128 réponses à ce sujet

[vortex216]

Gaider's right. After I played Dragon Age 2 a couple times, then replayed Origins, I noticed the Diplomatic/ Snarky/ Aggressive pattern. The only thing I would change about the wheel would be to add more personality types. The with only three options, I don't feel I had much control over what I was going to say.

[sully.nathan]

I would like it if the dialogue wheel did away with the good,bad & sarcastic icons, and if it also randomizes where the choices would be on the wheel instead of it always being good on the upper right hand side and mean on the lower right hand side.
One big thing I would really like is if there are no paragon or renegade like persuasion that automatically makes me get out of any situation without a consequence.
It would also be better if you pick a choice and your character says exactly what you picked.

Modifié par sully.nathan, 13 novembre 2012 - 10:01 .

[Knight of Dane]

I disagree, OP is wrong.

[jillabender]

David Gaider wrote...

[...]

We are also getting a "reaction wheel" for use when an emotional reaction to events is being called for-- I've mentioned this before, and it's useful in very specific circumstances, but it's not something I'll go into in full until we can show what we mean by it.

That sounds very promising - I'll be looking forward to hearing more once you're further along!

Modifié par jillabender, 13 novembre 2012 - 11:09 .

[AlanC9]

sully.nathan wrote...

I would like it if the dialogue wheel did away with the good,bad & sarcastic icons, and if it also randomizes where the choices would be on the wheel instead of it always being good on the upper right hand side and mean on the lower right hand side.

Why do people think that a more annoying interface will make conversations better?

[TheJediSaint]

I liked the Dialogue Wheel in DA2 and look forward to seeing what improvements will be made to it in DA3. Might I suggest spinners?

[Caiden012]

vortex216 wrote...

Gaider's right. After I played Dragon Age 2 a couple times, then replayed Origins, I noticed the Diplomatic/ Snarky/ Aggressive pattern. The only thing I would change about the wheel would be to add more personality types. The with only three options, I don't feel I had much control over what I was going to say.

I agree that this pattern can be seen in many Bio games (KOTOR,SWTOR,DA:O) but it think that the reason it was a problem in DA2 was because of the symbols. I was easier for me to just pick the option with a smiling face everytime than sit there and actual think about what sort of tone I wanted my character to give.

One thing I would like to see return is sub catagories that have conversation topics. I liked being able to return to my party camp, walk up to Alistair, and start a conversation about the Grey Wardens and learn more about that character or the lore. It was very disappointing to have the game tell me when I could have a conversation with Merril and even more disappointing when I entered her home hoping to enter a conversation and then she just tells me how messy her house is again. Its been like 5 years, clean your house Merril.

Modifié par Caiden012, 14 novembre 2012 - 12:02 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

David Gaider wrote...

Face of Evil wrote...

As has been stated before and will be stated many times after — since these threads pop up with the regularity of cancerous lumps — there were just as many dialogue options in DA2 as there were in DAO. Most responses were seperated into three categories: Diplomatic, Snarky and Aggressive. There were also Flirty responses and Investigative queries.

It's the same system, it's just been simplified with the use of icons. Any further nuance was imagined on your part, likely because you yourself had to read the lines and therefore you could ascribe whatever tone you wanted.

Even I could tell that there's very little difference between my "Diplomatic" Warden and my "Diplomatic" Hawke.

We are also getting a "reaction wheel" for use when an emotional reaction to events is being called for-- I've mentioned this before, and it's useful in very specific circumstances, but it's not something I'll go into in full until we can show what we mean by it.

GOOD. That's exactly what i've been proposing for so long now. Contextual tones that show tones much more relevant during certain events. I strongly felt that the sarcastic options during "emotional" scenes were just a wasting space; a space that could have been filled by a much more relevant  and nuanced reaction.

Happy to hear this.r

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 14 novembre 2012 - 12:49 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

David Gaider wrote...
The tone wheel is used with the same regularity as, in DAO, what we called the "flavor hub". In DAO, that kind of hub was about how you said something and was generally used to move the dialogue along-- and it have Diplomatic, Humorous and Aggressive-toned responses. People can argue that this wasn't the case if they like, but it was. That was intentional.

I argue the tones basically express the same single dialogue line. You only play the same dialogue line or intent with different tones. For example the famous snarky comment, I want to be a dragon, is basically the same as show your trick regardless of the tones.

David Gaider wrote...

Then you have the choice wheel, which also has its counterpart in DAO. This is where you'd actually make choices or, at least, be selecting options from a list of actions as opposed to tones.

I argue, those choice wheel associate with their respective tones. Each list of actions are tied with their respective tone icons.  For example A choice is always associate with subtle/diplomatic tone. I can suggest Feyneriel to go to the circle in subtle tone. B choice is always associate with humorous tone. I can joke to Feyneriel, telling him to go anywhere he likes. While C choice is always associate with aggresive tone. I can demand Feyneriel to go to the Dalish Camp.  

David Gaider wrote...

In either of these wheels, you have up to 10 options total (5 with up to 5 on the Investigate sub-sub)... as opposed to a limit of 6 in DAO (which was hard-coded, so people who claim to remember more are incorrect). The only part where this was awkward in DA2's organization was with regards to the limit on what was allowed in certain parts of the wheel-- a self-imposed limit, but no more frequently an issue than the limit of 6 was in DAO (I personally loathed the "What would you like to know?" sub-hub style with every fiber of my being).

I would like to see all those 10 options representing choice and tones available to choose in a single dialogue..

David Gaider wrote...


The primary difference between the two styles lays with the use of a paraphrase and the existence of the icons.
 The paraphrase stuff I won't even get into again, as it's been discussed to death elsewhere and isn't changing.

Yes, your paraphrasing need better clarification in term of meaning. I trust you would improve on it.

David Gaider wrote...

The icons some people don't like because, in a way, it exposes the man behind the curtain. It makes obvious what some prefer to be implied. Which I understand, to a point... seeing as this is not a silent protagonist, you are not free to imagine whatever tone you like. So the icons exist to help illustrate the intended tone of your character (if not necessarily the effect that tone will have-- a heart icon indicates your intention to flirt, not that it will be reciprocated).

Even with "roleplaying by intent" those icons don't work either. I intent to make a bitter withdrawn and passive aggressive character like Fenris ( at a time ). Couldn't do it with only subtle, humorus and aggresive tones. I need a real snarky tone. 

David Gaider wrote..

The icons are being revamped, but they will still exist.

With more options, I hope.

David Gaider wrote..

We are also getting a "reaction wheel" for use when an emotional reaction to events is being called for-- I've mentioned this before, and it's useful in very specific circumstances, but it's not something I'll go into in full until we can show what we mean by it.

Yes. It's interesting. I'll look forward for futher information on this matter. Take your time. 

David Gaider wrote..


On the whole, I think a lot of issues are ascribed to the wheel that aren't really the wheel's fault at all. Not that this will stop some from blaming it regardless, or stop a topic like this from drawing out the same people who have an axe to grind about the switch to a voiced protagonist and what that does to the way we write dialogue (or the desire for some to imagine their tone and roleplay, the only kind of roleplaying they will accept). Which I get, but that is also something that is not going to change.

Perfect your voiced expression and presentation first then maybe, some silent protagonist players are more forgiving with voice protagonist. Until you find a better way for player to express themselves, either by intent or by text, voiced protagonist would continue to become a problem to some people. But as long as you are willing to listen, I'm sure you will eventually get it satisfactory accepted. Just take your time and plan carefully. Do not rush voiced protagonist.

[philippe willaume]

David Gaider wrote...

Face of Evil wrote...

As has been stated before and will be stated many times after — since these threads pop up with the regularity of cancerous lumps — there were just as many dialogue options in DA2 as there were in DAO. Most responses were seperated into three categories: Diplomatic, Snarky and Aggressive. There were also Flirty responses and Investigative queries.

It's the same system, it's just been simplified with the use of icons. Any further nuance was imagined on your part, likely because you yourself had to read the lines and therefore you could ascribe whatever tone you wanted.

Even I could tell that there's very little difference between my "Diplomatic" Warden and my "Diplomatic" Hawke.

That is indeed true.

The tone wheel is used with the same regularity as, in DAO, what we called the "flavor hub". In DAO, that kind of hub was about how you said something and was generally used to move the dialogue along-- and it have Diplomatic, Humorous and Aggressive-toned responses. People can argue that this wasn't the case if they like, but it was. That was intentional.

Then you have the choice wheel, which also has its counterpart in DAO. This is where you'd actually make choices or, at least, be selecting options from a list of actions as opposed to tones.

In either of these wheels, you have up to 10 options total (5 with up to 5 on the Investigate sub-sub)... as opposed to a limit of 6 in DAO (which was hard-coded, so people who claim to remember more are incorrect). The only part where this was awkward in DA2's organization was with regards to the limit on what was allowed in certain parts of the wheel-- a self-imposed limit, but no more frequently an issue than the limit of 6 was in DAO (I personally loathed the "What would you like to know?" sub-hub style with every fiber of my being).

The primary difference between the two styles lays with the use of a paraphrase and the existence of the icons. The paraphrase stuff I won't even get into again, as it's been discussed to death elsewhere and isn't changing. The icons some people don't like because, in a way, it exposes the man behind the curtain. It makes obvious what some prefer to be implied. Which I understand, to a point... seeing as this is not a silent protagonist, you are not free to imagine whatever tone you like. So the icons exist to help illustrate the intended tone of your character (if not necessarily the effect that tone will have-- a heart icon indicates your intention to flirt, not that it will be reciprocated). The icons are being revamped, but they will still exist. We are also getting a "reaction wheel" for use when an emotional reaction to events is being called for-- I've mentioned this before, and it's useful in very specific circumstances, but it's not something I'll go into in full until we can show what we mean by it.

On the whole, I think a lot of issues are ascribed to the wheel that aren't really the wheel's fault at all. Not that this will stop some from blaming it regardless, or stop a topic like this from drawing out the same people who have an axe to grind about the switch to a voiced protagonist and what that does to the way we write dialogue (or the desire for some to imagine their tone and roleplay, the only kind of roleplaying they will accept). Which I get, but that is also something that is not going to change.

Hello David

I totally agree with you on the mechanical aspect of the topic. in fact in DA:0 i had to reload because the intent was too far of what I meant my character to say. For me it is not dissimilar to the difference in the combat between the two games. i.e. the tools are mechanically pretty similar

That being said i think we need to consider how  the said  tool is used for.

in a way it is like saying that a Enfield .303 wwII sniper riffle is the same a Mauser sniper riffle.

yes they are full bore, shoot about the same ammo, about the same barrel length and about the same magnification *4 for the German  and 3.5 for the Brits.

and the riffle selection for the British and commonwealth was as stringent as the German.

and if you set up both riffle the same way there is little difference in the way they are going to be used.

however the German reticule can be used to estimate the distance, the German standard cartridge had vastly superior ballistic and they had an even better snipping grade ammunition. and the scopes had a bullet 
drop compensator (up to  800m and  1200m according to the model). So German weapon system is more flexible than  the English weapon system.

Up to  whatever distance  an give Uk riffle is set  it probably does not make that much of difference.  But if I had to
shoot at 500 m  or for close range without having half a day to set it up, I will take the German system.

and it is the same with DA:0 and DA:2 dialogue.
yes it works the same and if we use if one way there are no differences but  the difference come from the way we might use it, regardless of the mechanics.
in DA:0  because you could get it wrong the conversation were more like a mini-game/puzzle.

The wheel seemingly took that away, not really by being the wheel but because intent almost always end up being the results. So you are almost in a ME3  situation when you can rely on choosing the paragon/renegade option to get the point  rather than what is actually said,

 It would be nice to have less certitude about the effect  you  have on the interlocutor and you companion. provided that we have some clue as their state of mind at the time and if they express an opinion or feel strongly about it. to avoid stuff like:

prota  diplomatic "well i am not sure that champagne is the best to go with oyster"

comnpanion " you heretic bastard, you are my sworn enemy"

prota "WTF did that come from"


One nice thing in the ME series was the chat about the mission, may be that could be use to get or lose some relation points with the companion.

 Phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 14 novembre 2012 - 12:57 .

[TMZuk]

Well, it is a pointless discussion since the lords of EA has already decided that The Protagonist Must Be Voiced.

The fact that DA2 is probably the most despised sequel to have ever been released is not making a dent in the EA armour.

The Wheel, especially the way it was employed in DA2, is the most annoying thing to have ever been invented. Not because it is bad in itself... just pointless... but because it employs paraphrasing, a thing the devil invented in his anger.

I do not want to second guess what my character says. I want to be able to choose what my character says. In fact, if I could have my wish, I'd like to type out my replies. If EA/Bioware would skip VA and spend the money saved pioneering a system that could analyze a written line, and chose a fitting reply from the NPC, it would be a thousand times more interesting and groundbreaking than a wheel with small icons for kids.

Alas, nothing interesting or groundbreaking in the tidbits we have received about DA3 so far.

Modifié par TMZuk, 14 novembre 2012 - 04:17 .

[terdferguson123]

AlanC9 wrote...

sully.nathan wrote...

I would like it if the dialogue wheel did away with the good,bad & sarcastic icons, and if it also randomizes where the choices would be on the wheel instead of it always being good on the upper right hand side and mean on the lower right hand side.

Why do people think that a more annoying interface will make conversations better?

Why would randomized choice location on the wheel be an annoying feature? Especially if the icons were to be different. I think it's a good idea, because it helps to prevent the people from falling into an archetype and just picking the top option because it's the good one over and over and barely even looking at the other choices. That is the real problem with the current setup, that it promotes a lack of creativity on the players part to really weigh the options. I fail to see how working on a way to remove that effect of the wheel is annoying.

Modifié par terdferguson123, 14 novembre 2012 - 04:41 .

[AlanC9]

terdferguson123 wrote...
 I think it's a good idea, because it helps to prevent the people from falling into an archetype and just picking the top option because it's the good one over and over and barely even looking at the other choices. That is the real problem with the current setup, that it promotes a lack of creativity on the players part to really weigh the options.

Wait.....  the problem with the current system is that some other players aren't playing the game the way you think they should?

[Archereon]

TMZuk wrote...

Well, it is a pointless discussion since the lords of EA has already decided that The Protagonist Must Be Voiced.

The fact that DA2 is probably the most despised sequel to have ever been released is not making a dent in the EA armour.

The Wheel, especially the way it was employed in DA2, is the most annoying thing to have ever been invented. Not because it is bad in itself... just pointless... but because it employs paraphrasing, a thing the devil invented in his anger.

I do not want to second guess what my character says. I want to be able to choose what my character says. In fact, if I could have my wish, I'd like to type out my replies. If EA/Bioware would skip VA and spend the money saved pioneering a system that could analyze a written line, and chose a fitting reply from the NPC, it would be a thousand times more interesting and groundbreaking than a wheel with small icons for kids.

Alas, nothing interesting or groundbreaking in the tidbits we have received about DA3 so far.

Go have a talk with cleverbot and get back to me on how feasible you think what you're asking for is at this time.

[addiction21]

AlanC9 wrote...

Wait.....  the problem with the current system is that some other players aren't playing the game the way you think they should?

I thought that was always the problem?

[terdferguson123]

AlanC9 wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...
 I think it's a good idea, because it helps to prevent the people from falling into an archetype and just picking the top option because it's the good one over and over and barely even looking at the other choices. That is the real problem with the current setup, that it promotes a lack of creativity on the players part to really weigh the options.

Wait.....  the problem with the current system is that some other players aren't playing the game the way you think they should?

Put words in peoples mouths much? All I said is that the current dialogue system promotes a lack of creativity on the gamers part. It actually rewards players for picking the same type of choice over and over (Via extra dialogue that takes on your chosen tone). Is it so wrong to feel that the system could improve on this quality? If you want me and other people to just agree with everything we are given instead of sharing our opinions on how it can be improved then you are sorely mistaken. That has never been nor will it ever be how Bioware social is, the entire point of this site is for us to give our input on Bioware games so that they can improve them. And believe it or not, Bioware is one of the few companies that actually has a track record for listening to fan feedback and implementing it. I did not say my opinion is the way the game should be played, only that it can be improved and I gave some examples of what I feel the problem is and what can be done to help it, becuase that is what this site is for. I guess I am just baffled by the point of your post, if you think posting opinions is somehow a detrimental thing, then I think you need to stay away from the internet, and especially from a game company that actually values player feedback.

Modifié par terdferguson123, 14 novembre 2012 - 05:13 .

[AstraDrakkar]

The dialog wheel itself doesn't bother me, it's all the paraphrasing in DA2 that bugged me. When you don't know what gonna come out of your mouth when choosing an option, it makes me feel like it's somebody else's character and not my own.

And yes, there should be more than 3 options.

Modifié par AstraDrakkar, 14 novembre 2012 - 05:07 .

[AlanC9]

terdferguson123 wrote...
Put words in peoples mouths much?

Nope. I just quoted your words, and proceeded with my interpretation of them. Did I get that interpretation wrong? If so, how? And if you don't have a problem with how other people play the game, why did you talk about how other people play the game?

I guess I am just baffled by the point of your post, if you think posting opinions is somehow a detrimental thing, then I think you need to stay away from the internet, and especially from a game company that actually values player feedback.

Hey, I think posting opinions is a great thing,. I just think that this particular opinion of yours is bad and should be ignored.

Just to recap how we got here, a couple folks said that randomized dialog positioning would be good, I asked why, and you responded with 

Why would randomized choice location on the wheel be an annoying feature? Especially if the icons were to be different. I think it's a good idea, because it helps to prevent the people from falling into an archetype and just picking the top option because it's the good one over and over and barely even looking at the other choices.

Well, what if "the people" do fall into archetypes? How is that a problem for you?

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 novembre 2012 - 05:28 .

[Realmzmaster]

If I have decide to play a PC who is a goody two shoes, or an ass, or aggressive randomizing the responses on the wheel just means I have to hunt around to find the choice I want. That is simply annoying and bad interface design.

[AmstradHero]

J.C. Blade wrote...

What I don't understand is, if the developers want to, and certainly will, continue with the cinematic approach and voiced protagonist, why then do they not create a fully defined PC (personality, not gender), the way Shepard was in ME3, or Geralt in TW, or that guy in Alpha Protocol? As such, the choices in game would be made only in scope what said character would possibly do in given situation and develop from there on.

It would certainly be better than later having mass of people going, "But my ... would never do that!" I know I'd rather have a fully defined character, male or female, than have the game yank a choke-chain on me every-damn-time I go and try to establish supposedly "my" PC's personality in some way.

I could not disagree more. As I stated in my post, the thing for me that was a problem with DA2 was that sometimes that Hawke got to provide his/her rationale for a decision. In my opinion, in roleplaying games, this is the biggest no-no for writers. Period. It was why I hated The Witcher. I would get forced into situation where Geralt would provide the reasoning for a decision I had to make. I could happily choose one (or more) of the options provided, but I never did so for the same reason as Geralt. Every time I had to make a choice, I got it rammed down my throat that no matter what I did, Geralt was never ever my character nor could I have any effect on him.

Giving the player a set protagonist is fine. But do not dare to have them think for the player and provide the player with the rationale as to why they made that decision. They can say what decision they're making, and they can even have some emotion associated with that choice, but as soon as the character (and therefore the writers) provide the reason for that choice, then the player has been robbed of control of their character.

[AlexanderCousland]

Ah. The Wheel.

The Wheel is not bad, The Wheel is not good.

However, IN MY OPINION, the wheel is what makes Hawke/Shepard themselves and not me.
How can I simplifiy, The best way to say this is, I made a Hawke and I am the Warden. Get it?
Even though i've played both games, Hawke is still a person other then myself to me. He/She exists, in my mind, as Alistair does, the only difference is i chose his tone and Templar or Mage.
Maybe the way the Story was told by Varric, from the start of the game everything already happend, so inevitabley, it was only One choice that absolutley mattered. All companion personalities, titles and assests are subject to change due to the fact Varric could be lying! Think about that, Isabela...maybe she doesnt think Varric is a Paragon of Manliness, Maybe Merril is really an evil mind controlling maleficar, Maybe Fenris is a sex slave male elf prostitute who happens to know how to fight and worked at the blooming rose in order to maintain Denarius' mansion. Who Know's with Varric?

Back on topic, The Dialouge wheel is okay, but I enjoyed DAO more.
The devs should let the player interperet the tone and intent by reading the sentence on the wheel. I think that putting a face next to a sentence makes it to easy, and constricts my choice's of dialouge into three different character's...The Funny Rouge, The Angry Mage, and the Righteous Warrior. Flip the combination anyway you wish, but 3 clearly defined tones, for me, is simply undesirable. Im optimistic about the next game.

[J.C. Blade]

AmstradHero wrote...
I could not disagree more. As I stated in my post, the thing for me that was a problem with DA2 was that sometimes that Hawke got to provide his/her rationale for a decision. In my opinion, in roleplaying games, this is the biggest no-no for writers. Period. It was why I hated The Witcher. I would get forced into situation where Geralt would provide the reasoning for a decision I had to make. I could happily choose one (or more) of the options provided, but I never did so for the same reason as Geralt. Every time I had to make a choice, I got it rammed down my throat that no matter what I did, Geralt was never ever my character nor could I have any effect on him.

Giving the player a set protagonist is fine. But do not dare to have them think for the player and provide the player with the rationale as to why they made that decision. They can say what decision they're making, and they can even have some emotion associated with that choice, but as soon as the character (and therefore the writers) provide the reason for that choice, then the player has been robbed of control of their character.

Shepard was being morphed into that since ME2 and in ME3 is spouting their reasons for going into battle; Hawke is defined in such a dodgy 70-30% way that I will never roll a warrior or a rogue in DA2 because I can't stand Bethany and won't put up with Hawke worrying over her constantly.

I, and this is just me, do not want to pay tug-o-war with the developers - I'd rather either play a nearly blank slate or a fully developed PC where I won't be deluded that it is somehow mine or a co-creation of me as a player and the writers, like Hawke tried to do. Anything in-between is not fun.

On topic: I've made my peace with the Wheel. What I dread now are the paraphrase and the tone. It's one thing to say that the  silent protagonist had nice, snarky and douchy tones written in, it's  another to keep hearing it in their voice and know there is a mechanics in game that will be tracking how I build a character, like an annoying helping hand in Lego

Modifié par J.C. Blade, 14 novembre 2012 - 06:29 .

[terdferguson123]

AlanC9 wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...
Put words in peoples mouths much?

Nope. I just quoted your words, and proceeded with my interpretation of them. Did I get that interpretation wrong? If so, how? And if you don't have a problem with how other people play the game, why did you talk about how other people play the game?

I guess I am just baffled by the point of your post, if you think posting opinions is somehow a detrimental thing, then I think you need to stay away from the internet, and especially from a game company that actually values player feedback.

Hey, I think posting opinions is a great thing,. I just think that this particular opinion of yours is bad and should be ignored.

Just to recap how we got here, a couple folks said that randomized dialog positioning would be good, I asked why, and you responded with 

Why would randomized choice location on the wheel be an annoying feature? Especially if the icons were to be different. I think it's a good idea, because it helps to prevent the people from falling into an archetype and just picking the top option because it's the good one over and over and barely even looking at the other choices.

Well, what if "the people" do fall into archetypes? How is that a problem for you?

To be fair, you never stated why it would be an annoying feature either, just that it would be. I even asked you why it would be annoying in that first sentence that you quoted. You did it again by saying "That opinion of yours is bad and should be ignored", your still not giving any reasons as to what is wrong with it. I don't mind that you feel that way, opinions are made to be disagreed with by others, but I would at least like to know why it's bad/annoying/should be ignored. Trust me, I welcome discussion such as that, thats the entire reason I made this thread.

Secondly, I have no problem if people want to fall into archetypes, and having choices with no icons and randomized location of dialogue would not prevent a player from doing that. The only thing it would do, and the entire point of what I have been posting, is that it would make players read all of the choices before choosing. They can still play in their archetype, but it will give players a reason to consider all of the choices and who knows, maybe after considering all of them, they might be more inclined to break that archetype which can lead to some interesting roleplay for those who like that aspect of these games. The point is, I don't see how my proposed idea is annoying or limits any ability for players to play the game they want to. The only thing that it even endorses in any way is players having to read each choice and consider it. Is that really such a bad thing?

Modifié par terdferguson123, 14 novembre 2012 - 06:22 .