391 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

I absolutely loved the addition of emotion tags on everything in DA2, because they gave you significantly greater control over what you said. One of the things I liked least about the text based approach is that it usually doesn't include the style of what you're saying (although there isn't any reason why it couldn't--its kind of orthogonal to the text vs. speech, I suppose, I just haven't seen it done in text before). A significant portion of communication is not in the actual words people say, but in how they say them, and by including a handy tag for that it greatly helps in saying something close to what your character wants to say in many situations, which aids in role playing immensely.

That's why it was great for roleplaying. Because they didn't assign the emotions for us, we could assign them as we saw fit.

I much prefer BioWare not assign emotions to lines.

[FKA_Servo]

I absolutely loved the addition of emotion tags on everything in DA2, because they gave you significantly greater control over what you said.  One of the things I liked least about the text based approach is that it usually doesn't include the style of what you're saying (although there isn't any reason why it couldn't--its kind of orthogonal to the text vs. speech, I suppose, I just haven't seen it done in text before).  A significant portion of communication is not in the actual words people say, but in how they say them, and by including a handy tag for that it greatly helps in saying something close to what your character wants to say in many situations, which aids in role playing immensely.

 

They're nice when we're stuck with the paraphrase system, I guess. Which we'll likely never be rid of.

 

I still haven't seen a particularly convincing argument about why the paraphrase system is better than listing the full dialog text, and why that's incompatible with voiced protagonists for some reason.

 

Other than the old "I don't want to read the line and then hear it" of course - which to my mind is a stupid complaint, but whatever.

[Pasquale1234]

I absolutely loved the addition of emotion tags on everything in DA2, because they gave you significantly greater control over what you said.  One of the things I liked least about the text based approach is that it usually doesn't include the style of what you're saying (although there isn't any reason why it couldn't--its kind of orthogonal to the text vs. speech, I suppose, I just haven't seen it done in text before).  A significant portion of communication is not in the actual words people say, but in how they say them, and by including a handy tag for that it greatly helps in saying something close to what your character wants to say in many situations, which aids in role playing immensely.

I always considered it tone rather than emotion.

In any case, I never felt that DA2 allowed me to choose what Hawke would say, only how she would say it - diplomatically, snarkily, or aggressively.

Being a very literal sort who isn't into 'read between the lines' or other undercurrents (I find them dishonest), the actual words are what matter to me.

[AlanC9]

I still haven't seen a particularly convincing argument about why the paraphrase system is better than listing the full dialog text, and why that's incompatible with voiced protagonists for some reason.
 
Other than the old "I don't want to read the line and then hear it" of course - which to my mind is a stupid complaint, but whatever.

I'm not sure there's an argument so much as there's data. Apparently enough people really do think "I don't want to read the line and then hear it" to make a full-text option test worse than just having paraphrasing. Unless Bio just like paraphrases and is lying about the data to shut us up, which isn't inconceivable but wouldn't be my go-to hypothesis.

[7thGate]

That's why it was great for roleplaying. Because they didn't assign the emotions for us, we could assign them as we saw fit.

I much prefer BioWare not assign emotions to lines.

 

I do not particularly like this because it creates a disconnect between the character's actions and the responses they generate.  If I try and tell a joke and it is read as a serious insult, it is clear my character just took an action at odds with my perception of what she would do.  It is just as immersion breaking as when Shepard does something crazy that doesn't fit my conception of her character off an interrupt, and for the same reason; insufficient control over what my character is about to do when I make a selection, which leads to bad feedback from the game on her actions.  RPGs are both about how your character concept reacts to the world, and about how the world reacts to your character.  Breaking either one of those is bad.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I do not particularly like this because it creates a disconnect between the character's actions and the responses they generate. If I try and tell a joke and it is read as a serious insult, it is clear my character just took an action at odds with my perception of what she would do.

No, the NPC reaction is at odds with your expectation. But that's what dealing with people is like.

[7thGate]

No, the NPC reaction is at odds with your expectation. But that's what dealing with people is like.

Occasionally, this is true.  Sometimes people misread nonverbal cues.  But most of the time, it should be clear if you're joking or insulting someone by how you say it.  Having an NPC react inappropriately is very jarring, and very much cut down on by the ability to select how, in addition to what, you say.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Occasionally, this is true. Sometimes people misread nonverbal cues. But most of the time, it should be clear if you're joking or insulting someone by how you say it. Having an NPC react inappropriately is very jarring, and very much cut down on by the ability to select how, in addition to what, you say.

I don't find that it is.

I would rather my ability to assign intent and tone be unfettered.

Those reactions can even be good for roleplaying. I recall once in DAO my character was really awkward and shy, and he tried to flirt with Leliana. Unfortunately, the line was written as a joke, and Leliana laughed.

My character had not been joking, however, and was mortified. His shame was such that he never spoke to Leliana again. He was too embarrassed.

[Ahglock]

Occasionally, this is true.  Sometimes people misread nonverbal cues.  But most of the time, it should be clear if you're joking or insulting someone by how you say it.  Having an NPC react inappropriately is very jarring, and very much cut down on by the ability to select how, in addition to what, you say.

 

This is highly dependent on the social skills of the people involved. Mine suck, I frequently insult people when a light joke is intended.  Now I will say its likely bioware protagonists are supposed t be adept at social skills so they should be clear in their intent.

[AlanC9]

My big problem is that I can pick out the writer's intent when this happens. So I know what the NPC's actual personality is, and why he responded in the fashion he did to what my PC said. While I can also construct a hypothetical world where the NPC reacted to the tone I intended my PC to speak in rather than the one the writer assumed my PC was speaking in, I know that hypothetical version of the NPC isn't the one I'll be interacting with for the rest of the game.

[Il Divo]

The difference is whether you're prevented from playing a character who wants to express those concepts, or whether you're merely prevented from playing a character who does express those concepts.

 

I find the latter far less limiting.

.

 

You couldn't.

Your character could.  He just didn't.

 

​

But he couldn't. The issue here is that you're arguing from an in character perspective, when that's not relevant to the larger question of how a cRPG compares to a pen and paper campaign.

 

It's true that your character is not aware of what he is or isn't allowed to do. It's not true that as a player, that I am not limited by those constraints in terms of the character concept I put forth. In other words: it's confusing the ability to play a character in the game world with the ability to play a character you *want* in the game world, hence why this is another area where pen and paper rules supreme. Being restricted to 2 dialogue options which we choose at Bioware's behest is a pretty big deal in terms of role-playing.

 

 

No, your roleplaying options are limited to character concepts who can express or those viewpoints.

 

In any given situation, there's a seemingly limitless set of things you could say.  You only actually say one of them, but a vast array of others wouldn't have been inconsistent with who you are and what your objectives were in that conversation

 

 

This is the same general issue as above. No matter what concept you have in mind, you are required to say 1 of 2 things, for many choices in Baldur's Gate. That is why I say you are required to express one of two view points, particularly with your literal interpretation of the line approach. The plethora of infinite options your character could have said ultimately don't matter because the game constrained you to two options, one of which you had to say regardless of underlying motive.
 

 

Again, I don't think we need to be able to do everything we might be able to do in a tabletop game.  We just need to be able to avoid character-breaking behavior.

 

 

I'm not sure how great that is as an approach. In general when it comes to table top, being able to choose your character concept on a near infinite spectrum is a pretty huge deal. A game that lets me access a greater number of character concepts without breaking character will always win out over the other concept.

 

I don't see how this is a problem.

 

 

Because characters are still people and expressing motive is a pretty common occurrence in well everything. Sure you can dispute how honest you're being, but you basically just sealed off any character concept where someone expresses motive, another huge deal.

 

Spoken exchanges, in my experience, are significantly more shallow and less precise than written exchanges.  The biggest driver of line selection seems to be time pressure.  By not having time pressure, RPG dialogue allows us to choose exactly the right option among the finite list presented.  One form of uncertainty and risk is replaced with another, but the general accuracy of the line stays about the same.

 

I find the time pressures of spoken exchanges extremely damaging.

 

 

 

True, time factors don't exist in cRPG's. Tabletop requires improvisation to some extent, which doesn't work for everyone.

 

But that still leaves us with that issue of before regarding how your BG example doesn't work as a comparison to the real world, where there's about a billion different ideas that I could express in a billion different ways. Even in the context of a spoken conversation, the BG approach would never work.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Now I will say its likely bioware protagonists are supposed t be adept at social skills so they should be clear in their intent.

1. It's not possible to be adept at social skills; the relevant mechanism doesn't exist. If people had social skills, they wouldn't constantly misread our tone.

2. BioWare shouldn't get to decide that for us. We should be able to play a socially inept character. And in my experience, we can.

[CronoDragoon]

I still haven't seen a particularly convincing argument about why the paraphrase system is better than listing the full dialog text, and why that's incompatible with voiced protagonists for some reason.

 

Well, there's two parts of it; having the wheel and not having the full dialogue display after highlighting an option (I believe Deus Ex HR did the latter).

 

The dialogue wheel is actually a very elegant way of listing a bunch of options, and it's also much better for those using controllers since you can't use a mouse to quickly select an option. As for not having full dialogue on display in addition to the wheel, Gaider said that it was a stylistic choice. Maybe Weekes will feel differently about that, or maybe Laidlaw is (hopefully) now tired enough of the whining. I'd prefer having at least an option to turn on full text on highlight. The functionality is already there as we can see when highlighting choices in a decision wheel in DA: I; the implied consequences are outlined for you. I don't see why they couldn't use that for every option other than aesthetics.

[FKA_Servo]

Well, there's two parts of it; having the wheel and not having the full dialogue display after highlighting an option (I believe Deus Ex HR did the latter).

 

The dialogue wheel is actually a very elegant way of listing a bunch of options, and it's also much better for those using controllers since you can't use a mouse to quickly select an option. As for not having full dialogue on display in addition to the wheel, Gaider said that it was a stylistic choice. Maybe Weekes will feel differently about that, or maybe Laidlaw is (hopefully) now tired enough of the whining. I'd prefer having at least an option to turn on full text on highlight. The functionality is already there as we can see when highlighting choices in a decision wheel in DA: I; the implied consequences are outlined for you. I don't see why they couldn't use that for every option other than aesthetics.

 

The aesthetic issue is one that's raised often enough too, and I don't get that one either.

 

I haven't played DEHR (really should, it's been burning a hole in my backlog for years now), but that seems like a sensible way of doing it. This even seems like one of those rare moments when a toggle is actually a sensible solution to something.

[CronoDragoon]

I don't really get the objections, either. Surely knowing what your character will say is more important than a dialogue screen with a very crowded UI, but whatever.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But he couldn't. The issue here is that you're arguing from an in character perspective, when that's not relevant to the larger question of how a cRPG compares to a pen and paper campaign.

It's true that your character is not aware of what he is or isn't allowed to do. It's not true that as a player, that I am not limited by those constraints in terms of the character concept I put forth. In other words: it's confusing the ability to play a character in the game world with the ability to play a character you *want* in the game world, hence why this is another area where pen and paper rules supreme. Being restricted to 2 dialogue options which we choose at Bioware's behest is a pretty big deal in terms of role-playing.

By your reasoning then, your tabletop character is only allowed to say one thing - the thing he actually says.

You're making a mistake in comparing a CRPG to a tabletop campaign, because you only ever get to play a tabletop campaign once. An apples to apples comparison would be to compare a tabletop campaign to a single blind playthrough of a CRPG. But from a single playthrough, you have even less of a view of the limitations of the medium. Like a tabletop campaign, or a real world conversation, you only get one shot at it. You have no idea what effect other lines might have had, because you didn't use them.

What you're doing is using a great strength of the CRPG - replayability - against it.

You can't replay a tabletop campaign, even if you wanted to, because the other players and the game master can't be trusted to behave the same way. But you're using your knowledge of what can or can't happen in other playthroughs as you judge the freedom available in this one.

This is the same general issue as above. No matter what concept you have in mind, you are required to say 1 of 2 things, for many choices in Baldur's Gate. That is why I say you are required to express one of two view points, particularly with your literal interpretation of the line approach. The plethora of infinite options your character could have said ultimately don't matter because the game constrained you to two options, one of which you had to say regardless of underlying motive.

Just as in a tabletop campaign, the plethora of infinite options you could have said don't matter because you only got to say one of them. You were required to choose it quickly, write it yourself, and rely on a gamemaster who resolves details about the world without your input to interpret it.

I'm not sure how great that is as an approach. In general when it comes to table top, being able to choose your character concept on a near infinite spectrum is a pretty huge deal. A game that lets me access a greater number of character concepts without breaking character will always win out over the other concept.

All else being equal, sure.

All else isn't equal.

I don’t recall claiming that CRPGs offered character freedom equivalent to tabletop games. I do think the level of player freedom they allow is very similar, however.

Because characters are still people and expressing motive is a pretty common occurrence in well everything. Sure you can dispute how honest you're being, but you basically just sealed off any character concept where someone expresses motive, another huge deal.

I don’t really understand why someone would bother doing that, but that might be my general misanthropy talking.

True, time factors don't exist in cRPG's. Tabletop requires improvisation to some extent, which doesn't work for everyone.

But that still leaves us with that issue of before regarding how your BG example doesn't work as a comparison to the real world, where there's about a billion different ideas that I could express in a billion different ways. Even in the context of a spoken conversation, the BG approach would never work.

BioWare's later games sometimes had better written dialogue. BG was their first CRPG, after all. What made BG great wasn't the dialogue - it was all the non-dialogue content. And that the dialogue didn't constrain action. Now, if your character says he's going to do something, sometimes he just does it right then. That's terrible. That's why I maintain that BG was their best game, despite its dialogue limitations.

If we're going to discuss the merits of specific games' dialogue, we could find superior examples in NWN, KotOR, and DAO.

[Il Divo]

By your reasoning then, your tabletop character is only allowed to say one thing - the thing he actually says.
​

 

 

Not at all. I could have made him say anything. That doesn't exist in Baldur's Gate. The evidence in pen and paper is that I (the player) have free control in designing who that PC is. Using your direct line approach, there does not exist anything other than the dialogue Bioware wrote for your character.

 

You're making a mistake in comparing a CRPG to a tabletop campaign, because you only ever get to play a tabletop campaign once. An apples to apples comparison would be to compare a tabletop campaign to a single blind playthrough of a CRPG. But from a single playthrough, you have even less of a view of the limitations of the medium. Like a tabletop campaign, or a real world conversation, you only get one shot at it. You have no idea what effect other lines might have had, because you didn't use them.

 

But that ultimately doesn't make a difference in terms of our ability to express different characters. Being unaware of the campaign adventure in tabletop isn't a necessary inhibitor on my ability to express ideas or take actions.

 

That's the key point here: we never had the ability to express any ideas other than what Bioware gave us.

 

You can't replay a tabletop campaign, even if you wanted to, because the other players and the game master can't be trusted to behave the same way. But you're using your knowledge of what can or can't happen in other playthroughs as you judge the freedom available in this one.

 

 

Well, strictly speaking that's not true. The concept of modules in general are designed around the potential idea of replays. But I'll grant you replays in pen and paper are less common. On the other hand, that doesn't make the argument any less problematic, just given general knowledge of the confines of cRPG's compared to pen and paper.

 

Just as in a tabletop campaign, the plethora of infinite options you could have said don't matter because you only got to say one of them. You were required to choose it quickly, write it yourself, and rely on a gamemaster who resolves details about the world without your input to interpret it.

 

 

This is a bit of a reductive argument. "Some people have trouble with tabletop role-playing, ergo all role-playing is as restrictive as the 2-dialogue options in c RPG's".

 

Even if I were to broadly concede that timing is a factor in tabletop (and I would concede that), the medium is still inherently more liberating.

 

All else being equal, sure.

All else isn't equal.

I don’t recall claiming that CRPGs offered character freedom equivalent to tabletop games. I do think the level of player freedom they allow is very similar, however.

 

 

If the level of player freedom is equivalent, then you should be able to demonstrate all those different dialogue options (and actions) that you could have chosen via approach # 1.

 

 

I don’t really understand why someone would bother doing that, but that might be my general misanthropy talking.

 

 

 

To be clear, that still wouldn't make the detail insignificant in the confines of role-playing freedom. The issue I had was with your position that this is in regards to measuring c RPG's by tabletop standards. Conceptual freedoms are pretty important on those grounds.

 

 

BioWare's later games sometimes had better written dialogue. BG was their first CRPG, after all. What made BG great wasn't the dialogue - it was all the non-dialogue content. And that the dialogue didn't constrain action. Now, if your character says he's going to do something, sometimes he just does it right then. That's terrible. That's why I maintain that BG was their best game, despite its dialogue limitations.

If we're going to discuss the merits of specific games' dialogue, we could find superior examples in NWN, KotOR, and DAO

 

 

 

True, other games did have far superior dialogue. Of course, even in the "BG not constraining action" example, I'd still argue none of what the game gave us had any utility. That's why I outline the level of "action" offered by BG can be accomplished by a Word Document, and with even more benefits.