125 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

That's exactly what I'm saying.

How frequently would you say it occurs?

[Firky]

nightscrawl wrote...
[edit]
OK nevermind, since people have to throw out words like "stupid." *sigh*

I generally try to avoid these discussions, lately, because I'm adverse to being called stupid. But the whole thread has felt, to me, like - if you interpret DA2's dialogue system as more restrictive than Origins, you're wrong/stupid etc. In a fairly polite manner, but still. (Not yourself, you just highlighted it.)

Surely, it's a too widely held an opinion to be based on nothing. I honestly can't think of a single person I've spoken to about DA2, outside of BSN, who has construed DA2's dialogue system as the same, or providing more dialogue choices than Origins. I tend to talk to a lot of highly experienced gamers, who are also intelligent people, often, face to face or online, and I've never heard anyone (except me) say, "Well, it was pretty much the same as/better than Origins."

Aspects of its presentation are creating an impression that undermines the intent, IMO.

[Allan Schumacher]

I tend to talk to a lot of highly experienced gamers, who are also intelligent people, often, face to face or online, and I've never heard anyone (except me) say, "Well, it was pretty much the same as/better than Origins."

I'd say it's not that uncommon of a perspective actually. There's just less need for people to come in and post about how much they prefer it when we've already said we're using it.

There are people in this thread that have straight up stated that it's the same as/better than Origins. At least with regards to the amount of player choice.

[Firky]

It's weird trying to get a perspective on opinions on games. I've literally not heard "same or better" from people I know outside of BSN, but I'd credit that my sample of friends/colleagues isn't representative of the whole.

(But, they're not interpreting something a certain way because they're stupid. They're experiencing the game in a way that makes for an unintended/inaccurate relationship to dialogue choice, based on other factors. For me that's the sticking point in this discussion.)

(PS. For greater context, I was having a discussion about DA2 with some people literally last week, over drinks, and aspects of the story and combat were being pretty well pulled apart and praised, overall.)

Modifié par Firky, 27 novembre 2012 - 09:50 .

[The Six Path of Pain]

I just personally don't like the dialogue wheel...and the bipolar Hawke that came with it XD

[SpunkyMonkey]

The dialogue wheel just feels cheap. It makes the players mind up for them about what is right/wrong, good/bad. A dialogue tree let's players decide for themselves and keeps things fresh by having a less predictable presentation.

Seriously, the dialogue wheel is just dumbs things down so much that I can't believe it's still being used.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 27 novembre 2012 - 09:47 .

[upsettingshorts]

We've had over a year of discussion on the dialogue system in DA2, so desperately asserting to the tired, thoroughly debunked, simplistic insult, "it's dumbed down," is either childish trolling or stubborn ignorance.

[AmstradHero]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Conversely, the perception of a problem is as much a problem as a problem itself.

In other words, just because there pretty much the same amount of choice in DA2 as in DA:O, people don't believe there is. This is a perception issue.

Yes, and the issue is with the people whose perception is demonstrably and categorically flawed.

How on Earth should they respond to people who answer their thoughtful, comprehensive explanations with, "Well, we don't care about the truth and neither should you."

How many people have come to these forums asking the same question or complaining about this issue? Or even better, how many people never come to these forums and have the same opinion?

Again, even though this belief is incorrect, it can still have a negative effect on the perception of the game.

Unfortunately Bioware can't fix stupid.

This is the point where your argument breaks down. You can't find a reasoned rebuttal, so you just immediately say "the other person is stupid".

I'm going to state this simply: Perceptions are not stupid. They are an observation based on presentation.

The issue here is that the presentation makes people think they are getting fewer options that they believe they should have or that they would like. The issue is not whether they are getting fewer options, but that the presentation makes them feel like they are. This distinction is very important.

The core issue seems to be the points where players get more than three roleplaying choices, where they have slightly different nuance in tone and delivery that provides them with greater roleplaying and character defining flexibility. It's the difference between:

1. I'll do anything to save your daughter.
2. Your daughter will be safe.
3. I will do what I can.
4. Your daughter is probably already dead.
5. Go save her yourself, weakling.

and

(Diplomacy) I'll do whatever I can to help.
(Humour) I guess you should have locked the door behind you.
(Aggressive) You're pathetic if you can't rescue her.
... (NPC dialogue) ...
(Yes) I'll save your daughter.
(No) I don't have time for this.

Technically in the second case, you get an extra possible permutation of choice, but it doesn't feel as though you're roleplaying as much as if you get the five choices in the first example.

This matters. It is not stupid, and insulting people for perceptions is completely uncalled for.

[upsettingshorts]

AmstradHero wrote...

This matters. It is not stupid, and insulting people for perceptions is completely uncalled for.

When said perception ends up being the last rhetorical refuge of posters with clear, established agendas aimed towards dropping a set of features entirely, frustration is bound to boil over.

A discussion over how to approach fixing any evident perception issues in the dialogue systems would be a productive one, but I fear such a thread would swiftly turn into, well... every other thread on dialogue systems here.

[JWvonGoethe]

Although people are often at pains to point out that the two dialogue systems are nearly identical under the surface, I think that this is actually part of the problem.

In the DA:O system you can get away with using the same three dialogue tones all the time. It is difficult to notice the lack of variety here, because - due to the lack of a voice actor - each response can be interpreted in so many ways. In the voiced system, however, it becomes immediately apparent to the player that the same three tones are being used repeatedly. Using a greater variety of tones is, as far as I can see, the only way to solve this.

Furthermore, in the list system, you can see up to 6 dialogue options at any one time. In the dialogue wheel, you can generally only see three options on the right hand side, plus Investigate on the left. This creates the false perception that there are less dialogue options in DA2. Unfortunately for the devs, I think the best way to solve this problem while keeping the dialogue wheel intact would be to include 5 tone options as standard (3 on the right, 2 on the left beside Investigate.)

The dialogue wheel is a completely different beast from the list system, and I'm afraid it seems to need much more work in all areas than the list system does, in order to give it the same feeling of freedom of choice. What is sufficient for the list system is not enough for the dialogue wheel.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 27 novembre 2012 - 11:02 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

We've had over a year of discussion on the dialogue system in DA2, so desperately asserting to the tired, thoroughly debunked, simplistic insult, "it's dumbed down," is either childish trolling or stubborn ignorance.

Or maybe I'm just new to the debate and hadn't realized all that?

You've had 13525 profile views, I've had 36 - it really shouldn't take a genius to work out that I've not been involved with many debates on here.

And either way it's still my opinion.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 27 novembre 2012 - 10:42 .

[upsettingshorts]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

We've had over a year of discussion on the dialogue system in DA2, so desperately asserting to the tired, thoroughly debunked, simplistic insult, "it's dumbed down," is either childish trolling or stubborn ignorance.

Or maybe I'm just new to the debate and hadn't realized all that?

You've had 13525 profile views, I've had 36 - it really shouldn't take a genius to work out that I've not been involved with many debates on here.

Fair enough.  Suffice to say, I have a quick trigger-finger when it comes to some turns of phrase.

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

And either way it's still my opinion.

Opinions can be wrong.

That isn't to say you can't dislike the dialogue wheel.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 novembre 2012 - 10:46 .

[ledod]

Is there any way to add an extra layer of dynamism to the dialogue wheel?

For example, after "roleplaying" a personality consistently for "x" amount of conversations, the player will adopt a personality 'ego,' unlocking special 'ego-specific' choices for special conversations.

Every conversation need not yield an 'egocentric' flavor, but perhaps the more meaning plot moments can be colored by our respective characters personalities?

Just a thought :>

[SpunkyMonkey]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

We've had over a year of discussion on the dialogue system in DA2, so desperately asserting to the tired, thoroughly debunked, simplistic insult, "it's dumbed down," is either childish trolling or stubborn ignorance.

Or maybe I'm just new to the debate and hadn't realized all that?

You've had 13525 profile views, I've had 36 - it really shouldn't take a genius to work out that I've not been involved with many debates on here.

Fair enough.  Suffice to say, I have a quick trigger-finger when it comes to some things.

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

And either way it's still my opinion.

Opinions can be wrong.

That isn't to say you can't dislike the dialogue wheel.

To be honest I don't dislike it, I just find it less in the spirit of an RPG than the dialogue tree.

Regardless of whether Bioware use a tree, wheel or whatever I think the key thing is that the player experiences the dilemma of choice. Sometimes I'll sit for 10 min or so deciding what options to choose because of how it will affect the outcome of the game. If these options are labled or percived by the game to be "good" or "bad" options then that waters down the experience for me - I should be left to decide for myself what is good or bad.

That could still be easily done via the wheel, it just needs to be categorized differently. So instead of breaking things down into "good", "neutral" or "bad" they could be broken down into "soft" "middle" "hard" and a few in betweens.

"Soft" answers may work in certain circumstances, such as comforting someone who's lost a comrade, but not in others such as that same person dwelling on their comerades loss mid battle. Certainly I'd love to see that choice left to the player and I think great generals in history knew when to give their comrades a cuddle, and when to kick them up the arse - that to me is the way Bioware should let a player define his own character, without the good/bad restriction.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 27 novembre 2012 - 10:56 .

[upsettingshorts]

Mass Effect, broadly, offered "good" or "bad" - the details of which is best left to that subforum...

...but Dragon Age 2 gave you diplomatic, charming, and direct. I'm not sure how that doesn't fit into "soft/middle/hard" especially if the alternative is calling it "good/neutral/bad."  You could absolutely roleplay a good person whose tendency in speec and interaction was directness.

I think the simple fact the colors chosen for the wheel in DA2 included red and blue contributed to a great deal of what we're describing in this thread as perception issues.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 novembre 2012 - 10:58 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Mass Effect, broadly, offered "good" or "bad" - the details of which is best left to that subforum...

...but Dragon Age 2 gave you diplomatic, charming, and direct. I'm not sure how that doesn't fit into "soft/middle/hard" especially if the alternative is calling it "good/neutral/bad."

I think the simple fact the colors chosen for the wheel in DA2 included
red and blue contributed to a great deal of what we're describing in
this thread as perception issues. 

The trouble with DA:2's implementation was that it felt so out of place for that chracter to switch between any of them. The wise-cracks were so far from the "soft" answer that you couldn't change between them without it feeling very out of place (another arguement why voiced protagonists can more immesion breaking than voiceless ones). It was very Jekly-Hyde in certain parts, and actually painted Hawke as a bit of a loon to me - something I didn't like.

Plus as I've said, you want in-betweens too. 3 approaches to every situation is just silly as there are often many more you could adapt. Hard to implement in a game, but you can create the illusion that more options exist easily, and still give the player that RPG feel.

And yes, the perception of those choices definitely didn't help! Great call!

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 27 novembre 2012 - 11:03 .

[upsettingshorts]

I honestly do not understand the point of view that feels that the different tones were incompatible with each other.

I modify the tone of my speech constantly depending on the desired effect of the statement. Most people I know also do this. Many characters in media also do this. Why can't our protagonist do it?

My Hawke was generally diplomatic to moderates on both sides, and impatient with extremists. If something was funny, he commented on it. It wasn't an issue.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I honestly do not understand the point of view that feels that the different tones were incompatible with each other.

I modify the tone of my speech constantly depending on the desired effect of the statement. Most people I know also do this. Many characters in media also do this. Why can't our protagonist do it?

My Hawke was generally diplomatic to moderates on both sides, and impatient with extremists. If something was funny, he commented on it. It wasn't an issue.

To me it was just done badly. The tone and demenour of Hawke seemed to totally change and it just didn't feel like the same person.

[Firky]

I started with a top option only playthrough, then bottom only. I did enjoy mixing it up, on the third. I wonder if facial animation is a complicating factor. I thought lady Hawke smirked in a way I couldn't really reconcile with the other two choices.

[JWvonGoethe]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

The trouble with DA:2's implementation was that it felt so out of place for that chracter to switch between any of them.

I agree, though I would say that this is more an issue with voice acting/writing than with the actual mechanics of the wheel. Mass Effect didn't really have an issue with this so it should be possible to solve.

Hard to implement in a game, but you can create the illusion that more options exist easily, and still give the player that RPG feel.

Any ideas on how this illusion could be created? I'm not really sure I can see any way to give the impression that there are more options without actually including more options. Probably a lack of imagination on my part, but other than off-setting an increase in dialogue options per conversation node with a decrease in the number of conversation nodes over-all, I can't see a way for this to be achieved without significantly increasing the total number of dialogue lines for the PC.

[SpunkyMonkey]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

The trouble with DA:2's implementation was that it felt so out of place for that chracter to switch between any of them.

I agree, though I would say that this is more an issue with voice acting/writing than with the actual mechanics of the wheel. Mass Effect didn't really have an issue with this so it should be possible to solve.

Hard to implement in a game, but you can create the illusion that more options exist easily, and still give the player that RPG feel.

Any ideas on how this illusion could be created? I'm not really sure I can see any way to give the impression that there are more options without actually including more options. Probably a lack of imagination on my part, but other than off-setting an increase in dialogue options per conversation node with a decrease in the number of conversation nodes over-all, I can't see a way for this to be achieved without significantly increasing the total number of dialogue lines for the PC.

Yeah, defintely more the writing than the wheel.

And as for more options it would just require the odd extra line of dialogue - it wouldn't be needed during every conversation, just thrown in enough to help create the illusion that anything could happen during any conversation.

Give the odd situation 4 or 5 responses & outcomes, and whenever the player is then given 4 or 5 options they will assume that there are 4 or 5 outcomes, as opposed to the standard 1, 2 or 3.

That's the problem with the wheel for me - it goes some way to killing the illusion that there's more than just a good/bad/neutral option. I think that it should be left up to the player to decide what's good/bad ect.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 27 novembre 2012 - 11:30 .

[Dormiglione]

In my opinion there is a big issue with the paraphrasing system used in DA2. I remember a scene where the Dialog Wheel showed a response like "im a mage", but Hawke said "You know, i have friends that are mages". There are a lot of paraphrasing example in DA2 that were not representing what Hawke said.
So, maybe DA2 has the quantity of answers like DAO, but in DAO i always knew what my PC would say, in DA2 i got mad by the paraphrase system.

Modifié par Dormiglione, 27 novembre 2012 - 11:55 .

[AmstradHero]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

This matters. It is not stupid, and insulting people for perceptions is completely uncalled for.

When said perception ends up being the last rhetorical refuge of posters with clear, established agendas aimed towards dropping a set of features entirely, frustration is bound to boil over.

A discussion over how to approach fixing any evident perception issues in the dialogue systems would be a productive one, but I fear such a thread would swiftly turn into, well... every other thread on dialogue systems here.

Yes, but the blame for that degeneration does lie on both sides of the argument.

I'm not particularly bound to either the list or the wheel. I recognise there are strengths and weaknesses of both approaches in terms of presentation. I agree that a reasoned discussion of that and how dialogue could be more effectively presented, without getting into the typical pointless devolution of voiced vs non-voiced protagonist, would be an interesting subject.

[JWvonGoethe]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
[...]And as for more options it would just require the odd extra line of dialogue - it wouldn't be needed during every conversation, just thrown in enough to help create the illusion that anything could happen during any conversation.

Give the odd situation 4 or 5 responses & outcomes, and whenever the player is given 4 or 5 options they will assume that there are 4 or 5 outcomes, as opposed to the standard 1, 2 or 3.[...]

Although I suggested something along these lines myself a few posts back, there is a notable problem with doing this. Outside of the Investigate tree, Bioware seem to always make sure that the three dialogue options on the right hand side (diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive) move the conversation onto the next node. Meanwhile the left hand side options (where Investigate is) keep the conversation in the same place. Placing conversation-progressing dialogue options on the left hand side would result ininconsistency which would likely confuse people.

Obviously this is not an insurmountable issue. I would say continue having only three options, placed on the left hand side, which progress the conversation. These should be the more complementary options of Friendly/Diplomatic/Renegade tones as opposed to the current diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive options, which clash too much. Then on the Investigate side include two roleplaying options that do not progress the conversation. Because these options could be ignored if the player thinks neither of them are appropriate, they could get away with being more explicit in tone (so being, for example, sarcastic, flirtatious, aggresive.)

On a related note, the Investigate branch is problematic in that it doesn't appear to provide any substantial roleplaying opportunities for the player. You could kill two birds with one stone here by having the two extra dialogue options functioning as the PC's response to an answer given by the NPC during an Investigate sequence. This already happens sometimes, but I think if it become standard that could solve a lot of the perceived problems with the dialogue wheel. And, to make up for the extra lines of dialogue, I'd be happy to sacrifice more conversations over-all.

Anyway, sorry for going off on a long tangent. Just find this kind of thing interesting.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 27 novembre 2012 - 12:11 .