245 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

^ The problem with that Jimmy is that it's more complex than either system.

Also, was that an angelic reference? Wheels-within-wheels? Lol.

Was it? :innocent:

And I get it - ambiguity brings lots of value to the table and a voice protagonist really takes a lot of that away. The wheel, inherently, isn't the cause of further loss, but rather the paraphrases it uses. If there was a dialogue list that also used paraphrases instead of exact wording, it would present the same problem. 

Given that Bioware is keeping the voice protag and the wheel (FULLY-confirmed non-rumor), then a system that adds more choices and clarity would be the follow-up best solution for roleplaying. By abandoning the openness of ambiguity, we can instead only petition for more options and control to fill the gap left. 

[Pasquale1234]

How about .... an aloof personality option?

Selecting it would provide minimalist, direct, neutral responses and no auto-dialogue or canned speeches, ever.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 22 février 2013 - 05:46 .

[JamieCOTC]

The Witcher used this "Choose a line and then Geralt said the line exactly as it was written" method in some dialogue encounters. It felt redundant and bugged the hell out of me. Though nothing comes close to being as character breaking as Shepard's auto-dialogue in ME3. Hawke's was "okay" though could have used a bit more refinement and a lot less auto in the dialogue. Somewhere between ME1 and ME2 there is a sweet spot that enables enough auto-dialogue to move the story, but not so much that some players feel like they have lost control of the character. However, w/ so many games having predefined characters auto-dialogue seems to becoming the norm, what players are used and I do see the benefits of it. It's become the norm w/ the ME team, whether or not it will become the norm of the DA team, we'll have to wait and see.

[Allan Schumacher]

Eh, I'm just repeating things I've already said many times in other threads.

I disagree that text only is superior. I find it flawed and unrealistic because games cannot appropriately respond. It has happened to me all the time, and routinely does not reflect my real life experiences. No sense in me continuing to beat the horse on this regard.

Agree to disagree.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

And I've stated this dozens of time, but I have no idea how a response could ever be incongruous.  As such, losing the ability to say the line however I choose carries no benefit whatsoever.

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.

This is the most fundamental difference I've found between how people play the games.  Some people seem to, in real time, formulate responses they would like to make.  Those people then need to take that desired response and compare it to the pre-written options to find the one that fits the best.

Other people, however, do not formulate a response in real time.  Instead, they keep track of the PC's internal reaction to what's happening.  Then, when the opportunity to respond does arise, it's simply a matter of determining which of the available replies are consistent with the PC's current mental state.

The second approach, which I use, typically results in at least one of the available responses (particularly if I'm able to determine the tone entirely by myself) being a perfect fit, and sometimes more than one response is appropriate.  It's not a matter of finding the response that matches what I want to say.  It's a matter of finding which response isn't character-breaking, as there generally isn't anything I particularly need to say.

Honestly, if we could have the option to say nothing at all some of the time, and just let NPCs keep talking, that would be a nice new feature.

[rolson00]

i'm a fan of the wheel, my only grief with it is you don't know what the guy is going to say until you select one I like to know what my guy is going to say.

[Dave of Canada]

Misunderstandings make sense if you can correct the intent. However, writers cannot guess how people interpret a line and cannot imagine every alternative.

[Soundsystem]

I personally like the dialogue wheel. I had much less in the way of "CRAP CRAP NO!" moments with the dialogue wheel than with DA:O's text only method.

The problem, of course, is the one we encounter regularly on the internet. It's really hard to interpret full meaning without vocal inflection. Hence why emoticons are used online. In DA:O just reading the lines cold, sometimes the way I read a line in my head (tone of voice, inflection, expression all that) was different than the way the character took that line because the devs had written it with a completely different intent.

With the dialogue wheel.. yes, I don't control every single little word my PC says, but at least the tone is more what I was aiming for. And as long as it doesn't go the way of ME3, where you barely made any choices on what Shepard says, I'm fine. And as Gaider has said it won't be, but if anything will tend towards more choices than DA2.. I'm happy as a clam.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Misunderstandings make sense if you can correct the intent. However, writers cannot guess how people interpret a line and cannot imagine every alternative.

Misspeaking makes sense if we can correct the line.  It's the same problem.

With the paraphrase, we're left saying something we didn't want to say.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Soundsystem wrote...

The problem, of course, is the one we encounter regularly on the internet. It's really hard to interpret full meaning without vocal inflection. Hence why emoticons are used online. In DA:O just reading the lines cold, sometimes the way I read a line in my head (tone of voice, inflection, expression all that) was different than the way the character took that line because the devs had written it with a completely different intent.

This is what I find so odd.

When I read the dialogue options in DAO, I often read each line several different ways in order to find one that works, and several different reasons I might use any of them.  It might take several passes through all of the available pre-written options before I find a reading of one of them that suits my character.

Being limited to 3 (or 6, or 10) specific line readings is far more restrictive than being able to manufacture my own as I can with the fuill text and a silent protagonist.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 février 2013 - 07:13 .

[Allan Schumacher]

And I've stated this dozens of time, but I have no idea how a response could ever be incongruous.

I'm not interested in resurrecting this discussion. I can understand your perspective, it's just not one I agree with (as a person and fellow game player) based on my experiences with reality and RPGs. It's unfortunate that you do not understand why I could see it that way, but I doubt I can convince you as I've already tried.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 22 février 2013 - 07:21 .

[bEVEsthda]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is the most fundamental difference I've found between how people play the games.  Some people seem to, in real time, formulate responses they would like to make.  Those people then need to take that desired response and compare it to the pre-written options to find the one that fits the best.

Other people, however, do not formulate a response in real time.  Instead, they keep track of the PC's internal reaction to what's happening.  Then, when the opportunity to respond does arise, it's simply a matter of determining which of the available replies are consistent with the PC's current mental state.

The second approach, which I use, typically results in at least one of the available responses (particularly if I'm able to determine the tone entirely by myself) being a perfect fit, and sometimes more than one response is appropriate.  It's not a matter of finding the response that matches what I want to say.  It's a matter of finding which response isn't character-breaking, as there generally isn't anything I particularly need to say.

The approach I use is probably the second. I describe it differently though; I go through a synchronization process with the available responses. It's not just that i choose a consistent response, I tweak the meaning of the response, if I need to and it can be. Or I rationalize the character's position, to something that fits one response.
It all went totally down the drain with Hawke, of course. Since one really needs all the available responses written out to the letter, to do this 'synchronization'.

Allan seems tired of this discussion, and I'm not going to push the issue. I can well imagine that he has discussed this at length in threads I've never read. - But, I do not understand him at all. Unless he is a movie-game player, I have no clue at all how he plays these games.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 22 février 2013 - 07:42 .

[karushna5]

I actually did not notice the auto dialogue in ME3 until after it was pointed out to me, as far as DA2 I remember that bugging some people. I am a little apprehensive at there being more dialogue with no choice as I feel choices make the game, but Gaider makes it sound that it is part of a system, and I will have to see it in action to judge it.

[Sutekh]

bEVEsthda wrote...

But, I do not understand him at all. Unless he is a movie-game player, I have no clue at all how he plays these games.

bEVE, people's brains aren't all wired the same way. You know how some favor the right hemisphere over the left one, or how some would have a visual approach to thinking while other have a more "written" one? This is similar.

[bEVEsthda]

Sutekh wrote...
bEVE, people's brains aren't all wired the same way. You know how some favor the right hemisphere over the left one, or how some would have a visual approach to thinking while other have a more "written" one? This is similar.

He, a funny notion, because I use a pen and paper to *think*, in most matters, engineering, planning, organize or just make myself learn something.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm not interested in resurrecting this discussion.

I'm not trying to convince you, Allan.  I just want to ensure that the opposing point of view remains visible.

[Jzadek72]

David Gaider wrote...

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. 

This concerns me, because in the past two Bioware games that did this, reasonably often enough the situation would have changed enough that I might want to take a new perspective on it - as I could in, say, Mass Effect 1, where I veered between renegade and paragon as suiting my character. If I act aggressive to someone, and then they say something else, I'd like to be able to change my reaction based on that. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I would disagree with this, and say it's quite the opposite: KotOR's previous history restricts the PCs personality.

But I know we disagree on the interpretation of the mind wipe.

Regardless of that, the fact that our origins are fixed has absolutely zero to do with what our personality can be. You can't form your history, sure, but you CAN form your personality to whatever you want it to be. The two aren't connected.

The personality needs to be consistent with the origin.  If everyone in Orzammar believes your character to be the second son of King Aeducan, then either your personality needs to be consistent with a world in which you've always been seen to be nobility, or you need to roleplay that everyone woke up one day and thought you were.

A mysterious stranger origin is far less restricting.  The only restriction placed on the KotOR PC is that he's on the Endar Spire.  The only restriction placed on the NWN PC is that the Neverwinter Academy thinks he's enrolled there.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Or is this nature vs. nurture?

To be from somewhere means you lived there for some period of time.  If you grew up in Castle Cousland, then you can't have a personality consistent with a desire to kill all nobles (to use an extreme example) because you should have then already killed those nobles, having lived with them for years.

But you didn't.  Therefore, you can't have a personality that requires such behaviour.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 23 février 2013 - 12:28 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

When they're asleep? And they trust you implicitly?

[Kidd]

So much talk about words in here. Do people generally think in wordings so much? =O When I'm roleplaying, my head always goes more like "oh no, my character does not like this one bit" and then I choose an aggressive option. Or perhaps, "my character would be surprisingly okay with this" before I accept a quest I personally find repulsive. I don't formulate an exact line of dialogue in my head and then hope there's some similar wording in the list in front of me.

Even when I've run total self-insert characters I've simply accepted that I would've spoken with different wordings had I been this other character and not myself.