191 réponses à ce sujet

[Eyil]

I don't think the dialogue wheel is bad in itself. The problem lies with the personality and morality options, I think, as well as a lack of transparency with regards to the paraphrased dialogue. The paragon/renegade or diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive options often lead to the player simply choosing whatever line applies to their chosen morality. I know that in Mass Effect, I sometimes ignored the dialogue wheel altogether and just ran right into the paragon options without even thinking about what I was going to say. It stifles character development.

What I suggest is that, if Bioware keeps the dialogue wheel, they do away with the morality/personality system and randomise the options, while giving transparent paraphrases. That way, we can have a dialogue wheel and a voiced protagonist, but we still have to think about what we're saying and we're not trying to shoehorn our character into a certain morality. There would be a lot more leeway to truly make a character your own that way, and we'd very much get the best of both worlds between the DAO-style "having to think about what we're saying and developing our character's personality" and the DA2-style voiced protagonist.

[Cimeas]

http://uk.gamespot.c...6369027/?page=6

^^There it is. That's why other games have to set the dialogue wheel to A,B,X,Y or switch it around so it only has a maximum of four options or there is no set place for 'good' or 'evil' responses.

[Cultist]

Cimeas wrote...

http://uk.gamespot.c...6369027/?page=6

^^There it is. That's why other games have to set the dialogue wheel to A,B,X,Y or switch it around so it only has a maximum of four options or there is no set place for 'good' or 'evil' responses.

so much facepalm

[philippe willaume]

Eyil wrote...

I don't think the dialogue wheel is bad in itself. The problem lies with the personality and morality options, I think, as well as a lack of transparency with regards to the paraphrased dialogue. The paragon/renegade or diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive options often lead to the player simply choosing whatever line applies to their chosen morality. I know that in Mass Effect, I sometimes ignored the dialogue wheel altogether and just ran right into the paragon options without even thinking about what I was going to say. It stifles character development.

What I suggest is that, if Bioware keeps the dialogue wheel, they do away with the morality/personality system and randomise the options, while giving transparent paraphrases. That way, we can have a dialogue wheel and a voiced protagonist, but we still have to think about what we're saying and we're not trying to shoehorn our character into a certain morality. There would be a lot more leeway to truly make a character your own that way, and we'd very much get the best of both worlds between the DAO-style "having to think about what we're saying and developing our character's personality" and the DA2-style voiced protagonist.

Yes the nice bit with the full dialogue option is that you could get it wrong, ie you were not sure how the companion/interlocutor would take it.
I have to say that i do the same thing.

Now since we have mood icons, ramdomizing the possition would not really cure the problem for more than 5 minutes.

The dialoge wheel is ok as long as it is the intent of we want to use as opposed to how the interlocutor takes it

Ideally I would love to have, the paraphrase with roll over for full dialogue and the option to move the icons around to change the tone.
(but that would be costly as each sentence would need to be recorded in all possible tone.

phil

[Eyil]

Well, when I say doing away with the morality and personality, the mood icons would go with them.

Modifié par Eyil, 23 septembre 2012 - 12:58 .

[FedericoV]

It will change in to a cheese wheel. It is known. DA2 left hint of that move everywere in the gaming world.

Seriously, they should remove the icons and use something more subtle (like the font/color of the text used in VtM:R). Actually dialogues looks like a dating sim or a social network.

DE:HR system is really good but it works because of the inquisitive nature of Jensen's interaction with the world. Don't know if it would work in a romance scene or in a classical "background catch-up" scene.

Modifié par FedericoV, 23 septembre 2012 - 07:24 .

[Fredward]

I've decided that I miss not having icons. I should be able to tell whether something is sarcastic based on the wording alone. But if the wheel stays as is I don't see that happening. Oh well.

[jillabender]

Upsettingshorts wrote…

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."

That's a fair point – your example demonstrates that the dialogue wheel system in DA2 does at least make it possible to portray a character whose demeanour changes throughout the game without it feeling jarring. But I found that it didn't work out that way for me as consistently as I would have liked.

My difficulty was that, to use an example, after hearing a few of Hawke's "diplomatic" responses, I developed an idea in my head of how that same character would sound when angry, but when I chose "aggressive" responses, there were situations where they didn't match the idea that I'd formed in my head, and that felt jarring.

Similarly, when I tried to play a more abrasive version of Hawke, the tone of Hawke's "aggressive" responses led me to imagine that she was the sort of person who would be curt and blunt even when trying to be diplomatic, but Hawke's responses didn't always play out that way.

In short, I ran into difficulty in situations where I was expecting a particular shade of "aggressive" or "diplomatic" based on how Hawke had behaved previously, and it wasn't there; and I think that problem would have been lessened if Hawke's responses had been a bit more subtle, rather than tending toward the extreme end of each tone descriptor.

Modifié par jillabender, 24 septembre 2012 - 03:44 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Make it so that when we choose an option, we know exactly what the PC is going to do as a result.

The maximum acceptable level of surprise is zero.

Too bad that the written English language is ambiguous. What you really mean is that you're more comfortable rectonning necessary implication (because you're good at ignoring) as opposed to animated dialogue.

[Xewaka]

Anny78 wrote...
BioWare is sticking to the dialogue wheel, not going back to 6 line selection, that's clear.
How will the wheel look like in DA3? Will it be like in Mass Effect, SW:TOR or Dragon Age 2?
I liked the DA2 version very much, with all the colors/personalities and special icons and I'd like to keep it for DA3, although I wouldn't mind if the romance/heart icons disappeared.
What do you think it will/should look like?

I think it should look like DX:HR one did, and actually show enough information about what the character will say before saying it so an informed decision can be taken.
Not that they will, but nothing's lost for asking.

Modifié par Xewaka, 23 septembre 2012 - 11:52 .

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
I think it should look like DX:HR one did, and actually show enough information about what the character will say before saying it so an informed decision can be taken.
Not that they will, but nothing's lost for asking.

The DX:HR one, though, also doesn't have that thing where the paraphrase can't share words with the full line. So even without the full line, the paraphrase is superior.

Modifié par In Exile, 24 septembre 2012 - 02:16 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Make it so that when we choose an option, we know exactly what the PC is going to do as a result.

The maximum acceptable level of surprise is zero.

Too bad that the written English language is ambiguous. What you really mean is that you're more comfortable rectonning necessary implication (because you're good at ignoring) as opposed to animated dialogue.

My approach doesn't need to retcon anything.  When I choose the line I want, I get exactly that line, delivered exactly the way I'd like it delivered.

That's zero surprise.

Whether the line is ambiguous is irrelevant.  It matters only that that's the line I chose to have my character speak.

Your assertion would only be true if I believed that there was a possible NPC reaction which would contradict my interpretation of the line.  But I don't.

Welcome back, by the way.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 24 septembre 2012 - 04:59 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Just a reminder to not tell people how they should or should not "roleplay" and certainly to never tell someone that they are roleplaying "wrong" or anything like that.

[eweandwhosearmy]

I understand that voiced PCs are here to stay (at least with DA3) so I won't bother complaining about that, but I DO think the wheel is a bit of a hinderence, in terms of defining your own character.

I didn't really like the way DA2 played things - it felt like my Hawke was being railroaded into one of three distinct personalities -- and my silent Warden in DA:O by comparison seemed much more complex and realistic than my wiseguy Hawke.

Ideally, the dialogue could be presented in DA:O-style list format. The wheel suited me well enough in the mass effect series, but Dragon Age games tend to have a much more complex sort of morality so the top-of-the-wheel is good guy/bottom-of-the-wheel is a dick set-up feels simplistic. And the icons kind of take the fun out of conversations - everything feels too obvious.

The list system would provide a greater variety of responses, without putting your selections on such clear tracks. I can't speak for everyone, but I like a bit of mystery, a bit of guesswork, and I don't need the type of personality I want to achieve spelled out for me every time I go to open my mouth.

[oui_je_danse]

eweandwhosearmy wrote...
Ideally, the dialogue could be presented in DA:O-style list format. The wheel suited me well enough in the mass effect series, but Dragon Age games tend to have a much more complex sort of morality so the top-of-the-wheel is good guy/bottom-of-the-wheel is a dick set-up feels simplistic. And the icons kind of take the fun out of conversations - everything feels too obvious.

The list system would provide a greater variety of responses, without putting your selections on such clear tracks. I can't speak for everyone, but I like a bit of mystery, a bit of guesswork, and I don't need the type of personality I want to achieve spelled out for me every time I go to open my mouth.

I'd be ok with a switch back to listed dialogue and full text so long as they still assigned icons to each response. More choices are always better and there could be 10 different funny rejoinders at any moment for all I care. But full text lines don't help me at all if I don't understand how they're being delivered.

I'm just so bemused by the concept of knowing every word but not knowing the meaning of the words.

This debate feels to me like a bunch of folk sitting in a classroom, arguing over if auditory or kinesthetic learning is better. Perhaps there's no right answer, just what works best for each of us to grasp the situation.

Modifié par oui_je_danse, 24 septembre 2012 - 07:22 .

[Cimeas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Make it so that when we choose an option, we know exactly what the PC is going to do as a result.

The maximum acceptable level of surprise is zero.

Too bad that the written English language is ambiguous. What you really mean is that you're more comfortable rectonning necessary implication (because you're good at ignoring) as opposed to animated dialogue.

My approach doesn't need to retcon anything.  When I choose the line I want, I get exactly that line, delivered exactly the way I'd like it delivered.

That's zero surprise.

Whether the line is ambiguous is irrelevant.  It matters only that that's the line I chose to have my character speak.

Your assertion would only be true if I believed that there was a possible NPC reaction which would contradict my interpretation of the line.  But I don't.

Welcome back, by the way.

The game is telling me a story.  So you're saying that if there's a plot twist, or someone betrays you, you should know in advance?  Really?

Do you look up the wikipedia plot summary for a book before you read it?

[Xewaka]

Cimeas wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
My approach doesn't need to retcon anything.  When I choose the line I want, I get exactly that line, delivered exactly the way I'd like it delivered.
That's zero surprise.
Whether the line is ambiguous is irrelevant.  It matters only that that's the line I chose to have my character speak.
Your assertion would only be true if I believed that there was a possible NPC reaction which would contradict my interpretation of the line.  But I don't.
Welcome back, by the way.

The game is telling me a story.  So you're saying that if there's a plot twist, or someone betrays you, you should know in advance?  Really?

No. You're misinterpreting the argument. Allow me to explain:
There is a motherload of difference between player character and story. The story can go wherever it pleases, but the player needs to be confident in the fact that he has the reins over the player character. Not being surprised by your own character does not, in any way, shape, or form, mean that you cannot be surprised by the story. These are two different concepts altogheter. You can, in fact, be surprised by the story, and by the consequences of your character's action. But you should never be surprised by your character's actual actions. These are different things, as the character is directly under the player's control, but the story is not.

Modifié par Xewaka, 24 septembre 2012 - 04:39 .

[Nomen Mendax]

Cimeas wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

My approach doesn't need to retcon anything.  When I choose the line I want, I get exactly that line, delivered exactly the way I'd like it delivered.

That's zero surprise.

Whether the line is ambiguous is irrelevant.  It matters only that that's the line I chose to have my character speak.

Your assertion would only be true if I believed that there was a possible NPC reaction which would contradict my interpretation of the line.  But I don't.

Welcome back, by the way.

The game is telling me a story.  So you're saying that if there's a plot twist, or someone betrays you, you should know in advance?  Really?

Do you look up the wikipedia plot summary for a book before you read it?

No, Sylvius means that he shouldn't be surprised by what his character says (or does), something that I wholeheartedly agree with.  The DA2 (and ME) incarnations of the dialogue wheel with its paraphrasing mean that the player is sometimes surprised by what the player's character says (or does).  To some people (e.g. Sylvius and me) this is a bad thing.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 24 septembre 2012 - 04:45 .

[jillabender]

Cimeas wrote...

The game is telling me a story.  So you're saying that if there's a plot twist, or someone betrays you, you should know in advance?  Really?

Do you look up the wikipedia plot summary for a book before you read it?

Sylvius has stated before that he doesn't want to know what other characters are going to do: he wants to know exactly what he's choosing for his character to do. When it comes to choosing dialogue for his character, he doesn't want to feel that he's making a blind choice. 


I think part of the reason I had difficulty role-playing Hawke was that in DA:O, I approached choosing dialogue in terms of choosing responses that suited my character, and that said something interesting about him or her as a person. Imagining my character's tone, demeanour and thought processes could often make the same line of dialogue feel different depending on the character I was playing. That's why each of my DA:O characters feels distinct to me, even though they have the same lines of dialogue to choose from.

(I've heard some people say that they didn't really feel free to imagine their character's tone and intentions in DA:O, because NPCs would too often respond to them in ways that didn't seem to fit the way they imagined their character delivering the line. I believe them when they say that created a significant problem for them – because I approach the game a bit differently than they do, I didn't find it to be a significant problem, but that's just my own experience.)


With a silent protagonist, I don't have to interpret my character's delivery of a line, because I can imagine for myself how my character delivers the line. But when I'm given a voiced protagonist, I can't help but try to interpret his or her tone of voice and body language, and to choose dialogue based on my interpretations. When I take that approach with Shepard in Mass Effect 1, it works for me and feels satisfying, but in DA2, I found that trying to do that with Hawke was frustrating at times.

I wouldn't say I'm someone who has much difficulty reading people in general, but if I met someone who expressed himself, or herself, the way Hawke does, I would have a hard time reading him or her. When I hear Hawke speak, I get the gist of what he or she is feeling and thinking, but I never feel that I truly understand him or her – I always feel as though there's something I'm missing. I'm not sure why that is, exactly, but I think it has something to do with Hawke's demeanour and mannerisms feeling a bit stylized and affected, as I mentioned in another thread. 

It might also partly be that, no matter which combination of tone icons I selected, Hawke almost always came across as extremely confident and decisive, very rarely expressed self-doubt, and very rarely seemed nervous, or embarrassed, or genuinely frightened. For whatever reason, I just have a hard time getting into the mindset of a character like that. 

Modifié par jillabender, 28 septembre 2012 - 02:30 .

[abnocte]

I prefer the whole silent-dialogue thing but since I highly doubt they are going back to it anytime soon....

I would like to be able to see the full text, either with a "tooltip" or in a reserved space on screen or something.
I would like for "personality" to be fully divorced from things like diplomacy, intimidation, lies, etc. 
I would like for Bioware to stop triying to keep track of personalities just so my character can say "funny" oneliners that don't really fit the character *I* was trying to play.

And for the love of God, stop removing dialogue options based on main personality and friendship/rivalry points. Add them but never remove.

[Sylvius the Mad]

abnocte wrote...

I prefer the whole silent-dialogue thing but since I highly doubt they are going back to it anytime soon....

But them bringing it back only becomes less likely if we stop asking for it.

[Gethrian]

Only two improvements I can think of or I would be happy with.
1. What you're going to say is clear. Crystal clear.
2. More personality options than nice, bad and sarcastic. In DA2 there wasn't really neutral option.

[Auintus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Looks like someone already said all that must be said.

[Swagger7]

Here's what I think: Keep the dialogue wheel and the icons(we don't really have a choice anyway) but make it have more than six positions. Every conversation should have one extra option from one of the three categories. That way sometimes in addition to choosing from the three we'll get to choose either snarky or charming or choose direct or aggressive. It adds more variety to the game and allows you to make a character that is for example direct and snarky, but neither aggressive nor charming. Also, there should be the option to have the game display the entire text of what the PC is going to say whenever you highlight that option in the dialogue wheel. (In a pop-up box above the wheel, perhaps?) Needless to say, this would be optional, and could be turned off in the menu.

[Plaintiff]

Every dialogue should be sarcastic!