243 réponses à ce sujet

[GithCheater]

I realize that in DA2, dialog tone affects friendship and rivalry with companions, and also establishes your dominant tone for autodialog, but otherwise seemsto usually not have any real consequences regarding the plot.

My recollection is that the PC usually picks the "investigate" option, then picks a diplomatic / snarky / aggressive response that ends the conversation (with perhaps the addressee providing a cursury remark in response to the PC's tone).

Thus, it seems to me that having 3 different dialog tone responses usually does not affect the progression of the story, and that dialog tone responses are more fluff than substance.  In comparison, I seem to recall that DAO conversations were often more intricate than DA2 conversations.

For example, I believe  the Felsi / Oghren / Warden conversational dynamics were much more intricate than any conversation in DA2.  It was challenging to smoothtalk Felsi into giving Oghren another chance.  In contrast DA2 conversations seem to be short investigations followed by a diplomatic / snarky / aggressive response.

In my opinion, these 3 dialog tones should have consequences regarding the storyline.  For example, on the BSN a new snarky topic might get the topic closed, while an aggressive response might result in user bans.  In contrast, diplomatic responses are looked at more kindly Bioware employees or moderators.

In summary, I hope "Dialog Tone = Consequences" is implemented in DA3. 

[Inquisitor Recon]

Would be nice, but it will probably be the standard "good guy", "neutral", and "jerk" variants of the same answer or question.

[unbentbuzzkill]

you really put alot of thought into this didn't you?

[GithCheater]

unbentbuzzkill wrote...

you really put alot of thought into this didn't you?

This had been on my mind off and on for a while ...

I also felt pigeon holed into picking a particular tone to keep my dominant tone consistent (and to experience all 3 autodialog tones in cut scenes and party banter).  I would much rather pick a response based on what feels right for my PC in that moment in time for the situation at hand.  I was often torn between being consistent in my tone versus picking what seemed to be the most appropriate answer.  Also, also tended to choose dialog tones based on who was in my party, particularly with regard to Isabella showing up for act 3.
Consequently, I found the "dialog tone" to be constraining of my role playing rather than enhancing my role playing.

[Fortlowe]

In DA2, we did not select the tone. We selected personality alignment. Which is an altogether different limitation than the widely perceived notion of tone selection in DA2. Had there been tone selection, that tone would not have affected whether or not Hawke did something, only the tone in which the decision was conveyed and how Hawke felt about making it. One can say "No" graciously, Jovially, or Aggressively (among other tones), but the answer remains the same. And how the tone is conveyed impacts how the answer is received, generally, at least. However in DA2 gracious generally represented the affirmative, aggressive the negative, and sarcastic the neutral.

Also, the dialogue wheel offered more dialogue options and directions than the list in DA:O, not less. Fundamentally, the wheel is the list. Except with paraphrasing and alignment data. In other words, conversations in DA2 were more intricate, not less. What the wheel actually did was highlight the fact that tone is not being simulated within the current conversation structure (neither the list or the wheel).

Modifié par Fortlowe, 15 octobre 2012 - 04:36 .

[GithCheater]

Fortlowe wrote...

Also, the dialogue wheel offered more dialogue options and directions than the list in DA:O, not less. Fundamentally, the wheel is the list. Except with paraphrasing and alignment data. In other words, conversations in DA2 were more intricate, not less. What the wheel actually did was highlight the fact that tone is not being simulated within the current conversation structure (neither the list or the wheel).

How so?  Can you please provide an example?

[Fortlowe]

GithCheater wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

Also, the dialogue wheel offered more dialogue options and directions than the list in DA:O, not less. Fundamentally, the wheel is the list. Except with paraphrasing and alignment data. In other words, conversations in DA2 were more intricate, not less. What the wheel actually did was highlight the fact that tone is not being simulated within the current conversation structure (neither the list or the wheel).

How so?  Can you please provide an example?

Pages 1 (Mary Kirby; diagram) and 5 (Allen Schumacher) in this thread have responses from Bioware devs explaining how the wheel is the same as the list.

[unbentbuzzkill]

okay so maybe more choices added to the dialog wheel would be a better solution

[jillabender]

Fortlowe wrote...

In DA2, we did not select the tone. We selected personality alignment. Which is an altogether different limitation than the widely perceived notion of tone selection in DA2. Had there been tone selection, that tone would not have affected whether or not Hawke did something, only the tone in which the decision was conveyed and how Hawke felt about making it. One can say "No" graciously, Jovially, or Aggressively (among other tones), but the answer remains the same. And how the tone is conveyed impacts how the answer is received, generally, at least. However in DA2 gracious generally represented the affirmative, aggressive the negative, and sarcastic the neutral.

Well said! When choosing a "diplomatic" option instead of an "aggressive" option involves, for example, a choice about whether the PC agrees with an NPC, what's being chosen is more than just tone.

I appreciate that Bioware took a risk and tried something new by giving us a voiced character whose personality is, to a large extent, a blank slate shaped by the player. But I don't personally think the dialogue wheel system as it was in DA2 allows for enough nuance and flexibility to let the player shape the character's personality in a consistently satisfying way.

As I said in another thread, I think the dialogue wheel system as it was in DA2 would probably have been quite effective with a more pre-established character like Shepard. When I'm playing Mass Effect 1, I can choose the dialogue option that's most in keeping with the way I interpret Shepard, by considering which option seems most consistent with how Shepard has behaved previously – and I don't have to worry that Shepard's demeanour will suddenly change in a way that feels jarring. Whether she's conciliatory or rude in a particular situation, she still feels like the same character.

With Hawke in DA2, on the other hand, many of the "aggressive" responses simply didn't fit a character who's not aggressive by nature, and many of the "diplomatic" responses didn't really fit a character who's not warm and caring by nature – but the paraphrases didn't always make that clear. As I've said before, I wasn't always sure, for example, whether I was choosing for my character to respond aggressively to a situation, or to act in a way consistent with being an aggressive person.

In short, I think that the dialogue wheel and personality tracking system has potential, but I'd like to see it evolve to differentiate more between the character's overall personality and his or her situational responses, and to have the character's overall personality affect his or her responses in a way that feels more organic.

Modifié par jillabender, 17 octobre 2012 - 09:54 .

[Nomen Mendax]

I really hope they don't do this. I didn't like them picking a dominant tone for my character, and I certainly don't want the game to start guessing other things about my character that will have an impact.

The problem I have with this is that the game can't possibly figure out how I am imagining my character based on the relatively small amount of data it is collecting. For example, in DA2 it can't work out that I may be sarcastic to one group of people, diplomatic with a second and aggressive with a third.

Of course, if they wanted this information they could just ask me (the player) rather than trying to infer it from a small sample of data.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 15 octobre 2012 - 05:21 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Agreed. I can agree with someone and still be a dick. And I can disagree with someone and still be nice about it. Having inherently aggressive/nice options tied to the bad/good decisions as well was too much copy pasta from the ME system.

[Felya87]

jillabender wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

In DA2, we did not select the tone. We selected personality alignment. Which is an altogether different limitation than the widely perceived notion of tone selection in DA2. Had there been tone selection, that tone would not have affected whether or not Hawke did something, only the tone in which the decision was conveyed and how Hawke felt about making it. One can say "No" graciously, Jovially, or Aggressively (among other tones), but the answer remains the same. And how the tone is conveyed impacts how the answer is received, generally, at least. However in DA2 gracious generally represented the affirmative, aggressive the negative, and sarcastic the neutral.

Well said! When choosing a "diplomatic" option instead of an "aggressive" option involves, for example, a choice about whether the PC agrees with an NPC, what's being chosen is more than just tone.

I appreciate that Bioware took a risk and tried something new by giving us a voiced character whose personality is, to a large extent, a blank slate shaped by the player. But I don't personally think the dialogue wheel system as it was in DA2 allows for enough nuance and flexibility to let the player shape the character's personality in a consistently satisfying way.

As I said in another thread, I think the dialogue wheel system as it was in DA2 would probably have been quite effective with a more pre-established character like Shepard. When I'm playing Mass Effect 1, I can choose the dialogue option that's most in keeping with the way I interpret Shepard, by considering which option seems most consistent with how Shepard has behaved previously – and I don't have to worry that Shepard's demeanour will suddenly change in a way that feels jarring. Whether she's conciliatory or rude in a particular situation, she still feels like the same character.

With Hawke in DA2, on the other hand, many of the "aggressive" responses simply didn't fit a character who's not aggressive by nature, and many of the "diplomatic" responses don't really fit a character who's not warm and caring by nature – but the paraphrases didn't always make that clear. As I've said before, I wasn't always sure, for example, whether I was choosing for my character to respond aggressively to a situation, or to act in a way consistent with being an aggressive person.

In short, I think that the dialogue wheel and personality tracking system has potential, but I'd like to see it evolve to differentiate more between the character's overall personality and his or her situational responses, and to have the character's overall personality affect his or her responses in a way that feels more organic.

I agree...sometimes, if I made Hawke say someting differen't it didn't feel the same person. An episode in particular I remember was in Act three, when Meredith subtly threatened Bethany (in my game she was in the Circle). I wanted to make my Hawke usually a good natured person, but very attached to her sister. I used the agressive option, to make her protective...And I just didin't recognizide Hawke's voice!!!
that was creepy...
Usually I didn't feel such a great difference during the game using sometimes the sarcastic voice, maybe because english is not my laguage, but that time I almost jumped on my chair!

I'd like to make my character have reaction more linear with my taste and how I imagined my character, that using a line of behavior.

I remember I did something like this in DA:O. My CE vas always timid and always tried to not fight. but in the Alienage with the slavers, I always used more agressive option, killing every slavers. even the Elf one, that I could easily convince to go away.

In DA2 I find that unnatural.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fortlowe wrote...

Also, the dialogue wheel offered more dialogue options and directions than the list in DA:O, not less.

Having the line voiced, though, makse the wheel offer fewer options.

Because the voice-over fixes the tone of each line, DA2's wheel gave us 5 options at a time.  Because DAO's silent lines did not have fixed tone, the list gave us a number of options equal to the number of available pre-written lines multiplied by the number of different ways you could imagine your character saying them.

DA2 did offer fewer options, but not because of the wheel interface.

[Rune-Chan]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

I really hope they don't do this. I didn't like them picking a dominant tone for my character, and I certainly don't want the game to start guessing other things about my character that will have an impact.

The problem I have with this is that the game can't possibly figure out how I am imagining my character based on the relatively small amount of data it is collecting. For example, in DA2 it can't work out that I may be sarcastic to one group of people, diplomatic with a second and aggressive with a third.

Of course, if they wanted this information they could just ask me (the player) rather than trying to infer it from a small sample of data.

This, so much.

I cannot stand Bioware games putting words/tone/emotion into my characters. It's actually why I preferred the written list rather than voice acting, it made the character feel more in my control The only saving grace in DA2 was that they chose a decent VA for FemHawke.

[CuriousArtemis]

Personality did affect story line sometimes. A diplomatic Hawke could convince the Dalish assassin to not kill the ex-werewolf. A snarky Hawke could one-shot kill Feynriel's captor. An aggressive Hawke could threaten the harbormaster.

More of that?

[Palipride47]

motomotogirl wrote...

Personality did affect story line sometimes. A diplomatic Hawke could convince the Dalish assassin to not kill the ex-werewolf. A snarky Hawke could one-shot kill Feynriel's captor. An aggressive Hawke could threaten the harbormaster.

More of that?

Snarky Hawke didn't one-shot kill Feynriel's captor. That was for specifically rogue Hawkes.

But sarcastic Hawkes could lie (successfully, important note) their way out of trouble without Varric (i.e. Act of Mercy, star dialogue: I'm your best friend). 

I agree that the problem with voiced (even if I do like voiced) is that it could not capture the sublities of a "different" reaction even with a same personality (i.e. Snarky Hawke being seriously aggressive when LI or friend or sibling is kidnapped, or Aggressive Hawkes going soft when LI or friend or sibling is upset) 

The other problem was that you didn't "say no" with three tones. The choices differed with tone (i.e. only aggressive Hawkes can side with Petrice and Varnell) 

The worst offender (for me) with paraphrase and tone was MOTA when you meet the Chasind guard (Cahir):
Diplo- "They are honorable" (you say you never had trouble with them)

Sar - "Know" is strong word" - which I interpreted as "Fereldan is actually a big country" (kinda how if you are from another country - you get the 'do you know this one other person in China?' when people find out you are from China) but you get some **** line about "I also know of darkspawn, but I don't let them breathe on me..." <_<
 
Aggr- "They are savages" (umm...they are savages? never picked that one)

[David Gaider]

GithCheater wrote...
In comparison, I seem to recall that DAO conversations were often more intricate than DA2 conversations.

Sorry, but you recall incorrectly.

Perhaps there is vaseline on the lens, or perhaps you are confusing your overall impression of the dialogue with it working differently on a mechanical level, I don't know. But if you play DAO again you will realize that we have the same "tone hub" as we had in DA2... as in there are three flavors of responses (along with Investigates, which in DAO were not put into a separate hub) which are used primarily for roleplaying purposes to move the dialogue along. If they had any effect in DAO it was on follower approval, nothing more.

Actual choice hubs-- as in the player is selecting a choice which actually affects the plot-- were separate entities both in DAO and in DA2. In both games, such choice options were toneless. DA2's choice options had a toned response that varied on your current dominant tone, but you didn't pick that one the wheel.

Modifié par David Gaider, 17 octobre 2012 - 08:47 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

But if you play DAO again you will realize that we have the same "tone hub" as we had in DA2... as in there are three flavors of responses (along with Investigates, which in DAO were not put into a separate hub) which are used primarily for roleplaying purposes to move the dialogue along.

Of course, because the DAO lines were unvoiced, there were many more than three flavours available.  You only wrote three lines, but there were many more than three ways to deliver or intend them.

Nuance matters.

[LobselVith8]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Of course, because the DAO lines were unvoiced, there were many more than three flavours available.  You only wrote three lines, but there were many more than three ways to deliver or intend them.

Nuance matters.

I think there's also the issue that the player knew what The Warden was going to say, rather than being surprised at what the Champion said (since the dialogue options often didn't match what Hawke verbally said).

[Fast Jimmy]

To piggyback on Sylvius' comment, saying 'no' usually didn't seem to default to an aggressive response, nor did the middle option always come off as joking (or even as callous, as sarcastic Hawke was off to be). Three choices were given, but near-infinite tones were available. A Hawke could refuse every side quest because he wanted to spend more time watching out for his remaining friends and family, but DA2 makes Hawke angry and slightly psychotic in future conversations for doing so.

Just adding some perspective.

[Palipride47]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Of course, because the DAO lines were unvoiced, there were many more than three flavours available.  You only wrote three lines, but there were many more than three ways to deliver or intend them.

Nuance matters.

I think there's also the issue that the player knew what The Warden was going to say, rather than being surprised at what the Champion said (since the dialogue options often didn't match what Hawke verbally said).

Both of these points, I think, encapsulate what "fans" may have interpreted as "less choice," whereas the people, who, you know, DESIGNED the game have already seen every permutation of every choice (more or less) and are more understanding of the mechanics. Different perspectives, basically.

Is Bioware gonna have testers with "fresh eyes" to maybe point out or make them aware of an issue like this?

[Maria Caliban]

I'd rather dialogue have no effect on the plot.

I'm currently playing Dishonored, and like how the PC's actions shape the city and the various endings.

[jillabender]

David Gaider wrote…

Perhaps there is vaseline on the lens, or perhaps you are confusing your overall impression of the dialogue with it working differently on a mechanical level, I don't know. But if you play DAO again you will realize that we have the same "tone hub" as we had in DA2... as in there are three flavors of responses (along with Investigates, which in DAO were not put into a separate hub) which are used primarily for roleplaying purposes to move the dialogue along. If they had any effect in DAO it was on follower approval, nothing more.

Thanks for clarifying that, David – I remember you mentioning that on another thread, and I found it interesting to learn that you approached writing the dialogue for DA:O in much the same way that you did DA2 in terms of tone.

I would say, though, that while most responses in DA:O may have fallen broadly within the categories of "diplomatic" "aggressive" and "witty/sarcastic," being able to imagine for myself the particular shade of "diplomatic," "sarcastic" or "aggressive" with which my character delivered a line left more room for subtlety, and made the emotional range of possible responses feel broader.

David Gaider wrote…

Actual choice hubs-- as in the player is selecting a choice which actually affects the plot-- were separate entities both in DAO and in DA2. In both games, such choice options were toneless. DA2's choice options had a toned response that varied on your current dominant tone, but you didn't pick that one the wheel.

I did like the way many of the "choice" options worked in DA2, with the PC's response varying depending on the character's dominant tone. A great example is Hawke's heated argument with Carver in Act 1 after battling the slavers in the former Hawke estate – that was a case where the tone system worked well in terms of making Hawke's responses feel individual to his or her character.

If the dialogue system in DA3 could somehow make more use of "choice" options that work that way, applying that dynamic not just to plot choices, but also to more personal choices like whether the PC agrees with an NPC about an issue, I think it could go a long way toward making the role-playing aspect of the experience more satisfying.

Modifié par jillabender, 17 octobre 2012 - 11:21 .

[EricHVela]

Maria's statement reminds me of WC4. Your dialog altered the course of some things, but so did your actions.

Some choices were made by action alone (like trying to stay with the Confederation or "turn traitor" for the Borderworlds was a matter of what you chose to attack and to where you flew). Some choices were made by whether you succeeded or failed a mission.

Losing an encounter wasn't a loss of the game like Dragon Age, but it affected the story negatively. Then again, not all encounters were meant to be won. Some encounters were successful if you didn't kill everything and failed if you did -- again, unlike Dragon Age.

*sigh* That would be nice, but that also would be a bit complicated in Dragon Age or, at least, more than EA would care to support for development.

[CuriousArtemis]

Honestly, I'm playing DA:O right now (with my current avatar) and I don't see what people are talking about. It isn't all that different from DA2 except that it's unvoiced. One option is always sugar sweet, one tends to be sarcastic, and one may be rude. There may be one or two more, but not always.

They've already said they're addressing the paraphrase issue, so there's really no need to despair over that anymore. I'm pretty confident dialogue will be a really happy medium b/w DA:O and DA2... well, mostly DA2 since I think that was the superior version, but with the paraphrase situation adjusted.

Oh right about Feynriel's captor... I guess I play snarky rogues waaaay too much xDDD