293 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

As much as I knock video game moral choice systems and the false dichotomy they present, maybe for people like you enforcing them more strongly would be a good thing. If the top of the wheel is always the nice choices and the bottom the dick ones and all responses are consistent with that, and with each other, then maybe you'll finally accept that there's no ambiguity, and they didn't have to spoonfeed you the line to achieve this.

Why do you need me to accept that?

I've actually advocated that the position of the options on wheel should be randomized so as to accentuate the importance of the literal meaning.

I've also asked for the paraphrases to be written by someone who did not write the actual lines, and without providing that paraphrase writer with any context (so, perhaps randomly assigning each line in a random order), because the only relevant context during play will be provided by the player.

Irrelevance (unless you're playing a game where you deal with property rights, prostitution, slavery and war). Character decisions ultimately boil down to two categories: decisions about specific issues and situations in the game which get addressed or there's a reasonable expectation that they'll get addressed, and things that won't get addressed because they're too generic or removed from the narrative. The latter is widow dressing. Stuff like favorite color, favorite food, relationship with your father (unless that's a plot point) does not matter and is merely there for flavoring the roleplaying. They can be anything.

I based an entire DAO playthrough around a belief on property rights. It informed nearly every choice.

Most of my characters' primary motivations have nothing to do with the story BioWare wrote. They inform that character's choices throughout, and they're typically left unresolved by the end of the game, but that doesn't mean they didn't matter. They were the whole point of that playthrough.

Game-relevant preferences however will always be limited. And these limits will come out in more than just dialogue. Some limits may be more obvious and annoying than others, but even if they aren't the limits are there nonetheless. We know Shepard can't hate the asari and we constantly chafe under that.

Yes he can. He just can't act on it.

But a less obvious but no less strict limit is that Shepard can't really be apathetic. Whether he's a idealist or cynical dickhead he still actively takes up arms to save the galaxy.

No, he takes up arms. The game doesn't decide why. He has the opportunity to save the galaxy along the way, which he might do, but again we don't know whether Shepard even intended to save the galaxy (or if it was merely a side-effect) unless we invent that ourselves.

You never were and never will be in control of the character's mind the way you're describing. Practically you're only choosing from a limited number of responses. The state of mind and immersion come almost retroactively, based on what's happening in the scene.

I never rationalize in that way. Rationalization is a nearly unforgivable failing.

The reasoning must always precede the conclusions.

Well then I guess you'll never be satisfied. And that suits me just fine. No offense but I find your insistence on total control a little disturbing.

I play these games as simulations. I want to craft a character and then set him lose in the world to see what he does. If I don't get to craft the character, then the game becomes a purely passive exercise and I don't learn anything.

I don't know about others but I mainly take issues with your continue use of the word "force". You said it yourself, paraphrases may be ambiguous or you may simply not be on the same wavelength. I don't think assuming their purposefully misleading you is reasonable.

You weren't addressing me, but I don't think it's purposeful.

I do think the paraphrases were always going to be obfuscatory, and I expect BioWare had to know that when they first started using them, but that would only mean that they foresaw those flaws, not that they intended them (they may also not have recognized them as flaws).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Did any of the options let you conceal Tali's identity there?

No, but there was no way for the player to know that.

I didn't trust Udina. I wanted to hide everything from him.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't see how you could think concealment was possible given the scene set up. But beyond that, this is more a complaint about the plot than a complaint about the VO. It's no different from how DAO doesn't give you an option to e.g. disparage the GWs.

If I know what the plot is, I can adapt to it. If it is hidden from me, all it can ever be is a trap.

The dialogue wheel is the Monte Cook of dialogue scripting.

[MrStoob]

Ask nicely for info                                     Do a nice thing

 

Request info                           *                 Do a thing

 

Demand info                                             Do a bad thing

 

As this is just about every option available in every dialogue wheel, does it matter what it says anyway?  I'd personally not like to read what I'm about to hear, I don't even have subtitles on because I'm not reading a book.  A general premise of the option is enough for me, though at times throughout the series options have been a little ambiguous sounding - that side of things could certainly be tidied up.  Obviously, the left hand side of the wheel can be less alignment orientated but you get the gist.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There is that surprise factor I guess. Thank you, you're a wonderful human being for sharing that tidbit.

I don't see how the surprise could ever be a good thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ask nicely for info Do a nice thing

Request info * Do a thing

Demand info Do a bad thing

I don't even concede that the game game decide for us what is nice vs. what is bad.

I'd like to disable the voice and the subtitles, and just treat the paraphrases like they are full lines.

[CrutchCricket]

I would take issue with the part you've bolded, which is, to use your word, a ludicrous argument as you are essentially saying that the game can't be perfect so I might as well give up on trying to improve it (from my point of view that is). To address another of your points, since the paraphrase system fails to support the mindset I have when I'm playing the game, the fact that there are many possible mindsets is irrelevant.

 

I'll concede that word force may not have been the best choice. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm suggesting that Bioware are intentionally trying to mislead me - its certainly not from anything I wrote.

 

I know that I find the result of picking a paraphrase surprising often enough to interfere with my enjoyment of the game. I firmly believe that I would find the game more enjoyable if I got to see the full text before selecting an option. These should not be profoundly difficult things to understand so I suspect that we've reached an end point here.

Underlined: wat?

 

So not having a unified mindset (whether set by the player or the game) is "imperfect" now?

 

You used the word mislead, not me. I simply pointed out that the word implies a willful attempt to trick you, a ridiculous assumption. If this is blatantly obvious to both of us, we need not discuss it further.

 

The fact that there are many possible mindsets disproves the theory that you're forced into anything, nothing more. Beyond that you're starting to sound like the other guy (and incidentally, you're proving my point against him that his standard of communication is anything but realistic). Ultimately, whether you see the full line or not is irrelevant, there is a limited set of responses that can generate a limited set of interpretations, or mindsets if you like. You can either pick one or turn the game off and just stare at screenshots and make up your own dialogue in your head. If you pick one there is a chance it will become invalidated by further dialogue later down the line. All a paraphrase does is increase that chance by a variable amount. The most you can ask for is to decrease that chance to negligible levels. Which can be done by improving context alone- better paraphrasing, meaningful staging etc.

 

Really, we agreed to disagree from the start, we've just gone back on that over details. Ultimately if there is an option/toggle for full lines, so we both get what we want, that's fine. But I emphatically oppose a full line only system.

[Quarian Master Race]

Don't really care. It's not entirely necessary because Shepard (and presumably the new protaganist) is a predefined character, so I'd prefer they didn't waste the effort. I'd rather they make the paraphrases better, though, so that a Renegade (usually anti-AI) response to Admiral Xen phrased "so you think Rael was right?" dosen't become a hyperbolic, butthurt infused "you support experiments on living creatures!?!"

[Nomen Mendax]

Really, we agreed to disagree from the start, we've just gone back on that over details. Ultimately if there is an option/toggle for full lines, so we both get what we want, that's fine. But I emphatically oppose a full line only system.

Which I'm certainly not asking for.

 

Sylvius has a very different playing style from me (one I admire in its purity but couldn't replicate). My position has always been very simple - having made a (dialogue) choice I do not want to be surprised by the result. It is the feeling of surprise (where one thinks "I didn't intend to say that") that I do not like. Arguing that there are a limited number of choices, which I believe you are doing, is entirely irrelevant to this objection.

[CrutchCricket]

What? Had I known that Hawke was forced to dislike the slavers, I would have chosen the No option. My Hawke avoided half-measures; he never would have let the slavers go if that had been his opinion of them.

In this case, the Yes option was so wrong that I wished I'd picked No (which, based on the icon, would have started a fight).

This is but one example. In ME, ME2, and DA2, this was a regular occurrence.

I don't know DA, but I am reasonably confident the previous lines weren't delivered buddy-buddy, or indeed the general portrayal of slavers in that game wasn't overly positive. There is contextual information to be analyzed. Moreover surely you can see that there are degrees of disliking or "bearing ill will" that range from "I will murder you on sight" to "I kind of don't like your face". So it sounds like they did limit your options to just degrees of dislike but that has nothing to do with paraphrasing and everything to do with only giving you dislike options.

Tell me, were the paraphrases literally, "yes" and "no"[kill them]? If so you may have a case for improving the paraphrases, but not for full lines.

Care to give some ME examples? I'm more familiar with those and can discuss on more than just guesswork.
 

At no point have I suggested that you should be able to choose behaviour from an infinite set. There's a finite set, written by the developers. I would like to choose among them.

You do choose among them.
 

You have no way of knowing whether the thing you said was interpreted in the way you'd intended. If you ever stopped ignoring that truth, you'd never get anywhere in a conversation.

You need to ignore the possibility of misunderstanding in order for your conversation style to work.

That's why misunderstandings are irrelevant.

I suspect this is an unrealistic standard, yet again. Do you either have to know with 100% certainty (and that's no easy task to define, believe me) or have to "ignore it completely"?
 
The answer is, you really don't. You inform yourself from the context of the situation, assume the other person does the same and pick the avenue most likely to succeed in getting your intent and their interpretation to match. Again, we do this automatically, every day and most of the time, the only way it fails is if different context assumptions are taken. And when it does, most time you're able to easily rectify it with clarification. No one leaves in a huff if they're not perfectly understood 100% of the time.
 

I cannot choose among them if I don't know what they are. What you're saying is the equivalent of cutting a shuffled deck of cards, finding the Seven of Diamonds, and then claiming to have intentionally chosen that card.

I just want to see the cards so I can actually choose the one I want.

No it's more like I have the cards sorted by suits and I can choose to play a diamond, so I pick from that pile. Nine times out of ten whether it's a seven or an ace doesn't matter.
 

If your character wants not to state an opinion right now, how do you do that? With full text, I could choose a question. But with the paraphrases, I can't tell which options don't contain assertions.

And if all of the options are things my character absolutely would not do (I would struggle to find more than a couple of examples like this in all of BioWare's history), then I can revise my character to suit one of the options. But again, I need to do that before I select the option because that revision will tell me what my character's state of mind is, and I need to know that in order to interpret any NPC response within a relevant context.

The neutral option is your best bet. Lately they've been taking out the neutral options which is certainly a valid complaint. Otherwise, again, everything you're saying can simply be solved by better paraphrases and other contextual clues. Learn to let go of absurdly unrealistic standards. 

[CrutchCricket]

Why do you need me to accept that?

I've actually advocated that the position of the options on wheel should be randomized so as to accentuate the importance of the literal meaning.

I've also asked for the paraphrases to be written by someone who did not write the actual lines, and without providing that paraphrase writer with any context (so, perhaps randomly assigning each line in a random order), because the only relevant context during play will be provided by the player.

wat
 

I based an entire DAO playthrough around a belief on property rights. It informed nearly every choice.

Most of my characters' primary motivations have nothing to do with the story BioWare wrote. They inform that character's choices throughout, and they're typically left unresolved by the end of the game, but that doesn't mean they didn't matter. They were the whole point of that playthrough.

To you maybe. But they're utterly irrelevant to the game. I also imagine things about my characters outside the games. But since they have no impact one way or another their only use is discussing headcanon.
 

Yes he can. He just can't act on it.

No action, no proof. And frankly for someone who claims they want to control everything about how expression comes out, this is even more outlandish.
 

No, he takes up arms. The game doesn't decide why. He has the opportunity to save the galaxy along the way, which he might do, but again we don't know whether Shepard even intended to save the galaxy (or if it was merely a side-effect) unless we invent that ourselves.

You ignore my point. Shepard saves the galaxy. At no point can he be apathetic about it. That's the game deciding something about your character. There is also no support for "unintentional heroism" or side effects. You are all about stopping the Reapers. And there's nothing you can do about it.
 

I never rationalize in that way. Rationalization is a nearly unforgivable failing.

The reasoning must always precede the conclusions.
I play these games as simulations. I want to craft a character and then set him lose in the world to see what he does. If I don't get to craft the character, then the game becomes a purely passive exercise and I don't learn anything.

...sure. Whatever you say.
 

I do think the paraphrases were always going to be obfuscatory, and I expect BioWare had to know that when they first started using them, but that would only mean that they foresaw those flaws, not that they intended them (they may also not have recognized them as flaws).

They aren't flaws, not in the way you mean. There may be room for improvement procedurally but their use otherwise is sound.

[AlanC9]

wat

It's the equivalent of hiding the icons in DAI, which IIRC is a thing. I'm not really clear how having less information about what the spoken line is going to be improves the experience, but it isn't my request.

[Dr. rotinaj]

 For the most part, Geralt will literally say what is written on the screen (and at times, add a bit more of that particular sentiment). 

 

Yeah like "Push Dijkstra aside" = *Geralt throws Dijkstra to the ground and breaks his leg" 

[MrFob]

Yeah like "Push Dijkstra aside" = *Geralt throws Dijkstra to the ground and breaks his leg"

Hey, I just had that scene yesterday and in Geralt's defense,it did say "Push Dijkstra aside forcefully"

[Enigmatick]

Ask nicely for info                                     Do a nice thing

 

Request info                           *                 Do a thing

 

Demand info                                             Do a bad thing

 

As this is just about every option available in every dialogue wheel, does it matter what it says anyway?  I'd personally not like to read what I'm about to hear, I don't even have subtitles on because I'm not reading a book.  A general premise of the option is enough for me, though at times throughout the series options have been a little ambiguous sounding - that side of things could certainly be tidied up.  Obviously, the left hand side of the wheel can be less alignment orientated but you get the gist.

Thing is I don't want alignments in the game either.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't know DA, but I am reasonably confident the previous lines weren't delivered buddy-buddy, or indeed the general portrayal of slavers in that game wasn't overly positive. There is contextual information to be analyzed. Moreover surely you can see that there are degrees of disliking or "bearing ill will" that range from "I will murder you on sight" to "I kind of don't like your face". So it sounds like they did limit your options to just degrees of dislike but that has nothing to do with paraphrasing and everything to do with only giving you dislike options.

No, the problem isn't that they only gave me dislike options. The problem was that I couldn't tell they'd done that until after I'd made my selection.

If I choose a paraphrase, I need to know why I'm choosing it. The full line then can not contradict that reason.

This never happens with the full text visible because the reasons I invent are done with the full text in mind, so I specifically avoid those contradictions. But with the paraphrase, those contradictions can happen (though, in BioWare's defense, they seem to happen less often in ME3 and DAI, so they might actually be getting better at this).

Tell me, were the paraphrases literally, "yes" and "no"[kill them]?

Yes.

I also think the full text differed based on DA2's dominant tone system, so it wasn't always "Get out of my sight!"

Care to give some ME examples? I'm more familiar with those and can discuss on more than just guesswork.

Unfortunately not. Aside from that Tali event I mentioned above, I don't recall any specifically. They were just so common that I completely checked out of the ME games from a roleplaying standpoint.

Any time the paraphrase and full line use different sentence types, there's a serious problem.

You do choose among them.

That's only the case if I would never choose a different option had I known the full text. And I would sometimes. This introduces an unacceptable level of uncertainty; I become aware that I don't know what I'm selecting, and thus cannot possibly be confident that I prefer it.

I suspect this is an unrealistic standard, yet again. Do you either have to know with 100% certainty (and that's no easy task to define, believe me) or have to "ignore it completely"?

The answer is, you really don't. You inform yourself from the context of the situation, assume the other person does the same and pick the avenue most likely to succeed in getting your intent and their interpretation to match.

When would this ever work? In my experience, it works rarely.

Again, we do this automatically, every day and most of the time, the only way it fails is if different context assumptions are taken. And when it does, most time you're able to easily rectify it with clarification. No one leaves in a huff if they're not perfectly understood 100% of the time.

Because they don't know they've been misunderstood, because they can't read the listener's mind.

The neutral option is your best bet. Lately they've been taking out the neutral options which is certainly a valid complaint. Otherwise, again, everything you're saying can simply be solved by better paraphrases and other contextual clues. Learn to let go of absurdly unrealistic standards.

Standards that were fully met by the silent protagonist (and the keyword dialogue that predated full text options).

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's the equivalent of hiding the icons in DAI, which IIRC is a thing. I'm not really clear how having less information about what the spoken line is going to be improves the experience, but it isn't my request.

I hid the icons because the icons weren't meaningful. I had better luck just sticking with the text.

[Sylvius the Mad]

To you maybe. But they're utterly irrelevant to the game. I also imagine things about my characters outside the games. But since they have no impact one way or another their only use is discussing headcanon.

They have an indirect effect because they inform your choices in the game. If you cure the genophage or rewrite the Geth or kill the Rachni Queen, why did you do those things?

That's the in-game effect your headcanon has.

No action, no proof.

We don't need proof. We just need the lack of disproof.

You ignore my point. Shepard saves the galaxy. At no point can he be apathetic about it. That's the game deciding something about your character. There is also no support for "unintentional heroism" or side effects. You are all about stopping the Reapers. And there's nothing you can do about it.

What evidence could you possibly have that Shepard doesn't think something?

If your can invent content that improves the game for you, why would I want to stop you?

Why do you want to stop me?

[Danadenassis]

First to those that argue that it would be difficult to implement a toggle without somehow breaking the UI, or otherwise put too much hardship on Bioware developers:

Do you really think Bioware got just idiots working for them so that they can't make a simple toggle? Seriously, don't underestimate them that much, it is rude!

What would be next? Remove the volume sliders because you fear they can't manage to make the various levels of volume properly and in the right order?

 

 

Why do you need me to accept that?

 

I've read all the posts in this thread and I've tried to understand the objections to clearly stated chat lines. I think it is more vague to some because it is "just" chat, as if this post itself isn't "just" chat, or that so much of the important parts of our lives are not "just" chat...(contracts, renting appartment/house, years of education, work-contracts, wills and saying "I love you").

 

Perhaps it is right that it should be "just" chat. It is the killing that gives us experience points and experience points marks the progress of our game-lives, right?

 

Ding ding!

 

Some of the chat lines are, to me, similar as if the protagonist is hyped up before the coming hordes of enemies and you start to attack, then suddenly shouts "42!!!", turns around, picks up the dwarf and tosses him at the love interest so she falls into the lava and quickly dies after a short scream. The protagonist again takes up her sword and tells the archers to shoot at the enemy (not the dwarf, the lava, or a random rock, all the squirrels in the forest, the protagonist, nor her horse)...(or whatever).

 

I think, Sylvius the Mad, that you argue too much in the realm of philosophy with a conscious relationship to communication. This doesn't make it wrong, of course, but it might make it too thoughtful in a world, and fantasy, I imagine, where the use of the sword is the favourite pinnacle of romance. Of course do I adore the logic of the arguments, but I recognise that certain things doesn't quite get the reception we hope for, or goes through the same logical processes as we hope for. Not so different from how it sometimes feel when using the pharaphrase wheel.

[Danadenassis]

 

To you maybe. But they're utterly irrelevant to the game. I also imagine things about my characters outside the games. But since they have no impact one way or another their only use is discussing headcanon.

 

Would  you also say that how we, the players, experience the game is also irrelevant? If no, do you think it would be nice if it was made more positive?

 

If yes, why do you argue against making it more positive?

 

If no...go away!

 

You are of course wrong about assuming that what you think doesn't have impact (?) (I assume the game, or the experience, both would be wrong).

 

In a narrative will you apply meaning to the various elements, lines, signs, expressions and so on. The meaning you've applied will influence what you choose next in the narrative. If not would it not be much of a narrative, it would just be crossing off some various multiple-choice tests, with some preconceptions of what would give good rewards in the end and it could, as you imply, simply have been abstract symbols that was used. Actually, to take it to the extreme of the arguments could we remove the chat all together.

 

Yes, that would indeed be absurd. That is my point as well, thank you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think, Sylvius the Mad, that you argue too much in the realm of philosophy with a conscious relationship to communication.

I'm trying to cause people to notice how logical their positions aren't.

[Sylvius the Mad]

.

[Sidney]

Thing is I don't want alignments in the game either.

It isn't about alignments. If someone asks for help there are only X answers: yes, no, more info. Now a really good game (which doesn't exist) might give you a lot of options for why you say yes or no. Then you might gave a point where nuance matters but even at that it would have to be insanely subtle for paraphrasing to not capture the intent. "Yes, because it is right" and "Yes, if you pay me" paraphrases again seem to starkly capture that sort of subset of decision.

Even not yes no you have what to do with Maelon's research. If you think he's methods are wrong is there any dialog for "get rid of it" that is soooooo wrong that you would keep it? This remains the core problem no one on the "I wanna read it" side can come up with a coherent answer to.

[CrutchCricket]

No, the problem isn't that they only gave me dislike options. The problem was that I couldn't tell they'd done that until after I'd made my selection.

If I choose a paraphrase, I need to know why I'm choosing it. The full line then can not contradict that reason.

Again, the answer is better paraphrasing/context clues. You have yet to provide a reason for ignoring this and going to full line.
 

This never happens with the full text visible because the reasons I invent are done with the full text in mind, so I specifically avoid those contradictions. But with the paraphrase, those contradictions can happen (though, in BioWare's defense, they seem to happen less often in ME3 and DAI, so they might actually be getting better at this).

There you go. Eventually they'll perfect their method (or at least get close enough) and this will cease to be an issue.
 

That's only the case if I would never choose a different option had I known the full text. And I would sometimes. This introduces an unacceptable level of uncertainty; I become aware that I don't know what I'm selecting, and thus cannot possibly be confident that I prefer it.

Inconsistencies in expression and reaction happen. People say weird things and react weirdly in random situations. It's almost more fun to examine that than to rigidly stick to one "control" scheme. Even if (you think) this don't happen to you, it does happen to other people. It can therefore happen to your characters. Again unless the line is a complete 180 (I'll help->Time to kill puppies!) or a case of railroading like the example you gave me, it shouldn't be this much of a problem.
 

When would this ever work? In my experience, it works rarely.

It actually works every day, everywhere. Look closely.
 

Because they don't know they've been misunderstood, because they can't read the listener's mind.

No, they don't expect to be misunderstood. There's an expectation that they're dealing with the same context as the other party and therefore intent matches meaning. Knowing is a false standard here. Communication isn't about knowing whether ideas cross the gap or not, it's about the expectation that they do. That's why we look for confirmation. We only know it's been successful after the fact because the transmission has been acknowledged.
 

Standards that were fully met by the silent protagonist (and the keyword dialogue that predated full text options).

 At the cost of a much larger break of immersion? No thanks.
 

They have an indirect effect because they inform your choices in the game. If you cure the genophage or rewrite the Geth or kill the Rachni Queen, why did you do those things?

That's the in-game effect your headcanon has.

Because of the direct effects they have (lol) or I would expect they have on the world. I rewrite the geth because it gets me more allies. I need not take a moral stance on it or tie it to a principle, though nothing stops me from doing so. But whether I do or not has no effect on the outcome or indeed the decision process. The headcanon is just the flavoring. It's almost cosmetic.
 

We don't need proof. We just need the lack of disproof.
What evidence could you possibly have that Shepard doesn't think something?

This is a fallacy known as "argument from ignorance". We have not proven/cannot prove not x, therefore x".

 

I'm not convinced, to say the least. You cannot prove that Shepard hates the asari, whereas you can prove that he likes or is at least ambivalent about them. You can prove he cares about stopping the Reapers but you can't prove a different main motivation. It's a simple matter of proof on one side and no proof on the other. The reasonable conclusion is therefore obvious.

[CrutchCricket]

Would  you also say that how we, the players, experience the game is also irrelevant? If no, do you think it would be nice if it was made more positive?
 
If yes, why do you argue against making it more positive?
 
If no...go away!

You are of course wrong about assuming that what you think doesn't have impact (?) (I assume the game, or the experience, both would be wrong).
 
In a narrative will you apply meaning to the various elements, lines, signs, expressions and so on. The meaning you've applied will influence what you choose next in the narrative. If not would it not be much of a narrative, it would just be crossing off some various multiple-choice tests, with some preconceptions of what would give good rewards in the end and it could, as you imply, simply have been abstract symbols that was used. Actually, to take it to the extreme of the arguments could we remove the chat all together.
 
Yes, that would indeed be absurd. That is my point as well, thank you.

How you experience the game is subjective and all on you. The game is the game. It influences you, but you do not influence it (apart from the variations you're allowed to choose). I have no idea what you're on about with the rest of this.

Pro tip: the underlined won't get you far in serious discussions.