390 réponses à ce sujet

[Fallstar]

Allan says that it would be trivial to put the DAO dialogue into the wheel system. Yet one of the reasons people often throw around for the necessity of paraphrases is that full text dialogue wouldn't be able to fit onto a wheel on certain monitors/TVs. I think this is because the wheel is central, then you get dialogue branching off on both sides, instead of just going left to right. So the layout of the dialogue in DA2 is a contributing factor to the paraphrase system, which is already a black mark against it in my book.

Is the wheel actually more aesthetically pleasing, or functionally superior, to left-right lists of dialogue options? The aesthetics are subjective (personally I don't think it looks any better) and there is no improvement to functionality. On the PC, you still just press a number or click an option. On the consoles, anyone who is used to using an analogue stick could select which option they preferred in DAO almost instantly anyway, and I'm guessing Bioware know that, so it can't be for that reason either. Which begs the question, why exactly was the change made to the wheel system? Was it simply that ME is a successful series so you thought it'd be a good idea to copypasta features across?

Next up, the icons. They are silly and limiting. First of all, the idea that we use 6 tones of voice other than asking questions throughout the game is ridiculous. Second, for some bizarre reason each slot on the wheel is occupied by two tones. Meaning that in every conversation, you are locked out of 3 of your already limited 6 options. What if I want to be charming, but instead (like in 75% + of conversations) there is a sarcastic option in the way? It's partly the fault of the VP that we are limited so badly, but if you're going to restrict our choices so drastically, at least give us the full 6 options all of the time.

Finally, why exactly are you using only 6 icons? Rather than using 6 emoticons, why not use words to describe the line. Instead of approaching every conversation with "OK we needs a nice option, a sarcastic option, a direct option..." why not just write the 5 or so lines you want to include, then choose an intent word that accurately describes the line? So you could be contemplative, irritated, calming, reassuring etc. It'd capture at least some of the player agency you've lost in dialogue since Origins.

[Fast Jimmy]

Novate wrote.... 

Personally, I would rather they fix everything that was wrong with DA2, ME3 and create another master piece in story telling and character development. I don't care if there is an Dialogue wheel, or Voiced PC.

You want Bioware to fix 'everything' wrong with DA2 and ME3, but you don't care if they leave the voiced protagonist and dialogue wheel? Even if that's what some people have been arguing as something wrong with DA2 for the past ten pages of this thread (and countless others before it)?

I think you might want to either reevaluate that statement, or at least edit it to say 'fix everything I DIDN'T LIKE about DA2 and ME3' because if it didn't bother you, there is still a chance it bothers someone else. 

[NRieh]

Nrieh wrote...

I mean..you're at tavern, there's an NPC girl you like to flirt with. Are you saying, that you fully RP your reading poems to her and singing songs to her, or are you just giving GM a basic idea about your intentions ("I'm flirting with Mary and reading her some of my new poems") and do charisma roll? If it's former - your RP table game sessions must be....reeeally long. Because it would take you about an hour or more just to have a snack in a tavern.

In my group we kind of go back and forth about this. When I GM I will always start out RPing the NPCs in first person, but when I notice people respond back in third person for whatever their reason, I follow suite. Works pretty well, I find.

Yes, that's how it usually works, some parts of game may go 3rd person, some (especially player-player) conversation may turn to "full-scale" first person RP speech without any "paraphrases". but I really honestly can not see why would videogame (once again - scripted and pre-written static thing) have "first person full lines", while table RPGs that have freedom do not use it most of time (if use any at all).

I see no difference between "I'm flirting with that girl" and pressing heart icon. If you really need any kind of relatuively unrestricted and non-scripted RP - go play LARPs. Why looking for freedom of RP in a videogames?.. All the freedom will happen in your head, if you headcanon and imagine things and not only follow what you see on screen. And it's definetely has nothing to do with wheels, icons or lists.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Because there is a difference between saying 'Im flirting with this barmaid, rolling a Chaisma check and saying you take her upstairs' and choosing a flirt option that results in your character saying 'I'd love you to smeckle my man meat!' One options lets me fill in the gaps, the other option fills in the gaps for me in a way that is truly horrifying to me, as it is something my character would never say.

The point is that I don't care if I succeed, necessarily. Despite the fact that you keep referencing a desire to 'roll a dice' to 'win' these conversations, that's not at all what we are talking about. It's not about winning or losing, or how the NPC will react. It's about saying what you want to say, and saying it how you want it to be said. With full dialogue, I know exactly what my character will say. With a silent PC, I will know exactly how they will say it.

How characters in the game react is nothing I control, I have no illusions about that. But the wheel, paraphrase and voiced PC take away the only control I had in the first place. Which, as I stated as my original 'problem statement' on page six, is the crux of my problem and all subsequent points and perspectives.

[Nomen Mendax]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
...

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.

I'd quibble with this.  You could easily* design a list control that gives positional infromation in the same way that the wheel does (although it would sometimes have ugly gaps in it).  And there is one thing that lists do better than the dialogue wheel, which is display more text since they are not centred in the screen.  My biggest objection to the wheel is that it wouldn't display the full text of a response attractively and that it encourages the developers to write short and ambiguous paraphrases.

But those are quibbles, I agree that the wheel isn't the issue.  To give an extreme example, if you kept the icons and put full text on the wheel then I would be perfectly happy with this, and the fact that the interface happened to be wheel shaped wouldn't bother me.

[edit] *just be be clear I'm saying I could easily sketch a design for a list shaped control that gives positional information.  I'm not saying that implementing it for DA3 would be easy.  For that matter I'm not seriously suggesting it as an alternative to the wheel [/edit]

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 04 octobre 2012 - 03:00 .

[Wissenschaft]

abnocte wrote...

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.

And you do in real life? man, I want to be you.

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?

Why should you know wich dialogue option gives a bigger approval boost? Choosing dialogue options just to max-out Alistair's or any companion's approval is meta-gaming.


About ninjamancing...
I have to say that DA2 was the only Bioware game that had me ninjamanced... mainly because I ended up in a situation where I could only choose between 2 dialogue options:

1.- Bed Merrill
2.- Insult Merrill

Is this the Wheel's fault? not really, I think it's a writting problem created by the frindship/rivalry meter, but the wheel helped because, thought I could guess the outcome to each option, I was guessing.
I didn't use any of the <3 dialogue options on Merril but suddenly she appeared at my house after I refused to help her with the Eluvian ( earning lots of rivalry points ), and was unsure about what was going on. Can I explain to Merrill why my Hawke refused to help her? No, I'm in a rivalry relationship with her so my Hawke must hate mages...

No roleplaying at all...

First, err, we are playing a game, not real life. But thats besides the point, My point was that in DA:O and the mass effect games, the option I select could have different tone then what I was expecting and therefore the result was not my intention. That takes me out of immersion and makes me angry at the game.

Though this problem has 2 parts. The first was the lack of understanding the tone of a line. The other was that in DA:O you had to browned nose your compainions to get along with them.  I really like the Friendship/Rivalry system in DA 2 since it handly solves this problem.

And the problem you discribe with Merrill is present in DA:O and is worst by the lack of icons which means your at your own best guess of what the tone of the line will be before you select it.

Going from a Dialogue Wheel to a list wouldn't change the problem you mention with Merrill one bit. That has to do with the writting of that scene.

P.S. As a side note: "Choosing dialogue options just to max-out Alistair's or any companion's approval is meta-gaming."

And? Last time I check I can play DA:O how I wish. If I enjoy meta-gaming (and boy do I obess over getting that "perfect" playthrough) then so bit it. Meta-gamming isn't something that needs to be look down upon at all. There is no wrong way to play a single player RPG.

Not that I was even advacating meta-gamming. I was just pointing out the diffculty of trying to get along with your companions when you had no clue in DA:O of the tone your comments will have. DA 2's icons don't completely solve the problem but they do help a lot. Part of the problem however is the writting itself and how sometimes your pieogon holed into options that you don't like. But that has nothing to do with the merits of the Dialogue Wheel since the exact same problem exists in DA 1.

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 04 octobre 2012 - 02:55 .

[NRieh]

It's not about winning or losing, or how the NPC will react. It's about saying what you want to say, and saying it how you want it to be said. With full dialogue, I know exactly what my character will say. With a silent PC, I will know exactly how they will say it.

That's a videogame. It can NOT be about "what you want to say" and "how you want to say", it can only be about choosing from prewritten options that are short in number, why would you care about interface so much?

Does it feel much better to see 6 (12, 24) lines you don't really like and choose one you hate least? Some games are good at making "immersion", some - not. Silent Hill 2 had neither lists nor wheels. BG? NWN? They all were much based on lawfull-good scale, and offered "classic" aligment answers and actions (lawfull-neutral-chaotic, good-neutral-evil). I doubt anyone can love game because of wheel and list, same as I doubt one can hate game because of them.

[Nomen Mendax]

Nrieh wrote...

It's not about winning or losing, or how the NPC will react. It's about saying what you want to say, and saying it how you want it to be said. With full dialogue, I know exactly what my character will say. With a silent PC, I will know exactly how they will say it.

That's a videogame. It can NOT be about "what you want to say" and "how you want to say", it can only be about choosing from prewritten options that are short in number, why would you care about interface so much?

Does it feel much better to see 6 (12, 24) lines you don't really like and choose one you hate least? Some games are good at making "immersion", some - not. Silent Hill 2 had neither lists nor wheels. BG? NWN? They all were much based on lawfull-good scale, and offered "classic" aligment answers and actions (lawfull-neutral-chaotic, good-neutral-evil). I doubt anyone can love game because of wheel and list, same as I doubt one can hate game because of them.

I think your missing his point.  The problem with the paraphrase system is that you don't know what your characters is going to say, and that sometimes what the character actually does say contradicts what you imagined.

As Jimmy said in his example, its as if you tell the DM that you are flirting and the DM then tells you (the player) what your character says to the barmaid.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 04 octobre 2012 - 03:04 .

[fchopin]

Let me explain what the problem is so the developers can understand.
 
The way it was done in DA2 we are never sure what our character will say, we are always guessing.
We can only guess what the 3 options are.
 
In DAO we always knew what our character was going to say before speaking and much more than that we also knew what the 3 or 5 options were, so not only did we know what our character would say but we also knew what  all the choices were so we could choose the best option for the kind of character we wanted to portray which is the point of playing a role playing game.
 
If you take that away from us then it is no longer a role playing game, if you show us a heart icon that means you killed the role playing and you may as well just have one button to click and then show the scene as it makes no difference as you took our option away so we cannot define our character.
 
So please let us know what the decision is for DA3 as this is important for us.

Modifié par fchopin, 04 octobre 2012 - 03:36 .

[Maclimes]

fchopin wrote...

Let me explain what the problem is so the developers can understand.

I'm sure this will help clarify that point of confusion for them.

[fchopin]

Maclimes wrote...

fchopin wrote...

Let me explain what the problem is so the developers can understand.

I'm sure this will help clarify that point of confusion for them.

If you want to say something go ahead and say it, i meant no disrespect to the developers.

[Fast Jimmy]

Wissenschaft wrote...
Not that I was even advacating meta-gamming. I was just pointing out the diffculty of trying to get along with your companions when you had no clue in DA:O of the tone your comments will have. DA 2's icons don't completely solve the problem but they do help a lot. Part of the problem however is the writting itself and how sometimes your pieogon holed into options that you don't like. But that has nothing to do with the merits of the Dialogue Wheel since the exact same problem exists in DA 1.

I guess that is a fundamentally different way we played DA:O, then. 

In DA:O, when my response wasn't received in the way I wanted it, my first reaction was to say 'that NPC didn't understand what I was trying to say.' I never assumed the tone my character used was wrong - I just found that the NPC reacted to the line in a way I didn't expect. I didn't assume the line was delivered in a radically different way than I had intended. You, on the other hand, did. 

In DA2, I never get to pick the lines my character will say. I am told what my character will say. So anytime my character says something I don't expect/anticipate, I have no choice but to blame my character for saying it the wrong way (as opposed to the NPC). If I'm blaming a character for saying something I didn't mean, then I can't, by my definition, be playing that character.

[Fast Jimmy]

Nrieh wrote...

That's a videogame. It can NOT be about "what you want to say" and "how you want to say", it can only be about choosing from prewritten options that are short in number, why would you care about interface so much?

<sigh>

As Sylvius said in an earlier post, people CAN do this in video games. We HAVE been doing this in video games for longer than some people on this forum HAVE BEEN ALIVE. Please don't say what can or cannot be done in a video game, it's a little insulting. 

Does it feel much better to see 6 (12, 24) lines you don't really like and choose one you hate least? Some games are good at making "immersion", some - not. Silent Hill 2 had neither lists nor wheels. BG? NWN? They all were much based on lawfull-good scale, and offered "classic" aligment answers and actions (lawfull-neutral-chaotic, good-neutral-evil). I doubt anyone can love game because of wheel and list, same as I doubt one can hate game because of them.

Im not advocating a game where I should be able to say anything I want, in exactly the way I want it. I realize the limitations of video games and development. But a list (or even a wheel with full text but without icons and  pre-determined areas of 'this means nce' or 'this means hateful) let's me know what I am saying. Not the general idea, not the overall tone - I know what will come out of my character's mouth. I'd rather not show mwhat my character says at all rather than be surprised at any given time. 

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Again, why does every line need to be paraphrased? It seems to be the central issue for most people. The same problem popped up in Mass Effect. It also uses the dialogue wheel. Hmm...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

It is established in the NPCs response to what the Warden has said. I don't understand how that's a hard concept to grasp.

Why do you think the NPC response tells you anything about the PC's tone?

Cutlasskiwi wrote...

It's true that the DM decides how the NPCs react but just like in real life if a misunderstanding happen I can correct it and try to explain what I meant. This is usually not possible in games. If a NPC walks away form a conversation thinking my PC meant something that s/he didn't - that's a failure for me.

And if real life, if I say something I didn't mean to say, I can correct it.  DA2 doesn't let me do that, either.

DA2 replaced DAO's failure with an equivalent failure.  How is that better?

Nrieh wrote...

How often does "true" player at the table roleplays full conversation?
I mean..you're at tavern, there's an NPC girl you like to flirt with. Are you saying, that you fully RP your reading poems to her and singing songs to her, or are you just giving GM a basic idea about your intentions ("I'm flirting with Mary and reading her some of my new poems") and do charisma roll? If it's former - your RP table game sessions must be....reeeally long. Because it would take you about an hour or more just to have a snack in a tavern.

I would agree that in a tabletop roleplaying session, most players would describe their intentions broadly rather than act out every word.  But, those intentions are then followed.  If the game master misunderstands the player's intentions, the player can correct him.  The game master isn't going to just forge blindly ahead, contradicting the player's preferences.

But DA2 does do that.  That's probably a writing problem.  When DA3 comes out, I'm going to be asking the writers some very detailed questions about how we're supposed to read the paraphrases so as to correctly ascertain what the hell line we're going to get.
 
Because in DA2 I basically had no idea what Hawke was going to say.

The problem isn't that we don't get to choose full lines.  The problem is that the lines we get aren't the lines we want.  Choosing full lines (without an established tone) solves this problem, which is why we ask for it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nrieh wrote...

That's a videogame. It can NOT be about "what you want to say" and "how you want to say", it can only be about choosing from prewritten options that are short in number, why would you care about interface so much?

Prior to BioWare voicing the PC and hiding the lines behind paraphrases, we  could choose lines from that list and get those lines, and those lines would be delivered as we saw fit.

Now we don't get to choose how the lines are delivered, and we don't get to know what the content of the lines is (so they might actually contradict our preferences).  I might want to be diplomatic without revealing all my secrets, but DA2 won't let me know in advance if those secrets are divulged by the line.  In a tabletop game, I could say to the GM, "I'm friendly, but cautious.  I don't tell him anything," and that would work.  In DA2, the best I can do is choose the diplomatic option and hope Hawke doesn't give anything away.

Now you'll probably say that with full-text I wouldn't have any more options.  That's been Allan's position throughout this thread, as well.  But with full-text and a silent PC, every option can be delivered diplomatically.  There, I would choose the option that didn't divulge the information I wanted to keep secret, and decide myself that it was delivered diplomatically.  Then the NPC would react accordingly.  If he reacted well, it was probably because my diplomacy was successful.  If he reacted badly, it was probably because I didn't tell him what he wanted to know.

DA2 doesn't offer that level of nuance.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I guess that is a fundamentally different way we played DA:O, then. 

In DA:O, when my response wasn't received in the way I wanted it, my first reaction was to say 'that NPC didn't understand what I was trying to say.'

My first reaction was to say 'I guess I didn't know him as well as I thought I did.'

We don't know that he misunderstood.  All we know is that he reacted unpredictably.  Why?  We can't know that.

I never assumed the tone my character used was wrong.

This is important.  Of course you didn't.  You're in control of your character.  You're never wrong about why he does things.  You're never wrong about his opinions.  Why would you ever be wrong about how he delivered a line?  Since that's just more details about the PC that isn't scripted for you, you get to decide it, just like you always have.

Until DA2 took that away.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cutlasskiwi wrote...

It's true that the DM decides how the NPCs react but just like in real life if a misunderstanding happen I can correct it and try to explain what I meant. This is usually not possible in games. If a NPC walks away form a conversation thinking my PC meant something that s/he didn't - that's a failure for me.

And if real life, if I say something I didn't mean to say, I can correct it.  DA2 doesn't let me do that, either.

DA2 replaced DAO's failure with an equivalent failure.  How is that better?

IMO DA2 tried to make it clearer with the icons indicating tone and that did make my misunderstanding ratio smaller. But it did run into problems with the paraphrases. It will be interesting to see what the DA team have come up with to make things better and clearer.

[Wissenschaft]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I guess that is a fundamentally different way we played DA:O, then. 

In DA:O, when my response wasn't received in the way I wanted it, my first reaction was to say 'that NPC didn't understand what I was trying to say.'

My first reaction was to say 'I guess I didn't know him as well as I thought I did.'

We don't know that he misunderstood.  All we know is that he reacted unpredictably.  Why?  We can't know that.

I never assumed the tone my character used was wrong.

This is important.  Of course you didn't.  You're in control of your character.  You're never wrong about why he does things.  You're never wrong about his opinions.  Why would you ever be wrong about how he delivered a line?  Since that's just more details about the PC that isn't scripted for you, you get to decide it, just like you always have.

Until DA2 took that away.

I don't feel in control with the list options in DA:O. Whats listed is often not how I'd speak nor did it give much personality to my character. I enjoy how you can form a dominate personality for Hawke in DA 2. .Suffice to say that a voiceless PC has never done anything for my suspension of disblief. If anything it tends to make me feel like my character is wooden. You can say I'm never wrong about why a silent protagist does things because its all in my head but that doesn't stop the character from feeling lifeless to me.

But I'm a very auditory dependant person. I learn best with auditory learning; I pick up on peoples emitions best through how they speak and their tone of voice. Slient Protagnist always bug me greatly.

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 04 octobre 2012 - 07:19 .

[abnocte]

Wissenschaft wrote...

First, err, we are playing a game, not real life. But thats besides the point, My point was that in DA:O and the mass effect games, the option I select could have different tone then what I was expecting and therefore the result was not my intention. That takes me out of immersion and makes me angry at the game.

Ok, now I understand better your issue.
I think the main difference is that you consider that your interpretation of the line is wrong based NPC reaction.
I try to consider the NPC reaction just a miscommunication because I chose the words based on who I want my PC to be.

Let me ask you something. Let's take Aveline as an example and let's forget that we know she isn't romanceable.

In DA2 you can pick a flirt option more than once when talking with Aveline.
The game clearly tells you that your intent is flirting with her with <3 icons.
But you are never able to start a romance with her, even though your intent ( as clearly stated by the game ) was to romance her.

Does that break immersion for you?

Wissenschaft wrote...

Though this problem has 2 parts. The first was the lack of understanding the tone of a line. The other was that in DA:O you had to browned nose your compainions to get along with them.  I really like the Friendship/Rivalry system in DA 2 since it handly solves this problem.

I never felt the need to "browned nose" my companions in DAO because there were plenty of them.
If I was playing a more diplomatic/helpful natured PC I would bring Alistair, Leliana/Zevran, Wynne; if I was playing a agressive/practical PC I would use Morrigan, Sten/Dog, Zevran. 

I don't see it as a failure if my PC doesn't get along with companions that don't share her beliefs or motivations.

Wissenschaft wrote...

And the problem you discribe with Merrill is present in DA:O and is worst by the lack of icons which means your at your own best guess of what the tone of the line will be before you select it.

Going from a Dialogue Wheel to a list wouldn't change the problem you mention with Merrill one bit. That has to do with the writting of that scene.

As I said in the post you quoted:

...
Is this the Wheel's fault? not really, I think it's a writting problem created by the frindship/rivalry meter, but the wheel helped because, thought I could guess the outcome to each option, I was guessing.
...

What I was complaining about is that I didn't know what words my Hawke would say, so I was unable to determine that my Hawke would

1.- accuse Merrill of summoning demons in the city and outright insult her
or
2.- declare her love for Merrill and bed her

made even worse by of the lack of other options due to us being in the rilvary path.

P.S. As a side note: "Choosing dialogue options just to max-out Alistair's or any companion's approval is meta-gaming."

And? Last time I check I can play DA:O how I wish. If I enjoy meta-gaming (and boy do I obess over getting that "perfect" playthrough) then so bit it. Meta-gamming isn't something that needs to be look down upon at all. There is no wrong way to play a single player RPG.

There is nothing wrong with meta-gaming in a RPG, even I have done that sometimes, the problem arises when the game meta-games itself leaving no room for roleplaying.

Part of the problem however is the writting itself and how sometimes your pieogon holed into options that you don't like. But that has nothing to do with the merits of the Dialogue Wheel since the exact same problem exists in DA 1.

I fully agree with you in this part, but the good thing about full text is that I can see and compare the different lines and choose accordingly in one try, because for me it's not just about an intent but how my character expresses it.

[Wulfram]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

As Jimmy said in his example, its as if you tell the DM that you are flirting and the DM then tells you (the player) what your character says to the barmaid.

In traditional roleplaying if you roll a 1 then you've probably leered drunkenly at her breasts and made an obscene suggestion, while if you roll a 20 you probably spontaneously composed a shakespearian sonnet to her beauty.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I guess that is a fundamentally different way we played DA:O, then. 

In DA:O, when my response wasn't received in the way I wanted it, my first reaction was to say 'that NPC didn't understand what I was trying to say.' I never assumed the tone my character used was wrong - I just found that the NPC reacted to the line in a way I didn't expect. I didn't assume the line was delivered in a radically different way than I had intended. You, on the other hand, did.

That's pretty much the way I interpret it when there's a mismatch in DA:O, or an IE game, or anything else using that system. I can't force bizarre interpretations of NPC behavior on myself when I know that's not what's actually happening in the game

In DA2, I never get to pick the lines my character will say. I am told what my character will say. So anytime my character says something I don't expect/anticipate, I have no choice but to blame my character for saying it the wrong way (as opposed to the NPC). If I'm blaming a character for saying something I didn't mean, then I can't, by my definition, be playing that character.

We're never playing the character. Whichever dialog system we're using, all we're ever doing is picking from a list of two to six choices. You can pretend to be playing the character, and you might find that a useful illusion. But that's all it is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wissenschaft wrote...

But I'm a very auditory dependant person. I learn best with auditory learning; I pick up on peoples emitions best through how they speak and their tone of voice. Slient Protagnist always bug me greatly.

I communicate with people almost entirely in writing.  And when I do speak, people routinely misinterpret my tone or body language.

Different people are different.  We shouldn't all be forced to play the same way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

That's pretty much the way I interpret it when there's a mismatch in DA:O, or an IE game, or anything else using that system. I can't force bizarre interpretations of NPC behavior on myself when I know that's not what's actually happening in the game

Don't break character.  Your character doesn't know he's in a game at all.  If you don't break character, then your knowledge is never relevant.

We're never playing the character. Whichever dialog system we're using, all we're ever doing is picking from a list of two to six choices. You can pretend to be playing the character, and you might find that a useful illusion. But that's all it is.

I am playing the character.  I decide how he feels about what was just said to him, and then I choose the dialogue option (from the short list) that is consistent with those established feelings.

Unfortunately, the paraphrases mean that I can't tell what the options even are, and the voice means that the number of options I have is far more limited than it was with full text and a silent protagonist.

If you're not oplaying the character, how do you choose among the available dialogue options?  How do you decide which option is appropriate?