406 réponses à ce sujet

[GVulture]

 

This is just wrong. Whatever your view on VO vs. non-VO, or wheel vs. list, it's wrong as a matter of fundamental grammar to say that written lines cannot be misinterpreted. In fact, the very nature of writing is such that it can be misinterpreted and be (usually) subject to multiple interpretations. 

 

Let's take a basic sentence statement: "that was a great idea". The basic pragmatics (i.e., emphasis) of a sentence can totally change the meaning of it. So there is a huge difference between:

 

That was a great idea. 

That was a great idea. 

 

If we take away the smilie face - which is the same as taking away visual demeanour cues - we get this: 

 

That was a great idea. 

That was a great idea. 

 

If we take away the italics - which just take the place of time - we get this: 

 

That was a great idea. 

That was a great idea. 

 

Two identical looking statements. But not identical. And depending on which one the writer thinks up, the NPC reaction will be totally different. But the player is left to guess what line it is. And I've chosen these examples - with totally different tonal emphasis and facial expressions - to point out that this is a basic difference in speech that people do not miss. 

 

Writing is ambiguous and misleading, and it's just wrong to say otherwise. 

 

Lord knows there were times when I thought I was teasing Alistair ala Fem-Revan/Carth and ended up horribly offending him. Dude! You were just joking about this a second ago! I wasn't being mean! Argh! *reload*

 

Greatly preferred DAII easy to figure out HEART option.

[In Exile]

^

Moreover, you can put the emphasis on "was" or "idea" and also change the meaning of the sentence. And thus could have four separate meanings for the same five word sentence depending on context and tone.

 

Absolutely. It's a shame the idea of pragmatics isn't really taught unless you actually study linguistics (or the philosophy of language, or something similar). There's a reason that books and scripts are not written in the same way. And why two plays based on the exact same script, with no changes in the literal dialogue, can have totally different character interpretations based on directions to the actors. 

[Darth Krytie]

Absolutely. It's a shame the idea of pragmatics isn't really taught unless you actually study linguistics (or the philosophy of language, or something similar). There's a reason that books and scripts are not written in the same way. And why two plays based on the exact same script, with no changes in the literal dialogue, can have totally different character interpretations based on directions to the actors. 

 

My English major is showing. (It hides behind the History one at times.)

 

Yes, it's important to understand that the clarity of the written word (as found in books) is often shown with action, with description of body language, with adverbs (but only sparingly), and italics/bolding. Without those crucial means of conveying meaning, words will inevitably be inadequate to portray intent in every given situation.

[Reznore57]

In DAO /DA2 banters could get interrupted by combat , what happens if the Inquisitor is stuck trying to pick an answer?

Also do we get friendship or non friendship points with companions during those banters?

I think the idea is pretty cool , it reminds me a bit of the ME3 citadel DLC except we can choose what to say, which is nice.

 

About the dialogue wheel , it seems it's mostly like DA2 , but with the option of displaying emotions from time to time...and I guess it seems more clear cut when it comes to decision and opinions.

[TurretSyndrome]

 

Writing is ambiguous and misleading, and it's just wrong to say otherwise. 

 

 

 

I suppose misinterpreted is the wrong word to use there, I meant uncertain. It doesn't matter how the character says it, the player knows that those are the spoken words. And by the way, DA:O dialogue had bolded and italic words to differentiate them as stressed(If I remember correctly).

[Darth Krytie]

I suppose misinterpreted is the wrong word to use there, I meant uncertain. It doesn't matter how the character says it, the player knows that those are the spoken words. And by the way, DA:O dialogue had bolded and italic words to differentiate them as stressed(If I remember correctly).

 

Take this for an example:

 

I can't believe it.

I can't believe it.

I can't believe it.

 

Now, can you tell me which one implies the following: incredulity, anger, and awe.  Depending on how each sentence is spoken, you can have different meanings even if you emphasize the same exact word. For instance, I can't believe it can express anger that something has happened. It can also express genuine annoyed surprise. It can, yet again, express a more positive sense of awe. Something that can only be conveyed with tone and/or body language and context. And sometimes, even the context can produce two or three different reactions.

[AlanC9]

I suppose misinterpreted is the wrong word to use there, I meant uncertain. It doesn't matter how the character says it, the player knows that those are the spoken words.

 

True, we do know the actual spoken words. Knowing the actual spoken words is not enough to convey what line the NPCs will hear, though. Neither system can convey that with 100% accuracy for all players.

 

Though what the NPCs hear is not relevant to all players. (Should we PM Sylvius the Mad? He can expound this position better than I can. But I figure he'll show up pretty soon regardless)

[CybAnt1]

 

This is just wrong. Whatever your view on VO vs. non-VO, or wheel vs. list, it's wrong as a matter of fundamental grammar to say that written lines cannot be misinterpreted. In fact, the very nature of writing is such that it can be misinterpreted and be (usually) subject to multiple interpretations. 

 

Let's take a basic sentence statement: "that was a great idea". The basic pragmatics (i.e., emphasis) of a sentence can totally change the meaning of it. So there is a huge difference between:

 

That was a great idea. 

That was a great idea. 

 

If we take away the smilie face - which is the same as taking away visual demeanour cues - we get this: 

 

That was a great idea. 

That was a great idea. 

 

If we take away the italics - which just take the place of time - we get this: 

 

That was a great idea. 

That was a great idea. 

 

Two identical looking statements. But not identical. And depending on which one the writer thinks up, the NPC reaction will be totally different. But the player is left to guess what line it is. And I've chosen these examples - with totally different tonal emphasis and facial expressions - to point out that this is a basic difference in speech that people do not miss. 

 

Writing is ambiguous and misleading, and it's just wrong to say otherwise. 

 

 

I know what pragmatics are. However, as I also know linguistics, we should be clear that tonal indicators are only clarifying paralinguistic features, not prosodic ones.

 

IOW, the tonal marker might suggest whether we are about to say something in a laughing or starkly serious manner (but we won't know exactly what that is, only have the "gist" in the paraphrase) but certainly we have no clue what words will be stressed or emphasized, as we're not seeing them.

 

My point is, yes, as I keep noting, it's true one system abandons one kind of ambiguity, but may create others.

 

I've said this several times, and will say it again, I'm not against a voiced protagonist, I'm not against the wheel, I am FOR seeing the words we will say (as to me this is more important for reduction of ambiguity than knowing tone) as well as the tone they will be conveyed in, and I'd love any system that does it, even if it uses a wheel UI interface and results in the protagonist speaking (in fact, I do enjoy a non-silent protagonist as much as anyone else.)

[Darth Krytie]

True, we do know the actual spoken words. Knowing the actual spoken words is not enough to convey what line the NPCs will hear, though. Neither system can convey that with 100% accuracy for all players.

 

Though what the NPCs hear is not relevant to all players. (Should we PM Sylvius the Mad? He can expound this position better than I can)

 

He'll just say that the NPCs misunderstood the intent of the dialogue chosen by the character. The player is clear insofar as roleplaying is concerned and the NPCs are misinterpreting the player, which can happen when you speak to people. 

[TKavatar]

 
I've said this several times, and will say it again, I'm not against a voiced protagonist, I'm not against the wheel, I am FOR seeing the words we will say (as to me this is more important for reduction of ambiguity than knowing tone) as well as the tone they will be conveyed in, and I'd love any system that does it, even if it uses a wheel UI interface and results in the protagonist speaking (in fact, I do enjoy a non-silent protagonist as much as anyone else.)

This.

I still don't know why Mr Gaider and the rest of the devs are so vehemently against this. Why not have paraphrases that reveal the full line when you hover over them?

[CybAnt1]

My English major is showing. (It hides behind the History one at times.)

 

Yes, it's important to understand that the clarity of the written word (as found in books) is often shown with action, with description of body language, with adverbs (but only sparingly), and italics/bolding. Without those crucial means of conveying meaning, words will inevitably be inadequate to portray intent in every given situation.

 

I'm not sure why people think a smaller number of words plus a tonal icon works better (by "better," I mean, having the player understand what their character is about to convey and how they are about to convey it). I mean, yes, as I've said a number of times, "anger" as am emotional tone can mean several different kinds of accompanying facial expressions and body language, and it's not like the presence of the angry icon lets us know for sure what we're about do do physically/emotionally (apart from what we're about to say.)

[Darth Krytie]

I'm not sure why people think a smaller number of words plus a tonal icon works better (by "better," I mean, having the player understand what their character is about to convey and how they are about to convey it). I mean, yes, as I've said a number of times, "anger" as am emotional tone can mean several different kinds of accompanying facial expressions and body language, and it's not like the presence of the angry icon lets us know for sure what we're about do do physically/emotionally (apart from what we're about to say.)

 

To me, the tone of what I'm about to say is more important than knowing the exact words.  Nothing is every going to fully encapsulate the precise manner in which my player character is going to speak and act in any game. There's always going to be nuance or manner in something they can't convey in any sort of selection process by nature of it being an avatar and not my actual self.

 

So, if I have to decide what's more important to me, tone or intent is the most important, with other aspects coming after it.

[TurretSyndrome]

True, we do know the actual spoken words. Knowing the actual spoken words is not enough to convey what line the NPCs will hear, though. Neither system can convey that with 100% accuracy for all players.

 

Though what the NPCs hear is not relevant to all players. (Should we PM Sylvius the Mad? He can expound this position better than I can. But I figure he'll show up pretty soon regardless)

 

Well I'm not arguing with this, as I never said or felt that the conversation system in DA:O was perfect. I was only pointing out that it's one advantage is being able to know what the character might say.

[CybAnt1]

To me, the tone of what I'm about to say is more important than knowing the exact words.  Nothing is every going to fully encapsulate the precise manner in which my player character is going to speak and act in any game. There's always going to be nuance or manner in something they can't convey in any sort of selection process by nature of it being an avatar and not my actual self.

 

So, if I have to decide what's more important to me, tone or intent is the most important, with other aspects coming after it.

 

Then we are completely opposite on that, as while I will not disagree with those who say tone is important, I cannot imagine any tasks in life I could complete if I was unable to actually utilize full words and sentences to communicate meaning.

 

How would a job interview go if the only thing you could convey to the interviewer is that you are happy, sad, or angry? Probably not very well.

 

I don't like roleplaying a mime, if my character is not, in fact, a mime.

[TheBlackAdder13]

Regarding the party banter wheel -- what if I opt to click in, see the responses, and, after seeing the available options, decide it would be more in character for my PC just not to say anything and let the banter continue without him/her? Will I be able to exit out of the wheel without saying anything and let the party banter continue as normal or will I be obliged to pick an option after I click to opt into the banter? 

[Darth Krytie]

Then we are completely opposite on that, as while I will not disagree with those who say tone is important, I cannot imagine any tasks in life I could complete if I was unable to actually utilize full words and sentences to communicate meaning.

 

How would a job interview go if the only thing you could convey to the interviewer that you are happy, sad, or angry? Probably not very well.

 

For one, I said that the tone was more important to me, not the only important thing. Secondly, I specifically stated this in relation to the game. Bringing in real world examples is pointless and irrelevant. Thirdly, as I have put forth earlier, knowing the full text doesn't always mean that what I think is being said, is being said. Tone can tell me more than words, in some cases. Ergo, I'm content to know tone and a paraphrase over knowing full text and no tone.

 

Edit: I experienced more times of having my character say something I didn't want them to (or convey a meaning I wasn't intending) in Origins way more often than in Kirkwall.

[Darth Krytie]

This.

I still don't know why Mr Gaider and the rest of the devs are so vehemently against this. Why not have paraphrases that reveal the full line when you hover over them?

 

IIRC, it's due to a character limit.

[CybAnt1]

For one, I said that the tone was more important to me, not the only important thing. Secondly, I specifically stated this in relation to the game. Bringing in real world examples is pointless and irrelevant. Thirdly, as I have put forth earlier, knowing the full text doesn't always mean that what I think is being said, is being said. Tone can tell me more than words, in some cases. Ergo, I'm content to know tone and a paraphrase over knowing full text and no tone.

 

Edit: I experienced more times of having my character say something I didn't want them to (or convey a meaning I wasn't intending) in Origins way more often than in Kirkwall.

 

And strangely enough, I felt the exact opposite to you. I never found a moment where these sudden surprises of meaning occurred in Origins, but I had a lot of "WTF" moments in DA2.

 

This is the problem with being different people.

 

Tone tells me something, for sure, but not enough.

 

BTW, I've never advocated for going back to a toneless system - and also pointed out you can indicate tone in a list system - but I know we're not going back - so I will repeat: sure I want tone, but I also want to know what words are being conveyed in that tone. If not all of them, at least the full opening line, not a paraphrase.

[Phate Phoenix]

IIRC, it's due to a character limit.

 

I believe it was more because it's odd for the player to first read the line, and then hear the character speak it. Although character limit had something to do with it, too.

[CybAnt1]

I know many find it odd, the problem is those of us who would like to be able to do it.

 

Ahhh, I know this is a quixotic quest, because we already know what won't happen, but it matters enough to me that I won't shut up about it.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

i do like the idea of this new dialogue system - because it is a really nice leash. i mean, you cannot improvise/do something completely unexpected in a computer game. there have to be constraints (we're not there yet). nice, clean set of wheels makes the story seem less rigid and more believable for player, i think.

 

i would be even more happy without silly icons protecting me from ninjamances/quest cancelation. and i'd like not to be "surprised" again by the dialogue wheels, if it makes any sense. but well... it's just minor annoyance *looks at the Dales screens with glee*

[CannotCompute]

I'm not sure this is something that's easily explained, as opposed to shown.

This gist of how it works is this: if there is ambient dialogue (which party banter is), and a possible player response comes up, you'll get a cue to "click in" if you want to speak. If you don't, the dialogue simply moves on without you (after a certain amount of time). If you do, you get an actual response wheel (though this will stop you from moving until you select your response).

Note that how this works (or if it remains in at all) is subject to change. Very subject, in fact, as it's a new thing we're poking at.

Sounds great! I hope it will make it into the final game.

[AlanC9]

I'm not sure why people think a smaller number of words plus a tonal icon works better (by "better," I mean, having the player understand what their character is about to convey and how they are about to convey it).

That's not the criterion I use in the first place. The question for me is whether I'm picking the best available line out of the prewritten set; ambiguity per se doesn't bother me unless the line's ambiguous enough for me to not know which one to pick. By that standard I have somewhat more failures with DAO's approach than with DA2 or the ME series. Although both failure rates are quite low.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm not sure why people think a smaller number of words plus a tonal icon works better (by "better," I mean, having the player understand what their character is about to convey and how they are about to convey it). I mean, yes, as I've said a number of times, "anger" as am emotional tone can mean several different kinds of accompanying facial expressions and body language, and it's not like the presence of the angry icon lets us know for sure what we're about do do physically/emotionally (apart from what we're about to say.)

 

For people such as myself, when the wheel first came in in Mass Effect (before I started working at BioWare), is that I was already picking dialogue options based on their tone even when it was full text.

 

If the situation was cordial and I appreciated the person talking, I picked the lines that came across as friendly.  If I was mad, I picked the lines that came across as angry/hostile.  The words used were actually not relevant beyond helping me determine the nature of my response.  I was always bound by the restriction of saying what the game designers allowed me to say, and bound by any inferred sarcasm that they implicitly put into the line.

 

 

Speaking personally, what I like about the dialogue wheel is that I actually watch my character speak and say and do stuff.  Obviously this doesn't work as well if a player wishes much stronger control over the specifics of the response, but that I can actually enjoy seeing the responses play out.  With a full line of dialogue, I find I get stuff like this less often, and I do enjoy that sort of stuff.  I like watching the scene play out, which is also something that I do less of with full written responses.

 

In fact, for games like Alpha Protocol (which was even more condensed than anything BioWare has done, but is probably my personal favourite conversation system in any game) and Mass Effect, I often don't even play with subtitles on because I prefer to watch the scene play out.

 

I feel the main reason I prefer this is because I go into a PC game with the understanding that the conversations will innately not be able to precisely represent my character.  I think it may also be because many of the earlier RPGs I played, like the Ultima games, were based exclusively on key words so I had already had no reservations having no control over the precise words I used, but I could from time to time pick keywords that displayed a particular intent.

 

 

Having said that, I do understand your perspective.  I imagine the amount of control we're willing to give up differs quite a bit, just as I feel the amount of control we feel we're ever actually provided probably doesn't line up.  I'm not sure if the positions are reconcilable, however.  Sometimes the lines the player character can speak get very, very long (an advantage our current system provides).  They also sometimes, structurally, get spread out over several lines which provides some additional challenges to simply showing the full line than simply clicking a button that says "show full line."

 

 

In general I see pros and cons to either, and in both cases neither is really a significant enough yay or nay over the other.  If you were to force me to choose, however, I do like the dialogue wheel system more than full lines of dialogue.  I base this more on games I played not as a developer, so I'm omitting DA2 and DAI from this consideration, but included Alpha Protocol and the Mass Effect games, as well as Human Revolution and so forth.

[CENIC]

I'm really excited about the new dialogue system! It sounds like it addresses many of the difficulties I had using the wheel in DA2.

If you're still answering questions, David, I was wondering if all wheels will have some sort of clarification pop-up like the choice wheel in the gameplay demo did?