293 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

The connection is that it sucks to read a line and then hear it again being said. Which is why Bioware dropped that idea. And I'm glad for it.

This problem didn't exist with a silent protagonist...

 

I don't think it sucks. Reading a line is one thing, seeing the line being delivered by the protagonist is an entirely different thing.

 

My hate for the silent protagonist stems from the disconnect that I feel with the world around him/her. It just seems weird to not see your protagonist acting out the line that you chose for him/her to say.

 

I'd be completely fine with seeing the entire dialogue option being written out and then seeing the protagonist deliver the line after choosing it.

[Lady Artifice]

The connection is that it sucks to read a line and then hear it again being said. Which is why Bioware dropped that idea. And I'm glad for it.

This problem didn't exist with a silent protagonist...

 

Well, it seems like this would be one of those things where a toggle would make perfect sense. It's a lot like choosing whether or not to have subtitles on.

[Kappa Neko]

Well, it seems like this would be one of those things where a toggle would make perfect sense. It's a lot like choosing whether or not to have subtitles on.

For having the entire sentence displayed, you mean? If easy to implement (layout issues?), I'm all for it.

[Sanunes]

The problem I have with full sentences is how they were displayed with Dragon Age: Origins being hard to read from a distance away and I even heard that complaint with some areas of Mass Effect 3 notably the codex information.

 

Personally I have a bigger problem with not knowing the tone of what is being said and I don't think having full sentences would fix that for even in Dragon Age: Origins when you were given the full sentence I found that I was misinterpreting the tone of the argument and found myself meta gaming conversations when they would go in a direction I didn't want by saving just before any major dialogue.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

The paraphrasing has been a severe issue for me for all the ME games (DA not so much). For instance, Ashley says to Liara "Who put you in charge?" and then Shepard is given some choices like "she's right". Who the heck is she? Liara? Ashley? I have no idea. Or when talking to Kirahee and Kaidan says "that sounds dangerous" and then Shepard can say "he's right." Who? Kaidan? Kirahee? Or there have even been times when Shepard has said the very opposite of what the paraphrase says: [sigh] -> "I should kill you both". Huh?!?!? And since when does telling Ashley on Mars "I'm the same person" come out as "Let's bang again, OK?" Is this how people in Canada interpret English?

Yeah, when Ashley got in my face on Horizon, I was trying to pull out the, "Wait a minute--you've been sucking up to the Alliance as they slander me posthumously, destroying my reputation for the sake of convenience, and accepting promotions for your silence on the matter. People who had never met me stood up for me, but you kept mum while capitalizing on having been part of my crew. And now--surprise!--I'm saving your well-sculpted but otherwise useless ass *again*, as you shake off a stasis nap during yet another feckless Alliance mission in which I come and fix your own damned equipment for you while putting myself in harm's way. And you want to lecture me on loyalty? I think, instead, you should either thank me, or go fly up and join the Collectors and see if they'll give you a promotion, too." option, but it came out, "It wasn't like that."

[ffejita]

I'd like this as an option, but keep the old way too

[Hiemoth]

Well, it seems like this would be one of those things where a toggle would make perfect sense. It's a lot like choosing whether or not to have subtitles on.

 

Except it would be nothing like it. I've actually seen Bioware designers explain this issue several times.

 

If you look at the gif the OP posted, you can notice that they need to devote a notable part of the bottom of the screen to show that text. And no only that, they have to be certain that there is nothing these that makes reading the text difficult, such as movements or bright colors, which essentially means that if one chooses to not to have the text shown, there is a large amount of dead space in the UI, which is bad design.

 

Then there is the flow of the dialogue. One of the benefits of the dialogue wheel is that it allows to simulate a more natural flow of discussions, for example Hawke makes a short comment, Varric makes an interjection, Hawke reacts. Because of this, it allows resulting dialogue to be shorter and more interwined while remaining true to the initial approach chosen. Another benefit is that it allows action on the screen associated with the dialogue, allowing a more dynamic presence. Neither of these are possible with the shown dialogue approach, which would actually be really close to what we got in DAO, where the main character would say something in a static situation and the NPCs would usually give longer responses which need to end in a way that allows a smoother transition to another full text choice. Thus having the toggle would require the flow of the dialogue to be planned from the perspective of the fully shown dialogue, which would basically mean giving up some of the key advantages of the dialogue wheel.

 

There is nothing wrong in wanting the full-text version, but I am always baffled by the insistance that both options can co-exist as the design approaches for them require different things both from implementation and writing.

[Lady Artifice]

Except it would be nothing like it. I've actually seen Bioware designers explain this issue several times.

 

If you look at the gif the OP posted, you can notice that they need to devote a notable part of the bottom of the screen to show that text. And no only that, they have to be certain that there is nothing these that makes reading the text difficult, such as movements or bright colors, which essentially means that if one chooses to not to have the text shown, there is a large amount of dead space in the UI, which is bad design.

 

Then there is the flow of the dialogue. One of the benefits of the dialogue wheel is that it allows to simulate a more natural flow of discussions, for example Hawke makes a short comment, Varric makes an interjection, Hawke reacts. Because of this, it allows resulting dialogue to be shorter and more interwined while remaining true to the initial approach chosen. Another benefit is that it allows action on the screen associated with the dialogue, allowing a more dynamic presence. Neither of these are possible with the shown dialogue approach, which would actually be really close to what we got in DAO, where the main character would say something in a static situation and the NPCs would usually give longer responses which need to end in a way that allows a smoother transition to another full text choice. Thus having the toggle would require the flow of the dialogue to be planned from the perspective of the fully shown dialogue, which would basically mean giving up some of the key advantages of the dialogue wheel.

 

There is nothing wrong in wanting the full-text version, but I am always baffled by the insistance that both options can co-exist as the design approaches for them require different things both from implementation and writing.

 

I see your point. I may have been oversimplifying the issue. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I have another pet peeve - the trend toward smaller and more "delicate" fonts. When I played ME1 I could easily read the subtitles and the dialogue wheel on a 32" TV. When I played DA:I on a 46" 1080p screen I could barely read them.

 

This is similar to the way the electronics industry went through putting light blue grey on a slightly darker blue grey in labeling the functions of knobs and sliders and they did it in microfonts because it looked neat and cool. WTF? I had to relabel everything with tape and sharpie in my studio. They put serial numbers on stuff so small you need a 30 power magnifier to read the thing in the event you have to contact customer service.

 

I've noticed this trend with subtitles in all video games. They keep getting smaller and smaller.

 

WTF is going on? Is there a conspiracy with optometrists? Can we have a little larger font size and weight so we can read the bloody things? I shouldn't have trouble reading them on a 46" monitor. Or are they concerned about people with 72" monitors that the subtitles might be too large for them. Yes, that's probably it. To hell with the rest of us.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So if someone bumps into you in the hallway and goes "sorry, didn't see you" or "how's it going?" "it's the feds, cheeze it!" you just stare blankly at them for a good 10-15 seconds, while you compose a reply word for word? I'm sorry, as funny as that is to imagine (you realize you're saying you literally "Bioware" real life conversations, right?) I simply don't believe it.

None of your three examples would require it. If I bumped someone, we probably said sorry simultaneously (unless I didn't notice the impact, in which case I would say nothing). How's it going? or things to that effect elicit a stock response from me - "Well enough." - which I offer reflexively out of habit. The third would likely inspire actions, not words.

Sorry, but meaning stems from interpretation, on both sides. If you say something you consider fitting, but everyone else considers pompous, guess what? Your reply was pompous.

That's an absurd standard. If I meant it not to be pompous, then I'm not going to think it was pompous no matter how it was interpreted.

More to the point though, the mere fact that words are themselves arbitrary expressions of ideas that can change with context already throw your theory out the window.

No, it reinforces my theory by introducing unresolved ambiguity. If we allow that words have no meaning in and of themselves, then the only meaning they have is the meaning we assign them, and we can't read each others' minds. Misunderstandings are virtually guaranteed, and we might never know.

If you can't roll with the punches, you're not doing a very good job of inhabiting the mind of the character are you? Roleplaying is playing a role. Nowhere in that description do I see a requirement that you like where that role takes you at all times.

The role shouldn't take me anywhere. I should take it places. The character should have no identity or motives without me creating them.

Congratulations, you've just contradicted yourself. If your concern is the literal meaning of the line why are you talking about intent all of a sudden?

Intent isn't relevant to interpretation (because the listener can never know what it was), but intent informs the speakers choices. I can't choose what the character says without first knowing why he wants to say it. That's the only way I can know whether the line advances his objectives (and thus whether I can choose it without breaking the character.

Rationalizing that after the fact would have staggering computational complexity, as it would need to be consistent with all other previous behaviour.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If you look at the gif the OP posted, you can notice that they need to devote a notable part of the bottom of the screen to show that text. And no only that, they have to be certain that there is nothing these that makes reading the text difficult, such as movements or bright colors, which essentially means that if one chooses to not to have the text shown, there is a large amount of dead space in the UI, which is bad design.

Opaque text boxes. Problem solved.

These UIs have never been as good as they were when they had text boxes for dialogue and combat feedback. Those floating numbers in the actual game world are terrible.

Then there is the flow of the dialogue. One of the benefits of the dialogue wheel is that it allows to simulate a more natural flow of discussions, for example Hawke makes a short comment, Varric makes an interjection, Hawke reacts. Because of this, it allows resulting dialogue to be shorter and more interwined while remaining true to the initial approach chosen. Another benefit is that it allows action on the screen associated with the dialogue, allowing a more dynamic presence. Neither of these are possible with the shown dialogue approach, which would actually be really close to what we got in DAO, where the main character would say something in a static situation and the NPCs would usually give longer responses which need to end in a way that allows a smoother transition to another full text choice. Thus having the toggle would require the flow of the dialogue to be planned from the perspective of the fully shown dialogue, which would basically mean giving up some of the key advantages of the dialogue wheel.

There is nothing wrong in wanting the full-text version, but I am always baffled by the insistance that both options can co-exist as the design approaches for them require different things both from implementation and writing.

I would prefer the DAO writing apprach regardless (I dislike the auto-dialogue we see now). It absolutely is compatible with voiced dialogue. I see little or no benefit to this "flow" you describe.

But ideally, what discussions like this will do is inform BioWare of the need to minimise the possibility of surprise when hearing our characters speak. Even if they don't show the full text, they need to write longer paraphrases, or somehow provide us more information about what our characters are actually going to say.

If the paraphrase is a question, the full line needs to be a question on the same topic. We should make assertions only when we intend to make assertions, and only the assertions we intend. We should ask questions only when we intend to ask questions, and only the questions we intend.

BioWare should have, as a design goal, that we be able to predict the spoken line the vast majority of the time. And in DA2 and ME2, I basically can't ever do it.

Interrupts should be similarly predictable.

[Enigmatick]

Except it would be nothing like it. I've actually seen Bioware designers explain this issue several times.

 

If you look at the gif the OP posted, you can notice that they need to devote a notable part of the bottom of the screen to show that text. And no only that, they have to be certain that there is nothing these that makes reading the text difficult, such as movements or bright colors, which essentially means that if one chooses to not to have the text shown, there is a large amount of dead space in the UI, which is bad design.

This isn't really true, it's more or less the same thing like DAI's clarification system. They would just put the subtitles on top of the wheel.

 

Also I feel interrupts shouldn't exist if isn't clear what the action in question is and if we aren't able to use the combat pause button during, Sylvius

[Hiemoth]

This isn't really true, it's more or less the same thing like DAI's clarification system. They would just put the subtitles on top of the wheel.

 

Also I feel interrupts shouldn't exist if isn't clear what the action in question is and if we aren't able to use the combat pause button during, Sylvius

 

DAI clarification system is only used in a few scenes and even there it isn't optionally, so all those scenes are graphically designed to have that space free there. Also, the clarifications are usually really short since they only contain the core information about the choice, so they can also limit the space required by it.

[Hiemoth]

Opaque text boxes. Problem solved.

 

I honestly don't understand what you think this would solve. They still need to reserve the space there, they still need to take it into account when designing the actual space and how it melds together. Just saying make them opaque addresses nothing of that.

 

These UIs have never been as good as they were when they had text boxes for dialogue and combat feedback. Those floating numbers in the actual game world are terrible.
I would prefer the DAO writing apprach regardless (I dislike the auto-dialogue we see now). It absolutely is compatible with voiced dialogue. I see little or no benefit to this "flow" you describe.

 

And in this context the fact do you see benefit in the flow means nothing, what matters is that the flow is there. Thus they would have to change the flow of the dialogue in the case of this mythical toggle.

[Hiemoth]

I see your point. I may have been oversimplifying the issue. 

 

I just wish to repeat that if someone wants that full text to be visible, even if I prefer the DA2/ME3 approach, they should push for it. I am not arguing against someone having opinion as that would be truly asinine. What I always just have the issue with is that it is possible have both as it really reduces the discussion with people on the other side having to explain why they are against it outside the meanness of their hearts.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I honestly don't understand what you think this would solve. They still need to reserve the space there, they still need to take it into account when designing the actual space and how it melds together. Just saying make them opaque addresses nothing of that.

If the full text only appears when summoned, it could even be a title insert (where fhe entire screen is replaced by an opaque background with text on it).

It wouldn't interact with the rest of the interface at all. It would replace it.

And in this context the fact do you see benefit in the flow means nothing, what matters is that the flow is there. Thus they would have to change the flow of the dialogue in the case of this mythical toggle.

My point is we lose nothing by changing the flow back to the more staccato DAO style.

[Absafraginlootly]

 

There's not much to be surprised by, top right tone is polite and helpful/moral, middle right is neutral, bottom right is angry/sarastic

 

You can usually gauge what the option is going to look like before picking it, its not always perfect admittedly

These don't tell me what my character will actually say. Choosing between tones is no substitute for choosing between dialogue. You can say entirely different things, in the same helpful/moral tone. 

 

I just want to choose what my character sais, if others prefer to be surprised fair enough, I don't.

 

This isn't really true, it's more or less the same thing like DAI's clarification system. They would just put the subtitles on top of the wheel.

 

Also I feel interrupts shouldn't exist if isn't clear what the action in question is and if we aren't able to use the combat pause button during, Sylvius

This, make it turn off able in options, or make it so it only shows up if you hold shift whilst mousing over the paraphrase and no one who doesn't want to see it will have to.

DAI clarification system is only used in a few scenes and even there it isn't optionally, so all those scenes are graphically designed to have that space free there. Also, the clarifications are usually really short since they only contain the core information about the choice, so they can also limit the space required by it.

Yes, and?

 

They would have to spend time and effort on it, as they do with any aspect of the game. That is not an argument against, its just a matter of whether you think its worth the resources. I do, others may not, its subjective. Even more so since we're all only guessing at exactly how much work it would take.

[Sylvius the Mad]

My hate for the silent protagonist stems from the disconnect that I feel with the world around him/her. It just seems weird to not see your protagonist acting out the line that you chose for him/her to say.

I do see it.  With my headcanon.

 

That's how it worked before cinematics and detailed 3D graphics, and it can still work that way today.  It just requires some effort and imagination on the part of the players.

 

Roleplaying is primarily an imaginative exercise.

[Hiemoth]

If the full text only appears when summoned, it could even be a title insert (where fhe entire screen is replaced by an opaque background with text on it).

 

Except they would design the scene to have the place where it would inserted in, right? Which means that space cannot contain anything else because the box needs go there, correct? Which would that if this toggle was off, this area would be a dead area. Why is this, for you, a false statement? If they chose to fill that area with something relevant to the scene, it would be blocked by the box. What exactly are you imagining it replacing and how would this not require them to design to UIs?

 

 

My point is we lose nothing by changing the flow back to the more staccato DAO style.

 

Of course we lose something, we lose the flow of dialogue allowed by the dialogue wheel, which to those who enjoyed that system is a net negative. Unless your argument is that I am imagining a differences in the flows of these systems, I honestly do not understand your point. And even in that case, if there is no difference, then the flow of DA2 system should suit you as well.

 

 

Yes, and?

 

They would have to spend time and effort on it, as they do with any aspect of the game. That is not an argument against, its just a matter of whether you think its worth the resources. I do, others may not, its subjective. Even more so since we're all only guessing at exactly how much work it would take.

 

 

I am not certain I understand you. My response was to the point that of the toggle and how the DAI system wasn't a good representive of that as the clarifications weren't optional and the graphical design had only to account for them in a very small amount of scenes. Also, because they were clarifications instead of actual dialogue choices, they could still have a more natural of the dialogue, which would not be the case if they switched to the full text. The clarification and full-text boxes are thus so different that one cannot really be used as a justification for the other.

 

As for the rest, yeah we don't know how much resources it takes. Bioware does and they have constantly that the cost is too large for them to consider that even a realistic option. So unless your argument is that Bioware is lying there, that should be the answer.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Except they would design the scene to have the place where it would inserted in, right? Which means that space cannot contain anything else because the box needs go there, correct? Which would that if this toggle was off, this area would be a dead area. Why is this, for you, a false statement? If they chose to fill that area with something relevant to the scene, it would be blocked by the box. What exactly are you imagining it replacing and how would this not require them to design to UIs?.

The text box would cover things.  Possibly everything.  Nothing else needs to be visible while the full text is displayed.  The UI would display normally with the paraphrase only until the player called for the full text, and then the text box would appear, covering things, and display the text.

 

Why is this so hard to understand?  I never said it wouldn't cover things.  You said it wouldn't, but that's an entirely unnecessary design constraint.

Of course we lose something, we lose the flow of dialogue allowed by the dialogue wheel, which to those who enjoyed that system is a net negative. Unless your argument is that I am imagining a differences in the flows of these systems, I honestly do not understand your point. And even in that case, if there is no difference, then the flow of DA2 system should suit you as well.

I don't care what the flow does, and I don't think anyone else should either.

 

I want a system that grants me maximum control and maximum knowledge of what it is I'm controlling.  Whatever flow that produces would be fine with me.

 

What does flow give you, precisely?

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

The text box would cover things.  Possibly everything.  Nothing else needs to be visible while the full text is displayed.  The UI would display normally with the paraphrase only until the player called for the full text, and then the text box would appear, covering things, and display the text.

 

Why is this so hard to understand?  I never said it wouldn't cover things.  You said it wouldn't, but that's an entirely unnecessary design constraint.

 

 

I don't care what the flow does, and I don't think anyone else should either.

 

I want a system that grants me maximum control and maximum knowledge of what it is I'm controlling.  Whatever flow that produces would be fine with me.

 

What does flow give you, precisely?

 

I don';t get the covering thing either. I'm coming into the middle of a conversation, but it sounds like exactly how subtitles behave. I've never felt subtitles block anything.

[NWN-Ming-Ming]

I don';t get the covering thing either. I'm coming into the middle of a conversation, but it sounds like exactly how subtitles behave. I've never felt subtitles block anything.

The whole thread started because someone wants the hovering subtitles on ALL the time for every dialogue choice, to show what is said.

[Hiemoth]

The text box would cover things.  Possibly everything.  Nothing else needs to be visible while the full text is displayed.  The UI would display normally with the paraphrase only until the player called for the full text, and then the text box would appear, covering things, and display the text.

 

Why is this so hard to understand?  I never said it wouldn't cover things.  You said it wouldn't, but that's an entirely unnecessary design constraint.

 

 

Probably it is difficult for me to understand the same reason as I am utterly baffled why you do not understand my point.

 

When designing the UI, they have to take in to account everything is shown the screen, correct? When you see that person there, it isn't by accident, they designed it to show that. For your box to come up, it needs to a cover section. They can't approach for momentarily to block a section as they are designing the whole visual aspect of the UI and how all the incoming information is combined to a total effect.

 

Besides, what you are suggesting what are you are suggesting from the toggle point of view. The toggle is either on or off, you can't switch on during the dialogue. And even if it was the hover box, again it needs to take up a space in a way that it doesn't conflict with the actual visual design of UI or the scene. What is so difficult about this?

 

 

 

I don't care what the flow does, and I don't think anyone else should either.

 

I want a system that grants me maximum control and maximum knowledge of what it is I'm controlling.  Whatever flow that produces would be fine with me.

 

What does flow give you, precisely?

 

Well, I am personally always happy when people tell me what I should care about. It also raises the question why do you think the people defending the cinematic approach do so.

 

The flow, to me, gives a more dynamic dialogue exchange and an ability to have action and movement better incorporated in the situation as well. It gives me something I find more enjoyable than the DAO approach. Evidently Bioware currently agrees with my views considering they are using it.

 

That is my answer. It is completely as valid as yours, yet for some reason I managed not to assert that nobody should care about your preference.

[Absafraginlootly]

*snip*

I am not certain I understand you. My response was to the point that of the toggle and how the DAI system wasn't a good representive of that as the clarifications weren't optional and the graphical design had only to account for them in a very small amount of scenes. Also, because they were clarifications instead of actual dialogue choices, they could still have a more natural of the dialogue, which would not be the case if they switched to the full text. The clarification and full-text boxes are thus so different that one cannot really be used as a justification for the other.

 

As for the rest, yeah we don't know how much resources it takes. Bioware does and they have constantly that the cost is too large for them to consider that even a realistic option. So unless your argument is that Bioware is lying there, that should be the answer.

I suppose my comment was more general which might of caused the confusion. Alot of the argument against either full dialogue or the ability to choose whether you see it or not seems to be about it taking up resources, being to hard, requiring that the way dialogue works to change, changing the ui etc.

 

If you don't want those resources used, want the dialogue to continue working the same "flow", or don't like the sort of changes it would cause to the UI, then you won't want this. But they are not inherent objective reasons against full dialogue, their about personnel preferences. There's no reason they should change the minds of people who don't have those preferences. 

 

I hope that makes what I was saying clearer.

 

I don't understand your final comment. I've never suggested that bioware has lied. At some point in the making of dragon age 2 someone decided that it wasn't worth trying to do full dialogue, when asked about since, employees have stated the reasons why. I do not speculate as to whether I'd have made the same choice as I wasn't there and do not know.

 

The decision of previous games doesn't have to be the decision of all future games, particularly since the circumstances of each will never be quite the same in each. I hope that they will make a different decision in future games. 

[NWN-Ming-Ming]

Purely from a Playing Experience perspective, I would hope they never do this.  Like many others I would find the flow of the game disrupted and the spontaneity of listening to the dialogue as it happens to be lost. 

 

In my experience, I had maybe 1 in every 100 dialogue choices (at most) of a Bioware RPG not representative of what I thought I was selecting, and usually I had a Quicksave to fall back to if I was truly unhappy with the outcome of a selected dialogue option.  I really don't see much need for implementing this, especially since the characterization concepts between a game like Deus Ex and Mass Effect to be totally different extremes. 

 

The work needed to reverse course compared with the small number of people catered to, seems to be disproportional and unprofitable for Bioware.