142 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

Salaya wrote...

What I tried to say was: if the reason to consider hovering full lines not a valid middle ground because the full line will be voiced the next second, no matter what, I should point that the voiced line may be ignored by clicking the action button, canceling the voiced line. Therefore, is not true that hovering full lines are not a valid middle ground because the text will be voiced-shown again.

So, what is the true reason to make the wheel the standard and not offering an alternative? Apart from "Because they want it this way, period".

Did someone post the Gaider comment in here? If not, it's definitely in one of the voiced/silent threads on the front page.

He says they tested giving the full text, but it had the same problem as the paraphrase without writing specifically for just text, which is not how people speak.

[Maria Caliban]

Salaya wrote...

Some people here say that hovering full lines do not serve as a possible compromise since the voiced line will be spoken after selecting it -but, on the other hand, we all know this is a simple lie since the voiced line could be ignored by clicking the action button (left mouse, space, esc, etc, etc).

So, why keeping this feature and not offering an alternative? I'm specially curious about this topic since anyone has delivered a real answer to this.

Thanks!

We have received a real answer. I asked about just such a system - hovering over the paraphrase to get a full dialogue - because it did well in DX:HR.

David Gaider wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
And you know what? Dues Ex was a very cinematic game with a voice protagonist. It had exactly the sort of stylistic but unobtrusive UI that DA II seemed to be attempting.

Sorry, but Deus Ex also had a set character with a set personality. It's a very different style. It was also inconsistent with its dialogue interface. That's not a model I would want to follow, though I found the game definitely did some interesting things.

[nightscrawl]

Salaya wrote...

So, what is the true reason to make the wheel the standard and not offering an alternative? Apart from "Because they want it this way, period".

I tried to show that with the posts that I linked.

They have tested it [showing full lines] and found that it didn't work for them, and that it's not as perfect a solution as some of us players seem to think it is. Now, I don't feel that this really explains anything because those answers are never specific, but I do believe their statement. You can either believe it too, or choose to feel they are deliberately misleading to get us to shut up about it.

ForceXev wrote...

I had forum discussions like this one in my mind while I was playing the 400 Days DLC for The Walking Dead, and I was paying attention to how they do the dialogue.  I noticed that it's kind of a compromise -- the exact sentence that you pick from the dialogue options is spoken by the character, with some additional stuff added on.  So for example, one dialogue option in the Shel story is "I'm trying to protect her."  Then the spoken dialogue is "I'm trying to protect her from it as much as possible. Things are stable here for now. I want her to grow up with this, and not what's outside these walls."  So the line you choose is spoken by the character, but you still get to experience the spoken dialogue fresh because there is more added to the statement I picked.

I like it!

Modifié par nightscrawl, 09 juillet 2013 - 07:30 .

[Salaya]

Maria Caliban wrote...

...
 

Thanks for the quote! That adds another explanation.

Sometimes I have serious trouble trying to explain myself in english

[Salaya]

nightscrawl wrote...

They have tested it [showing full lines] and found that it didn't work for them, and that it's not as perfect a solution as some of us players seem to think it is. Now, I don't feel that this really explains anything because those answers are never specific, but I do believe their statement. You can either believe it too, or choose to feel they are deliberately misleading to get us to shut up about it.

Well, I can't help but think they are misleading since there is no true reason behind the statement. Siply saying it just don't work as well as we think is not a reason...or a valid reason for my tastes, if you prefer

There is a problem: some people wants to know what the full line is going to be. A hovering text could solve this problem. There is not a single valid reason to refute this, yet. It is not a matter of tones, intentions or whatever abstract concept; it's just that I want to read the exact line.

But, of course, it's just my opinion.

[Ziggeh]

Salaya wrote...

Well, I can't help but think they are misleading since there is no true reason behind the statement. Siply saying it just don't work as well as we think is not a reason...or a valid reason for my tastes, if you prefer

No....the reason is that it led to the same number of misleading results as the paraphrase. Under testing. I'm a bit confused how you got "because we say" from that.

[Gotholhorakh]

Even if it were true:

Misunderstanding something because you were misled by an interface that quite deliberately hid stuff from you is annoying, no matter how many times it happens.

Misunderstanding something because you misread it, probably elicits no annoyance or sense of inconvenience whatsoever.

[Ziggeh]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Misunderstanding something because you misread it, probably elicits no annoyance or sense of inconvenience whatsoever.

This happens often enough in DA:O, and my feeling is generally that it should have been better written to avoid such confusion, and would feel the need to reload, so I can't agree.

Indeed, with the paraphrase I'm actually more prepared to accept surprise because it's less explicit. I assume flexibility that shouldn't be there with pure text.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 09 juillet 2013 - 02:29 .

[Salaya]

Ziggeh wrote...

No....the reason is that it led to the same number of misleading results as the paraphrase. Under testing. I'm a bit confused how you got "because we say" from that.

I read that answer, too. They said that the full line still kept misleadings in tone, not solving the problem of reading the intention of the full phrase. But that would be relevant if the problem was understanding the tone. That is not the case -the problem is that the player doesn't know what the character is going to say.

So, unfortunatelly, I understand that they do it because they want to do it. Which is perfectly respectable.

Modifié par Salaya, 09 juillet 2013 - 02:54 .

[Ziggeh]

Salaya wrote...

I read that answer, too. They said that the full line still kept misleadings in tone, not solving the problem of reading the intention of the full phrase. But that would be relevant if the problem was understanding the tone. That is not the case -the problem is that the player doesn't know what the character is going to say.

So, unfortunatelly, I understand that they do it because they want to do it. Which is perfectly respectable.

Except the tone is the reason you can't descern the intent. Knowing literally what they say doesn't tell you what they mean without it. He's saying that both the paraphrase and the full text both mislead on what they mean with equal frequency.

[Salaya]

Ziggeh wrote...

Salaya wrote...

Nosense

Except the tone is the reason you can't descern the intent. Knowing literally what they say doesn't tell you what they mean without it. He's saying that both the paraphrase and the full text both mislead on what they mean with equal frequency.

Again, you repeat the same mistake: you assume that there is a problem inherent to not knowing the exact line and the tone, because there is something called "meaning" that is lost in both alternatives. But the problem is not the meaning -the problem is the full line is not present. Nothing else. If that helps the meaning, the semantics, or any other term you want to use, is something you add to the discussion freely.

It's like "Hey, I have a problem with water, i can't touch it! I need to stop touching water", and then someone else comes and states: "Your problem is that the water is too cold, keep touching it but try a warmer source". Basically, inventing a solution that has nothing to do with the problem -because the solution is for a problem not stated.

[pdusen]

Salaya wrote...

Again, you repeat the same mistake: you assume that there is a problem inherent to not knowing the exact line and the tone, because there is something called "meaning" that is lost in both alternatives. But the problem is not the meaning -the problem is the full line is not present. Nothing else. If that helps the meaning, the semantics, or any other term you want to use, is something you add to the discussion freely.

It's like "Hey, I have a problem with water, i can't touch it! I need to stop touching water", and then someone else comes and states: "Your problem is that the water is too cold, keep touching it but try a warmer source". Basically, inventing a solution that has nothing to do with the problem -because the solution is for a problem not stated.

No, the problem isn't that the full line isn't present, the problem is that the player doesn't know exactly what the protagonist is going to say as a result of their choice. This is true whether you paraphrase or write out the entire line, because exactly what the protagonist says depends on more than just the line; it depends on tone, inflection, context, etc.

Saying that the problem isn't a lack of meaning, but that the entire line isn't written out for the player to see, is like saying (for example) that the problem with the weather isn't Global Warming, it's that it's too hot.

For the record, I've never had a problem with the paraphrasing + icons, personally.

Modifié par pdusen, 09 juillet 2013 - 03:47 .

[garrusfan1]

I want it to stay the way it is I love the dialogue wheel

[Ziggeh]

Salaya wrote...

Again, you repeat the same mistake: you assume that there is a problem inherent to not knowing the exact line and the tone, because there is something called "meaning" that is lost in both alternatives. But the problem is not the meaning -the problem is the full line is not present. Nothing else. If that helps the meaning, the semantics, or any other term you want to use, is something you add to the discussion freely.

Interesting, so you're not interested in the intent or even really the response? Which is to say, if the other party recieves a different message to the one you intend, it's not an issue of the system, but of the character within the world?

If that's the case, you may want to stop calling it "the" problem, or the result will likely be a disconnect in meaning.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 09 juillet 2013 - 03:49 .

[fchopin]

For the reason Mr. Gaider gave see below.
 
"Displaying the full text of the line for a voiced PC does not work for us. We investigated it. We tried it out, and discussed it, and ultimately discarded the idea.

I get that some people feel they need all the information in order to make their dialogue choice-- and they feel that seeing the entire line displayed for them will give them that information. It won't. Or, I should say, it will... but it will break down just as often as paraphrases do. Which is to say not very often, but often enough that you remember the situations where that happens. The only way that wouldn't be the case is if we started writing player lines as if the PC weren't voiced, as in Origins.

Also, there are a significant number of people who would be greatly annoyed by reading the entire line and then having it repeated to them verbatim. Your response might be "well, they shouldn't select that option then." But many people will. They'll see it in the list of options and think "oh, that's an option that will give me more information? More information is better!" and they'll select it... and then be annoyed by the result. So we would be trading one group of people who believe this is what they want for another group who would take the option and make it a poorer experience for themselves.

And, yes, that is something we must concern ourselves with. We do not offer, support and test options unless we believe they work as a viable option for the game as we intend it to be played. And you might say to that "well, I think it would make the game better for me", but I'd suggest you're largely wrong in that. It doesn't actually address your base problem, which is with the voiced PC. At best we'd be going out of our way to not really solve your issue while actively making the game worse for others."
 
 
 
Here is link for thread.
 
http://social.biowar...9639/6#14567693

Modifié par fchopin, 09 juillet 2013 - 04:28 .

[AlanC9]

Ziggeh wrote...
Interesting, so you're not interested in the intent or even really the response? Which is to say, if the other party recieves a different message to the one you intend, it's not an issue of the system, but of the character within the world?

This might be similar to Sylvius' position on silent PC lines. He interprets the meaning of the PC's line (including tone and so forth) without regard to the design intent, and then forces whatever interpretation he requires onto NPC responses in order to make them consistent with his interpretation of the preceding PC line.

[zyntifox]

Ziggeh wrote...

Salaya wrote...

Again, you repeat the same mistake: you assume that there is a problem inherent to not knowing the exact line and the tone, because there is something called "meaning" that is lost in both alternatives. But the problem is not the meaning -the problem is the full line is not present. Nothing else. If that helps the meaning, the semantics, or any other term you want to use, is something you add to the discussion freely.

Interesting, so you're not interested in the intent or even really the response? Which is to say, if the other party recieves a different message to the one you intend, it's not an issue of the system, but of the character within the world?

If that's the case, you may want to stop calling it "the" problem, or the result will likely be a disconnect in meaning.

That's where i am coming from. That's how i've played roleplaying games whether it be table-top or otherwise since i started playing roleplaying games in the early 90s.

[Ziggeh]

AlanC9 wrote...
This might be similar to Sylvius' position on silent PC lines. He interprets the meaning of the PC's line (including tone and so forth) without regard to the design intent, and then forces whatever interpretation he requires onto NPC responses in order to make them consistent with his interpretation of the preceding PC line.

I can get behind that, I do almost exactly the same with the player character - if the paraphrase misleads me, I "change" the character.

[Cainhurst Crow]

pdusen wrote...


No, the problem isn't that the full line isn't present, the problem is that the player doesn't know exactly what the protagonist is going to say as a result of their choice. This is true whether you paraphrase or write out the entire line, because exactly what the protagonist says depends on more than just the line; it depends on tone, inflection, context, etc.

So in other words, you want a verbatim transcript of what the character is going to say before you select the option, along with everything else such as a tone intecator, a little blurb on the side to say the inflection, and probably a reminder prompt on what you said before to give context?

Yeah, such a simple thing to do really, fitting all that inside a non-intrusive interface that doesn't pop-up to tkae up half the screen.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 09 juillet 2013 - 05:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

Interesting, so you're not interested in the intent or even really the response? Which is to say, if the other party recieves a different message to the one you intend, it's not an issue of the system, but of the character within the world?

I'm certainly not interested in the response.  We're talking about choosing what the PC does.  How the NPCs react to that is entirely beyond the player's control (and rightly so).

I don't understand why any player would ever perceive any aspect of the game as being anything other than something that exists within the game world.  How an NPC reacts tells us about that NPC.  If the NPC reacts in a way that I didn't expect, that just means I was wrong about how the NPC would react.  That happens often enough in the real world, so why would that be a problem in the game world?

Ziggeh wrote...

Except the tone is the reason you can't descern the intent. Knowing literally what they say doesn't tell you what they mean without it.

It does if the player is creating the intent himself (as he would have to be, anyway, in orcer to be making informed choices about what the PC will say).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 juillet 2013 - 05:29 .

[xkg]

fchopin wrote...

For the reason Mr. Gaider gave see below.
 
"Displaying the full text of the line for a voiced PC does not work for us. We investigated it. We tried it out, and discussed it, and ultimately discarded the idea.

I get that some people feel they need all the information in order to make their dialogue choice-- and they feel that seeing the entire line displayed for them will give them that information. It won't. Or, I should say, it will... but it will break down just as often as paraphrases do. Which is to say not very often, but often enough that you remember the situations where that happens. The only way that wouldn't be the case is if we started writing player lines as if the PC weren't voiced, as in Origins.

Also, there are a significant number of people who would be greatly annoyed by reading the entire line and then having it repeated to them verbatim. Your response might be "well, they shouldn't select that option then." But many people will. They'll see it in the list of options and think "oh, that's an option that will give me more information? More information is better!" and they'll select it... and then be annoyed by the result. So we would be trading one group of people who believe this is what they want for another group who would take the option and make it a poorer experience for themselves.

And, yes, that is something we must concern ourselves with. We do not offer, support and test options unless we believe they work as a viable option for the game as we intend it to be played. And you might say to that "well, I think it would make the game better for me", but I'd suggest you're largely wrong in that. It doesn't actually address your base problem, which is with the voiced PC. At best we'd be going out of our way to not really solve your issue while actively making the game worse for others."
 
 
 
Here is link for thread.
 
http://social.biowar...9639/6#14567693

Ok about this part:


"Also, there are a significant number of people who would be greatly annoyed by reading the entire line and then having it repeated to them verbatim. Your response might be "well, they shouldn't select that option then." But many people will. They'll see it in the list of options and think "oh, that's an option that will give me more information? More information is better!" and they'll select it... and then be annoyed by the result.'



I think this is the weakest excuse a developer can give, but ok lets follow this logic a little further now.

Please romove the game difficulty options. Whenever I see it I think to myslef "If I choose the lowest difficulty my entire party will be mighty like gods". I can't resist to select it and it's making my experience poorer because the game becomes annoyingly easy.







And facepalm again:


"So we would be trading one group of people who believe this is what they want for another group who would take the option and make it a poorer experience for themselves."


Looks like nowadays devs thinks they are making thair games for monkeys who can't even configure their game  to their likenings, so better not to give them too many options.

Modifié par xkg, 10 juillet 2013 - 06:37 .

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...How the NPCs react to that is entirely beyond the player's control (and rightly so).
I don't understand why any player would ever perceive any aspect of the game as being anything other than something that exists within the game world.  How an NPC reacts tells us about that NPC.  If the NPC reacts in a way that I didn't expect, that just means I was wrong about how the NPC would react.  That happens often enough in the real world, so why would that be a problem in the game world?

Personally, it's because I'm not playing a character - I'm taking part in the construction of a story, in which the character is a major part.

I don't expect conversation to operate in the way they would in real life, but how they would in a story, where dialogue is an actual exchange of meanings rather than the attempt, and within that misunderstandings that won't be addressed break the whole structure.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 10 juillet 2013 - 09:18 .

[Yobel]

PinkDiamondstl wrote...

The wheel is here to stay....NEXT!

And stay down! Damn, that line is for Unreal Tournament forum^_^

Dialogue wheel is simple, elegant and effective way of handling plot in the game. It's a good choice. Neeeext!

[EmperorSahlertz]

Considering that most people barely even plays through the entire game, saying that roleplaying is a "key feature" of an RPG, is actually stretching it. It is a feature sure, but not a key one.