243 réponses à ce sujet

[Firky]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

Thanks for reply.

I think that the dialogue wheel is sufficiently different in appearance so as to give the impression that design is restricted/changed. As soon as the tones are made explicit, the rules for interpreting player dialogue have been changed, in my mind. I do think the tone icons are necessary, though, to give the paraphrases context in a way that they didn't really need in Origins. (Voiced protagonist, etc.)

I wrote here, http://social.biowar...567/11#14344524 about how I'd conceptualised it, based on playing DA2 and the dialogue's visual appearance. The difference between the two methods, to my mind, is fairly significant. I do think, regardless of the process, the rules governing player interaction were dramatically altered between games, though.

(But I'm not sure if you're talking about game mechanics or dialogue structure now. )

Modifié par Firky, 18 octobre 2012 - 06:51 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I think that the dialogue wheel is sufficiently different in appearance so as to give the impression that design is restricted/changed. As soon as the tones are made explicit, the rules for interpreting player dialogue have been changed, in my mind. I do think the tone icons are necessary, though, to give the paraphrases context in a way that they didn't really need in Origins. (Voiced protagonist, etc.)

I can understand why people may think that, which is why I gave my (admittedly quite techy...) response.

I can also understand how people suddenly see it as difference as the tone prevents any different interpretations of how the line will be delivered.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 18 octobre 2012 - 06:52 .

[Firky]

I'm interested in *more* techy.

The idea that the tone icon is so visible and present, and signals (to me) a radical shift in game mechanics, but that DA2's conversation editor, and the process of making dialogue, is pretty much the same does my head in. Is all.

[AlexanderCousland]

There are some things DA2 executed better. The voice acting was good and I prefer a voiced protaganist. However, as one user pointed out, I felt pigeon holed into choosing a dominant tone in conversation. I felt like every choice in dialouge for my character had to be consistent.

Hawke had to be Red, Purple, or Blue.

The Red Hawke cant say something Purple because he's Red. I dont want to be worried about choosing Colors, I want to be a Politician who's actions actually effect the setting or save a city from destruction, not go through a story where some poor guy/girl stumbles into a city and everything goes to hell around them and all you can do is pick a side, I dont want to choose sides, I want sides to choose me. So all in all, The voice acting was good, the lack of choice, for whatever reason (writers love their word babies too much) was bad.

Hawke chose the Mages or Templars, inevitably, as Varric Forshadowed that all the circles fell apart at the very opening of the game, We watched a movie with Hawke.

The Warden crowned a Monarch or became one, Stopped a Blight and Slayed a Archdemon. I choose the Warden

I heard Mr. Gaider say that DA2 was a more personal story, but there is a reason we havent forgotten our Wardens...a very personal reason.

Modifié par FreshIstay, 18 octobre 2012 - 08:11 .

[toots1221]

I much preferred the voiced protagonist of DA2 to the silent protagonist of DAO. I also really liked setting your characters personality, I loved sarcastic Hawke and I'd really like to see something like that return. The only thing that bothered me a little was that if I wanted to choose a different dialogue option, say aggressive, it felt like Hawke suddenly became a different person and then snapped back to normal. The difference in tone between the three dialogue options was sometimes jarring.

[AlexanderCousland]

If you really get down to it, In casual conversation we say things and it's unpredictable how our peers would react to them. In Origins, we read our lines internally, and our companions reacted with Dialouge or Emotions we couldnt predict. Blue, Purple, and Red give you the ability to pre-determine how your statement will be received and thus a better perception on how our companions will react, this, in my opinion, Is undesirable. Only suggestion I have is to take colors off general dialouge and only apply them when presented the option to express an exact emotion. (love, rage, pride) This way, the player will be able to infer the meaning of tone by reading the line as with Origins and tone of character wouldnt feel so....forced and predictable.

The Unknowable Unknown.

[JWvonGoethe]

Brodoteau wrote...

[...]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."

Actually, as an aside, while Arl Eamon had to be saved in order to complete the game, the Warden could choose not toa save Redcliffe. This resulted in everyone in Redcliffe dying, except for those in the Arl's estate. So you could actually say "Screw it, I don't have Redcliffe." I'm not trying to be pedantic, I just thought was a great addition to DA:O, for evil Wardens.

Back on topic, while I really like Fortlowe's much commented on suggestion as well as deuce985's idea of mixing up the options more (having an emotionless option appear from time to time in place of the aggressive option for instance), I think it would be enough to copy the Mass Effect idea. 

The main problem with dialogue in DA2 as I found it, in line with many other posters on this thread, was that the player felt forced to always stick with the same tone. Switching between diplomatic and aggressive felt wildly inconsistent, and ruined immersion. This problem rarely, if ever, occured in Mass Effect 1 and 2 (I'm yet to play 3.)

In Mass Effect, male Shepard uses more or less the same tone for all three options This allowed for greater nuance in his character within even a single playthrough. It allowed the player to freely choose how their Shepard would act in different situations, without having to worry about him breaking character. 

I didn't feel this was as true for a female Shepard, but both Shpeards were an improvement over Hawke in this regard, nonetheless.

[Allan Schumacher]

If you really get down to it, In casual conversation we say things and it's unpredictable how our peers would react to them.

This is a perspective I have never agreed with. It may be unpredictable how someone whom I do not know (particularly of a different culture) may react to something, but I rarely if ever find myself surprised by how my peers respond to something that I say.

I have 31 years of learning how people interact in conversations, and given the level of sass that I pour on in my every day conversation, my peers would outright hate me based on the things that I say. Except that they all know it's sass because they know me, and I know them. I know how to talk with them and can read visual cues as to whether or not it's an appropriate time to sass and joke around and when it's not.

In casual conversation with my peers, it tends to play out exactly the way I would expect it to, and I don't consider myself to be someone with a 100+ rank in Speech skill either! (Although maybe I underestimate myself? I remember reading up a skeptical comment when I was first posting on ME3's boards that my posts "clearly" had several editor passes go over them before being posted... which I took as a compliment!)

[thats1evildude]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

The main problem with dialogue in DA2 as I found it, in line with many other posters on this thread, was that the player felt forced to always stick with the same tone. Switching between diplomatic and aggressive felt wildly inconsistent, and ruined immersion.

See, I don't really get that. I just picked dialogue options that made sense for my character, an overly protective big brother with a tolerance for magic and a desire to make the world a better place. Seven or eight times out of ten that was the diplomatic response, and as such, my Hawke had a Diplomatic approach to ambient dialogue. But I picked plenty of Sarcastic and Aggressive responses. Hell, you should have heard me talk to Meredith — I don't think I was ever civil to her, except maybe once during the qunari invasion.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 18 octobre 2012 - 07:53 .

[Dasher1010]

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.

You just killed the magic!!!!! Thanks a lot, jerkface. now I can't play DAO again without feeling liek I have all these options before me. /breaks down and cries.

[AlexanderCousland]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you really get down to it, In casual conversation we say things and it's unpredictable how our peers would react to them.

This is a perspective I have never agreed with. It may be unpredictable how someone whom I do not know (particularly of a different culture) may react to something, but I rarely if ever find myself surprised by how my peers respond to something that I say.

I have 31 years of learning how people interact in conversations, and given the level of sass that I pour on in my every day conversation, my peers would outright hate me based on the things that I say. Except that they all know it's sass because they know me, and I know them. I know how to talk with them and can read visual cues as to whether or not it's an appropriate time to sass and joke around and when it's not.

In casual conversation with my peers, it tends to play out exactly the way I would expect it to, and I don't consider myself to be someone with a 100+ rank in Speech skill either! (Although maybe I underestimate myself? I remember reading up a skeptical comment when I was first posting on ME3's boards that my posts "clearly" had several editor passes go over them before being posted... which I took as a compliment!)

Thanks for Replying,

I partially agree with your statement. I too, am rarely surprised by how my peers react to something I say. I also posses the Ability to read Body Language and asses what I beleive to be a proper time to make a statment. However, Mr. Shcumacher, Rarely does not mean that I am never surprised. I surmise that Men and Women would better understand eachother if we as humans were more predictable in our emotional reactions and tones.

Modifié par FreshIstay, 18 octobre 2012 - 08:06 .

[Xewaka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you really get down to it, In casual conversation we say things and it's unpredictable how our peers would react to them.

This is a perspective I have never agreed with. It may be unpredictable how someone whom I do not know (particularly of a different culture) may react to something, but I rarely if ever find myself surprised by how my peers respond to something that I say.

I have 31 years of learning how people interact in conversations, and given the level of sass that I pour on in my every day conversation, my peers would outright hate me based on the things that I say. Except that they all know it's sass because they know me, and I know them. I know how to talk with them and can read visual cues as to whether or not it's an appropriate time to sass and joke around and when it's not.

In casual conversation with my peers, it tends to play out exactly the way I would expect it to, and I don't consider myself to be someone with a 100+ rank in Speech skill either! (Although maybe I underestimate myself? I remember reading up a skeptical comment when I was first posting on ME3's boards that my posts "clearly" had several editor passes go over them before being posted... which I took as a compliment!)

So you're stating that you have to already know a person and have learned its body language cues in order to avoid misunderstandings. How does that avoid misunderstandings with people we've yet to know -- which comprises the majority of them?

[JWvonGoethe]

thats1evildude wrote...

JWvonGoethe wrote...

The main problem with dialogue in DA2 as I found it, in line with many other posters on this thread, was that the player felt forced to always stick with the same tone. Switching between diplomatic and aggressive felt wildly inconsistent, and ruined immersion.

See, I don't really get that. I just picked dialogue options that made sense for my character, an overly protective big brother with a tolerance for magic and a desire to make the world a better place. Seven or eight times out of ten that was the diplomatic response, and as such, my Hawke had a Diplomatic approach to ambient dialogue. But I picked plenty of Sarcastic and Aggressive responses. Hell, you should have heard me talk to Meredith — I don't think I was ever civil to her, except maybe once during the qunari invasion.

Thanks for the reply. It is strange that we both disagree, since it seems like I played a similar character to yours on my first playthrough. Maybe I was using overly strong language to illustrate how I felt, but I would have thought someone using the diplomatic option "seven or eight times out of ten" was a pretty good illustration of the criticism I had of the dialogue system.

I understand that you chose the diplomatic option so frequently because it just so happened to fit the way you wanted to roleplay your Hawke, and not because you felt forced into doing so for fear of having Hawke come across as having multiple personality disorder, however. I'm not really sure how to respond, as I certainly found the three options to be jarring when used interchangeably. A lot of people agree with me, but clearly from your response not everyone found it to be much of an issue.

I should just reiterate that I never found this to be an issue with Mass Effect (at least not with a male Shepard.)

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 18 octobre 2012 - 08:58 .

[SilentK]

toots1221 wrote...

I much preferred the voiced protagonist of DA2 to the silent protagonist of DAO. I also really liked setting your characters personality, I loved sarcastic Hawke and I'd really like to see something like that return. The only thing that bothered me a little was that if I wanted to choose a different dialogue option, say aggressive, it felt like Hawke suddenly became a different person and then snapped back to normal. The difference in tone between the three dialogue options was sometimes jarring.

I really enjoyed having snarky, diplomatic and direct Hawke. It made replay the game just to see it from a new "tone". Hoping that the tones will come back in DAIII as well.

[JWvonGoethe]

SilentK wrote...

toots1221 wrote...

I much preferred the voiced protagonist of DA2 to the silent protagonist of DAO. I also really liked setting your characters personality, I loved sarcastic Hawke and I'd really like to see something like that return. The only thing that bothered me a little was that if I wanted to choose a different dialogue option, say aggressive, it felt like Hawke suddenly became a different person and then snapped back to normal. The difference in tone between the three dialogue options was sometimes jarring.

I really enjoyed having snarky, diplomatic and direct Hawke. It made replay the game just to see it from a new "tone." [...]

To be fair, I agree with this. Having three different dominant tones, in addition to two different genders, did lend itself well to multiple playthroughs. On the other hand, if you do stick to one dominant tone on each individual playthrough, it makes Hawke a shallower character, as I've argued above. Good point, though.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 18 octobre 2012 - 09:39 .

[Cultist]

Tones just act as an autodialogue selection.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

- Paraphrase throws people into a guessing game about what PC will say.
- Icons disconnect players from actually reading the phrases, giving us result instead of intent.
- It actually reduces options as not a single Investigate line affect anything, so, basically, is useless and purely cosmetic - no friendship\\rivalry change is possible. So all we have to do is to click one of thrww, usually two, variations of "continue to battle" options.
The result is this:

Aulis Vaara wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...
I don't remember the exact dialogue. It's the bottom right option on the wheel.

Wonderful example of how the dialogue wheel disconnects the player from the conversations in the game. Thanks!

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you really get down to it, In casual conversation we say things and it's unpredictable how our peers would react to them.

This is a perspective I have never agreed with. It may be unpredictable how someone whom I do not know (particularly of a different culture) may react to something, but I rarely if ever find myself surprised by how my peers respond to something that I say.

To play Devil's Advocate here, these ARE people from a different culture. I am not a resident of Thedas, that I know of. In addition, my character is often speaking to characters with whom the Common tongue is not their native language (Qunari, Antivans, Rivani, Orlesians, etc.,etc.). In DA:O, this was very well demonstrated with conversations with Sten, a character who did not understand human pleasantries or courtesy. Ironically enough, I found the Arosblk more accommodating to conversation, which is a little funny, since his primary purpose was war, and Sten's hornless status usually relegates him to a life of ambassador-type work. But I digress. 

And, to add to Xewaka's comment, we don't know most of these NPCs well. In fact, our family and companions, who are we know the best, we still only get to have five or six conversations with in the game. So I'm not sure it's always abundantly clear what is appropriate or not after just a handful of discussions with someone?

[nightscrawl]

Stippling wrote...

Only difference is that the investigate options are often blended into the tri-toned dialogue advancement. Sometimes it's even hard to tell what will investigate into the conversation and what will end it.

I've observed that the investigate options in DA2 are done with a more neutral tone, apart from the three personality tones.

This can be kind of odd sometimes because I will be having a normal conversation with someone, and then pick my final dialogue choice, where that choice's personality tone will sometimes be at odds with how the rest of the conversation just happened. This was particularly noticeable for the red/aggressive options.

I'll start the example by stating that I've played DA2 numerous times and I know what most of the conversation options (including investigate) are and purposely structure my conversations so that they flow as naturally and logically as possible. In one conversation it might make sense to pick the investigate options in the order of 1, 2, 3. In another conversation, perhaps 4, 1, 3, 2 sounds the best. It all has to do with what your character is supposed to already know about a given subject (this may or may not play into your personal RP), or logically asking (1) why a person is upset before you ask (2) why you think their missing wife is in danger, and then asking (3) if they can give you any other clues as to her whereabouts.

I also noticed this with NPC conversations, particularly if you had built up a rival relationship with a follower. I was really surprised when I was conversing with a rival Fenris (including investigates), picked my final option, and he snaps at me per our rival status. Normally this might not be an issue, but combined with the trivial conversation we were just having, it just seemed like there was no reason for it.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 18 octobre 2012 - 10:41 .

[Palipride47]

Darth Krytie wrote...

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.

You basically summed it up for me. I also had the problem of misinterpretation of intent in DAO, and NPC reactions where I intended the opposite (damn it, Teagan, I was trying to show concern! you ass! <_<)


The problem was, for me, that the paraphrasing made misinterpretation of the intent of the writers worse (for me) in DA2. Go figure 


I think I mentioned that my main issue with tones was that it seemed to determine (to a point) what side you could take in certain conflicts, or views you can espouse. Why should only an aggressive Hawke be able to side with Petrice, or why does aggressive Hawke have to be the one to express disgust with other cultures (I am thinking of that line about Chasind in MOTA): 

Diplo- "They are honorable" 
Sar - "Know" is strong word" - Turned out to be a "ass*holish" line instead of, y'know, "Fereldan's a big place"
Aggr- "They are savages" 

Why is tolerance (or intolerance) tone-dependent?

Modifié par Palipride47, 18 octobre 2012 - 11:10 .

[abnocte]

Veex wrote...

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.

True enough, but what matters to me is not how the NPC reacts to the PC but how our PC reacts to the world around him/her.

The list doesn't state the writers intent for a line, allowing us to decide which it is therefore allowing us to decide WHO our PC is:
- his/her motivations to do some "quest" 
- his/her motivations to say something to a character, carefully choosing the wording.
- his/her reactions to a NPC dialogue
- his/her reactions to the things that happen around him/her.

By stating before hand the intent and lumping it with personality Bioware is telling us WHO our PC is, his/her motivations and reactions to the world.

Sure as hell Bioware's "vision" is the only one scripted, and sure as hell the writers have a very clear image of what they intent when writing the dialogue, but we ( the players ) were unaware of it and that allowed us to add our little something to Bioware's "vision".
Now Bioware's vision is the one and only.

GithCheater wrote...

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.

This is not a direct response to your post but...

One thing I really disliked about DA2 is that they removed non combat skills like Persuade/Intimidate. Now they are tied to "personality/tone".

This makes me realize something:

In DAO we had a dialogue line with a tag indicating [Persuade] / [Intimidate] among others that would fit the "Good, Sarcastic, Agressive".
If you choose the [Persuade] option the outcome will depend on your "Diplomacy" skill so you may fail the check.

In ME we had the wheel with 5 options:

- To the right: Paragon, Neutral, Renegade.
- To the left: Persuade-Paragon, Intimidate-Renegade

If you didn't had enough renegade-points the Intimidate-Renegade option is not selectable. Like-wise with Persuade-Paragon.
You are being forced to use other dialogue option, there is no check AFTER the selection but before.

In DA2 we had the wheel with 3/4 options:
- Diplomatic-Persuade, Sarcastic-?, Aggresive-Intimidate
- Companion intervention.

As far as I remember the companion intervention was a sure win, I'm not sure about the others neither do I know if there's a check of some sort.

What I'm seeing now is that we are getting less "selectable options" so we are being railroaded in our PC responses, and we know before-hand if we will succeed or not.

That takes away the fun for me...

Edit: I totally forgot what this topic was really about!!

I don't really see why or how tone should have any effect on the plot. I think it would make much more sense if our actions did.
I could choose a diplomatic option to help a certain NPC whose business isn't going well but I can help him in various ways:
- Eliminate the competence.
- Intimidate the competence to leave or to rise their prices.
- Find the NPC an aprentice to help out
- Ensure the NPC a cheaper source of raw materials: either by threathening the sellers or making the roads more secure by killing some monsters in the area
-etc

Not all options need a new dialogue ( specially first ) so I think what should really be important is your actions.

The most important thing of all is the game allowing us a wide enough array of options to choose from, though.

Modifié par abnocte, 18 octobre 2012 - 01:00 .

[rolson00]

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.

whilst i like the idea of da:o's convo lists(a shed load of things to choose) they are very outdated for todays games
is it possible to incorparate origins amount oif options into the dialogoue wheel?

[JWvonGoethe]

rolson00 wrote...

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.

whilst i like the idea of da:o's convo lists(a shed load of things to choose) they are very outdated for todays games
is it possible to incorparate origins amount oif options into the dialogoue wheel?

There were the same amount of dialogue options in DA2 as there were in DA:O - this is something the developers have had to stress a few times. Just trying to save you getting a telling off from Mr Gaider!

[David Gaider]

rolson00 wrote...
whilst i like the idea of da:o's convo lists(a shed load of things to choose) they are very outdated for todays games
is it possible to incorparate origins amount oif options into the dialogoue wheel?

Considering we had a hard limit of 6 options total on the DAO list (which included investigates) and 10 options total on the DA2 wheel (including the investigate sub-hub), I suspect that would be a bad idea.

I get that some people like to imagine their character's tone, and that having that tone made explicit for them prevents them from imagining that for themselves and thus they feel restricted by it. That is, however, not something we can change with the move to a voiced protagonist-- and while the same people can make the argument on these forums time and time again, it's not something we're willing to change. Improving paraphrases, sure... coming up with some elaborate and expensive system to give them what they think they want, when that doesn't really give them what they want at all (a silent protagonist), no.

I know that's not what you're suggesting, rolson00, but I've read it here and on previous threads-- many times (though normally by the same people, and sometimes corraling in new people who read these arguments and think that sounds great). It is simply not going to happen.

[David Gaider]

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.

We don't say you shouldn't take economics into consideration, we say that you don't... and that you should recognize that you don't. We have to, regardless of whether you do or not.

Your suggestion, while it has its merits, would increase the size of what is already the most expensive character in the game (x2, as it's recorded twice to cover both genders). Far worse, however, it would add micro-management to something that most players really don't want to micro-manage. Picking a dialogue option and then having to pick it again might sound like a thrilling amount of control to some... to most it would be us asking them to answer the same question twice. So, no, that would not work for us.