572 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Eh, both Wasteland 2 and Divinity: Original Sin are recent games with third person camera (technically isometric but you can zoom in to pretty much regular third person view if you want) without voiced dialogues, and it works good for them. In fact, having to listen to every single line as you go through dialogues there (typical exchange can take as many as 10-15 back and forths) would be downright chore.

It may be more jarring in the games which try to be 'cinematic' with their presentation but not all third person titles go that route.

 

They're text on both sides, though, right? As in, NPCs aren't voiced either?

[In Exile]

I totally missed your reply tmp, so I wanted to respond:

 

I'd be actually inclined to read it like this myself, too, at first take. Which makes the point about order of lines clarifying potential confusion when it comes to the intent/tone all the stronger, imo. As knowing this I can see how #1 could be intended as more diplomatic with its "don't you think/could've" while #4 is pretty blunt/curt and not even allowing Alistair the option to decide whether he should've told you earlier.

 

I just have such a hard time processing these lines like that, because I would never be able to say #1 as anything but an aggressive accusation, whereas I couldn't find a way to say #4 as anything but diplomatic. To add the pragmatics:

 

#1 What?!   You don't think you might have told me this before? 

#4 Why did you wait to tell me this? 

 

Versus, I guess:

 

#1 What?!     You don't think you might have told me this before? 

#4 Why did you wait to tell me this? 

 

 

I said #3 was intended to be neutral   #2 certainly isn't because like you say, "bastard" is pretty insulting, and it's overall a joke only along the lines of facepalm-inducing "jokes" Hawke tends to make in DA2.

 

Whoops. I misread. I was on my phone at the time I was drafting that reply, so it got a bit messy. I might have mixed the two up. 

 

I will say I didn't mind Hawke's bad jokes - I actually thought it was really brilliant to have a character who's mostly just deflecting emotion with (terrible) humour. You really see the anxiety come through in the brilliant monologue that Hawke has following Saemus's death in Act II if you solo with the trollface personality. It's just a nonsense stream of consciousness rant from someone who's clearly marked by the events that just happened, but won't admit it. 

[AlanC9]

Really?
I mean, really, really? An equitable solution, and they throw it away?

Maybe Bioware really is trying to sabotage itself. That was foolish.

IIRC it failed during playtesting. I don't recall exactly how, though I can think of a couple of ways.

[Remmirath]

As much as I hate the whole voiced PC/dialogue wheel thing, I believe that the best option would in fact be to offer it as a choice. I realise that, whatever the reason, they are not going to do this. Given that, I would of course prefer to see a return to dialogue lists and an unvoiced PC.

There are three main reasons that I dislike the combination -- and I am treating it as one, because it has thus far been one.

1. Even now that there are four total voice options, that is still very limiting to replayability and to the kind of character you can play, at least for me. People's voices are really very strong identifying features, particularly when you add in things such as inflection and speech mannerism, and it has thus far not been possible for me to separate the voice from another character I make if I try to replay the game with the same voice. Thus, I am limited to one playthrough of the game per voice. It's also quite likely that the voice won't be appropriate for the kind of character I'd like to play. I haven't heard the voices in Inquisition yet; it could be that they at least have a soft option and a harder option for both genders this time, which would be an improvement, but so far... well, the female voice in DA II would never have worked for the sort of character I intended to play. When you have no voice, you can imagine your character sounding however you would like.

2. Subtext, tone, inflection, and vocal mannerism are extremely important to portraying a character, and those decisions are put in the hands of the voice actor and not in your hands with a voiced PC. If the character is not voiced, you can imagine they said the line however you would like, but if they are voiced, you can't. Even if the line fits perfectly in terms of text, and it actually continues to fit with the full line and not just the paraphrase, the subtext could be all wrong for what you imagined. Yes, going just based on the dialogue icons will mitigate that, but not nearly enough.

3. The full line is often radically different than the paraphrase. If the paraphrase fits, the full line may very well not. If the full line fits what you wanted to say, the paraphrase may very well have given you no clue whatsoever to that. It is a guessing game, and what my character is saying should not be a guessing game. Either let me see the full line, or don't even have the paraphrase. Just use the dialogue icon. It'll be just as useful most of the time. Needless to say, seeing the full list of options to begin with doesn't have this problem.

Basically, it makes it difficult to roleplay a character -- much less multiple characters, across multiple playthroughs -- consistently in the way that you choose to roleplay them, rather than having to backpedal or even reload because the line wasn't what you were expecting or the tone was very far off what your character would've gone for. On the day that vocal customisation is to the level that facial customisation is now, and you can choose at least to some extent the subtext and inflection of the line spoken, I'll think it's a great thing. Until that day, it is (at least to me) a huge impediment to roleplaying, and makes it feel as though it's a struggle to roleplay my character instead of acting a character that the game is trying to force me to play instead.

[Markus]

IIRC it failed during playtesting. I don't recall exactly how, though I can think of a couple of ways.

 

 

Well, if it failed, then there's not much else to say about it, really.  It's kind of sad, but that's how it goes, I guess.

 

I still think it might be a good idea, if they can figure out how to implement it.

[In Exile]

...

2. Subtext, tone, inflection, and vocal mannerism are extremely important to portraying a character, and those decisions are put in the hands of the voice actor and not in your hands with a voiced PC. If the character is not voiced, you can imagine they said the line however you would like, but if they are voiced, you can't. Even if the line fits perfectly in terms of text, and it actually continues to fit with the full line and not just the paraphrase, the subtext could be all wrong for what you imagined. Yes, going just based on the dialogue icons will mitigate that, but not nearly enough.

 

...

Basically, it makes it difficult to roleplay a character -- much less multiple characters, across multiple playthroughs -- consistently in the way that you choose to roleplay them, rather than having to backpedal or even reload because the line wasn't what you were expecting or the tone was very far off what your character would've gone for. On the day that vocal customisation is to the level that facial customisation is now, and you can choose at least to some extent the subtext and inflection of the line spoken, I'll think it's a great thing. Until that day, it is (at least to me) a huge impediment to roleplaying, and makes it feel as though it's a struggle to roleplay my character instead of acting a character that the game is trying to force me to play instead.

 

I'm going to limit my comments to VO, because the paraphrase is bad as it was implemented and what Bioware did in DA2 was just incomprehensible (they had a rule that the spoken line and paraphrase couldn't share words). 

 

You can't imagine the line however you want when it's said. See my discussion with tmp above. There's a clear meaning that Bioware has given to the line - it has a clear effect in the world, and even in DA:I we will know the actual, subjective reaction of a character to the line (via an indication of whether the NPC approves or disapproves). So there's no room for actual headcannon. There's just the difficulty of guessing what effect the line will have, when you don't have the factors in your control that you would IRL - that is, knowing in advance the attempted tone and attempted effect of the line. 

 

As I said earlier, I think RP is about reactivity, and the way you build your character in response to the reactions of the game world. Silent PC has - at least as Bioware has done it in KoTOR and DA:O - not made that possible. 

[Eralrik]

I prefer a voiced main character and am now so spoiled on listening to everyone else around me speak that playing anything where I have to read actually is tedious and a tad dull.

I've tried to replay some of my older games an even online mmo's it's difficult to continue playing and I get bored quickly.

 

Listening to Party Banter like in ME or DA was a fun high point to me especially in DA2.

 

But my only big gripe is in ME3 where points that should have had a Renegade or Paragon moment to allow us a chance to roleplay didn't happen it continued on like a movie, I really love immersion and choice's but a lot of that was taken out in ME3 I pray it's not going to be that way in DAI.

[Remmirath]

I'm going to limit my comments to VO, because the paraphrase is bad as it was implemented and what Bioware did in DA2 was just incomprehensible (they had a rule that the spoken line and paraphrase couldn't share words).

Wow. I didn't know that was actually a rule that they had. I assumed it was an unfortunate coincidence. That's... as you say, incomprehensible.
 

You can't imagine the line however you want when it's said. See my discussion with tmp above. There's a clear meaning that Bioware has given to the line - it has a clear effect in the world, and even in DA:I we will know the actual, subjective reaction of a character to the line (via an indication of whether the NPC approves or disapproves). So there's no room for actual headcannon. There's just the difficulty of guessing what effect the line will have, when you don't have the factors in your control that you would IRL - that is, knowing in advance the attempted tone and attempted effect of the line.

Well, yes, I can. I admit that perhaps not everyone can, but I can. I don't mind if the reaction of the NPC to the line doesn't quite mesh with how I imagine my character saying the line in question, because in my experience, people do that all the time in reality. You say something, they misinterpret you, they react oddly. You can't even necessarily always correct them, because you don't know why they're reacting oddly. (Or maybe that's just me.)

It would certainly be nice if you could correct people in that case, but between the two -- not knowing how my character is going to say their line, and not knowing how the NPC is going to react to that line -- I'd much rather not know how the NPC is going to react. Yes, I might end up with the impression that some NPCs are easily offended or something, but I'm okay with that. Maybe it's different for you, but I often have no idea what effect what I say and how I say it will have on people, but I certainly do know what I'm going to say and how I'm going to say it.

I admit that the above quoted point is at least somewhat subjective, but even so, it remains that a person's voice is a very distinguishing feature and is difficult to disassociate from them, as well as how they use it giving a good amount of clues as to their personality. Therefore, I do not like having to choose between only one or two options, and I certainly don't like having no choice at all.
 

As I said earlier, I think RP is about reactivity, and the way you build your character in response to the reactions of the game world. Silent PC has - at least as Bioware has done it in KoTOR and DA:O - not made that possible.

Voiced PC hasn't made it possible either, at least from where I'm standing. It just shifts that problem somewhere else, to a place that I find significantly less desirable, but apparently you find preferable. I'm afraid that, until reactive programming advances sufficiently, there's always going to be a weak link in the chain of "what you want your character to say -> what they actually say -> proper NPC reaction". I'd rather it occur in "proper NPC reaction" than in "what they actually say". It's much easier, and less annoying, for me to come up with a good explanation, and I have never had to reload due to that.

I also tend to believe that roleplaying is at least half about the ability to make your character and keep them consistent with your idea of them, thus why I would say that Morrowind allows more roleplaying than Mass Effect 2. They both have their problems in that regard, but I prefer the problems of the former to the problems of the latter if I must have either.

[In Exile]

Wow. I didn't know that was actually a rule that they had. I assumed it was an unfortunate coincidence. That's... as you say, incomprehensible.

 

Yes, it was shocking when I learned it. Especially since there are words and expressions in the English language that can't be replaced with synonyms and carry the same meaning. 

 

 

Well, yes, I can. I admit that perhaps not everyone can, but I can. I don't mind if the reaction of the NPC to the line doesn't quite mesh with how I imagine my character saying the line in question, because in my experience, people do that all the time in reality. You say something, they misinterpret you, they react oddly. You can't even necessarily always correct them, because you don't know why they're reacting oddly. (Or maybe that's just me.)

I'm assertive enough IRL that I'd absolutely push someone if they misinterpreted me. That I'm making a guess isn't something that matters to me. And this goes to your point about consistency - my characters, having this quality, are broken when there's a misunderstanding they can't correct. So I have to re-load or deal with the frustration. Which for me can happen very often depending on the NPC I"m running.

 

The other problem is that my "voice" (internally) for reading dialogue is really different from apparently most writes. I'm very sarcastic naturally, so I can't help but read a lot of dialogue in that way. I don't even realize when I'm doing it. So I often misread what options say, and then just get shocked by the nature of the response. 

 

It would certainly be nice if you could correct people in that case, but between the two -- not knowing how my character is going to say their line, and not knowing how the NPC is going to react to that line -- I'd much rather not know how the NPC is going to react. Yes, I might end up with the impression that some NPCs are easily offended or something, but I'm okay with that. Maybe it's different for you, but I often have no idea what effect what I say and how I say it will have on people, but I certainly do know what I'm going to say and how I'm going to say it.

 

I don't think we need to know how the NPC reacts. But we do need to know, IMO, how the PC intends for the NPC to perceive the line, or at least how the PC intends for the line to deliver it. 

 

Without VO, I have no idea how what my PC really intends to do. I can't guess the effect. When I say things, I say them because I want to achieve a specific thing. Speech to me isn't expressive, it's instrumental. And I find that - at least how Bioware and most RPGs do it - I can't guess the point of the dialogue. 

 

I admit that the above quoted point is at least somewhat subjective, but even so, it remains that a person's voice is a very distinguishing feature and is difficult to disassociate from them, as well as how they use it giving a good amount of clues as to their personality. Therefore, I do not like having to choose between only one or two options, and I certainly don't like having no choice at all.

 

I do appreciate that. In this regard, I actually am a bit unique in that while I really replay RPGs, what I like are "what if" versions of one or two characters. 

 

So for example, in DA:O I only had three baseline characters - an HN, a CE and a HM. I replayed DA:O many times, but they were each alterations of this base. Same with DA2 - Hawke was just an alteration of a base - what if some minor experience was different, who would this person me? 

So a similar voice and a similar look never stood out to me.

 

In DA:I, I know in advance only two races are possible for me - Human and Qunari - so the fact that there are 4 voices is just phemonenal. 

 

 

Voiced PC hasn't made it possible either, at least from where I'm standing. It just shifts that problem somewhere else, to a place that I find significantly less desirable, but apparently you find preferable. I'm afraid that, until reactive programming advances sufficiently, there's always going to be a weak link in the chain of "what you want your character to say -> what they actually say -> proper NPC reaction". I'd rather it occur in "proper NPC reaction" than in "what they actually say". It's much easier, and less annoying, for me to come up with a good explanation, and I have never had to reload due to that.

 

For me, the key is knowing (1) the intention of my character (e.g. paragon/renegade or suck-up/troll/*******) and (2) the gist of the line. The actual spoken content tends not to be a big deal for me, except when it's just totally different than advertised. 

 

 

I also tend to believe that roleplaying is at least half about the ability to make your character and keep them consistent with your idea of them, thus why I would say that Morrowind allows more roleplaying than Mass Effect 2. They both have their problems in that regard, but I prefer the problems of the former to the problems of the latter if I must have either.

 

I agree with you in terms of consistency. Morrowind is a bit of a special case, though, because despite the fact that IMO there's no actual dialogue in the game so expressiveness is impossible, it's actually pretty reactive. Unlike any follow-up TES game. 

[tmp7704]

They're text on both sides, though, right? As in, NPCs aren't voiced either?

It depends on the NPC -- the prominent ones come with VO for their lines, while average Joes and Jills get text only. It's these voiced ones that give a decent idea just how long it'd all take if everyone had the VO

That actually makes me realize something that doesn't seem very obvious (or at least, i didn't realize it until now), having no VO allows for the writing to be noticeably more verbose. It's pretty common for each part of the exchanges to be multiple lines long.

edit: for that other reply, i don't have anything to add, just want to note that your interpretations with the emoticons (and the differences between them) are pretty much spot on how i was reading it. And yup, my initial one would also be along the lines of the former, not the latter, if it wasn't for that 'nice goes on top, angry on the bottom' thing.

[MrDbow]

I disagree with the title of the thread.

[Remmirath]

Yes, it was shocking when I learned it. Especially since there are words and expressions in the English language that can't be replaced with synonyms and carry the same meaning.

Indeed. It certainly explains why there was often such a jarring difference between the paraphrase and the actual line.
 

I'm assertive enough IRL that I'd absolutely push someone if they misinterpreted me. That I'm making a guess isn't something that matters to me. And this goes to your point about consistency - my characters, having this quality, are broken when there's a misunderstanding they can't correct. So I have to re-load or deal with the frustration. Which for me can happen very often depending on the NPC I"m running.

Ah, that makes sense. That's a problem I only have run into for a few of my characters; I suppose that may be partly due to the fact that, in real life, I tend to just shrug off such misinterpretations unless I consider them extremely important (I tend to find social interaction a bit of a strain in general), so I may tend to notice that less in games.
 

The other problem is that my "voice" (internally) for reading dialogue is really different from apparently most writes. I'm very sarcastic naturally, so I can't help but read a lot of dialogue in that way. I don't even realize when I'm doing it. So I often misread what options say, and then just get shocked by the nature of the response.

I'm sure that's part of the difference here, and maybe even part of the difference in general. I don't really have an internal voice when I'm reading things, by default. I'm an entirely visual reader. I have in my mind what my character would be saying in this case, and pick the line that fits the best to it, and then assign an inflection based on that. It doesn't very often happen that I get surprised by the reaction more than I would in an actual interaction, but that could be partly because I'm not very good at reading people in actuality, so I'm often surprised by how they react as well.
 

I don't think we need to know how the NPC reacts. But we do need to know, IMO, how the PC intends for the NPC to perceive the line, or at least how the PC intends for the line to deliver it.

Without VO, I have no idea how what my PC really intends to do. I can't guess the effect. When I say things, I say them because I want to achieve a specific thing. Speech to me isn't expressive, it's instrumental. And I find that - at least how Bioware and most RPGs do it - I can't guess the point of the dialogue.

See, I always know what my PC would be doing, because that occurs to me as soon as whatever they're reacting to happens. It's then just a matter of representing that best. The difference between speech being expressive and instrumental, though, that helps me understand what you're getting at. I tend enough towards impulsiveness that I have a very hard time with speech not being expressive, although if I am writing, that changes. I can see how that would be annoying. I wonder, if you had the same sort of indication that DA II had (or something more along the lines of [Sarcasm] [Anger]), would that equalise the voice/no voice more to you?
 

I do appreciate that. In this regard, I actually am a bit unique in that while I really replay RPGs, what I like are "what if" versions of one or two characters.

So for example, in DA:O I only had three baseline characters - an HN, a CE and a HM. I replayed DA:O many times, but they were each alterations of this base. Same with DA2 - Hawke was just an alteration of a base - what if some minor experience was different, who would this person me?
So a similar voice and a similar look never stood out to me.

In DA:I, I know in advance only two races are possible for me - Human and Qunari - so the fact that there are 4 voices is just phemonenal.

I love playing through games many times, and playing extremely different characters each time. That's much harder for me with voiced characters, of course, because that's one rather important thing about the character that I can't change.

I did actually play through DA II twice with the exact same character, as well as DA:O. That was unusual for me. Morrowind is the only other game I've ever done that with. In the case of DA:O, I did it because my first character nearly always ends up being my favourite overall, and I wanted to experience the game with full graphical settings with that character (I'd played it the first time in 640x480 mode and on lowest settings, due to very outdated hardware). In the case of Morrowind, it was because the first time I played through, I didn't realise until far too late that I'd accidentally joined house Hlaalu at the beginning of the game, but Redoran was the only in-character choice for that character, so I replayed the game with that character to fix that. In DA II's case, it was because I wanted to replay the game so that it was more fresh in my mind (and to see if a few mods would help my impression of it), but I couldn't manage to make a different character who was still the kind of character I was interested in playing at the time.

Assuming I end up liking Inquisition, I'll at least want to play through once for each race, and probably more than that. Four voices will at least make that more likely, assuming that they end up fitting the characters I want to play, of course. I'll start with what I'm most interested in playing, though, just to be safe.
 

For me, the key is knowing (1) the intention of my character (e.g. paragon/renegade or suck-up/troll/*******) and (2) the gist of the line. The actual spoken content tends not to be a big deal for me, except when it's just totally different than advertised.

What would you feel about something that wasn't actually a line of dialogue, but more along the lines of... say, "Insult his honour, hoping that he will challenge you to a duel" or "Placate him by reminding him of the money involved" instead? For me, I'd actually prefer that to the spelled out line, because it leaves a bit more wiggle room for interpetation. I'd certainly prefer it to the paraphrase system.
 

I agree with you in terms of consistency. Morrowind is a bit of a special case, though, because despite the fact that IMO there's no actual dialogue in the game so expressiveness is impossible, it's actually pretty reactive. Unlike any follow-up TES game.

True. I do think Morrowind is the best of them. I'd still say, personally, that Skyrim is a bit ahead of ME 2, but I can see why other people would say otherwise (although ME 2's habit of not even offering a choice of dialogue in cut scenes was extremely grating).

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think we need to know how the NPC reacts. But we do need to know, IMO, how the PC intends for the NPC to perceive the line, or at least how the PC intends for the line to deliver it.

If you don't need to be able to predict how the NPC will interpret the line, why can't you just have the PC intend whatever you like?

Since the only indication we ever get about how the line was delivered comes from the NPC reaction, if you aren't confident that you can predict that reaction, then there's no way for the game ever to contradict any headcanoned tone you might have invented.

But that's not your position. What am I missing?

Without VO, I have no idea how what my PC really intends to do. I can't guess the effect.

I don't care what the effect is.

I also think speech is more instrumental than expressive, but I have a much narrower view of what it can do. As a tool, speech can help us learn about other people by watching to see how they react to it, but getting it to do anything more than that requires extremely intimate knowledge of your audience.

[Sylvius the Mad]

What would you feel about something that wasn't actually a line of dialogue, but more along the lines of... say, "Insult his honour, hoping that he will challenge you to a duel" or "Placate him by reminding him of the money involved" instead? For me, I'd actually prefer that to the spelled out line, because it leaves a bit more wiggle room for interpetation. I'd certainly prefer it to the paraphrase system.

It would have the same problems as the paraphrase.

The problem with the paraphrase, I think, is that it doesn't peovide enough information about what won't be said. The full text allows me to know exactly what won't be said, because that list is everything that isn't in the line. So if there are things I don't want to say, I'm always able to avoid them.

I choose dialogue options more negatively than positively. When examining the options, I'm not looking for the things I want to say so I can select them; I'm looking for the things that would break my character if I said them so I can then avoid those options.

And that's really hard to do with the paraphrases.

The system you describe could work if it were well implemented, but I have very little confidence that such a thing is possible. If I select "Placate him by reminding him of the money involved", then I need my character's line to contain that reminder and nothing else. What are the odds that's what we'd get every single line?

I also don't like the game telling me what the character's intent is. I should be the one to decide that. "Insult his honour," is all the option should say. What I hope to achieve with that should be up to me. Maybe I'm trying to make a joke. And if he unexpectedly challenges me to a duel, then I'll deal with that. But I don't want the PC's intent dictated to me.

[LucienKyle]

that's not true, voice and a bad ass look are what make Shepard an epic hero,and the dialog in Mass effect deliver the players' emotion correctly

 

the problem of dragon age 2 is, they have learnt the "3 choices of answering " from ME yet the writers of the dialog of dragon age 2 did a terrible job fitting the hawke's emotions to the players's intention 

 

like,u want to ease a tense chat with the joking response,yet your Hawke always say a weird joke that the even the player themselves need to take a few seconds to understand, and that just makes the players think they are not the one who make these responses 

[Doominike]

I don't mind voiced so much, it's more the paraphrase thing that annoys me, even if the character says what I guessed she would, I'd still prefer reading the actual line. Actually the way DAO wrote lines was pretty fine. For exemple you could have:

 

"I can't let you do that"(kill him)

 

For lines that involved the action of Murder Knifing them. They could do that for other kinds of actions, or even have actions be dialogue sometimes, like:

 

Diplomatic= I disagree

Snarky= Oh yes, great idea

Aggressive= (punch him)

[In Exile]

Ah, that makes sense. That's a problem I only have run into for a few of my characters; I suppose that may be partly due to the fact that, in real life, I tend to just shrug off such misinterpretations unless I consider them extremely important (I tend to find social interaction a bit of a strain in general), so I may tend to notice that less in games.

 

It's funny, because I'm not interest in social interaction per se - I'm just naturally very assertive when it comes to certain things, and expressing views is one of them. In a lot of ways, it's basically that I don't have a filter. Not really a good thing, just how I am. And it bleeds into how I interpret writing. 

 

 

I'm sure that's part of the difference here, and maybe even part of the difference in general. I don't really have an internal voice when I'm reading things, by default. I'm an entirely visual reader. I have in my mind what my character would be saying in this case, and pick the line that fits the best to it, and then assign an inflection based on that. It doesn't very often happen that I get surprised by the reaction more than I would in an actual interaction, but that could be partly because I'm not very good at reading people in actuality, so I'm often surprised by how they react as well.

 

My "voice" when I read is so overwhelming that, in fact, it's the same no matter what I'm reading. The best way to describe is this: whenever I read, it's like I read outloud, with my tone, my intonation, my style. It's very hard for me to hear another's voice, and it basically requires me to have heard it a lot (and recently) to be familiar with it. And even then it's like a faint echo.

 

It's impossible for me to RP as a woman without VO, because I will read every line in my voice, i.e., a man's voice. 

 

 

I did actually play through DA II twice with the exact same character, as well as DA:O. That was unusual for me. Morrowind is the only other game I've ever done that with. In the case of DA:O, I did it because my first character nearly always ends up being my favourite overall, and I wanted to experience the game with full graphical settings with that character (I'd played it the first time in 640x480 mode and on lowest settings, due to very outdated hardware). In the case of Morrowind, it was because the first time I played through, I didn't realise until far too late that I'd accidentally joined house Hlaalu at the beginning of the game, but Redoran was the only in-character choice for that character, so I replayed the game with that character to fix that. In DA II's case, it was because I wanted to replay the game so that it was more fresh in my mind (and to see if a few mods would help my impression of it), but I couldn't manage to make a different character who was still the kind of character I was interested in playing at the time.

 

I had to replay all of DA:O with the same character when I realized it broke my HN by not allowing him to put himself forward as a candidate for the throne, despite being more qualified than both Alistair and Anora and, realistically speaking, probably being able to swing a better claim. 

 

What would you feel about something that wasn't actually a line of dialogue, but more along the lines of... say, "Insult his honour, hoping that he will challenge you to a duel" or "Placate him by reminding him of the money involved" instead? For me, I'd actually prefer that to the spelled out line, because it leaves a bit more wiggle room for interpetation. I'd certainly prefer it to the paraphrase system.

 

No. I mean, it would fix one problem (the intended effect), but I wouldn't even feel like the character is a person at that point. Just... an object that I'm directing. This is the same problem I have with create-your-own party games. I no longer see them as characters, just killing machines I control via hive-mind. 

 

 

True. I do think Morrowind is the best of them. I'd still say, personally, that Skyrim is a bit ahead of ME 2, but I can see why other people would say otherwise (although ME 2's habit of not even offering a choice of dialogue in cut scenes was extremely grating).

 

There's no reaction to what I do in Skyrim or to who I am, so can't even consider it an RPG, really. But that's very idiosyncratic on my part. 

 

If you don't need to be able to predict how the NPC will interpret the line, why can't you just have the PC intend whatever you like?

 

Because the PC doesn't say whatever I like. The PC has 3-4 pre-defined options, with a pre-infused intent, tone and pre-planned effect that is hidden from me. 

 

Since the only indication we ever get about how the line was delivered comes from the NPC reaction, if you aren't confident that you can predict that reaction, then there's no way for the game ever to contradict any headcanoned tone you might have invented.

 

The game actively contradicts it the moment the line is uttered. There are certainly situations where a line is unambiguous and so no problem arises, but there plenty of instances where the reaction of the NPC is impossible or otherwise inconsistent with their established character. The difference between real life and the game is that we actually do have subjective knowledge of NPC's reaction to the line, via approval. 

 

But even if we didn't, there is a larger problem. You're confusing two things in your position. 

 

1. My mental model of the other person's subjective state (i.e., my theory of their mind) and 

2. The actual subjective state of the other person.

 

The second point is irrelevant. It does not matter to me what you actually think or feel. All that matters is the use and predictability of my model. I can't know what you're thinking, but I can have a good model of what I think you're thinking, and it's based on this (relatively accurate) model that I'm acting. 

 

When we have approval mechanics, we actually know (2) despite not knowing it IRL. 

 

The model is imperfect but it's not inaccurate - and when the deviation is absurd, then there is a serious problem. It's impossible to build this model without actual data - and that data comes from knowing the reaction to actual delivery, because that delivery is hard-coded. 

 

The problem is that I get incoherent data points. I know the end result - the subjective state - and I have no idea about the method of delivery, but the actual rules of the game, i.e., the rules of speech and how the metaphysical subjective state is influenced are predefined on the basis of (the writer's) addition of (hidden) tone and emphasis. There's no way I could treat this the same as the IRL situation, because the variables are different. There needs to be a totally different model for the game to account for this result. 

 

I also think speech is more instrumental than expressive, but I have a much narrower view of what it can do. As a tool, speech can help us learn about other people by watching to see how they react to it, but getting it to do anything more than that requires extremely intimate knowledge of your audience.

 

I don't need to actually learn about other people, in the same way that an engineer doesn't need to actually learn about the world. I just need a good theory that allows for accurate predictions for my goals.

Let's use an example.

 

Say I need someone to open a door. We'll only ever interact in this circumstances, with respect to the door, and I've never interacted with them before.

 

I act boisterous and assertive. I make demands.

The person finds this pitiable. She isn't cowered, but nevertheless opens the door out of pity.

 

In my model, I chalk this up to intimidation (with respect to her). I'm wrong. 

 

If my speech gives me the same effect each time, her subjective state is irrelevant. I've achieved the goal.

 

To use a scientific example, the fact that all of our theories about science could be wrong doesn't mean we aren't designing good ipods. Your methods for making them work even if the theory underlying them is wrong. To the extent that our goal is purely instrumental - make good ipods - the metaphysical truth of the theory is irrelevant, except to whatever degree it allows us to make better ipods. And that could simply be trial and error. 

[Remmirath]

The problem with the paraphrase, I think, is that it doesn't peovide enough information about what won't be said. The full text allows me to know exactly what won't be said, because that list is everything that isn't in the line. So if there are things I don't want to say, I'm always able to avoid them.

That is certainly one way to look at it, and I agree. It is often more important to know what your character will not say than what they will say. All of the worst voice/wheel-related incidents I can think of have been due to things that I hadn't thought would be said.
 

I choose dialogue options more negatively than positively. When examining the options, I'm not looking for the things I want to say so I can select them; I'm looking for the things that would break my character if I said them so I can then avoid those options.

And that's really hard to do with the paraphrases.

That's often what I end up doing, especially in games with the paraphrases; that makes me look more for the option that's least likely to end in something out of character rather than what is most in character, as I prefer to do when presented with enough suitable options.
 

The system you describe could work if it were well implemented, but I have very little confidence that such a thing is possible. If I select "Placate him by reminding him of the money involved", then I need my character's line to contain that reminder and nothing else. What are the odds that's what we'd get every single line?

I also don't like the game telling me what the character's intent is. I should be the one to decide that. "Insult his honour," is all the option should say. What I hope to achieve with that should be up to me. Maybe I'm trying to make a joke. And if he unexpectedly challenges me to a duel, then I'll deal with that. But I don't want the PC's intent dictated to me.

I certainly don't think that, with the voice, it would be much if any of an improvement. The only way I can see improving the voice for me is either giving the option not to have it, or having advanced enough voice programming that I can select exactly how my character is saying things, and even then I think that all of what is actually going to be said should be known ahead of time. I should've made it more clear that I didn't intend that to apply to a situation where the character is voiced, rather one where they are not, as well as that I was postulating that this would be the only thing in the way of a line of dialogue that would be there. It was clear in my head; not so much in writing, it seems.

And you're right to point out that the phrasing on that first one was poorly chosen. That would indeed be a problem. I'd been trying to come up with something akin to an obvious attack option, but that wasn't a good example at all. "Goad him into attacking" I suppose might be a better one, but it's getting rather late, so I should probably give up on the examples for tonight.
 

that's not true, voice and a bad ass look are what make Shepard an epic hero,and the dialog in Mass effect deliver the players' emotion correctly

Only if the player happens to agree with the actor's interpretation of the role in that case. I often did not.
 

It's funny, because I'm not interest in social interaction per se - I'm just naturally very assertive when it comes to certain things, and expressing views is one of them. In a lot of ways, it's basically that I don't have a filter. Not really a good thing, just how I am. And it bleeds into how I interpret writing.

Makes sense. It's likely that I have some manner of bias towards interpreting it myself that I'm not fully aware of; I expect most everyone does, at least to some extent.
 

My "voice" when I read is so overwhelming that, in fact, it's the same no matter what I'm reading. The best way to describe is this: whenever I read, it's like I read outloud, with my tone, my intonation, my style. It's very hard for me to hear another's voice, and it basically requires me to have heard it a lot (and recently) to be familiar with it. And even then it's like a faint echo.

It's impossible for me to RP as a woman without VO, because I will read every line in my voice, i.e., a man's voice.

Interesting. I tend, if anything, towards the visual no matter what: I may not hear any voice at all, but as I typically don't when reading (unless I'm making an active effort to slow myself down and attempt to do so), I won't notice it.

I suppose I can see why you might prefer a voiced character, given that. I'd say that's a good example of why it would really be best for it to be an option, but not forced (although, partly because that's what I prefer and partly because it is the less resource-intensive option, I'd say that if there is no option than the character should not be voiced).

 

I had to replay all of DA:O with the same character when I realized it broke my HN by not allowing him to put himself forward as a candidate for the throne, despite being more qualified than both Alistair and Anora and, realistically speaking, probably being able to swing a better claim.

That would've been a nice option to have.
 

No. I mean, it would fix one problem (the intended effect), but I wouldn't even feel like the character is a person at that point. Just... an object that I'm directing. This is the same problem I have with create-your-own party games. I no longer see them as characters, just killing machines I control via hive-mind.

Ah. Well, I was curious whether that would be better or worse, mainly. I would rather have less information (only a direction, nothing else), than information that I actively don't want (voice, inflection, and so forth). The less I feel that I'm completely in control of the character, the more I feel I'm just being allowed to direct someone else's character for a brief time. Acting as opposed to roleplaying, I sometimes think of it.

I prefer create-your-own party games, because they're more replayable for me. There are only so many times that I can replay a game with the same NPCs in the party even if the PC is very different every time before it begins to feel very much the same, but if I can change up the entire party on each go, the game'll feel much more different each time. Of course, to each their own, and all that. I also think that choice is the best way to go there (as in Baldur's Gate, even though that may have been a happy accident).
 

There's no reaction to what I do in Skyrim or to who I am, so can't even consider it an RPG, really. But that's very idiosyncratic on my part.

I can see that point of view. I'd rather have control, but no reaction, than reaction but no control -- but both are ideal.

[aTigerslunch]

I like how Wasteland 2 did its mix up. Though I did skip alot of lines without reading them, as lost interest in several lines of text. At some points it felt like reading walls of text. Dont get me wrong, I love that game. I get lost in it quite a few times.

[coldflame]

I'm sorry to butt in, but you're not entirely correct. It's not a matter of the difference between fact and opinion (and I think coldflame was also wrong to call it that). What you are actually doing is making a claim. And unlike facts, claims do require proof. Because even if you know it to be true, the rest of us may not. For all we know you may be wrong, or, as you said, lying.


As for the topic, I prefer voiced. In DAO I often took to actually reading my Warden's lines out loud, just so she'd have some expression of personality.

There is merit in your post, but I doubt he understood what you were trying to say (after looking through his response to your post... nope he definitely didn't get it). All I was asking him for was the reference/link to what he was "claiming" in regard to ME marketing. Therefore, was it unreasonable of me to ask him for the proof after he had claimed that I was wrong in that regard? Why should I believe in anything a random over the internet had said? The quote he had provided has nothing to do with the initial question being asked. If anything, it showed that he knew how to use the copy and paste function on his computer, but I question whether he actually read what he copied and pasted after reading his response to your post. He typed "my word can constitute proof in and of itself" which just sounded ridiculous (unless he is Judge Dredd), because really, who is he and why should his words be taken more seriously than yours or mine or anyone's on this forum.

 

Maybe he should Google Susan Mellen or Rodell Sanders to see why in a trial with a "my word can constitute proof in and of itself" attitude is not a good idea.

 

P.S. I used the words 'opinion' and 'speculation' on purpose if you know what I mean...

[In Exile]

There is merit in your post, but I doubt he understood what you were trying to say (after looking through his response to your post... nope he definitely didn't get it). All I was asking him for was the reference/link to what he was "claiming" in regard to ME marketing. Therefore, was it unreasonable of me to ask him for the proof after he had claimed that I was wrong in that regard? Why should I believe in anything a random over the internet had said? The quote he had provided has nothing to do with the initial question being asked. If anything, it showed that he knew how to use the copy and paste function on his computer, but I question whether he actually read what he copied and pasted after reading his response to your post. He typed "my word can constitute proof in and of itself" which just sounded ridiculous (unless he is Judge Dredd), because really, who is he and why should his words be taken more seriously than yours or mine or anyone's on this forum.

Maybe he should Google Susan Mellen or Rodell Sanders to see why in a trial with a "my word can constitute proof in and of itself" attitude is not a good idea.

P.S. I used the words 'opinion' and 'speculation' on purpose if you know what I mean...

You're not less wrong if you indirectly repeat the same point. Facts and opinions have clear and definite meanings. An opinion can't be turned into a fact because someone offers evidence for it - the fundamental character of an opinion is that it's unprovable. Toast is delicious is an opinon. The sky is blue is a statement of fact. It's not an opinion. If I say the sky is blue right now and offer no proof, that's not expressing an opinion.

You can take a statement at face value or not. But that doesn't make it an opinion.

As for testimony, the fact that people are wrong )or lying) doesn't change it from being proof - at most it makes it bad proof.

And, of course, trying to generalize from one specific case to a general one is also logical gibberish.

[sunnydxmen]

[budzai]

I am glad it has, one of the main points of DA:O I did not like was exactly the lack of Voice over for my hero, it lost character/personality because of the fact that she/he had no voice... in my opinion at least

if you have no imagination then yes.

[Gregolian]

That time is over I think

Thankfully