245 réponses à ce sujet

[New Display Name]

It's still an option, and even if the intent was the same, the manner wasn't. If I want to say 'go away' and have a three ways to do it, then fine, it's still given me the choice to characterize Shepard.

No, that's backwards. The intent is different, but the manner is the same. In the instances I mentioned in ME1, every dialog option available, no matter what the labeled intent was, resulted in the exact same manner of speech - the exact same facial animations and voice file. There was no difference between picking "Sure!" "Ok." or "Ugh, fine."

[Emzamination]

Maverick827 wrote...

Blah blah lists blah blah wheels blah blah real RPG blah blah back in my day. Blah blah choices blah blah voiced protagonist blah blah motives blah BLAH UP TO THE PLAYER blah Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, etc. Blah branching narrative blah blah freedom blah blah awesome button lolz blah blah The Witcher 2 blah EA blah blah console kiddies blah blah get off my lawn.

^ Lmao, this is seriously what it comes down to.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

This was one of the hardest choices to make in an RPG/video game.

Hey, where are Cobra and Flint?

Seriously, the game had paraphrases and even a sort of paragon/renegade system, since the douchey responses were always on the bottom.

[Indoctrination]

David Gaider wrote...

I I suppose there's always an assumption that whatever game BioWare put out last, its next game is going to follow suit even if a completely different team within the company made it.

On a completely unrelated note, remember when BioWare released Dragon Age 2, a game where none of our in-game choices mattered? Remember when a different team at BioWare made Mass Effect 3, a game where our choices also did not matter? Good times.

Anyway, back on topic. What were we talking about again? Oh, right, assumptions about different teams at BioWare following the same EA penny-pinching policies! Carry on, good sirs.<3

Modifié par Indoctrination, 21 février 2013 - 08:15 .

[Redbelle]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So... because you have never played a Western RPG, you think Bioware's invention of the Wheel was the greatest thing to RPGs ever?

You sure the wheel didn't debut in Wing Commander 3?

This was one of the hardest choices to make in an RPG/video game.

Maniac all the way! Hobb's....... Why man?!? WHY???

Wing Commander 3 certainly ranks up there as a game that does what ME did. Give player's choice and allow them to play mission's according to their success or failure of other misison's.

(Turn's out it is possible to kill the Kilrathi battleship that appear's as an end mission if you fluff the save the bomb misison. It just mean's killing all wave's till their's none left, stripping the gun's off the cap ship and then taping the fire button down with all energy focused into the weapon's. You can't win though, if the ship die's their nothing left to do but eject and see how Kilrathi prepare a Blair Kebab).

@Fast Jimmy. This is certainly what I meant when I talked about examples of games. WC4 was my entry into the WC series. It's been age's since I thought about it.

It does raise the question of auto dialogue though (coming back on topic). You only ever get two choice's and from that point (I think), the conversation steers down that path. Would I be right in thinking that no or little dialogue is shared between the two choice's? I.e. if Blair goes top option the dialogue is completely different than the bottom option till the conversation is ended?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stella-Arc wrote...

I love the auto-dialogue in DAII. It actually fit the personality I was playing. When I noticed that certain conversations in cutscenes change depending on what you choose in the dialogue wheel, I was impressed. It all felt in character.

Whereas, I found the opposite.  Hawke's lines almost never suited the character I was trying to play.

Some have characterised this as the difference between players who enjoy their characters to be active in conversations, and players who enjoy their characters to be passive in conversations.  I've never liked that distinction, and I think I now realise why.

Because I don't think my Wardens were being passive.  I think they were being aloof.  And that's a character that appears no longer possible.  Hawke was always forced to be engaged and gregarious, and, frankly, entirely unlike people with whom I enjoy spending time.

[bondari reloads.]

[quote]Icesong wrote...

[quote]David Gaider wrote...

I understand that people who didn't like the "auto-dialogue" (as some like to call it-- I never have, and I find it a bit vague as to what people are referring to when they mention this)[/quote]

You always have a quibble with terminology.
[/quote]
[/quote]

To me, "auto-dialogue" is weekly call-ins with parents. In RPGs (regardless of how one defines it, dammit) it is a neccessity. What is its opposite, anyway? To have full control over what your character says or does is tedious for both, developer and player, I'd imagine. At some point it rather does boil down the type of media. Tabletop, sure. But a game on PC, nah.
Any discussion should at some point (sooner rather than later) involve some clarification on the terms involved. Or else the more people agree on one thing, the more woolly a definition it probably has, and is likewise rendered useless in a discussion meant to go anywhere.

[Stella-Arc]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Stella-Arc wrote...

I love the auto-dialogue in DAII. It actually fit the personality I was playing. When I noticed that certain conversations in cutscenes change depending on what you choose in the dialogue wheel, I was impressed. It all felt in character.

Whereas, I found the opposite.  Hawke's lines almost never suited the character I was trying to play.

Some have characterised this as the difference between players who enjoy their characters to be active in conversations, and players who enjoy their characters to be passive in conversations.  I've never liked that distinction, and I think I now realise why.

Because I don't think my Wardens were being passive.  I think they were being aloof.  And that's a character that appears no longer possible.  Hawke was always forced to be engaged and gregarious, and, frankly, entirely unlike people with whom I enjoy spending time.

I never said it was perfect. I understood what they were going with it and while there were moments where it had me scratching my head, it was still a good start. I do miss the many choices of dialogues one can choose from to mold their Warden into whatever they see fit though.

I guess you can call me a "moderate" gamer; I am quite conservative with certain gaming aspects (like having many dialogue choices to choose from with a silent protaganist) and quite liberal with the "evolution" of certain gaming aspects (like having a voiced protagnist that allows them to partcipate depending on your dialogue choices). 

*shrug*

Life is never static so I can't expect games to be, too. 

[phimseto]

I think I just got yelled at by David Gaider?

Not my intention to complain about ME3 (if this was directed at me), but rather illustrate what I thought autodialogue was and why player control mattered.

To bring it back to Dragon Age, I thought player control over their dialogue choices was decent. I missed the full sentences of DA:O, but still felt a similar degree of control in DA2. Even though Hawke was a named character, I felt that I controlled his personality. That was more important to me, and I imagine to many who play Bioware games. I'd like to see that ability to customize the interactive experience remain in DA3.

Modifié par phimseto, 21 février 2013 - 09:27 .

[Fast Jimmy]

phimseto wrote...

I think I just got yelled at by David Gaider?

Wear it like a badge of honor, sir!

[Uccio]

DA2 type is bearable if the game is good, ME3 type -> no buy.

[Fredward]

David Gaider wrote...
But really useless, unless you just want to complain about ME3, in which case the ME3 forums are that way. -->

Actually, they're more <--- way and then v when you think about it.


And oh look! The BSN is arguing after something has been answered. Surprise.

[LinksOcarina]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

This was one of the hardest choices to make in an RPG/video game.

Hey, where are Cobra and Flint?

Seriously, the game had paraphrases and even a sort of paragon/renegade system, since the douchey responses were always on the bottom.

Ahh Wing commander III. The game I could never run properly on the PC.

Still can't, even with the GOG emulation. Ah well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stella-Arc wrote...

I never said it was perfect. I understood what they were going with it and while there were moments where it had me scratching my head, it was still a good start.

A good start of what?  Fixing a problem that shouldn't have been there in the first place?

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

WC3 was one of the last games I made a boot disk for.

Ah... self-made boot disks. You young whipper snappers don't know how good you have it!

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 21 février 2013 - 09:22 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

The need to have a different memory allocation for each game is why I was so excited by OS/2 2.0. That had application-specific memory allocations built right into the operating system, thus eliminating the need for boot disks.

[Sutekh]

 ^MS-Dos 6, multi-boot, just saying 

((Gods, this is off topic))

[Nefla]

I hated the autodialogue in ME3 (as well as almost everything else about that game) but I thought it was minimal and fine in DA2. No character building choices were taken away from me. It was all things like "what do you mean" or "get down!" or whatever. I have a problem with a lot of things in DA2 but I wouldn't have a problem with the same level of autodialogue.

[Pasquale1234]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Whereas, I found the opposite.  Hawke's lines almost never suited the character I was trying to play.

Hawke was an NPC you could sort of direct.

Hawke was always forced to be engaged and gregarious, and, frankly, entirely unlike people with whom I enjoy spending time.

Yes, Hawke had a tendency to prattle on... and on.  And make up motivations.  And blurt information that a wiser PC might not have revealed.

Certainly not a character that I could ever play in any meaningful way.

[bEVEsthda]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The need to have a different memory allocation for each game is why I was so excited by OS/2 2.0. That had application-specific memory allocations built right into the operating system, thus eliminating the need for boot disks.

Hmm, don't know what you're talking about, but how was that solving the problem for real mode DOS games?

I don't really know much about OS2, except that it had globally serialized messaging for all concurrent processes. That was a so crappy, destructive and future-inhibiting idea, that I decided OS2 must die and all hail Win95.

( Well, neither you nor Allan wants me to discuss "RPG", soo...)

[adlocutio]

Autodialogue, with or without the player's previous input, removes player agency.

Discussions of what is or isn't a RPG are immaterial in this context; if I'm not interacting with the game I can't really be said to be roleplaying by any definition, can I? In fact I'm not playing a game at all, I'm watching one.

Dialogue choices made by the game mechanic on behalf of the PC are apt to err and break the character. Just because the PC chooses an anti-slavery dialogue option in one circumstance, for ex., doesn't mean he will choose it invariably. People are inconsistent and they lie, sometimes for very good reasons. No roleplaying game mechanic should make that impossible.

Even neutral autodialogue is a problem because, as Sylvius said, the PC might be aloof. I've never heard of a successful manager of people, a leader, or a politician who wasn't at least somewhat aloof. There are many situations in which a character might want to reveal as little information about his/her thought processes as possible.

Despite the above, autodialogue is more or less objectionable depending on the context. If the PC makes an anti-slavery remark and the autodialogue expands on that idea in the same conversation that is less objectionable than if the game assumes that the PC must also not be a racist or sexist in some future event.

Lastly, as Pasquale1234 puts it, "Hawke was an NPC you could sort of direct." If that's the direction Bioware wants to go they'd be better off advancing to the end of this line of thinking and just make fantasy Shepard. IMHO it's preferable to trying to have it both ways.

[Sylvius the Mad]

adlocutio wrote...

Lastly, as Pasquale1234 puts it, "Hawke was an NPC you could sort of direct." If that's the direction Bioware wants to go they'd be better off advancing to the end of this line of thinking and just make fantasy Shepard. IMHO it's preferable to trying to have it both ways.

To be honest, I actually found Shepard (in ME and ME2 - I didn't play ME3) easier to play than Hawke was.  Shepard's behaviour was character-breaking less often.

I'm not really sure why.

[CuriousArtemis]

Well, I loved Hawke's auto-responses (based on personality) so nanner-nanner Hope it stays.

[Wulfram]

I think I'd have had a lot less problems with the DA2 auto-dialogue if I had a direct means of setting my dominant tone, rather than it being based on my dialogue choices. Because my main problem was that I liked to pick the snarky answers, but often disliked the snarky auto-dialogue.

(The great big speech at the end would still have been annoying)

[Pasquale1234]

adlocutio wrote...
Discussions of what is or isn't a RPG are immaterial in this context; if I'm not interacting with the game I can't really be said to be roleplaying by any definition, can I? In fact I'm not playing a game at all, I'm watching one.

This is the crux of the entire argument for me.  I need games to be fully-interactive and co-creative, where I actively participate in telling the story.  Otherwise, it's a choose-your-adventure movie.  Add multiplayer and other online options, and instead of a wide variety of different media choices, we have one single new type of media.

Super Media.

TANSFUMEE - The All New Super Fantastic Ubiquitous Media Entertainment Experience, coming soon to every device near you.

Ho-hum.