330 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

AsheraII wrote...

I don't mind the dialogue wheel as such. I just feel that:
1) the cheat icons are a bit over the top, and I'd like them removed entirely
2) the short version displayed should better reflect what is actually said. I'd rather see the dialogue wheel take up half the screen but display everything you're going to say, then those short lines that leave too much room for interpretation, and can result in mistakingly picking options totally different from your actual intentions.

They are not cheat icons. They are important information. You might not care about how your character delivers a line, but I do.

[Siegdrifa]

esper wrote...

AsheraII wrote...

I don't mind the dialogue wheel as such. I just feel that:
1) the cheat icons are a bit over the top, and I'd like them removed entirely
2) the short version displayed should better reflect what is actually said. I'd rather see the dialogue wheel take up half the screen but display everything you're going to say, then those short lines that leave too much room for interpretation, and can result in mistakingly picking options totally different from your actual intentions.

They are not cheat icons. They are important information. You might not care about how your character delivers a line, but I do.

I found the icone system a really great addition on the concept, but sadly, i found it terribad in DA2.

The main problem, because the writters wanted so much to put an icone, it impacted greatly the importance of the line you could use.
Instead of sayng something that made sens related to what was happening in DA2, you often ended doing a comentary over what people said instead of directing the dialogue in a certain way.
To be honest, most of the time, this is not a dialogue wheel, but a commentary wheel.
Nice comment, sarcastic comment, arsh comment ...
Ah damn i wished so many time that my character whould just STFU and said something that mattered instead of being a smart ass, acting like a kid looking for attention from others by a stupid commentary.
ME1 and ME2 (not ME3) were a better experience for the dialogue wheel.

A dialogue wheel should focus on providing choices, not tones; it is supposed to be a DIALOGUE wheel, not EXPRESSION wheel !

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 08 janvier 2013 - 04:19 .

[Knight of Dane]

What? That makes no sense, just Shepards version of "Let's kill them all" isn't any "more" dialogue than Hawke's just because he doesn't have a icon.
Besides, often the ME dialogue wheel is just "Say it like a paragon" or "say it like a renegade" too, the only difference is that more choices to change the course of the game was used in it.
Paragon always being top right and Renegade lower right is just as much "icons" we know what their position means.

[Biotic Sage]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...


True it doesn't matter that much.  It's not really a big deal either way in terms of the order, I just said it because sometimes it does feel a bit...cheap, shall we say...to decide "I'm gonna play a nice guy!" and then just keep your left thumb glued to the same angle through every dialogue sequence.  I think the priority should definitely go to creating more dialogue choices in general and perhaps more intent icons to choose from as well.  What would be truly amazing (and I know this would never happen) would be to have us select a line of dialogue and THEN select the intent/tone that we want to accompany it, leading to different responses from NPCs.  Of course this would be a nightmare for writing and V/O recording...but a dream come true for me!

I'd like to point out that tonal choices and moral choices in the Dragon Age 2 were completetly separate.   You could be a total DiploHawk and still go around killing people you don't have to and betraying your friends every chance you got.

I'm confused because you quoted me, but I don't see where I said that the tonal and moral choices were separate.  I equated "tone" to "intent" because when you are selecting dialogue options in DA2 you are picking your intended tone; the NPC could still technically perceive your tone as something other than what you intended, that's just the nature of communication in general.  I didn't equate "intent" to "moral" because in video games I guess I'm more of a consequentialist than a deontologist (i.e. we all want the developers to make our choices matter in the game, not our intentions).

[Biotic Sage]

Siegdrifa wrote...

esper wrote...

AsheraII wrote...

I don't mind the dialogue wheel as such. I just feel that:
1) the cheat icons are a bit over the top, and I'd like them removed entirely
2) the short version displayed should better reflect what is actually said. I'd rather see the dialogue wheel take up half the screen but display everything you're going to say, then those short lines that leave too much room for interpretation, and can result in mistakingly picking options totally different from your actual intentions.

They are not cheat icons. They are important information. You might not care about how your character delivers a line, but I do.

I found the icone system a really great addition on the concept, but sadly, i found it terribad in DA2.

The main problem, because the writters wanted so much to put an icone, it impacted greatly the importance of the line you could use.
Instead of sayng something that made sens related to what was happening in DA2, you often ended doing a comentary over what people said instead of directing the dialogue in a certain way.
To be honest, most of the time, this is not a dialogue wheel, but a commentary wheel.
Nice comment, sarcastic comment, arsh comment ...
Ah damn i wished so many time that my character whould just STFU and said something that mattered instead of being a smart ass, acting like a kid looking for attention from others by a stupid commentary.
ME1 and ME2 (not ME3) were a better experience for the dialogue wheel.

A dialogue wheel should focus on providing choices, not tones; it is supposed to be a DIALOGUE wheel, not EXPRESSION wheel !

I very much agree with you.  The concept was great, they just overused it.  Not every dialogue choice needs to have "sarcastic" or "altruistic" attached to it.  Some can just be neutral statements, questions, or commands.  In those cases they should either leave the icon off or make new icons for the respective serious choices.

[golak]

Goatmanwashere wrote...

I think the dialogue wheel is rather effective, and I don't mind that they bring it back, but I would like if they gave it more variety, rather than just Diplomatic/Helpful, Humorous/Charming and Aggressive/Direct. One more personality-type perhaps, whatever that could be.

I agree.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

AlexJK wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

My hope is that they create even more intention symbols and and mix up their placement orders to encourage more authentic roleplaying.

Why does mixing up the order "encourage more authentic roleplaying"?

All it seems to do is make the character lines sound disproportiante or bipolar. A mix of neutral investigative options combined with a list of solutions to resolve quests seems more appealing to me. Instead of using a different tone every time to conduct a conversation why not just use investigative lines and follow up with a few decisive choices at the end?

[Fisto The Sexbot]

esper wrote...

AsheraII wrote...

I don't mind the dialogue wheel as such. I just feel that:
1) the cheat icons are a bit over the top, and I'd like them removed entirely
2) the short version displayed should better reflect what is actually said. I'd rather see the dialogue wheel take up half the screen but display everything you're going to say, then those short lines that leave too much room for interpretation, and can result in mistakingly picking options totally different from your actual intentions.

They are not cheat icons. They are important information. You might not care about how your character delivers a line, but I do.

Removing the icons won't change what's wrong with the current dialogue system anyway. A different approach will.

[esper]

Siegdrifa wrote...

esper wrote...

AsheraII wrote...

I don't mind the dialogue wheel as such. I just feel that:
1) the cheat icons are a bit over the top, and I'd like them removed entirely
2) the short version displayed should better reflect what is actually said. I'd rather see the dialogue wheel take up half the screen but display everything you're going to say, then those short lines that leave too much room for interpretation, and can result in mistakingly picking options totally different from your actual intentions.

They are not cheat icons. They are important information. You might not care about how your character delivers a line, but I do.

I found the icone system a really great addition on the concept, but sadly, i found it terribad in DA2.

The main problem, because the writters wanted so much to put an icone, it impacted greatly the importance of the line you could use.
Instead of sayng something that made sens related to what was happening in DA2, you often ended doing a comentary over what people said instead of directing the dialogue in a certain way.
To be honest, most of the time, this is not a dialogue wheel, but a commentary wheel.
Nice comment, sarcastic comment, arsh comment ...
Ah damn i wished so many time that my character whould just STFU and said something that mattered instead of being a smart ass, acting like a kid looking for attention from others by a stupid commentary.
ME1 and ME2 (not ME3) were a better experience for the dialogue wheel.

A dialogue wheel should focus on providing choices, not tones; it is supposed to be a DIALOGUE wheel, not EXPRESSION wheel !

I am sorry, but my Hawke was (unlike my warden) very much making dialog. In every normal dialog we need those icons, because it is in a normal dialog that your tones varies and tells quite a lot. If you didn't want to be a smart ass, perhaps, picking the non-sarcartic voices would be a start. She meant every word and actually made conversation with people. I think you have played to many games if you think that dragon age was commentary as oppossed to dialog compared to Me. Dialog is a mix of sound and facial expression between a minimum of two people. Hawke was acutally doing that, or at least doing it better than so many others video games protagonists.

Me1 and Me2 was a terrible experiene, you had to pick upper or lower or else you were seriosly punished. Any good thing the dialog wheel might have had in MeEwill forever be tainted by the renegade/paragon system in my eyes.

Now you can say that you wanted more choices in the vein of the 'arrow' choice (which indacted branching paths or just conversation where Hawke's mood was irrellevant). That I can agree with.

[esper]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

AlexJK wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

My hope is that they create even more intention symbols and and mix up their placement orders to encourage more authentic roleplaying.

Why does mixing up the order "encourage more authentic roleplaying"?

All it seems to do is make the character lines sound disproportiante or bipolar. A mix of neutral investigative options combined with a list of solutions to resolve quests seems more appealing to me. Instead of using a different tone every time to conduct a conversation why not just use investigative lines and follow up with a few decisive choices at the end?

Because not every conversation requires investigation. I think this was a problem in da:o too. (Don't remember mass effect).

What the need to do is find a way to handle investigation/questions more fluid in conversations. I don't quite know how, but the problem is that investigations are treated as an optional seperate hub, which when emptied returns to the original starting point of the conversation. It makes questions seems unnatural, compared to the rest.

Perhaps by forcing us to start in the investigation hub and opt out with an 'no question' instead of starting in the normal conversation and opt in for investigation. Or by having picked the investigation change the opt out of the dialog wheel.

[SpunkyMonkey]

The dialogue wheel itself isn't the problem.

However one of THE most anti-RPG thing to do is to remove the players interpretation of what a certain dialogue option is, and in the most recent games the dialogue wheel has done that.

If I see an option to say "Don't be a fool!" it's down to my interpretation of how I/my character is saying that (hence why voiced dialogue is an issue too). I may be saying that in a friendly way "Don't be a fool (because you're better than that)", or an aggressive way "Don't be a fool!" (you idiot).

Either way the NPC's reaction to that is valid, because you never know how someone is going to react no matter how you intend to say or do something.

Breaking conversations down as the dialogue wheel does just removes all that and waters down the entire RPG element of it (along with other issues.)

Also, with regards the investigation side of things, why on earth shouldn't I be cut off mid-investigation if I ask the wrong question? I might have said something to offend that person and the RPG skill and fun is in making that decision of what to say, and feeling as if anything as possible. The "safe" feeling you have knowing that you are asking questions which won't invoke a response again kills the RPG experience. Some "safe" questions asked in ME2 about the Genophage etc. are one's I would be expecting a Krogan to shoot me in the nackers and walk away from, not feel safe asking.

Like I say the dialogue wheel could be useable if utilized right, but so far it's been light-years away from that, and I would argue that those who advocate it's use need to actually interact with real people more and try and apply dialogue wheel logic to everyday conversations.

Simply put, real life is not that mathmatical.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 09 janvier 2013 - 12:29 .

[AlexJK]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

If I see an option to say "Don't be a fool!" it's down to my interpretation of how I/my character is saying that (hence why voiced dialogue is an issue too).

Unfortunately it isn't down to you. With a silent protagonist, while you are free to imagine how your character says a line, the NPC will only ever respond to the intention given to that line by its writer.

Either way the NPC's reaction to that is valid, because you never know how someone is going to react no matter how you intend to say or do something.

What do you mean, you never know how someone's going to react? Of course you do - at least you will have a reasonable idea - that's how dialogue systems work (and real life conversation, for that matter). If you never had any idea how people would react to anything you say, conversation would all just be random. And bizarre.

The "safe" feeling you have knowing that you are asking questions which won't invoke a response again kills the RPG experience.

Are you referring to the so-called "investigate" options? I agree that it would be nice if asking questions had more effects on the outcome of the conversation (as indeed sometimes options are changed or unlocked), but I wouldn't want to see players penalised for asking questions to reveal more lore about the game world.

Modifié par AlexJK, 09 janvier 2013 - 11:20 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

AlexJK wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

If I see an option to say "Don't be a fool!" it's down to my interpretation of how I/my character is saying that (hence why voiced dialogue is an issue too).

Unfortunately it isn't down to you. With a silent protagonist, while you are free to imagine how your character says a line, the NPC will only ever respond to the intention given to that line by its writer.

Either way the NPC's reaction to that is valid, because you never know how someone is going to react no matter how you intend to say or do something.

What do you mean, you never know how someone's going to react? Of course you do - at least you will have a reasonable idea - that's how dialogue systems work (and real life conversation, for that matter). If you never had any idea how people would react to anything you say, conversation would all just be random. And bizarre.

Yes, but that's the NPC's reaction. You make allowances for their mis-interpritation of your intention as you would in real life. You could tell a girl at work to pick up a pen and she might react nicely or nastily to that depending on her interpritation of how you said that - but either way you can't control her reaction. You may have think that you said things nicely, but to her you haven't. Or if she's having a bad day you might just cop it off her.

In real life people react totally differently to how you intend sometimes. Yes you may have an idea, but you can never be sure and often they can react totally differently to what you anticipate.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 09 janvier 2013 - 11:25 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

AlexJK wrote...

Are you referring to the so-called "investigate" options? I agree that it would be nice if asking questions had more effects on the outcome of the conversation (as indeed sometimes options are changed or unlocked), but I wouldn't want to see players penalised for asking questions to reveal more lore about the game world.

Yes mate I am. The balance of reward/neutrality/penality (?!!) you get would need to be thought out for the game, but I'd much sooner have that real feel to the game than feel safe knowing I could ask things which have no concequence.

If a close friend of yours loses a loved one (God forbid) would you ask them questions related to that loved one? Well saving the world in an epic adventure will likely lead to scenarios where you have to do such things, so why shouldn't those circumstances and possible reactions be present? 

For me THAT is good RPG-ing, THAT is where the real feeling of being involved with things comes from.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 09 janvier 2013 - 11:26 .

[AlexJK]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Yes, but that's the NPC's reaction. You make allowances for their mis-interpritation of your intention as you would in real life. You could tell a girl at work to pick up a pen and she might react nicely or nastily to that depending on her interpritation of how you said that - but either way you can't control her reaction. You may have think that you said things nicely, but to her you haven't. Or if she's having a bad day you might just cop it off her.

I see what you're saying, but I will still always know the intent behind what I said, which is important information in order for me to judge whether the reaction is typical or atypical, and thus whether I should continue with the same tone, or switch to a different one.

The key issue for me: yes, I could be misinterpreted, but for RP purposes (and real life!) it's important to know my own intentions in order to understand why that might have happened.

Modifié par AlexJK, 09 janvier 2013 - 11:31 .

[gabrien]

I like how it is. I like that it is vague. A sample of the way you responde without having to speak exactly what you read all over again. I only see it as a problem if what is said has no relevance to the vague sample of the response in the dialogue wheel.

[Kidd]

esper wrote...

What the need to do is find a way to handle investigation/questions more fluid in conversations. I don't quite know how, but the problem is that investigations are treated as an optional seperate hub, which when emptied returns to the original starting point of the conversation. It makes questions seems unnatural, compared to the rest.

This was actually addressed in ME3's writing a lot of the time. Whereas ME1, ME2 and DA2 alike often feature conversations that go like this:

NPC: We need to do this quest, and do it quick!
PC: *investigate* Can you tell me more about the Anderfels?
NPC: It's a pretty cool place. In the not-temperature sense.
PC: I agree, let's stop dallying.

Sounds pretty unnatural indeed. The PC was not agreeing with the temperature statement, rather the "do it quick" statement at the beginning. ME3 usually solves it like this instead,

NPC: Need to do this quest, and quick!
PC: *investigate* Can you tell me more about Sur'kesh?
NPC: A pretty cool place. In the not-temperature sense. No time to waste, let's go at once.
PC: I agree, let's stop dallying.

It definitely takes quite a bit out of the word budget to do this for every investigative option though, sadly. But it makes for more natural-sounding conversation.

esper wrote...

Me1 and Me2 was a terrible experiene, you had to pick upper or lower or else you were seriosly punished. Any good thing the dialog wheel might have had in MeEwill forever be tainted by the renegade/paragon system in my eyes.

This was actually fixed in ME3 as well, with persuasion options not being tied to your paragon/renegade scores anymore. Of course, one may wonder what the point of P/R points even is at that point since it has no bearings on gameplay, all it does is scar your face.

[SpunkyMonkey]

AlexJK wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Yes, but that's the NPC's reaction. You make allowances for their mis-interpritation of your intention as you would in real life. You could tell a girl at work to pick up a pen and she might react nicely or nastily to that depending on her interpritation of how you said that - but either way you can't control her reaction. You may have think that you said things nicely, but to her you haven't. Or if she's having a bad day you might just cop it off her.

I see what you're saying, but I will still always know the intent behind what I said, which is important information in order for me to judge whether the reaction is typical or atypical, and thus whether I should continue with the same tone, or switch to a different one.

The key issue for me: yes, I could be misinterpreted, but for RP purposes (and real life!) it's important to know my own intentions in order to understand why that might have happened.

Yeah that's fair enough, I just think that part of the RPG experience is you interpretting that intent for yourself. In real life me saying something which may be nice in my eyes could but nasty in your eyes if you were to say it.

For example, one person telling a person to lose weight could be a nice gesture of theirs as they intend to help them and face practical facts which they can change, but for others it may be a horrible thing to say as it could hurt their feelings. Where does that statement lie? Good/jokey/bad? It can lie in all 3 because it's down to the player's interpretation of that statement. Having the game make that decision for us just doesn't sit well with me, kills an RPG element of it, and it pretty insulting too lol.

By bracketing dialogue in such a way it removes that interpritation and doesn't allow people to impose their personalities as much on a game either. Which to me is the whole point of an RPG - if I just wanted to kill things I'd buy a COD.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 09 janvier 2013 - 02:54 .

[The Elder King]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...


This was actually fixed in ME3 as well, with persuasion options not being tied to your paragon/renegade scores anymore. Of course, one may wonder what the point of P/R points even is at that point since it has no bearings on gameplay, all it does is scar your face.

Makes people feel good with the Paragon choices, maybe. It has a relevance with the Extended Cut, since the Control Ending has two different versions based on your alignment, but it was added after the vanilla game.

[In Exile]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
Yes, but that's the NPC's reaction. You make allowances for their mis-interpritation of your intention as you would in real life. You could tell a girl at work to pick up a pen and she might react nicely or nastily to that depending on her interpritation of how you said that - but either way you can't control her reaction.

Yes, and then you apologize, and you have a conversation about it. As a result of that interaction both of you learn more about your own social cues and demeanor, and future interactions are scaled differently - she (and you) would then now each other's manners better and better align your conversation.

This is all well-known from social psychology.

In real life people react totally differently to how you intend sometimes. Yes you may have an idea, but you can never be sure and often they can react totally differently to what you anticipate.

People sometimes react differently, especially when they don't know each other very well, if you are on the lower scale of social observation/social awareness.

But all of these can be corrected by discussing the misunderstading, and are corrected over time as people learn each other's manner.

[In Exile]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
By bracketing dialogue in such a way it removes that interpritation and doesn't allow people to impose their personalities as much on a game either. Which to me is the whole point of an RPG - if I just wanted to kill things I'd buy a COD.

I really hate it when people say stuff like this. Just because you think something is the whole point of an RPG doesn't mean that everyone does, or that suddely you are the One True RPG Fan ™.

[zyntifox]

In Exile wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
By bracketing dialogue in such a way it removes that interpritation and doesn't allow people to impose their personalities as much on a game either. Which to me is the whole point of an RPG - if I just wanted to kill things I'd buy a COD.

I really hate it when people say stuff like this. Just because you think something is the whole point of an RPG doesn't mean that everyone does, or that suddely you are the One True RPG Fan ™.

Stop being such a drama queen. He is stating his opinion of what the point of an RPG is, he is not claiming it to be the universal truth for everyone.

[wright1978]

I personally have no issues with the dialogue wheel as it still gives me that sense of player characterisation of the protaganist. As long as they don't go down the ME3 route of butchering the dialogue wheel and adding tonnes of characterising dialogue i'll be happy.

[AlanC9]

The guy did specify "to me" there, yep.

[JMSLionheart]

Dialogue wheel is not compatible with true RPG. The inmersion feels dumbed down when some icons explain the meaning of what some dude's voice is going to say.
I preffer the dialogue tree, very rich and appropiated for a RPG where you can choose your sentence and your imagination does the rest.

That's one of the reason why DA:O and Awakening are far better than DA 2 and next game, no matter what other changes they do to the graphics. The dialogue tree must return... Anyway, probably the reason why it doesn't return for DA 3 is because it takes time to design good dialogues (6 years of development for DA: O) instead of what they did with DA 2 (year and half). Those childish and inmature dialogues are a joke in comparision to Origins and Awakening (which were gray, dark and mature).

That's why I won't buy any Bioware game until they return to the dialogue tree.