208 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

I don't assume I know everything about them, and allow for the possibility that they may have changed, or that they may be having a bad day.

How do you make their choices, then?  If you don't know everything about them, on what basis do you choose one option over another?

On the basis of how much I know at the time of choosing. If I've not already built enough relevant to the current decision I determine it then and there, and modify based on the result.

[CheshireCat1701]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@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.

Again, the primary reason for the paraphrasing is that the designers felt it would be awkward and annoying to have you read the line and then hear the voice actor say it.  I remember Laidlaw saying this in an interview, though I couldn't tell you exactly when and where.

I can't really speak to it beyond that, except to say that I hope you find DA:I more to you liking in this regard.

[mopotter]

Ziggeh wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

An argument many would view as purely semantics, but it does result in an overall different experience for the end user.

I think it's an important distinction. The heart icon was an out of character, authorial decision: "And now there will be romance" rather than it occurring as the result of attempts or natural dialogue.

I'm sort of on the fence, as I tend to approach it from a partly "author" perspective, but it felt somewhat heavy handed.

Personally disliked the hearts exactly for that reason.  I've never had a problem with staying out of a romance or jumping into it.  Very heavy handed.

[AlanC9]

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.

Probably true. I've always been fairly well in tune with them. Still haven't played DA2 - and won't until I get a new vidcard -- but the example you gave upthread would probably have tripped me up just like you. But like I said, I've had toneless text lines fail on me too.

What was the bad ME3 case?

[Taura-Tierno]

I think I actually prefer the dialogue wheel. Intent is something that I often found missing in earlier games. I remember instances in KotoR, for instance, where you said one thing, and had an unexpected reaction because the thing was (not) interpreted in the proper way. So that issue existed in the older games as well. Only there it was the tone that was lacking.

The only issue with the dialogue wheel is that it needs extremely good paraphrasing. I think they'll succeed better the longer they work with it.

I like voiced protagonists. I like unvoiced protagonists. They both have their pros and cons. Can't say I prefer one over the other.

Modifié par Taura-Tierno, 05 septembre 2013 - 06:53 .

[Ieldra]

CheshireCat1701 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@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.

Again, the primary reason for the paraphrasing is that the designers felt it would be awkward and annoying to have you read the line and then hear the voice actor say it.  I remember Laidlaw saying this in an interview, though I couldn't tell you exactly when and where.

I can't really speak to it beyond that, except to say that I hope you find DA:I more to you liking in this regard.

They appear to be going for "the best of both worlds plus innovations" in both the dialogue system and the combat system. This has the potentional of setting new standards, if they can make it work as intended. I find myself very impressed.

[mopotter]

Ziggeh wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I can see that there might be some value in that, adding the writer's imagination to mine to create a more complete character. Problems start when your character says something that goes against your vision of them. This mostly pertains to matters of philosophy and morality. The obvious solution - don't let characters say anything of the kind - makes characters more bland, which is also undesirable..

I don't assume I know everything about them, and allow for the possibility that they may have changed, or that they may be having a bad day. If they say something that is counter to my vision of them, I change my vision. It's an additive process that generally results in a fair amount of depth.

I have had characters say or act in contradictory manners, in which case I get to choose whether they were doing or saying one set for a reason or effect, or to just brace for the dissonance. 

I do this too, usually without any problem.  The only time I ever had a major problem was ME2 when FemShep talked to Jacob like a cat in heat.  After that, I just didn't talk to him or else, turned the sound off.   until later conversations.

[mupp3tz]

^ YES. I actually reloaded my game because seeing that was just so out of character and meh.

[Ieldra]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

Probably true. I've always been fairly well in tune with them. Still haven't played DA2 - and won't until I get a new vidcard -- but the example you gave upthread would probably have tripped me up just like you. But like I said, I've had toneless text lines fail on me too.

What was the bad ME3 case?

The scene with Liara and Samantha when you wake up after the first dream, after the first CItadel visit. I don't recall the exact lines spoken, but I wrote this in my thread The one-year-after replay: mission-by-mission review directly after I played the scene:

"Waking up, I find Liara and Samantha are visiting. The scene is nice, but I find myself fighting with the dialogue wheel paraphrases. I repeat this five-minute sequence three times before I get the scene as I want it. Surely, Bioware, it's not the purpose of the dialogue wheel to mislead the player about the contents of the following lines and make them reload. You really need to do something about the paraphrases in your next game. This is inacceptable. The thing is, this time what I want to say is there, but I can't find it."

The latter was in reference to an earlier scene where both options lead to something excessively stupid. That's another thing DA2 avoided completely. What is it with the ME writers? In spite of the example I gave above, DA2 as a whole was rather good in giving me roleplaying options.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 septembre 2013 - 07:03 .

[In Exile]

101ezylonhxeT wrote...
I haven't played KoTOR in a while can you tell me what conversation had the LS/DS option flip?

Bastilla's offer at the temple. 

[Ziggeh]

mopotter wrote...
I do this too, usually without any problem.  The only time I ever had a major problem was ME2 when FemShep talked to Jacob like a cat in heat.  After that, I just didn't talk to him or else, turned the sound off.   until later conversations.

Hah, yeah, that's probably the biggest issue I've wondered across. I think I could deal with it, I should have just incorporated that. But I didn't want to.

[mopotter]

wright1978 wrote...

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.

ME3 had lots of problems and this was certainly one of them for me.  I started losing my Shepard in ME2, to a small extent and much more so in ME3.  I often picked the gray/non paragon non renegade option in ME1 and 2, ME3 didn't give me that option as often as I would have liked.  

But all in all, I do like the wheel and paraphrases, as long as the words spoken are not the exact same thing no matter what you pick.  That is irritating.   

[Fast Jimmy]

I find choosing tone is not really how I really formulate conversation, though. I'm not sure about anyone else, but I don't focus on "I am going to say something sarcastic" but rather on the exact words I use to spell this sarcasm out, with my tone merely emphasizing that.

Similarly, I don't choose a tone of sympathy, but rather think of words I think may be the most appropriate to convey condolences when someone has a loss.

After all, how many times do we have an emotion we cannot "find the words to express?" We have the emotion - and, hence, the tone - clearly picked out, but finding the right words to express it, with tone merely coloring our words, is the difficulty and definition of the communication. So to say you want to merely choose the emotion and even the intent is not always the biggest part of communication... it is the words (not to mention the emphasis) that tells a huge part of the message. So for us to not be certain of the words can lead to the right emotion, but the wrong ideas being expressed with it.

A situation may make me mad, but for reasons the writers might not assume to be the case, so my character flies off the handle for a reason I, as the player that is supposedly guiding the character, could care less about. Similarly, you can feel sadness, but meaning to keep a stuff upper lip, with just a shade of remorse... but then your character could break down and wrong their hands dramatically, in a show of emotion that embarrasses you on behalf of the character.

So I don't think tone is inherently worthless... but I think both tone and words are equally important, so a system that leads to confusion on either runs the risk of "breaking" the player's character.

[Ieldra]

In Exile wrote...

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.

Then I have to ask: why wasn't ME3 that inclusive? It's certainly odd that ME3, on the surface a sci-fi story, came across as embracing religious themes much more than DA2 in spite of religion playing a more explicit role in the story in DA2. Things like this are the reason why I often complain that ME3 served me a heap of traditionalist crap where I wanted science-fictional rationalizations; and that down to the original ending.

While I'm at it, being more neutral about dialogue, as they said DAI will be, is certainly good as a general rule for avoiding cognitive dissonances resulting from the paraphrasing. But sometimes I want my character to explicitly express some kind of philosophical stance. I have fond memories of Planescape:Torment doing that. I can see why dialogue needs to be neutral to avoid having to create a dozen options for every hub, but being neutral all the time makes for bland dialogue. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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.

I perceive no difference at all between the meaning of those statements.

[MerinTB]

Whatever the rationale, I can state emphatically that I find the wheel to NOT be easy to use with a mouse. I find it excessively frustrating.

All other arguments aside.

ToEE and NWN had wheels and they were not console games and didn't support gamepads natively, so the wheel as a menu concept (not just dialog) existed in games that didn't consider gamepads.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...
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.

I perceive no difference at all between the meaning of those statements.

You shouldn't surprise me anymore, StM, but you constantly do.

Modifié par MerinTB, 05 septembre 2013 - 08:18 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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. 

We often had the chance to be ambiguous, or to ask questions.

And neither of those conveys useful meaning.

Now, the game might not have thought those lines were ambiguous, but as long as I did I was happy with them.  The thing about ambiguity is that it can be taken a variety of different ways, not that it mucst be acknowledged as ambiguous.  If I'm ambiguous, and you don't perceive the ambiguity, that doesn't change whether I was ambiguous.  That you think I made a promise doesn't mean that I did.  As long as I'm happy with not having made a promise, that's all I need, regardless of whether you correctly identified my failure to do so.

Furthermore, it's often valuable to say things you expect to be misinterpreted.  Ambiguity is the big one, but there are also other ways to do that.

As for questions, we've been over this before.  Most questions (possibly all questions) make no assertions.  As such, any response that is a question is, by its very nature, evasive.  Our inability to discern which dialogue options would ask questions was a manor failing of the paraphrases in DA2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...
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.

I perceive no difference at all between the meaning of those statements.

You shouldn't surprise me anymore, StM, but you constantly do.

Emphasising different words draws attention to them, but why the speaker does that is unknown to us.  If I did that, it would likely be because that was the aspect of the statement that I expected to be news to the listener (so I highlight it to increase the chances of the listener correctly identifying it).

But the statement always means the same thing.  That, whatever that is, was a great idea, whatever great means.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

I don't assume I know everything about them, and allow for the possibility that they may have changed, or that they may be having a bad day. If they say something that is counter to my vision of them, I change my vision. It's an additive process that generally results in a fair amount of depth.

I have had characters say or act in contradictory manners, in which case I get to choose whether they were doing or saying one set for a reason or effect, or to just brace for the dissonance.

Incidentally, that's the best descrioption of the process I've yet seen.  Thank you.  I'm tempted to try that.

But it would destroy any of BioWare's beloved flow, as I would need to take time every line to work out exactly what that spoken line meant for my character's current state of mind, and then interpret the NPC response (which has already happened, so I will have to have committed it to memory) from that new perspective.

[CheshireCat1701]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

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.

I perceive no difference at all between the meaning of those statements.

Surely you understand that the first one was spoken sincerely.  In effect it says "I agree with your idea."
The third is spoken sarcastically.  For all practical purposes it says: "no, I don't think it was a great idea."
Two totally different meanings using the exact same words. 
Tone supersedes the exact wording in importance.  In the case of sarcasm the exact meaning of the words is negated by the tone. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In this instance, I didn't understand the purpose of the emoticons, so I ignored them. I didn't even notice that the first and third emoticons were different (they're barely different - that doesn't strike me as helpful).

I don't really get sarcasm when used in the way you describe. I think sarcasm works best when delivered drily.

Context is vastly more relevant than tone.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I find choosing tone is not really how I really formulate conversation, though. I'm not sure about anyone else, but I don't focus on "I am going to say something sarcastic" but rather on the exact words I use to spell this sarcasm out, with my tone merely emphasizing that.  

I'm very much the opposite. I want (think is the wrong word, because I don't word my speech consciously) to say something a particular way, sarcastic or otherwise, and just say it. It's competely spontaneous. 

So to say you want to merely choose the emotion and even the intent is not always the biggest part of communication... it is the words (not to mention the emphasis) that tells a huge part of the message. So for us to not be certain of the words can lead to the right emotion, but the wrong ideas being expressed with it.  

It's not exclusive. The words you use are important, especially when you want to convey something nuanced. So is the tone, when you want to convey, well, anything. 

So I don't think tone is inherently worthless... but I think both tone and words are equally important, so a system that leads to confusion on either runs the risk of "breaking" the player's character.

Absolutely. But that's just on the expression side. There's a whole other part of dialogue that has to do with the "instrumental side", i.e,, what I want to actually do. 

I might have a way that's in-character to express myself that's not going to achieve a goal in the circumstance. Suppose I need to convice a client that a particular course of action is advisable. At that point, I'm trying to drive a conversation toward an end and plant an idea. Knowing what the intended effect of any statement of mind will be is a natural part of speech, but I don't have that level of control in-game. The game needs to find some interface related way to convey that to me as a player so I know what my options are. 

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In this instance, I didn't understand the purpose of the emoticons, so I ignored them. I didn't even notice that the first and third emoticons were different (they're barely different - that doesn't strike me as helpful).

I don't really get sarcasm when used in the way you describe. I think sarcasm works best when delivered drily.

Context is vastly more relevant than tone.

Both the emphasis on a given word (which should tell you that it was the word spoken with emphasis, meaning the speaker changed his or her voice on that word) and the emoticons should have told you all you needed to know.

Misunderstanding what the emphasis means and ignoring the emoticons are symptoms of your problem, not proof that tone is useless.

Tone, and the emoticons, are part of your context.

In real life verbal conversations, do you often find yourself either confused or seeking clarification on what people mean?

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Then I have to ask: why wasn't ME3 that inclusive? It's certainly odd that ME3, on the surface a sci-fi story, came across as embracing religious themes much more than DA2 in spite of religion playing a more explicit role in the story in DA2. Things like this are the reason why I often complain that ME3 served me a heap of traditionalist crap where I wanted science-fictional rationalizations; and that down to the original ending.

It's the writers, IMO. I don't think Shepard had a consistent voice, and no one ever agreed on what it meant to be a paragon. That's why you get these convoluted views that rage from polite to naive idealism to blatant threat. 

While I'm at it, being more neutral about dialogue, as they said DAI will be, is certainly good as a general rule for avoiding cognitive dissonances resulting from the paraphrasing. But sometimes I want my character to explicitly express some kind of philosophical stance. I have fond memories of Planescape:Torment doing that. I can see why dialogue needs to be neutral to avoid having to create a dozen options for every hub, but being neutral all the time makes for bland dialogue.   

Yes, but there's no way to have as many options as players want and not effectively cut off 99% of the views that can be expressed. 

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
We often had the chance to be ambiguous, or to ask questions.

And neither of those conveys useful meaning.

I have to disagree. Even the way someone evades a question is informative. Being combative versus polite versus dismissive, for example. 

If I'm ambiguous, and you don't perceive the ambiguity, that doesn't change whether I was ambiguous.  That you think I made a promise doesn't mean that I did.  As long as I'm happy with not having made a promise, that's all I need, regardless of whether you correctly identified my failure to do so.

It comes back to what we do with speech, Sylvius. I don't use speech as a form of abstract expression. Speech, to me, is instrumental. All that matters to me is the impression I give you. If you believe that I was not ambigous, then I've failed to be ambiguous. 

Most questions (possibly all questions) make no assertions.  As such, any response that is a question is, by its very nature, evasive.  Our inability to discern which dialogue options would ask questions was a manor failing of the paraphrases in DA2. 

Questions can't be separated from tone. Regardless of how the question is worded, the tone it is delivered in can be quite informative. 

In this instance, I didn't understand the purpose of the emoticons, so I ignored them. I didn't even notice that the first and third emoticons were different (they're barely different - that doesn't strike me as helpful).

The emoticons express a very simplified form of facial expression. 

The first emoticon - the smile - has a general connotation of friendliness, happiness, cooperation. The emphasis is on "that", which draws attention to the singular, the specific instance. So the first phrase, more or less, means "That specific idea - which is the subject of this conversation - was a good idea".

The second emotion is like a shrug. The arched eyebrows, large eyes, and shape of the mouth all indicate a kind of confusion, sense of defeat, or otherwise a sense of dissapointment, depending on the context. The emphasis is on "idea". The statement is a way of saying "The idea was good, but it did not work out in practice". 

The third is the annoyance, mockery. It is a dismissive way of saying what one would have said if the idea was good - a way to emphasize that the speaker always thought the idea was stupid to start.

All of this is - in an actual conversation - covenyed by body language, facial expression, tone.