[quote]TomHark wrote...
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.[/quote]
Composing sentences takes time. Interpreting what others say takes time. Unless you want me to speak before I've worked out exactly what I want to say (and all the ways it might be interpreted), I think that's mandatory.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Others often incorrectly assign intent or motivation to what I say, yes. And while you say I am not very good at expressing intent, I insist that expressing intent is actually impossible. You have never, in your life, been able to do it, and any circumstance under which you attempted to do so and your intent was correctly determined by the listener, you were merely lucky (this luck may have been that you were speaking to someone whose mind works in a manner relevantly similar to the workings of yours).
[quote]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.[/quote]
It's often not possible to know for sure that you've been misinterpreted, and when it is it isn't typically immediately possible. And if I could be misinterpreted once, could I not be misinterpreted again? Since this person is apparently prone to misunderstanding me, it might be best to cut my losses and move on.
[quote]And when someone moves the conversation on when you have important questions to ask, you never go back to the previous topic to ask.[/quote]
No, I don't bully people into discussing the topic I want.
[quote]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 bodylanguage 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.[/quote]
So you don't know what you're going to say before you say it, and sometimes you say entirely the wrong thing, even to the point of revealing things you wanted to keep secret?
[quote]kinna wrote...
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.[/quote]
How the NPC receives the line isn't knowable. We can't read their minds.
Therefore, we have no reason ever to think that the line wasn't delivered as we preferred.
[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...
I stand confidently by my summary, your failure to acknowledge it is your problem, not mine.[/quote]
Your summary was fine. The problems arose because the plot structure isn't visible except in retrospect. While you're doing them, the plot elements are seemingly unrelated except in how Hawke is required to be there. Only later do we see how they all fit together to lead to the ending.
Unfortunately, by then the game is over and all of supposed opportunities to play our character have already passed.
The only reason Hawe needs to help Javaris find his blackpowder is because a later plot element requires it. At least in DAO the reason things need to be done is all because a single later plot element requires it, so there's only one hurdle to clear, and we all get to see it early on. But DA2 hides the justification from us until it's too late to make a difference.
Look at BioWare's previous games. In BG, much of the game sits neatly outside the main plot, and even the parts within the main plot aren't identifyable as such. But each plot element has its own justification for being done, without any requirement that the player even be aware of the main plot (which might not be revealed until later).
BG2, NWN, and KotOR show us the main plot quite early on. They're structured like DAO is, where everything is done for one specific reason, and that reason is the only buy-in required by the player. Jade Empire is the same.
So that's two designs. With DA2, BioWare tried an entirely new one - one that required that the player accept that Hawke was doing things without any understanding as to why. And even in hindsight, I still don't know why Hawke would care at all about Javaris or Petrice or even that damned serial killer. But I can see why the narrative needed them.
DA2's authored narrative would have made a fine book. It made a lousy roleplaying game.
[quote]Rojahar wrote...
I'm surprised people disliked the tone system so much, considering the biggest complaint about voiced protagonist and wheel is not knowing if a line will be delivered sarcastically or threateningly or whatever. Well, with the tone icons you know.[/quote]
That was a common complaint with the silent protagonist in DAO, and for those people I imagine the tone icons in DA2 were a really good idea (though I think even they would agree the meaning of the icons should have been better defined).
But some of us really liked how DAO's dialogue worked, and DA2 fundamentally broke that.
David describes this position very well.
[quote]David Gaider wrote...
They're not interested in the tone. They're interested in the exact line, and are possessed of the notion that-- had they known the entire line beforehand-- they might not have picked it. The fact that it has a tone is meaningless to them, if not in and of itself muddying the waters because they don't want
any tone "imposed" on the lines their character is speaking.[/quote]
Well of course we might not have picked it. If a line's content or its tone contradicts our character design, then
we would want to avoid that line, wouldn't we? Whatever the set of options is that's available to us, we'd like to choose one that is compatible with our character.
If I'm given the choice to kill a slaver or let him go, then I'm going to choose the option that best reflects how my character feels abot slavers (in this case, he bears them no ill will, so he lets the slaver go). But, then the voiced line is a sneering "Get out of my sight." What? That suggests either that my character does bear the slavers ill will, or he wants to convince on-lookers or companions that he does. If that's the case (and it wasn't something I had reason to believe before I made the selection), is letting the slaver live still the best option?
The only justification I managed for why Hawke might have let the slaver go as he did is if Hawke hates slavers, but at the same time feels some moral compulsion not to kill people vengefully, or perhaps he thinks them redeemable somehow. That's a fairly specific set of characteristics, and had I been playing that sort of Hawke then that option would have been appropriate. But if I'm not playing that sort of Hawke, then I should be able to tell in advance that the option to let the slaver go doesn't suit my Hawke.
I still have no idea how you actually expected DA2 to be played, given this dialogue system.
[quote]Rojahar wrote...
I feel like one of Bioware's stronger features, compared to other companies like Bethesda, is the more explicit reactivity of the world to your choices, whereas in Bethesda games much is left vague/short and open to headcanon interpretation.[/quote]
Did BioWare do that at all prior to the voiced protagonist?
Personally, I've always thought their strengths were the quality of the writing and their combat mechanics. Really. I generally love the combat in BioWare's games.
[quote]I'm not sure if its possible to completely satisfy both types of crowds at the same time, those who prefer to have their protagonist interacting more explicitly (actions recognized and reacted to by the game, explicitly), and those who prefer to have everything open to headcanon.[/quote]
I suspect it isn't.
The conflict arises, I think, because BioWare used to serve one group, but now they serve the other.
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
In other words, Sylvius has derailed another thread with his "Voiced Protagonists Prevent Roleplaying" bandwagon.[/quote]
I was specifically trying to avoid doing that. That's why I pointed out that many complaints about the wheel are actually complaints about other things (like the voice or the paraphrase), and I even went on to defend the wheel against some actual wheel-based complaints.
[quote]I thought we might actually get to explore some new ideas about interfaces changes and how the wheel could drive more organic dialogue.[/quote]
What do you mean by "organic dialogue"?
Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 15 novembre 2012 - 08:40 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
