544 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.

It sounds like an interesting experiment if nothing else

[nihiliste]

From Gaider:

"The origin of the request (for many people, at least) seems to stem from the nuance of not being able to imagine a line spoken as they wish and less from a factual difference in the line versus the paraphrase. While the latter can be fixed with seeing the full line, the former cannot, and thus for many people is effort spent to not really address their base issue."

He's right on my account. I hate wanting to say something with my character and then hearing Hawke saying it with a completely different inflection. Voiced PC and dialogue wheel are the two worst things to come to Bioware games. They were my favorite game developer for pretty much the last 15 years but lately they've just moved in a completely different direction from the games I enjoy.

[Cainhurst Crow]

If I might interject with a bit of opinionated observation, I can't help but be bemused at the display that is going on here, with so many people being adamant about a feature that very few if any have an actual problem with.

It seems, and the word is rather overused I will admit, nitpicky to be mad over paraphrased dialogue displays. Textbook definition of what it is to nitpick if I were to be perfectly blunt about it. Really, what is it that is truly lost outside of a false assumption of control over a character and a reality being pushed into your face that your character is defined through the selection of pre-defined options? Now, I have played modern bioware rpgs more then I have older rpgs, I will admit. Mass effect and dragon age's games up to their current releases, SWTOR, and knights of the old republic, are all under my belt. And I can say, for myself at least since that's all anyone in this thread has done, that the paraphrased dialogue was better then the spread out dialogue.

Why you may ask? Simple, the delivery was superior and the weight of the choice more pronounced. Weight is a difficult word to define though, so I shall present my own definition to give context. When making a choice, I find it important that a person feel like they made a choice and feel the emotional, intellectual, or even simply the empirical confirmation of the choice they made. In other words, to feel as if a choice has actually been made on some level. A mute protagonist for which all dialogue was presented in full was not an experience I preferred. It felt muted, as if there were suddenly a wall erected between the actions on screen and my own character. It was disorienting at times, even to the point I had forgotten I made decisions mere minutes previously when I had made them, as pointed out by my brother when I complained about how I couldn't call loghain out on framing the wardens during the landsmeet, and my brother telling me I had done so before I was given the option of what evidence to present to the landsmeet.

I had and still do not have such a problem with the voiced protagonist games, and their paraphrased dialogue. I remembered every choice I made by the line my character spoke, and the tone in which they delivered it. Moreover to the point I had no trouble decreeing the effect of what my character said would have, and that to me was enough because it was the same way it was handled in dragon age origins. You may not hear your character say anything in dragon age origin, but that is a double edged sword since you can't prove your character is saying what he is saying word for word. For all you know the warden talks in massive monologues, and what we get are paraphrases of those monologues. I know this is the case for I have experimented myself, I skipped spoken dialogue from my character once and looked away from the subtitles. I had nothing to go on but the paraphrases, and yet the scene progression, was the same as it was in origins. It even began to feel like I was playing dragon age origin in mass effect, with a mute protagonist and short dialogue options to pick.

I must also, while I am here, bring up a point Fast Jimmy made. He said that the written lines were already in game in the form of subtitles. To that, I will respond with this. If they put the entire line of dialogue in the dialogue wheel or dialogue bracket or whatever method you think works, and then had the line displayed on the subtle as it is said, which they would need to most likely do in order to help people understand what is said, then they are not saving budget, they are losing budget. They are creating twice as much created dialogue now for the PC, as the lines must be displayed twice, rather then shortening the response displayed and then simply having the full line subtitled. The only way to resolve that, is to remove subtitles from the game. And I am not sure many people will be fond of that novel solution to this problem over the status quo.

[Ieldra]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
If I might interject with a bit of opinionated observation, I can't help but be bemused at the display that is going on here, with so many people being adamant about a feature that very few if any have an actual problem with.

It seems, and the word is rather overused I will admit, nitpicky to be mad over paraphrased dialogue displays. Textbook definition of what it is to nitpick if I were to be perfectly blunt about it. Really, what is it that is truly lost outside of a false assumption of control over a character and a reality being pushed into your face that your character is defined through the selection of pre-defined options? Now, I have played modern bioware rpgs more then I have older rpgs, I will admit. Mass effect and dragon age's games up to their current releases, SWTOR, and knights of the old republic, are all under my belt. And I can say, for myself at least since that's all anyone in this thread has done, that the paraphrased dialogue was better then the spread out dialogue.

Why you may ask? Simple, the delivery was superior and the weight of the choice more pronounced. Weight is a difficult word to define though, so I shall present my own definition to give context. When making a choice, I find it important that a person feel like they made a choice and feel the emotional, intellectual, or even simply the empirical confirmation of the choice they made. In other words, to feel as if a choice has actually been made on some level. A mute protagonist for which all dialogue was presented in full was not an experience I preferred. It felt muted, as if there were suddenly a wall erected between the actions on screen and my own character. It was disorienting at times, even to the point I had forgotten I made decisions mere minutes previously when I had made them, as pointed out by my brother when I complained about how I couldn't call loghain out on framing the wardens during the landsmeet, and my brother telling me I had done so before I was given the option of what evidence to present to the landsmeet.

I do not disagree. Hawke does feel more real than the Warden. However, the Warden feels more mine. It is a different kind of disconnect, but having no comprehensive knowledge of what my character will say (note the phrasing: I did not say "not knowing exactly what my character will say word by word"), i.e. that which makes the character less mine because in effect I don't know their mind, has a much more drastic negative impact on my playing experience.

It is as I said in the OP: the game might give me perfect roleplaying options or not. Those options that do exist won't necessarily change between a design like DAO's and one like DA2's. Annoyance about things I might want to say but can't might happen nonetheless. However, the paraphrasing makes even the perfect options invisible and prevents me from knowing my character's mind. 

To illustrate this, an example brought up abovethread by eluvianix: It is hugely important for how my character comes across whether a paraphrase like "[Melancholy] Life is a bummer" is followed by Shakespearean diction or local slang, even if the semantic content and the sentiment expressed are more or less the same. The character who uses the former is most emphatically a very different kind of character than one who uses the latter. Not being able to know if will be one or the other in advance prevents you from informed roleplaying. You don't know your own character's mind, and if there's anything anathema in roleplaying, it's that.

Or in other, very simple words: Words do matter, damn it.

I had and still do not have such a problem with the voiced protagonist games, and their paraphrased dialogue. I remembered every choice I made by the line my character spoke, and the tone in which they delivered it. Moreover to the point I had no trouble decreeing the effect of what my character said would have, and that to me was enough because it was the same way it was handled in dragon age origins. You may not hear your character say anything in dragon age origin, but that is a double edged sword since you can't prove your character is saying what he is saying word for word. For all you know the warden talks in massive monologues, and what we get are paraphrases of those monologues. I know this is the case for I have experimented myself, I skipped spoken dialogue from my character once and looked away from the subtitles. I had nothing to go on but the paraphrases, and yet the scene progression, was the same as it was in origins. It even began to feel like I was playing dragon age origin in mass effect, with a mute protagonist and short dialogue options to pick.

Decreeing the effect is not what we're complaining about. This is about decreeing character traits. You can have the same effect from a hundred different lines, yet these different lines may indicate a hundred character variations. In dialogue nodes which are not about decisions, this is actually the main point of dialogue: not to affect the plot, but to characterize your PC:

(1) If a spoken line characterizes the PC differently or beyond what the paraphrase implies, the system fails. You need *correct* information.
(2) If one paraphrase encompasses different possible ways to characterize the PC, then the system fails. You need *comprehensive* information.

"You can't prove your character is saying X", I don't even understand what you're saying here. For a non-voiced protagonist, the written text IS the proof. DAO does not paraphrase, and any descriptive elements added for clarification are usually put into square brackets or suchlike ("[lie]") to mark them as things the character doesn't say word by word.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 janvier 2014 - 09:27 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

But do you have proof that DAO isn't paraphrasing the dialogue? You claim it doesn't, but all you bring to the table is that we see lines of dialogue, select them, and then hear nothing. There is no actual evidence that suggest that your character traits are actually being fulfilled by the character.

[Ieldra]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
But do you have proof that DAO isn't paraphrasing the dialogue? You claim it doesn't, but all you bring to the table is that we see lines of dialogue, select them, and then hear nothing. There is no actual evidence that suggest that your character traits are actually being fulfilled by the character.

WTF? You can't be serious.

But sure, if you want to get anal over this: I know this because the context indicates it, because the NPCs react as if the PC said it and because it's been a convention for crpgs ever since the first crpg with a dialogue system came out (namely, Fallout in 1996). It was so obvious back then it was accepted by everyone without this explanation, it's just as obvious today and I can only interpret your statement as an attempt at trolling.

Besides, you can doubt the spoken lines as easily as the written lines. People do that often by claiming character x doesn't have trait y inspite of them telling you because "they can lie", and just as there, the argument is ridiculous here: if there is no reason to believe otherwise, it's common sense to take it at face value.

Dismissed.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 janvier 2014 - 10:47 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

One player might imagine what the Warden said was satirical, another player might imagine the Warden was dead serious. You cannot prove either, ergo both are equally valid interpretations.

[Fast Jimmy]

A combination of an icon (indicating tone) along with full text resolves the confusion the above quote from Gaider makes, BTW. To say "full text won't solve the problem" is true, there will be times when the full text is not the same as what the voiced protag will say. However, an icon (that is clear and makes sense - no more diamonds or squiggly lines) can indicate tone able the full text shows the exact words of the message to be delivered in that tone.

Again, it is something CRPGS have been doing for over a decade, except they had the intended tone or action indicated in brackets instead of using a tone icon. Same difference, really. And I realize there be situations where there is back and forth between the protag and an NPC that wouldn't be captured with the full text option, but those will be exceptions of auto-dialogue to the rule of full text. DE:HR did this in the exact same way - full text only for the first line of spoken text if there is a back and forth.

What is infinitely worse than auto-dialogue is auto-dialogue chosen under incorrect pre-tense due to the player not having all the right information.



In terms of memory or UI concerns, I find this to be highly unlikely. Gun holster animations for ME are thrown around a lot when discussing random resource limitations, but one thing to consider is that this involves a PC animation, would vary depending on the weapon Shep had equipped and which could be initiated both in and out of combat. That's a lot of factors to take into consideration. Meanwhile, a pop up is not an animation (or, if it is, it will be a much more simple one than a character actor animation that is dependent on the equipment the player has equipped). And if there isn't enough room for full text, then simply move the wheel to a different location on the screen.

DE:HR manages to place entire paragraphs of text in the hover over - there is no reason why DA could not fit the first line of any Hawke dialogue there for the world to see unless they are just being truly rigid in their design approach. Ironic for a grognard to say, I know, but if you fight tooth and nail the position and function of a wheel in your menu, that seems to be overly stubborn. If there are other reasons behind why, I'd be very interested in hearing them, but since it apparently is a matter of national security in how they design and implemt the wheel, we won't know anything about it until the next game comes out, at which time they will likely refuse to talk about what other directions they could have gone with the overall design.

[Sidney]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

DE:HR manages to place entire paragraphs of text in the hover over - there is no reason why DA could not fit the first line of any Hawke dialogue there for the world to see unless they are just being truly rigid in their design approach. Ironic for a grognard to say, I know, but if you fight tooth and nail the position and function of a wheel in your menu, that seems to be overly stubborn. If there are other reasons behind why, I'd be very interested in hearing them, but since it apparently is a matter of national security in how they design and implemt the wheel, we won't know anything about it until the next game comes out, at which time they will likely refuse to talk about what other directions they could have gone with the overall design.

Because, again, it is pointless. The fact that there were full ines of dialog didn't mask that there was, for your character, one option.  The "I will help" or "I won't help" is a pretty clear case of that...there is no full text explaination that will make you take the "shove off Redcliffe" option no matter how beautifully worded if you are inclined to help Redcliffe..

That is a pretty stark example but most of the dialog has those sorts of choices. Your LI and you are at a critical moment the "I love you", "We should just be friends", "I am not sure" are, again, distcinct choices that specific dialog isn't gonna change.

When companions talk to you you usually get the: Be indifferent, be caring and be a jerk options. To a large level you do not even need paraphrasing to know what to "say" because, again, no lines of text will make me not hate Wynne for example and be nice to her.

I would have more sympthy for the full text if there were a lot of different weays to say the same thing and then it is about my PC's personality shining through in how i choose to say things...but it isn't. The choice, not the words, define your PC.

[Naesaki]

This whole argument is just going around in circles, think you all need to agree to disagree, or this is just gonna keep on going for eternity x____X

[Ieldra]

Sidney wrote...
The choice, not the words, define your PC.

Incorrect. Things like motivation, attitude and style are not inherent in a choice, and depending on the specifics, they can contribute easily as much to characterization and even surpass the choice in importance. Words do matter.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 janvier 2014 - 01:54 .

[CybAnt1]

I would have more sympthy for the full text if there were a lot of different weays to say the same thing and then it is about my PC's personality shining through in how i choose to say things...but it isn't. 

That could be fixed too.

Like I keep saying, even within the wheel system of DA2, should it be re-instantiated, we could see this icon every time.

Every time.

Choice   Appears when Hawke can choose from multiple responses that all address the situation in different ways. May lead to a rivalry or friendship increase. Your guide should be your knowledge of the person in question.

Now, I know, I am one of these pendejo old-school anal fanatics who thinks that icon is the heart of roleplaying.

You all are saying without choice, there can be no roleplaying. I absolutely agree. 

Maybe this argument is or is not about hover-text. I will keep repeating that a roleplaying game that doesn't want to move away from the r word should be showing that icon to you 100% of the time. Or at least 90%.

This is not hard-core minority vs. apathetic majority. This is about whether words get redefined. 

It would be a bit like saying dark fantasy is now defined by unicorns, rainbows, My Little Pony, and gumdrop rivers. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 29 janvier 2014 - 01:54 .

[CybAnt1]

Naesaki wrote...

This whole argument is just going around in circles, think you all need to agree to disagree, or this is just gonna keep on going for eternity x____X

I guess that happens when people don't want to listen to what are perfectly reasonable and valid arguments. 

P.S. I understand being sympathetic to developers, and understanding their constraints, and not acting like a self-entitled brat, but ... assuming they are always right in the absence of evidence & information to that effect is not just fanboyism, but IMHO bizarre. 

It's obvious not all players like this feature - or perhaps we could say its implementation. That may not mean scrap it, it could mean improve it. And yes, it does seem like they are improving it, problem is at the moment no one knows exactly how. In the absence of data, we can't know how much the dislike exists. Hand-waving it into nonexistence is not the proper response. 

[CybAnt1]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

But do you have proof that DAO isn't paraphrasing the dialogue? .

Forgive me, but that makes no sense. I get to pick the Warden's words. BTW, it is even entirely possible to know the inflection he's bringing to them, too. Just because DA:O used it very sparingly, doesn't mean it couldn't be utilized more. I can agree how some thought there were an absence of tonal markers where needed. Then the tonal marking should be there. But I don't get this "now we have a hammer, so everything is a nail" meaning that even simple questions or declarations require a tone. 

1. [Humorous] Sten, I knew you always liked cake.
2. [Flirt] Anders, that is an amazing earring in your right ear. 
3. [Angry] Oghren, put that damn axe down and listen to me. 
4. [Diplomatic] Listen, blood mage, can we work something out? 
5. [Lie] No, I did not take your silly amulet. 
6. [Remorseful] I sure miss Lothering. 
7. [[Persuasion = skill check] I think it's in your best interests to give me that scroll. 
8. [Fearful] Perhaps this is not the best course of action. 
9. [Investigate] Tell me more about this strange abandoned old chantry. 
10. [Sarcasm] Ser Jory, your skill at battle never fails to amaze. 

I think that's enough examples. 

Now, and here's the thing, if you like hearing a voice, I just don't get why every single one of those lines could not be voiced, complete with inflection, once you selected them. To me this is not voiced vs. voiceless. 

Of course, I do understand why a developer might not want to go that route due to higher VA budgets, but not why fans would then react and say "thank you sir may I have another?" 

Anyway, Ieldra keeps hitting the central point. Words matter, not just inflections. Let the player know not just the inflection they're about to utilize, but the words that will be inflected. Last I checked, in understanding human language, while both are used to understand what someone says, the words are more important than the inflections. Not less. 

[Naesaki]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Naesaki wrote...

This whole argument is just going around in circles, think you all need to agree to disagree, or this is just gonna keep on going for eternity x____X

I guess that happens when people don't want to listen to what are perfectly reasonable and valid arguments. 

P.S. I understand being sympathetic to developers, and understanding their constraints, and not acting like a self-entitled brat, but ... assuming they are always right in the absence of evidence & information to that effect is not just fanboyism, but IMHO bizarre. 

It's obvious not all players like this feature - or perhaps we could say its implementation. That may not mean scrap it, it could mean improve it. And yes, it does seem like they are improving it, problem is at the moment no one knows exactly how. In the absence of data, we can't know how much the dislike exists. Hand-waving it into nonexistence is not the proper response. 

I'm just thinking this particular argument/discussion should be postponed until we know the full extent of the dialogue system in DA : I, there's too much focusing on what Origins did, what DA II and what ME has done, obviously they have their dialogue system more or less set in stone so its not going to change dramatically for DA : I but some of the things being said now just seem like a big case of beating a dead horse.

[CybAnt1]

I think it's an unknown at this moment how done the dialogue system is, but one probably could safely assume it's 90% done. Could be 100%. Just bug-fixing. We don't know.

If we wait till we see it's finished state, there is no chance of influencing it. BTW, I doubt any of this discussion could be influencing it, but stranger things have happened.

Hope spring eternal.

But yes, I said all that, picking my WORDS very carefully.

[EmperorSahlertz]

CybAnt1 wrote...

I think it's an unknown at this moment how done the dialogue system is, but one probably could safely assume it's 90% done. Could be 100%. Just bug-fixing. We don't know.

If we wait till we see it's finished state, there is no chance of influencing it. BTW, I doubt any of this discussion could be influencing it, but stranger things have happened.

Hope spring eternal.

But yes, I said all that, picking my WORDS very carefully.

Were you also given only 6 different options consisting of different string of words, because if not then your comparison in the end is useless.

[Naesaki]

CybAnt1 wrote...

I think it's an unknown at this moment how done the dialogue system is, but one probably could safely assume it's 90% done. Could be 100%. Just bug-fixing. We don't know.

If we wait till we see it's finished state, there is no chance of influencing it. BTW, I doubt any of this discussion could be influencing it, but stranger things have happened.

Hope spring eternal.

But yes, I said all that, picking my WORDS very carefully.

I would imagine its too late to influence anything now but considering some of the things gaider and such have said about it in the past, I think their stance on the matter is pretty clear, and a small minority of the whole fanbase in one thread seems very unlikely to cause a "change in the winds" so to speak, not to bash the whole discussion or anything , I think its a good thing people are able to freely voice their concerns with it all :-) 

[CybAnt1]

Were you also given only 6 different options consisting of different string of words, because if not then your comparison in the end is useless.

Were I where? 

Secondly, if you mean "in Origins," just because there weren't sometimes, maybe even often, choices of different words, where the words mattered, well, that doesn't mean there couldn't have been. No?

It all comes down to the quality of writing, an independent variable unrelated to the system used to present the options.

I repeat, though, one can see the quality of writing far better when one is looking at the writing, then if one goes into typical TV/movie watching mode and just listens to it recited to them by Hawke the sitcom character. 

If someday somebody shows me hard data that shows 98% of Dragon Age fans don't give a **** about quality writing, and 2% do, I will feel no embarassment to be in the 2%. Then yes, I go to the "Kickstarter games" where they still do. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 29 janvier 2014 - 03:04 .

[CybAnt1]

I think their stance on the matter is pretty clear, 

Strategic war is all about fighting the battles that are winnable. 

Toolset? Nah, that is a lost cause. 

This one's not. It's only attitudes fixing it in stone, not hard-coding. 

I figure if I keep making rational arguments, rational people will listen. I'm funny that way. 

[Naesaki]

Whittle down their defences until they give in strategy at work it seems xD, we'll just have to wait and see what happens

and yeah its a shame about the Toolset, Modders will stind find a way but who knows what could happen after DA : I's release, a toolset could eventually proove feasible...well one can hope...

though even without mod support DA : I is the type of game i'd replay quite regularly

Modifié par Naesaki, 29 janvier 2014 - 03:07 .

[CybAnt1]

and yeah its a shame about the Toolset, 

Stop whining. You are only among a small minority of people who want it. After all, only PC gamers can use it, or the mods it creates. 

That's the problem with your argument. Or ... maybe you know that already. 

[Naesaki]

CybAnt1 wrote...

and yeah its a shame about the Toolset, 

Stop whining. You are only among a small minority of people who want it. After all, only PC gamers can use it, or the mods it creates. 

That's the problem with your argument. Or ... maybe you know that already. 

Lol wasn't whining about it, just pointing it out that its a shame but it won't affect whether i purchase the game or not, I would buy it regardless if the mods are there or not.

So don't jump to conclusions my good sir/madam

Modifié par Naesaki, 29 janvier 2014 - 03:12 .

[Pasquale1234]

Sir JK wrote...

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.

What is immersion-breaking for me is the idea that everyone in the game world always understands exactly what the PC says and means and fully comprehends the intent - because that isn't how conversation works IRL.

What someone says =/= what others hear.

Here is an example:

Person A says "I don't understand what John does all day."

Person B hears: "John is lazy."

Person C hears: "John doesn't have enough real work to do to justify a full-time position."

Person D hears: "John's job is too complicated for anyone else to understand it."

Person E hears: "John does a lot of busywork to make himself look more important than he is."

Person A might have meant any or all of those things, or none of them.  Person A might have been expressing casual curiosity, or interest in learning the skill set needed to perform John's job, perhaps to help him.  People hear what others say through their own filters colored by their own baggage and experience.

It is especially true of snark or sarcasm, because the form that much of it takes is to say something untrue, or in some cases, the exact opposite of what is meant.  Some listeners will not understand the sarcastic intent, and come away with a completely different understanding of what was said.

This is another reason why I dislike not only paraphrasing, but intent icons.  Simple text lines of dialogue model real world conversation much more closely.