279 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Neutral isn't relative.  A neutral line reading is a line reading without meaningful tone.

[Cainhurst Crow]

So there is no longer a dominant tone huh? Don't know how to feel about that.

[Fast Jimmy]

Filament wrote...

I would have preferred to be able to pick your dominant tone or just choose the tone of the action choice, but ok, back to boring neutrality it is then.

Epler said earlier in this thread that they were working on ways to allow players to have control over their responses in cinematic scenes without sacrificing the quality of them. I would take that to mean they are looking at ways to let you pick responses (and their implied tones, I would assume) that are more than just an automatic neutral response. I don't think they said anything about "boring" neutrality being assumed all the time. 

Geez. A dev drops a piece of information and people really go to negative, assumptious places. 

[David Gaider]

Filament wrote...
I would have preferred to be able to pick your dominant tone or just choose the tone of the action choice, but ok, back to boring neutrality it is then.

Neutrality isn't necessarily boring. We just call it that because it has no specific tone-- meaning that whatever tone it has is conveyed by the nature of the choice, same as how we wrote pretty much all action choices in DAO. It's also what we call the tone for any lines that don't need it... like in a cutscene where the player shouts out something, or lines you could expect anyone to say (like "Hello").

In this case, the decision to get rid of dominant tone wasn't made to appease any specific group. We were just looking at how to improve our use of paraphrases, and through that examining the places where it was problematic in DA2, and the choices being broken down into different tone responses was a clear culprit... if not for all issues certainly for many. It was an experiment that sounded better than it usually worked.

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.

[Cutlass Jack]

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.

That's really unfortunate. It was one of the features We loved best about DA2 over at this household. And its why I ended up replaying the game as many times as I did. Having a personality formed as a sum of my choices was a nifty thing.

I think the main issue with dominant tone was that it was never properly explained in the game. Thats why many people didnt notice it. The second problem was that the Paraphrasing was generic, rather than specific to the tone you currently were on. Which meant the paraphrasing often didn't resemble the actual line.

The only reason I learned it existed early was due to my wife playing the game at the same time. Even though we were both playing the same class and gender (male rogues) our characters could not be more different than each other. And frankly it was awesome. Crafting personalities in the game kept me highly entertained through multiple playthroughs. I think the wife and I ended up doing about 5 runs each and none of our characters felt the least bit similar, even though they all were Hawkes.

Dominant Tone is what made Auto Dialogue tolerable, and sometimes enjoyable to me. I enjoyed my characters not only speaking but having an actual personality. Especially in party banters.

[David Gaider]

Cutlass Jack wrote...
Dominant Tone is what made Auto Dialogue tolerable, and sometimes enjoyable to me. I enjoyed my characters not only speaking but having an actual personality. Especially in party banters.

Yes, well, there are other solutions to that. I've said before we'd likely have less requirement of auto-dialogue (or what you guys call it, anyhow... it seems to refer to what we writers consider to be several different things). If the idea on the writing side is to improve paraphrases, it's also to improve the player's control and offer more replayability. There are ways to do those things which don't involve "card tricks in the dark", and we'll be talking about those eventually.

Modifié par David Gaider, 05 mars 2013 - 07:32 .

[Cutlass Jack]

David Gaider wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...
Dominant Tone is what made Auto Dialogue tolerable, and sometimes enjoyable to me. I enjoyed my characters not only speaking but having an actual personality. Especially in party banters.

Yes, well, there are other solutions to that. I've said before we'd likely have less requirement of auto-dialogue (or what you guys call it, anyhow... it seems to refer to what we writers consider to be several different things). If the idea on the writing side is to improve paraphrases, it's also to improve the player's control and offer more replayability. There are ways to do those things which don't involve "card tricks in the dark", and we'll be talking about those eventually.

Not a fan of the term 'auto-dialogue' either. Only used it because you did. 
 
But specifically in my prior post I was referring to the non-cutscene banter the characters do when walking around town. I loved that my Hawkes not only spoke during those but had personality. It was great to be the most entertaining character in your group walking around, instead of relying on others for it like in Origins.

So hopefully whatever you have planned doesn't lose that. It gave alot of replayability for me.

[TheJediSaint]

I confess that I actually liked the dominate tone and am disappointed to see it go. Snark Hawke was one of the best parts of DA2.

[Biotic Sage]

Adanu wrote...

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.

Sorry, let me rephrase: "In my opinion, and based on what I've seen frequenting these forums, I think that what most people suggesting this actually want is a voiceless protagonist, which is a completely different discussion.  Although I am a fallible being of limited intellect so I could be completely wrong."

I thought most of this should be implied in a forum post, but maybe some people out there actually do think they are infallible beings and we should be wary.

[Fast Jimmy]

That's reassuring then. I actually suspected as much, but I thought if I made the assertion myself (that action choices would still implicitly have tones and not necessarily be "neutral") it might provoke the Sylvius.

Instead I provoked the Jimmy and the David Gaider, perhaps only a slightly more enviable fate.

You flatter me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

auto-dialogue (or what you guys call it, anyhow... it seems to refer to what we writers consider to be several different things)

Might it be helpful to share the writers' nomenclature?  Maybe then we could avoid talking past each other.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 mars 2013 - 09:18 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Neutrality isn't necessarily boring. We just call it that because it has no specific tone-- meaning that whatever tone it has is conveyed by the nature of the choice, same as how we wrote pretty much all action choices in DAO. It's also what we call the tone for any lines that don't need it... like in a cutscene where the player shouts out something, or lines you could expect anyone to say (like "Hello").

That's reassuring then. I actually suspected as much, but I thought if I made the assertion myself (that action choices would still implicitly have tones and not necessarily be "neutral") it might provoke the Sylvius.

If actions choices have any significant tone, I'd like that tone to be explicit, not implicit, so that we can know what we're choosing.

Also, I don't think comparing the writing process to DAO's is helpful, as the player was presented with vastly different information in DAO.  What tone the writers wrote only matters if the players actually see that tone.

[AlanC9]

David Gaider wrote...

Yes, well, there are other solutions to that. I've said before we'd likely have less requirement of auto-dialogue (or what you guys call it, anyhow... it seems to refer to what we writers consider to be several different things). 

I don't know about the rest of us (edit: except Sylvius, I see),but I'd be quite interested in seeing how you folks classify these dialogue types.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 mars 2013 - 10:27 .

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


Neutral isn't relative.  A neutral line reading is a line reading without meaningful tone.

What is meaningful? One might argue that THAT is certainly relative.

What's the dominant tone for life, man? What's the auto dialogue for your soul?

[Fredward]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Geez. A dev drops a piece of information and people really go to negative, assumptious places.

Oh my god who would have guessed that was going to happen!? XD



Eh. I think I'll reserve judgement until I see the game.

[eroeru]

TheJediSaint wrote...

I confess that I actually liked the dominate tone and am disappointed to see it go. Snark Hawke was one of the best parts of DA2.

How is snark Hawke so closely and necessarily tied to a dominate tone?

Also, I have an urge to express my dislike towards that snark a'$$... I mean... character.

Modifié par eroeru, 06 mars 2013 - 04:40 .

[Harle Cerulean]

Filament wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Geez. A dev drops a piece of information and people really go to negative, assumptious places.

Oh my god who would have guessed that was going to happen!? XD

Where else would we go? The BSN seems like the most logical place to discuss DA3 info.

Took me a second to get it, but then I laughed hard.  Thank you. 

[Demx]

David Gaider wrote...

Filament wrote...
I would have preferred to be able to pick your dominant tone or just choose the tone of the action choice, but ok, back to boring neutrality it is then.

Neutrality isn't necessarily boring. We just call it that because it has no specific tone-- meaning that whatever tone it has is conveyed by the nature of the choice, same as how we wrote pretty much all action choices in DAO. It's also what we call the tone for any lines that don't need it... like in a cutscene where the player shouts out something, or lines you could expect anyone to say (like "Hello").

In this case, the decision to get rid of dominant tone wasn't made to appease any specific group. We were just looking at how to improve our use of paraphrases, and through that examining the places where it was problematic in DA2, and the choices being broken down into different tone responses was a clear culprit... if not for all issues certainly for many. It was an experiment that sounded better than it usually worked.

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.

So would this mean the party banter featuring the PC would have a neutral tone as well? Or did you guys somehow worked in the tone wheel for the player? Are major decisions made by the PC neutral as well? If I recall paraphrasing when handling elves at the end of "The New Path" caused some confusion.

[Cutlass Jack]

eroeru wrote...

How is snark Hawke so closely and necessarily tied to a dominate tone?

Also, I have an urge to express my dislike towards that snark a'$$... I mean... character.

Because Snark Hawke is one of the dominant Tones of DA2. (Aggro Hawke and Diplo Hawke being the other two.)

And Snarky Hawke was only an ass if you played wack-a-mole on snark options every time they popped up. The best part of the Dominant Tone system was that it changed all the dialogue, not just the snarky lines. Some of the best bits came from Snarky Hawke picking diplomatic or aggressive options every so often.

[eroeru]

Ok, that makes sense - though I don't see them bailing on snarkiness altogether (sadly), in this sense a snark Hawke *could* have had a possibly unique function. Yet the flaws of this system overshadow any will to go see and do dialogue-testing for another playthrough.

Modifié par eroeru, 06 mars 2013 - 07:39 .