298 réponses à ce sujet

[Kidd]

Quething wrote...

In the DA:O system, when the character is just standing there, you can have lines lead into each other however you want. You can insert entire optional loops into the conversation, and have any line lead to any other line in whatever way you want. You can give the player the ability to go off on tangents and the NPC to follow, and then let the player return at any point to the main conversation. You can offer two dialog options that both lead back to the same end result, and have one of them get there in three sentences and another meander through five sentences and a player choice.

You can't do that in "cinematic" conversations. If you want Aveline to pick up a Minrathous snowglobe and stare into it when you ask her about her vacation in Tevinter, you cannot let the player jump back to talking about grain distribution at any time. Because now she's on the wrong side of the room and has stuff in her hands, and the animation for her line about building new silos has her leaning forward over her desk. She needs to put down the snowglobe first and walk back to where she was standing before, or else she jumps magically across the room and breaks immersion.

Great point! Certainly a problem with adding so many animations, indeed. It is ultimately irrelevant to the wheel I believe, but it is certainly an issue that arises with cinematic presentation in itself. Hadn't thought of this =)



EDIT: Tabbed browsing failure. Missed to attach this quote =D

Yrkoon wrote...

This is a *great* point.  I wonder how many people here actually realize  the totality of what they're asking for when they say that a video game should give more of a Table-top feel.

I played Pen and paper D&D for the majority of my teen years.  it's a MULTI-PLAYER game, by definition, folks.   make no mistake about it.

I've always considered BW games to be pretty much P&P emulators, with the party members playing the roles of the other players' characters. The cRPG only offers the in-game world, and the other players are indeed there with their in-game avatars. It just so happens to be since it's a cRPG that only you can create different characters every time you play - though your different characters can often make the same party members change in dynamic ways.

That's how I've always looked at it, at least. A simulation of the RPG does not need to be multiplayer - though I've nothing against multiplayer in my RPGs either, mind you.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 14 septembre 2012 - 11:37 .

[Mr Fixit]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


The thirll of conversation in DA:O was the sheer simplicity of the ability to put your foot in your mouth. You could say just about anything and get a "Morrigan Disapproves" line. I never knew when talking with people in Origins if what I was choosing to say would gather me more information, move the conversation ahead so that I could not back track, or anger the person involved and end things abruptly. On one hand, it gave me great information as to what exact words my character would be saying, but, on the other hand, it never advertised the outcome of those choices.

The dialog wheel, I feel, accomplished the exact opposite. It didn't let me know exactly what I would be saying, but it clearly let me know the exact outcome of each choice. Which, I feel, diminishes some of the thrill in waiting to see an NPC's response. If I know an option will result in a fight, a bribe, an auto-win dialogu option (like the Star or the Companion options) or investigate, then I don't even have to know what my character is saying. 

In DA:O (and, ultimately in a PnP game), I had the freedom to suggest a great many things... but I didn't have the certainty of knowing they would be successful.

(...)


Such clarifications on the wheel made it less like choosing dialog and more metagaming.

Some excellent observations, Jimmy. With DA2 dialogue options, you are essentially choosing outcome. That's metagaming right there, hardcoded into the system.

Also, Quething makes some great points from the more technical side of things.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 14 septembre 2012 - 12:57 .

[Wulfram]

You're not choosing outcome in DA2 any more than in DA:O. There's no guarantee that they'll respond positively to your diplomacy, or back down in the face of your aggression, or romantically to your flirts.

I think if there is a problem with the wheel, it's that it reveals a bit too much of what's going on behind the curtain. Having dialogue be Nice/Neutral/Jerk + Investigates (with occasional flirts mixed in) has always been basically true, but the wheel is just a bit too blunt about showing us the formula.

[Mr Fixit]

Wulfram wrote...

You're not choosing outcome in DA2 any more than in DA:O. There's no guarantee that they'll respond positively to your diplomacy, or back down in the face of your aggression, or romantically to your flirts.

NPCs always take Hawke's diplomatic approach as diplomatic, sarcastic as sarcastic, and flirting as flirting. That he tries to be diplomatic should in no way mean that he is automatically perceived as such. And why should his flirting be accepted and understood as flirting, no questions asked? All people are biased and tend to colour the conversation with their preconceptions.

What DA2 dialogue system does is ensure that Hawke's intended meaning is universally regarded as such. You're right. We don't choose the outcome, but in a way we choose the NPC response.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 14 septembre 2012 - 01:25 .

[Wulfram]

Mr Fixit wrote...

NPCs always take Hawke's diplomatic approach as diplomatic, sarcastic as sarcastic, and flirting as flirting. That he tries to be diplomatic should in no way mean that he is automatically perceived as such. And why should his flirting be accepted as such, no questions asked? All people are biased and tend to colour the conversation with their preconceptions.

What DA2 dialogue system does is ensure that Hawke's intended meaning is universally regarded as such. You're right. We don't choose the outcome but in a way we choose the NPC response.

Aveline doesn't take Hawke's flirting as flirting.  Nor does Merrill in act 1.

What do you want?  For the NPCs to not understand basic communication?  It's not like people took the Warden's diplomatic dialogue choices as deadly threats.

There were occasions when the player might misunderstand how the line was intended to be delivered, resulting in stupid misunderstandings that it was impossible to clear up properly, but I'm not sure how that was a good thing.

[Das Tentakel]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

You're not choosing outcome in DA2 any more than in DA:O. There's no guarantee that they'll respond positively to your diplomacy, or back down in the face of your aggression, or romantically to your flirts.

NPCs always take Hawke's diplomatic approach as diplomatic, sarcastic as sarcastic, and flirting as flirting. That he tries to be diplomatic should in no way mean that he is automatically perceived as such. And why should his flirting be accepted and understood as flirting, no questions asked? All people are biased and tend to colour the conversation with their preconceptions.

What DA2 dialogue system does is ensure that Hawke's intended meaning is universally regarded as such. You're right. We don't choose the outcome, but in a way we choose the NPC response.

What the Wheel sort of takes away is that little bit of player agency that consists of interpretation of possible responses and choosing them.
Is response #1 sufficiently sarcastic? Is it sarcastic? If you have multiple () responses, even if they do not always elicit clearly different reactions, you have the potential for evoking a feeling of nuance in the player. 
It's a subtle effect and maybe not always done well, and I can imagine some players wanting upfront information about what their answers do *mechanically*, as well as having not too many options. It certainly seems to be a system that, at least potentially, allows for faster navigation of the dialog tree. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Mr. Fixit said... <snip>

This is probably a better representation of what I meant.

I have used Morrigan's romance as a prime example of something that would be extremely hard to accomplish with the dialogue wheel. Saying romantic things to her (something I would imagine would only be able to be demonstrated with the Heart Icon) would actually cause her to like you less, while saying comments like 'love is an illusion, there is only Zuul... I mean, power...' would progress the romance on. What would be the icon for that? A broken heart? That does not seem logical.

Of course, in DA2's system, you could threaten to collar her and throw her in the tower, come across as a love-smitten sap, do nice things for no reward for strangers, cheer for the Templars every chance you get and Rivalmance Morrigan quite easily. Just do everything she despise and can't respect and she will be eating out of your hand. Does... does any of that make sense? I don't feel like it does.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 septembre 2012 - 01:41 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Mr. Fixit said... <snip>

This is probably a better representation of what I meant.

I have used Morrigan's romance as a prime example of something that would be extremely hard to accomplish with the dialogue wheel. Saying romantic things to her (something I would imagine would only be able to be demonstrated with the Heart Icon) would actually cause her to like you less, while saying comments like 'love is an illusion, there is only Zuul... I mean, power...' would progress the romance on. What would be the icon for that? A broken heart? That does not seem logical.

Of course, in DA2's system, you could threaten to collar her and throw her in the tower, come across as a love-smitten sap, do nice things for no reward for strangers, cheer for the Templars every chance you get and Rivalmance Morrigan quite easily. Just do everything she despise and can't respect and she will be eating out of your hand. Does... does any of that make sense? I don't feel like it does.

Good call.

I much preffer dialogue trees where i can pick what I want my chracter to say, regardless of how people view that statement.

The player shouldn't have to have a game explain how to romance someone - if they pick the wrong lines then, much like saying the wrong thing in real life, it's all part of the experience.

[Brockololly]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
One of the problems I had with the dialogue wheel as opposed to a list of dialogue options, as seen in Origins, is that you don't know what is the Investigate option... if that makes any sense.

The thirll of conversation in DA:O was the sheer simplicity of the ability to put your foot in your mouth. You could say just about anything and get a "Morrigan Disapproves" line. I never knew when talking with people in Origins if what I was choosing to say would gather me more information, move the conversation ahead so that I could not back track, or anger the person involved and end things abruptly. On one hand, it gave me great information as to what exact words my character would be saying, but, on the other hand, it never advertised the outcome of those choices.

The dialog wheel, I feel, accomplished the exact opposite. It didn't let me know exactly what I would be saying, but it clearly let me know the exact outcome of each choice. Which, I feel, diminishes some of the thrill in waiting to see an NPC's response. If I know an option will result in a fight, a bribe, an auto-win dialogu option (like the Star or the Companion options) or investigate, then I don't even have to know what my character is saying. 

In DA:O (and, ultimately in a PnP game), I had the freedom to suggest a great many things... but I didn't have the certainty of knowing they would be successful. I could suggest bribing someone, but such an offer could result in the person taking offense or even starting a fight/battle. In such cases, I usually review the EXACT words my Warden (or my table-top character) chose and decided if the person I was talking to would be receptive to such an offer. In DA2, I knew it would be succesful regardless, because it gave the Bribe icon and not the Battle icon.

Such clarifications on the wheel made it less like choosing dialog and more metagaming. I can just blindly choose the Diplomatic option in every situation where the three options pull up to play a Diplomatic Hawke, and then make sure I explored all Investigate options if they appeared and then slide in the occassional special icon during certain situations. It removed the need to explore and think about conversation options for me. Mixing and matching the diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive options almost seemed to be penalized with the changing tone mechanic and wound up giving a somewhat disjointed experience. 

YES.

Thats one of my major issues with the dialogue wheel and paraphrases. It just makes for a very uninvolved experience. You don't even need to read any of the actual dialogues, you just end up picking a tone and plowing through the investigate options for the sake of completeness. Since you don't know what your player character is going to say, what point is there in bothering with the paraphrases? It just becomes very boring. And it gets to one of my other major problems with the dialogue wheel/paraphrases, which is that you cannot appreciate all of the dialogue options at once. In Origins and other games where you can see the full text of what you'll say, you can see all the possible options and appreciate what you might be able to say in their entirety and think how the NPC might respond.  You can look at the really evil sounding choice or the goofy choice and appreciate that option even if you don't select it.

Modifié par Brockololly, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:06 .

[Mr Fixit]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


I have used Morrigan's romance as a prime example of something that would be extremely hard to accomplish with the dialogue wheel. Saying romantic things to her (something I would imagine would only be able to be demonstrated with the Heart Icon) would actually cause her to like you less, while saying comments like 'love is an illusion, there is only Zuul... I mean, power...' would progress the romance on. What would be the icon for that? A broken heart? That does not seem logical. 

Exactly. In DA:O (and in any decent game, I'd say) you had to think before choosing a dialogue option. Romancing someone meant understanding his/her motivations and acting in accordance with that person's preferences. Does he want to be coddled or abused:innocent:? Does she need more personal space or does she want you to 'take initiative' or 'be creative'? That goes for other things as well, not only romance. What one person considers diplomatic and observant another may take as downright insulting.

A game should let NPCs make that choice. DA2, on the other hand, uses neon lights to signalise from a distance of several light years how Hawke will be understood.

I especially disliked those 'special' icons -- flirting, bribe, crossed swords etc -- because they tend to run with the abovementioned principle to the extreme. In order to bribe someone, you have to know what buttons to push. Is it money? Duty? Family? Honour? You don't just go in and magically "bribe" someone. Also, crossed swords. How does Hawke know that a dialogue option results in fighting? Maybe he's talking to sado-mazo character who just gets aroused the more Hawke yells and rattles his sabre (hmm, rattling a sabre... where was I?)

In short, I DO NOT WANT the outcome of my actions or the way they are recieved be advertised to me beforehands. It breaks the immersion, and it directly leads to metagaming.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:13 .

[Cultist]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
With the investigate you are functionally given 10 options (since the investigates are literally at the exact same point in the tree). It is akin to hitting "more..." in something like DAO, where I believe your limit of visible options for dialogue was actually specifically 5.

Investigate option never actually affected gameplay and was just a dialogue. Quests were not linked to any Investigate lines, so basically that option served those who wished to listen a bit more lore.
DA:O had different approach to conversations, not as complex as Fallout 2 has, but still more advanced than Agressive-Diplomatic-Neutral options we had in DA2. In DA:O we used all those 5 options as they were all viable so it was less complex than Planescape, Fallout or baldur's Gate, but still satisfactory to provide a variety of conversations.

[zyntifox]

Brockololly wrote...

YES.

Thats one of my major issues with the dialogue wheel and paraphrases. It just makes for a very uninvolved experience. You don't even need to read any of the actual dialogues, you just end up picking a tone and plowing through the investigate options for the sake of completeness. Since you don't know what your player character is going to say, what point is there in bothering with the paraphrases? It just becomes very boring. And it gets to one of my other major problems with the dialogue wheel/paraphrases, which is that you cannot appreciate all of the dialogue options at once. In Origins and other games where you can see the full text of what you'll say, you can see all the possible options and appreciate what you might be able to say in their entirety and think how the NPC might respond.  You can look at the really evil sounding choice or the goofy choice and appreciate that option even if you don't select it.

That's why i have always claimed that a game which futures paraphrasing, or as in DA2's case tone icons, is not a roleplaying game but a rolepicking game, or simply a interactive game. You are not playing a role but rather picking a role.

Modifié par Cstaf, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:30 .

[Nomen Mendax]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Exactly. In DA:O (and in any decent game, I'd say) you had to think before choosing a dialogue option. Romancing someone meant understanding his/her motivations and acting in accordance with that person's preferences. Does he want to be coddled or abused:innocent:? Does she need more personal space or does she want you to 'take initiative' or 'be creative'? That goes for other things as well, not only romance. What one person considers diplomatic and observant another may take as downright insulting.

A game should let NPCs make that choice. DA2, on the other hand, uses neon lights to signalise from a distance of several light years how Hawke will be understood.

I especially disliked those 'special' icons -- flirting, bribe, crossed swords etc -- because they tend to run with the abovementioned principle to the extreme. In order to bribe someone, you have to know what buttons to push. Is it money? Duty? Family? Honour? You don't just go in and magically "bribe" someone. Also, crossed swords. How does Hawke know that a dialogue option results in fighting? Maybe he's talking to sado-mazo character who just gets aroused the more Hawke yells and rattles his sabre (hmm, rattling a sabre... where was I?)

In short, I DO NOT WANT the outcome of my actions or the way they are recieved be advertised to me beforehands. It breaks the immersion, and it directly leads to metagaming.

I'm not saying the game was 100% in compliance with this but:

• The flirt icon tells you that your character is flirting, I don't have a problem with this at all since you should know what your character is trying to do.
• The crossed swords icon means your character is going to attack, being able to finish a conversation when you want to attack the other guy is a good thing (and something you couldn't generally do in DAO).

I agree that there is a problem if flirting (with a LI) always succeeds, or if the crossed sword icon magically makes the other guy attack, but I see nothing wrong with them if used properly.

Paraphrasing is also a problem since there is nothing to stop the game having two flirt lines (both with flirt icons) where one is successful and the other isn't, but then the writers need to find suitable paraphrases for each one.

[Wulfram]

They're not advertising the outcome, they're advertising the intent. Hawke knows when they're going to start a fight or offer money

[eroeru]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Given that many different people have very different goals when they play tabletop D&D (or other RPG systems) games, I think it's still a difficult thing to nail down.

Games are a difficult thing to nail down. But saying "bah, it's difficult, so let's just concentrate on lowest common denominators" is "half-assing" it and making a game of lowly qualities.

I might be a bit unfair with this quotation, but that's the general vibe I've gotten from the current team.

[Fast Jimmy]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

I'm not saying the game was 100% in compliance with this but:

• The flirt icon tells you that your character is flirting, I don't have a problem with this at all since you should know what your character is trying to do.
• The crossed swords icon means your character is going to attack, being able to finish a conversation when you want to attack the other guy is a good thing (and something you couldn't generally do in DAO).

I agree that there is a problem if flirting (with a LI) always succeeds, or if the crossed sword icon magically makes the other guy attack, but I see nothing wrong with them if used properly.

Paraphrasing is also a problem since there is nothing to stop the game having two flirt lines (both with flirt icons) where one is successful and the other isn't, but then the writers need to find suitable paraphrases for each one.

This actually gives me an idea for how the wheel could work... what if EVERY dialog option was like Investigate?

Hear me out. In ME and DA2, clicking investigate brought up another menu wheel where you get to decide how you would respond? For instance, clicking on the bribe option would bring up various options, including offering varying amounts, offering an item the NPC may want, or bribing with a favor, like setting up a date. Similarly, an aggressive option could lead to other options, such as yelling, threatening/bullying or even a passive-aggressive tone. The same could be done for the humor tone, for the romance optio, for the this could even be a 'Statt combat' option, where there would be different ways to start an attack, whether that be drawing the sword and rushing in or by goading your opponent into a rage. 

Just an idea. There would obviously be a big barrier to having that many recorded lines, but it could be an interesting option I think. 

[Fast Jimmy]

^ I apologize for the horrible typos. The BSN is not kind to those using phones.

[Nomen Mendax]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

This actually gives me an idea for how the wheel could work... what if EVERY dialog option was like Investigate?

Hear me out. In ME and DA2, clicking investigate brought up another menu wheel where you get to decide how you would respond? For instance, clicking on the bribe option would bring up various options, including offering varying amounts, offering an item the NPC may want, or bribing with a favor, like setting up a date. Similarly, an aggressive option could lead to other options, such as yelling, threatening/bullying or even a passive-aggressive tone. The same could be done for the humor tone, for the romance optio, for the this could even be a 'Statt combat' option, where there would be different ways to start an attack, whether that be drawing the sword and rushing in or by goading your opponent into a rage. 

Just an idea. There would obviously be a big barrier to having that many recorded lines, but it could be an interesting option I think. 

I like it, it would probably deal with many of my issues with lack of dialogue choice in DA2.  Unfortunately I think you are right about the number of recorded lines being a big barrier.  

[Wulfram]

I don't think every dialogue choice being like investigate is practical, but I like the idea for the equivalent of persuade checks.

Modifié par Wulfram, 14 septembre 2012 - 03:53 .

[EricHVela]

One must consider the medium of the game.

No digital system can accommodate all the variables of table-top D&D.

Table-top D&D is more about reacting to the situation by both the players and the DM. Rules can often apply to the same situation in different ways, or the group can bend and break them as necessary for the game. It's highly adaptive. That's not unlike improv acting/comedy where the story can flow wherever they wish (often with a few constraints to keep it from going to live on the sun in a setting of neanderthal days). In the same vein, adaptation makes the individual, unique story possible.

Digital RPGs can only handle a limit of variances. They do not adapt. Computer RPG products have somewhat defined computer RPGs as games of stats since the first attempts. Anything beyond that is pretty much a bonus. With several BWE games, we get a story system that has some adaptive qualities to it. That's more than what a lot of computer RPGs do. Be glad to have that, or else, you might as well stick to PnP D&D. The inability to adapt causes one to experience a story rather than create it.

EDIT: Clarity

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 14 septembre 2012 - 04:21 .

[Mr Fixit]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


This actually gives me an idea for how the wheel could work... what if EVERY dialog option was like Investigate?

Hear me out. In ME and DA2, clicking investigate brought up another menu wheel where you get to decide how you would respond? For instance, clicking on the bribe option would bring up various options, including offering varying amounts, offering an item the NPC may want, or bribing with a favor, like setting up a date. Similarly, an aggressive option could lead to other options, such as yelling, threatening/bullying or even a passive-aggressive tone. The same could be done for the humor tone, for the romance optio, for the this could even be a 'Statt combat' option, where there would be different ways to start an attack, whether that be drawing the sword and rushing in or by goading your opponent into a rage. 

Just an idea. There would obviously be a big barrier to having that many recorded lines, but it could be an interesting option I think. 

It's something I would support wholeheartedly. Two problems, however:

a) resources, as you mentioned. With the whole cinematic shtick, you'd have to not only record all those lines, which would quickly add up to an enormous amount of VO work and cost, but you'd also have to make an obscene amount of cutscene variations, what with BioWare loving all the enviro-play in their dialogues.

system would be pretty unwieldy with their current dialogue wheel. In order to review all the options, the player would need to click his way through a lot of those "investigate"/return menus.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 14 septembre 2012 - 04:37 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Wulfram wrote...

They're not advertising the outcome, they're advertising the intent. Hawke knows when they're going to start a fight or offer money

To be fair, I don't think this is as clear as it could have been in DA2.  I do think we could do a better job of making it obvious that the icon represents the player character's intent, rather than the explicit consequence of the choice.

[Allan Schumacher]

eroeru wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Given that many different people have very different goals when they play tabletop D&D (or other RPG systems) games, I think it's still a difficult thing to nail down.

Games are a difficult thing to nail down. But saying "bah, it's difficult, so let's just concentrate on lowest common denominators" is "half-assing" it and making a game of lowly qualities.

I might be a bit unfair with this quotation, but that's the general vibe I've gotten from the current team.

No, I'm stating making a general comment of "games should be like tabletop D&D" means different things to different people.

So now we just made our game an elaborate multiplayer client to allow people to play tabletop D&D remotely.  Does this satisfy the criteria?  Yes.  Is this what you were actually asking for?  No.

Okay, well there's some guys at work that really like to roll the dice and do elaborate combats and micromanage XP allocation.  That satisifies the definition, but is it what you actually wanted?

There's another group that straight up doesn't award xp at all.  The DM basically just decides periodically "okay I think we've been through enough that we should now level up."  So we should strip out experience from Dragon Age and just have plot state progression award level ups now, correct?  It satisfies the definition, but is it what you were really asking for?


If we happen to pick the exact definition that you want, it's likely you will be happy and probably not conclude that it's a "lowest common denominator" decision.  If it's NOT one that you like, no matter it's validity, does it become a situation where you now interpret that we're just appealing to the lowest common demoninator then?

[Fast Jimmy]

^
Blane,

While I totally agree that the digital medium has many limits, it can account for the limits about not being 100% dynamic by building in as much player choice as disc limitation and budget allows. Because while tabletop DMs can react to a situation on the fly, a team of two dozen writers can also say 'what would a player want to do in this situation' over the course of two years.

While they may not be quite as reactive given that it all has to be pre-scripted, if the thought is 'what would the player want to do' rather than 'the only way I can envision the story playing out is like this', then the game can, in a sense, be as much like a live DM as possible, but also have the rich companions and NPCs that are done better than watching your buddy try and fake a bad abritush accent, and to hide all of the dice rolling and mechanics in the background.

A computer game already has so many plusses with professional writing and acting to a system that can manage inventory and number crunch, that the only flaw that needs to be shore up to best a tabletop experience is to properly give players choice and, essentially, DM the encounter, rather than just write it as a play to be acted out to the letter.