279 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

David Gaider wrote...

There's no such thing as dominant tone any longer. Tone exists for roleplaying choices in the tone wheels-- that's it. We don't track it. As I said, options off the choice wheel are neutral-toned unless the tone is already implicit, and any auto-dialogue (I'll use that phrase, since it seems to have stuck) we need to use is also neutral-only.

Good to hear

[Sir George Parr]

I adjusted to the format in DA2 and found it better than DAO.I certainly wouldn't want to have to read the line of dialogue and then have the VA repeat what i have just read. This would just get really annoying and irritating.

[Pauravi]

bEVEsthda wrote...

And if there is such an intention of how to play the character, why have we never got an answer to that question?

I don't think that's what he meant at all.
My interpretation was simply that they want the gameplay and cinematic elements to feel a certain way while playing, no matter WHAT sort of character you're playing, and that they felt that the "full dialogue" option was more hindrance than help.

[Brockololly]

Sir JK wrote...
Thing is though, there's more to this than the actual full line. You can have full lines written out that are extremely uninformative since pretty much everything that is important about that line is delivered not in it's words but in body language or tone.

But when and where have you had a BioWare game with sophisticated enough body language and acting that that's ever the case?

That wasn't really my point though. I was saying that being able to read all of the full text options adds extra value to my gaming experience because I can then fully appreciate the writing and those dialogue choices. In Origins, I can look at all of the dialogue choices and know I've seen everything my character could say. Whether or not I choose a specific line doesn't prevent me from appreciating a particularly funny or sadistic sounding dialogue choice.

Case in point would be something like the Griffins exchange with Wynne. Maybe I didn't choose to say "Griffins?" to Wynne but I could read that line in its entirety and appreciate it (although that short of a line probably could be paraphrased just fine as is then again, BioWare seems set against having the spoken line overlap the written paraphrase). With DA2, you'd get the paraphrase and tone but you can't appreciate all of the variations of the different dialogue options without reloading and going through them one by one, which would be tedious and isn't practical.

Modifié par Brockololly, 04 mars 2013 - 09:15 .

[Emzamination]

David Gaider wrote...

esper wrote...
Could you also not have any speeches be dominated by the dominate tone without input.

There's no such thing as dominant tone any longer. Tone exists for roleplaying choices in the tone wheels-- that's it. We don't track it. As I said, options off the choice wheel are neutral-toned unless the tone is already implicit, and any auto-dialogue (I'll use that phrase, since it seems to have stuck) we need to use is also neutral-only.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Modifié par Emzamination, 04 mars 2013 - 09:16 .

[Mykel54]

I may miss the dominant tones at first, but i think bioware made a good choice removing them. I think they costed a lot (in terms of voice acting, each one of these lines needed to be recorded 3 times) and added little in comparison. I think having a neutral tone makes more sense storywise (most people aren´t always funny or angry), and probably makes it easier for the voice actor.

It was nice to see a different answer when you are replaying the game, but a similar function could be achieved by giving a wheel choice (3 options) more often, instead of giving automatically the "dominant" line. So the game still has the mechanisms to show varied personality without having to record each autodialogue line 3 times.

[jillabender]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If I bear the slaver no ill will, I want to choose yes.  However, it turns out that Hawke isn't allowed to like the slavers, and thus the full line associated with the Yes option is "Get out of my sight."  That's not an unaggressive line.

You probably had an aggressive-dominant tone setting (based on your previous choices).

From our analysis, one of the most frequent breakdowns came from what we did with the choice lines-- namely that selecting a choice meant that there were three possible resulting player lines, based on the player's dominant tone. Why? Because we tried to make those three lines as different from each other as possible (or why even have them?), and thus you were trying to make a paraphrase that covered all three lines and it ended up being necessarily vague as a result.

While having those different lines is cool when noticed, I don't think it was actually noticed very much ("card tricks in the dark" is a phrase for variations which, cool as they might be, aren't recognized by players as variation unless they have inside knowledge or replay), so we're not going to use dominant tone in those lines any more. Choice lines are always neutral tone unless the tone is implied in the paraphrase-- makes it easier to write the paraphrase and less chance of disconnect between it and the actual line, and we can use the wordcount elsewhere just as easily.

For what it's worth, I thought that there were times when the use of dominant tone with choice lines worked well in DA2 - for example, I thought it worked well in Hawke's confrontation with Carver (when Carver blames Hawke for the death of Bethany).

I think it worked well in that exchange because the full "choice" line varied depending on Hawke's dominant tone, but in every case, the paraphrase gave a good sense of what the full line would be like. For example, choosing the "aggressive," "witty/sarcastic" or "diplomatic" option in that exchange led to a choice between two "choice" lines that were each influenced by the character's dominant tone, but were subtly different. 

In short, I agree that it can create a problem when choosing the same line can lead to a strikingly different result depending on the dominant tone, because it can lead to the player feeling that they're making a blind choice. But I do think that using dominant tone for choice lines can work well in situations where the variation based on dominant tone is more subtle.

Of course, you've stated that you plan to get rid of tone tracking altogether in DA3, so chances are good that anything I might have to say about the tone and paraphrase system might not be especially relevant to DA3. But I do think you and the other developers deserve to hear that even critical fans like me enjoyed some aspects of the tone and paraphrase system in DA2. I'm looking forward to seeing what you've come up with for DA3.

Modifié par jillabender, 04 mars 2013 - 09:44 .

[Fredward]

Emzamination wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

esper wrote...
Could you also not have any speeches be dominated by the dominate tone without input.

There's no such thing as dominant tone any longer. Tone exists for roleplaying choices in the tone wheels-- that's it. We don't track it. As I said, options off the choice wheel are neutral-toned unless the tone is already implicit, and any auto-dialogue (I'll use that phrase, since it seems to have stuck) we need to use is also neutral-only.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I almost feel like shrieking this but as long as the protag doesn't deadpan everything I'm good.

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 04 mars 2013 - 09:20 .

[King Cousland]

David Gaider wrote...

There's no such thing as dominant tone any longer. Tone exists for roleplaying choices in the tone wheels-- that's it. We don't track it. As I said, options off the choice wheel are neutral-toned unless the tone is already implicit, and any auto-dialogue (I'll use that phrase, since it seems to have stuck) we need to use is also neutral-only.

Excellent news. A definite step in the right direction. 

[Degs29]

Paraphrasing appropriately is more difficult than you would think and depends highly on each user's interpretation.  I think they tried to clear this up somewhat by adding icons (hostile, witty, friendly, etc.) and I think it works to a degree.  I've only been tripped up a few times by the dialogue wheel, so it's not a big issue for me.  The OP's suggestion sounds reasonable, though.

[Wozearly]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius likes to counter this by saying we shouldn't protect players from themselves, but that is indeed exactly our job as designers.

You do realise that saying his name tends to summon him, right?

Wulfram wrote...

If the full line was available via
mouse-over, then everyone would do it, and then they'd space bar through
the dialogue because it's really boring to watch people act out stuff
you've just read.

Its a valid point that DA devs have made in the past. My immediate reaction was an incredibly hostile "Well, surely that's a case in point for not using a voiced PC, if you have to leave a feature intentionally broken in order to prevent people skipping it, that implies its not particularly valued by players in its own right..." but with hindsight I can recognise my own bias in that.

I'll freely admit that if Bioware did include full-dialogue text, I'd be amongst the first to then use the space-bar skipping as a rationale to argue for removing the voiced PC, because that's my overall preference. And although full-line text would help resolve my occasional gripes with the PC saying something I wasn't expecting, this still happened even with full line text and no voiced PC, and was rare in both cases, as its more about tone than the specific words. Plus, it isn't going to go one iota towards resolving my underlying gripe with the voiced PC.

So even though I disagree with the decision to have a voiced PC, I completely agree with Bioware's rationale for not including full-line text and see the decision to have auto-dialogue always be neutral tone as a positive step.

bEVEsthda wrote...

Which all is just a lead in to my
real question: Is it reasonable to assume that you decided you were
right all along, and you just have to do it better? Another DA2, just
better this time?
Or does that way of putting it, carry too much negative luggage?

Depends on your perspective. To a DA2 fan, that's a very positive statement - the game you liked was fundamentally the right direction for the series and just needs improving on. To a DA2 detractor, it carries a lot of baggage, because their fundamental premise is likely to be that the defining changes in DA2 were a mistake and it would better to use Origins as the starting point for the next game.

Its no secret that the DA2 direction shift cut a huge divide in the fan base...frankly, repeating DA:O or DA2 wouldn't close that, it would just maintain or reverse the positions of DA2 fans and detractors. The "winning" side will praise Bioware for doing the right thing, the "losing" side will curse them for not listening and/or listening to the wrong people.

Bioware is doing the right thing by listening to both camps and trying to aim for a best-of-both-worlds, even if that's going to be very tricky to achieve in practice. Its clear that DA2 has been the starting point, and I'm sure that we DA2 detractors have a slightly cynical view about that, but its unfair to pass judgement at this point. :innocent:

Modifié par Wozearly, 04 mars 2013 - 09:31 .

[King Cousland]

krul2k wrote...

 so if theres no dominant tone any longer (which i liked tbh since i consider if you choose a path well stick to it) can i assume there will be other,for lack of a better word,features that will help determine an distinguise my character?

or is it back to head canon it ?

It means that you get to decide how your character reacts to a situation, instead of having a computer assume that they'd act that way because of their general demeanour. 

Modifié par King Cousland, 04 mars 2013 - 09:47 .

[jillabender]

David Gaider wrote...

[...]

We are also getting a "reaction wheel" for use when an emotional reaction to events is being called for-- I've mentioned this before, and it's useful in very specific circumstances, but it's not something I'll go into in full until we can show what we mean by it.

I'm very excited to hear this - I think this feature could go a long way in terms of helping me to connect with a voiced protagonist.

Modifié par jillabender, 04 mars 2013 - 09:43 .

[karushna5]

David Gaider wrote...

You probably had an aggressive-dominant tone setting (based on your previous choices).

While having those different lines is cool when noticed, I don't think it was actually noticed very much ("card tricks in the dark" is a phrase for variations which, cool as they might be, aren't recognized by players as variation unless they have inside knowledge or replay), so we're not going to use dominant tone in those lines any more. Choice lines are always neutral tone unless the tone is implied in the paraphrase-- makes it easier to write the paraphrase and less chance of disconnect between it and the actual line, and we can use the wordcount elsewhere just as easily.

I am not asking you to keep it, since you made the decision, but We did notice and loved it! It added to replay ability in a new way. The first time I realized this was going on I got very excited. My roommate, and I are playing now with different tones and it really makes a difference subtle and very cool. I understand why you got rid of them, but I didn't want you to think they entirely went without notice.

[Fast Jimmy]

King Cousland wrote...

krul2k wrote...

 so if theres no dominant tone any longer (which i liked tbh since i consider if you choose a path well stick to it) can i assume there will be other,for lack of a better word,features that will help determine an distinguise my character?

or is it back to head canon it ?

It means that you get to decide how your character reacts to a situation, instead of having a computer assumed they'd act that way because of their general demeanour. 

Indeed. I'd be curious to see how they are going to handle the Auto-dialogue and the cinematic interactions. If we are given a tool to control or influence these moments, instead of just the dominant tone making the decisions for us, then I think we can say the battle is won!

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 04 mars 2013 - 09:48 .

[Solas]

everything should have a toggle! Dragon Age III: Toggles

[Dutchess]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

King Cousland wrote...

krul2k wrote...

 so if theres no dominant tone any longer (which i liked tbh since i consider if you choose a path well stick to it) can i assume there will be other,for lack of a better word,features that will help determine an distinguise my character?

or is it back to head canon it ?

It means that you get to decide how your character reacts to a situation, instead of having a computer assumed they'd act that way because of their general demeanour. 

Indeed. I'd be curious to see how they are going to handle the Auto-dialogue and the cinematic interactions. If we are given a tool to control or influence these moments, instead of just the dominant tone making the decisions for us, then I think we can say the battle is won!

But Gaider just said there will simply be a "neutral" tone in those instances? So in fact it would be less customizable than in DA2, which at least took your previous choices more or less into account? Not that I'm that sad to see it go. Sometimes it was a nice, subtle change, but the remark about "boneless women" pretty much ruined the idea for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

You probably had an aggressive-dominant tone setting (based on your previous choices).

I've wondered that.  I was mostly going for dismissive rather than dominant, but perhaps dismissive would have been better served by the sarcastic tone.  I don't know.

Thanks for the supposition, though.

Choice lines are always neutral tone unless the tone is implied in the paraphrase

Terrific news!  This more closely mimics how I play.  I will very much like this change.  Thank you (I recognise you didn't do it for me).

There's no such thing as dominant tone any longer.

YAAAYYYYYYYYY!!!

[esper]

David Gaider wrote...

esper wrote...
Could you also not have any speeches be dominated by the dominate tone without input.

There's no such thing as dominant tone any longer. Tone exists for roleplaying choices in the tone wheels-- that's it. We don't track it. As I said, options off the choice wheel are neutral-toned unless the tone is already implicit, and any auto-dialogue (I'll use that phrase, since it seems to have stuck) we need to use is also neutral-only.

That is both bad and good. it quite liked the system, but I guess I can live without.
...
Can I take it that this mean we will get some kind of choice at speeches?

[esper]

renjility wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

King Cousland wrote...

krul2k wrote...

 so if theres no dominant tone any longer (which i liked tbh since i consider if you choose a path well stick to it) can i assume there will be other,for lack of a better word,features that will help determine an distinguise my character?

or is it back to head canon it ?

It means that you get to decide how your character reacts to a situation, instead of having a computer assumed they'd act that way because of their general demeanour. 

Indeed. I'd be curious to see how they are going to handle the Auto-dialogue and the cinematic interactions. If we are given a tool to control or influence these moments, instead of just the dominant tone making the decisions for us, then I think we can say the battle is won!

But Gaider just said there will simply be a "neutral" tone in those instances? So in fact it would be less customizable than in DA2, which at least took your previous choices more or less into account? Not that I'm that sad to see it go. Sometimes it was a nice, subtle change, but the remark about "boneless women" pretty much ruined the idea for me.

I am pretty sure the boneless women was an actual choice. Where you picked 'I hope not'. I don't think it was automatic.

[Wulfram]

esper wrote...
...
Can I take it that this mean we will get some kind of choice at speeches?

We might not make a speech.  I don't think they're obligatory.

[Dutchess]

esper wrote...

renjility wrote...

But Gaider just said there will simply be a "neutral" tone in those instances? So in fact it would be less customizable than in DA2, which at least took your previous choices more or less into account? Not that I'm that sad to see it go. Sometimes it was a nice, subtle change, but the remark about "boneless women" pretty much ruined the idea for me.

I am pretty sure the boneless women was an actual choice. Where you picked 'I hope not'. I don't think it was automatic.

Yes, you're right, I was mistaken. It was "recognize your mage?" that was automatic.

[Twisted Path]

No more dominant tone. Hm, that's probably for the best. I loved the way it worked in Alpha Protocol but a lot of what worked for a spy-themed game was probably never going to translate into a medieval-fantasy-themed game.

I'm not a fan of the dialogue wheel at all but I think the one Bioware game where it worked was Mass Effect 2, also a game where your alignment/reputation/whatever had no effect on the neutral sounding auto-dialogue. By worked I mean the game gave you a sense of control over the player character's personality as well as their major decisions, despite the limitations of a voiced protagonist. The paraphrasing in the first Mass Effect game was terrible, dialogue options in general were cut to the bare minimum in Mass Effect 3, and Dragon Age 2 was Dragon Age 2, but in ME2 it felt just right.

[Blazomancer]

I have to admit I liked the sarcastic tone of my Hawke; it was funny at times. But removing the dominant tone is probably for the best. Excited about how the 'reaction wheel' would work out.