6 réponses à ce sujet

[zerox505]

 ok im out, da2 had the worst writing in the series, looks like bioware did not listen at all...

edit: Well looks like i paniced and took this to another level.

Here is what david gaider has to say...



What is the same about Inquisition's writing style, compared to DA2:

Dialogue options are picked from paraphrases, off a wheel interface.

[/list]The player character is voiced, and dialogue is written with that in mind.

[/list]What is new:
No dominant tone. Meaning your most-selected tone does not carry through to influence other lines outside of the conversation in which you selected it. In DA2, dominant tone changed the actual line the PC spoke when action choices were made as well as those spoken inside of cutscenes ("auto-dialogue", as people like to refer to it here). In Inquisition, those are all relayed in neutral tone.

[/list]A question is often asked of how much "auto-dialogue" will exist in comparison to, say, Mass Effect 3. The answer is that the amount will be less than DA2 (and it is always neutral-toned, as mentioned above). This is generally just used in situations where the PC is saying something innocuous ("Go on" or "What is that?" ...things that don't really call for a wheel).

[/list]Addition of a "reaction wheel" (on top of the "tone wheel", which is for flavor responses, and the "action wheel", which is for places where the player is decided to do something), which allows for emotional responses to important events. The player always has the Stoic option (essentially the neutral response), or will have options such as Sad, Confused, Enraged, Surprised, etc.

[/list]Dialogue options on an action wheel now sometimes display a pop-up if the option is hovered over long enough, elaborating on what that action is intended to do. This only applies to actions where elaboration is felt necessary. It does not display the actual line which will be spoken by the PC.

[/list]The three major tones are now Noble/Clever/Direct (as opposed to Diplomatic/Humorous/Aggressive). These are primarily internal designations which affect how we write those tones, the idea being to reign in the difference a bit between the three. There are no longer alternate tone variants (which in DA2 were Helpful/Charming/Direct), as I don't think we communicated very well what those meant anyhow.

[/list]Similar to how the Investigate option off any wheel "breaks out" into a sub-wheel for questions (if there is more than one question), there can be a Special option off any wheel which breaks out in the same manner. This is where we put conditional things, such as dialogue options that depend on having a particular party member, being a particular race/class, romance options, having made certain choices previously, etc...and thus allows us to add as many of these to a wheel as we like without breaking the interface structure. Some of these now "grey out" if you don't have the requirement, meaning you can see an option you might have had, but currently cannot take.

[/list]Some people will find these things very different. Some will hardly notice, as these are largely structural and procedural differences for writing. Ultimately, as Mike says, the writing style is the same--but your mileage may vary. Nothing else is really referred to by "writing style" than how the dialogue itself is functionally written.

Modifié par zerox505, 20 février 2014 - 08:16 .

[David Gaider]

Just to be clear as to what Mike was and was not referring to:


What is the same about Inquisition's writing style, compared to DA2:

• Dialogue options are picked from paraphrases, off a wheel interface.

• The player character is voiced, and dialogue is written with that in mind.

What is new:

• No dominant tone. Meaning your most-selected tone does not carry through to influence other lines outside of the conversation in which you selected it. In DA2, dominant tone changed the actual line the PC spoke when action choices were made as well as those spoken inside of cutscenes ("auto-dialogue", as people like to refer to it here). In Inquisition, those are all relayed in neutral tone.

• A question is often asked of how much "auto-dialogue" will exist in comparison to, say, Mass Effect 3. The answer is that the amount will be less than DA2 (and it is always neutral-toned, as mentioned above). This is generally just used in situations where the PC is saying something innocuous ("Go on" or "What is that?" ...things that don't really call for a wheel).

• Addition of a "reaction wheel" (on top of the "tone wheel", which is for flavor responses, and the "action wheel", which is for places where the player is decided to do something), which allows for emotional responses to important events. The player always has the Stoic option (essentially the neutral response), or will have options such as Sad, Confused, Enraged, Surprised, etc.

• Dialogue options on an action wheel now sometimes display a pop-up if the option is hovered over long enough, elaborating on what that action is intended to do. This only applies to actions where elaboration is felt necessary. It does not display the actual line which will be spoken by the PC.

• The three major tones are now Noble/Clever/Direct (as opposed to Diplomatic/Humorous/Aggressive). These are primarily internal designations which affect how we write those tones, the idea being to reign in the difference a bit between the three. There are no longer alternate tone variants (which in DA2 were Helpful/Charming/Direct), as I don't think we communicated very well what those meant anyhow.

• Similar to how the Investigate option off any wheel "breaks out" into a sub-wheel for questions (if there is more than one question), there can be a Special option off any wheel which breaks out in the same manner. This is where we put conditional things, such as dialogue options that depend on having a particular party member, being a particular race/class, romance options, having made certain choices previously, etc...and thus allows us to add as many of these to a wheel as we like without breaking the interface structure. Some of these now "grey out" if you don't have the requirement, meaning you can see an option you might have had, but currently cannot take.

Some people will find these things very different. Some will hardly notice, as these are largely structural and procedural differences for writing. Ultimately, as Mike says, the writing style is the same--but your mileage may vary. Nothing else is really referred to by "writing style" than how the dialogue itself is functionally written.

[Allan Schumacher]

Another issue is that, so we aren't displaying giant paragraphs for a particular line, lines get broken up into several lines. There may also be conditional reasons for this.

In summary, it's easier/faster to quickly state "This is the choice you're making if you pick this" as opposed to showing what the next (potentially several, and potentially dynamic) lines are going to say.

It's probably not immeasurably hard to do, but it's an issue of "there's dozens and dozens of little tasks to do, and other ones may be considered more important to work on to ship the game in time."

[Allan Schumacher]

You're certainly not the only person that wants this. It's a balancing act of reconciling different things that people want, some of which can be mutually exclusive.

So sometimes we try to find solutions that may not be perfect, but hopefully help alleviate some of the issues people have.

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I'm disappointed there won't be a neutral option. Hopefully there'll be something approaching it in most, if not all, tone wheel circumstances.

Direct is more straight to the point, as opposed to aggressive, so that might fit the bill.  I'd have to look closer in game (unfortunately I am hella busy on other stuff so I haven't been in the actual campaign for some time and don't expect to be)

I'd argue that it does, in fact, reflect the knowledge (and moreso the intent)
of the Inquisitor. I for one was under the impression that these troops
WOULD be available later, and feel that distinction was, will be,
immensely helpful in making a choice.

That circumstance feels
like one where the Inquisitor would know that telling them to tend to
their wounded would mean they can't join the battle later--but the
player wouldn't necessarily.

I agree, though I can see it both ways.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 21 février 2014 - 08:17 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I can see both sides (I shared this before, but maybe not here).

Depending on the person, I can see recognizing that there ARE choices available based on previous choices and/or stats as a positive thing, even if said choices are never taken. Without seeing them, it may never seem like what your character does has any impact.

On the other hand, it removes the surprise for those that learn that this mechanic is in the game, while potentially giving the player the indication that they are "playing the game wrong"

[Allan Schumacher]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I think it takes some of the fun out of replaying the game.

But I rarely replay games so it's not a biggie for me.

I wouldn't be surprised if people that see the most benefit/enjoyment out of a feature like this tend to not replay games (or at least not every often).