279 réponses à ce sujet

[Travie]

This is a great reason for releasing a toolset...

Fans can take care of these concerns on their own time. If someone is REALLY bothered by not being able to see dialogue they will go looking for a mod.

[Lenimph]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

That is not what Gaider said. 

He said there would be no personality tracking. 

Umm? Exactly?! I have a problem with that and it's the only part of what he said I really have issues with because of places where there are no player input in the last games (party dialog for example... AGAIN )
I really don't know what you thought I was saying but yeah... I have an issue with the fact they dropped personality tracking completely... 


Your response to me makes me assume you're assuming they're going to let you respond during an ambient party dialog? Assume that I guess but that is not what I am going assume.

Modifié par Lenimph, 11 mars 2013 - 05:05 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Based on some comments Epler made in this very thread, being able to do just that is, at the very least, a desired goal of the team, if not a feature we will see in DA3.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 mars 2013 - 04:11 .

[Lenimph]

Yeah I was just about to ask and I'm assuming he meant this post...

John Epler wrote...

Some things that the forums (and other fans) have brought up are certainly taken much more significantly into consideration - our push towards fewer moments that take the player out of gameplay and more ambient storytelling is definitely at least partially informed by fan feedback, although we certainly learned our own lessons playing games such as Dark Souls, Skyrim, or Dragon's Dogma.

Which is reading into it A LOT if that is the case. And for the sake of argument, if he is correct, then I would just love to see how bioware would implement this as smoothly as DA2's tone tracking did or without it feeling jarring or involving some kind of quick time event (à la Shepard, which I don't want to see). 

Plus the games mentioned do nothing similar to what my concerns are about.

Modifié par Lenimph, 11 mars 2013 - 05:12 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I could be reading too much into it, yes. But here's my logic.

"Fewer moments that take the player out of gameplay" means, to me, moments that give the player a shock over what their character is doing/saying. That is the main complaint in this thread being responded to by Epler before Gaider made his announcement over how dialogue will be handled.

"more ambient story-telling" says to me that they are not abandoning the options to have interactivity and dialogue in things like party banter situations. It says they want to have MORE moments like this.

So, if they are looking at ways to have the same level (or more) of ambient dialogue and story-telling and working on ways to reduce the number of times players are feeling "pulled out" of the game, then a greater level of control during these types of events would be what I interpret they are aiming for.

Not to mention Gaider mentioned such things as a new Reaction Wheel, which would seem to imply that we won't just have the response within dialogue, but also how we can respond or react to various events/situations.

Again, we won't know until we know. But assuming that the fact that they are getting rid of the dominant tone means they are scrapping the ability for the character to have any input on what the PC says at all in such situations is assuming that the devs aren't paying attention at all.

Such a solution wouldn't please those who decry the presence of such versions of "Auto Dialogue," nor would it please the fans of DA2's system. While possible, I don't think that's what they are aiming for.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 mars 2013 - 05:41 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lenimph wrote...

Is no one reading my posts? There are lines that every main character will have that the player will have no input on outside of dedicated conversations because we have a voiced player character(party dialog for example again). Now that they got rid of tracking dominant personalities (also known as your own choices) every character will say the exact same lines instead of reflecting the personality/choice. Those are the "filler" lines.

If you didn't get to choose them, they were always filler.  But now, being more neutral, they'll be less damaging filler.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Incidentally, my favourite example of broken paraphrases (the slaver conversation) probably wouldn't have bothered me as much if I'd known it was the personality tracking at work. If they'd documented that feature better, and offered us some feedback so we'd know what to expect from action choices, it would have made the game easier to play.

It's entirely possible that the personality tracking was a good idea poorly executed, but given that I was happier before we had it at all I'm content merely to have it removed (rather than improved).

[TheButterflyEffect]

Lenimph wrote...

TheButterflyEffect wrote...

My only problem was that the DA team totally freaking sucks at paraphrasing. For one, the Mass Effect guys actually surpassed them in this area.

Can't tell if serious... 

No. I really do feel that Mass Effect's paraphrasing was much better. Playing ME, very rarely have I ever had to reload because the paraphrased dialgoue options didn't match the actual dialogue.

DA2's stunk worse than rotten shellfish. <_<

[Sylvius the Mad]

John Epler wrote...

Some things that the forums (and other fans) have brought up are certainly taken much more significantly into consideration - our push towards fewer moments that take the player out of gameplay and more ambient storytelling is definitely at least partially informed by fan feedback, although we certainly learned our own lessons playing games such as Dark Souls, Skyrim, or Dragon's Dogma.

Dialogue selection is gameplay.  Dialogue selection is the most important gameplay.

[Lenimph]

TheButterflyEffect wrote...


No. I really do feel that Mass Effect's paraphrasing was much better. Playing ME, very rarely have I ever had to reload because the paraphrased dialgoue options didn't match the actual dialogue.

DA2's stunk worse than rotten shellfish. <_<

Ok... I just off the top of my head I know a lot of people got pushed into being "with" Shiara the consort in ME due to bad paraphrasing and poor writing and a lot of people were mad at that and DA2 never did anything that bad.  Maybe if you completely ignored the icons it could have been as bad. 

Let's just agree to disagree... 

[InHumanTurtle]

David Gaider wrote...

You still have the use of tones in every tone wheel, meaning you can choose which tone to use in most roleplaying situations. It's simply a case of us not supplying you with a tone elsewhere... and while I get the idea "just choose the tone of the action choice", I'm afraid that's really not feasible. Picking a choice and then picking the tone of a choice is the kind of micro-management that would be really cumbersome. Some people might like that kind of granularity, I suppose, but it's never going to happen.

I'm a little bit confused by this, does that mean there will always be the "Bad choice" which is spoken in an cruel tone, and a "good choice" spoken in a heroic one? As opposed to having multiple choices that are backed with different tones?

For instance, a choice is given to either save or abandon a group of innocents at the price of being sidetracked from your objective.

Would this be handled like:

1) The "evil" choice to abandon them, with the character showing a lack of sympathy, and the "good" choice to help them with the character showing the opposite.

2) Both choices are spoken neutrally. Someone objects/questions your decision, you can then reply with several tone based answers, so you can abandon them but have your character do so out of a sense of duty to their objective, or save them and say that you expect to be rewarded or there will be consequences.


I myself would prefer the second, but it of course would be situational, that structure wouldn't work for everything. On the other hand it gives what I consider a non-tedious means to give more depth to your character through the seperation of tone and choice.

I say this because I would be dissapointed if I created a no-compromise character only for the game to treat him/her as evil because of the choices alone when I am actually trying to create someone who is good yet cold.

[nightscrawl]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Incidentally, my favourite example of broken paraphrases (the slaver conversation) probably wouldn't have bothered me as much if I'd known it was the personality tracking at work. If they'd documented that feature better, and offered us some feedback so we'd know what to expect from action choices, it would have made the game easier to play.

Dialog/personality and friendship/rivalry are the two systems that would have benefited the most from more documentation, I think. Here I am referring to the average player who wants to understand the result of a decision that he or she has made, rather than your exceptional player who wants to get into the nitty-gritty of combat stats and the like (which can also do with more documentation).

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Incidentally, my favourite example of broken paraphrases (the slaver conversation) probably wouldn't have bothered me as much if I'd known it was the personality tracking at work. If they'd documented that feature better, and offered us some feedback so we'd know what to expect from action choices, it would have made the game easier to play.

It's entirely possible that the personality tracking was a good idea poorly executed, but given that I was happier before we had it at all I'm content merely to have it removed (rather than improved).

I disagree. As I said on the previous page, your personality doesn't define your words: the situation and how you feel about it does. It's context sensitive. The personality tracking adds an aspect to your character that says things about their mindset, thought process, feelings towards groups, whatever--that you didn't decide.

But if we'd been told what it was we'd be saying, and how, then we'd at least have been able to make better decisions.

Yes, ideally I'ld like to choose among all of the available options directly, but if I can't do that, at least give me more information about what those options are.  What the personality tracking did in DA2 was hide information from me, even moreso than the regular paraphrase+icon did.

I still think removing it is the best available option.  But I'm not certain that a well done personality tracking wouldn't be the optimal design.  I just can't imagine how it would work.

Once again, you're using induction to reach a conclusion because that conclusion seems likely to be true.  I agree that conclusion is likely to be true, but I refuse to accept it as true until I know more (which I likely never will).

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

You mean, if there were multiple paraphrases for dominant tone lines? And for autodialog lines? And if those paraphrases were actually accurate and specific enough to show how you'd be responding to that person/group? It would be...better than it is, sure. But I can't agree that it would be better than a neutral tone.

I didn't say it would be better.  I said it's possible that it could be better.  It might be better.  I'm saying that there could potentially be some optimal application of the dominant tone pricinple that would be better.

I'm not saying that application is achievable (but maybe it is), or that it would be better (though it might be).  I'm simply not ruling out the possibility.

[Fast Jimmy]

You mean, if there were multiple paraphrases for dominant tone lines? And for autodialog lines? And if those paraphrases were actually accurate and specific enough to show how you'd be responding to that person/group? It would be...better than it is, sure. But I can't agree that it would be better than a neutral tone. For role-playing, at least.

Or, should I say, expression of role-playing in-game. I seem to mix and match the two.

I would say multiple paraphrases to say the same thing could be helpful. For instance, the phrases "Leave, scum." would have been a good paraphrase for the response Sylvius chose unintentionally (one to express condemnation of the slaver, aside from killing him). "Be on your way" may have been a better paraphrase for the actual response he was expecting/desired (a line to express that you have no hard feelings either way, but were simply neutral to the actions of the slaver). An additional line that says "I hope you learn from this" may have been a "good" response (one of a character who doesn't condone violence when unnecessary, but finds the good in all people).

All of these could be paraphrases that say "Don't fight the slaver." With the dominant tone, we would not get the choice to select which of these we used. It would all be "Don't fight the slaver" and our reasons behind it would be assumed with our previous tone choices. Getting a chance to say "No" three ways, along with the option to say "Yes, kill the slaver" would have been... desirable. Near-optimal, really.

So the death of the dominant tone is really good news to me. Because I feel that what (little) we've been told so far, the devs viewed the dominant tone as obscuring direct player choice. And so they've removed it in favor of a system that delivers more player choice.

If they instead install a system that results in all auto-dialogue, whether that is ambient dialogue, party banter dialouge or dialogue wheel choices, being generic and the same, no matter what character you're playing, then that would be a step in the ME3 direction... which is to say the "wrong" direction, at least in my playbook. From what we've been told, I don't think the Bioware would take the dominant tone away for the reason of lessening player control only to remove any sort of variability or control at all for the player. I think it could only be done as a move towards more organic, but more complete, control over the character's responses.

If so, it could be the closest I've seen in giving a voiced protagonist control over the intent, delivery and substance of their lines of any game I've seen to date. If not... well, let's just cross one bridge at a time, shall we?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 mars 2013 - 02:44 .

[fchopin]

Lenimph wrote...

TheButterflyEffect wrote...


No. I really do feel that Mass Effect's paraphrasing was much better. Playing ME, very rarely have I ever had to reload because the paraphrased dialgoue options didn't match the actual dialogue.

DA2's stunk worse than rotten shellfish. <_<

Ok... I just off the top of my head I know a lot of people got pushed into being "with" Shiara the consort in ME due to bad paraphrasing and poor writing and a lot of people were mad at that and DA2 never did anything that bad.  Maybe if you completely ignored the icons it could have been as bad. 

Let's just agree to disagree... 

I had no problems with paraphrasing in any of the three mass effect games, it was all very simple to understand. In DA2 it was so bad that i thought even an amateur could have done a better job.
 
In my opinion the DA2 paraphrase developers had no experience with this and should have learned to walk first before trying to run.
 
Sorry if you find this offensive but that is what i think.

[MoeRayShep]

Hi, I've flipped through this thread and read Gaider's explanation.
At first glance I agreed with the OP; but I can see how reading the dialogue without the tone might also betray context.

If I may offer a sort of middle ground suggestion:
Paraphrasing is meant to try and convey the message of the player-- but the specific content of that message and (albeit to a lesser extent the tone, thanks to the wheel's icons) the tone are somewhat unclear.
Perhaps instead of full dialogue, we could get a summary of what the PC will do and say on hover over. This summary could convey tone better than raw dialogue.
For "charm" (middle wheel) choices it could include qualifiers such as, "mock", "tease", "flirt", "chide", "dismiss", "refute", "cajole", etc.
For "paragon" (upper wheel) choices it could say, "plea", "comfort", "advocate", "advise", "defend".
For "stern" (lower wheel) choices it could say, "judge", "deny", "patronize", "obstruct", "threaten", "harass", "extort", "cudgel".
Those are just examples of qualifiers that could be tacked on to a paraphrase, in conjunction with a description of any specific actions the PC might take.
For instance, if the PC chooses to threaten somebody it might be helpful to know if they'll simply take a harsh tone with them or actually pull out a knife.
If the PC chooses to bribe somebody, it might be nice to know how much they're going to be spending.
If they're going to threaten, is it with violence, direct social consequences (reporting to a superior) or more abstract consequences (guilt, failure to uphold duty).

Ultimately this comes down to how effective the writers are.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius isn't saying remove the dominant tone system there. He's saying show what it will say. Not exactly the same.

Indeed, the dominant tone system would have been improved merely by telling what tone we were going to get, and probably having a different paraphrase for each line (so, instead of just the spoken line changing with the dominanttone, you'd also get a different paraphrase and icon to tell you what was going to happen).

But regardless, I think we all agree that at this present time the removal of the dominant tone was the best choice.

Yes.

[David Gaider]

EntropicAngel wrote...
But regardless, I think we all agree that at this present time the removal of the dominant tone was the best choice.

I know there are people who seem to think so-- making assumptions, I assume, as to exactly what that will mean to the bigger picture the same as those who seem to be concerned about the removal of dominant tone are. Both groups of people don't really have all the information, however, about what we're doing with dialogue... and I'm not about to start going into detailed explanations. As we've seen here, doing so just raises more questions, none of which we're prepared to answer yet.

So... draw your conclusions with a giant grain of salt for the time being, is all I'm suggesting.