371 réponses à ce sujet

[theflyingzamboni]

I also want to add, I don't remember much opportunity to express doubt, fear, etc. in most conversational options except in PS:T.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As for the latter, I can understand that. I think it just works for me because generally characters I roleplay tend to keep those fears and doubts away from the public. Leaders don't show their fears, no matter how great. That kind of thing. All of those come out for me in internal character monologue and imagined conversation with party members. That hasn't changed for me between text- and voice-based RPGs, so for me I never lost the opportunity for that. Again, that difference in roleplaying approach. Which I'd say is the really cool thing about RPGs.

I think you're designing characters that are more like what the writers expect. Put another way, you accept the implicit restrictions the game's plot places on the design of the protagonist.

For example, I tend not to design leaders. The games often place them in leadership roles, but I often like to play very different characters.

I don't see how I could play ME twice with the same gender and have a radically different Shepard each time.

My favourite Warden was a coward. He was also shy, immature, and petty, and had a very inflated opinion of himself. He was the sort of person stories never get written about.

And he wouldn't work in DA2 or ME at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I also want to add, I don't remember much opportunity to express doubt, fear, etc. in most conversational options except in PS:T.

As long as you can be noncommittal, all those emotions can exist in the background.

The tricky thing I find with the paraphrase is finding the noncommittal option.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You're sounding a bit more dogmatic here than I think you intend to. Not everyone subscribes to this method of interpretation, and I'm certain that you're aware of that.

Perhaps the middle paragraph, but I'm absolutely correct about the lack of tone.

Before you select a line, it is just text. It has no tone, no intent, and no delivery. It is text - nothing more. If a player wants to consider the tone the writers intended, that's fine, but that tone then gets added by the player.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Except when something is said sarcastically, it is usually pretty clear (the only misunderstandings tend to come when dealing with other cultures where sarcasm is delivered differently). Therefore to have characters who would know if I was being sarcastic react as if I wasn't means that it wasn't sarcastic. No matter how much i wanted my character to deliver the line which appeared to be sarcastic in that manner, he didn't. In conversation, tone is just as important as the actual words, and as such a system which doesn't allow to to see and select the tone used is just as flawed as one which doesn't allow you to see the exact words used.

Maybe they perceived the sarcasm but chose to ignore it.

And I disagree that sarcasm is that clear. I usually find sarcasm more confusing than anything.

[theflyingzamboni]

I think you're designing characters that are more like what the writers expect. Put another way, you accept the implicit restrictions the game's plot places on the design of the protagonist.

For example, I tend not to design leaders. The games often place them in leadership roles, but I often like to play very different characters.

I don't see how I could play ME twice with the same gender and have a radically different Shepard each time.

My favourite Warden was a coward. He was also shy, immature, and petty, and had a very inflated opinion of himself. He was the sort of person stories never get written about.

And he wouldn't work in DA2 or ME at all.

I'm not accepting implicit restrictions. I just prefer to play different different sorts of characters than you.  I was doing those kinds of characters in my head long before I touched a video game. Playing petty cowards and other character-types that subvert heroic tropes sounds interesting, but it just isn't enjoyable for me. That the characters I play (and there is variety to them) seem to fit well with what the writers work around is coincidence, not causation. I do not appreciate the implication that I am somehow a slave to the writer's whim because of the characters I enjoy playing, whether that implication was intended or no. As another just said, I'm sure you don't actually intend to come off as dogmatic, but your word choice gives that impression sometimes.

[AlanC9]

I'm not accepting implicit restrictions. I just prefer to play different different sorts of characters than you.

I think the point is that Sylvius' choices of player character traits fight the design intent, while yours don't. So it's not that you're accepting implicit restrictions, it's that you never run into them in the first place.

[PhroXenGold]

Perhaps the middle paragraph, but I'm absolutely correct about the lack of tone.

Before you select a line, it is just text. It has no tone, no intent, and no delivery. It is text - nothing more. If a player wants to consider the tone the writers intended, that's fine, but that tone then gets added by the player.

 

And how is that any different from the dialogue wheel? The dialogue wheel covers the tone and the gist of the text. The full text system covers just the words. Both require the player to make assumptions on what the writers intended with regards to the aspects of the dialogue not explicitly stated (either the exact wording or the tone).

 

And personally, I'd say the tone is far far more important than the exact wording.Tone can completely and utterly change the meaning of a statement. Not seeing the exact wording might result in something a little OOC being said, but it's not going to result in your character saying the complete opposite of what you intended him to say.

[SofaJockey]

I don't think it's a verified fact that most prefer voiced. As for immersion, those who prefer silent do so for a similar reason, i.e. voiced breaks their immersion. It does that because they experience the game in a different way. But this battle is lost, for now.

 

A dialogue wheel is different from a list of explicit lines. DA2 with its many surprises demonstrates that very clearly. Also, since we cannot preview the exact line, we cannot make it our character's line before it's spoken. It's alien.

 

BioWare confirmed at PAX East 2012 that the preference pro-voice was about 60:40.

It also works better for them.

 

The are also making the dialogue wheel much more explicit.

 

Ref: [17:00-20.17]

[theflyingzamboni]

I think the point is that Sylvius' choices of player character traits fight the design intent, while yours don't. So it's not that you're accepting implicit restrictions, it's that you never run into them in the first place.

That may be. I made a point at the end about his choice of words maybe coming across differently than intended.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And how is that any different from the dialogue wheel? The dialogue wheel covers the tone and the gist of the text. The full text system covers just the words. Both require the player to make assumptions on what the writers intended with regards to the aspects of the dialogue not explicitly stated (either the exact wording or the tone).

I don't think the full text requires we make amy assumptions at all. What tone the writers intended only matters if you decide it does. I haven't decided that.

With the paraphrases and voice, we have to guess at what will actually be said, and each line can only be delivered one way (of which we might be aware, depending how informative the icon is).

With the silent full text, we get to chose exactly what is said (from a short list of options), and exactly how it is said (with no restrictions at all).

The difference is that before the line is delivered, in DAO I have the ability to recite aloud the exact line with the exact delivery. And in DA2, I can do neither thing.

And personally, I'd say the tone is far far more important than the exact wording.Tone can completely and utterly change the meaning of a statement.

That may well be true, which is why I think it's important to leave that in the hands of the players.

Not seeing the exact wording might result in something a little OOC being said, but it's not going to result in your character saying the complete opposite of what you intended him to say.

On the contrary, Shepard and Hawke routinely said the exact thing I was trying to avoid.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think the point is that Sylvius' choices of player character traits fight the design intent, while yours don't. So it's not that you're accepting implicit restrictions, it's that you never run into them in the first place.

I would have thought those two things were equivalent.

I admit I didn't allow for coincidental agreement between the player and writers. I should have.

[bEVEsthda]

BioWare confirmed at PAX East 2012 that the preference pro-voice was about 60:40.

It also works better for them.

 

The are also making the dialogue wheel much more explicit.

 

 

Thank you. I saw this long ago, but it was nice to view it again.

However, I do not think that M.L. airily throwing out "I think the last time we looked at this it was 60:40" verifies that there is a preference for voiced protagonist.

When was that and who did they ask, are obvious questions. You know, it could very likely be the very test group that is responsible for DA2 and a number of other EA disasters. What comes through much clearer is that it doesn't matter, because that's the game they are going to make.

 

As for them making the dialogue wheel less traitorous, it, as well as what theflyingzamboni is on about here, are reasons why I am still here. And something Gaider said in a thread long ago.

Playing DA:I will be an experiment. I'm not going to say that it's impossible until I've tried it. But DA2 was no deal.

[Il Divo]

You're sounding a bit more dogmatic here than I think you intend to. Not everyone subscribes to this method of interpretation, and I'm certain that you're aware of that.

 

And it makes the inability of the player to question people who misunderstand our tone rather bizarre. I find it makes for extremely incomprehensible conversations. 

 

Normally, if I feel someone misunderstands my tone, I can draw attention to it. "Hey, I was just joking" or something similar. 

[PhroXenGold]

I don't think the full text requires we make amy assumptions at all. What tone the writers intended only matters if you decide it does. I haven't decided that.

With the paraphrases and voice, we have to guess at what will actually be said, and each line can only be delivered one way (of which we might be aware, depending how informative the icon is).

With the silent full text, we get to chose exactly what is said (from a short list of options), and exactly how it is said (with no restrictions at all).

The difference is that before the line is delivered, in DAO I have the ability to recite aloud the exact line with the exact delivery. And in DA2, I can do neither thing.
That may well be true, which is why I think it's important to leave that in the hands of the players.
On the contrary, Shepard and Hawke routinely said the exact thing I was trying to avoid.

 

Except the tone doesn't matter only if I decide it does. It matters because the tone affects how characters in game react to what you are saying. If I misinterpret the tone the writers have assumed, which is very easy to do given that no clue whatsoever to that tone is given, then my character will say something I didn't intend. Which seems to be your exact complaint about the dialogue wheel.

[Joe-Poe]

Neberwinter was mostly just a multiplayer toolkit. It didn't follow the d&d rules very well either.

That and the fact the official campaign in NW was horrible and felt like it was something the devs did in one weekend after the toolset was finished.

[bEVEsthda]

On the other hand, having just the text means that you can't tell what the tone is, which is just as flawed. I've recently finished a playthrough of DA:O and there were a fair few times when, based on the text being excessive and downright ridiculous, I naturally assumed the Warden was being sarcastic, only to discover that, based on other character's reactions, apparently the line was actually completely serious.

 

You know, this comment seem to make it very clear, that you are observing and empathizing with someone else's character. I've always suggested and suspected that this is what those who like games like DA2 and ME2/ME3 are doing. And those who come from jrpgs have this approach in them from the start, because that's the only way. This way is much the same relationship as one has when watching a movie.

 

I do NOT want that! I want to create and roleplay my character. It would never occur to me to assume anything, or in any way relate to the character, dialogue or game in that manner, because I decide!  I don't need to be able to tell the tone. I decide it!

[bEVEsthda]

Except the tone doesn't matter only if I decide it does. It matters because the tone affects how characters in game react to what you are saying. If I misinterpret the tone the writers have assumed, which is very easy to do given that no clue whatsoever to that tone is given, then my character will say something I didn't intend. Which seems to be your exact complaint about the dialogue wheel.

 

It may seem so to you, but no, it's not the same complaint at all.

In the first case, the character which Sylvius tries to roleplay, doesn't play ball and becomes someone else, someone else's character.

In the second case, the character is most certainly Sylvius' own and says exactly what was intended. He's only misunderstood. That is no problem. He doesn't say something not intended. He's merely understood in a way that's not intended.

[LinksOcarina]

I beg to differ. Comparing the quality of writing and depth of characters in Planescape:Torment to say, DA2 is like comparing level design in Bioshock and Battlefield 3 Singleplayer. One is objectively better than the other. One can argue that whether one game is better than the other is subjective, but then again, I didn't make such a comparison. I compared particular elements of said games.

And even if so, the opinion of customers on the product determines its quality. So:

 

http://www.metacriti...nescape-torment

http://www.metacriti...me/pc/fallout-2

 

For comparison:

http://www.metacriti...gon-age-origins

http://www.metacriti...0/dragon-age-ii

 

 

When one game receives more favorable opinions than the other, than it's a better game. There is no other way to determine it's quality.

 

Metacritic is not a good source, remember reviews are not made in a vacuum, the time the games existed should be in account, as are the tastes and technology used back then. Favorable opinions are still simply opinions, they may form a consensus but that can change over time. For example, a movie like Casablanca was hated back in the 1940s, but has now become a classic because of changing opinons. Reevaluation happens all the time, so just because its heralded now, doesn't mean it will be later. 

 

Planescape Torment had a very good story. It also had a weak UI and mediocre combat, the saving grace was the fact that you can talk your way out of most situations in Planescape, except the Mordon Cube...**** that level. A great story makes it a great game, but every great games has flaws to it, which make it difficult to name as perfect by everyone.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Except the tone doesn't matter only if I decide it does. It matters because the tone affects how characters in game react to what you are saying.

This is where we disagree. I think the NPC responses tell us nothing about what tone was used by the line. There is no meaningful relationship between the tone of the line and the visible reaction it elicits.

Whatever the NPC reaction, all it does is tell me about the NPC. And that's valuable, but it does not require we have any knowledge of the tone beyond that which we invent.

Furthermore, this means we ger different NPCs each playthrough. In this playthrough, Leliana responds a certain way to stimulus A. That tells us something about her. But on the next playthrough, she responds the same way to stimulus B. That tells us something different, and possibly contradictory, about her. This means that not only can the PC be a different person from playthrough to playthrough, but so can all of the characters.

If I misinterpret the tone the writers have assumed, which is very easy to do given that no clue whatsoever to that tone is given, then my character will say something I didn't intend. [i]Which seems to be your exact complaint about the dialogue wheel.

Except it can't happen if you control the tone, which you do with the silent protagonist.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And it makes the inability of the player to question people who misunderstand our tone rather bizarre. I find it makes for extremely incomprehensible conversations.

Normally, if I feel someone misunderstands my tone, I can draw attention to it. "Hey, I was just joking" or something similar.

How about the inability to correct yourself after you misspeak? Or to avoid saying things you actively want to avoid saying?

It's like the PC's mouth isn't connected to his brain. I feel like I have no control at all over what Hawke and Shepard say. Every line is a mystery to me until I hear it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

He's merely understood in a way that's not intended.

Wouldn't that always be true for everyone?

I don't control the NPCs, so I don't have intentions with regard to their behaviour. Literally everything they could ever do would be something I didn't intend.