390 réponses à ce sujet

[oui_je_danse]

Wulfram wrote...

The problem with the wheel is it highlights the formulaic nature and artificiality of RPG dialogue choices, by making investigate options feel less like real choices, and by making the standard Nice, Neutral, Nasty choices into an explicit feature.

How did investigate options feel less like real choices? You could still, you know, choose to investigate.

[Wulfram]

oui_je_danse wrote...

How did investigate options feel less like real choices? You could still, you know, choose to investigate.

Because they're put in a special "hey don't worry, these don't actually matter" segment of the wheel.

The de facto investigate options in previous games may not in fact have mattered any more, but their meaninglessness wasn't so explicitly spelled out.

[upsettingshorts]

Looks like the goalposts are traveling at a higher speed than usual in this thread.

[Dragoonlordz]

Wulfram wrote...

The problem with the wheel is it highlights the formulaic nature and artificiality of RPG dialogue choices, by making investigate options feel less like real choices, and by making the standard Nice, Neutral, Nasty choices into an explicit feature.

I understand what you mean, having set of responses labelled and treated differently to the main choices leading to a break in the illusion of choice. Which all choices are not the same quality, you have a side you can spam through and a side with impact and consequences in manner of action taken.

Now I can understand also why some people want that in order to find out everything they can in first run through of the game and spam though it or skip it second time around. But opposite to that you have the negative effect of limiting immersion in which you know for fact most of the things you say have zero effect other than exposition. They have no outcome, no impact outside or possibly friendship/rivalry points. I prefer personally not knowing which dialogue option will produce an outcome, which will have a consequence and where the dialogue tree will lead. Investigate throws that out the window though.

I think there are people who like one method and people who like the other method. The latter (no investigate) adds to replayability because all choices could potentially have an impact, you as a player are deciding your route through interactions with unknown consequences of your choices not limited to exposition.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:01 .

[brettc893]

I like the circle...

[zyntifox]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

The problem with the wheel is it highlights the formulaic nature and artificiality of RPG dialogue choices, by making investigate options feel less like real choices, and by making the standard Nice, Neutral, Nasty choices into an explicit feature.

I understand what you mean, having set of responses labelled and treated differently to the main choices leading to a break in the illusion of choice. Which all choices are not the same quality, you have a side you can spam through and a side with impact and consequences in manner of action taken.

Now I can understand also why some people want that in order to find out everything they can in first run through of the game and spam though it or skip it second time around. But opposite to that you have the negative effect of limiting immersion in which you know for fact most of the things you say have zero effect other than exposition. They have no outcome, no impact outside or possibly friendship/rivalry points. I prefer personally not knowing which dialogue option will produce an outcome, which will have a consequence and where the dialogue tree will lead. Investigate throws that out the window though.

I think there are people who like one method and people who like the other method. The latter (no investigate) adds to replayability because all choices could potentially have an impact, you as a player are deciding your route through interactions with unknown consequences of your choices not limited to exposition.

I think i like the "no investigate" approach better since it feels more like a real conversation with a NPC and not a "im going to interegate this NPC to milk as much information as i can out of him". But i can understand why the other side prefers to have a investigate button though.

[Dragoonlordz]

Cstaf wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

The problem with the wheel is it highlights the formulaic nature and artificiality of RPG dialogue choices, by making investigate options feel less like real choices, and by making the standard Nice, Neutral, Nasty choices into an explicit feature.

I understand what you mean, having set of responses labelled and treated differently to the main choices leading to a break in the illusion of choice. Which all choices are not the same quality, you have a side you can spam through and a side with impact and consequences in manner of action taken.

Now I can understand also why some people want that in order to find out everything they can in first run through of the game and spam though it or skip it second time around. But opposite to that you have the negative effect of limiting immersion in which you know for fact most of the things you say have zero effect other than exposition. They have no outcome, no impact outside or possibly friendship/rivalry points. I prefer personally not knowing which dialogue option will produce an outcome, which will have a consequence and where the dialogue tree will lead. Investigate throws that out the window though.

I think there are people who like one method and people who like the other method. The latter (no investigate) adds to replayability because all choices could potentially have an impact, you as a player are deciding your route through interactions with unknown consequences of your choices not limited to exposition.

I think i like the "no investigate" approach better since it feels more like a real conversation with a NPC and not a "im going to interegate this NPC to milk as much information as i can out of him". But i can understand why the other side prefers to have a investigate button though.

Yeh it's simply a preference thing. I and/or some prefer one way while others prefer another.

[Maclimes]

Clearly, instead of 3 moods and a few questions on a wheel or list, we should have a 3-D spinning icosahedron (20-sided dice, for example) with icons on all of it's faces. Whichever face is "forward" will then create a little subtitle under it, so you can see what you're about to say.

That way, we have 20 options for every dialogue.

[upsettingshorts]

Got into a discussion with Sylvius about the pros and cons of explicitly labeling the investigate dialogues the other day.

My argument was in essence that since Choice dialogues permanently advance the conversation in a way real arguments are rarely if ever permanently advanced, labeling Investigatory dialogues that in real conversations could be asked later means we don't lose out on asking them forever just because we failed to ask them at that precise opportunity.  

In essence, it's a compromise resulting from the limitations of the facts arising from it being a game and not a real conversation.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:25 .

[David Gaider]

Cstaf wrote...
I agree that the wheel does not take away the number of choices. It does however force, the way bioware seems to want to do it, the usage of shorter paraphrase due to the limitation of space

Not quite true. We can list the full line, though it ends up looking quite messy on the interface. We can even truncate the displayed line and display the full line on-hover. We won't do that, however, as a stylistic choice.

We intend to be less paranoid, however, about repeating information between the paraphrase and the actual line. So that makes the lines a bit easier to paraphrase. And, yes, I agree that more iteration of the paraphrases is necessary to lower the percentage of misinterpretations (which is low, but could stand to be lower).

I know that some people just don't like the perceived "mechanical" nature of the interface, or the use of the icons to make the intended tone more explicit (tones which were always present, even in DAO, as that's the way we wrote them). Abandoning the entire style to deliberately go back to a more obscure interface, however, isn't something we're going to entertain... and I personally believe wouldn't actually do what some people seem to believe it would. I do hear the criticism, but don't agree with the diagnosis. In the end, however, I'd rather show what we're doing than discuss it in this manner, so I'll hold off going into detail.

[Dragoonlordz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Got into a discussion with Sylvius about the pros and cons of explicitly labeling the investigate dialogues the other day.

My argument was in essence that since Choice dialogues permanently advance the conversation in a way real arguments are rarely if ever permanently advanced, labeling Investigatory dialogues that in real conversations could be asked later means we don't lose out on asking them forever just because you failed to ask them at that precise opportunity.  

In essence, it's a compromise resulting from the limitations of the facts arising from it being a game and not a real conversation.

It's not really a compromise, it's more a preference that has no compromise because it is either one thing or the other. One side that wants to ask as much as can and gain as much exposition in one playthrough vs those who would prefer all choices have unknown potential to have an outcome or impact of which can find out when go down a different route in a following playthrough which I call picking a route through dialogue. The latter adds to replayability to me by not telling me everthing on the left side of dialogue wheel is all exposition and spam and right side only choices that matter while the former might add to replayability to you by limiting the amount of choices that have outcomes for you to pick from you can spam your way through the investigate ones next time since read it all before. You do not lose out on asking them anything forever anyways, which is misleading unless your intention is to sell the game after the very first playthrough or never play it ever again.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:37 .

[Arppis]

David Gaider wrote...

Cstaf wrote...
I agree that the wheel does not take away the number of choices. It does however force, the way bioware seems to want to do it, the usage of shorter paraphrase due to the limitation of space

Not quite true. We can list the full line, though it ends up looking quite messy on the interface. We can even truncate the displayed line and display the full line on-hover. We won't do that, however, as a stylistic choice.

We intend to be less paranoid, however, about repeating information between the paraphrase and the actual line. So that makes the lines a bit easier to paraphrase. And, yes, I agree that more iteration of the paraphrases is necessary to lower the percentage of misinterpretations (which is low, but could stand to be lower).

I know that some people just don't like the perceived "mechanical" nature of the interface, or the use of the icons to make the intended tone more explicit (tones which were always present, even in DAO, as that's the way we wrote them). Abandoning the entire style to deliberately go back to a more obscure interface, however, isn't something we're going to entertain... and I personally believe wouldn't actually do what some people seem to believe it would. I do hear the criticism, but don't agree with the diagnosis. In the end, however, I'd rather show what we're doing than discuss it in this manner, so I'll hold off going into detail.

Why don't you guys make it optional to be able to see the full text in SEPERATE bar above the dialogue wheel?

[zyntifox]

David Gaider wrote...

Cstaf wrote...
I agree that the wheel does not take away the number of choices. It does however force, the way bioware seems to want to do it, the usage of shorter paraphrase due to the limitation of space

Not quite true. We can list the full line, though it ends up looking quite messy on the interface. We can even truncate the displayed line and display the full line on-hover. We won't do that, however, as a stylistic choice.

We intend to be less paranoid, however, about repeating information between the paraphrase and the actual line. So that makes the lines a bit easier to paraphrase. And, yes, I agree that more iteration of the paraphrases is necessary to lower the percentage of misinterpretations (which is low, but could stand to be lower).

I know that some people just don't like the perceived "mechanical" nature of the interface, or the use of the icons to make the intended tone more explicit (tones which were always present, even in DAO, as that's the way we wrote them). Abandoning the entire style to deliberately go back to a more obscure interface, however, isn't something we're going to entertain... and I personally believe wouldn't actually do what some people seem to believe it would. I do hear the criticism, but don't agree with the diagnosis. In the end, however, I'd rather show what we're doing than discuss it in this manner, so I'll hold off going into detail.

Wait, what? It might be due to English not being my native language but, are you guys seriously putting higher value on stylistic presentation than giving as much information as possible as to what the protagonist you as a player tries to roleplay will say? If i translated that wrong you can just disregard this post.

[upsettingshorts]

@Dragoonlordz

Then ignore the information the UI presents you, and take whatever option you believe your character would without knowledge of which will advance the conversation or not.  

[Dragoonlordz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

@Dragoonlordz

Then ignore the information the UI presents you, and take whatever option you believe your character would without knowledge of which will advance the conversation or not.  

While in theory there is logic to that, it is offset by the reality of knowing everything there does nothing bar exposition and if lucky friendship and rivalry points. You know none of them have any effect, that is something you cannot ignore. There are no surprises resulting in different outcomes, the treats or potential impacts of picking any of them outside of more information. This limits the value added by them compared to the other side of the wheel.

Now I do think that Bioware has zero intention of taking on board my preference on this because they prefer one side exposition and the other side choices having actual impact, I do prefer if the left side (investigate side) had impact too on occassions outside of mere F/R points, exposition and elucidation. The chance to surprise me with consequence and actions not just limited to the right side of the dialogue wheel.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 octobre 2012 - 09:18 .

[Karlone123]

[/quote]

Why don't you guys make it optional to be able to see the full text in SEPERATE bar above the dialogue wheel?

[/quote]

What shouldn't be optional in Dragon Age 3? Everyone keeps saying this and that should be optional, but it's not going to work and Bioware's not going to do it. Optional voiced-protaganist, what a laugh!

Modifié par Karlone123, 02 octobre 2012 - 09:00 .

[Wulfram]

I'd like there to be occasions when the information from investigates gave you extra options later on. Or where asking too many questions angers the other guy.

[Iosev]

Cstaf wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Cstaf wrote...
I agree that the wheel does not take away the number of choices. It does however force, the way bioware seems to want to do it, the usage of shorter paraphrase due to the limitation of space

Not quite true. We can list the full line, though it ends up looking quite messy on the interface. We can even truncate the displayed line and display the full line on-hover. We won't do that, however, as a stylistic choice.

We intend to be less paranoid, however, about repeating information between the paraphrase and the actual line. So that makes the lines a bit easier to paraphrase. And, yes, I agree that more iteration of the paraphrases is necessary to lower the percentage of misinterpretations (which is low, but could stand to be lower).

I know that some people just don't like the perceived "mechanical" nature of the interface, or the use of the icons to make the intended tone more explicit (tones which were always present, even in DAO, as that's the way we wrote them). Abandoning the entire style to deliberately go back to a more obscure interface, however, isn't something we're going to entertain... and I personally believe wouldn't actually do what some people seem to believe it would. I do hear the criticism, but don't agree with the diagnosis. In the end, however, I'd rather show what we're doing than discuss it in this manner, so I'll hold off going into detail.

Wait, what? It might be due to English not being my native language but, are you guys seriously putting higher value on stylistic presentation than giving as much information as possible as to what the protagonist you as a player tries to roleplay will say? If i translated that wrong you can just disregard this post.

Here's the thing, while I enjoyed Deux Ex: Human Revolution, I often felt distracted by the amount of text that sometimes displayed on the screen.  I'm the type of player that turns off subtitles and tries to immerse myself in conversations by looking at lip and facial movements, hand gestures, and other visual cues, like I normally would in conversation.  Bioware's visually-minimal approach with their dialogue wheel works well with that type of approach.

With that said, despite the potential distractions, I think Eidos Montreal's dialogue wheel worked well in DE:HR because the protagonist is a cyborg, so the text, especially during the interrogations, made sense.  Overall, I do think that presentation is an element that I imagine developers have to consider.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mary Kirby wrote...

Okay, I have seen this argument a lot, and I think this requires clarification. You absolutely, categorically, did not get more choices in the Origins dialogue list.

Though we did occasionally in other BioWare games.  We weren't always limited to 6.

Here's a typical Origins player hub:

Here's the same hub written for DA2:

The two major differences with the layout is that the wheel options aren't visibly numbered, so they're harder to trigger with the keyboard (if you guys could number them, that would be great), and the wheel options are necessarily shorter because they need to fit in only half the width of the screen (a problem further exacerbated by your insistence on supporting 640*480 displays).

And this still ignores the paraphrase issue.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 octobre 2012 - 09:52 .

[EricHVela]

Wulfram wrote...

I'd like there to be occasions when the information from investigates gave you extra options later on. Or where asking too many questions angers the other guy.

The DA:O dialog engine could certainly do both. I think they actually did that in DA:O: missing a dialog caused an event to happen differently and limiting the number of dialog attempts. It might have been in the second Dragon Age, too, but I only get a feeling of it when thinking on DA:O.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

@Dragoonlordz

Then ignore the information the UI presents you, and take whatever option you believe your character would without knowledge of which will advance the conversation or not. 

That argument works on me, because I'm choosing the options in character.  Dragoonlordz seems to want to play a sort of dialogue minigame where he needs to correctly ascertain the function of each line, and labelling them ruins it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

In the end, however, I'd rather show what we're doing than discuss it in this manner, so I'll hold off going into detail.

See?  New dialogue system unveiling.  I told you it was coming.

Will it look a whole lot like the DA2 dialogue system?  Yes.  But will it include some tweaks to make it easier to use?  That's what I'm waiting to see.

And you're still wrong about the tone in DAO.  The tone the writers intended never made it into the game until you started voicing the PC.  That's why we want to be able to turn the voice off - to avoid the tone.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

@Dragoonlordz

Then ignore the information the UI presents you, and take whatever option you believe your character would without knowledge of which will advance the conversation or not. 

That argument works on me, because I'm choosing the options in character.  Dragoonlordz seems to want to play a sort of dialogue minigame where he needs to correctly ascertain the function of each line, and labelling them ruins it.

Yeah and I'm not quite sure how to respond to that.

More evidence for the "you cant please everyone all at once" bucket, I suppose.

[Icinix]

I prefer the list form - but only because so often my interpretation off the wheel of what I think my character will say - is not what the character says.

I'll always prefer a non-voiced character and the list - but since I think its going the way of the dodo, I really think the wheel needs improvement to give players like myself (who totally seem to misjudge intent) a better idea of what is actually going to be said.

In particular every second thing I say in The Old Republic seems to be wrong - and I remember a number of places in DA2 where I was nearly screaming no at the screen when Hawke spoke.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Yeah and I'm not quite sure how to respond to that.

More evidence for the "you cant please everyone all at once" bucket, I suppose.

I see no middle ground between your two positions.

And for once, I'm in the enviable position where I'm happy no matter which design is followed.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 octobre 2012 - 09:52 .