84 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yeah, I think the Paragon and Renegade aspect should go because I see it as more limiting than benefiting especially since it locks options behind a meter rather than behind actions.

Even without the locks (in ME3, I edited my save file to give me maximun Paragon and Renegade in order to unlock everything), they still don't consistently mean anything.

[Shechinah]

Even without the locks (in ME3, I edited my save file to give me maximun Paragon and Renegade in order to unlock everything), they still don't consistently mean anything.

 

Some of the point prompts were downright nonsensical in Mass Effect 3: How is citing the motto of a military you are a part of considered a renegade action?

[LinksOcarina]

Some of the point prompts were downright odd in Mass Effect 3: How is citing the motto of a military considered a renegade action?

 

It isen't, I just think it was badly implemented to add more interaction.

 

I think the Paragon/Renegade system needs to be revamped ultimately, in 3 it really served no function n the end. 

[Hair Serious Business]

Um... what are you talking about? I didn't say anything about your illustration; I didn't even really look at it since I know what a dialogue wheel looks like. Actually, this whole post is such an incoherent mess that I have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

Just to be perfectly clear, I was saying that I don't find my choices to be random over the entire game. Again, with the exception of one bad paraphrase in DA2. I wasn't talking about your example in particular.

 

Lol WTF? Just noticed it.

Anyway pic/ illustration was meant for someone else(@Bowlcuts) though it wasn't quoted for '?' reason even though I'm sure I did quote that one too, together with yours. For you were most last lines xD

[RatThing]

There was a thread not long ago that showed how you could combine the two systems.

 

http://forum.bioware...the-full-lines/

 

Personally, I am a "full lines" guy. I don't care if I hear a line again, I still want to know exactly what my character will say before I pick an answer. 

[In Exile]

As I said it can be fun at times to pick at blind(like sarcastic option) but at "key moment" or in just simple conversation with your companion or some NPC that requires you to pick option....I don't see much fun at me picking at random thinking "Wow yeah this is what I mean" then when I pick my protagonist says/does something way opposite of what I wanted in here and I either have to keep playing despite of what just happened and what I just did or hit reload and try to find correct response.

Nah, this now sounds even more less fun and way more annoying then reading and knowing your response upfront now does it.

Blind is "rusuz78" being a choice. "Can I help?" is a clear and cogent question. If the paraphrase is inaccurate the issue is only that the spoken line is badly written. But you can't possibly say that this line is confusing or misleading.

[SergeOvD]

Nice idea

[In Exile]

How do you choose, then? How do you avoid saying something you don't want to say? How can you be in control of your character's mental state?

The same way I do it when relevant information is hidden from me with the full line, make the best reasonable guess in the circumstances. A full line is also not sufficiently informative of delivery.

I'm going to have to link everyone to the pragmatics page again it seems.

[Hair Serious Business]

Blind is "rusuz78" being a choice. "Can I help?" is a clear and cogent question. If the paraphrase is inaccurate the issue is only that the spoken line is badly written. But you can't possibly say that this line is confusing or misleading.

 

Ugh, I think I already gave answer to pic-related thing.

[AlanC9]

Lol WTF? Just noticed it.
Anyway pic/ illustration was meant for someone else(@Bowlcuts) though it wasn't quoted for '?' reason even though I'm sure I did quote that one too, together with yours. For you were most last lines xD

OK. Most of my response still stands, then. The problem you're having simply isn't a problem for me. I am not having that problem even if you are.

[Hair Serious Business]

OK. Most of my response still stands, then. The problem you're having simply isn't a problem for me. I am not having that problem even if you are.

 

Fair.

You have every right to disagree just as I have right to agree on this being issue 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Blind is "rusuz78" being a choice. "Can I help?" is a clear and cogent question. If the paraphrase is inaccurate the issue is only that the spoken line is badly written. But you can't possibly say that this line is confusing or misleading.

It's clear what the paraphrase means. But what the paraphrase means doesn't really matter.

What matters is what the content of the full line is. The only purpose of the paraphrase is to convey the content of the full line.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The same way I do it when relevant information is hidden from me with the full line, make the best reasonable guess in the circumstances. A full line is also not sufficiently informative of delivery.

I think it is. For any line of text, there are a great many possible reasons why it might be spoken. All the player needs to do is find the line for which there is a possible intent which is compatible with his character.

As such, for each list of 3 dialogue options, there are in fact vastly more possible reasons behind those lines, and the player gets to choose among that huge group.

Not letting us see the lines makes it much harder to determine what the set of possible justifications is.

I'm going to have to link everyone to the pragmatics page again it seems.

Always appreciated.

I'm terrible at linguistic pragmatics. I openly question whether they're real.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Frankly, I don't find any of the lines in the OP the least bit ambiguous.

If you can't determine, with 100% accuracy, what the resulting line will be, yes you do.

[pdusen]

Can you point to it? Is it demonstrably there? Does it make any material difference? How can you tell?

 

I can tell it's there because context exists, and that's all that implication is; the intentional use of contextual cues to communicate information without speaking or writing that information explicitly. This is done by relying on the ingenuity and mutual cultural experiences of the person to whom you're making the implication, so that they can decode your cues the way that you intended. People do this all the time, largely to avoid social penalties for explicitly communicating privileged or sensitive information. 

 

It's certainly not the most foolproof form of communication, but nearly everyone uses it at some point. The fact that you choose not to believe it's real is, frankly, your own problem.

[pdusen]

If you can't determine, with 100% accuracy, what the resulting line will be, yes you do.

 

I can't even determine with 100% accuracy what I'm going to say until I've finished saying it, so why would I expect to have that much certainty of any fictional character?

 

I know the sentiment I want to communicate. I know the sentiment Shepard is going to communicate. That's all that is required.

 

Edit: And by the way, if I say I don't find it ambiguous, that means I don't find it ambiguous. Don't tell me how I should feel about something.

[Enigmatick]

I can't even determine with 100% accuracy what I'm going to say until I've finished saying it, so why would I expect to have that much certainty of any fictional character?

 

I know the sentiment I want to communicate. I know the sentiment Shepard is going to communicate. That's all that is required.

 

Edit: And by the way, if I say I don't find it ambiguous, that means I don't find it ambiguous. Don't tell me how I should feel about something.

 

Come on, I can use this same argument for why ME should move back to dice roll based shooting and still be more right than you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I can tell it's there because context exists, and that's all that implication is; the intentional use of contextual cues to communicate information without speaking or writing that information explicitly.

So you think it's intentional?

I wish that opinion were widely held. People often tell me I've implied something when I've intended no such thing.

This is done by relying on the ingenuity and mutual cultural experiences of the person to whom you're making the implication, so that they can decode your cues the way that you intended. People do this all the time, largely to avoid social penalties for explicitly communicating privileged or sensitive information.

It's certainly not the most foolproof form of communication, but nearly everyone uses it at some point. The fact that you choose not to believe it's real is, frankly, your own problem.

If I were to acknowledge it was real, I would choose not to do it.

But I claim it's not real because there appears to be no reliable way to determine when other people have done it.

[sjsharp2011]

Agreed.  Having "perfect information" regarding what the PC is going to say sounds extremely boring and unsatisfying to me.  I want to be able to more-or-less accurately predict the general tone of the response and nothing more.

As do I really besides I can usually more or less determine roughly what my character is going to say by the options anyway so leave it as is in my book as well it's not something that needs changing for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I can't even determine with 100% accuracy what I'm going to say until I've finished saying it, so why would I expect to have that much certainty of any fictional character?

Because he's not you, and because you populate his mind (including the parts of which he's not aware).

I find it really odd, though, that you don't know what you're going to say before you say it. I tend to construct whole sentences in advance and then just roll them out when they're appropriate.

Conversations I haven't rehearsed tend to paralyze me.

I know the sentiment I want to communicate. I know the sentiment Shepard is going to communicate. That's all that is required.

I can't tell whether the line I'm ostensibly choosing will conform to that sentiment. Partly because I refuse to be constrained in my choice of sentiment.

I didn't need to be constrained with the silent protagonist. I'm not going to be constrained now.

Edit: And by the way, if I say I don't find it ambiguous, that means I don't find it ambiguous. Don't tell me how I should feel about something.

Only if you get to define what ambiguous means.

My point there was to demonstrate that we're trying to use the paraphrases to do different things. You're using them to discover what Shepard is trying to say. I'm using them to determine what Shepard will actually say.

They may well do the former well. They do the latter terribly.

[straykat]

I find it really odd, though, that you don't know what you're going to say before you say it

 

It's just living in the present.

[In Exile]

Ugh, I think I already gave answer to pic-related thing.

 

No, you didn't. You spoke about it, but you didn't answer the actual criticism of your position, which is that the paraphrase is not random or unpredictable. The paraphrase has a clear and obvious meaning, and a clear and obvious literal meaning, as much as a text option possibly can. Your complaint is that the paraphrase and line don't match up to your satisfaction, but that's a very different kind of criticism.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's just living in the present.

It's choosing risk.

If you cannot say what you mean, then you cannot mean what you say.

[spinachdiaper]

Dialogue wheel just needs emotional inflection symbols next to the choice options so that you know better how response is going to go. DA2 had this so why not just implement a better and more comprehensive system in ME:A.

[Hair Serious Business]

can you repeat that disparaging remark in English

 

What? You can't read as well? 

 

I guess not surprising. Anyway I'm done "talking" to someone who can't give their argument without sounding as 5 year old troll, most likely because you are 

 

No, you didn't. You spoke about it, but you didn't answer the actual criticism of your position, which is that the paraphrase is not random or unpredictable. The paraphrase has a clear and obvious meaning, and a clear and obvious literal meaning, as much as a text option possibly can. Your complaint is that the paraphrase and line don't match up to your satisfaction, but that's a very different kind of criticism.

 

Which part of "Don't take picture too literally to your heart because it serves just as plain example and even though it was just example it is enough to show problem with dialogue wheel people have" wasn't clear in here again 

 

Dialogue wheel just needs emotional inflection symbols next to the choice options so that you know better how response is going to go. DA2 had this so why not just implement a better and more comprehensive system in ME:A.

 

I think DA2 still had that other problem of pick first to be angel, middle sarcastic/ neutral and last forceful/ evil.

I would prefer if options weren't this "black and white".