243 réponses à ce sujet

[Fortlowe]

Maria Caliban wrote...

That would double the amount of voice acting they'd need for the PC. I'd rather they have a second PC race.

Why not both? I understand that outwardly, this would seem a task that would be expensive and time intensive, but frequently the devs remind us we (the consumers) should not make it our business to reckon the economics of development and instead to focus on constructive suggestions to improve the game.

And by both I mean, a system that that takes class selection into account and includes race selection to make a more personilzed origin (essentially taking the best of DA:O and DA2) along with a conversation wheel that pushes personality alignment into the background and instead incorporates active tone selection. 

To demonstrate what I mean by background personality alignment and active tone:

NPC: Will you help me save the orphanage

PC:

• Of Course.
• As long as you make it worth my while.
• No.

After I select one of these options then I would assign a corrosponding tone for why I made the selection:

Of course:

• :oDiplomatic: They are children. There is nothing I will not do to help them.
• :PSarcastic: Why not? I mean, where else will I get my yearly supply of Warden scout cookies?
• <_

As long as you make it worth my while:

• :oDiplomatic: I will, but my time is precious and I may need to ask you for a favor in return one day.
• :PSarcastic: You know I've always wondered why it was I was so far down the list of Warden Scout cookie deliveries. Guess I won't have to wonder about that anymore, right?
• <_ This evening. Then we will discuss what you owe me for saving your filthy little churls.

No:

• :oDiplomatic: I am sorry, but I cannot. Much as it pains me, I have far more urgent tasks that require my attention. Here is some silver. Go to the dwarf in the inn down the way and tell him I sent you to hire men to this task.
• :PSarcastic: Good riddance! Those Warden scout cookies always gave me heartburn anyways.
• <_

The first selection, the decision selection if you will, would be the background personality alignment selection, determining how Thedas views the PC (gracious, nuetral, or contrary). The second selection, the tone, would count towards how the PC's tone changes during autodialogue and such.

Modifié par Fortlowe, 17 octobre 2012 - 11:37 .

[jillabender]

frostajulie wrote...

Wow thats probably why the dialogue options in DAO seem ti be so much better than DA2 to me. they may have been written in 3 different flavors but with no voice actor I could rp the various shades of possible delivery within that tone such as a bored or tired aggression a volatile expression or coldly furious add to the fact that I could have the same conversations in a variety of locations and differ the pacing of those discussions based on my character and how I forsaw their story arc developing and I think it was not that there were more options in DAO but the game tended to draw more on players imagination and rp ability. Looking back I can see how that made my playthrus much more dynamic even though the dialogue was the same and the discussions were the same.

I love DAO it really worked out MY imagination muscle/

Very well put – those are things I love about DA:O as well.

Fortlowe wrote…

Why not both? I understand that outwardly, this would seem a task that would be expensive and time intensive, but frequently the devs remind us we (the consumers) should not make it our business to reckon the economics of development and instead to focus on constructive suggestions to improve the game.

And by both I mean, a system that takes class selection into account and includes race selection to make a more personilzed origin (essentially taking the best of DA:O and DA2) along with a conversation wheel that pushes personality alignment into the background and instead incorporates active tone selection. 

To demonstrate what I mean by background personality alignment and active tone:
[snip]

I'm glad to see you putting the tone toggle idea forward again – I think I like it the best of all the ideas I've seen for improving the dialogue wheel!

Modifié par jillabender, 17 octobre 2012 - 11:33 .

[Maria Caliban]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

As far as I recall, every decision with the companions is done through dialogue, not PC actions.

In Mass Effect, I only recall the last choice (red, green, or blue) to involve actions instead of dialogue.

Not every action...Isabela will leave the party no matter what you say to her for example at a certain point in the game.

Isabela is not the PC. Her leaving isn't because of anything the PC says or does, though her coming back is a result of what the PC says.

The only thing that matters there is how your relationship with her is if she will come back afterwards. This is a combinations between both action (Izzy leaving) and dialogue (Izzy returning).

That has nothing to do with PC actions.

In BioWare games, 99% of decisions are from PC dialogue, not PC actions. In Dishonored, 100% of PC decisions are from actions. I want BioWare to spend more time making actions matter as opposed to dialogue options.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jillabender wrote...

Well, as Upsettingshorts said in another thread, it depends on what's more important to you – reactivity, or role-playing freedom.

And I think that's a false dichotomy, because you can have both or you can have neither.  DAO and DA2 offer us these two extremes.

In DAO, I have roleplaying freedom, and the NPC behaviours look like reactions.

In DA2, I don't have roleplaying freedom, and thus there are no actions generated by me to which the NPCs could react.

The only way we could have reactivity without roleplaying freedom is if we were actually allowed to choose what our PC did, but that choice was severely constrained by the game's design.  DA2 would do this if we had full text dialogue options and the tone icons were well documented.  But as it is, we don;'t even get to choose, so the very concept of reactivity becomes meaningless.  For the game to react, the player must first act, and DA2 acts on our behalf rather than letting us do it.

For some people, imagining things about their characters adds to the experience even when what they imagined isn't directly aknowledged by the game. For example, I like to imagine that Tamlen and my male Dalish rogue were "friends with benefits," but there will never be any dialogue to that exact effect in the game.

There will never be any dialogue unambiguously to that effect in the game.  I did something similar with Shianni and an Alienage PC, and some of the dialogue there seemed perfectly appropriate and relevant.

When I first played DAO, I was amazed by the game's ability to allow me to play vastly different characters through exactly the same conversation, with the same options chosen, and have the conversation mean something completely different.  I even sent David fanmail about it.

I get the impression now that he had no idea what I was talking about, even then, as it had never occurred to him that people might play the game that way.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 octobre 2012 - 04:53 .

[Wulfram]

AlanC9 wrote...

Does it? The NPCs react to what the writer thinks your PC said, not what you think your PC said. I imagine DG will come down on the side of the "real" game being the actual code, rather than the representation of the game in the player's mind.

There's quite a bit of nuance even within what the writers intended.

As you can see by comparing the male and female voice actors.  They're both delivering the same lines, presumably with the same sort of direction, but they deliver these lines in different ways, which can lead to them being quite different characters.

Modifié par Wulfram, 17 octobre 2012 - 11:35 .

[Fortlowe]

Wulfram wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Does it? The NPCs react to what the writer thinks your PC said, not what you think your PC said. I imagine DG will come down on the side of the "real" game being the actual code, rather than the representation of the game in the player's mind.

There's quite a bit of nuance even within what the writers intended.

As you can see by comparing the male and female voice actors.  They're both delivering the same lines, presumably with the same sort of direction, but they deliver these lines in different ways, which can lead to them being quite different characters.

Which is why I would see us having a limited amount of control over how those lines are delivered.

[jillabender]

Sylvius the Mad wrote…

jillabender wrote…

Well, as Upsettingshorts said in another thread, it depends on what's more important to you – reactivity, or role-playing freedom.

And I think that's a false dichotomy, because you can have both or you can have neither. DAO and DA2 offer us these two extremes.

I agree that the two don't have to be mutually exclusive – all I meant was that some players prefer an approach that, from another player's point of view, seems to favour one over the other.

I understand why you felt that DA2 didn't really offer satisfying reactivity – I sometimes felt that way, too. But from Upsettingshorts' point of view, DA:O doesn't offer meaningful reactivity, and that has a lot to do with the different ways that we approach the game.

I think what I should have said is that different players look for different kinds of reactivity and role-playing freedom.

Sylvius the Mad wrote…

When I first played DAO, I was amazed by the game's ability to allow me to play vastly different characters through exactly the same conversation, with the same options chosen, and have the conversation mean something completely different. I even sent David fanmail about it.

I completely agree – even though, as you put it, the relationship I imagined between Tamlen and my Dalish PC was never unambiguously referenced, encountering Tamlen as a ghoul felt different in that playthrough. Similarly, the fact that that same PC dumped Morrigan for Zevran, albeit on friendly terms, made it feel wonderfully complicated when she convinced him to do the Dark Ritual.

The way that the same conversation in DA:O can feel different depending on the character I'm playing is one of the reasons that I'm still inspired to keep playing it and creating new characters.

Modifié par jillabender, 18 octobre 2012 - 09:57 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Absolutely.  If my PC has an intimate relationship with Shianni, her getting raped is suddenly a way bigger deal.

jillabender wrote...

I agree that the two don't have to be mutually exclusive – all I meant was that some players prefer an approach that, from another player's point of view, seems to favour one over the other.

I understand why you felt that DA2 didn't really offer satisfying reactivity – I sometimes felt that way, too. But from Upsettingshorts' point of view, DA:O doesn't offer meaningful reactivity, and that has a lot to do with the different ways that we approach the game.

I think the difference could be better described in those terms.  I often say that I'm playing a character, while players like UpsettingShorts are playing a game.  They're always approaching the in-game content with the conscious awareness that it's a game, and they are players, and they know how the game is presenting them with content.  They're perceiving the game from without.

I'm perceiving the game from within, and from within it's not even a game.  It's a world.  The people are real.

[deuce985]

Fortlowe wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

That would double the amount of voice acting they'd need for the PC. I'd rather they have a second PC race.

Why not both? I understand that outwardly, this would seem a task that would be expensive and time intensive, but frequently the devs remind us we (the consumers) should not make it our business to reckon the economics of development and instead to focus on constructive suggestions to improve the game.

And by both I mean, a system that that takes class selection into account and includes race selection to make a more personilzed origin (essentially taking the best of DA:O and DA2) along with a conversation wheel that pushes personality alignment into the background and instead incorporates active tone selection. 

To demonstrate what I mean by background personality alignment and active tone:

NPC: Will you help me save the orphanage

PC:

• Of Course.
• As long as you make it worth my while.
• No.

After I select one of these options then I would assign a corrosponding tone for why I made the selection:

Of course:

• :oDiplomatic: They are children. There is nothing I will not do to help them.
• :PSarcastic: Why not? I mean, where else will I get my yearly supply of Warden scout cookies?
• <_

As long as you make it worth my while:

• :oDiplomatic: I will, but my time is precious and I may need to ask you for a favor in return one day.
• :PSarcastic: You know I've always wondered why it was I was so far down the list of Warden Scout cookie deliveries. Guess I won't have to wonder about that anymore, right?
• <_ This evening. Then we will discuss what you owe me for saving your filthy little churls.

No:

• :oDiplomatic: I am sorry, but I cannot. Much as it pains me, I have far more urgent tasks that require my attention. Here is some silver. Go to the dwarf in the inn down the way and tell him I sent you to hire men to this task.
• :PSarcastic: Good riddance! Those Warden scout cookies always gave me heartburn anyways.
• <_

The first selection, the decision selection if you will, would be the background personality alignment selection, determining how Thedas views the PC (gracious, nuetral, or contrary). The second selection, the tone, would count towards how the PC's tone changes during autodialogue and such.

I really like this suggestion. Despite making the PC VO get around 9x as much work, it might not be as resource intensive as some think. Where a big problem might come is on the writers. It's just being VO'd 9 different times instead of 3. Maybe this means the actor gets 3x as much $$$ but the way I read Bioware talk about it, seems VOs are the least of their concern in budget. I like this because it gives me more control over my tone/personality. Which I've been asking for but it might be an unrealistic request.

Modifié par deuce985, 18 octobre 2012 - 12:17 .

[Wulfram]

Simply allowing the player to choose some of the lines that would otherwise go by dominant tone would be a big advance. And wouldn't require any extre VO.

[Brodoteau]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I think the difference could be better described in those terms.  I often say that I'm playing a character, while players like UpsettingShorts are playing a game.  They're always approaching the in-game content with the conscious awareness that it's a game, and they are players, and they know how the game is presenting them with content.  They're perceiving the game from without.

I'm perceiving the game from within, and from within it's not even a game.  It's a world.  The people are real.

But in the case of DA2, Varric is actually the narrator.  You are playing a character within Varric's story.  So you are perceiving people not from within a character but from within a character's story.  We never meet Hawke outside of Varric's story.  So... it is understandable that there are some limitations on your role-playing.  If we met the "Real" Hawke, he could be completely different from the Hawke you played in Varric's story.  You are playing the perception of a character by another, not the actual character. 

Further, you are always going to have some limitations on your character for the sake of the game.  We cannot, after all, quit the game (from inside the game).  In DA:O, you had to save Arl Eamon, no choice.  You couldn't just say, "Screw it, I don't have Redcliffe."  Nor could you say after Ostagar:  "You know what.  I want to be a farmer.  See ya!"  You can do this in a PnP RPG, you can't in a video game RPG.  And that's probably a good thing.  

[Firky]

DA2's dialogue system didn't bug me too much. And I think both models had their merits. But,

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The tone doesn't matter.  The writers' intent doesn't have any direct effect on how the content is perceived.

I think this is the most compelling argument I've heard in a while for why the Origins style protagonist makes more sense to me.

Modifié par Firky, 18 octobre 2012 - 01:42 .

[jillabender]

Brodoteau wrote…

But in the case of DA2, Varric is actually the narrator. You are playing a character within Varric's story. So you are perceiving people not from within a character but from within a character's story. We never meet Hawke outside of Varric's story. So... it is understandable that there are some limitations on your role-playing. If we met the "Real" Hawke, he could be completely different from the Hawke you played in Varric's story. You are playing the perception of a character by another, not the actual character.

I agree with that way of describing DA2's framed narrative. While it's a bold and respectable style choice, it didn't quite work for me. Like Sylvius, I like to feel that I'm experiencing the game world from within, and DA2 didn't really let me do that.

[GithCheater]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

I think dialog affecting the plot can be appropriate to open up different options:

An aggressive response might get an NPC to spill the beans,  but a diplomatic or sarcastic response might have no effect on the NPC.

A sarcastic response might get an NPC to let his/her guard down, whereas a diplomatic or aggressive response might have no effect on the NPC.

A diplomatic response might get an NPC to cooperate, but agressive or sarcastic response might insult the NPC.

I can also imagine a PC and a companion playing good cop / bad cop to attempt to get information from an NPC.

[GithCheater]

oops

Modifié par GithCheater, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:05 .

[GithCheater]

deuce985 wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

That would double the amount of voice acting they'd need for the PC. I'd rather they have a second PC race.

Why not both? I understand that outwardly, this would seem a task that would be expensive and time intensive, but frequently the devs remind us we (the consumers) should not make it our business to reckon the economics of development and instead to focus on constructive suggestions to improve the game.

And by both I mean, a system that that takes class selection into account and includes race selection to make a more personilzed origin (essentially taking the best of DA:O and DA2) along with a conversation wheel that pushes personality alignment into the background and instead incorporates active tone selection. 

To demonstrate what I mean by background personality alignment and active tone:

NPC: Will you help me save the orphanage

PC:

• Of Course.
  
• As long as you make it worth my while.
  
  
• No.

After I select one of these options then I would assign a corrosponding tone for why I made the selection:

Of course:

• :oDiplomatic: They are children. There is nothing I will not do to help them.
  
  
• :PSarcastic: Why not? I mean, where else will I get my yearly supply of Warden scout cookies?
  
  
• <_

As long as you make it worth my while:

• :oDiplomatic: I will, but my time is precious and I may need to ask you for a favor in return one day.
  
  
• :PSarcastic: You know I've always wondered why it was I was so far down the list of Warden Scout cookie deliveries. Guess I won't have to wonder about that anymore, right?
  
  
• <_ This evening. Then we will discuss what you owe me for saving your filthy little churls.

No:

• :oDiplomatic: I am sorry, but I cannot. Much as it pains me, I have far more urgent tasks that require my attention. Here is some silver. Go to the dwarf in the inn down the way and tell him I sent you to hire men to this task.
  
• :PSarcastic: Good riddance! Those Warden scout cookies always gave me heartburn anyways.
  
  
• <_

The first selection, the decision selection if you will, would be the background personality alignment selection, determining how Thedas views the PC (gracious, nuetral, or contrary). The second selection, the tone, would count towards how the PC's tone changes during autodialogue and such.

I really like this suggestion. Despite making the PC VO get around 9x as much work, it might not be as resource intensive as some think. Where a big problem might come is on the writers. It's just being VO'd 9 different times instead of 3. Maybe this means the actor gets 3x as much $$$ but the way I read Bioware talk about it, seems VOs are the least of their concern in budget. I like this because it gives me more control over my tone/personality. Which I've been asking for but it might be an unrealistic request.

I like this option as well, but I do not think having as many as 9x more VO is absolutely necessary.  A slightly differeant variant on this idea (but conversation order reversed) might proceed as follows:

[*]An initial tone response (diplomatic, sarcastic or aggressive) to an NPC might affect how the NPC reacts to the PC and may or may not open up different lines of conversation that might create different choice options.
[*]After the conversation plays out, the PC can make a counteroffer decision (accept or decline etc) in a diplomatic, sarcastic or aggressive fashion.
[*]Having two separate toned responses would only have up to six (2*3) different VO combinations, where as offering a response and acorresponding tone would have up to nine (3*3) different VO combinations with more zots being used.  

Modifié par GithCheater, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:39 .

[Veex]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...



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.

How you imagine your character saying a line has no bearing on how the NPC you're speaking with reacts. The tone is just as fixed in DA:O as it is in DA2, one is just transparent. Just because you imagine your Warden saying a line to Oghren aggressively or sarcastically doesn't change the response Oghren will give you. The tone of the Warden is fixed and NPCs react accordingly, as that is how the writers... er... wrote it.

[GithCheater]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I recall that DA2 used mostly used one toned response per conversation, whereas DAO sometimes used multiple toned responses per conversation.  It is in this way I feel that DAO conversations are sometimes more intricate than DA2 conversations.

For example, it took a series of mostly humorous responses to get Felsi to give Oghren another chance.

Similarly, it took a series of different toned responses to the caged prisoner in Ostagar to get him to mention a certain key.

Perhaps I am still incorrect, and have an issue with vaseline ... but I like vasoline ... mmmm yummy ... plus it makes things (like keys) slide in and out easier.

[Vicious]

whereas DAO sometimes used multiple toned responses per conversation. It is in this way I feel that DAO conversations are sometimes more intricate than DA2 conversations.

It should be noted, and what I believe Mr. Gaider was getting at, is that in DA:O, yes, you had many options. However, the majority of these 'extra' options resulted in the exact same responses.

The conversations were not 'intricate' in the sense that they could go off on wild tangents depending on your tone. Except for companions [they are the exception], they didn't.

It was actually quite similar to DA2, in that you are speaking to, say, Teagan, and had 6 dialogue options but only 2-3 actually different responses. -->

As i'm sure you're aware, Voiced protagonists necessitate the removal of the extraneous dialogue options, but on the plus side, you know NPCs will respond more appropriately. If you're being a complete jackass, they will respond as such.. In DA:O or even Baldur's Gate, they generally didn't, The conversation just kept moving.

Modifié par Vicious, 18 octobre 2012 - 05:04 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I was reading that thread really carefully and I still don't get what Allan was saying about how DA2's dialogue is structured.

I think he was saying that dialogue for DA2 would look pretty much the same as in the Origins toolset, at one point, just with each line then having some kind of additional tab for paraphrase and tone. (Like the cinematics tab.)

So, that suggests to me (but I might be wrong) that the dialogue is written as it is written, then attributed paraphrase and tone later. I assume the writers would have the tones in mind as they are writing, but I think it's a subtle difference.

This is guesswork, but I don't think the tones should affect the plot very much at all, if the process is like this.

My explanation was mostly in response to the idea that some had that the wheel imposed a mechanical restriction to how conversations are created, when the behind the scenes logic of how a conversation line is created and integrated into the conversation is exactly the same. DA2 had some extra toppings (Paraphrases and icons) since the game utilized those, but the idea that conversations had to be written in a different way to accommodate the dialogue wheel is not the case.

From a purely functional level, the only differences are:

- DA2 includes a paraphrase
- DA2 includes an icon
- DA2 can display up to twice as many responses for any given line, because the "Investigate" doesn't move to a different part of the conversation.

[Monica21]

kingjezza wrote...

Todd23 wrote...

What I hate is the game assuming my tone based on what I used the most. When I'm trying to get my family away from the darkspawn, yes I'm going to be serious. When Aveligne's husband dies suddenly I'm a dick about it. Maybe I'm concerned, serious, or making jokes at completely different times. When I'm responding to someone I want to pick a response, not a tone.

Totally agree with this.

A game forcing me in a certain direction based on previous dialogue choices is a big no no as far as I'm concerned.

I'll add my agreement to this. I often had the ability to bring the snark in camp ("Are you flirting with me, Sten?") but my Human Noble was still respectful to her parents. I don't like the autoresponse assuming that I'm a snark in every situation. I understand Gaider's point about the same number of options being available and that's mostly true, except when you add in the autoresponse variable. Then you absolutely do not have a choice in response because the game has decided you're a sarcastic bastard all the time and Hawke loses the ability to react organically.

[Dominus]

Exactly. This is why the silent protagonist works so well, and so much better for some of us that the voiced protagonist does.

I'm going to agree with Sylvius on this, and it's also why I'd still like to see options for both a voiced and silent protagonist. I've never been a stickler for voiced protagonist, but having that option does provide the ability for creating your own tone/inflection to said line without spending more time and money on voice acting. I don't see a need for building an entirely new mechanic for dialogue systems when it already existed in traditional Role-Playing Form.

Modifié par DominusVita, 18 octobre 2012 - 06:01 .

[Darth Krytie]

I didn't really have a problem with the way DA2 was set up because it was practically the same as DA:O, only presented differently. There were nice, jerky, and sarcastic ways to reply to things in DA:O. I actually prefer the icons, because there were a handful of lines in DA:O that I thought were either sincere or joking or something, but the way the NPCs reacted says otherwise.

The only thing that DA:2 could do better with is paraphrasing. I also wouldn't mind more nuance with the types of tone. Even though the dominant tone thing worked for me a lot of the times, there were times where the autodialogue used it inappropriately. (I always played a sarcastic Hawke, but when talking about death and such, I would have rather have been nicer.) Something that you'd never really get with a silent protag.

I do like the idea of having the tone matter in DA3. I like having to think of how what my character says/how they say it will affect the plot or be received.

[AlexanderCousland]

a

Modifié par FreshIstay, 18 octobre 2012 - 06:58 .