390 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wissenschaft wrote...

Sadly social skills aren't something you can learn from a book.

Everything learnable is learnable from a book.

Everyone reacts differently and have their own subtle ticks so you just have to be observant.

Observing the cues isn't enough - you need to know what they mean.  And there's never enough information to support any conclusion with confidence.

As such, they are effectively meaningless, particularly given how often people misinterpret them.

Of course, some people are just very bad at picking up on body language and social ques which certainly hurts their ability to communicate.

First, communication isn't a thing.  Interpretation is a thing.  Expression is a thing.  But they don't combined to form an overarching whole.

Second, in my experience, everyone is bad at interpreting non-verbal cues.  It's a common occurence for people to assume facts not in evidence when interpreting what others say.  I'll make a clear and simple statement, and someone will take it as an insult, or a dismissal, or approval, or any number of other things that weren't there (and I would know, because I was the one talking).

A Descarte fan perhaps?

More early Wittgenstein, but in this case the application is the same.

But even Descarte admitted that each day he, like everyone else, just assumed other people were real and went from there.

But at least then we're constantly aware that this is an assumption.  If we actually accept these assumptions as true, that creates an environment ripe for confirmation bias.

But moreover, I can at least perceive other people.  I can't perceive their thoughts.  Neither can you.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

To be fair, I dont think you can't learn to read from a book. At least, not without someone relaying what the meaning of those symbols mean in another format, such as auditory.

But that is a semantics argument and not relevant to the topic at hand.

Point being, in a nutshell, we should never be telegraphed how a response is going to be perceived, and we shouldn't look at the response our character gave and say 'well, that's not at all what I intended.' The list introduces the aspect of ambiguity, for bad in the case of Allen and for good in the case of Sylvius. The wheel introduces the aspect of foreknowledge, for good in the case of Allen and for bad in the case of Sylvius.

In the end, it is the same problem, just different sides of the same coin. I'm not convinced there is not a solution that could work for both camps.

[Gewehr_fr]

I think that the main problem behind this is - in fact - the choice to move from a character to which you were given complete freedom over his motivations, intents and personality, to a more cinematic experience with a named character which apart from his tone you don't have much control over. That's a completely different experience, for me at least.

(if that makes sense)

But it is also true that the dialog lines allowed more choices and nuanced answers than the "be nice / make a joke / be a jerk / flirt" wheel system. That said, Bioware and certainly a major part of the fan base would see the return to non-voiced character + full lines of dialogs as a draw back from evolution and modernity, so I would not expect it to happen in any future games.

[TCBC_Freak]

Gewehr_fr wrote...

I think that the main problem behind this is - in fact - the choice to move from a character to which you were given complete freedom over his motivations, intents and personality, to a more cinematic experience with a named character which apart from his tone you don't have much control over. That's a completely different experience, for me at least.

(if that makes sense)

But it is also true that the dialog lines allowed more choices and nuanced answers than the "be nice / make a joke / be a jerk / flirt" wheel system. That said, Bioware and certainly a major part of the fan base would see the return to non-voiced character + full lines of dialogs as a draw back from evolution and modernity, so I would not expect it to happen in any future games.

If you go back and read all the mod and dev's post you'd see that the lines do not in fact give you numerically more or more nuanced options than the wheel. That's a false assumption. the wheel doesn't just look cleaner it is a technically better system.

That said I can understand the appeal of the full lines, its nostalgic and has the illusion of more control (even if technically it has less, image is everything as they say). Your first part does make sense. I just disagree with it.

[Fortlowe]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fortlowe wrote.... 

Bioware could do all that and more rather handily, I think. How about a tone toggle? This way when I have a question like "What did you do that for? I can, for instance, hold down L for one tone or R for another when I make the selection:
L button:lol:"What did you do that for?"
R button :crying:"What did you do that for?"
A button :huh:"What did you do that for?"
.

I wouldn't be against this idea, btw. Especially considering that with DA2, they had to record a 'D/S/A' tone of every line anyway, in case the player choose a diplomatic line with a dominant tone that was not diplomatic. 

There would be extra work in designing NPC responses, of course. And an enhancement of the UI to allow for this (instead of a direct port from DA2 - but then again, from hints Allen and David have dropped in threads recently, there is going to be SOME change, regardless). But I feel like this would at least give us more options, rather than one tone and line to say yes, one line and tone to make a joke and one line and one tone to say no. Which may be an oversimplification of the entire process, but a close enough caricature to ring true. 

Thanks! Enhancement of the interface is exactly what I'm asking for. A limited degree of tone control could be built into the wheel. I'm sure it would multiply the amount of writning, voice acting, coding, and scene work that would have to go into the game (exponentially so, likely), but I think it would be simple where it needs to be, in the gamers hands. And it would add much needed depth and agency to the wheel.

[Wissenschaft]

If it exponentially increases the amount of work that needs to be done then you have just guaranteed that it will not be done.

[Bondari the Reloader]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think the dialogue systems in BioWare's silent PC games model real-world conversations pretty much exactly. That's how verbal exchanges work. You say what you want to say for whatever reason you want to say it, and then you deal with the fallout.

And this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. CRPGs are restrictive and decidedly unadapatable compared to real life.

What you've done here is conjured up some mental gymnastics in order to prevent cognitive dissonance so you can continue to enjoy the setting in a way that you like. What you value is this notion that you can state and imagine whatever you want with the line of dialogue, and rationalize the NPC response in order to reinforce your conviction towards what you like about choosing lines in a CRPG. But anyone that suggests that a dialogue system where the players is fundamentally restricted to a rigid set of dialogue options with specified words is an accurate reflection of real life is just seeing what they want to see.

I've seen the phrase "mental gymnastics" thrown around a lot here, and it made me laugh because that's what I felt I was something I learned to do for DAII regarding Hawke. (My main gripe here is about the paraphrasing, which may not have been what was originally meant by "dialog layout", but it's come up here a lot, so here goes.)

When I first started playing DAII, I was really thrown by the paraphrases. Many of them simply did not line up at all with what I expected my character to say. So I started sticking to only the blue options because that felt safe; I may not like what Hawke says, but at least she'll be nice about it!

But then there were the swirly arrow options. These seemed to come up whenever Hawke actually had to make a choice about something, but even still, I had not idea what she would actually say. If I wanted to side, for example, with the mages on an issue, I couldn't be guaranteed that Hawke wouldn't say something like, "I think all mages are awesome!" even when my character did not feel that way. I tried to roleplay it, but about half the time I was disappointed. (As a side note, I still have no idea what the swirly arrow option means. The manual just says "Hawke is choosing one of multiple exclusive options", which isn't very informative. They never seemed particularly exclusive like the star options.)

I gradually became more and more frustrated with the dialog system to the point where it felt more like a chore than the combat did, which is not a good thing for an RPG, in my opinion. The most exciting parts of conversation became the investigate options because at least then I could learn some nifty background information! (This is not sarcasm; I like background information.) When a conversation wasn't going the way I wanted to, I just tried to find the fastest way to end it so I could get back to the killing, which is not my usual method of play. Some others have said they would reload the game in this instance; I was just too disinterested in Hawke at that point to care.

But then I discovered the joy of mental gymnastics, and the game became sort of fun again. Whenever Hawke would say something weird that I didn't intend, I would create the most elaborate scenario I could in my mind that would justify her saying that. It was the only way I could rationalize her behavior with the character I had been (trying) to roleplay the entire game, and it made conversations more interesting. Without getting into details, the woman who started the game as a kindhearted, occasionally cheeky rogue turned into a depressed, pathological liar with abandonment issues who desperately craved the approval of the few friends she had left. (What a fun character arc! That was sarcastic.) I ended up actually being disappointed that we didn't have the option to sacrifice Hawke like we did the Warden because I felt that would be more in line with what the character had become, not through my roleplaying but through my mental gymnastics.

Lengthy personal narrative aside, I find it interesting that some people do this kind of mental gymnastics for NPCs. I've never felt the need to personally, preferring to attribute any NPC weirdness to their own mental issues, but that certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't happen for others. I completely agree that games are fundamentally limited in the number of options a player has, whether using a list, wheel, whatever. What bothers me about the paraphrases that accompained the introduction of the wheel is that I was forced to do these intense mental gymnastics for my own character, whom I created (partly, at least). I don't like the voice, tones, and icons, but I can accept them. I don't like the wheel, but if people think it looks cool, I can accept that, too.  The one thing I absolutely hate is the paraphrasing. If we can't get our full lines back, than the paraphrases need to be drastically improved. While I would love for things to return to the way they were in DA:O, I know that's not going to happen. I just want some of the better elements of DA:O to make a return in the new system.

(Wow, I put waaaaay too much thought into that.. Sorry for the length, folks!)

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The difference here is that you think that other people's reactions are predictable.  So any time you speak, you can tell how they're going to react.  If their reaction falls outsied the expected range, you conclude that you failed to express yourself well.

What this means is that you believe you can predict the behaviour of others more strongly than you believe that you know what it is you're saying.  You think you can predict other people's behaviour better than you can control your own.

Not better than I can control myself, but it is a factor yes.

The mind boggles.

Look at what you wrote here.  You wrote, "This means that a silent protagnist occasionally says something that's interpreted the wrong way."  How do you know?  How do you know that the NPC misinterpreted anything.  Maybe he's preoccupied and wasn't really listening.  Maybe he experienced some personal trauma that is relevant to this exchange, but you're unaware of it.  Maybe he has a really strange association with a particular word you used that he finds funny, regardless of the context.

I don't know why you think these things are never true unless you're made explicitly aware of them.  Because that's what you're saying.  You're saying that you know how people will react to what you say - all people, all of the time - so whenever their reactions differ from your expectations it must be your fault.

How can this possibly be your opinion?

Hmm... no... that's not really what I meant. Such things (and they are very much logical causes to unexpected reactions) can indeed be true and if I encounter that the issue is with ignorance, not failure. But if I am not made aware of it, then how can I judge what is appropriate to say? How can I avoid hurting someone's feelings? How can I inspire them?
Being ignorant of someone else's sensibilities is no fault of my own (which is why I talk to strangers carefully), but not learning them prevents me from learning how to speak to them properly. I'd be confined to speaking carefully since I couldn't possibly know what I should and shouldn't say.

But aside from being ignorant; If the message recieved is not the message I intended to deliver... then the failure must be mine. Perhaps an incorrect assumtion that it would be understood... or perhaps an inappropriate way to voice myself. Or a number of other things.

Why do you think that?  Why do you presuppose that the failing is yours?  Or that there was a failing at all?

This is a repeat of the above but: Because if they recieved the wrong information, who else can be blamed but myself?

[TCBC_Freak]

Is it just me or does it seem like this is just going around and around? This topic is one of the only ones I have ever seen a person who works on the game be this vocal in and people just ignore them? Folks on the BSN always ask for more from the teams at Bioware and here we see more of it then almost anywhere before and still people aren't reading their posts or if they are just don't care.

What is it about the dialog mechanic that makes it such a hot button issue? I don't get it. If you want to have a real discussion why would you ignore the most qualified people, the people who work everyday with the nuts and bolts of the game when they say this system is better, and even go so far as to show us "here is the real life, pure facts based on the way the game is built reason why it is better..."

If you don't care what the Dev's have to say then why does every other topic say, "If we could just hear from the Dev's on this issue?"

And as far as the rabbit trail this is becoming about the way different people communicate, I have no comment.

If you don't read a word I said, or if you did and it made you mad I'm sorry, that is not my intent. I just honestly don't get the reactions I'm seeing and am very confused but the hypocrisy of begging for Dev comments in other topics and then ignoring them when it comes to the wheel.

[Fortlowe]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

Is it just me or does it seem like this is just going around and around? This topic is one of the only ones I have ever seen a person who works on the game be this vocal in and people just ignore them? Folks on the BSN always ask for more from the teams at Bioware and here we see more of it then almost anywhere before and still people aren't reading their posts or if they are just don't care.

What is it about the dialog mechanic that makes it such a hot button issue? I don't get it. If you want to have a real discussion why would you ignore the most qualified people, the people who work everyday with the nuts and bolts of the game when they say this system is better, and even go so far as to show us "here is the real life, pure facts based on the way the game is built reason why it is better..."

If you don't care what the Dev's have to say then why does every other topic say, "If we could just hear from the Dev's on this issue?"

And as far as the rabbit trail this is becoming about the way different people communicate, I have no comment.

If you don't read a word I said, or if you did and it made you mad I'm sorry, that is not my intent. I just honestly don't get the reactions I'm seeing and am very confused but the hypocrisy of begging for Dev comments in other topics and then ignoring them when it comes to the wheel.

Welcome to my world. I've fought this fight before. That's why I'm mostly just spectating this time and hoping that finally instead of arguing against a mechanic that 1:) we know for a fact is going to be used anyway and 2:) isn't all that different from the list anway, we start discussing suggestiions to enhance the wheels function. So far we've has a few replies in this regard, but mostly it's like always: "I like the list" or "Just Remove the icons" or the vintage "Why can't we have a silent protagonist?"

"I like the list."
The wheel is the list. This has been demonstrated repeatedly. The list is showing it's age is the problem, not the format it's presented in. The UI just needs more nuance than simply selecting what you want your character to say. How and when they say it should matter sometimes, and the player should have some control over that and the game should react to that tone and timing appropriatly. A tone toggle and a timer, in limited doses could add much needed depth to the wheel.

"Just remove the icons."
Thus removing the only real difference between the list and the wheel. The icons weren't really the problem either. How they were implemented was the problem. The icons represented personality values instead of statement descriptors. If the icons were used to describe what was being said, instead of the kind of character that would say it, then a lot of the misunderstandings we had in DA2 would have been avoided. Adding the previously put forward tone mechanic, would then represent the personality value needed for the brilliant personality building mechanic that was introduced in DA2.

"Why can't we have a silent protagonist?"
Not happening, unless we get some kind of mobile or downloadable seperate side game for DA like ME got with Infiltrator (And off topic: Why isn't Infiltrator available on XBL anyways?). I'd imagine something like that would benefit from a silent protagonist because a smaller game would have a smaller budget and less dev time. Cutting out the PC VA would kill two birds with one stone: give the list lobbyists an outlet and cut down on resources required for development if such a venture were undertaken. Personally, I prefer a voiced protagonist, for DA proper at least.

Modifié par Fortlowe, 06 octobre 2012 - 02:11 .

[Jadebaby]

so have we reached a consensus in this thread yet?

[ianvillan]

Bioware are saying that they are going to fix the paraphrasing to make it better for players to understand for the next game, but is it actually possible to make it better.

In Mass effect 1 players complained about paraphrasing,and Bioware said they heard our complaints and will make it better.

In Mass Effect 2 players still complained about paraphrasing and Bioware said they heard our complaints and will make it better for the next game.

In Mass Effect 3 players again complained about paraphrasing.

In DA2 players complained about the paraphrasing being just as bad as the Mass Effect games even with the icons added and Bioware said they heard our complaints and will make it better for the next game.

If after 4 games the paraphrasing is still as bad as it when started and Bioware hasn't managed to make it any better then it comes down to either Bioware is not listening to the complaints and they are doing what they want or no matter how hard Bioware trys to make paraphrasing better it is just not possible.

[Mike_Neel]

Mary Kirby wrote...


Here's the same hub written for DA2:


We have the same six line limit, however questions move to an investigate hub, and therefore do not count toward the total number of displayed choices. This actually allows us to have more player lines because we don't have to choose between letting you ask another question and letting you have another choice to advance the conversation.

My problem with this is the paraphrasing isn't always indicative well enough to what your character will say or do. 

To use your example you might get something like

• "I can help out." -resulting in your character saying "Only if I get a kiss first!" [you are now romacning quest giver. Isabella +10, Carver -25
• "That's my hobby." -resulting in your character saying "I'm really more of a cat person but ok." [Anders +25, Carver -25]
• "Find your own Dog." -resulting in your character saying "How will I have time to find your dog when I'm too busy killing you?" [Murder knifed quest giver. Carver -25, Avelline -25]

[Bondari the Reloader]

Fortlowe wrote...


"Just remove the icons."
Thus removing the only real difference between the list and the wheel. The icons weren't really the problem either. How they were implemented was the problem. The icons represented personality values instead of statement descriptors. If the icons were used to describe what was being said, instead of the kind of character that would say it, then a lot of the misunderstandings we had in DA2 would have been avoided. Adding the previously put forward tone mechanic, would then represent the personality value needed for the brilliant personality building mechanic that was introduced in DA2.

I agree with this assessment of the icons. If they were simply statement descriptors, then they would really be no different than in a list game where descriptions were sometimes conveyed in parentheses or brackets. Since they were tied to the set personality system instead (something I absolutely hated, but that's a preference thing), they became much more limiting instead of informative. If you pick different icons based on the specific conversation, something I initially tried to do, Hawke ends up sounding like she has multiple distinct personalities instead of being a character who acts in different ways depending on the situation. This, combined with the misleading paraphrases, contributed to my lack of investment in the character. As long as the icons are tied to a personality builder, however, I'm not sure how the icons can be made more clear.

[TCBC_Freak]

Mike_Neel wrote...

Mary Kirby wrote...


Here's the same hub written for DA2:


We have the same six line limit, however questions move to an investigate hub, and therefore do not count toward the total number of displayed choices. This actually allows us to have more player lines because we don't have to choose between letting you ask another question and letting you have another choice to advance the conversation.

My problem with this is the paraphrasing isn't always indicative well enough to what your character will say or do. 

To use your example you might get something like

• "I can help out." -resulting in your character saying "Only if I get a kiss first!" [you are now romacning quest giver. Isabella +10, Carver -25
• "That's my hobby." -resulting in your character saying "I'm really more of a cat person but ok." [Anders +25, Carver -25]
• "Find your own Dog." -resulting in your character saying "How will I have time to find your dog when I'm too busy killing you?" [Murder knifed quest giver. Carver -25, Avelline -25]

There was never a point where there was that much of a leap between what was picked and what was said. You are overdramatizing which in the end hurts you point, those things were the exact opposite of what theywould be and the only way the top would be a flirt is if it said it was with the heart icon (once again showing how the icons make intent clearer, you only had text and it was taken wrong, add an icon and that's fixed, they just need to be clear).

A truer interpretation and representation would be:

To use your example you might get something like

• "I
  can help out." -resulting in your character saying "I'll be sure and look around for your dog." [ Merrell +5]
• "That's my hobby." -resulting in your character saying "How did you know that I love helping other's lokok for things, I found a toe the other day for one person." with a sarcastic tone [Varric+5]
• "Find
  your own Dog." -resulting in your character saying "You know I'm trying to save the whole city from the Qunarie right now don't you?" [Merrill -5 Avaline -5]

That is more like what really happened in game. And I can see having some issue with the middle option if you didn't think it would be sarcastic, but that's what the icons are for, it would have the sarcastic icon (if you didn't understand the icons I could see missing this)

[garrusfan1]

Actually I prefered DA2 dialouge system it is great for a voiced character

[abnocte]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

 

You can heart-icon Aveline all you want, yet she is never going to start

a romance with Hawke, so why my Hawke can't say those exact lines with 

another intent? may be she just wants to mock/tease/joke around with 

Aveline, why the game is telling me my Hawke really meant those words 

when she says them?

 
You're absolutely right.  This is an explicit limitation of CRPGs in general and has nothing to do with full lines of dialogue, icons to show intent or anything like that.  I 100% agree with what you say, and I agree that it happens in all RPGs.

 
Had the lines of dialogue with Aveline been full lines without any sort of intent, she still responds the same way.  It still represents a failure because here's a person that knows the PC for a long time, and yet here she is STILL responding as though you are genuinely hitting on her.  This has gone from no longer just being a simple misinterpretation, to just breaking the setting and making the character less believable.

 
*snip*

 
Let's see... I'm a programmer too. I'm fully aware that no software can offer a functionality that hasn't been implemented before hand by the programmers ( unless it is a bug ).
 
I fully understand what you are saying here... but the difference is just how we approach the game. Had It been any other "kind" of software and I wouldn't bother with this disccussion, the software does what it does and if you want it to do something else it needs to be implemented.

 
Now allow me to explain myself with an example that uses something way less "complex" than a videogame: 

 
A chair 

 
Chairs are designed and manufactured with the only purpose of serving as a sitting place. That's the only "intent" provided by its creators.

Now imagine you are a looking for something in a house and when you find it you do the following:
1.- pick up one chair
2.- put it in front of the shelf
3.- place yourself standing on it
4.- reach desired object

( ^dialogue tree )

now before you place yourself down on the floor your grandma appears and sees you on top of one of her chairs! "What the hell are you doing? Get down this instant!" she yells.
From then on she puts a huge label on top of each chair that clearly states that chairs are for sitting and never again you are allowed to use a chair for anything else but sit.

( ^dialogue wheel )

As I see it there is nothing wrong with using a chair as a mini-ladder ( unless its a chair with wheels ), of course, neither is there when you use it to sit.

The problem arises when you deseperately need to use the chair as a mini-ladder, the chair is the only available objecte and you aren't allowed to use it for what you need.


Before the wheel, dialogue options where "undefined" so some of us could use that "brain gymnastics/imagination/thinking out of the box" or however you want to call it on the game, and by game I mean the "game part of your software"( ... if that makes any sense to anyone but me... )

Since some people here, for various reasons, don't use that "gymnastics" I do think is fair to show them the information they want, but it should be also fair to allow the other group to keep using such "gymnastics".

Since it is been stated there's no turning back, I would like to see a wheel where I can see the full text in some way ( ex: tooltip on hover ) and the option to select the icon separately from the line.

Taking DA2 wheel as a base:

We pick an option and the center of the wheel shows us the icon intended by Bioware. Then those of us that like to use our "gymnastics" are allowed to change the intent icon.
The game will react according to the first icon ( Bioware's ) only.

That way both parties get what they want, and the "only" extra implementation on Bioware's part is adding the option to select the icon and a tooltip for full-text.

I would also suggest Bioware to stop tracking the PC personality since I consider "Persuade/Intimidate/Bluff/Lie/etc" options should depend on stats/skills. ( I personally don't care much about my PC saying onliners I haven't chosen )

Modifié par abnocte, 06 octobre 2012 - 09:10 .

[Nomen Mendax]

Bondari the Reloader wrote...

...

Lengthy personal narrative aside, I find it interesting that some people do this kind of mental gymnastics for NPCs. I've never felt the need to personally, preferring to attribute any NPC weirdness to their own mental issues, but that certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't happen for others. I completely agree that games are fundamentally limited in the number of options a player has, whether using a list, wheel, whatever. What bothers me about the paraphrases that accompained the introduction of the wheel is that I was forced to do these intense mental gymnastics for my own character, whom I created (partly, at least). I don't like the voice, tones, and icons, but I can accept them. I don't like the wheel, but if people think it looks cool, I can accept that, too.  The one thing I absolutely hate is the paraphrasing. If we can't get our full lines back, than the paraphrases need to be drastically improved. While I would love for things to return to the way they were in DA:O, I know that's not going to happen. I just want some of the better elements of DA:O to make a return in the new system.

(Wow, I put waaaaay too much thought into that.. Sorry for the length, folks!)

Great post, and one that sums up my feelings - basically I just want to know what my character is going to say and I'm not sure why so many people (including members of the development team) find that so hard to accept.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 06 octobre 2012 - 09:03 .

[TCBC_Freak]

abnocte wrote...

Taking DA2 wheel as a base:

We pick an option and the center of the wheel shows us the icon intended by Bioware. Then those of us that like to use our "gymnastics" are allowed to change the intent icon.
The game will react according to the first icon ( Bioware's ) only.

That way both parties get what they want, and the "only" extra implementation on Bioware's part is adding the option to select the icon and a tooltip for full-text.

I would also suggest Bioware to stop tracking the PC personality since I consider "Persuade/Intimidate/Bluff/Lie/etc" options should depend on stats/skills. ( I personally don't care much about my PC saying onliners I haven't chosen )

You say you are programer so you know that that, "Only," two things you add will add at least four times as much QA testing? They will need to test the game with the icon toggle on/with full line hover, icon toggle off/with full line hover, icon toggle on/without full line hover, and icon toggle off/without fulll ine hover. The whole game, would need to be tested, with every line of dialog explored to insure there is no issue. Add to this that they already have to run asix QA tests if they only have human male/female PC for the three classes. You've just at least doubled the cost of their QA testing.

[abnocte]

@TCBC_Freak

Who is talking about a icon toggle?
I said the icon will be there as always, they will have to test the icon selection works sure. The same for tooltips so?

I you re read my previous post I used only with quotes because the cost of what I just said is clearly inferior to having to actually implement all posible outcomes for each line with all intents ( and test them ).

And yes I work as a programmer, it just happens that our company is a small one and doesn't have a QA department. The 4 programmers in the company ( yeah only 4 ) test our own code.

Edit: You are aware that the wheel functionality is independent of wether the PC is male/female mage/warrior/rogue?
They don't need to test the wheels functionality for each posible PC, what they test for each posible PC is the dialogue written.
Functionality = capture player input for dialogue option + icon. And tooltips.

Modifié par abnocte, 06 octobre 2012 - 10:02 .

[Cimeas]

Bioware patented the dialogue wheel. Yes, they literally have an official patent for it that you can go look up if you want to. They won't stop using it.

[laudable11]

Keep the wheel.

[Fortlowe]

Bondari the Reloader wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...


"Just remove the icons."
Thus removing the only real difference between the list and the wheel. The icons weren't really the problem either. How they were implemented was the problem. The icons represented personality values instead of statement descriptors. If the icons were used to describe what was being said, instead of the kind of character that would say it, then a lot of the misunderstandings we had in DA2 would have been avoided. Adding the previously put forward tone mechanic, would then represent the personality value needed for the brilliant personality building mechanic that was introduced in DA2.

I agree with this assessment of the icons. If they were simply statement descriptors, then they would really be no different than in a list game where descriptions were sometimes conveyed in parentheses or brackets. Since they were tied to the set personality system instead (something I absolutely hated, but that's a preference thing), they became much more limiting instead of informative. If you pick different icons based on the specific conversation, something I initially tried to do, Hawke ends up sounding like she has multiple distinct personalities instead of being a character who acts in different ways depending on the situation. This, combined with the misleading paraphrases, contributed to my lack of investment in the character. As long as the icons are tied to a personality builder, however, I'm not sure how the icons can be made more clear.

I enjoyed the personality building mechanic and hope it returns for two reasons:

1.) It gave me some control over auto dialogue. I don't absolutely loathe auto dialogue, but there's never a time when my PC is talking that I wouldn't rather have control over what they say. However the narrative sometimes requires that the game takes the reins and I understand that. The personality building system is a very good way to compromise this problem.

2.) I get tailor made conversation options as a reward for making a cohesive personality.

Ideally I'd see the personality building mechanic become more sophisticated. For instance it could score how often I select a gracious option alongside how often I select a sarcastic tone, so that I develop a selfless and humorous personality, Or a selfless and surly one. Or a Cruel and charming one. Or a selfish and witty one, etc, etc. Perhaps it can keep track of how my PC treats characters individually. For example I can make my character be hard and uncompromising in general, but with one NPC they are gentle and limitlessly understanding and the game takes note of the soft spot.

That's aiming pretty high, I imagine, but a good thing to reach for, I think. All possible with the modification of adding a tone toggle to the wheel. I've read and participated in a few of the threads about how dialogue is handled. Most of the gripes people (gamers and devs) have about the wheel/list seem to center around tone. Some control over it seems, to me, to be a likely solution.

Modifié par Fortlowe, 07 octobre 2012 - 03:22 .

[TCBC_Freak]

abnocte wrote...

@TCBC_Freak

Who is talking about a icon toggle?
I said the icon will be there as always, they will have to test the icon selection works sure. The same for tooltips so?

I you re read my previous post I used only with quotes because the cost of what I just said is clearly inferior to having to actually implement all posible outcomes for each line with all intents ( and test them ).

And yes I work as a programmer, it just happens that our company is a small one and doesn't have a QA department. The 4 programmers in the company ( yeah only 4 ) test our own code.

Edit: You are aware that the wheel functionality is independent of wether the PC is male/female mage/warrior/rogue?
They don't need to test the wheels functionality for each posible PC, what they test for each posible PC is the dialogue written.
Functionality = capture player input for dialogue option + icon. And tooltips.

First, I didn't doubt that you worked as a programer. It's not something that I thought you were lying about, sorry if it came out that way.

Second. Yes I understand that the wheel and the player character model are not coded together as one line or layer, or however you want to say it. But that being said the wheel is how the user picks a line of dialog, which lets the engine know what dialog to load, which then loads the proper voiced line for audio, which then has to sync with the facial movements of the PC and each gender has different facial models. Thus, if a the mechanic that is used to tell the whole system which dialog is needed is not functioning then it might load up Male PC's voice over Female PC's voice (but it might never do it if you only play as a male) because the input mechanic was off for the Female option of dialog. Remember that nothing is in a vacum, each gender does effect which lines become avalable (in the same way that a Male PC runs in a different maner than a Female PC), so having the option to alter which lines become avalable (or even just how they are seen on screen) can effect one gender model differently than another as selecting Gender also places a limitation on the dialog to be presented at a later date, thus anything effecting said dialog presentation could (and I say again could) be effected. Of course this all hinges on the type of codeing and the engine being used as well.