390 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Vandicus wrote...

You've come to the conclusion that the majority of the fanbase judges a game based on its presentation above nearly all else. While UpsettingShorts was being sarcastic in his post, he didn't actually disagree with your assesment(though it is implied he disagreed with your suggestion to the devs). You seem to have some bone to pick with him, so w/e.

What I did not disagree with: A large number of posters clearly do hold that false belief.

What I did disagree with:  Lecturing BioWare that it ought to be the key to their decision regarding list vs. wheel.

That's as long as we're concerning ourselves with the content of the post only.

[Jadebaby]

Mary Kirby wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Agreed Fiacre. I really enjoyed it in Mass Effect 1 and 2. But after going back and playing games like Fallout and DA Origins now. I've come to realise how superior the list form really is in terms of depth of choice.

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.

Here's a typical Origins player hub:
Snip*

There was a hard limit of six displayed player lines per hub. Any more than that would simply not appear. Questions (which sometimes could be asked repeatedly and sometimes removed themselves from the list after being asked) count toward the six option limit. Usually only one or two choices would actually advance the conversation, the questions would be answered and then would loop back to the same set of choices.

Here's the same hub written for DA2:
Snip*

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.

Just to reiterate now that I'm back on a PC.

If the hard limit is 6 slots for choices.

Then allocating one slot to an 'investigate' sub-section would give the other 5 slots more room to allow for a progess in conversation.

Or is that too hard to work around the investigate option sometimes influencing the progress options?

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

This definitely happened in Mass Effect 3 (more options were made available to the player later on by picking investigates).

[Jadebaby]

Come to think of it, it would be similiar to the "can I ask you a question" tab at the camp site. This would allow 5 slots for investigate options and 1 for a "actually, nevermind." (return button)

Which, if you maximize the investigate slots in the dialog wheel you still get 5 and 1 for return. So it's the same, but because it's in list form, the wording is more descriptive.

[Vandicus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

This definitely happened in Mass Effect 3 (more options were made available to the player later on by picking investigates).

Sort've OT, but have you or the other devs played ME3 MP? I know you're well aware of the dialogue system employed by your sister Bioware team for ME, just wondering if you guys looked at their MP as well.

[Jadebaby]

plz don't bring up MP, not only in this thread. But in DA3 forum. I cringe to think about it

[Foolsfolly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

This definitely happened in Mass Effect 3 (more options were made available to the player later on by picking investigates).

Example?

Every single time you spoke to the Illusive Man with the exception of the final conversation.

[Allan Schumacher]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Mary Kirby wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Agreed Fiacre. I really enjoyed it in Mass Effect 1 and 2. But after going back and playing games like Fallout and DA Origins now. I've come to realise how superior the list form really is in terms of depth of choice.

Snip**

forgive the snip and my ignorance, but is it possible to include an investigate hub on the list form layout?

We could add a conversation option that is Investigate, but it'd actually require us to create conversations differently.

While, to the user, it may appear that picking investigate takes you to a different point in the conversation, it actually does not behind the scenes.

Our conversations are straight forward "trees" in that when you get to a particular line, you have "branches" of options you can choose from.  Currently investigates and "non-investigates" all sit on the exact same level of the conversation.  This makes conversation flow control during content creation a lot easier (I suppose I can't speak strictly on behalf of the writers preferences, but I do regress these systems and create tons of conversations myself as test content).

It also more easily lets us control and manage the types of options that exist at a particular node.  While you may only see "one option upper right" behind the scenes we can actually have dozens of different dialogue lines that are set to show up there.  The game engine resolves, during runtime, which one to show through a top-first mechanic, meaning it takes the first option in the tree that is allowed to be visible (we can conditionally check if a line is visible by checking plot states).

For example, you could have this:

I am the NPC speaker

• [Northwest] (If Anders is present and romanced) Option 1
• [Northwest] (if Anders is present and not romanced) Option 2
• [Northwest] (if Anders is not present but Isabela is) Option 3
• [Northwest] Option 4

So the option line that you see takes into account various plot flags.  It doesn't make sense to have a dialogue option that says, for example have the PC say to Anders: "You want to deal with this my love?" unless he's present and romanced.  Nor does it make any sense at all if Anders isn't even present!  The "default" option is "Option 4" since there's no Condition attached, but if any of the "higher" options conditions are matched, that's the option that is displayed.

It allows better control over where the options are listed (I understand some may not like this) while making it easier to manage (which helps prevent bugs), because with just the straight up list we end up forcibly, for example, having to have an explicit condition even on Option 4, and when you start doing this with 5 lines that could be displayed in any particular order, you'll get inconsistencies in where lines get placed as well as what conditions need to be set up in order for the lines to appear.

Suddenly a bug has pushed a legit, rare case instance off the bottom of the 5 list options and it doesn't show up the way we were expecting and making sense of the list of dialogue options is more problematic.  In the conversation editor we can easily group the options that share the same dialogue location to manage the control flow for which options show up.


(note, this conversation flow is also applied to NPCs, but since no user input is required, it's a bit easier to manage since it always just takes the first options that is considered valid to be spoken).

It's a bit techie (and it's late so maybe I obfuscated it as well).  It's also based mostly on my own experiences with setting up conversations and testing covnersation flow, GUI control, etc. etc. etc. so some of my findings may not necessarily line up with the particulars of how the writing team necessarily makes their decisions and organizes their work.

[Allan Schumacher]

Vandicus wrote...
Sort've OT, but have you or the other devs played ME3 MP? I know you're well aware of the dialogue system employed by your sister Bioware team for ME, just wondering if you guys looked at their MP as well.

I have, both professionally (while in development and giving feedback) as well as on my own time post release.  Though this is off topic so if you want to discuss it further head to PMs or open up a new thread for it.

[Dragoonlordz]

MODEDIT: removed exchange

This thread is about dialog layout. This covers many different aspects and not just how many choices there are but also how they are presented and impact has on paraphrasing plus visual preferences on the layout which all relate to the style and format of one system over another. People are free to discuss all elements and not only the one your think should be discussed, they are allowed to express their preferences.

Some people wanted to talk about choices, some visuals and others the effect of the system itself and impact certain format which anyone can talk about any one of those elements at anytime despite your objection to open discussion not limited to one aspect. The preferences of people is what makes them buy games, do you prefer RPG's to FPS, do you prefer male lead to female, do you prefer mature themes or specific gameplay mechanics even story types. It is a valid and worthwhile thing to do. It lets developers and creators know the sort of things people like.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 03 octobre 2012 - 05:53 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Note: Deleted/modded some posts to just keep things a bit more civil. Please leave the more personal, off topic type of discussions to a place like PMs.

Thanks!

[zyntifox]

Ria wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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).

Being less paranoid is good news. I always thought it was a strange claim that reading the actual line before it's spoken would somehow "ruin the surprise". The protagonist is my character and she shouldn't surprise me. The NPC I'm speaking with is the one who should handle the whole surprise part.

A question though. I'm interested in knowing how you measure the amount of misinterpretations caused by some ill-worded paraphrase. You claim the percentage is low but how can you know that? Do you measure the times people reload their game or consult the testers?

My personal experience,which probably does not represent the majority, is that the only way to avoid uncharacteristic lines in DA2 is to stick with one personality type (diplomatic, sarcastic, blunt). I didn't want to do that and I had to reload probably around 50 times on my first playthrough to keep my Hawke's lines in character (much easier on replays because I know my way around the game). I'd imagine many people just sigh and move on without bothering to reload, though.

Cryptic paraphrasing was the biggest culprit but the schizophrenic voice acting was also a problem. Sometimes Hawke's voice within the same conversation sounded like it came from a different person if I changed the tone midway. So it wasn't always the contents of the line but also how it was acted. This is a problem that comes with having a voiced protagonist. I understand you're going to stick with that but please try to maintain the flow of the conversation when recording voices. 

Edit: Oh the topic, yes. I really don't care whether the form is a list or a wheel or a möbius strip as long as the intent is crystal clear.

Good to know that i am not alone in reloading (well over 50 times in my case) due to misinterpretting the paraphrases. I got fed up in the beginning of act 2 and stopped trying to roleplay Hawke and just chosed diplomatic response everytime.

[Allan Schumacher]

As long as you don't ask for story/content details. I don't know what those are. We're making a game?! I thought we were just making some tools and tech demo stuff!!

[Jadebaby]

I agree with Avejajed. That's the most insightful post I've ever read from a BioWare employee. So thank you very much for engaging in the discussion, and for being so detailed in doing so!

And for someone who has little to no tech experience, I understood it all! =D

[Direwolf0294]

Out of curiosity Allan, from a coding/tech point of view would it take much work to add two extra dialogue slots at the top/north and bottom/south parts of the dialogue wheel? And from a voice acting and writting perspective, would allowing two extra choices during conversation have a drastic increase on time and cost?

[Allan Schumacher]

To keep this thread more on topic, I answered your question here, Avejajed.

[Kidd]

Fiacre wrote...

but I do believe that list form is just better for navigation.

Pie menus such as the dialogue wheel lead to less user error, are easier for new people to get into and lead to less travel time for your PC mouse. That it happens to work great for consoles as well is also great, yet the pie menu was originally created for mouse and keyboard setups. [Source]

Pie menus have been around for a lot longer than the dialogue wheel - even in RPGs they've been used in Temple of Elemental Evil for instance to put a lot of options under easy access.

Jade8aby88 wrote...

If the hard limit is 6 slots for choices. 

Then allocating one slot to an 'investigate' sub-section would give the other 5 slots more room to allow for a progess in conversation.

I suppose if they coded an all new list menu, that would be possible. The way the past menu worked from what I've understood in my own tinkering, a line always shot off a command to continue in the game script. Which lead to exchanges like this.

PC: Before we go on, I had some questions. (essentially Investigate)
NPC: I am hardly surprised.
PC: [question]
NPC: [answer]
PC: About what we were talking about before. (essentially Return)
NPC: Speak, then.

Which leads to an unnatural sounding conversation and more voice over work. This is, of course, only true if they don't create a new list system and/or and if I have properly understood how the dialogue system works.

EDIT: Turns out Allan rocks and I really should not be trying to snail out written posts before morning coffee. Mmm coffee~~

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 03 octobre 2012 - 07:44 .

[Icinix]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

but I do believe that list form is just better for navigation.

Pie menus such as the dialogue wheel lead to less user error, are easier for new people to get into and lead to less travel time for your PC mouse. That it happens to work great for consoles as well is also great, yet the pie menu was originally created for mouse and keyboard setups. [Source]

Pie menus have been around for a lot longer than the dialogue wheel - even in RPGs they've been used in Temple of Elemental Evil for instance to put a lot of options under easy access.

Jade8aby88 wrote...

If the hard limit is 6 slots for choices. 

Then allocating one slot to an 'investigate' sub-section would give the other 5 slots more room to allow for a progess in conversation.

I suppose if they coded an all new list menu, that would be possible. The way the past menu worked from what I've understood in my own tinkering, a line always shot off a command to continue in the game script. Which lead to exchanges like this.

PC: Before we go on, I had some questions. (essentially Investigate)
NPC: I am hardly surprised.
PC: [question]
NPC: [answer]
PC: About what we were talking about before. (essentially Return)
NPC: Speak, then.

Which leads to an unnatural sounding conversation and more voice over work. This is, of course, only true if they don't create a new list system and/or and if I have properly understood how the dialogue system works.

EDIT: Turns out Allan rocks and I really should not be trying to snail out written posts before morning coffee. Mmm coffee~~

On that last point - something that I thought ME3 did very well with the dialogue wheel was how investigative options always ended on such a note that the conversation flowed when you continued progressive choices.

Where as in the previous iterations - investigative options followed by progressive usually broke the conversation or made it sound very odd.

It obviously requires some crafty dialogue working - but just wanted to throw that out there that that was the best handling of natural conversation I've come across.

[Cultist]

David Gaider wrote...
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.

Ah, yes, Dragon Age 2 v2.0.

And that is the reason Project Enernity got 2.2 million $ in such a small time.

[Xewaka]

Maria Caliban wrote...
I like the dialog wheel and the list.
Instead of paraphrases, I'd prefer one word indicators. I still think Dues Ex: HR is the way to go.

I agree, if only because DX:HR had a dialog box that showed as much of Jensen's line as it could fit when holding over an option. More information on the character words = less chance of being deceived by the choices and breaking character.

[upsettingshorts]

Cultist wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
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.

Ah, yes, Dragon Age 2 v2.0.

And that is the reason Project Enernity got 2.2 million $ in such a small time.

Project Eternity has 50,992 backers as of this post, of which I am one.

Dragon Age 2 sold at least 2,000,000 units and this was considered - by the BSN at least - disappointing. link

They are simply not comparable business models. 

Plus, there's the Project Eternity thread in Off-Topic.  You could go there. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 octobre 2012 - 08:48 .