406 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Occasionally true, though not often. I'm averaging about three mismatches per Bio game, myself. I don't know what's typical for a Bio player in this regard, though I expect that folks participating in this thread will average lower than the playerbase as a whole since there's a selection bias in the topic.

I recall the occasional mismatch in DAO, but in DA2 it occurred nearly every conversation.

 

But more importantly, the uncertainty created by the expectation of a mismatch ruined my experience during conversations throughout DA2.  Even when I got a line I wanted, I hadn't selected the option with any confidence that that would be the case.

But after I've selected the dialogue option, we have the same degree of knowledge. This is the line, and we have to model our character conception to match it. Unless for some reason one of us picks a line that's not the best one out of the options available, both systems leave us in exactly the same place after the line's been said. I don't see why it's particularly relevant whether we reach that place before or after pushing the button.

Because we need to know our character's state of mind in order to interpret the results of that line.  The NPC reactions that are triggered by the line will mean something different to the PC based on his state of mind, and that state of mind should be determined without any knowledge of those consequences.

 

And doing so after the line is selected can be quite computationally complex.  Every previous decision made by the character needs to be considered to determine what personality is consistent with that set of behaviours.  Before, we could select the option we know was consistent, but now we're forced to invent a new personality with each dialogue selection - else we risk an incoherent character.

 

Moreover, as you point out, it may well be that the best option was one I didn't choose.  The only way to approximate the gameplay of the silent protagonist games with the DA2 dialogue system is to go through the conversation repeatedly to determine what all the options actually are, write those down, and then try to forget what the consequences of those lines are while picking your way through the dialogue again.

In all of Bio's voiced-protagonist games, I can only recall one case where I chose the wrong line and it was Bio's fault. (I misinterpreted how Renegade paraphrases work in ME1 a couple of times, but that's on me for not understanding how the system works.) There's an egregious paraphrase during Merrill's "A New Path " quest where it's not at all clear what Hawke's going to take responsibility for; the spoken line is about keeping Merrill under control, but I read "I'll take responsibility" as referring to the Keeper's death, which my Hawkes typically wouldn't feel responsible for.

Again, this happened to me in nearly every conversation.  Sometimes the line I got was a direct contradiction of my character's state of mind (the first time I remember this was in ME).  And if all of the available options contradict my character's state of mind, then I need to go back to construct a new one that is consistent with all of the previous choices.  And that takes time.  Since I can't pause the game between my character speaking and the NPC responding, I don't have that time unless I get to do it before the paraphrase selection.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Then silent is better, because then you get to decide the tone for each line, rather than being tied to the tone the writers chose for that line.

[Korusus]

I think Allen hits the nail on the head in so far as tone icons were used in DA2 as predictors of outcomes rather than explanations of intent (DA:I remains to be seen), not just for romances but even when a line of dialogue would trigger a fight.  Imagine wooing Viconia in Baldur's Gate 2 if every single line that progressed the romance was conveniently pointed out to you with a heart icon, and imagine how boring that would be.

 

I think that's the real problems with the tone icons.  I'm quite disappointed that BioWare decided to keep them, or at least didn't adjust them to mean intent rather than outcome.  One of the complaints often brought up with the no-icon system is you never know if what you say might offend the NPCs you're having a dialogue with...but isn't that like life?  You never know how something you say is going to be taken by the person you're saying it to.  Wouldn't it be nice if every now again someone slapped the crap out of witty Hawke rather than just passing over his one-liners?

 

I still think SWTOR (regardless of how you feel about the game itself) had the best implementation of the dialogue wheel of any BioWare game.  Intent was usually clear despite no tone icons, if you said something you didn't think your character would say you had an opportunity to start the conversation over, and /gasp you could TOGGLE off the dark side/light side icons on the wheel.

 

I'll still be buying the game as I think it addresses a lot of the grievances I had with DA2, but I still always want to speak up when the dialogue wheel and tone icons are brought up because I really do believe BioWare is talented enough and creative enough to do better.

[brightblueink]

Then silent is better, because then you get to decide the tone for each line, rather than being tied to the tone the writers chose for that line.

I don't personally think that's true. In Origins the Warden's lines still had a certain tone that other characters would react to. Not to mention all of the people that accidentally romanced characters in that game because they thought their lines that were friendly were actually being taken as flirty.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think that's the real problems with the tone icons.  I'm quite disappointed that BioWare decided to keep them, or at least didn't adjust them to mean intent rather than outcome.

 

Where did you get this impression?

 

Note, that some of the icons, like the crossing swords, make sense for predicting a fight, since it'd be Hawke starting the fight.

 

I'm not sure I'm convinced that the tone indicators were accurate predictors of outcomes, however.  The situation becomes muddied, however, with the dominant tone system too.  For instance, being aggressive to the timid guardsman isn't a predictor of intimidating him, since it's only successful if the dominant tone is aggressive.  Otherwise it just leads to a fight.

 

I'd concede a point with the heart icons, but only with the caveat of not acknowledging the situations where it doesn't work (Aveline and Varric).

[Bond]

Just to add, game development could be, in many ways, consisting mostly of "not very large tasks" that numbers in the 1000+.

 

So while yes, "two days at tops" may be accurate to implement something like this, it means two days not spent working on something else.  It could be 4 things that are "half a day at tops" that get lost.

 
  I agree of course But two days in a 900 days + cycle is not so bad. Plus, it is not like this is some line on the 44% progress on the game, it is a big feature for the whole game. You, David Gaider and John Epler all made your points, so maybe i am wrong. Or maybe the game will be so good, that even if there are people that really bothers them will still really enjoy the game. We will see how will things turn out. 
  The thing is, in all BW games i played, there is always big moral dilemma and places where you question yourself what is right or what is wrong. When you have these angry hammers and angel wings in your face constantly, its like the dev team are telling you - this is good and this is bad.

Edit: Allan, now i see your post above mine. I assure you some people dont want to know, that if they say something it will lead to a fight. They want to really try to read between lines and figure out, what to say for the best result. If i dont want to start fight, because i am on low hp and have wrong companions, i will definetely pick the other line, when i see crossed swords. But this is not fun imo. Fun for my opinion is being reckless and saying bold things, trying to scare people and end up fighting, when i am in no shape to fight. Next time i wont be try to be such a badass and will choose my answers carefully. As opposed to already knowing the end result of my line...For example in ME, you could say something renegade and start the fight immediately, without you knowing, or you could take the paragon/neutral approach and avoid fighting. If there were pistols and lasers symbols, you would know what is what, before starting the fight. And you can satisfy this type of approach and the one you already consider doing, by just removing the symbols. I refuse to believe two days is much time, that you can use for so other many things. For the love of god, pax is three days.

[Allan Schumacher]

Allan, now i see your post above mine. I assure you some people dont want to know, that if they say something it will lead to a fight.

 

If the player wants to start a fight, then I disagree.

 

It's equivalent to the old [Attack] lines (and in fact I think sometimes that's what the paraphrase would sometimes say).  Sometimes the player wants to instigate a fight.  It makes sense for that to lead to combat, and the icon serves as a useful tool for informing players that want to fight that this dialogue response leads to a fight.

 

 

 

If i dont want to start fight, because i am on low hp and have wrong companions, i will definetely pick the other line, when i see crossed swords. But this is not fun imo. Fun for my opinion is being reckless and saying bold things, trying to scare people and end up fighting, when i am in no shape to fight.

 

There's nothing saying that the standard tones can't still lead to a fight (are people suggesting that this didn't happen in DA2?).

 

 

 

 

I refuse to believe two days is much time,

 

It's not much time.  It's just that there's A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS to do.  There's thousands of days of stuff we'd love to have in the game, that simply won't make it into the game because it's already cut.

 

Especially at this point in the development, spending two days on this means not spending two days on something else.  But you have no perspective on what any of that "something else" is.  If we were to magically conjure up two days of spare time, would it be better to spend that time on this, or would it maybe be better to spend it on something like the ability to pause during conversation/cutscenes?  (my vote would be for the latter)

 

That's of course hoping that nothing that we deem essential to the game doesn't have difficulties.  I mean, we had to completely engineer solutions that the Frostbite engine a and tools didn't support, in order to establish workflows for our designers to work at an acceptable speed to deliver a large amount of content in shorter periods of time.  That stuff is all in the "must have" bin, while something like icon toggles is firmly in the "nice to have" bin, as far as I'm concerned.  And we're going to focus our time on getting the "Must have" stuff out of the way beforehand, and that's going to take up a lot of the first parts of the 900 days of development.

[kipac]

Where did you get this impression?
 
Note, that some of the icons, like the crossing swords, make sense for predicting a fight, since it'd be Hawke starting the fight.
 
I'm not sure I'm convinced that the tone indicators were accurate predictors of outcomes, however.  The situation becomes muddied, however, with the dominant tone system too.  For instance, being aggressive to the timid guardsman isn't a predictor of intimidating him, since it's only successful if the dominant tone is aggressive.  Otherwise it just leads to a fight.
 
I'd concede a point with the heart icons, but only with the caveat of not acknowledging the situations where it doesn't work (Aveline and Varric).

If the player wants to start a fight, then I disagree.
 
It's equivalent to the old [Attack] lines (and in fact I think sometimes that's what the paraphrase would sometimes say).  Sometimes the player wants to instigate a fight.  It makes sense for that to lead to combat, and the icon serves as a useful tool for informing players that want to fight that this dialogue response leads to a fight.

Personally, the reason why I don't like about image icons (heart, crossing sword, etc) in dialogues is precisely because it informs you too much. It's true that icons can be useful tools for informing players, but that's why I don't like it. The icons take up all the attention of the players and make the written text/dialogues insignificant. What players should be doing in a game, especially in RPG, is to pay attention to the dialogues& scenes and then choose the line that matches the best to their actual opinions/thoughts.

Not just something like "I'm gonna romance him/her, so I'll just have to choose heart icon every single time even if I really don't like that line".
Whether choosing heart icons will actually lead to a successful romance or not, players will most likely assume it is safer to choose the lines with heart icons. Like that, the hints that the icons give away can lead the players to doubt their initial choice of dialogue and instead go for the line that seems to be the best, even if that line contradicts to their opinions (not just romance, but in other situations too). That's not really a choice making. The icons sort of take away the control from the players by leading them.

[CybAnt1]

I think Allen hits the nail on the head in so far as tone icons were used in DA2 as predictors of outcomes rather than explanations of intent (DA:I remains to be seen), not just for romances but even when a line of dialogue would trigger a fight.  Imagine wooing Viconia in Baldur's Gate 2 if every single line that progressed the romance was conveniently pointed out to you with a heart icon, and imagine how boring that would be.

 

I think that's the real problems with the tone icons.  I'm quite disappointed that BioWare decided to keep them, or at least didn't adjust them to mean intent rather than outcome.  One of the complaints often brought up with the no-icon system is you never know if what you say might offend the NPCs you're having a dialogue with...but isn't that like life?  You never know how something you say is going to be taken by the person you're saying it to.  Wouldn't it be nice if every now again someone slapped the crap out of witty Hawke rather than just passing over his one-liners?

 

I still think SWTOR (regardless of how you feel about the game itself) had the best implementation of the dialogue wheel of any BioWare game.  Intent was usually clear despite no tone icons, if you said something you didn't think your character would say you had an opportunity to start the conversation over, and /gasp you could TOGGLE off the dark side/light side icons on the wheel.

 

I'll still be buying the game as I think it addresses a lot of the grievances I had with DA2, but I still always want to speak up when the dialogue wheel and tone icons are brought up because I really do believe BioWare is talented enough and creative enough to do better.

 

The thing is, people will argue the game should work this way: you should be able to clearly signal your intent. IOW, it needs to be clear to the player that what they are trying to say is something flirty, funny, diplomatic, or aggressive.

 

That doesn't mean the other party - companion or otherwise - still can't misunderstand it. They can still misunderstand your nice compliment as a flirt, but at least the player was sure that at that moment they were merely saying something nice and not a flirt. Saying something that is friendly can be mis-taken as a statement of hostility (hmm, does that happen in online conversations?) But at least the player can be sure what they were trying to say, even if the icon is not a guarantee that it will be understood that way (in terms of tone). 

 

Tone icons really don't bother me in themselves. I don't get why they have to be there all the time, though. That said, it seems DAI is moving toward a system where they won't be, as far as I've read so far. Frankly, though, getting rid of them won't help me if the game sticks with paraphrasing, as now I'll have even less information about what my character is about to do next, and that makes my problem worse. I would take full dialogue without icons (that was how I was doing things for a long time, and all I can say is I never had a problem with it - though I *do* get the issues some are raising about dealing with ninjamancing and related matters), but if I'm only going to have paraphrases, then sure they are important additional information. 

 

I know In Exile and I don't share the same worldview on this, and maybe Allan also, but as I'll keep repeating, what I'd really like to see is when I'm at a particular point, a series of options where I decide the best thing to say based on both words and tone. That is, I don't just want to pick whether handling the situation in a friendly or angry way is the only choice. It's an important one, and I won't disagree there. But I also believe that a good RPG should have the player think about who they are speaking to, and the situation, and contextual information, and make a decision on dialogue based on the words that are present. Would this kind of person respond best to flattery or a threat? If I want to get into their good graces, should I talk about cheese, or chocolate? Would getting them to open up about certain things involve better a direct or indirect approach? If I need to persuade them that building the giant magic mirror of doom will lead to a bad outcome, how can I convince them best? If I want to intimidate them into letting me pass and get out of my way without fighting, what approach would best make them put down their weapons? 

 

I mean, can you really make those kinds of decisions when all you have are very short paraphrases? And as I keep saying, there can multiple angry ways to address something, and multiple diplomatic ways to handle it. Isn't it more interesting to have to pick the right diplomatic response, not just make, simply, the decision of being diplomatic? Or, if you're going to handle the situation with jokes and sarcasm, stop and consider what kinds of jokes will be taken as mean, and which ones will be taken as supportive? 

 

I can sometimes be less diplomatic than I should, but that's because something I think the more direct approach works better, when it comes to getting what I want (which is usually for people to at least discuss things further, if not change their minds). I'm talking about real life now. 

 

As always, I can be wrong. 

[CybAnt1]

I'll still be buying the game as I think it addresses a lot of the grievances I had with DA2, but I still always want to speak up when the dialogue wheel and tone icons are brought up because I really do believe BioWare is talented enough and creative enough to do better.

 

Yeah. When you see that they have done better, and you know they can do better, to ask them to do the better is really a statement of love. 

 

Hmmm, did that just sound like Jeb Bush there? Or George W.? They need to share their love with the CRPG players of America. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't personally think that's true. In Origins the Warden's lines still had a certain tone that other characters would react to. Not to mention all of the people that accidentally romanced characters in that game because they thought their lines that were friendly were actually being taken as flirty.

You're not supposed to know how people are going to react to what you say. And I don't see how knowing the tone is at all helpful in predicting NPC responses.

[Ieldra]

If I may reiterate my stance on this matter:

 

(1) I don't have a problem with voiced protagonists.

(2) I don't have a problem with the dialogue wheel. It is, after all, just another kind of interface.

(3) I don't have a problem with tone indicators.

 

However,

 

I do have a big problem with paraphrasing, and I don't think anything but giving me accurate and complete information about what my character will say when I select an option will ever satisfy me in that regard. Why? Because the only way I feel I'm making a decision on behalf of my character is when I know how the thoughts I infuse into their minds while reacting to game events may be expressed when I select a dialogue option. I need to see all alternatives in sufficient depth, and throughout all games with paraphrases I've played, a short paraphrase has rarely encompassed that in an even remotely satisfactory way, unless it was trivial in the first place or a mere decision of the type do X vs. do Y. Even more annoyingly, often paraphrases were limited to expressing sentiments when sentiments were completely irrelevant to the decision for me.

 

I maintain that in order to use a system with paraphrases for roleplaying, you need to memorize or write down all the options in a first playthrough so that you will know them in the second, or re-load a scene until you've seen everything and know which option fits best. IMO the switch to paraphrasing was the single worst design decision made for rpg-type games by anyone since the genre exists. It creates too much distance between the character I'm supposedly playing and me and often makes me feel like an observer. I can't get into the mind of my character, since I am only guiding them instead of playing them. 

 

I don't dismiss the possibility that a system with paraphrasing might work if the length of the paraphrases is increased in order to give complete information about what follows, but I have my doubts even then.

[In Exile]

Then silent is better, because then you get to decide the tone for each line, rather than being tied to the tone the writers chose for that line.

 

It's not, because I don't. The tone is not something I choose - it comes paired with the line. I don't choose the tone any more than I choose the actual literal content of the line. I choose between literal contents of the line. I also have to choose between tones, except the tones are hidden. 

 

Silent PC is just the paraphrase problem with regards to tone - without more it hides how information is conveyed. Paraphrase - unless done right - hides what is being said. 

[CybAnt1]

That's just it, though, IE.

 

If you asked me which I would rather be ambiguous, I would say I would prefer ambiguity of tone to ambiguity of actual words of dialogue. (I know you wouldn't.)

 

I find I'm pretty good at reading an unmarked line and seeing the implicit tone it carries. The fact that I can't do this perfectly, I admit, is why I'm not always sure (for example) when people are being sarcastic, online.

 

There is a line in DAO that people discuss as you being sarcastic to Alistair, but it isn't clear to people that it was jokingly sarcastic (the "royal bastard" line) and not mean. However, it was pretty obvious to me.

 

Of course, personally, I would view the most optimal system as being ambiguous about neither.

 

I think the real problem with the DA2 system is it prevents you from role-playing an eloquent character. By that, I mean, it's not that Hawke isn't occasionally eloquent. It's just that you never know when he's going to be, so it feels like something not under your control. He sometimes gives great speeches, but the problem is you never know when that will happen. I don't feel like I am really inhabiting a character who relies on eloquence, if I have no control over when he will be eloquent and it feels more like a random event.

[Darth Krytie]

That's just it, though, IE.

 

If you asked me which I would rather be ambiguous, I would say I would prefer ambiguity of tone to ambiguity of actual words of dialogue. (I know you wouldn't.)

 

I find I'm pretty good at reading an unmarked line and seeing the implicit tone it carries. The fact that I can't do this perfectly, I admit, is why I'm not always sure (for example) when people are being sarcastic, online.

 

There is a line in DAO that people discuss as you being sarcastic to Alistair, but it isn't clear to people that it was jokingly sarcastic (the "royal bastard" line) and not mean. However, it was pretty obvious to me.

 

Of course, personally, I would view the most optimal system as being ambiguous about neither.

 

I think the real problem with the DA2 system is it prevents you from role-playing an eloquent character. By that, I mean, it's not that Hawke isn't occasionally eloquent. It's just that you never know when he's going to be, so it feels like something not under your control. He sometimes gives great speeches, but the problem is you never know when that will happen. I don't feel like I am really inhabiting a character who relies on eloquence, if I have no control over when he will be eloquent and it feels more like a random event.

 

That's a fair assessment, I think. Though, with what I've been hearing and with the change in the types of tones, the addition of further nuance, and the removal of the dominant tone system, I do think this next game has a chance at being the middle ground we're looking for. (Assuming someone's willing to settle for middle ground.)

[CybAnt1]

. IMO the switch to paraphrasing was the single worst design decision made for rpg-type games by anyone since the genre exists.

 

And I stand accused of not pulling my punches.

 

Oh no, I wouldn't say so, by far there are things that are far more egregious, like real-money auction houses. Not that that's a Bioware problem.

[In Exile]

That's just it, though, IE.

 

If you asked me which I would rather be ambiguous, I would say I would prefer ambiguity of tone to ambiguity of actual words of dialogue. (I know you wouldn't.)

 

I find I'm pretty good at reading an unmarked line and seeing the implicit tone it carries. The fact that I can't do this perfectly, I admit, is why I'm not always sure (for example) when people are being sarcastic, online.

 

There is a line in DAO that people discuss as you being sarcastic to Alistair, but it isn't clear to people that it was jokingly sarcastic (the "royal bastard" line) and not mean. However, it was pretty obvious to me.

 

Of course, personally, I would view the most optimal system as being ambiguous about neither.

 

I think the real problem with the DA2 system is it prevents you from role-playing an eloquent character. By that, I mean, it's not that Hawke isn't occasionally eloquent. It's just that you never know when he's going to be, so it feels like something not under your control. He sometimes gives great speeches, but the problem is you never know when that will happen. I don't feel like I am really inhabiting a character who relies on eloquence, if I have no control over when he will be eloquent and it feels more like a random event.

 

Honestly, I don't think we should be forced to choose between either. I think we should have a system that (a) gives us all the information we need about the intended tone (not the effect of the line) and ( gives us all the information we need about the content of the line. 

 

My problem with reading sarcasm is that I'm sarcastic. I read sarcasm into things that are played straight because I'd say them sarcastically. I just can't help but do that. I never had a problem with the Royal Bastard line. Where I did run into trouble were lines about Alistair's IQ - apparently those were intended to be delivered as actual insults, but I could never read them that way because it's so contrary to my personality for me to (a) insult someone like that and ( not chide someone about their intellect. 

 

In terms of eloquent characters, I think the dialogue itself stops you from being one. While no Bioware VO game did this, Bioware silent PC games make eloquence impossible because your communication is limited to short, often open-ended pithy lines. You (almost) never have the opportunity to express your view on things except as a narrow pithy one-liner, and discussing any position with nuance is just not part of the design. Nothing is like say, PS:T and those long philosophical paragraph responses. 

[CybAnt1]

That's a fair assessment, I think. Though, with what I've been hearing and with the change in the types of tones, the addition of further nuance, and the removal of the dominant tone system, I do think this next game has a chance at being the middle ground we're looking for. (Assuming someone's willing to settle for middle ground.)

 

I will take it, personally. I can't speak for anyone else. But I have to be forgiven for sometimes trying to triangulate the exact parameters of where the neutral zone will end up sitting. Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Then, I swig my Romulan ale.

[Darth Krytie]

I will take it, personally. I can't speak for anyone else. But I have to be forgiven for sometimes trying to triangulate the exact parameters of where the neutral zone will end up sitting. Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Then, I swig my Romulan ale.

 

It depends on whether you're on a set of downs or kicking off, clearly.

 

 

I'm sad. I already ran out of likes today.

 

I just want to hear the inflection of the tones...in one of the lady inquisitor's voices.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

I prefer voiced protagonists, seem more alive to me although im not against playing as silent characters either, just seems odd in a cinematic type game when my character stands there like a silent emotionless doll all the time while everybody else speaks.

[Brockololly]

 

 

It's equivalent to the old [Attack] lines (and in fact I think sometimes that's what the paraphrase would sometimes say). 

 

When you mention something like the intent of the player character's action being summed up by a word just bracketed by parentheses, I kind of wish that's the route you'd go with making intent or tone clear instead of icons.

 

I haven't really been following the specifics of how Inquisition will do things but like has been said with DA2 and the heart icon, what does that mean? Does it mean you're going to profess serious unrequited love for someone or just light hearted flirting? Whereas if you had [Flirting] followed by your paraphrase that might be more clear. Same goes with any other icon, sticking a specific descriptive word in would make intent more clear than trying to use a handful of icons that are trying to encompass multiple tones.

 

I'm curious to see how Inquisition handles this sort of thing but my main issue with DA2 was how you'd have one level of ambiguity present with the nebulous nature of the tone icon compounded by the inherent ambiguity of the paraphrases. Such that personally, I'd rarely feel confident in what my player character was going to say, how they'd say it or what they were even going to do in some cases. And in an RPG, that's no fun. For myself, the fun is in knowing exactly what my player character is going to say or do and then being surprised with how NPCs react to my player character, not myself being surprised by the player character's words or actions.

[In Exile]

When you mention something like the intent of the player character's action being summed up by a word just bracketed by parentheses, I kind of wish that's the route you'd go with making intent or tone clear instead of icons.

 

 

But sometime that's clearly impossible. Attacking someone is an action, not speech. In fact, if you wanted to surprise attack someone, yelling "Surprise attack!" is possibly one of the most self-defeating things you could do, especially if you're far away from them and there are more of them than there are of you. 

 

The same applies to something like sarcasm. In fact, the whole point of sarcasm is that context and delivery changes the literal meaning of the line. So there has to be a separate indicator for these things. 

 

Something like diplomacy vs. aggressive, though, IMO could be done right just via the literal content of the line. 

 

For myself, the fun is in knowing exactly what my player character is going to say or do and then being surprised with how NPCs react to my player character, not myself being surprised by the player character's words or actions.

 

I really don't think there's much disagreement on this point. The issue is in defining "knowing exactly what my player character is going to say" because something the literal content of what they say doesn't always actually do a good job of telling you that. 

[AlanC9]

 I really don't think there's much disagreement on this point. The issue is in defining "knowing exactly what my player character is going to say" because something the literal content of what they say doesn't always actually do a good job of telling you that. 

From time to time we have had people who enjoy being surprised by what the PC says. I think this is usually associated with the position that actual role-playing in a CRPG is conceptually impossible.

And then there's me. The two or three times per game I'm surprised by what my PC says I'm not particularly concerned, because I was going to have to shape my PC's thoughts around that line anyway.

[Brockololly]

But sometime that's clearly impossible. Attacking someone is an action, not speech. In fact, if you wanted to surprise attack someone, yelling "Surprise attack!" is possibly one of the most self-defeating things you could do, especially if you're far away from them and there are more of them than there are of you. 

 

The same applies to something like sarcasm. In fact, the whole point of sarcasm is that context and delivery changes the literal meaning of the line. So there has to be a separate indicator for these things. 

 

Something like diplomacy vs. aggressive, though, IMO could be done right just via the literal content of the line.

I was just meaning that using text instead of icons to convey intent would seem a more detailed way to actually convey intent, whether that's dialogue tone or a specific action. So instead of a sword icon or something to convey attacking an NPC, you could have [Strangle NPC] or [Throw Murder Knife at NPC]. Would that take the "surprise" out of what your player character did? Yeah, but to me, knowing what exact options are available is more appealing than guessing at what your exact action is going to be.

 

Or with tone acompanying a paraphrase, instead of something like a heart icon or hammer icon, just have [Flirting] or [Deathly serious] or [stoic] or [ Enraged] or [Earnest]  or [Sarcastic] or [Mocking] or any number of other sort of tone descriptors that could more precisely convey the tone than what you'd have with a graphical icon plus the paraphrase.

 

 

Obviously, I'm ok with a silent protagonist, but that's not happening in Inquisition. But having something like an Origins dialogue system plus words as tone descriptors would be ideal. That way you're not ever wrestling with the player character's voice actor not delivering a line that matches up with the stated tone accurately enough but you'd instead be focusing more on how the NPC/ voice actor for the NPC is going to react to player's stated response.

[Aremce]

I'm with the "I like icons because they show the intent behind the lines" camp, personally. Icons were never there to show the outcomes, they show what the PC wants to accomplish by their words (and if intent and outcome match ... well, things like that do happen quite regularly IRL, too) - and for me, that is important to know when picking a dialogue option. It's something that would also have been nice in Origins, just to show which lines are sarcastic, joking, dead serious, flirty, etc. ... and while it wouldn't ruin the game for me to not have them, I'm happy to get icons in DA:I again. It'll save me from awkward "oops, I thought that would be a joke" moments.

 

In the end, I guess the topic is one of those many "can't please everyone" situations.