243 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

we will continue to work on it.

This is why hope springs eternal.

[Palipride47]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

we will continue to work on it.

This is why hope springs eternal.

Hope spring eternal because they actually mean it. 

[JWvonGoethe]

This might not be a popular opinion, but I think the dialogue wheel/paraphrase system is one of the best design features of recent years. If people had problems with there being a significant discrepancy between the paraphrase and the actual line spoken by Hawke, then the problem was probably in the writing of paraphrases, rather than the mechanics of the wheel. (I am aware of, but unconvinced by, counter-arguments to this claim.)

However, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am by deuce985's argument that the default diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive dialogue tones need to be changed up much more often with other tones (eg by empathetic, charming or detached tones), for a variety of reasons: to add more layers of personality to the character; to prevent players getting bored of the same few options always appearing; but especially when none of the default three tones would be appropriate (eg, after the death of Hawke's mother.) Also, I think that the voice actors ought to think of tones less as being distinct personality types, and more as one person exhibiting different moods, which would help to maintain the consistency of the character when switching between different tones.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 20 octobre 2012 - 04:31 .

[Palipride47]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

This might not be a popular opinion, but I think the dialogue wheel/paraphrases one of the best design features of recent years. If people had problems with there being a discrepancy between the paraphrase and the actual line spoken by Hawke, then the problem was probably in the writing of paraphrases, rather than the mechanics of the wheel.

However, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am by deuce985's argument that the default diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive dialogue tones need to be changed up much more often with other tones (eg by empathetic, charming or detached), for a variety of reasons: to add more layers of personality to the character; to prevent players getting bored of the same few options always appearing; but especially when none of the default three tones would be appropriate (eg, after the death of Hawke's mother.) Also I think that the voice actors ought to think of tones more as moods rather than personality types, because doing so would help to maintain consistency when switching between different tones.

yeah, try telling the angered ones that "it's all a huge misinderstanding!" <_< 

In all seriousness, +1

[AlexanderCousland]

Why Does Mr. Gaider always have to exert his final authority... It's like " Okay man your the boss" geesh. Every thing we say, he seem's to respond in a elaborate way but basically saying, " I hear you, but you dont know what the hell your talking about." If enough people agree on something then we become "regular posters" or "new posters who are influenced by older posters".
Gosh, we get that this game is yours, You should have made a set protaginist if you wanted the companions to be central to the story instead of the player.

So my question is, Since there is a voiced pc what changes are being made, and has any of our feedback helped those changes?

[fchopin]

David Gaider wrote...

That these people post regularly in threads complaining on this specific subject should not be surprising, and while I'm not sure that constitutes many people that doesn't make their concerns less valid. So we will continue to work on it.

And I will leave it at that.

Thank you for not forgetting us.

[ianvillan]

Palipride47 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

we will continue to work on it.

This is why hope springs eternal.

Hope spring eternal because they actually mean it. 

Do they actually mean it though because in Mass Effect 1 people complained about the wheel and paraphrasing and they said we heard your complaints and are going to change it for the next game.

In Mass Effect 2 people had the same complaints and Bioware said we have heard your complaints and will make it better for the next game.

In Mass Effect 3 the dialogue wheel and paraphrasing was the same but with more auto-dialogue and people still complained about the paraphrasing.

When Bioware said they were implamenting the wheel for DA2 they mentioned how fans had complained about paraphrasing but they did not change the wheel or paraphrasing they introduced the icons which did not fix the main problem.

Now after all those games it either comes down to Bioware not wanting to change the wheel or paraphrasing, or not being able to change the wheel or paraphrasing.

[Maria Caliban]

FreshIstay wrote...

Why Does Mr. Gaider always have to exert his final authority... It's like " Okay man your the boss" geesh. Every thing we say, he seem's to respond in a elaborate way but basically saying, " I hear you, but you dont know what the hell your talking about." If enough people agree on something then we become "regular posters" or "new posters who are influenced by older posters".

Would you prefer he lie to us? The developers are the final authority. I suppose he could lead us on or simply give us no information at all, but I prefer David just tell us what's already been decided. I'm not interested in wasting my time advocating for something that's never going to happen.

Gosh, we get that this game is yours, You should have made a set protaginist if you wanted the companions to be central to the story instead of the player.

Interesting that you should say that as it's the set elements of the protagonist that allow them to be central to the story, and the lack of control the writers have over the PC that means the companions (or other NPCs) have to step in.

Dragon Age: Origin had to end with the archdemon slain, and so BioWare forced the PC to be a Warden. Dragon Age II had to end with the Templars and Mages at war, but they didn't want to 'force' the PC to support the revolution, so they had Anders do it.

Personally, I'd have preferred it if they made it so Hawke could only be pro-mage freedom and you could only side with Orsino. That way, the Champion really could be the one who started the fire.

ianvillan wrote...

Do they actually mean it though....

Yes.

Now after all those games it either comes down to Bioware not wanting to change the wheel or paraphrasing, or not being able to change the wheel or paraphrasing.

Correct. They're going to have a voice protagonist. They're going to have a dialogue wheel. They're going to have paraphrases.

'We'll work on making the wheel better' is not 'we are getting rid of it.'

'We are listening' is not 'We will do exactly what some people want use to do.'

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 20 octobre 2012 - 09:34 .

[ianvillan]

Maria Caliban wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Do they actually mean it though....

Yes.

Now after all those games it either comes down to Bioware not wanting to change the wheel or paraphrasing, or not being able to change the wheel or paraphrasing.

Correct. They're going to have a voice protagonist. They're going to have a dialogue wheel. They're going to have paraphrases.

'We'll work on making the wheel better' is not 'we are getting rid of it.'

'We are listening' is not 'We will do exactly what some people want use to do.'

I know that Bioware are not getting rid of the wheel or are going to do exactly what some of us want, I am saying that for four games now Bioware have said that they know the wheel has problems and they are going to make it better, but when the next game comes out they haven't made it better and it still has the same problems as before.

I am wondering if it actually possible to make the wheel and paraphrasing system better or if it is a system that will always have the same problems it has and no matter how much Bioware wants to change it they cant.

[nightscrawl]

areuexperienced wrote...

I understand all of this, I agree and I think you misunderstood me. I meant to offer a counterpoint to the whole "bringing up the same thing over and over again in hopes of changing something" when the question has been tackled a thousand times.

Gotcha. I do wonder how many people actually post in hopes of changing something though. Part of the reason I post is so someone cannot go "Look at all the people in my thread that agree with me, it must be the majority opinion," because my post will (sometimes) be there as a counter simply to show show that "no, not everyone agrees with you."

David Gaider wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...
The option to turn a feature on and off, even if the whole process and the consequences are well explained, is obviously confusing for players. They will inevitably turn on something they don't like or turn off something they like and that will annoy and frustrate them. Therefore, as a considerate game designer, you can't include too many options on things. You have to build your games around the interests and abilities of ignorant and dumb people. Or so I've heard...

Ah, yes. Because people who might turn on a feature and find themselves annoyed without being aware of the exact cause are ignorant and dumb, yet everyone who comes onto a forum thread with a specific complaint always knows exactly what the source of their problem is as well as how to fix it-- with perfect clarity and self-awareness. Yes, I've noticed that as well.

*Sigh* In my initial post I had something other than "ridiculous" but then I changed it to be nicer because I didn't want it to devolve into name calling. I actually don't think those words apply. However, I do think that sometimes people don't try to find out what is wrong. They will accept whatever it is and be unhappy, or just grow continually frustrated. I see this in World of Warcraft all the time. There is a great wealth of information available on the internet, but some people just don't care to make use of it, instead they will do something that increases frustration or makes their life more difficult because they didn't attempt to go outside the game to resolve their issue.

You might say that the goal is to provide as much in-game feedback as possible so that is not necessary. However, your own track record with the confusion brought on by friend/rival shows that that isn't always the case.

Finally, I get that you all don't like toggles for everything. Even the idea does seem silly when phrased that way. But even you must admit that you can't plan for every self-harm action a player does.

When I first played DA2 I turned all of the video options on max. I mistakenly thought I had DirectX 11 so I checked that box. What followed was regular crashing. I eventually figured it out (this was so long ago, I don't recall whether or not I came to the forums), put it on DirectX 9, and DA2 has run smoothly ever since. If I hadn't investigated and discovered the problem, do you really think it would have been legitimate for me to say "man DA2 is a crap game, it keeps crashing, I'm sorry I pre-ordered this POS," and thrown it in the trash? Even when the problem was entirely my own fault?

[nightscrawl]

ianvillan wrote...

I am wondering if it actually possible to make the wheel and paraphrasing system better or if it is a system that will always have the same problems it has and no matter how much Bioware wants to change it they cant.

Oh I think some of what David has mentioned about "not being as anal about not repeating words and phrases between the paraphrase and the actual line(s)" will be a tremendous help with improving the paraphrases. In fact, after I read that comment of his, it instantly became clear to me that that specific limitation they imposed on themselves was probably one of the major factors for the unfortunate paraphrases.

Just think about it: if you are forced to write a line in another way without using any of the same words, and you have to do this hundreds of times for all of the dialogue in the game, there are bound to be some terrible outcomes as a result. Sometimes, there really is only one way to say something and have the meaning be what you intend.

[LobselVith8]

FreshIstay wrote...

Why Does Mr. Gaider always have to exert his final authority... It's like " Okay man your the boss" geesh. Every thing we say, he seem's to respond in a elaborate way but basically saying, " I hear you, but you dont know what the hell your talking about." If enough people agree on something then we become "regular posters" or "new posters who are influenced by older posters".
Gosh, we get that this game is yours, You should have made a set protaginist if you wanted the companions to be central to the story instead of the player. 

I think this has been addressed before when Imrahil was speaking to Gaider about how he responds to people on the boards:

Imrahil_ wrote...

Just kidding.  I'm just poking fun at how you characterize people who criticize.  I'm not really trying to be disagreeable for the sake of it.  I just find your posts dismissing of others' opinions sometimes funny when juxtaposed with your own posts from other topics.  No harm done. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Dragon Age II had to end with the Templars and Mages at war, but they didn't want to 'force' the PC to support the revolution, so they had Anders do it.

Why fix it?  I'd suggest designing the game such that Hawke can start the revolution, but if he doesn't want to then Anders does it instead.

Having Anders always do it makes Anders, I think, the story's protagonist (but then, I think Darth Vader is the protagonist in Star Wars).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 20 octobre 2012 - 10:05 .

[RandomSyhn]

I enjoyed the DA2 dialogue wheel, admittedly some of the options where limited but at least with the symbols (sarcastic/charming, diplomatic/peacful authoritative/angry) I could at least get my point across. I also appreciated that when there was autodialogue it usualy was consistant with my dominant trait. I'm not really a fan of autodialogue, but there were instances where putting up the wheel would be a waste of time.

I definitly support the idea of have more choices in traits and I'd like to see a possible combination dominance. Like say authouritative sarcastic. I'm sure someone can come up with a better example but hopefully the idea comes across.

[nightscrawl]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Dragon Age II had to end with the Templars and Mages at war, but they didn't want to 'force' the PC to support the revolution, so they had Anders do it.

Why fix it? I'd suggest designing the game such that Hawke can start the revolution, but if he doesn't want to then Anders does it instead.

Surprisingly, I like this idea! But I still think people would complain that there "was no choice" since the result is the same, regardless of what Hawke does, particularly if both paths involved the Chantry exploding. Now, if each path (Hawke revolt and Anders revolt) were distinct enough I think it could work and come across really well.

I also would like a real neutral option, but I think that's another thread entirely.

[robertthebard]

nightscrawl wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Dragon Age II had to end with the Templars and Mages at war, but they didn't want to 'force' the PC to support the revolution, so they had Anders do it.

Why fix it? I'd suggest designing the game such that Hawke can start the revolution, but if he doesn't want to then Anders does it instead.

Surprisingly, I like this idea! But I still think people would complain that there "was no choice" since the result is the same, regardless of what Hawke does, particularly if both paths involved the Chantry exploding. Now, if each path (Hawke revolt and Anders revolt) were distinct enough I think it could work and come across really well.

I also would like a real neutral option, but I think that's another thread entirely.

Actually, that was the complaint going out of DA 2 already:  The choice didn't matter, as you wound up fighting both anyway.  The only difference in this is Hawke blows the Chantry?  Not really all that different than what transpires anyway, is it?  Either Hawke allows Anders (lets him live), or takes a stand against it (kills him).  It's the same result either way, and people weren't happy with the same result either way.

[Palipride47]

robertthebard wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Dragon Age II had to end with the Templars and Mages at war, but they didn't want to 'force' the PC to support the revolution, so they had Anders do it.

Why fix it? I'd suggest designing the game such that Hawke can start the revolution, but if he doesn't want to then Anders does it instead.

Surprisingly, I like this idea! But I still think people would complain that there "was no choice" since the result is the same, regardless of what Hawke does, particularly if both paths involved the Chantry exploding. Now, if each path (Hawke revolt and Anders revolt) were distinct enough I think it could work and come across really well.

I also would like a real neutral option, but I think that's another thread entirely.

Actually, that was the complaint going out of DA 2 already:  The choice didn't matter, as you wound up fighting both anyway.  The only difference in this is Hawke blows the Chantry?  Not really all that different than what transpires anyway, is it?  Either Hawke allows Anders (lets him live), or takes a stand against it (kills him).  It's the same result either way, and people weren't happy with the same result either way.

Which kind of turns Hawke into a springboard for DA3 instead of a fleshed out character of your own. I liked my Hawke, and I'm slightly alright (now, before I was FURIOUS) with the fact that either way, I f*cked up everything. A real anti-hero (especially to the side you spurned) 

[Sylvius the Mad]

nightscrawl wrote...

Surprisingly, I like this idea! But I still think people would complain that there "was no choice" since the result is the same, regardless of what Hawke does, particularly if both paths involved the Chantry exploding.

As Robert the Bard pointed out, people already complained about that.  Letting Hawke start the war addresses a different problem - one of character agency.

[robertthebard]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

Surprisingly, I like this idea! But I still think people would complain that there "was no choice" since the result is the same, regardless of what Hawke does, particularly if both paths involved the Chantry exploding.

As Robert the Bard pointed out, people already complained about that.  Letting Hawke start the war addresses a different problem - one of character agency.

Which would have worked out, if the opposite was not starting the war, but the war is written in the stars, no matter how we go about it.  The choice of start it, or Anders does isn't really player agency, although it does appear to be, since the war is starting no matter what.  This is the complaint that came down when people got to the endgame in DA 2.  Perhaps some would be happy with the illusion of agency, however?

[Foolsfolly]

I also would like a real neutral option, but I think that's another thread entirely.

Real Neutral Option Critical Path- "No, sir. This is someone else's problem." Credits.

[Sylvius the Mad]

robertthebard wrote...

Which would have worked out, if the opposite was not starting the war, but the war is written in the stars, no matter how we go about it.  The choice of start it, or Anders does isn't really player agency, although it does appear to be, since the war is starting no matter what.

I said character agency, not player agency.

Yes, no matter what the player chooses there, the same outcome occurs.  But the character can choose to start a war or not - that's a big deal.  Being allowed to make a decision is far different from having it made for you, even if the outcome is the same.

Perhaps some would be happy with the illusion of agency, however?

There's no illusion.  There's a difference between player agency and character agency; don't equate them just because DA2 offered neither.

[Fast Jimmy]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I also would like a real neutral option, but I think that's another thread entirely.

Real Neutral Option Critical Path- "No, sir. This is someone else's problem." Credits.

Heck, a True Neutral might not even say anything and just commence with the walking off.

[Fast Jimmy]

Palipride47 wrote...

Which kind of turns Hawke into a springboard for DA3 instead of a fleshed out character of your own. I liked my Hawke, and I'm slightly alright (now, before I was FURIOUS) with the fact that either way, I f*cked up everything. A real anti-hero (especially to the side you spurned) 

Eh. Hawke isn't even an anti-hero... he's just a bit of a failure. 

An anti-hero is someone who saves the day but isn't your typical hero-type. Hawke doesn't save the day, he doesn't save his family, he doesn't make Kirkwall a better place, he doesn't resolve the Qunari problem peacefully... the only thing he can do is either be a d!ck to his friends or be nice to them, with some shades of gray. 

DA2 didn't ever suffer from bad writing. It just suffered from bad writing for a video game. If DA2 had been a book, I think it would have been one of the better ones (or even each Act broken down into a novel to make a trilogy). 

To get a little more on topic, having a dialogue tone that is set like in DA2 is dangerous. I always said that if I can't be nice to Mages and mean to Templars without the personality system in DA2 going haywire (which it would), then there is a problem. The game hints at the conflict the entire game, sets us up to choose sides, MAKES us choose a side, but we can't be antagonistic to one side and friendly to another with any sort of consistency. That's a bit of a problem.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

An anti-hero is someone who saves the day but isn't your typical hero-type.

An anti-hero is typically a protagonist who exhibits the traits not of a hero, but of a villain.  Someone who does heroic things for non-heroic reasons could fit that definition.

The classic example is probably Elric of Melniboné.