406 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

But your position isn't supported without the implicit assumptions you make about the predictability of human behaviour.

 

 

Certainly. But that's no more than saying that any scientific position is unsupportable without the implicit assumption about the predictability of its subject matter. 

 

In Exile thinks there is some necessary connection between the tone of a spoken line and the reactions that line triggers in others.

 

This runs directly contrary to my experience.  As such, I do not think there is such a connection.

 

This hasn't occurred to me other times we've discussed this, but are you suggesting that the mere fact that something is contrary to your personal experience is a good enough reason to reject a proposition that has a great deal of objective evidence behind it? 

 

Probably not.  But that's not what I'm claiming.  I'm claiming that there is no reaction I could have which would cause you to think that you'd said the line differently.  No matter what my reaction, you never know enough about me to know whether I'm reacting to you or why.

 

Well, that's wrong. You could say: "Why are you speaking with a German accent"? That would certainly cause me to think I said the line differently, since I do not think I have a German accent. 

[Brockololly]

A thousand times this. I always found myself focusing on reading the 6 or 7 full sentences in DAO and didn't enjoy that much at all.

Personally, reading the six or seven full dialogue responses in Origins is exactly what I liked about those sorts of games. I'm able to appreciate all of the dialogue options available to the Player Character right then and there, not obscured by the inherent ambiguity of a paraphrase. So I'm able to appreciate all of the possible choices, even if I'm not going to pick a certain dialogue option.

 

Happened all the time in Origins when I'd see a dialogue choice and think how funny it was or how extreme it might seem and I would wonder how the NPC I was talking to would react if I chose it. Maybe I wouldn't choose it but I'd sort of have it stuck in my head as something to try if I played the game another time. Its harder to appreciate the full dialogue with a paraphrase since you're trying to guess at what your Player Character will say exactly and in turn you've got another layer of ambiguity in trying to guess at what the NPC will do/say based on the existing ambiguity of not knowing exactly what your PC is going to do/say exactly.

[In Exile]

Happened all the time in Origins when I'd see a dialogue choice and think how funny it was or how extreme it might seem and I would wonder how the NPC I was talking to would react if I chose it. Maybe I wouldn't choose it but I'd sort of have it stuck in my head as something to try if I played the game another time. Its harder to appreciate the full dialogue with a paraphrase since you're trying to guess at what your Player Character will say exactly and in turn you've got another layer of ambiguity in trying to guess at what the NPC will do/say based on the existing ambiguity of not knowing exactly what your PC is going to do/say exactly.

I know I'm beating the horse dead here, but there's just no real difference between these two situations, because the former case the "how" you say it is totally ambiguous. So you're always in the same boat: (i) how/what will I really say? and (ii) what effect will that have? 

[Allan Schumacher]

In Exile thinks there is some necessary connection between the tone of a spoken line and the reactions that line triggers in others.

 

This runs directly contrary to my experience.  As such, I do not think there is such a connection.

 

Could just be differences in how we experience the world.  Brains just perceiving things differently maybe?

[Sylvius the Mad]

You do realize that being unable to read tone is a personal disability, right?

I don't accept your value judgment.  It is a difference, not a disability.

Edit: I should also point out that the actor was using that tone at the specific direction of the writer. VO notes are visible in the toolset.

I don't see the relevance.  That the writer thinks the tone is important doesn't make the tone important.

Perhaps Bio ought to be displaying tone icons when NPCs speak?

I would likely ignore them, as I do with the PC icons.

[DragonKingReborn]

Well, this is getting tense.

I was under the impression that Auditory agnosia - the inability to recognise tone - was the result of damage to the brain, like memory loss, or meaning one word and saying another.

If you're saying that tone is irrelevant, then it would seem that is perception based on experience. Understanding of tone would come from context. If you've never encountered a tone before, you'd have no way of knowing what it meant.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Certainly. But that's no more than saying that any scientific position is unsupportable without the implicit assumption about the predictability of its subject matter. 

Of course.  But that's an important aspect of science, and one of which people should always be aware.

 

Furthermore, since we're playing a game, not conducting scientific investigations, we don't need to use those assumptions if they diminish our gameplay experience.

This hasn't occurred to me other times we've discussed this, but are you suggesting that the mere fact that something is contrary to your personal experience is a good enough reason to reject a proposition that has a great deal of objective evidence behind it?

I'm a falsificationist.  If I have credible data that falsifies your proposition, that suggests you've misinterpreted your evidence.

Well, that's wrong. You could say: "Why are you speaking with a German accent"? That would certainly cause me to think I said the line differently, since I do not think I have a German accent.

That's not how I would react.  I would run through all the reasons I could think of why you might have said such a thing.  You could heave heard a German accent, but you might also not know what a German accent sounds like.  You could be making an obscure pop culture reference of which I'm not aware.  I would probably just not respond (or nod absently) and hope for clarification.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Could just be differences in how we experience the world.  Brains just perceiving things differently maybe?

That's a big part of my point.  We don't all think the same way.  We don't all react the same way.  So assuming that we know how some specific person will think or react is folly.

[Allan Schumacher]

And despite out experiences being different, I agree with Sylvius that we not go around suggesting that any one is disabled (a pejorative sounding term) when it is just a difference.

[Remmirath]

The purpose of a dialogue system is to choose what your character is saying. That, I believe, we can all agree on. Therefore, the system which best allows you to do so is the best system. Further, at least in the case of a roleplaying game, the dialogue system must allow you to choose what option is best for your character.

I find seeing the entire line of dialogue to be far superior to a paraphrase, even a paraphrase with icon, for that purpose. I am not good at guessing that the paraphrase is going to turn into, perhaps because I tend to take things at their face value, and that doesn't work for the paraphrases. The icons helped a little bit in DA II as opposed to the Mass Effect games, as at least there was some knowledge of intent, but it still very often wound up with me picking dialogue options I wouldn't have picked if I'd known what it was going to turn into. In effect, at least for me, one is picking based only on the icons because the paraphrases give you no information as to what the character will actually say. Many times it was out of character enough I had to reload. There were many more times that I didn't reload and instead tried to pretend that part of that line just wasn't said, because I hadn't saved recently enough or because there was only a small portion of the line that didn't work. It made me dread having to pick important responses, however, since there was always the chance that they would turn out to be not at all what I thought they would be.

That is why I prefer seeing only the lists of options, and not having them voiced. I will never argue that tone is unimportant. On the contrary, it is extremely important. I spend a fair amount of my time explaining just how important it is, as a director, and making use of that as an actor (and roleplayer, of course). Because it is that important, I prefer to imagine the tone rather than have it chosen for me. I would much rather run the risk of having imagined a tone that the people writing the dialogue didn't to the voice actor reading the line of dialogue in a tone completely inappropriate for my character. The first can be explained away much more readily than the second. People often misunderstand each other, after all; a sarcastic comment can be taken seriously, or a serious comment can be taken as a joke.

In the end, the dialogue system is there to support roleplaying. If it's not doing that, I don't consider it to be working properly to fulfill its function. If I can't figure out what my character is going to say ahead of time, it's rather hard to pick the most in-character response.

The thing with having no voice actor for the PC -- aside from not having to deal with not being able to choose what the character sounds like, which is a problem, but a separate one -- is that you can choose the way they are meaning the line every time, because you don't have it chosen for you by the voice actor. Yes, the response you get from the NPC may differ from what you are expecting, but that happens rather commonly in actual conversation. Trying to say one thing and something entirely different coming out of your mouth doesn't.

Now, if we ever get to the point where you can choose tone (and pitch and vocal quality, ideally) with the voiced PC, that would be awesome. I'm not against having it on principle; I'm against things which hamper and restrict roleplaying, which it currently does. The paraphrasing would remain a problem even if that was the case. Even showing the beginning of the actual line would be a great improvement.

I'm under no illusion that we'll see a return to a voiceless list as the dialogue system, but that is nevertheless my preferred system. I'd love for it to be one option, but again, I'm under no illusion that will happen. Just being able to somehow see exactly what the character will say would help immensely, and even seeing only a small portion of the actual line would be an improvement. Honestly, even "Say something consoling" or "Say something vindictive" would be an improvement for me.

Could just be differences in how we experience the world. Brains just perceiving things differently maybe?

I'm sure that's part of it, a large part even. However, I would say that there is a very direct connection between the perceived tone of a spoken line and the reactions it triggers in others, but sometimes no connection between the intended or actual tone and the perceived tone.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm sure that's part of it, a large part even. However, I would say that there is a very direct connection between the perceived tone of a spoken line and the reactions it triggers in others, but sometimes no connection between the intended or actual tone and the perceived tone.

That may be. But the ability to course correct in the event of a misunderstanding is borderline impossible to do. In a video game I can only say what the designers allow me to say.

When I see full lines of text I see zero lines that are what I want to say. So if I say something that I think is sassy to a companion and that companion gets crazy offended and leaves my party I get confused as a gane player.

There is rarely an opportunity for me to express an apology and rectify a misunderstanding. And in video games that can often lead to results I wouldn't expect such as an actual fight to the death.

[Ieldra]

I think  people are missing Sylvius' point here: of couse there is a connection between the (perceived) tone of an utterance and the response. However, that fact can't be used to predict the response with any reliability unless you know the person well, and even then it doesn't always work. A specific tone only cuts down on the plausibility of specific ways to respond, it never gives a positive indication of what the actual response may be. I don't know why that's considered important in this debate - I may have missed the explanation - but those are the facts. 

[Ieldra]

When I see full lines of text I see zero lines that are what I want to say. So if I say something that I think is sassy to a companion and that companion gets crazy offended and leaves my party I get confused as a gane player.

So, is it better to not realize the fact that there are zero lines you would want to say, be surprised and annoyed by a line that doesn't fit *after* you select the option, reload in order to see if there is something better, and be hugely annoyed when realizing there isn't?

 

I think it's very much preferrable that all the cards are on the table when you make the choice.

[AlanC9]

I don't accept your value judgment.  It is a difference, not a disability.

 

I wasn't expressing a value judgment. Sorry for being offensive .

 

What's the difference between a difference and a disability, anyway? Depending on what diagnostic test you use I'm either just inept at recognizing faces or outright prosopagnosic. Meaning that what you can't do with tones, I can't do with faces. I actually do tolerably well on the Cambridge, though failing to recognize Barack Obama and Stephen Colbert, among many others, was a bit shocking. But on unknown faces I'm abominable - fifth-percentile or so. How bad does it have to be to be a disability? Or is the term so squishy that it should never be used?

[In Exile]

Of course.  But that's an important aspect of science, and one of which people should always be aware. Furthermore, since we're playing a game, not conducting scientific investigations, we don't need to use those assumptions if they diminish our gameplay experience. I'm a falsificationist.  If I have credible data that falsifies your proposition, that suggests you've misinterpreted your evidence.

 

The game purports to simulate, as closely as possible, real human interactions. That's as much a part of the setting as the basic assumption of causality. You can certainly close- your mind to the possibility that the game-world responses to any rules that purported to say that effects follow from causes, but that doesn't mean that the game-world responds to cause-effect.

 

In terms of the falsification, two problems: (i) falsification is on pretty shaky ground, logically (because it presupposes you can isolate hypotheses from assumptions, which is false); so (ii) the actual data has an embedded problem of perception. Our subjective experiences can't count as evidence alone. There needs to be something more to the methodology. And when we measure how people react to speech, we can tease out their reaction to tone. Moreover, language (and writing, particularly in novels) reflects a structure that privileges presentation and content. All of this suggesting that the how matters.

 

 

That's not how I would react.  I would run through all the reasons I could think of why you might have said such a thing.  You could heave heard a German accent, but you might also not know what a German accent sounds like.  You could be making an obscure pop culture reference of which I'm not aware.  I would probably just not respond (or nod absently) and hope for clarification.

 

Firstly, when you said "'I'm claiming that there is no reaction I could have which would cause you to think that you'd said the line differently" I thought you were using the general "you" (in the sense that we couldn't imagine any reaction that would lead me, the speaker, to think I'd said the line differently). So I acknowledge that it wouldn't really be your reaction, and it wasn't my intent to suggest it. 

 

Secondly, your non-response would absolutely make me thing I failed say what I wanted. In the original example, if I made a really cheerful greeting and you didn't react (or reacted absently), I'd think you didn't get my meaning (or weren't paying attention). The intended outcome of the line wouldn't have it's effect, so that would tell me there's a mismatch and I need to try something else to get the effect I was attempting to get. 

 

The key thing to appreciate is that, again, it doesn't matter to me whether you actually perceive my meaning as I internally perceive it. That what is sarcasm to me is cheerfulness to you is irrelevant if - for all possible observable and practical purposes - you respond to my sarcasm as I predict and expect. It's a purely instrumental theory. To use a science analogy (which Bas Van Frassen likes quite a bit) even if all our theories about science are completely wrong, it doesn't change the fact we build very good ipods. 

[In Exile]

I think  people are missing Sylvius' point here: of couse there is a connection between the (perceived) tone of an utterance and the response. However, that fact can't be used to predict the response with any reliability unless you know the person well, and even then it doesn't always work. A specific tone only cuts down on the plausibility of specific ways to respond, it never gives a positive indication of what the actual response may be. I don't know why that's considered important in this debate - I may have missed the explanation - but those are the facts. 

The bold is plainly wrong. The whole point of a shared culture is that we can do this, because we all internalize similar reactions to cues, stimiuli, etc. You're confusing "reliably" with "perfectly". 

 

As to why this matters, because it's all about what the point of dialogue is supposed to be. If I'm using dialogue to do things in the world, instead of as my opportunity to monologue at an audience, then whether or not the dialogue option I pick attempts to do what I want matters. 

 

It's the exact same issue as the paraphrase. You want your character to say [X]. If he says [Y], that's a problem. I want my character to say [X] in manner [G]. If I don't have any information on how manner [G] comes up, and if the NPC acts totally inconsistent with the message being delivered in manner [G], then I have a problem, because absent actual information about the tone I can't know whether the disconnect breaks my character - because actually manner [G] doesn't exist and isn't supported in-game - or because the character just doesn't react well to manner [G].

 

Let's make this concrete. Alistair actually likes it when you reply sarcastically to his lines. It nets you approval. But if you pick a line you think is sarcastic and the actual delivery is straight, and Alistair disapproves, you might think that what Alistair does is dislike sarcasm. 

 

Of course, this problem can come up IRL. But IRL you can hear yourself say the line. So you know whether you tried to say it sarcastically. In game, you have no idea. 

[In Exile]

That is why I prefer seeing only the lists of options, and not having them voiced. I will never argue that tone is unimportant. On the contrary, it is extremely important. I spend a fair amount of my time explaining just how important it is, as a director, and making use of that as an actor (and roleplayer, of course). Because it is that important, I prefer to imagine the tone rather than have it chosen for me. I would much rather run the risk of having imagined a tone that the people writing the dialogue didn't to the voice actor reading the line of dialogue in a tone completely inappropriate for my character. The first can be explained away much more readily than the second. People often misunderstand each other, after all; a sarcastic comment can be taken seriously, or a serious comment can be taken as a joke.

 

The first can't explained away at all. Because if there is a misunderstanding in the real world we act to correct it. If I try to joke with my boss, and his reaction is "You SOB! How could you even say that to me!" my reaction will be to apologize. But in an RPG there's no option, as Allan says, to apologize. 

 

This creates two problems: (i) you can't ever correct misunderstandings, so if this would be an in-character move if your PC thought he was misunderstood, the game just broke your character; and (ii) you're always stuck with consequences of the line as the game intended it to be delivered, regardless of what made-up fantasy tone you have in your head. 

 

If "imagining" is so great, then why have dialogue at all? We could just have one-word options for what the consequence will be, and you can imagine an almost infinite number of ways your character could say something. Just put it [Negotiate] and then the NPC can just react to that general proposition with you being able to imagine tone and content. 

 

In the end, the dialogue system is there to support roleplaying. If it's not doing that, I don't consider it to be working properly to fulfill its function. If I can't figure out what my character is going to say ahead of time, it's rather hard to pick the most in-character response. The thing with having no voice actor for the PC -- aside from not having to deal with not being able to choose what the character sounds like, which is a problem, but a separate one -- is that you can choose the way they are meaning the line every time, because you don't have it chosen for you by the voice actor. Yes, the response you get from the NPC may differ from what you are expecting, but that happens rather commonly in actual conversation. Trying to say one thing and something entirely different coming out of your mouth doesn't.

 

Except for the fact that the writers have already chosen that how the line is meant to be delivered. It's right there, hard-coded into the words. Except it's hidden from you. It's no different from the Alpha Protocol style dialogue system. 

 

Like I said: if imagining is so wonderful, we could just have tone indicators and then you could imagine the literal content of the line. Except, of course, that's totally unsatisfying because it removes 50% of the conversation. 

[Ieldra]

@In Exile:

I maintain my statement (the part you bolded) is true. You can cut down on expectations by using a certain tone, and of course you indicate intent, but you will not be able to say with any reliability how the other reacts. Perhaps he finds sarcasm inappropriate to the situation, perhaps you stumbled on a personal pet peeve. You can't know.

 

BTW, I'm not arguing against tone indicators, I just aim to clarify the matter. I never needed a tone indicator in my games, but having them won't adversely affect my ability to navigate conversations so I'm ok with them. As opposed to paraphrasing.

[AlanC9]

So, is it better to not realize the fact that there are zero lines you would want to say, be surprised and annoyed by a line that doesn't fit *after* you select the option, reload in order to see if there is something better, and be hugely annoyed when realizing there isn't?

 

Do you actually do that? It wouldn't occur to me to reload, but given my batting average this wouldn't be a sensible strategy for me. (Note that the one DA2 line I did have trouble with  -- when confronted while exiting the cave during the A New Path quest -- the lines my Hawkes spoke were exactly what I expected them to be; the problem is that the "responsibility" line, which I had no intention of picking, turned out to be better than I thought it was.)

[AlanC9]

@In Exile:

I maintain my statement (the part you bolded) is true. You can cut down on expectations by using a certain tone, and of course you indicate intent, but you will not be able to say with any reliability how the other reacts. Perhaps he finds sarcasm inappropriate to the situation, perhaps you stumbled on a personal pet peeve. You can't know..

 

What's the standard for "with any reliability" there? Do you two really differ on the percentages?

[Lucy Glitter]

I've had so many moments in DA2 where I choose a dialogue option which had an entirely different tone or reply to what I thought it would be. To me, that doesn't surprise me in a positive manner. It just puts me off. 

 

Not to me. Lists still work just fine. You can even use brackets with words to tonally mark them. 

But that said, at the end of the day, my core problem isn't with a wheel vs. list. The UI debate is secondary, what is more important in a CRPG is the options that are presented (or not) to the player, not how they are presented, and also the quality of the writing.

But you can best judge the quality of the writing by SEEING it, not listening to it. 



If you read my posts, you will note I feel exactly the opposite. 

There is nothing cool about it. I think it sucks. What's interesting about not-knowing what my character is about to say or do? Heck, let's just roll the dice, and have a random action-reaction? 

I get why it's necessary in this type of UI, but I don't have to like it.

Good news: there will be tooltips for those of us who like to read what we're about to say, and they can be avoided by those like you who prefer not to. Win/win.

I'm glad you have nothing against books, I want the one genre of gaming with aspirations to being like literature not surrendering its uniqueness. 

 

This is exactly what I have against the dialogue wheel/paraphrase system. 

 

Whereas, I  always knew, because I got to decide myself.  Because the game didn't tell me, I could intend the line however I wanted.

As such, I vastly preferred DAO's approach.

 

And this.

 

We won't be getting the origins Origins dialogue system back, which really disappoints me. I dislike sagas that overhaul their own system in between games. It's inconsistent. I think, personally, it was to draw more gamers in that might not gravitate towards RPGs. ME did it and succeeded with it. That's a fabulous thing. It did have negative implications to quality, to me. It's very much a thing that fans either love or hate. 

 

I just wanted to put this in here, from wikipedia:

 

In June 2011, in an interview with GameRant.com, EA Games Label President Frank Gibeau acknowledged the fans' disappointment over the direction Dragon Age II took, and proclaimed: "As we think about where we take the franchise next, we're going to take that into consideration and really engage them”.

 

 

I really hope they do.

[Ieldra]

The purpose of a dialogue system is to choose what your character is saying. That, I believe, we can all agree on. Therefore, the system which best allows you to do so is the best system. Further, at least in the case of a roleplaying game, the dialogue system must allow you to choose what option is best for your character.

I increasingly have the impression that the developers have lost perspective of this fundamental purpose, since the paraphrasing system is so damaging to your ability to make an informed decision about what your character will say. The thing is, this is *intrinsically* damaging to your roleplaying ability, it isn't just a small side effect that could be rectified with some adjustments. I'm been asking myself what the developers could've possibly wanted to achieve with this and I've never come up with a satisfactory answer. I have yet to see a convincing account of *any* benefit of paraphrasing. If I could see the benefits, I might be able to appreciate the decision even if I didn't agree with it. But see only disadvantages and no benefits at all.

[Ieldra]

[I said]So, is it better to not realize the fact that there are zero lines you would want to say, be surprised and annoyed by a line that doesn't fit *after* you select the option, reload in order to see if there is something better, and be hugely annoyed when realizing there isn't?

Do you actually do that? It wouldn't occur to me to reload, but given my batting average this wouldn't be a sensible strategy for me. (Note that the one DA2 line I did have trouble with  -- when confronted while exiting the cave during the A New Path quest -- the lines my Hawkes spoke were exactly what I expected them to be; the problem is that the "responsibility" line, which I had no intention of picking, turned out to be better than I thought it was.)

Yes, I actually do that. Not always, but if the responses appear particularly out of character to me. I recall one particular instance in ME3 (I mentioned this in my mission-by-mission review, see link in my sig) when I reloaded a five-minute sequence with three choices on the wheel several times because the paraphrases were always misleading. In the end, there was a way to navigate this conversation so that my character came across exactly in the way I wanted, but it took forever to find it because of the paraphrasing. So, paraphrasing damages my abiliy to roleplay even if 100% satisfactory options exist.

And one more thing: since the spoken lines are rarely 100% what we would want, it is all the more important to be able to select the reponses which clash least with what we want our characters to be. Paraphrases are completely insufficient for decisions made on that level.

It has come to the point where I actually dread conversations because I'm always thinking about how out of character the next one will force me to be - unless I reload and break up the flow of the story.

[AlanC9]

I increasingly have the impression that the developers have lost perspective of this fundamental purpose, since the paraphrasing system is so damaging to your ability to make an informed decision about what your character will say. The thing is, this is *intrinsically* damaging to your roleplaying ability, it isn't just a small side effect that could be rectified with some adjustments. I'm been asking myself what the developers could've possibly wanted to achieve with this and I've never come up with a satisfactory answer. I have yet to see a convincing account of *any* benefit of paraphrasing. If I could see the benefits, I might be able to appreciate the decision even if I didn't agree with it. But see only disadvantages and no benefits at all.

 

Well, I can tell you why I like it better. I'm not sure it'll be "convincing" since this is all subjective.

 

I don't like particularly like interacting with any dialogue interface. The paraphrase/icon system gets me out faster than full text does.

 

Reading the full line is repetitive. I've heard the line once in my head, and now I'll hear it again. Yay.

 

Of course, these are trivial gains. Really trivial. But for me the costs for the paraphrase system are even more trivial. Maybe one bad choice per game (overstating since there might be some bad choices I don't know I've made.) I'll take it.

 

Edit: obviously, this leaves the door wide-open for an efficiency argument, since my costs from doing it your way would be quite low.

[AlanC9]

I recall one particular instance in ME3 (I mentioned this in my mission-by-mission review, see link in my sig) when I reloaded a five-minute sequence with three choices on the wheel several times because the paraphrases were always misleading.

Which ME3 sequence am I looking for?
 

And one more thing: since the spoken lines are rarely 100% what we would want, it is all the more important to be able to select the reponses which clash least with what we want our characters to be. Paraphrases are completely insufficient for decisions made on that level.

Again, I haven't found them insufficient.

I'm starting to think that what this thread really needs are specifics on exactly how and when the paraphrases are insufficient.