110 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

From what i see, mod simply forces text lines from PC-responses to be shown in UI. It's certanly possible to do so in MEA. Except it's going to be much more harder. UI in Bethesda game is being handled completely differenth than in bioWare's ones. It's something that's been floating in the air from very first Mass Effect. With that being said, i think mod like this will appeaar in MEA. As FO4 has shown already, there is definitely a high demand for this kind of things. Who knows, maybe this mod will be made for DAI too.

Have you ever seen a UI mod for a Frostbite game?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I have never once been caught off guard or confused by the dialouge wheel. In any Bioware game.

In fact , the only time I didn't understand a line was in DAO...when the lines were typed in full. A line I thought was offensive and mean was supposed to be funny (despite being spelled out for me). Turned out, it even illicted a funny reponse and further banter from the person I spoke it to. Go figure...

So my question is...can folks give an example (or examples) of a situation in the ME game when not understaniding the dialouge wheel was problematic? I am not being a jerk here...I am truly curious. Waht are some examples of the current wheel system being "bad"?

I have seen this thread so many times in the forums, so I am just curious.

Sure.

In ME1, when first meeting with Udina and Anderson after rescuing Tali, I wanted to keep a secret from them, and nothing in the paraphrase suggested I wouldn't be able to, but then Shepard went ahead and told them everything.

In DA2, an NPC asked me if he could go. The paraphrase options were Yes and No. I picked yes, because he'd dealt with me fairly. Hawke snarled "Get out of my sight!"

In both cases, had I known what the line was, I would have chosen differently.

If you'd asked this question 4 years ago, I'd have way more ME examples off the top of my head.

[Hazegurl]

I have never once been caught off guard or confused by the dialouge wheel. In any Bioware game.

 

In fact , the only time I didn't understand a line was in DAO...when the lines were typed in full. A line I thought was offensive and mean was supposed to be funny (despite being spelled out for me).  Turned out, it even illicted a funny reponse and further banter from the person I spoke it to.  Go figure...

 

So my question is...can folks give an example (or examples) of a situation in the ME game when not understaniding the dialouge wheel was problematic? I am not being a jerk here...I am truly curious. Waht are some examples of the current wheel system being "bad"?

 

I have seen this thread so many times in the forums, so I am just curious.

There really are no examples.  I think the folks complaining are just people who want the old silent PC back more than anything.  With FO4, the paraphrasing was really bad so the dialog mod is a good one.  That doesn't mean BW should follow suit.  It just means that Bethesda needs to paraphrase their choices better.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There really are no examples.

She says, ignoring the examples I just provided.

And because this disparity ever occurs, it stops beong possible to choose dialogue options with any confidence at all.

With a siment protagonist, I might spend a full minute decided which option I would choose and what it would mean and how that fit into my overall character design. And that was fun. But now I don't know how it fits into my character design, because I don't know what the line even says, and I can't control delivery independently.

The silent protagonist was better at giving players control over what their characters said.

[AlanC9]

Sure.
In ME1, when first meeting with Udina and Anderson after rescuing Tali, I wanted to keep a secret from them, and nothing in the paraphrase suggested I wouldn't be able to, but then Shepard went ahead and told them everything.

Did any of the lines let Shepard keep that secret?

[Hiemoth]

Sure.

In ME1, when first meeting with Udina and Anderson after rescuing Tali, I wanted to keep a secret from them, and nothing in the paraphrase suggested I wouldn't be able to, but then Shepard went ahead and told them everything.

In DA2, an NPC asked me if he could go. The paraphrase options were Yes and No. I picked yes, because he'd dealt with me fairly. Hawke snarled "Get out of my sight!"

In both cases, had I known what the line was, I would have chosen differently.

If you'd asked this question 4 years ago, I'd have way more ME examples off the top of my head.

 

Not only do any of those lines prevent Shepard sharing that information, I don't really get why would assume that when in a doing a mission where the central point was to get evidence against someone, the player would get a choice to keep that information a secret?

 

As for the DA2 example, I honestly don't get your argument here. You chose to let the NPC go, because you wanted to let them go. Hawke let them go, but sounded rude doing it. So you wouldn't have let the NPC if you had known that, despite the fact that the actual action you chose in that dialogue was done.

 

Both of these examples, to me, illustrate a central problem I have with the argument as they are not arguments against the wheel, they are arguments against having a limited amount of choices. Which we also had with the listed responses. The player didn't magically get to do anything they wanted when you had the choices written out, there would sitll be limited choices.

[Fantastic Fantasy]

My main problem with Fallout 4's dialogue wheel is that it was a massive step down from the interactions in Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

It went from every attribute point having an effect on how you communicate with NPC's, to only charisma effecting conversation in the most basic way. Horrible.

 

 

I'd rather the new Mass effect game look at the previous Fallouts when looking at dialogue, if they had to.

I've had some problems with the paraphrasing, but full dialogue seems very difficult to implement successfully. I think much better paraphrasing may be the best way to handle this.

[Hazegurl]

She says, ignoring the examples I just provided.

 

I didn't see your post when I posted mine, but after reading your post my point still stands. None of your examples are related to paraphrasing in the dialog wheel. You wanted Hawke to express the same feeling you had and you wanted a certain choice to do something.  None of those are misrepresentations of your intent as the player vs PC.

 

The silent protagonist was better at giving players control over what their characters said.

 

 

This is what it all boils down to, you just want the classic silent rpg pc back.  You just want to add the expression to the dialog yourself rather than have a VO do it.  You're still choosing the dialog options presented no matter what, so you don't have any control over what they actually say, just how it's said in your mind.

[Mr.House]

Compare FO1,2 and NVs dialog system and the available options to Bioware games with the wheel/FO4. It's outright sad.

[Mr.House]

My main problem with Fallout 4's dialogue wheel is that it was a massive step down from the interactions in Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

It went from every attribute point having an effect on how you communicate with NPC's, to only charisma effecting conversation in the most basic way. Horrible.

 

 

I'd rather the new Mass effect game look at the previous Fallouts when looking at dialogue, if they had to.

I've had some problems with the paraphrasing, but full dialogue seems very difficult to implement successfully. I think much better paraphrasing may be the best way to handle this.

Unless Bioware has coders that are hacks they should have little issues.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Did any of the lines let Shepard keep that secret?

Doesn't matter.  If I had known when I was choosing the line that I wasn't able to keep the secret, I would have assigned Shepard a mental state compatible with that.

 

Just as with the DA2 example.  If I had known that Hawke had to hate those people, I would have chosen differently (because my Hawke wouldn't let people he hates go free - that would have changed my answer).

 

There are always going to be restrictions on these characters.  I'm not asking for a lack of restrictions.  I'm asking to be given the information about what those restrictions are so I can make an informed choice during dialogue selection.

 

If you don't know what Shepard is going to say or do, what basis can you possibly have for choosing among the available options?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I didn't see your post when I posted mine, but after reading your post my point still stands. None of your examples are related to paraphrasing in the dialog wheel. You wanted Hawke to express the same feeling you had and you wanted a certain choice to do something.  None of those are misrepresentations of your intent as the player vs PC.

Of course they are.  My understanding of the paraphrases is the basis for my choice.  If my choice was wrong, it was because I didn't understand the paraphrases.  If I understood them, I would have been able to roleplay the choice.

 

This isn't about getting what I want.  This is about wanting what I get.

This is what it all boils down to, you just want the classic silent rpg pc back.  You just want to add the expression to the dialog yourself rather than have a VO do it.  You're still choosing the dialog options presented no matter what, so you don't have any control over what they actually say, just how it's said in your mind.

What they actually say doesn't appear in the game at all, so there's no basis to claim that it is "actually" anything.

 

And yes, I want the  same amount of control I had over the silent PC.  I don't care if the PC is voiced.  I don't care what the UI looks like.  I just want the same level of control and knowledge.

[MichaelN7]

I get the feeling that this is one of those things that just can't be won.

 

If we go "full dialogue", you get complaints about breaking the immersion, repetitiveness, and pandering.

If we go "abbreviation", you get complaints about lazyiness, vagueness, and anti-roleplaying.

 

The only possible compromise I see would be to turn abbreviation "on/off", if it's on, we get the wheel; if it's off, we get the full line.

But then you have those that say it is clunky, or equal parts vague AND pandering.

 

--------

 

I honestly don't have a problem with either style.  But it comes down to pace.  Something like KOTOR (full line) had "slower" dialogue, you wanted to take the time to read each possible response.

The downside is having a lengthy response, not that those are bad, but to some it ruins the experience; they want to PLAY the game, not READ it.

 

Something like Mass Effect (wheel) was much more momentous, impulsive.  Especially reinforced with the interrupts.

The downside is the wheel sometimes doesn't "match up" with what is actually said.

 

Good example:  helping the guards fight off the bandits (a specific, defined situation)

 

TOP: Stay safe.  ("Keep your men back, we'll stop them.")

MIDDLE: Here we go...  ("I guess it's that time of the week!")

BOTTOM: They're dead.  ("The only way they're leaving is in a body-bag.")

 

Bad example:  wake up (undetermined; anything could happen, therefore nothing really happens.)

 

TOP:  Nice.  ("Good morning, world!")

MIDDLE:  Funny.  ("Man, what kind of dream has 50 jars of mayonnaise?")

BOTTOM:  Mean.  ("Ugh, mornings...")

 

What works with the good example is the situation is either clear, or you at least have some context.

Unless the whole point is to be confused (like the opening scene in DA:I, you just came out of the Fade, you don't know what's going on!) having a definitive subject of conversation helps greatly in making possible dialogue less ambiguous.

 

The bad example tries TOO hard to abbreviate.  Having a one-word title can grab attention, but you can only convey so much.

It also tries to summarize a situation that is too large.  It's like trying to catch a waterfall with a teaspoon.  Sure, you can fill it with water, but it just doesn't have the capacity to do so.

 

Long story short, Good example provides context and doesn't use one-word abbreviations.  The bad example is way too open in scope and way too austere in response.

 

Both systems have their merits, just like a sports car and a pickup truck can transport a person from point A to point B.  You just need to match the pace of your story.  The sports car is flashy, fast, and brief.  The pickup is slow, methodical, and you can carry cargo too.

 

Anyway, that's my two cents, hope it helps or at least, provides something to think about.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Not only do any of those lines prevent Shepard sharing that information, I don't really get why would assume that when in a doing a mission where the central point was to get evidence against someone, the player would get a choice to keep that information a secret?

You're assuming Shepard accepts the orders.  I didn't do that, because I had no reason to do so.  I had no reason to do so because the game didn't tell me.

 

I would have known, however, if I'd been allowed to see the full text.  Then I would have known that Shepard couldn't keep the secret, and thus wouldn't have assigned Shepard a mental state (which is the perspective through which I would view the NPC response) that required it.

 

I roleplay these characters.  I'm in-character while I'm playing.  But I can't be in-character if I don't know what my character is thinking moment-to-moment.  Being shown the details of the options would allow me to direct the character's mental state such that it was compatible with at least one of the available options.

 

But I can't do that without knowing what the options are.

As for the DA2 example, I honestly don't get your argument here. You chose to let the NPC go, because you wanted to let them go. Hawke let them go, but sounded rude doing it. So you wouldn't have let the NPC if you had known that, despite the fact that the actual action you chose in that dialogue was done.

If Hawke hates the slavers (they were slavers who were being freed), why is he letting them go?

 

And more importantly, if Hawke does hate them, I need to know that so I can view the next part of the scene from an in-character perspective.

 

Not knowing what the character is doing or why prevents me from doing that.

Both of these examples, to me, illustrate a central problem I have with the argument as they are not arguments against the wheel, they are arguments against having a limited amount of choices. Which we also had with the listed responses. The player didn't magically get to do anything they wanted when you had the choices written out, there would sitll be limited choices.

Yes there would.  That is not the issue.  There have always been limited choices.  Even in tabletop RPGs the choices are limited.

 

What matters here is not that the choices are limited, but that they are hidden from us.

[Hiemoth]

 

If Hawke hates the slavers (they were slavers who were being freed), why is he letting them go?

 

And more importantly, if Hawke does hate them, I need to know that so I can view the next part of the scene from an in-character perspective.

 

Not knowing what the character is doing or why prevents me from doing that.

You're assuming Shepard accepts the orders.  I didn't do that, because I had no reason to do so.  I had no reason to do so because the game didn't tell me.

 

I have to be honest, I just cannot comprehend your argument here. You wish to roleplay the character. The game gives you an option to kill a bunch of slavers or let them go. Your Hawke lets them go because of your choice as a player in that moment. Yet, your question is that with Hawke hating them, why would s/he let them go after you as the player choose to let them go. So, essentially, your complaint is that the game gave you an option to do something that you did and thus broke your roleplaying experience.

 

Besides, if I recall the scene correctly, don't the slavers essentially bribe Hawke? So isn't the motivation?

[Hazegurl]

Of course they are.  My understanding of the paraphrases is the basis for my choice.  If my choice was wrong, it was because I didn't understand the paraphrases.  If I understood them, I would have been able to roleplay the choice.

 

This isn't about getting what I want.  This is about wanting what I get.

 

 

What they actually say doesn't appear in the game at all, so there's no basis to claim that it is "actually" anything.

 

And yes, I want the  same amount of control I had over the silent PC.  I don't care if the PC is voiced.  I don't care what the UI looks like.  I just want the same level of control and knowledge.

Your only options were to let the guy go or not and your intent was to let him go. I get that you wanted a "yes" to be a literal "yes" (i think) but you understood the info the wheel was conveying. You just didn't want Hawke to say everything he said.  Or you wanted Hawke to be nice to them because you as the player wanted to be nice to them. 

 

Even if the full dialog was displayed and you only had the two options to say "Get out of my sight" or the other. Which is probably kill them.  Would you opt to kill them just to avoid saying the yes option? Or you would roleplay as not saying "get out of my sight" in a not so mean way?

 

or is it just your hope that with a silent PC you would get more lines and can therefore roleplay one that you believe would fit your character better?

 

Edit: The game does tell you why you are getting the information and who needs the info.  All you have to do is follow the storyline. I don't know of any RPGs that stop the story to explain once again to the player why they are doing something.  Shepard needed the info to present to the council and prove Saren is working against them.  Those were his orders. What is there to agree to?  And wanting to keep the info a secret is just stupid.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Your only options were to let the guy go or not and your intent was to let him go. I get that you wanted a "yes" to be a literal "yes" (i think) but you understood the info the wheel was conveying. You just didn't want Hawke to say everything he said.  Or you wanted Hawke to be nice to them because you as the player wanted to be nice to them. 

 

Even if the full dialog was displayed and you only had the two options to say "Get out of my sight" or the other. Which is probably kill them.  Would you opt to kill them just to avoid saying the yes option? Or you would roleplay as not saying "get out of my sight" in a not so mean way?

I would have chosen to kill them.  I could explain a desire to kill them, and I could explain a desire to be nice to them, but I couldn't explain (within the context of the character I was playing) a desire to hate them but still let them go.  The option to let them go only made sense as long as my character liked them.  If my character didn't like them, it was untenable.

 

The restriction there was that the character wasn't permitted to be nice to them, but there was no way to know that based on the paraphrases.

or is it just your hope that with a silent PC you would get more lines and can therefore roleplay one that you believe would fit your character better?

No, that's not it.  I think ME would work better if I could mute the protagonist and hide the subtitles, so I was selecting only the paraphrases and never got to see the full lines.

 

The issue isn't that the full lines contain information I need.  The issue is that the full lines disagree with possible interpretations of the paraphrases.  If the full lines never appeared, I wouldn't have a problem.

Edit: The game does tell you why you are getting the information and who needs the info.  All you have to do is follow the storyline. I don't know of any RPGs that stop the story to explain once again to the player why they are doing something.  Shepard needed the info to present to the council and prove Saren is working against them.  Those were his orders. What is there to agree to?

The orders.  Not every possible Shepard will trust Udina.  Not every possible Shepard will follow orders blindly (certainly no character I would want to play would do so).

[Sylvius the Mad]

I have to be honest, I just cannot comprehend your argument here. You wish to roleplay the character. The game gives you an option to kill a bunch of slavers or let them go. Your Hawke lets them go because of your choice as a player in that moment. Yet, your question is that with Hawke hating them, why would s/he let them go after you as the player choose to let them go. So, essentially, your complaint is that the game gave you an option to do something that you did and thus broke your roleplaying experience.

 

Besides, if I recall the scene correctly, don't the slavers essentially bribe Hawke? So isn't the motivation?

I'm not choosing to do anything.  Hawke is.  My preferences don't matter.  His do.

 

But without knowledge of the dialogue, I can't tell which possible preferences of his are permitted.  So I can't have any confidence that I know what his mental state is.  Without knowing his mental state, I don't know what he wants to do, so there's no way for me to implement his will.

[Hazegurl]

 

 

The orders.  Not every possible Shepard will trust Udina.  Not every possible Shepard will follow orders blindly (certainly no character I would want to play would do so).

Sure you can play a Shepard who does not trust Udina, but you're also a soldier who was given orders that you pretty much have to follow. Even as a spectre you kinda have to follow the orders of the Council until things get so out of hand you have to secretly defy them (unlock the ship). It's not like you can tell Udina to leave the room when you speak to the council.   And what could you possibly gain by keeping secrets in that situation anyway? I don't even think you're a Spectre at that point.  It just sounds like a total game over go home decision.

[Joseph Warrick]

Currently playing swtor and loving the paraphrases. Like this scene feom the bounty hunter story on Dromund Kaas. Paraphrases in brackets, actual lines follow.

Clerk: "Are you here to see the captain?"
BH: [you're cute] "Maybe I'm here just to see you."
Clerk: Oh. Are you really? Here to see me? Oh, I see. You're making fun of me."
BH: [you're an idiot] "I've got a job slip from your boss, moron. Now let me in."

The voice gives the character life. The paraphrase creates the illusion that you're controlling someone's mind, but they have a voice of their own. I like that. I understand why others don't.

[Altair_ShepardN7]

Currently playing swtor and loving the paraphrases. Like this scene feom the bounty hunter story on Dromund Kaas. Paraphrases in brackets, actual lines follow.

Clerk: "Are you here to see the captain?"
BH: [you're cute] "Maybe I'm here just to see you."
Clerk: Oh. Are you really? Here to see me? Oh, I see. You're making fun of me."
BH: [you're an idiot] "I've got a job slip from your boss, moron. Now let me in."

The voice gives the character life. The paraphrase creates the illusion that you're controlling someone's mind, but they have a voice of their own. I like that. I understand why others don't.

But what if I wanted to tell him about how great and beautiful chocolate is? The wheel doesn't let me say that! Wheel sucks! 

[Ahglock]

Currently playing swtor and loving the paraphrases. Like this scene feom the bounty hunter story on Dromund Kaas. Paraphrases in brackets, actual lines follow.

Clerk: "Are you here to see the captain?"
BH: [you're cute] "Maybe I'm here just to see you."
Clerk: Oh. Are you really? Here to see me? Oh, I see. You're making fun of me."
BH: [you're an idiot] "I've got a job slip from your boss, moron. Now let me in."

The voice gives the character life. The paraphrase creates the illusion that you're controlling someone's mind, but they have a voice of their own. I like that. I understand why others don't.

Where as that shows its weakness to me.

You're cute.
Okay is that sarcastic, flirty, condescending?

You're an idiot.
Okay is that harsh or joking?

[Aimi]

wow it's another thread that's turned into "sylvius explains his idiosyncratic opinions about voiced dialogue in rpgs" what a surprise

[Ahglock]

wow it's another thread that's turned into "sylvius explains his idiosyncratic opinions about voiced dialogue in rpgs" what a surprise

Where I look it as sylvius voices many things I think and is much more articulate than I am so I just mostly read and leave the posting to him and pascal?

[Derrame]

th way the dialog wheel worked in mass effect games werereally god, almost perfect, for the options are representative of the character's lines,  the problem in fallout 4 is that there is only one word and then the character ask a question or says something that does not have to do with the option at all, and you select a dialog option and then the character says smething that can get you into trouble or you loose the opportunity to go on with th dialog as you wanted