197 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

M25105 wrote...

No dialogue wheel! Just NO!

Good luck with that.


(Note that  this can be read as a sincere statement in a pure text system. Am I sincere? You make the call!)

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 janvier 2014 - 10:37 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Observe the variables. Your location. The background movement. What the current situation is (we're still talking about predicting a person's response, correct?).

You may not be able to control them, but you can note and cross-reference them to arrive at meaningful conclusions.

But I can't see them all.  A person's thoughts and emotional state are unavailable to me.  Moreover, the set of possibly relevant variables is so staggeringly large as to be worthless.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Good luck with that.

(Note that  this can be read as a sincere statement in a pure text system. Am I sincere? You make the call!)

In a pure text system, it doesn't make sense to describe your sincerity in terms of whether it is real.  Since that information isn't provided, it has no discernable truth value at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

First, I don't like [Intimidate] options. I don't think they should have an effect. Why I say something shouldn't have any effect on what effect it has. If presented with the same two dialogue options, where one of them says [Lie] at the front, those should do the same thing.

Second, we can only test the effects of the [Intimidate] options within the game from outside the game. Within a single playthrough, we can't test them because we can't go back and repeat the experiment to see what the other possible outcomes were.

[JCAP]

If done well, dialogue wheel (with voice) can be better than the silent dialogue tree. Unfortunatelly, when people want to prove this wrong, they use DA:2, wich was terrible.

Do you want a cake?
Diplomatic: "Yes please. Thank you very much."
Sarcastic: "Is that a worm?"
Aggressive: "NO AND GO KILL YOURSELF WHRAAAAR!!!"


But there are games that used the dialogue wheel and it was very well implemented:

Alpha Protocol
Telltalle Games
Mass Effect (maybe except 3 but I don't have complaints really [except the missing neutral option])
Deus Ex: Human Revolution

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

And on the topic of [Lie], I disagree. From a roleplaying standpoint, the [Lie] is telling us that our character is deliberately saying something they don't agree with, or "feel," or what have you. It's a roleplaying distinction.

As to whether they actually "do" the same thing within the game, I can understand that. But the distinction is that one carries, from the character's point of view, intentional deception. That's very defining.

But if the game doesn't react differently (and it shouldn't), why bother?  The player can define whether his character is lying without being given the explicit option.

My characters lie without the [Lie] operator all the time.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But if the game doesn't react differently (and it shouldn't), why bother?  The player can define whether his character is lying without being given the explicit option.

My characters lie without the [Lie] operator all the time.

I would argue that that is headcanon. IF there is a lie operator, then the game makes a distinction between truthfulness and telling a lie. Thus, a line without the [Lie] operator is, by default, a truthful line. You're breaking the game.

Not in any meaningful way (outside of the problem of determining if any line is true or not--or situations where the game reacts to your dialog choice), and it probably gives you more roleplaying "freedom," but I'd argue that you are.

Actually, if memory serves me correctly, there has been discussions in the dev videos about how the PC in DA:I can say something and clarify later they did not mean it, or that they were lying. (I don't have a link, sorry). 

I know that is more of a case where the game is reacting to the choice, but still... it is entertaining the idea that the PC could make a dialogue choice and not really be genuine when they do so.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Actually, if memory serves me correctly, there has been discussions in the dev videos about how the PC in DA:I can say something and clarify later they did not mean it, or that they were lying. (I don't have a link, sorry). 

I know that is more of a case where the game is reacting to the choice, but still... it is entertaining the idea that the PC could make a dialogue choice and not really be genuine when they do so.

The only thing I recall about that was Laidlaw saying that the game wouldn't lock you out of a choice based on what you said in dialog. Not that you could clarify later, but if I tell Varric I plan to save Crestwood, the game doesn't automatically make my plot, "Save Crestwood."

I'm examining myself, and i'm not really sure what i dislike about the idea of the truthfulness of all dialog being a function of the player (meaning, if there's no lie operator you can still lie). it feels like something that would have a detrimental affect on pilosophical, or simply dialog (as opposed to action)-based conversation.

In addition, I personally feel that if the game doesn't give the distinction (NOT react to it--merely allow the choice between the two), it's not really roleplaying. My big problem with TES.

In ME3 during the genophage mission, you had the ability to not mention sabotaging the cure. That wasn't explicitly labeled as lying... but then again, it is a little different, in that you know what the truth is and saying anything different is actively lying.

Still, it's the same ballpark, if not a direct one-to-one comparison, I would think?

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Good luck with that.

(Note that this can be read as a sincere statement in a pure text system. Am I sincere? You make the call!)

In a pure text system, it doesn't make sense to describe your sincerity in terms of whether it is real.  Since that information isn't provided, it has no discernable truth value at all.

Discernable is the key word there. 

But no value? Really? Not even an educated guess?

Suppose you had seen earlier posts of mine on the subject? I believe I've been pretty consistent in saying that expecting Bio to reconsider voiced protagonists is idiotic.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 janvier 2014 - 04:07 .

[CybAnt1]

Do you want a cake?
Diplomatic: "Yes please. Thank you very much."
Sarcastic: "Is that a worm?"
Aggressive: "NO AND GO KILL YOURSELF WHRAAAAR!!!"

That's just it, kind of in a nutshell.

Why does a no answer have to be angry and aggressive? Sometimes you say no, and you do it rather politely, nicely, and diplomatically. Also, the yes answer doesn't have to be pleasant. Maybe I answer yes, and grab the cake with an angry scowl on my face, aggressively.

My point here is that the game always assumes that there is 1 response to every situation that is sarcastic, 1 that is diplomatic, and 1 that is aggressive.

Sometimes I might want to answer either yes or no to something, and neither answer necessarily has to be either peaceful or aggressive. 

I just can't get this implied system that in every encounter you have with people, there are 3 discrete ways to respond to them, always in one of these 3 manners. 

As I said earlier, there are a lot of times where it makes no sense for the "angry/aggressive" answer/option to even be there, yet, of course, as always, you must have that as one of three options. 

Sometimes it felt to me like Hawke was a little bit of a retarded Hulk, angry all the time at everything and anything, except he didn't get the benefit out of it of turning green and increasing his strength. Or, at least, he's capable of being angry at all times. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 07 janvier 2014 - 04:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I would argue that that is headcanon.

All roleplaying is headcanon.

IF there is a lie operator, then the game makes a distinction between truthfulness and telling a lie. Thus, a line without the [Lie] operator is, by default, a truthful line. You're breaking the game.

Not in any meaningful way (outside of the problem of determining if any line is true or not--or situations where the game reacts to your dialog choice), and it probably gives you more roleplaying "freedom," but I'd argue that you are.

Why would we ever assume that?  The dialogue options are, demonstrably "things you can say."  I would argue that that's all they are.  Any meaning beyond that is entirely your own invention.

EntropicAngel wrote...

I'm examining myself, and i'm not really sure what i dislike about the idea of the truthfulness of all dialog being a function of the player (meaning, if there's no lie operator you can still lie). it feels like something that would have a detrimental affect on pilosophical, or simply dialog (as opposed to action)-based conversation.

In addition, I personally feel that if the game doesn't give the distinction (NOT react to it--merely allow the choice between the two), it's not really roleplaying. My big problem with TES.

How is it not roleplaying?  The roleplaying resides entirely in making the decision of what to say and why.  What does your character mean by it?  If you're letting the writers assign you meaning like that, you're dramatically reducing the range of opinions available to your character.

As it happens, I typically avoid the [Lie] operator in dialogue.  If I have the option to say the same thing, either with the [Lie] option or without, I tend to choose the option without, regardless of whether my character is speaking truthfully.  If I choose [Lie], then I'm telling the game my character is lying (something the game never needs to know).  If I don't choose [Lie], then I'm telling the game nothing about my character's intent.

If there were a [True] operator, that would be problematic.

AlanC9 wrote...

Discernable is the key word there. 

But no value? Really? Not even an educated guess?

Things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics.  Since the only content that's actually in the game is the text of the line, anything beyond that is our own invention.  The intent behind any text line can never be said to be "true" within the game, nor can it be described as "false".  It isn't there.  Therefore, it cannot have a truth value.

Suppose you had seen earlier posts of mine on the subject? I believe I've been pretty consistent in saying that expecting Bio to reconsider voiced protagonists is idiotic.

I fail to see the relevance of that context.  The statement in question was about the wheel, not the voice.  But even if it were, there's no intent contained within your remark.

For the record, I'm not asking them to reconsider voiced protagonists.

I'm just establishing a standard of player control over the PC (that was present in the silent protagonist games) to which I would like them once again to aspire.  I don't care how they do it.  I don't care if the PC is voiced.  I care about whether I get to play the character I designed, rather than the character they designed.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 janvier 2014 - 04:19 .

[AlanC9]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I've never actually sabotaged the cure so I don't know if there's actually dialog where Shepard deliberately lies without a [Lie] operator.

I've done it. AFAIK there's no particular indicator, but I wouldn't necessarily remember if there had been.

Aren't [Lie] indicators more likely to be artifacts of the morality system? In NWN [Lie] meant you were about to get Chaotic points.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[Lie] indicators are nothing more than invitations to meta-game.

[AlanC9]

What? If you're playing in a system that requires the PC's intent to be evaluated, it helps if the interface has a way for the player to signal the PC's intent to the game.

Whether you think that RPG systems should work this way isn't relevant. Some do.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Discernable is the key word there. 

But no value? Really? Not even an educated guess?

Things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics.  Since the only content that's actually in the game is the text of the line, anything beyond that is our own invention.  The intent behind any text line can never be said to be "true" within the game, nor can it be described as "false".  It isn't there.  Therefore, it cannot have a truth value.

This has nothing much to do with my statement, since whether or not I was being sincere is a matter of fact.  Though obviously I have direct access to the fact in question, while you do not.

Suppose you had seen earlier posts of mine on the subject? I believe I've been pretty consistent in saying that expecting Bio to reconsider voiced protagonists is idiotic.

I fail to see the relevance of that context.  The statement in question was about the wheel, not the voice.  But even if it were, there's no intent contained within your remark.

You thought that I might have actually been expressing support for M25105 back there? Really? (The preceding "really" was purely for rhetorical effect. @ everyone else: does that use of  "really" convey the meaning I think it does?)

You seem to be elevating a personal intellectual disability into a principle of interpretation here. People can model how other minds function, and do so with a high degree of success. These models can also be applied to fictional characters; again, with a high degree of success, assuming the creator of the fictional character is competent.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 janvier 2014 - 06:32 .