81 réponses à ce sujet

[Demyx_IX]

No we THE FANS do not need auto-dialogue for any purpose. The system that was much more accepted was Drage Age: Origin's dialogue.DA is supposed to be largely about choices, opinions, discussions, didn't feel that as much in DA2 as DAO at all. Now, I think a combination of great voice casting and many dialogue options would satisfy us the fans. So please, for all that is good on earth, do NOT implement auto-dialogue.

Modifié par Demyx_IX, 23 octobre 2012 - 01:45 .

[azerSheppard]

Auto dialogue=> no buy
even if it's just an option

[Gibb_Shepard]

Non character defining lines i'm completely fine with. ME3 often described my character, so it was not ideal. DA2 was horrid with the auto--dialogue. Just because my character is of a certain personality trait does not mean stereotypical beliefs can be applied to him/her.

That is unless Bioware were to create a semi-defined protagonist, like TW2. But they're not, so my thoughts on this matter are pointless.

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 23 octobre 2012 - 11:40 .

[fchopin]

No auto dialogue unless pc has a set character like Shepard in ME3 or Geralt in TW2.

[Fallstar]

Definite nope to auto dialogue. If we literally just continue the conversation through auto dialogue with phrases like "Go on", "Are you sure", etc. that's possibly OK.

But if our PC is:

1. Making decisions.
2. Giving opinions.

through auto dialogue, then that is absolutely not OK. When Hawke did either (it was mostly #2) it frustrated me no end. It made me feel like what's the point of it if Bioware are just going to disregard parts of my character or give me no choice on certain matters.

In essence: trivial statements to continue a conversation are acceptable. Anything beyond that isn't for me.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 23 octobre 2012 - 01:26 .

[budzai]

we get **** main char VO anyway so it doesen't matter to me....

[Rune-Chan]

Xewaka wrote...

Kill it with fire.

Less succintly, Autodialogue is a terrible idea. Considering one of the main purposes of palying a Roleplaying game is to interpret a character, every instance of autodialogue is a direct aggresion on that end. For each line of autodialogue, another bit of agency is robbed from the player. It's something that should not be allowed in cRPGs, even with a pregenerated character.

Exactly, and it's actually one of the reasons for why a silent protagonist works better. As auto-dialogue simply isn't possible.

Voiced protagonists are not a bad idea necessarily (I actually liked having Shepard VA'd), but as the games have progressed, Bioware seems to have been leaning more and more on auto-dialogue, to the point where a lot of people do not feel that they are in control of the character any more.

My Shepard had dozens of opinions and attitudes in Mass Effect 2 and 3 that completely go against how I visioned them. This wasn't an issue in Mass Effect 1, because pretty much all dialogue was decided by the player. I could talk to the council or ignore them, I could be rude, nice, helpful etc.

In Mass Effect 2 you are forced to like Liara regardless of what the player actually feels.
In Mass Effect 3 you are forced to have respect for Vega, forced to like Liara, Garrus and others. Shepard repeatedly states non-plot essential opinions and emotions without any input from the player, and it was incredibly immersion breaking.

[Demyx_IX]

budzai wrote...

we get **** main char VO anyway so it doesen't matter to me....

[Wulfram]

Machines Are Us wrote...

Exactly, and it's actually one of the reasons for why a silent protagonist works better. As auto-dialogue simply isn't possible.

Sure it is, you just only give the PC one dialogue option.  Not overly common in Bioware games I don't think - you'd at least get a few variations on "yes" - but pretty frequent in RPGs in general.

[drak4806.2]

Sir JK wrote...

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.

I agree with you completely some autodialogue is neccesary to help the flow of conversations and the game in general. I hope Bioware follows your suggestions instead of going the ME3 route.

[blueumi]

I hope we talk to the npc to get the quest unlike mass effect 3 that made shepard hear people talk and then just go and get the item for them it just feels wrong

I like to know who needs the item or creature killed it's what makes rpgs fun

[Avroseeker]

I didn't mind the auto-dialogue in most of the games. It was just one moment in DA2 where you going to find your mother that drove me nuts.

Gascard: You came...Leandra said you would.
Hawke: Mother knows me best.

Yes I sort of asked for that auto-dialogue, since my Hawke was mostly purple throughout the game. (With a little blue in the first couple of acts, but she turns a bit more ****y in the last act.) But when family or people that she cared about were threatened, there would be hell to pay. I didn't want her to be 'funny' or 'snarky' when her mother's life was on the line!

And that auto-dialogue makes me choosing the aggressive dialogue right after kind of odd. Which goes something like this

Spare me the dramatics! Where is she!

[Endurium]

Timed dialog responses can die a horrible, painful death, as far as I'm concerned. That one Obsidian game, which my mind has purposely repressed, had timers so short I didn't have time to read my responses. Talk about reliance upon meta-gaming. Good old-fashioned dialog gives me time to consider the situation and think about what is said. It also gives me an opportunity to use the restroom or answer the door.

Auto-dialog depends on the circumstances. I want to be the one making decisions, and I don't want my character carrying on a conversation to the point where I feel like I'm watching a low budget film.

[Sainna]

Kill it with flames of hell! I mean I know some auto dialogue is needed in a game, of course! But mass effect 3 just went so very far with it -.- ( if we use that game as an example).

[deuce985]

Endurium wrote...

Timed dialog responses can die a horrible, painful death, as far as I'm concerned. That one Obsidian game, which my mind has purposely repressed, had timers so short I didn't have time to read my responses. Talk about reliance upon meta-gaming. Good old-fashioned dialog gives me time to consider the situation and think about what is said. It also gives me an opportunity to use the restroom or answer the door.

Auto-dialog depends on the circumstances. I want to be the one making decisions, and I don't want my character carrying on a conversation to the point where I feel like I'm watching a low budget film.

Alpha Protocol? I actually liked the tension behind some choices. It made everything feel more realistic and like you were "in the moment". I could definitely see why somebody didn't like that. To me, it just added suspense because you knew your choices in that game had major consequences. I loved AP despite how broke the combat was.

[Luckywallace]

I can understand a certain amount of auto-dialogue, ME2 did it best (better than ME1 where you sometimes got several options which led to Shepard saying the same thing... if the protagonist really has to say one thing there's no point in giving a false choice).

Having been burnt with ME3 and it's terrible aito-dialogue (not that games biggest problem by some way) I don't intend to buy DA3 on release day and if news of a similar amount of auto-dialogue is apparent it'll significantly delay my purchase until it's dropped into the £20 region.

Yes, that sounds petty but roleplaying is a big part of such a game and I felt that Shepard was just not my character in ME3 any more because I barely got to decide what he said. It's not just about making the 'big decisions', it's about how your character acts in every conversation.

[Imp of the Perverse]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

When I think about the place to use auto-dialogue, I am immediately reminded of a conversation infodump situation. Let's say, for example, that some character has a rather involved backstory or history that requires a more elaborate explanation. During such discussion, there's usually conversation that goes on and not just one person talking forever. The listening party often puts in statements like "Go on", "Ok, I get it. So then what happened?", "But you're here, not there" just to break up the speech in order to preserve the state as a conversation.

The options to interject there would basically be binary: please continue, or stop now. Preserving the flow of the conversation can be important, and that's where I expect them to use auto dialogue. I can see how somebody might want to stop, but I would argue that having the person stop would be strange since the person just asked the other to explain. It would also be strange to disallow the player's character from saying anything, since then it becomes more of a monologue situation and just feels unnatural. So you provide auto dialogue to preserve the flow of the conversation.

YMMV. Some people would rather sacrifice the flow of conversation for the agency of selecting "Go on" or "Stop now". Others may not.

By all means, maximize the number of dialog options that actually influence the outcome or tone of the conversation, but in instances where you're just breaking up a conversation that would play out the same regardless, I'd rather just have autodialog, since it usually means the writing will be more fluid. Ideally though the PCs automatic responses would vary a bit depending on how you'd been playing them, I really liked the moments in DA2 where Hawk said something based on how I'd been playing him. It made if feel like I'd actually created a character with his own distinct personality (even if there were really only 3 available.) I could really see that system developing into something great if it were expanded on - maybe track the intelligence and appropriateness of the character's responses, in addition to the noble/sarcastic/violent tone.

I absolutely hate timed dialog though. I guess it could maybe be used effectively to add tension to a scene, but I'd only want to see it used in a few carefully chosen situations.

Modifié par Imp of the Perverse, 23 octobre 2012 - 09:52 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Auto-dialogue erases any potential input from the player. It turns cinematic gameplay into a cinematic cutscene. This is done to make conversations "flow" better. Of course, this assumes conversations needs to flow in a RPG. I think it's a foolish assumption and if Bioware insists on taking control away from the player, they should stop making games and start making movies.

[DreamwareStudio]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Auto-dialogue erases any potential input from the player. It turns cinematic gameplay into a cinematic cutscene. This is done to make conversations "flow" better. Of course, this assumes conversations needs to flow in a RPG. I think it's a foolish assumption and if Bioware insists on taking control away from the player, they should stop making games and start making movies.

Exactly. I made the point earlier (possibly in a different thread) that EA has never understood what constitues an RPG. The advancing intrusion of auto-dialogue is another example of this. So, too, is the overriding of a player's actions (i.e., for some Leliana appearing in DA 2 after she was killed in DA:O). Ignoring how a player played a previous game in the series was one of my few gripes with the Witcher.  Triss was Geralt's companion in TW 2 regardless whether the player chose Shani in TW 1 as the long-lasting romantic interest. I am a little more forgiving of CD Projekt than EA/Bioware in these instances due to the quality of the Witcher games and how they improved upon but did not radically change from TW 1 with TW 2. I would have remained forgiving of EA/Bioware had DA 2 been a better overall game while maintaining its RPG roots. The fact CD Projekt seems to listen to its customer base more than EA also comes into play.

Modifié par google_calasade, 23 octobre 2012 - 10:04 .

[Endurium]

deuce985 wrote...

Endurium wrote...

Timed dialog responses can die a horrible, painful death, as far as I'm concerned. That one Obsidian game, which my mind has purposely repressed, had timers so short I didn't have time to read my responses. Talk about reliance upon meta-gaming. Good old-fashioned dialog gives me time to consider the situation and think about what is said. It also gives me an opportunity to use the restroom or answer the door.

Alpha Protocol? I actually liked the tension behind some choices. It made everything feel more realistic and like you were "in the moment". I could definitely see why somebody didn't like that. To me, it just added suspense because you knew your choices in that game had major consequences. I loved AP despite how broke the combat was.

In my case, the story and events my character is going through develop in my mind a feeling of tension and a need to move forward. Perhaps I am a slow reader as well; I didn't get to finish reading one response in AP before the timer expired and the game picked for me. I immediately uninstalled the game, thankful that I only paid $2 for it through Steam.

I don't need heavy-handed, and to me highly annoying, reminders in the form of timed dialog.

On topic though, auto-dialog doesn't surprise me in Bioware's games. I've said for awhile now that Bioware is heading toward games that are little more than interactive movies. Maybe DA3 will return to classic RPG roots and player agency/control, but I'm going to wait and read reviews before deciding whether to buy the game.

Modifié par Endurium, 23 octobre 2012 - 10:15 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

google_calasade wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Auto-dialogue erases any potential input from the player. It turns cinematic gameplay into a cinematic cutscene. This is done to make conversations "flow" better. Of course, this assumes conversations needs to flow in a RPG. I think it's a foolish assumption and if Bioware insists on taking control away from the player, they should stop making games and start making movies.

Exactly. I made the point earlier (possibly in a different thread) that EA has never understood what constitues an RPG. The advancing intrusion of auto-dialogue is another example of this. So, too, is the overriding of a player's actions (i.e., for some Leliana appearing in DA 2 after she was killed in DA:O). Ignoring how a player played a previous game in the series was one of my few gripes with the Witcher.  Triss was Geralt's companion in TW 2 regardless whether the player chose Shani in TW 1 as the long-lasting romantic interest. I am a little more forgiving of CD Projekt than EA/Bioware in these instances due to the quality of the Witcher games and how they improved upon but did not radically change from TW 1 with TW 2. I would have remained forgiving of EA/Bioware had DA 2 been a better overall game while maintaining its RPG roots. The fact CD Projekt seems to listen to its customer base more than EA also comes into play.

I think CD Projekt wants to make video games. They're not trying to turn Witcher into a movie. Origins was a video game. It had cinematics, but they remained cinematics and didn't take away any input from the player. Same thing with the original Mass Effect. Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 are very heavy on auto-dialogue because Bioware is trying to make both video games and movies at the same time. Adding a voiced protagonist is no excuse.

I think it has more to do with direction than Bioware not listening to their fans. However, I do believe CD Projekt values their fanbase more than Bioware does. They also aren't trying to appeal to the "dudebro" audience and actually seem content with the audience they have. Under EA, Bioware doesn't have that luxury. Their games have to appeal to everyone in some way or another.

[DreamwareStudio]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Auto-dialogue erases any potential input from the player. It turns cinematic gameplay into a cinematic cutscene. This is done to make conversations "flow" better. Of course, this assumes conversations needs to flow in a RPG. I think it's a foolish assumption and if Bioware insists on taking control away from the player, they should stop making games and start making movies.

Exactly. I made the point earlier (possibly in a different thread) that EA has never understood what constitues an RPG. The advancing intrusion of auto-dialogue is another example of this. So, too, is the overriding of a player's actions (i.e., for some Leliana appearing in DA 2 after she was killed in DA:O). Ignoring how a player played a previous game in the series was one of my few gripes with the Witcher.  Triss was Geralt's companion in TW 2 regardless whether the player chose Shani in TW 1 as the long-lasting romantic interest. I am a little more forgiving of CD Projekt than EA/Bioware in these instances due to the quality of the Witcher games and how they improved upon but did not radically change from TW 1 with TW 2. I would have remained forgiving of EA/Bioware had DA 2 been a better overall game while maintaining its RPG roots. The fact CD Projekt seems to listen to its customer base more than EA also comes into play.

I think CD Projekt wants to make video games. They're not trying to turn Witcher into a movie. Origins was a video game. It had cinematics, but they remained cinematics and didn't take away any input from the player. Same thing with the original Mass Effect. Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 are very heavy on auto-dialogue because Bioware is trying to make both video games and movies at the same time. Adding a voiced protagonist is no excuse.

I think it has more to do with direction than Bioware not listening to their fans. However, I do believe CD Projekt values their fanbase more than Bioware does. They also aren't trying to appeal to the "dudebro" audience and actually seem content with the audience they have. Under EA, Bioware doesn't have that luxury. Their games have to appeal to everyone in some way or another.

When I went to look at jobs for Bioware (not interested in joining, just wanted to see for what they were hiring), it stated that Bioware was a "label" of EA, so I think from now on I'll just refer to them as EA since there is no real distinction between the two.

CD Projekt understands the same thing Bethesda does and EA does not. You don't sell tens of millions of copies overnight. You establish a fan base and grow it over time. I can think of no better example of that than the Elder Scrolls. I hope CD Projekt enjoys just as much success with the Witcher. They've made some missteps along the way (first edition of TW was bug-infested), but they've corrected those. They listened to the majority of customers in regards to the battle in the first Witcher. I was not one who complained as I enjoyed how the Witcher was. That said, I understood I was in the minority and why TW 2 featured different mechanics. I took the change as a positive sign that CD Projekt accepted the criticism and acted on it. You can't ask for much more than that.

Conversely, I see the exact opposite here. The dialogue wheel, auto-dialogue, and a myriad of other examples like retconning. Most do not like the aformentioned and yet they remain (increase in some instances). More importantly, most do not like the direction DA 2 took (comparing sales of DA:O to DA 2 bears this out) and yet they continue to follow the DA 2 vein. If you ask me, that's a fool's errand.

They can argue the customer is not right, but in the end that customer walks away from their product and what exactly have they won?

Nothing.

Modifié par google_calasade, 23 octobre 2012 - 11:00 .

[ianvillan]

google_calasade wrote...

When I went to look at jobs for Bioware (not interested in joining, just wanted to see for what they were hiring), it stated that Bioware was a "label" of EA, so I think from now on I'll just refer to them as EA since there is no real distinction between the two.

CD Projekt understands the same thing Bethesda does and EA does not. You don't sell tens of millions of copies overnight. You establish a fan base and grow it over time. I can think of no better example of that than the Elder Scrolls. I hope CD Projekt enjoys just as much success with the Witcher. They've made some missteps along the way (first edition of TW was bug-infested), but they've corrected those. They listened to the majority of customers in regards to the battle in the first Witcher. I was not one who complained as I enjoyed how the Witcher was. That said, I understood I was in the minority and why TW 2 featured different mechanics. I took the change as a positive sign that CD Projekt accepted the criticism and acted on it. You can't ask for much more than that.

Conversely, I see the exact opposite here. The dialogue wheel, auto-dialogue, and a myriad of other examples like retconning. Most do not like the aformentioned and yet they remain (increase in some instances). More importantly, most do not like the direction DA 2 took (comparing sales of DA:O to DA 2 bears this out) and yet they continue to follow the DA 2 vein. If you ask me, that's a fool's errand.

They can argue the customer is not right, but in the end that customer walks away from their product and what exactly have they won?

Nothing.

Well Bioware believes the DA2 direction will attract the COD fan base, believing their old fan base is a small minority they want to have the huge numbers of COD.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

ianvillan wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

When I went to look at jobs for Bioware (not interested in joining, just wanted to see for what they were hiring), it stated that Bioware was a "label" of EA, so I think from now on I'll just refer to them as EA since there is no real distinction between the two.

CD Projekt understands the same thing Bethesda does and EA does not. You don't sell tens of millions of copies overnight. You establish a fan base and grow it over time. I can think of no better example of that than the Elder Scrolls. I hope CD Projekt enjoys just as much success with the Witcher. They've made some missteps along the way (first edition of TW was bug-infested), but they've corrected those. They listened to the majority of customers in regards to the battle in the first Witcher. I was not one who complained as I enjoyed how the Witcher was. That said, I understood I was in the minority and why TW 2 featured different mechanics. I took the change as a positive sign that CD Projekt accepted the criticism and acted on it. You can't ask for much more than that.

Conversely, I see the exact opposite here. The dialogue wheel, auto-dialogue, and a myriad of other examples like retconning. Most do not like the aformentioned and yet they remain (increase in some instances). More importantly, most do not like the direction DA 2 took (comparing sales of DA:O to DA 2 bears this out) and yet they continue to follow the DA 2 vein. If you ask me, that's a fool's errand.

They can argue the customer is not right, but in the end that customer walks away from their product and what exactly have they won?

Nothing.

Well Bioware believes the DA2 direction will attract the COD fan base, believing their old fan base is a small minority they want to have the huge numbers of COD.

Designed by focus groups to appeal to the largest audience possible to maximize revenue in the shortest amount of time. I don't think COD numbers is the objective. They know they will never be able to achieve that. Even Battlefield fails to hit those high numbers. And if Battlefield can't do it, Dragon Age (an RPG) sure as hell won't.

[Quicksilver26]

EWW KILL IT WITH FIRE