191 réponses à ce sujet

[Iosev]

Rojahar wrote...

I like the investigate tree and knowing what options will allow me to gather more information, and which options will move the conversation forward. It's frustrating on the rare occasion it's unclear, and then I can never go back and ask a question I really wanted to get around to asking.

I forgot, this is also one of the reasons why I prefer the dialogue wheel.  I remember the first time playing DA:O and sometimes I prematurely ended a conversation because it wasn't always clear which responses were investigative and which were dialogue progressors.

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That's how Paragon/Renegade worked up until Mass Effect 3, where you were penalized for "inconsistency" (read: complexity and nuance) when future

I think the Miranda/Jack and Legion/Tali options in Mass Effect 2 had the same problem.

[Il Divo]

Maclimes wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Likewise, in what respect do the investigate options serve "no function at all?"  In what way is that different from investigate options in DAO which were not labeled as such, but still functioned in exactly the same manner?

The investigate options in DA2 were risk-free.  The player knows that the NPC will never make a decision or decide the conversation is over based on the PC asking questions.  As such, there's less drama in dialogue selection.

In DAO, you don't know which options will have consequences, so you need to choose more carefully when to ask questions or when to take a stand.  DA2 telegraphs everything for you.

That reminds me of the conversation with the leader of the dragon cult in the caves behind Haven (Krolgin? Something like that). I remember clicking on what I thought was a relatively innocent question, only to have him whig out at my blasphemy and start combat. 

It surprised the hell out of me, and I was in full-on panic-mode as I tried to juggle the combat along with my own worries of the long-term repercussions of what I had just done. On the one hand, that visceral feeling of surprise at the NPC's reaction was invigorarting and got my adreline pumping. On the other hand, I felt like I had less control over the game.

I know, I still had control over my character. But I distinctly remember the thought, "Stupid game! There should be some sort of indicator that what you're about to do will drastically change things!" But now, after having played DA2 I realized ... I missed it. That feeling of surprise and excitement over how people would react to my words and actions. DA2 felt so ... scripted.

Haha, I made that same mistake. I ended up reloading, but it was still one of my most enjoyable moments with that game with this huge guy suddenly wailing on me. I'd actually like it alot if innocent questions could have more extreme results, even beyond combat. It keeps things interesting and me on my toes.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:27 .

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You cannot assert on one hand that you are against the paraphrases because they do not telegraph everything for you, and then be against the investigate options being in their own category because they do telegraph everything for you without being inconsistent.

The paragraphs fail to telegraph your character's actions, the investigate telegraph other character's actions, or rather lack of them.  Different.

Modifié par Wulfram, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:28 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Let me put that another way.

In DAO, you don't know what the outcome of your choices will be. You can't tell how NPCs will react. This means that you need to make dialogue choices such that you're happy with how your character behaved, regardless of the outcome. If your character fails, you need to know that you failed the way your would like to have failed - being true to your character. If your character succeeds, then it is your character who succeeded, not just you picking your way through a dialogue minigame.

In DA2, the icons and wheel positions tell us what the outcomes of our choices would be. Hawke never says something that starts a fight without you having intended it. Hawke never says anything that's taken as flirtatous without you having intended it. As such, DA2 rewards the minigame approach rather than the character-centric approach. The DA2 player doesn't need to worry about whether he's making choices that suit his character because his character never has to pay for thoce choices.

DA2's approach to dialogue is very player-centric, while DAO's approach to dialogue is very character-centric.

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You cannot assert on one hand that you are against the paraphrases because they do not telegraph everything for you, and then be against the investigate options being in their own category because they do telegraph everything for you without being inconsistent.

The paragraphs fail to telegraph your character's actions, the investigate telegraph other character's actions.  Different.

It's a UI.  It conveys information about options.  Not different.

[Naughty Bear]

Kingroxas wrote...

Liked the way Deus Ex: Human Revolution did it.

This, depending on the situation, you don't have good or bad choices. The dialogue options are to reply in sarcasm, condescending, cold, altruistic or helpful. I liked that.

However, as a quiet guy, i would like an option like in The Walking Dead game where even if you don't reply and stay quiet is still answer. I do this myself, i listen but i don't reply. Or i am ignoring you.

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's a UI.  It conveys information about options.  Not different.

In one case it's failing to convey information that your character should be aware of - what am I going to say next?
In the other it's conveying information that the character isn't aware of - how will the other guy react to what I'm saying?

Big difference

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Let me put that another way.

In DAO, you don't know what the outcome of your choices will be.

Excepting the ones that say [Attack], of course.  I also can't be certain that there aren't options in DA2 that lack an attack icon that also result in an attack.  I thought the attack icon in DA2 was an indication of the PC initiating combat instead of having it initiated at them, I legitimately do not remember though.

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

 You can't tell how NPCs will react. This means that you need to make dialogue choices such that you're happy with how your character behaved, regardless of the outcome. If your character fails, you need to know that you failed the way your would like to have failed - being true to your character. If your character succeeds, then it is your character who succeeded, not just you picking your way through a dialogue minigame.

I do not see how this is different in  DA2 at all, besides knowledge of which conversation options will not advance the interaction to the next "tier."  This has advantages as I have explained.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...  

In DA2, the icons and wheel positions tell us what the outcomes of our choices would be. Hawke never says something that starts a fight without you having intended it.

How do you start a fight without having intended it?  Even if you ****** someone off to the point violence is inevitable, they started the fight.

Furthermore, you can also select the Joke icon and have other characters think it isn't funny at all.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...   

Hawke never says anything that's taken as flirtatous without you having intended it. As such, DA2 rewards the minigame approach rather than the character-centric approach.

Hawke does say things that aren't taken as flirtatous even though it was intended to be, primarily with Merrill.

This I will agree with you on in general, but the people screaming about the annoyance of so-called "ninjamances" were really, really loud.  I don't think either you or I had many problems with that, though.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...    

The DA2 player doesn't need to worry about whether he's making choices that suit his character because his character never has to pay for thoce choices.

Sometimes Sylvius I think we're playing different games.

Wulfram wrote...

In one case it's failing to convey information that your character should be aware of - what am I going to say next?
In the other it's conveying information that the character isn't aware of - how will the other guy react to what I'm saying?

Big difference

 

I disagree due to the argument above about what a UI is for, and why the player knowing which conversation options will advance to another tier of conversation is important.  

Furthermore, if you are roleplaying, why would you let your knowledge of what options will do what interfere with what your character would do in any given situation?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:36 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Good. 

I thought you hated when the UI was obfuscatory.

Your response is very player-centric.

I want to know when I am simply attempting to clarify and when I am trying to move on.  In real life, if I wanted to go back and ask a question, I could do that.

 
No you can't.  You can't make people listen.  You can't undo someone else's choices.  Once the person you're talking to has drawn a conclusion, you're stuck with that.  Real-world conversation is a minefield.  DA2's conversation is risk-free.

In a game, once I have advanced the conversation the investigate options are often gone forever.  Putting them in their own category acknowledges this possibility and gives the player clear options.

 
Yes it does.

But the character shouldn't have clear options.  The character shouldn't know the minds of others. 

This does not harm roleplaying in any way.  Whether your character would ask an investigatory question, or would select one of the right sided options, has nothing to do with whether or not you, as a player, know only the ones on the right side will "advance" the conversation.  The character has no idea the UI even exists.  It exists for the player's convenience.

It's hard not to succeed when there's an "I win" button.

You cannot assert on one hand that you are against the paraphrases because they do not telegraph everything for you, and then be against the investigate options being in their own category because they do telegraph everything for you without being inconsistent.

This is nonsense.  Of course I can do that.

I object to the paraphrases because they don't tell me what my character will do.  I need to know what he will do, because I'm ostensibly making his choices for him, and he would obviously know what he's going to do.  Unless you think people spouting random phrases that bear no resemblance to what they'd wanted to say is an accurate representation of how real people behave, DA2's paraphrases completely deny you credible control over Hawke's motives.

I object to the icons and wheel positions because they tell me what the NPCs will do, and that's not something I should know.  Other people are unpredictable.  When you speak, you don't know how they'll respond.  You need to choose what to say hoping it will produce the response you would like.  You need to weigh the risks of getting the wrong response against the benefits of expressing yourself honestly.  DA2 reduces that risk to zero.

[Yevetha]

They could move the wheel to the left side of the screen and around the wheel are the general options. (please at least 3 options, but up to 8 would be cool if they are distinct) Stff like flirt, agree, disagree, attack, wise crack, etc. Then in the space to the right of the wheel, as you highlight each option it actually tells you what your PC will say.

Edit:  I didn't care for the icons in DA2.

Modifié par Yevetha, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:38 .

[eroeru]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

eroeru wrote...

For this, please remove the icons and the fixed positions of every line (i.e. Investigate to the left with sublines that have no function at all, 1-upper-right, 2-middle-right, 3-bottom-right). This was horrible in DA2. It killed any sense of involvment, all I had were lines with either no function or EXACTLY ONE AND THE SAME FUNCTION, throughout the game,

...clarity removes "involvement?"  Only if you allow it to.  This is you playing the game wrong.  

Likewise, in what respect do the investigate options serve "no function at all?"  In what way is that different from investigate options in DAO which were not labeled as such, but still functioned in exactly the same manner?

 


Yes, clarity of function removes involvment in that I didn't have anything to contemplate on when dialogue prompted. I just went "investigate-options, upper-right" mindlessly. It didn't have me thinking about what different answers would do. It was all too clear to be natural - it was rather "preset".

But I said it wrongly when stating there was only one function. There were two. (mostly pro-mage and antimage). Moreso that it was often linked with a type of personality. If I wanted to be anti-anything, it was bound to be in an angered tone.

Maybe DA:O didn't have very many instances where the functions of picked dialogue differed vastly, and it mostly also went "pro" or "anti" (yet with a neutral option more often than in DA2), yet it didn't feel redundant, and (maybe as an "illusion", which is already a success for the game-mechanic) felt far more natural in 1. how I needed to think about the lines to pick them, and 2. how many different types of NPC-reactions were possible. 

Upsettingshorts wrote... 

eroeru wrote... 

albeit with different personalities speaking it (also a fault). 

Explain.

Multiple-personality-disorder-Hawke.

Modifié par eroeru, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:48 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No you can't.  You can't make people listen.  You can't undo someone else's choices.  Once the person you're talking to has drawn a conclusion, you're stuck with that.  Real-world conversation is a minefield.  DA2's conversation is risk-free.

If this is the part where you tell me every conversation in my entire life is invalid because it doesn't fit in with your idiosyncratic paradigm of human interaction, we're done with this conversation.  Reading the rest of your post, it's clear we've reached that point.

If you couldn't have predicted that response from me, then I really don't know what to tell you.

[oui_je_danse]

Maclimes wrote...

Look, I know everyone is entitled to their opinions, and lord knows we all have them. But to those of you just saying, "No wheel at all"... it's not helpful. Bioware has outright said, without question, that the dialogue wheel will be in the game. Let's try to keep the comments to ways that the wheel can be improved and implemented, instead of just saying, "No wheel".

This! Everyone has different preferences. Let's discuss what might actually be possible.

[Maclimes]

I know you're having a fun discussion, but before you get too deeply involved, remember that the devs have already stated, without question, that the wheel is in. And it was heavily implied (unless my memory is failing me) that the icons are in, too.

[upsettingshorts]

 

eroeru wrote... 

Multiple-personality-disorder-Hawke.

I hate that argument.  I don't even know where to begin.  It's total nonsense.   Do you really never alter your tone of voice, diction, or rhetoric depending on the idea you're trying to convey?  Furthermore, if you personally communicate only in a single manner at all times regardless of circumstances, do you also assert that this is how most people interact?

Some things made my Hawke mad.  Some things made my Hawke take a more measured tone.  Some things made my Hawke laugh out loud.  That is how a neurotypical person behaves, not someone exclusively with "multiple personality disorder."   Most people do not have a "set personality" but a complex, conditional one that varies from person to person.

eroeru wrote...

Yes, clarity of function removes involvment in that I didn't have anything to contemplate on when dialogue prompted. I just went "investigate-options, upper-right" mindlessly. It didn't have me thinking about what different answers would do. It was all too clear to be natural - it was rather "preset".

That's your problem.  You decided not to consider the options because they were organized in a more consistent way.  The game in no way requires you to do this.

Maclimes wrote...

I know you're having a fun discussion, but before you get too deeply involved, remember that the devs have already stated, without question, that the wheel is in. And it was heavily implied (unless my memory is failing me) that the icons are in, too.

Perhaps you should check Sylvius' current signature, heh.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:53 .

[eroeru]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No you can't.  You can't make people listen.  You can't undo someone else's choices.  Once the person you're talking to has drawn a conclusion, you're stuck with that.  Real-world conversation is a minefield.  DA2's conversation is risk-free.

If this is the part where you tell me every conversation in my entire life is invalid because it doesn't fit in with your idiosyncratic paradigm of human interaction, we're done with this conversation.  Reading the rest of your post, it's clear we've reached that point.

If you couldn't have predicted that response from me, then I really don't know what to tell you.

Now, if in real life, you think of something to say that will simply "investigate" - can you really be certain of that neutral effect? Will it really not progress anything anywhere other than giving you a few lines of info, as in DA2.

No, in fact all "lines" spoken in real life alters something, fro example the other person's disposition. 

And all people including you will maybe have maybe 3 times that a line you ask "risk-free" and without expecting anything more than a set, neutral, infomertial in respone, will work by your expectations. The forth time it will bring an emotional response, maybe. And on the fifth time you'll get one which will embark you on a quest! On the sixth...

Well, the point is that you won't know the result of you asking something as you do with ALL options in DA2 (even if tiny bits and pieces of that function may remain "open" with right-side responses).

Modifié par eroeru, 21 septembre 2012 - 08:00 .

[upsettingshorts]

eroeru wrote...

Now, if in real life, you think of something to say that will simply "investigate" - can you really be certain of that neutral effect? Will it really not progress anything anywhere other than giving you a few lines of info, as in DA2.

No, but in real life I can re-orient the conversation back towards a previous point of inquiry.  Examples of interactions with legitimate "points of no return" do happen, but they are fairly rare in my experience.  Similarly, there are instances in DA2 (and DAO) where no investigative options are even available - because the conversation is... escalatory. 

eroeru wrote... 

No, in fact all "lines" spoken in real life alters something, fro example the other person's disposition.

And as soon as games can simulate that, I'll change my position.  

If BioWare wanted to open up investigate options so, certain circumstances aside (like, they hate you now), you could literally ask anyone anything about any previous conversation at any time, I might also change my position.  But that would be extremely unwieldy to implement. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 septembre 2012 - 08:03 .

[oui_je_danse]

The important thing for everyone to remember is that no one system of dialogue is best for everyone.

I find the dialogue wheel in DA2 the best for how I roleplay my Hawkes. They have a general disposition, like diplomatic, but can be very aggresive towards templars or sarcastic around authority figures. I like choosing how Hawke reacts. In DA:O I was constantly reading the dialogue in a different tone than other characters seemed to receive.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
In DAO, you don't know what the outcome of your choices will be. You can't tell how NPCs will react. This means that you need to make dialogue choices such that you're happy with how your character behaved, regardless of the outcome. If your character fails, you need to know that you failed the way your would like to have failed - being true to your character. If your character succeeds, then it is your character who succeeded, not just you picking your way through a dialogue minigame.

In DA2, the icons and wheel positions tell us what the outcomes of our choices would be. Hawke never says something that starts a fight without you having intended it. Hawke never says anything that's taken as flirtatous without you having intended it. As such, DA2 rewards the minigame approach rather than the character-centric approach. The DA2 player doesn't need to worry about whether he's making choices that suit his character because his character never has to pay for thoce choices.

This is an excellent point. I would agree that more surprises would be better. Things like combat or other characters misunderstanding you. DA2 did have some moments where other characters disaproved of your tone, but that was mostly towards sarcastic comments.

That being said; I still believe I had a richer roleplay experience with the wheel. It needs improvement, but the basic idea of using symbols is an excellent one.

[Il Divo]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

No, but in real life I can re-orient the conversation back towards a previous point of inquiry.  Examples of interactions with legitimate "points of no return" do happen, but they are fairly rare in my experience.  Similarly, there are instances in DA2 (and DAO) where no investigative options are even available - because the conversation is... escalatory. 

This was especially odd with games like Mass Effect when dealing with characters who ostensibly were meant to help you, like Vigil. Alot of the investigate options operated on a point of no return, but it's not clear why a character would not have the option to re-orient a conversation, especially since in this case Vigil's very existence was intended to supply information.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

If this is the part where you tell me every conversation in my entire life is invalid because it doesn't fit in with your idiosyncratic paradigm of human interaction, we're done with this conversation.  Reading the rest of your post, it's clear we've reached that point.

I can't tell what the word "invalid" means in this statement.

If you couldn't have predicted that response from me, then I really don't know what to tell you.

I certainly didn't.  I was hoping you would respond to the bit at the end where I drew the line between controlling the PC and controlling NPCs, and why being able to do one is good while being able to do the other is bad.

Actually, if I could control the NPCs independently of the PC, that would be fine.  DA2 creates problems by effectively letting Hawke control the NPCs, and that's what breaks the setting.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

How do you start a fight without having intended it?  Even if you ****** someone off to the point violence is inevitable, they started the fight.

But you can't do even that without intending it.  And Hawke always seems to know when a fight is going to break out as a result of his words, because it's always him who throws the first murder knife.

Hawke is proactive to an absurd degree.  He's never caught off-guard.  He's this super-heroic character who's always in control of every situation, and that's just not believable.  More importantly, it's not interesting, and I have have no desire to play it.

Furthermore, you can also select the Joke icon and have other characters think it isn't funny at all.

Don't get me started on the joke icon.  What someone finds funny differs from person to person.  In DAO, any line could be delivered as a joke.  In DA2, there's only ever one joke available, and the player doesn't get to know in advance whether it's a joke his character would make.

I don't think I ever chose the Joke icon after I realised how it worked.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 21 septembre 2012 - 08:14 .

[upsettingshorts]

oui_je_danse wrote...

This is an excellent point. I would agree that more surprises would be better. Things like combat or other characters misunderstanding you. DA2 did have some moments where other characters disaproved of your tone, but that was mostly towards sarcastic comments.

This is another point at which the game experience and real life experience butt heads.

It's possible, in real life, to explain and re-word.  Which isn't to say that it's impossible for your original intent to be so off the mark as to poison the entire conversation, but simple misunderstandings can be swiftly corrected.  This is not possible because as much as the forum likes to throw the word around, conversations in BioWare games are not truly dynamic.  Because such a thing won't exist until AI is, well, in an entirely different league than where it is now.

Reasonable people can argue over whether or not the steps DA2 (and other games) take to reduce the likelihood of being misunderstood are good ones, or worth the price, but misunderstandings in games simply cannot yet be corrected the way they can in real life.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I was hoping you would respond to the bit at the end where I drew the line between controlling the PC and controlling NPCs, and why being able to do one is good while being able to do the other is bad.

I don't think theres any common ground there.  

I see your arguments against the paraphrase as a UI argument, and I am treating this too as a UI argument.

When I argue in favor of differentiating between investigate and advancing options, it is because the inability to go back is bad and, in my mind, typically unrealistic.  As such, I acknowledge that putting them in their own section does give the player information the character wont have, but it does it so that I will not be frustrated by a lack of control (options that disappear forever despite that almost never being the case in real life interactions) .

That you disagree on both points means we're going to get nowhere, because I think if we keep following it we're just going to end up back where we always do:  Disagreeing over what these games are, what they can do well, and where they ought to go in the future.  

Edit:  Whoops,  I had been editing this post thinking I was starting a new one.  Some content may be newer than responses that follow.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 septembre 2012 - 08:24 .

[eroeru]

oui_je_danse wrote...
I would agree that more surprises would be better.

That is all for this topic.

They could do better for DA:O, but they definitely MUST do better than DA2. DA2 was such a downfall in this department (which partains to "believability") that many are struck with disappointment over this. No more backwards thinking and cheap gimmicks please.

[Uccio]

Hopefully it will be removed and replaced by DAO text lines.

[Faroth]

I didn't like the dialogue wheel either, but I felt the voiced protagonist lost a lot of personality of being MY character.

It's just someone else's character I'm watching go through their story. I particularly HATE the way the dialogue wheel with icons dumbs it down to "Be aggressive, be nice, be silly"

Seriously, why even put the sentence at all, just leave the icons and we can choose to be nice, mean, or silly and see the results voiced out.