That's still autodialogue though. Whether or not you see it coming doesn't change the fact that it's unavoidable.
Dialogue from among the limited selections available is always unavoidable. Yes, having 3 options is better than having one, but being surprised is a different problem entirely.
One that could be mitigated, even with autodialogue, if we could just pause dialogue and cutscenes to allow us time to ascertain our character's state of mind.
Dialogue from among the limited selections available is always unavoidable. Yes, having 3 options is better than having one, but being surprised is a different problem entirely.
One that could be mitigated, even with autodialogue, if we could just pause dialogue and cutscenes to allow us time to ascertain our character's state of mind.
Convenient how the evidence supports your opinion.
The fact is that this particular test doesn't doesn't prove anything about the merits of a voiced protagonist; you're mixing up your variables. What we've proven is that people don't like repetition; they don't like to read a full line of text and have that text read back at them. It's redundant and boring. There is a very good reason BioWare chose and continue to choose voiced protagonists and it isn't simply to spite Sylvius the Mad. Incidentally, it's probably similar to the reasons why CDPR and Bethesda chose to do the same with their games.
Somehow I doubt that the general public would be overjoyed to hear BioWare announce that ME:A will go back to a silent protagonist.
Case in point on that one....
http://www.heypoorpl...icles-x-silent/
And that is just a small-time type of article, but I bet for a large group of people it would be too jarring.
I have to admit that since playing voiced games, I have a lot of difficulty going back to silent protagonists. The fact that my character just stands there with a glassy eyed stare is so much less enjoyable than a voiced character that can show emotion. I mean, I love visual novels, but that's because all the cast is silent.Convenient how the evidence supports your opinion.
The fact is that this particular test doesn't doesn't prove anything about the merits of a voiced protagonist; you're mixing up your variables. What we've proven is that people don't like repetition; they don't like to read a full line of text and have that text read back at them. It's redundant and boring. There is a very good reason BioWare chose and continue to choose voiced protagonists and it isn't simply to spite Sylvius the Mad. Incidentally, it's probably similar to the reasons why CDPR and Bethesda chose to do the same with their games.
Somehow I doubt that the general public would be overjoyed to hear BioWare announce that ME:A will go back to a silent protagonist.
I still see tone selection as a viable bridge between these camps. In the above example the players would still have three ways to deliver the same response. So we get to decide what mindset the line is delivered and the developer gets the assured response the narrative requires.
I think they could afford to provide the player with more accurate summaries though. Sometimes even the tone wheels were misleading in their delivery.
Tone conveys no information.
Whenever I see people appeal to tone as an explanation for their misinterpretation of someone's remarks, they're just rationalizing to cover their own error. I have never seen tone used in a way that provided better information than the text alone.
But not because of tone. Because in your friendly lexicon, "bite me" always means the same thing.
Your friend is never trying to convince you to eat him. And if he were, the change in context would be noticeable. Tone tells you nothing.
Dialogue from among the limited selections available is always unavoidable. Yes, having 3 options is better than having one, but being surprised is a different problem entirely.
One that could be mitigated, even with autodialogue, if we could just pause dialogue and cutscenes to allow us time to ascertain our character's state of mind.
I think a better solution would be tonal indicators even in written dialog. Such as (sarcastic) You're ugly or (serious) You're ugly. I think Pillars of Eternity did that more than the average RPG with a silent protagonist, and I want more where that came from. It's a simple solution to the problem.
I think a better solution would be tonal indicators even in written dialog. Such as (sarcastic) You're ugly or (serious) You're ugly. I think Pillars of Eternity did that more than the average RPG with a silent protagonist, and I want more where that came from. It's a simple solution to the problem.
Isn't that the point of the colors and icons though?
Isn't that the point of the colors and icons though?
I think DA's tone indicators work just fine.
I love the tone indicators; I wish they were shown for every dialogue choice we make.I think DA's tone indicators work just fine.
I love the tone indicators; I wish they were shown for every dialogue choice we make.
The regular dialogue options typically follow the paradigm where the top choice is "Friendly", the middle one is "Cynical" and the third is "Direct".
Still it would be great if we know the variation in how friendly, cynical, and direct some of these choices are.
For example, I was surprised how some "Direct" answers made more sense for me to use than "Friendly" ones in my first self-insert playthrough... and I'm an empathetic person. It doesn't help that the summaries are often not properly conveyed.
The regular dialogue options typically follow the paradigm where the top choice is "Friendly", the middle one is "Cynical" and the third is "Direct".
Still it would be great if we know the variation in how friendly, cynical, and direct some of these choices are.
For example, I was surprised how some "Direct" answers made more sense for me to use than "Friendly" ones in my first self-insert playthrough. It doesn't help that the summaries are often not properly conveyed.
Sorry, I meant to say I wish the tones were present for all the four pronged dialogue choices, there are a number where the tones are absent.
I was very annoyed that 'I don't know what to say' was turned into "Well... ****." That was not a character who would use profanity lightly.
I see. Agreed. I am fine with the dialogue wheel but these issues need to be considered.
I still see tone selection as a viable bridge between these camps. In the above example the players would still have three ways to deliver the same response. So we get to decide what mindset the line is delivered and the developer gets the assured response the narrative requires.
That would be better than what we have now, yes.
I think a better solution would be tonal indicators even in written dialog. Such as (sarcastic) You're ugly or (serious) You're ugly. I think Pillars of Eternity did that more than the average RPG with a silent protagonist, and I want more where that came from. It's a simple solution to the problem.
I dislike it when Obsidian does that. Because I want to be able to assign tone and intent independently from the line, which I can do in BioWare's silent protagonist games.
It's just like a (Lie) indicator. There's no reason to have that. The game should care what my character says, not what my character means by it.
I dislike it when Obsidian does that. Because I want to be able to assign tone and intent independently from the line, which I can do in BioWare's silent protagonist games.
It's just like a (Lie) indicator. There's no reason to have that. The game should care what my character says, not what my character means by it.
I don't think the (lie) indicator was ever mutually exclusive with the same line without the (lie).
The point of having the (lie) was to point out that the player is capable of not upholding the promise from a gameplay perspective.
Still I see your point. One could easily use any (non-plot-critical) statement as a lie.
I don't think the (lie) indicator was ever mutually exclusive with the same line without the (lie).
The point of having the (lie) was to point out that the player is capable of not upholding the promise from a gameplay perspective.
Still I see your point. One could easily use any statement as a lie.
I'm pretty sure that in NWN2 options like that would lock off the alternate path. If you said you were going to do something, it became impossible to advance without doing it. If you lied about doing it, it became impossible to do the thing.
Though, I tend to play them as you describe. I take the presence of the lie indicator as evidence that it's possible to follow either path, and then I tend to choose the wrong option just to test whether it matters.
I'm sorry, why shouldn't your character's motive and intent be important?I dislike it when Obsidian does that. Because I want to be able to assign tone and intent independently from the line, which I can do in BioWare's silent protagonist games.
It's just like a (Lie) indicator. There's no reason to have that. The game should care what my character says, not what my character means by it.
I'm pretty sure that in NWN2 options like that would lock off the alternate path. If you said you were going to do something, it became impossible to advance without doing it. If you lied about doing it, it became impossible to do the thing.
Oh I never played NWN2 so I can't tell. I was speaking from DAO experience.
I wouldn't mind the approach you mentioned, although I see how it can potentially limit the player. Still, would that be inherently different from making a plot-critical choice and having to live with the choice you made?
I dislike it when Obsidian does that. Because I want to be able to assign tone and intent independently from the line, which I can do in BioWare's silent protagonist games.
It's just like a (Lie) indicator. There's no reason to have that. The game should care what my character says, not what my character means by it.
I think the lie indicator is more of a sanity check for the player, especially for those who aren't fully immersed in the experience. I've been given the option to lie before having forgotten what the truth actually was. I'm not a huge fan of (lie) specifically either, because it's usually unnecessary. Either a statement is true or it's false, I don't need to be told that (unless, of course, I forget, but that's my fault).
Regardless, the presence of the lie indicator doesn't change the fact that the statement you are about to make is factually false, even if your character believes it's true. Assign whatever intent you will, but you are lying (consciously or unconsciously).
I see no meaningful difference between a silent and voiced protagonist in terms of tone and intent. We can imagine tone because our PC is an expressionless mannequin, but the line clearly has fixed results anyway.
I see no meaningful difference between a silent and voiced protagonist in terms of tone and intent. We can imagine tone because our PC is an expressionless mannequin, but the line clearly has fixed results anyway.
There's no functional difference, but some could disapprove of how the delivery was made.
How meaningful that delivery is is subjective.
I personally don't mind either way. I prefer voiced protagonists though, if only because I love actually hearing my PC talk even if they say things differently than what I had expected.
Of course this sometimes leads to reloads...
At this point, I don't care either way. The bulk of roleplaying is elsewhere. I might've been a supporter when ME and DA2 won me over at first.. but ME started annoying me in it's autodialogue. That's a big downside. And DAI feels stifling for all kinds of reasons outside the voice. No matter how flexible the dialogue is, a lot of your career and starting personality is limited by Race.. which is bizarre. I'd rather they fixed that. Like you can't believably play a secular human warrior or rogue, in the way a dwarf Carta or Qunari merc is. You're always a Sebastian type of noble... even if you tried to say you were some "Prodigal", it's not the same. Even Shepard and Hawke were more flexible than this.
No matter how flexible the dialogue is, a lot of your career and starting personality is limited by Race.. which is bizarre. I'd rather they fixed that.
When did this happen though? The only thing that is determined by your race is your canonical background, which is general enough to support all personalities.
Race does determine the potential paths one might take in dialogue, but isn't that one of the perks?
But I feel like that's a fault of DA:I's intro model and the same thing would have happened with a silent protagonist?At this point, I don't care either way. I don't think voice adds or takes away anything. The bulk of roleplaying is elsewhere. I might've been a supporter when ME and DA2 won me over at first.. but ME started annoying me in it's autodialogue. And DAI feels stifling for all kinds of reasons outside the voice. No matter how flexible the dialogue is, a lot of your career and starting personality is limited by Race.. which is bizarre. I'd rather they fixed that. Like you can't believably play a secular human warrior or rogue, in the way a dwarf Carta or Qunari merc is. You're always a Sebastian type of noble... even if you tried to say you were some "Prodigal", it's not the same. Even Shepard and Hawke were more flexible than this.
Retour en haut