318 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

My last bit on the AP tangent, but it was such a fantastic game to play the first time through by just accepting what happens in the game, rather than save scumming or anything (which is challenging anyways, with the savegame system they use)

[Fast Jimmy]

?

I feel like there was some cut off on your last post, there, Allan?

EDIT: NVM, I misread the post the first time. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 mai 2013 - 04:39 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I still remember the disappointment many had when the transition went from keywords to specific, full lines.  I mean, here are the developers dictating precisely what words the player would use (and yes, I did have these
discussions with people).

Arguably still a legitimate gripe.

I would typically combat it by saying that the player isn't forced to take the full text line as literally true, but instead could view it as an abstraction of the actual line spoken, just like with keyword systems.

The playstyle promoted by keyword systems was still possible when games moved to full text, albeit wite somewhat less freedom to choose a topic.  For example, the player can ask anyone in Ultima IV about a RUNE
or a SHRINE, but the nove to full text generally prevents the player from asking about those things where the NPC doesn't have somethng to say on those topics.

But that's the only limitation I see in the move from keywords to full text.

The move to the voice+ paraphrase, though, was a much larger step.  In addition to adding a new feature (the voice) and a new playstyle (gut reactions with a move arms-length control), the old playstyle was removed.  The move to full text didn't do that.

In fact, I still largely play the full text games like I did the keyword games.  I will, when circumstances demand it, view the full text dialogue options as abstractions rather than literal truths.

That's much harder to do with these voiced cinematic games.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'd argue that BioWare's games have not allowed you to do this for some time.  Probably going back to at least KOTOR, though admittedly I didn't play Jade Empire.

You can create all the history you want in KOTOR, but none of it is actually true.  You have to come up with rationalizations ex post facto when the reveal happens to still maintain congruity with one's backstory.

Not at all.  Those are all neatly explained away by the false memories the Jedi implanted in the protagonist.  Whatever backstory the player had been working from throughout the game simply gets declared a lie, but it doesn't change anything about the PC's personality or how the PC views his decisions.

The only way it would is if the player has some extremely rigid ideas about personal identity.

A player that has seen abuse all their life only works with specific Origins in DAO.  You can maybe attempt some insane mental gymnastics, but you'll never convince me that Cousland comes from an abusive setting.  Nor will you convince me that Dwarf Commoner had a mostly happy life.

I would argue that those mental gymnastics are the whole point of roleplaying.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 mai 2013 - 05:25 .

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I'd argue that BioWare's games have not allowed you to do this for some time.  Probably going back to at least KOTOR, though admittedly I didn't play Jade Empire.

You can create all the history you want in KOTOR, but none of it is actually true.  You have to come up with rationalizations ex post facto when the reveal happens to still maintain congruity with one's backstory.

Not at all.  Those are all neatly explained away by the false memories the Jedi implanted in the protagonist.  Whatever backstory the player had been working from throughout the game simply gets declared a lie, but it doesn't change anything about the PC's personality or how the PC views his decisions.

Or, the example I love to use...

Is Quaid not Quaid because he was Hauser first?

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Get your ass to Mars!

[74 Wrex]

 I would the ability to not just persuade or intimidate someone, I would like an option to intimidate them or persuade them by other means Bribing, Beatdown, Blackmails, Embarrassing them and maybe have sex with them to get them to do what you want them to do and so many things Bioware could add to the persuasion system. 

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy's bribing suggestion
[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd really argue against this. In fact, one of the more interesting mods I've seen for Skyrim is the persistent world economy mod, which regulates and normalizes how much currency exists in the world. Something like this would be really interesting to have in other RPGs as a standard, as it could make cash as realistically scarce as it should be. This would make giving away cash, for any reason, a much more difficult decision to struggle with... just like it is in real life. [/quote]

Sorry I didn't answer before, I missed this post in the midst of all the other ones.

This could work yes. Or that you need o pay so much in bribes that you really couldn't pay them all and have to pick and choose could also work (but it'd be a whole lot more wearisome). As long as money starts to become an effort to collect and something that you need to hold onto it for then it increases in value.

[quote[This would be very cool, having those who would scan you for money or who would not follow through on their promises. It would also be nice if there were serious negative consequences to a failed bribe, maybe through a reputation system or doors closing for other opportunities. And even having some nations/cultures much more accepting of the custom of bribery than others, maybe even having agents to work through government officials and who "grease the wheels," so to speak. There is lots of potential here. [/quote]

Indeed. It's also a potentially powerful theme, the extent and heavy price of corruption. If it's not just us that are forced to engage in bribery but we also see common people stuck in the extortive nature of a very corrupt system.

[quote]This, I think, would be the most difficult thing to do, honestly. Implementing not just a bribery option, but a whole set of possible bribery approaches would be REALLY cool... but would also be a headache to handle. Having more scenes where the characters play this game would be really intriguing... but having to know how to set the right price and how to haggle without haggling would be difficult to pull off within the existing dialogue system. [/quote]

Oh sorry, I did not mean interactivity or anything. I'd like that sure. But aside from that, bribery lines I find are often the most boring ones just looking at the lines themselves. "here's your money" "thanks" end of conversation. Here I simply meant making the lines themselves more interesting, kind of like how other persuasion tend to be engaging.

Kind of like the overt bribing between Ceasar and the High priest of Jupiter Maximus in the first season of Rome. Where ceasar brings up the mans wife and how he "clumsily forgot to giver her a gift for her birthday", the high priest is confused but Ceasar then asks if 10 000 is a sufficient gift for "her". At which point the high priest catches on and smiles a wicked smile.

A little flair, a little style, a little subtletly, a little justification (it's not a bribe, it's a friendly gift. we are friends, aren't we?), a little easing of sensibilities and a little stroking of egos. I'm fine with this mostly being done through autodialogue, haggling is a difficult enough process and we've already established to pay a bribe by choosing the option anyways (the final sum should probably be shown to us prior to choosing the option though).

So while an interactive system is definantely what I want, in this case I aimed for something less.

[Quote]
I think it is important, as the fact that all too often the hero can just stroll up to heads of state or important people and get an audience is a little odd, though DA2 did do this with some VIPs... althought it was a little silly that you could meet with the Viscoint and the Arishok before you could meet with Meredith or Orsino... but Hawke's "killing his way to fame" always seemed pretty ham-fisted.

Money talks, bull shirt walks, as they say. I'd like to really explore a game that makes it as hard to get favors from people without some cash in your fist as it is in real life. 

[/quote]

Agreed.

Modifié par Sir JK, 18 mai 2013 - 06:37 .

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

But I fail to see how the Voiced Protagonist has any benefit for this.

Say, for example, these were all paraphrases for the actual statements made by your character, instead of what was actually said. And that this option had a Sarcastic icon next to it.

How would you know it wouldn't be saying your version of "we all get old, don't feel so bad" but with a snarky twist or the more literal "you aren't a chicken!" Yes, because it is snarky, you'd likely lean more towards the sillier interpretation, but I'd say the uncertainty is still there.

Similarly, the line "you probably won't be around much longer" would likely have the aggressive option... but how do I know that this won't be my Warden being a jerk... or my Warden directly threatening the life of Wynne?

I don't. Not in the least.

So I'd say the opportunity for confusion still absolutely exists in the voiced protagonist... but we also lose the degree of player agency we already had. Which is a step backward, in my estimation.

I wasn't saying the VO would be better. Just that the silent line had ambiguity.

Yet the silent PC ambiguity is part of its strength. The ambiguity of the voiced PC is its downfall. If both systems run the risk of dialogue options resulting in different responses than intended, than it is better for the sustainability of the role play to allow the player to believe that the NPC misunderstood rather than have PC act in ways that break the player's concept for the character.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sir JK wrote...

Fast Jimmy's bribing suggestion

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd really argue against this. In fact, one of the more interesting mods I've seen for Skyrim is the persistent world economy mod, which regulates and normalizes how much currency exists in the world. Something like this would be really interesting to have in other RPGs as a standard, as it could make cash as realistically scarce as it should be. This would make giving away cash, for any reason, a much more difficult decision to struggle with... just like it is in real life.

Sorry I didn't answer before, I missed this post in the midst of all the other ones.

This could work yes. Or that you need o pay so much in bribes that you really couldn't pay them all and have to pick and choose could also work (but it'd be a whole lot more wearisome). As long as money starts to become an effort to collect and something that you need to hold onto it for then it increases in value.

Correct. It would be a real challenge making that balance, but it could be an interesting twist. Similarly, you could possibly have the balance set so that you could bribe everyone/in every instance to get some of the best outcomes, but it would cause you to not be able to afford the uber-upper-tier gear from shop vendors. This would be a de-facto way to avoid having to put points into a Speech skill. Instead of sacrificing points that could be instead applied to combat skills (in an effort for balanced gameplay), it could instead be an issue of budgeting better equipment versus better plot outcomes.

This would be very cool, having those who would scan you for money or who would not follow through on their promises. It would also be nice if there were serious negative consequences to a failed bribe, maybe through a reputation system or doors closing for other opportunities. And even having some nations/cultures much more accepting of the custom of bribery than others, maybe even having agents to work through government officials and who "grease the wheels," so to speak. There is lots of potential here.

Indeed. It's also a potentially powerful theme, the extent and heavy price of corruption. If it's not just us that are forced to engage in bribery but we also see common people stuck in the extortive nature of a very corrupt system.

Neccessary corruption is something many games (and, indeed, most forms of media) don't deal with or touch on. In many Western European/North American mindsets, corruption on a day-to-day basis is such a taboo and foreign concept. But in many areas of the world (and doubly so in pre-modern times, if this could be extrapolated to the pre-modern world of Thedas) corruption or "greasing of palms" for even the most trivial or mundane of government services isn't even unheard of... it is expected. In a setting like Thedas, with many large organizations (the Chantry, the Crows, the nobility, the various governments) it would seem quite plausible that in order to make any deals or transactions take place, some bribery would not only be present, but widespread.

This, I think, would be the most difficult thing to do, honestly. Implementing not just a bribery option, but a whole set of possible bribery approaches would be REALLY cool... but would also be a headache to handle. Having more scenes where the characters play this game would be really intriguing... but having to know how to set the right price and how to haggle without haggling would be difficult to pull off within the existing dialogue system.

Oh sorry, I did not mean interactivity or anything. I'd like that sure. But aside from that, bribery lines I find are often the most boring ones just looking at the lines themselves. "here's your money" "thanks" end of conversation. Here I simply meant making the lines themselves more interesting, kind of like how other persuasion tend to be engaging.

Kind of like the overt bribing between Ceasar and the High priest of Jupiter Maximus in the first season of Rome. Where ceasar brings up the mans wife and how he "clumsily forgot to giver her a gift for her birthday", the high priest is confused but Ceasar then asks if 10 000 is a sufficient gift for "her". At which point the high priest catches on and smiles a wicked smile.

A little flair, a little style, a little subtletly, a little justification (it's not a bribe, it's a friendly gift. we are friends, aren't we?), a little easing of sensibilities and a little stroking of egos. I'm fine with this mostly being done through autodialogue, haggling is a difficult enough process and we've already established to pay a bribe by choosing the option anyways (the final sum should probably be shown to us prior to choosing the option though).

So while an interactive system is definantely what I want, in this case I aimed for something less.

Ah, that DOES sound great. I would hope that if bribery were to become a bigger component in a game, then the writing tied to it would, similarly, take a bigger spotlight. You gave some great examples, BTW. Rome is a great show. I think the recent episodes of Game of Thrones with how Jamie has tried to bargain with his captors, for good and ill, are a great microcosm of how persuasion and bribery attempts could go right or wrong, as well.

I think it is important, as the fact that all too often the hero can just stroll up to heads of state or important people and get an audience is a little odd, though DA2 did do this with some VIPs... althought it was a little silly that you could meet with the Viscoint and the Arishok before you could meet with Meredith or Orsino... but Hawke's "killing his way to fame" always seemed pretty ham-fisted.

Money talks, bull shirt walks, as they say. I'd like to really explore a game that makes it as hard to get favors from people without some cash in your fist as it is in real life. 

Agreed.

I hope this gets the conversation a little more back on track. I've been as guilty as anyone in not actually discussing a persuasion system, but dialogue systems in general.

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Correct. It would be a real challenge making that balance, but it could be an interesting twist. Similarly, you could possibly have the balance set so that you could bribe everyone/in every instance to get some of the best outcomes, but it would cause you to not be able to afford the uber-upper-tier gear from shop vendors. This would be a de-facto way to avoid having to put points into a Speech skill. Instead of sacrificing points that could be instead applied to combat skills (in an effort for balanced gameplay), it could instead be an issue of budgeting better equipment versus better plot outcomes.

Hmmm... that could work. But then it needs to be hammered home just how insanely good these items are. I for one often forget to look through shops for temporary equipment. If I can get sufficiently good equipment without ever looking in a shop, then it's still difficult to balance.

A solution to that could be that shopkeepers call out when they have upgrades for us. They call our name or title, telling us about their mastercrafted dwarven weapons enchanted with ancient Tevinter techniques by the Archon's own tranquil. So we're constantly made aware that the shopkeepers actually have stuff we're interested in.

Neccessary corruption is something many games (and, indeed, most forms of media) don't deal with or touch on. In many Western European/North American mindsets, corruption on a day-to-day basis is such a taboo and foreign concept. But in many areas of the world (and doubly so in pre-modern times, if this could be extrapolated to the pre-modern world of Thedas) corruption or "greasing of palms" for even the most trivial or mundane of government services isn't even unheard of... it is expected. In a setting like Thedas, with many large organizations (the Chantry, the Crows, the nobility, the various governments) it would seem quite plausible that in order to make any deals or transactions take place, some bribery would not only be present, but widespread.

Indeed. One we've already been made aware of as it is widespread in Thedas. Whether it's the widespread lyrium smuggling to templars (featured in both DAO and DA2), the greasing of palms that Gamlen did to get you into Kirkwall, the protection racket of the Carta in Orzammar and Coterie in Kirkwall and so forth and the portmaster's assistant in Kirkwall. Much of it happens in the background however, only rarely subjecting the player to it.
So it's not that anything would have to change in the setting either. And the humiliation and domination that this sort of systemic corruption brings with it are very mature themes that I'd love to see explored further. Especially once power gets involved.
Just how would one's character react to a potential ally in a position of authority that demands sexual favours from women just to do his damn job?

And I imagine that if this theme is taken to a higher prominence, that will make demons of desire and pride become all the more potent (since now you actually have to engage in their fields of expertise)

I hope this gets the conversation a little more back on track. I've been as guilty as anyone in not actually discussing a persuasion system, but dialogue systems in general.

It goes a bit hand in hand though. Of the three pillars of rethorics, logos and ethos are equally valid in both approaches to voice. But pathos is extremely difficult to pull off silently, since it's almost entirely carried in tone, expression and body language. And I've got enough experience in public speaking to know that without pathos practically noone, whether privately or collectively, will listen to you.
Not impossible, mind.

But certain things I believe are virtually impossible to pull off silently. Veiled threats for instance, since they're defined by that the threat isn't spoken (just hinted at). Pride bitterly and barely suppresed in an agreement? All the explosive passion of haggling (which can be extremely fun )? Seduction? Fire and brimstone preaching?
For the strict purposes of persuasion that is.

I imagine that persuasion, in all it's forms, might just be one of the things where the presence of a voice provides the most value.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


Yet the silent PC ambiguity is part of its strength. The ambiguity of the voiced PC is its downfall. If both systems run the risk of dialogue options resulting in different responses than intended, than it is better for the sustainability of the role play to allow the player to believe that the NPC misunderstood rather than have PC act in ways that break the player's concept for the character.

Is "believe" the correct concept there?

I can see pretending that the NPC misunderstood what the PC was saying; forcing myself to use that interpretation in order to preserve the integrity of the experience, But actually believing it myself?

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Potato, tomato.

[AlanC9]

I just wanted to be clear about the mental process involved.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I'd argue that BioWare's games have not allowed you to do this for some time.  Probably going back to at least KOTOR, though admittedly I didn't play Jade Empire.

You can create all the history you want in KOTOR, but none of it is actually true.  You have to come up with rationalizations ex post facto when the reveal happens to still maintain congruity with one's backstory.

Not at all.  Those are all neatly explained away by the false memories the Jedi implanted in the protagonist.  Whatever backstory the player had been working from throughout the game simply gets declared a lie, but it doesn't change anything about the PC's personality or how the PC views his decisions.

Or, the example I love to use...

Is Quaid not Quaid because he was Hauser first?

Terrific example.

[HiddenInWar]

I'm a sucker for dialogue wheels

All of the dialogue wheels

[Fast Jimmy]

It goes a bit hand in hand though. Of the three pillars of rethorics, logos and ethos are equally valid in both approaches to voice. But pathos is extremely difficult to pull off silently, since it's almost entirely carried in tone, expression and body language. And I've got enough experience in public speaking to know that without pathos practically noone, whether privately or collectively, will listen to you.
Not impossible, mind.

But certain things I believe are virtually impossible to pull off silently. Veiled threats for instance, since they're defined by that the threat isn't spoken (just hinted at). Pride bitterly and barely suppresed in an agreement? All the explosive passion of haggling (which can be extremely fun )? Seduction? Fire and brimstone preaching?
For the strict purposes of persuasion that is.

I imagine that persuasion, in all it's forms, might just be one of the things where the presence of a voice provides the most value.

I would say, though, that these are all options for a silent PC. After all, can a fire and brimstone preacher not be written in a book? Can a veiled threat not be? A demonstration of jilted pride?

I would say these things are limited by the writing, not by the design. Just like a script can have actions, personality and implied tone outside of the actor's performance, the dialogue list CAN work in this manner, even if we didn't often see this in DA:O. We saw this more in games like Planescape Torment, which allowed even such designations as if you were saying a line where our character believed they were telling the truth or lying.

Also, as a side note, we very rarely see the protagonist in RPG games have such a strong background/personality that would benefit from such a performance. After all, how many games have a bible-thumping Pentecostal as the main character? Usually we see a rather low-key VA that allows versatility for a lot of situations. Then character roles of companions or NPCs are given the much more nuanced performances. In this, a voiced NPC brings a lot more to the table than a silent one... but the voiced/silent PC is where we see more value (in my estimation) to the player than a voiced one.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 mai 2013 - 04:08 .

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I would say, though, that these are all options for a silent PC. After all, can a fire and brimstone preacher not be written in a book? Can a veiled threat not be? A demonstration of jilted pride?

I would say these things are limited by the writing, not by the design. Just like a script can have actions, personality and implied tone outside of the actor's performance, the dialogue list CAN work in this manner, even if we didn't often see this in DA:O. We saw this more in games like Planescape Torment, which allowed even such designations as if you were saying a line where our character believed they were telling the truth or lying.

Also, as a side note, we very rarely see the protagonist in RPG games have such a strong background/personality that would benefit from such a performance. After all, how many games have a bible-thumping Pentecostal as the main character? Usually we see a rather low-key VA that allows versatility for a lot of situations. Then character roles of companions or NPCs are given the much more nuanced performances. In this, a voiced NPC brings a lot more to the table than a silent one... but the voiced/silent PC is where we see more value (in my estimation) to the player than a voiced one.

Mind though, that the dialogue in books and the dialogue of (most) silent rpg protagonist differs significantly. In the former, there's very often descriptive phrases that help leads us come to the "correct" conclusion of tone, body language and such. They have similarities, yes... but enough differences to matter. I've yet to see a single literary work where you had to guess/imagine what any character was saying.

But perhaps I should not have started this tangent at all... it easily spills over into a discussion over the merits and flaws of the respective systems, rather than persuasion itself as you mentioned (and that we've seen).

An interesting point that could be discussed is how often persuasion should be an option either to gain something extra or avoid a confrontation. To me, the ideal would of course be an interactive social system (and I imagine that bioware's dialogue heavy rpgs is where such a system could really shine) that would see heavy use. But I'm not really expecting it. But regardless, how prevalent should it be? How often should invetsing it allow you to alter the situation or gain extra rewards?
I imagine that a neat approach would be that it frequently would reward you with bonus information/lore and that this would allow it to see more frequent use. It'd allow you to learn what relationship people have with the events, things they'd otherwise keep to themselves or even if the situation might not be as favourable as they first presented it. And then, on occasion allow you to gain a greater reward or avoid a fight.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

Mind though, that the dialogue in books and the dialogue of (most) silent rpg protagonist differs significantly. In the former, there's very often descriptive phrases that help leads us come to the "correct" conclusion of tone, body language and such. They have similarities, yes... but enough differences to matter. I've yet to see a single literary work where you had to guess/imagine what any character was saying.

Because, in books, the reader isn't an active participant in the narrative.  The reader doesn't have any control over the characters.  The reader isn't making any of the characters' decisions.

In roleplaying games, however, the player does (and should) get to do those things.  The player can imagine content, and the game lets him do so.

I suppose the reader could do the same thing with a book, but I'm not really sure why he would want to.  There's less investment in the character in a book, because the character isn't the reader's.

[Bleachrude]

I tend to disagree with the silent protoganist...

It just looks incredibly weird and takes me out of the story as everyone else is talking and I just sit there and don't respond....

It looks like the NPC is having a one sided conversation...I'm with Angry joe on that...

And yes, those examples you used Fastjimmy look dopey with the warden just standing there while everyone is walking/reacting...

It's like she's a mannequin and she's just there as scenery....

Modifié par Bleachrude, 20 mai 2013 - 10:17 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sir JK wrote...

An interesting point that could be discussed is how often persuasion should be an option either to gain something extra or avoid a confrontation. To me, the ideal would of course be an interactive social system (and I imagine that bioware's dialogue heavy rpgs is where such a system could really shine) that would see heavy use. But I'm not really expecting it. But regardless, how prevalent should it be? How often should invetsing it allow you to alter the situation or gain extra rewards?
I imagine that a neat approach would be that it frequently would reward you with bonus information/lore and that this would allow it to see more frequent use. It'd allow you to learn what relationship people have with the events, things they'd otherwise keep to themselves or even if the situation might not be as favourable as they first presented it. And then, on occasion allow you to gain a greater reward or avoid a fight.

Hmmmm... like having a Persuasion system to access the Investigate options? These essentially just give you more information/lore/background on characters. Hmmmm. I could see this possibly working. I'd need some time to digest that...