93 réponses à ce sujet

[CuriousArtemis]

I love the cut scene feel; it's great seeing the character I created interacting in a scene with the other characters, and to see him respond using the personality I've crafted for him 8D Probably why I love DA2 and ME3 so much.

[Fast Jimmy]

Autodialogue itself is not a problem. Autodialogue becomes a problem when the protagonist is written to say something I wouldn't want them to say without any input from me. That means, if the protagonist speaks about neutral things like tactics for the following mission, asks someone for clarification or talks about what they have done or not done in a neutral way, then there is no problem, as long as that fits the conversation and its mood.

Cherry picking a quote here, but if you are playing a tactically inept character who prefers just to smash, smash, SMASH, then things like talking about tactics can interfere with character control.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 21 novembre 2013 - 09:50 .

[David7204]

That sounds good to me.

I'd prefer for the character to have some traits regardless of the player. Being smart, for example.

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

That sounds good to me.

I'd prefer for the character to have some traits regardless of the player. Being smart, for example.

I'd prefer such characteristics be up to the player to decide. 

I'm a halfway intelligent guy, but playing (practically) a caveman in Fallout 1 and 2 with an Intelligence score of 1 was awesome. And you can still save the day/best the game/be a hero. 

[David7204]

It was awesome because it was funny. Not because it made any sense.

[Usergnome]

-Skorpious- wrote...

I won't buy it if it does. Simply put, ME3 was the only BioWare game I have played where I felt I was playing a predefined character instead of one of my choosing.

... You didn't feel like Hawke was pre-determined? I loved Mass Effect 3, renegade Shepard in that game was a monster.... Have you killed Mordin? Its the saddest thing ever and totally changes my shepards personality. Making the hard decisions for the galaxy made my shepard change from the total paragon into a pragmatic person trying to be a paragon. I liked it.

As for auto-dialogue, no, they showed you still get to choose what you say. Its not going to be as open as DAO because DAO's character was silent, which meant he could choose from 5 different things  to say to direct the conversation with no voice acting required. It was easy to do that, even if it made the protagonist nearly lifeless.

Modifié par Usergnome, 21 novembre 2013 - 10:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

That sounds good to me.

I'd prefer for the character to have some traits regardless of the player. Being smart, for example.

Only if the player decides he does.

I agree that the character's traits should not be limited by the player's traits, but I would object to the character being assigned traits by the writers without any input from the player.

[David7204]

The characters are always assigned traits from the writers. There never has been a 'blank slate' and there never will be.

[The Elder King]

The only traits I recall being 'assigned' in DAO was being beautiful/handsome, and generally skilled (kind of necessary, since the Wardens recruit only people skilled in their field). Which aren't personality traits.
The other traits are handled by the player's choice in dialogue and stats. Without cunning you'll met a lot of situation when you're not considered very intelligent (one soon in the human Noble origin).

Modifié par hhh89, 21 novembre 2013 - 10:17 .

[Wulfram]

None of Bioware's plots really make any sense with a total halfwit as the protagonist. They need to at least be the sort of person people would follow.

But I do think that the way someone plans tactics is potentially a point of characterisation, and in an ideal world wouldn't be auto-dialogue. In a less ideal world I'll accept some neutral toned stuff, though I'll probably get antsy if it goes on too long without giving me a choice.

Modifié par Wulfram, 21 novembre 2013 - 10:18 .

[David7204]

Brave.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

The characters are always assigned traits from the writers. There never has been a 'blank slate' and there never will be.

NWN

KotOR (I would argue, though my position is unpopular)

Any truly party-based game (like the Wizardry games).

Fallout 3

Skyrim

[-Skorpious-]

Usergnome wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

I won't buy it if it does. Simply put, ME3 was the only BioWare game I have played where I felt I was playing a predefined character instead of one of my choosing.

... You didn't feel like Hawke was pre-determined? I loved Mass Effect 3, renegade Shepard in that game was a monster.... Have you killed Mordin? Its the saddest thing ever and totally changes my shepards personality. Making the hard decisions for the galaxy made my shepard change from the total paragon into a pragmatic person trying to be a paragon. I liked it.

I've only played DA2 and ME3 once each. Hawke had the benefit of not starring in previous games, so I felt I was more in control of his development as a character (yet everything else is out of Hawke's contol; he was pretty much a punching bag in the grand scheme of things). 

Getting back to ME3, I liked to play my Shepard with a healthy blend of neutral responses and paragon responses, with a dash of renegade for flavor. When ME3 axed neutral dialogue as an option, Shepard was forced to respond in extremes - a decision that came into conflict with how I played Shepard in the past, creating more than a handful of OOC moments during my playthrough.

It also didn't help that the importing tool was (and still is) broken. I could never 100% recreate my Shepard, so the lack of control via dialogue choices combined with a "fake" Shepard distanced me far more from the story than I thought possible. 

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 21 novembre 2013 - 10:32 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Brave.

Is it possible to be brave if you literally have no fear?

[Ianamus]

My issue with ME3's auto-dialogue wasn't so much the amount of it, but that it was so un-neutral. Shepard suddenly had a lot of opinions that went completely against things he'd said in previous games, and he wouldn't shut up about them.

Modifié par EJ107, 21 novembre 2013 - 11:06 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Brave.

Is it possible to be brave if you literally have no fear?

No.

[Dave of Canada]

David7204 wrote...

It was awesome because it was funny. Not because it made any sense.

1-2 intelligence didn't make much sense but having subpar intelligence (3+) made just as much sense as anything else, protagonists don't have to be intelligent for the story to make much sense.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 21 novembre 2013 - 11:10 .

[KennethAFTopp]

Linkenski wrote...
Then of course DA2 also had more variations of different kinds of choices. Either you had the simple response-wheel with "Good guy, comedian or bad boy" or you had those 3-way choices. But like I said, I feel like ME2's wheels were less misleading and on replays I noticed more artificial options in the wheels of DA2 than I did in ME2. DA2's dialogue wheel is more like ME1's I think.

I actually thought about the way they did dialogue in DAII and I realized if you varied the dialogue choices during conversation from the three different standpoints
you could very easily end up sounding incredibly Schizophrenic.

[KC_Prototype]

It was said not to but can someone give me specific instances in ME3 where you had auto dialogue, because I can't remember any and I played it 4 times.

Modifié par KC_Prototype, 22 novembre 2013 - 01:30 .

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Usergnome wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

I won't buy it if it does. Simply put, ME3 was the only BioWare game I have played where I felt I was playing a predefined character instead of one of my choosing.

... You didn't feel like Hawke was pre-determined? I loved Mass Effect 3, renegade Shepard in that game was a monster.... Have you killed Mordin? Its the saddest thing ever and totally changes my shepards personality. Making the hard decisions for the galaxy made my shepard change from the total paragon into a pragmatic person trying to be a paragon. I liked it.

I've only played DA2 and ME3 once each. Hawke had the benefit of not starring in previous games, so I felt I was more in control of his development as a character (yet everything else is out of Hawke's contol; he was pretty much a punching bag in the grand scheme of things). 

Getting back to ME3, I liked to play my Shepard with a healthy blend of neutral responses and paragon responses, with a dash of renegade for flavor. When ME3 axed neutral dialogue as an option, Shepard was forced to respond in extremes - a decision that came into conflict with how I played Shepard in the past, creating more than a handful of OOC moments during my playthrough.

It also didn't help that the importing tool was (and still is) broken. I could never 100% recreate my Shepard, so the lack of control via dialogue choices combined with a "fake" Shepard distanced me far more from the story than I thought possible. 

Yeah, the lack of neutral dialog led to a lot of out-of-character moments for me too.  Contrary to what certain writers believe, the middle dialog option is not always "apathy".  It's more of a logical compromise, as opposed to extremes.

[wolfsite]

David7204 wrote...

That sounds good to me.

I'd prefer for the character to have some traits regardless of the player. Being smart, for example.

The way DA2 did this was a nice touch, if you picked one style of comment over the others some auto-dialogue would be in that style.

EG: Picking Sarcastic lines would shift to Sarcastic versions of the Auto-dialogue.

[snackrat]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...

ME1 was disguised auto-dialogue - you still said the same thing, every time, but the scene was stopped so you could choose between your options - options which literally did nothing but stall clips.
Then there was the fact that the so-called 'neutral' dialogue was actually just the same as either paragon or renegade, only you'd never get the points for it. So if that's your idea of 'the old ways' (considering you're using ME as an example, despite being different IPs) I don't see how it is any better.

ME2 was the best example of dialogue choices, it usually had a 'neutral' and the neutral (almost?) always had its own dialogue when it appeared. (Sometimes para/ren options were absent, you'd only have one, along with a neutral.)

Which is why ME2 was done the way it was, people hated the same dialogue line being said from a choice provided to the player. ME2 did things fine enough, I don't understand the reason behind making ME3 mostly choiceless or have a pick between two dialogue choices.

For two reasons:

1) AUTO-DIALOGUE (choiceless)

• Narrative flow. There's no point having the player choose dialogue if it is just "what do you mean" or "no, that's wrong, this happened". ME1 was annoying for me because they would keep making the characters to drop everything so I could say only ever the same lines. (Death... destruction... nothing's really clear.)
• Eases new players in. Shepard's story arcs across all three even if the player's experience doesn't. Having events of past games (or between games) - for example, "That why they grounded me? Took away my ship?" "BUT SHEPARD THE BATARIAN RELAAAAAAAY" - automatically said by Shepard brings them up to speed without everyone being like "Do you remember when THIS happened and THOSE happened, of course you do why am I saying this", or having the Audience Surrogate (in this case, James) know literally nothing about anything so he can ask "what's a mass relay" all the time.
• Allows for more immersive animation. If there is cutscene dialogue, any animation they are using has to be able to loop indefinately. Having the dialogue spoken in the prologue meant the Anderson could walk Shepard to the council while speaking (seeing as time was of the essence), because they knew how long the conversation would be. (Note that your dialogue options are only after you've stopped moving.) Hawke tried it with Ketojan, with the sky in the background, but that became weird because then it can take them half-an-hour to walk to a cliff five metres away and all you could see behind them is blue sky-void (where the spiders descend from because LOGIC'D).
• Just an extra remark I hope is clear, there are actually two sets of auto-dialogue. A lot of the lines that look like they'd be the same every time actually change depending on Shepard's primary philosophy (para/ren). Shepard as a character is limited by programming, so they can't truly be 'yours' in the truest scene, like any character you didn't personally write can't. But they can at least emulate your trend, which is as much as spoken dialogue is likely to do anyway - major decisions are still available.

2) ONLY TWO OPTIONS

• Because, like ME1 and ME2, if they DID have neutral options there weren't worth any points (or were only rarely worth points, at not as much). Are they good for RP? Yes definately, and there are several I take in subsequent playthroughs (Fist your crap life is your fault). But a lot of people think they need to min-max points (probably the same people who hated Anders because they can't reject him without getting rivalry, even though locking at friend/rival is possible in ACT I he has so many triggerd). Many thing if they can't get the paragon/renegade points to do the presuede/intimidate they have 'failed', and thus they need to farm them. (Do you KNOW how many people console'd in those points in ME1 just so they could do that? masseffectsaves.com shows it is almost ALL of them.)
• Likely they used telemetry data (we know they were taking it, that's how they know over 2/3 of Shepards are paragon), determining that neutral options were rarely taken - either for the points as mentioned in [1], or because their character is RPd as super paragon or renegade. If they were rarely taken, they were rarely needed. Dialogue is expensive, programming it is time-consuming. Missing lines here means more lines there, so on.
• There isn't even such thing as a neutral Shepard. Para/ren are personal philosophies, not personalities. (Frankly there's not much space for RP in ME, since Shepard is a set character.) All your decisions are ultimately one or the other. You may go Colony-Survivor, but you still have binary story choices. (They just don't have the time for data for more.) Ultimately your character adheres to one or the other, even if they alternate. (For example I have Shepard's that talk renegade and give people ****, but do the paragon choices. Or they do paragon dialogue until you ****** them off at which point renegade all the way.) If you chose neutral, throughout all of 1 and 2, you'd never be able to finish.

Do I dislike the auto-dialogue and binary choice? Well, yes. In a perfect world, all the ME games would use the gameplay, and combined reputation system, of ME3; with the dialogue of ME2, and the story of ME1. But developers can only react to the data they have, and only within their budget. Thus, this happens.
Hindsight is 20/20. Developers have to make decisions based in that moment, not this, and even if we now thing those decisions weren't as good as they could have been they still made sense then. That's all you can realistically ask.

As it is, ME is a different IP to DA, worked on by different teams. The only auto-dialogue you're likely to get would be the "please explain" or "how so" filler, or [1] based on the tone of the last you used, or [2] based on the dominant tone. Plus, while ME captures a philosophy, DA2 was more about personality. Personalities aren't really binary, so its unlikely to be two options throughout.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

That's one thing I loved about Dragon Age.  The persuasion system was handled in a way that allowed more freedom for the player.

[Oasis_JS]

geez..any how i enjoy (the so called  auto dialogue) =D  very much in me3. they were aiming for the fact its the final battle,so they wanted to give converstions  deeper meaning , heck I really enjoy all kind of dialogues that were spoken in me3 .=D as someone who love reading the final novels,when i get to an series.. i get where they were going with it^^. any how the new da i bet will be a mix of everything..just hold your horses everyone..they do beta testing and feed backs with tester for a reason..and also its about what they want to aim for in the dialoguestuff ^^

Modifié par Oasis_JS, 23 novembre 2013 - 07:21 .

[Sion1138]

I have no problem with some lines being said without my input. What matters is the content of those lines.

They ought not to carry weight, neither with regard to the plot or to the player character. In ME3, there were too many character defining lines that were automated. 

Like "I'm a soldier Anderson, I'm no politician."

That right there says something about who the character is, what his disposition is. I would never have chosen to say that.

On other occasions you were given two basically equivalent choices to say stupid things, like "We fight or we die." and "We have to stand together.".

Same thing there, just packaged differently. Again, I would never have said that myself.

On yet other occasions it was the 'paraphrasing' that got me. You talk to Garrus about the war and all and he's telling you how difficult it was to leave his people. You get an option displayed as "I understand." but it results in Shepard saying "There was a boy back on Earth..."

What the...? I didn't care about the freaking boy, everybody was dying. This is not paraphrasing, it's just arbitrary.

Modifié par Sion1138, 22 novembre 2013 - 11:57 .