291 réponses à ce sujet

[SDNcN]

Addai67 wrote...

Vicious wrote...


I am pro full voice acting. Leave imagination with what does it best. Pen and paper.

Like?

At least you admit that that is what is considered too difficult to muster without voice acting.  Yes, it's refreshing.

There is no diffifculty in imagining a character's voice, intent, or purpose; just you implying that people who dislike your playstyle are lesser than you.

DA:2 uses a visual medium as its platform and it is natural for people to desire it to be visually stimulating. Thus the implementation voice acting and increased cinematography. Despite what some want to accept, Computer RPGs are much more similar to movies than books.

I completely understand though, how ambiguity can increase the amount of percieved options one can roleplay within the game. But I find it an acceptable compromise that certain aspects are further defined in exchange for increased reactivity to player input.

I can tell myself that the lines my character gives are as sarcastic as I want them to be, but if npcs don't react as such, then it just is a series of inside jokes that every man, woman, and child in Thedas is too daft to pick up on. I don't want that.

Modifié par SDNcN, 03 août 2010 - 06:24 .

[TheMadCat]

Addai67 wrote...

TheMadCat wrote...

What? Fallout 3 and Oblivion had full voice acting (Minus protaganist, but that's not the discussion here.)

Full voice acting minus the protagonist is a very big minus.

It absolutely is, but in this case we've gone beyond having no voice for the protagonist. I'm talking about cutting out voices for all major characters and big quests. Vendors, passer byes, dinky little quests those type of NPC's can be silent with text, freeing up more time and money for the important cast giving more dialogue trees which in turn means more meaningful conversations and choices. Hence why I was asking about games that went beyond the non-voiced protagonist.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 03 août 2010 - 06:31 .

[Blessed Silence]

TheMadCat wrote...

I'd love more text only dialogue that would expand player options and quality of the dialogue, unfortunately it's not practical in this day and age and I'm one of the few in that rare breed. Everything needs a voice these days, even the merchant whose only like is "What would you like?"

I think it was Adam Sessler who said many gamers now don't want to wade through pages of text.  If I want that I"ll read a book.

I like voice acting.  I believe ME2 was great in that with the movements and gestures so I really felt it when Shepard punched someone that I cringed.  To me that is part of a good game.

[Arijharn]

joriandrake wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Davasar wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Isn't it great that you are granted the ability to see the future as soon as you step into these forums?

Funny I was thinking the same thing, need to find the thread on lotto numbers now......................

I agree with the OP, and have been harping on that for some time.  But Bioware has told players like us to F*** off in a very polite way.

So yeah, not gonna happen.

I mean, why use your imagination and fill in how your own character sounds when some voice actor can do it for you?

Some people have lazy minds I guess.  To a point thats understandable as the brain uses 20 times as much energy as a muscle of the same size.

Still...lazy minds...*shakes his head*

Elitest much?

English, do you speak it?

I'm sorry, do you want me to use easier words for you? Oh wait... that's condescending. I think there's a lesson in there somewhere, my exercise to you is for you to find it.

[joriandrake]

You probably wanted to write elitist

[Arijharn]

joriandrake wrote...

You probably wanted to write elitist

And yet you knew full well of what I'm referring too. So perhaps you've missed the lesson after all.

[MerinTB]

SDNcN wrote...
They believe CRPGs should emulate PnP.
Then Bioware creates their own system instead of adapting one from PnP.

They like unvoiced lines because they are ambigous enough to allow them to imagine different tones and intent. Then Bioware adds voice acting and icons signifying intent behind each line.

They don't mind if their character is blank and emotionless during cutscenes.
Then Bioware shoots for a more cinematic experience in their games.

They want multiple races and origins even though it barely impacts the core content.
Then Bioware implements a fixed background and race.

They prefer pause and play.
Then Bioware focuses on improving the real time aspect of combat.

Blaming the influence of EA or the unwashed masses is preferable to the alternative, you know, that these things may actually be an improvement.

Now I wasn't blaming EA or any "unwashed masses" for anything here, but...

improvements?  By what standard?
Yours?
Why is your standard more relevant, more accurate, more right than mine?

Is it an improvement if chess were to suddenly include animated pieces on the board and a trivia quiz before each player got to make a move?  Some might find it to be, others would see it as taking away from what chess is.

Would it be an improvement if baseball added a fifth base, ten more players in the outfield, and a "hot potato" ball that you couldn't hold for more than 3 seconds before it started to burn you?

Would your breakfast be better if you had to do one hundred jumping jacks before you were allowed your coffee or juice?

Adding things or changing things doesn't necessarily make things better or worse, just DIFFERENT.  And for people who are happy with chess the way it is adding a trivia quiz aspect would ruin the game for them.

This is logic, logic that draws no conclusion OTHER THAN changing things for newer ideas is not automatically an improvement.

You use your own emotions and opinions and posit them as if they are fact.

Try to understand those your disagree with instead of belittling them as being wrong.

Or continue to be a self-centered jerk.  Your call, I suppose.

[MerinTB]

TheMadCat wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

TheMadCat wrote...
What? Fallout 3 and Oblivion had full voice acting (Minus protaganist, but that's not the discussion here.)

Full voice acting minus the protagonist is a very big minus.

It absolutely is, but in this case we've gone beyond having no voice for the protagonist. I'm talking about cutting out voices for all major characters and big quests. Vendors, passer byes, dinky little quests those type of NPC's can be silent with text, freeing up more time and money for the important cast giving more dialogue trees which in turn means more meaningful conversations and choices. Hence why I was asking about games that went beyond the non-voiced protagonist.

Precisely.  Voice is good for cut-scenes with no interactions.
For dialog heavy with choice, it's a handicap.
It improves "cinematic" feel, sure, and for many players that may be more important - but not ALL players.

And you've got your cinematic all through ME - DA didn't need it.  DA was MORE successful with less cinematic.

How do these "cinematic-must-have" players handle books?  I wonder if they are the same people that that gimmicky "motion comic" stuff is marketed at.

[Addai]

Blessed Silence wrote...

TheMadCat wrote...

I'd love more text only dialogue that would expand player options and quality of the dialogue, unfortunately it's not practical in this day and age and I'm one of the few in that rare breed. Everything needs a voice these days, even the merchant whose only like is "What would you like?"

I think it was Adam Sessler who said many gamers now don't want to wade through pages of text.  If I want that I"ll read a book.

I like voice acting.  I believe ME2 was great in that with the movements and gestures so I really felt it when Shepard punched someone that I cringed.  To me that is part of a good game.

You can get the same emotional effect without a big splashy cinematic.  It is the story that moves me, not the effects.  If I want the experience you describe, I'd watch a movie.

Most cutscenes in DAO were boring, especially on replays.  Having to sit through even more, even longer ones, including having to listen to my own character every time I just want the game to advance... ugh.

Modifié par Addai67, 03 août 2010 - 02:46 .

[WilliamShatner]

How about more voice acting and more player options and game content?

[joriandrake]

MerinTB wrote...

SDNcN wrote...
They believe CRPGs should emulate PnP.
Then Bioware creates their own system instead of adapting one from PnP.

They like unvoiced lines because they are ambigous enough to allow them to imagine different tones and intent. Then Bioware adds voice acting and icons signifying intent behind each line.

They don't mind if their character is blank and emotionless during cutscenes.
Then Bioware shoots for a more cinematic experience in their games.

They want multiple races and origins even though it barely impacts the core content.
Then Bioware implements a fixed background and race.

They prefer pause and play.
Then Bioware focuses on improving the real time aspect of combat.

Blaming the influence of EA or the unwashed masses is preferable to the alternative, you know, that these things may actually be an improvement.

Now I wasn't blaming EA or any "unwashed masses" for anything here, but...

improvements?  By what standard?
Yours?
Why is your standard more relevant, more accurate, more right than mine?

Is it an improvement if chess were to suddenly include animated pieces on the board and a trivia quiz before each player got to make a move?  Some might find it to be, others would see it as taking away from what chess is.

Would it be an improvement if baseball added a fifth base, ten more players in the outfield, and a "hot potato" ball that you couldn't hold for more than 3 seconds before it started to burn you?

Would your breakfast be better if you had to do one hundred jumping jacks before you were allowed your coffee or juice?

Adding things or changing things doesn't necessarily make things better or worse, just DIFFERENT.  And for people who are happy with chess the way it is adding a trivia quiz aspect would ruin the game for them.

This is logic, logic that draws no conclusion OTHER THAN changing things for newer ideas is not automatically an improvement.

You use your own emotions and opinions and posit them as if they are fact.

Try to understand those your disagree with instead of belittling them as being wrong.

Or continue to be a self-centered jerk.  Your call, I suppose.

well said

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...

Now I wasn't blaming EA or any "unwashed masses" for anything here, but...

improvements?  By what standard?
Yours?
Why is your standard more relevant, more accurate, more right than mine?

That poster is saying precisely that they are subjective standards that could well be held by no one other than the developers at Bioware. Simply put, if Bioware happens to think these are all thinks that objectively make the game better, it is nonsensical to accuse them of "selling out" or "pandering to the masses" or anything other than designing the games which they want.

Look at their development history. Including BG, Bioware has had 3 isometric RPG series. It produced two (potentially three, depending on how you rank KoTOR) action RPGs. NWN is in its own weird class since it was designed more toward the multiplayer angle yet was also D&D and isometric.

After NWN, Bioware's development history was KoTOR, JE, ME. All games started prior to EA. The hated dialogue wheel, tigher narratives and no multiple races, fixed backgrounds (even the inevitable wheel of destinity and chosen protagonists in the case of KoTOR and JE) .

It's very clear that cinematic, interactive story is what Bioware has been moving toward in absence of EA since NWN was released.

So the counter-argument is that Bioware is not sitting in a board room, with some intention of screwing part of the market, but that they legitimately believe these things make their games better.

Now,something like Old Republic, that IMO is far more of an EA inspired product, because I would wager that independently Bioware would not have gone into MMOs at all. But that's just conjecture.

[TheMadCat]

WilliamShatner wrote...

How about more voice acting and more player options and game content?

That would be a great option once BioWare genetically creates a money tree or EA stops caring about profit. Until then though it's not a realistic option, just not financially plausible.

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Now I wasn't blaming EA or any "unwashed masses" for anything here, but...

improvements?  By what standard?
Yours?
Why is your standard more relevant, more accurate, more right than mine?

That poster is saying precisely that they are subjective standards that could well be held by no one other than the developers at Bioware. Simply put, if Bioware happens to think these are all thinks that objectively make the game better, it is nonsensical to accuse them of "selling out" or "pandering to the masses" or anything other than designing the games which they want.

Look at their development history. Including BG, Bioware has had 3 isometric RPG series. It produced two (potentially three, depending on how you rank KoTOR) action RPGs. NWN is in its own weird class since it was designed more toward the multiplayer angle yet was also D&D and isometric.

After NWN, Bioware's development history was KoTOR, JE, ME. All games started prior to EA. The hated dialogue wheel, tigher narratives and no multiple races, fixed backgrounds (even the inevitable wheel of destinity and chosen protagonists in the case of KoTOR and JE) .

It's very clear that cinematic, interactive story is what Bioware has been moving toward in absence of EA since NWN was released.

So the counter-argument is that Bioware is not sitting in a board room, with some intention of screwing part of the market, but that they legitimately believe these things make their games better.

Now,something like Old Republic, that IMO is far more of an EA inspired product, because I would wager that independently Bioware would not have gone into MMOs at all. But that's just conjecture.

Straw-man or non-sequitor.
You are going off on stuff I'm not addressing nor do I care about.
While it is your right to do that, and it fits more or less in this thread, why quote me when writing this?
It comes across to the casual reader as if I were blaiming EA or not understanding what BioWare's design decisions are...
which are not only inaccurate (I've not blamed EA once for anything short of killing Origin, but that was YEARS ago) but irrelevant to what your quoted from me.

To the point:

I reacted to the person I was quoting listing off a bunch of changes and then setting up a false dichotomy of "blaming EA and the unwashed masses" OR "the changes being improvements" - by arguing that changes aren't always improvements, especially since whether they are improvements or not are subjective.

You are responding to my attempt at saying there is not clear cut "this or that" by going back and attacking the "this" argument that I never postulated nor supported.

With you quoting me and responding to only PART of my post in an excessively out of context way, you have effectively set up a straw-man to argue against.  Whether you intended to or not.

At best, you did a non-sequitor.

In any case, your whole quoting of me and your response is one large logical fallacy.

[SDNcN]

Merin TB wrote...

You use your own emotions and opinions and posit them as if they are fact.

Try to understand those your disagree with instead of belittling them as being wrong.

Or continue to be a self-centered jerk.  Your call, I suppose.

Okay, this seriously made me laugh.

In Exile wrote...

So the counter-argument is that Bioware is not sitting in a board room, with some intention of screwing part of the market, but that they legitimately believe these things make their games better.

Pretty much this was the entire point of that post.
The devs wouldn't make changes like these if believed they were going in the wrong direction. If people can't see merits in the change, or don't want to, then obviously Bioware has a different idea of what is the right direction. Believing anything else is bound to end in constant disappointment.

[Haexpane]

Vicious wrote...

This discussion reminds me of people who read a book and then go watch the movie version and rage about all the stuff it was missing that could have been put in if the film directors did not decide to make XXX into YYY.

The arguments are pretty similar.

And the people who rage against the films ARE 100% Correct.

Go watch that horrible Ironman 2 movie, now go read the recent Iron Man comics, tell us which are better?

Read Watchmen, now watch the Watchmen film. IT's not because they "left something out" it's because of poor writing/directing/acting etc..

Even mainstream casual BS like "Marley and Me" is 10x better as a book.  Not because stuff was "left out" but because producers/writers/actors dumbed it down.

Even girl stuff like "SHopaholic"  my girlfriend tells me the film is so bad it makes her brain hurt.   SHe thought the film would be good because the book is not exactly LOTR, it's a book about some chick who has a shopping addiction and works for a financial firm.  How hard could it be?

Daredevil  - frank miller books vs. film

Batman - pick any movie, even TDK pales in comparison to any of the good batman books.


True Blood is one TV show I can think of that does the show really good and you can't say the books are that much better.

Walking Dead looks similar to Tru Blood, a show book fans will likely enjoy.

Most Harry Potter nerds enjoy the films and the books.

Most of us LOTRlosers enjoyed the films, I was not a big fan of the 2nd one, too much Snowboarding on shields by the Dorfs, and the whole, l;ets count how many darkspawn we kill and keep score was annoying

[Haexpane]

HTTP 404 wrote...

what does voice acting have to do with player options and game content?

The more VO scenes you have = less time spent on gameplay.

Mass Effect 2 is a great example.  Half of the game is standing around listening to someone complain.

[Haexpane]

Davasar wrote...
  to try to capture the Modern Warfare and Madden crowd because they buy lots of games.

So yeah, naturally that will make the people that have been loyal (perhaps up to now, having in their eyes been betrayed) Bioware customers a little testy.

actually the "madden crowd" is mostly hardcore NFL fans.  We are complaining because EA is always trying to make Madden "appeal to everyone" every year w/ horrible tacked on nonsense.

Madden is a lot like Dragon Age, it's a hardcore game for hardcore fans, but casuals like it sometimes, so EA is trying to chase those casuals.

Fools gold.

[Haexpane]

Vicious wrote...
  Mass Effect 2's DLC is thus far utterly superior to DA:O's.

WTF?  Garrus skin is superior to DAO DLC? I have to disagree.

Did you play Kasumi?  It's 1 hour long.

ME2 DLC and DAO DLC are about the same IMO, some good, some shallow

[Haexpane]

Massadonious1 wrote...

If people weren't reading books there wouldn't be a market for the Kindle or other e-readers.

Sorry, logic and reason have no place in this argument. It's all "Dur nobody reads NEmmoar! because I said so" type trolling here now.

[Pedrak]

HTTP 404 wrote...

what does voice acting have to do with player options and game content?

Voice over is expensive, both in terms of time and money. More voice over implies less dialogue options, and thus less content. Whether this is a worthy sacrifice for a more cinematic feeling, opinions differ.

Modifié par Pedrak, 03 août 2010 - 07:12 .

[Haexpane]

darth_lopez wrote...
 

i weep for my old Spectre gear i weep.. though i do have to say they designed the predator pistol pretty nicely  gotta give it to them for that. and the sniper rifle in the Aegis pack also looks nice. that and armor is now more distinctive (though i miss the plentifulness of the old armor)

I don't want to touch too much ME2, but the Aegis pack is completely overpowered and if you have a sniper build, the new sniper riffle is the best one I've used (first half of  game?)

The new armor immediately blows away the default armor, blood dragon, cerebus etc...

Basically another example of why ME2 is not really an RPG.  Even w/ the over powered Aegis pack, the combat feels the same at level 15 as it did at level 5

ME1 loot and inventory was broken, but if anything ME2 proves that "fixing" broken features by removing them completely actually changes the game's genre

[Lintanis]

 Be good in the game if a character had to use sign language to communicate 

[Haexpane]

darth_lopez wrote...

  games and films are now the primary method of story telling 

Absolutely not true.  Storytelling in games is in the infancy stage.  Some 14 year old bragging about COD rank is not a story.

The best stories in films are usually converted from a book.   Or loosely stolen from books.   There are "original screenplays" out there, but by and large, film is a book driven medium.

Sadly many stories get ruined in the film conversion, but some do ok.  Either way, without the books, stuff like LOTR, Harry Potter, Generation Kill etc.. would not exist.

This idea that fiction in book form is gone is not based on reality, only fear and major publisher sales reports.

[Haexpane]

darth_lopez wrote...

   now it's more like lower shields 1 cryo shot from predator 2 at most + Melee attack and insta kill. it's cool but sorta lame >.<

Yeah, combat is a 1 trick pony now.  You can either shield/cryo/kill or pretend you are not overpowered and just try and shoot.  Either way, ME2 has been dumbed down enough that even the primary focus, combat has been ruined by stripping out the RPG elements