32 réponses à ce sujet

[HellaciousHutch]

One thing I've always disliked about RECENT BioWare games (something my group of friends have disliked as well) is that the dialogue option you choose, the words you select, aren't always the same when spoken by the player-character. I'm sure you know what I mean by this, if you've played the Mass Effect series, STAR WARS: The Old Republic, or Dragon Age 2. And though some may consider this a small thing, this thing is what has bothered me the most (believe it or not) about modern BioWare games. 

 

Now. I know in Inquisition there is a toggable system in place, that, when you make a story choice, be it minor or major, that can change the world in some way, shape or form, that, it tells you EXACTLY what that choice will do (you can see an example of this system in the PAX demo). However, my question is this: Does this system expand to dialogue choices as well, and tell you exactly what the player-character will say when you select a dialogue choice or no? (I'd actually prefer that it does, but I know that it won't, I just want to verify).

[dutch_gamer]

No, it won't. Bioware has commented on it quite some time ago and how they have tested showing all the text beforehand and they hated it. I can see one reason for this why I would hate it with it for me being similar to closed captioning being completely out of sync with the actual spoken dialogue.

[Samahl]

It seems weird that they expend the effort paraphrasing lines for the wheel in the first place. I suppose it does allow them to write longer spoken lines, but it seems to me they could just alter the GUI to compensate for that... All in all though, it feels like a waste of time.

[HellaciousHutch]

It seems weird that they expend the effort paraphrasing lines for the wheel in the first place. I suppose it does allow them to write longer spoken lines, but it seems to me they could just alter the GUI to compensate for that... All in all though, it feels like a waste of time.

 

The only reason I find it...annoying is because, quite often, the character says something nowhere near similar to the paraphrased option you choose. It's not even close, and, it makes me cringe sometimes. That, or they say it in a completely different tone and in a completely different way then you intended them to say it in. 

[PsychoBlonde]

That is the major reason why the added the "tone icons" and similar.  It helps to know that "in this option, imma sound pissed".  They're also adding more "you are going to do X" notifications for things like starting fights, making choices, etc.  So they've been working hard on improving it.

 

Personally, I find the occasionally surprising responses enjoyable.  I can always load a saved game if I did something I really wasn't intending to.

 

I think they could probably do BETTER with the paraphrases if they described "this is the emotion your character expresses here" instead of "this is a shortened version of what you say".  That would have an interesting feel to it, certainly, and if they don't seem to match up you can just say "my character is terrible at expressing herself" rather than "THOSE DON'T MATCH BIOWARE".

[Borosini]

That is the major reason why the added the "tone icons" and similar.  It helps to know that "in this option, imma sound pissed".  They're also adding more "you are going to do X" notifications for things like starting fights, making choices, etc.  So they've been working hard on improving it.

 

Personally, I find the occasionally surprising responses enjoyable.  I can always load a saved game if I did something I really wasn't intending to.

 

I think they could probably do BETTER with the paraphrases if they described "this is the emotion your character expresses here" instead of "this is a shortened version of what you say".  That would have an interesting feel to it, certainly, and if they don't seem to match up you can just say "my character is terrible at expressing herself" rather than "THOSE DON'T MATCH BIOWARE".

 

"Addlepated grief: He is dead and gone, lady..."

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=uIfx32iAjzU

[Nefla]

Have you played Deus Ex? It's horrible, because you read the lines in your head, and then you pick them, and then the protagonist just repeats the words. It's infuriating. The paraphrasing is it least keeping you guessing.

Bioware have also stated they will make it very clear what dialogue choices lead to what actions, unlike DA2 which sometimes you couldn't tell. For example, you want to be angry at a NPC, but the aggressive dialogue option is aggresstive but supportive of the NPC.

Actually I preferred that. In recent BioWare games (SWtOR being what I play most often) they don't even try with the paraphrasing. Often it's one word and no matter what it's usually way different than what you think you're going to say or wanted to say, ex:

 

You meet some lowly peasant npc  and he grovels before you saying "I'm sorry my lord, I didn't mean to get in your way!" and you pick a choice of response that says "no need to apologize" because he has nothing to apologize for and you're not a hardcore jerk but what your character actually says is "spare me your simpering, I should kill you where you stand!" I've escaped out of and reloaded conversation sooooo many times in SWtOR because of this. Sadly in DA2 you had to reload a save.

[Shapeshifter777]

I said I liked ice cream and my character punched the dude in the face.

[Nimpe]

I found sometimes the paraphrasing assumes a reason that's different than what you were thinking. Like if you select "No, I won't help you" shepard might go and shout something like "I would never kill a man!" when really I could have had any other reason for not wanting to help them.

[PsychoBlonde]

Um...this was DA ][. Like, literally. And for all we know, the tones are returning (though more neutral).

 

No--the tone options were supposed to be indicative of the *tone* you would use, NOT the emotional content.  As others have stated, sometimes "aggressive" was more "brusque, let's get on with it" and sometimes it was more "I WILL KILL YOU NOW" and sometimes it was more "Idiot".  Sometimes "diplomatic" was more "let's put that behind us and focus on the present" and sometimes it was more "aww, here, let me soothe you".  I can't say it was bad because writing something like that has got to be a giant pain in the patoot, but it was far from consistent or predictable.

 

That's why I'd just as well rather have options that, instead of reading "there's no use in arguing" and getting "well, I'm sure both of you have some valid points in your favor", I'd rather the paraphrase just read "positive averall"--which is what you actually did.  If you actually SAY "there's no use in arguing" it'd be something more like "water under the bridge".  Cliches would probably profit them a lot in paraphrasing because people tend to use THOSE consistently.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

The worst offender/flaw in this system is character moral compass being twisted out of character.

If I play a lawful evil character, and want to solve something with dialogue out of practical reasons - it may come out as:
"Dont worry questgiver, I wont let more innocent people get hurt!" O.o woot...

or

Playing a lawful good character and choosing blunt/red response to intimidate someone:
"Do as I say or I'll kill you and your men".

The problem is, you cant be evil and use manipulation/diplomacy without being depicted as a holy paladin.
You cant be a good person using a direct approach without sometimes seem bloodthirsty.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Have you played Deus Ex? It's horrible, because you read the lines in your head, and then you pick them, and then the protagonist just repeats the words. It's infuriating. The paraphrasing is it least keeping you guessing.

 

Agree with this, And it ALWAYS sounded better in my head. When Jensen says it out loud it always sounds a little too angry, or childish, and I'm left with the sinking feeling that I've made the wrong choice.

 

At least in Dragon Age you have to excuse of ''I'm a sarcastic character, all these horrible puns are part of my personality''.

[Lady Nuggins]

Have you played Deus Ex? It's horrible, because you read the lines in your head, and then you pick them, and then the protagonist just repeats the words. It's infuriating. The paraphrasing is it least keeping you guessing.

Bioware have also stated they will make it very clear what dialogue choices lead to what actions, unlike DA2 which sometimes you couldn't tell. For example, you want to be angry at a NPC, but the aggressive dialogue option is aggresstive but supportive of the NPC.

 

Oof, the last thing I would want is to read an entire line of dialogue and then have the character repeat it back to me.  An entire game of that would be painful.  It's also not like the written dialogue will be expressed the same by the VA as how you read it in your head.  That was the problem I ran into in Origins--I'd interpret a line as having a particular inflection, but characters would react to it as though it had a very different inflection.  Short of saying the words yourself, no system is going to be 100% perfect in expressing what you want.

 

The paraphrasing has a few awkward parts, but overall I really like the paraphrase + icon + color system. 

[FiveThreeTen]

Funny, while replaying DA2 I just got one that was a bit annoying in the Enemies among us quest:

I purposely brought only rogues and warriors (cuz immersion) to meet Cullen. When selecting "Not all mages are bad", Hawke says: "I have mage friends...".

Like whoa, I just wanted to share an opinion, not say something that could be interpreted as: "Yep, Knight-Captain, I hang out with apostates from time to time, problem?"

 

In this instance, it's not an option with an indicative icon. From the E3 demo, it seems we get more icons so it should help if the paraphrasing is not clear enough.

[Fialka]

In that demo they showed back on 2013, didn't they show the option to turn on a more detailed version of your dialogue (that would show up above the choice wheel)? Or did they end up taking that out?

 

I didn't really mind the paraphrasing so much - yeah sometimes the things coming out of my mouth were not what I wanted to say, but, I think the issue was the assumption that a certain tonal choice equaled a specific stance. I played a pro-mage, chaotic good character who had a direct/aggressive personality and the game kept assuming I was pro-Templar whenever I talked to certain NPCs and clicked the red choice. Or that I thought killing people was the only solution to anything. Very annoying.

 

Also, the fact that if you played aggressive Hawke, it was apparently assumed you would never ask questions (since it then defaulted to the diplomatic voice) or flirt with anyone (else you'd suddenly turn into funny Hawke). It was very jarring - at least while playing a a female character. Not sure if the male VA was any better at sounding consistent? I know, I could have gone the diplomatic or snarky route, but, diplo Hawke sounded like a simpering tool, and snarky Hawke just sounded like she was trying too hard to be funny - I personally couldn't stand either.

 

Hopefully those neutral options we'll have in Inquisition will give us a bit more flexibility in our choices, without making our characters sound like they have multiple personalities.

[PsychoBlonde]

Funny, while replaying DA2 I just got one that was a bit annoying in the Enemies among us quest:

I purposely brought only rogues and warriors (cuz immersion) to meet Cullen. When selecting "Not all mages are bad", Hawke says: "I have mage friends...".

 

lol, I remember that one.  What does you having mage friends have to do with not all mages being bad?  Maybe you have terrible judgment and your friends are jackasses!  Maybe you just go to sporting events together and you care nothing about their moral approach!  To me, "I have mage friends" is less "not all mages are bad" and more "hey, don't insult mages in front of me, you magist!"  If I wanted to say "not all mages are bad" I would say "Some mages are healers and join the Grey Wardens to fight the Blight, stuff like that".  Actual examples of mages doing stuff that isn't bad.

 

You know, that makes me wonder . . . do they write the dialog first, or the paraphrase first?  Do they write them at the same time, or do all the dialog and then come back later and do the paraphrases?

 

I'm the kind of person when I'm writing that I'd probably find it easier to write the paraphrases first and THEN write the full dialog line.  That might be an interesting writing challenge.  You could even do it in such a way that the person who writes the NPC characters ONLY writes paraphrases for the PC and then hands it off to ONE PERSON who writes ALL the PC full lines.  You might get a more consistent PC "voice" in that case.  Or not.  Could be a cool thing to experiment with and it would be something that you couldn't do EXCEPT by having this particular paraphrase design.  I'm always in favor of making full use of the particular design choices you've made--if you're going to do it, OWN it--and that might be a way to really bring out the full potential.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Funny, while replaying DA2 I just got one that was a bit annoying in the Enemies among us quest:

I purposely brought only rogues and warriors (cuz immersion) to meet Cullen. When selecting "Not all mages are bad", Hawke says: "I have mage friends...".

Like whoa, I just wanted to share an opinion, not say something that could be interpreted as: "Yep, Knight-Captain, I hang out with apostates from time to time, problem?"

 

In this instance, it's not an option with an indicative icon. From the E3 demo, it seems we get more icons so it should help if the paraphrasing is not clear enough.

 

You have to take pretty much anything involving magic and your party in DA2 with a massive grain of salt. Things like Hawke (or Bethany) in the middle of the Gallows, Templar Central, shooting lightning or summoning fire from the sky within the first hour of the game break immersion wide open.

[aTigerslunch]

I like the system the way it is. I understood, this was good, this was neutral and this was evil, to play certain types was unfeasible and ignored trying to be a stern good paladin type deal.  I didn't find much problems with the dialog, and definitely do not want to read, click and listen to all of it twice. I prefer clicking the para-phrase and listening. I knew what to expect, not what words came out, it was fine. I didn't have surprises, like I want to be diplomatic and it said sarcastic instead, never happened to me.

[FiveThreeTen]

You have to take pretty much anything involving magic and your party in DA2 with a massive grain of salt. Things like Hawke (or Bethany) in the middle of the Gallows, Templar Central, shooting lightning or summoning fire from the sky within the first hour of the game break immersion wide open.

Very true. But I guess I was trying to give the Kirwall templars a chance to show that they weren't entirely dumb by taking a non mage party to some encounters (namely Emeric and Cullen, Thrask can be a different story though).

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's possible that knowing the full line of dialogue in advance would make the actor's delivery of that line even more jarring than it already is. If you select a full line, intending to say it a certain way, and then your character says it differently, that might cause problems for more people than the current system does.

Personally, I need to know what my character is going to say and do as a result of my dialogue selection so that I can avoid out of character options. There is no circumstance where I would enjoy being surprised by what my character has to say.

If they gave us the full text, the first thing I'd do is turn off the voice as well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You know, that makes me wonder . . . do they write the dialog first, or the paraphrase first? Do they write them at the same time, or do all the dialog and then come back later and do the paraphrases?

I'm the kind of person when I'm writing that I'd probably find it easier to write the paraphrases first and THEN write the full dialog line. That might be an interesting writing challenge. You could even do it in such a way that the person who writes the NPC characters ONLY writes paraphrases for the PC and then hands it off to ONE PERSON who writes ALL the PC full lines. You might get a more consistent PC "voice" in that case. Or not. Could be a cool thing to experiment with and it would be something that you couldn't do EXCEPT by having this particular paraphrase design. I'm always in favor of making full use of the particular design choices you've made--if you're going to do it, OWN it--and that might be a way to really bring out the full potential.

I suggested something similar, but it never occurred to me to have the paraphrases written first.

I thought the dialogue would be written first, and then the paraphrases could be written by a different person, with the lines provided out of order and out of context so as to prevent them from expecting players to rely on context to interpret them.

But I like your idea better. Writing the paraphrases first is an excellent idea.