224 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

batlin wrote...

I think this topic calls for this

Boom goes the dynamite.

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In case anyone can't understand how someone might dislike silent protagonists in otherwise fully voiced games, here's what it feels like to play such games to me.

Imagine you're sitting on the couch in your living room. There is a movie playing on the TV in which everyone except the hero speaks normally. When the hero's turn to speak comes, the movie pauses on its own. Then you have to look down into your lap, and read the script. Then the movie resumes as normal. Repeat hundreds of times.  It's jarring, it kills any momentum a scene has dead in its tracks, breaks up pacing, forces a somewhat passive protagonist, and is - as others have said - simply bizarre.  
 

That's a useful analogy, but let me respond by saying how a voiced protagonist feels to me.

Imagine you're sitting on a couch talking to someone else.  You decide what to say.  Then some actor comes in and says something that's probably more or less on the same lines as what you decided to.  Repeat a hundred times, with the accuracy of the line to what you wanted to say varying considerably.

I can understand what you're saying.  I experience it whenever I watch a youtube video of someone playing through the game - there the silent protagonist is very jarring.  But when I'm playing myself, the act of choosing the line feels equivalent to me talking myself, so the dialogue feels much more natural and immersive (sorry) than in voice PC games.

(The lack of fancy swooping around from the camera during most conversations in DA:O helps too)

Modifié par Wulfram, 29 novembre 2012 - 02:54 .

[Fast Jimmy]

The above post by Wulfram (and the quote in it by Shorts) crystalizes the difference between the two playstyles.

Shorts enjoys the third person style, where he is never the character, he is just a director watching how the scene plays out.

Wulfram enjoys the first person style, where he IS the character (or at least in direct control of the character), the actor actually playing the part in the scene.

The voiced protagonist with paraphrases only really accomodates the first playthrough style. We get to see how Shepherd, or Hawke, or Quincy when DA3 comes out, handles the situation when we pick our options. Sometimes they handle it very close to how we envisioned it, sometimes it can be a little more offbase.

That is not to say the third person playstyle is not POSSIBLE with a voice protagonist... it is just more difficult and DEFINITELY not supported.

To argue about whether a voiced protagonist is good or bad, you need only identify which of these playstyles you prefer most.

[AlanC9]

Let me mod that analogy a bit:

Wulfram wrote...
Imagine you're sitting on a couch talking to someone else.  As a severely autistic person, you have no idea how normal conversations are conducted; fortunatey, someone has kindly written out for you a list of acceptable topics and responses, so you pick one.  Then some actor comes in and says something that's probably more or less on the same lines as what you decided to.  Repeat a hundred times, with the accuracy of the line to what you wanted to say varying considerably.

I've never seen picking from a handful of prewritten lines as being equivalent to talking for myself. YMMV, of course. Which I guess puts me in the third-person camp, though I prefer the "extensible self" concept myself.

I sometimes think that the actual problem here is that DA2 makes explicit some things that players can pretend aren't true in list systems. This is somewhat similar to ME3's "autodialogue" issue. Many ME2 and ME1 convos had little or no actual choice; all your interactions with the wheel do is let Shepard skip investigate options or experience them in a different order (though occasionally the choice of asking about something is meaningful, most of the time it isn't). But the interaction with the wheel makes the conversation feel interactive even when it isn't.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 novembre 2012 - 03:31 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The above post by Wulfram (and the quote in it by Shorts) crystalizes the difference between the two playstyles.

Shorts enjoys the third person style, where he is never the character, he is just a director watching how the scene plays out.

Wulfram enjoys the first person style, where he IS the character (or at least in direct control of the character), the actor actually playing the part in the scene.

The voiced protagonist with paraphrases only really accomodates the first playthrough style. We get to see how Shepherd, or Hawke, or Quincy when DA3 comes out, handles the situation when we pick our options. Sometimes they handle it very close to how we envisioned it, sometimes it can be a little more offbase.

That is not to say the third person playstyle is not POSSIBLE with a voice protagonist... it is just more difficult and DEFINITELY not supported.

To argue about whether a voiced protagonist is good or bad, you need only identify which of these playstyles you prefer most.

Great post.

Either way I think that a voiced protagonist will take both greater effort, time and money to get right than a non-voiced one.

I also think that a voiced protagonist has bigger potential for immersion-breaking than a non-voiced one too, as loony-split-personality Hawke showed.

For those reasons I find it very strange that Bioware would choose to go with a voiced protagonist. I suppose you have to admire their bravery attempting it after the fail that was Hawke at least.

Certainly I think that having seen excellent game after excellent game from Bioware over the years without a voice protagonist, I'm surprized some feel so strong about the need for one now.

[batlin]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The above post by Wulfram (and the quote in it by Shorts) crystalizes the difference between the two playstyles.

Shorts enjoys the third person style, where he is never the character, he is just a director watching how the scene plays out.

Wulfram enjoys the first person style, where he IS the character (or at least in direct control of the character), the actor actually playing the part in the scene.

The voiced protagonist with paraphrases only really accomodates the first playthrough style. We get to see how Shepherd, or Hawke, or Quincy when DA3 comes out, handles the situation when we pick our options. Sometimes they handle it very close to how we envisioned it, sometimes it can be a little more offbase.

That is not to say the third person playstyle is not POSSIBLE with a voice protagonist... it is just more difficult and DEFINITELY not supported.

To argue about whether a voiced protagonist is good or bad, you need only identify which of these playstyles you prefer most.

Great post.

Either way I think that a voiced protagonist will take both greater effort, time and money to get right than a non-voiced one.

I also think that a voiced protagonist has bigger potential for immersion-breaking than a non-voiced one too, as loony-split-personality Hawke showed.

For those reasons I find it very strange that Bioware would choose to go with a voiced protagonist. I suppose you have to admire their bravery attempting it after the fail that was Hawke at least.

Certainly I think that having seen excellent game after excellent game from Bioware over the years without a voice protagonist, I'm surprized some feel so strong about the need for one now.

Voiced protagonists work when the protagonist has a set personality and the events more linear. Shepard, for example, is always an aggressive, pedantic, leader-type. The choices you make only determine whether he/she's a goody two-shoes or a jerk. With a more pure RPG like Dragon Age, that's when there arise complications, because no voice actor can express as huge an array of personalities that are offered by silent protagonists.

Modifié par batlin, 29 novembre 2012 - 04:06 .

[Fredward]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Shorts enjoys the third person style, where he is never the character, he is just a director watching how the scene plays out.

Wulfram enjoys the first person style, where he IS the character (or at least in direct control of the character), the actor actually playing the part in the scene.
 

This is EXACTLY it! Man I've been looking for a way to word that since forever. I'm very much in the "director" camp.

[SpunkyMonkey]

batlin wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The above post by Wulfram (and the quote in it by Shorts) crystalizes the difference between the two playstyles.

Shorts enjoys the third person style, where he is never the character, he is just a director watching how the scene plays out.

Wulfram enjoys the first person style, where he IS the character (or at least in direct control of the character), the actor actually playing the part in the scene.

The voiced protagonist with paraphrases only really accomodates the first playthrough style. We get to see how Shepherd, or Hawke, or Quincy when DA3 comes out, handles the situation when we pick our options. Sometimes they handle it very close to how we envisioned it, sometimes it can be a little more offbase.

That is not to say the third person playstyle is not POSSIBLE with a voice protagonist... it is just more difficult and DEFINITELY not supported.

To argue about whether a voiced protagonist is good or bad, you need only identify which of these playstyles you prefer most.

Great post.

Either way I think that a voiced protagonist will take both greater effort, time and money to get right than a non-voiced one.

I also think that a voiced protagonist has bigger potential for immersion-breaking than a non-voiced one too, as loony-split-personality Hawke showed.

For those reasons I find it very strange that Bioware would choose to go with a voiced protagonist. I suppose you have to admire their bravery attempting it after the fail that was Hawke at least.

Certainly I think that having seen excellent game after excellent game from Bioware over the years without a voice protagonist, I'm surprized some feel so strong about the need for one now.

Voiced protagonists work when the protagonist has a set personality and the events more linear. Shepard, for example, is always an aggressive, pedantic, leader-type. The choices you make only determine whether he/she's a goody two-shoes or a jerk. With a more pure RPG like Dragon Age, that's when there arise complications, because no voice actor can express as huge an array of personalities that are offered by silent protagonists.

Another top post.

That is the crux of pretty much every bad decision which Bioware has made lately for me - they can't seem to grasp the point of FRPG's in comparison to Action-RPG's.

You're summary is spot on, and the reason why people play space operas (and what they expect) is an action filled adventure with sights they have never seen, the character driving that - whilst important - isn't as key a fulcrum as the protagonist in a FRPG.

FRPG 's are THE very birthplace of character creation, and are far more about (or expected to be about) the main character. Their class, race, career etc. has been key that style of game for years, and by pre-determining that with a voice-over it goes against one of the main reason some gamers play it in the first place.

I can't understand why an FRPG uses a Space Opera as a template, other then the sales figures - and they don't account for all the variables which matter, such as the fact that FRPG-ers don't want an action-movie-game.

It's like when Metallica looked at the sales figures for mainstream bands and decided to cut out all the guitar solos, and release Load - it went totally against what both metal and their fans were about. It may have fitted the template for "success", but it just created a pile of crap neither metal enough for rockers, or mainstream enough for pop-lovers.

I'm quite amaized that Bioware can't see that they are doing the very same thing to be honest.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 29 novembre 2012 - 04:30 .

[Abramis brama]

abnocte wrote...

Movie-like games have been around since 3D technology has been accesible in videogames.
Just look to games like the Legacy of Kain series ( Soul Reaver & Blood Omen ), you have a predefined character with his own reasons and beliefs to move around inside the game's world. The only input the player ever gives is combat.

As much as I enjoyed the series and Raziel being told he is worthy by a giant squid while Kain was playing is own games, I will never consider it an RPG.

The loosest definition I can come up for a cRPG is a game where the player has input on the main character outside combat.

I want to give my input on no combat situations, so I will never expect a game that allows me to do so to play like a movie. It is just plain impossible for it to do so.

Maybe the game should allow you to choose your characters personality in the beginning of the game and maybe allow you to change it while playing it in some points. I don't personally care for that, it doesn't seem to have that much effect on anything, at least in DA2.
But there definitely should be a option for gamers like you and I think the choosing it in the beginning is the best thing.

Regarding "choices"...
For me a "choice" is not necessaly the game showing one outcome or another depending on which dialogue options I picked, "choice" is also deciding what kind of character I'm playing.

You are not be able to stop Anders from blowing up the chantry, you can't avoid becoming a Grey Warden but how your character deals and reacts to those things are your "choice" ( among the ones given to you by the game ).

For me dialogue in itself is part of the gameplay.
I want to choose how the main character reacts to the world around him/her, to do so I need to know not only how s/he expresses him/herself ( wheel icons ) but what his/her beliefs are.

That's why you should be able to choose you personality in the beginning. It doesn't hamper the dialogue by making it have awkward pauses but still makes you able to choose.

Paraphrasing obfuscates the character beliefs, the dialogue tree did not.
Full text dialogue obfuscates/ignores the way the character expresses him/herself, the dialogue wheel does not.

Why can't the full text dialogue have the faces or some [sarcasm] [angry] things to indicate the expressions? Or am I not understanding what you're trying to say?

And as someone who plays with subtitles on I fail to see a problem with reading and hearing what the characters say.

I think the point is reading it first and then hearing it. Can get tedious. It's different from hearing and reading at the same time. I play with subtitles as well.

[HTTP 404]

awesome always happens when I press a dialog button

[abnocte]

Abramis brama wrote...

Maybe the game should allow you to choose your characters personality in the beginning of the game and maybe allow you to change it while playing it in some points. I don't personally care for that, it doesn't seem to have that much effect on anything, at least in DA2.
But there definitely should be a option for gamers like you and I think the choosing it in the beginning is the best thing.

It affects how the character reacts to the world events presented to him/her.
The events in the game's story are the ones that should shape the character personality, so choosing a personality at the beginning serves no purpose to me.

Telling me to choose a personality in the beginning and only being able to change it at some points is like telling me that half the encounters in the game will be automatically decided based on which class I picked and the other half I actually get to play.

That's why you should be able to choose you personality in the beginning. It doesn't hamper the dialogue by making it have awkward pauses but still makes you able to choose.

I expect the game to wait for my input, I consider that normal behavior.

Why can't the full text dialogue have the faces or some [sarcasm] [angry] things to indicate the expressions? Or am I not understanding what you're trying to say?

I was trying to say that the wheel solves one problem to replace it with another, so for me the optimal solution would be to provide both full text and icons/tags that indicate the tone.

But Bioware does not approve of this for various reasons, one of them being the one commente below.

I think the point is reading it first and then hearing it. Can get tedious. It's different from hearing and reading at the same time. I play with subtitles as well.

Depends on how fast you can read. I don't know, may be it doesn't bother me because I enjoy listening to the voiceactors or because english is not my mother tongue.

[Abramis brama]

abnocte wrote...

It affects how the character reacts to the world events presented to him/her.
The events in the game's story are the ones that should shape the character personality, so choosing a personality at the beginning serves no purpose to me.

Telling me to choose a personality in the beginning and only being able to change it at some points is like telling me that half the encounters in the game will be automatically decided based on which class I picked and the other half I actually get to play.

Well usually these stories are contained in a very short period of time so their personalities would be already formed before. Picking up the personality in the beginning would be like picking a history and how she/he would react to things.
Combat and how you do it will be completely determined in the beginning by your class, that's one of your choices. Of course you have party member to mix things up but it's not that different from my proposed solution.

I expect the game to wait for my input, I consider that normal behavior.

Your answer seems like "It's a tradition, don't touch it!" I think all the awkward pauses and characters looking at nothingness makes the conversations seem really weird.

I was trying to say that the wheel solves one problem to replace it with another, so for me the optimal solution would be to provide both full text and icons/tags that indicate the tone.

But Bioware does not approve of this for various reasons, one of them being the one commente below.

I honestly wouldn't mind non-voiced protagonist that much. When I play KotOR for example I automatically think the answer in my head and I don't mind it at all. Even the pauses it gives me doesn't seem so awkward!
But obviously this would make lot of people angry so I still think my solution is the best compromise I can think of.

Anyway I agree that between wheel and full text, the full text wins.

Depends on how fast you can read. I don't know, may be it doesn't bother me because I enjoy listening to the voiceactors or because english is not my mother tongue.

It all depends how good the voice actor is really. If it's bad It can get really tedious (then again it would get tedious anyway listening to bad voice actor).

[sorentoft]

I am a big fan of the [ESC] button approach that SWTOR has. Which means that you can go out of ANY conversation and start over if you feel you did not get it just right.

[abnocte]

Abramis brama wrote...

Well usually these stories are contained in a very short period of time so their personalities would be already formed before. Picking up the personality in the beginning would be like picking a history and how she/he would react to things.

I consider that even a 50, 60 year old person personality can change when faced with events that challenge their core beliefs.
Depending on the nature of the events that change can take only seconds.

Example: Hawke's mother death.

I have 4 Shepards, Paragon, Renegade, Renegon and Paragade, the two last being the ones I enjoy playing the most, why? because they aren't mono-dimensional.

People react different ways based on who or what they are dealing with, and I expect to be able to choose how the PC reacts to each event in a cRPG.

It is impossible for me to choose a personality at the beginning and just watch how that PC acts. If I wanted such thing I will go and play DMC, Bayonette, Soul Reaver, Blood Omen or any other of the thousands games that come with a predefined character.

Hell, choosing a personality at the beginning would be like in Defiance:Legacy of Kain
where you play as both Raziel and Kain through different sections of the game.

Sorry but I strongly disagree with you here.

Combat and how you do it will be completely determined in the beginning by your class, that's one of your choices. Of course you have party member to mix things up but it's not that different from my proposed solution.

One thing is adapting your game tactics to your party setup in an encounter, a whole different thing would be the game deciding the outcome of an encounter without you giving any input just because selected rogue instead of warrior.

*Player's party enters room*
*enemies appear*
*game shows the player a message with the following text*
"You cannot win this encounter"
Resume
Reload
Exit game

That's how bizarre auto-dialogue feels to me.

I expect the game to wait for my input, I consider that normal behavior.

Your answer seems like "It's a tradition, don't touch it!" I think all the awkward pauses and characters looking at nothingness makes the conversations seem really weird.

As far as I know software uses event based procedures to capture users input. The software is constantly "listening" for input, like ctrl+c or like ME interrupts ( right or left mouse click ).
With a UI you also capture those events and the UI responds according to its code.

No software does anything on its own until the player gives his/her input.

ME interrupts are timed so if the player does not give the expected input they not execute its code and follow the default code.

So as long as conversations are interactive the normal behavior of the application is to wait for the users input.

[AlanC9]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
FRPG 's are THE very birthplace of character creation, and are far more about (or expected to be about) the main character. Their class, race, career etc. has been key that style of game for years, and by pre-determining that with a voice-over it goes against one of the main reason some gamers play it in the first place.

Really? What about Ultimas from IV on up? The Krondor games? The Witcher games? Planescape:Torment? 

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In case anyone can't understand how someone might dislike silent protagonists in otherwise fully voiced games, here's what it feels like to play such games to me.

Imagine you're sitting on the couch in your living room. There is a movie playing on the TV in which everyone except the hero speaks normally. When the hero's turn to speak comes, the movie pauses on its own. Then you have to look down into your lap, and read the script. Then the movie resumes as normal. Repeat hundreds of times.  It's jarring, it kills any momentum a scene has dead in its tracks, breaks up pacing, forces a somewhat passive protagonist, and is - as others have said - simply bizarre.  
 

That's a useful analogy, but let me respond by saying how a voiced protagonist feels to me.

Imagine you're sitting on a couch talking to someone else.  You decide what to say.  Then some actor comes in and says something that's probably more or less on the same lines as what you decided to.  Repeat a hundred times, with the accuracy of the line to what you wanted to say varying considerably.

I can understand what you're saying.  I experience it whenever I watch a youtube video of someone playing through the game - there the silent protagonist is very jarring.  But when I'm playing myself, the act of choosing the line feels equivalent to me talking myself, so the dialogue feels much more natural and immersive (sorry) than in voice PC games.

(The lack of fancy swooping around from the camera during most conversations in DA:O helps too)

This makes sense to me if you're playing a self-insert protagonist, eg someone who represents your presence in the world and is not in of themselves a character distinct from you as much as you can help it.  

I think truly dedicated roleplayers - people who create an entire character and then expect the freedom to determine their actions as much as possible - would require a third analogy.

A note on the responses to this exchange:  I think BioWare knows exactly what they are doing, they are not blind or ignorant as the 1st person gamers replying with frustration and incredulity keep asserting.  They prefer, it seems, making games I would describe as favoring the 3rd person approach.  That doesn't make the games worse, it makes them worse for 1st person gamers.  Acknowledging this difference is the first step towards being able to discuss BioWare games productively, I think.  That doesn't mean you have to be happy about it.  I can be though.

On that note:  Immersion is subjective.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 novembre 2012 - 11:25 .

[upsettingshorts]

 

Abramis brama wrote...
They should just remove dialogue choices. They hardly do anything right now anyway. Just have a choices to do (spare someone or not) in some normal lines.That would please everyone. Dialogue would be much smoother and you still would have choices.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Imagine you're sitting on the couch in your living room. There is a movie playing on the TV in which everyone except the hero speaks normally. When the hero's turn to speak comes, the movie pauses on its own. Then you have to look down into your lap, and read the script. Then the movie resumes as normal. Repeat hundreds of times.  It's jarring, it kills any momentum a scene has dead in its tracks, breaks up pacing, forces a somewhat passive protagonist, and is - as others have said - simply bizarre.  

Exactly this. Removing dialogue choices would make the game much more movie like and the experience smooth and fluid without annoying immersion braking pauses.

My comments here are in fact specifically levelled at the combination of a silent protagonist and a fully voiced game.  I value consistency in this respect, therefore a game like Baldur's Gate (everyone is text) and The Witcher (everyone is voiced) is less frustrating to me with regards to that feature than games like KOTOR, or JE, or DA:O or even Bethesda games.  I therefore used an analogy that I prefer interactive books or movies to interactive half-books/half-movies.  Seeing as I have said time and time again that I consider all cRPGs ever made, at least all BioWare ones, fit into one of those three categories, there is no point in a fan of say... DA:O or Baldur's Gate, using this point on which to say I should just watch Netflix.

Yet this person decided to interpret my post as meaning I do not like dialogue choices because I prefer to be passive and watch my movie.  It gets annoying after a while.  

Seriously, this is how it always goes:

Me: "I think cRPGs are best as interactive movies."
Annoying poster:  "This clown must be part of the COD crowd."
Me:  "That's what roleplaying has always been in cRPGs for me.  It's not new."
Annoying poster:  "Let's just remove text altogether since you hate reading."
Me:  "...I like cRPGs that are interactive books too."
Annoying poster:  "You're just playing them passively then, you don't roleplay."
Me:  "I cannot have fun playing a 1st person character in a pre-scripted game, which includes all cRPGs."
Annoying poster:  "The script doesn't matter, you can imagine whatever you want."
Me:  "If a choice doesn't have an ingame consequence, I do not acknowledge that choice as the fun for me comes from the reaction to it."
Annoying poster:  "How is that fun?!?!? WHAT ARE YOU?!?!"
Me:  "See what I mean about the playstyles not being compatible?"
Annoying poster:  "Whatever, BioWare sucks now." [posts picture making a point that ignores the entire exchange]

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 novembre 2012 - 11:57 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

batlin wrote...

I think this topic calls for this

Boom goes the dynamite.

???? This is a poor comparison. The MLP example has nothing to do with dialogue. You're deciding what the character should do, not what they should say. And I don't see how the dialogue paraphrases are ambiguous.

Also given the amount of context provided in the text, I doubt think the flash game is voiced. So its comparing apples and oranges.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 29 novembre 2012 - 11:38 .

[upsettingshorts]

These comparison images of [options in some other game] and Dragon Age 2 are often so prejudicial and misleading that it insults everyone's intelligence.

For example, the option that image purports to mock in DA2 is a roleplaying opportunity. How does Hawke react to the death of their sibling? Your decision impacts who they are, as this is a big moment in their lives. Are they grief stricken? Do they look on the bright side? Do they remain focused and insist they push on?  If you don't see this, you were never a roleplayer.

The MLP image is, essentially, describing a decision you make in any BioWare game where you the player are determining which quest you will do next.

It's a terrible comparison.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 novembre 2012 - 11:43 .

[Abramis brama]

abnocte wrote...

I consider that even a 50, 60 year old person personality can change when faced with events that challenge their core beliefs.
Depending on the nature of the events that change can take only seconds.

Example: Hawke's mother death.

I have 4 Shepards, Paragon, Renegade, Renegon and Paragade, the two last being the ones I enjoy playing the most, why? because they aren't mono-dimensional.

People react different ways based on who or what they are dealing with, and I expect to be able to choose how the PC reacts to each event in a cRPG.

It is impossible for me to choose a personality at the beginning and just watch how that PC acts. If I wanted such thing I will go and play DMC, Bayonette, Soul Reaver, Blood Omen or any other of the thousands games that come with a predefined character.

Hell, choosing a personality at the beginning would be like in Defiance:Legacy of Kain
where you play as both Raziel and Kain through different sections of the game.

Sorry but I strongly disagree with you here.

That's why I said that they should have a option to change your behaviour couple of times while playing.
The most perfect scenario being that you went against your core belief (again something you picked from beginning) but this is pretty hard to implement.

People react differently sure but it's still within limits of their personality. 
Another system would be choosing your personality before the actual conversation begins. That way you would have more choice in your personality but still retain that fluidity that's important to people.

The games you mentioned don't have a choosable personality but the games are predetermined for you already.
Haven't played Kain so can't comment that but it seems to be action game with no choices.

One thing is adapting your game tactics to your party setup in an encounter, a whole different thing would be the game deciding the outcome of an encounter without you giving any input just because selected rogue instead of warrior.

*Player's party enters room*
*enemies appear*
*game shows the player a message with the following text*
"You cannot win this encounter"
Resume
Reload
Exit game

That's how bizarre auto-dialogue feels to me.

Well I don't really remember a dialogue where I couldn't "win". The dialogues seems to be mostly just fluff choices that don't affect the game in any meaningful way.
Anyway that was kind of stupid comparison I made to be honest.  My point was just that you already choose a one way to combat. In ME2 at least, in DA you can control your other characters so it kind of balances it out
but usally people end up using their main the most.  Again bad comparison.

The personality choice is just the same in many ways though. Not completely I agree but I think it's reasonable trade-off for more cinematic and fluid feeling in general.

As far as I know software uses event based procedures to capture users input. The software is constantly "listening" for input, like ctrl+c or like ME interrupts ( right or left mouse click ).
With a UI you also capture those events and the UI responds according to its code.

No software does anything on its own until the player gives his/her input.

ME interrupts are timed so if the player does not give the expected input they not execute its code and follow the default code.

So as long as conversations are interactive the normal behavior of the application is to wait for the users input.

Well comparing regular movement, what UI shows etc. to a conversations is not fair I think.
Conversation is pressing one button while my character stands around looking at the nothingness and then it executes a very fluid animation. Is a very stark contrast and hampers the experience.
If conversations were like combat for example they would have you reacting to the opponent slight head movement, eye twitching with your own inputs. Maybe pressing -> <- B to have your character frown to a man if they want to intimidate him at the same time you construct a appropriate words from dictionary.

The interrupts in ME are just fluff again, they matter very little, they are awesome though and I would like similar thing to DA. If we go by my system, as in choosing the personality in the beginning, that would be making for example different kind of choice that your personality dictates. You play as aggressive and then you need prompt to do a joke. Do them too often and your personality changes completely. Or something.

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
For example, the option that image purports to mock in DA2 is a roleplaying opportunity. How does Hawke react to the death of their sibling? Your decision impacts who they are, as this is a big moment in their lives. Are they grief stricken? Do they look on the bright side? Do they remain focused and insist they push on?

Rather, it would be, if we were able to know what each option would make Hawke say. But, considering the amount of people who expected "he won't be alone" to be Hawke mouthing off about a roaring rampage of revenge rather than an oblique reference to her long ago deceased father.
In an earlier post, you mentioned how there are people who are satisfied with choosing "something reddish" and getting maroon, whereas there are people who wanted to choose "navy blue" and were displeased at getting teal. However, the issue with paraphrases is more like wanting to choose "red" and have the game go "BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!"
I can recognize that as a roleplaying opportunity. I can also recognize that paraphrasing actively hinders, if not outright denies, said opportunity. It is much easier to be misled by incomplete information than by complete information.

Modifié par Xewaka, 30 novembre 2012 - 12:21 .

[upsettingshorts]

I'm hardly sympathetic to the argument that:

[Charming] He won't be alone.

conveys "rampage of revenge." Sure, I get the paraphrases can be obfuscatory, but that doesn't really change the argument.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 novembre 2012 - 12:31 .

[Mello]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

batlin wrote...

I think this topic calls for this

Boom goes the dynamite.

???? This is a poor comparison. The MLP example has nothing to do with dialogue. You're deciding what the character should do, not what they should say. And I don't see how the dialogue paraphrases are ambiguous.

Also given the amount of context provided in the text, I doubt think the flash game is voiced. So its comparing apples and oranges.

I...I thought the picture was just a joke... 

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

iPoohCupCakes wrote...
I...I thought the picture was just a joke... 

If only it were.

[Mello]

Pseudocognition wrote...

iPoohCupCakes wrote...
I...I thought the picture was just a joke... 

If only it were.

touché.