406 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

The cost does not lie in the bad choices alone. It primarily lies in the intrinsic unpredictability of the system. I have a secondary layer between my choice and its actual content and must rely on the writers' ability to correctly gauge my associations with a particular paraphrase. This unpredictability (of literal content, not necessarily of tone) is intrinsically absent if you can read the full line before selecting it.

If all you care about it getting through the dialogue fast with mostly reasonable options, and only define your character's mindset in a most general way, I guess it's acceptable. Not enough for me though. Not nearly enough.

[Ieldra]

Which ME3 sequence am I looking for?

Liara and Samantha visiting you in your cabin after the first Citadel visit and the first dream. I'll have to replay if you want specifics. I'll try to post them later this day...

...Ah, I recall things:

First node: Liara asks "Are you OK", and the upper option is "I've been better". What Shepard actually says is something like "Just remembering the fallen." A typical example of the actual line being extremely out of character for my Shepard, and the paraphrase appearing as a perfectly reasonable in-character response while giving absolutely no information about what will be said. If the writers had wanted to be deliberately deceptive, they could hardly have done better. That I must choose the lower option to avoid being out of character, I can't know in advance.

Second node: The following decision in Samantha's exchange was somewhat Ok, but the paraphrase of the lower option appeared more authoritarian than the scene would play out, so I avoided what would have been a much better "professional" reaction in my first run of this scene because the paraphrase didn't hit the mark.

Third node: Hackett's communication. I did, in fact, "understand their concerns" so I didn't choose "they're useless" as the paraphrase said. Also the lower option appeared stupid, but after being vaguely disappoiinted with the lines I got from the uppter option, I reloaded and tried the lower one, and its lines and its decisiveness was much more in-character as a reaction to the events.

[Ieldra]

I'd like to add that Samantha's dialogue node I mentioned above is a perfect example of the *intrinsic* problem with paraphrasing, i.e. one that can't be solved by careful adjustment. The paraphrase of the lower option is a military expression, I think it was "Report, Officer!". How this comes across to you is immensely dependent on your cultural socialization. It can be anything between "appropriately professional" and "annoyingly authoritarian" (or even "appropriately authoritarian" if you're of that mindset). Even a tone indicator wouldn't help since both interpretations would be "direct". Also, the context influences the possible interpretations. Shepard's team is somewhat like family, you'd usually expect a looser standard of behaviour, which makes me associate the paraphrase more strongly with "annoyingly authoritarian" than I would in different circumstances. To solve this, we would need unambiguous paraphrases with little or no chance of being affected by associations created through cultural socialization. I maintain that such paraphrases, if they need to be significantly shorter than the spoken line, don't exist in conversations about topics beyond a certain minimum complexity. In other words: it is impossible to paraphrase unambiguously in anything non-trivial.

I ask again: what benefit can be so great to be worth infusing so much unavoidable ambiguity and uncertainty into something as simple as the player selecting an appropriate dialogue line?

[Thomas Andresen]

I ask again: what benefit can be so great to be worth infusing so much unavoidable ambiguity and uncertainty into something as simple as the player selecting an appropriate dialogue line?

Ambiguity is unavoidable even without paraphrasing. While I did have moments of "wow, that's not the line I expected" in DA2 and the ME games, I roughly an equal amount of situations in DAO where the reactions from the NPCs indicated that the intention of the line I selected wasn't what I intended or thought it to be.

With the paraphrasing system, I feel more often that I understand the intended meaning, even if the words surprise me. And in games as story-driven as BioWare's are, the original (writers') intention of the player character's lines supersedes the player's imposed intention, because it's the former that the NPCs will react to.

[CybAnt1]

Which ME3 sequence am I looking for?
 

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.

 

We could do that, Alan. Of course, there is a problem, as I keep saying, as the mind is very bad at re-reproducing listened-to dialogue. We would have to be listening to the scene, and transcribing the subtitles, so we could discuss them here. It might be something I would do if convincing you felt that important, but I have to confess, it isn't. 

 

I also could demand from you to produce literature showing that research subjects listening to 3-5 word paraphrases felt they accurately summarized and characterized 3-5 line dialogues that followed. (And we would have to quibble about what we meant by "accurately".) Are you ready? Do a literature review. My preliminary investigation of this suggests the data may not be on your side, especially if, by the way, you make a conscious choice that the paraphrase contain no words found in the later dialogue. 

 

Subjective experiences are real to the persons having them. Perhaps you need to study a bit of phenomenology, like I suggested. The fact that there are people with arachnophobia who have a visceral reaction to spiders is something I accept, even though I have never experienced it. You saying, "Well, I have never felt terror in the presence of a spider," does not nullify the existence of arachnophobia. I do not disbelieve arachnophobes, just because I do not have their subjective experiences.

 

I am not lying to you when I say I felt a disconnect between the paraphrases and what Hawke said. Now the interesting thing is, I think you and inExile are making a different point. Would I concur that the paraphrase/tone-icon combo and Hawke statement/actions were always 180 degrees apart? No, at worst, they were 90 degrees, and often usually in the 30-45 degree range. Oh, and of course, yes, there were moments where they fit perfectly. That was also true. You have a right to disbelieve me and say you never had the same experience, but that does not mean I did not have it.

 

To me this along the lines of someone saying they are experiencing severe back pain, and you saying "prove it". At the end of the day, there are a number of strategies I employ to persuade. One is not lying about what I have actually experienced. Of course, there is no way to prove to you I am not, but I can only again tell you I'm not. Now here's the interesting point: I will agree with you and IE that we might be having different experiences because we have different expectations of what dialogue is supposed to do in RPGs, but then, that comes with being different people. 

[CybAnt1]

Ambiguity is unavoidable even without paraphrasing. While I did have moments of "wow, that's not the line I expected" in DA2 and the ME games, I roughly an equal amount of situations in DAO where the reactions from the NPCs indicated that the intention of the line I selected wasn't what I intended or thought it to be.

With the paraphrasing system, I feel more often that I understand the intended meaning, even if the words surprise me. And in games as story-driven as BioWare's are, the original (writers') intention of the player character's lines supersedes the player's imposed intention, because it's the former that the NPCs will react to.

 

Of course, and so while I agree the writers are now writing both the paraphrase and the spoken line, the question is whether they are writing paraphrases in a sufficient way to signal what will BE the intent carried by the spoken line.

 

Why is everyone unwilling to accept that there are actually existing game players that felt the connection there was - at times, not always - insufficient? 

[In Exile]

 

@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.

 

I can't "know" anything, if by "know" you mean actually be certain that it is true. But I can have a very reasonable basis to believe things that is quite often right and not often right enough that it allows me to achieve things in the world. And it can certainly be a reliable indicator.

It's possible to size someone up in seconds after meeting them. In fact, our basic social cognitive processes are designed to do exactly that. Prediction people's behaviour - and in fact predicting their actions with some degree of reliability - pretty basic to our function. 

 

 

I am not lying to you when I say I felt a disconnect between the paraphrases and what Hawke said. Now the interesting thing is, I think you and inExile are making a different point. Would I concur that the paraphrase/tone-icon combo and Hawke statement/actions were always 180 degrees apart? No, at worst, they were 90 degrees, and often usually in the 30-45 degree range. Oh, and of course, yes, there were moments where they fit perfectly. That was also true. You have a right to disbelieve me and say you never had the same experience, but that does not mean I did not have it.

 

Keep in mind, I don't really think the paraphrases are all that great. I don't have trouble with them very often because I don't really care about having that much specificity between the "what" of the paraphrase and the "what" of the dialogue because I don't view the paraphrase as "picking the line" as much as "picking the thought". So my reaction is a bit of a different thing altogether. 

 

 

Why is everyone unwilling to accept that there are actually existing game players that felt the connection there was - at times, not always - insufficient? 

 

I don't think that's what the poster was denying. The statements "[a]mbiguity is unavoidable even without paraphrasing. While I did have moments of "wow, that's not the line I expected" in DA2 and the ME games, I roughly an equal amount of situations in DAO..." don't suggest that the paraphrase is accurate, but  rather that neither the paraphrase nor the silent PC full line are better, just equally bad for different reasons. 

 

Saying "the paraphrase doesn't show the full line" is true and we can all agree with that, but going from that to "showing the full line would make choosing dialogue less ambiguous" is where you have all of the debates crop up. Because the former being true doesn't mean that the latter follows. 

 

Putting  it another way, the fact that myself or AlanC9 are good at picking out the paraphrase (or feel we're good so we're OK with it) doesn't mean the paraphrase is objectively accurate (as you put it). But by that same logic, the fact that you or Ieldra or Sylvius are good at picking the full line (or feel or good and live with the consequences) doesn't mean the full line w/o VO is objectively accurate either.  

[CybAnt1]

 

 

 

I can't "know" anything, if by "know" you mean actually be certain that it is true. But I can have a very reasonable basis to believe things that is quite often right and not often right enough that it allows me to achieve things in the world. And it can certainly be a reliable indicator.

It's possible to size someone up in seconds after meeting them. In fact, our basic social cognitive processes are designed to do exactly that. Prediction people's behaviour - and in fact predicting their actions with some degree of reliability - pretty basic to our function. 

 

 

 

Keep in mind, I don't really think the paraphrases are all that great. I don't have trouble with them very often because I don't really care about having that much specificity between the "what" of the paraphrase and the "what" of the dialogue because I don't view the paraphrase as "picking the line" as much as "picking the thought". 

 

 

That may be another philosophical issue -- for me, I don't understand that distinction. Language and thought are deeply intertwined.

 

Of course, that is because I am quite familiar with the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis/principle of linguistic relativity. 

 

Picking the line for me IS picking the thought, or at least the thought translated into the vocal apparatus for expression.

 

Or typing fingers, as the case may be.

 

Let me put it to you in this way, IE. You ask someone "what are you thinking?". 

 

Which gives you a better, deeper, richer answer? One with more words, or one with less? We will assume in both cases it is expressed with tone.

 

So let's try this. You just asked me that. Here are my responses.

 

"The dialogue system in DA 2 sucks" (the paraphrase)

"The more I think about it, the dialogue system in DA 2 had some problems with linking the contents of the paraphrase with the generation of the spoken line. I sure wish this is something they would work on for DAI" (the longer answer)

 

How well did the paraphrase encapsulate the longer line? And did you understand me better when I used the longer line? 

 

BTW, the interesting thing that I will concur with is that the longer line in that case was better enabling you to understand me. As the NPC is a bunch of digital bits and pre-scripted branching dialogue generated from a database, comprehension will always occur, at whatever level it is supposed to. 

 

But since we're now in an RPG, what I would say the longer line is doing for me (the player, playing the character) is helping me understand what the character is about to communicate to the NPC. And this does seem to be an issue that people are raising for tonal markers, that the presence of the tonal marker is for the player to understand what their character is about to be doing. Fine. I get that. 

 

But so, you cannot simultaneously argue you want the tone marker there to understand what the character is about to do, and then say it doesn't matter how well the player understands what the character is about to do. We all agree on that point.

 

What we don't appear to agree on is why some of us think, and I do find it odd in a discussion that is involving a heck of a lot of words, why for some of us seeing the words, or at least a clue to the words, that is stronger to the words that will follow if not an exact full-length pre-presentation of them, doesn't help as well? If not more?

[In Exile]

That may be another philosophical issue -- for me, I don't understand that distinction. Language and thought are deeply intertwined. Of course, that is because I am quite familiar with the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis/principle of linguistic relativity. 

 

Aside, but Saphir-Worf is now a discredited theory. In terms of the distinction, the answer is simple: how I think and what I say are two totally different things. I don't think in complete sentences. I speak in complete sentences. There's a big difference. 

 

 

Let me put it to you in this way, IE. You ask someone "what are you thinking?". 

 

Which gives you a better, deeper, richer answer? One with more words, or one with less? We will assume in both cases it is expressed with tone.

 

This analogy doesn't work, because we're not talking about the same thing. When I'm talking about choosing dialogue as choosing thoughts, I'm talking about the "being inside the head of the PC" situation. It's not about what another person - wholly separate from me - is doing. Because the PC isn't another person, wholly separate from me. 

 

To answer your question directly, though, a pithy answer is sometimes far better than a detailed one. Of course an open ended question invites a detailed answer, but that doesn't necessarily mean a "better" answer is also a "deeper" or "richer" answer.

 

But since we're now in an RPG, what I would say the longer line is doing for me (the player, playing the character) is helping me understand what the character is about to communicate to the NPC. And this does seem to be an issue that people are raising for tonal markers, that the presence of the tonal marker is for the player to understand what their character is about to be doing. Fine. I get that. 

 

I guess this is the disconnect: in an RPG I almost never (if not basically never) get a choice between any options that would even come close to what my PC would actually say. So the paraphrase is not "more wrong" than the dialogue line. 

 

 

But so, you cannot simultaneously argue you want the tone marker there to understand what the character is about to do, and then say it doesn't matter how well the player understands what the character is about to do. We all agree on that point.

 

Yeah, totally. I absolutely agree we need to know what the PC is communicating. And that knowing both the how and the what matters. 

 

What we don't appear to agree on is why some of us think, and I do find it odd in a discussion that is involving a heck of a lot of words, why for some of us seeing the words, or at least a clue to the words, that is stronger to the words that will follow if not an exact full-length pre-presentation of them, doesn't help as well? If not more?

 

It's not that I don't think it helps. It's just that I don't think it helps more than seeing the tone. I see them as equivalent things. And for me subjectively, I don't care about the difference because the dialogue never corresponds to what I want to say. So asking me to pick a barely formed thought that kind of corresponds to the end result - which feels a lot like how talking actually works for me IRL -  and asking me to pick between 3 full lines none of which match up with my character is the same thing. 

[CronoDragoon]

"The dialogue system in DA 2 sucks" (the paraphrase)

"The more I think about it, the dialogue system in DA 2 had some problems with linking the contents of the paraphrase with the generation of the spoken line. I sure wish this is something they would work on for DAI" (the longer answer)

 

How well did the paraphrase encapsulate the longer line? And did you understand me better when I used the longer line? 

 

It seems to me you just did a bad job paraphrasing your longer line, since they don't even contain the same tone or general idea. Everyone agrees poor translation to paraphrases are bad. "The dialogue system in DA2 needs work" is my quick, five-second fix to this. The problem it brings up is that you aren't sure what your player is going to say needed work, but this is less of an issue in the context of a conversation. For example, if In Exile had just said something to the effect "Do you think DA2's paraphrases accurately represented the lines spoken?" then the paraphrase makes perfect sense within the context of the situation, and you can reasonably expect that your spoken line will talk about how you think the translation to paraphase was what needed work.

 

But so, you cannot simultaneously argue you want the tone marker there to understand what the character is about to do, and then say it doesn't matter how well the player understands what the character is about to do. We all agree on that point.

 

The argument, it seems to me, is that there is a middle ground between knowing exactly what the character will say and not having any idea that tonal markers and paraphrases combine to represent. This enhances the experience for those who want to guide the conversation but still be entertained by the dialogue lines themselves.

 

With all that being said, I do think it's a shame that BW has decided not to include full dialogue lines on hover, say with a 3 second delay. I have no idea how difficult that would be to program, but it would seem to satisfy both camps, as those like me who would prefer not to know exactly what my character is going to say can easily avoid it.

[Thandal N'Lyman]

Having just now read through (almost) this entire thread from the beginning, (and as a fan of the "Silent Protagonist with Full Disclosure of Available Lines") I think the 20-pages-and-counting of discussion come down to:  "Chaqu'un à son goût".

 

Unless the developers were to build two completely independent UIs, (which isn't going to happen) they have to choose one or the other.  Either choice will please some, and disappoint others.  Neither is inherently "better", as measured against some objective standard.  Which one is "better" depends on one's subjective preferences.

 

Some folk here seem determined to explain (and explain, and explain...) why the advatages of their preferred approach outweigh its disadvantages, or to dismiss its disadvantages altogether, or to focus on the "other" method's disadvantages while admitting to none of its benefits.

 

But all (yes, ALL) of that is pretty much beside the point.  BioWare have choosen and are now implementing their approach.  It remains to be seen how effective/enjoyable it is in-game, which is the only place it matters.  Then we can discuss the result, (not the theoretics) of that implementation as input for The Next Thing™! 

[David Gaider]

Saying "the paraphrase doesn't show the full line" is true and we can all agree with that, but going from that to "showing the full line would make choosing dialogue less ambiguous" is where you have all of the debates crop up. Because the former being true doesn't mean that the latter follows. 

 

I'll just pipe in and say that this essentially sums it up, insofar as the team is concerned.

 

With any dialogue interface, there's going to be a certain percentage of lines which are going to be misinterpreted. This is only not true if the line chosen is the entirety of the interaction—meaning it's text only, and no VO. Now, I know some people will respond with "then don't do player VO", but we are doing it. There are benefits for doing it, just as there are drawbacks, and we like the benefits better, so it's not even a question at this point. Having VO, however, means that we write the lines differently—more of the meaning is conveyed by the acting, both vocally and by action, so the words alone are not always going to convey the intent. Thus you would still have a certain % of lines which would be misinterpreted, even if you saw the full line...they would simply occur in different places.

 

It's not the magic bullet some people seem to think it is, despite them being able to imagine scenarios where this would solve their perceived issue. If they think that's presumptuous of me to say on their behalf, I will amend that to say that we don't feel it's a magic bullet. We looked into the possibility of showing the full line, even as an option, and found it didn't solve what people seem to think it solves...or, rather, it does in some cases and causes brand new issues in others, including inherent issues with the physical interface and the less quantifiable issue of hearing entire lines parroted back which you've already read.

 

Like I said earlier, we're fine with putting DAI out there and letting people provide feedback on that rather than solely what we did in DA2. We do know, however, that there are some people for whom this will never quite work. It's unfortunate, but we are not and never will make a dialogue system for which the #1 priority is "works for every type of roleplayer". It won't happen, and likely can't happen, so instead we must pick the path that works for us and proceed...and that's what we've done for DAI. The debate, insofar as that game goes, is long over.

 

EDIT: Although I should have just linked to the last time I addressed the topic, like I said I would. Ah, well.

[CybAnt1]

Aside, but Saphir-Worf is now a discredited theory. 

 

No, it's not. Steven Pinker has written some cogent criticisms of why the strong version of it may be incorrect. 

 

That said, there is empirical evidence for the weak version, which discussing here would take a very long time and as you say, really be off-topic. 

 

Incidentally, as it was formulated by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, you ought to write it correctly. 

 

Let me put it this way, though, even Pinker would not agree with your point that thought and language in human beings have no relationship. 

 

BTW, as an aside, since it really can't advance the conversation from a scientific point of view, but I think is an interesting phenomenological anecdote, since we're both giving subjective, anecdotal accounts, I think in sentences. Or at least, my thought to me seems like sentences. 

[CybAnt1]

With all that being said, I do think it's a shame that BW has decided not to include full dialogue lines on hover, say with a 3 second delay. I have no idea how difficult that would be to program, but it would seem to satisfy both camps, as those like me who would prefer not to know exactly what my character is going to say can easily avoid it.

 

That is the "DX:HR solution" Ieldra proposed a while ago (more or less), and is the one I re-proposed in this thread. 

 

There have been two good arguments against it, one about the differing nature of the two games, and the other one being the technical hurdles, which has only been raised by Allan, Mr. Gaider, Mr. Epler, and others, since after all only the developers themselves are in the best position to know the exact technical hurdles. 

 

Perhaps we are beating a dead horse, I will confess. At least for certain with DAI. That's never stopped the playersexuality threads, of which there have been far more, and have continued longer. 

[CybAnt1]

Having just now read through (almost) this entire thread from the beginning, (and as a fan of the "Silent Protagonist with Full Disclosure of Available Lines") I think the 20-pages-and-counting of discussion come down to:  "Chaqu'un à son goût". (1)

 

Unless the developers were to build two completely independent UIs, (which isn't going to happen) they have to choose one or the other.  Either choice will please some, and disappoint others.  Neither is inherently "better", as measured against some objective standard.  Which one is "better" depends on one's subjective preferences. (2)

 

Some folk here seem determined to explain (and explain, and explain...) why the advatages of their preferred approach outweigh its disadvantages, or to dismiss its disadvantages altogether, or to focus on the "other" method's disadvantages while admitting to none of its benefits. (3)

 

But all (yes, ALL) of that is pretty much beside the point.  BioWare have choosen and are now implementing their approach.  It remains to be seen how effective/enjoyable it is in-game, which is the only place it matters.  Then we can discuss the result, (not the theoretics) of that implementation as input for The Next Thing™!   (4)

 

(1) as is combat and how people like how it should happen in a CRPG; those debates are coming next, as there's been little reveals on it. (Perhaps for good reason.)  Or, for that matter, sex scenes. 

 

I think gaming forums would be very dull if people didn't explain their subjective preferences. However, and that said, film reviews at the end of the day are about the film critic's subjective reactions, but there are people who read them and feel they can provide insight. Sometimes you can see why a person reacted a certain way, and note "Hmmm. I did like, or didn't like the same thing." And then think about why. And, if the discussion meets what some think of as productivity, perhaps even modes of doing things differently (as I believe constructive criticism starts with how you could do things better, though I accept devs may be in a better position to know why the things you think are better are difficult to do.) 

 

There's room for all kinds of discussions on here. I pay a bit more attention to gaming feature ones than others. I understand why others don't. Another great thing about people being different people. Some people prefer to only talk about what they do or don't like about companion X or Y. Nothing wrong with those, but I also like to talk about what I do or don't like about game feature X or Y. 

 

(2) that's certainly true, but perhaps in the end if you are a game maker, that means you might need some data on how many people hold certain subjective positions. BTW, I'm certain Bioware has that data, and I also know well why they won't fully discuss that data. BTW2, I'm even sure their data puts people holding my subjective tastes in the objective minority, though what I don't know is by how much. BTW3, we come to the third problem, if people with my subjective tastes are only 5% of their market, perhaps we should be ignored. I get that. But then, maybe they can at least meet us 5% of the way. 

 

(3) Every debater does that. Congressional debates are exactly like that. Human nature. Find the weakness in the opponent's argument, conceal the weaknesses in your own (even if you are painfully aware of them). 

 

(4) I suspect the playersexuality threads are besides the point, the sex scenes thread are besides the point, the discussion about the inventory system is also besides the point as I'm sure all relevant decisions relating to it for DAI have already been made. As is all arguments over whether Hawke or the Warden will appear and how. 

 

At best, we're arguing for what might or might not be in DA4, if there is to be a DA4, or possibly even having some effect on an future expansion or DLC. 

[CybAnt1]

The debate, insofar as that game goes, is long over.

 

EDIT: Although I should have just linked to the last time I addressed the topic, like I said I would. Ah, well.

 

As are lots of debates, I'm sure Mr. Gaider, if not basically about all. There is a Feedback & Suggestions forum here. I assume automatically that anybody thinking anything anybody points out there, even if the entire dev team were suddenly to say "Yah! We should have done that!" won't be done for DAI. But it's still there. Presumably to offer inputs as to future games, if not expansions. 

 

And I guess I also hope there is a possibility that

a) there can be some further thinking about the issue in DA4, if there is to be a DA4, because having reached an agreed-upon position for one game can change with its sequel 

b.) perhaps technological improvements and changes between now and DA4 will change the very terrain of the discussion. Some games are moving to a player speech parsing system for game dialogue. Oh I realize the cost and technical hurdles here are Mt. Everest, compared to the ones we're having now. Plus also that might put dialogue for PCs unto a player-agency plane where Bioware doesn't want to go, given its preference for story driving. But I do hope, like bEVE does, that as technology shifts, so can the debate parameters here. 

[Thandal N'Lyman]

Perhaps we are beating a dead horse, I will confess.

 

Exactly my point, (and expressed in so many fewer words!) 

[CybAnt1]

So are dozens of other debates here, if viewed from the same perspective.

 

But they are all here, and providing people with something to talk about. 

 

People are arguing what characters should and should not appear in the game. There are lots of discussions about that. And from that point of view, irrelevant, as I'm sure those decisions have already been made.

 

And yet, they are there. 

 

Which is, I guess, what you want when you put out a social forum for your games - people, talking about stuff. That will include criticism. Perhaps most of it should be ignored. That is a different debate. 

[David Gaider]

And I guess I also hope there is a possibility that

a) there can be some further thinking about the issue in DA4, if there is to be a DA4, because having reached an agreed-upon position for one game can change with its sequel 

 

If we were to consider feedback for DA4, however, I'd want it to be based on DA3...not based on DA2, with people repeating the same arguments they've been using for, what? Two years now? Nothing new is being proposed which has not been proposed before.

 

Not that discussions exist on a forum solely for the purpose of convincing the developers to do something—they could simply be academic or entertaining, after all. When it does seem like the expectation from a discussion is "you developers should listen to this", however, that's the context in which we'll respond. I've absorbed a great deal from previous threads on the topic, even if I must also acknowledge that this is a very small slice of the player base and also that it's only people who are dissatisfied who will even contribute to it...that doesn't mean it's not worth thinking about. But there is a point where we must make a decision and move on.

 

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

[Zanallen]

 

With any dialogue interface, there's going to be a certain percentage of lines which are going to be misinterpreted. This is only not true if the line chosen is the entirety of the interaction—meaning it's text only, and no VO. Now, I know some people will respond with "then don't do player VO", but we are doing it. There are benefits for doing it, just as there are drawbacks, and we like the benefits better, so it's not even a question at this point. Having VO, however, means that we write the lines differently—more of the meaning is conveyed by the acting, both vocally and by action, so the words alone are not always going to convey the intent. Thus you would still have a certain % of lines which would be misinterpreted, even if you saw the full line...they would simply occur in different places.

 

 

I would arguing that even with no VO, there is the chance for misinterpretation. I have often read about people who were "ninjamanced" in DA:O because they did not think a line was flirty when they selected it. I have also seen times where a line was written as sarcastic, but the player read it as sincere and was confused by the NPC response. There is rarely an option to clarify your intent in such circumstances as there would be in real life. I think the only way in which there would be no misinterpretation would be with no VO, full line and a tone/intent indicator. Of course, I like the VO, so I am glad you guys are sticking to it.

[AlanC9]

Why is everyone unwilling to accept that there are actually existing game players that felt the connection there was - at times, not always - insufficient?

I didn't think anyone was denying their existence. I thought the question was percentages. Percentage of players feeling this way, and the percentage of lines that actually cause problems.

[AlanC9]

Liara and Samantha visiting you in your cabin after the first Citadel visit and the first dream. I'll have to replay if you want specifics.

Thanks.

Concerning the first node, I think I approached the choice differently than you did. I saw it as one line leading to actually discussing the substance of the dream, and another leading to not discussing it. In a sense, you could say that I figured out what the node was there to do by metagaming, since that's how I knew that "I've been better" would lead to talking about the fallen. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to have a lot to do with my accurate interpretations.

Obviously, this also required correctly interpreting what the dream symbolized, but that's for another thread.

[CybAnt1]

If we were to consider feedback for DA4, however, I'd want it to be based on DA3...not based on DA2, with people repeating the same arguments they've been using for, what? Two years now? Nothing new is being proposed which has not been proposed before. (1)

 

Not that discussions exist on a forum solely for the purpose of convincing the developers to do something—they could simply be academic or entertaining, after all. When it does seem like the expectation from a discussion is "you developers should listen to this", however, that's the context in which we'll respond. I've absorbed a great deal from previous threads on the topic, even if I must also acknowledge that this is a very small slice of the player base and also that it's only people who are dissatisfied who will even contribute to it (2)...that doesn't mean it's not worth thinking about. But there is a point where we must make a decision and move on.

 

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

 

(1) I am not those people, I was not here to see all those arguments discussed earlier, and I'm sorry if I find their points valid at this moment, but I do, which leads me to repeating those arguments. For which, as I say, mea culpa.

 

(2) True of most things, Mr. Gaider. On any issue, problem, or concern, dissatisfied people will chime in more often and louder than the people who are OK with the status quo. While I accept that argument, taken to too far an extreme, it can be used to silence people clamoring for civil rights, and assert that they are just noisy troublemakers compared to the Nixonian Silent Majority. (I also agree that discussing game features doesn't match the seriousness or importance of my example.) 

 

(3) BTW, I don't consider this thread unproductive. You're absolutely right that we shouldn't complain about DA2, we should be discussing DA3/DAI, because you are going to be doing things differently. Unfortunately, we are not yet playing it, so we can only discuss what you've done in the past, or better yet, if we have it, information on how things are going to be different.  BTW, I didn't know how differently until you said so earlier in this thread. After all, it wasn't obvious to anyone that you would be doing things differently from DA2 until you said so, since the given assumption was that dialogue systems from DA2 were being carried over to DA3. That you also say discussions in threads like this influence your thinking - well much of this discussion has been on the larger philosophical point of why human beings communicate. I happen to think one reason is to get people to reflect on their decisions, if not to change them. 

 

I have been influenced by the "other side" in this debate. I think there was a time where I would have said feh to having either a voiced protagonist, or a wheel, or icons. I accept all those things, if only because the other side has helped me hone in on to what I really don't like, which is not voicing, a wheel, or icons, at least not per se.   Perhaps debates are good things when both sides know a bit more about the positions of the other, and why they hold them, and the constraints over holding a different one, even if neither side budges from its ultimate position. 

 

As Kasumoto said in The Last Samurai, this is a good conversation. And you're right, sometimes on a forum, that's all one needs. 

 

 

And with that, have a nice day. 

[CybAnt1]

I didn't think anyone was denying their existence. I thought the question was percentages. Percentage of players feeling this way, and the percentage of lines that actually cause problems.

 

I think there's only one entity in this conversation with hard data, and if they have it, they're choosing not to release it. (BTW, I can understand the reasons for it.) 

 

So you can keep asking, maybe we can run the experiment you want to do in a few months, but otherwise it's a wonderfully rhetorical question to which I can just shrug. That will (or won't) answer one of your questions, but the other will be to do player surveys. Let me know when you want to mail them out. I can't fork over for the postage. My guess is you probably want to random sample about 2000 or so. 

 

There is a data point I can point to (or I should say, its absence). People are arguing that seeing text and then hearing it will be annoying and disturbing to their experience. OK. I would think a good demonstration of that point, if it's true for more than just a small number of people who should just be ignored   (yes that was rhetorical) , is find me some people saying that those who are seeing & then hearing text in DX:HR is annoying or frustrating represent a large portion of the game's player base. I bet you don't have that data. When I asked you the last time, you responded with the anecdote of your own experience, which you know just as well as I do doesn't answer your questions above. 

 

For this reason, I will consider, just as you might, arguments to that effect (like "the majority of players feel that way") to be utter bullshit. Show me the data - too. 

[Allan Schumacher]

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. 

 

I think we're arguing in circles though, where the reality is simply that "people see and want different things and make different assumptions."

 

I'm saying I can see the line "I never said she stole my money" with a different tone conveying a different meaning.  I believe that I can anticipate, with good reliability, that even people that I don't know will be able to pick up on those differences.  It may not always work, but I also believe that in the times that it doesn't always work, I'm afforded an opportunity to elaborate on my point to make sure it's clear.

 

 

Tone is important because I already do it with full lines of dialogue.  If you look at a lot of BioWare's games, you could already break down the lines in a similar way to the dialogue wheel paraphrase with tone.

 

Here's a scene from KOTOR:

 

One of those is the "one that ends the conversation."  The other is the "complimenting and friendly line" and the last one is the "Challenging/confrontation line."  It would be equivalent to simply seeing:

 

"Goodbye"

"Flatter"

"Challenge"

 

(and it'd have some benefits that the full line doesn't necessarily provide, in that I would listen to my own VO - assuming KOTOR had player VO).

 

 

So I can see your point, and see Sylvius' point.  It comes down to "which group is going to get catered to."  The preferences and perceptions seem mutually exclusive to me.  Am I mistaken?