11 réponses à ce sujet

[CybAnt1]

Well, I've tried.

 

It doesn't look like they will budge on the dialogue issue. 

 

At least not for this game. And while I accept their claim of technical hurdles, at the end of the day, it's not clear to me why this is technically impossible.

 

Anything that has been spoken by a VA has to be in text form also, they have to be reading lines. So anything VA's are saying has to ALSO exist in text form, somewhere. And while I understand dialogue is being dynamically generated, I really can't believe it's so dynamic that what the "Quiz" is about to say is not made up, ultimately, of text-strings that already exist in the game and simply need to be assembled, then pre-presented to players. 

 

Anyway, Allan Schumacher acknowledges doing what we would want here is not impossible, just difficult, and they refuse to take on the difficulty. 

 

Sorry, Ieldra, I tried to argue for your position with vehemence, but this windmill won't budge. 

 

The next set of fights for grognardian principles may come over combat, which I suspect we might be getting some reveals about tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bEVEsthda]

Of course you failed. There was a great battle about the dialogue system years ago. "Everybody's" position was that DA2 dialogue system was a disaster - except for the few EA viral posters, probably including guilty marketing dudes and 'game design consultants', who went on and on about "- Oh, how great it was to hear Hawke speak and the delight at experiencing Hawke's personality", using pretty much the same choice of words and phrases every time, as well as staying logged on and posting for full workdays - and Bioware's position was that the voiced protagonist and dialogue wheel was a must and a great invention. The implementation was maybe not perfect.

 

And that's pretty much the same message we've been getting on all complaints about the DA2 changes to DA; the ideas are good and the right way, they maybe just didn't quite succeeed with what they wanted and intended, this time.

Thus my eternal litany about Bioware only listening to criticism from people who basically always liked  DA2.

 

Personally, I feel there's a better chance for Bioware to reach a different audience, than satisfying the 'Grognard's' demand for turning DA back into a spiritual successor to BG. Bioware has changed. Time goes by. One of the combat gameplay designers loves Final Fantasy games. And I suspect that is pretty much what Bioware had in mind from the start, when they once spoke on making "Cinematic" games.

 

At the end of day, Bioware's developers can't make a successful game they don't understand. Nobody can do that.

I expect Bioware to be lost forever. But I still intend to buy DA:I. Doesn't matter, I'm still curious.

[CybAnt1]

You know, I've reached the Kubler-Ross point of "Acceptance" when it comes to their decision on paraphrasing, but I just want to point out three things that I find odd.

 

1. It cannot both simultaneously be true that it is technically impossible to show full lines/substantial portions of them, AND that they tried testing it out with game testers and they didn't like it.  After all, if they tried it out and tested it with players, then there is a way to do it. 

 

2. I thank fchopin for asking a question I've asked before, on the demographics of these testers who supposedly recoiled in horror from seeing lines optionally display as text, before hearing them voiced/recited. (I really get that there are some people who wouldn't like it, and would want it to be turned off, but as I was asked, how many are there that are bothered by this? And more importantly, what kinds of people are bothered by it - and who reacted positively to it? and who couldn't live with it if it could be turned off by a toggle, especially?) I really would want to know how many testers they used, and the demographics of nationality, age, preferred platform, and gaming experience. (Which means not just what computer/video games they've played before, but have they played tabletop rpgs before, or not.) 

 

Unless, of course, they're not being honest, but I hate to accuse of bad faith. Still, as I said above, two things cannot simultaneously be true. 

 

3. Still don't get, if seeing/reading and then voicing/hearing lines is a cosmic horror, why there is nobody at the DX:HR gaming forums complaining about it. 

 

BTW, while I agree with David Gaider we may all be wrong on how helpful it will be (we not being in their tester population won't know until we've seen/experienced it for ourselves), even he's not denying that it could be of some benefit. Thing is, I see no costs (i.e. negative impacts on players) if it can be toggled off - that argument makes no sense to me. There could be some costs to them in terms of development time and resources, and I accept that, but I can't grok the negative player impact - if it can be toggled on and off. 

 

Incidentally, there was an additional reason I pointed to that article on groupthink. Particularly the section where it says within an organization, people are afraid to contradict very charismatic figures within an organization who identify with a particular way of doing things, even if they disagree, over the need to be perceived as presenting a united front. But I think even here now, where we are speaking privately, but moderators can look, that's about all I want to say on that. 

 

I love Bioware, there are many times where I really like Lord Gaider, but this is not one of them.

 

'Nuff said. 

[bEVEsthda]

Well, I don't love Bioware. Not anymore. I think I stopped about when NWN OC happened.

Then they kinda won me back. In particular with KotOR, which I enjoyed tremendously, despite feeling the combat gameplay wasn't quite what it could/should have been. Then I though they were back on the stage with DA:O.

 

Well, well,..

 

So what are you saying? That we should push a couple of issues/questions? Even if the decisions are a done fact now?

 

I must say...  I also really would like to know what who the hell their fokus groups /testers are. Who the hell are any of EA's testers?

[CybAnt1]

Well, I don't love Bioware. Not anymore. I think I stopped about when NWN OC happened.

 

So what are you saying? That we should push a couple of issues/questions? Even if the decisions are a done fact now?

 

I must say...  I also really would like to know what who the hell their fokus groups /testers are. Who the hell are any of EA's testers?

 

Well, personally, I didn't really enjoy the NWN OCs until NWN2 ... when I got full control over NPC companions (rather than leaving them on NWN's highly crappy AI); and as I keep saying, it's too bad the damn series hit its apex with Storm of Zehir (party of 6! Yay!), the last official module they ever released. 

 

I dunno. It just seems when it comes to the Dialogue issue, we are beating our head against a wall, and I don't see it budging. BTW, I don't "lead" anybody else here, including you, so do as you like, I'm just not sure what my further campaigning on the issue is going to accomplish. I've tried to vary my approach. I figure kiss-ass is the best one to use at this point of stalemate. Otherwise I have no opening to deal with other situations. 

 

As a group, I think the Grognards need to save their powder over the biggest coming struggle. Combat mechanics. Most of what I've heard sounds good, some things sound troubling, but I think the rumble over DAI's "Action-RPG" mechanics is coming when they probably give a fairly full release of them at E3. As to what we can do about it, well, all I can say is things CAN change, if not at release, then maybe in patches, DLC, or expansions. What the game is going to be like at release is close to set in stone at this point, but that doesn't mean it can't change after release. 

 

Also, how important we need to campaign on those things will also, I think, relate to its mod-friendliness, because there was a time for where I could hope for mod fixes - with DAI, now I'm not sure. There could be mod fixes on combat, though I don't think any mod could enable text for dialogue if they don't enable it themselves. 

 

BTW, I'm also unsure as to how much they really have budged on the companion interaction issue. First, it was revealed we WOULD be able to talk to companions in MOST places (though not all), now it sounds like we will only be able to talk to them in the Main Keep - sounds like DAO all over again, except you could talk to companions both inside AND outside of Party Camp. 

 

At least they will always have something to say, even if it looks like they've come up with a clever conversational recycling mechanism. 

[bEVEsthda]

Well, the reason I've gone basically quiet on DA:I is that the game is done by now. Of course a lot of work remains. All the parts need to be completed and then there's polishing, but the main game with all its mechanics is basically done.

 

I've never seen any clear evidence that they've been prepared to listen to anyone who didn't like DA2. What kind of "constructive criticism" is that? I was always puzzled by Bioware's attitude after DA2. The feedback they should really have been interested in, was that which came from those who hated DA2.

 

Instead, they have picked up on all the small flaws of DA2, which we can all agree on, and which every game has its fair share of - even the most popular and beloved games. So no re-used environments next time? That's going to do it?  And now, we're apparently to play some kind of strategic Inquisition-Tycoon simulation game on the side? If I want to do that I buy a different game. I only ask for a cRPG from DA.

[Remmirath]

Yes, I'm afraid that much of the argument against being able to see the full line before selecting an option comes down to that they decided not to do it, so that's how it is. Charitably, I assume that there is actually some data that they are referring to, but it would be nice to at least know what sort of data it is and where they're getting it from.

I do not expect to win much if any ground with regards to dialogue in general at this point. It's become clear to me that either the majority of players actually do not care about being able to even choose the right line of dialogue, much less care about being stuck with a voice, or if they do care BioWare thinks they don't. The paraphrases and icons appear to be essentially set in stone. Unfortunate, but perhaps inevitable considering that they already switched stride mid-series to bring that system to Dragon Age.

Combat still has some hope. I get the impression that people's opinions were at least divided enough on the combat that they might not think it's just a few people who want different things about it, and it seems the thing most people who preferred DA II's combat liked about it was the speed, which could easily be kept while having generally more interesting, believable, and challenging combat. Do I think they'll actually go that route? I'm a bit too pessimistic to think so at this point, but I haven't completely given up hope.

They did say that they were looking closely at that whole long thread of constructive criticism that was around not long after DA II's release, but I've no idea how much they actually were looking, or which suggestions they were simply outright ignoring. At least we'll be able to equip companions in some fashion, so there's one thing.

More and more I'm less convinced that they have any particular interest in making roleplaying games any more, or at least in catering to what I would consider to be people who actually want to roleplay their own characters while playing the games. The genre is ill-defined enough that I doubt they'll slip off from actually fitting into it somewhere. There are just so many things wrong with the current dialogue system from that standpoint, and this focus on cinematics appears to have overpowered any desires in that direction that might've been had. I'm sure the emphasis on cinematics is a large part of their insistence on the voice, and hate the voice or love it, the paraphrases appear to come with it.

Eh. I'm in a cynical mood today in general, but the outlook isn't great. As these things go, they now will have to deal with a fractured fan base one way or another -- those people who loved DA II, and loved the Mass Effect games, are not going to be happy if they return to certain (I would say key) ways in with Origins was different (I would say better). On the other hand, those who greatly preferred Origins or older games are not going to be happy if they continue as they have been. It's partly a question of which section of the customer base they value more, and I'm guessing that's going to be whichever they believe is netting more profit. It is precisely because of that problem that their refusal to even add an option for seeing the whole dialogue line is particularly confusing to me. That they will not do the same for the entire voice/wheel system, I can at least come up with some valid reasons for (although no reasons I feel would outweigh the potential gain), but just seeing the whole line? I can't picture someone honestly being bothered by the mere option of it -- or, in fact, by mousing over a paraphrase for the full line or something else where it does not have to be seen.

On a more positive note, if DA:I turns out to be a noticable step in the right direction, the battle may be lost but the war might yet be worth fighting. What remains to be seen is whether or not it will be a noticable step in the right direction.

[bEVEsthda]

I agree. I also don't think they want to make RPG games any more, that is - not 'role playing games'.

The want to make 'Cinematic Games'. And by that, I believbe they actually mean classic style FF and jrpg-style games. They wanted to do their  story for us. They wanted us to delight in hearing and experiencing the protagonist speak and react. And even surprise us. There's an early interview with one of the doctors, and there's no doubt that the 'surprises' in DA2 were entirely intentional. We were supposed to like that. Just like if we watched a movie.

 

Now, I believe DA:I will be different in many things, and in particular I think it's going to be a more interesting game, with more things going on. But I'm very unsure about whether it's going to be a role playing game. I suspect they're going to gamble on having lost that group of audience. Those remaining are supposed to not notice the difference. And frankly, people who started with FF don't. They don't see any difference at all. They're completely blind in that regard.

[CybAnt1]

t's partly a question of which section of the customer base they value more, and I'm guessing that's going to be whichever they believe is netting more profit. 

 

Well, to me, recent moves, and statements, suggest to me they want to make that painfully clear. 

 

Look, it is mostly older gamers (like myself) who prefer the DAO "way" over the ME/DA2 "way" -- and that base of purchasers is shrinking. I don't need a crystal ball to get it. More and more people on this board have never played KOTOR, BG1/2, NWN1/2. They really think a JRPG is what a CRPG has been like, or should be like. 

 

I just get tired of being told I don't value innovation. I most certainly do. The problem was DA2 did not INNOVATE; it simply copied a tired action-RPG formula and "Mass Effected" the DA series ... there were a lot of areas where DAO could have been improved (combat speed, skills, etc.), and a lot of places where Bio COULD innovate (encounter design/depth, more noncombat options, etc.) but did anything but. 

[Remmirath]

Yes, it is painfully clear. Unfortunately, considering how thin the market is on RPGs at all, it probably isn't even going to lose them too many of the customers who actually want RPGs. It's hard enough to find new games that let you create a character at all, much less actually let you play them how you want -- which increasingly BioWare games no longer allow, alas.

The lack of control does have to be intentional, but I cannot understand why anyone would possibly think that it's a good thing. I might like surprises when reading a book or watching a movie, but I hate them if it's concerning what my character is doing. I'm sure the same group of people who want that is the group who keep saying that they find having the PC voiced "gives the character life", which is rather missing the point of roleplaying. Of course, I suppose that's the crux of the issue: they don't want roleplaying games, they want mildly interactive stories where they can just define what the protagonist looks like.

I suppose it may be mostly older gamers who feel this way, but I'm still in the oft-claimed-as-targeted 18-24 range (albeit not for long). My brother's younger than me, and he feels the same on these issues. Granted, I don't know anyone else more or less my age or younger who feels as strongly as I do, but I do know a fair amount who enjoy both styles of game. And, as I recall, DA:O did rather well sales-wise. I don't think it would have really hurt them at all to keep the whole voice and paraphrase mechanic out of the Dragon Age series. Especially since certain other extremely popular games don't have those things, so clearly people are willing to play and enjoy games without them.

I feel that innovation is thrown about too much as a thing to be striven for at all costs. For one thing, a game does not need to innovate to be good -- and it is not necessarily good if it does innovate. For another, I completely agree that there was room to do so, particularly in encounters and greater depth of combat, without changing things completely (I tend to feel that changing mechanics massively in the midst of a series is not the best move in general). Slapping the most annoying element of the Mass Effect series onto it was neither innovative nor helpful. Now, I do appreciate innovations that add to the experience of the game, but I'm tired of hearing people bandy innovation about as a goal in and of itself regardless of whether or not those particular innovations are an improvement.

I don't have a problem with jRPGs or interactive movie type games. They are not my cup of tea, but there is plenty of room for all styles of games in the world, and I think it's better to have a varied selection rather than slight variations on one type of game. However, I am annoyed by the fact that those types of games seem to be taking over the rest of the RPG genre as well. Variety is nice, but it seems to be drifting ever more towards a mediocre homogeny which can't possibly satisfy everyone -- or perhaps anyone.

[CybAnt1]

Yes, it is painfully clear. Unfortunately, considering how thin the market is on RPGs at all, it probably isn't even going to lose them too many of the customers who actually want RPGs. It's hard enough to find new games that let you create a character at all, much less actually let you play them how you want -- which increasingly BioWare games no longer allow, alas. (1)

The lack of control does have to be intentional, but I cannot understand why anyone would possibly think that it's a good thing. I might like surprises when reading a book or watching a movie, but I hate them if it's concerning what my character is doing. I'm sure the same group of people who want that is the group who keep saying that they find having the PC voiced "gives the character life", which is rather missing the point of roleplaying. Of course, I suppose that's the crux of the issue: they don't want roleplaying games, they want mildly interactive stories where they can just define what the protagonist looks like. (2)

I suppose it may be mostly older gamers who feel this way, but I'm still in the oft-claimed-as-targeted 18-24 range (albeit not for long). My brother's younger than me, and he feels the same on these issues. Granted, I don't know anyone else more or less my age or younger who feels as strongly as I do, but I do know a fair amount who enjoy both styles of game. And, as I recall, DA:O did rather well sales-wise. I don't think it would have really hurt them at all to keep the whole voice and paraphrase mechanic out of the Dragon Age series. Especially since certain other extremely popular games don't have those things, so clearly people are willing to play and enjoy games without them. (3)

I feel that innovation is thrown about too much as a thing to be striven for at all costs. For one thing, a game does not need to innovate to be good -- and it is not necessarily good if it does innovate. For another, I completely agree that there was room to do so, particularly in encounters and greater depth of combat, without changing things completely (I tend to feel that changing mechanics massively in the midst of a series is not the best move in general). Slapping the most annoying element of the Mass Effect series onto it was neither innovative nor helpful. Now, I do appreciate innovations that add to the experience of the game, but I'm tired of hearing people bandy innovation about as a goal in and of itself regardless of whether or not those particular innovations are an improvement.

I don't have a problem with jRPGs or interactive movie type games. They are not my cup of tea, but there is plenty of room for all styles of games in the world, and I think it's better to have a varied selection rather than slight variations on one type of game. However, I am annoyed by the fact that those types of games seem to be taking over the rest of the RPG genre as well. Variety is nice, but it seems to be drifting ever more towards a mediocre homogeny which can't possibly satisfy everyone -- or perhaps anyone. (4)

 

(1) People will tell you that you never had freedom in the whole dialogue tree system they had in previous games, either, as you were limited to what the writers put there. 

 

Well, yes, but it just seems funny they will keep saying that. I would rather choose from 5-9 lines they wrote (even if they are short, pithy 1-sentencers) than pick from 3 paraphrases, which are usually so short and nondescript I'm really just picking an emotional tone out of 3 choices, and waiting for what happens after Hawke says something bizarre and unexpected. And yes, BTW, I do not give a crap that out of 9 lines in a dialogue tree, 8 lead to the same conversational outcome. The illusion of choice feels like choice, and I will take it. 

 

The tonal markers? Fine, I get why they can be useful, the problem is it just seems to me they've moved toward a system where you are selecting on tone alone, basically. Instead of having a conversation, you're just choosing "how" to have it. The wheel to me is just a gimmick, frankly I get it: easier to navigate with a game controller whereas a list-tree works better with a mouse; but I know that's not going away. 

 

The thing is, they know DX:HR gives the lie to their claim that you can't have a wheel plus voicing with anything but paraphrases. It can be done - they just won't. 

 

They refuse to release the demographics and data of their play testing on the full text option, so I will not just sit there and smile and accept the claim "we tried it. we tested it. It didn't work." I am from the land of show-me. And just because I'm beholden to your games doesn't mean I have to just flatly accept everything you say - without supporting data and evidence. 

 

(2) Apparently, if you don't like things that way, you must be part of some RPGcodex "cult" at least the way Gaider often puts it. Look, I get it. They want a story-narrative to drive their games. You CAN do that and also give the player agency to pick the branching parts of the storyline. It's more work - but gives more depth. 

 

(3) Yeah, Fast Jimmy often points this out. 

 

(4) Yeah, that's the problem in a nutshell. Innovation? No, everything's becoming homogenized. Anything but. 

[Remmirath]

Indeed.

(1) People will tell you that you never had freedom in the whole dialogue tree system they had in previous games, either, as you were limited to what the writers put there. 
 
Well, yes, but it just seems funny they will keep saying that. I would rather choose from 5-9 lines they wrote (even if they are short, pithy 1-sentencers) than pick from 3 paraphrases, which are usually so short and nondescript I'm really just picking an emotional tone out of 3 choices, and waiting for what happens after Hawke says something bizarre and unexpected. And yes, BTW, I do not give a crap that out of 9 lines in a dialogue tree, 8 lead to the same conversational outcome. The illusion of choice feels like choice, and I will take it. 
 
The tonal markers? Fine, I get why they can be useful, the problem is it just seems to me they've moved toward a system where you are selecting on tone alone, basically. Instead of having a conversation, you're just choosing "how" to have it. The wheel to me is just a gimmick, frankly I get it: easier to navigate with a game controller whereas a list-tree works better with a mouse; but I know that's not going away.

Yes, exactly. I don't expect every line of dialogue to lead to a different conversation outcome -- and from what I can tell, they don't do that all the time with the paraphrases either. I just want to be able to actually choose what my character says. Nor do I care that the NPC will then react based on an assumed tone, as it's to me entirely reasonable to assume that if that does not match the tone that was in my head, the NPC misinterpreted the character's tone.

The tonal markers are indeed somewhat better than the paraphrases without them, but only because they prevent one level of bizarre outcome. They'll at least warn you if your character will punch someone in the face, but that really should not have to even be said as a good thing. Whatever was wrong with "Shut up! (Punch him)"? Gives you all the information you need.

You have a good point about the game controllers. I hadn't thought of that. Still, the wheel arrangement is not the problem. I don't much care what order or how the lines of dialogue are arranged. They could be in an intricate star pattern for all I care (although I do think the list is the most efficient, generally). The problem is that the paraphrases/voice combination forces you to only guess what your character might say, and for a roleplaying game, that's crippling.

(2) Apparently, if you don't like things that way, you must be part of some RPGcodex "cult" at least the way Gaider often puts it. Look, I get it. They want a story-narrative to drive their games. You CAN do that and also give the player agency to pick the branching parts of the storyline. It's more work - but gives more depth.

Quite. One couldn't possibly just enjoy roleplaying.

I still don't understand how the paraphrasing or the voice has anything to do with the narrative being story-driven, despite people lumping them together frequently. A game can be perfectly story-driven and consist of nothing but text. It only makes it more cinematic, and that is not at all the same thing as story-driven; in fact, sometimes I feel that it hurts that aspect of the game in addition to hurting the roleplaying aspect of the game.

I'd say Planescape: Torment is a good example of a game that is heavily story-based, but has plenty of choice as well. It's hardly impossible.
 

(4) Yeah, that's the problem in a nutshell. Innovation? No, everything's becoming homogenized. Anything but.

I expect that eventually people will realise this is a problem, but apparently that's going to be a while yet. When everything is homogenised, it becomes harder and harder to stand out except by actually being different, and then mayhap games will go back to being more varied. That can, at least, be hoped.