207 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
If it happens as little as what I'm being corrected on in this thread, then I still have to ask - why the hell was it included at all, and why did anyone bother to even mentioned it in BSN, marketing, or the official guide.

Because if it hadn't been included, and hadn't been widely promoted, then there would have been widespread complaints about those lines where the player wasn't consulted on tone.

The dominant tone system existed purely to give us some influence over lines where we would not otherwise have had any influence at all.

Well, it failed.  My first Hawke was an absolute jerk to Isabela, went out of his way to be mean to her, and the game still did cut scenes where he greeted her and talked about her like she was his best friend.

So major fail.

[pdusen]

Frankly, I liked the fact that when I played as a mostly sarcastic Hawke, and then came to a point where I had to make a tone-less choice, Hawke still sounded Sarcastic because that was my dominant tone. I'm going to miss that system.

[Lau Maru]

there should be an option to perform nonsensicalacts,like a templar is trying to accuse u of being mage and u say if i was a mage could i do this? and then dance horribly... like shepard and then take his coin purse and flee, leaving thetemplar w/o pants 4 some reason

[Fredward]

Lau Maru wrote...

there should be an option to perform nonsensicalacts,like a templar is trying to accuse u of being mage and u say if i was a mage could i do this? and then dance horribly... like shepard and then take his coin purse and flee, leaving thetemplar w/o pants 4 some reason

What.

[Lau Maru]

exactly

[Lau Maru]

there should always b an option to steal someone's pants. especially if character is a rogue

[MerinTB]

Lau Maru wrote...

there should always b an option to steal someone's pants. especially if character is a rogue

And to backstab.

With a ballista.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...

Well, it failed.  My first Hawke was an absolute jerk to Isabela, went out of his way to be mean to her, and the game still did cut scenes where he greeted her and talked about her like she was his best friend.

So major fail.

Not really. It's impossible for a game to really handle showing the kind of abusive relationships that players sometimes want in games without an unreasonable cost, or without compromising gameplay significantly. 

DA:O managed to do it because there was very little low approval content. 

[AlanC9]

MerinTB wrote...
Well, it failed.  My first Hawke was an absolute jerk to Isabela, went out of his way to be mean to her, and the game still did cut scenes where he greeted her and talked about her like she was his best friend.

So major fail.

Huh? Dominant tone is not based on tracking your interactions with particular characters, it's about your general disposition. Unless you wanted Hawke to be a jerk to everybody, not just Isabela, this isn't the subsystem to blame.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Well, it failed.  My first Hawke was an absolute jerk to Isabela, went out of his way to be mean to her, and the game still did cut scenes where he greeted her and talked about her like she was his best friend.

So major fail.

No, it succeeded.  I think the goal was to avoid a major backlash about the auto-dialogue, and there wasn't one.  Mission accomplished.

It certainly didn't succeed in offering actual player control over that auto-dialogue.  That's obviously impossible, and the primary reason why I think auto-dialogue is always a bad idea.  In fact, I argued, prior to release, that the dominant tone system would produce exactly the situation you describe, because it couldn't possibly account for all of the different types of portrayals a player might imagine.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Not really. It's impossible for a game to really handle showing the kind of abusive relationships that players sometimes want in games without an unreasonable cost, or without compromising gameplay significantly.

Because the game assumed camraderie, and did so purely on the basis of two people having met.

It's possible not to meet Isabela, but if you do the game assumes you're allies and friends.  That's really odd.

DA:O managed to do it because there was very little low approval content.

Once again, you make my point for me.

[MerinTB]

from

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
there would have been widespread complaints about those lines where the player wasn't consulted on tone.

Well, it failed.  My first Hawke was an absolute jerk to Isabela, went out of his way to be mean to her, and the game still did cut scenes where he greeted her and talked about her like she was his best friend.

So major fail.

----

to

In Exile wrote...
Not really. It's impossible for a game to really handle showing the kind of abusive relationships that players sometimes want in games without an unreasonable cost, or without compromising gameplay significantly. 

DA:O managed to do it because there was very little low approval content. 

AlanC9 wrote...
Huh? Dominant tone is not based on tracking your interactions with particular characters, it's about your general
disposition. Unless you wanted Hawke to be a jerk to everybody, not just Isabela, this isn't the subsystem to blame.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No, it succeeded.  I think the goal was to avoid a major backlash about the auto-dialogue, and there wasn't one.  Mission accomplished.

It certainly didn't succeed in offering actual player control over that auto-dialogue.  That's obviously impossible, and the primary reason why I think auto-dialogue is always a bad idea.  In fact, I argued, prior to release, that the dominant tone system would produce exactly the situation you describe, because it couldn't possibly account for all of  the different types of portrayals a player might imagine.

----

answered with

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Because the game assumed camraderie, and did so purely on the basis of two people having met.

It's possible not to meet Isabela, but if you do the game assumes you're allies and friends.  That's really odd.

DA:O managed to do it because there was very little low approval content.

Once again, you make my point for me.

----

"you make my point for me"

----

Seriously, what StM had said dominant tone was meant to help do - prevent "widespread complaints about those lines where the player wasn't consulted on tone" - the game failed to do miserably.

Hawke never felt like my Hawke.  Largely due to things like the Isabela situation, which is one of MANY instances in that game where tone/relationships was/were assumed by the developers/writers.

Dominant tone failed to prevent widespread complaints about lines where the player wasn't consulted on tone.  Largely because, apparently, it wasn't much used.

I guess "widespread" is the question here.  It failed to keep me from complaining.  And it didn't prevent these articles -
http://jonathansfox....e-that-hate-it/
or read throught this reddit and count the complaints on auto-dialog -
http://www.reddit.co...s_flaws_dragon/
and you can easily find threads on BSN complaining about Hawke not being your Hawke.

Modifié par MerinTB, 03 juin 2013 - 01:23 .

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
Hawke never felt like my Hawke.  Largely due to things like the Isabela situation, which is one of MANY instances in that game where tone/relationships was/were assumed by the developers/writers.

Well, to be fair, the developers assumed if you hated a character you would stock interact with them. A good example of this is Merril. If you tell her you don't want to see her again after meeting her, she reacts.

If you don't like Isabella, why would you keep interact with Isabella?

Anyway, the bolded always happens in Bioware games. It's just that with the silent PC players apparently concocted massive breaks with reality to justify it. Like the Warden being a charismatic leader. Or Not-Revan being charistatic. Or the Spirit Monk.

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Hawke never felt like my Hawke.  Largely due to things like the Isabela situation, which is one of MANY instances in that game where tone/relationships was/were assumed by the developers/writers.

Well, to be fair, the developers assumed if you hated a character you would stock interact with them. A good example of this is Merril. If you tell her you don't want to see her again after meeting her, she reacts.

Rivalry system was created so that if you hated people you could just let them go?  I thought the Rivalry system was there so you could be absolutely unlikeable to your companions but they'd stick around?

Why bother with tracking Friend / Rival if the game cannot track how you treat your companions....

????

In Exile wrote...
If you don't like Isabella, why would you keep interact with Isabella?

I intended to not have her in my party.  I fully did.  I wasn't even going to talk to her, but then I did.  My fault.  Then I kept saying no, I wasn't going to help her.  I left her with NO as my answer to her.  But a funny thing happened as I ran past the place where she stood to activate her quest (her still being there despite my saying I wouldn't show) --
the gamer side of me won an argument with the role-player, and they tag-teamed the player.

Player: I cannot stand that character.  I don't want anything to do with her.  I've never NOT wanted to interact with a character in an RPG so much.
Role-player: Well, don't interact with her anymore.
Player: That's the plan.  She'll just disappear if I don't do this quest.  I hope.
Gamer:  Are you crazy?  You'll be missing a companion.  Companion quests.  Experience points.  Loot.  Game content!
Role-player: Role-playing decisions make us miss content all the time.  We don't care.
Player: Right.  That's not a good enough reason to pick her up.  I'm sticking to my guns.  I really don't like what they did to the character.
Gamer:  Role-player, help me out here.  Shepard Hawke (hehe, that still tickles me) can hate on her.  You can get to role-play the champion HATING her.  Think of all the RP opportunities not going on her quest and bringing her in the party will miss.
Role-player: Missing content is... wait, you said RP opportunities?
Gamer: This game has a Rivalry system, right?  That's not just for romance.
Role-player: Oh, that right.  That's a good point.
Player: NO!
Gamer: Maybe you'll get more XP later for siding against her for something or turning her in or killing her!
Role-player: Maybe the story will really let your distaste show.  You don't have to like every character to interact with them.  Think of how cathartic it will be to vent through Shepard Hawke (heh, yeah, that's still hilarious) on how much you dislike this pantsless pirate!
Player: Gah, fine.  You guys better be right about this.  Rivalry, you say?  So everytime I interact with her I can just be an absolute jerk, you think?
Gamer and Role-player: They have a Rivalry system, and a dominant tone system.  Why would they include that if they are going to pre-script how you treat characters?
Player:  Good point.

Modifié par MerinTB, 03 juin 2013 - 01:36 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Why, indeed.

[AlanC9]

MerinTB wrote...
Seriously, what StM had said dominant tone was meant to help do - prevent "widespread complaints about those lines where the player wasn't consulted on tone" - the game failed to do miserably.

Hawke never felt like my Hawke.  Largely due to things like the Isabela situation, which is one of MANY instances in that game where tone/relationships was/were assumed by the developers/writers.

Dominant tone failed to prevent widespread complaints about lines where the player wasn't consulted on tone.  Largely because, apparently, it wasn't much used.

This is like saying your car isn't good because it isn't a boat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

-snip-

We complained the system didn't work well.  We complained that we weren't able to design our characters and have them behave as we saw fit.

But we didn't complain we weren't being consulted (well, I did, but I was making a fairly fine semantic point, much as I am now).

I really do suspect that BioWare foresaw a very specific complaint to the auto-dialogue, and concocted the dominant tone system specifically to prevent it.  And I think it largely worked.

I think it made the game worse.  I think it spawned roughly equal levels of a different complaint.  But I think it did address that very narrow issue.  And I suspect that narrow issue was the primary target of the feature, as I can't imagine why else anyone thought it might have been a good idea.

Think about it from BioWare's point of view.  Given what the dominant tone system actually did, what do you think it was for?  Why did BioWare design and implement the dominant tone mechanic as they did?  What were they trying to achieve?  If they were trying to do what you're describing, then they're terrible at their jobs, but that just doesn't seem likely.

I don't think they missed their target.  I think they were aiming at the wrong one.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't think they missed their target.  I think they were aiming at the wrong one.

I honestly think that, and have for awhile now, that BioWare's "target" is something I cannot even see, let alone want to see.

[MerinTB]

AlanC9 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Seriously, what StM had said dominant tone was meant to help do - prevent "widespread complaints about those lines where the player wasn't consulted on tone" - the game failed to do miserably.

Hawke never felt like my Hawke.  Largely due to things like the Isabela situation, which is one of MANY instances in that game where tone/relationships was/were assumed by the developers/writers.

Dominant tone failed to prevent widespread complaints about lines where the player wasn't consulted on tone.  Largely because, apparently, it wasn't much used.

This is like saying your car isn't good because it isn't a boat.

No, it's like saying my car isn't good because it doesn't allow for fuel.

Or that it doesn't have an engine.

Or that there's no room for passengers.

They made an automobile, but for a very obvious reason it is incapable of moving people from point A to point B.

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Player: I cannot stand that character.  I don't want anything to do with her.  I've never NOT wanted to interact with a character in an RPG so much.
Role-player: Well, don't interact with her anymore.
Player: That's the plan.  She'll just disappear if I don't do this quest.  I hope.
Gamer:  Are you crazy?  You'll be missing a companion.  Companion quests.  Experience points.  Loot.  Game content!
Role-player: Role-playing decisions make us miss content all the time.  We don't care.
Player: Right.  That's not a good enough reason to pick her up.  I'm sticking to my guns.  I really don't like what they did to the character.
Gamer:  Role-player, help me out here.  Shepard Hawke (hehe, that still tickles me) can hate on her.  You can get to role-play the champion HATING her.  Think of all the RP opportunities not going on her quest and bringing her in the party will miss.
Role-player: Missing content is... wait, you said RP opportunities?
Gamer: This game has a Rivalry system, right?  That's not just for romance.
Role-player: Oh, that right.  That's a good point.
Player: NO!
Gamer: Maybe you'll get more XP later for siding against her for something or turning her in or killing her!
Role-player: Maybe the story will really let your distaste show.  You don't have to like every character to interact with them.  Think of how cathartic it will be to vent through Shepard Hawke (heh, yeah, that's still hilarious) on how much you dislike this pantsless pirate!
Player: Gah, fine.  You guys better be right about this.  Rivalry, you say?  So everytime I interact with her I can just be an absolute jerk, you think?
Gamer and Role-player: They have a Rivalry system, and a dominant tone system.  Why would they include that if they are going to pre-script how you treat characters?
Player:  Good point.

...

...

Well, this is interesting:P

I role-play my thought processes and different impulses.  Doesn't everyone?

[AlanC9]

MerinTB wrote...

No, it's like saying my car isn't good because it doesn't allow for fuel.

Or that it doesn't have an engine.

Or that there's no room for passengers.

They made an automobile, but for a very obvious reason it is incapable of moving people from point A to point B.

Then you should be talking about the whole dialogue system rather than dominant tone specifically, which has nothing to do with the problem you're mentioning.

Actually, most games with companions have the problem of not letting you be obnoxious to the companions and then tracking the relationship so your non-controlled lines reflect that.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 juin 2013 - 05:26 .

[MerinTB]

AlanC9 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
No, it's like saying my car isn't good because it doesn't allow for fuel.

Or that it doesn't have an engine.

Or that there's no room for passengers.

They made an automobile, but for a very obvious reason it is incapable of moving people from point A to point B.

Then you should be talking about the whole dialogue system rather than dominant tone specifically, which has nothing to do with the problem you're mentioning.

Actually, most games with companions have the problem of not letting you be obnoxious to the companions and then tracking the relationship so your non-controlled lines reflect that.

But we aren't discussing most games.  Most games don't let you drive cars, so any deficiency in, say, a Need for Speed game is acceptable because you can't drive a car in, say, Tetris?  Or because you can't steal cars in Need for Speed it fails because you CAN in GTA?

The thread is about dialog, in general, the wheel specifically.  This specific digression is down to dominant tone (which is tangent, admittantly, at best.)

I posed why even have dominant tone if it is used so infrequently (as everyone helping me understand WHEN it was used has me believing it was mostly NOT used) and StM's response was that it was an attempt to cut-off widespread complaints about the game putting tone and dialog into the mouth of Hawke without player input.  And I responded that it "failed" (for me, at least, and some other people, clearly - widespread is arguable, and I'll concede that it clearly never reached "dialog wheel hatred" let alone "ME3 ending" levels of disapproval) in that DA2 constantly put tone and dialog in my Hawke's mouth that ran contrary to how I played.

And I pose again - why have both a friendship/rivalry system, as well as a dominant tone system, if the game is going to preset cut scenes and auto-dialog and other responses to your companions that are contrary to BOTH your F/R rating with said companion AND your dominant tone?  My not-jokey Hawke, who had max Rivalry with Isabela, would constantly warmly greet her and chuckle at her bawdy humor.

That's a failure of those systems (their potential, at the very least, if not their design purpose) and definitely a failure of the stated intent given by StM - that they prevent complaints ("widespread") about tone and dialog being given to Hawke without player input.

Q.E.D.

Modifié par MerinTB, 03 juin 2013 - 05:51 .

[AlanC9]

MerinTB wrote...

And I pose again - why have both a friendship/rivalry system, as well as a dominant tone system, if the game is going to preset cut scenes and auto-dialog and other responses to your companions that are contrary to BOTH your F/R rating with said companion AND your dominant tone?  My not-jokey Hawke, who had max Rivalry with Isabela, would constantly warmly greet her and chuckle at her bawdy humor.

Which system would you have wanted to govern those interactions? My understanding of the design intent is that F/R was supposed to govern that area. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 juin 2013 - 06:06 .