332 réponses à ce sujet

[javeart]

andar91 wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
big snip

This is very helpful for clarifying the changes, thank you.

Very much agreed. It sounds nice to me.

I am curious about the tones. "Noble/Clever/Direct"...I wonder what that means? I mean, you had the option of being a jerk in DA2, but "Direct" doesn't necessarily mean jerk. Nor is clever necessarily funny. Which is...okay. I guess I'm just curious as to how dialogue will give us ways to have agency over our character.

it sounds almost identical to me, "clever" being "sarcastic"+"charming", and "direct" being "direct"+"agressive" (and "noble" being "diplomatic"+"helpful")... it seems the only reason for changing the names is because they're "grouping" some options, doesn't it?

Modifié par javeart, 20 février 2014 - 09:19 .

[ElitePinecone]

andar91 wrote...

I am curious about the tones. "Noble/Clever/Direct"...I wonder what that means? I mean, you had the option of being a jerk in DA2, but "Direct" doesn't necessarily mean jerk. Nor is clever necessarily funny. Which is...okay. I guess I'm just curious as to how dialogue will give us ways to have agency over our character.

Hard to say, but it sounds like (from the rest of that section) they want to reduce the distance between the tones. It's kinda strange if Hawke is polite one minute then an aggressive sociopath the next. A direct approach could achieve much the same thing as an aggressive one (and it might even be aggressive on occasion) but without drastically changing the tenor of the conversation.

It sounds like more of an internal thing, like David said. I'm looking forward to finding out.

[Malanek]

In DA2, I couldn't really imagine the same person saying the things that were said from different tones in many cases. So many of them were very extreme it felt jarring. I'm reasonably optimistic about this, it sounds like they are trying to address MY specific concerns (although I din't have an issue with the dominant tone) so we shall see how it goes.

[Firky]

Interesting info.

I think the way overall dialogue choice influenced what Hawke said was nifty, as well as the subsets with in the 3 tones, but I can also understand why it would be too subtle/convoluted to be optimal. It's not like noble, clever, direct has to be narrowly defined.

[Kamil-The-Drwal]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

And why not? If only I could see what my character will exactly say when I hover over response in DA2 or ME... What's the reason behind not allowing us to see the answer before we choose one?

[Welsh Inferno]

Sounds like a great improvement in theory. Can't wait to see how it plays out in practice.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 20 février 2014 - 10:44 .

[andar91]

Kamil-The-Drwal wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

And why not? If only I could see what my character will exactly say when I hover over response in DA2 or ME... What's the reason behind not allowing us to see the answer before we choose one?

They've said before, I think, that the actual experience of reading the line and then hearing it doesn't flow well. Like, it was unwieldy or something like that.

[Grieving Natashina]

Thanks for stopping by David! I have a new bookmark for the next time this topic comes up. I'll just quote you and save you the trouble of explaining yourself again.

[BFace]

David Gaider wrote...

[*]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.

 I think this is the most exciting thing I've heard so far. I like to play a bit of a smart aleck to my friends, but even I can recognize that maybe I should be more respectful to the Grand Cleric, or someone like that.

[Grieving Natashina]

Bramblefae wrote...
 I think this is the most exciting thing I've heard so far. I like to play a bit of a smart aleck to my friends, but even I can recognize that maybe I should be more respectful to the Grand Cleric, or someone like that.

I am the same way.  My Hawkes have all been snarky, since I am so IRL.  Well, all except one: my aggressive pro-Templar, Templar-spec two handed warrior.  She was badass.  However, even then I was usually respectful to the Grand Cleric and knew when not to joke and/or be super aggressive.

And some of the toned auto-dialog in DA2 made me flinch, particularly as a snarky Hawke.  

Me: Okay Hawke, you're a smartass and that's great.  You're not supposed to be a douchebag.  By the way, that joke sucked.

[MisterJB]

David Gaider wrote...


[*]

[*]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][list]

Modifié par MisterJB, 21 février 2014 - 02:16 .

[Kidd]

David Gaider wrote...

[*]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.

(...)

[*]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.

All right, these two sound beyond awesome. As of this post I declare it is now officially BSN party time!

[CybAnt1]

No dominant 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 

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.

Hrm.

And so while I understand there are apparently "testers" who find it off-putting to read and then hear the line, is there any reason why it cannot be an optional tooltip for the people who not only don't find it off-putting but actually want to do it? (That would include me, by the way.)

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...

Some people will find these things very different. 

I like just about everything but one thing, which is why there is no option to read a line before it is said.

Oh, I get there are many people who are bothered about having to do it, and I agree no one should have to.

My only question is why it isn't an option (and yes it could be a toggle to turn on/off) for those who WANT to. 

[Nightdragon8]

Thanks David for the info and really, cleared up alot of confusion I had. Also the way it sounds like the system is going to be great. "At least on paper" here is hopeing it goes well (considering its the same as DA2 really it should be almost the same)

While I honestly didn't dislike the DA2 system, its nice to see you can pick tone. (would be intresting if you can tie it into diplomacy.

Well maybe not for DA:I but may be an idea for the next DA game.

Modifié par Nightdragon8, 21 février 2014 - 03:22 .

[Travie]

Lets just hope they got over the 'three different ways of saying yes' problem that made things feel restrictive and sometimes downright annoying.

[Hiemoth]

Travie wrote...

Lets just hope they got over the 'three different ways of saying yes' problem that made things feel restrictive and sometimes downright annoying.

The funny thing is that was probably one of the reasons they ended up implementing such an amount of auto-dialogue in ME3, in order to have the discussion move on easier without having to stick in such bottlenecks where the same answer is given just in different tones and allowing them to focus more resources on having more important dialogue choices actually have more than a tone difference.

[Hiemoth]

CybAnt1 wrote...

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.

Hrm.

And so while I understand there are apparently "testers" who find it off-putting to read and then hear the line, is there any reason why it cannot be an optional tooltip for the people who not only don't find it off-putting but actually want to do it? (That would include me, by the way.)

Some people will find these things very different. 

I like just about everything but one thing, which is why there is no option to read a line before it is said.

Oh, I get there are many people who are bothered about having to do it, and I agree no one should have to.

My only question is why it isn't an option (and yes it could be a toggle to turn on/off) for those who WANT to. 

If they bother to answer that question, you will probably get a more detailed answer, but from what I've read on their comments on the subject before, the issue is rather more difficult than just implementing the toggle and that being it. They would actually have to design the whole interface in such a way that it has space to show those texts and make certain there is nothing in the action that is being covered by the text. Now in the same situation, if one has the player who switched the text off, that space would be essentially wasted. Thus the showing of text is not just toggle issue, it actually requires design decisions which do not work as well with both choices.

As someone will probably at this point be rushing to point out that they are already doing that design with the action wheel, the example we saw was very bried and took very little space. At this point it is really, really important to notice one other difference between the dialogues in DAO and DA2 which most dismiss in this discussion. Essentially, the Warden was always very short with his/her speech, limiting themselves to a couple of sentences at most, usually just using one sentence when talking. Which is completely understandable from a design point of view. In contrast, in DA2 the tones allowed the dialogues to be much longer and could continue after some interjection from the person being talked specifically along that tonal choice. Even DE:HR only showed the beginning of the discussion.

Finally, I have to ask out of curiosity, do you doubt the existance of those testers or is there another reason for the quote marks? Because if you do, I would really love to hear the reasoning behind that theory.

[Grieving Natashina]

I've got one: It's because DA2 was so rushed that at times, it didn't feel play tested very well. And, to be fair, probably wasn't. Particularly glaring at the bugs that can arise between DLCs (I'm looking at you, Legacy.) I'm betting they are testing the crap out of Inquisition even as we speak.

Hell, a recent video showed them playing and testing the game along with working on it. They had, what, about 3 years or so of development time for this latest installment? While no game at launch is ever perfect, I have no doubt that they will have good play testing this time around.

[Kidd]

Travie wrote...

Lets just hope they got over the 'three different ways of saying yes' problem that made things feel restrictive and sometimes downright annoying.

DAO had that and every ME sans 3 has had that. ME3 caught a lot of flak when it was removed. Pretty sure DAI is going back to what has worked better in the past.

Hiemoth wrote...

If they bother to answer that question, you will probably get a more detailed answer, but from what I've read on their comments on the subject before, the issue is rather more difficult than just implementing the toggle and that being it. They would actually have to design the whole interface in such a way that it has space to show those texts and make certain there is nothing in the action that is being covered by the text. Now in the same situation, if one has the player who switched the text off, that space would be essentially wasted. Thus the showing of text is not just toggle issue, it actually requires design decisions which do not work as well with both choices.

There's also QA. Having a toggle in the game means it is an officially supported way of playing the game, meaning all testers need to play through one additional game mode to ensure everything displays properly both with this feature turned on and off.

I can imagine there occasionally being glitches where the wrong response links to the wrong clarification text easily - that already happens a few times in the games as is (the wrong sound file playing for a certain line, or the wrong text string being shown in the subtitle). This will only compound the issue and create that much more time required in testing.

I would imagine the question comes down to if it's worth it to support such a feature? Of course some would love it. All features are loved by somebody. But every desired feature and toggle can't make it into the game cause there is only so much work that can be done before the disc goes gold. That's sadly just how things are.

Not to mention there's also the risk of people turning the feature on, believing they would prefer to have more insight. Chances are they are fooling themselves. This can be tested in test groups, whether people ruin their own experiences for themselves or not. If it's somewhat common that a certain feature gets misused, it sadly can't enter the game - at least not in that shape.

[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."

[CybAnt1]

Even DE:HR only showed the beginning of the discussion.

I think that is what many people were asking for.

That if the 5 word paraphrase leads to a long monologue, that we at least, like in that game, see the start of the monologue. Or as was apparently said earlier, "a significant portion" of what the character would say. 

See, earlier, I saw statements that said they might be doing this for both actions and dialogue, now it looks like it's only being done for actions. 

Fine enough, I guess I know where we are, and no this is not where I start calling EA the spawn of Satan or declare it my life's mission to boycott DA:I. 

Finally, I have to ask out of curiosity, do you doubt the existance of those testers or is there another reason for the quote marks? Because if you do, I would really love to hear the reasoning behind that theory.

No, tbh, I put the word in quotes not because I doubted their existence, more I was wondering in my mind whether they went to the effort of making sure the gaming-tester "demographic" was sufficiently variable among a number of characteristics. And age cohort, and whether they play on PC or console, and their preference as to action-RPGs vs. traditional CRPGs, being three variables I would be curious about. 

The problem with game testers is one that can also plague survey respondents; you may not get the best range of opinion if you use too homogenous a sample. 

[Grieving Natashina]

For what started out as a fairly trollish thread, this has been surprisingly useful. Allen, I'm going to use some of your comments as quotes for later. We all know that this topic is going to resurface in another thread within a week or two.

[CybAnt1]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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."

Fair enough, Mr. Schumacher. I always prefer direct answers from developers than people appointing themselves to speak on their behalf. 

It's not going to lead to a tantrum on my behalf, and your explanation makes perfect sense. Thank you, though, for recognizing that it is a feature some would want, without expressing abject dismissal. 

P.S. let me repeat I'm entirely gratified with all of the OTHER changes to the DAI dialogue system.

P.S.2 if you get a bit more time for DA4, and there is a DA4, perhaps you will put it under consideration again. 

[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.