to pick up “I though about staying” at the start of the commercial ending  shop scene
And “hail to the kind, baby” at the end

This is an issue of auto-dialogue not based on a player response or tonal input, which is a completely separate issue. Do not confuse the two.

I've left out some of your points here because I couldn't actually understand the point you were trying to make, but it's very important not to confuse the various issues at play here. There are a lot variables involved when it comes to dialogue, but Sylvius's argument comes from a very strict and exacting ideal that has never actually existed in a real game.

Just like we might not agree on what each of us understand as intent or what is part of the system. We kind of agree of the apparent effects.
So yes, I do not disagree both DA:O and DA:A have intent..

In fact I agree with the causes you cite, where we probably differ is that as judge as much on the effect produced as how the effect is produced.
But yes I agree with you that the dialogue wheel and voiced char is not intrinsically good or bad.
Again I totally agree that before the dialogue wheel dialogue was mostly ordered by intent.
 
I am almost certain that the like us, Silvius agrees that it a matter of the presentation of the tool
 
Where we disagree is that S and I judge the tool for what It does for us. I think you see that as different discussion, which is fair enough.
 
As I said I like the dialogue wheel. In fact I would like to be able to rotate the tone so that you could have the same line with different intent/tone.
if it is too expensive to voice it, the I would prefer no voice and the feature rather than the voice and no feature.
Now if that nice modular wheel that capture my intent ends up being, 5 minutes where my char on autopilot. I will prefer 2 dialogue options, voiced over every 2 sentences.

phil

[Sylvius the Mad]

DahliaLynn wrote...

It actually would be incredibly cool if in either game we would get a popup mini screen allowing us to select a dialogue option as we moved along freely, with the NPC's reacting accordingly, without actualy triggering a conversation cutscene for this type of convo.

That's exactly how all conversations worked in NWN.  That's what I'd like to see return.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AmstradHero wrote...

It doesn't interfere. It forces you to take control of your vision of the character.

I don't understand what you mean.

And herein is the difference between an intent wheel and a dialogue wheel. You, as a roleplayer, should always be able to (quickly) decide what your character would intend.

I mostly agree.  If my character's decision-making process is relevantly similar to mine, then yes, I should almost immediately what it is he wants to achieve.  If, however, I've designed a character who uses a system of reasoning that is alien to me, I might have some trouble using his system of reasoning.  That's why I want more time.

You're presupposing that each character thinks about things in fundamentally the same way.  But I could have characters with wildly different standards of evidence, for example, so while my standard of evidence might not have been satisfied, his has been.  You have a way you think about thing - the way you solve problems - and you're only going to be able to make the PC's decisions at a natural speed if the PC's decision-making process is very much like yours.

Imagine playing a character who doesn't understand human emotions.  You do, so you naturally interpret characters' tone and body language.  You know what those characters mean.  But your PC doesn't.  Wrapping your head around his perception of those characters, which is very different from your perception of those characters, might be quite time-consuming (especially if you've been away from that PC for a while).

That's part of the concept of the role. Under the pressure of the real situation, you as the character have to decide the decision you would make with the given definition of the character you're playing. That is the true essence of roleplaying, because you're taking your established knowledge of the character and persona that you've created and are applying it immediately.

See?  You're taking into account the PC's knowledge, which is good, but then you're using your decision-making process.  If the PC's is different, your approach fails.

If you play a table top RPG and sit there for ages agonizing over a decision, other players will (rightfully) get annoyed. It is up to the player to make that decision.

This is why I don't play tabletop games.  I moved to computer games to avoid the other players. 

Furthermore, you seem to imply that there is a "wrong" decision, which is completely counter to the concept of roleplaying and character development. There is no "wrong" decision - you just explored and developed your character in a way you couldn't have foreseen.

If I designed an internally consistent character, and he just contradicted himself, I made the wrong decision.

You can't really get a more "pure" form of roleplaying than that. You've actually shown what your character does when the chips are truly down. Character development of the player's character? Wow, that sounds like real writing principles applied to the player's own imagination! That's brilliant in my book.

Absolutely that can happen.  The PC can and should grow throughout the game.  But if his decisions make him incoherent (and the player didn't intend that), then something has gone wrong.

In my aforementioned example, if the player incorrectly applies his own standard of evidence to the PC when deciding some quest outcome, then he's made an error.  The PC, as designed, cannot have made that decision, because there's no way he would have had the information necessary to make it.

Roleplaying is a very complicated thought experiement.

Again, this is where the intent/tone works better. You know the emotional response/approach the character would take, and the (unknown) words fulfil that approach.

And if the character's response isn't driven by emotion?  If the character's response is coldly rational?

Yes, I know you'll argue that you end up saying something you didn't intend - but actually, this fits your previously stated approach to roleplaying. You select a particular intent, which provides a line of dialogue to which the other NPC can react accordingly, which may not be how you envision. In this case, the words are the delivery mechanism, but you as the player have chosen your intent.

But the PC might have more than one active intent.  The PC might intend to cooperate with the NPC to which he's speaking, but he might also intend to hide information from the other NPCs in the room.  Only by seeing the full content of the line can we know for sure that the dialogue option satisfies all of the PC's objectives.  I could select an intent and find the PC making claims that contradict other aspects of his design.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 juillet 2012 - 04:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AmstradHero wrote...

To argue that there is no intent in the DA:O is a fallacy, and I've argued this point with Sylvius before.

Nonsense.  There is no pre-written intent in DAO.

It is a fact that (BioWare) games order their responses from "nice at top" to "bad at bottom". It's been this way since the original Baldur's Gate, and persists to this day. Top responses are reconciliatory, whereas bottom responses are aggressive.

I didn't know this until someone mentioned it here (after DA2 was released).  I still don't think BioWare's intended tone or intent for each line is at all relevant.

There is how it is intended by the authors because it provides a consistent guide for the player on the character's delivery/intent when no other means exists to do this. The interpretation of NPC of these lines is indicative of this.

The NPC responses are indicative of nothing.  Unless you can read their minds, you do not know why they respond as they do.

Sylvius's issues with the DA2 dialogue stem from an inbuilt bias and personal perception of the unvoiced protagonist that does not actually match with the reality of the intent of the writers, and this can be seen through the reactions of NPCs to the dialogue choices.

The intent of the writers is demonstrably irrelevant.  The intent isn't there.  If it were there, you could show it to me.  I invite you to point to that intent within the game.

Nice baseless accusation of bias, there, by the way.  You've offered no support at all for that.  To what bias do you refer?  I'm confident that I'm describing the features purely as they are, without adding any extra fabricated content to fill in the gaps.

Sylvius's argument comes from a very strict and exacting ideal that has never actually existed in a real game.

BioWare's dialogue has met my standards several times.  Their best effort was the original Baldur's Gate, where they couldn't possibly have included intent or tone in the dialogue options beacuse they didn't even even know which character would be speaking them.  They should write all of their games like that.

[addiction21]

I want to help you save time Sylvius. I think you need to go make The Sylvius the Mad RPGwikia.

You could then just link the pertinent pages.

[Sylvius the Mad]

addiction21 wrote...

I want to help you save time Sylvius. I think you need to go make The Sylvius the Mad RPGwikia.

You could then just link the pertinent pages.

That's not a bad idea...

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The NPC responses are indicative of nothing.  Unless you can read their minds, you do not know why they respond as they do..

There is empathy though. While it doesn't allow you to read someone's mind, it's a very powerful tool in determing how people feel.

If I choose the line "No, that's a stupid idea" and imagine my character saying it in a slightly teasing, tounge-in-cheek, joking fashion and the other character's face turns bright red, he clenches his hands so hard his knuckles turns white, grits his teeth, focuses his gaze on something distant and says through his teeth "Yes, I don't know what I was thinking"... His entire reaction suggests barely restrained rage.
So unless the NPC is extremely sensitive... the notion that your character was doing a bit of friendly teasing becomes rather far fetched.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The NPC responses are indicative of nothing.  Unless you can read their minds, you do not know why they respond as they do..

There is empathy though. While it doesn't allow you to read someone's mind, it's a very powerful tool in determing how people feel.

No, empathy tells you how you would feel in their place.  It's not a useful tool.

If I choose the line "No, that's a stupid idea" and imagine my character saying it in a slightly teasing, tounge-in-cheek, joking fashion and the other character's face turns bright red, he clenches his hands so hard his knuckles turns white, grits his teeth, focuses his gaze on something distant and says through his teeth "Yes, I don't know what I was thinking"... His entire reaction suggests barely restrained rage.
So unless the NPC is extremely sensitive... the notion that your character was doing a bit of friendly teasing becomes rather far fetched.

Maybe the NPC is extremely sensitive about this issue in particular.  That's not impossible.  I don't see why the player would even think he had the faintest idea why the NPC reacted as he did.

[Sir JK]

Empathy can be useful, or it can be absolutely worthless. It depends on how the individual display emotion. For instance, empathy doesn't get you very far with Sten. It does not tell you what they think, no. But it can allow you to make a reasonable guess as to how they feel, especially with expressive body language.

In the case of my example NPC. Yes, maybe he is indeed sensitive about this issue in particular. Which is a reaction. This reaction can be put into a pattern together with other reactions you get out of the character. If he generally responds very well to jokes and has for the entire story, even ones about this issue,and then sudddenly reacts that way... it does hint that the tone it was written in was not a joking one. As always in communication, context is everything.

Another example would be if I imagine my character crying their heart out and with a voice full of sobs and grief says something and the NPC reacts by laughing joyfully and with a voice full of mirth answering: "Good one". I've hit the same problem. Whatever emotion it is my character expresses, the NPC downright ignores unless it's fitting.

The same problem occurs with any assumed extreme emotion. Assuming neutrality or a very subtle emotion does not nearly have the same problem.

But regardless, the NPC reaction might not be able to tell you exactly how you said what you did. But it can certainly rule out a few unless you start assuming the NPC is being inconsistent (or have real issues with empathy).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

Empathy can be useful, or it can be absolutely worthless. It depends on how the individual display emotion. For instance, empathy doesn't get you very far with Sten. It does not tell you what they think, no. But it can allow you to make a reasonable guess as to how they feel, especially with expressive body language.

In the case of my example NPC. Yes, maybe he is indeed sensitive about this issue in particular. Which is a reaction. This reaction can be put into a pattern together with other reactions you get out of the character. If he generally responds very well to jokes and has for the entire story, even ones about this issue,and then sudddenly reacts that way... it does hint that the tone it was written in was not a joking one. As always in communication, context is everything.

Another example would be if I imagine my character crying their heart out and with a voice full of sobs and grief says something and the NPC reacts by laughing joyfully and with a voice full of mirth answering: "Good one". I've hit the same problem. Whatever emotion it is my character expresses, the NPC downright ignores unless it's fitting.

The same problem occurs with any assumed extreme emotion. Assuming neutrality or a very subtle emotion does not nearly have the same problem.

But regardless, the NPC reaction might not be able to tell you exactly how you said what you did. But it can certainly rule out a few unless you start assuming the NPC is being inconsistent (or have real issues with empathy).

I don't understand why you would ever assume the possibility that the line was written differently from how you intended it.  If you don't do that, then the NPC's reaction hints not that you imagined the wrong tone (because there would be no "wrong" tone), but instead would hint that the NPC was overly sensitive.

In your second example, the NPC could have a callous disregard for your PC's feelings, or he might have trouble dealing with strong emotions in others and instead jokes as a defense mechanism.  You don't know.  That's my point.

It's only when you allow for the possibiltiy that the game gets to decide how lines are delivered that you create a problem at all.  Don't do that, and the problem goes away.

[Sir JK]

Actually, I've tried. It ruins my immersion completely. It feels like I'm not really communicating (or mimicing communication). But that is beside the point.

Basically, the npc reaction can tell you something about the line. Yes, only if you let it. Usually it's neutral enough for it not to matter anyways. And yes, technically it only tells yout heir reactions to what you said and how you said it. But some reactions fit so very poorly to certain phrasings and emotional expressions that it's not really enjoyable to continue on that line. I suppose that ties into individual play style though.

I'm not really saying (or trying to, anyways) that the NPC reactions defines what you said. Just that it can be used to get a vague impression on how it was recieved and that together with the impression of the personality of the NPC can tell you something about it. It's not a tool one must use, but it's a tool one can use.

Whether one does, is up to individual preference I guess.

[Wulfram]

If the other character had misjudged my PCs tone, then my PC would likely correct them. But the game won't allow any such opportunity.

[Sir JK]

Exactly so

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd take the fact that a misunderstanding happened that I was unable to avoid than words or dialgue being said that I didn't understand or didn't anticipate.

One of these options involves me saying what I want, but not being able to correct the incorrect perception.

The other option involves me saying things I don't want to say AND not being able to correct either the NPC reaction OR clarify my (the player's) original intent and position.

Paraphrases don't fix the problem. They compound it.

EDIT: Paraphrases and voiced PC, I should clarify. Of course, why would you have paraphrases without a voice? That would be nonsense.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 juillet 2012 - 09:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

Actually, I've tried. It ruins my immersion completely. It feels like I'm not really communicating (or mimicing communication). But that is beside the point.

Basically, the npc reaction can tell you something about the line. Yes, only if you let it. Usually it's neutral enough for it not to matter anyways. And yes, technically it only tells yout heir reactions to what you said and how you said it. But some reactions fit so very poorly to certain phrasings and emotional expressions that it's not really enjoyable to continue on that line. I suppose that ties into individual play style though.

I'm not really saying (or trying to, anyways) that the NPC reactions defines what you said. Just that it can be used to get a vague impression on how it was recieved and that together with the impression of the personality of the NPC can tell you something about it. It's not a tool one must use, but it's a tool one can use.

Whether one does, is up to individual preference I guess.

That's fair.  I don't use it, because I don't think we can ever know people well enough to make the tool useful.

Wulfram wrote...

If the other character had misjudged my PCs tone, then my PC would likely correct them. But the game won't allow any such opportunity.

But if your PC misspoke, wouldn't he want to correct himself?

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Of course, why would you have paraphrases without a voice? That would be nonsense.

Not at all.  That would be like a keyword dialogue system of the sort found in TES or old Ultima games.  Those work quite well.

This is why I asked for the ability to disable the voice and the subtitles for Hawke in DA2.  That would reduce the dialogue system to a keyword system, and I can work with keyword systems.  It wouldn't be as good as DAO's dialogue, but it would be astly better than DA2's.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 juillet 2012 - 10:19 .

[DreGregoire]

I actually enjoyed in DA:O when a companion or NPC misunderstood my intent. Given the situation (building an army to fight darkspawn) I didn't find it necessary to run after the NPC to set the record straight (often times it's best to let things slide), that aside there were many instances where you could fix the conversation with the companions, to end on a less sour note, or speak to a NPC or companion a second time to change your mind (I'm not helping this village! *goes back later* Okay I'll help now). There are many times in reallife when I have said things with a certain "intent" and received a less than desireable response, so to me it's perfectly natural to say something in a wry joking manner only to have it be taken by the reciever in a less than desirable manner or in some cases in a manner that is not expected but is also a pleasant surprise. Or said something in all seriousness to have it perceived as a joke.

I prefer to imagine how my character means a particular line than to have a games system decide for me. I like many types of games but I prefer more freedom. The difference between games that I have less choice and games that I have more freedom is playing a game and being invested in it for more than a year, or playing it for a month or less before feeling done with it. Example in point. Mass Effect. I waited for the series to be complete before playing through the games 1 - 3 for 3 playthroughs, over a period of three months and I'm done with it. Most games are lucky to get 2 weeks of my time. Dragon Age: Origins and expansions got close to 2 years. NWN2 had me for almost a year and the earlier titles for about 6 months each.

Modifié par DreGregoire, 11 juillet 2012 - 10:58 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Not at all.  That would be like a keyword dialogue system of the sort found in TES or old Ultima games.  Those work quite well.

This is why I asked for the ability to disable the voice and the subtitles for Hawke in DA2.  That would reduce the dialogue system to a keyword system, and I can work with keyword systems.  It wouldn't be as good as DAO's dialogue, but it would be astly better than DA2's.

Although I'd consider that more of a parsing or keyword system, rather than a paraphrase. 

If there were an average of twelve dialogue options in most situations, whether dialogue or written, then I think that would be a good balance. Granted, it would require tons and tons of writing work, so it won't ever happen, especially with all the VA expenses. 

But that would be asking a lot. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Not at all.  That would be like a keyword dialogue system of the sort found in TES or old Ultima games.  Those work quite well.

This is why I asked for the ability to disable the voice and the subtitles for Hawke in DA2.  That would reduce the dialogue system to a keyword system, and I can work with keyword systems.  It wouldn't be as good as DAO's dialogue, but it would be astly better than DA2's.

Although I'd consider that more of a parsing or keyword system, rather than a paraphrase. 

Well, yes.  It wouldn't be paraphrasing anything the player ever saw - the wheel option would stand alone.

[AmstradHero]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
To argue that there is no intent in the DA:O is a fallacy, and I've argued this point with Sylvius before.[/quote]
Nonsense.  There is no pre-written intent in DAO.
[/quote]
Yes there is. Just like there is in BG. You know how in BG, when you picked the options down the bottom and they would decrease your reputation? And the options up the top could increase it? That's because they were assigned particular values and intentions. You can't kill the innocent bystander with good intent or go "it's okay, I was just joking", because the associated personality or mindset is reinforced with every dialogue option.

You can say "Oh I was just joking around when I said I was going to kill you", because no other character in the entire game reacts to your character that way. If everyone else in the world thinks your character meant a particular thing by an particular line of dialogue, then I'm sorry, that's in-built writer intent. You can say everyone in the world is misinterpreting you, but at some point, you have to realise "actually maybe I'M the problem".

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
It is a fact that (BioWare) games order their responses from "nice at top" to "bad at bottom". It's been this way since the original Baldur's Gate, and persists to this day. Top responses are reconciliatory, whereas bottom responses are aggressive.
[/quote]
I didn't know this until someone mentioned it here (after DA2 was released).  I still don't think BioWare's intended tone or intent for each line is at all relevant.
[/quote]
I'm stunned you never noticed it. Seriously. That beggars belief. It basically requires you to ignore the reactions of every NPC within the game or simply assume that they're completely socially incompetent in order to do so.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Sylvius's issues with the DA2 dialogue stem from an inbuilt bias and personal perception of the unvoiced protagonist that does not actually match with the reality of the intent of the writers, and this can be seen through the reactions of NPCs to the dialogue choices.
[/quote]
The intent of the writers is demonstrably irrelevant.  The intent isn't there.  If it were there, you could show it to me.  I invite you to point to that intent within the game.

Nice baseless accusation of bias, there, by the way.  You've offered no support at all for that.  To what bias do you refer?  I'm confident that I'm describing the features purely as they are, without adding any extra fabricated content to fill in the gaps.
[/quote]
As someone who has studied game design and mods heavily, I can assure you that this occurs. Intent/tone is necessary to know, because otherwise it is impossible for the writer to write a believable and in-character response to the player's dialogue choice. If there is absolutely no indication of tone, then it would be impossible for the writer to write a coherent dialogue response for the NPC.

Also, my accusation of bias isn't baseless. You've stated here time and time again your personal preferences in terms of an unvoiced protagonist and dialogue writing. That is your bias. Everyone has their own biases. The fact you're claiming you don't have any bias simply means that you're unaware of it.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Sylvius's argument comes from a very strict and exacting ideal that has never actually existed in a real game.
[/quote]
BioWare's dialogue has met my standards several times.  Their best effort was the original Baldur's Gate, where they couldn't possibly have included intent or tone in the dialogue options beacuse they didn't even even know which character would be speaking them.  They should write all of their games like that.[/quote]
And here is where we get into the semantics of delivery versus outcome. The player imagined delivery may vary, but ultimately there is a rough guide of how the dialogue options must be delivery based upon the reaction of the NPCs to the difference choices. It is impossible for the player to imagine that the speaking character is making a clear and definite joke when they say "I'm going to kill you" to the NPC, because otherwise the NPC wouldn't respond with violence.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Under the pressure of the real situation, you as the character have to decide the decision you would make with the given definition of the character you're playing. That is the true essence of roleplaying, because you're taking your established knowledge of the character and persona that you've created and are applying it immediately.
[/quote]
See?  You're taking into account the PC's knowledge, which is good, but then you're using your decision-making process.  If the PC's is different, your approach fails.
[/quote]
Not at all. I am playing the character, I am engaged with the character's mindset. If I can't put myself into the character's mindset, then I'm either not roleplaying completely, or I don't understand my character.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
If you play a table top RPG and sit there for ages agonizing over a decision, other players will (rightfully) get annoyed. It is up to the player to make that decision.
[/quote]
This is why I don't play tabletop games.  I moved to computer games to avoid the other players. 
[/quote]
Ultimately the roleplaying aspect is about human interaction. If you're talking about removing human interaction for the sake of monopolising the interaction to a mechanical predefined exchange, then ultimately this is how you're viewing dialogue. This to me seems like a consequence of asperger's/autism, which is fine, but in this sense it would be drawing the interaction to an exacting mechanical exchange that isn't indicative of normal human conversations. If this is the case, then we're never going to agree because we simply don't comprehend, understand or analyse conversations in the same manner.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Furthermore, you seem to imply that there is a "wrong" decision, which is completely counter to the concept of
roleplaying and character development. There is no "wrong" decision -  you just explored and developed your character in a way you couldn't  have foreseen. [/quote]
If I designed an internally consistent character, and he just contradicted himself, I made the wrong decision.
[/quote]
Then you obviously don't know your character well enough, or else you wouldn't have made that "wrong" decision. Alternatively, you, embodying the mindset of that character, have taking an action that has extended that character's personality. It's like you, as a human being, occasionally will probably do something you're not proud of. It might be something you couldn't picture yourself doing before, but circumstances led you to behave in that way. That doesn't mean that you contradicted yourself or undermined the internal consistency of your own character. You might have made a "wrong" decision (ie one that you perceive as morally or socially bad), but it's up to you to reconcile that your overall personality and your remaining choices. There are no wrong choices in terms of defining a character.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 12 juillet 2012 - 12:54 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]AmstradHero wrote...

Yes there is. Just like there is in BG. You know how in BG, when you picked the options down the bottom and they would decrease your reputation? And the options up the top could increase it? That's because they were assigned particular values and intentions. You can't kill the innocent bystander with good intent or go "it's okay, I was just joking", because the associated personality or mindset is reinforced with every dialogue option.

You can say "Oh I was just joking around when I said I was going to kill you", because no other character in the entire game reacts to your character that way. If everyone else in the world thinks your character meant a particular thing by an particular line of dialogue, then I'm sorry, that's in-built writer intent. You can say everyone in the world is misinterpreting you, but at some point, you have to realise "actually maybe I'M the problem".[/quote]
How does reputation have anything to do with intent?  What people think of my behaviour bears no relation at all what I intended with my behaviour.

If they don't like killing, but I think it's okay, that doesn't mean they'll let me kill things.

Your standard of evidence is clearly different from mine.  You're willing to conclude that something exists because of circumstantial evidence that rests on a baseless assumption about how people interact with each other.  If I don't make that assumption, I can't reach the same conclusion.  If I require something stronger than circumstantial evidence, I can't reach that same conclusion.

Do you not see how tenuous your connections are?

[quote]I'm stunned you never noticed it. Seriously. That beggars belief. It basically requires you to ignore the reactions of every NPC within the game or simply assume that they're completely socially incompetent in order to do so.[/quote]
I never considered the NPC reactions at all relevant.  I still don't.  I don't understand why anyone does.

[quote]As someone who has studied game design and mods heavily, I can assure you that this occurs. Intent/tone is necessary to know, because otherwise it is impossible for the writer to write a believable and in-character response to the player's dialogue choice. If there is absolutely no indication of tone, then it would be impossible for the writer to write a coherent dialogue response for the NPC.[/quote]
I don't agree.  For this to be true, the relationship between the PC's tone and the NPC's response would need to be predictable, and it simply isn't.  That's not how real-world conversations work, so that's not how I want in-game conversations to work.

[quote]Also, my accusation of bias isn't baseless. You've stated here time and time again your personal preferences in terms of an unvoiced protagonist and dialogue writing. That is your bias. Everyone has their own biases. The fact you're claiming you don't have any bias simply means that you're unaware of it.[/quote]
No, that is my preference.  I'm pretty open about that.  I like a silent protagonist because it makes it easier for me to play the game multiple times with multiple different PCs.

You're accusing me of bias where, exactly?  I'm describing the voiced dialogue system as it is.  I'm describing the silent dialogue system as it is.  You're the one making unnecessary assumptions.  If I'm biased, what errors am I making?  Where have I gone wrong?

[quote]And here is where we get into the semantics of delivery versus outcome. The player imagined delivery may vary, but ultimately there is a rough guide of how the dialogue options must be delivery based upon the reaction of the NPCs to the difference choices.[/quote]
I completely disagree.  Why do you think you can read NPC minds?

[quote]It is impossible for the player to imagine that the speaking character is making a clear and definite joke when they say "I'm going to kill you" to the NPC, because otherwise the NPC wouldn't respond with violence.[/quote]
Why not?  Why are you so confident in the thought processes of people who are not you?

[quote]Not at all. I am playing the character, I am engaged with the character's mindset. If I can't put myself into the character's mindset, then I'm either not roleplaying completely, or I don't understand my character.[/quote]
You don't understand what I'm saying at all when I talk about different standards of evidence of different methods of reasoning, do you?

People can be vastly and weirdly different from each other.  You're not going to be able to think like one of those vastly and weirdly different people without considerable effort.
[quote]Ultimately the roleplaying aspect is about human interaction.[/quote]
I don't think this is true at all.  Roleplaying is about perceiving the world through eyes not your own.

[quote]If you're talking about removing human interaction for the sake of monopolising the interaction to a mechanical predefined exchange, then ultimately this is how you're viewing dialogue. This to me seems like a consequence of asperger's/autism, which is fine, but in this sense it would be drawing the interaction to an exacting mechanical exchange that isn't indicative of normal human conversations.[/quote]
Are you seriously diagnosing me with something over the internet?

Furthermore, my point all along has been that normal human conversations are more closely modelled by the DAO style of dialogue than by the DA2 style of dialogue.  I don't think you understand the limits of your own knowledge regarding other minds.

[quote]If this is the case, then we're never going to agree because we simply don't comprehend, understand or analyse conversations in the same manner.[/quote]
I'm approaching this logically.  You have the capacity to do the same.  You're simply not doing it.

[quote]Then you obviously don't know your character well enough, or else you wouldn't have made that "wrong" decision.[/quote]
Or, his throught processes aren't as intuitive to me as mine are.  Read what you wrote above about us having different ways of interpreting conversations.  Could you roleplay as me (the me you perceive here now) and still make rapid-fire decisions without error?  If the ways we interpret information are different, will you make that mental adjustment quickly enough all of the time?  Are you sure?  Because you need to be sure.

[quote]Alternatively, you, embodying the mindset of that character, have taking an action that has extended that character's personality. It's like you, as a human being, occasionally will probably do something you're not proud of. It might be something you couldn't picture yourself doing before, but circumstances led you to behave in that way. That doesn't mean that you contradicted yourself or undermined the internal consistency of your own character. You might have made a "wrong" decision (ie one that you perceive as morally or socially bad), but it's up to you to reconcile that your overall personality and your remaining choices. There are no wrong choices in terms of defining a character.[/quote]
In terms of defining it, no.  But playing it, absolutely.  I define my characters in advance.  In the real world, yes, I might make decisions I didn't think I would make, but that simply suggests a lack of self-knowledge.  I was kidding myself about my own nature, but the events revealed to me that I was incorrect.  In the game, though, the character's already been designed.  I might have even designed that lack of self-knowldge into him, whereby he might promise to do things fully intending to do them but then be unable to fulfill that promise later.  As he makes that promise, he thinks he's telling the truth, but I know he'll ultimately have to break that promise because he's not the man he thinks he is.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 juillet 2012 - 06:56 .

[jillabender]

Sylvius the Mad wrote…

AmstradHero wrote…

I'm stunned you never noticed it. Seriously. That beggars belief. It basically requires you to ignore the reactions of every NPC within the game or simply assume that they're completely socially incompetent in order to do so.

I never considered the NPC reactions at all relevant. I still don't. I don't understand why anyone does.

AmstradHero wrote…

As someone who has studied game design and mods heavily, I can assure you that this occurs. Intent/tone is necessary to know, because otherwise it is impossible for the writer to write a believable and in-character response to the player's dialogue choice. If there is absolutely no indication of tone, then it would be impossible for the writer to write a coherent dialogue response for the NPC.

I don't agree. For this to be true, the relationship between the PC's tone and the NPC's response would need to be predictable, and it simply isn't. That's not how real-world conversations work, so that's not how I want in-game conversations to work.

I agree with you, Sylvius, that as the player, you're free to imagine a silent PC delivering a line with whatever intent and tone you wish, and to interpret an NPC's reaction to your character however you wish. Likewise, you're free to imagine whatever you wish about how your character interprets an NPC's reaction. I also agree that the way you, the player, interpret an NPC's reaction might be very different from how your character interprets that same reaction.

However, I tend to approach my PC's interactions with NPCs a bit differently from the way you seem to. I agree that in real life, people don't always respond in a predictable way to a particular tone or intention, so NPC responses don't always need to be predictable in a game. But while I don't require NPC responses to be predictable, I do feel the need to be able to make sense of them.

In real life, I recognize that I can't read other people's minds; but in order to interact with them without offending, I need to make educated guesses about why they respond to me the way they do, and those guesses, while far from reliable, tend to hit close to the mark more often than not. On the rare occasion that I feel completely baffled by someone's reaction to what I've said, my uncertainty makes me very uncomfortable until I have the chance to ask for clarification.

Again, I agree that an NPC's response to my character doesn't dictate that I have to assume anything about the way my character delivered a line. In practice, though, I need to be able to believe that an NPC could plausibly respond to my character's tone or intent the way he or she does. If I ran into a situation where I couldn't come up with a plausible explanation for an NPC's reaction based on how I imagined my character delivering a line, I would have to either revise the way I imagined my character's delivery of that line, or reload.

So, to summarize, I'm fine with not being able to predict NPC reactions, but there's a limit to how unpredictable they can be before they no longer make sense to me. It sounds as though you don't feel the need to be able to rationalize why an NPC reacts the way he or she does to your character. I can understand and appreciate that, but personally, I just couldn't approach the game that way.

When it comes right down to it, I approach games like DA:O as though I'm stepping into a role within a collaborative story that I'm creating along with the writers, so I do feel a need for my vision and that of the writers to feel at least somewhat in sync. If my vision of a character starts to feel too out of sync with what the writers imagined, the story no longer feels coherent to me, and I'll feel the need to revise my vision until it does.

Modifié par jillabender, 12 juillet 2012 - 10:36 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

jillabender wrote...

I agree with you, Sylvius, that as the player, you're free to imagine a silent PC delivering a line with whatever intent and tone you wish, and to interpret an NPC's reaction to your character however you wish. Likewise, you're free to imagine whatever you wish about how your character interprets an NPC's reaction. I also agree that the way you, the player, interpret an NPC's reaction might be very different from how your character interprets that same reaction.

However, I tend to approach my PC's interactions with NPCs a bit differently from the way you seem to. I agree that in real life, people don't always respond in a predictable way to a particular tone or intention, so NPC responses don't always need to be predictable in a game. But while I don't require NPC responses to be predictable, I do feel the need to be able to make sense of them.

Is this because you feel you can make sense of real world reactions, so to mimic real world behaviour the NPCs should also offer reactions of which you can make sense?

In real life, I recognize that I can't read other people's minds; but in order to interact with them without offending, I need to make educated guesses about why they respond to me the way they do, and those guesses, while far from reliable, tend to hit close to the mark more often than not. On the rare occasion that I feel completely baffled by someone's reaction to what I've said, my uncertainty makes me very uncomfortable until I have the chance to ask for clarification.

I wouldn't ask for clarification until I knew what had happened.  It might take me several minutes to run back through the conversation in my mind and compare it to everything I know about the other person's knowledge.  This can't really be done during the conversation, so I tend to let these events pass without comment.

I suspect you view conversations themselves as collaborative, where you and the other person work together to exchange information and reach a mutual understanding.  That might explain your approach.

Again, I agree that an NPC's response to my character doesn't dictate that I have to assume anything about the way my character delivered a line. In practice, though, I need to be able to believe that an NPC could plausibly respond to my character's tone or intent the way he or she does.

Here I think you're metagaming.  I the real world, the reactions of other people don't need to satisfy your standard of plausibility.  You accept them as they are - you saw that person behave in that way - and try to find out why.  You could do the same thing in the game.  Instead, you're looking at the NPC reaction from your own perspective (rather than your character's perspective), and seeing a disconnect.  If you don't see how A caused B, then you presume that A isn't true.  But in-game, from your character's perspect, the untruth of A isn't an option - your character knows what he just said and how he said it.  He shouldn't question that.

Perhaps the difference here is that you would like your PC to seek clarification, just as you do in the real world, whereas I don't do that in the real world, so I don't mind if my character doesn't either.

It sounds as though you don't feel the need to be able to rationalize why an NPC reacts the way he or she does to your character.

I oppose rationalisation in all its forms.  The reasoning should come before the action, not afterward.