318 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

That's my problem with Bioware's choice... not that they moved to a voice protagonist. But that they seemed to have zero understanding of why the silent PC had tons of value when they went about their system to implement said protagonist.

This has largely been my perception, as well.  It took nearly 3 games of us complaining about the limitations of the voiced protagonist before anyone at BioWare seemed to understand what we were talking about.

Now, to be fair to the writers, they were always operating from a different level of perception than we were, because they knew their own intent.  As such, their interpretation of the dialogue was always coloured by that intent (of which the players were actually unaware).  And when people did complain about the silent protagonist dialogue, it typically highlighted this divide.  Players who wanted to play the way BioWare thought everyone was playing had trouble doing so, because there wasn't enough information provided about the dialogue's intent.

So BioWare added that information, and thus badly damaged the game for those of us who were playing entirely differently.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 14 mai 2013 - 08:00 .

[Kidd]

9TailsFox wrote...

ReallyRue wrote...

I like that DA2 linked it to personality. I mean, it makes sense that a more aggressive person would be better at threats than a more gentle person. Or that a gentle person would be better at coaxing than an aggressive one.

However, I don't think that should automatically restrict some of our choices. For instance, you can only help Petrice if you have an aggressive personality (and therefore receive the option of kill a Qunari to prove yourself to Varnell's torture club). That choice should be open to diplomatic and sarcastic Hawkes too. Personality and morality aren't the same thing.

I disagree I think it was perfect, it should automatically restrict some of our choices. Like you say you can only help Petrice if you have aggressive personality(I didn't even know what possible of course I would never help her but it's nice to know there is possibility).Or same exemple you if you have Diplomatic personality you can make peace between elf and, human who was werewolf in DA.

This doesn't jive with me, even though I overall love how DA2 handled persuasion. Why couldn't a diplomatic Hawke who believed in the Maker and the Chantry agree to removing the Qunari threat? Scheming to further one's ends is definitely a diplomatic action.

[elyu]

I'd like it to be skill based and to also have different options on how you express yourself. Like in Mass Effect the paragon and renegade persuasion options were very different. But only if the player can't tell if the persuasion will succeed before they try it, meaning no gray options in the dialogue wheel. Kinda takes the fun out of it.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
That's my problem with Bioware's choice... not that they moved to a voice protagonist. But that they seemed to have zero understanding of why the silent PC had tons of value when they went about their system to implement said protagonist.

This has largely been my perception, as well.  It took nearly 3 games of us complaining about the limitations of the voiced protagonist before anyone at BioWare seemed to understand what we were talking about.

Now, to be fair to the writers, they were always operating from a different level of perception than we were, because they knew their own intent.  As such, their interpretation of the dialogue was always coloured by that intent (of which the players were actually unaware).  And when people did complain about the silent protagonist dialogue, it typically highlighted this divide.  Players who wanted to play the way BioWare thought everyone was playing had trouble doing so, because there wasn't enough information provided about the dialogue's intent.

So BioWare added that information, and thus badly damaged the game for those of us who were playing entirely differently.

I concur.

[Naitaka]

I'd love if persuasion would work based on how much information you've actually acquired about the subject and the person you're speaking to; much like how dossier worked in Alpha Protocol and how Divinity 2 handles such things. Perhaps helping a soldier who have been swindled by a merchant would give insight on said merchant's shady dealings in such a way that we can blackmail him into doing our bidding in another quest. I've always found the whole paragon/renegade thing in ME series to be very silly and would much rather prefer a system that's based more around actively ACQUIRING the information you need than simply passing a stat or skill check.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

To be fair, there occasionally were some dialogue options in DA2 that were only unlocked based on the fact that you used the Investigate option in a prior conversation.

It didnt happen often and the game gave you zero indication that this was the case (more cases of card tricks in the dark); but the game did offer it.

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

It's rather like Jimmy has mentioned--if there is a "right choice," I feel obliged to try to gain it.

Now, I'll note this doesn't happen in every game. For my, say, third or fourth playthrough of DA:O to this last one (around seven?), I took my Grey Warden directly to Redcliffe, because Alistair, the senior Grey Warden, says more than once that Arl Eamon can help us and that we should go there first. As a result, I felt unable in character to go to the Circle to try to save Connor and his mother both, because of the Circle turmoil. This resulted in someone dying who could have been prevented entirely. This resulted in "me" using blood magic, the consortium with demons, because I felt it was the best way given the circumstances.

I was willing to accept the suboptimal game conditions for better roleplaying. But I find that difficult in AP or in DE:HR--probably because those aren't the only problems, just the latest in a line, I have with roleplaying [like KotOR with Revan really having his old memory, it just being hidden (which means he/she is a set protagonist with set beliefs that caused him/her to become a Jedi, rebel, then become a Sith)] in these games.

I only changed my strategy in DA:O because I realized the game does not tell you the Circle's problems while you're at Redcliffe, thus the PC doesn't know about it, thus I was unintentionally metagaming.

This depends on what metric you're using for evaluating the "correct choice."

Going back to Alpha Protocol, being nice to Mina is only the "right choice" if you have constructed a value system that considers "Mina's approval" as being more worth while than whatever consequences you may think exist for Mike's other responses.

If you make every choice "equivalent" in value, you can also effectively make choice meaningless.

This comes across as a statement that you do not want consequences with your "choice and consequences."  As a gamer, I can only agree to disagree.

The best time, for myself, to have "all choices being equivalent in their value" is at the end game.  Mostly because there's no opportunity for the player to work around whatever problems may be introduced.  That said, I don't think it's a requirement.  Bloodlines has some awesome endings that are decidedly bad endings, and they are a direct consequence of the decisions that you have made in the game, so it still works.


Sometimes you want choice to simply be an illusion, as it's a way for you to define your character.  Such as agreeing to do something because you think it's a good idea, or agreeing to do something despite reservations that you may have.

That Alpha Protocol lets you smash Grigori's head into the bar as a way to intimidate him does a marvelous job of allowing the player to define Mike's character.  Going back to your original concern, if a player defines the "right choice" as the choice that fits their character the best, then smashing Grigori's head into the bar is unequivocally the right choice.

Take that away, and I feel Alpha Protocol becomes a weaker game, and undermines what I feel is far and away its strongest characteristic.

Just my opinion.

[Allan Schumacher]

The other side of that coin is that our character begins doing these things without any input at all. After a time, it becomes less you having a conversation and more watching how Bioware's character is behaving in a situation.

Text gives you the option to at least say "Turian Merc, to woman." Though disjointed, it gives player choice instead of being relegated from an interactive medium to a passive one.

Can't agree with this. I interact on a daily basis with people without having subtitles to rely on.

Granted, you can't say "Pardon me" in a game (since you can only do what is put into the game), but I can't remember specific instances where I have found myself needing the text to know what is going on.

However, when a scene is created in a way to utilize body language, tonal shifts, emphasis, pauses, and so forth, I feel it's value added and things like sarcasm and subtle nuances end up coming across more clearly.

Furthermore, I do subvocalize, so I found myself disabling subtitled specifically because I couldn't help but read them, which disrupted my own pacing and made the sequences less enjoyable for me. So I disabled subtitles and found myself enjoying the experiences more.

And I very much am a fan of the more cinematic conversations (having recently played KOTOR 2 and going through something much more static).

That's my problem with Bioware's choice... not that they moved to a voice protagonist. But that they seemed to have zero understanding of why the silent PC had tons of value when they went about their system to implement said protagonist.

Ouch....

I wouldn't be one to consider myself clueless to why the silent PC has value. But you're welcome to think that's the case if you so desire.

I say this with Planescape: Torment being my all time favourite game.  I loved the push to make NPCs voiced when it happened, and find that games like Alpha Protocol are only further complemented by having the protagonist voiced as well.  Same goes for Mass Effect.

From a technical side, I found it interesting how Meer greatly improved as a voice actor from ME1 to ME3, but in general I'd still consider FemShep weaker without the fantastic work that Hale delivered throughout.

Different strokes for different folks.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 16 mai 2013 - 06:25 .

[SeismicGravy]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

That's my problem with Bioware's choice... not that they moved to a voice protagonist. But that they seemed to have zero understanding of why the silent PC had tons of value when they went about their system to implement said protagonist.

Respectfully have to disagree.

Adding voiced protagonists in the game was one of the best things they did.  I'd much rather have a conversation with somebody rather then stay mute and let them do all the talking.  Having said that, should they implement a system where they had a combination of both VA and and true ME style dialogue wheel (including paragon/renegade style speech checks) then I would be happy.

[Lord Issa]

Could we perhaps have a persuasion system that can fail spectacularly dependent on context?

Examples:

Weak willed man who is too important politically to kill is hindering your inquisitions. You can intimidate him, but later on he will betray you making your situation worse in the long run. If you persuade him he remains loyal.

Templar suspects you of being a Blood Mage. If you try and manipulate him using Blood Magic or persuasion, he will think (correctly or otherwise) that you are trying to mind control him and he attacks, causing issues with the local Templars.

Unruly mob threatens you. Persuasion doesn't work, intimidation can scare off a few, but if you are a Blood Mage you can take advantage of the mob mentality to manipulate them into tearing each other apart.

Informer wants a bribe to remain silent. Persuasion can see him off with a few coins, but intimidation fails. Blood Magic succeeds at first but later on in the game the effects wear off and he informs on you. If you fail all checks, you can either pay him off (but he still betrays you) or you can kill him (getting you in trouble with his crime guild)


The checks are skill based as in DA:O, but laid out as they were in DA2. (with class based options glowing on the left hand side of the wheel)

Would appreciate thoughts on this concept.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm going to cut your response up and address it in a different order than you posted, if you don't mind. I apologize in advance.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That's my problem with Bioware's choice... not that they moved to a voice protagonist. But that they seemed to have zero understanding of why the silent PC had tons of value when they went about their system to implement said protagonist.

Ouch....

I wouldn't be one to consider myself clueless to why the silent PC has value. But you're welcome to think that's the case if you so desire.

I say this with Planescape: Torment being my all time favourite game.  I loved the push to make NPCs voiced when it happened, and find that games like Alpha Protocol are only further complemented by having the protagonist voiced as well.  Same goes for Mass Effect.

From a technical side, I found it interesting how Meer greatly improved as a voice actor from ME1 to ME3, but in general I'd still consider FemShep weaker without the fantastic work that Hale delivered throughout.

Different strokes for different folks.

For what it's worth, I had planned on going back and editting that comment to be a little less abrasive, but I had gotten busy at work and by the time I had a chance to, people had already quoted it, so I just let the chips fall where they may.

That being said, I used the term "Bioware" not because I don't believe there is a single employee in the company/division that knows/sees the value in the ambiguity that the silent PC offered, nor to the added development flexibility that the unvoiced PC also adds, but that the person who made those calls for DA2 did not demonstrate them. I'm sure the overall choice was made as a group, but... as with all corporate functions, there is someone who takes the lead and makes the driving decisions on this. 

Since I did not know if that person was Mike, or Mark, or Aaron, or David, or John, or some other person I may or may not be familiar with, I used the wider "Bioware" designation.

The other side of that coin is that our character begins doing these things without any input at all. After a time, it becomes less you having a conversation and more watching how Bioware's character is behaving in a situation.

Text gives you the option to at least say "Turian Merc, to woman." Though disjointed, it gives player choice instead of being relegated from an interactive medium to a passive one.

Can't agree with this. I interact on a daily basis with people without having subtitles to rely on.

Granted, you can't say "Pardon me" in a game (since you can only do what is put into the game), but I can't remember specific instances where I have found myself needing the text to know what is going on.

However, when a scene is created in a way to utilize body language, tonal shifts, emphasis, pauses, and so forth, I feel it's value added and things like sarcasm and subtle nuances end up coming across more clearly.

Furthermore, I do subvocalize, so I found myself disabling subtitled specifically because I couldn't help but read them, which disrupted my own pacing and made the sequences less enjoyable for me. So I disabled subtitles and found myself enjoying the experiences more.

And I very much am a fan of the more cinematic conversations (having recently played KOTOR 2 and going through something much more static).

Arguably, I'd say that this is part of the problem. Yes, a voiced protagonist can enhance a scene with body language, tone, emphasis... as well as cinematic design, such as NPCs moving around the room, interacting with objects, etc. But, at the same time, for every time this happens, it takes away player agency. It is now the character making these decisions, not the player. Which runs the risk of defying the player's vision of the character they had been trying to play. It runs the risk, each and every time, of turning the character from what someone would call "My" Hawke to just... Hawke. Bioware's design and creation. 

Limited dialogue options will always prevent 100% roleplaying, but when all of these "flavor" items are brought into the character, unknown to the player, it relinquishes even more control. To which many people may just say "Deal With It," but it is a fundamental shift in the design philosophy of letting the player make their own character as much as possible. Some would even argue that this level of "Auto-dialogue," if you will, makes the series no longer even an RPG. Which is a truly debatable topic, for sure, but it still supports my idea that the way the voiced protagonist was implemented for DA2 did not keep in mind player agency as much as it should have during the development process. 

I would not say it is impossible that a game with enough player agency to build a character cannot be done with a voiced protagonist, but I'd say there hasn't been any evidence of it. Alpha Protocol has a great dialogue system and lots of reactivity/choice and consequence, but it gives you no way to understand Michael Thornton's thoughts or background, it only gives you three tonal options in most situations. The Witcher falls into the same boat - you can choose many different dialogue options and make diferent decisions, but Geralt has a set background, with roughly the same outlook. You can make different decisions on his behalf, but ultimately he is a character that the player can influence, not control. The same could be said for Adam Jensen in DE:HR.

On the other hand, we have games like DA:O, Fallout: New Vegas, Icewind Dale, Temple of Elemental Evil, Arcanum... games that offered really deep stories, yet left the building of the character entirely up to the player. Some of them offered custom content based on background decisions you made, like DA:O or Arcanum, some left the characters history a total mystery (FO:NV). But the games were still able to offer strong gameplay, good stories, choice and consequence and player agency. It seems that much of these elements are traded off for more cinematic storytelling.

Because, again, I haven't seen any evidence of a voiced PC that provides anywhere near the level of player agency seen with a silent one. Because in these games, you are not the actor, portraying the character on stage, but the director, sitting in chair, removed from the events, simply giving the actor directions "More anger! Be more diplomatic! Throw some snark in there - don't be afraid to mix it up!" It is giving the player an entirely different role, which, for me, creates an entirely different game experience.



In addition, to bring in subtitles... I think they have the potential to offer more than you give them credit for. Sure, we all talk on a day-to-day basis without them... but we usually don't talk to people with foreign accents (like MANY Thedosians have) about Fantasy events, people and locales which may have never heard of or had no insight into. Not to mention I can read much faster than I can watch. And if I am playing a game for the second or third time, as much I may have loved the original performance, I can see in subtitle very quickly if the same exact line is being delivered in the same exact way and can skip it. Not the whole scene, mind you, just that one line. It saves probably 5-10 hours total over the course of the playthrough.

[Fast Jimmy]

SeismicGravy wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

That's my problem with Bioware's choice... not that they moved to a voice protagonist. But that they seemed to have zero understanding of why the silent PC had tons of value when they went about their system to implement said protagonist.

Respectfully have to disagree.

Adding voiced protagonists in the game was one of the best things they did.  I'd much rather have a conversation with somebody rather then stay mute and let them do all the talking.  Having said that, should they implement a system where they had a combination of both VA and and true ME style dialogue wheel (including paragon/renegade style speech checks) then I would be happy.

That is a fair enough response. I realize some people cannot become immersed in a game with a mute protagonist. I would not agree that the ME version of the wheel is the best dialogue mechanism to date, but that is a fine opinion to have. 

My problem is that the change should not have happened within the same IP. Just like moving Shepherd from voiced to silent in ME2 would have been a bad call, it was a similarly bad call to add the voice to the DA series. As I argued above, it changes the way the player interacts with every character in the entire game. It changes how you approach every piece of the story. You are now making a decision as a set character, not making choices for your character. 

I'd say ME1 had better success with getting people to identify with their character partly due to the different reactions to different backgrounds, the large number of neutral or unflagged dialogue options and the less cinematic appraoch to much of the conversations. After all, your companions sit in the same spot on the ship the entire game and conversations are data dumps. That's very much in line with less cinematic games that don't use the voiced protagonist. This allowed people to connect with their Shepherd early in the series.

Some people may not like it. And cinematic approaches may help liven up a game and make it more engaging. But until the interface can offer either mcuh more ambiguity in how things play out or an exponentially higher level of control over background, thoughts, actions and emotions of the character we are playing, it will be a fundamentally different experience. Which isn't good, bad or indifferent in most cases... but it is not something they should change mid-IP. It is arguable you can see resitance to this with fans in ME3, who complained that they suddenly lost control of their character, who was now doing things they would never do.

If a change between silent to voiced is going to be done, it would, at the least, need some serious rebranding, letting people know this is not the same experience at all... which was not done from DA:O to DA2. And, arguably, isn't being done now, with lines like "we are taking the best elements of DA:O and DA2 to make DA3." Because the best elements of DA:O, for some people, are unreconciliable with the DA2 model, wholly and completely. But hopefully I will change my tune when DA3 comes out and is the perfect execution of player agency and a voice character.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 16 mai 2013 - 02:03 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I'll say one last thing and then take a break from the conversation for a while.

It is one thing to say "let's have the character do this in a scene" and an ENTIRELY different one to say "let's give the player the OPTION to have their character do this in a scene." Don't make me fall to my knees upon my mother's death. Don't make my jaw go slack when Duncan Murder Knife's Jory. Don't EVER make my Shepherd do this face...



...unless I tell him to. 

If you give the player much more control (or, at the least, pre-knowledge) of what the choice or reactions will result in, it will give the player a better sense of control. Sure, there may be not as many options... but they will be options the player can fully understand before making them. 

I'm not a person who looks back at old games with overly rose-tinted glasses... I know that, as wide open as Ultima 7 was, it still had an incredibly linear plot with little choice that resulted in different outcomes. I know that most dialogue options in Baldur's Gate usually were just three or four options and a goodbye, just like most dialogue options in DA2 were three or four options (granted, with no goodbye). I know that DA:O had a great number of contrivances that moved the plot and the PC forward that offered no option but to just go with the flow.

But just like graphics, animation, sound, prevalence of story and new interfaces have grown and increased over the years, roleplaying elements should increase as well. While things like using tone or paraphrases are fine enough inventions, it really limits how much the player knows about the actual actions. And changing to these concepts from one where we knew, through the sheer existence of ambiguity, exactly what our character was doing or saying, was a change that should have either not taken place at all within the same IP, or should have been done in small, piecemeal steps.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 16 mai 2013 - 02:37 .

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'll say one last thing and then take a break from the conversation for a while.

It is one thing to say "let's have the character do this in a scene" and an ENTIRELY different one to say "let's give the player the OPTION to have their character do this in a scene." Don't make me fall to my knees upon my mother's death. Don't make my jaw go slack when Duncan Murder Knife's Jory. Don't EVER make my Shepherd do this face...



...unless I tell him to. 

If you give the player much more control (or, at the least, pre-knowledge) of what the choice or reactions will result in, it will give the player a better sense of control. Sure, there may be not as many options... but they will be options the player can fully understand before making them. 

I'm not a person who looks back at old games with overly rose-tinted glasses... I know that, as wide open as Ultima 7 was, it still had an incredibly linear plot with little choice that resulted in different outcomes. I know that most dialogue options in Baldur's Gate usually were just three or four options and a goodbye, just like most dialogue options in DA2 were three or four options (granted, with no goodbye). I know that DA:O had a great number of contrivances that moved the plot and the PC forward that offered no option but to just go with the flow.

But just like graphics, animation, sound, prevalence of story and new interfaces have grown and increased over the years, roleplaying elements should increase as well. While things like using tone or paraphrases are fine enough inventions, it really limits how much the player knows about the actual actions. And changing to these concepts from one where we knew, through the sheer existence of ambiguity, exactly what our character was doing or saying, was a change that should have either not taken place at all within the same IP, or should have been done in small, piecemeal steps.

Sylvius has said something similar arguing against cinematics, and I have the same response for you as I have for him: that would truly cripply the cinematic flow of a scene, which tells me Bioware won't be doing that. Bioware's been cinematic since KotOR, and I see no evidence of a change.

I'd respectfully disagree.

Did the scene with Connor, where he making Teaghan dance like a possessed puppet and berating his mother seem any less creepy because your character wasn't voiced, though the other ones were and interacting with each other?

Did the introduction of Morrigan, with Allistair, Jory and Daveth all speaking to and about Morrigan, seem broken up or ham-fisted with a silent PC?

Did the Landsmeet, where you accuse Loghain in front of an entire crowd of people, who can chime in and comment, seem arbitrarily choppy or odd to respond to?

I'd say no. And if having to read four or five different lines of text each time you needed to respond in those situations didn't "break" the scenes there, I don't think they would if a voiced protagonist was involved.

So having the choice in these interactions is not the problem. You gave all your spoken lines in text format in DA:O and filled in the blanks of tone, inflection, non-verbal expressions and . The trick is just to improve the dialogue interface to allow for either more information to be displayed about what the character is going to say and/or more control over other things than dialogue, such as non-verbal actions, etc.

It is not EASY, for sure. A universal system that could be understood is likely hard to accomplish (just look at the confusion between icons in DA2... I mean, did ANYONE seriously think that a diamond was a Charming response without first looking it up in the manual?), but it should be a goal, even if it is not 100% realized.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 16 mai 2013 - 03:59 .

[Sjpelke]

Having cinematics in a game that involve the PC, having him/her talk in that and it refers to things where the player made choices about which then should be implemented to make sense to the player is realisable I think...

The reason that there is not much (or any?) choice that has a real concequence in how the game ends and the cinematics leading up to that are what proofs that.

However, it could be done but that would mean doing a different set up in the cinematics. In DA2 they were leading towards the same outcome with the only difference being what side you chose how the end battle proceeded at the start.

Doing several playthroughs and making different choices made that very clear. In DAO there were several, very different, endings which depended on what choices the player made. The cinematics were very different depending on those choices.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd respectfully disagree.

Did the scene with Connor, where he making Teaghan dance like a possessed puppet and berating his mother seem any less creepy because your character wasn't voiced, though the other ones were and interacting with each other?

Did the introduction of Morrigan, with Allistair, Jory and Daveth all speaking to and about Morrigan, seem broken up or ham-fisted with a silent PC?

Did the Landsmeet, where you accuse Loghain in front of an entire crowd of people, who can chime in and comment, seem arbitrarily choppy or odd to respond to?

I'd say no. And if having to read four or five different lines of text each time you needed to respond in those situations didn't "break" the scenes there, I don't think they would if a voiced protagonist was involved.

So having the choice in these interactions is not the problem. You gave all your spoken lines in text format in DA:O and filled in the blanks of tone, inflection, non-verbal expressions and . The trick is just to improve the dialogue interface to allow for either more information to be displayed about what the character is going to say and/or more control over other things than dialogue, such as non-verbal actions, etc.

It is not EASY, for sure. A universal system that could be understood is likely hard to accomplish (just look at the confusion between icons in DA2... I mean, did ANYONE seriously think that a diamond was a Charming response without first looking it up in the manual?), but it should be a goal, even if it is not 100% realized.

That's a good point--but these things involve the PC standing there like a lump and not interacting with the environment. They don't involve the PC. Bioware wants to involve the PC in their cinematic scenes.

Not neccessarily. 

For instance, look at DE:HR. If you had the Speech upgrades, you could see how NPCs reacted to your statements, with either distaste, anger, sadness, happiness, humor, etc. This was tracked by a Yellow/Red/Green heart line monitor (it actually was "measuring" something else, I'm not sure if it was brain waves or what, but the general idea is there) that moved up and down based on what the PC said. What if, instead, we could control a similar type line, but for our PC's own reactions? We could indicate approval if Duncan stabbed Jory, or sadness when Shale calls us a squishy human or anger when Morrigan invites us into her tent.

This wouldn't be tied to our dialogue choices, but perhaps how we conveyed facial expressions and/or had any auto-dialogue happen. If left in the middle, with no input from the player, it would be similar to The Walking Dead's "Say Nothing" option, where we could keep a rather stoney face and blank demeanor, offering no auto-dialogue or, if it was required, delivering it somewhat deadpan.

This wouldn't be a flawless system, but it is one I just conjured out of thin air in the last five minutes. I'm pretty sure someone who does this kind of thing for a job all day could come up with something better if they made it a priority. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 16 mai 2013 - 04:33 .

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Not neccessarily. 

For instance, look at DE:HR. If you had the Speech upgrades, you could see how NPCs reacted to your statements, with either distaste, anger, sadness, happiness, humor, etc. This was tracked by a Yellow/Red/Green heart line monitor (it actually was "measuring" something else, I'm not sure if it was brain waves or what, but the general idea is there) that moved up and down based on what the PC said. What if, instead, we could control a similar type line, but for our PC's own reactions? We could indicate approval if Duncan stabbed Jory, or sadness when Shale calls us a squishy human or anger when Morrigan invites us into her tent.

This wouldn't be tied to our dialogue choices, but perhaps how we either conveyed facial expressions or had any auto-dialogue happen. If left in the middle, with no input from the player, it would be similar to The Walking Dead's "Say Nothing" option, where we could keep a rather stoney face and blank demeanor, offering no auto-dialogue or, if it was required, delivering it somewhat deadpan.

This wouldn't be a flawless system, but it is one I just conjured out of thin air in the last five minutes. I'm pretty sure someone who does this kind of thing for a job all day could come up with something better if they made it a priority. 

You may have forgotted--Gaider said they were working on something like this.

But the problem I see with this, is that it DOES cripple a flow, at least how I'm seeing it: that you pick an option.  The only way I can think of to not having it do that is make it like an ME interrupt, which is possible.

Further, how many different emotions are they going to put up there? Just three? I don't know that would be enough--because everyone may respond to the same stimuli in a completely different way.

I do remeber Gaider saying they would have some control over reactions and ambient responses, but I remember it being very vague. But, that is the problem, too. How many options are going to be available to react? And how much control are we going to get in regards to that reaction?

I may see Udina and hate the guy, so I'll have my character slide down to the anger/aggressive/distate slide (whatever the case may be). Does my character frown and glower... or does he pull out his pistol and shoot him in the face?! Those are two very different ends of the spectrum.

That's kind of why I suggested the line, as it has varying degrees of like and dislike. I may consider giving a simple head nod to Sten when I see him as friendly, but the game may have me go up and give him a big bear hug. And vice versa. 

So I'd really prefer a text write out of the action/reaction instead of a tonal one. The wheel should pop up "hug him/acknowledge him/high five him/shoot him in the face" as options, rather than "happy/polite/friendly/aggressive" as options. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 16 mai 2013 - 05:08 .

[The Elder King]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


So I'd really prefer a text write out of the action/reaction instead of a tonal one. The wheel should pop up "hug him/acknowledge him/high five him/shoot him in the face" as options, rather than "happy/polite/friendly/aggressive" as options. 

If they'll continue to use icons (don't know if they'll do), the might create new icons for the "happy/sad/angry/etc" options, and a brief description of what the PC will do.

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I understand, but I would argue that the "correct choice" is the one that is clearly outlined in the mission objectives. I don't remember what the mission objectives said for that mission, so I'll use another as an example: the NSA computer bank. Your entire purpose for being there was to plant the bug. Thus, anything that goes against that (like say shooting an NSA operative) is the "wrong" choice.

I'm not talking about an internal correct choice, I'm talking about what the game tells you to do.

It's only the wrong choice to shoot an NSA operative if it leads to game over.  If your goal is to enact revenge on a corrupt system that left you out to dry and tried to kill you, killing NSA operatives still serves your overall goal.

It also has an impact on how difficult the mission is (i.e. it's less difficult to run around shooting people in the faces instead of meticulously sneaking around them.

It's a system with great consequences in my opinion, and great variability in how you want to play.  Protecting players against metagaming is likely not worth the effort, IMO.