81 réponses à ce sujet

[Perlicka]

Berty213 wrote...

Please, just no....

[FINE HERE]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The infamous example of a personality-tracked Aggressive Hawke returning the remains of a man's sister with the phrase, "Here's your lost garbage."

Holy crap, really?! That's...

That's why I don't like the auto-dialog and personality system altogether. Why do I have to sound like a jerk just to disagree with someone? Why do all three personality choices sound like a person suffering from multiple personalities when choosing a different one for each prompt? (Tried it. It sounds off.) Why can't I agree while sounding like a jerk?

[Wulfram]

FINE HERE wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The infamous example of a personality-tracked Aggressive Hawke returning the remains of a man's sister with the phrase, "Here's your lost garbage."

Holy crap, really?! That's...

Well, that was kind of a special case.  Those fetch quests didn't get any specific dialogue written for it, so you just got a generic comment.

[hoorayforicecream]

FINE HERE wrote...

That's why I don't like the auto-dialog and personality system altogether. Why do I have to sound like a jerk just to disagree with someone? Why do all three personality choices sound like a person suffering from multiple personalities when choosing a different one for each prompt? (Tried it. It sounds off.) Why can't I agree while sounding like a jerk?

This has more to do with the voice actor's delivery than the lines they deliver. In Mass Effect, DudeShep is more seamless choosing between paragon and renegade choices because that's the way that Mark Meer decided to voice him. FemShep is significantly different - her renegade and paragon are significantly far apart, and that's because of Jennifer Hale's delivery. I've seen a good number of people agree with me that the situations were reversed in DA2. DudeHawke played the different tones as if they were almost entirely different characters, while LadyHawke had a much more seamless approach. 

Oddly, I liked FemShep's divided approach in ME more than the seamless back-and-forth of DudeShep, but I also enjoyed LadyHawke more than I did DudeHawke. Then again, I found that the three types of personality (with less specific benefit, like high level paragon/renegade options) was more conducive to selecting different options. In ME, I found myself picking the same alignment option each time more often simply because I wanted to fill the bar up.

[Palipride47]

Wulfram wrote...

FINE HERE wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The infamous example of a personality-tracked Aggressive Hawke returning the remains of a man's sister with the phrase, "Here's your lost garbage."

Holy crap, really?! That's...

Well, that was kind of a special case.  Those fetch quests didn't get any specific dialogue written for it, so you just got a generic comment.

But doesn't he respond with "Thank you!"  (if it is the fetch quest with the dead Chantry sister)

Snark Hawke was: "Look what I found, your reason for living!" 

Those, I don't care.

But can't I diplomatically say to Merrill that demons are bad when she opens the barrier? 

[Scott Sion]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The infamous example of a personality-tracked Aggressive Hawke returning the remains of a man's sister with the phrase, "Here's your lost garbage."

Sorry, I know it's evil but this made me laugh.

As long as the auto dialogue you get is based on the way your character is then I don't see the harm. It would be a waste of time to have to sit there and choose what you're going to say for every little thing. If you're shocked by something aggresive Hawke says then you most likely aren't a very aggresive person and shouldn't be RPing as an aggresive person.

Modifié par plnero, 22 octobre 2012 - 06:36 .

[Cultist]

David Gaider wrote...

Karlone123 wrote...
For me
autodialgue was done too much in ME3, I loved conversing with
companions but with autodialogue I was been taking out of the
conversation for the sake of  "cinematic flow". It's like your character
will state his/her own opinions withhout any input from you yet you
will stride down corridors making Banshees swoon over you. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/surprised.png[/smilie]

Sorry
for that last bit but that's how I feel about it. I know ME and DA take
influences from each, I just hope autodialgue isn't a overalling factor
in influences. I like and support the dialogue wheel from DA2 to be
improved not dampened.

I've talked about this
before-- the amount of "auto-dialogue" (if that's what you want to call
it) is unlikely to change much from DA2. We tend to run with it once the
player has made a choice of tone, and avoid the PC expressing opinions
without direct input (so any comments are usually intro text or "tell me
more" type lines). In fact, there will probably be less need even for
those lines, due to things I shan't yet discuss.

Enjoy your autodialogues...

[DreamwareStudio]

Anytime you take choices away from the player it's a bad idea. Why? Because if the player has no control, what's the point of playing? Seriously, auto dialogue? Awful idea. That said, the dialogue wheel is not much of an improvement and one of the many reasons why I and many of my friends who bought DA:O and then were disappointed by DA 2 will not be purchasing DA 3.

The sad fact is EA has never understood what constitutes an RPG and that is becoming more evident by the differences between DA:O (hardly a full-fledged RPG but was still really good) and those entries in the Dragon Age series that follow. Rather than each successive release offering more choices, it seems they are presenting less in the name of "streamlining". Mass Effect is a prime example.

What they are in effect "streamlining" is the future nonexistence of Bioware as a department or label of worth. We have already seen this with DA 2. I have no doubt this unfortunate attrition will continue after everything I've read in regards to DA 3 (the one exception being more areas to explore but that in and of itself will only make an already boring game moreso).

It also troubles me that EA seems to (again) be turning a deaf ear to the outcry from a majority of its customers. Nowhere is this made more evident than how complaints about DA 2 have been ignored even in light of the poor sales and reception of DA 2. Rather than return to the roots of DA:O, they're trying to create a balance between DA 2 and DA:O. Why? DA:O was Bioware's best selling game. It seems silly to pursue a vision that lacked the same amount of sales simply because a department head does not agree with the previous vision that was more successful.

They have another problem because their customer base for the DA series is now fractured due to the amount of massive difference between DA:O and DA 2. The problem? How to create positive buzz for DA 3 after launch (critical for any release's success). EA is trying satisfy both camps but that compromise will satisfy neither, so what you will hear is a bunch of negativity from both sides because (let's face it) neither group wants a compromise. Thus, it's highly unlikely anyone from either will recommend DA 3. For DA 3, word-of-mouth is even more important than for DA 2, because DA 3 will not benefit from all of the preorders based on its predecessor.

The path to success can be seen with what CD Projekt and Bethesda have done. Another fine example is the Baldur's Gate series (when Bioware was actually its own company). You gain a customer base for a product. You then offer successive products for the IP making changes that will hopefully enhance the overall appeal to draw in new customers while not doing anything so drastic as to lose existing customers. Or basically the reverse of what EA did with the DA series.

At any rate, anyone who doubts EA's inability to sustain the success of a company it has acquired need look no further than the fairly recent past, especially in regards to those companies that made role playing games. I think the one exception has been Maxim in terms of sales before and after purchase of said company. Every other purchase has ended in disaster.

Modifié par google_calasade, 22 octobre 2012 - 07:23 .

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
Kill it with fire.

I'm thinking this is the kind of thing not even fire can kill.

That's just because you're not applying enough.

[Uccio]

Xewaka wrote...

Kill it with fire.

Hear hear! Seconded.

[upsettingshorts]

While not deviating from my original post on this issue, fans tend to respond to features - at least around here - in one of two ways:

"I hated it, so get rid of it completely."
or
"I loved it, so you better always include it."

It's never, for the former, "do it better."

[DreamwareStudio]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

While not deviating from my original post on this issue, fans tend to respond to features - at least around here - in one of two ways:

"I hated it, so get rid of it completely."
or
"I loved it, so you better always include it."

It's never, for the former, "do it better."

It seems EA has done much on its own to create that type of atmosphere by shattering its customer base for the DA franchise. By trying to appease both crowds (DA:O and DA 2), EA is basically in a lose-lose situation. If they had drawn a hardline stance either way, they would have lost some customers, yes, but they would have a better chance of success with DA 3 by creating positive buzz from one faction. Now? They'll have negative buzz from two sources.

[upsettingshorts]

Pretty much the fastest way to get me shaking my head and disagreeing with your premise is to blame the EA bogeyman under your bed.

Nothing you said in your verbose, barely coherent anti-EA rant in your previous post even directly addressed autodialogues, only your vague notion of "streamlining." It's conversation-ending in its irrelevance, and poisonous to debate over the actual feature.

I do so wish the blame EA people would just start a newsletter in which they can blame everything they don't like on EA.

[deuce985]

Mass Effect 3 had way TOO much auto-dialogue. With a voiced PC, it's going to happen. It's how they use it that matters. As someone mentioned above, party banter situations are OK with me because I find it awkward when my PC is standing there like he doesn't care what they say. It's a necessary sacrifice on losing full control on what my PC says. It would be clumsy to let me respond to all banter. I'm not really sure how they could do that.

DA2 at least tries to align with your personality in banter by recognizing the choices you've made through the game. That's ok by me. DA2 didn't have a bunch of AD. At least I don't remember a ton. Like I said, you're going to get a bit with a voiced PC. You can't avoid it. Just as long as they don't go to ridiculous lengths in ME3, I'm ok with it...

[Linksys17]

Autodialog is a great system for serious RPG gamers
It also drastically increases replay value.
I just don't think all these entitled whiners understand....
Also paraphrasing is very good too as it reduces the amount of text a player
Has to read, who reads anyway... only losers read. I am completely illiterate and proud.

[esper]

The autodialog in da2 vanilla and legacy didn't bother me. The auto-dialog in Mark of the assassin began to come very close to bothering me because of what it added to Hawke's attitude towards Tallis. The autodialog in Me3 made me lose the jump out of the series.

Conclusion: A little auto-dialog is necessary to make the conversation flows and as long as it is tracked by personality I don't mind, but it is very thin ice that bioware has to navigate very carefully.

Modifié par esper, 22 octobre 2012 - 08:16 .

[esper]

I remember David Gaider talking about this in the 'Is Autodialog Going To Be Present in da3'-thread in the da2 forums some months back. Untill they officially say something I am just going to put in his quote:

David Gaider wrote...

Karlone123 wrote...
For
me autodialgue was done too much in ME3, I loved conversing with
companions but with autodialogue I was been taking out of the
conversation for the sake of  "cinematic flow". It's like your character
will state his/her own opinions withhout any input from you yet you
will stride down corridors making Banshees swoon over you. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/surprised.png[/smilie]

Sorry
for that last bit but that's how I feel about it. I know ME and DA take
influences from each, I just hope autodialgue isn't a overalling factor
in influences. I like and support the dialogue wheel from DA2 to be
improved not dampened.

I've talked about this
before-- the amount of "auto-dialogue" (if that's what you want to call
it) is unlikely to change much from DA2. We tend to run with it once the
player has made a choice of tone, and avoid the PC expressing opinions
without direct input (so any comments are usually intro text or "tell me
more" type lines). In fact, there will probably be less need even for
those lines, due to things I shan't yet discuss.

Untill we have something newer...

[Quething]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

While not deviating from my original post on this issue, fans tend to respond to features - at least around here - in one of two ways:

"I hated it, so get rid of it completely."
or
"I loved it, so you better always include it."

It's never, for the former, "do it better."

People actually have talked about how to do autodialog better - improving the personality system with a faction system, for example, so the game knows that you're an ass to mages and strangers, teasing and jokey with family, polite to kossith - and how to do better the related issue of their new baby streamlined straight-path "cinematic" conversations (as opposed to the old-school BioWare dialog tree). The problem, though, is twofold; first, the resource investment required is great, and second, dev comments and the trend of BioWare's past three games give the incredibly strong impression that they either don't understand the fundamental issue to begin with, or simply disagree about the deleterious effect on the gameplay experience.

This makes suggestions for improvement potentially counterproductive, because they convey a degree of acceptance that may trigger confirmation bias and encourage BioWare to think the issue is much less of a big deal to many fewer people than it actually is. "Get rid of it completely" may not be essential to the message, and it's good if there are people talking about how it could be improved, but I can't say I don't think there's virtue in people simply putting "I hate it" out there as firmly as possible as well.

Modifié par Quething, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:56 .

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
While not deviating from my original post on this issue, fans tend to respond to features - at least around here - in one of two ways:
"I hated it, so get rid of it completely."
or
"I loved it, so you better always include it."
It's never, for the former, "do it better."

That would require me to accept the premise that it *can* be done better. And considering my issue is not with execution, but with the concept itself, it is not a premise I can accept.
The only autodialogue I see myself accepting is command acknowledging (i.e. "On my way" when clicking on a location), because it is an audio cue of received input, and thus a mechanics tool, not a characterization tool.

[Maria Caliban]

google_calasade wrote...

Anytime you take choices away from the player it's a bad idea.

Anytime you make absolute statements, it's a bad idea.

[CrazyRah]

The less we have of it the better. Killing it with fire sounds like a great idea

[KiwiQuiche]

NO.

I can't go through ME3 anymore namely due to the crapton of autodialogue.

However I think the DA team are gonna be very careful with it, so hopefully it will either be very, very small bits or none at all. That would make me a happy panda.

[Sir JK]

I see autodialogue as a tool with good uses and bad uses. I don't want to see it completely gone, but it needs to be used carefully.

It's a great tool for:

a) The instinctive. "Watch out", "Take cover", "Archers!", "Earthquake", "Run!", "The door!" and similar. Quick reactions, often associated with danger. I don't need input as a player here because it's instictive. Anyone working in a group would do this unless suffering action paralysis. It also serves to clue the player in to percieved danger. The alternative is to always have a companion do it, but since the pc often walks first it's often more natural for the pc to do it. As such I feel it's an acceptable use of this tool and make the pc more of a living character.

The descriptive. I am perfectly fine with the Pc exclaiming how they percieve their surroundings. In particular smell ("What is that smell") and touch ("Is the floor... crunchy?"). These are senses we cannot experience but the PC can and we need to be informed of them. Similarily, pointing out things that stand out ("what a curiously coloured rock") or that we should be paying attention to ambient sound ("Did you hear that"?) is also fine. As is lines indicating deterorienting health ("I have a splitting headache" or "I feel a bit... woozy"). All to indicate that right now the pc is experiencing or percieving something we do not. Good way to use autodialogue, but more care needs to be taken than in option a.

c) Prompted follow throughs. I do not need to confirm my choices in dialogue (exceptions exist). If I asked for a explanation spacing it up with my character saying "go on" or my character confirming something I have already stated when challenged is fine. As long as it is just that: something that I have already said. They should never transfer between conversations however. Only in the same conversation.

Those are the three cases where I see autodialogue as acceptable. Either my character is plain just reacting, explaining a sensation or doing what I said they should.

However, autodialogue must never ever be used to state emotions (unless I am not in control of them... say under magical influence), opinions, demeanor or courses of action. Those are my purview. I think.

The support x or y autodialogues in ME3 fell just on the wrong side of the acceptable/unacceptable border, often there was too much stated that I wanted to be in control of. Similarily, the distressed autodialogues that Hawke states when following the blood trail in All that Remains was too much. I understand what they were trying to achieve, but how my character expresses distress is my choice.

However, Hawke exclaiming "The door!" in the Thaig, is a good example of what I find accetable. Some lines in the banter too, where Hawke took part but did not actually express any stance on the topic as such. Can't think of a specific example now though.

Modifié par Sir JK, 23 octobre 2012 - 09:12 .

[milena87]

I don't particularly like auto-dialogue, but I understand that sometimes is necessary with a voiced protagonist. For instance, the amount of auto-dialogue in DA2 didn't bother me at all, it was actually kinda nice when Hawke replied to party-banter.
However, it did bother me in ME3.

So you know, I'm not against it if it's done right and it doesn't take away from roleplaying my character (emotions or opinions, for example, shouldn't be forced).

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

While not deviating from my original post on this issue, fans tend to respond to features - at least around here - in one of two ways:

"I hated it, so get rid of it completely."
or
"I loved it, so you better always include it."

It's never, for the former, "do it better."

Any feature needs to justify it's existence.  If it's not delivering a clear benefit to the game, and doesn't have a way it can do so, it should be done away with.

Though I'd class auto-dialogue as an absence of a feature, not a feature in it's own right.