245 réponses à ce sujet

[Twisted Path]

Auto-dialogue worked great in Mass Effect 2 where it was just lines that anyone with any sort of personality would say to move a conversation along. Much as I hate to praise anything about Dragon Age 2 it worked fine there as well.

On the other hand the auto-dialogue was one of the worst things about Mass Effect 3 for me. They crossed a big line there and had the game regularly making decisions about the player character's personality and opinion on a situation, something that never happened in the previous games. Definitely don't want to see that again.

Edit: And I know the Mass Effect 3 forums are that way --> but I think Mass Effect 3 is a really good example of this feature (and it's a relativly good feature,) used very poorly. A good case in what not to do.

Modifié par Twisted Path, 22 février 2013 - 12:23 .

[Nashimura]

I was playing Mass Effect late last year, mainly just because i really like the game. But i did take not of how many times Shepard says anything without you choosing it and it all summed up to ONE....yes, just once throughout the entire game by my count - just before you land on ilos is the only time.

I would love that (Or close to that) for DA3, neutral line are just fine by me but if my character is giving any opinion on anything i want to be the one choosing it - its what i play these games for honestly.

[sarakirrer]

I'd be really interested to know the correlation between the people who generally enjoy creating diplomatic/sarcastic/aggressive characters (as they're represented in DA2) when roleplaying and the people who enjoyed playing Hawke in DA2.

The reason why I bring this up is because I generally do my first and/or main playthrough of games with a character that is outgoing/gregarious and responds to most situations with humor (in P&P RPGs, I tend to gravitate toward the same personality type). I think that's why I really enjoyed DA2 my first couple times playing it, when I played a sarcastic Hawke. But when I tried to pick it up again recently and play a more nuanced character that didn't always pick one option, I felt like I was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, especially with dialog. I still enjoy the game, but that playthrough definitely illuminated the narrowness of Hawke's personality options.

It's interesting that Sylvius brought up enjoying playing characters that are aloof. I wish that more games had "stay silent" as a dialog option, because silence is an option that, more than any other (especially with a voiced protagonist) is defined by the player. As the player, you can project any feeling onto that silence, and if the characters don't react to your silence in a way that matches the tone that you projected, well, it's certainly possible that they misunderstood you (as often happens in real life when a person chooses to stay silent).

I wonder if there could ever be autodialog that took into account your player's personality in terms of wordiness? Maybe the silence option could lend to this--if your character tends to stay silent often, that could lead to autodialog options that were terse or concise, just like characters who often pick a sarcastic option often have autodialog that includes humor.

Modifié par sarakirrer, 22 février 2013 - 01:30 .

[Pasquale1234]

sarakirrer wrote...

It's interesting that Sylvius brought up enjoying playing characters that are aloof. I wish that more games had "stay silent" as a dialog option, because silence is an option that, more than any other (especially with a voiced protagonist) is defined by the player. As the player, you can project any feeling onto that silence, and if the characters don't react to your silence in a way that matches the tone that you projected, well, it's certainly possible that they misunderstood you (as often happens in real life when a person chooses to stay silent).

This is one of the reasons why some players feel that DAO, with its silent protag, provided a much more realistic model of human communication.

With the paraphrase / dialogue wheel /  select by icon system, you aren't choosing what the protag says so much as you are selecting how you want the NPCs to interpret and respond to whatever the protag will say.

[chasemme]

Auto-dialogue doesn't bother me just on principle. Neutral lines, or those that basically just ask the "Investigate" options without my input are fine.

What I'd really like to avoid is making a choice for my own reasons, only to hear my PC freely explain other motivations for that decision. That's one of the few things that disconnects me. Make the choice, don't go into the assumed "why."

My sister finished ME not too long ago, we made a lot of the same choices, but several of them were for very, very different reasons. So long as I wasn't TOLD the reason for the choice by my own avatar (which did happen), I was perfectly happy.


Edit: Hit submit on accident.

Modifié par chasemme, 22 février 2013 - 02:00 .

[sarakirrer]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

This is one of the reasons why some players feel that DAO, with its silent protag, provided a much more realistic model of human communication.

With the paraphrase / dialogue wheel /  select by icon system, you aren't choosing what the protag says so much as you are selecting how you want the NPCs to interpret and respond to whatever the protag will say.

I'm not necessarily talking about a silent protagonist, but a voiced protagonist who has the option to stay silent (which might be even more powerful than the former because of the contrast).

I don't think that "selecting how you want the NPCs to interpret...whatever the protag will say" is necessarily an invalid or unrealistic way to see communication between two people--generally, when I say something, I have an idea of how I hope it will affect those around me (or I wouldn't be attempting to communicate with another person at all).

I think the "unrealistic" part of Hawke's character is how pidgeonholed his/her personalities were--not everyone will enjoy playing diplomatic, sarcastic, or aggressive Hawke. Some players might prefer aloof Hawke or kooky Hawke or crude Hawke, but players weren't really given the freedom to play those characters. However, I don't really hold that lack of freedom against BioWare, I believe the choice of a voiced protagonist was a sound one and I think they did well with the finite time and resources that were available to them.

[Sable Rhapsody]

chasemme wrote...
Auto-dialogue doesn't bother me just on principle. Neutral lines, or those that basically just ask the "Investigate" options without my input are fine.

What I'd really like to avoid is making a choice for my own reasons, only to hear my PC freely explain other motivations for that decision. That's one of the few things that disconnects me. Make the choice, don't go into the assumed "why."

My sister finished ME not too long ago, we made a lot of the same choices, but several of them were for very, very different reasons. So long as I wasn't TOLD the reason for the choice by my own avatar (which did happen), I was perfectly happy.

Pretty much this.  I did find the DA2 system occasionally jarring (what if my Hawke is generally snarky, but wants to use a more diplomatic approach to the qunari?) but for the most part it worked because it only dictated Hawke's tone, not his/her motivations and feelings.  Those were 100% for me to decide.  And that was totally fine.

[Rawgrim]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

For console gamers, perhaps the best example of BioWare's previous approach is KotOR.  In terms of defining the PC's personality, KotOR had all the hallmarks of BioWare's earlier PC titles.

*double take*

You're arguing KotOR was better than DA:O?

I`d say they are just as good, actually.

[Doctoglethorpe]

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) in ME3 might be concerned about how it's going to be done in DA3. 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. Not everyone knows that, and that's fine.

As I've said previously when the subject came up, DA3 won't use auto-dialogue any more than it previously did. If there are lines being spoken by the player without prompt, they're either "neutral" lines that occur during a cutscene ("What do you mean?") or occur as a result of something you've already chosen. There are reasons why, in fact, there might be less auto-dialogue than in DA2, but I won't go into them as that would require explanations which cannot occur yet.

If, however, you dislike the PC from ever speaking a single line you haven't directly chosen, then you've come to the wrong place. That's not going to happen.

Thats good to hear.  I'm interpriting you to be specifically talking about the dialog flow in cinimatic conversations though.  Can you say anything about conversations that happen outside the cinimatic camera.. mode..? Dunno how else to put it simply.  Most conversations before have had the cinimatic camera angles and dialog choices, but a lot of convos in ME3 didn't have either, we remained in control of Shepard and the camera and could walk away in the middle of him saying something, but in those cases there was no choice in dialog at all.  But the conversations still had some depth to them, at times going on for several minutes, I'm not talking about short one line quips like "can it wait, im in the middle of etc."   The long conversation with drunk Tali is a good example.  To me I felt completely pulled out of the experience of "being Shepard" in those cases of long significant conversations that I had no control over what so ever and to make worse couldn't even enjoy because I was just standing there spinning the camera around instead of enjoying the more cinimatic experience of regular conversations.  It broke immersion and often hurt my enjoyment even if I still liked the conversation itself, but despite that I still felt like I would be missing important story if I didn't sit through them anyways, so I did.  Those little convos played a big role in making me feel like I had lost control of Shepard and he was no longer my character (I know its debatable if he ever was, but in ME1-2 I personally felt like he was.)

Can you (or anyone) say at all if DA3 will involve those types of conversations or not? 

Modifié par Doctor Moustache, 22 février 2013 - 07:39 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

With the paraphrase / dialogue wheel /  select by icon system, you aren't choosing what the protag says so much as you are selecting how you want the NPCs to interpret and respond to whatever the protag will say.

I think it's more making it clear what the intent of the line being delivered will be.  There's nothing about the dialogue wheel that prevents a character from still misinterpreting any tone.  That'd just be on us writing the responses that way.

[thebigbad1013]

The problem with the auto dialogue in ME3 was that Shepard would often express opinions on things which the player had no control over. I'm both glad and relieved that Dragon Age will stay it's own course.

[9TailsFox]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

You didn't play ME3 this is the problem ME3 have auto dialog it was so horrible they even remove neutral option. And shepard speak with NPC without our interaction a lot. DA2 don't have what I consider auto dialog. Hawke can respond to all NPC line, every time they scratch but. I guess OP means party banters, then I disagree it was perfect. There's not much improvement from DA:O and this one I loved most. Hawke don't stand like stone, what Warden did, but is involved in conversation with companions, and best he responds based on personality it was perfect it greatly increases replayability.

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think it's more making it clear what the intent of the line being delivered will be.  There's nothing about the dialogue wheel that prevents a character from still misinterpreting any tone.  That'd just be on us writing the responses that way.

The problem with this, Allan, is that judging from your description, we're choosing the intent of the line and not the actual line.

As in, different responses. They're all the same or close to the same response, just a different attitude about them.

I've stated this dozens of times, but even with plain text I still find myself trying to descern what the intent of the line is, lest I pick something and get a response that I think is incongruous with how I would have delivered the line.

So in other words, it typically made choosing the lines clearer for me, with less "take me out of the game" moments.

RPGs have never provided me with exactly the line that I would like to say (especially the way I'd like to say it).  I'm always trying to discern which response best works for the message that I want to convey.  It's probably in large part why I like Alpha Protocol so much as well.

[Dave of Canada]

As long as my character's intent is clear, I don't mind the actual words. If someone pisses me off and I want to scold them, I don't want to pick a line which seems insulting but is taken in jest because there's no way for my character to correct himself and say it was an insult.

Although the wheel is not the best thing, I'd say it's better with the tone icons than just the plain line. Lines either convey no emotion and remain neutral or they convey a tone which may be misinterpretated which is something I find worse than a bad paraphrase.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 février 2013 - 04:59 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I've stated this dozens of times, but even with plain text I still find myself trying to descern what the intent of the line is, lest I pick something and get a response that I think is incongruous with how I would have delivered the line.

So in other words, it typically made choosing the lines clearer for me, with less "take me out of the game" moments.

RPGs have never provided me with exactly the line that I would like to say (especially the way I'd like to say it).  I'm always trying to discern which response best works for the message that I want to convey.  It's probably in large part why I like Alpha Protocol so much as well.

It is interesting that you say that choosing dialogue from a list pulls you out of the game when, for me, having my character say something I did not expect (but in a tone I did select) really brings me out of a game. Wanting to be slightly silly to lighten the mood of a heavy event is sarcastic... but then bluntly and cruelly making fun of something using a sarcastic tone is not at all what I had intended. 

Choosing words and tone SEPERATELY would be the ideal for me. A wheel-within-a-wheel, so to speak. 

[Pasquale1234]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I've stated this dozens of times, but even with plain text I still find myself trying to descern what the intent of the line is, lest I pick something and get a response that I think is incongruous with how I would have delivered the line.

So in other words, it typically made choosing the lines clearer for me, with less "take me out of the game" moments.

RPGs have never provided me with exactly the line that I would like to say (especially the way I'd like to say it).  I'm always trying to discern which response best works for the message that I want to convey.  It's probably in large part why I like Alpha Protocol so much as well.

I rather enjoy it when an NPC responds in an unexpected way, as though there may have been some misunderstanding or miscommunication.  I think that is a more realistic model of human communication than this business of selecting how they will respond.

Even so, it's much easier / cheaper to provide a wider variety of simple (non-voiced) text lines.  With DA2's dialogue system, all of the responses were fitted into one of the standard personality models (all of which made Hawke into a very chatty oversharer by my tastes)

There were many times when Hawke expanded on the response I thought I had chosen, and offered additional infomation that essentially broke my character and / or was in direct conflict with my motives for the choice made.

The whole process tended to confuse actual response with some hybrid of tone / personality.  There were times when I might have wanted to, for example, say no in a simple diplomatic yet firm way, but the options offered were to say no aggressively or acquiesce diplomatically.

Furthermore, I learned that dialogue choices I made at any given point in time would limit (or refine) the options available later.

The current state of this voiced-protag technology is far too primitive for me to feel that I can have a satisfying role-playing experience with any implementations available today.  At best, I can direct the personality / tone of an NPC by choosing one of a few provided responses and then watching it play out per the voice actor's interpretation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

For console gamers, perhaps the best example of BioWare's previous approach is KotOR.  In terms of defining the PC's personality, KotOR had all the hallmarks of BioWare's earlier PC titles.

*double take*

You're arguing KotOR was better than DA:O?

In terms of player control over the PC?  Absolutely.  KotOR started with PC with a mysterious stranger background, allowing the player to define any history of personality he wanted.  DAO constrained that somewhat by having fixed PC origins.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 février 2013 - 06:25 .