544 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

TipsLeFedora wrote...

Also I don't know maybe this is me but when people say "that is not what my character would say" in rpgs you are mostly limited to the writer's dialogue. So do you come to this conclusion after you have seen the dialogue options? I am curios

In any situation, in the ral world, there's more than one thing you might say or do.  There's probably a wide range of things you might do.  You choose your action by choosing among those options, and you avoid those possible actions you don't prefer.

When choosing dialogue options in a game, the same is true, but there you're limited to the options the writers provided.  But, while you're now choosing from a much smaller list, the calculation is the same.  Am I willing to di that?  Am I unwilling to do that?

The problem arises when the character does something that falls in the "I'm unwillign to do that" category.  That never happens with full text options.  It routinely happens with paraphases.

[Fast Jimmy]

TipsLeFedora wrote...

Also I don't know maybe this is me but when people say "that is not what my character would say" in rpgs you are mostly limited to the writer's dialogue. So do you come to this conclusion after you have seen the dialogue options? I am curios

With text options, you get to see exactly what your character says, so you at least can choose the least compromising option. If you play an atheist, you don't need lines openly declaring that, you just need to avoid ones that openly state advocacy towards an organized religion, for example. 

Auto-dialogue and paraphrasing take that away, though. If your character is responding without knowledge or even input from the player, it runs the risk of constantly saying or doing something which violates the idea for a character. Because you are not given enough information to know what your character is going to say before the choice is made, you could inadvertently choose an option that is the most in conflict with your character design possible, but not mentioned or hinted in the paraphrase. 

Which results in a much more passive experience, at least for me personally. I'm not roleplaying a character in DA2, I'm watching Sarc/Dip/Agg Hawke. It makes little sense to deviate from these archetypes, as A) the game doesn't really matter in terms of choice and characterization anyway and trying to "color outside the lines" of these personality types only creates confusion and inconsistency. It is better to just follow the set personality type and not try and create your own character at all. 

See d!ck Aggressive Hawke. Rage, Hawke, rage  

[Enigmatick]

They can playing a game a lot more fun, know a guy who played a character in Fallout New Vegas who had a phobia of robots and killed everyone he came across instantly.

Modifié par Enigmatick, 29 janvier 2014 - 01:19 .

[Fast Jimmy]

J. Reezy wrote...

TipsLeFedora wrote...

Also I don't know maybe this is me but when people say "that is not what my character would say" in rpgs you are mostly limited to the writer's dialogue. So do you come to this conclusion after you have seen the dialogue options? I am curios

I'd assume that's the only time someone could make the argument, after they know what all the options are. I've rarely, if ever, made the argument. I don't get into RPGs enough to feel ownage over the character I'm using. Maybe I just haven't found the right RPG.

You will someday, Reezy. You'll find that special RPG that just takes your breath away and changes you forever. You just have to have faith. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Roleplaying is not the same thing as playing a roleplaying game. In fact I would stipulate the "game" part of the word completely overshadows the "roleplaying" simply by the nature of how a game operates. It presents scenarios for you to choose from, it doesn't work in a collaborative effort to allow you and it to create a role for you to play. The game gives you a pre-defined role, and tells you to play it because that is the technological limitation we have in our games. They can't take anything we think or or express into account unless it gels with the games pre-programed set of expressions or thoughts. It's basically an entirely one way experience with a simple multiple choice test disguised as you having the freedom to truly play a role.

Too many people seem to have it in their heads that all roleplaying is the same. That what works with a table top campaign with multiple people all communicating and working with one another is the same as what works in a video game programed by the team whose never meet or communicated with you ever.

D&D is a roleplaying game.

I maintain, however, that roleplaying games are not games, because they don't have winning or losing conditions.  You can't win a roleplaying game.  You can only play, until you stop.

Roleplaying isn't like monopoly, you have a campaign, and a campaign goal, and you play until one of you rage quits and ruins it for everyone else.

D&D is not a video game, which is what I mean by roleplaying game, which I think was evident in the rest of my post.

[Cainhurst Crow]

And I think bioware paraphrases the lines in order to save money on the word budget, or whatever the technical term is for how much money they are allowed to spend on text in game. Also there is the matter of space, and how some lines can be up to 2 sentences, and take up a lot of room in displaying them. Someone suggested deus ex's approach of hovering dialogue reveals. I may be mistaken but I think bioware said they will be trying to do something similar to that in the press video about inquisition, so hopefully it can serve as a happy median.

[Fast Jimmy]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

And I think bioware paraphrases the lines in order to save money on the word budget, or whatever the technical term is for how much money they are allowed to spend on text in game. Also there is the matter of space, and how some lines can be up to 2 sentences, and take up a lot of room in displaying them. Someone suggested deus ex's approach of hovering dialogue reveals. I may be mistaken but I think bioware said they will be trying to do something similar to that in the press video about inquisition, so hopefully it can serve as a happy median.

That would make sense if the written text wasn't already written. But it is. 

The VA's obviously have it, to perform their lines. And the game has it built in, since subtitles shows them.



Arguably, paraphrasing adds MORE work, since it involves saying the same thing as the line being said, but differently.

EDIT: Also, Gaider said they were actually dead-set against doing this. No hover over, no full text anywhere. We will have paraphrases and icons. They are working at changing how they do the paraphrases to be more informative (how, we don't know), but they have come out full stop against a hover over option.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 janvier 2014 - 01:46 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

I can link you the video where they show off hover over text if youd like.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Gaider was pretty adamant there would be no hover text ala Human Revolution. You are probably referring to the video that shows off the Intent Wheel (or as close as BioWare gets to my glorious concept =D), which is similar, but not the same thing.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 29 janvier 2014 - 02:07 .

[Mashiro Yuki]

I think we should have Alpha Protocol dialogue options. Where no matter which tone you choose, you're a douche.

[Fast Jimmy]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I can link you the video where they show off hover over text if youd like.

That's not what we are talking about.

That's what they are calling the "Decision Wheel." It is one of three wheels we've been hearing about - a Decision Wheel, a Dialogue Wheel and a Ambient Dialogue Wheel.

The Decision Wheel is when a decision comes up - not a choice in dialogue, per se, but where you are actively making a choice in the action or order you are giving. The hover over that is popping up there is just a description of the outcome you are choosing, not a full text display.

The paraphrase option will say something like "We need to protect the villagers" while the hover over will pop up and say "Defend the Village." It will not pop up and show you exactly what text your character will be saying, just an elaboration/clarification on the action you are ordering.

The Dialogue Wheel we have heard will work very similar to DA2. It will have paraphrases. It will possibly (likely) have icons. It will not have a full-text of what your character is saying available anywhere except the subtitles after you have chosen the option. 

The Ambient Wheel is the one we know the least about. It is, in theory, a wheel that will let you pick dialogue for your character to say when there is not a "proper" conversation going on, but where your character may want to say something. For instance, party banter. In DA:O, your Warden was not involved in these at all, obviously. In DA2, Hawke was involved and said things that were never under the player's control. This wheel is in place to give the plaeyr control in these situations (although how much, when and the overall implementation remain unknown).




Nowhere in any of these is there an option to get full-text of what will be said in a hover over. If you look through this thread at some of the links people have quoted Gaider on, he says this will absolutely, positively not be in the game.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Given that the looked at Skyrim and said "open world type games make money, let's chase that even though we have next to no experience doing it" was disheartening, when they could have just as easily said "silent PC with little cinematic interference make money, let's chase that because we've made some of the best critically and gamer received games in the entire industry!"

Maybe I'm just seeing this through a slightly biased lens.

Either they think their cinematic way is better or they have a directive to follow. :/ AAA games can't look archaic when everyone else outside of Kickstarter is doing it another way.

[Fast Jimmy]

CrustyBot wrote...

Gaider was pretty adamant there would be no hover text ala Human Revolution. You are probably referring to the video that shows off the Intent Wheel (or as close as BioWare gets to my glorious concept =D), which is similar, but not the same thing.

LOL You should honestly ask for royalty checks. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Given that the looked at Skyrim and said "open world type games make money, let's chase that even though we have next to no experience doing it" was disheartening, when they could have just as easily said "silent PC with little cinematic interference make money, let's chase that because we've made some of the best critically and gamer received games in the entire industry!"

Maybe I'm just seeing this through a slightly biased lens.

Either they think their cinematic way is better or they have a directive to follow. :/ AAA games can't look archaic when everyone else outside of Kickstarter is doing it another way.

...except Bethesda? Who is making more money on RPGs than any other developer in the entire market...? 

Archaic is such a weird word. People act like games aren't still being made (and selling amazingly well) with silent protagonists. Big games. AAA games/developers/publishers. What's changed is that the quality of writing and the amount of divergent content for these games is dropping in favor of larger and larger sandboxes. Bioware with DA:O showed there could be quality story, characters and choice without the need to be a sandbox... until DA2, at least, when they put the voiced protag in and went full tilt on the cinematic bend.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LOL You should honestly ask for royalty checks. 

Ask? I am not some beggar. I will pull a King.com and trademark the term 'Wheel', then demand BioWare pay me for the right to use the word in their advertising and game.

[Sanunes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

That would make sense if the written text wasn't already written. But it is. 

The VA's obviously have it, to perform their lines. And the game has it built in, since subtitles shows them.

Arguably, paraphrasing adds MORE work, since it involves saying the same thing as the line being said, but differently.

EDIT: Also, Gaider said they were actually dead-set against doing this. No hover over, no full text anywhere. We will have paraphrases and icons. They are working at changing how they do the paraphrases to be more informative (how, we don't know), but they have come out full stop against a hover over option.

Reading your post makes me wonder if its more a technical issue, for they always seem to be maxing out the memory on a console that they are limited to how much information they can put into the dialogue wheel itself.  For there can be five options (up to another 7 if they have an investigate option on the first wheel) and they have to account for all that information in the system memory.  I remember it being said they had to remove the holster animation in Mass Effect 3 for they needed to cut items from memory and that animation was removed because of that.

[Sir JK]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

The line is acknowledged in the same way regardless of the tone in which it was delivered.

The same is true of the specific example under discussion.

What you are saying is that you want the game to react according to the way your PC delivered a specific line.

What StM and I are saying is that we don't expect to control how others react to our dialogue and actions.  If I can direct my character to say and do things that are in character for her / him, then I am effectively role-playing, regardless of what the rest of the world does.

Yes, I do want them to react accordingly to how a line is delivered. Because I cannot clarify that they misunderstood me. Which I find extremely frustrating and potentionally immersion-breaking. I know they're just reading pre-redorded lines from a script and that it's just a little piece of code that triggers it. I know that my character does not exist. But I'd like not to be reminded of that.

Which a failure to communicate wlould achieve instantly.

[Fallstar]

PC-NPC interaction is an important part of DA. One of the features which distinguishes DA over other modern RPGs is that the characters are written excellently, and are fleshed out far more than in most other RPGs. This makes the player care about the interaction between the PC and these well fleshed out NPCs, which in turn makes us care about the game world as a whole.

The paraphrase system prevents the player from being able to fully engage in dialogue with NPCs. By removing the ability to make accurate dialogue choices for the PC, you are weakening the connection between the player and the player character, and therefore weakening the player's connection with the game world as a whole, which will reduce the player's investment into the game world. (Which for the vast majority of people will reduce their ability to overlook flaws in your game )

The fact that some designers think the paraphrase system has a net positive impact on their game is genuinely perplexing.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 29 janvier 2014 - 07:38 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Then, if there's a way to play the game better, someone can point it out.

Loaded statement.

How is that loaded?

I am honestly hoping that if I can accurately show the difficulties I have when playing, someone here might be able to suggest away around those difficulties.

[Sylvius the Mad]

TipsLeFedora wrote...

Winning and losing are not the right terms for a game system. Risk and reward better defines a game system. 

There's no risk in roleplaying either.  You, the player, never experience a meaningful consequence that you don't invent yourself.