279 réponses à ce sujet

[JWvonGoethe]

Couldn't some of the main paraphrasing issues be solved with a simple 'Restart Conversation' option?

Sometimes Hawke or Shepard say something I wish they hadn't said. That's fine. What I resent is then having to press X repeatedly to skip through the rest of the conversation as quickly as possible, and then once I'm past the conversation having to reload a previous save. Needless to say, the last save could have been half an hour ago and sometimes the game autosaves after conversations, overwriting the last save.

If there was a way to just restart mid-conversation it wouldn't be anywhere near as frustrating. Ie. pause conversation, press X to restart. Anyway, it's not a huge deal.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 05 mars 2013 - 04:34 .

[Fortlowe]

Of course its formed by the player. Having tangible evidence of said formulation was an enormous step forward imo. The only problem was a lack of nuance, not a broken mechanic.

[Conduit0]

This thread firmly reminds me of the old phrase, "You can please some of the people all of the time, and you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."
Someone is always going to be dissappointed by a choice that was made.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Honestly? This thread went from being another rote of the same ole' concept to one of the biggest revelations about DA3 mechanics to date.

Huzzah!

Maybe they're finally waring down Gaider, so he threw out a bone in hopes people would stop kicking the dead horse.

[Kidd]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Honestly? This thread went from being another rote of the same ole' concept to one of the biggest revelations about DA3 mechanics to date.

Take that, show-don't-tell!

Let me take a stab at this.

David Gaider, for those days marketing is sleeping.
David Gaider, the man your marketing man could market like.
David Gaider... dropped the bombshell.

All right, this is beyond corny. I'll stop now.

[Biotic Sage]

I completely agree with Bioware here. Having full-text of what the protagonist will say in a voiced-protagonist game is redundant and tiresome. What the people suggesting this actually want is a voiceless protagonist, which is a completely different discussion. That's not what DA:I is though, so it's moot.

Some relevant suggestions would be how to make paraphrasing clearer and more indicative of what will actually be spoken by the PC. I think the "tone" icons from DA:2 were a step in the right direction. I look forward to seeing where Bioware takes it in DA:I.

[Foolsfolly]

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.

I'm sorry to hear the personality dominant tones are getting scaled back. But it's the absolute right call. I remember not being angry but definately noticing the dialogue disconnects my first time through. And I had a very 'meh' opinion of the personality system then too.

Replayed the game and that changed. I also saw different personality choices and how they changed things. Really made me love the personality system.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 05 mars 2013 - 08:07 .

[TEWR]

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.

Good.

[TEWR]

Everwarden wrote...

but would it really be that difficult to show what the player is going to say when you mouse over the option? That way the players who want to be surprised by what their character says can still have that experience by default, and everyone else can avoid having their character say something completely unintended and be forced to reload a previous save.

Though I wouldn't mind a cake baking mini-game or pregnancy shenanigans. 

Honestly, I do wonder why this isn't on the table. I haven't really seen any good reason from the devs on why, only that it simply isn't.

It's something I'd wholeheartedly support.

Of course, maybe DG said something in this thread to answer the question of "why". I shall check.

EDIT: Indeed, DG has said something as close to a fully-formed "why" as I imagine he can give. 

thats1evildude wrote..

A cake baking mini-game? Really? What could you get from the experience of baking cakes in a video game that you couldn't get in RL?  And why would you want to shoehorn that into an RPG?

YOUR IDEA IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD!

Star Ocean: Till the End of Time allowed you to cook, write, create dolls, etc. I consider that game to have the best crafting system ever.

Also, the cake is a lie.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 mars 2013 - 08:26 .

[TEWR]

David Gaider wrote...

Not every design issue is solvable by a toggle-- it always sounds like the best idea (everyone's happy!) but just forces us to deal with the consequences of both options rather than just one, as valid options must be equally supported.

I may be interpreting your statements wrong -- in fact I hope I am -- but I pray what you're saying isn't that people that are suggesting a hover-over-the-dialogue-and-get-text-at-top-or-bottom-of-screen option are really suggesting a toggle.

Because what's being suggested isn't a toggle. At least, not when it's worded. Whether that's how it has to be implemented, I dunno. But what's being suggested is more of an add-on to the dialogue wheel. Something that's intrinsic to it. The wheel would be the main thing, you'd hover over the option, and at the top of the screen where the surtitles appear -- or at the bottom where subtitles wold appear -- you'd see the full line.

The game is already capable of displaying full lines when they're already spoken (in terms of the last one spoken that is). All that's being asked is that full lines also be displayed before being spoken

And yes, I have needlessly abused the hyphens. I don't give a flying Dwarf about the rights of hyphens.

In this case, the existence of player VO means the lines are written differently. So knowing the actual text of the line may give you more insight, but would probably fall down just about as often as paraphrases (albeit in different ways). There will always be places where options don't do what you think they will-- even in Origins, with its lack of VO, had this... and if you think it didn't and wasn't occasionally complained about, you're fooling yourselves.

The origin of the request (for many people, at least) seems to stem from the nuance of not being able to imagine a line spoken as they wish and less from a factual difference in the line versus the paraphrase. While the latter can be fixed with seeing the full line, the former cannot, and thus for many people is effort spent to not really address their base issue.

Also might be misinterpreting this. It's late, I'm groggy, and work drains my mental state for many hours.

Isn't that the entire point of the tone icons, though? If the tone icons are there and the full text of a sentence is clearly visible at the top or bottom of the screen, then people can imagine the line being spoken as they wish, or at least closer to it. Because they know what tone it was written in and they know what's being said.

Example:

Paraphrase: (Witty Icon) So that's what he meant!

Actual line seen at bottom: Oh so PMS stands for Perpetual Motion Squad? Oh man, what was I thinking?!

The player thus has the option to read the full line in the tone it was written in and can apply said tone to said line.

It also, quite frankly, isn't something we feel works very well. We're leery about putting in an option that many people will opt for without realizing the full implication ("More information on the dialogue? Hell, yes! I love dialogue!"). They wouldn't come and complain that they don't like the hover text, they'd complain that the dialogue seems slow or repetitive. Sylvius likes to counter this by saying we shouldn't protect players from themselves, but that is indeed exactly our job as designers. Not everyone is as aware of every nuance of the system as the people who come here to these forums-- actually, very far from everyone indeed.

Then perhaps a warning in the opening of a game? You give instructions for almost everything else in the games, mostly combat related. Perhaps something for the dialogue? If the aim is to make the dialogue more... for want of a better word, natural to the player just as combat is aimed to be more fluid, dynamic, and ideally tactical then perhaps a tutorial of sorts should be noted.

David Gaider wrote...

My only beef is when someone says "Gaider said this" but neither offers a direct quote or a link.

To be fair, the BSN -- and by extension, Google, which does help at times -- doesn't really allow us to find the particular quotes in question all the time. The BSN is an assortment of threads on top of threads on top of threads. It's an interwoven tangle of strings and to pull on one just creates anarchy and chaos.

I've seen some posters say "IIRC X said Y" -- myself among them, unless I can remember the quote exactly -- but it's a tad unfair to expect everyone to have every dev post on hand for easy reference. Just as it's also unfair for BSNers to expect every dev to repost what they've said in the past many times over and to continue doing so.

Also, I support the BSN descending into anarchy and chaos. I'm gonna go pull an Anders so someone can do an Aveline can come in and say "This.... is chaos!"

Maybe if I'm lucky, I'll also get a Merrill followed by a Varric.

Wulfram wrote...

As an aside, can I suggest that if you're looking for that David Gaider post with Google, try searching for "David Gaider wrote"

That doesn't always help, as some people have Gaider quotes in their signatures that are more comical then useful.

Actually, it doesn't help at all.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 mars 2013 - 09:04 .

[nightscrawl]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I may be interpreting your statements wrong -- in fact I hope I am -- but I pray what you're saying isn't that people that are suggesting a hover-over-the-dialogue-and-get-text-at-top-or-bottom-of-screen option are really suggesting a toggle.

Because what's being suggested isn't a toggle. At least, not when it's worded. Whether that's how it has to be implemented, I dunno. But what's being suggested is more of an add-on to the dialogue wheel. Something that's intrinsic to it. The wheel would be the main thing, you'd hover over the option, and at the top of the screen where the surtitles appear -- or at the bottom where subtitles wold appear -- you'd see the full line.

Actually, if they did have such an option it would have to be implemented with a toggle. I'm sure there are many people who would want it as a toggle simply to reduce menu clutter. If there wasn't a toggle for the "hover over dialog choice" there would be a LOT of frustration with people moving their mouse around, having the option appear when you're only picking a choice, and other such things. Think of the way some really bad websites were designed about 10 years ago. Popups and other fancy tricks to show off the web designer's abilities that only added frustration for the user.

That said, I'm thinking of it from a PC viewpoint. I have no idea how the dialog wheel works with the console controls.

David Gaider wrote...

My only beef is when someone says "Gaider said this" but neither offers a direct quote or a link.

To be fair, the BSN -- and by extension, Google, which does help at times -- doesn't really allow us to find the particular quotes in question all the time. The BSN is an assortment of threads on top of threads on top of threads. It's an interwoven tangle of strings and to pull on one just creates anarchy and chaos.

I've seen some posters say "IIRC X said Y" -- myself among them, unless I can remember the quote exactly -- but it's a tad unfair to expect everyone to have every dev post on hand for easy reference. Just as it's also unfair for BSNers to expect every dev to repost what they've said in the past many times over and to continue doing so.

People also use this as a way to misrepresent things they devs have said in order to support their own argument. In my hundreds of posts here, I've done it perhaps once or twice, and that's all. IMO if it's too difficult to find the relevant quote using some form of search, then don't put words in the devs mouths at all. Find some other way to support your argument if you can't do it accurately.

I could certainly go post in a Merrill thread and say "TEWR said Marethari is the bestest keeper ever," and if you don't come in the thread to refute that quote, people will think that of you. It works the same way with the devs. They don't want incorrect ideas attributed to them.

Wulfram wrote...

As an aside, can I suggest that if you're looking for that David Gaider post with Google, try searching for "David Gaider wrote"

That doesn't always help, as some people have Gaider quotes in their signatures that are more comical then useful.

Actually, it doesn't help at all.

"David Gaider wrote" will only turn up instances where people have quoted him, and not actual posts by him. As per my previous post in this thread, if you are going to use Google you need to specify the BSN as the search query, as well as use relevant terms in the search. "David Gaider" AND paraphrase AND "full line" site:social.bioware.com would eventually bring you to this very thread, as well as others about the same topic. Some posts are repetitive, so it does require an effort if you want to put a quote in your post.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 05 mars 2013 - 10:52 .

[nightscrawl]

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.

Interesting tidbit, thanks.

[Boiny Bunny]

nightscrawl wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I may be interpreting your statements wrong -- in fact I hope I am -- but I pray what you're saying isn't that people that are suggesting a hover-over-the-dialogue-and-get-text-at-top-or-bottom-of-screen option are really suggesting a toggle.

Because what's being suggested isn't a toggle. At least, not when it's worded. Whether that's how it has to be implemented, I dunno. But what's being suggested is more of an add-on to the dialogue wheel. Something that's intrinsic to it. The wheel would be the main thing, you'd hover over the option, and at the top of the screen where the surtitles appear -- or at the bottom where subtitles wold appear -- you'd see the full line.

Actually, if they did have such an option it would have to be implemented with a toggle. I'm sure there are many people who would want it as a toggle simply to reduce menu clutter. If there wasn't a toggle for the "hover over dialog choice" there would be a LOT of frustration with people moving their mouse around, having the option appear when you're only picking a choice, and other such things. Think of the way some really bad websites were designed about 10 years ago. Popups and other fancy tricks to show off the web designer's abilities that only added frustration for the user.

That said, I'm thinking of it from a PC viewpoint. I have no idea how the dialog wheel works with the console controls.

Ever played DX:HR?  It manages to display the whole thing without looking in any way cluttered - it only pops up when you mouse over it.  See the conversation in the link below for an example:

[grumpymooselion]

David Gaider wrote...

There's no reason to continue with this, as it's not a suggestion that will be taken. The answer is sorry, but no-- there will be no hover text that displays the full line.

Then just display the full line. Picking one option, thinking you'll know what the character will say . . . only to have them say something drastically different is . . . frustrating. I've never come across someone that hasn't commented on this in the negative, when not on these forums. When seeing reviewers and streamers actually playing, there's almost always a point where they get to a dialogue, select an option they think they want, see the actual text and then throw up their hands going, "THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT TO SAY!!!"

[TEWR]

nightscrawl wrote...

Actually, if they did have such an option it would have to be implemented with a toggle. I'm sure there are many people who would want it as a toggle simply to reduce menu clutter. If there wasn't a toggle for the "hover over dialog choice" there would be a LOT of frustration with people moving their mouse around, having the option appear when you're only picking a choice, and other such things. Think of the way some really bad websites were designed about 10 years ago. Popups and other fancy tricks to show off the web designer's abilities that only added frustration for the user.

That said, I'm thinking of it from a PC viewpoint. I have no idea how the dialog wheel works with the console controls.

See, that's why when I'm suggesting it I'm talking about it being a surtitle or subtitle instead of displayed on the actual screen where say, you see Hawke's face, and it interferes with the game's display.

Take for instance this:



Or even this...



Now, granted DAO had the list take up the bottom of the screen's space, but imagine the Dialogue Wheel where it is and directly underneath it, when you hover over an option, is the full line itself. There's a bit of space there and as the above Duncan image shows DAO already displayed spoken lines at the top to remind the player of what was stated.

So why not display unspoken lines in full text at the bottom for the player to see? I don't see the need for a toggle for that, as the player could ignore it if they wanted to.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 mars 2013 - 10:44 .

[nightscrawl]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Ever played DX:HR?  It manages to display the whole thing without looking in any way cluttered - it only pops up when you mouse over it.  See the conversation in the link below for an example:

As I posted in my first post in this thread, I want the full line as well. I don't need to be persuaded. As DG and other devs have attempted to explain, they aren't going to be doing it. I attempt to play devil's advocate on these forums to help players move on. You are not going to convince them of anything.

After his post in this thread, I'm surprised David didn't just link to it and move on, as he said he would in that post.


[edit]
It's not like they haven't been saying the same thing for a whole year...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

I'll admit that I'm biased; I don't like reading a choice and then hearing the exact same thing read aloud to me. However, I can absolutely agree with concerns about being blindsided as per your example above.

The above post is in the "Mark Darrah" thread, stickied at the top of the Dragon Age II News and Announcements subforum, where anyone can easily read all of the Bioware posts by clicking on the Bioware tag. I don't know where they have gone to, but I've seen many posters respond with the same comments as Mike.

It doesn't bother me. I play the game with subtitles on anyway, so I am constantly reading spoken dialog. However, I can appreciate those who don't want to have that and might find it tedious or distracting.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 05 mars 2013 - 11:34 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Fortlowe wrote...

Of course its formed by the player. Having tangible evidence of said formulation was an enormous step forward imo. The only problem was a lack of nuance, not a broken mechanic.

If I wanted to act a certain way towards a certain group, say aggressive towards Templars and diplomatic towards Mages, the dominant tone system wouldn't let me do that. Similarly, if I wanted to act aggressive towards the crazies and diplomatic towards the rational people, the system wouldn't let me do that, either. And there is no "correct" way to tally up the number of times I use a particular type of dialogue without making some huge assumptions about the player.

Maybe I don't like this person because they are a Mage. Maybe I don't like them because they aren't Ferelden. Maybe I don't like them because they aren't a dwarf (as a self-hating human). Maybe I don't like them because they are of one gender or another. Maybe I just am having a bad hair day and want to be a d!ck to someone... no amount of tallies or response tracking can accurately assess why I am doing any of these things in a manner that is consistent.

So if the dominant tone is gone, but, as Epler said a few pages back, they are really working on ways to integrate player choice into the cinematics, then if it is pulled off properly, it could be the best of both worlds. We can still have a snarky piece of auto-dialogue to make people laugh, or the conversation can proceed forward in a more neutral-based way if the player chooses. Or maybe some derivative thereof. 

Point being, equating "the dominant tone is gone" with "out character will have no personality" is a non-sequitor at this point. It just means that the game is going to try to give us more choices, instead of taking control away. Which, in my mind, is only a good thing.

[Adanu]

Biotic Sage wrote...
what the people suggesting this actually want is a voiceless protagonist, which is a completely different discussion.

No. Don't put words in my mouth, bucko, and I won't do it for you.

[Fortlowe]

Perhaps. I had notions of tone tracking for specific persons, groups, and situations in mind for the next game. With hopes of more nuanced control over tone. That it won't be included is not a deal breaker. It's not as if I didn't like DAO. But I really wanted that mechanic to evolve.

[fchopin]

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.

Please explain what you mean by " any auto-dialogue we need to use is also neutral-only." if you do not know what the state of the PC will be?
 
If a pc character is a set character you will know the neutral state but if a pc is not set then you will only be guessing the neutral state of the character.

[Fast Jimmy]

Perhaps. I had notions of tone tracking for specific persons, groups, and situations in mind for the next game. With hopes of more nuanced control over tone. That it won't be included is not a deal breaker. It's not as if I didn't like DAO. But I really wanted that mechanic to evolve.

I can understand that. But it is just like with any other data tracking - the more of it you try to collect about when someone does an action, the more it becomes apparent that the "why" behind such actions are much more nuanced.

It could be viewed as a funky example of the Uncertainty Principle. The less control over the characters actions we have, the more assumptions the developer has to make about why that action is being performed. The more control we have over our characters actions, the less assumptions he developer has to make about why we would want to do a particular action. Even with more data about when and how you choose certain actions, it would still require the system to make assumptions on the WHY you did them. Which could run the risk of resulting in unanticipated actions, dialogue or events.

Which is obviously a pet peeve of a few people, myself included.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 05 mars 2013 - 02:37 .

[Wulfram]

fchopin wrote...

Please explain what you mean by " any auto-dialogue we need to use is also neutral-only." if you do not know what the state of the PC will be?
 
If a pc character is a set character you will know the neutral state but if a pc is not set then you will only be guessing the neutral state of the character.

How many different ways are there to yell "duck!" when a bunch of arrows are shot at you? You don't need tones for that sort of thing.

Or that's how I understand it anyway.

Modifié par Wulfram, 05 mars 2013 - 02:41 .

[Pasquale1234]

Fortlowe wrote...

Perhaps. I had notions of tone tracking for specific persons, groups, and situations in mind for the next game. With hopes of more nuanced control over tone. That it won't be included is not a deal breaker. It's not as if I didn't like DAO. But I really wanted that mechanic to evolve.

One problem is that "evolving" that mechanic could make it impossible for a character to evolve.  A player wanting their character to change - perhaps due to some experiences the game provides - would be stuck with the summation of some conglomeration of previous choices.

I'm delighted to learn of the demise of the dominant tone system.  It opens up much more creative choice for the player.

[Malsumis]

and any auto-dialogue (I'll use that phrase, since it seems to have stuck) we need to use is also neutral-only.

Ideally there shouldn't be any auto dialogue. The PC shouldn't say anything without the input of the player.

Modifié par Malsumis, 05 mars 2013 - 02:57 .

[JWvonGoethe]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

That doesn't always help, as some people have Gaider quotes in their signatures that are more comical then useful.

Yeah, I used to have a quote from him in my signature that was mangled by square brackets, until a few months ago I realised it wasn't very fair to quote someone like that. Sorry DG.

* * 

Anyway, in response to fchopin a few posts up - yeah, I'm not sure if there is such a thing as 'neutral' dialogue. I haven't played DA2 as full aggressive yet, but when I play Mass Effect as full renegade I usually avoid a lot of the supposedly 'neutral' Investigate lines, since they seem to be too earnest in tone to fit with an aggressive personality.

That could just be a writing issue, but sometimes I'd rather get rid of neutral lines altogether and have more or less everything the PC says be character driven with a choice of tones.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 05 mars 2013 - 06:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I completely agree with Bioware here. Having full-text of what the protagonist will say in a voiced-protagonist game is redundant and tiresome. What the people suggesting this actually want is a voiceless protagonist, which is a completely different discussion. That's not what DA:I is though, so it's moot.

But with full text, people could then approximate a silent protagonist by muting the voices.  So there's real benefit there, even if we're not getting entirely what we want.

Some relevant suggestions would be how to make paraphrasing clearer and more indicative of what will actually be spoken by the PC.

I've previously suggested that the paraphrases should always match the sentence type of the spoken line.  This was almost never true in DA2, but it should be true as much as possible to reduce the risk of the PC saying something different in kind from what the player expects.  If the PC line is a question, the paraphrase should also be a question.

I think there's a danger when writing the paraphrases of taking into account the role that line plays in the conversation.  But that isn't known to the player, so the player can't use that to inform his interpretation of the paraphrase.  I've suggested before that the paraphrases should be written by someone else, and written blind (without any knowledge of context) to allow maximum transparency.

I think the "tone" icons from DA:2 were a step in the right direction.

The tone icons were poorly defined.  There was no way to know what they meant.  But, since the writers presumably thought they knew what they meant, the icons were expected to impart relevant meaning.  That meaning could then be left out of the paraphrases.

So, my further suggestion is that the tone icons should be assigned after the fact - after the line and paraphrase are already written - to avoid having the writer rely on the tone icons to be informative.