406 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyonan]

For the dialogue icons, I actually liked them. The paraphrasing is not always clear on what kind of a tone your character is going to take with it, which the icons were great for letting you know even if there's room for improvement. I also wouldn't mind getting more varied options, which it sounds like they're going to break away from the trio of "nice Hawke, sarcastic Hawke, or angry Hawke" that Dragon Age 2 did a lot of.

 

As far as the whole toggle thing goes, I have to agree what the BioWare posters are saying. As a programmer myself, it's often not a choice of "what features do we want to add?" but rather "What features do we want to spend our time working on?". If I got to continually work on the same project until I had every feature I wanted in it, it would take me at least 5 times longer to complete anything. At some point you have to admit that you just don't have the time to get everything you want in.

 

It would be more accurate to say that you shouldn't argue why it should be included, but rather why it should be a higher priority than other features.

 

Of course as they also said, game development is not a democracy. If BioWare wants to put those resources to use somewhere else then they get to make the final call, not us.

[John Epler]

It's not adversarial.

 

 

There are some stark realities in game development. Sharing them is not adversarial.

 

What -does- raise my hackles a bit is the suggestion that the only reason we aren't doing something is because we're not listening/we haven't done our research.

 

That's not to say it never happens, but the default assumption that if we'd bother to do our job we'd realize that option X is the -right- option suggests that others have wrong opinions and we should disregard them.

 

We do take all feedback, and we read and consider it. We may not always do what people want with it, but there are a variety of reasons for that. Sharing one's opinion is fine. Sharing one's opinion and then pushing it with 'well if you guys just LISTENED' is where things get confrontational. 

 

For what it's worth, I didn't take fchopin's post as adversarial or confrontational, though as I mentioned, I do find the 'lots of people' argument to be a little odd. Unless you have actual numbers, it's usually best to avoid it.

[Darth Krytie]

I can only remember one instance of the spoken words being very different to the option I chose: choosing "this is what I was helping you do, Anders?" in the endgame of DA2 somehow became "if you'd told me what you were doing I might've supported you".   Um.... just, no.

 

Other than that, I don't recall any other jarring incidents.  Maybe I'm just really laid back about it or something.

 

I think the one that surprised me was when Pol died and you could ask Merrill "Why did he run?" I think it was...and it was in a different tone than I meant for it to be...I was thinking "why the hell did he run...that was dumb" and it ended being something vaguely accusatory instead.

[CybAnt1]

What -does- raise my hackles a bit is the suggestion that the only reason we aren't doing something is because we're not listening/we haven't done our research.

 

I'm sure you're listening. But at the end of the day, remember that you are not your work, and criticisms of your work - along with constructive suggestions of how to improve it - do not mean (at least in my case, I won't speak for anyone else) that you lack diligence, passion, ability, or research to back up your positions. (In the latter case, curiosity about the basis of that research is natural and inevitable.)

 

Or make great games that a lot of people love, including myself. 

 

All might be true. 

 

As would be the case, that those suggestions are more unpopular than they are popular, and could harm the game worse than they help, or cost more resources than are worth doing. Those things could be, too.

 

But then, people who don't know those things beforehand, won't know until it's patiently explained to them.

 

BTW, I repeat, I'm glad and thankful for many of the changes you're making to DA's dialogue system, as all in all I love all of them. 

[Tinxa]

 

I also personally think that when the Heart/Flirt option comes up, there should also be multiple possibilities for romantic dialogue, not just one. And, yes, BTW picking the wrong ones could impact the romance negatively, and the right ones impact it positively. 

 

That would provide ... verisimilitude. 

 

I agree. The heart icon in DA2 was just a "win romance" button. I liked that in DAO you had to be careful what you said so you didn't insult the LI and you could flirt/joke with Alistair or be more reserved and still progress the romance.

 

In Da2 I just always clicked heart whenever it was available because I didn't know if the diplomatic response would be read as "just friends" and stop the romance or what would happen, so the safest thing was just clicking the heart.

[In Exile]

This is a very important option that we have been asking for a long time Allan so it is not a triviality and I think many people want this.

The options to hide tone icons? While there is a group of dedicated people who dislike the icon it's hard to see how for any of them the tone icon is the problem. That would just be what ME did.

[CybAnt1]

Well, that's the point. The Heart icon signals that it's romance-related dialogue.

 

But I found it strange that at any given moment, there was only one Heart-marked line, and it always advanced the relationship. 

 

The problem with this approach (IMHO) is that it doesn't give you a chance to say or do things that negatively affect the relationship (not necessarily end it, just because you said or did the wrong thing) ... and that therefore doesn't also give you a chance to possibly repair things. 

 

The thing about previous Bioware games is I got the feeling that you had to put in some effort in understanding what was going on with your "romancee," and then say the right things to him/her to help move the relationship forward. But then I felt in DA2 that there never was a choice there, including the possibility of making a mistake. 

 

All of life is more interesting, IMHO, when we have the chance to make mistakes. But, of course, even better when we have to put in the effort at fixing them. 

 

The payoff at the end of the romance, or anything else for that matter, feels more satisfying. 

[In Exile]

As I've said a couple of times on this issue, personally, no I wouldn't want all the icons to go away.

That said, I would love to see THIS icon. A lot. (Or whatever its DAI equivalent might end up being.)

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.

Usually when the Choice icon came up, you could choose from 2 or maybe even 3 responses, that were all marked Choice.

Point is, you couldn't pick the Friendly vs. Angry vs. Sarcastic response, or use tonal markings as a guide.

You simply had to choose from among three alternatives, none being marked any differently from each other.

That to me is what some (note I did not say all) dialogue should be like. Forcing you to choose based on something other than tone. Like the actual words that were there.

I also personally think that when the Heart/Flirt option comes up, there should also be multiple possibilities for romantic dialogue, not just one. And, yes, BTW picking the wrong ones could impact the romance negatively, and the right ones impact itpositively.

That would provide ... verisimilitude.

But tone is very important information. It related to how you deliver information. While what you say matters, how you say it is also important.

If I had 3 options - to say three totally different things rudely - that does not really help me when my character does not want to be rude. DA2s problem was that there were only 3 tones, always. So basically every time you had to pick between saying what you wanted vs saying it how you wanted (assuming for the moment the paraphrase was clear).

I appreciate that for some people the content for their speech matters very much. But for me at least the manner of delivery is more important than the content. Because while my character might choose a lot of things to say, he or she has a particular way of saying them.

If there's one thing I loathe about silent PC is that often the how is hidden from you. The biggest exception to this is Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines which actually had a very elaborate way of showing your method of delivery. It's the one game with no VO that I think did a marvelous job allowing me to RP my chosen character.

[Darth Krytie]

Well, that's the point. The Heart icon signals that it's romance-related dialogue.

 

But I found it strange that at any given moment, there was only one Heart-marked line, and it always advanced the relationship. 

 

The problem with this approach (IMHO) is that it doesn't give you a chance to say or do things that negatively affect the relationship (not necessarily end it, just because you said or did the wrong thing) ... and that therefore doesn't also give you a chance to possibly repair things. 

 

The thing about previous Bioware games is I got the feeling that you had to put in some effort in understanding what was going on with your "romancee," and then say the right things to him/her to help move the relationship forward. But then I felt in DA2 that there never was a choice there, including the possibility of making a mistake. 

 

All of life is more interesting, IMHO, when we have the chance to make mistakes. But, of course, even better when we have to put in the effort at fixing them. 

 

The payoff at the end of the romance, or anything else for that matter, feels more satisfying. 

 

Maker willing, there's a balance. Because while I appreciated the heart icons for allowing me not to be ninja'd into a relationship, and yet still be friendly to a companion (which was sometimes tricky in Origins), there wasn't a whole lot of nuance in it either.

[CybAnt1]

I would say that in analyzing a communicative situation, there are always two questions one should ask.

 

Are they using the appropriate words, and being delivered in the correct tone, because I think you are absolutely right, both of those things are vital pieces of information. I can't answer your either/or -- if you're asking, though, that in speech situations, do human beings need to observe/experience both to fully get your meaning, well, of course. 

 

I guess I would say, though, the problem is that in dealing with a situation, it also can be an interesting question to decide which diplomatic answer is the best way to move the conversation forward, or which aggressive question is the best way. So that would be the problem for me: not just deciding whether being diplomatic or being aggressive is the best way to proceed, but then how in those modes/manners I can get my point across -- and that requires both linguistic and paralinguistic/prosodic information (which in DA2 is encapsulated in the tone icon). 

 

if you think I'm being metalinguistic, you are absolutely correct. 

 

Unfortunately, we are in the online medium, at the moment, which makes it hard for us to see each other's body language, and facial expressions. So you can't really know how rude I'm trying to be. Or not, as the case may be. 

 

This forces me to choose my words more carefully. That bothers some, but it is a Great Game I kind of enjoy, personally. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Stating that the heart icon always leads to advancing the romance in a positive way IS useful feedback too.  I mean, we did use it in a "fail case" with people like Varric and Aveline, but we could utilize it in different ways.  Maybe it's an inappropriate time to flirt, or other things.  I do think that the idea that it isn't always ideal is a useful one.

 

It says to me that we need to make it clearer that the icons depict your intentions with the line, rather than a predictor of the results.  This can be done by ensuring that the results the player may expect don't always happen.  So we could have icons to suggest that this is a line that attempts to woo the character, but sometimes it doesn't work out in a good way.

 

Or we could try other stuff for romances altogether?  At this point the discussion has gone more philosophical (which is interesting).

[In Exile]

I would say that in analyzing a communicative situation, there are always two questions one should ask.

Are they using the appropriate words, and being delivered in the correct tone, because I think you are absolutely right, both of those things are vital pieces of information. I can't answer your either/or -- if you're asking, though, that in speech situations, do human beings need to observe/experience both to fully get your meaning, well, of course.

I guess I would say, though, the problem is that in dealing with a situation, it also can be an interesting question to decide which diplomatic answer is the best way to move the conversation forward, or which aggressive question is the best way. So that would be the problem for me: not just deciding whether being diplomatic or being aggressive is the best way to proceed, but then how in those modes/manners I can get my point across -- and that requires both linguistic and paralinguistic/prosodic information (which in DA2 is encapsulated in the tone icon).

if you think I'm being metalinguistic, you are absolutely correct.

Unfortunately, we are in the online medium, at the moment, which makes it hard for us to see each other's body language, and facial expressions. So you can't really know how rude I'm trying to be. Or not, as the case may be.

This forces me to choose my words more carefully. That bothers some, but it is a Great Game I kind of enjoy, personally.

I agree with you that choosing the right what can be a lot of fun - the dialogue battles in Deus Ex HR were a great example of how fun and high pressure that type of design can be if done right.

My problem is that DA:O - and silent PC and Bioware games generally - don't actually ask you to choose between different content like that. What they really do is give you three different lines in substance (though sometimes in silent PC there are 4-5 lines were 2 line a pair up and have identical effects on the NPC) whose "how" you can't really predict all that well.

So again, we're not that far off in abstract. I think we philosophically agree on a lot of what makes an RPG dialogue system good. Where we do disagree I think its more subjective preference or personality.

In practice though I do not get the same things out of dialogue than you do because I'm looking for it to let me do something else.

To me RPG dialogue is not about self expression in a vacuum. It's about interaction and that requires I have information about the intended effects of dialogue.

[CybAnt1]

So, let me put it in these terms. Yes, I do believe the Heart Icon  serves a noble purpose in separating dialogue meant to woo a romancee, and so needs to be there to avoid the "ninjamance problem". I do think it's fine to clarify to the player that when they are picking a Heart-marked line, that their intentions are to pursue a bit of dance and a bit of romance, and are not merely being kind or supportive. 

 

Thing is, that only results in a fail state if they're not a romance able companion, like Aveline or Varric. Those folk will, of course, shut you down. 

 

But other than that, you never have a chance to say something (romantic) they will react negatively to. Anything heart-marked always works. 

 

If there were two heart-marked lines, you might have to think about which one works better. What is my companion here like? And what will she respond to better. And this is a good thing! Well ... from my POV, as always. 

[Darth Krytie]

Stating that the heart icon always leads to advancing the romance in a positive way IS useful feedback too.  I mean, we did use it in a "fail case" with people like Varric and Aveline, but we could utilize it in different ways.  Maybe it's an inappropriate time to flirt, or other things.  I do think that the idea that it isn't always ideal is a useful one.

 

It says to me that we need to make it clearer that the icons depict your intentions with the line, rather than a predictor of the results.  This can be done by ensuring that the results the player may expect don't always happen.  So we could have icons to suggest that this is a line that attempts to woo the character, but sometimes it doesn't work out in a good way.

 

Or we could try other stuff for romances altogether?  At this point the discussion has gone more philosophical (which is interesting).

 

I do think it would be interesting to do--in a dialogue mechanic sense...to choose an initial selection indicating the next lines of the conversation would be in that tone:

 

For instance:

 

Potential LI: I was just looking at the stars and thinking...

 

Player Character:

Friendly: About what?

Clever: about how we'll have to kill all the things all over again tomorrow?

Aggressive: Spend less time pondering the stars and more on guarding your left flank.

Romantic: And here I was looking at you instead and thinking...

 

Which would lead to a second branch:

Potential LI: And what exactly were you thinking about?

 

Player Character:

 

Romantic--friendly: How beautiful/handsome/clever you are...

Romantic--charming: About how that starlight would look on your skin...

Romantic--Aggressive: About how you'd look mowing down darkspawn under the moon.

 

(I know it's kinda goofy, but it's on the fly.)

 

Now, depending on the personality of the person you're wooing...maybe one or two of those romantic advances wouldn't work. Doesn't mean the Player Character would get locked out of the romance or need to reset, but it would potentially lead to a third branch which would---if passed---lead to the romance-success branch.

 

Like if the Player picked right one:

 

Potential LI: You've got a way with words, dear.

 

Player Character: *eyebrows of success*

 

But if you failed:

 

Potential LI: As charming as that sounds, I'd rather not...

 

Player Character:

Concession: I tried.

Romantic-try again: Well, what if I said that you're the only one in my heart?

Romantic-try again: So, you wouldn't want me to read poetry about your prowess with the blade/staff?

 

If the correct romance option is chosen, it'll go up to the previous branch. If not, the conversation might end.

[Allan Schumacher]

I do think it would be interesting to do--in a dialogue mechanic sense...to choose an initial selection indicating the next lines of the conversation would be in that tone:

 

That's very similar to the way I was thinking too, actually.  I haven't given it a whole lot of thought, though, and there could be potential confusion.  The type of stuff that would need some eyes from devs with a stake in this to ensure it didn't possibly make things worse, but on the surface it seems interesting.

[AlanC9]

If I had 3 options - to say three totally different things rudely - that does not really help me when my character does not want to be rude. DA2s problem was that there were only 3 tones, always. So basically every time you had to pick between saying what you wanted vs saying it how you wanted (assuming for the moment the paraphrase was clear).

Isn't this a function of a limited number of dialogue options rather than which system controls them? There's no conceptual problem with having two "aggressive " options on the wheel. Unlike ME, where wheel position is supposed to be meaningful.

[In Exile]

Isn't this a function of a limited number of dialogue options rather than which system controls them? There's no conceptual problem with having two "aggressive " options on the wheel. Unlike ME, where wheel position is supposed to be meaningful.

To a degree, but I think its more design philosophy. There's no reason to be combative in all cases. Even in ME the renegade options actually caught a wide range of stuff - from gung-ho aggression to cold ends justify the means to outright racism.

[CybAnt1]

I do think it would be interesting to do--in a dialogue mechanic sense...to choose an initial selection indicating the next lines of the conversation would be in that tone:

 

For instance:

 

Potential LI: I was just looking at the stars and thinking...

 

Player Character:

Friendly: About what?

Clever: about how we'll have to kill all the things all over again tomorrow?

Aggressive: Spend less time pondering the stars and more on guarding your left flank.

Romantic: And here I was looking at you instead and thinking...

 

Which would lead to a second branch:

Potential LI: And what exactly were you thinking about?

 

Player Character:

 

Romantic--friendly: How beautiful/handsome/clever you are...

Romantic--charming: About how that starlight would look on your skin...

Romantic--Aggressive: About how you'd look mowing down darkspawn under the moon.

 

(I know it's kinda goofy, but it's on the fly.)

 

Now, depending on the personality of the person you're wooing...maybe one or two of those romantic advances wouldn't work. Doesn't mean the Player Character would get locked out of the romance or need to reset, but it would potentially lead to a third branch which would---if passed---lead to the romance-success branch.

 

Like if the Player picked right one:

 

Potential LI: You've got a way with words, dear.

 

Player Character: *eyebrows of success*

 

But if you failed:

 

Potential LI: As charming as that sounds, I'd rather not...

 

Player Character:

Concession: I tried.

Romantic-try again: Well, what if I said that you're the only one in my heart?

Romantic-try again: So, you wouldn't want me to read poetry about your prowess with the blade/staff?

 

If the correct romance option is chosen, it'll go up to the previous branch. If not, the conversation might end.

 

Grand stuff.

 

Why, it takes me back to certain days. 

 

 

But I digress.

[Darth Krytie]

That's very similar to the way I was thinking too, actually.  I haven't given it a whole lot of thought, though, and there could be potential confusion.  The type of stuff that would need some eyes from devs with a stake in this to ensure it didn't possibly make things worse, but on the surface it seems interesting.

 

For me, the exact specifics aren't as important as the idea that perhaps that a flirt might not be well received...depending on who you're flirting with and when...

 

Imagine if during the initial conversation with Anders after tranquility, you chose the flirt icon "Let's talk about me" after he bares his heart to you about Karl. (If you're a dude). Or even earlier when you tell him you like the dark, tortured look. It's not really the best time/occasion to flirt. If perhaps he reacted poorly and it didn't trigger the romance...forcing you to try to trigger it again at a later time. It'd be interesting.

 

Though the problem would be trying to indicate to the player that choosing a heart icon doesn't mean auto-success....and that failing in an earlier attempt doesn't mean an entire fail.

[In Exile]

Grand stuff.

Why, it takes me back to certain days.



But I digress.

Although that particular conversation is always a bit worrying since Viconia basically opens with "I treat you like crap, so ..." which has a bit of an unfortunate Aesop about how potentially abusive partners are not so bad.

[CybAnt1]

To me RPG dialogue is not about self expression in a vacuum. It's about interaction and that requires I have information about the intended effects of dialogue.

 

As a firm believer in Searle and Austin's Speech Act theory, and Mead's Symbolic Interactionism, I think all dialogue is about intended social and symbolic effects, whether they work or not. 

[CybAnt1]

Although that particular conversation is always a bit worrying since Viconia basically opens with "I treat you like crap, so ..." which has a bit of an unfortunate Aesop about how potentially abusive partners are not so bad.

 

I think my main point is 7 options are there. Some will work better than others. It requires some thought, about Viconia, and about her nature, to give a better response. 

 

2 or 3 could be cool. Now, many people will point out that there is a lot of "illusion of choice" there going on, as many of those 7 responses will produce the same outcome. 

 

... that's OK, personally I don't care, the illusion of choice, like so many illusions in an imaginary game in an imaginary world, feels like real choice, and so therefore works for me - nonetheless. 

[In Exile]

As a firm believer in Searle and Austin's Speech Act theory, and Mead's Symbolic Interactionism, I think all dialogue is about intended social and symbolic effects, whether they work or not.

Let's say that broadly speaking I agree (my view is a bit more nuanced than that but we'd derrail the thread hard core if we went there). The thing is once you taken the position that speech is about intended meaning being conveyed externally you run into a problem if misunderstandings mattering a great deal.

In either case there are posters - Sylvius being the most extremely example - who see dialogue in an RPG as being purely about self-expression without any communicative purpose at all (which in Sylvius's case is because he thinks communication is impossible).

[In Exile]

I think my main point is 7 options are there. Some will work better than others. It requires some thought, about Viconia, and about her nature, to give a better response.

2 or 3 could be cool. Now, many people will point out that there is a lot of "illusion of choice" there going on, as many of those 7 responses will produce the same outcome.

... that's OK, personally I don't care, the illusion of choice, like so many illusions in an imaginary game in an imaginary world, feels like real choice, and so therefore works for me - nonetheless.

I agree with you. I was just being a bit snarky. Though personally I think 1-2 are the same thing.

[AlanC9]

To a degree, but I think its more design philosophy. There's no reason to be combative in all cases. Even in ME the renegade options actually caught a wide range of stuff - from gung-ho aggression to cold ends justify the means to outright racism.

Yes. To some extent this is an artifact of the dominant tone system, right? That's going away.