298 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

[edit] One of the problems is that making concise paraphrases is hard (I wouldn't want to have to do it), and once you add in the (absurd, in my opinion) restriction that the paraphrase can't use the same words as the full dialogue it becomes much, much harder.  One other point, if the full response is <abc> because <xyz>, please paraphrase both abc and xyz; DA2 had a habit of just paraphrasing abc and then surprising me with xyz. [/edit]

I've said before, and I'll say here again, the paraphrases would be better if they were written by a different writer.

The writer who writes the dialogue should not be the writer who writes the paraphrases.  Knowledge of what function the line serves within the conversation will influence how the writer writes the paraphrase for it, and that's a huge problem.  The player doesn't know what function the line serves in the greater conversation, so he can't use that knowledge to help discern what the paraphrase might mean.

I think the paraphrases should be written one at a time by a writer with no knowledge at all of the conversation in which the line falls.  Take the lines, randomise them, and distribute them to writers.  A good paraphrase should convey the meaning of its associated line regardless of the state of mind of the reader.  If the player has interpreted some action wildly differently from hiw the writers intended, he should still be able to decrypt the paraphrases.

Having to guess is never okay.

And if there's some approach that needs to be used by the player in order to understand the paraphrases, that needs to be documented.

[Alexander1136]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't really understand what that means.

I tend to chose lines based on whether they're compatible with the character I've designed.  In a silent PC game, this is easy, because there's almost always some way to deliver one of the available that lines that suits my character.

With the paraphrases, I can't tell whether the lines will break my character, so I'm left guessing.

How does choosing based on intent work?  I honestly don't get it.  Perhaps an example would help.

And I'm just asking Allan.  Many people have said they choose based on intent, and I don't understand what that means.  Anyone who chooses lines based on intent could potentially answer this.

Say an NPC just betrayed my character, and upon being informed I get the full lines of dialogue such as:

1) I understand.  You did what you had to do.
2) I'm willing to let it go.  This time....
3) You will pay for what you did (Kill)

There's two ways I can do this.  Before reading my responses I can decide "How is my character feeling."  If I decide "pissed off" I will choose option 3.  Alternatively, I can look at the 3 options and decide "which of these options seems most appropriate for my character?"  (I do this the most)

If I were to use a dialogue wheel, the responses could be like this:

1) I understand.
2) I'm not impressed.
3) You will pay!

Now, option 3 is one where I can understand some people going 'Whoa whoa whoa, I didn't mean to kill him!" which is where an icon that depicts "I will kill this NPC" works for me.


There are times that I go "Hmmm, that wasn't quite what I expected" with the dialogue wheel just as there are times I go "lol evidently my character said that differently than I expected" with full lines.  It's a wash, and I find both cases are about equivalently rare.

 

You're example doesn't hold water. There are two responses there that are negative. One is less extreme than the other. In DA2 we had the two extremes and a stupid or humor comment that was one way or the other.  6 responses are best, 2 for each feeling, one more extreme that the other. If i'm forced to be understanding but still not inform them that i'm not pleased with what they did, then you're limiting my RP experience. That's why I prefer the dialoge option in origins. We did have the options to give a wide spectrum of responses and we knew exactly what we were going to say, not once in origins did I have an issue with that system.  

[Allan Schumacher]

You're example doesn't hold water

I stopped reading.

[wsandista]

Alexander1136 wrote...

You're example doesn't hold water. 

I thought his example made sense. I dislike the wheel quite a bit and think that full text with a silent PC is infinitely preferable for roleplaying, but Allan's example explains just how he uses "intent".

[Terror_K]

wsandista wrote...

Alexander1136 wrote...

You're example doesn't hold water. 

I thought his example made sense. I dislike the wheel quite a bit and think that full text with a silent PC is infinitely preferable for roleplaying, but Allan's example explains just how he uses "intent".

I find this ironic since BioWare's recent entries seemed to have done away with intent entirely and just gone for extreme results. In DA2's case it was extreme results combined with silliness/scarcasm, while ME3 just gave you only two options most of the time which were purely extreme results and did away with intent entirely. The ME3 devs tried to make the excuse that a neutral option seemed silly during the final part of the trilogy and that extreme decisiveness was needed, but completely failed to aknowledge the fact that the "neutral" central response isn't always totally neutral, and was often used to express intent.

For an example I used when arguing this on the ME3 forums, the Council choice at the end of ME1 was an example of this. While there were only two outcomes, there were three options, and that's because the central one different in intent than the lower one. There was make an effort to save them, focus on Sovereign because stopping him is priority and make a concerted effort to let The Council be killed. While the latter two result in largely the same outcome, the intent and reasoning behind it is very different, and this is an imporant distiction. The Mass Effect devs seemed to have forgotten this by the time ME3 rolled around. Had ME3 done it we'd have just had "save them at all costs!" vs. "kill them because I hate them for doubting me or because they are aliens!" and that's it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wsandista wrote...

Alexander1136 wrote...

You're example doesn't hold water. 

I thought his example made sense. I dislike the wheel quite a bit and think that full text with a silent PC is infinitely preferable for roleplaying, but Allan's example explains just how he uses "intent".

I didn't actually see much in the way of explanation, there, but perhaps he didn't understand my question.

If Allan was saying "I choose the response that seems most appropriate", that's not terribly enlightening.  With the paraphrases, how are we supposed to know which response is most appropriate?  Based on the available information, one option might seem the most appropriate, but then when delivered turn out to be wildly inappropriate.

It's that selection process I don't get.  I had thought that the "intent" approach somehow made that easier, but I have yet to see how.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 septembre 2012 - 03:29 .

[wsandista]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I didn't actually see much in the way of explanation, there, but perhaps he didn't understand my question.

I thought that he explained how he used the wheel. It was not enlightening for me, since I roleplay exclusively in the first person, but I understood how he used the paraphrases.

If Allan was saying "I choose the response that seems most appropriate", that's not terribly enlightening.  With the paraphrases, how are we supposed to know which response is most appropriate?  Based on the available information, one option might seem the most appropriate, but then when delivered turn out to be wildly inappropriate.

If I understand his post correctly, he uses the "tone icons" to judge how appropriate the line was for the situation. The flaws in that are that the different tones mean different things from person to person and since the player doesn't know exactly what will be said, they can not know with certainty what option is appropriate for their character.

It's that selection process I don't get.  I had thought that the "intent" approach somehow made that easier, but I have yet to see how.

The problem with "intent" or "tone" is that they can mean radically different things to different people. What I view as an intent to threaten with a menacing tone, someone else might view as a warning in a forward tone. With a voiced PC using the wheel, some players are going to not get the intended results from whichever paraphrase they select. This is not a good thing at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wsandista wrote...

The problem with "intent" or "tone" is that they can mean radically different things to different people. What I view as an intent to threaten with a menacing tone, someone else might view as a warning in a forward tone. With a voiced PC using the wheel, some players are going to not get the intended results from whichever paraphrase they select. This is not a good thing at all.

That's the problem.  So if some player has less trouble working out what the paraphrase options mean, how does he do that?  By what mechanism does he discern the intent so that he can choose using it?

I still have no idea how people do this.  I understand that they do, but no one seems able to explain how.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Unless, of course, that's not what they're doing at all.

If these players are actually choosing lines not based on what they want their characters to do, but based on what they want their characters to achieve, then this makes a lot more sense. That would be an approach favoured by the "win button" icons such as flirt or attack.

But selecting outcomes rather than actions does not, to me, resemble roleplaying at all.

[zyntifox]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't really understand what that means.

I tend to chose lines based on whether they're compatible with the character I've designed.  In a silent PC game, this is easy, because there's almost always some way to deliver one of the available that lines that suits my character.

With the paraphrases, I can't tell whether the lines will break my character, so I'm left guessing.

How does choosing based on intent work?  I honestly don't get it.  Perhaps an example would help.

And I'm just asking Allan.  Many people have said they choose based on intent, and I don't understand what that means.  Anyone who chooses lines based on intent could potentially answer this.

Say an NPC just betrayed my character, and upon being informed I get the full lines of dialogue such as:

1) I understand.  You did what you had to do.
2) I'm willing to let it go.  This time....
3) You will pay for what you did (Kill)

There's two ways I can do this.  Before reading my responses I can decide "How is my character feeling."  If I decide "pissed off" I will choose option 3.  Alternatively, I can look at the 3 options and decide "which of these options seems most appropriate for my character?"  (I do this the most)

If I were to use a dialogue wheel, the responses could be like this:

1) I understand.
2) I'm not impressed.
3) You will pay!

Now, option 3 is one where I can understand some people going 'Whoa whoa whoa, I didn't mean to kill him!" which is where an icon that depicts "I will kill this NPC" works for me.


There are times that I go "Hmmm, that wasn't quite what I expected" with the dialogue wheel just as there are times I go "lol evidently my character said that differently than I expected" with full lines.  It's a wash, and I find both cases are about equivalently rare.

But Allen isn't those examples false? I remember reading somewhere how the writers constructs the paraphrases. Due to avoid repetition didn't the writers make all the paraphrase use words not in the delievered lines? I don't have any source of it but i believe it was David who wrote it. Not that not using the same words in the paraphrase is the core of the problem of the paraphrase system but it certaintly does not help. (If im wrong disregard this post)

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's the problem.  So if some player has less trouble working out what the paraphrase options mean, how does he do that?  By what mechanism does he discern the intent so that he can choose using it?

I still have no idea how people do this.  I understand that they do, but no one seems able to explain how.

As someone who plays that way, let's see if this can be of any help.

I evaluate each line, reading them over and over and using other clues as to discern the meaning and emotion they try to convey. Grammar, wording, context, past experiences and, lately, the tone icon all provide clues as to what said things are.

Let's take "You will pay" (fully worded: "You will pay for your actions here") as a hypothetical example.
If presented "You will pay for your actions here!" the biggest clue is the exclamation mark. This is an outburst or a passionate remark. The word action suggest anger over comitted actions, probably some sort of injustice. What is the context? what happened just prior? what are the two characters speaking about?.

Let's replace the exclamation mark with a dot.
"You will pay for your actions here." Not at all the same. The dot rather than the exclamation mark changes the whole thing from an outburst to something calmer. Probably a threat or a promise. What is the context? The cause of the anger remains the same though.

Paraphrased little changes.
[Aggressive] "You will pay!". Same as above, aggressive promises that it's a threat or similar, the exclamation mark suggest outburst. Motivation is hidden in the line, but what did immediately precede this? That will tell us what is the motivation for this angry outburst.

[Diplomatic]"You will pay.". Again, the dot suggest rational threat, not an outburst, and the diplomatic stance reinforces this. Diplomatic tone is often refering to authorities, justice and such. Probably a promise of justice to come. What is the context?

As you can see, once the line has been broken down and the clues assembled it always ends with a question of context. Context is everything since no line is isolated from the others. What the line refers to is just as important as everything else about the line.

Hope that helped a bit.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

simfamSP wrote...

@ Sacred_Fantasy.

We had this discussion before. About Hawke, or any character in an RPG, having to influence the story arch in order to be a roleplaying game. All you have to do is influence the development of that character. And that's exactly what I did with Hawke.

And how do suppose to develop a character that constantly contradict with what you want? How do you connect with a character that never share your perspective? My preferred style is first person roleplaying. But DA 2 doesn't allow first person roleplaying due to third person narrative. I have low immersion for third person character. Playing outside a story directing a character inside a story isn't the kind of role I'd enjoy in a RPG eventhough I do that all the time in non-rpg like Dynasty Warriors series.

I wanted my Hawke to be sarcastic bitter and withdrawn after the death of Carver, She end up ignoring everything 5 minutes later and acting like a clown by making stupid jokes. Everything shown in cutscenes make it even worse. The purple mask icon isn't exclusively meant for sarcasm. It's actually design for humorous character. But that's not all. I wanted her to stay low in Kirkwall to avoid the templars, she end up making friends and earn herself a fame in ACT 2. I was forced to swallow hard trying to rationalize everything when Bethany was taken away and Leandra was murdered. Yet nothing changes Hawke. Nothing is reflected. Nothing is developed from this tragedies. She move on completely untouched and continue to be a cheerful clown.

How on earth could I develop a bitter persona like Fenris or cold and distant character like Sten when Hawke keep on potrayed by BioWare as cheerful friendly character?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 17 septembre 2012 - 07:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

simfamSP wrote...

See, this is where I clash. I agree with you, but I also disagree due to personal taste. I like being told a story as well as living it. Dragon Age wouldn't be as interesting to me without these characters, and Loghain was one of the best things to come out of BioWare since Revan.

I don't recall having seen this opinion expressed previously, and I certainly don't share it.  While Loghain was an interesting character in The Stolen Throne, I didn't find him so in DAO at all.

As for table-top... hmph, different G/DM's maybe.

Different players, I suspect.  My groups tended to include players who were self-interested, and that tended to break parties pretty quickly.  But they could be forced to cooperate through ignorance of the consequences of their actions - feed the players the information that will lead them to the decisions you want, and the party works.  let them know what's coming, and the party falls apart.

I've maintained this management style to this day, even professionally.  Users are less likely to break the database if they're only given the information that favours compliance with the rules.

How do people re-play roleplaying games with full knowledge of what's to come, then?

Because the player also has full knowledge of what a genuine reaction to that revelation looks like.  He can take that reaction and adjust it for the new character.

But if he's never seen a genuine reaction, he has a much harder job.

Loghain is an integral character within the narrative, or at least does become until further on. Having such an important character within the background would have made him a poorly done antagonist.

This brings me back to BG. Sarevok was something more suited to your preference, and it worked very well. Yet I've always felt his character suffered from the lack of apprearences. We heard about him a lot, his "Sauron-esqe" aura was rather strong, but he was just the "bad guy" at the end. Nothing interesting about him.

I've written before about how well done Sarevok is, and the reason I think he works so well runs directly contrary to what you've just said about Loghain.  What I love about how BG presents Sarevok is that there's no requirement that the player identify Sarevok as the antagonist at all.  Sarevok is presented, but then disappears from quite some time.  There are notes that refer to him, but we didn't know his name so there's no reason to think those notes refer back to the big guy in the armour.  The overall plot is not identifiable as the overall plot until most of the way through the game.

And, honestly, DA2 could have acheived something similar if it hadn't labelled all the Main Quests as such in the journal.  I'd have loved to have been able to disable the quest categories in DA2's journal.

You say that Loghain wouldn't make as good an antagonist if we were not explicitly shown his character development, but not showing that in BG made BG a much better story.  Because the big bad isn't necessarily the best available antagonist for the narrative the player is building.

Not all conflicts need to be man vs. man.  BG works well as Man vs. self, I think.  Man vs. Nature.  Man vs. Society.  There are so many options - why tie us to Loghain?

Yet, for a character as ambigious as Loghain (and the others of his ilk, e.g, Sarevok, Irenicus etc...) there was need for BioWare to tell us a story because of the great roles characters have in Dragon Age.

He still could have been ambiguous.  If the player doesn't actually know Loghain retreated and left Cailan to die (again, that was revealed in an unnecessary cutscene), then much of the game is filled with learning whether that actually happened as Morrigan said it did.  Only after the Warden learns the truth does it matter how ambiguous Loghain is, and by then we're closer to seeing it for ourselves.

We shouldn't need the game to hold our hand like that.

[Kidd]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I've always chosen my lines based on intent. Hence the wheel vs. full line tells me virtually the same thing.

I don't really understand what that means.

I tend to chose lines based on whether they're compatible with the character I've designed.  In a silent PC game, this is easy, because there's almost always some way to deliver one of the available that lines that suits my character.

With the paraphrases, I can't tell whether the lines will break my character, so I'm left guessing.

Not meaning to answer in Allan's stead, but this is how I feel.

There is rarely any significance to what you say based on the words themselves. What is important is what information the other party receives from what you say - "I happen to prefer the red ball over the blue one" informs you how I like the red ball, the blue ball not so much - and the tone with which the line is delivered. Tone-wise, I could say the sentence example in a voice that sounds very diplomatic, or I could do it in a way that sounds very mean (essentially adding a sarcastic "thank-you-very-much" at the end).

The exact words used are not what is interesting, it is the logical information that is conveyed and the tone with which it's said.

With the old DAO list, you can easily tell which information will be said, but you won't be able to guess tone without comparing it to other options. If the other option on your list is is "**** you, I like red", you can surmise the above option is nicer. If the opposite option is "I would like the red ball" then the example line would likely be sarcastic and mean - you wouldn't have two dialogue options for basically the same thing. Sometimes it can be hard to tell even so, however.

With the DA2 wheel, you can tell which information will be said if the paraphrase is well-written, and the tone is given to you freely. Possible problems arise from things such as a paraphrase saying "(Diplomatic) I like red balls" and the character saying "Red balls are the latest fashion in Orlais. I'll gladly take one!". When this happens, your character may be broken since the information delivered in the actual line does not match the information in the paraphrase. Had the paraphrase said "(Diplomatic) A red ball á la Orlesian fashion" then there would be no problems in information conveyance.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan, the way I can see the line having a different outcome than I expected, however, is that my line was misinterpreted. If I say 'I'm willing to let it go, this time' and the NPC reacts like I just threatened him and gets angry, as opposed to the more thankful response I had intended for my mercy, then I can assume the character misstook my kindness for weakness.

That's not at all what happens though. Everyone and their dog who was in the same room would testify as your character being threatening as crap. Your character -was- threatening, you as a player simply misunderstood your options. It's exactly like my one surprise from the wheel in DA2 where I figured I was going to calmly ask my companion to rationalise his actions, where instead my character - his lover - would yell accusations. That's one of those funky "choice" icons so I had no way to tell the tone, figures that'd be the time the wheel surprised me x)

Take my ball example in responding to Sylvius for instance. It should be very impossible to misunderstand "I happen to prefer the red ball over the blue one" as long as the speaker doesn't utilise text-to-speech. Any person with a functioning vocal organ can ensure the listener will get the right idea. You can't rationalise the person listening to you is misunderstanding, not really.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

"You will pay!" could be an empty threat - still delivered menacingly, but with no intent behind it.  But because the action is how tied directly to the dialogue selection, that option is now denied us.

Giving empty threats is a pretty cool thing to be able to do. It needs to be signaled as such though. Picking "You will pay!" from a list does in no way make you any more able to have it mean an empty threat. You would need choices go to:

1. You will pay!
2. You will pay! (Attack)

Note how there's a worded intent icon at the end of one of them to separate? Likewise on the wheel, you could have:

1. (Red fist) You will pay!
2. (Crossed swords) You will pay!

This perhaps could have been improved with better documentation of the tone icons.  Please document future games more thoroughly than you did DA2.

Oh please, oh yes. <3

[Sacred_Fantasy]

simfamSP wrote...
I am the first to admit, control over Hawke isn't as fine as my control over the Warden. But at the same time, my control over TNO was more complete, over the control of my Warden. My development of the hero of Neverwinter was smoother than my development of Revan...

I don't play TNO so I couldn't comment. But Neverwinter character development was governed based on D&D principles like lawful good, lawful chaotic, true neutral, evil chaotic etc.. which is a good thing since it should lay a foundation to BioWare on how to develop more complex personality. Not just Paragon/Renegade ( Mass Effect ) or Subtle/Humorous/Aggresive ( Dragon Age 2). In reality we are complex individual with different background, experiences, education, motives and goals and it's reflected by our personalities. Tabletop RPG and D&D tried to reflect those complex individuals through proper ruleset and proper way to govern a story. You can't take an inspired popular movie and dump it to players to roleplay because the story is written to serve different audiences. You can't allow the player to be ahead of the story etc..

But that's not  the point. The point is you can't develop anything when you're constantly being railroaded all the way from beginning until the end. Developing PC is meaningles when you have no influence over story. Neverwinter Nights and Origins railroaded you as well but when you do make a choice it does related to the story even the choices are just illusion. For example the choice of killing or sparing Connor.  In DA 2, I've asked Feyneriel to go to the Circle only to find out he will go to Dallish Camp no matter what choice I've made. So what's the purpose of making a choice? How would making such meaningless choice could affect your character development?

simfamSP wrote...
For me, the GAME and the ROLEPLAYING come in different packages. Meaning that a game can be fantastic (Gothic) but the roleplaying in said game can be absolutley horrible (Gothic.) They are both mutually exclusive and two seperate beasts, much like a two headed Hyrdra.

Yes. I used ME 2 as example of good game and horrible roleplaying mainly because of the personalities that govern Sheppard and generic character ala Hans Solo's archtype potrayed by BioWare in dialogue cutscenes.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 17 septembre 2012 - 09:00 .

[eroeru]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...


1. You will pay!
2. You will pay! (Attack)

Note how there's a worded intent icon at the end of one of them to separate? Likewise on the wheel, you could have:

1. (Red fist) You will pay!
2. (Crossed swords) You will pay!

Yes. Though the icons can never do the job that the brackets can. Brackets could function in innumerable ways, starting from skill-checks ("persuade", "insight" etc) to just showing what the character will do (attack, kneel, etc).

Much much more diverse and suited for a Bioware RPG (defining the traditional sense of it even) than frankly dumb icons.

[Kidd]

I don't believe the two need necessarily be mutually exclusive, in theory.

[eroeru]

Yes, true.

But overall I don't like icons. I've discussed why that is beforehand. There are many many reasons (the abovementioned a less important one).
Icons should be optionally disabled, and the positions of the answers meshed up.

With about 10 possible answers in total, maybe (though the more the better, it would certainly be better for my type of player without the subcategories as "investigate" options).

Modifié par eroeru, 17 septembre 2012 - 10:50 .

[eroeru]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Eh, I'm dropping out of this conversation as it's already been beaten to death.

I was asked for an explanation and I gave it. I've already stated why "well he just misinterpreted it" doesn't work for me in other posts. It's just as jarring.

Do you mean that you don't believe the players who state that happening (and playing an importanr part in the RP) in Origins? Or do you deem that they should play their BW games differently?

[Fast Jimmy]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Not meaning to answer in Allan's stead, but this is how I feel.

There is rarely any significance to what you say based on the words themselves. What is important is what information the other party receives from what you say - "I happen to prefer the red ball over the blue one" informs you how I like the red ball, the blue ball not so much - and the tone with which the line is delivered. Tone-wise, I could say the sentence example in a voice that sounds very diplomatic, or I could do it in a way that sounds very mean (essentially adding a sarcastic "thank-you-very-much" at the end).

The exact words used are not what is interesting, it is the logical information that is conveyed and the tone with which it's said.

With the old DAO list, you can easily tell which information will be said, but you won't be able to guess tone without comparing it to other options. If the other option on your list is is "**** you, I like red", you can surmise the above option is nicer. If the opposite option is "I would like the red ball" then the example line would likely be sarcastic and mean - you wouldn't have two dialogue options for basically the same thing. Sometimes it can be hard to tell even so, however.

With the DA2 wheel, you can tell which information will be said if the paraphrase is well-written, and the tone is given to you freely. Possible problems arise from things such as a paraphrase saying "(Diplomatic) I like red balls" and the character saying "Red balls are the latest fashion in Orlais. I'll gladly take one!". When this happens, your character may be broken since the information delivered in the actual line does not match the information in the paraphrase. Had the paraphrase said "(Diplomatic) A red ball á la Orlesian fashion" then there would be no problems in information conveyance.

 

But that's not the problem. The problem is that if you choose the paraphrase "I like the red ball", there is a large chance that it will come out "Yeah! The red ball is awesome! The blue ball is the worst EVER!!!" When, in reality? I like the blue ball. In fact, my character was just struggling with the decision of which ball was better, since he liked them both so much. And, yet, by just choosing the red ball option, the writers put words into my mouth by making me then hate the blue ball. Which is not what I had intended.

That's not at all what happens though. Everyone and their dog who was in the same room would testify as your character being threatening as crap. Your character -was- threatening, you as a player simply misunderstood your options. It's exactly like my one surprise from the wheel in DA2 where I figured I was going to calmly ask my companion to rationalise his actions, where instead my character - his lover - would yell accusations. That's one of those funky "choice" icons so I had no way to tell the tone, figures that'd be the time the wheel surprised me x)

Even if everyone in the room knows it, that doesn't mean my character intended it. I can be on a conference call for my company and someone say something that a conference call of 50 people realizes sounds very aggressive and angry, but that the one person who said it may not realize they are coming off as abrassive. In fact, it happesn often. If I then go and talk to that person and try and coach them to not come off as so antagonistic, most of the time they will state it was not their intention to come across that way.

Have you never had something you wanted to say, had the words right completely, but when you actually said them, people took it in a way you didn't anticipate? Have you never been upset, tired, distracted, annoyed or whatever else and said words with an inflection you didn't plan or anticipate, which colored your words so that people took offense to them? Very, very rarely will I ever think "I am going to say these words with ANGRY INFLECTION!" I think about what I want to say, what words I want to say them with. If I have emotions about the subject, those come through naturally, not because I am cognitively focusing on which emotion I want to convey.


Point being, when playing DA:O, I don't think I ever once thought "oh, this NPC is reacting in a way I didn't anticipate - my Warden must have added a tone I didn't expect!" Usually because the NPC's reaction, even when unantiicpated, could be understood with the words shown. But I can think of a few times when Hawke SAID things I didn't anticipate, and the majority of the time I felt like even when I knew what Hawke would be saying, he would often say it with a tone I did not enjoy. I usually always play a "nice" character my first playthrough, but Diplomatic Hawke grated on me, with his snotty tone. Sarcastic Hawek was a fun second playthrough... except when she said terribly insensitive things that were not funny in the least. And Aggressive Hawke I couldn't get through - he was yelling at everyone, all of the time. It wasn't like a Renegade Shepherd, where it was cool or fun to be a bad asp guy who didn't give a crap - it was playing a psychopath who had some serious rage issues, berating people constantly. Aggressive Hawke is probably the closest I've ever come to playing an evil character BY ACCIDENT. And that's not a good thing.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 septembre 2012 - 12:22 .

[upsettingshorts]

The My ideal RPG isn't like a movie, it's like a tabletop D&D

Fixed.

All that needs to be said really.  It doesn't change any of the points made thus far, nor challenge anyone agreeing with the original premise, only acknowledges the very real truth that not everyone wants D&D-inspired cRPGs, or wants them exclusively.

BioWare hasn't been making games like this since Baldur's Gate 2, though.  It is therefore not wrong for anyone, such as myself, to expect, desire, and (at least from them) prefer the cinematic RPG games they have come to be known for.

eroeru wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Eh, I'm dropping out of this conversation as it's already been beaten to death.

I was asked for an explanation and I gave it. I've already stated why "well he just misinterpreted it" doesn't work for me in other posts. It's just as jarring.

Do you mean that you don't believe the players who state that happening (and playing an importanr part in the RP) in Origins? Or do you deem that they should play their BW games differently?

 

I think it is as Sylvius often says:  In previous BioWare games, two different approaches to dialog were possible.  The one that acknowledged and worked with writer intent, and the one that ignored or dismissed writer intent as an obstacle to roleplaying.

Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect more or less support and enhance the experience for those who always played BioWare games the first way at the expense of those who did so the second way.  

It doesn't do anyone any good to deny that either approach exists, nor deny that things like a voiced protagonist clearly benefit one approach to the detriment of another.  

As to whether or not either player group is "wrong" in their approach is ultimately irrelevant.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 septembre 2012 - 01:25 .