330 réponses à ce sujet

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
If you're arguing that providing that information - tone and delivery - to the player, is somehow dumbing down the experience of guessing what the hell your character is gonna do when you pick an option, I don't know what to tell you.

the problem, at least from my perspective, is that they relied on the icons to carry too much of the "how" of the line, and didn't bother to have the paraphrase carry enough of the "what" of the line. These two factors combined can cause some people to feel as if the system has been reduced to "click on the icons" rather than picking the actual lines.
I know in my case, trying to dechiper what the paraphrasing was supposed to mean brought more moments of ire at being misled by the system and no moment of clarity: hence why I had to stop caring what the line would be and instead pick on what icon fitted the scene.
For a person who believes that roleplaying in a cRPG is largely defined by carefully choosing what the character says, having to completely ignore that gravely hampered whatever enjoyment I might have derived from the game.

Modifié par Xewaka, 07 janvier 2013 - 10:55 .

[upsettingshorts]

Weskerr wrote...
Solutions to problems can sometimes present more problems - as in side effects. Whether the symbols in the DA2 dialogue wheel were meant to solve

The actor's delivery was sometimes surprising and changed the suspected meaning of the paraphrase.

or not is not relevant. In solving one problem, it's created another.

If it created a problem, it's a problem that exists entirely in your head.

Xewaka wrote...

the problem, at least from my perspective, is that they relied on the icons to carry too much of the "how" of the line, and didn't bother to have the paraphrase carry enough of the "what" of the line.

But this isn't a paraphrase discussion, it's an icon discussion.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 janvier 2013 - 10:55 .

[Weskerr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Weskerr wrote...
Solutions to problems can sometimes present more problems - as in side effects. Whether the symbols in the DA2 dialogue wheel were meant to solve

The actor's delivery was sometimes surprising and changed the suspected meaning of the paraphrase.

or not is not relevant. In solving one problem, it's created another.

If it created a problem, it's a problem that exists entirely in your head.

So, all the points I made in my first post are in my head?

Weskerr wrote... The icons are the worst feature about it. One needs to look only at the symbol attached to each dialogue option to know how the PC will deliver the tone of the line. Thinking about what the dialogue choice actually means is unecessary. Not much worse, but still a fundamental flaw, is that the structure of the dialogue wheel makes it so that the top right option is always diplomatic, the middle option is always joking/sarcastic, and the bottom right option isalways aggressive. The consquence is the dismemberment of critical thinking on the part of the player, which in turn diminishes immersion into the world and roleplaying.

I've said this for a long time: The dialogue wheel should be removed. In it's place should be a system that requires the player to think carefully when choosing a dialogue option. This means randomizing where a diplomatic, sarcastic, aggressive, or any other kind of dialogue answer is placed on the screen. 
 

I think you're just choosing not to understand my points because you don't want to admit they have validity, for some reason.

Modifié par Weskerr, 07 janvier 2013 - 11:03 .

[upsettingshorts]

Weskerr wrote...

So, all the points I made in my first post are in my head?

Yes.

Weskerr wrote... 

The icons are the worst feature about it. One needs to look only at the symbol attached to each dialogue option to know how the PC will deliver the tone of the line.

This is not a problem.  This is working as designed.

Weskerr wrote...

Thinking about what the dialogue choice actually means is unecessary.

This is what's entirely in your head.  It's still as necessary as ever.  All the icons do is provide more information.  That's it.

This is where Wakka will respond by saying paraphrases obfuscate understanding, but that's not what I'm talking about here. 

Weskerr wrote...

I think you're just choosing not to understand my points because you don't want to admit they have validity, for some reason.

I understand them fine.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 janvier 2013 - 11:11 .

[SparksMKII]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But this isn't a paraphrase discussion, it's an icon discussion.

They should just allow those who don't want icons the option to disable them no reason we can't have the best of both worlds right?

[upsettingshorts]

SparksMKII wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But this isn't a paraphrase discussion, it's an icon discussion.

They should just allow those who don't want icons the option to disable them no reason we can't have the best of both worlds right?

There is no good reason to simply disable the tone icons at all.  None whatsoever.  There's an argument to be made that they are by their nature more limited than a word cue like [Angry] or [Confused] because the number of descriptors is effectively unlimited.  But to remove the concept of indicating the tone of the line completely?  No.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 janvier 2013 - 11:13 .

[Xewaka]

SparksMKII wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
But this isn't a paraphrase discussion, it's an icon discussion.

They should just allow those who don't want icons the option to disable them no reason we can't have the best of both worlds right?

The problem with that is that the paraphrasing is already written assuming the player will garner most of the information for the choice from the tone icon (or they will have to end up doing so, considering the completely uselessness of the paraphrasing in conveying any sort of meaningful information about what will be actually spoken in the line).
Remove the tone icon and there is essentially no clue as to what Hawke will say next. This is particularly troublesome on "choice" nodes, where that information is missing.

Modifié par Xewaka, 07 janvier 2013 - 11:16 .

[upsettingshorts]

The tone icon is just information.

The paraphrase is just information.

Nobody is arguing the tone icon doesn't accurately convey the resulting tone. They're arguing that it does and this is bad

That the paraphrases don't accurately convey the resulting line, while a position I do not share, is at least a position that makes sense.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 janvier 2013 - 11:17 .

[Tinu]

I like the dialogue wheel. It makes it look all more effective.

I only want it to have a different design. I would change the colors of the icons to gold or silver and a use black background.

[Weskerr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

So, all the points I made in my first post are in my head?

Yes.

Weskerr wrote... 

The icons are the worst feature about it. One needs to look only at the symbol attached to each dialogue option to know how the PC will deliver the tone of the line.

This is not a problem.  This is working as designed.

It is working as designed except the player no longer has to think about the meaning of a dialogue choice carefully. This is why I called it a side effect.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

Thinking about what the dialogue choice actually means is unecessary.

This is what's entirely in your head.  It's still as necessary as ever.  All the icons do is provide more information.  That's it.

The icons provide more that just additional information. They lessen the need of the player to think about what a piece of dialogue means, and what the ramifications of choosing any piece of dialogue could be.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

I think you're just choosing not to understand my points because you don't want to admit they have validity, for some reason.

I understand them fine.

It seems like you don't when you say things like "it's all in your head." 

[Dirty Whore]

i think the dialogue wheel just makes things too complicated...better just to have a cutscene play out the way the writer wants rather than giving us the incredibly transparent illusion that we have an actual say in where the story will go. Those days are long gone.

[upsettingshorts]

Weskerr wrote...

It is working as designed except the player no longer has to think about the meaning of a dialogue choice carefully. This is why I called it a side effect.

The player can put as much effort into thinking about the meaning of a dialogue choice as ever.

Once again, the tone icons just provide information.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Weskerr wrote...

The icons provide more that just additional information. They lessen the need of the player to think about what a piece of dialogue means, and what the ramifications of choosing any piece of dialogue could be.

No they don't.

You have CHOSEN not to think.  This is in your head.

Your argument is based on the premise that the existence of this information means you don't have to think about outcomes.  I'm disputing that premise as utterly baseless.

How can you even claim otherwise?  Have you done a comprehensive study of gamers habits?  Are you saying you did this, and just assuming everyone else did?  On what are you basing this criticism if its not completely in your head?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 janvier 2013 - 11:40 .

[Weskerr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

It is working as designed except the player no longer has to think about the meaning of a dialogue choice carefully. This is why I called it a side effect.

The player can put as much effort into thinking about the meaning of a dialogue choice as ever.

Once again, the tone icons just provide information.  Nothing more, nothing less.

We're going in circles here. Of course  players can use as much effort as they like when trying to understand dialogue choices. I am not disputing that; doing so would be absurd. What I am saying is that the dialogue wheel, in its structure and use of symbols to convey the tone of a dialogue choice before it's even selected, has created a dialogue system in which the player can make dialogue choices without having to consider questions like "how will the PC deliver this line?," "What is the PC actually saying?," "How will the NPC react?," and so on. In games like DA:O or The Witcher 2 in which there is no dialogue wheel, the player must ask himself these questions.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

The icons provide more that just additional information. They lessen the need of the player to think about what a piece of dialogue means, and what the ramifications of choosing any piece of dialogue could be.

No they don't.

You have CHOSEN not to think.  This is in your head.

But I've said twice I think that, even if I try to ignore the tone icons or that the option I'm choosing is on the top right, it's impossible. My expectations of what the PC will say and how he'll say it will be influenced by these two things despite my best efforts to ignore them. If you are saying you can ignore them completely, I don't believe you. Or at least I don't think you're aware that they are influencing you.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
How can you even claim otherwise?  Have you done a comprehensive study of gamers habits?  Are you saying you did this, and just assume everyone else did?  On what are you basing this criticism if its not completely in your head?

So any criticism one makes must be backed up by a comprehensive study? Personal experience is in no way a valid basis for one's criticism of something? Absurd. I suppose one's personal experience getting burned after touching the surface of a hot stove is not valid. You need to do a comprehensive study that proves that touching the surface of a hot stove burns you or it's all "completely in your head!"

I am criticizing DA2's dialogue wheel based on personal experience, so I suppose it's all in my head.

[upsettingshorts]

Weskerr wrote...

We're going in circles here. Of course  players can use as much effort as they like when trying to understand dialogue choices. I am not disputing that; doing so would be absurd. What I am saying is that the dialogue wheel, in its structure and use of symbols to convey the tone of a dialogue choice before it's even selected, has created a dialogue system in which the player can make dialogue choices without having to consider questions like "how will the PC deliver this line?," "What is the PC actually saying?," "How will the NPC react?," and so on. In games like DA:O or The Witcher 2 in which there is no dialogue wheel, the player must ask himself these questions.

The paraphrase system obfuscates what the PC will actually say, but that has nothing to do with the tone icons.

"How will the NPC react" is not covered by the tone icons, or paraphrase, or dialogue wheel.  The best evidence of this is all the times in DA2 nobody laughs at Hawke's ill-timed attempts at humor.

"How will the PC deliver this line" is relevant when you are given several options to choose from.  The Witcher 2 does not consistently provide for this (It is more concerned with choosing Whats than Hows), and headcanons and imaginations aside, neither does DA:O.  On the other hand, a game that asks you to be concerned exclusively with tone in the manner you are saying DA2 does is Alpha Protocol.   And that game's approach is pretty significantly different, namely it doesn't even tell you what you'll be saying, only how your PC will express himself.

Weskerr wrote...

But I've said twice I think that, even if I try to ignore the tone icons or that the option I'm choosing is on the top right, it's impossible. My expectations of what the PC will say and how he'll say it will be influenced by these two things despite my best efforts to ignore them. If you are saying you can ignore them completely, I don't believe you. Or at least I don't think you're aware that they are influencing you.

I'm saying I use them as information and nothing more.  If I feel it is important for my character to react with anger, I will consider the Direct option more strongly.  

If you find yourself burdened by the icons in this manner, it is a problem of your own making.  I do not ignore the tone icons, I consider them information.  They are not a guide, they're descriptive.

Weskerr wrote...

So any criticism one makes must be backed up by a comprehensive study? Personal experience is in no way a valid basis for one's criticism of something? Absurd. I suppose one's personal experience getting burned after touching the surface of a hot stove is not valid. You need to do a comprehensive study that proves that touching the surface of a hot stove burns you or it's all "completely in your head!"

No, I'm saying that if you're going to respond effectively to my counter-argument that your perception of the dialogue wheel is one of your own making, and a flawed one at that, there ought to be more behind your response than "this is how it felt to me."  Especially since, in saying it is in your head, I am acknowledging precisely this.  

It is possible for your perception to be flawed.  It is possible to correct that perception.  It is even possible, even desirable, for BioWare to investigate ways to make sure nobody makes similar mistakes.  But it is a mistake, and it is a misinterpretation of the system.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 janvier 2013 - 12:28 .

[bombspy]

Wraith 02 wrote...

Yes, i don't want to read something and then have my character waste time saying the exact same thing out loud, might aswell be like DAO dialogue instead if it has to be like that.
The dialogue wheel gives the mood and tone of the response not a word for word copy it's not that hard to get used to

quoted for truth

DA is a game and not a book. I'm not interested in reading tons of text before choosing a response.

[Xewaka]

bombspy wrote...
quoted for truth
DA is a game and not a book. I'm not interested in reading tons of text before choosing a response.

And I thought this kind of people only existed as constructed strawmen to have an easy argument to defamate people who like paraphrasing.

Modifié par Xewaka, 07 janvier 2013 - 12:35 .

[AlexJK]

SparksMKII wrote...

AlexJK wrote...
How in the world does *shuffing the order of the dialogue responses* accomplish anything other than irritating the player?

It doesn't or are you implying it would be too difficult for the modern
group of casual gamers to discern the difference between.

1. Nice to meet you
2. Who are you?
3. ****** off!

or

1. ****** off!
2. Nice to meet you
3. Who are you?

No more automatic clicking the top/middle/bottom answer please let us think before we speak again.

I'm saying that this is completely pointless. You might as well suggest randomising the hotbar at the start of each combat to make players "think" about which abilities to use. The only thing that would accomplish is to make the UI unpredictable, which is not a good thing.

Modifié par AlexJK, 07 janvier 2013 - 12:41 .

[Chaos Lord Malek]

I want wheel and paraphrasing, but i don't want the icons.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Plaintiff wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Twisted Path wrote...

I never had a problem with not knowing the "tone" of lines you picked from in Origins. For instance when you tell Leiliana "The Maker's on our side? Then welcome aboard!" maybe your character is joking, maybe your character is being serious or maybe you're just thinking "I need every armed lunatic I can get to throw against the blight, so whatever religious nut-lady, welcome aboard."

Your character's tone and motivation is left a little ambiguous in moments like that, which I think is a good thing. It creates a greater illusion of depth for your character. And if other characters respond to you in an unexpected way, eh, I always wrote it off as them misinterpreting me. It happens.

Well, the writers have outright stated that lines are written with a specific intent in mind, even in Origins. There isn't any ambiguity; even if you choose to interpret the line differently, the game only recognises the pre-determined designation of "insult", "joke" or "flirt".

If tone is pre-determined, then I think knowing tone/meaning is more vital to understanding what the character is going to say than the mere words that are said. Two lines might be identical but if one is "sarcastic" and the other is "sincere", then the context changes completely.

I distinctly remember being able to say something, and then Morrigan asking.. "Shall I take that as a compliment?" And you could further answer with ambiguity "If you'd like." There were other examples like these "or perhaps you meant X."

It's very possible to support ambiguity. I wish people stopped pretending like it's impossible.

No, it's possible for the writers to create dialogue with variable meanings, requiring an extra dialgue in order to clarify said meaning, which is not the same thing at all.

So... then why isn't it possible to not clarify it at all?

[Fisto The Sexbot]

In Exile wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...
Examples of not-ambiguous lines? There's also the entire matter of the tone you use not having to be brought up directly in conversation at all.

The tone you use is almost alway brought up in conversation. There's a big difference between "That was a great idea! :lol:" and "That was a great idea!<_<" or "That was a great idea! :sick:". The NPC's reaction to you disambiguates most of the meaning, unless you want to assume they're socially incompetent .

You're implying that all emotions have to amount to extremes. The emotions can exist, be acknowledged, but not really brought up as what is shown to you aside from what you learn from roleplaying, or 'personal headcanon', just like body language can be acknowledged but not brought up in real life. Are you saying ambiguity can't exist in day to day conversations because one or the other would immediately 'pick up on it' due to tone? I disagree.

But they don't have to.

Well, they do. And they did. That's how DA:O was written, according to DG. Whether or not you thought the written line was ambiguous, that wasn't the intent.

That's not really relevant. It's not David Gaider's story. The story centers around the player -- and intent is irrelevant to begin with if it doesn't translate well into fiction, then it's just badly-conveyed intent that amounts to nothing. If David Gaider wanted to write a classic it doesn't mean he did.

[shadow-warlord]

I don't see why they are keeping the wheel, it has so many problems. Fist the paraphrases...You don't know what your character is going to say only, only his intent. The symbols are just plain useless since you know the top option is diplomatic, the middle humorous, the low agressive. Also 99% of the times you're not actually choosing anything but simply choosing a tone for the same sentence.

It also kind of works like paragon-renegade in ME, since when you choose enough diplomatic options your Hawke becomes a goody-two shoes, if you pick humorous he becomes a jerk etc all without the player's agency.

So i just don't see the reason behind the wheel. IMHO choosing what your character says is much better than selecting a damn tone and it's what RPG is about. And the majority i think prefer that for obvious reasons.

So why not have the dialogue tree or the options of a dialogue tree in some way? Most love it compared to the negative stance against the wheel.

I guess it's due to money and time saving because honestly i don't believe anyone prefers DA2 dialogue to DAO...

Modifié par shadow-warlord, 07 janvier 2013 - 04:23 .

[In Exile]

Weskerr wrote...
The icons are the worst feature about it. One needs to look only at the symbol attached to each dialogue option to know how the PC will deliver the tone of the line.

Okay, this line of argument doesn't make very much sense. Just what was it about DA:O's writing that so strained  your thought process that made it an effort to understand what was being said?

From DA:A

Anders: You know, there is one thing I miss about the tower. My cat.
W: You had a cat? (to 5)
W: Why didn't you take it with you? (to 5)
W: Miss your little kitty, do you? (to 5)
W: And now you have a new one. (ends conversation)
W: So you mentioned before. (to 5)
W: They let you have a cat in the tower? (to 5)

Did it strain your brain to pick between "Miss your little kitty, do you?" and "You had a cat?" 

Modifié par In Exile, 07 janvier 2013 - 04:53 .

[In Exile]

shadow-warlord wrote...
It also kind of works like paragon-renegade in ME, since when you choose enough diplomatic options your Hawke becomes a goody-two shoes, if you pick humorous he becomes a jerk etc all without the player's agency.

You're wrong - you might find sarcastic Hawke to be a jerk, but not everyone does.

I guess it's due to money and time saving because honestly i don't believe anyone prefers DA2 dialogue to DAO...

You're also wrong here. 

[Uccio]

Unfortunately, its part of Biowares attemp to mold DA serie into ME copy.

[AlexJK]

Ukki wrote...

Unfortunately, its part of Biowares attemp to mold DA serie into ME copy.

No, no it isn't. Why are people so silly around here?