332 réponses à ce sujet

[Hiemoth]

Lord Aesir wrote...

CybAnt1 wrote...

Like I said, I most definitely have heard humor at funerals, if used with tact, no one minds.

That's one thing.  A grieving father cradling his son's corpse having just found out is another.

Pretty much my thought on the situation. I fail to see how anyone choosing sarcastic response in a situation like that can expect the joke to not be insanly inappropriate.

[CybAnt1]

Dunno, as always, the deeper issue to me is,

If you asked 1000 people "What is Humorous"? You'd get a lot of different answers, about a lot of different ways to be humorous. Ranging from offensively sarcastic to light and witty, trying to get everybody in the room to smile and be happy.

Same thing with "What is Aggressive?" or "What is Diplomatic?"

And yet that same Tone-Icon-Personality should somehow mean the same thing to all Dragon Age players.

I'm not sure by what method.

Which is why I'd rather pick my response by (full) words THAN BY TONE ICONS.

But I guess I'll keep saying that until someone gets it. Sometimes I feel like I really am a stranger in a strange land.

[CybAnt1]

In a way I understand their desire to be consistent in that if you choose this tone, there will most likely be a joke, while if you choose that, there will be seriousness, but it would be great to see those touches of humor more prominent with the other tones.

But if you choose the non-Humorous option for Hawke, and then he does something humorous, isn't that defeating the apparent purpose of the tone system?

How about we scrap it then, so that Hawke might be Humorous in a lot of moments, not just ones where we pick a Humorous icon?

That was not a trick question.

[Hiemoth]

CybAnt1 wrote...

In a way I understand their desire to be consistent in that if you choose this tone, there will most likely be a joke, while if you choose that, there will be seriousness, but it would be great to see those touches of humor more prominent with the other tones.

But if you choose the non-Humorous option for Hawke, and then he does something humorous, isn't that defeating the apparent purpose of the tone system?

How about we scrap it then, so that Hawke might be Humorous in a lot of moments, not just ones where we pick a Humorous icon?

That was not a trick question.

Do not worry, I did not considered it to be a trick question.

To answer your first question, no, it doesn't. If the diplomatic Hawke answers a humorous situation earnestly, I fail to see how it defeated the purpose, as you did not choose the situation to be humoric, you chose what was your approach when facing such a situation. By the logic you are arguing here, if in the middle of a delicate discussion you had Hawke be rude, that defeated the whole tone system, since the situation itself was closer to diplomatic.

As for your second question, what if the player wants to play a character who is utterly earnest and does not joke? Do you feel that player really benefits from getting jokes even when not choosing so? Hawke can already be humorous in a lot of moments, it's just the parts played by the characters in that humorous moment changes.

As for your general argument, you do realize that you will always limited number of choices, so since we have now entered this land of hypothetical questions, I hope you allow me to pose one for you. Let us say that due to some miracle, you would get what you wanted already in DAI and they chose the exact words for the choice in addition to the tone. In the marvelous situation let us further say you come across a situation where you wish to choose a diplomatic, or a noble approach, response, but you don't like the wording of the response. So you do you now simply choose the clever or direct response because you might like the wording in those responses better, even though that is not the intent you wish for the response and when writing the response, the writers assumed the tone of your response to be either clever or direct? Because exactly the situation you would face then.

This is the same situation the player faced in DAO and would face in any Bioware game that returned to this mythic installation of the true RPers, where they can see their response in full. There will always be a limited set of responses, so you will always have to choose the response which best expresses what you wish to say. With written responses, it is reading between the lines for the tone of the response. With tone system, it is choosing the tone of the response.

[CybAnt1]

With written responses, it is reading between the lines for the tone of the response. With tone system, it is choosing the tone of the response.

No, there is a way (and please note, I am not arguing for scrapping the wheel or going back to lists).

1. [Sarcastic] Morrigan, that is a great attitude you have there.
2. [Angry] Oghren, stop messing with my Mabari. 
3. [Diplomatic] Archdemon, can we work things out?

A written response can contain a written tone in brackets. 

Let me repeat: here's the system I'd love and I guess could work for everybody: tone + (full or close to full) text, the tone + text can be around a wheel, that doesn't in the end REALLY matter that much to me, then the text is read, voiced, in the tone next to it. 

Well, it won't work for those who would hate to read, then hear. So there would have to be a toggle. And then a puppy would die.

Oh well, stalemate. 

Oh, I know we're not getting it. But I was asked. 

P.S. I know few human beings who in a real world conversation, if you asked them, which would you rather have more control over, the tone of what they were going to say, or the words they would choose, who would chose tone over words.

Do you think you would get far in a job interview, if everytime they asked you a question, you could only control how you would answer, but not WHAT you would answer?

I do agree with you, though, there are systems where the player can see BOTH tone (optionally) and text (full text optionally), those might be my ideal worlds, but we aren't getting them. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 24 février 2014 - 12:23 .

[Hiemoth]

CybAnt1 wrote...

With written responses, it is reading between the lines for the tone of the response. With tone system, it is choosing the tone of the response.

No, there is a way (and please note, I am not arguing for scrapping the wheel or going back to lists).

1. [Sarcastic] Morrigan, that is a great attitude you have there.
2. [Angry] Oghren, stop messing with my Mabari. 
3. [Diplomatic] Archdemon, can we work things out?

A written response can contain a written tone in brackets. 

Let me repeat: here's the system I'd love and I guess could work for everybody: tone + (full or close to full) text, the tone + text can be around a wheel, that doesn't in the end REALLY matter that much to me, then the text is read, voiced, in the tone next to it. 

Well, it won't work for those who would hate to read, then hear. So there would have to be a toggle. And then a puppy would die.

Oh well, stalemate. 

Oh, I know we're not getting it. But I was asked. 

And you didn't actually respond to my full point, which is that you still have to choose between limited options. So what if the tone you wish to convey is diplomatic, but you don't like the wording? Do you choose another tone just because the wording is better, even if it means that the following situation is written as if you just chose an angry response instead of a calm response? And besides the logistical problems of your solution, which have been stated several times in several places, it would also reduce the length of the responses as well remove dynamically continuous discussions.

And by the way, constantly painting those opposing your solutions or views as people who obviously hate to read is truly a great way to approach a conversation on the topic.

[CybAnt1]

And you didn't actually respond to my full point, which is that you still have to choose between limited options. 

That has been true ever since Fallout. 

There have been more numerous moments than I can count where I stared at the list of available reply options to me in a CRPG and said "Where is the other reply I REALLY would prefer to give? Other than these 3-5-6-7 whatever?"

Limited choices will always bedevil CRPG players until the next-gen ones, I guess, utilize natural language recognition, Siri style language processing, and an AI plus speech synthesis system that generates a artificial response. Boy, wouldn't we all love Her to be running in our computer games? Even if she didn't have Scarlett Johanson's voice? 

I think the issue is, to what extent is the knowledge of those choices presented? I think more is better than less, and in an ideal world, sure, I'd like to know both tone & text, and then decide based on both parameters whether I want to say the wrong thing diplomatically or the right thing angrily. Yep, I'd take it. 

BTW, as for the comment about reading, I was merely citing Bioware's studies showing play-testers of an alternative dialogue system with the features I would like, hating having to first read the text response, then have to listen to it again. 

I can see why it would bother some people. What bothers me is not being able to do it. 

Hence our dilemma. I guess I should stop arguing this, though, it clearly won't go anywhere, well, not unless there is a DA 4. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 24 février 2014 - 12:47 .

[Hiemoth]

CybAnt1 wrote...

And you didn't actually respond to my full point, which is that you still have to choose between limited options. 

That has been true ever since Fallout. 

There have been more numerous moments than I can count where I stared at the list of available reply options to me in a CRPG and said "Where is the other reply I REALLY would prefer to give? Other than these 3-5-6-7 whatever?"

Limited choices will always bedevil CRPG players until the next-gen ones, I guess, utilize natural language recognition, Siri style language processing, and an AI plus speech synthesis system that generates a artificial response. Boy, wouldn't we all love Her to be running in our computer games? Even if she didn't have Scarlett Johanson's voice? 

I think the issue is, to what extent is the knowledge of those choices presented? I think more is better than less, and in an ideal world, sure, I'd like to know both tone & text, and then decide based on both parameters whether I want to say the wrong thing diplomatically or the right thing angrily. Yep, I'd take it. 

BTW, as for the comment about reading, I was merely citing Bioware's studies showing play-testers of an alternative dialogue system with the features I would like, hating having to first read the text response, then have to listen to it again. 

I can see why it would bother some people. What bothers me is not being able to do it. 

Hence our dilemma. I guess I should stop arguing this, though, it clearly won't go anywhere, well, not unless there is a DA 4. 

And if it bothers you, I doubt anyone would argue you shouldn't speak out about it. I certainly don't, I mean I'm here speaking for the dialogue wheel and I've already gotten my wish. My point about the hatred of reading is that I can very well see where those playtesters were coming from and making constant statements like that is basically saying that because I am defending it, I actually hate reading. I can assure my view point on the matter, and I would guess the same applies to the playtesters, is pretty far from being something as simple as that.

As for the twin parameter issues, I would argue it isn't as simple as that, especially since the context what you would be saying would change much more if you were saying it diplomatically or angrily as opposed to saying diplomatically the same thing with two different choices of words. As an example you want to tell someone you love them, but the words you want to use are only available with the mocking intent.

[CybAnt1]

Fair enough, Hiemoth.

Truth is, there's no point to this argument, I already know what they are not-doing in DA:I (providing full/mostly-full text of dialogue on tooltip), and neither of us knows there will be a DA4.

Perhaps we'll return to spar over DA4, and its system where you say your dialogue (which can be anything) into a microphone, and the person you're speaking to responds with artificially generated voice. (*)

OK. I do think that will be a few more years off. That's after my self-driving car will be taking me to work. 

(*) The only real technological hurdle to this is making a computer-generated voice sound remotely like a person. The natural-language processing/parsing systems exist; just see Siri on an iPhone. At least in theory, the system in Her worked because "She" would compose the sentences, but then generate the words from words spoken by an actual human female. I think this technology doesn't exist yet, or at least the results don't sound very humanlike. It would put a lot of voice actors out of work, of course. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 24 février 2014 - 02:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I do not care to se grayed out options. I rather that option not be present in the responses. I see no purpose in showing responses that cannot be selected.

Transparency of the persuasion system doesn't count?

As long as the mechanics behind the persuasion system are documented, this transparency is unnecessary.  We shouldn't be given this level of metagame information.

[Realmzmaster]

AlanC9 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I do not care to se grayed out options. I rather that option not be present in the responses. I see no purpose in showing responses that cannot be selected.

Transparency of the persuasion system doesn't count?

If the mechanics of persuation are properly documented the transparency is not necessary. If the character does not have a high enough persuasion skill the option need not appear.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Transparency of the persuasion system doesn't count?

As long as the mechanics behind the persuasion system are documented, this transparency is unnecessary.  We shouldn't be given this level of metagame information.

I might have agreed with this if I hadn't played ToEE, which implemented dialogue checks your way. I found that not knowing whether there were any checks in the convo unless I could pass them was simply annoying. I prefer having the greyed-out options.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 février 2014 - 05:23 .

[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"

[Maria Caliban]

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.

[Dominus]

As long as the mechanics behind the persuasion system are documented, this transparency is unnecessary. We shouldn't be given this level of metagame information.

I agree - it's certainly one thing if you have the opportunity to succeed in the conversation option(i.e. Fallout 3/NV), but DA:I's method may come off as a "better luck next playthrough" sort of thing. From a roleplaying perspective, not what I would prefer. Doesn't bug me as much as I wouldn't be roleplaying to the same degree as others will, but I definitely get the reluctance.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I might have agreed with this if I hadn't played ToEE, which implemented dialogue checks your way. I found that not knowing whether there were any checks in the convo unless I could pass them was simply annoying. I prefer having the greyed-out options.

I would prefer never to know whether there are any checks in the convo.  The relevant options should always be there, but simply lead to suboptimal outcomes if I fail the checks.

I can't read the NPCs' minds.  I don't know whether what I say is persuading them of anything.

[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).

[fchopin]

I would rather have the text show even if i cannot select it or i will think the game is without options and call it rubbish.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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).

I'm a little torn on this myself, really. But from my perspective, if I go through a game and see very little that makes me think that different choices/builds would lead to different outcomes, I feel a much smaller compulsion to do a second playthrough. 

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I might have agreed with this if I hadn't played ToEE, which implemented dialogue checks your way. I found that not knowing whether there were any checks in the convo unless I could pass them was simply annoying. I prefer having the greyed-out options.

I would prefer never to know whether there are any checks in the convo.  The relevant options should always be there, but simply lead to suboptimal outcomes if I fail the checks.

I can't read the NPCs' minds.  I don't know whether what I say is persuading them of anything.

I agree that having the attempted persuasion lines always  present but leading to alternate paths if the check fails is the optimal method. But I was presuming that approach had already failed the ROI test for expenditure of word count.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 février 2014 - 06:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I agree that having the attempted persuasion lines always  present but leading to alternate paths if the check fails is the optimal method. But I was presuming that approach had already failed the ROI test for expenditure of word count.

I'd solve that problem by having a failed check produce the same result as having said something else.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I agree that having the attempted persuasion lines always  present but leading to alternate paths if the check fails is the optimal method. But I was presuming that approach had already failed the ROI test for expenditure of word count.

I'd solve that problem by having a failed check produce the same result as having said something else.

But then that runs the risk of auto-dialogue. Choosing to persuade someone, but then having the PC say "your father was a hamster, and your mother smelled of elderberry" would definitely be a misleading paraphrase, especially without the understanding that you failed the persuasion check for unknown reasons. 

[Wulfram]

In ME3, it was very frustrating when I wasn't able to get peace between Quarians and Geth and thus have Shepard just stand their lamely. The option to unsuccessfully try would have been nice there.

[Evelle]

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"

 

Why not allow a game settings option where you can turn on or off the "grey outs"? If you don't want to see it, then you can turn it off like the subtitles.