225 réponses à ce sujet

[Lady Luminous]

I'd be curious how one would design this. Would it be a two-step process to select a line then select the tone, or would it be a wheel full of the same line each with different tones assigned? Then there's determining which lines would be suited or ill-suited for multiple tones, the latter of which I'm guessing would be a good amount. I can't say that this sounds very appealing to me, but I'd really have to see just how it would function.

I think it would be similar to the final dialogue options of Trespasser?

[Fortlowe]

I'll try to illustrate:

Npc asks: Will you help me?

Three PC's options are:

Yes
What's in it for me?
No

Hovering over (or moving the stick to) any any of these options reveals three tone options assigned to keys or buttons on the controller. Pressing the appropriate button while hovering over the chosen line completes the dialogue selection.

So now instead of no being a brusque response by default, we can select that option and convey our regret in doing so.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The downside, of course, is that this introduces flaws into your understanding of the NPC's personality. (Which is only a problem if you care about such things.) I could never do this because I'd know I'm introducing garbage data into the process. I wouldn't believe my own headcanon, which I can't sustain for any length of time.

No it doesn't. It just changes that understanding based in new (and different) information.

If the companion responds a certain way to the thing I do, that tells me something about him. If he were to respond in that way to something else, it would tell me a different thing.

My way, the companions can appear to be quite different people across multiple playthroughs.

There is no one correct interpretation of the NPC. Every playthrough provides you with a possibly different version of that companion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But we're talking of situation that can mean life and death, or extremely important decisions. One can head cannon all you like, but you are going against what the game is trying to do. Which is not inhenrently bad, I certainly did my share of that in Baldur's Gate II, but it's worth noting things for what they are.

I'm using Baldur Gate II as my reference here, as it was the last game without voiced protagonist (and characters) that I played. And I can certainly say you can tell the tone of the dialogue many times. I imagine my character saying stuff one way, but I could tell that's not quite how the other character understood it. It might not have happened to you, but it's something that I dare say happens to a lot of people who play the game like that.

Anyway, Andromeda will not go back to that kind of dialogue. Which I say is a good thing. There are other games that can do that, but that's not for Mass Effect, not the main games at least.

BG2 had some issues with its dialogue system. The design in BG was supposed to be character-agnostic (so any party member could be party spokesperson), but the writers for BG2 didn't know that (Gaider even denied that it was the case years later), so the dialogue was inconsistent in how it was written.

Yet another reason why BG was superior to BG2.

I don't care what the game is trying to do, and I don’t think any player should. It matters only what the game does do. And what the voiced protagonist games do is provide insufficient information about what the line we're choosing contains.

With full text options, I knew exactly what my character was an wasn't going to say, and I could construct - in advance - a justification for that.

With the dialogue wheel, I don't know what my character will and will not say, so I cannot construct a justification in advance. Without that justification in place, I won't be ready to interpret the next part of the scene from my character's perspective.

How do you propose the dialogue wheel provide us with enough information such that every player can know what his character will and will not say prior to the selection of the option?

That's the problem the wheel needs to solve. Until it does, it will be inferior to the silent protagonist games.

[Lonely Heart Poet]

I like the dialogue well, just not the lack of options they are putting in them. DA:I had a decent almont of options to choose, I just don't like the paraphrasing, because they often fail to deliver what the character will actually say. So, I guess it's best to return to the dialogue list where there's space to show the full lines, even if it sacrifices the ascetic organization of the dialogue.

I've said this many times, but I am absolutely against this as it really ruins for me all the surprises when doing more playthroughs.
 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I've said this many times, but I am absolutely against this as it really ruins for me all the surprises when doing more playthroughs.

Why would you want to be surprised by your character? How can you make decisions on her behalf if you don't know what you're choosing? Does she not know what she's going to say?

The dialogue wheel turns my character into a lunatic who doesn't know what she's going to say or why.

And seeing the other dialogue options is what inspires me to do more playthroughs. I replay these voiced games less. Whereas I still would happily play any of BioWare's silent protagonist games, I expect I will never again play DA2, ME2, or ME3.

[wright1978]

I think it would be similar to the final dialogue options of Trespasser?

 

Have to say i really dislike the final dialogue options of Trespasser.

Limiting choice to expand the tonal variety isn't something i want to see.

[RoboticWater]

Why would you want to be surprised by your character? How can you make decisions on her behalf if you don't know what you're choosing? Does she not know what she's going to say?

For the same reason we like to be surprised by plot twists, I suspect. I like determining the gist of what my character is going to say and then have my character present it more eloquently or dramatically. I still get to participate in the narrative and BioWare gets to enhance their presentation.
 
You're considering this argument exclusively from a purist roleplayer's perspective, and that's clearly not who voiced protagonists are trying to please. It's a mechanic meant to interest people like me, who are more interested in experiencing the creator's story than imposing their own story onto a framework.
 

The dialogue wheel turns my character into a lunatic who doesn't know what she's going to say or why.

Now that's just hyperbole. Your character is not a lunatic; there are clear reasons for why your character says the things he or she does. You just can't micromanage that reasoning as much.

 

Why not consider the PC like another NPC, and extrapolate their personality differently after they speak? You seem perfectly content warping the personalities of other characters based on their reactions to the tones you impose on silent dialog. Just do the same for the main character.
 

And seeing the other dialogue options is what inspires me to do more playthroughs. I replay these voiced games less. Whereas I still would happily play any of BioWare's silent protagonist games, I expect I will never again play DA2, ME2, or ME3.

Yes, we all are more likely to replay the games that have mechanics we like.

[Lady Luminous]

Have to say i really dislike the final dialogue options of Trespasser.
Limiting choice to expand the tonal variety isn't something i want to see.

I thought it was pretty obvious from the beginning of Trespasser that there would only be two choices, disband or stay on, so I was glad to see my two choices at least allowed for extra tones.

[Fortlowe]

Have to say i really dislike the final dialogue options of Trespasser.
Limiting choice to expand the tonal variety isn't something i want to see.

Choice is always limited. If I ask you "which way do you want to go, left or right?" and you answer, "orange", well that's an answer, but not a choice. Choosing is, by nature, an engine of reduction in exchange for progress.

[Sylvius the Mad]

For the same reason we like to be surprised by plot twists, I suspect. I like determining the gist of what my character is going to say and then have my character present it more eloquently or dramatically. I still get to participate in the narrative and BioWare gets to enhance their presentation.

The narrative only exists in hindsight. When you're playing the game, there isn't a story yet. There certainly isn't a story from the character's perspective. The character doesn't know he's in a story. He thinks the world in which he lives is real.

You're considering this argument exclusively from a purist roleplayer's perspective, and that's clearly not who voiced protagonists are trying to please.

If we can't inhabit the character's mind, we cannot roleplay that character.

In order for us to inhabit the character's mind, the content of that mind needs to be available to us in real time, not after the fact.

It's a mechanic meant to interest people like me, who are more interested in experiencing the creator's story than imposing their own story onto a framework.

Being told a story is different-in-kind from roleplaying a character. The audience for a story exists outside the story. When I'm roleplaying, I shouldn't be aware of that separation.

Now that's just hyperbole. Your character is not a lunatic; there are clear reasons for why your character says the things he or she does. You just can't micromanage that reasoning as much.

If I don't know what his reason are, then he doesn't know what those reasons are.

How is the character choosing one option over another? I should be able to see that process, because I'm the one making the selection. Otherwise, what basis could I possibly have for choosing one dialogue option over another?

The dialogue wheel turns the player into Buriden's Ass.

Why not consider the PC like another NPC, and extrapolate their personality differently after they speak? You seem perfectly content warping the personalities of other characters based on their reactions to the tones you impose on silent dialog. Just do the same for the main character.

I never really care about the NPCs. I care about them to the extent that I get to play them. So in BG I liked them (I could even have them speak for the party). But since then they've been little more than scenery.

A game filled with only NPCs is a boring game.

Yes, we all are more likely to replay the games that have mechanics we like.

Thank you for making my point.

[wright1978]

Choice is always limited. If I ask you "which way do you want to go, left or right?" and you answer, "orange", well that's an answer, but not a choice. Choosing is, by nature, an engine of reduction in exchange for progress.

 

Choice may be limited but adding multiple variations of tone for each choice is likely to limit the level of choice even more so. I'd happily take 3/4 choices rather than 2 with 3 flavours of tone.

 

 

 

I thought it was pretty obvious from the beginning of Trespasser that there would only be two choices, disband or stay on, so I was glad to see my two choices at least allowed for extra tones.

 

I certainly went into Trespasser with dual goals of not disbanding and not becoming the divine's pet poodle. So i wasn't at all happy with the heavy railroading and the attempt to pass off tonal difference as choice difference.

[Lebanese Dude]

I'll try to illustrate:

Npc asks: Will you help me?

Three PC's options are:

Yes
What's in it for me?
No

Hovering over (or moving the stick to) any any of these options reveals three tone options assigned to keys or buttons on the controller. Pressing the appropriate button while hovering over the chosen line completes the dialogue selection.

So now instead of no being a brusque response by default, we can select that option and convey our regret in doing so.

 

It sounds great in theory, but that's a lot of dialogue you're talking about. It has its drawbacks.

• Significantly increases the number of recorded dialogue from both the character and the other parties involved in a conversation, as well as the companions themselves. If you have a minimum of three (and there's often more) tones per dialogue approach, that's an exponential increase.
• Will require increasing the word budget a lot. While this sounds tempting, unless the overall budget is increased to accommodate, this will end up drawing from other parts of the game. While dialogue is a very important part of the game, it's not the only priority.
• Makes writing a lot more convoluted. Can also lead to inconsistencies to its utilization, not that dissimilar from the one implemented in DAI
• Might not be user-friendly. It might not be intuitive to new players at all. Mouseover triggers can be rather annoying too.

etc...

[RoboticWater]

The narrative only exists in hindsight. When you're playing the game, there isn't a story yet. There certainly isn't a story from the character's perspective. The character doesn't know he's in a story. He thinks the world in which he lives is real.
If we can't inhabit the character's mind, we cannot roleplay that character.

In order for us to inhabit the character's mind, the content of that mind needs to be available to us in real time, not after the fact.
Being told a story is different-in-kind from roleplaying a character. The audience for a story exists outside the story. When I'm roleplaying, I shouldn't be aware of that separation.
If I don't know what his reason are, then he doesn't know what those reasons are.

How is the character choosing one option over another? I should be able to see that process, because I'm the one making the selection. Otherwise, what basis could I possibly have for choosing one dialogue option over another?

The dialogue wheel turns the player into Buriden's Ass.
I never really care about the NPCs. I care about them to the extent that I get to play them. So in BG I liked them (I could even have them speak for the party). But since then they've been little more than scenery.

A game filled with only NPCs is a boring game.
Thank you for making my point.

And you keep making my point again and again; you only view games in terms of a very strict roleplaying perspective which simply cannot be applied to Mass Effect. If having a voiced protagonist and paraphrased dialog choices is necessary for every RPG, then fine. I think I can speak for many others when I say that I wouldn't want Mass Effect to be an RPG, because I believe that voice and adequate paraphrasing genuinely enhance the game for all the reasons I've stated earlier.

 

Apparently, you don't care about characters; you care about pawns. That much is clear; however, there are many (evidently BIoWare included) that care about characters far beyond their function to the player. They enjoy the character's own personality as it is written and their appearance of agency within the world. They enjoy being surprised and wowed by someone else's narrative. It brings a smile to their faces listening to a real person deliver the badass dialog option they just picked in an even cooler way than they expected.

 

And seriously, Buriden's Ass? You're not given two choices between utter nonsense; BioWare is usually quite good at providing the player sufficient information about the resulting tone and effect of the choice. No, it isn't everything, but I can't imagine most players are getting stunned by a lack of information. ME3 is the only game where they went off the rails, and they reigned it back in for DA:I. I hope BioWare continue this trend, maintaining their enjoyable voiced dialog and making sure that every paraphrase is sufficiently representative of the result.

 

The voiced protagonist isn't made for you, as are so many of Mass Effect's other mechanics. You can evaluate a game within any context you like, but don't come here declaring that voiced protagonists are objectively inferior and dismiss every claim otherwise as outright incorrect. They aren't. You can proclaim from the hilltops that "a game filled with only NPCs is a boring game," but clearly the popularity of completely linear, story-focused games proves your opinion is just that: an opinion.

[Degrees1991]

There would be a backlash if there wasn't a dialogue wheel.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And you keep making my point again and again; you only view games in terms of a very strict roleplaying perspective which simply cannot be applied to Mass Effect.

Yes, I play all games as if they are roleplaying games, because roleplaying is the gameplay I enjoy.

I roleplay Football Manager. I roleplay Civilization. And to the extent that it's possible, I roleplay Mass Effect.

But a game like Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings is a better roleplaying game than Mass Effect is.

Apparently, you don't care about characters; you care about pawns.

I care about roleplaying. If you know a way to roleplay with someone else's character where you don't know what it's going to do next or why, I'd be happy to hear it.

That much is clear; however, there are many (evidently BIoWare included) that care about characters far beyond their function to the player. They enjoy the character's own personality as it is written and their appearance of agency within the world. They enjoy being surprised and wowed by someone else's narrative. It brings a smile to their faces listening to a real person deliver the badass dialog option they just picked in an even cooler way than they expected.

They're not roleplaying.

What is the player's job in a game like that? What does the player add to the experience? Why are those games interactive at all? Where's the gameplay?

And seriously, Buriden's Ass? You're not given two choices between utter nonsense; BioWare is usually quite good at providing the player sufficient information about the resulting tone and effect of the choice. No, it isn't everything, but I can't imagine most players are getting stunned by a lack of information. ME3 is the only game where they went off the rails, and they reigned it back in for DA:I. I hope BioWare continue this trend, maintaining their enjoyable voiced dialog and making sure that every paraphrase is sufficiently representative of the result.

I'll agree that DAI did it better, though I think it was all of the ME games and DA2 that failed before DAI made it work. DAI is the only voiced protagonist game that I have found even a little enjoyable. Even the voiced DAO DLC (Leliana's Song) was awful.

Buriden's Ass only requires a choice between alternatives in the total absence of any basis for making that choice. That's how I see much of Shepard's dialogue wheel events.

I can't tell what the paraphrases mean. I don't know whether any of them will produce an irrevocable action, or what that action might be. I can't even meaningfully distinguish between Paragon and Renegade in ME2 and ME3. So given that, what basis os there for choosing one option over another? Even when I do guess right, I'm never confident in my selection. I'm constantly aware that I'm guessing.

I got through ME3 (quite recently) without excessive frustration by simply not caring about Shepard at all (which did make the game awfully dull). I will give the game credit, though; it established right away that I wasn't going to have any control over Shepard when she went to save that kid in the intro, and then felt bad about his death (even though she'd had nothing to do with it).

The voiced protagonist isn't made for you, as are so many of Mass Effect's other mechanics.

Other parts of ME work quite well for me. I like the combat mechanics (particularly in the first game, and the level design in ME3 mitigated my biggest complaint about ME2). The pause-to-aim system is terrific.

You can evaluate a game within any context you like, but don't come here declaring that voiced protagonists are objectively inferior and dismiss every claim otherwise as outright incorrect.

They're inferior at permitting roleplaying. They make for lesser roleplaying games.

They aren't. You can proclaim from the hilltops that "a game filled with only NPCs is a boring game," but clearly the popularity of completely linear, story-focused games proves your opinion is just that: an opinion.

Those are a completely different thing. I'm not evaluating those. The Mass Effect games may well be excellent games. But they're lousy roleplaying games.

Those two categories don't overlap.

[Fortlowe]

It sounds great in theory, but that's a lot of dialogue you're talking about. It has its drawbacks.

• Significantly increases the number of recorded dialogue from both the character and the other parties involved in a conversation, as well as the companions themselves. If you have a minimum (and there's often more) tones per dialogue approach, that's an exponential increase.
• Will require increasing the word budget a lot. While this sounds tempting, unless the overall budget is increased to accommodate, this will end up drawing from other parts of the game. While dialogue is a very important part of the game, it's not the only priority.
• Makes writing a lot more convoluted. Can also lead to inconsistencies to its utilization, not that dissimilar from the one implemented in DAI
• Might not be user-friendly. It might not be intuitive to new players at all. Mouseover triggers can be rather annoying too.

etc...

Yes, the amount of dialogue and animation required to do this would be at least ninefold what the current system uses. But the hardware the current system was developed for is not the hardware we have today. Much more room to operate with now. Enough room? I don't know.

So far as monetary budget? If Madden FIFA and Battlefield are EA's big selling midsized sedan, then Mass Effect is EA's super car. It's the showcase demonstrating the pinnacle of the companies abilities and resources. The investment will be ambitious and counterintuitively, there's likely going to be an aversion to corner cutting. Not to say the budget is inexhaustible, only that the attention the game will draw will inevitably focus on its it flaws more acutely than they would for a more pedestrian franchise. Thus it makes sense for the purse strings to be much looser.

As far as interface? Specifically user error? I think its a problem that can be mitigated in testing. Comes down to how responsive the inputs for dialogue entry should be, I think.

[N7M]

The paraphrases seem a well intended and designed minigame element that requires the player to parse the meaning based upon previous and current contexts. Wording too precise would remove that game element from the player. However, it seems some players of some types of games prefer having dialogue responses spelled out to make it easier for them. EA/BioWare is known for designing games for people with disabilities in mind. Perhaps, full wording could be made available for those players if it's not too much of a burden.

[Lady Luminous]

The paraphrases seem a well intended and designed minigame element that requires the player to parse the meaning based upon previous and current contexts. Wording too precise would remove that game element from the player. However, it seems some players of some types of games prefer having dialogue responses spelled out to make it easier for them. EA/BioWare is known for designing games for people with disabilities in mind. Perhaps, full wording could be made available for those players if it's not too much of a burden.

I honestly think the paraphrasing needs to be more accurate, not that full wording needs to be optimized.

The option "I don't know what to say" should not results in my character saying "Well... ****." If I'm going to use profanity, can't the dialogue option just say "Well.. ****."?

[In Exile]

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.

That's absolutely incorrect. Would you say punctuation conveys no information?

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's absolutely incorrect. Would you say punctuation conveys no information?

Punctuation is the reason I consider the spoken language to be but a pale imitation of the written language.

Punctuation gives propositions structure, and that structure governs interpretation.

Tone offers nothing of the sort. In my experience, attempting to assign meaning to tone only leads to misunderstandings. If the speaker and listener disagree about what information the tone conveyed, what arbiter is available to them to resolve that conflict?

[Lady Luminous]

Punctuation is the reason I consider the spoken language to be but a pale imitation of the written language.

Punctuation gives propositions structure, and that structure governs interpretation.

Tone offers nothing of the sort. In my experience, attempting to assign meaning to tone only leads to misunderstandings. If the speaker and listener disagree about what information the tone conveyed, what arbiter is available to them to resolve that conflict?

It's called apologizing that the listener didn't understand what you were attempting to convey, and explaining your position another way.

I find there are far more misinterpretations in written conversations due to the lack of tone. Something written in a neutral, easy-going tone can be taken as aloof and the other party easily becomes offended because they can't hear the tone in the author's voice. When you can hear what someone else says to you, it's more difficult to become offended by accident.

[AlanC9]

No it doesn't. It just changes that understanding based in new (and different) information.

"Information" is not the correct term. We're making up what the companion heard, and then inventing a thought process that would explain the companion's response to that invented dialogue. There's no information here.

[RoboticWater]

Punctuation is the reason I consider the spoken language to be but a pale imitation of the written language.

Punctuation gives propositions structure, and that structure governs interpretation.

Tone offers nothing of the sort. In my experience, attempting to assign meaning to tone only leads to misunderstandings. If the speaker and listener disagree about what information the tone conveyed, what arbiter is available to them to resolve that conflict?

Much like actual syntax and vocabulary, tone is a construct that must be learned to be understood and is extremely subject to cultural norms. One might misunderstand tone as much as much as one would misunderstand words said with a thick accent or written with a different dialect.

 

In fact, tone is generally a more universal concept than language. A person could walk up to me and yell something at me in Chinese, and I'd probably assume that whatever they said, it probably wasn't flattering.

[MichaelN7]

I might be saying a lot of what is already said, but this is a core aspect of gameplay.

Many of you are likely familiar with the concept of "Tropes are Tools".

BioWare likes to use tropes.  That does not make their games cliche, because tools are tools.  What counts is how well you use them.

I believe that BioWare uses tropes well.

 

The dialogue wheel is a part of gameplay in regards to the characters, something that BioWare does very well.

BioWare games are "linear", with elements of "open-world" mixed in.

There is a main plot that MUST be followed to advance the story, but there are plenty of side-quests/missions that act as "pit-stops" for the player.

So while rail-roading is present, it flows naturally, and gives you a basic idea of what to do to move "forward" in the game.

THAT IS NOT A BAD THING.

This fluid linearity makes a dialogue wheel much more effective, because you have a much clearer idea of what you're working with, both as a writer, and as a player.  You have a general idea of what could be said by your character, because the situation is more "rigid".

 

Bethesda games are "open-world", with elements of "linearity" mixed in.

There is a baseline premise, i.e. this is you, here you are, and then... off you go to do whatever.

You have enough information to know what happened, and are aware that there are other possibilities out there, but there's no "set" plot to follow.

THAT IS NOT A BAD THING.

However, "open-world" does not lend itself well to a dialogue wheel, because a defining aspect of "open-world" is that the player can do whatever they like.

Implementing that "do anything" into the physical gameplay (moving, jumping, exploring, etc.) is relatively simple.

But implementing that same idea into dialogue is a daunting task.

There are literally millions of possible responses to any conversation in real life...

 

You ask if I have the time, I could:

*Give the time (+3 Paragon, Morrigan disapproves)

*"Yes, I have the time, what about it?" (Varric: Friendship +10)

*Punch the person in the face (+3 Renegade)

*Do jumping jacks (+1 Strength)

*Make a sandwich (Sandwich added to Inventory, +1 Constitution)

*Leave (You must gather your party before venturing forth)

...and so on.

 

Obviously, some of those make no sense, but it IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE for someone to respond like that, as insane as it may be.

Even then, someone is gonna think six different options for EVERY conversation isn't enough.

 

Long story short (too late):

 

Bethesda's previous entries in the Fallout series did well WITHOUT the dialogue wheel, because it gave them the freedom to implement the "do anything" while you explore the wastelands, and it matches the "blank slate" player characters each game has.

 

BioWare's games do well WITH the dialogue wheel, because they have a semi-defined character, and a more defined narrative, in which a dialogue wheel fits better.