280 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Olmert wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...

When I choose a dialogue option for Hawke, I should be able to know exactly why Hawke is saying that.  At no point should Hawke ever say anything that contradicts those motives I've fabricated.  BioWare's earlier roleplaying games allowed this by letting the player see exactly what his options were, so he could avoid character-breaking dialogue.  DA2's use of the paraphrase prevents this.

But in this case your preference interferes with voiced characters' effectiveness.  Were full text of all dialog lines provided, the voiced lines would be absolutely redundant.  People would skip the voiced dialog, or get frustrated having to wait for the delivery when they'd already read and made their choice of line.  Bioware conducted tests of voiced dialog and discovered this to be the case.  There is no way you can give full text AND voiced lines and not undermine the delivery of the voiced protagonist.  The player must have a strong reason to listen to the delivery; and a big part of that is getting to hear for the first time exactly what your character actually says.  Sometimes it may be a bit surprising -- it should be -- that's now part of the game.

And it sucks. Sucks big time.
It does hurt roleplaying...but then again, by your own admission you never were much of a roleplayer.

Ironicly, neither am I since I tend to roleplay the same 2-3 characters which are all an expy of me in one way or another. And parapharsing STILL bothers me.
I can only immagine how much it frustrates real roleplyers.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 29 août 2012 - 06:33 .

[Olmerto]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]Olmert wrote...

But in this case your preference interferes with voiced characters' effectiveness.  Were full text of all dialog lines provided, the voiced lines would be absolutely redundant.[/quote]
That's clearly not true.  If the sole purpose of the voiced line was to inform the player of what was said, then you would be correct, but that cannot be the sole purpose of the voiced line.  The full text unvoiced line did that just as well, and it was cheaper.[/quote]
No, it is true.  You can carp about this, but even though the voice adds personality and immersiveness too, forcing the player to read full text and then hear the same text repeated would still be redundant to many if not most players even if the voice adds to the meaning.  We just have to disagree here.

[quote]No, the voiced line clearly has another objective - one not fulfilled by the silent text - and that objective can still be met by the voiced line even if the player knows the text of that line in advance.   Generally, the benefit of the voiced line over the silent text is described in terms of giving the character personality, immersiveness, or more effectively conveying emotions.


[quote]People would skip the voiced dialog[/quote]This is not a problem.  Those people who want to hear the line wouldn't skip it, and those who think the line is redundant (a group that necessarily excludes those who favour the voiced protagonist) would skip.  Everyone gets what they want.[/quote]
That's your assertion, but again your assumption is flawed.  I "favor the voiced protagonist" yet I would see myself ultimately getting frustrated with redundancy.  Bioware's new premier feature is voiced protagonist; they pay a lot of money to present it.  They aren't going to risk impairing its delivery by introducing gaming redundancy into the equation.  I don't see redundancy as an "open issue"; it's settled by my observations and I can't see it ever changing.  If you do, so be it.  Have at it.

[quote]


[quote]or get frustrated having to wait for the delivery when they'd already read and made their choice of line.[/quote]How could this possibly be frustrating?  Either you think the voiced line contains new information (in which case you wait for it), or you don't (in which case you skip it).  If the voiced line does not contain new information, then it is redudant, but it is also skippable, so there's no problem.  If the voiced line does contain new information, then it is not redundant and there's no reason to skip it.[/quote]
This is pure sophistry.  The voiced line may contain new information, but the full text content is always redundant and thus diminishes the actual delivery.  Given that the goal of Bioware is to optimize the voiced delivery, they aren't going to do anything that would tend to diminish it.  Why do you *think* Bioware no longer provides full text?  Just to annoy you?  Do you think they made that decision arbitrarily?  If it were as you attempt to spin it, Bioware would be foolish to have introduced the paraphrase -- and I realize that is how you're trying to portray it.  But just because you say redundant text is not redundant, doesn't make it so.

[quote]

[quote]Bioware conducted tests of voiced dialog and discovered this to be the case.[/quote]BioWare found that people skipped the lines, yes.  but BioWare has no reason to prefer one method of play over another.[/quote]
They have a reason not to diminish the voiced delivery, which redundancy does. An added benefit to voice doesn't dispel the problem with redundancy.

[quote]

[quote]There is no way you can give full text AND voiced lines and not undermine the delivery of the voiced protagonist.[/quote]
This is both untrue and not relevant.  As I said above, I'm not asking for full text.  I'm asking for full information.  How they provide that information is up to them, but the information must be provided to make the game playabale.[/quote]
If you concede that you don't need full text, then that changes things.  I've always said that more artful paraphrases are indeed a desirable goal.  However, there are still times when I discern that Bioware intends to create surprise by the voiced line in some fashion.  If they do that, then that would create problems for you.  But still...

[quote]

[quote]Ideally, you could find a different way to enjoy a Bioware game.[/quote]I have no interest in playing a game.  I have interest in roleplaying.

I do not play games.  I play characters.[/quote]
Yeah, see, I think this is part of the problem.  It's sort of like "it's good work if you can find it".  Good luck with that.

[quote]

[quote]So to the point, it appears to me that your own preference conflicts with my own enjoyment of the game and there's no compromise possible.  One of us has to lose.  I do hope it's you, though I'm sorry about it.[/quote]You are only so willing to embrace a zero-sum game because it appears you are winning it.  Your confirmation bias is strong.[/quote]
That's completely untrue.  If Bioware were to make DA3 with a silent protagonist, I would buy it and play it just like DAO, which I'm playing again now and enjoying.  I can play either voiced p or silent p, unlike you.  I prefer voiced for the reasons I've stated: I like my character to be on equal footing with my companions and npcs; I want my character to be able to give a rousing speech if need be.  I don't want to fabricate the voice in my head.  Voice adds to the game IMO, and I appreciate Bioware's efforts to make the game more immersive and moving.  Which voiced p does.  YMMV, which it obviously does.

Modifié par Olmert, 29 août 2012 - 02:09 .

[Olmerto]

...

Modifié par Olmert, 29 août 2012 - 02:06 .

[Fallstar]

That's just not going to be possible anymore.

Voiced PC: You might be able to work around this one; if there was a selection of voice actors (highly unlikely due to cost) or if you got lucky and like the voice/the voice fits your character, this wouldn't necessarily impair roleplaying ability.

Paraphrases: Impossible to get around this. If you don't know what you are going to say, how can you make in-character decisions? You might be able to vaguely direct your character's dialogue, but you will probably make several mistakes over the course of the game due to paraphrases.

Auto-Dialogue: Again, this is a role playing killer. You cannot control what your PC says, you might say "I like cheese wheels" as a part of the auto dialogue, when in fact your character hates cheese wheels. Or it could happen in a more serious situation, like when Hawke proclaims his belief in the Maker. Another aspect of CC out the window.

Forced Race and Origin story: Although this isn't a definite yet, I'm going to bet that this will also be in DA3. It'd be a large expense to hire multiple VAs for the PC for each different race and gender, never mind origin story. So unless the larynxes of elves, dwarves and qunari undergo rapid evolution to make them sound like the human PC, I don't see this happening. Again, another RP aspect out the window. And it's a shame really, as multiple races and origin stories were one of the most popular features that were cut from Origins. See here for data.

DA3 simply isn't going to be a roleplaying game. It could still be a perfectly enjoyable action-adventure game, if they work on the combat animations, the scope of the game and general polish (like the final third of the game and having multiple caves).

And on a final note, to address the paraphrase debate. Full text dialogue as well as a voiced protagonist is not redundant. If you like being surprised by your dialogue, perhaps Bioware could include a blindfold with the game. Since this is supposed to be a role playing game, there really ought to be some roleplaying in it. Hopefully everyone agrees. Roleplaying without full text dialogue is simply impossible, unless the paraphrases are so close to the full text anyway that they could barely be categorised as paraphrases. If you are capable of making accurate in character decisions without knowing what your character is going to say, I'm all ears. Violating causality isn't something I have the have the knack for yet.

If the problem is that people skip through the voicing after reading the dialogue, then surely that tells you there might be an issue with what the actual point of the VP is.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 29 août 2012 - 02:59 .

[jbrand2002uk]

Personally I don't see what all the fuss about the icons is over they did a perfectly good job of given the general idea of the forthcoming response so in truth there wasn't a single instance where I was shocked by the response Hawke gave.

What does shock me is Sylvius's revelation that he wasn't present during the scenes in DAO his character was therefore the Warden wasn't silent which contradicts the very nature of roleplaying.
When you roleplay the Warden YOU are the Warden ergo if the Warden is there then YOU are there.

With all the cutscenes in both games being in 3rd person it is akin to looking at yourself in a mirror, now I don't know about you but if i was looking at myself in a mirror and could hear my voice and yet my lips were shut that would bother me and thats what does bother me and break immersion in DAO the only way round this is a 1st POV during cutscenes or not being able to see the Wardens face

[Nomen Mendax]

Olmert wrote...
...
If you concede that you don't need full text, then that changes things.  I've always said that more artful paraphrases are indeed a desirable goal.  However, there are still times when I discern that Bioware intends to create surprise by the voiced line in some fashion.  If they do that, then that would create problems for you.  But still...
...

I think this (bolded) is a fundamental issue.  I am still on the fence whether or not the paraphrasing in DA2 is vague (and sometimes misleading) by design or by accident.  AFAIK Bioware (i.e. David Gaider in this case) has never said that having the player surprised by the PCs dialogue is a design goal, and this is something that it would be nice to have clarified.

As far as I'm concerned being surprised by what my character says is a lot more immersion breaking than having a silent PC.

I still think that Bioware can achieve their goals of having a more cinematic presentation and a voiced PC while doing a much better job of giving the player information about what the PC is going to say.  But, as you alluded to, the jury is still out on whether or not this is something they have any interest in doing.

@Sylvius -- while I still prefer to see full text, I think it is impractical to show the player full text where one player interaction results in multiple PC lines over an extended conversation, which I gather is something that BW intends to do.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 29 août 2012 - 03:47 .

[Pasquale1234]

Nomen Mendax wrote...
I am still on the fence whether or not the paraphrasing in DA2 is vague (and sometimes misleading) by design or by accident.

It is my understanding that they had a rule that the paraphrases could not contain any words that were in the actual dialogue.  I'm guessing this rule was established to avoid what they felt might create that redundancy problem that's been under discussion.

Based on that, I'd say it is intentionally vague.

@Sylvius -- while I still prefer to see full text, I think it is impractical to show the player full text where one player interaction results in multiple PC lines over an extended conversation, which I gather is something that BW intends to do.

That is my understanding as well.

In addition, David Gaider has indicated that some of what they write as the protag's response is not dialogue, but gestures - like nodding, shrugging the shoulders, that sort of thing.

[Fast Jimmy]

My problem with both the Paraphrase system and the Wheel is that it pigeon holes us into certain character types, regardless.

For instance, how would Morrigan's romance look in DA2? In order to get her to be triggered in a romance is to make statements such as 'I don't believe love is a logical action' or to say that 'the only thing that matters is power.'

Would this be an aggressive statement? I don't believe so. It is calculated and cold, but not 'Rahr! I'm a mean character!' And it's certainly not diplomatic. In fact, saying that to someone who you have even the slightest romantic interest in is DEFINITELY very UNdiplomatic. And you aren't being sarcastic.

In addition, would saying you don't believe in love... be a Heart Icon choice? That seems highly illogical.

Then, when Morrigan asks you to break up with her if you really love her, to spare her the pain of being in love... would that be a Heart icon, or a Break-Up icon? I honestly would have no idea what to choose unless the paraphrases were really specific - which, let's face it, they weren't.

If it is nearly impossibly to play out a really good relationship like Morrigan through the dialogue wheel, then it is an ineffective tool. It is not just a matter of having three different ways to say yes, but it also assigns an inherent quality to each response, so that the quality matters more than the actual words.

In addition, it also makes each choice more extreme. If a writer has to think of their choices as one of three extremes, that colors the dialogue and story. If, instead, options were thought up that we're logical to the story and not constrained by three options, this would be more organic. For instance, in the Tower in DA:O, it would make sense to use the Litany to save the mages from turning into abominations to fight you, but then killing them afterwards because they could be possessed. Would that be an aggressive choice? Snarky? Diplomatic? I would say it is being extremely cautious, not aggressive. And killing people is definitely not diplomatic and not snarky.

The problem with the wheel is that, to roughly paraphrase Donny Darko, there are other things to take into account here, like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these three categories and then just deny everything else.

[Nomen Mendax]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...
I am still on the fence whether or not the paraphrasing in DA2 is vague (and sometimes misleading) by design or by accident.

It is my understanding that they had a rule that the paraphrases could not contain any words that were in the actual dialogue.  I'm guessing this rule was established to avoid what they felt might create that redundancy problem that's been under discussion.

Based on that, I'd say it is intentionally vague.
 ...

In that sense yes, but I'm still not sure if they intend it to be so vague that the player is actually surprised by what the PC says (which happens to me more often than I like). 

Olmert said that he felt that in some cases Bioware's intention was for the spoken dialogue to be unexpected; this is the part that I'm still unsure about.

[jillabender]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

My problem with both the Paraphrase system and the Wheel is that it pigeon holes us into certain character types, regardless.

For instance, how would Morrigan's romance look in DA2? In order to get her to be triggered in a romance is to make statements such as 'I don't believe love is a logical action' or to say that 'the only thing that matters is power.'

Would this be an aggressive statement? I don't believe so. It is calculated and cold, but not 'Rahr! I'm a mean character!' And it's certainly not diplomatic. In fact, saying that to someone who you have even the slightest romantic interest in is DEFINITELY very UNdiplomatic. And you aren't being sarcastic.

In addition, would saying you don't believe in love... be a Heart Icon choice? That seems highly illogical.

Then, when Morrigan asks you to break up with her if you really love her, to spare her the pain of being in love... would that be a Heart icon, or a Break-Up icon? I honestly would have no idea what to choose unless the paraphrases were really specific - which, let's face it, they weren't.

If it is nearly impossibly to play out a really good relationship like Morrigan through the dialogue wheel, then it is an ineffective tool. It is not just a matter of having three different ways to say yes, but it also assigns an inherent quality to each response, so that the quality matters more than the actual words.

In addition, it also makes each choice more extreme. If a writer has to think of their choices as one of three extremes, that colors the dialogue and story. If, instead, options were thought up that we're logical to the story and not constrained by three options, this would be more organic. For instance, in the Tower in DA:O, it would make sense to use the Litany to save the mages from turning into abominations to fight you, but then killing them afterwards because they could be possessed. Would that be an aggressive choice? Snarky? Diplomatic? I would say it is being extremely cautious, not aggressive. And killing people is definitely not diplomatic and not snarky.

The problem with the wheel is that, to roughly paraphrase Donny Darko, there are other things to take into account here, like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these three categories and then just deny everything else.

Very well put – that's probably my biggest difficulty with the dialogue wheel system as well, and I think it's the main reason I couldn't find a really satisfying way to role-play Hawke.

Someone else once used the example of the conversation with Wynne where the Warden can act like a five-year-old by pestering her about griffons. It's not a "diplomatic" option, because it irritates Wynne, it's definitely not "aggressive," and it's not "sarcastic" either, since the Warden seems to be expressing genuine enthusiasm – there's no "wit" or pretense involved.

[Olmerto]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The problem with the wheel is that, to roughly paraphrase Donny Darko, there are other things to take into account here, like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these three categories and then just deny everything else.

Just to nitpick a little bit, I count around seven different tone icons, not just three (and there are more icons to serve specific actions).  While most dialog options broke down into three choices, not all were "diplomatic", "sarcastic" and "aggressive".  Bioware could conceivably devise more tone icons if need be, as they hone the system.

I think at bottom, a lot is being made of the loss of dialog options from DAO when often the old system included some dialog that appeared to be filler or throw-away lines rather than real, thoughtful alternatives.  How many real alternatives did DAO's dialog present in a given instance?

Yet, I agree it would be nice to be able to have even more dialog choices, if a more effective UI mechanism is developed by Bioware.  But voiced dialog is always going to have tone, or you'd just be playing a robot voice.

[Fast Jimmy]

^
To which I would predictably say... who needs a voiced protagonist? But that is the circular argument that goes nowhere and isn't relevant (other than to complain) because Bioware said they ain't doin' it.

And yes, there were other options, but more often that not, they were just differing shades of diplomatic or Auto-win responses. In alphabetical order:

Broken Heart - ends romance
Check mark - accept an offer
Clenched Fist - Aggressive tone
Crossed Swords - Initiates combat
Diamond - Charming
Falling coins - bribe
Fingers Crosses - lie
Gavel - blunt, direct
Halo over Wings - Helpful
Head/Companion Silhouette - uses that companion to Auto-win
Heart - Romance option
Laughing Facemask - Snarky
Olive Branch - Diplomatic
Question Mark - Investigate
Star - Special class/skill Auto-win
X - Reject offer

Besides the bribe option, the Charming option (which could be replaced with a suitable persuassion non-combat skill) and possibly the gavel, I see only outcomes, not options or tones. Do you want to be in a romance with this character? There you go - Heart icon. Want to start a fight? There you go, pick this option.

It doesn't matter what you say, you just pick the outcome. Which is the exact OPPOSITE way DA:O worked. You had to say the right things to get someone to romance you, you had to say the wrong things to get someone to fight you. It takes all of the role playing and risk out of conversation to know the outcome before you even know what is going to be said.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 août 2012 - 09:30 .

[Olmerto]

Well with the romance option thing that, to me, is a matter of dumbing down the game rather than a problem with tone or voice or paraphrase. With the inclusion of the console crowd Bioware has the idea that even with a rated "M" game they have to make things childish and blatently obvious to children. I don't like that, but it has nothing to do with what you're complaining about.

Edit - Or, come to think of it, it might well be that with all bi-sexual characters Bioware had to use a bright line button to warn players that selecting this line would initiate a same-sex romance.  That's likely a more reasonable explanation of the heart button for romance.

Modifié par Olmert, 29 août 2012 - 09:52 .

[SirGladiator]

I agree that the romances are generally too easy. At least with Isabella, you had to work a bit for it, but with Merrill there was absolutely no work at all, just click the little heart icon and all is good. Which is obviously fine if you like easy, but if you're like me and prefer a challenge, then that's not so good.

In regard to the whole voice/no voice, there's never been a 'silent protagonist', DAO's main character said plenty, just not during cutscenes. There were all sorts of comments and battle cries and such, but the cutscenes themselves allowed you to pick the exact words you wanted to use, rather than a general 'nice/mean/sarcastic', which obviously made DAO vastly superior in that regard. They definietly should at the very least work harder on letting you know what you're saying before you say it, its so annoying to think you're going to say one type of thing, and end up saying something completely different. The little icons help, but as earlier mentioned, they sure can dumb things down too, and thats not good. So hopefully they'll figure out some kind of happy medium.

[tklivory]

Olmert wrote...

Well with the romance option thing that, to me, is a matter of dumbing down the game rather than a problem with tone or voice or paraphrase. With the inclusion of the console crowd Bioware has the idea that even with a rated "M" game they have to make things childish and blatently obvious to children. I don't like that, but it has nothing to do with what you're complaining about.

Edit - Or, come to think of it, it might well be that with all bi-sexual characters Bioware had to use a bright line button to warn players that selecting this line would initiate a same-sex romance.  That's likely a more reasonable explanation of the heart button for romance.

For me personally knowing what option *basically* does what ahead of time really made me less interested in the dialogue itself. I'm still on my first playthrough, and because I can guess what the results of my dialogue choice will be based on the icons, I find myself skipping dialogue that I've never heard before, which is really unusual for me. I dislike having a voiced protagonist, though it makes slightly more sense in ME and DA2 than DA:O due to the nature of the protagonist, but I can honestly say it was (and continues to be) one of the biggest turnoffs for me in the entire game. In DA:O, I talked to everybody and anybody just to see if a new line of dialogue was available. In DA2... I just find myself not really caring. I like some of the characters, but being limited to 'good/snark/negative' with occasional hearts and breakups... distances me entirely from wanting to try to get to know them, like I'm just playing sims. The banters? Totally enjoyable. Actually talking to the companions? Not worth the effort, which is truly sad.

I'm really trying to finish DA2, but I keep replaying DA:O after I get tired of the interactive limitations of DA2. I have a suspicion that if they have a similar type of protagonist in DA3 (fixed background, fixed race), I'll either wait for the $5 sale or pass entirely. It's *that* much of a turnoff for me, personally.

Modifié par tklivory, 29 août 2012 - 10:04 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Olmert wrote...

No, it is true.  You can carp about this, but even though the voice adds personality and immersiveness too, forcing the player to read full text and then hear the same text repeated would still be redundant to many if not most players even if the voice adds to the meaning.  We just have to disagree here.

If the voiced line adds meaning, then it isn't redundant.  Unless you're inventing some new meaning of the word.

That's your assertion, but again your assumption is flawed.  I "favor the voiced protagonist" yet I would see myself ultimately getting frustrated with redundancy.  Bioware's new premier feature is voiced protagonist; they pay a lot of money to present it.  They aren't going to risk impairing its delivery by introducing gaming redundancy into the equation.  I don't see redundancy as an "open issue"; it's settled by my observations and I can't see it ever changing.  If you do, so be it.  Have at it.

Okay, I understand now.  You're using the word "redundant" to mean "repetitive".  And yes, the voiced line following the full text would be repetitive, particularly for those who subvocalise when they read (I do not).  This has been well established.

But how does repetitiveness "impair delivery" of the voiced line?  I clearly don't understand what you mean by that.

This is pure sophistry.  The voiced line may contain new information, but the full text content is always redundant and thus diminishes the actual delivery.  Given that the goal of Bioware is to optimize the voiced delivery, they aren't going to do anything that would tend to diminish it. 

 Again, assuming you mean "repetitive" wherever you've said "redundant", how does the full text diminish the delivery of the voiced line?

Why do you *think* Bioware no longer provides full text?

I expect it's UI driven.  Because they seem wed to the wheel (with the wheel in the middle of the screen), and because they continue to support 640*480 displays (something they actually stopped doing in 2001, only to bring them back), they're limited to about 40 characters per dialogue options.

This is my best guess so far.  They haven't actually provided an explanation that makes any sense.

If it were as you attempt to spin it, Bioware would be foolish to have introduced the paraphrase -- and I realize that is how you're trying to portray it.

I don't think they thought it through, no.

Sometimes they make what I think are bad decisions, but they openly explain why they did it and how they no longer care about supporting my point of view.  They did that with the asymmetrical combat mechanics in DAO - Georg Zoeller (now with UbiSoft Singapore) did a great job of explaining their design priorities.

But they haven't done that, here.  The paraphrases made some sense in ME - it was an experiement with a voiced protagonist, and it was console-exclusive.  But nothing about the paraphrases in ME let the player play his own character.  So the only way they can want to implement paraphrases in DA is either because they've decided suddenly that playing ones own character isn't important, or because they didn't realise the design limitations of the paraphrase.

The latter seems more likely.

Remember, ME had other features that would have kept some roleplayers away from it.  As mentioned, it was exclusive to a single platform when it was first released, and it had what looked like action combat (upon playing it, I saw that ME didn't actually have action combat, but I certainly couldn't have known that from the marketing).  So those of us who think the paraphrase fails utterly didn't have any reason to complain about the paraphrase until it was used in DA2.

They have a reason not to diminish the voiced delivery, which redundancy does.

Again, assuming you mean "repetitive" wherever you've said "redundant", how does it do that?

If you concede that you don't need full text, then that changes things.

I've always conceded that.  I don't need full text; I need full information.  In fact, with the fixed delivery of the voiced lines, full text wouldn't even be enough.  Full text wouldn't tell us about tone.

Full text has been a powerful tool, but which tool we use doesn't matter as long as we achieve an adequate result.  But that result is full information.  And with full information, the voiced line would then be redundant (but not repetitive, which is the thing you've actually been complaining about).  I want the voiced line to be redundant, because I demand perfect knowledge of what it is I'm telling my character to do.

But as long as it's not repeating exactly the same words, apparently that woud satisify your repetitiveness condition.

However, there are still times when I discern that Bioware intends to create surprise by the voiced line in some fashion.

The ME2 team did say the interrupts were intended to surprise the players (which told me right away that ME2 was going to be a terrible roleplaying game - which it was), but never has the DA team made a similar claim.

If Bioware were to make DA3 with a silent protagonist, I would buy it and play it just like DAO, which I'm playing again now and enjoying.  I can play either voiced p or silent p, unlike you.  I prefer voiced for the reasons I've stated: I like my character to be on equal footing with my companions and npcs; I want my character to be able to give a rousing speech if need be.  I don't want to fabricate the voice in my head.  Voice adds to the game IMO, and I appreciate Bioware's efforts to make the game more immersive and moving.  Which voiced p does.

How do you choose dialogue options for your character when you don't know what those options entail?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

As far as I'm concerned being surprised by what my character says is a lot more immersion breaking than having a silent PC.

I fully agree.

I still think that Bioware can achieve their goals of having a more cinematic presentation and a voiced PC while doing a much better job of giving the player information about what the PC is going to say.  But, as you alluded to, the jury is still out on whether or not this is something they have any interest in doing.

I think they are.  David Gaider said that they had extensive internal discussions on whether to implement a system like DXHR's in terms of showing more information.  Given that they were willing to discuss it internally, I suggest that they want to provide more information (and I hope they will show us how they're going to do that once they have something more than a mock-up).

@Sylvius -- while I still prefer to see full text, I think it is impractical to show the player full text where one player interaction results in multiple PC lines over an extended conversation, which I gather is something that BW intends to do.

First, I would say that they shouldn't ever do that.  But given that they seem to want to (for reasons they apparently will not divulge), even some of the text would be better than the obfuscatory paraphrases they used in DA2.  The DA2 paraphrases were specifically intended to contain none of the words found in the voiced line (presumably to limit repetitiveness), and as such often bore no resemblance at all to the voiced line.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^
To which I would predictably say... who needs a voiced protagonist? But that is the circular argument that goes nowhere and isn't relevant (other than to complain) because Bioware said they ain't doin' it.

They're not doing it right now.  If we can thoroughly demonstrate the absurdity of their position, they might back down on future titles.

It doesn't matter what you say, you just pick the outcome. Which is the exact OPPOSITE way DA:O worked.

More importantly, it's the exact opposite of how human interaction works.  DAO's dialogue system modelled human interaction just about perfectly, while DA2's dialogue system is entirely dissimilar.

[Olmerto]

First, Sylvius, regarding your attempt to "correct" me on my vocabulary, I did indeed mean to use the term "redundant" and I used the term correctly.

"redundant, adj. 1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix: a redundant style.  2. being in excess; exceeding what is usual or natural: a redundant part.  3. having some unusual or extra part or feature. ..."

Your excessively narrow understanding of the term "redundant" seems right in line with the narrow and "unique" manner in which you attempt to play these games er, characters.  And before you try to highlight something like that to embarrass someone else, you really ought to make sure you are correct before you make a fool of yourself.

Secondly, how does full text diminish delivery of the voiced line you ask? (Not really expecting an answer.)  Here.  Redundancy is bad.  It is not a good quality, in case you don't know it.  Giving voiced dialog a "bad quality" diminishes it.  Diminish means to make weaker, lesser.  That's it.

As for your theory on why Bioware no longer provides full text, go on fabricating unlikely reasons that make you think you can "enlighten" them.  I'll just say that if Bioware wanted to continue to give full text they'd do it just like they did it for DAO.  That would work, wouldn't it?  If they really wanted to provide full text.

"Full information", as opposed to redundant text, is not a problem in my view.  But it's a matter of artful writing and subject to interpretation.  Bioware has artistic license to use the phrases they feel represent the gist of the voiced line, and I doubt this practice will ever satisfy you and others who are against voiced protagonists.

Finally, you ask, how do I choose dialog options when I don't know what those options entail?  I do know well enough what my chosen option entails through the paraphrased line.  I have had less trouble navigating DA2's dialog, with its intent/tone icons and short answers, than I have had choosing dialog in DAO.  For me, I routinely go back to previous saves to replay dialog in DAO.  I'm replaying that now so I have this fresh in my mind.  I never once had to go back and redo dialog in DA2 because I was mistaken in a line's effect, and I've completed DA2 twice now.  I don't know exactly why that is, but I think it's because of the way Bioware has written DA2 more clearly.  I just know that I've had no problem with DA2 dialog.

[Pasquale1234]

Olmert wrote...
Finally, you ask, how do I choose dialog options when I don't know what those options entail?  I do know well enough what my chosen option entails through the paraphrased line.  I have had less trouble navigating DA2's dialog, with its intent/tone icons and short answers, than I have had choosing dialog in DAO.  For me, I routinely go back to previous saves to replay dialog in DAO.  I'm replaying that now so I have this fresh in my mind.  I never once had to go back and redo dialog in DA2 because I was mistaken in a line's effect, and I've completed DA2 twice now.  I don't know exactly why that is, but I think it's because of the way Bioware has written DA2 more clearly.  I just know that I've had no problem with DA2 dialog.

This is a great example of what some other posters have mentioned above - In DA2, you aren't selecting dialogue so much as you are selecting the desired response to Hawke's dialogue.

In DAO, you could select the actual content of the dialogue your Warden would deliver, with no foreknowledge of how the game world would react.  That's one of the reasons why it's a much more accurate model of real conversation, and much more supportive of role-playing.

[Nomen Mendax]

Olmert wrote...

"Full information", as opposed to redundant text, is not a problem in my view.  But it's a matter of artful writing and subject to interpretation.  Bioware has artistic license to use the phrases they feel represent the gist of the voiced line, and I doubt this practice will ever satisfy you and others who are against voiced protagonists.

Finally, you ask, how do I choose dialog options when I don't know what those options entail?  I do know well enough what my chosen option entails through the paraphrased line.  I have had less trouble navigating DA2's dialog, with its intent/tone icons and short answers, than I have had choosing dialog in DAO.  For me, I routinely go back to previous saves to replay dialog in DAO.  I'm replaying that now so I have this fresh in my mind.  I never once had to go back and redo dialog in DA2 because I was mistaken in a line's effect, and I've completed DA2 twice now.  I don't know exactly why that is, but I think it's because of the way Bioware has written DA2 more clearly.  I just know that I've had no problem with DA2 dialog.

I'm still hopeful that DA2's paraphrase system can be improved upon but we will all have to wait and see what Bioware comes up with.  Personally I'm not completely against voiced protagonists as a matter of principle, it's more about what we have to give up to get one.  From my perspective the gains (a voiced protagonist and a more cinematic experience) don't come close to out-weighing the losses, which I believe to well beyond the issue we've been discussing.

Interesting that you are replaying DAO as I'm playing DA2 at the moment.  I never got close to finishing it and it and I'm attempting to do so now. I have almost the opposite experience to you, I rarely reloaded DAO saves to redo dialog (except for fun).  At the risk of repetition I find it really hard to choose between paraphrases as I just feel I don't have enough information to figure out what Hawke is going to say (other than the obvious agree / disagree choices).  I also feel that the game is really pushing me as a player to consistently pick happy, snarky or grumpy Hawke which really doesn't seem very interesting to me.

[Olmerto]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Interesting that you are replaying DAO as I'm playing DA2 at the moment.  I never got close to finishing it and it and I'm attempting to do so now. I have almost the opposite experience to you, I rarely reloaded DAO saves to redo dialog (except for fun).  At the risk of repetition I find it really hard to choose between paraphrases as I just feel I don't have enough information to figure out what Hawke is going to say (other than the obvious agree / disagree choices).  I also feel that the game is really pushing me as a player to consistently pick happy, snarky or grumpy Hawke which really doesn't seem very interesting to me.

Yeah, it's odd how the experiences can differ so much.  I frankly don't know how to explain it.

[Olmerto]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

This is a great example of what some other posters have mentioned above - In DA2, you aren't selecting dialogue so much as you are selecting the desired response to Hawke's dialogue.

In DAO, you could select the actual content of the dialogue your Warden would deliver, with no foreknowledge of how the game world would react.  That's one of the reasons why it's a much more accurate model of real conversation, and much more supportive of role-playing.

There may be something to this.  Or it could be that the way the dialog is structured makes the nature of your choices much clearer than in prior BW games.  I actually found selecting dialog in DA2 incredibly easy.  And I didn't just choose on the basis of tone.  Bioware may have simplified the entire dialog process in their overall effort to simplify the game.  I never got down and analyzed it.

[jillabender]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Olmert wrote...
Finally, you ask, how do I choose dialog options when I don't know what those options entail?  I do know well enough what my chosen option entails through the paraphrased line.  I have had less trouble navigating DA2's dialog, with its intent/tone icons and short answers, than I have had choosing dialog in DAO.  For me, I routinely go back to previous saves to replay dialog in DAO.  I'm replaying that now so I have this fresh in my mind.  I never once had to go back and redo dialog in DA2 because I was mistaken in a line's effect, and I've completed DA2 twice now.  I don't know exactly why that is, but I think it's because of the way Bioware has written DA2 more clearly.  I just know that I've had no problem with DA2 dialog.

This is a great example of what some other posters have mentioned above - In DA2, you aren't selecting dialogue so much as you are selecting the desired response to Hawke's dialogue.

In DAO, you could select the actual content of the dialogue your Warden would deliver, with no foreknowledge of how the game world would react.  That's one of the reasons why it's a much more accurate model of real conversation, and much more supportive of role-playing.

Very well put – I much prefer for the surprise element in dialogue to come from seeing how the game will respond to what my character says, as opposed to being surprised by what my character says. Not knowing the content of what Hawke would say made Hawke feel like another NPC instead of my own character. While that's not a terrible thing, it's not what I look for in a Dragon Age game, and it left me feeling dissatisfied.

Modifié par jillabender, 30 août 2012 - 01:45 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Olmert wrote...

There may be something to this.  Or it could be that the way the dialog is structured makes the nature of your choices much clearer than in prior BW games.  I actually found selecting dialog in DA2 incredibly easy.  And I didn't just choose on the basis of tone.  Bioware may have simplified the entire dialog process in their overall effort to simplify the game.  I never got down and analyzed it.

Bioware did not make an improvement to make your voices clearer. They advertise the exact outcomes and then obscure what your character is really going to say. 

For instance, you should never come out and say 'Lie' as an option. You should just have a statement. Saying 'I love you' can be a lie, but the game instead treats every dialogue option you have as the honest, whole truth unless it is expressly stated. 

And options such as 'bribe' or 'blunt' are immediately not as edgy, since we know the bribe will be accepted, or the mean, blunt comment will not cause major offense. Because if it did, they would show the 'initiate combat' icon, instead. If you know you can say whatever you want, be as crass as you like, suggest the most corrupt options possible and the game will warn you ahead of time if the option will actually result in an 'end conversation/start combat' response, then there is no danger to any of it. I don't see the appeal of it, unless I am perhaps misunderstanding someone's enjoyment of the feature. 

I see the dialogue wheel, voiced protagonist aside, as a feature that can only have negatives pointed out, while its defense is 'it's not that bad.' I have to assume there is development purposes for its use and continued defense by Bioware to include it in games. If that's the case, I understand, but at the same time the limitations it creates would need to be compared to the original, less criticized system and to have any gaps addressed.