291 réponses à ce sujet

[joriandrake]

What? Did Shepard ever laugh? o.O

[In Exile]

tbsking wrote...

As I recall, the camera was fixed over the shoulder for most dialogues so that the person you were talking to was centered in the frame. I don't know why everyone keeps bringing up the fact that your character just stands there; I never noticed it as a problem, my focus was always on the person I was talking to.

My focus was on my character`s back, which is visible for almost all dialogue options. My character being the important one. It's cool you never noticed it was a problem, or that it never bothered you in the first place, but it was there and quite apparent. It bothered me they did not show my character`s face, that I put in a lot of tim eand energy to create.

[tbsking]

In Exile wrote...

tbsking wrote...

As I recall, the camera was fixed over the shoulder for most dialogues so that the person you were talking to was centered in the frame. I don't know why everyone keeps bringing up the fact that your character just stands there; I never noticed it as a problem, my focus was always on the person I was talking to.

My focus was on my character`s back, which is visible for almost all dialogue options. My character being the important one. It's cool you never noticed it was a problem, or that it never bothered you in the first place, but it was there and quite apparent. It bothered me they did not show my character`s face, that I put in a lot of tim eand energy to create.

Bah, I always thought the create-a-face was limited in the level of customization you had. The only time I was particularly bothered by my character during a dialogue was when you could see his cheekbones, cheek and chin protruding from his face with gaps in between.

[Haexpane]

Vandrayke wrote...

Oh and I agree with the guy who can't get into Baldur's Gate... I mean, I loved the game when it came out, but games have come so far that every time I wax nostalgic and want to play it, I last like an hour or so before I start yawning.

Switch to BG2 instead, I first played BG2 in 2009... already put like 80 hours into it, can't get enoug

[Haexpane]

Vandrayke wrote...

I dunno. But I do know that it's a much more compelling experience for me if the characters are fully voiced and there's lots of dialogue.

Played more Mass Effect 2 last night to experience this.  I have to say the "big story" in ME2 I'm lukewarm on.  I don't like Xfiles smoking man.  But the "small stories" i enjoy a lot more.  LIke the loyalty quests.

Samara and Jacob have excellent loyalty quests, but they are very short.  And they still suffer from the "action, action action,.... everyone stop stand around and talk a lot, then get back to action"

Great storytelling does not have to be either/or action or dialog.   I'd like the full VO more if it was not separate from the actual gameplay.

I think that's my hang up, whenever there is a lot of dialog in the Bioware 3D games, it's a lot of sitting back and picking dialog options.

They need to figure out a way to blend it better

[Haexpane]

tbsking wrote...
 

As I recall, the camera was fixed over the shoulder for most dialogues so that the person you were talking to was centered in the frame. I don't know why everyone keeps bringing up the fact that your character just stands there; I never noticed it as a problem, my focus was always on the person I was talking to.

It's a problem because the dialog scenes are extremely boring.  Leliana's Song has much better dialog scenes, stuff is sort of happening.  Not as much as it could be but better.

DAO and ME2, most of the time the dialog is at camp or on the ship, you just stand there and talk, and they stand there and talk.  Very boring.

Graphic Novels give a better example of how to integrate action scenes or at least dynamic scenes into dialog.

Red Dead Redemption does this as well.  The dialog is not perfect, but more integrated w/ the game itself

[In Exile]

tbsking wrote...

Bah, I always thought the create-a-face was limited in the level of customization you had. The only time I was particularly bothered by my character during a dialogue was when you could see his cheekbones, cheek and chin protruding from his face with gaps in between.

That's just a matter of taste, though. I happen to be narcisistic enough that I can barely avoid starring at my own reflection in actual conversation, much less in the case of a game. So I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss this sort of criticism out of hand.

[In Exile]

Haexpane wrote...

Played more Mass Effect 2 last night to experience this.  I have to say the "big story" in ME2 I'm lukewarm on.  I don't like Xfiles smoking man.  But the "small stories" i enjoy a lot more.  LIke the loyalty quests.

The loyalty quests were brilliant, and very well done. I happened to think they needed to be more character focused than they were versus action focused, like you said below, but they did well to bring out the particular conflict of the character.

They just make absolutely no sense in the larger scheme of things, like the whole plot of ME2 makes absolutely no sense in the larger scene of things, and is largely a retelling of the same story.

It'd be like the plot of DA2 was to raise an army to stop the archdemon's cousin's blight.

I think that's my hang up, whenever there is a lot of dialog in the Bioware 3D games, it's a lot of sitting back and picking dialog options.

They need to figure out a way to blend it better

I think that's why they used the system they did in Awakening. As a way of trying to make conversation more dynamic and natural. They failed miserably, though.

[Vaeliorin]

[quote]In Exile wrote...
[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
I disagree.  Go ahead and voice/animate the NPCs, but as soon as you start voicing/animating my character, you're taking away my immersion.  When my character starts doing things that are completely out of character for him (punching an ally, making "I'm going to punch you" fists when talking to someone as some example from ME) you've completely removed me from the world.  No longer am I (not that I self-insert, mind you) in the world, but instead I'm just an observer watching someone who I don't really understand doing things that make him look like a lunatic.
[/quote]
I was going to reply with this in another thread debate we were having (but other things interfered) when you asked me how it was that I demaned the game make you show an attitude for you to have it, since in real life we very obviously can have attitudes without showing them or otherwise making them apparent.

And the answer to that is the constrained choice of video games. In real life, as a Cousland, I can try and fail to organize a political coup against Anora and Alistair. I can try to parlay my fame and success in building an army to date to make paint Anora as a potential barren traitor who conspired with her father to murder Cailin because he would have replaced her with an Orlesian, and Alistair as a bastard price who will be Eamon's puppet on the throne. Whether or not this can succeeed, or is even an appropriate course of action is irrelevant.

What is the case is that there is no dialogue option, and no option at all really, for a character that does not want to beg Anora/Alistair for the crown. [/quote]
Sure, but you know that we disagree on this.  Hence, why my third character in DA, after finding out Alistair was a prince/king sidled up to him and romanced him (in fact, even started acting in more Alistair-approved ways) as part of her plan to marry him (which didn't work out), have his kids (which might have), and then murder him and set herself up as regent for her child, where she would actually seize all power for herself.

[quote]There are other story and design issues related with a lack of VO, too, particularly the lack of how they can portray any character in a game.

Say you had VO and you could rule alone. This is not a design problem for importing your choice, because the actor can simply adopt your attitude on quest triggers and interact with a new PC. But without VO the main character must be absent - otherwise they would have to portray that main character in a way that is absolutely impossible for the game. This leads to design decisions that have to background your PC.[/quote]
I'd object to them including my character even without a voice.  There's no way they could portray him that wouldn't annoy me.

[quote]We talked about this before, but a lack of VO forces your character to be a bit player as a matter of design. This is incredibly aggravating for people who are not particularly keen on being off to the side.[/quote]
I know.  There was some thought that it was related to the passiveness of the player, if I recall correctly.

[quote]Specifically, though, the problem you describe above isn't related to VO. It's related to anchoring an action to a dialogue choice, and even if Shepard were silent and you picked a line that said '' This interview is over.'' and Shepard literally said this line (without the VO) and then punched a reporter, it would still break your character all the same. The VO is not the problem with a loss of control.[/quote]
Right, hence my objection to voicing or animating my character.

[quote][quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
And that's only the major problems.  Minor problems also occur, such as having a character who stands around with
his arms crossed all the time or a character who always gesticulates wildly while talking.  Miranda in ME2, for example, makes some rather bizarre hand gestures while talking.  If my character does this, I will be displeased.  These minor things matter.[/quote]
DA does this all the time. In fact, DA has the straight as an arrow, arms fixed at your side post for a lot of the game, except when you do randomly cross your arms occasionally in dialogue scenes.

It is not VO that drives these actions, but how physical conversation is scripted which is entirely independent from VO. Even if Bioware had you as the straight as the arrow type the whole game, you would still have the issue that this was your gesture.

Unless you want to debate that the game is hiding content from you, in which case our position will be just be fundamentally incompatible.[/quote]
I think the difference is that it's not shoved in my face.  I rarely ended up seeing my PC during Origins, because usually by the time the NPC had stopped talking, I had already chosen a line of dialogue, and so the conversation continued without the camera ever really focusing on my PC.  Mass Effect shoves the character animations in your face, either because they're so active, or because the camera will focus on the PC while he's talking, which obviously doesn't occur when the PC has no voice (so in a way, I'd argue that having the PC act out of your control is at least partly tied to voicing.)

[quote][quote]But it's not just extreme reactions that are the issue.  I just used them to demonstrate as they're the most memorable examples for people (and the fist clenching occurs regardless of any dialogue choices.)  As soon as the game starts giving my character body language, that body language needs to be appropriate for my character, and all the intent icons in the world can't really handle that.[/quote]
Like I said: DA already did this. The times hwen they gave you the slack-jawed yokel look when they thought you had to be shocked, e.g. when Wynne collapsed after a random encounter and your PC was forced to run back and look worried is just one example.

The design is poor, I agree, but independent of VO.[/quote]
Right, I'm arguing two separate points, but ones that I feel are linked on some level.  I really disliked the way the game made me run back to Wynne.  I felt there should have been dialogue choices that came up that allowed you to either run back, walk back, keep walking (which I imagine would cause one of your companions to come stop you while another helped Wynne up) and stand still (in which case one of your companions could have gone and helped her up.)

I have just as much issue with the game adding animations to my character without my direct control as I do with them voicing my character.  I find both equally offensive.  However, I feel that voiced PC and animated PC both come about as a result of the "cinematic" style they're going for.

[quote][quote]This was definitely an issue in ME2 (I can't recall if it was in ME1, it's been a while since I've played it.)  There are times when Shepard completely interrupts the flow of conversation with what he says, by saying things or asking questions as if he's just started the conversation, even though he's in the middle of it.  Some context sensitivity within the conversation would be nice, if we're forced to have voice acting.[/quote]
The same happens in DA. ''I want to move back to my other questions'' or some similar statement, and an NPC acknowledging this mid-conversation is just as stupid and unnatural. It has to do with a poor implementation of the limited number of options on screen. Much better for Bioware just to have a sub-menu. [/quote]
True.  But again, without it being voiced, I find it much less annoying/offensive.  Having to hear my character actually speaking as though he has no social skills is much more jarring than have the non-voiced dialogue like that.  Essentially, when not voiced, I can easily ignore the bizarre dialogue such as that, but when it's voiced my ability to ignore it is taken away.

I guess this gets down to the issue of the dialogue being literal or not, which I know we disagree on.

This isn't to say that I think voicing/animating your character has no place in any game, ever.  But I find it completely anti-thetical to my ability to roleplay, because it takes control of my character away from me.  It's really kind of odd, as I enjoy the cinematic approach until it starts effecting my character.  I still object to the way being cinematic tends to effect the overall amount of content, but in a perfect world I'd like a game with the content of BG2 with the cinematic qualities of DA (with the few exceptions when control of my character is taken away from me.)

[In Exile]

Vaeliorin wrote...
Sure, but you know that we disagree on this.  Hence, why my third character in DA, after finding out Alistair was a prince/king sidled up to him and romanced him (in fact, even started acting in more Alistair-approved ways) as part of her plan to marry him (which didn't work out), have his kids (which might have), and then murder him and set herself up as regent for her child, where she would actually seize all power for herself.

I'm not denying you can have different motivations - just that the motivations are dramatically altered by imposibilities.

For example, the same character I described above, with the constrained choice of Alistair and Anora would always pick Alistair over Anora, because Alistair is a loyal and naive sort, and there is a much better chance to build a dramatic base of power by being an advisor to a weak King (as Loghain and Maric worked, despite Maric not being weak as I understood it) than as an isolated lickspittle to Anora.

The issue for me is one of design, and that the main content of the game is on screen versus in my head.

I'd object to them including my character even without a voice.  There's no way they could portray him that wouldn't annoy me.

Right, but you have to see how this neccesarily constrains design choice. My point wasn't that the absence of VO would make this possible, but rather that having the adventure be internal and mental versus explicit on screen actually denies me, as a player, the opportunity to make the choices that I want, and so for me as a player looking at the design of games, the cost of non-VO is precisely the reactivity I want.

In short, what I am trying to illustrate is that in contrast to what you might say, or Sylvius does say, or LadyShayna did say, non-VO absolutely constraints my ability for choice in-game in virtue of the design elements it needs to make impossible to accomodate a particular playstyle.

I know.  There was some thought that it was related to the passiveness of the player, if I recall correctly

Precisely. non-VO in a VO universe is by its very nature passive, and so if you have NPC VO, I cannot abide non-VO for the PC. That said, I would be fine with a game that had a BG/NWN dialogue interface that was top down and that had no VO. But once you have cinematic scripting and NPC VO, PC VO becomes a neccesary design decision for me.

Right, hence my objection to voicing or animating my character.

I only wanted to point out that these had to be two independent objections, and that in particular the dialogue wheel is problematic in terms of how it links animation to dialogue, not just in the paraphrase itself, which is a separate failure.

I think the difference is that it's not shoved in my face.  I rarely ended up seeing my PC during Origins, because usually by the time the NPC had stopped talking, I had already chosen a line of dialogue, and so the conversation continued without the camera ever really focusing on my PC. 

I think this feeds right back into our different personalities. To me, as a person, it does not matter that the camera focus is on the NPC. My own focus is on my character. So the game cannot hide it or not make it stand out because it is intrinsically salient to me.

All of which is to say that while I understand your distinction, I think it is subjective.

Mass Effect shoves the character animations in your face, either because they're so active, or because the camera will focus on the PC while he's talking, which obviously doesn't occur when the PC has no voice (so in a way, I'd argue that having the PC act out of your control is at least partly tied to voicing.)

I disagree, because as per above, whether or not the camera focuses on the PC has nothing to do with where you as the player focus, and I think it is tied to real world personality.

It's like a difference in preference in talking about yourself versus learning about others. There are people that are very self-driven, so they see things as being intrisically self-referential in a way others do not. I'd wager we differ significantly here.

Right, I'm arguing two separate points, but ones that I feel are linked on some level.  I really disliked the way the game made me run back to Wynne.  I felt there should have been dialogue choices that came up that allowed you to either run back, walk back, keep walking (which I imagine would cause one of your companions to come stop you while another helped Wynne up) and stand still (in which case one of your companions could have gone and helped her up.)

On that we can agree, though I really do think action and dialogue should actually be two different systems. I would have a Dialogue»Action tree, where your dialogue lines restrict the possible actions you can then take after an interaction. But of course, you would disagree with this because any potential restriction on any possible action is to you to strong a restriction (though I would counter with the fact that the non-dialogue actions of the PC are restricted to you, and things like VO in terms of the random sayings of the PC are also off limits to you).

I have just as much issue with the game adding animations to my character without my direct control as I do with them voicing my character.  I find both equally offensive.  However, I feel that voiced PC and animated PC both come about as a result of the "cinematic" style they're going for.

Certainly, but I happen to think the cinematic presentation is an inevitable demand of the medium. I simply do not believe a visual medium lends itself to imagination.

True.  But again, without it being voiced, I find it much less annoying/offensive.  Having to hear my character actually speaking as though he has no social skills is much more jarring than have the non-voiced dialogue like that.  Essentially, when not voiced, I can easily ignore the bizarre dialogue such as that, but when it's voiced my ability to ignore it is taken away.

I guess this gets down to the issue of the dialogue being literal or not, which I know we disagree on.

I think it is more than just an interpretation of dialogue, because it also involves salience. To me, it does not matter what or how the PC could say the line, the NPC very obviously says a nonsensical and unnatural line in the middle of the conversation, and that just stands out like nails on a chalkboard (or a chalkspawn, given the art change).

This isn't to say that I think voicing/animating your character has no place in any game, ever.  But I find it completely anti-thetical to my ability to roleplay, because it takes control of my character away from me.  It's really kind of odd, as I enjoy the cinematic approach until it starts effecting my character.  I still object to the way being cinematic tends to effect the overall amount of content, but in a perfect world I'd like a game with the content of BG2 with the cinematic qualities of DA (with the few exceptions when control of my character is taken away from me.)

The issue with this is that I do not think you appreciate how a cinematic style, with a different salience map, automatically aggravates players. Basically, you might argue that you could ''see'' your character being cinematic without it being displayed. But I only see my character doing what the character actually does in the game; so to me sitting straight as an arrow and motionless is very apparent and can't be hidden, and in itself a cinematic design choice that is dissonant with how I view the character.

Not to mention that this goes to issues like being forced to be passive.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I would be fine with a game that had a BG/NWN dialogue interface that was top down and that had no VO.

So would I.  Let's do that again.

But I only see my character doing what the character actually does in the game; so to me sitting straight as an arrow and motionless is very apparent and can't be hidden

That makes sense.  It's explicitly portrayed on screen, so even I wouldn't be willing to assert it wasn't taking place as you see it.

Of course, since I don't think body language matters, I don't really care what poses my character strikes.

[Brockololly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I would be fine with a game that had a BG/NWN dialogue interface that was top down and that had no VO.

So would I.  Let's do that again.

Yes. A thousand times yes.

BioWare likes to talk up how they're willing to be inventive and experimental with their smaller projects like DLC. How about they do a throwback top down, no VO, BG style RPG. Since hardly any one else does that anymore it might as well be new to gamers whose only "RPG" experience is Mass Effect...

[Haexpane]

In Exile wrote...
 
 

They need to figure out a way to blend it better

I think that's why they used the system they did in Awakening. As a way of trying to make conversation more dynamic and natural. They failed miserably, though.

I liked Awakenings more than DAO, just wish it was 20 hours longer, I would have paid another $15 for those 20 hours

[Haexpane]

Best part of Mass Effect 2's loyalty quests? The MIDDLE of the quest, when you are mixed in action/story and conflict.



When you get the the end of the quests you either fight a mini boss or resolve things w/ dialog.



I completed 3 loyalty quests last night, and every time, again I don't get the new research or abilities until it's over. And when it's over, I'm kinda done w/ the character.



So the few times I actually use Grunt and Mordin are for the quests, but I never even really use their powers since once their quest is done, I'm kinda burned out on those characters and go back to just using which companions are the best powered for the upcoming mission.



Another issue is you can only bring 2 companions, but you have this huge team. Bump it up to 5 companions for a full 6 person party, otherwise recruiting companions is pointless.



It also hurts the story, they tell you to "build a team" but building a team is a waste of time if you can only bring 2 (until the story forces you to pick suicide missions or whatever happens IDK yet)



If I have 2 powered up companions, why would I even need another 5 sitting on the ship?



I fear DA2 may do something similar, lots "talking friends" but only a couple of actual combat companions

[Dtelm]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Dtelm wrote...
The idea of a game is to immerse you into the world as deeply and completly as possible. That means voice acted, fully animated dialouge. In the past this hasnt been a realistic goal. Today it is.

I disagree.  Go ahead and voice/animate the NPCs, but as soon as you start voicing/animating my character, you're taking away my immersion.  When my character starts doing things that are completely out of character for him (punching an ally, making "I'm going to punch you" fists when talking to someone as some example from ME) you've completely removed me from the world. 

In my experience, shepard only punched people when you chose stuff like "I'm done playing games" in clearly marked RED text.

[Dtelm]

Brockololly wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I would be fine with a game that had a BG/NWN dialogue interface that was top down and that had no VO.

So would I.  Let's do that again.

Yes. A thousand times yes.

BioWare likes to talk up how they're willing to be inventive and experimental with their smaller projects like DLC. How about they do a throwback top down, no VO, BG style RPG. Since hardly any one else does that anymore it might as well be new to gamers whose only "RPG" experience is Mass Effect...

I would still play and enjoy the game.
Interactions feel less epic, less engaging with less animation and without voice acting. Its not just different. Its better. Even gamers who have never played older rpgs would notice the loss. For thats what it is, a loss.
I want my VO.
And guess what? I'm getting it.

Modifié par Dtelm, 06 août 2010 - 07:41 .

[Haexpane]

I played more ME2, Shepards Male' VA is at best, mediocre. He sounds like he is alone when he reads his lines.



And that horrid Rape Smile he makes during romance, OMG