390 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

No, but it prevents us from thinking there's any risk when selecting it.

The problem isn't that the writers won't let us fail. The problem is that we know they won't let us fail.

That's a writing issue.

If you have full lines of dialogue that are romantic and the NPCs always respond positively to them, there's no risk there.

If we know they're romantic, yes.  If we don't know they're romantic, no.

You're presupposing the icons.  If we take the icons away, then there's no issue, since the player can't know for sure which option is intended to be the romantic one.

 Any presumed risk that you think might be there is a complete manifestation within your own mind and not reflective of the actual data that is present. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping you from having this same manifestation with a heart icon.

All it would take is a single instance of an NPC tearing a strip into the player character in response to choosing a heart icon, and suddenly people would be like "whoa!"

Yes, if the game were written differently, that would also solve the problem.  But even with the writing as it is, we can achieve the same result with a mechanical change.

This is not a mechanics issue.

It's a gameplay issue.  We can solve it either through writing or through mechanics.  Mechanics strikes me as easier, becasue then it's fixed.  Relying on the writers to telegraph the outcomes less requires constant on-going effort from them.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 octobre 2012 - 10:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Chiramu wrote...

It's not nice feeling like a mute...Origins made me completely feel like I couldn't talk, because my character just blankly stared at the character they were talking with. 
If they had some facial animations with lip syncing with the words they are "pretending" to say, it would feel as bad, although I'd still feel like a mute.
I'd actually take the Ocarina of Time voice sampling over being a mute.

That's why the voice should be optional.

But that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

[Fast Jimmy]

I apologize for turning this into a debate on the wheel and the voice PC, something I said I didn't want to do on page 7. I just get on a tangent when people say the wheel is the same as the list, just in a different format. Its parsing out information to us via the interface instead of letting us explore the dialouge ourselves, in my opinion, but its not something worth debating anymore, especially since the stated plan is to stay with the wheel, come H-E-Double Hocket Sticks or High Water.

But I agree with Sylvius - anything can be seen as a writing issue. Why didn't Templars react to nearly half of my party using magic? They didn't write for it. But, on the other hand, perhaps the reason they didn't write it was that mechanics did not support it?

I am of the same mind with some of the dialogue/writing issues for DA2. The idea was to allow a more dynamic way of handling your companions instead of just placating them, so the friendship/rivalry system was implemented. But now these companions would love us MORE if we treated them like dirt, which could be blamed on writing, but really is directly tied and correlated to a gameplay mechanics that doesn't always make sense, resulting in a gameplay element that is, at times, incredibly silly. Disagreeing with someone theologically but sticking by your guns can make someone dislike your ideas, but appreciate your character. Calling them crazy or saying they have wasted their life shouldn't have the same net effect.

Point being, a wheel that focuses one three different tones repeatedly puts those tones in the minds of the writers, constantly having them view the lines and responses through that lens. Having a wheel that highlights a particular emotion (or even having a set list of a dozen icons/emotions to choose from when writing lines) can, similarly, put limitations in the work. Overt ones? Maybe not. But defnitely subconscious and operational ones.

All this aside... this has given me an idea for the meme thread, so I'll not call it a total stalemate.

[Direwolf0294]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

No, but it prevents us from thinking there's any risk when selecting it.

The problem isn't that the writers won't let us fail. The problem is that we know they won't let us fail.

That's a writing issue.

If you have full lines of dialogue that are romantic and the NPCs always respond positively to them, there's no risk there.

If we know they're romantic, yes.  If we don't know they're romantic, no.

You're presupposing the icons.  If we take the icons away, then there's no issue, since the player can't know for sure which option is intended to be the romantic one.

It has been obvious in every single BioWare game which dialogue choice was intended to be the romantic choice. KoTOR , ME, DA:O, it's always been obvious. It sort of has to be. You see how many people rage because of the dialogue wheel and their character not always saying what they intend them to say when they pick an option. You'd get the same amount of people raging if they picked a fully written dialogue option, or even just a gist option, and the NPC didn't react to it in a way the player expected. For example:

Player dialogue
[1] Tell me about yourself
[2] What do you think of our current state? 
[3] You have pretty eyes
[4] My cat's breath smells like cat food

Player picks option 3, the option that's clearly a romantic one.

NPC's response: Yeah? Well your face looks like someone hit it with a mace. Screw you. Don't talk to me again.

That sort of response may leave the player feeling that the dialogue has been poorly written, the game can't properly convey the intent of dialogue options and that the game's not a good RPG. It may have fully been the writters intention that option 3 was the romantic option and the NPC would just react poorly to it, but to the player, who doesn't know what the writter was thinking, that option may now have been interpreted as a nasty option and you being mean to the NPC. This would especially be the case if you're playing a silent protagonist, as you have no idea the tone in which your character supposedly said those words. For all you know, your character was sneering the whole time they said it. By having a heart icon next to the option though, or any icon next to any option, the player at least knows what the intent of the dialogue was. Even if the NPC reacts poorly to it they still know they were trying to be romantic.

[Nomen Mendax]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

...
Player dialogue
[1] Tell me about yourself
[2] What do you think of our current state? 
[3] You have pretty eyes
[4] My cat's breath smells like cat food

Player picks option 3, the option that's clearly a romantic one.

NPC's response: Yeah? Well your face looks like someone hit it with a mace. Screw you. Don't talk to me again.
...

I thought line 4 was the obviously romantic one ...

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 03 octobre 2012 - 11:25 .

[philippe willaume]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

No, but it prevents us from thinking there's any risk when selecting it.

The problem isn't that the writers won't let us fail. The problem is that we know they won't let us fail.

That's a writing issue.

If you have full lines of dialogue that are romantic and the NPCs always respond positively to them, there's no risk there.

If we know they're romantic, yes.  If we don't know they're romantic, no.

You're presupposing the icons.  If we take the icons away, then there's no issue, since the player can't know for sure which option is intended to be the romantic one.

 Any presumed risk that you think might be there is a complete manifestation within your own mind and not reflective of the actual data that is present. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping you from having this same manifestation with a heart icon.

All it would take is a single instance of an NPC tearing a strip into the player character in response to choosing a heart icon, and suddenly people would be like "whoa!"

Yes, if the game were written differently, that would also solve the problem.  But even with the writing as it is, we can achieve the same result with a mechanical change.

This is not a mechanics issue.

It's a gameplay issue.  We can solve it either through writing or through mechanics.  Mechanics strikes me as easier, becasue then it's fixed.  Relying on the writers to telegraph the outcomes less requires constant on-going effort from them.

For me the problem with icons was not some much that it indicated the tone of the reply.
It was that this was almost always the way the interlocutor would take the answer.
So the intent was almost always the result.

it does not really make that much of difference if you chosea paraphrase with an icon or a full sentence.
if  you are guaranted the result.
as well. if there are 3  or more lines where you do not have any control, even as simple as  an interrupt to re-branch the dialogue onto something more to what the player intended given the turn of the conversation,

The dialogue wheel will never work as well as an iterative, line by line approach where you can tune your answers after each reply.

It matters not at all if it gets into the way of the cinematic flow,  as I go to the cinema or theatre for that.
Part of a role playing is to play the role as you see fit.
phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 03 octobre 2012 - 11:44 .

[TCBC_Freak]

Maybe seeing a real example in context could help? As a side note I played Origins again a week or so ago, I love it, and I am still trying to get all the achievements. I say this so you know it is still fresh in my mind. I think some folks on here are looking back with more nostalgia then facts.

The majority of the "Fully listed option" or table or whatever you want to call it was filled with this as your dialog: (in this example, picture Sten and the Warden talking at camp and Sten just told him/her that the Qun demands that women can't be warriors) - I've added what they do in the () and what you'd see on a wheel under it.

1.) That was very interesting. (end conversation right then)
-------------wouldn't be used because it's just a conversation end option in a list format, you wouldn't need it.
2.) Do all your people feel that way? (Sten explains that they do because the Qun demands it and then it comes back to this list)
-------------- This would be the first option on an Investigation side of the wheel, it could be paraphrased as "You all believe that?" and it doesn't change anything... [and with the wheel not having a limit to 6 option like the mod pointed out they could have more options like this but I digress]
3.) That's a stupid way to think. (Sten disagrees and the conversation ends, -10 "friendship")
-------------- This is the lower right angry option, it'd be paraphrased as "That's stupid.".... it's such a change I know!
4.) Well, I guess we'll agree to disagree. (Sten says a little bit but the conversation ends)
------------- This is the middle right option, change it to "Agree to Disagree" and you have a sarcastic paraphrase.
5.) I can see your point. (Sten says a little bit, conversation ends, +5 "friendship")
------------- This is the upper right diplomatic option, just paraphrase it to say, "Good point."

None of the options in the lists were much longer in their wording than the wheel options they would translate into. And there are the same number, if not more, in DA2 as the developers and mod's have pointed out more than once.

The wheel option with its icons helps in a lot of other ways besides ease of programing, for example; no ninja romance, you can be nice without worrying that a person will come to you wanting a date and you having to shot them down, also, you don't run the risk of ending a conversation before you want to. It cuts down on another problem I saw with the list too. Sometimes I'd choose an option and it'd do nothing, but later that exact same option at camp lead to something else. The wheels were more contained and you didn't need to worry about missing something because you didn't say the same thing to the same person later. If you had the option it was for then. But that has more to do with the poor "camp" system used in DA:O than the dialog layout.

If you skip everything above, read this:
To the real point I think. You don't have a problem with the wheel, it's that Hawke has a voice and actually acts during the dialog instead of just standing like a plastic statue. Mute the game and don't have to hear him/her say something different than what you expected him to say... I'd also like to point out that he/she SAID nothing before, the characters just reacted to the tone of the choice you made before. The NPC reaction are the same as before, that didn't change, very little in game changed really from DA:O to DA2 when it came to character interaction and use of the wheel and not the list. You're mad because the character has a voice, I get that, you are allowed to be. Don't blame the machanic they use, however, just say you like not having a voice, its a taste issue and the game itself changes little because of it.

[Maria Caliban]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

Player dialogue
[1] Tell me about yourself
[2] What do you think of our current state? 
[3] You have pretty eyes
[4] My cat's breath smells like cat food

Player picks option 3, the option that's clearly a romantic one.

NPC's response: Yeah? Well your face looks like someone hit it with a mace. Screw you. Don't talk to me again.

That sort of response may leave the player feeling that the dialogue has been poorly written, the game can't properly convey the intent of dialogue options and that the game's not a good RPG. It may have fully been the writters intention that option 3 was the romantic option and the NPC would just react poorly to it, but to the player, who doesn't know what the writter was thinking, that option may now have been interpreted as a nasty option and you being mean to the NPC.

Should BioWare cater to players with that particular combination of unreasonable expectations ("Every time I hit on someone, they should like me"), overreaction, ("This RPG sucks because one NPC was mean to me"), and poor reasoning? ("Despite this obviously being a flirtatious line, I've decided that it was really mean because there's no way someone would not immediately fall for my PC.")

[philippe willaume]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

i have read it honest.

The wheel option with its icons helps in a lot of other ways besides ease of programing, for example; no ninja romance, you can be nice without worrying that a person will come to you wanting a date and you having to shot them down, also, you don't run the risk of ending a conversation before you want to. It cuts down on another problem I saw with the list too. Sometimes I'd choose an option and it'd do nothing, but later that exact same option at camp lead to something else. The wheels were more contained and you didn't need to worry about missing something because you didn't say the same thing to the same person later. If you had the option it was for then. But that has more to do with the poor "camp" system used in DA:O than the dialog layout.

If you skip everything above, read this:
To the real point I think. You don't have a problem with the wheel, it's that Hawke has a voice and actually acts during the dialog instead of just standing like a plastic statue. Mute the game and don't have to hear him/her say something different than what you expected him to say... I'd also like to point out that he/she SAID nothing before, the characters just reacted to the tone of the choice you made before. The NPC reaction are the same as before, that didn't change, very little in game changed really from DA:O to DA2 when it came to character interaction and use of the wheel and not the list. You're mad because the character has a voice, I get that, you are allowed to be. Don't blame the machanic they use, however, just say you like not having a voice, its a taste issue and the game itself changes little because of it.

nope not really

I agree that the dialogue wheel is not a problem as such

I have a problem with Hawke going for few sentences without my input or an opportunity to correct the way it is going

in DA:0 you could get the de facto wheel mapping wrong. what you said was not taken the way  you though it was going to be taken . (yes you can have the same effect with the wheel)

Ninja romance are fine just like interlocutor getting the wrong way of the stick. and that is part of role playing

 phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 03 octobre 2012 - 11:59 .

[Fast Jimmy]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

To the real point I think. You don't have a problem with the wheel, it's that Hawke has a voice and actually acts during the dialog instead of just standing like a plastic statue. Mute the game and don't have to hear him/her say something different than what you expected him to say... I'd also like to point out that he/she SAID nothing before, the characters just reacted to the tone of the choice you made before. The NPC reaction are the same as before, that didn't change, very little in game changed really from DA:O to DA2 when it came to character interaction and use of the wheel and not the list. You're mad because the character has a voice, I get that, you are allowed to be. Don't blame the machanic they use, however, just say you like not having a voice, its a taste issue and the game itself changes little because of it.

I feel like I keep dragging myself back into this thread repeatedly. I'm a glutton for punishment, apparently.

I don't mind a voice protagonist. I didn't mind that Adam Jensen was fully voiced in DE:HR. I never played the Witcher games, but from what I've seen in gameplay video, I don't think I would mind that either.Skyrim had a silent PC and I still hated its dialogue. Its paraphrases and the wheel, a wheel which tells us more about tone, intent and NPC reaction (instead of just pure intent) way more times than not. 

The issue isn't that we are getting dialogue that wouldn't be there in DA:O. Its that we are told exactly what that dialogue is and does before we even have a chance to know what the words are. If I go here, I'll see a list of investigate options, which will not move the conversation forward at all. If I choose this dialogue option, I'll appear like a nice guy, this one like a smart ****, and this one like a jerk (always located in the EXACT same place, just in case I wouldn't be able to tell I guess?). The wheel forces you to choose "nice/funny/jerk" instead of letting you choose from the actual words your character will say. In addition, it will tell you exactly how those words will be perceived, regardless of the actual content of the words. 

I (and others) aren't advocating a system where NPCs react to our words exactly how we want them to, or have our Hawke's voice sound exactly how we want it. But the wheel causes every response to be broken down into three extremes (and these extremes labeled as such) and doesn't require us to ever know what we are saying, only to meta-game how we want to be perceived. That, for me, is not a good conversation mechanism.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 04 octobre 2012 - 12:04 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

It has been obvious in every single BioWare game which dialogue choice was intended to be the romantic choice.

Without the icon, it cannot always be obvious.

I don't want it to be obvious.

That sort of response may leave the player feeling that the dialogue has been poorly written, the game can't properly convey the intent of dialogue options and that the game's not a good RPG. It may have fully been the writters intention that option 3 was the romantic option and the NPC would just react poorly to it, but to the player, who doesn't know what the writter was thinking, that option may now have been interpreted as a nasty option and you being mean to the NPC. This would especially be the case if you're playing a silent protagonist, as you have no idea the tone in which your character supposedly said those words. For all you know, your character was sneering the whole time they said it. By having a heart icon next to the option though, or any icon next to any option, the player at least knows what the intent of the dialogue was. Even if the NPC reacts poorly to it they still know they were trying to be romantic.

I would advise the player not to rely on the game to tell him how his character is behaving.  You say, "For all you know," but I do know.  I always know.  I know because I'm the one who decides.  If I decide my character is sneering, then my character is sneering.  If I decide my characteris flirting, then my character is flirting.  Which line I choose has nothing to do with that.  How the lines are written has nothing to do with that.

I know exactly how my character is going to deliver a line, and what he hopes to achieve by doing so, before he delivers that line.  That's how the silent PC games work, and that should be how the voiced PC games work as well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

philippe willaume wrote...

For me the problem with icons was not some much that it indicated the tone of the reply.
It was that this was almost always the way the interlocutor would take the answer.
So the intent was almost always the result.

it does not really make that much of difference if you chosea paraphrase with an icon or a full sentence.
if  you are guaranted the result.

But without the icons, there is no result promised.  The problem here is that we know in advance what the outcome will be.  The icons are what give us that information.  Take the icons away, and the outcomes are now hidden from us.  Yes, if we could discern the writers' intended tone, then the outcome would remain guaranteed (this is Allan Schumacher's point), but as long as we can't consistently discern the writers' intended tone, we don't know how the NPCs will react.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Let me say this another way:

That ninjamancing can happen is evidence that the system works.

That ninjamancing does happen is a writing problem.

But with DA2, the tones were added such that ninjamancing is no longer possible, regadless of how the game gets written. They fixed the wrong problem.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 octobre 2012 - 02:29 .

[davepissedatending]

I like the way it works in da2 me I really don't think thats something bioware should worry about but maybe thats just me lol

Modifié par davepissedatending, 04 octobre 2012 - 12:32 .

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Morrigan disapproves of you saying you love her. Its not a stat roll, or a number crunch. She does not like it.

Put the Morrigan romance into a dialogue wheel. Show me how that would work with DA2. I will never bring up the topic again if you can demonstrate how that relationship would even be possible without insanely confusing/conflicting pieces of information.

The heart symbol has nothing to do with love. It just tells you that the intent behind the line is romantic - but it could (and indeed, in DA2 is) just about flirting. The Warden has a line, when you give the fake grimoire - "What, don't I get a kiss? In the icon world, that (obvious) line migh be:

(<3) What, no kiss?  

Modifié par In Exile, 04 octobre 2012 - 04:06 .

[Allan Schumacher]

But without the icons, there is no result promised.

That you think there is a result promised, doesn't actually make it so. Your understanding of the actual mechanics of the dialogue wheel is wrong. The only reason why you think this is the case is simply because it's all you've observed. It is trivial for me to create a counterexample that contradicts your logical conclusion.

You may be confusing perhaps some of the design decisions for how to use the dialogue wheel interface, but that is simply utilizing a tool in a particular way and is not actually a result of the dialogue wheel. All the dialogue wheel does is display the responses in a different way. There may be differences in how that interface is presented that can lead itself to being utilized in a different way, but again, that is independent of the mechanics of the dialogue wheel. Functionally, there is not one thing that the dialogue wheel cannot do that the list can do. Though the capabilities of the dialogue wheel, as it stands now, does slightly extend (that is, add to) the capabilities for selecting a player response.

This has nothing to do with aesthetics... I'm talking strictly from the intrinsic relationship that the dialogue wheel has with the conversation system. To use a computer science term it's an example of a model-view-controller.

[Allan Schumacher]

Reading through this past page, I'm starting to get the impression that there's a semantics issue. I had written this up as a response at first, but it might be a general FYI that might help people understand the system and the reason why I may have used the terms that I do in the way that I do.


Here's a straight up fact: the way the conversations are structured and set up in DA2 is functionally identical to DAO.

There's additional support such as "What icon is displayed" and "where is it located on the wheel" but if I were to show you the structure of a conversation in DA2 and a conversation in DAO, you would not be able to differentiate them without examining the content.

It would be trivial to have every single conversation in DAO displayed in DA2's dialogue wheel. There is nothing that would prevent it. The only work that would be necessary would be to specify where lines should go on the wheel, since that information is unsurprisingly not included in the DAO conversations (I don't even think we'd need to set up paraphrases IIRC). The situation is mostly transitive, in that it would also be trivial to import the DA2 conversations into DAO. Although we would run into situations where not all options would be available, since one mechanical difference that DOES exist between the two systems is that it is possible to display up to 10 unique lines of responses at a single node with the conversation wheel, while DAO's mechanics explicitly cap us at 5. We would have to go into DAO's GUIs and conversations and make changes in order to properly support this.


When I am discussing mechanics, I'm talking about the intrinsic abilities of the dialogue wheel. That there are tones specified in a particular location is not a mechanics issue, it's a design decision. We could put a tuba as an icon and it's be a trivial amount of work, and have the Northeast option indicate "The option that praises Allan" for every dialogue line that is placed there. I could programmatically change the entire layout of every conversation in DA2 (i.e. where everything is placed on the wheel) with a few relatively simple changes to some source files. This is because there's some simple rules for default placements and things like that that are straight up direct requests for the style that writing and perhaps general design would like to use.

So I think people were getting confused when I was talking about mechanics or something. To use Fast Jimmy's post as an example:

But I agree with Sylvius - anything can be seen as a writing issue. Why didn't Templars react to nearly half of my party using magic? They didn't write for it. But, on the other hand, perhaps the reason they didn't write it was that mechanics did not support it?

Just to be 100% clear (and this was the original message I was writing this post to), the dialogue wheel mechanism does not place any restrictions on the writers to force them to write a certain way. The writers may use the different interface layout for stylistic reasons based on aesthetic motivations. Someone asked why our wheel is just like Mass Effect's, for instance, and it's based on an aesthetic analysis. The first prototypes for the dialogue wheel in DA2 were not like Mass Effect's. In the end though, cost-benefit analysis is done and there are definite advantages in terms of usability that make using and laying out the dialogue wheel in a way similar to Mass Effect's has, while the benefits for NOT doing so start to get boiled down to just "well, it differentiates it so people don't think it's just the ME wheel."

Now I don't know all the reasons or ways that writing or GUI may make the stylistic decisions that they do so I don't want to start speaking on their behalf, but I just want to make it 100% clear that this idea that the writers are confined to the "mechanic" that having a heart icon be displayed requires the NPC to respond in a particular way is incorrect. When I say that it's a "writing thing" all I'm saying is that the only reason why a heart icon would "always" lead to success is because that just happens to be the way it is written. If they wanted to write it so it isn't successful, there's nothing stopping the writers from doing that. Some would say that the flirt options with Aveline and Varric are actually examples of this (I'd be inclined to agree, but that's neither here nor there. If the writer wanted to make Aveline get hostile in response, it could have been done without changing any of the systems or user interfaces).


So to reiterate, the wheel just displays data. How it's organized is entirely based upon design decisions that the team wants to go for. Like I said, changing the DAO interface to be a dialogue wheel wouldn't be a large amount of work. It'd be stylistically differently than DA2's (no paraphrases, no icons, and so forth), but displaying the information in a different way where we already have the solution made is a pretty localized task that wouldn't require the data contained within each conversation file to change one bit.

It's fine to dislike these decisions and to think that they compromise your ability to play the game the way you want. But that's not really a "mechanics" issue in terms of how the system is created.

[Wissenschaft]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Let me say this another way:

That ninjamancing can happen is evidence that the system works.

That ninjamancing does happen is a writing problem.

But with DA2, the tones were added such that ninjamancing is no longer possible, regadless of how the game gets written. They fixed the wrong problem.

But I don't want Ninjamancing. A big problem with DA:O plain list system was that I had no clue what reaction I would get out of the NPC. If say I was talking to Alistair and I know he likes to joke around so I pick a jab in responce that I think is the most funny. Turns out that another option provides a bigger approval boost. How am I suppose to know that?

You can get the same effect in Rommances, for example, for a female to rommance Leliana they have to give the correct responce to 1 flirt line she gives about hair. If your dismmisive to the comment because you just don't care about hair in general then tough luck your not in a rommance. You'll just have to hope for a second chance at rommancing her (of which, luckly, there is a second chance for both sexes).

DA2 solves this problem. It could have been worst since your dealing with paraphased snips of what will be said. That was a problem often complained about in the Mass Effect games. Having icons that always give the tone they indicate elimnates, for the most part, having a responce have an unexpected tone.

And while there were no instances in DA2 of a heart option getting a negative reaction they could still fall on deft ears. Such as in Aveline's case.

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 04 octobre 2012 - 04:58 .

[Bondari the Reloader]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

So I think people were getting confused when I was talking about mechanics or something. To use Fast Jimmy's post as an example:

But I agree with Sylvius - anything can be seen as a writing issue. Why didn't Templars react to nearly half of my party using magic? They didn't write for it. But, on the other hand, perhaps the reason they didn't write it was that mechanics did not support it?

Just to be 100% clear (and this was the original message I was writing this post to), the dialogue wheel mechanism does not place any restrictions on the writers to force them to write a certain way.

Now I don't know all the reasons or ways that writing or GUI may make the stylistic decisions that they do so I don't want to start speaking on their behalf, but I just want to make it 100% clear that this idea that the writers are confined to the "mechanic" that having a heart icon be displayed requires the NPC to respond in a particular way is incorrect. When I say that it's a "writing thing" all I'm saying is that the only reason why a heart icon would "always" lead to success is because that just happens to be the way it is written. If they wanted to write it so it isn't successful, there's nothing stopping the writers from doing that. Some would say that the flirt options with Aveline and Varric are actually examples of this (I'd be inclined to agree, but that's neither here nor there. If the writer wanted to make Aveline get hostile in response, it could have been done without changing any of the systems or user interfaces).


So to reiterate, the wheel just displays data. How it's organized is entirely based upon design decisions that the team wants to go for.

I want to thank you, first of all, for clearing up the semantics issue in such a thourough way. I know I've fallen into the trap before of blaming the wheel when I should be blaming the writing (especially regarding things like the mage/templar recognition issues), so thanks for calling me and others out on that.

I'm not sure, however, that the presentation of the dialog wheel is as completely seperate from the writing process as it seems. Throughout my (admittedly only one) playthrough of DAII, I never once encountered a senario where all three "color" options were not present. If you had a dialog choice that was labeled "diplomatic", then you always had two other choices, one labeled "sarcastic" and the other "aggressive". Also, there was also only ever one option for these "colors". What I found myself doing often as a player was facing an unwelcome choice between tone and paraphrase: I don't like the paraphrase for the blue answer, but I don't want to sound like a jerk. What should I do?

Both of these issues seem to me, as a player, to be related to the design decision regarding the dialog wheel layout. It seems (again from a player perspective) that the writers always write lines for the same three tones and only write one line for each tone at a given point in the conversation; otherwise, where would they fit on the wheel? This is a problem that does not happen with the list layout; the writers can write however many nice or funny or angry responses as they want (space permitting, of course) because they don't have to worry about fitting each respone into a certain slot. I'm not assuming that the writers think about it constantly, but if I were in their shoes it would definitely be in the back of my mind.

I'm not the biggest fan of the colors and icons (or the wheel, or voiced PCs in general, but that's not the biggest issue for me), and I absolutely hate the paraphrases, but perhaps in the same way that there is an investigate sub-menu there could sometimes be a color sub-menu that would list multiple options for the same tone. I realize this would take more work and be more expensive, but it would be a way to increase RP options without having to completely overhall the layout.

Also, apologies for cutting up the quote a bit. I just wanted to highlight the specific points I was responding to.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

But without the icons, there is no result promised.

That you think there is a result promised, doesn't actually make it so. Your understanding of the actual mechanics of the dialogue wheel is wrong. The only reason why you think this is the case is simply because it's all you've observed.

A conclusion based on empirical data.  Yes.

It is trivial for me to create a counterexample that contradicts your logical conclusion.

Granted.  It's not mandatory that the icon telegraph the NPC response.

It's fine to dislike these decisions and to think that they compromise your ability to play the game the way you want. But that's not really a "mechanics" issue in terms of how the system is created.

Showing the icons at all still tells us what the writers' intended tone for that line was.  That's a feature with negative value, in my eyes.

I'd like to be able to hide the icons so that I can choose whichever option I want regardless of my intent, and then succeed or fail based on that.  I don't like that choosing the Heart icon is the only way to flirt, for example.  If I could hide the icon, then I could try to flirt using any of the available options and have the game not tell me I'm doing it wrong.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wissenschaft wrote...

But I don't want Ninjamancing. A big problem with DA:O plain list system was that I had no clue what reaction I would get out of the NPC. If say I was talking to Alistair and I know he likes to joke around so I pick a jab in responce that I think is the most funny. Turns out that another option provides a bigger approval boost. How am I suppose to know that?

You can get the same effect in Rommances, for example, for a female to rommance Leliana they have to give the correct responce to 1 flirt line she gives about hair. If your dismmisive to the comment because you just don't care about hair in general then tough luck your not in a rommance. You'll just have to hope for a second chance at rommancing her (of which, luckly, there is a second chance for both sexes).

DA2 solves this problem. It could have been worst since your dealing with paraphased snips of what will be said. That was a problem often complained about in the Mass Effect games. Having icons that always give the tone they indicate elimnates, for the most part, having a responce have an unexpected tone.

Having icons also forces us to flirt the way BioWare wants us to flirt, and threaten the way BioWare wants us to threaten, and do everything the way BioWare wants us to do it because the game tells us what tone goes with each line.

I'd rather mix and match.  DAO let us mix and match.

[cJohnOne]

I was under the impression that you get more options with the list than the dialogue whieel but I guess the options are actually about the same.

[Sylvius the Mad]

cJohnOne wrote...

I was under the impression that you get more options with the list than the dialogue whieel but I guess the options are actually about the same.

In theory, you can.  The wheel is mechanically limited to 10 options at a time.  The list is not mechanically limited, though BioWare hasn't traditionally gone anywhere near 10.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm not sure, however, that the presentation of the dialog wheel is as completely seperate from the writing process as it seems. Throughout my (admittedly only one) playthrough of DAII, I never once encountered a senario where all three "color" options were not present. If you had a dialog choice that was labeled "diplomatic", then you always had two other choices, one labeled "sarcastic" and the other "aggressive". Also, there was also only ever one option for these "colors". What I found myself doing often as a player was facing an unwelcome choice between tone and paraphrase: I don't like the paraphrase for the blue answer, but I don't want to sound like a jerk. What should I do?

I understand this perspective and feel it's a valid one. Though in general (as well as a nontrivial amount of fans - I only state this to say we aren't just being obstinate in deciding to keep it if no one at all liked it) we like the idea and speaking for just myself, I see it as a system that might be able to be improved upon. Though I'm not married to full dialogue lines and also enjoy a game like Human Revolution and Alpha Protocol as well, so I have my admitted biases when looknig forward to new features and iterations.

I will say that new ideas are definitely being put forth with the wheel (since I have some visibility into them) so I am eager to see how these behave going forward.

I know it's not the answer you may necessarily be looking for and I understand that the idea of the wheel may undermine the quality of the game for you without knowing much more. If that's the case then hopefully as more information comes out there's a better understanding of how its changed and that helps you determine if it's sufficient or not for you.

[Rylor Tormtor]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


Here's a straight up fact: the way the conversations are structured and set up in DA2 is functionally identical to DAO.

I like your engagement and interaction here Allan and enjoy reading your posts, but this doesn't parse. Maybe I am not getting what you mean by "functionally". The paraphrasing of dialogue choices is NOT same as DAO. Is this not included under the rubric of "function"? Now, we have heard that apparently the wheel CAN display the entire intended line, but the devs chose not to (which, is seems, is a huge concession to console design, saving space and making the choices more easiably navigatable on a controller).

I suggest a toggle for full lines of dialogue response, as well as icons in the wheel, which is an aesthic choice, since you said they are functionally indentitcal there is reason to go with one over the other on a PC version. Problem solved.