156 réponses à ce sujet

[Jorji Costava]

If that wasn't clear from the paraphrases, that's a problem.

We need to know what we're selecting. And knowledge requires certainty.

 

Are you certain of that?

 

Sorry, can't help myself.

[Yaroub]

If that wasn't clear from the paraphrases, that's a problem.

We need to know what we're selecting. And knowledge requires certainty.

 

Easy! get back to the list system and abolish the wheel!

 

Neither knowledge nor certainty can be obtained when your dialogue phrases are quite short they make tweets look like a text of wall, then your character will deliver a line out of nowhere. On top of that, you know that the dialogue wheel will feature a retarded shiny icon that indicates - something awesome is gonna happen! Of course you're going to choose it. Thus in what way am going to perceive my character mentality or what is he about to say? How can I and him be on the same track?

 

Why cannot I know what my PC is going to say in an rpg setting? Instead of dropping an auto line not resembling a tiny bit of what I had in mind? A pre-determined line allows me to know what am saying, I browse the options and hypothesize about the outcome, judging my opponent I go with the one that would gain me a score, having estimated the previous I can grasp the result and their reaction would seem reasonable, and it's a healthy processes. Going with the surprise line is a pathetic excuse for not establishing a well-written dialogue.

 

In Inquisition some of my conversations with Cass I would look like a jerk while am trying to ask for help and in DA:2 it was utter crap you'd guess not a single thought was put into it. I look at DA:O and the sheer amount of dialogue sequence was genius, I had the ability to put my warden into a various perspectives through dialogue alone. Furthermore, a silent protagonist only increased dialogue options due to the luxury of not having to pay a VA.

 

The auto dialogue is a deranged thing, it cuts all ties between me and my character whom am supposed to role-play - When "kiss her" or "am here for you" means have sex! Alas, if only that worked in reality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And that is a minority opinion. The industry as a whole has embraced the voiced protagonist. Countless people have commented to you personally that they don't share your opinion. So for them there are greater benefits to a voiced protagonist than unvoiced. How do you respond to this? What your subjective taste supersedes everyone else's?

Nothing at all.  The value of my subjective preference is exactly equivalent to the value of any other person's subjective preference.

? The market clearly shows that it has not been hurt with the addition of a voiced protagonist people haven't quit buying and playing RPGs over this, in fact the genre is larger now than it was in the past and that isn't just because the gaming market is larger. Flight simulators are all but extinct when in the past they were a rather large genre. There are plenty of indie developers making a silent protagonist go play those games because now all three AAA RPG developers use a voice protagonist. Why would they all come to this same conclusion if it had no benefits?

I would argue that, with the rise of the voiced protagonist, the market has largely stopped making RPGs.

 

As far as pure RPGs go, I don't see any AAA titles.  Bethesda lets us mod out the voice, but they force action combat on us.  BioWare lets us avoid action combat, but we can't avoid the voice.  Honestly, if I could play Skyrim with DAI's combat, I'd be pretty happy.  Or jus DAO; DAO is incredible.

 

Who is the third AAA RPG developer?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Are you certain of that?

Only conditionally.

[aoibhealfae]

lol, in DAO I could even make human-hating man-hating human noble and everyone would still call me "my lady". I did aggressive mercenary, sarcastic paragon and diplomatic renegade in DA2. I thought they're fun.

 

Voiced protagonists with limited dialogue branches vs unvoiced protagonists with collections of flat redundant badly written dialogues crammed in one 1900 x 1080 screen....

[KaiserShep]

lol, in DAO I could even make human-hating man-hating human noble and everyone would still call me "my lady". I did aggressive mercenary, sarcastic paragon and diplomatic renegade in DA2. I thought they're fun.

 

Voiced protagonists with limited dialogue branches vs unvoiced protagonists with collections of flat redundant badly written dialogues crammed in one 1900 x 1080 screen....

 

 

Looking back, I find that I don't really commit a lot of the Warden's lines to memory, save for the most amusing stuff, which almost always involved killing someone, like that merchant in Lothering. I guess it doesn't help that the Warden can only speak in single sentences to even the chattiest characters. I feel lucky to have two thoughts conjoined by a semicolon. 

[HuldraDancer]

Less auto dialog would be fracken great. So would be actually seeing my lines instead of paraphrasing but I have a feeling I'd have to settle on just asking for  better paraphrasing. Oh and if ME:A takes the route of tone icons from DAI it would be great if we could actually hide those (or maybe my copy is just bugged)

[Dean_the_Young]

Only conditionally.

 

Then you aren't.

[aoibhealfae]

Looking back, I find that I don't really commit a lot of the Warden's lines to memory, save for the most amusing stuff, which almost always involved killing someone, like that merchant in Lothering. I guess it doesn't help that the Warden can only speak in single sentences to even the chattiest characters. I feel lucky to have two thoughts conjoined by a semicolon. 

 

If anything, other than the pre-Ostagar personal stories, the game still play the same, you're still offered the same dialogues all the time regardless whether you're a human, a dwarf, an elf or with only some minor class differences. I could understand the frustration of having to choose two or three dialogue path but why having like 5 or 10 dialogues choices would matter when hardly anything matter either way. But Bioware have been moving away from traditional writing and toward cinematic narrative. Technically, you're playing an interactive movie.

[PlatonicWaffles]

If auto-dialogue is neutral then I'm fine with it, but I'd rather save the character sculpting to dialogue choices.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Then you aren't.

I suspect no one ever can be.

[Dean_the_Young]

I suspect no one ever can be.

 

And yet we have knowledge all the same.

 

Le gasp.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And yet we have knowledge all the same.

Le gasp.

I dispute that.

But more relevantly for the thread, whether we know what the line will be is testable. Can we accurately predict it? I assert we cannot. We cannot know before hearing the line or reading the subtitle (I tend to read rather than listen) what the line will or will not contain.

The will not is important. If the mental state we imagine for our characters is incompatible with certain content, we need to know in advance that the line we're (indirectly) selecting contains that content, so we can either avoid that option or revise the mental state.

But with the way the paraphrase works, it is literally impossible to actively avoid saying something. We're always just guessing, and guessing is never knowledge.

Can you predict the lines? I can't. We should be able to know exactly what they say, word for word. The meaning resides in the words, so if the content of the line matter at all, we need to know the words.

If the tone and delivery matter, then we also need to know those.

Full text dialogue gives us the former, and a silent protagonist gives us the latter. The voice+paraphrase gives us neither.

[Lord Bolton]

I think DAI handled dialogue the best of the voiced protagonist Bio-games so far. Being able to select from a variety of emotional responses was one of the highlights of DAI as it really defined the Inquisitor as you see fit (within the confines/restraints of the game anyhow).

I'd like to see the paragon/renegade expanded a bit. There is diplomatic (more of a neutral/lawful) and there is passionate (more of an emotional hero), and for renegade there's direct (blunt, to the point) and then there's aggressive (similar to ME's traditional renegade). The neutral/stoic lines are also there, possibly with a green or 'third' alignment that unlocks dialogue as well.

I think DA:I handled dialogue the worst, because aside from very rare emotional responses we usually had three, almost the same, neutral responses (1. be nice 2. be nice 3. be nice) and that made my character extremely uninteresting. I'd like to have one neutral response + two other, so essentially DA2. With addition of those rare, emotional responses. I always hated them, because VO of my Inquisitor always screwed them up (I will never forget one aggressive response in Trespasser. Massive cringe guaranteed.), so If they're going to add them again, then I hope for better VO.

[Dean_the_Young]

I dispute that.

 

Your dispute is irrelevant to what is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Your dispute is irrelevant to what is.

You just dismissed the entire field of epistemology.

[Sartoz]

                                                                                          <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Well, there is dialogue and then there is funny dialogue from ME2-3 like this one from Gamer Poop:

 

NSFW   *Warning* Not Suited for sensitive souls.

 

 

Still, I found them funny. Perhaps Bio can do something more suitable  and maintain the humour.

[Midnight Bliss]

I think DA:I handled dialogue the worst, because aside from very rare emotional responses we usually had three, almost the same, neutral responses (1. be nice 2. be nice 3. be nice) and that made my character extremely uninteresting. I'd like to have one neutral response + two other, so essentially DA2. With addition of those rare, emotional responses. I always hated them, because VO of my Inquisitor always screwed them up (I will never forget one aggressive response in Trespasser. Massive cringe guaranteed.), so If they're going to add them again, then I hope for better VO.

This. Yes.

 

It's funny because if the Inquisitor hadn't been forced paragon for practically the entire game, and if Alix Regan wasn't the only Inquis voice actor who didn't absolutely suck and bomb half their lines, I think DAI probably could have had the best MC dialogue.

 

I seriously hope they get some better quality voice actors for Ryder because if I don't think Mass Effect will be able to handle a substandard voiced protagonist.

[ArcadiaGrey]

I never even noticed the auto-dialogue on my first Shep, I wouldn't have understood what you all were talking about a week ago.  I guess it fit his personality so it didn't jar with me.

 

But I've just started with my renegade Shep who doesn't like Garrus or Liara.  Oh dear.  I meet Liara and Shep says her name as if he's in love with her.  What he should have done was roll his eyes and say, in a bored tone, 'hey Liara' and left it at that. 

I meet Garrus on Palaven's moon and what?  We're best buddies?  My Shep is saying things he'd never ever say to Garrus in a million years.  He thinks he's an annoying do gooder and snaps at him in ME1.

 

It irritated me so much that I ended up going back to the SM just to kill him, now I don't have to experience the lovey-dovey dialogue at all.  Still, it's not what I wanted to do.  I wanted to keep him alive and be mean to him, why I can't do that baffles me.  I've kept Tali alive too just so she can get a particularly bad ending.  I hope I can dislike her at least....

 

All my other Sheps love Garrus to bits so it won't be an issue there, but don't let me roleplay a type of character for ME1 then slowly erode the options for it in ME2, then eradicate them altogether in ME3. 

 

BioWare, for ME:A, please don't encourage roleplaying only to homogenise every pc into being the same guy in the end. 

[KaiserShep]

Yeah, the only way to oppose companions in-game is to kill them. In ME3, they recruit themselves and you can't really do anything about it. That scene on Palaven would have been the perfect time to tell Garrus he should continue to fight alongside his people, and Tali to stay on Rannoch to help with the civilians. 

[themikefest]

Yeah, the only way to oppose companions in-game is to kill them. In ME3, they recruit themselves and you can't really do anything about it. That scene on Palaven would have been the perfect time to tell Garrus he should continue to fight alongside his people, and Tali to stay on Rannoch to help with the civilians. 

Yep. I've posted several times that I would've had an option to tell Garrus to stay and help his fellow turians instead of coming on the ship.

[ArcadiaGrey]

Yeah, the only way to oppose companions in-game is to kill them. In ME3, they recruit themselves and you can't really do anything about it. That scene on Palaven would have been the perfect time to tell Garrus he should continue to fight alongside his people, and Tali to stay on Rannoch to help with the civilians. 

 

Yup.  I can tolerate Liara as she's the one who found the crucible and I can ignore her quite a bit.  I like her character a lot more in ME3 compared to the first 2 games at least.  I can reason that my Shep really needs her, so tolerates her.

 

But to have to kill Garrus just to get rid of him...damn that's a missed opportunity.  I always swore I'd never kill him. 

'Actually Garrus, I've got this.  We're good.   You just stay here and snipe a few guys, kay?'  or, let him on the Normandy but give me a chance to argue with him and disagree about things.  For instance I'm ignoring the bomb on Tuchancka.  If he'd got pissed about that and Shep could tell him where to go it would have been great.

 

Does Tali stay even if you don't want her to?  Luckily I'm siding with the geth soooo....that won't be an option for her. 

[ArcadiaGrey]

Yep. I've posted several times that I would've had an option to tell Garrus to stay and help his fellow turians instead of coming on the ship.

 

In both DA and ME I'd like to be able to recruit ppl and have them around, but dislike them leading to an argument or snide remarks from them down the road.  Better that than Origins solution which was for them to just storm off in a huff (despite, you know, the Blight?  Remember that?).

 

Like Zevran.  If you dislike him but keep him around he'll turn on you.  That was awesome.

[Midnight Bliss]

The thing I think some people forget is Shepard is their own person within the story. Shepard isn't an avatar for the player, isn't an insert, isn't somebody's device to feel special or cool, ect. Her relationships, opinions, behavior is her own, and although you can influence that and make choices, you're still making choices within the realm of possibilities for Shepard, not you. Shep likes Garrus/Liara/Kaidan/Tali/Wrex, so the story reflects this, but gives the player the ability to decide what type of friends they are. Is Shep the strong and silent type who doesn't open up to Liara but looks out for her? Is Shep more comfortable opening up to Garrus when he tries to be supportive? These choices are yours, but ultimately regardless of your choice Shep is still her own person within the universe of Mass Effect and has her own story to tell, you're only there as a guide/thing of influence.

 

People who disliked the autodialogue in ME3 always seem to be the types who wanted to play RP "their own" Shep, to have a Shep who despises aliens, who hates Liara and wants to kill her, who is power hungry or a liar, who would blow up the Normandy for fun, whatever. And these simply are not Shepard's personality, and are not viable.

 

Meanwhile the Inquisitor was more of a blank slate, an avatar, a device for the player. But at the price of being bland, unoriginal, generally boring and having almost no backstory or personality to speak of.

 

Personally I'd much rather have a main character with their own opinions, their own story and who is their own person like Shepard/Hawke over boring and undefined templates who get outshone by most of the other characters throughout most/all of the story.

[Shechinah]

In both DA and ME I'd like to be able to recruit ppl and have them around, but dislike them leading to an argument or snide remarks from them down the road.  Better that than Origins solution which was for them to just storm off in a huff (despite, you know, the Blight?  Remember that?).

 

Like Zevran.  If you dislike him but keep him around he'll turn on you.  That was awesome.

 

I actually like it when companions take a stand and leave though admittedly it depends on how and when they do. The blight is an example of it being poorly-timed but still understandable depending on their reason if they become too disillusioned with the Warden's way of combating the Blight.

 

I like it because very often it can reflect poorly on a character if they do not take a stand against the player character even if it is down to game mechanics.

 

To provide an example of a lack of such consequence: In Dragon Age II, you have the quest "Alone" in which Hawke can choose to allow Danarius to take back Fenris with open intent and in the presence of their followers. This has none of the major consequence it should have had in terms of relationships as despite their protests that I can remember.

 

Aveline, captain of the Kirkwall guard, witnesses someone returning to slavery out of despair and does nothing more than protest and continues to associate with Hawke. Sebastian likewise and the same for Varric, Isabela and Merill. Even if Hawke's status as Champion prevents legal or illegal consequence and they do not think they can do anything against Danarius in the moment, this action should, in my opinion, have resulted in, at least, one of the companions abandoning Hawke's company.

 

To provide an example of such consequence: Koth Vortena is a companion character from Knights of the Fallen Emprie who has recently been shown to abandon the Alliance resistance if he disapproves too much of the Outlander based on their methods because he, understandably, becomes disillusioned with the Alliance and how it'll affect his home and people. He wasn't all talk. He said what he believed the Alliance was about, he expressed his disapproval about the Outlander's methods and he left when he thought the Alliance was becoming something he could not support.

 

Now i feel bothered by some of Koth's sentiments and opinions especially in regards to Valkorion but this move made me respect him.