191 réponses à ce sujet

[Korusus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

That gets into that whole choices and consequences thing.  Knowing what you are going to say, but not knowing how what you say is going to be received is as close to real conversation as is humanly possible.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

I'm claiming that DAO (and KotOR, NWN, and BG) already simulated that.  Since you can't read the NPC's mind, there's no reason (from an in-character pespective) to believe this isn't happening.

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.

A keyword dialogue system would handle this extremely well.  We've seen this in other games.  This is how Ultima IV worked, 27 years ago.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

I'm claiming that DAO (and KotOR, NWN, and BG) already simulated that.  Since you can't read the NPC's mind, there's no reason (from an in-character pespective) to believe this isn't happening.

I'll skip the usual lengthy explanation and say "not to my satisfaction."

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

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.

A keyword dialogue system would handle this extremely well.  We've seen this in other games.  This is how Ultima IV worked, 27 years ago.

If we're going to go back to full text, sure.  But that rules out the silent protagonist with a fully-voiced cast, which I hate.  So it'd be better than Origins to me.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 septembre 2012 - 08:26 .

[upsettingshorts]

Faroth wrote...

I particularly HATE the way the dialogue wheel with icons dumbs it down to "Be aggressive, be nice, be silly"

It doesn't. You played the game wrong. This is still partially BioWare's fault, a failure to recognize that their audience has been conditioned in such a way that would lead to so many people playing the game wrong wasn't something they did enough to combat.

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

[Korusus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Faroth wrote...

I particularly HATE the way the dialogue wheel with icons dumbs it down to "Be aggressive, be nice, be silly"

It doesn't. You played the game wrong. This is still partially BioWare's fault, a failure to recognize that their audience has been conditioned in such a way that would lead to so many people playing the game wrong wasn't something they did enough to combat.

Oh so you mean that all those times the autodialogue kicked in and had my Hawke spout lines based on my most-often chosen tone didn't really happen?

[upsettingshorts]

Korusus wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Faroth wrote...

I particularly HATE the way the dialogue wheel with icons dumbs it down to "Be aggressive, be nice, be silly"

It doesn't. You played the game wrong. This is still partially BioWare's fault, a failure to recognize that their audience has been conditioned in such a way that would lead to so many people playing the game wrong wasn't something they did enough to combat.

Oh so you mean that all those times the autodialogue kicked in and had my Hawke spout lines based on my most-often chosen tone didn't really happen?

Oh so you mean that thing I wasn't talking about at all is what I was talking about?  No, I was in fact not talking about the personality tracking in Dragon Age 2.

That is a seperate issue.  The tone/paraphrase option characterization Faroth is presenting that I am objecting to would exist with or without said tracking.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 septembre 2012 - 08:35 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It doesn't. You played the game wrong.

You keep using this phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means. 

But... assuming such a statement could even be true, then you are right - it IS Bioware's fault that they did not properly explain their system. Which, just like many features in DA2, we're not documented or given a tutorial for. How many people played through the entire game and did not even know about the Cross class Combos, a feature they championed pre-release to no end? There is almost no explanation of how it works or when to use it. 

Also, I do not believe any player can play the game wrong when it comes to a dialogue system. People fundamentally understand language and how it works. If your dialogue system runs counter-intuitive to that inherent nature, then it is a failure of the system, not of the player. I'd wager the average gamer who played Dragon Age 2 has more linguistic experience than the average Bioware developer has programming experience. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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. 

But similarly, if you actually misspeak in real life, you can correct yourself.

DAO avoids this by not letting you misspeak.  DA2, though, forces you to misspeak, and offers no way back to correct it.

If we accept that miunderstandings should be correctable, then we should also accept that misspeaking should be correctable.  That would make the changes from DAO to DA2, at best, a lateral move.

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 makes sense.

We disagree about the realism - I think losing options forever is something that does routinely happen, and needs to be constantly guaraded against, while you think it's a extremely rare occurence.

Okay, I'll give you that.  Since I can find my way around that by employing a more robust compartmentalisation of my thoughts compared to my character's thoughts, I'll drop my objection to the explicit positioning of different kinds of options on the wheel.

I still think the wheel is inefficient as UI (it doesn't leave enough space for the options, and the options aren't numbered), but in terms of this new information it provides I think it provides you more value than it costs me.  

You've convinced me.

[Korusus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Korusus wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Faroth wrote...

I particularly HATE the way the dialogue wheel with icons dumbs it down to "Be aggressive, be nice, be silly"

It doesn't. You played the game wrong. This is still partially BioWare's fault, a failure to recognize that their audience has been conditioned in such a way that would lead to so many people playing the game wrong wasn't something they did enough to combat.

Oh so you mean that all those times the autodialogue kicked in and had my Hawke spout lines based on my most-often chosen tone didn't really happen?

Oh so you mean that thing I wasn't talking about at all is what I was talking about?  No, I was in fact not talking about the personality tracking in Dragon Age 2.

That is a seperate issue.  The tone/paraphrase option characterization Faroth is presenting that I am objecting to would exist with or without said tracking.

Your claim is that he/she is playing the game wrong, as if the game didn't give a valid ingame reason to always choose the same dialogue option.  It does.  You can choose whatever tone you want in the conversation in the context of that conversation, but only at the expense of later on not knowing what is going to come out of Hawke's mouth at all.  At all.  That has everything to do with the game presenting the choices to you as "be aggressive, be nice, be silly"...the autodialogue segments encourage that.

Modifié par Korusus, 21 septembre 2012 - 08:45 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm claiming that DAO (and KotOR, NWN, and BG) already simulated that.  Since you can't read the NPC's mind, there's no reason (from an in-character pespective) to believe this isn't happening.

I'll skip the usual lengthy explanation and say "not to my satisfaction."

You can solve this problem exactly the same way you've just asked me to solve the wheel position problem (which is a viable solution, and I've accepted it).

If you compartmentalise your character's thoughts, he won't know that the NPCs are scripted.

 If we're going to go back to full text, sure.  But that rules out the silent protagonist with a fully-voiced cast, which I hate.  So it'd be better than Origins to me.

You could still have voiced PC lines based on the keywords - the keywords would function as the paraphrases do now.

[upsettingshorts]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It doesn't. You played the game wrong.

You keep using this phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I've actually carefully considered this.  I only break out "you did it wrong" in one case, despite my numerous disagremeents with many people over many things, and this is it.

Fast Jimmy wrote... 

But... assuming such a statement could even be true, then you are right - it IS Bioware's fault that they did not properly explain their system.

They did on the boards fairly well, but not in things like the manual or marketing.  

Fast Jimmy wrote... 

Also, I do not believe any player can play the game wrong when it comes to a dialogue system. 

They can, and it comes down to expectations.

Given how Mass Effect presented its Paragon/Renegade system as two paths, and indeed until ME3 you were actively punished for not following one or the other exclusively, there was a built in expectation that once DA2 introduced the dialogue wheel and tone icons (that share three colors) that it would operate in a similar manner.

Look around, you see countless people talking about how there were "three personalities for Hawke" and others still that claim that Hawke can have "multiple personality disorder," the same criticism levelled at a Shepard who flips between Paragon and Renegade.  That is a problem, and it's a problem of playing the game wrong.

Despite the entirely reactive personality tracking (which does not lock you into or out of future dialogue opportunies the same way ME1-2 does), Dragon Age 2's system does not work in at all the same fashion.  Each dialogue choice is an opportunity to pick whichever option you want, for whichever reason you want.  There are also more icons than the three basic colors offer (it's BioWare's fault, yes, for making them three distinct colors - reinforcing the same incorrect expectation). Red includes both a Direct icon and an Aggressive icon.

The game does, yes, track what your character is doing most often, but it does so dynamically.  In Act 1, my character was leaning towards diplomatic.  By Act 3, he was so fed up with everyone around him with such consistency that the tracking had swung around to be more direct.  This provided him with an arc that the game reacted to and recognized.

That is hardly as simple as "pick red, purple, or blue."  If you are limiting yourself by thinking of the game in those terms, you are playing the game wrong.

Korusus wrote...

Your claim is that he/she is playing the game wrong, as if the game didn't give a valid ingame reason to always choose the same dialogue option.  It does.  You can choose whatever tone you want in the conversation in the context of that conversation, but only at the expense of later on not knowing what is going to come out of Hawke's mouth at all.  At all.  That has everything to do with the game presenting the choices to you as "be aggressive, be nice, be silly"...the autodialogue segments encourage that.

You are overstating the impact of the autodialogue and ignoring the potential it represents as I describe above with my character's "arc."  DA2 is not ME3. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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. 

But similarly, if you actually misspeak in real life, you can correct yourself.

DAO avoids this by not letting you misspeak.  DA2, though, forces you to misspeak, and offers no way back to correct it.

If we accept that miunderstandings should be correctable, then we should also accept that misspeaking should be correctable.  That would make the changes from DAO to DA2, at best, a lateral move.

I would agree that there is work to be done to both reduce the number of instances of... potentially misspeaking.  Given that the potential is always there, I don't see the problem with making contingencies to recognize that games aren't really dynamic enough to allow us to correct them.  Such as differentiating between investigate/advance dialogues.

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

Okay, I'll give you that.  Since I can find my way around that by employing a more robust compartmentalisation of my thoughts compared to my character's thoughts, I'll drop my objection to the explicit positioning of different kinds of options on the wheel.

I still think the wheel is inefficient as UI (it doesn't leave enough space for the options, and the options aren't numbered), but in terms of this new information it provides I think it provides you more value than it costs me.  

You've convinced me.

I would say that is fair.  Your characterization of the wheel as broadly inefficient included. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 septembre 2012 - 08:51 .

[Last Vizard]

I personally like the many options of DA: O, just wish the options let you know what emotion the character is displaying when they talk to the NPC.

[upsettingshorts]

Last Vizard wrote...

I personally like the many options of DA: O, just wish the options let you know what emotion the character is displaying when they talk to the NPC.

The writers have explained many, many times that the number of options in any given conversation is the same between DAO and DA2.

DA2's are just organized and presented differently.  That is where the controversy lies.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 septembre 2012 - 08:53 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Having the icons certainly steered you into playing a character with a certain consisitency as in Nice, Snarky and Jerk. Most of my options for dialogue I was choosing without even bothering to read the paraphrasing, or putting anythought to how I would have answered myself. With my Origins characters I went up and down the whole personality spectrum depending on the scenario.

I don't think getting rid of icons will help because its just like mass effect; good is the top answer and renegade is the bottom.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Upsetting... I don't often say this, but I disagree, in a fundamental way, with just about everything that you typed in response to my post.

ME used the dialogue wheel to their advantage and the Paragon/Renegade feature to its fullest. In ME1, you can play a New Game+ character and have max Renegade and Paragon points with no problem at all and can attain high levels of both on your first playthrough regardless. Only the most difficult persuasion options will be locked if you played a player who did a truly even split. ME3's reputation system eliminates this problem altogether. So this is only an issue in ME2, hardly a trend across the whole series.

Secondly, your example of your Hawke's arc is nice, but it is one example of roleplaying that is both, at once, narrow and shallow.

DA2 does allow you to play a character who's tone changes over time, which could allow one to roleplay a character with a changed attitude - but it is an illusion. If you have an aggressive tone, but use the sarcastic dialogue option, the NPC will react exactly the same as if you had played a sarcastic character the entire time. The only difference the game offers you is the sight of seeing your character speak angrily while saying something funny, which no one acknowledges. This type of isolated acting is just as ineffective as head canon, which a silent PC accomplishes much better.

Also, while your character can go through this arc, I cannot, for example, choose all diplomatic options when dealing with Mages and all aggressive options when dealing with Templars and not come off as a raving lunatic. And, given the nature of the conflict in DA2, that seems asinine. DA2's system lets you change if you want to play nice with everyone and then later be mean with everyone, but if you want to be nice to a certain group of people, mean to another, across the entire game? It breaks down and fails.

How would being kind to a side you sympathize with and mean with a side you dislike mean I am playing the game wrong? It results in me yelling nice things at allies and saying aggressive threats like a pansy to my enemies. That is a sign of a broken system.

EDIT: Also, forum explanations or even marketing is never a place your mechanics should be explained in depth. In game tutorials or manuals should explain everything you need to know. If someone finds your video game in a box on the street, nothing should prevent them from understanding your mechanics. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 21 septembre 2012 - 09:12 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

They did on the boards fairly well, but not in things like the manual or marketing. 

The manual is where it belongs.

I missed their explanation about how the DA2 dialogue system worked.  Partly because I religiously avoid these fora right after release of a new game because they're rife with spoilers.

I still don't think I understand DA2's dialogue system.

Each dialogue choice is an opportunity to pick whichever option you want, for whichever reason you want.

Ignoring the limitations of the paraphrases, this is true.

There are also more icons than the three basic colors offer (it's BioWare's fault, yes, for making them three distinct colors - reinforcing the same incorrect expectation). Red includes both a Direct icon and an Aggressive icon.

BioWare's greater failing, here, was in not documenting what those icons meant.

That is hardly as simple as "pick red, purple, or blue."  If you are limiting yourself by thinking of the game in those terms, you are playing the game wrong.

I completely agree.

I would agree that there is work to be done to both reduce the number of instances of... potentially misspeaking.  Given that the potential is always there, I don't see the problem with making contingencies to recognize that games aren't really dynamic enough to allow us to correct them.  Such as differentiating between investigate/advance dialogues.

Granted.  But then you should also grant that full-text options help us avoid misspeaking.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 21 septembre 2012 - 09:07 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

I personally like the many options of DA: O, just wish the options let you know what emotion the character is displaying when they talk to the NPC.

The writers have explained many, many times that the number of options in any given conversation is the same between DAO and DA2.

It terms of the number of different lines available, you are correct.

In terms of the number of different ways those lines could be delivered, you are not.

And even the first point ignores the possibility that the DAO lines are abstractions rather than literal dialogue.

[upsettingshorts]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

ME used the dialogue wheel to their advantage and the Paragon/Renegade feature to its fullest.

It forces you into one of two characters and tosses nuance out the damn window.  It doesn't help that one of the two characters is a totally inconsistent mess.   It also forces us to accept one of two ethical standards, neither of which is open to our interpretation.  I cannot, as in your DA2 example, treat one group of people with contempt and another with genuine kindness without the system literally stripping my future options away.

If by "used to their advantage" you mean "built two games around a broken premise that should have stayed in KOTOR" then yes, they did.

Fast Jimmy wrote... 

Secondly, your example of your Hawke's arc is nice, but it is one example of roleplaying that is both, at once, narrow and shallow.

DA2 does allow you to play a character who's tone changes over time, which could allow one to roleplay a character with a changed attitude - but it is an illusion.

...
...

I'm trying to wrap my head around this being somehow more of an illusion than imagining tone, as in DAO.

The short answer is it isn't, it's explicit reactivity.  Which of course, people can argue eliminates the ability to imagine a broader range of illusions, but it is absolutely not as you describe.

Fast Jimmy wrote...  

The only difference the game offers you is the sight of seeing your character speak angrily while saying something funny, which no one acknowledges.

When does "saying something funny while speaking angrily" happen in the game?  

Fast Jimmy wrote...   

This type of isolated acting is just as ineffective as head canon, which a silent PC accomplishes much better.

That's where I disagree with proponents of the silent protagonist.  But that's a different issue.

Fast Jimmy wrote...    

Also, while your character can go through this arc, I cannot, for example, choose all diplomatic options when dealing with Mages and all aggressive options when dealing with Templars and not come off as a raving lunatic.

Why not?  I was diplomatic to all moderates and aggressive to all extremists and it made perfect sense to me.  It helped that in Act 1 there were more moderates, and in Act 3 there were more extremists, that's for sure.

Furthermore, a pro-mage individual who is nice to mages and impatient with templars seems perfectly reasonable.  I do not see where the raving lunatic aspect manifests itself in the game.

Fast Jimmy wrote...     

How would being kind to a side you sympathize with and mean with a side you dislike mean I am playing the game wrong? It results in me yelling nice things at allies and saying aggressive threats like a pansy to my enemies. That is a sign of a broken system.

I'm at a loss to think of where this actually happens.  Links to examples would be helpful.  

Even if I take your statement as read, and I have no reason to think you're making things up, it still isn't what I'm talking about.  Your issue, as I understand it, is with the personality tracking system.  If the system did not track which icons you selected, and instead utilized generic autodialogs, this would not be an issue at all.  It's seperate from the paraphrase/icon system even if it tracks your behavior in using it.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In terms of the number of different ways those lines could be delivered, you are not.

And even the first point ignores the possibility that the DAO lines are abstractions rather than literal dialogue.

Should we take the entire writer intent argument as read, then?  

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Granted.  But then you should also grant that full-text options help us avoid misspeaking.

Sure, but in a perfect world I wouldn't have to deal with the subvocalization issue as a result. 

All of these things are tradeoffs.   Where I clench my fists in indignant rage is when it is claimed that they are "dumbing down."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 septembre 2012 - 09:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It forces you into one of two characters and tosses nuance out the damn window.  It doesn't help that one of the two characters is a totally inconsistent mess.   It also forces us to accept one of two ethical standards, neither of which is open to our interpretation.

I wish I'd read that before I played ME2.

I never figured out the paragon-renegade thing.  After ME1, I'd concluded that the paragon options were submissive and obsequious.  Shepard would back down when challenged, respect authortiy - that sort of thing.

Then I started ME2, found myself talking to the Illusive Man, and I wanted to be obsequious.  So I chose paragon options, only to have Shepard aggressively challenging TIM's authority.  What?

I really didn't like ME2.

Which of course, people can argue eliminates the ability to imagine a broader range of illusions,

That would be my argument.

Should we take the entire writer intent argument as read, then? 

I was just making sure that no one thinks that argument is settled.

Sure, but in a perfect world I wouldn't have to deal with the subvocalization issue as a result.

You're reading it wrong.

Sorry, I had to say that.  It was funny.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 21 septembre 2012 - 09:40 .

[Last Vizard]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

I personally like the many options of DA: O, just wish the options let you know what emotion the character is displaying when they talk to the NPC.

The writers have explained many, many times that the number of options in any given conversation is the same between DAO and DA2.

DA2's are just organized and presented differently.  That is where the controversy lies.

Okay, I prefer the original layout... (I'm weird like that)

[Blackrising]

I love how absolutely every topic on BSN can get people into heated arguments.

As far as I'm concerned, I didn't really mind the dialouge wheel. I make do. I'd always welcome more choices though.
And what I really want is that one heart icon to disappear. Not completly, mind you, but if my PC is flirting, I'd like to have a choice in how she flirts.
Sometimes in DA 2, the heart icon just led to something my Hawke would never say. For example, I remember a moment in the Merrill romance path where Merrill was sitting in front of her mirror and asked Hawke something along the lines of "It's beautiful, isn't it?".
The heart icon made my Hawke reply with "You're much prettier." I wasn't bothered by the words themselves, but by the tone. My Hawke is an IDIOT. An airhead at the best of times and only serious in the most dire of situations. So her suddenly going "You're so beautiful, bb" in that earnest fashion threw me off. My oblivious idiot Hawke wouldn't do that.

[addiction21]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Having the icons certainly steered you into playing a character with a certain consisitency as in Nice, Snarky and Jerk. Most of my options for dialogue I was choosing without even bothering to read the paraphrasing, or putting anythought to how I would have answered myself. With my Origins characters I went up and down the whole personality spectrum depending on the scenario.

I don't think getting rid of icons will help because its just like mass effect; good is the top answer and renegade is the bottom.

It does not steer anyone anyway and if you entirely ignored the paraphrases then the problem is with you not the system.

And I am no fan of the paraphrases.

P.S.
the DA2 wheel is nothing like the Mass Effects one. It only ends up determing the characters attitude not what they can or can not do.
Also you can gather Friend or Rival points from either the top or the bottom choices so its still far different in function the Mass Effect.

Did you even pay attention or play the game?

[Knight of Dane]

Wulfram wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

OOOOOOOoooh finally a link where I can refrence to my signature!

I love the dialogue wheel and I don't feel that it necessarily needs to change, but the usage of it needs to change.

Flirting:
The heart icon should mean "flirt" not "initiate romance" i thought it broke a bit of the immersion that you could just press a button to start a romance. I think characters should have variables that needs fulfilling before it works.

You needed to complete their quest and have a high friendship/rivalry for the romance to "work".

Choise variables:
They need to be improved. Off the top of my head I can only remember one singe instance in DA2 where you can make a choise based on personality alone. Siding with petrice against the Qunari and keeping Ser Varnell and her alive as allies.
You can only do this if you have the direct personality.
There are other instances of course like lying to Karras if you have humorous personality or calm the mob down when you look for Anders in act 1, but those instances can be replaced by Varric and Carver/Bethany.
Make the personality matter. Let there be consequense to your Hawke's behaviour. Be able to save a hostage out of humorous charm, be able to talk a riot down, be able to threaten a guard to let you through a door without it being possible just by picking the right companion. That's too easy.

Not being able to side with Petrice without being aggressive was stupid.  So was not being able to lie if you didn't make stupid jokes

Choise and response:
Sometimes there would be choises that you could pick that would mirror your personality despite not being personality choises. Like when you assist Aveline in the very end of Act 2 and can talk to the Arishok about the fugitive elves. Here you have the choise mark that displays three arrows in a swastika kind of shape.
This is great stuff. It is not auto dialogue but it showcases what we as players tend to have our character lean towards. You get to be neutral, bad and good and still have your fav personality show, More of that.

These were annoying.  Just because Hawke makes jokes doesn't mean they don't want to tell Merrill they love her.

Give us a bonus!
Make the personality matter. Make instances where you perhaps meet a certain dude only if he heard about your diplomatic mind, or a elf seeks you out because she has heard of your cunning wit and quick tounge. Or perhaps let a commander ask for your assistance because he heard you get the job done and are effective.
Let it give us a reputation

Let characters comment on it.
This is already done a few times in DA2. More of that, it makes our character seem real.

I'm a huge fan of the dialogue wheel because it's a simple tool to make our voiced protagonist come to life.

Dominant tone is annoying and silly enough without making it more important.

1. Yes I know, but I would have been happier if you had to hit a few soft spots despite helping them with their issues and being either agreeable or disagreeable towards them. That is the only reason I kinda like Isabela's relationship compared to others in that regard. You had to pick the right dialogue afterwards for her to fall in love with you.
2. Perhaps. But if the dialogue wheel is supposed to make any difference beside Hawke's tone then that's one of the ways to go. If it shouldn't be like that we might as well go back to the old model, which I personally aren't in favor of.
3. What?
4. Your opinion. Don't like, don't pick.

[eroeru]

@Upsettingshorts

If you would have had the option to automatically play Investigate lines, would you have done it?

As for me, because I didn't feel ANY relevance to me picking the lines (if I would have known the exact line, then *maybe* there would have been a role-playing reason, but that was not the case), I really and with most boredom thought and felt it was a game mechanic that would be best cut by Ockham's razor.

I would have settled for auto-dialogue better than these rudimentary "Investigate" options, really.

[Pelle6666]

Mass effect 2, perfect model for the use of a dialog wheel. Many options that defines your character.