197 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

Kikidori wrote...

I rather have the dialogue wheel show the entire line of dialogue your character will say (With the help of subtitles above, which you can turn off) so you get an idea of what you will say, and how you will say it. Rather than be like "Stop it!" Option becomes "Shut up, your spineless minion of weakness!" I just wanted to tell them to stop messing around, not insult them and sound like a ******.

The dialogue wheel needs to have paraphrasing because it would be tedious to see the entire line of dialogue and then have the player character say it with voice acting when you click it. The way they've done it this time is nice, where it elaborates on the choice-function if you hover over the option.

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I'll point out that "bad touching" is a fairly common phrase--one Bioware apparently expected their users to be familiar with, but it IS fairly common in the Western (EU+US) world. I'd argue that you misunderstood the line.

You mean, the written text relied on personal social knowledge I as the player had for living in 21st century North America, and the response presupposed that this was the only possible meaning the phrase had?

Yeah, I'd totally agree with that. It amounts to the exact same point: you can't try and inflect silent PC text with whatever meaning's in your head. 

As an aside, I'd like to argue that an RPG doesn't need to respond to your actions--because that's impossible to do in a significant way. There are an infinite amount of ways anything can be interpreted, and if you view it as the game trying to read and respond to your actions, the game will invariably be wrong (like this time, for you) eventually.  

But that's missing the point. Of course there could be a lot of ways to interpret something - the point of the game is to tell you ahead of time how the game's going to deal with it. 

There's a reason we don't just have three options labelled "Option 1" "Option 2" and "Option 3" as dialogue options with no text whatsoever. The designer is trying to tell us what effect the line will have. 

That's the point of more specialized indicators like [Attack]. An RPG can easily respond to actions, because these are all scripted. It just has to tell you what the options are going to be before you pick one. 

It's better to see it (sort of) as Sylvius does--that it's the person's response, which may or may not actually reflect what you said/did. I'd simply argue that an RPG needs to let you choose your actions, your own responses (within an acceptable range). As an aside. 

The problem with this is that it implies an unacceptable passivity in the main character. People misunderstand you, and you just stand there and allow it to happen? It's absurd. 

Modifié par In Exile, 04 janvier 2014 - 09:41 .

[David7204]

In Exile wrote...

The problem with this is that it implies a kind of (pathetic) passivity in the main character. People misunderstand you, and you just stand there and allow it to happen? It's absurd. 

Surprising as it may be to you, the developers are not magically able to read the player's mind and discover when the understand the paraphrasing and when they don't, and then magically update the game on the spot to account for such a problem.

Modifié par David7204, 04 janvier 2014 - 09:43 .

[In Exile]

David7204 wrote...
Surprising as it may be to you, the developers are not magically able to read the player's mind and discover when the understand the paraphrasing and when they don't, and then magically update the game on the spot to account for such a problem.  

This may be very surprising for you but (a) I didn't ask for that, ( never complained about the paraphrasing and © pointed out that the entire aim of the enterprise is to convey information as clealry to the player as possible and that there is no obligation to account for any of these differences so...

Modifié par In Exile, 04 janvier 2014 - 09:48 .

[David7204]

In Exile wrote...

This may be very surprising for you but (a) I didn't ask for that, ( never complained about the paraphrasing and © pointed out that the entire aim of the enterprise is to convey information as clealry to the player as possible and that there is no obligation to account for any of these differences so...

So tell me, what exactly are you asking for, if not the game magically detecting when paraphrases are misunderstood and updating itself, to relieve the 'absurdness' and 'pathetic passiveity' of being misunderstood? 

[In Exile]

David7204 wrote...
So tell me, what exactly are you asking for, if not the game magically detecting when paraphrases are misunderstood and updating itself, to relieve the 'absurdness' and 'pathetic passiveity' of being misunderstood? 

Do you read? Because I did not say that it was either absurd or passive to be misunderstood. I said it was absurd, and that it implied a potentially pathetic sort of passivity, to be misunderstood and then be denied the opportunity to correct this. This is because a frequent retort from the anti-VO crowd is that silent PC allows more freedom since any incongruence can be deemed a misunderstand and that's not a problem. 

Beyond that in the very post you are quoting I said what the solution is: to provide a lot of upfront information to the player on the intended effect of the line, like (as DA2 does) that it will be delivered sarcastically. 

[AresKeith]

I like the way their doing it in DA:I, but I actually do prefer if they follow the DE:HR dialogue route

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Strongly, STRONGLY disagree. The reason they don't do "Option 1, 2, 3," etc. is to show what YOU will do, not how the game will respond to you. As I mentioned...somewhere, different people respond differently to a diplomatic/paragon/etc. comment based on THEM, not on the comment.

But the game doesn't show what you will don when they don't give you basic information like pragmatics. 

Let me give you an example: the sentence "That was a good idea" can actually carry very different meanings. 

That was a good idea  
That was a good idea <_<
That was a good idea 

It might be that the person you are stating this line to will take it to mean something different. But that's the difference between your intended effect and the actual effect. 

If I wasn't clear in my post, the effect I am talking about is the one I am trying to bring about. I agree that it's entirely possible to fail and not do it. But the game shouldn't be misleading me about what I'm trying to do with a line.

You shouldn't know how the game will deal with it. That should be an unknown (just like IRL). The only thing you should know with any certainty is what you're saying.

What's certain is just what I'm saying, but why I'm saying it and what I'm trying to achieve with it. I start with the purpose I want to get at and then figure out how to say things. 

It's the best compromise. World responsiveness is so far beyond the scope of the game it isn't even a consideration. It's gamebreaking.

I'm not saying the game should respond like that. It can't. I'm saying that the game can avoid that problem by giving accurate information to the player.

Of course, I WILL say, for someone like myself who delights in being passive, it's not that much of a problem.

It's so against my nature to be passive, that it pretty much makes it impossible for me to relate to a character in any form of media if they are passive. It is literally my "Nope, don't care at all about this person" button. 

It is simply impossible for me to relate to a protagonist like that. 

Modifié par In Exile, 04 janvier 2014 - 10:03 .

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

David7204 wrote...
So tell me, what exactly are you asking for, if not the game magically detecting when paraphrases are misunderstood and updating itself, to relieve the 'absurdness' and 'pathetic passiveity' of being misunderstood? 

Do you read? Because I did not say that it was either absurd or passive to be misunderstood. I said it was absurd, and that it implied a potentially pathetic sort of passivity, to be misunderstood and then be denied the opportunity to correct this. This is because a frequent retort from the anti-VO crowd is that silent PC allows more freedom since any incongruence can be deemed a misunderstand and that's not a problem. 

Beyond that in the very post you are quoting I said what the solution is: to provide a lot of upfront information to the player on the intended effect of the line, like (as DA2 does) that it will be delivered sarcastically. 

It is a system conceit to admit you can never go back and correct someone with a silent PC. 

Just like it is a conceit that you can't go back and correct your own character when they say something that you didn't intend and which "breaks" your character.

You can't point to system limitations for one and not the other. They will exist. The price of the silent PC system is that you have to bite your lip and understand that misunderstandings happen. The price of the voiced PC system is that your character can say things which you didn't at all intend. Making that not "your" character anymore, but simply another NPC who you can nudge from one quest to another.

One is forcing a limit in the ways your character can react (just like the game limits MANY ways you can react). The other makes the character not your's any longer. They are both problems, but I'd rather the one that let's me do mental gymnastics to keep my character, rather than have the game outright tell me I was wrong about my own character.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 04 janvier 2014 - 10:08 .

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
It is a system conceit to admit you can never go back and correct someone with a silent PC. 

Just like it is a conceit that you can't go back and correct your own character when they say something that you didn't intend and which "breaks" your character.

You can't point to system limitations for one and not the other. They will exist. The price of the silent PC system is that you have to bite your lip and understand that misunderstandings happen. The price of the voiced PC system is that your character can say things which you didn't at all intend. Making that not "your" character anymore, but simply another NPC who you can nudge from one quest to another.

If you're going to try and act as if you're taking a balance look at this issue, at least pretend to understand the argument from the other side of the fence. Preventing me from acting a certain way rips control of the character from me and makes it no longer mine. It's that simple. There's no difference between the two. 

I get it - you like the silent PC way more. But don't pretend like it's different because you like it more. It's not. 

If I force all your characters to express 10 different varieties of offensively racist views, then I've taken away freedom because you can't do anything but be racist. If I force you to take absolutely no action against the corruption of the templars in DA2... well, just like all the complaints in DA2 show, people don't think that's their character anymore. 

My characters don't "bite their lip". They act. They force the world to conform to how they think it should be. And if that ability is gone, then they're not my characters. With VO, they can at least me NPCs. Without it, they're souless murder automatons that exist to complete quests and do nothing else. 

One is forcing your character limit how they can react (just like the game limits MANY ways you can react). The other makes the character not your's any longer. They are both problems, but I'd rather the one that let's me do mental gymnastics to keep my character, rather than have the game outright tell me I was wrong about my own character. 

Both tell me I'm wrong about my character. Chain me up in a basement and telling me to pretend I'm free isn't freedom. 

Modifié par In Exile, 04 janvier 2014 - 10:11 .

[David7204]

In Exile wrote...

David7204 wrote...
So tell me, what exactly are you asking for, if not the game magically detecting when paraphrases are misunderstood and updating itself, to relieve the 'absurdness' and 'pathetic passiveity' of being misunderstood? 

Do you read? Because I did not say that it was either absurd or passive to be misunderstood. I said it was absurd, and that it implied a potentially pathetic sort of passivity, to be misunderstood and then be denied the opportunity to correct this.

You seem to not be grasping the two are one and the same in video games with voiceovers.

In Exile wrote...

Both tell me I'm wrong about my character. Chain me up in a basement and telling me to pretend I'm free isn't freedom. 

You aren't free.

Modifié par David7204, 04 janvier 2014 - 10:12 .

[Fast Jimmy]

It's so against my nature to be passive, that it pretty much makes it impossible for me to relate to a character in any form of media if they are passive. It is literally my "Nope, don't care at all about this person" button.

It is simply impossible for me to relate to a protagonist like that.

And what if your character says something that totally violates your vision of them? Or, say, the protagonist says something that the writers PURPOSEFULLY made misunderstood by another character, and your character is scripted to just watching them storm off, while the protagonist just sits there like a bump on a log? Would that infuriate you?

Because if it would, then I'm sure you can relate to others who might be equally offended when their character starts being religious, or a murdering psychopath, or someone who starts showing signs of TRUE mental sickness, when they thought they were just being Nice, Aggressive or Funny?

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
And what if your character says something that totally violates your vision of them?

That's obviously a problem. But it's impossible to avoid. An RPG can't tell you ahead of time all the dialogue options you have - it's always possible to have a situation where there are no options to express an in-character choice, where you are forced to pick out of character lines even with a silent PC. 

A great example is when Wynne asks you what a GW is. If your character doesn't not identify with being a GW, then you can go bugger yourself, because DA:O is not capable of handling anyone who (a) wants to save Ferelden becuase they love their homeland but ( hates the GW order and does not see themselves as part of it. 

Four choices, and all of them violate my vision of what my character would say. 

Or, say, the protagonist says something that the writers PURPOSEFULLY made misunderstood by another character, and your character is scripted to just watching them storm off, while the protagonist just sits there like a bump on a log? Would that infuriate you?

Of course it would. Just like having someone like Sister Petrice betray you and then have you stand there like a deer in the headlights as she walks away. 

Because if it would, then I'm sure you can relate to others who might be equally offended when their character starts being religious, or a murdering psychopath, or someone who starts showing signs of TRUE mental sickness, when they thought they were just being Nice, Aggressive or Funny?

It's almost like I've repeatedly said in every post I've replied two that the problems are the same. 

Modifié par In Exile, 04 janvier 2014 - 10:17 .

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

If you're going to try and act as if you're taking a balance look at this issue, at least pretend to understand the argument from the other side of the fence. Preventing me from acting a certain way rips control of the character from me and makes it no longer mine. It's that simple. There's no difference between the two. 

I get it - you like the silent PC way more. But don't pretend like it's different because you like it more. It's not. 

If I force all your characters to express 10 different varieties of offensively racist views, then I've taken away freedom because you can't do anything but be racist. If I force you to take absolutely no action against the corruption of the templars in DA2... well, just like all the complaints in DA2 show, people don't think that's their character anymore. 

My characters don't "bite their lip". They act. They force the world to conform to how they think it should be. And if that ability is gone, then they're not my characters. With VO, they can at least me NPCs. Without it, they're souless murder automatons that exist to complete quests and do nothing else.

So we both agree - the system limitations will always constrain. Always limit. Always prevent. 

So then it's simply a matter of versatility. Do you think a voiced character would offer as many choices as a silent one? Even outside of ambiguity and confusion, which are often the havens of the silent PC defense, you then also have games like PS:T, which clarify the same dialouge, yet with different tones or inflection (such as whether or not you are lying). 

Both tell me I'm wrong about my character. Chain me up in a basement and telling me to pretend I'm free isn't freedom. 

That's fair enough... but is turning the PC into simply an NPC the player doesn't even truly know any more freedom? Or is it just a resignation that there will always be limitations, so might as well embrace a more set protagonist?

[David7204]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So we both agree - the system limitations will always constrain. Always limit. Always prevent. 

So then it's simply a matter of versatility. Do you think a voiced character would offer as many choices as a silent one? Even outside of ambiguity and confusion, which are often the havens of the silent PC defense, you then also have games like PS:T, which clarify the same dialouge, yet with different tones or inflection (such as whether or not you are lying). 

Any rule, reasoning, or logic is going to 'constrain, limit' and prevent.' You really shouldn't speak as if that's somehow unique or remotely uncommon.

Such as being constrained and limited to text, for example.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...


That's obviously a problem. But it's impossible to avoid. An RPG can't tell you ahead of time all the dialogue options you have - it's always possible to have a situation where there are no options to express an in-character choice, where you are forced to pick out of character lines even with a silent PC. 

A great example is when Wynne asks you what a GW is. If your character doesn't not identify with being a GW, then you can go bugger yourself, because DA:O is not capable of handling anyone who (a) wants to save Ferelden becuase they love their homeland but ( hates the GW order and does not see themselves as part of it. 

Four choices, and all of them violate my vision of what my character would say.

But then it's simply a matter of limited choices. Which is something a silent PC can offer, since offereing more choices is simply a matter of going into a text parser and adding them. If you had unlimited resources, you could do this with a voiced PC, too, but in reality, it is much more expensive. 

If more choices is the goal, so that you always have an option you can identify with, then I point to some of the BG mods, where they wind up having 17 different dialogue options for certain conversations. If you can't find an option in 17 dialogue lines for one conversation stop, then I think the bar may be set too high.

It's almost like I've repeatedly said in every post I've replied two that the problems are the same. 

Yet there is no clear way to alleviate the voiced protagonist's issues. Every gesture, every face tick, every inflection saturate the delivery of a line. If you have an idea of a character that is far outside the box of what Bioware thought, it simply isn't possible to pull off with a voiced protagonist. You can't imagine a coward Hawke. You can't roleplay a soft-spoken Shephard.

It seems your defense is "there aren't enough options in either approach." To which I would say with text, there is infinite more options. It is just a matter of offering them - most games don't because they don't want to clutter up the UI and bog the player down. But it is entirely viable to do, if the developer doesn't mind having three or four encyclopedia's worth of text to sift through and a team of writers who would numbers in the dozens.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Which is why I support Pillars of Eternity.

So much more can be done with a text-based game than a cinematic one. Voiced characters with cutscene animations are insanely limited.

*highfive*

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
So we both agree - the system limitations will always constrain. Always limit. Always prevent.  

Yes, though not in the same way.

So then it's simply a matter of versatility.

No, it's a matter of preference. Because my evaluation of the limitations is not the same as yours. 

Do you think a voiced character would offer as many choices as a silent one? Even outside of ambiguity and confusion, which are often the havens of the silent PC defense, you then also have games like PS:T, which clarify the same dialouge, yet with different tones or inflection (such as whether or not you are lying).

But PS:T (and VtM: do not have dialogue that allows you to imagine the tone in your head. They have relatively fixed protagonists, and often clearly fixed tones. 

I wouldn't object to clear and umabiguous text-based dialogue (other than my subjective preference for coherence - so that the NPCs if they are voiced lead to the PC being voiced, and if the NPCs are silent then the PC should be silent) but then it wouldn't be anything like silent PC fans want. 

It would be clear and unambigious and - other than a failure to interpret on the part of the player - mean the same thing and be said the same way for all possible characters and variations of characters. 

That's fair enough... but is turning the PC into simply an NPC the player doesn't even truly know any more freedom? Or is it just a resignation that there will always be limitations, so might as well embrace a more set protagonist? 

It's not freedom, but it means there's an entity that I'm playing as that's relatable instead of being the equivalent of playing a statute. 

Yet there is no clear way to alleviate the voiced protagonist's issues. Every gesture, every face tick, every inflection saturate the delivery of a line. If you have an idea of a character that is far outside the box of what Bioware thought, it simply isn't possible to pull off with a voiced protagonist. You can't imagine a coward Hawke. You can't roleplay a soft-spoken Shephard.

You can't play a Warden that isn't a charismatic leader, either. Or a Revan that isn't one. You're always the leader. The fact that the silent PC allows you to lie to yourself is no different than someone who believes that the Gold Standard would actually ground a functional economic system. 

Or here's a better one - the Spirit Monk in JE can't be a coward. 

People can convince themselves of a lot of absurd things that are just plain wrong. 

There's nothing to stop people from engaging in the same kind of make believe with a voiced PC, except they realize how stupid it would be to do it in the one case but not the other. 

It seems your defense is "there aren't enough options in either approach." To which I would say with text, there is infinite more options. It is just a matter of offering them - most games don't because they don't want to clutter up the UI and bog the player down. But it is entirely viable to do, if the developer doesn't mind having three or four encyclopedia's worth of text to sift through and a team of writers who would numbers in the dozens

In the text, there aren't more options. There's just reality denial, and any choice that's as support by the game as my Shapeshifting Xorblaxian from the planet Gamma 9 who's there to impregnate all men with his invisible tubule because their delicious muscle will feed its chesburster young is just not a meaningful way to talk about options. 

I can "imagine' that my Warden is like Chuck from Sons of Anarchy and masturbates himself whenever he's stressed out in public, but that's not something the game supports nor that would be sensible or justifiable to say is a strength of silent PC or text. 

Modifié par In Exile, 04 janvier 2014 - 10:31 .

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Yet there is no clear way to alleviate the voiced protagonist's issues. Every gesture, every face tick, every inflection saturate the delivery of a line. If you have an idea of a character that is far outside the box of what Bioware thought, it simply isn't possible to pull off with a voiced protagonist. You can't imagine a coward Hawke. You can't roleplay a soft-spoken Shephard.

You can have a cowardly PC, in a game with a silent protagonist? Barring excessive headcanon, the concept doesn't exist, when you have a PC wading through millions of dark Jedi/darkspawn/demons/whatever.

[HiroVoid]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Which is why I support Pillars of Eternity.

So much more can be done with a text-based game than a cinematic one. Voiced characters with cutscene animations are insanely limited.

*highfive*

Yeah.  I've generally agreed with this as well when it comes to voicing characters in general, but it's not a compromise made except for portable games and certain PC games.

[Fast Jimmy]

But PS:T (and VtM: do not have dialogue that allows you to imagine the tone in your head. They have relatively fixed protagonists, and often clearly fixed tones.

I wouldn't object to clear and umabiguous text-based dialogue (other than my subjective preference for coherence - so that the NPCs if they are voiced lead to the PC being voiced, and if the NPCs are silent then the PC should be silent) but then it wouldn't be anything like silent PC fans want.

It would be clear and unambigious and - other than a failure to interpret on the part of the player - mean the same thing and be said the same way for all possible characters and variations of characters.

I wouldn't object to this... provided there are enough options that allow me to deliver the same dialogue in a number of different ways. It would be a total train wreck to try and actually create all this content, but it would be theoretically possible. More of a burden of juggling the sheer volume than a constraint on resources.

You can't play a Warden that isn't a charismatic leader, either. Or a Revan that isn't one. You're always the leader. The fact that the silent PC allows you to lie to yourself is no different than someone who believes that the Gold Standard would actually ground a functional economic system.

People can convince themselves of a lot of absurd things that are just plain wrong.

Admitting defeat and just resigning to the fact that video games can never be engaging emotionally or not have a set protagonist just seems incredibly depressing to me, is all.

[Fast Jimmy]

Il Divo wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Yet there is no clear way to alleviate the voiced protagonist's issues. Every gesture, every face tick, every inflection saturate the delivery of a line. If you have an idea of a character that is far outside the box of what Bioware thought, it simply isn't possible to pull off with a voiced protagonist. You can't imagine a coward Hawke. You can't roleplay a soft-spoken Shephard.

You can have a cowardly PC, in a game with a silent protagonist? Barring excessive headcanon, the concept doesn't exist, when you have a PC wading through millions of dark Jedi/darkspawn/demons/whatever.

You can have your PC run away from any and all enemies, having your companions mop them up. You can choose dialogue lines that are ambiguous enough to work. You can also do like Sylvius did, where he purposesfully set up a Game Over scenario where your PC dies and lost, making that the end of their story.

Yes, it involves headcanon. Yes, it is not playing as designed by the developers. That doesn't make it impossible. And it can be seen as a challenge, where being able to pull this off and finding it successful is rewarding to some. Just like Soloing the game on Nightmare, despite it being a party-based game - the enjoyment is in the challenge. 

The ability to be anything other than different shades of the set protagonist Bioware made is just the rule with a voiced protagonist.