35 réponses à ce sujet

[SpunkyMonkey]

labargegrrrl wrote...

pianomaestra wrote...

I know the conversation wheel has been talked about to death, but hopefully this is a relatively new angle to discuss.

I generally didn't have a problem with the wheel and dominant personality system, but there was one aspect of it that did bother me a little--it seemed, at times, to tie personal beliefs (or political ones) with personality. For example, I think only an aggressive Hawke could be properly anti-Qunari. There were also times--like the conversations with Anders--where a personality tone would equal politica/personal belief. For example: aggressive=mages need to be contained, and diplomatic tone would generally be supportive of mages. I may be remembering incorrectly, of course (it's been a while since I've done a runthrough), but that's the impression I got.

A change I'd like to see to the system would be detaching personal/political opinions from personality tone. For example, allow for a aggressive player to be an adamant mage supporter, and so forth.

i've actually talked about this a lot (like, a LOT) in other threads.  b/c you're right, every tone seemed to have biases built into them.  only instead of divorcing personality from opinion, i think they should offer two opinions in each personality tone.

i should have been able to aggressively tell grace i agreed with her crazy self, as well as accuse her of being a criminal, diplomatically tell merril blood magic wasn't cool, as well as thank her for her help, or just make snide comments about whatever side of a choice/issue i was dealing with, rather than jokes dropping at random.  

if only those personality tones could have had an option on each side of the wheel... 

An absolutely excellent suggestion. If Bioware want to make a voiced protagonist work this may be the only real way to do it.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm curious. How do you agree with someone aggressively?

Damn right! They really ought to show us how the **** you can agree with someone agressively the swines!

?

[jillabender]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm curious. How do you agree with someone aggressively?

Damn right! They really ought to show us how the **** you can agree with someone aggressively the swines!

Hehe, well put!

[Fast Jimmy]

I agree with above suggestion of not having tone tied to decisions. If I want to decline a quest, it should not be tied to whether or not I am an angry person. If I ask for money, it should be tied to me being a sarcastic guy. Not that this is the way every choice in DA2 was done, but it was a theme that definitely presented itself.

In all honesty, I can't imagine it costing much more in resources, since if you had a dominant tone from previous conversations, all dialogue options, regardless of their inherent tone value, would need to be recorded with all available tones anyway.

But, with this model, you can be aggressive/mean towards one group, say Templars, and be diplomatic/friendly towards another, say Mages (and sarcastic/goofy to another, like Dwarves). And this makes total sense - you don't treat your enemies and your friends with the exact same type of behavior. And flip flopping between the two tones when talking to the two groups in DA2 would likely make you sound like a psychotic.

So I'd be all for a tone choice with every dialogue, as well as a dialogue choice one.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I agree with above suggestion of not having tone tied to decisions. If I want to decline a quest, it should not be tied to whether or not I am an angry person. If I ask for money, it should be tied to me being a sarcastic guy. Not that this is the way every choice in DA2 was done, but it was a theme that definitely presented itself.

In all honesty, I can't imagine it costing much more in resources, since if you had a dominant tone from previous conversations, all dialogue options, regardless of their inherent tone value, would need to be recorded with all available tones anyway.

But, with this model, you can be aggressive/mean towards one group, say Templars, and be diplomatic/friendly towards another, say Mages (and sarcastic/goofy to another, like Dwarves). And this makes total sense - you don't treat your enemies and your friends with the exact same type of behavior. And flip flopping between the two tones when talking to the two groups in DA2 would likely make you sound like a psychotic.

So I'd be all for a tone choice with every dialogue, as well as a dialogue choice one.

I'd actually be interested just to how much extra work it would be if anyone has any idea?

That was another bonus with the non-voiced protagonist - you detirmined the tone in your own head.

I think a can of worms may have been opened with using voiced protagonists in FRPG's, and I just hope that the work required to make that vision achieve it's potentional is do-able, and not something that will ruin games (like Hawke's mental, split persoanality did in DA:2) or mean that RPGs have to be streamlined further ME style in order to work.

jillabender wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm curious. How do you agree with someone aggressively?

Damn right! They really ought to show us how the **** you can agree with someone aggressively the swines!

Hehe, well put! {smilie}

Thanks

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 29 novembre 2012 - 02:39 .

[Fortlowe]

jillabender wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm curious. How do you agree with someone aggressively?

Damn right! They really ought to show us how the **** you can agree with someone aggressively the swines!

Hehe, well put!

Agreeing aggressively is about compromise with absolutely no love lost. Example: We do it your way. For her sake. But as soon as she is safe, by the elders I will shove my dagger into the back of your skull.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Fortlowe wrote...

jillabender wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm curious. How do you agree with someone aggressively?

Damn right! They really ought to show us how the **** you can agree with someone aggressively the swines!

Hehe, well put!

Agreeing aggressively is about compromise with absolutely no love lost. Example: We do it your way. For her sake. But as soon as she is safe, by the elders I will shove my dagger into the back of your skull.

My 3rd party voiced protagonist would have said that - I just typed the paraphrased version

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 29 novembre 2012 - 04:02 .

[jillabender]

Fortlowe wrote...

jillabender wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm curious. How do you agree with someone aggressively?

Damn right! They really ought to show us how the **** you can agree with someone aggressively the swines!

Hehe, well put!

Agreeing aggressively is about compromise with absolutely no love lost. Example: We do it your way. For her sake. But as soon as she is safe, by the elders I will shove my dagger into the back of your skull.

I would also like to see conversations that allow for that kind of reluctant compromise – having the option for the PC to express agreement in a way consistent with being an aggressive person is a plus, because it allows for a bit more flexibility in portraying a character.

Modifié par jillabender, 29 novembre 2012 - 04:04 .

[Fortlowe]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I agree with above suggestion of not having tone tied to decisions. If I want to decline a quest, it should not be tied to whether or not I am an angry person. If I ask for money, it should be tied to me being a sarcastic guy. Not that this is the way every choice in DA2 was done, but it was a theme that definitely presented itself.

In all honesty, I can't imagine it costing much more in resources, since if you had a dominant tone from previous conversations, all dialogue options, regardless of their inherent tone value, would need to be recorded with all available tones anyway.

But, with this model, you can be aggressive/mean towards one group, say Templars, and be diplomatic/friendly towards another, say Mages (and sarcastic/goofy to another, like Dwarves). And this makes total sense - you don't treat your enemies and your friends with the exact same type of behavior. And flip flopping between the two tones when talking to the two groups in DA2 would likely make you sound like a psychotic.

So I'd be all for a tone choice with every dialogue, as well as a dialogue choice one.

I'm made to understand that tone control is at once cost prohibitive (ie hardware contranits limit what can be included) and unweildy (ie it could lead to micromanagement and in game could come off as redundant). I'm in no position to argue the former judgement on the matter, but I do disagree with the latter.

Once I highlight a dialogue selection two or three tone icons can either pop up, or I could use the mouse or gamepad to select them. No need to change the paraphrase at all. Not unweildy, not redundant, simple and accessible tone control.

Also, if the rumor about DAIII going next gen is true, the the hardware issues are perhaps, suddenly less of a problem.

Modifié par Fortlowe, 29 novembre 2012 - 04:09 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I am not placing too much faith in a next gen title, personally. And given that Gaider has said they are working on changing the paraphrase system for DA3, I can't imagine a UI change is off the table with that redesign.

And, again, if my dominant tone is aggressive, the DA2 style would have all conversation options recorded with the aggressive tone (even if I don't pick an inherently aggressive option). If my dominant tone is sarcastic, the same would apply (as would diplomatic). So if they are recording every line to be said with every tone in the DA2 model anyway, I can't imagine doing the same thing, but giving the player more control over when a certain tone is used, would be all that more expensive or that much more difficult to code for.

But I'm hardly an expert at doing things other than speculating.

[abnocte]

labargegrrrl wrote...

i've actually talked about this a lot (like, a LOT) in other threads.  b/c you're right, every tone seemed to have biases built into them.  only instead of divorcing personality from opinion, i think they should offer two opinions in each personality tone.

i should have been able to aggressively tell grace i agreed with her crazy self, as well as accuse her of being a criminal, diplomatically tell merril blood magic wasn't cool, as well as thank her for her help, or just make snide comments about whatever side of a choice/issue i was dealing with, rather than jokes dropping at random.  

if only those personality tones could have had an option on each side of the wheel... 

I suggested in another thread that we should be allowed to choose the icon AND the paraphrase separately, there's no need to have an option on each side of a personality choice.

The wheel UI would remain the same but allow player input to select a different icon...



Too bad it's not going to happen...