110 réponses à ce sujet

[cindercatz]

(My response down below is entirely off topic, so I decided to go ahead and talk about tones a little more as well.)

synching up Tone and Characterization:

I think the tone system is already a pretty brilliant achievement.
Ideally, we could apply tone and choice seperately, at least when an actual choice of action is available (Do I accept the quest? This faction or that faction? To kill or not to kill?), so that taking an action would also correctly mesh with the personality and motivation you intend for your character.

Those bits would become something more like: Do I accept the quest out of good nature, personal profit, support or reject it out of spite, indifference, opposition? This faction or that faction because I actually support them, because I'm choosing the lesser of two evils, because I gain more personally out of the exchange? Do I begrudgingly or enthusiastically or indifferently spare or kill this person out of duty or necessity or anger or compassion? Where does sarcasm fit in all of that? Companion reaction?
All of it chosen with paraphrase and icon, of course, just independently.

It adds an extra layer of complexity that might get unwieldy or too expensive, but that would be ideal. It also about quadruples the dialogue necessary to answer in that kind of detail. Of course, this could actually be partially conveyed by different expressions and body language a lot of the time, and it couldn't be every response you give in the game. Still, it is quite a bit more costly, at least in terms of total lines per choice dialogue exchange. Then there's the system underlying this that changes the tones of a lot of those options to some degree depending on whatever the dominant personality is. The animation would be different for all options and each kill or wide angle action shot would be a different animated scene in large part. It would be a fairly major undertaking, I think, but it would be cool if it ever happens. Absolutely ideal, near perfect implementation may not be feasible, or it might surprise me and be in the cards. I don't know the associated cost.
Supposedly there is a reaction layer now in some form, so that accomplishes a lot of this right there, maybe all of it.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

What on earth is the difference between King Consort and Queen?

The Queen of England is married to a guy right now. Someone she married after the real king died. No one cares about who he is (I think he is named Prince Phillip, honestly), he doesn't have the title of king. In other words, he's a nobody, he just happens to be married to the queen. Meanwhile, Prince William just married Kate Middleton. When the queen dies, William will be king. And Kate will be queen. THAT'S the difference. Power!

I'm not all gung ho about British royalty, so I may have gotten some of the details there wrong. But the gist is the same - king consort to Anora would be a 'shut up and try not to embarrass me' role, while a Warden Queen would be just that - queen.

I think King Consort is used rather than King just because it needs to be emphasized that the existing, standing Queen in the person of Anora has more power and is the already recognized ruler. It doesn't mean that the King Consort has less authority than any other second half of a monarch couple. In this instance, there is no continuity of the royal line, so Anora's existing authority becomes the determiner.

In the case of a Queen warden marrying King Alistair, Alistair is King by blood, and so has the authority of direct royal succession. In this case, whether Alistair chooses to exercise his greater authority or not, he still holds more power than the warden Queen.

In both cases, were the reigning King/Queen to die, I imagine the monarchy would pass to a child with a direct line to the existing monarchy, and the surviving warden monarch would become Queen Regent or King Regent.

If Alistair marries Anora, it solidifies the peace of Fereldan because both those who support the line of succession in Alistair and those who support the respected administrator Anora would be satisfied. I imagine if there were a child and Alistair died, Anora would then become Queen Regent, just like the wardens.

So, the real power of the King Consort and the Queen warden are comparible, I think. The title difference may be there to erase potential assumptions of a King's greater power that might be expected in what many consider to still be a patriarchal society (ours) or to clarify the intended status quo against that inherited cultural bias.

My impression from the conversations with Anora, the epilogue slides, and DA:A is that my King Consort warden actually had a significant presence and comparible authority to any Queen warden. His ability to stand as a "strong king" by Anora's side as a more substantial ally than Alistair would be was even part of the negotiation.

This is all off topic, though.

Modifié par cindercatz, 14 novembre 2012 - 11:50 .

[Fast Jimmy]

<sigh>

To continue this off-topic bit...

In both cases, were the reigning King/Queen to die, I imagine the monarchy would pass to a child with a direct line to the existing monarchy, and the surviving warden monarch would become Queen Regent or King Regent.

I'm not sure why you would assume this. We don't know a ton about Ferelden politics and succession, but the only example of this seems to lean the other way. King Cailan, the king by blood and royal line, dies in battle. His wife, Anora, the queen, who has noble blood but no royal claim, is now ruler. She rules the country (in this case, with Loghain actually pulling the strings for her, but that is a logistics argument). Also, even when Cailan was alive, it was said that as queen, Anora ruled the country, so the queen who know for sure is a title of power that is independent of the king.

So if the Warden were to marry Allistair and become queen, there is nothing to suggest if Allistair died, your Warden would not be in control. That is in direct opposition to the role of a king consort, who is never able to inherit the title of king/ruler and who always "ruled by Anora's side." The key word of king consort is consort - it means association. Seriously, Google Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh. He is a prototypical king consort. I would no more want to settle for that situation than I would for my female Warden to settle for being a mistress/concubine, personally.

And given that I only brought up the queen/king consort idea up in the first place was in the context of how to better present content that is reactive based on character settings, this has really become a hair splitting argument. I don't care if a king consort is better than a queen - the idea was that DA:O gave you indications that these choices were possible when you had no ability for your current character to take advantage of them is a smart idea, as it showcases the option, indicates why you couldn't go through with it and gives you the idea of how to play a different character to meet that requirement. Much better than the way DA2 gave no indication at all there was different content unless you happen to meet the requirements.





All of that being said, I'm going to quote myself here to get this conversation back on track, if it can be. I've tried to bring a lot of conversations/ideas up in the past page and unfortunately its the nitpicky details that have been responded to, with the actual important (to me) parts of my posts being ignored.

I think, perhaps, a better question is why one game would be PERCEIVED to have more freedom than another? The amount of ACTUAL choices is, honestly, a little pointless, since it is the feeling, the player's PERCEPTION, that ultimately is the determiner. Baldur's Gate didn't have a lot of choice opportunities in how to address situations with gameplay when compared to a game like Planescape, yet the amount of dialogue options (and shades of intent, emotion and purpose) is surpassed. Meanwhile, a game like DA2, which had a decent amount of custom dialogue based on certain situations (such as friendship/rivalry with your companions) is stated as having much less choice.

If the game is going to have a dominant tone, having content that is specific to a character with that dominant tone is actually fairly interesting. That being said, the game (or the writers, as need be) need to do a better job of advertising that "Hey, you have X as your dominant personality, that is why Y is happening, or Y ISN'T happening, as the case may be."

In ME, you could be shown dialogue options your character was not able to use (due to a Paragon/Renegade/Reputation score that was not high enough). These options would be grayed out, showing that the game offers more options, but that you do not meet the requirements for it.

For instance, if there was special dialogue that was dependent on you having a dominant tone, have that option on the wheel, but show it grayed out (possibly with an icon or signal that shows WHY it isn't accessible). This could work for class-specific dialogue, or even companion dialogue (like how Merrill could dispel the Profane demon in the Deep Roads if she was in your party - which would be blocked out {but still visible} if she wasn't in your party).

We've made progress since those days in terms of technology, animation, sound quality, interface... but the case could be made we've neglected (and even regressed) in gameplay. These games may have only offered pale shadows of varied gameplay outside of combat, little more than PnP dice rolling in some cases... but instead of building on those facets, the industry has, by and large, focused on one non-combat mechanic (stealth) and left all others forgotten except for a small handful of IPs.

A piece of rhetoric I hear people saying recently is "not simulation, stimulation." Which is, to me, not neccessarily mutually exclusive. People have gone bananas over the release of the new XCom, which is very much still a simulation-type game. Exploring different options, playstyles and creating a world where the only answer isn't just "stab-stab shoot-shoot" to solve all of your problems doesn't make your game eosteric or boring, by default.

Not that I think anyone in this thread is advocating that, but it seems the regression is becoming more palpable every year.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 novembre 2012 - 12:45 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

On the tangent of tones, there's quite a difference in implementation, structure and in purpose, but Daggerfall was already giving you choice in tone and conversation topics, back in 1996.



Now, in regards to the general topic. Presentation is where a lot of the angst comes from, or from other aspects that get rolled into this topic.

I think one aspect that could do with some distinguishing is the "overt choice" paradigm and the "natural decision" paradigm, while one is typically done in cinematic conversation and presents the player with "choices", the other takes the form of gameplay outside of dialog and how well it is integrated into the overall experience.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 14 novembre 2012 - 02:01 .

[cindercatz]

That's conceptually similar, yeah. Good call on Daggerfall. The first TES game I played was Morrowind, so I missed that one. It's obviously simpler and a lot less costly to do what that does rather than a full voiced, personality tracking system like DA, but yeah, basically.

I imagine with the wheel, we could have an outer layer for emotional context (tone) and an inner layer for intent (the paraphrase), and on console that would simply be selecting one with one thumbstick and the other with the other, with the accessibility option to just choose one first, then the other. Non gamepad PCs would just use the typical keyboard controls, or the dial and ball of the mouse, I guess. If it were all feasible.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

<sigh>

To continue this off-topic bit...

In both cases, were the reigning King/Queen to die, I imagine the monarchy would pass to a child with a direct line to the existing monarchy, and the surviving warden monarch would become Queen Regent or King Regent.

I'm not sure why you would assume this. We don't know a ton about Ferelden politics and succession, but the only example of this seems to lean the other way. King Cailan, the king by blood and royal line, dies in battle. His wife, Anora, the queen, who has noble blood but no royal claim, is now ruler. She rules the country (in this case, with Loghain actually pulling the strings for her, but that is a logistics argument). Also, even when Cailan was alive, it was said that as queen, Anora ruled the country, so the queen who know for sure is a title of power that is independent of the king.

..

- the idea was that DA:O gave you indications that these choices were possible when you had no ability for your current character to take advantage of them is a smart idea, 

..

I've tried to bring a lot of conversations/ideas up in the past page and unfortunately its the nitpicky details that have been responded to, with the actual important (to me) parts of my posts being ignored.

If the game is going to have a dominant tone, having content that is specific to a character with that dominant tone is actually fairly interesting. That being said, the game (or the writers, as need be) need to do a better job of advertising that "Hey, you have X as your dominant personality, that is why Y is happening, or Y ISN'T happening, as the case may be."

In ME, you could be shown dialogue options your character was not able to use (due to a Paragon/Renegade/Reputation score that was not high enough). These options would be grayed out, showing that the game offers more options, but that you do not meet the requirements for it.

For instance, if there was special dialogue that was dependent on you having a dominant tone, have that option on the wheel, but show it grayed out (possibly with an icon or signal that shows WHY it isn't accessible). This could work for class-specific dialogue, or even companion dialogue (like how Merrill could dispel the Profane demon in the Deep Roads if she was in your party - which would be blocked out {but still visible} if she wasn't in your party).

Forgive my one last answer on Anora. :-)
Anora remains Queen and ruler of the country because Cailan has no heir (though as Queen Regent, she would still truly run things until the heir came of age if it's similar to its real world analogues), but her rule is also highly disputed, even to the extreme of military conflict, even despite the Blight, right up until the Landsmeet. Even then, it's how highly she's respected in her own right that allows her to retain her throne if she does. Her status as de facto running the country more than Cailan does is more about her ability and willingness to do so and his gallavanting personality. He has the authority of blood, which is what the monarchy is founded on going back to original unification of Fereldan by his ancestor well before Orlais conquered it, but she's more suited to governance. If she marries Alistair, she's basically back in the same political position she was with Cailan.

Back on Topic
Sorry if it seemed I was ignoring the meat of your discussion. Didn't mean to come across that way. Most of them I've already talked about in the thread or don't have anything new to add, but I will say that I somewhat agree about giving some cue as to there being other options that aren't available to you on that particular playthrough for whatever reason. I agree with plot contextual information like the Landsmeet situation you brought up completely. I have reservations about bogging down the interface when sometimes there might well be five options that are available anyway.

One thing I think we shouldn't have are those situations where an option for a particular action (not involving companions, I like the thing with Merrill for instance) are not available to all our PCs. I could be playing the most generous player character in the world and then something horrific or personally over the line comes up and I decide to murder knife somebody, or I could be playing a very, very agressive character who has a moment of pure compassion and spares someone's life. These kind of things should always be possible where they could be in the game regardless of my character's dominant personality. They allow for stronger personal arcs and nuance in our characters, should we choose to incorporate them. That's one thing I missed from the Warden that Hawke was somewhat less capable of, just because of unnecessary restrictions in the system. Instead of consistent options, these things can kind of become easter eggs in DA2. I also disliked the similar restriction of needing to follow the same side of the dial so much in ME2 to get the paragon and renegade exclusive dialogue options in that game.

I agree with you about wanting more non-combat solutions and skill systems, but that's a little bit less of a wheel/dialogue issue. It's always a good thing when you can bring well developed skills and specializations, etc., into the dialogue system to open up more options unique to your character, though. I like these things effecting the dialogue action/choice options a lot more than dominant tone. I also very much liked cunning playing into so many checks in DA:O, but that goes to the whole stat system being streamlined in DA2. Needless to say, I'd much rather we get a more complex character stat system like DA:O again. I loved it, personally.

Modifié par cindercatz, 14 novembre 2012 - 04:56 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I agree that partitioning off certain activities/options can be, by its very nature, restricting. But it seems like an interesting way to make choices that are small in scale (like tone) have a cumulative effect. I'm not a huge champion for it, but, in concept, I do like the idea.

That being said, I loved that the Warden felt unencumbered by any assumptions the writing staff or the developers made. It certainly wasn't the case, I'm sure, but allowing the player to fill in the blanks lets us BELIEVE that to be true more often than not.

When I was thinking about my "grayed out" concept, I was thinking something along the lines, in terms of interface, of what we get when we click the Investigate option. Where a sub-menu comes up with all of our discussion choices. Personally, I think putting these investigate options in their own little nook that basically says "put the choices on hold and get ready for data dump time!" is a little harmful to the feeling of numerous conversation options. When you look at a list of options and don't know which ones will progress the plot and which ones will just get more information, that means I will make the dialogue choice that I want, not head off to a "safe zone" of investigate options.

But I digress...

If a subset was given not just for investigate, but for "Special" conversation options (such as Bribes, skills, Magic, intimidate, etc.) and also one for Companions (where you could see which of your companions would have an input or a solution) and which would have the appropriate character/skill/option grayed out if you could not use it (like, say, Merril not being in your party), then that could be one way to display all of the choice really involved in a given interaction (not necessarily all of which would be available for the player to use), then I think that would be a great value to both the player as well as the developer.


On a side note, I think investigate options (at least some of them) should have a limit. Like if there is a life threatening situation on the line, instead of just giving us one investigate option (or not having anything besides a Yes/No/Snark choice), possibly including a wide variety of Investigate options, but only letting us choose one before the NPC forces us into the choice. This would mean there would be some instances where we would only know the full amount of information that NPC had to offer if we replayed the game and tried different options.

This would help suspend disbelief sometimes when my character would listen to a five minute long diatribe about things from an NPC, then hop back into a decision as if the side conversation we just didn't happen at all. It doesn't remove the Investigate options (in fact, it could even widen them, since you wouldn't be narrowing a player into fewer just for the sake of brevity in certain encounters) and it allows the feeling of realism to be incorporated.

[Chiramu]

There's no problem with voicework in video games lately. The only problem we face with Dragon Age and Mass Effect games is that we get to make so-called "choices" like naming the character that makes the writing for the dialogue limiting. You can no longer call the main character by a first name if you can change it at the start :<.

I wouldn't mind having a main character with a fixed name if it would open up more choices . We still should be able to customise and choose, but if there is a fixed name then we are not spoken to in the third person. I feel very disconnected when a close friend is speaking to me using a last name or "Warden" or "the Warden".

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I would disagree with your initial statement that voice work doesn't create problems. The very thing you complain about, not being able to have NPCs react correctly to your first name, is an example of one. With a primarily text game like Fallout 2, it was just a simple matter of <charname> string logic in the text and it would put in your name at any opportunity.

Does a game like Fallout 2 do everything perfectly? Certainly not. But some of the things done right could be attributed to the fact that it was simply much easier to handle games where 90% of the NPCs didn't speak, and neither did the PC.

Bioware has a near-impossible mountain to climb with every game they create, where gameplay elements, story, acting, animation and graphics all have to meet or exceed their competitors, who don't have to worry about incorporating those elements in equal measures AND who don't have to worry about player choice.

I agree that removing player choices like names would be helpful to this process, the process could become where the game starts down the path of an "on-the-rails" shooter, except with swords instead of guns, instead of a choice driven and wide open narrative.

[Chiramu]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

I would disagree with your initial statement that voice work doesn't create problems. The very thing you complain about, not being able to have NPCs react correctly to your first name, is an example of one. With a primarily text game like Fallout 2, it was just a simple matter of <charname> string logic in the text and it would put in your name at any opportunity.

Does a game like Fallout 2 do everything perfectly? Certainly not. But some of the things done right could be attributed to the fact that it was simply much easier to handle games where 90% of the NPCs didn't speak, and neither did the PC.

Bioware has a near-impossible mountain to climb with every game they create, where gameplay elements, story, acting, animation and graphics all have to meet or exceed their competitors, who don't have to worry about incorporating those elements in equal measures AND who don't have to worry about player choice.

I agree that removing player choices like names would be helpful to this process, the process could become where the game starts down the path of an "on-the-rails" shooter, except with swords instead of guns, instead of a choice driven and wide open narrative.

I've never played Fallout so I would have no clue about it. But there's not reason to trade off voice acting for the hopes of getting "more open plot". What if the trade off happened and we didn't end up getting more open plot? 

It all comes down to the writing and planning. If the writing is finished and polished then they should be able to come up with a way to give us meaningful choices and an interesting plot.

I remember Blizzard pushing Diablo 3s release further and further back, this made a lot of people incredibly upset, but for me it's a relief. I love Blizzard for not giving into the fanbase and only releasing thing when they feel it's in a state to be released. 
The Dragon Age games come out too fast :<, I don't think the script gets as much attention as it should. The script, the writing is the backbone of the whole game. If the writing is unpolished then the whole game is unpolished. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Chiramu wrote...


I've never played Fallout so I would have no clue about it. But there's not reason to trade off voice acting for the hopes of getting "more open plot". What if the trade off happened and we didn't end up getting more open plot?

From what I understand, the sheer amount of lines available in Baldur's Gate would prevent it from ever being made into a voiced game. It would be absolutely cost prohibitive.

And Baldur's Gate and BG2 were lauded as ground breaking in the industry, with Baldur's Gate being voted last year by other game developers as The Best Game of All Time.

So if the best game of all time couldn't be made today because of voice acting... I'm leaning more towards the side of "let's take the chance, shall we?"

It all comes down to the writing and planning. If the writing is finished and polished then they should be able to come up with a way to give us meaningful choices and an interesting plot.

And budgets. You can plan and write a game for 500+ game hours worth of time. But you wouldn't be able to create it in under 6 six years or under the budget of half a billion dollars with voice acting and full animation for cut scenes. You could do, however, an all-text game for the price of a Kickstarter.

So there's a difference.

I remember Blizzard pushing Diablo 3s release further and further back, this made a lot of people incredibly upset, but for me it's a relief. I love Blizzard for not giving into the fanbase and only releasing thing when they feel it's in a state to be released. 
The Dragon Age games come out too fast :<, I don't think the script gets as much attention as it should. The script, the writing is the backbone of the whole game. If the writing is unpolished then the whole game is unpolished. 

I agree. Well, we really only have one example, to be fair. DA:O was in development for five years. DA2 was in development a quarter of that (if you want to be generous). DA3 looks to be coming out in late 2013, which would put it at 2-2.5 years. Do I think that is enough time? Not for what they are saying they want to do and the obstacles they have to overcome to do it. But I'd love to be proven wrong.

[Allan Schumacher]

EDIT: Taking this offline since it's off topic.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 15 novembre 2012 - 01:55 .

[cindercatz]

I've posted one possible solution for the character name issue (a few posts up) on the first page of the thread.  I agree it would certainly improve immersion to have other characters refer to your character by familiar personal name, more formal family name, and by impersonal title when appropriate.

I don't think the names should be fixed, however. We should have a Title, a Family Name that applies to each origin/background, and a Personal Name we choose from a few options appropriate to each background. Then there are a few ways to cut down on required line recordings and disc space required.

The option I mentioned on Page 1 applies all sets of names to any given line modularly like in the NBA2K games, the way any created character's name chosen from the few hundred options can be applied to a long list of lines spoken by the color commentary team and announcers. This could certainly apply to any line that begins with a blanket character address, like "<character first name>! Good to see you! I hear you're moving up in the world.." or "Oh <character last name>, dropping by, are we? Here to bust my chops again? Should I offer cheese or something? Roll out the linens?" It works in any given common context.

The second method would apply to more personalized, more distinctly acted lines. Just record lines correspondent to how much variation is available for each name. Title would get the most lines, Family Name would get less, and Personal Name would get the fewest and most personal/intimate lines.

There would necessarily be less name drops in these more specific situations. People don't say your name every time they want to say something to you. I don't see why they should do so that overly often in the games, either.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

That being said, I loved that the Warden felt unencumbered by any assumptions the writing staff or the developers made. It certainly wasn't the case, I'm sure, but allowing the player to fill in the blanks lets us BELIEVE that to be true more often than not.

..

If a subset was given not just for investigate, but for "Special" conversation options (such as Bribes, skills, Magic, intimidate, etc.) and also one for Companions (where you could see which of your companions would have an input or a solution) and which would have the appropriate character/skill/option grayed out if you could not use it (like, say, Merril not being in your party), then that could be one way to display all of the choice really involved in a given interaction (not necessarily all of which would be available for the player to use), then I think that would be a great value to both the player as well as the developer.

..

On a side note, I think investigate options (at least some of them) should have a limit. Like if there is a life threatening situation on the line, instead of just giving us one investigate option (or not having anything besides a Yes/No/Snark choice), possibly including a wide variety of Investigate options, but only letting us choose one before the NPC forces us into the choice. This would mean there would be some instances where we would only know the full amount of information that NPC had to offer if we replayed the game and tried different options. 

Exactly, the Warden was personally unrestricted, within the confines of whatever options the devs had written into the scenario. I think we should have this freedom of characterized action back for DA3 for the reasons I mentioned earlier. I also like the idea of accumulated choices resulting in larger consequences at later points in the game, but it should come from issue stances, conflicts, origins, relationships, and skills, not from my basic characterization of my PC. Nuance matters there and should be preserved. The game can easily reflect this by simply feeding these sorts of choices right back into the personality system. Even better if characters would respond to major actions you take that are against type and therefore unexpected by those around you.

..

I mostly like your idea there. I would basically combine the investigate questions into one response, though, and have the game recongnize that you'd chosen it with an altered opening line when you resume regular responses on the right side of the wheel. So it would be a quick and dirty left side selection 1. Companion 2. Investigate 3. Skill/Spec/Stat 4. Action, and they of course pop up only when appropriate. It's important that it not feed into sub-menus unless there just isn't room on the front UI, so that it maintains momentum and conversational flow, or gives that shock in an attack or what have you. I think maybe an option group that's not available because of your lack of some check should be visible like you said, but not each individual option. It is fun to discover the companion interrupts, for example. Those do provide replay value, but they don't restrict characterization, so it's fine and even preferable if you don't have all of those kinds of things available for viewing every playthrough.

..

That last thing would mostly frustrate me. I think it makes sense if something is going to happen to you in a short amount of time that you simply react to, but not if you're making a decision. If I'm making a decision in a choice based game, I want to know everything I need to in order to feel ownership over my own choice and its consequences.

Modifié par cindercatz, 15 novembre 2012 - 06:51 .