544 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

And for a RPG defining the role is what would make it a RPG.

I know anything that has stats or leves these days is an "RPG".
Apparently, guiding a character trough combat could also be considered one - since you are controling and directing him. Slashing the left bad guy or the right bad guy IS a decision and you're playing the ROLE of a fighter...right? right?

I thank the Lord for Pillars of Eternity, for new games have lost the root of what a RPG was supposed to be. Not just loot or stat sheets or fancy graphics... but actual exploration of a world and defining of a character. Everything else is just a nice addition.

[Naesaki]

Considering what some of the people here, think what an RPG should let them do, I'd shudder to think what they actually think of JRPG's >___>

[Fast Jimmy]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And for a RPG defining the role is what would make it a RPG.

I know anything that has stats or leves these days is an "RPG".
Apparently, guiding a character trough combat could also be considered one - since you are controling and directing him. Slashing the left bad guy or the right bad guy IS a decision and you're playing the ROLE of a fighter...right? right?

I thank the Lord for Pillars of Eternity, for new games have lost the root of what a RPG was supposed to be. Not just loot or stat sheets or fancy graphics... but actual exploration of a world and defining of a character. Everything else is just a nice addition.

I don't always agree with Lotion Soronnar... but when I do, its about the definition of an RPG.

[Fast Jimmy]

Naesaki wrote...

Considering what some of the people here, think what an RPG should let them do, I'd shudder to think what they actually think of JRPG's >___>

Many people on here don't consider JRPGs to actually be RPGs. 

NBA2K games are sometimes more of an RPG than a JRPG is.

[N7recruit]

I must say that I'm really disappointed in their stubbornness to ditch the paraphrasing, or even offer a simple alternative that has been done in other AAA RPG's.

I mean for God's sake all we are asking for is a Fricking subtitle to pop up when hovering over a paraphrased dialogue option, THATS IT!!! They are already doing this for decisions (Because paraphrasing is inaccurate) but they won't do it for dialogue options because reasons!

It's Just the same old "You only think this will fix it but it won't, because we did tests and stuff but we won't actually explain to you why it doesn't work, even though it does for other games like outs" & "Not everything can be fixed with a toggle" even though this problem can.

I'm trying to understand why they won't do it, I mean a DE:HR style dialogue system WITH the ICONS and your golden! Boom, slam dunk, Ace, hole in one.

But they won't even explain why it doesn't work which is probably the most frustrating thing of all.

The only improvement they seem to be making is the inclusion the a reaction wheel so the pc will be able to express emotion by our choosing which is Awesome. No more Static Brick protagonists or forced emotions.

Sorry if this comes off as whiny BS or if it has been discussed earlier on in the tread (a lot better than this post I'm sure ;D ) but that's my 2 cents

[Cyberstrike nTo]

I don't have a problem with the dialoge wheel or the paraphrashing because I once I played a game enough times to know what the diague is said and how it relates to the kind of hero I'm playing, then paraphrashing becomes irrevelvant to me.

Now the order of phrases on the wheel when asking questions is more annoying. I mean I jusht finshed playing ME1 on my PS3 and this was the first time I played the game in quite some time and I while I hate to admit it I had a very hard time getting Shepard to ask questions in a way that sounded like a natural conversation (to me at least) and I've just started ME2 and I'm the same trouble. I feel that some questions should come before others and that makes it sounds more like a real conservation between two people. Rather than just having Shepard or Hawke asking random questions/or saying random things that don't fit together in a real conservation. 

It's not just questions there times when multiple dialoge options come up this happens as well. I just notice it more with the questions about the world/universe I'm in, than with actual dialoge about what is going on in the plot.

 

[Ieldra]

N7recruit wrote...
I must say that I'm really disappointed in their stubbornness to ditch the paraphrasing, or even offer a simple alternative that has been done in other AAA RPG's.

I mean for God's sake all we are asking for is a Fricking subtitle to pop up when hovering over a paraphrased dialogue option, THATS IT!!! They are already doing this for decisions (Because paraphrasing is inaccurate) but they won't do it for dialogue options because reasons!

It's Just the same old "You only think this will fix it but it won't, because we did tests and stuff but we won't actually explain to you why it doesn't work, even though it does for other games like outs" & "Not everything can be fixed with a toggle" even though this problem can.

I'm trying to understand why they won't do it, I mean a DE:HR style dialogue system WITH the ICONS and your golden! Boom, slam dunk, Ace, hole in one.

But they won't even explain why it doesn't work which is probably the most frustrating thing of all.

The only improvement they seem to be making is the inclusion the a reaction wheel so the pc will be able to express emotion by our choosing which is Awesome. No more Static Brick protagonists or forced emotions.

Sorry if this comes off as whiny BS or if it has been discussed earlier on in the tread (a lot better than this post I'm sure ;D ) but that's my 2 cents

That's pretty much how I feel. I usually hide it for the sake of reasonable debate, but I find this dogmatic refusal to throw people for whom words do matter a bone very annoying and completely incomprehensible in the face of working examples like DXHR. It's not like we're asking them to ditch the whole system.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 janvier 2014 - 04:11 .

[Mirrman70]

from what I gather most of you do want them to ditch their system.

[AlanC9]

Mirrman70 wrote...

from what I gather most of you do want them to ditch their system.

Threads like this tend to bring out people who don't like the system. An actual poll of the BSN would probably produce different results, and a poll of players generally would be more different still.

I'm firmly in the "meh" camp myself. I had maybe three cases in all of the ME series plus DA2 where my interpretation of the paraphrase was far enough off that I would have picked a different line for that PC to say. The only one that really bothered me, IIRC, was the Paragon response in the ME2 al-Jilani interview if the Destiny Ascension was destroyed -- it assumes that Shepard either thinks that the destruction of the old council was, on balance, a good thing, or is willing to say that to back the new Council, take your pick.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 janvier 2014 - 07:00 .

[CybAnt1]

from what I gather most of you do want them to ditch their system.

I wouldn't be unhappy if they did, but I think there are ways to fix it or improve it where it works best for everybody.

BTW, what little I've read says they are working on changing it, which suggests they knew, 'the wheel was broken'. For this game series, anyway.

Looks like we are getting tooltips, at least when it comes to paraphrased actions. I consider that progress. I'll take it.

[Ieldra]

Mirrman70 wrote...
from what I gather most of you do want them to ditch their system.

That's what I would want, yes. Paraphasing is the bane of meaningful roleplaying. I really want to slap whoever came up with the idea. But since they're determined to use it, it's not what I'm asking for. Improvements, however, such as a hover-over text like in DXHR, should not be off-limits

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 janvier 2014 - 05:18 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mirrman70 wrote...

I'm just going to go out and say it. I have never been shocked, angry or disappointed with the results of my choices with the wheel.

When Hawke is asked a question, sometimes I would decide that I didn't want Hawke to answer that question.  So I would choose the dialogue option that appeared not to answer the question - usually it looked like it asked a question back.

But when I tended to get was Hawke answering the question, and then asking another one.  What?

I first encountered this in Mass Effect.  After rescuing Tali, I decided it was best not to mention her to Udina.  Udina asked a question about how my mission went, and some of the options mentioned Tali and others didn't.  I chose one that didn't, and Shepard immediately talked about Tali.

If ever you're choosing dialogue options based on what they don't say, the paraphrase system will fail.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The biggest problem with the paraphrase, I think, isn't that the spoken line doesn't say what I expect it to say. The biggest problem is that it makes choosing dialogue options incredibly difficult. I'm aware, every time, that I'm guessing. I have no confidence that I will get a result I like or even can tolerate. I find myself second-guessing my choices seen before I've made them. I'm trying to reverse-engineer the writing process to figure out what the writers were trying to do.

And that just isn't fun.

[DarthSliver]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Mirrman70 wrote...
from what I gather most of you do want them to ditch their system.

That's what I would want, yes. Paraphasing is the bane of meaningful roleplaying. I really want to slap whoever came up with the idea. But since they're determined to use it, it's not what I'm asking for. Improvements, however, such as a hover-over text like in DXHR, should not be off-limits

Well I question if Paraphrasing is bad or if the person in charge of paraphrasing the statements is just bad at paraphrasing lol. 

I know when I paraphrase I try to leave it with the same meaning with even coming close to copying the sentence because I want to make sure I know what point A is referring to when I get to point B. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

DarthSliver wrote...

Well I question if Paraphrasing is bad or if the person in charge of paraphrasing the statements is just bad at paraphrasing lol. 

I know when I paraphrase I try to leave it with the same meaning with even coming close to copying the sentence because I want to make sure I know what point A is referring to when I get to point B.

I proposed a possible solution to this problem some time ago.  I suggested that the writers should write the dialogue, but then the paraphrases should be written separately, by different people, with no knowledge of the context of each line.

That way, the paraphrases would more closely match the literal content of the lines they represent, without relying on conversational context of which the player might be unaware (and thus unable to use when interpreting the paraphrases).

[Ieldra]

DarthSliver wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Mirrman70 wrote...
from what I gather most of you do want them to ditch their system.

That's what I would want, yes. Paraphasing is the bane of meaningful roleplaying. I really want to slap whoever came up with the idea. But since they're determined to use it, it's not what I'm asking for. Improvements, however, such as a hover-over text like in DXHR, should not be off-limits

Well I question if Paraphrasing is bad or if the person in charge of paraphrasing the statements is just bad at paraphrasing lol. 

I know when I paraphrase I try to leave it with the same meaning with even coming close to copying the sentence because I want to make sure I know what point A is referring to when I get to point B. 

The thing is: perhaps you can make paraphrasing work, but - as words do matter - it will always be worse than getting to know the full text of what you're going to say, with tone indicators added if necessary, by whatever means. There will always be nuances the paraphrase won't get because it's a paraphrase, and sometimes those nuances will be important. Unless...well, the paraphrase has the same information content as the spoken line, and if it's going to have that, it won't be very different from the spoken line.

Which means since I see no benefit from paraphrasing at all, introducing it results in a net negative balance for my roleplaying experience. I am not a director directing an actor around, giving them freedom to say whatever they want as long as it fits the paraphrase. No, I am projecting myself into that character, and not knowing my own mind makes no damned sense.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ieldra2 wrote...

not knowing my own mind makes no damned sense.

Very well said.

[Pasquale1234]

N7recruit wrote...

It's Just the same old "You only think this will fix it but it won't, because we did tests and stuff but we won't actually explain to you why it doesn't work, even though it does for other games like outs" & "Not everything can be fixed with a toggle" even though this problem can.

I'm trying to understand why they won't do it, I mean a DE:HR style dialogue system WITH the ICONS and your golden! Boom, slam dunk, Ace, hole in one.

But they won't even explain why it doesn't work which is probably the most frustrating thing of all.

What they have said in the past is that they've done some testing with showing test subjects the full dialogue line, and then playing the VO of the one selected.  Test subjects complained that it felt redundant to read the entire line and then hear it.

I would question the context in which these tests were conducted - if the test subjects had no investment in the character or story line, the results are not surprising.  Testing with people who were genuinely invested in the character and the situation and had a sense of the character's motives in making choices - and then offering them full lines versus paraphrases - may have yielded very different results.

The other issue that has been mentioned has to do with animations and auto-dialogue.  Since they are writing screenplays rather than RPG dialogue, showing players text only would not take into account any facial expressions, gestures, or additional ongoing auto-dialogue that results from a single selection made by the player.  In those instances, showing the player only the first line of the dialogue could potentially be equally misleading and frustrating.

Ultimately, I think what drives all of this is their desire to tell a cinematic story, and there seem to be quite a few people who enjoy that as a form of entertainment.  Personally, I would prefer more game and less movie in my games.

[Pasquale1234]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Which means since I see no benefit from paraphrasing at all, introducing it results in a net negative balance for my roleplaying experience. I am not a director directing an actor around, giving them freedom to say whatever they want as long as it fits the paraphrase. No, I am projecting myself into that character, and not knowing my own mind makes no damned sense.

Right there with ya.

Hawke felt like an NPC to me, and I would guess that Shepard would, too.  That is not the style of game I generally like, so I've never tried ME, and am deeply saddened by Bioware's decision to go Dragon Effect.

I was able to manage one role-playthrough of Hawke by using the unreliable narrator (Varric) to handwave any places where Hawke's behavior seemed out of character.  (Hawke didn't really do that, Varric made it up - though I would admit that trying to role-play a character whose story is being told by another character is a pretty wild mental exercise)

Beyond that, I gave up on trying to role-play Hawke and treated the game as a choose-your-own-adventure, with Hawke already defined.  If I decide to give DAI a whirl, that is likely what I will do with it as well.

[Noctis Augustus]

TipsLeFedora wrote...

In my opinion these rpg games are games first. They are crafted as games first then secondary emphasis on player roleplaying.They contain game mechanics and which brings about a certain point. Games cannot be limitless within their mechanics. They current technology does not give way to a game in which you can do anything you want as they will always be limits. The action that a player can accomplish is limited by the game system and through that they are employing a risk and reward system

I don't think anyone disagrees with you.

N7recruit wrote...

I mean for God's sake all we are asking for is a Fricking subtitle to pop up when hovering over a paraphrased dialogue option, THATS IT!!! They are already doing this for decisions (Because paraphrasing is inaccurate) but they won't do it for dialogue options because reasons!

But they won't even explain why it doesn't work which is probably the most frustrating thing of all.

The only improvement they seem to be making is the inclusion the a reaction wheel so the pc will be able to express emotion by our choosing which is Awesome. No more Static Brick protagonists or forced emotions.

They won't do it because of auto-dialogue, I assume. Too long you see...

Because they listen only to what they want to hear.

I assume it will be very simplistic notheless, and will somehow not meet your expectations. There are too many emotional reactions to consider... And I suspect they will forget some people don't show emotion.

Modifié par Noctis Augustus, 30 janvier 2014 - 07:48 .

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mirrman70 wrote...

from what I gather most of you do want them to ditch their system.

Threads like this tend to bring out people who don't like the system. An actual poll of the BSN would probably produce different results, and a poll of players generally would be more different still.

I'm firmly in the "meh" camp myself. I had maybe three cases in all of the ME series plus DA2 where my interpretation of the paraphrase was far enough off that I would have picked a different line for that PC to say. The only one that really bothered me, IIRC, was the Paragon response in the ME2 al-Jilani interview if the Destiny Ascension was destroyed -- it assumes that Shepard either thinks that the destruction of the old council was, on balance, a good thing, or is willing to say that to back the new Council, take your pick.

I'd say it is less the number of times the response broke your character or was way off base. More the complete uncertainty when playing if that would happen. It was like conversation/role playing Russian Roulette - you knew the odds were in your favor, but that didn't mean it felt safe.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd say it is less the number of times the response broke your character or was way off base. More the complete uncertainty when playing if that would happen. It was like conversation/role playing Russian Roulette - you knew the odds were in your favor, but that didn't mean it felt safe.

Right.  It wasn't that it failed all the time (though sometimes it seemed like it did), but for every important decision I had no confidence that I was going to get an acceptable result.

That uncertainty made it basically impossible to stay in-character during the decision-making process, because I had to consider OOC concerns (the writers' paraphrasing) with literally every dialogue hub.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I proposed a possible solution to this problem some time ago.  I suggested that the writers should write the dialogue, but then the paraphrases should be written separately, by different people, with no knowledge of the context of each line.

But how could you write a paraphrase for dialogue you've never seen? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I proposed a possible solution to this problem some time ago.  I suggested that the writers should write the dialogue, but then the paraphrases should be written separately, by different people, with no knowledge of the context of each line.

But how could you write a paraphrase for dialogue you've never seen?

You'd see just that one line, in isolation.  You'd write the paraphrase without any knowledge of what the line was supposed to do, or what the consequence would be, or under what circumstances it appeared.