128 réponses à ce sujet

[PaulSX]

I think the major problem with wheel is that when devs set the tones of options so clear, players tend to choose the "better" options rather than the options they would choose if they are really role-playing a character. the result is the whole experience would be turned down into a text-based adventure game . imo devs can still clarify the functionality of each tab on the wheel but make one of those options a character's stats/ability/specialization based option.

[cindercatz]

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. 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.

This pretty much answers my only issue with the wheel/tone system (maybe I want an aggressive agreement or an indifferent quick kill, for instance, or a begrudging agreement and a smiling, happy kill.. hey, there's times ), and mirrors my feelings on the icons. I'm glad they're back and I'm looking forward to the improvements.  

The only other related issue I had was with a lack of branching plot. We had a ton of decisions that resulted in the same end whether we chose something meant to lead that way or not. The one that bothered me most was the freed mages coming back and kidnapping Hawke's sister after I tried to help them. Crazy nonsense like that. Also there were too many yes or no decisions without allowing for nuance. I'd much rather have option A, B, C with consequence A, B, C, even if the consequences aren't what we'd expect, especially if that. That's something Origins was much better about. That's not really a wheel issue.

AmstradHero wrote...

Perhaps the only valid criticism that could be leveled at the DA2 in terms of differences is sometimes that the voiced protagonist veered into the territory of providing Hawke's rationale for a decision. Note that this is not a criticism of a voiced protagonist, but of the writing of the dialogue - either the paraphrase or subsequent lines as a result of a choice. For my money, a voiced protagonist should never provide a reason for the decision, as it's impossible for the writers to predict why a player might be making a particular choice. Providing that rationale is far more crippling of roleplaying than any other aspect of a dialogue system or its presentation, because it definitively makes the character belong to the writers and not to the player.

I kind of agree with this, not entirely. I actually appreciate the PC providing a rationale for their decisions. It opens up storytelling in that it allows for debate and rational appeals to characters, potentially changing a stance or mitigating a conflict, thiings of that nature. Where I agree is that the game shouldn't provide one in lieu of the player. Rather it should give us options and we choose our own, when a voiced rationale makes sense for the storytelling.

Modifié par cindercatz, 14 novembre 2012 - 06:45 .

[AmstradHero]

terdferguson123 wrote...
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?

For one, because tone has always existed in BioWare games (and pretty much all roleplaying games with dialogue choices) in the same fashion. The responses at the top and heroic or honorable, and the responses at the bottom are selfish or evil. The dialogue wheel has not changed that.

The issue is that without some context, players are relying on words alone to understand exactly how they are delivering the line and how it might be received by the other person. Sarcasm? Impossible to deliver without that context. Without that context it would have been very easy without that positioning providing the player cues as to how choices would be delivered/interpreted.

Randomising doesn't prevent people who want to play an archetype from doing that, nor does it make them think more - it would merely potentially encourage them to make decisions that they don't actually want to make. Designers should make it easier for the players to play the way they want, not harder.

terdferguson123 wrote...
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

Just because you disapprove of people "not thinking" about their actions, that does not mean that players should potentially misinterpret a dialogue choice and take a course of action that they or their character would not choose. Some players just want to pick the "good" choice. That is their choice, and it should not be up to other players or the designers to dictate that they should not be able to do that.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 14 novembre 2012 - 06:49 .

[JWvonGoethe]

David Gaider wrote...
[...] The primary difference between the two styles lays with the use of a paraphrase and the existence of the icons. [...]

Respectfully, is that enough of a difference between the two systems?

I'm very much in favour of the dialogue wheel and the voiced protagonist, and I'm only making this criticism because I have so much faith in the Bioware developers (given that they've made most of my favourite games.) I've often seen the developers reassuring people that DA2 used the same tone system that DA:O had; furthermore, we are often told that both systems featured more or less the same investigate hub. However, rather than this being a good thing, I think that thinking of the dialogue wheel as just a "voiced counterpart" of the DA:O list system is actually what is at the root of the problem here.

The dialogue wheel is a completely different system. Paraphrases, when done well, are an excellent addition. But look at how much has stayed exactly the same in the move to a voiced dialogue wheel:

In an unvoiced game you can get away with only having the same three tone options each time because nobody will notice. With a voiced dialogue wheel, it takes about five seconds to notice that the same three tones keep popping up, especially when icons are introduced. The dialogue wheel has a different set of requirements here.

Wth the unvoiced DA:O list system, you can just throw in the investigate hub with the roleplaying hub and every option looks to the player like a roleplaying choice. With a voiced dialogue wheel, the clear line drawn between the investigate hub and the roleplaying hub gives the impression to the player that the investigate options never have any roleplay value - even when they can in fact have an affect on future choices. The dialogue wheel is unique in that it requires the investigate hub to be more clearly integrated into the roleplaying side of the game.

I have very, very high hopes for the dialogue wheel - I think it is one of the best game mechanisms of the past 10 or more years. However, the dialogue wheel needs to be understood as having its own unique set of requirements. It should not be thought of simply as a voiced counterpart to the list system - the dialogue wheel is a completely different ball game, one with much more potential than the list, and I hope to see DA3 really tap into that and let the dialogue wheel flourish on is own terms.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 14 novembre 2012 - 07:01 .

[JWvonGoethe]

nightscrawl wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Awesome! I love these little nuggets of information. 

This looks great - exactly the type of thing I'd like to see!

[AmstradHero]

JWvonGoethe wrote...
With a voiced dialogue wheel, the clear line drawn between the investigate hub and the roleplaying hub gives the impression to the player that the investigate options never have any roleplay value - even when they can in fact have an affect on future choices. The dialogue wheel is unique in that it requires the investigate hub to be more clearly integrated into the roleplaying side of the game.

Thank you. Someone else gets it. This is the number one problem with the dialogue wheel. It treats investigations as an info dump with no consequences, which is pretty awful from a writing and roleplaying perspective.  Yes, again, this concept has existed previously, but surely the dialogue wheel finally gives designers and players a chance to move away from that.

Conversations where talking isn't simply "exhaust all info dump investigation options and then make a choice/tonal comment" is something that the dialogue wheel can do in a meaningful fashion. Yes, that will still be necessary in some cases, but I'm envisioning a more complex system whereby players will perhaps be given the hint through cues that "you are investigating, but you may not get to ask all the questions you want".

Now, it could be argued that giving the player that heads up is meta-game information that detracts from roleplaying, but it is a necessary evil.  Players have been trained to know that "the order you pick things in an investigation hub don't matter", so unless the game is very strong in letting the player know that isn't the case straight up, the designers will need to differentiate. Admittedly, after a player was burned once or twice, they probably wouldn't get done again, but it's a fine line to walk.

[Firky]

It's interesting how I most often picked the investigate style options in Origins, because I'm an inquisitive person and I do like that roleplaying approach. In DA2 they started to feel like a chore because I knew they weren't leading anywhere. I do like getting more info, generally, but it felt like an aside to the conversation sometimes.

I think, sometimes, in Origins, investigating did lead back to the same list of options, but sometimes it progressed the plot. Like you say, Amstrad, the conversation plays out more naturally?

Is there a way to do the investigation part more naturally within the wheel, and without progressing plot?

[cindercatz]

Investigate should branch the dialogue and allow the player to contextualize any responses within it, rather than just being an info dump. I don't think it was just an info dump in DA2, not always, but in general, I agree there. If it's going to just be questions, I'd prefer they handle that more like ME3 where all the questions that would normally be listed as seperate entries on the investigate side of the dial are instead tied together into a more natural exchange.

I loved that. However, people seem to want to lump that in with auto-dialogue, so I don't know if we'll see it. One way to improve on it is to have those branching nuanced responses to things that are brought up in the Investigate optional dialogue.

[Zobo]

Wulfram wrote...

I wonder if we might be better off without "investigate" options. It seems a very inelegant way to incorporate infodumps. It usually brings the conversation to a crashing halt, often jars badly with the tone of the rest of the dialogue since it's necessarily neutral, and often leads to the resumption of the conversation being totally disconnected from what was said last. Better for me to incorporate the necessary information in regular dialogue, and have asking a question progress the dialogue like other stuff does.

Hells no! We don't need another ME3.

cindercatz wrote...

Investigate should branch the dialogue
and allow the player to contextualize any responses within it, rather
than just being an info dump. I don't think it was just an info dump in
DA2, not always, but in general, I agree there. If it's going to just be
questions, I'd prefer they handle that more like ME3 where all the
questions that would normally be listed as seperate entries on the
investigate side of the dial are instead tied together into a more
natural exchange.

I loved that.

I hated that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Though you do still let us turn the voices off, so it is still entirely possible to imagine the tone as we see fit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I do dislike that it's now impossible to move the conversation along unexpectedly.

I also still maintain that DAO's dialogue system mirrors real-world conversations just about perfectly, and any move away from that harms verisimilitude.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

You shouldn't ever have to do that regardless of the interface design.  Just choose the option that says what you want your character to say.

However BioWare has characterised it is irrelevant.  You and BioWare could well disagree about which line is sarcastic or which line is diplomatic.  Why should your character be constrained so severely?  You're already being limited to the options they've written - being limited to the intents they've imagined is a bridge too far.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 14 novembre 2012 - 08:18 .

[Sir JK]

I think the problem with introducing investigate options in the flowing dialogue is that it limits the player's ability to make an informed decision. They serve as infodumps/exposition, yes. But often covers subjects that the character ought to know (but do not, since the information has not previously been made available to the player). Thus having investigate options limit, expand or change options, while probably helping with dynamics, risks imposing on the player's ability to choose what is the correct course of action ofr their character.

Baking it into the dialogue is something I am ambivalent towards. In some cases it will work, like asking for clarifications, but more analytical and delving questions it will fit poorly for. Not to mention that choosing between investigating a topic thoroughly and making a direct decision is a roleplaying choice in it's own right.

While I see the merit of having the investigate options being viable alternative responses that furthers the conversation, I think the cons outweigh the benefit gained from it. Conversation will probably feel more alive, but as a player I will likely be more hesitant on exploring issues and more prone to uninformed decisions.

[TomHark]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I do dislike that it's now impossible to move the conversation along unexpectedly.

I also still maintain that DAO's dialogue system mirrors real-world conversations just about perfectly, and any move away from that harms verisimilitude.

You must have some very odd real-world conversations if that is true.  For a start it means that you only ever say one sentence to somebody and then have to wait until they have spoken before you can add another.  It also means that you are not very good at expressing intent when you speak, as the person you are talking to often thinks that you were talking in a completely different way than you thought you were.  You also ignore this and don't ever attempt to explain what you really meant, so if you hurt someone's feelings when you were just joking you just let them believe that you were being mean all along.  And when someone moves the conversation on when you have important questions to ask, you never go back to the previous topic to ask.

Personally, when I speak to someone, I don't have an exact sentence in my head to say unless I am directly quoting something.  I have an idea of the subject and the intent before I start, but my head makes up the actual words as I am talking, allowing me to account for the reactions and body language of the person I am speaking to and also making it a two way process, with comments and responses from both sides on the same subject.  DA2 is certainly not a great representation of this, but it is closer to a real world conversation to me than DAO.

[kinna]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

You shouldn't ever have to do that regardless of the interface design.  Just choose the option that says what you want your character to say.

However BioWare has characterised it is irrelevant.  You and BioWare could well disagree about which line is sarcastic or which line is diplomatic.  Why should your character be constrained so severely?  You're already being limited to the options they've written - being limited to the intents they've imagined is a bridge too far.

But most of the time you are limited to the intents they imagined. You can think that your character says the line in a certain way but the NPC will receive the line in the way the writers intended.

[AndarianTD]

terdferguson123 wrote...

I will be frank: Getting rid of the dialogue wheel or greatly altering it is the best thing that you could do for this series...

It. Ruins. Character. Immersion.

It is setup in such a way that you have "the good option", the "funny option", and "angry/renegadeish" option. Having this setup (and rewarding players via how they can persuade and talk for example) for continuously using the same
option is ruining the great immersion that Bioware games of old had (I hate to say it, but this is how I feel about it). Your character becomes too entwined with a specific character profile and never quite says how he/she actually feels because of it.

I disagree. DA is a role-playing game -- and to role-play effectively, you need to have clear roles available to play.

Like it or not, games have not yet progressed to the point where there can be an AI engine behind the conversation system that can dynamically respond to free-form text and infer a role and its consequences from it, rather than presenting you with a canned set of role responses and their consequences. Dialog choices often aren't just there for the words; they have coding behind them that drives game consequences in a different directions as a result of them. The less clear you make this necessary CRPG framework to the player, the more random the progress of the game will be relative to the player's choices and the less agency the player will feel.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 15 novembre 2012 - 12:21 .

[Vanilka]

I rambled about the voiced protagonist, which simply breaks the game for me, so much and so many times I'm already sick of it. Let me put it this way then. My problem with the dialogue wheel is this:

1) The paraphrases are not clear. Half the time I have no idea what my character is going to say. I want to play an RPG, not a game of bingo. I would like to see clearer paraphrases if we must have them in the next game. I have no idea how something like asking: "What happened?" can turn into: "Rawr, you almost killed that girl!" Which happens all the time.

2) Consistency. In Origins, you could pick whatever dialogue option without breaking your character. The absence of voice allowed this and it felt very natural to pick different options for the same character. As somebody here has already stated, you could let the situation influence your dialogue choices. You often can't do that in DAII. Picking different options often results in Hawke sounding ridiculous. For example, you play a diplomatic character but disapprove of Anders's merging with Justice. So far, you've been nice, polite and cultivated, but to disagree you have to pick an option that makes your character say: "Still, creepy," while having a silly expression on her face. This just hurts my brain.
The auto-dialogue doesn't help. I've played aggressive Hawke who, during one of the romance scenes, spouted something awfully romantic without my input. That didn't fit the character at all.

3) The amount of choices. I don't care whether the Maker himself states there is the same amount of choices in DAII as is in DA:O. As far as I've noticed, we mostly have two with the most important decisions. Templars or mages? Isabela or Qunari? The Dalish or the former werewolf? Origins often offer more ways how to solve things. But that's only partly the dialogue wheel's fault, I guess.

4) Locking special dialogue options to certain characters. I have no idea why the game should tell me when I can or can't make a character with persuasive skills. Why can't I have a diplomatic character who is such a smooth talker that she can lie or trick her way out of trouble? Why can't my aggressive Hawke tell the Dalish on the Wounded Coast to reconsider? Why can't sarcastic Hawke tell the Fereldans in front of Fereldan Imports that she's one of them?

I'm not fighting the wheel any more. I hate it as much as I hate the voiced protagonist, but that's my problem and I know that BioWare can't possibly please everyone. On the other hand, I must insist that the dialogue wheel in DAII is flawed and hope for an improvement. I will keep my finger crossed for BioWare.

Modifié par Vanilka of the Sword Coast, 14 novembre 2012 - 11:55 .

[Kail Ashton]

So i'll go ahead and assume this is 3 pages of "people" (and i use this word loosely in regards to bioware fans) who basicly just want to marry their copy of dragon age origins and everyone else just saying "uh DA2's dialouge wheel was just an organized version of the number texts from origins, duh"

[upsettingshorts]

Vanilka of the Sword Coast wrote...

3) The amount of choices. I don't care whether the Maker himself states there is the same amount of choices in DAII as is in DA:O. As far as I've noticed, we mostly have two with the most important decisions. Templars or mages? Isabela or Qunari? The Dalish or the former werewolf? Origins often offer more ways how to solve things. But that's only partly the dialogue wheel's fault, I guess.

If by partly you mean not at all.

Dragon Age 2 simply had a more focused authored narrative.  DAO was a group of several mostly-unrelated theme parks that were held together plot-wise by the threat of the Blight.  In the authored narrative, the only reason the Warden is even in any of these places is to unite Ferelden to respond to the Blight.  How they deal with each situation, and as such the dialogue options involved in expressing those methods to others, vary from place to place more.  DA2 was about the escalating conflict between mages and Templars in Kirkwall - broadly speaking - as such Hawke's position on the matter was important.

"But I didn't care" you say, well, that's fair.  But it was also possible to not care about Ferelden or the Blight, and think that the country wasn't particularly great or worth saving, or perhaps got what it deserved.  However, in both games you either buy into the authored narrative and the consequences that go with it or you don't.  It is safe to assume that fewer people bought into Dragon Age 2's narrative because they were prejudiced against it early for any number of reasons, hardly the least of those being the voiced protagonist itself.  That is in addition to anyone who went in with an optimistic or open mind and still found it wasn't their cup of tea.  It happens.    

In cases where individual quests have only two options, as opposed to say Connor or the Werewolves, that's a writing matter as well.  You could very easily have used the dialogue wheel in Origins and nothing else would have had to change.

In short, often people with complaints aren't actually complaining about what they think they are.  I imagine it makes compiling feedback harder to do.  Discussions about the wheel are the biggest culprit, as they're usually genuinely complaints about paraphrases or the voiced protagonist or even - as in this post as well - about the lack of non-combat skills in the game.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 novembre 2012 - 01:41 .

[Wulfram]

DA2's narrative wasn't anything resumbling focused. It was a series of mostly-unrelated (yet identical) theme parks that were held together plot-wise by the fact that Hawke was forced to visit them for no apparent reason.

[upsettingshorts]

I stand confidently by my summary, your failure to acknowledge it is your problem, not mine.

[vortex216]

Caiden012 wrote...

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.

I actually think the symbols help. When paraphrasing, you don't know exactly what they're going to say. Knowing how they say it is helpful to know.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

You shouldn't ever have to do that regardless of the interface design.  Just choose the option that says what you want your character to say.

However BioWare has characterised it is irrelevant.  You and BioWare could well disagree about which line is sarcastic or which line is diplomatic.  Why should your character be constrained so severely?  You're already being limited to the options they've written - being limited to the intents they've imagined is a bridge too far.

Note that I said if I decide to play a goody two shoes etc as characterized by Bioware I do not want to go hunting for the response especially if I agree with them. The same point was in DAO in the listing of the options. I knew which option Bioware had characterized with a certain tone. If I choose to pick that choice that is my prerogative Randomizing the responses to make me read all of them is annoying. If I want to read all the choices I will. I should not be force to read them because the developer decide to change the pattern.

[b09boy]

The issue with the wheel is all about how pointless it actually is. It's made to select options easier, but in doing so you lose the ability to do more than paraphrase responses which are often large parts of conversations, not to mention actions, to five or fewer words. This does not work well for blank slate characters whose actions are unpredictable due to having no real personality.

But then there are a number of associated issues as well, mostly having to do with voice acting. Lack of content, for one, and the horrible design of trying to create a blank slate character who speaks, which ends up making the protagonist the most boring character in the game unless you give the schizophrenic responses which, instead, makes them crazy. The devs should take a cue from Alpha Protocol, The Witcher, Deus Ex and other such titles. Nobody ever discusses how great a character Shepard or Hawke is. They talk about Tali, Garrus, Varric, Merrill, etc.

The structure is also rather mediocre. The whole good/neutral/bad/investigate/special thing is a little too safe. You're choosing responses as much as actions, and it's too clear what will and will not advance things, making conversations feel unnatural and boring.