2 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

You guessed it. This is about paraphrasing, which, as everyone who knows me knows, I think is the worst design decision made for roleplaying games...well...ever since the first rpg appeared on an electronic medium.

But DAI will have it, so it doesn't make sense to rage against it. We can, however, try to make it bearable. Bearable, for more than that it will never be. 

I've often complained about misleading paraphrases, but this is not about that. This is rather about the fact that paraphrases don't say enough even where they are perfectly correct.

The result? I don't choose options which would be perfectly appropriate for my character because the paraphrase is so vague that it also encompasses inappropriate things. Instead, I choose a "safe" option.

A frequent problem I had in DA2 is that I do want to be diplomatic, but fear that the upper option is too moralistic or too soft or too boring. Or that I want to be firm, but don't choose the aggressive option because I don't want to come across as a jerk. Sometimes, if I actually choose the "feared" options, I find they are good options, but I can't tell in advance because the paraphrase, while it does describe what follows correctly, is too vague and doesn't describe it comphrehensively. The result is that my character's personality profile gets weakened without necessity. The game gives me the option to play my character exactly as I want them, but doesn't let me know about it. 

This is why I think that an option to show the spoken lines in advance is necessary. The main argument brought forward against it is "you don't want to read the lines and then hear them spoken." Perhaps I would indeed prefer that wasn't necessary as a rule, but the player's advance knowledge is too big of a sacrifice. The fact that options perfect for our characters may go unused because the paraphrase is necessarily too vague to exclude meanings we passionately NOT want should make this worthy of consideration. The only other solution is try-and-reload. I have done that. Often. I would prefer not to do it again.

Edit:
I call this a "second-degree design flaw", as opposed to the "first degree design flaw" where the game deceives you into believing there is an appropriate option while there isn't one. Note that none of these would ever happen if the spoken lines were shown in advance.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 28 janvier 2014 - 01:46 .

[Allan Schumacher]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

They could do it like Deus Ex, where if you lingered over a paraphrase long enough it would show up with the full dialogue so you knew what Jensen was gonna say if you use that line. That way you can have a paraphrase without having the full dialogue clogging the screen if you didn't want to.

Just as a note, as I recently was playing this (and still need to finish it >.>), but DXHR doesn't show the full spoken line for longer responses either.

I imagine on some level it just becomes a space thing, because Jensen's response is particularly lengthy.

That said, it definitely says a lot more than ours do (and the words shown are the words spoken, even if they aren't all there).

I feel alone in actually enjoying DA2's story quite a lot, despite its
lack of narrative focus. The reused cellar and cave thing was pretty
annoying though. I was glad to see a return of unique subterranean
environments and forests in Mark of the Assassin, but I suppose I can't
count a DLC.

Well, fan response effectively mandated that it was clear we couldn't do that again.  Mark of the Assassin's (and the other DLC) lack of level reuse is a response to the feedback.



EDIT: Old thread is apparently old

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 31 janvier 2014 - 08:11 .

[David Gaider]

Realmzmaster wrote...
There is no problem in listening to the fan base. The problem comes when you let the fan base dictate development, since the entire fan base will never agree on exactly the same points. Bioware best bet is to make the game Bioware wishes to make taking the fan base into consideration, but at the end of the day Bioware has to make the final decisions and then live with the accolades or consequences.

This is true. The thing that fans sometimes forget in these conversations is that the answer to some design issues is occasionally, "we don't want to do that." When we evaluate options as a team, there's an element of how we think players out there will interpret or use said option, but ultimately it's going to boil down to how we personally feel about it...that is, after all, the only interpretation of which we can be certain. Occasionally we will offer options as a toggle, but only if we're prepared to support it, and if it aligns with the style of game we're trying to make.

Not everyone is going to be pleased with that, but then not everyone is going to be pleased with any design decision we make. The ones who aren't happy are going to be vocal, and the ones who like it or don't care won't say anything...that's the way it always is. We'll listen to the ones who are unhappy, investigate if we think there's merit, and possibly adjust our approach as a result. In the case of DAI, that's already happened, and you'll have to judge the results for yourself once the game is released (or not, as you please).