293 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Pause time when the text is visible.  Then nothing can happen behind them.

 

Wait, time already pauses during dialogue, so that problem doesn't even exist.

Besides, what you are suggesting what are you are suggesting from the toggle point of view.

I don't think it works as a toggle.  It would work like the highlight objects button in NWN and DAO - you press it when you want more information.

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?

It can replace the visual design for the time it is visible.

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.

I don't want to speculate about other people's motives.  That's why I ask.

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.

They used quite a bit less of it in DAI, but I'll agree that they don't seem to want static dialogue.

 

I'm indifferent to the action.  I just want more information, regardless of how they provide it.  If they manage to find an innovative solution that lets me play the way I want to play (choosing among options where I know what those options are, and having my character not surprise me), I don't object to you getting what you want.

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.

I didn't assert that either.  "I don't think so" and "I do think otherwise" are not synonymous.  I merely pointed to an opinion I didn't hold; I did not claim that anyone should hold the opposite opinion.

 

That inference was yours.  Watch those excluded middles.

[Hiemoth]

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. 

 

But the problem here is the topic of the discussion, especially the toggle. The reason they stated for not giving that, outside not wanting everything to become a toggle, is because it requires building up two separate UIs for the game and planning each scene separately. That is their reason and thus that is the objective reason why they are not doing it. My lying comment wasn't an accusation, sorry about that, but rather that the only way the reason is invalid is if Bioware was lying about the resources it requires.

 

The flow is separate thing, although I did appreciate the quotes there, and that is a purely writing thing. My point there is that those things can't co-exist, as writing dialogue and scenes from the perspective of the DAO approach where you see the text exactly what is going to be said leads to a very different dialogue flow. If they show the exact text that is going to be said, it will essentially be the DAO list choice but voiced which will impact the way dialogue is structured as they can't have the character react or continue beyond that text. If you for example compare dialogues in DAO and DA2 to each other, the character don't actually do as long text blocks in DA2 as they do in DAO as they can write a scene in DA2 where Varric speaks, Hawke interjects something short, but Varric continues on with the same subject. They can't do that with the fixed dialogue as only what was shown can be said which lead to those at times really long rambles in DAO.

 

As for pushing what you want, that is what you should do. I will never claim otherwise. However, at the same time it should be pointed out that not only did Bioware do that approach with DA2, they continued with it in DAI and have stated that they will continue apply that system as it serves their cinematic approach.

[Charoleia]

I'd like it as an option maybe... The dialog options do not always convey the general feel of the actual delivered line.

 

Off the top of my head, in Inquisition, the fight between Varric and Cassandra :

"That's unfair, Cassandra" meant to me "That's not very fair", "you are being unreasonable" , "he does not deserve that", something to try to calm things down, and not the "That's unworthy of you !" line it turned to be, with something of a "SHAME ON YOUUUUU !!!" implied.

 

Maybe yes, some icon stating in which tone the line will be delivered ?

[Absafraginlootly]

But the problem here is the topic of the discussion, especially the toggle. The reason they stated for not giving that, outside not wanting everything to become a toggle, is because it requires building up two separate UIs for the game and planning each scene separately. That is their reason and thus that is the objective reason why they are not doing it. My lying comment wasn't an accusation, sorry about that, but rather that the only way the reason is invalid is if Bioware was lying about the resources it requires.

 

The flow is separate thing, although I did appreciate the quotes there, and that is a purely writing thing. My point there is that those things can't co-exist, as writing dialogue and scenes from the perspective of the DAO approach where you see the text exactly what is going to be said leads to a very different dialogue flow. If they show the exact text that is going to be said, it will essentially be the DAO list choice but voiced which will impact the way dialogue is structured as they can't have the character react or continue beyond that text. If you for example compare dialogues in DAO and DA2 to each other, the character don't actually do as long text blocks in DA2 as they do in DAO as they can write a scene in DA2 where Varric speaks, Hawke interjects something short, but Varric continues on with the same subject. They can't do that with the fixed dialogue as only what was shown can be said which lead to those at times really long rambles in DAO.

 

As for pushing what you want, that is what you should do. I will never claim otherwise. However, at the same time it should be pointed out that not only did Bioware do that approach with DA2, they continued with it in DAI and have stated that they will continue apply that system as it serves their cinematic approach.

 

I get that it would really change the way dialogue moves, I want to know my choices more than I want that smoothness, but I see why some prefer the other.

 

We do seem to be envisioning something very different UI wise. I don't see it as two distinct ui menus depending on what you select in options, but instead see a typical sort of dialogue wheel that shows an icon when you mouse over a paraphrase(like normal) but with the added feature of pressing shift to see that paraphrases full dialogue in a popup box(with long ones not showing the whole thing at once by allowing scrolling or something of the like), click shift again and it disappears. That way it would only cover something temporarily, only if you want it to, and not very much area since you can can have a modest size box and scroll down. Which seems like one ui with an extra feature from previous rather than having two separate ones, but YMMV on that.

 

Edit: Obviously I don't know how easy this would be or how the game devs would go about it, but its what I'd want.

[Helios969]

Lame.  If you want that you might as request a return to the silent protagonist...which is lame.

[SofaJockey]

The devs have said that they tested this approach, and it failed. The system was apparently found to be less enjoyable with it than without it.

 

I can believe that:

 

Reads: Sure, I'll take on that mission to find that hidden base that should take us one step closer to our goal.

Says: Sure, I'll take on that mission to find that hidden base that should take us one step closer to our goal.

 

Reads: Where can I get some more of the supplies I'm going to need? We were pretty beat up in that last mission.

Says: Where can I get some more of the supplies I'm going to need? We were pretty beat up in that last mission.

 

zzzzzzzz.... 

 

(The idea of full dialogue is more appealing than the actual truth of it)

[Hiemoth]

I can believe that:

 

Reads: Sure, I'll take on that mission to find that hidden base that should take us one step closer to our goal.

Says: Sure, I'll take on that mission to find that hidden base that should take us one step closer to our goal.

 

Reads: Where can I get some more of the supplies I'm going to need? We were pretty beat up in that last mission.

Says: Where can I get some more of the supplies I'm going to need? We were pretty beat up in that last mission.

 

zzzzzzzz.... 

 

(The idea of full dialogue is more appealing than the actual truth of it)

 

You know, I was actually thinking about this when playing PoE where some of the NPC dialogue is recorded in addition to written and sitting there and listening to them go on while having already read all they are going to say just became a chore at times.

[AlanC9]

That's why I always have subtitles off in Bio games.

[In Exile]

You know, I was actually thinking about this when playing PoE where some of the NPC dialogue is recorded in addition to written and sitting there and listening to them go on while having already read all they are going to say just became a chore at times.

PoE is worse, actually, because the dialogue is written as if it were a novel; so, for example:

It reads:

He spits, then glares at you: "What do you want?"

But it says:

"What do you want?"

This is worse when the description is in the middle of a sentence and the VO skips over it. Not only do I read the passage faster, but the VO doesn't read the action, and sometimes the timing doesn't line up, e.g.

"We should wait. There's something suspicions." Jonah reaches for a book, slowly and meticulously. "It might be a trap."

vs.

"We should wait. There's something suspicions. It might be a trap."

The timing just doesn't work in POE.

[TeffexPope]

Let's just be glad that Bioware is at the forefront of dialogue. After playing The Witcher 3, its system seems archaic and lame compared to DAI's. I hope all future bioware games have the DA2 and DAI icons in the middle of each choice, that show you the tone of what you're saying/showing you a dialogue unique to your character or circumstance. And maybe the interrupt system too, though I get the feeling that will be a ME thing only for some reason.

[Nomen Mendax]

You know, I was actually thinking about this when playing PoE where some of the NPC dialogue is recorded in addition to written and sitting there and listening to them go on while having already read all they are going to say just became a chore at times.

I agree with this - the spoken dialogue in PoE doesn't really seem to have any purpose, and is irritating more than anything else. the main problem is that it is delivered at the same time as the text, so that you are reading as the line is spoken (and then have to wait for the spoken part to finish).

 

However, this is quite different from what is being asked for in this thread (I'm not claiming that you are saying they are the same by the way). I want the ability to read the full text of the PCs response, should I want to, before the line is delivered. This may make hearing the spoken line boring but I'm willing to live with either listening to it or skipping it to get certainty about what the PC is going to say.

 

I really don't think finding a satisfactory UI for this is at all difficult, whether or not such a UI is easily compatible with the dialogue is not a concern to me since I've never been that impressed with the wheel anyway.

 

Like any other request Bioware have to judge whether or not its worthwhile given the cost and their estimation of how many people actually want it.

[Hiemoth]

PoE is worse, actually, because the dialogue is written as if it were a novel; so, for example:

It reads:

He spits, then glares at you: "What do you want?"

But it says:

"What do you want?"

This is worse when the description is in the middle of a sentence and the VO skips over it. Not only do I read the passage faster, but the VO doesn't read the action, and sometimes the timing doesn't line up, e.g.

"We should wait. There's something suspicions." Jonah reaches for a book, slowly and meticulously. "It might be a trap."

vs.

"We should wait. There's something suspicions. It might be a trap."

The timing just doesn't work in POE.

 

I would perhaps, in turn, go even further on this in that not only was the dialogue written as it was in a novel, but because they had the silent protagonist and the limitations for truly dynamics discussions that brings, a lot of the dialogues ended up feeling a lot like monologues for me. This isn't helped by the fact that I personally found, and I stress this is a personal opinion, that PoE was really pretensious a lot of the time so when it hit those spoken NPC dialogues, in my head they felt like I was in a dark theater sitting in the backrow while a sole performer on the stage is preaching on the true meaning of things. The disconnect was just that huge.

 

It also was a game that really drove home to me what cinematics bring to the table, even if the PC is silent, as the monologues never felt that bad in DAO partially because I didn't have to read it first, but also because it gave it a more natural rhythym as it had to be planned to be accomponied by at least something.

[Hiemoth]

I agree with this - the spoken dialogue in PoE doesn't really seem to have any purpose, and is irritating more than anything else. the main problem is that it is delivered at the same time as the text, so that you are reading as the line is spoken (and then have to wait for the spoken part to finish).

 

However, this is quite different from what is being asked for in this thread (I'm not claiming that you are saying they are the same by the way). I want the ability to read the full text of the PCs response, should I want to, before the line is delivered. This may make hearing the spoken line boring but I'm willing to live with either listening to it or skipping it to get certainty about what the PC is going to say.

 

I really don't think finding a satisfactory UI for this is at all difficult, whether or not such a UI is easily compatible with the dialogue is not a concern to me since I've never been that impressed with the wheel anyway.

 

Like any other request Bioware have to judge whether or not its worthwhile given the cost and their estimation of how many people actually want it.

 

On the first half your comment, I would never argue with this. I mean its something I don't want in a game, personally, but there is a part of me that understand why that is something others like. Neither would I ever argue with the last part as naturally it would be a decision Bioware makes based on their estimates.

 

I guess my issue is more with the middle part for two reasons. First, Bioware designers themselves have explained that it would need to be accounted for in that UI design and that is one of the reasons they decided not to have it as an optional part. So, for me, I can't argue with someone saying that they want that, but I will argue with someone saying they want that and they don't think it should be a hard to do. As if that is the case, why exactly do you assume they didn't do it? Because they're mean?

 

But the second, larger issue, is that doing that change impacts a lot more than just UI, it does affect the way write dialogue and design scene. I think a rabbit hole we all go down to at times is this conception that in a well-designed game we can just change one part without it having any effect on the rest of the game which is not true. They all feed in together and support a larger design. For example, when they announced FO4 will have a voiced protagonist, a lot of the complaints went in to why would they rob the player the silent protagonist without actually looking at how the way they are no approaching those scenes requires a voiced protagonist, that it is a part of a larger thing instead of being an independent addition.

[Elhanan]

I am for more like DAI; accurate para-phrasing for the most part. Only a couple of hiccups were encountered out of 690+ hrs of gameplay.

As for Approval, I also enjoyed what was seen in SWTOR; a lot of versatility in the responses and rewards/ penalties.

[Nomen Mendax]

On the first half your comment, I would never argue with this. I mean its something I don't want in a game, personally, but there is a part of me that understand why that is something others like. Neither would I ever argue with the last part as naturally it would be a decision Bioware makes based on their estimates.

 

I guess my issue is more with the middle part for two reasons. First, Bioware designers themselves have explained that it would need to be accounted for in that UI design and that is one of the reasons they decided not to have it as an optional part. So, for me, I can't argue with someone saying that they want that, but I will argue with someone saying they want that and they don't think it should be a hard to do. As if that is the case, why exactly do you assume they didn't do it? Because they're mean?

 

But the second, larger issue, is that doing that change impacts a lot more than just UI, it does affect the way write dialogue and design scene. I think a rabbit hole we all go down to at times is this conception that in a well-designed game we can just change one part without it having any effect on the rest of the game which is not true. They all feed in together and support a larger design. For example, when they announced FO4 will have a voiced protagonist, a lot of the complaints went in to why would they rob the player the silent protagonist without actually looking at how the way they are no approaching those scenes requires a voiced protagonist, that it is a part of a larger thing instead of being an independent addition.

Ignoring the snide remark about Bioware being mean these are reasonable questions. From what I recall of Bioware's reasons for not giving us the full text there were three.

 

1. The UI - I'm not going to discuss this as I think changing the dialogue wheel or even introducing a new UI (yay) is perfectly possible. It may be something that they don't want to spend money on, but that's a separate issue.

 

2. In focus groups they found that players didn't like reading the full text. I'm not disputing this, but equally I am absolutely positive that I would prefer to play with the ability to read the full text.

 

3. The issue that you've raised about dialogue flow. I remember David Gaider discussing this on the DA forums. They want to be able to have more natural sounding conversations where the player chooses one response which results in multiple conversation lines from the PC and NPC. I think there are a number of ways this could be handled.

• There's the obvious one which is: don't do it. I'd be perfectly happy with this; for that matter I'd be perfectly happy with them spending less time and effort on cinematic presentation and more time on engaging gameplay, but I'll concede that they aren't going to do this and I'm probably in a minority,
• Allow the PC to see the full line whenever the PC has an option to pick a paraphrase. You wouldn't get to see your other full lines so it wouldn't be perfect - but it would still be a great deal better than what we have now. If we had this I'd be pretty happy.
• Get rid of paraphrasing and describe what the intent of the PC is. Instead of "What about the Reapers?" it might be "Persuade the council to attack the reapers". I would much prefer to see this - if you combine it with a tone icon it should be pretty comprehensive (the tone could indicate if you were using reason, or the time honoured Shepard method of yelling). The downside of this is that the intent phrases are likely to be a little bit longer than the paraphrases.

I'm sure there are other possibilities but that's what comes to mind immediately.

 

So why haven't Bioware  implemented a full text option? I assume its for the same reason they haven't done a lot of things - they figure it isn't worth it. It's hard to do with the cinematic direction they are taking and I would assume that they think that those of us who really want it are a small enough minority that they can ignore us. And that isn't meant to sound upset - they have to decide what is cost effective.

 

But, given how I play CRPGs its a important for me, so I'm going to keep requesting it.

[Silver Souls]

There could always be an ON/OFF option in the menu for this. So that those that do not want it and vice verse can play how they like??

[Sanunes]

There could always be an ON/OFF option in the menu for this. So that those that do not want it and vice verse can play how they like??

 

Yes, but it could be a lot of work to implement and make sure that it works properly and is accurate. Which means they might have to sacrifice other areas of the game to make sure the game is released on time.

[prosthetic soul]

What Bioware needs to NEVER EVER EVER do again is the crap they pulled in Dragon Age Inquisition.  Literally spelling out what each dialogue option will do in romancing characters. 

 

This is why you're alone <------- Picking this will not get you laid. 

 

I can try to be that man.  <------- Picking this will LOCK IN THAT ROMANCE, WOOOO!!!!

 

Really Bioware?  Way to completely make the role playing a brain dead experience. 

[Elhanan]

What Bioware needs to NEVER EVER EVER do again is the crap they pulled in Dragon Age Inquisition.  Literally spelling out what each dialogue option will do in romancing characters. 
 
This is why you're alone <------- Picking this will not get you laid. 
 
I can try to be that man.  <------- Picking this will LOCK IN THAT ROMANCE, WOOOO!!!!
 
Really Bioware?  Way to completely make the role playing a brain dead experience.

er... Romance often involves someone that is brain dead....

[CrutchCricket]

I can guarantee you that some of us do. Learning to weigh words before you say them is one of the essential aspects of learning good oratory and communication skills. Read almost any book about successful communication or take a course on public speaking, and they will tell you to eliminate the common bad habit of speaking before you know what you intend to get across and planning your words accordingly. It's usually a matter of discipline and practice, and there are absolutely people who take that kind of care.

I assume that if you've taken courses on public speaking you know how it differs from regular everyday conversations. We weren't discussing public speaking. For every day situations knowledge of context alone ensures the "right" words are chosen. You talk to your boss at work, you don't need to concentrate on each word to know not to cuss. You talk to your buddies, you automatically incorporate the slang/inside jokes you're familiar with. Short of preparing speeches or dealing with contexts you're unfamiliar with (say entering negotiations with foreign diplomats) you certainly do not need to think of each word in sequence, and most people don't. I suppose I can't say with absolute certainty that no one does because people's brain wiring varies wildly. But I can't imagine someone who requires that level meditation for even simple sentences is effective in mundane communication, or if they are, they aren't the norm.
 

Your missing my point. There are probably many different ways of approaching CRPGs. One way is play it in a similar way to P&P games, where the player decides what the PC says and does. Obviously in a CRPG this is an illusion but its an illusion that can be encouraged by the designers. Having the player choose a paraphrase where the spoken line doesn't match what the player imagines the PC is going to say breaks this illusion.
 
An alternative is to view it as if you are giving vague directions to an actor who then interprets them in some way - in this model sometimes being surprised is OK, and possibly even a good thing. Bioware is trying to force us to play their games in this second way.

You haven't listed an alternative, you've simply (and ironically) paraphrased the same idea.
 
Player input-> paraphrase vs Player input-> interpretation. A paraphrase is an interpretation, technically.
 
So if you acknowledge it's an illusion then where does the forcing part come in? At the end of the day you are still limited to choosing a limited number of options and "forced" to do so to progress (if you want to look at it that way). But I would imagine that even in tabletop, you are constrained from doing or saying certain things for the sake of progressing the adventure. So what is this unacceptable "forcing", really?
 

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.

Underlined: There you go, you got it. Habit. That's what it all boils down to, really. The human brain is pretty lazy. We automate things as much as possible. Things that are routine and familiar we don't even pay attention to anymore. This is true for visual, auditory, every input and output we do. We're in the habit of speaking, so we have stock phrases and things we say without even thinking about it. And situations don't even have to be exact for "language routines" to activate. Me saying "how's it going" would elicit the same response from you as your neighbor, with the same (lack of)forethought.
 

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.

Well, then you'd be wrong and in the minority to boot. And speaking of, how many people get torn new ones in the media for saying things people take as racist, or sexist or whatever? The whole notion of political correctness exists because people get too easily offended, but it clearly proves communication is judged by effect more than intent. Whether that's right or not is open to debate but it's a separate issue.
 

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.

Then I guess the word you meant to use was "inevitable". Not "irrelevant". Funny, that.
 

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

Talk about ridiculous standard. Like I was discussing with another user, there is a level of illusion over how much we can shape the characters in these games. As there would be in any game, regardless of medium, though the amount of freedom will vary. Your insistence on creating characters in absolute vacuum is absurd. Simply by being part of a larger structure (a story), the character will have a level of pre-definition you cannot change.

 

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.

Intent from the character has always been communicated fairly well, through context. You can make a case that it can still be improved (better paraphrases) but that is not the same as having the line spoon fed to you before you choose it. Personally I think telegraphing through framing should also be considered and looked at in the future. Like in the example with pushing the merc out the window. Shepard acts threatening and backs the guard near the window. By his expression, the tone of his voice and the position of the actors in the scene I can tell what's going to happen without needing it spelt out for me like I'm a child.

 

Is there room for improvement? Sure. But improve, don't spoonfeed.

[Nonoru]

I would actually love this. 

[The Smiling Bandit]

I would appreciate this greatly. It doesn’t happen too often but I’m tired of trying to say one thing and then having my character say something quite the contrary. Plus it would be easier to gauge how others will react when I know what is going to be said.

[Former_Fiend]

I would appreciate this greatly. It doesn’t happen too often but I’m tired of trying to say one thing and then having my character say something quite the contrary. Plus it would be easier to gauge how others will react when I know what is going to be said.

 

Completely unrelated but I will give you all the likes if you add a <Ha ha ha!> to your signature.

[Sidney]

Your missing my point. There are probably many different ways of approaching CRPGs. One way is play it in a similar way to P&P games, where the player decides what the PC says and does. Obviously in a CRPG this is an illusion but its an illusion that can be encouraged by the designers. Having the player choose a paraphrase where the spoken line doesn't match what the player imagines the PC is going to say breaks this illusion.
 
An alternative is to view it as if you are giving vague directions to an actor who then interprets them in some way - in this model sometimes being surprised is OK, and possibly even a good thing. Bioware is trying to force us to play their games in this second way.
 
As an aside, I'm replaying ME1 and those incidences of identical dialogue with three different paraphrases are just weird.

The problem is that when they give you the full lines...you still aren't saying what you want to say. I don't even waste my time really reading the full text on the wall of text, I am looking for the yes and no or the I'll help you or I will rob you option. You never say what you want to say in a CRPG because short of a very simple yes/no what the writers write out is what they want you to say not what you want to say anyways.

People who don't like the full lines of dialog and somehow are "surprised" by them somehow think reading the line they don't like before selecting it makes it all better? Again. You are picking from distinct intents with lines not shades of grey. There is no "yes" that is so wrong you will pick "no".

[Sylvius the Mad]

At the end of the day you are still limited to choosing a limited number of options and "forced" to do so to progress (if you want to look at it that way).

But with the paraphrase, we don't even get to choose among those limited options.

Guessing isn't choosing.

But I would imagine that even in tabletop, you are constrained from doing or saying certain things for the sake of progressing the adventure.

No, you're not. Sometimes, as a result of your choices, you simply don't progress in the adventure.

Sadly, in CRPGs, often the only way to do this is to die.

Underlined: There you go, you got it. Habit. That's what it all boils down to, really. The human brain is pretty lazy. We automate things as much as possible.

A habit I consciously cultivated in order to avoid those awkward silences you described.

Without me choosing to develop that habit, I wouldn't have it.

Well, then you'd be wrong and in the minority to boot. And speaking of, how many people get torn new ones in the media for saying things people take as racist, or sexist or whatever? The whole notion of political correctness exists because people get too easily offended, but it clearly proves communication is judged by effect more than intent. Whether that's right or not is open to debate but it's a separate issue.

That is not a separate issue. That is the entire issue.

Then I guess the word you meant to use was "inevitable". Not "irrelevant". Funny, that.

It's irrelevant because it's inevitable. It happens almost constantly. It has to be irrelevant for people to think they're making any conversational progress at all.

Talk about ridiculous standard. Like I was discussing with another user, there is a level of illusion over how much we can shape the characters in these games. As there would be in any game, regardless of medium, though the amount of freedom will vary. Your insistence on creating characters in absolute vacuum is absurd. Simply by being part of a larger structure (a story), the character will have a level of pre-definition you cannot change.

And again, the problem with the paraphrase is that we can't change anything. Things might change, but the player cannot reasonably claim to be the one doing it.

I also think you're grossly overstating the necessary level of pre-definition. Take any character you've played: what was his position on property rights? What was his favourite colour? Favourite food? Is he predisposed to he nice to people? Maybe just some people who remind him of his father? Does he approve of nightclubs? Prostitution? Slavery? War? Intoxicated? Why? What ties those preferences together?

There's much we might get to decide.

Intent from the character has always been communicated fairly well, through context. You can make a case that it can still be improved (better paraphrases) but that is not the same as having the line spoon fed to you before you choose it.

If there's something specific you want to avoid saying, how can you tell if the line you're choosing includes it?

I don't think the player character intent has ever been conveyed to us at all, and I wouldn't want it to be. If I'm not in control of my character's state of mind, then I'm not roplaying him, and thlat's literally the only thing I'm trying to do in these games. I do not care if I advance the story, or ever see the end of it. I don't care if my characer lives or dies. But I want those things to arise as a result of the personality I'm roleplaying.

Personally I think telegraphing through framing should also be considered and looked at in the future. Like in the example with pushing the merc out the window. Shepard acts threatening and backs the guard near the window. By his expression, the tone of his voice and the position of the actors in the scene I can tell what's going to happen without needing it spelt out for me like I'm a child.

I won't be satisfied until I can predict the full line word for word, and choose the tone independently from the line.

Until then, the silent protagonist is better.