60 réponses à ce sujet

[Nomen Mendax]

We know that Bioware are taking a look at improving the way conversations work, in terms of how they write paraphrases and make use of the tone icons.  This is a plea for them to think about getting rid of paraphrases and replace them with a description of what the PC is intending to achieve by a conversation choice.  
I'm assuming that::

• BW is aiming for a more cinematic presentation, which I take to include dialogue where a single user player choice initiates a number of spoken PC lines (aka auto-dialogue).
• The player should (as much as possible) know the intent of the PC when choosing a dialogue option

The second point is where we run into problems, its much easier to know the intent of the PC when you see the full dialogue (I'd argue that it's much easier to discern irony or sarcasm when you see the entire text of a line).  But it doesn't work well with cinematic dialogue, so we get paraphrasing.
However the current version of paraphrases doesn't work well with the second goal (at least not for me).  This is partly because (IMO) the paraphrases often aren't very good.  The tone icons help in some cases but sometimes make things worse.  As an example of this, consider the wry or mocking icon and a paraphrase like "I don't want to fight templars" -- is the paraphrase meant to be treated as if said in a wry tone, in which case it would suggest that the PC is perfectly happy fighting templars or is it a summary of what the PC is going to say?
So I don't like paraphrases!  Also I don't agree with the argument that they are any better for giving us information about cinematic dialague since a paraphrase of the first line of conversation is no more helpful than the full text of the first line of conversation for indicating what the PCs responses to continued dialogue is going to be.  The tone icons sometimes help but other times they don't.
I'd argue that if you want to have an interface for cinematic dialogue that combining paraphrases and tone icons is a dead end.  Tone does not capture intent.  For example I can agree with something in a diplomatic, sarcastic or grudging (aggressive) way, or I can disagree in a diplomatic, sarcastic or aggressive way.  The current system is made even worse because it uses the icons in an inconsistent way as sometimes they represent tone and other times they represent PC actions (the fight icon).

If you replace the paraphrases with intent then most of these problems go away, the icons can be used to indicate the tone (and nothing else).  It also makes it much clearer for the player since if you have three choices where the PCs intent is the same but their tone differs then you can just use exactly the same intent text with three different tone icons.  This means that BW doesn't have to come up with three paraphrases that (a) all mean roughly the same thing and ( are all different from the actual spoken lines; it also makes it explicit to the player that the only difference between the conversation options is the tone. 

[JimboGee]

I agree. I can see why they did what they did but it doesn't work for me. I prefer having an unvoiced main character and a few more dialogue choices.

[zyntifox]

Why not just keep the paraphrases and create a new function where you for example hold R2 you see what the PC will say? If using intent instead there is a risk of the PC saying something that is completely out of character of what you are trying to roleplay. I had this problem with the paraphrases as well in DA2 which resulted in dozens of reloading in a single playthrough due to Hawke constantly saying things i did not want him to say.

[Nomen Mendax]

Cstaf wrote...

Why not just keep the paraphrases and create a new function where you for example hold R2 you see what the PC will say? If using intent instead there is a risk of the PC saying something that is completely out of character of what you are trying to roleplay. I had this problem with the paraphrases as well in DA2 which resulted in dozens of reloading in a single playthrough due to Hawke constantly saying things i did not want him to say.

It seems pretty clear that they are not going to let you see the full text of the line (from what David Gaider has said in various places).  Also, this doesn't work if one player choice results in multiple lines of dialogue (which is something BW wants to do).  The tone icons should help with you not saying something out of character - and as I mentioned I think tone and intent is a much better combination than tone and parphrase.

[wsandista]

They should replace paraphrases with intent. That way you could choose from options like "insult", "joke", or "comfort", and know why the PC is saying the line.

[Chiramu]

wsandista wrote...

They should replace paraphrases with intent. That way you could choose from options like "insult", "joke", or "comfort", and know why the PC is saying the line.

^ this, 

The tone of a few lines the actors do coupled with the reactions you get from the lines makes the DA2 dialogue upsetting to play through :<.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Yep. The dialog compass idea I floated a while back essentially uses thought processes with intent as the dialogue options. I believe David Gaider has knocked it back in the past because such options might take up too much space. The paraphrase is only a few words, whereas a thought process with intent option could take up a full sentence.

As for more abstracted intent options by themselves, it could work (Deus Ex: HR mixes intent/action with a full text pop-up). But I'm sure it would open BioWare up to more criticisms about dumbing down, unless they use the aforementioned Deus Ex: HR system. Which would be great, but it might also open them up to criticism about being lazy or just copying Eidos.

Can't win, I guess.

Unless they use my dialog compass idea.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 02 août 2012 - 12:39 .

[Nomen Mendax]

CrustyBot wrote...

Yep. The dialog compass idea I floated a while back essentially uses thought processes or intent as the dialogue options. I believe David Gaider has knocked it back in the past because such options might take up too much space. The paraphrase is only a few words, whereas a thought process or intent option could take up a full sentence.

Interesting, I remember your dialog compass but missed David's response.  I'm a bit suprised by it (his response) since I find it hard to believe that showing the intent would need many more words than the paraphrase.  And there is an implication there that the paraphrase isn't enough to show what the PC is actually intending to say -- which seems like an admission that it isn't providing enough information to the player.

[edit] Dammit you ninja edited your post so now my response to your quote doesn't make any sense!  I was thinking of short intent words or phrases a bit like Deus Ex I think (I still haven't played it).  I really don't see it as dumbing anything down, just providing an interface that actually makes sense with what BW are trying to do.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 02 août 2012 - 12:43 .

[NF.Frings]

Halo ich mag Dich

[MichaelStuart]

I always thought the dialog icons made intent clear.
Diplomatic meant your intent was to reason with them.
Humorous meant your intent was to trick them.
Aggressive meant your intent was to threaten them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

We'd still have the problem of not knowing the specifics of what the PC was going to say. If the player was trying to withhold a specific piece of information, he needs to know whether that piece of information will be divulged as a result of his selection.

If BioWare finds a way to do that without full text, I'll be very impressed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wsandista wrote...

They should replace paraphrases with intent. That way you could choose from options like "insult", "joke", or "comfort", and know why the PC is saying the line.

They should include paraphrases and intent, and let us choose them separately.

[Cultist]

Both are awful. Knowing BioWare, you still won't be able to predict what your character will say, be it paraphrase or intent.
Full lines, anything else is degeneration.

[PhillyB]

Cstaf wrote...

Why not just keep the paraphrases and create a new function where you for example hold R2 you see what the PC will say? If using intent instead there is a risk of the PC saying something that is completely out of character of what you are trying to roleplay. I had this problem with the paraphrases as well in DA2 which resulted in dozens of reloading in a single playthrough due to Hawke constantly saying things i did not want him to say.

This would be the way to go. Although the chances of a mechanic like this being implemented are rather slim.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I think DE:HR did paraphrasing perfectly. That's how it should be done. BioWare could learn a thing or two from that game.

[wsandista]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

wsandista wrote...

They should replace paraphrases with intent. That way you could choose from options like "insult", "joke", or "comfort", and know why the PC is saying the line.

They should include paraphrases and intent, and let us choose them separately.

I floated that idea a while back and it got shot down because it would be too resource intensive.

I have to agree with Cultist here, anything but showing us full text is a regression. I would go further and state that voicing the PC removes quite a bit of freedom from the player's ability to define the PC themselves. In terms of role-playing ability and freedom, the voiced PC/dialogue wheel is a regression and has no place in a role-playing game.

However I stick by that if Bioware will be making DA3 using the wheel, then replacing paraphrases with intent is the least resource intensive and most desirable solution.

[Nomen Mendax]

wsandista wrote...

I floated that idea a while back and it got shot down because it would be too resource intensive.

I have to agree with Cultist here, anything but showing us full text is a regression. I would go further and state that voicing the PC removes quite a bit of freedom from the player's ability to define the PC themselves. In terms of role-playing ability and freedom, the voiced PC/dialogue wheel is a regression and has no place in a role-playing game.

However I stick by that if Bioware will be making DA3 using the wheel, then replacing paraphrases with intent is the least resource intensive and most desirable solution.

I agree with this, however much some of us may want a non-voiced PC, or full text I don't think either of those things are going to happen.  Of all of the other options I think intent combined with an indication of tone gives the best idea of what the PC is trying to achieve with a conversation choice.  

I agree with Sylvius that it doesn't give any indication of  what the PC is actually going to say, but I'd argue that paraphrasing (at least the way the ME series and DA2 do it) isn't much help there either, and sometimes is actually misleading.  Personally I'd rather have a clear indication of intent and no idea of what the PC is going to say than a vague idea of intent and discovering that I thought the PC was going to say one thing but he/she actually says something completely different -- which is what I get more often than I'd like with the current system.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 03 août 2012 - 04:40 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

What the PC is not going to say is at least as important as what the PC is going to say, and there's no way to know what the PC is not going to say unless we're given exhaustive knowledge of what the PC will actually say.

wsandista wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

wsandista wrote...

They should replace paraphrases with intent. That way you could choose from options like "insult", "joke", or "comfort", and know why the PC is saying the line.

They should include paraphrases and intent, and let us choose them separately.

I floated that idea a while back and it got shot down because it would be too resource intensive.

But it wouldn't.  There would be no extra resources at all.  You'd still be choosing the lines and tones together, but the intents separately.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 août 2012 - 06:31 .

[fchopin]

This will never work, voiced PC’s will never work unless they are defined.

There is only one way this will work and the only way is to define the PC, if the PC is defined then what the PC character says will always be within defined parameters and will never shock the player.

If Bioware continue with player makes the PC it will never work unless the PC has no voice.

[upsettingshorts]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I think DE:HR did paraphrasing perfectly. That's how it should be done. BioWare could learn a thing or two from that game.

So copy the system that had no internal consistency whatsoever?  Sometimes their paraphrases were actually the full line.  Sometimes they were only one word.  Sometimes they were a few words.  Sometimes tone was indicated.  Sometimes tone wasn't indicated.  Sometimes there was a preview.  Sometimes there wasn't a preview.  

About the only thing I think BioWare ought to copy directly from DXHR are the conversational "boss fights."  Well, and I'd like a grid inventory, but that's off-topic for this thread.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 août 2012 - 10:27 .

[Chiramu]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I always thought the dialog icons made intent clear.
Diplomatic meant your intent was to reason with them.
Humorous meant your intent was to trick them.
Aggressive meant your intent was to threaten them.

That part might be clear, but the reaction you get from the lines is very unclear. Like when you try to joke around with your "friends". You don't even have the option to say, "hold up there, I was just kidding mate".

[AngryFrozenWater]

DA2 does not favor branching story lines, so whatever choice is made the story needs to stay on track. DA2 seems to favor how dialogue lines are performed and keeps track of which choices you made in the past to enhance that. DA2 does not properly recognize the sides or classes chosen. DA2 forces the player to fight all bosses. DA2 only allows the PC to react and not determine what's going to happen. All of that requires rationalizations in one way or another which hurts the story telling. Paraphrases or intent, no matter how hard BW tries, can ever fix that, unless some of these limitations are removed. On top of that the illusion of choice only works when there are some real choices to be made from time to time.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 03 août 2012 - 10:49 .

[Wulfram]

I think having words rather than icons helped DE:HR to convey more useful and nuanced information to the player.

It may also have benefited from being willing to use more minor paraphrasing - it tended to just prune a few words, whereas Bioware paraphrasing seems to require the sentence be totally rephrased.

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
So copy the system that had no internal consistency whatsoever?  Sometimes their paraphrases were actually the full line.  Sometimes they were only one word.  Sometimes they were a few words.  Sometimes tone was indicated.  Sometimes tone wasn't indicated.  Sometimes there was a preview.  Sometimes there wasn't a preview.  

About the only thing I think BioWare ought to copy directly from DXHR are the conversational "boss fights."  Well, and I'd like a grid inventory, but that's off-topic for this thread.

I disagree on the lack of internal consistency. The dialogue text box either showed all Jensen would say until interrupted by the other party, or if the text box couldn't fit it, as much as it could fit. The diamond showed action [between brackets] or intent. Combine the both, and it's much more informative, although it didn't care at all about possible subvocalization issues.

I agree completely on the Dialogue Boss Battles. We need more of that.

Modifié par Xewaka, 03 août 2012 - 01:02 .

[Wulfram]

The dialogue boss battles were a bit restricting from an RP point of view. Since there was basically a right way and a wrong way to approach them.

I like the idea in principle, but I'd like to see multiple potential approaches.