544 réponses à ce sujet

[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).

[N7recruit]

To me the Dialogue wheel & it's paraphrasing seem to be Bioware's attempted solution at making Reading dialogue options & Role-playing in general less boring/scary for non RPG players. Part of their main goal of taking the "Boring leg work" out of RPG's & thus making them more appealing.

It's a worthy goal as not everything from the older infinity engine games were all that great, but Doing that to the primary Role-Playing mechanic, dialogue selection seems ludicrous to me.

It's worth pointing out though that most of my friends that are not all that into RPG's prefer the Cinematic/ Streamlined approach of Bioware's recent games, although they don't really care all that much about the Story & Characters. They are no where near as passionate about these games as we are. So it works well enough for them I guess.

Like one of them thinks DA:O sucks ass & that ME2 & 3 are miles better in every single way... So Pretty Graphics and cool cinematic's can make players oblivious to their faults.

Before you ask, yes I was Really close to disowning him.

[In Exile]

Pressedcat wrote...

I agree with Ieldra on this point (or at least think I do since I haven't read all 21 pages). I think the problem with paraphrasing stems from the dissonance that can arise between the response you thought you were giving and the response actually voiced.

It's very interesting you frame it that way, because that's actually my problem with unvoiced protagonists. I agree with you that the paraphrase introduces this problem and that Bioware, at least, has not found a satisfactory solution to it. Let me explain what I mean:

If the protagonist is unvoiced, the conversation moves on with only a small compromise made in the overall character concept (unless the chosen dialogue illicits a response at odds with the way the chosen dialogue was intended).

I disagree that this often amounts to a small compromise. I find that - because of the neutral and (almost always) curt, pithy and non-commital way that dialogue is written by BIoware, especially for silent PCs - it is very difficult to find a response that isn't a significant compromise. Male Shepard here is a good example, because I think most Bioware PCs sound exactly like that in substance (i.e., very stable in tone, very to the point, almost but not quite monotone). 

There are more structural problems with silent PCs as well: like being passive in a conversation. An example here is KOTOR. At many critical points you have to defer to either Bastilla or Carth to run the conversation. Or to Duncan in DA:O. These are huge and significant character breaking moments for me. I would never design a character that defers like that because IRL I am just not like that, and have no interest in those type of characters. 

So phrasing the silent PC as providing an advantage in this regard is actually greatly narrowing the scope of what it means to control your character in dialogue to the literal content of the line. 

[CybAnt1]

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).

Thank you Mr. Gaider. 

I'm cautiously optimistic. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 31 janvier 2014 - 03:33 .

[Noctis Augustus]

In Exile wrote...

Noctis Augustus wrote...
That's not the point. Games have limits, Jimmy's point is how you don't lose control within those limits.

Except I do. I create an ambituous character who wants to be the New God King of Skyrim. Well, I can go suck a fat one because that's not an option in-game and I won't know that until I finish the game and see that it isn't an option. 

Or, like I said, I can create a character who happens to hate the GWs. Well,  I can go suck a fat one beacuse DA:O has no options that allow to to say that you're anything other than a GW post-Ostagar or to justify your saving Ferelden for any other reason that "I'm a Grey Warden". 

The limits are broad and unknowable and you have absolutely no access to them, and you never know if the next arbitrary 3 lines the game gives you will be even remotely close to an "in-character" choice for your character, or an "in-character" way of expressing yourself. 

Common sense would dictate that the probability of you managing to accomplish that in a game would be extremely unlikely at best.
I wanted to aid blood mages in DA2 so that they could cause more problems and chaos to the templars, well as it turned out I was always forced to kill them. I couldn't even aid one that had surrendered to me.
Which of our "ambitions" was more reasonable in terms of expectation?

Your expectations of role-playing video-games puts mine to shame. And I have a lot of expectations. You can't defy your role. You're a Grey Warden, you have to act within that role. That's the role you're playing.
I haven't played DAO in a long time so I can't comment on that but if you can only give "I'm a Grey Warden" as an excuse for what you're doing then that is a complaint for the developers. I fail to see what that has anything to do with silent protagonists.

It's always been like that. I'm not sure what your point is, I told you games have limits. What does this have anything to do with what Jimmy said? Do you lose control of your character within those three lines? I think not.

[Fast Jimmy]

I disagree that this often amounts to a small compromise. I find that - because of the neutral and (almost always) curt, pithy and non-commital way that dialogue is written by BIoware, especially for silent PCs - it is very difficult to find a response that isn't a significant compromise. Male Shepard here is a good example, because I think most Bioware PCs sound exactly like that in substance (i.e., very stable in tone, very to the point, almost but not quite monotone).

We'll bang, okay?

So phrasing the silent PC as providing an advantage in this regard is actually greatly narrowing the scope of what it means to control your character in dialogue to the literal content of the line.

You are making a (huge, in my opinion) flaw here.

Equating voiced PCs with paraphrasing is wrong. The two aren't somehow connected. I just played a indie game Heroine's Quest that offered dialogue options in a list that the protagonist repeated word for word (in most cases, they side stepped saying CHARNAME, for instance). It wasn't a particular deep or detailed dialogue system, but it still proves the point: voiced PC =/= paraphrases. Heck, as DE:HR proves, a dialogue wheel =/= paraphrases.

Your problems with the silent PC are lack of tone (either in the form of more neutered responses or in terms of the line having a tone you didn't expect based on the response of the NPC). That's fine... a tone indicator would be helpful for either a silent or a voiced PC.

But that doesn't mean paraphrases are somehow correlated or inherently intrinsic to voiced PCs, tones or anything else of the sort. It is a UI choice and it is one that carries risk in the player not understanding what the character will say.

[CybAnt1]

Correct. The anti-paraphrase argument is entirely independent of the "voiced vs. voiceless" debate, as well as the "wheel vs. list" debate.

That said, just because of positioning on the screen, a list on the left hand side is usually able to present longer lines than a wheel in the middle, which needs to show lines in two directions (and leaves little vertical space to go down), but that to me is not an insurmountable UI issue - at least I don't see how yet. I can think of reworkings that would fix that problem.

I understand too how many people would hate to read, then listen, to the lines their voiced PC is about to say. Tooltips are a win/win - those who don't want to read then listen don't have to, those who want to, can.

P.S. I'm still in favor of occasional, not constant, tone indicators. Especially, incidentally, if one wants to be a stoic character, who doesn't want to show feelings.

P.S.2 I repeat, at the end of the day, the number of options presented to the player, the number of possible consequences or results to those options, and the 'quality' of those options (i.e. if they are dialogue how well-written are they), remain independent of the system of how they are presented to the player. That's so in any RPG. Good UI is important. So is great writing. And, I guess some coding/scripting for branching paths, if there are to be different results from different choices. We need all of it. 

I will note a six-spoke wheel can never offer more than six options. That's fact. And if it's usually only using the right side, which it usually is, then only three. That is a UI limitation. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 31 janvier 2014 - 04:09 .

[Pressedcat]

In Exile wrote...

Pressedcat wrote...

I agree with Ieldra on this point (or at least think I do since I haven't read all 21 pages). I think the problem with paraphrasing stems from the dissonance that can arise between the response you thought you were giving and the response actually voiced.

It's very interesting you frame it that way, because that's actually my problem with unvoiced protagonists. I agree with you that the paraphrase introduces this problem and that Bioware, at least, has not found a satisfactory solution to it. Let me explain what I mean:

If the protagonist is unvoiced, the conversation moves on with only a small compromise made in the overall character concept (unless the chosen dialogue illicits a response at odds with the way the chosen dialogue was intended).

I disagree that this often amounts to a small compromise. I find that - because of the neutral and (almost always) curt, pithy and non-commital way that dialogue is written by BIoware, especially for silent PCs - it is very difficult to find a response that isn't a significant compromise. Male Shepard here is a good example, because I think most Bioware PCs sound exactly like that in substance (i.e., very stable in tone, very to the point, almost but not quite monotone). 

There are more structural problems with silent PCs as well: like being passive in a conversation. An example here is KOTOR. At many critical points you have to defer to either Bastilla or Carth to run the conversation. Or to Duncan in DA:O. These are huge and significant character breaking moments for me. I would never design a character that defers like that because IRL I am just not like that, and have no interest in those type of characters. 

So phrasing the silent PC as providing an advantage in this regard is actually greatly narrowing the scope of what it means to control your character in dialogue to the literal content of the line. 

The problem here is that I wasn't really addressing the merits of voiced vs unvoiced protagonists, but rather the fact that paraphrasing can be too ambiguous and often doesn't represent all the aspects of the script about to be spoken. Since paraphrasing doesn't really appear in games with unvoiced protagonists, paraphrasing only becomes a problem when the main character is voiced.

My argument wasn't that unvoiced protagonists are always superior/better for roleplaying purposes; infact I agree with all your complaints. Although you generally have a better idea what an un-voiced protagonist is about to say, the conversations can often feel far more dry and terse - you are hearing only one side of the conversation afterall. Your second point about about un-voiced protagonists being forced into a more passive role with a (voiced) npc taking on the burden of leading the conversation, is a very strong one. It is not a great problem for all character archetypes (those who prefer a more passive/advisory role), but when trying to play a decisive, commanding leader it can present problems. A voiced character's presence in a conversation is generally more strongly felt.

On balance I prefer a voiced protagonist, but with the heavy proviso that I need to like the voice actor. A voice actor whose voice I do not like can be a major problem for me and can undermine all the advantages just listed. At the end of the day, voiced vs un-voiced falls down to personal preference, where as in my opinion it is always the case that ambiguity due to paraphrasing in dialogue options is always a bad thing.

Modifié par Pressedcat, 31 janvier 2014 - 05:17 .

[TheBlackAdder13]

David Gaider wrote...

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).

If I send you cookies will you include a full-sentence dialogue toggle (or something close to it) in DA:I? Pretty pretty please with a cherry on top? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

But that's just plain false. You're missing intent and pragmatics - and with that it's very difficult to know how the dialogue will actually be interpreted.[/quote]
Intent is assigned by the player, so we do control that.

Pragmatics are a less useful tool than semantics, so I'd rather have semantics than pragmatics.

And predicting interpretation isn't something we can do reliably in the real world, so I don't see why we should be able to do it in a game.

And yes, I know you know this already, but I need to counter your points so that any readers of this thread know that there's another available point-of-view.
[quote]So you don't know what you're saying. What you know is the literal content of what you're saying.[/quote]Those two things are equivalent.  What I'm saying is comprised of the literal content of the things I say.  That's all.
[quote]In Exile wrote...

That's completely false. The more open-world the game is, the less it's possible to have "ownership" over your character unless ownership means "complete fantasy that is impossible to display or express in game and that the game will never under any circumstances react to in any way".[/quote]
Now that's a straw man.  What you describe is compatible with ownership, but all ownership really requires is that the "complete fantasy" not be contradicted by the game.  There's no requirement that we be unable to express it in game - that would obviously be valuable - but there's also no requirement that we be able to do so.
[quote]How is it - when Wynne asks you what it means to you to be a GW - that you can't say "It means I was kindapped and forced to leave my parents to die by a sadistic old creep that forced me to drink darkspawn blood, and I'll burn this order to the ground once I save Ferelden?"[/quote]
That we can't say it doesn't mean we can't think it.
[quote]Why can't my dwarf commnoner just say Branka crowned him King of Orzammar? Who's stopping him?[/quote]That would have been nice.

However, what are you arguing for here?  That we should have total freedom?  Of course you're not - that would be obviously impossible.

What Jimmy and I (and others) are asking for isn't freedom, but control.  And DA2 didn't offer control, because the paraphrases were broken (something you've explicitly agreed with in the past).
[quote]DA:O didn't allow me to project myself into the character by keeping options away from me without even telling me in advance they exist. That's the same thing.[/quote]
But that's an unrelated issue.  We're not debating which game was better.  Moreover, DA2 also didn't tell you what options would or wouldn't exist in the future.

Again, what position are you trying to advance?
[quote]In Exile wrote...

Except I do. I create an ambituous character who wants to be the New God King of Skyrim. Well, I can go suck a fat one because that's not an option in-game and I won't know that until I finish the game and see that it isn't an option. [/quote]
But it is an option.  You can totally do that.  You can create that character, and he can want those things.  He can even try to make that happen (though this does make a neat argument against granting any characters plot armour - we should be allowed to kill Ulfric).

What you're complaining about is that you can't achieve the outcomes you want, but that, again, is an entirely different issue.  The game only models a small set of outcomes.  This has always been true.  But what is only newly added is the restriction on motives and opinions.
[quote]Or, like I said, I can create a character who happens to hate the GWs. Well,  I can go suck a fat one beacuse DA:O has no options that allow to to say that you're anything other than a GW post-Ostagar or to justify your saving Ferelden for any other reason that "I'm a Grey Warden". [/quote]
But you can still hate them.  My first Warden hated them.  I loved that playthrough.  That was the only playthrough, so far, wherein I actually got to the end and killed the archdemon.
[quote]David Gaider wrote...

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).[/quote]
And I continue to look forward to that reveal.
[quote]In Exile wrote...

I disagree that this often amounts to a small compromise. I find that - because of the neutral and (almost always) curt, pithy and non-commital way that dialogue is written by BIoware, especially for silent PCs - it is very difficult to find a response that isn't a significant compromise. Male Shepard here is a good example, because I think most Bioware PCs sound exactly like that in substance (i.e., very stable in tone, very to the point, almost but not quite monotone). [/quote]
I clearly really enjoy BioWare's work with silent protagonists, but I found Male Shepard's line deliveries to be unplayably awful.  They were far too aggressive, and far too shouty.

FemShep matched BioWare's silent work pretty well, I thought.
[quote]There are more structural problems with silent PCs as well: like being passive in a conversation. An example here is KOTOR. At many critical points you have to defer to either Bastilla or Carth to run the conversation. Or to Duncan in DA:O. These are huge and significant character breaking moments for me. I would never design a character that defers like that because IRL I am just not like that, and have no interest in those type of characters.[/quote]
Whereas, I have little interest in characters who don't do that.  I'd always rather keep my opinions to myself until everyone else has shown their cards.

If the two of us were in a group together, I suspect you'd take charge of the room and I would stay silent and never say anything.  And you'd never know what my opinion was, and I wouldn't bother to tell you.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 février 2014 - 12:05 .

[CybAnt1]

If I send you cookies will you include a full-sentence dialogue toggle (or something close to it) in DA:I? Pretty pretty please with a cherry on top? 

We appear not to be getting a full transcript of what the inquisitor is about to say or do, but there will apparently be tooltips that result in some shorter text that gives extensive clarification. The surprise factor will be reduced. 

Of course, we won't know exactly how this works, until, of course, we see it. 

The other news that caused my celebratory dance last night - I don't know when it was added to the Wiki because I didn't remember seeing it before (and seems to have come from Laidlaw's Twitter) ... for those who hated only talking to companions at fixed moments with quest exclamations over thier heads, it seems you'll be able to talk to them almost all the time, although not everywhere. 

Once again ... of course, exact implementation is still forthcoming. 

For those of us who don't think every 'small talk' chat with our companions is "a quest" or requires a huge cinematic moment, this could be progress.

[Fast Jimmy]

CybAnt1 wrote...

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).

Thank you Mr. Gaider. 

I'm cautiously optimistic. 

I like being recklessly pessimistic. It is much more fun.

[CybAnt1]

I find, in dealing with developers, the Diplomatic approach works better then the Aggressive.

They're usually okay with the Sarcastic approach, well, depending on how it's used, of course.

In general, I tend to save it for other forumgoers. :innocent:

Modifié par CybAnt1, 01 février 2014 - 03:15 .

[Martyr1777]

Noctis Augustus wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Noctis Augustus wrote...
That's not the point. Games have limits, Jimmy's point is how you don't lose control within those limits.

Except I do. I create an ambituous character who wants to be the New God King of Skyrim. Well, I can go suck a fat one because that's not an option in-game and I won't know that until I finish the game and see that it isn't an option. 

Or, like I said, I can create a character who happens to hate the GWs. Well,  I can go suck a fat one beacuse DA:O has no options that allow to to say that you're anything other than a GW post-Ostagar or to justify your saving Ferelden for any other reason that "I'm a Grey Warden". 

The limits are broad and unknowable and you have absolutely no access to them, and you never know if the next arbitrary 3 lines the game gives you will be even remotely close to an "in-character" choice for your character, or an "in-character" way of expressing yourself. 

Common sense would dictate that the probability of you managing to accomplish that in a game would be extremely unlikely at best.
I wanted to aid blood mages in DA2 so that they could cause more problems and chaos to the templars, well as it turned out I was always forced to kill them. I couldn't even aid one that had surrendered to me.
Which of our "ambitions" was more reasonable in terms of expectation?

Your expectations of role-playing video-games puts mine to shame. And I have a lot of expectations. You can't defy your role. You're a Grey Warden, you have to act within that role. That's the role you're playing.
I haven't played DAO in a long time so I can't comment on that but if you can only give "I'm a Grey Warden" as an excuse for what you're doing then that is a complaint for the developers. I fail to see what that has anything to do with silent protagonists.

It's always been like that. I'm not sure what your point is, I told you games have limits. What does this have anything to do with what Jimmy said? Do you lose control of your character within those three lines? I think not.

This is the same issue people are having in the 'tragic ending' threat. DA and ME arent sandboxes, the chacters are very much created by Bioware, we only put a few of our own touches on them. Then we guide them down the path we choose, but they are still not our own.

So people need to pay attention to this fact and understand that path they are guiding the characters down isnt going to match their head canon exactly.

Why can people just enjoy well made characters for what they are instead of needing to shoe horn them into what they want. Its a game, as has been said even a sandbox game like skyrim limits what you can make you character say and do. And they say very little.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I clearly really enjoy BioWare's work with silent protagonists, but I found Male Shepard's line deliveries to be unplayably awful.  They were far too aggressive, and far too shouty.

FemShep matched BioWare's silent work pretty well, I thought.

Odd. My perception of Mark Meer is very bland and almost slightly good-natured, while Jennifer Hale seemed like she wanted to shove you out the airlock any moment. Seemed way, way more aggressive to me.

If the two of us were in a group together, I suspect you'd take charge of the room and I would stay silent and never say anything.  And you'd never know what my opinion was, and I wouldn't bother to tell you.

Same.

I'd say that's why it is important that whenever acting in a leadership position, you actively solicit feedback and input from each member of the group instead of just dictating orders and devising game plans... but that's really not the point of the comment.

[Ieldra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

CybAnt1 wrote...

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).

Thank you Mr. Gaider. 

I'm cautiously optimistic. 

I like being recklessly pessimistic. It is much more fun.

Not for me it isn't. Being pessimistic is depressing. Fortunately I don't need to be. I feel reasonably confident that Bioware will do what they can to make the existing system work better. DA2 wasn't too bad after all, I even gave it an 8 in roleplaying in my old review. Still, assuming they still don't add the hovering full text feature (things change after all), I'd switch in a heartbeat to a game where I could play like the Warden, only voiced. DAO had the 10 in roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Odd. My perception of Mark Meer is very bland and almost slightly good-natured, while Jennifer Hale seemed like she wanted to shove you out the airlock any moment. Seemed way, way more aggressive to me.

It's possible we simply have different gender biases.

Though that we can disagree so strongly on the characteristics of a specific VO performance suggests to me that voice-acting at all is of limited usefulness.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 février 2014 - 07:50 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Which game are you basing your opinions on? Mine are from ME2. That could be a factor.

ME1.  I never even tried ManShep in ME2.  I'd only played ME to any significant degree with female characters (again, because I hated the make voice), and since ME2 is a continuation with that same character, I imported those same female characters into ME2.

I did only play ME2 once, though, because I really didn't like it.  ME1 was a significantly better game.