208 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
You can't make characters that are nuanced in an RPG. The pre-written dialogue forbids it. The best example being how - for however long there have been Bioware games - it is impossible to do a good deed and say that it was for a selfish purpose, especially to selfish characters (like Morrigan) who object that you are doing it. 

Edit: The one comical exception to that is in DA2 of all things, when in a rivalry conversation Isabella can ask you why you constantly save people and you can say that it gives you power/standing. 

Something I wanted to say half a dozen times in DA:O - mostly to Morrigan and Sten, who are horribly naive about any kind of power that isn't blowing things up or hacking them to bits.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But you can still do good deeds for selfish reasons.  And with the full dialogue text we generally had the opportunity to evade those questions.

I appreciate your predicament. But I don't want to evade. I want to tackle, head-on. And the text very rarely gives us that option. 

I also diagree that the text gave us an opportunity to evade. We generally had the opportunity to confrontationally refuse to answer, but that's not really evading. 

[AlanC9]

Gewehr_fr wrote..

For me knowing the exact words being used is much more important than being told the intent. Reading the line was always enough to know if I was being sarcastic or not in my case. It isn't a loss of agency in the slightest. And if the person in front of the player didn't react accordingly it means he/she missed the joke/sarcasm/whatever, which happens quite often in real life.

I can think of several DA: O instances where I couldn't tell if my PC was being sarcastic or not, particularly in conversations with Alistair. This led to me picking a few wrong dialogue options. Conversely, I can't think of any paraphrases where the actual line was different enough from my interpretation of the paraphrase for one of the other options to have been preferable. (Except for one early ME1 convo where I didn't take the Renegade nature of Shepard's line into account, but that's on me.)

And the RL consequences of someone missing the joke are different, since in RL  you can get yourselves back onto the same page, but in a CRPG you're just stuck.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

Something I wanted to say half a dozen times in DA:O - mostly to Morrigan and Sten, who are horribly naive about any kind of power that isn't blowing things up or hacking them to bits.

Which isn't really power at all, once you meet something resistant to hacking. Or are dealing with, say, a horde of maurading demons that can only be slowed down by an alliance between nations. It would be a preeety keen idea at that point to have major political players on your side. Especially if the self-proclaimed Regent of that country is your enemy.

[CheshireCat1701]

Gewehr_fr wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

and having the wheel at the center of the screen necessitates the paraphrasing, which means a huge loss in player agency.

And not knowing the intended tone of a line of dialogue isn't a huge loss in agency? Frankly, I think knowing whether or not my character is being sarcastic or sincere is way more important than merely knowing the specific combination of words that he uses to communicate that feeling.

Well here's the core of the problem. 

For me knowing the exact words being used is much more important than being told the intent. Reading the line was always enough to know if I was being sarcastic or not in my case. It isn't a loss of agency in the slightest. And if the person in front of the player didn't react accordingly it means he/she missed the joke/sarcasm/whatever, which happens quite often in real life.

I don't mind the wheel either way - and I know the writers love it - but I still believe the lines of dialogues, preferably but not necessarily along with a silent protagonist is the best way to deal with dialog in a RPG.

I have found that in written communication the exact meaning of the words is very important.  Less so in spoken communication, which is what the dialogue system is.  In spoken communication, tone supersedes the exact wording.  When they conflict, for example loving words delivered in a menacing or angry tone, we will take the tone to be of greater importance.  That's why I think the paraphrasing system works.  What matters to me is that I'm being sarcastic in a given instance, not the exact words used.  The person I'm speaking to will react to the tone, not to the precise wording.

I've heard the "they simply misunderstood you" argument before.  I find in my daily life that it is extremely rare for me to be misunderstood because I can use words, tone and body language to convey what I'm trying to say precisely and clearly.  I can also correct these misunderstandings when they do occur. 

It is also strange to me that we can have a warden that is constantly being misunderstood by people he/she's worked closely with yet is supposedly a master of coercion and persuasion. 

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's obviously false, as the first game with a wheel (ME) didn't have tone icons.

Paragon/Renegade handles that in ME.

[Ieldra]

AlanC9 wrote...
Conversely, I can't think of any paraphrases where the actual line was different enough from my interpretation of the paraphrase for one of the other options to have been preferable. (Except for one early ME1 convo where I didn't take the Renegade nature of Shepard's line into account, but that's on me.)

You must be more in tune with the writers. This happened to me all the time in ME3, and to a lesser extent in ME2, and in the one exceedingly bad example I've given abovethread in DA2. In one case in ME3, I had to play through a conversation of several hubs half a dozen times because each time I picked what appeared intuitively right, Shepard would say something I didn't like.

[In Exile]

CheshireCat1701 wrote...
I have found that in written communication the exact meaning of the words is very important.  Less so in spoken communication, which is what the dialogue system is.  

Phrasing is ambiguous. My entire profession is about the written meaning of words in an important way, and let me tell you that regardless how clear people think they are, nothing written is unambiguous. 

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
You must be more in tune with the writers. This happened to me all the time in ME3, and to a lesser extent in ME2, and in the one exceedingly bad example I've given abovethread in DA2. In one case in ME3, I had to play through a conversation of several hubs half a dozen times because each time I picked what appeared intuitively right, Shepard would say something I didn't like.

I'm sure all of this really comes down to how much slack you have in how you think something should be worded. 

[Ieldra]

CheshireCat1701 wrote...
I have found that in written communication the exact meaning of the words is very important.  Less so in spoken communication, which is what the dialogue system is.  In spoken communication, tone supersedes the exact wording.  When they conflict, for example loving words delivered in a menacing or angry tone, we will take the tone to be of greater importance.  That's why I think the paraphrasing system works.  What matters to me is that I'm being sarcastic in a given instance, not the exact words used.  The person I'm speaking to will react to the tone, not to the precise wording.

The fallacy here is this: even if tone is more important than denotative meaning, that doesn't mean there is no significant difference in what you say once you select a specific tone or dominant emotion. I maintain that "I'm glad you're back" is significantly different from "I'm glad you did the right thing" that you can consider one character-derailing and not the other.

This means that selecting for a dominant emotion will never be enough to make an informed decision about a dialogue option which has any kind of actual content beyond that emotion, such as the reason for that emotion.

[CheshireCat1701]

In Exile wrote...

CheshireCat1701 wrote...
I have found that in written communication the exact meaning of the words is very important.  Less so in spoken communication, which is what the dialogue system is.  

Phrasing is ambiguous. My entire profession is about the written meaning of words in an important way, and let me tell you that regardless how clear people think they are, nothing written is unambiguous. 

In face to face communication, we rely on different levels of information.  If you and I are speaking I can gather information from both your tone and your body language that can help bridge the communication gap that simple words might not be able to.  In written communication, we are stripped of tone and body language, therefore the exact meaning of the words becomes far more important if we are to effectively exchange information.  It is certainly not a perfect system.

There is irony in what you wrote, because I am not entirely sure what you mean here.  If you mean that no matter how precisely and clearly we try to write, there is the possibility of misinterpretation, then I agree with you.   It is one of the reasons we normally have an army of emoticons at our disposal when we text each other. 

[Wissenschaft]

Wulfram wrote...

Paraphrasing isn't a consequence of the wheel, it's a consequence of the voiced protagonist.

Though I don't really get the advantage of the wheel either. I tend to assume it works better with a controller or something.

 

I can reverse this by asking whats the advantage of a stright list of dialogue options such as in DA:O or a dialogue wheel? As the devs themselves said, they could have had all of DA:O use a dialogue wheel and not much would have changed.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Conversely, I can't think of any paraphrases where the actual line was different enough from my interpretation of the paraphrase for one of the other options to have been preferable. (Except for one early ME1 convo where I didn't take the Renegade nature of Shepard's line into account, but that's on me.)

You must be more in tune with the writers. This happened to me all the time in ME3, and to a lesser extent in ME2, and in the one exceedingly bad example I've given abovethread in DA2. In one case in ME3, I had to play through a conversation of several hubs half a dozen times because each time I picked what appeared intuitively right, Shepard would say something I didn't like.

Yep i was on save alert all the time during ME3, as the paraphrase and line interpretation seemed regularly very much out of tune.

[Ieldra]

In Exile wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
You must be more in tune with the writers. This happened to me all the time in ME3, and to a lesser extent in ME2, and in the one exceedingly bad example I've given abovethread in DA2. In one case in ME3, I had to play through a conversation of several hubs half a dozen times because each time I picked what appeared intuitively right, Shepard would say something I didn't like.

I'm sure all of this really comes down to how much slack you have in how you think something should be worded.

I am generally nitpicky in matters pertaining to morality, personal philosophy and notions of the sacred, as well as in anything that would make my protagonist appear stupid or devout. Which means, among other things, that for my main characters who are like me in this, any line connecting the good with notions of the sacred is automatically character-derailing. That happens rather often in the ME games if you pick Paragon options. DA2, for some reason I would love to know more about, avoids it completely.  

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The fallacy here is this: even if tone is more important than denotative meaning, that doesn't mean there is no significant difference in what you say once you select a specific tone or dominant emotion. I maintain that "I'm glad you're back" is significantly different from "I'm glad you did the right thing" that you can consider one character-derailing and not the other.

That's true. But the difference between:

That was a great idea! 
That was a great idea! 
That was a great idea! <_<

Is just as big. As Cheshire says, this is why we use tone in communicating.

This means that selecting for a dominant emotion will never be enough to make an informed decision about a dialogue option which has any kind of actual content beyond that emotion, such as the reason for that emotion.  

The absence of tone and intent, however, makes it impossible to predict that effect the dialogue line is trying to have in the world.

Communication - if you're doing it with a purpose - is done to achieve something in the world. Yes, how you say things is a reflection of what you want to express as a dimension of your personality. But it's also a part of what you want to instrumentally achieve in the world.

It's no less character derailement to be unable to guess which of 3 choices is the in-character action for you. 

[In Exile]

CheshireCat1701 wrote...

In face to face communication, we rely on different levels of information.  If you and I are speaking I can gather information from both your tone and your body language that can help bridge the communication gap that simple words might not be able to.  In written communication, we are stripped of tone and body language, therefore the exact meaning of the words becomes far more important if we are to effectively exchange information.  It is certainly not a perfect system.

I agree with you.

There is irony in what you wrote, because I am not entirely sure what you mean here.  If you mean that no matter how precisely and clearly we try to write, there is the possibility of misinterpretation, then I agree with you.   It is one of the reasons we normally have an army of emoticons at our disposal when we text each other. 

Yes. But I was speaking of things like formal documents such as contracts. Lots of time and energy goes into drafting one that's not ambiguous - hundreds of man hours of work. And it can still happen that it will be. 

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I am generally nitpicky in matters pertaining to morality, personal philosophy and notions of the sacred, as well as in anything that would make my protagonist appear stupid or devout. Which means, among other things, that for my main characters who are like me in this, any line connecting the good with notions of the sacred is automatically character-derailing. That happens rather often in the ME games if you pick Paragon options. DA2, for some reason I would love to know more about, avoids it completely.  

I'd wager it's because DA2 was a deconstruction of the usual fantasy hero in a lot of important ways. Also because diplomatic did not mean "good", it just meant "nice". And Bioware wanted to let you be, say, sarcastic without forcing you to not be good. So that's why, IMO, it happened that way. 

For me, there are lots of issues, but a main one is sarcasm. Text makes that impossible, because I read 30% of the lines as being sarcastic. I don't think think about the tone I'm filtering through, because that's just what I'm like. 

As a general rule, we interpret ambiguous written stimulus in ways that are consistent with our own personality. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

From this player's point of view

Do not presume to speak for me.

From my point of view

Much better.

[CheshireCat1701]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CheshireCat1701 wrote...
I have found that in written communication the exact meaning of the words is very important.  Less so in spoken communication, which is what the dialogue system is.  In spoken communication, tone supersedes the exact wording.  When they conflict, for example loving words delivered in a menacing or angry tone, we will take the tone to be of greater importance.  That's why I think the paraphrasing system works.  What matters to me is that I'm being sarcastic in a given instance, not the exact words used.  The person I'm speaking to will react to the tone, not to the precise wording.

The fallacy here is this: even if tone is more important than denotative meaning, that doesn't mean there is no significant difference in what you say once you select a specific tone or dominant emotion. I maintain that "I'm glad you're back" is significantly different from "I'm glad you did the right thing" that you can consider one character-derailing and not the other.

This means that selecting for a dominant emotion will never be enough to make an informed decision about a dialogue option which has any kind of actual content beyond that emotion, such as the reason for that emotion.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that 'I'm glad you're back" is neutral, simply expressing happiness at seeing Izzy, while you believe "I'm glad you did the right thing" implies a value judgment of her action that you may not share.  I can see where you might find that difference disconcerting.   

In that case, I would say its more a function of the writer not being careful with the paraphrasing, rather than an indictment of the system itself. 

I'm assuming that's under the diplomatic option (I'm more of a sarcastic sort of Hawke myself).  If Hawke had simply said: "It's good to see you again" in a sincere tone the condition would have been satisfied and you might not have had a problem with it. 

I remember reading somewhere that Gaider said the dialogue in DA:I would be more neutral this time around, so maybe he meant that the writers would be more careful to avoid the implicit value judgments in phrases like: "I'm glad you did the right thing."  If so, the DA:I might serve you well in that regard.

In other words, improve the paraphrasing and you would have the meaning you need.  That improvement, along with the information you get from the tone, should help you make a more informed decision.  FWIW, I'm not at all opposed to having the exact wording appear on the dialogue wheel when you mouse over a potential choice.  As long as I have the option to turn it off, I'm fine with other players having that option if they want it.

[mupp3tz]

The only real disadvantage I see with the dialogue wheel is that it tends to have shorter paraphrasing compared to a simple list that can extend across the screen.. but that's easily solved by something like DA:I's optional feature of expanding on the short text when highlighted.

Or maybe if we were dealing with, say, 20 different options.. then I'd prefer a scrollable list than navigating through a wheel. But that type of variation isn't common so *shrug*

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 05 septembre 2013 - 06:24 .

[In Exile]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

The only real disadvantage I see with the dialogue wheel is that it tends to have shorter paraphrasing compared to a simple list that can extend across the screen.. but that's easily solved by something like DA:I's optional feature of expanding on the short text when highlighted.

DA:O had something a very short limit on dialogue.

[mupp3tz]

I'm not sure I'm understanding completely, so could you explain a little? Just want to make sure what you mean exactly.

[Ieldra]

@CheshireCat1701:
Yes, being more careful with the paraphrasing would certainly help. As will DAI's full text option. I don't expect there to be as many problems for me personally in DAI. I raised this issue because I was curious. Unexpectedly, there are good arguments for the wheel itself, but - IMO of course - still not for paraphrasing.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 septembre 2013 - 06:37 .

[Texhnolyze101]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote..

There is a lot of truth here. One could easily use the dialogue wheel to "Investigate, investigate, Investiagte, Paragon/Diplomatic option" and not put any thought whatsoever to what their character was saying. While it makes the interface easier to use, it also can make the choice in dialogue nearly mindless.

You mean like how people pressed "1" for the lightside options in KoTOR and then exploded in rage when for one significant choice Bioware inverted the LS and DS options? 

Because that happened almost a decade ago, and it was a sight to behold. 

I haven't played KoTOR in a while can you tell me what conversation had the LS/DS option flip?

[Sertoria]

The dialogue wheel itself isn't a problem with me, and I'm actually kind of fond of it visually, but I agree that the paraphrasing is awkward. Sometimes I'll select a "good" option intending to compliment one of my companions and accidentally make a moral stance on what they're doing rather than a personal stance on who they are, or select an "aggressive" option to make a moral stance, but instead make a personal one and offend them. I felt this more with Merrill and Isabela than any other companion.

If the wheel is expanded on to give you a little more depth into either the tone or intent, I would appreciate it a lot more. The list feels clunkier and it's difficult to know whether what I'm saying is a conversation ender when I meant it to be an inquiry, or whether the other characters would take what I said as an insult rather than the sarcastic joke I intended it to be, so I don't want to see a return to that.

Modifié par Sertoria, 05 septembre 2013 - 06:43 .