313 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

jackkel dragon wrote...

Technical reasons are stupid?

This isn't a techincal reason.  There's no technical reason why they needed to use the wheel.

This is a UI decision, and it has potentially serious negative consequences for roleplaying.

[The Masked Rog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Same thing for 2D portraits. How can I roleplay properly if I can only select from a dozen or so appearances?

There was never so low a limit.  BG expressly permitted the importing of any appropriately sized image.  I have thousands of BG portraits handy right now.  I'm using one as an avatar on this very forum.

I was not aware of that, must remember to try it next time I go through.
Anyways, even if I could select from a wide range of portraits, as apparently is possible in BG, Dragon Age/MAss Effect system still feels more realist to me, thus allowing me to roleplay better.

[RyuAzai]

I think is awesome.



I really look forward to this feature. It is something I have thought about before, from playing Mass Effect. I am usually paragon, but in ME2 I could sound radically different when I took actions. (You're working too hard ;D )



Or when I am giving someone a hug. I really like the idea of the tone tracker, and how it is being placed within. I don't think it restricts role-play in the least. You -are- making the choices. If you play jokingly your character will react like that, if you play as a savior your character will talk more like that.... It is in the end the players choices which decides the tone.

[Miobako]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Miobako wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...


That's not a failing of the system, nor a failure of roleplaying. It's a stylistic concern facilitating a different type of interaction within an RPG.I see the advantages of having a non-voiced system, but also see the benefits of a voiced system.

We didn't explicitly get to choose the tone of our voice for the big decisions in DAO (or almost any CRPG in existence), we had to imagine it. To argue this is "better" is personal opinion, nothing more. I even like having a non-voiced protagonist, but that doesn't mean I'll staunchly support it and declare that anything else "removes roleplaying", because that's simply not true. It's very much a case of "can't see the forest for the trees", in that you're focusing so intently on one aspect of the game that you're not looking at the whole picture.

Lastly, I also think that the complaints that ME's system is "unpredictable" are pretty much outright ridiculous. Once I had made my first "wrong" decision because I didn't know top=paragon and bottom=renegade, Shepard never reacted in a way that I didn't really expect. And none of the interrupts in ME2 did something that I wasn't expecting.

Having a voiced over PC is a critical failure of the system, you are not anymore role-playing yourself-projected-in-that-world, you are identifying yourself with someone else, you play someone who is supposed to be you, but can sentimentally express himself independently to some degree, and voice is a very basic way to identify something as someone-else, something outside of ourself.

When Neverwinters Nights 2 came out, many people were asking for a way to use 2d portraits for their characters, the problems being that they couldn't even identify with their 3d portraits, and Obsidian did patch it and made it possible.

It's all about how someone perceive role-playing, but I think it's about time that Bioware stops using the RPG label and invent something else for their games, something about the cinematic experience they are so proud of.

I fail to see how having a voiced protagonist makes it hard to roleplay. For me what stops roleplaying is having my character stare blankly at someone speaking to it. Same thing for 2D portraits. How can I roleplay properly if I can only select from a dozen or so appearances? That worked well for BG because the alternative was going by a sprite that was only dependent on race. Everytime I play BG I get the feeling that I've already played the character before. Not so with dragon age or mass effect, each character feels unique because of the appearance. While I wouldn't mind having more than one voice type, I think the voice allows me to roleplay the character more easily.

Having a VO PC made it hard for me to role-play myself as I project myself in the game world. When the VO PC speaks,it stops to be me, it's me and some other voice I can't identify with. It's like someone else is speaking for me. It prevents me from being myself and going deeper in that experience with myself role-playing in this new world full of adventures. I want to role-play myself as I choos eto do, not some other character.

[The Masked Rog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

jackkel dragon wrote...

Technical reasons are stupid?

This isn't a techincal reason.  There's no technical reason why they needed to use the wheel.

This is a UI decision, and it has potentially serious negative consequences for roleplaying.

At worst the wheel offers the some option as Dragon Age. At best it offers more, right? Now, I think too many option kind of break the immersion because you are forced to pause and read through a big list of choices, which sometimes are different to distinguish.

[The Masked Rog]

Miobako wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Miobako wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...


That's not a failing of the system, nor a failure of roleplaying. It's a stylistic concern facilitating a different type of interaction within an RPG.I see the advantages of having a non-voiced system, but also see the benefits of a voiced system.

We didn't explicitly get to choose the tone of our voice for the big decisions in DAO (or almost any CRPG in existence), we had to imagine it. To argue this is "better" is personal opinion, nothing more. I even like having a non-voiced protagonist, but that doesn't mean I'll staunchly support it and declare that anything else "removes roleplaying", because that's simply not true. It's very much a case of "can't see the forest for the trees", in that you're focusing so intently on one aspect of the game that you're not looking at the whole picture.

Lastly, I also think that the complaints that ME's system is "unpredictable" are pretty much outright ridiculous. Once I had made my first "wrong" decision because I didn't know top=paragon and bottom=renegade, Shepard never reacted in a way that I didn't really expect. And none of the interrupts in ME2 did something that I wasn't expecting.

Having a voiced over PC is a critical failure of the system, you are not anymore role-playing yourself-projected-in-that-world, you are identifying yourself with someone else, you play someone who is supposed to be you, but can sentimentally express himself independently to some degree, and voice is a very basic way to identify something as someone-else, something outside of ourself.

When Neverwinters Nights 2 came out, many people were asking for a way to use 2d portraits for their characters, the problems being that they couldn't even identify with their 3d portraits, and Obsidian did patch it and made it possible.

It's all about how someone perceive role-playing, but I think it's about time that Bioware stops using the RPG label and invent something else for their games, something about the cinematic experience they are so proud of.

I fail to see how having a voiced protagonist makes it hard to roleplay. For me what stops roleplaying is having my character stare blankly at someone speaking to it. Same thing for 2D portraits. How can I roleplay properly if I can only select from a dozen or so appearances? That worked well for BG because the alternative was going by a sprite that was only dependent on race. Everytime I play BG I get the feeling that I've already played the character before. Not so with dragon age or mass effect, each character feels unique because of the appearance. While I wouldn't mind having more than one voice type, I think the voice allows me to roleplay the character more easily.

Having a VO PC made it hard for me to role-play myself as I project myself in the game world. When the VO PC speaks,it stops to be me, it's me and some other voice I can't identify with. It's like someone else is speaking for me. It prevents me from being myself and going deeper in that experience with myself role-playing in this new world full of adventures. I want to role-play myself as I choos eto do, not some other character.

I see your point, and understand that to some people it can be a limitation to roleplay. I do not tend to project my voice into the game, partly because I am not a native speaker. For people who don't project their voices into the game, having one side speaking and another just standing there while you pick an option really breaks immersion. You don't seem to be cotrolling a character, but rather just picking lines of text. Different styles of play, I reckon.

[The Interloper]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But at the same time, contrary steps are being taken.  I want to draw attention to those, because they're not obvious.

If by contrary, do you mean the inherant flaws of voice acting? More cost means less lines and therefore choices? (If not, sorry.)If so, I wouldn't exactly call those contrary steps. Voice acting has inherant weaknessess compared to text, in exchange for other benefits. It's a trade off, not a simotaneous progression-regression(well, technically it's they're the same, but a trade off is intentional). As I see it, anyways.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

 But then, aribitrarily, on some choices we don't get to select tone.  Why?  Why do we even need the dominant tone system to select tone for us?  Why not just let us select the tone ourselves?  The different tones already exist in the game, so there's no development cost associated with letting us choose. 

I'm afraid I have no good answer for that. Logically, it must be because they think an under-the-hood system  is more effecient, or a player-controlled system would take too much time and effort, or something else economical. You can take it up with them, I guess.

Voice acting restricts matters. I like ME's cinematic feel alot, and I won't deny that. But after playing both mass effect games and noting the weaknesses, I'm happy with any sort of improvement. If you still aren't satisfied, well, sometimes you just have to run with it. But the fact that they aren't content with sticking with the ME system shows, I think, that Bioware will continue to improve on the voice acting.

As for the wheel, it's designed for the consol, plain and simple. While I agree it has weaknesses, I do think that any "pick the response before the guy stops talking" game should have some sort of set-up where you can tell what tone a response is by the position.

[jackkel dragon]

I'd also like to add my voice to the argument that if NPCs are voiced, the PC should be as well. It's a bit jarring when we get to hear a conversation going on, then suddenly everyone is reacting to a voice no one heard.

I also like no-VO protagonists, before people try to dismiss my opinions. The Maimed God Saga for NWN2 has no voice over (except for battle soundsets, recycled from NWN2 resources.) Because no one was voiced, it was easier to leave the protagonist unvoiced.

My point is, a game should either be fully voiced (like Mass Effect) or minimal voicing (like BG2) or none at all (most old games.) DA2 has been decided to be a fully-voiced game, so BioWare has created the tone and dominant personality system so that the players have more control over the protagonist than most voiced games. (In ME, "tones" were simplistic and had little effect on the protagonist's personality.)

Edit: I say this because I think the hardcore roleplayers are blowing this out of proportion. It's a different kind of roleplaying, sure, but it's still the BioWare style of roleplaying. For example, there are games with little to no roleplaying (such as Halo.) Then there are games with RPG elements that allow some control over the pace of the story (such as Final Fantasy.) There are also games that allow the player to do what they will, and some of them are advertsised as freeform, the RPGs here are focused on letting the player choose who they are (such as Morrowind.) There are others, but the last I will mention here is what I call the BioWare style of RPG: a strong central story with a partially predefined character that can be customized through stats and choices.

I'm not saying people in this thread are saying this, but some people are acting as if the BioWare style has been dropped for DA2. I haven't yet seen people accuse DA2 of being like Halo, but people are acting like the protagonist is as impossible to identify with as some leads from Final Fantasy games. Hawke is BioWare's character, but they are letting us define her. Just like Revan, the Bhaalspawn, and the academy student. The only difference is that BioWare is defining this character more to allow players to become as immersed in the game as one would be immersed in a good movie. This contrasts with BG2's minimal voiced approach, which is more like a novel, but it is still the BioWare style.

Modifié par jackkel dragon, 24 août 2010 - 11:12 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

RyuAzai wrote...

It is in the end the players choices which decides the tone.

Indirectly, yes.  I think direct control would be better.

The Masked Rog wrote...

At worst the wheel offers the some option as Dragon Age. At best it offers more, right?

No.  Because the PC is voiced DA2 will necessary offer fewer choices than DAO.  In DAO you could deliver a line in literally any manner you could imagine.  DA2 limits you to the deliveries they record.

Now, that's a necessary consequence of voicing the PC.  I get that.  What I'm complaining about here is that we're not even allowed to choose from among all of the versions in the game.  On action choices, we're limited to the deliveries selected by the game's dominant tone system.  This is my complaint.

The Interloper wrote...

If by contrary, do you mean the inherant flaws of voice acting?

No, I mean the use of the dominant tone system.  If, instead, BioWare just let us choose the tone directly we'd have more control over our characters.

There's no reason not to let us do that unless feel its somehow important to limit us to 6 options at a time (and if they are, I'd like to hear why, but that hasn't been made clear by the developers at all).

You can take it up with them, I guess.

That's what I'm trying to do.

As for the wheel, it's designed for the consol, plain and simple. While I agree it has weaknesses, I do think that any "pick the response before the guy stops talking" game should have some sort of set-up where you can tell what tone a response is by the position.

Do people actually pick their responses before the other guy stops talking?

I never do.  I want to know exactly what he said and how he said it before I make any decisions.

jackkel dragon wrote...

DA2 has been decided to be a fully-voiced game, so BioWare has created the tone and dominant personality system so that the players have more control over the protagonist than most voiced games.

True, but if they'd just gone with the tone selection and skipped the dominant personality system it would be even better.

This is my point.

[In Exile]

Miobako wrote...

Having a voiced over PC is a critical failure of the system, you are not anymore role-playing yourself-projected-in-that-world, you are identifying yourself with someone else, you play someone who is supposed to be you, but can sentimentally express himself independently to some degree, and voice is a very basic way to identify something as someone-else, something outside of ourself.

I disagree.  We never have a voice in the RPG. We have the choice of picking the preset option created by the writers. For whatever reason, some people feel as if that voice is devoid of tone. I do not see it that way. The line has the tone envisioned by the author for the effect it produces. The oft-quoted reply to this is that the other character can simply be dramatically socially incapable and constantly misunderstands you, but to me that is just an empty rationalization.

What matters is the matching the intention with the line, and effecting change in the game world, and the game being reactive. The game is far more reactive to you with VO than without VO, and the intention system is being well implemented (it seems) in DA2. So I have to vehemtly disagree with you.

When Neverwinters Nights 2 came out, many people were asking for a way to use 2d portraits for their characters, the problems being that they couldn't even identify with their 3d portraits, and Obsidian did patch it and made it possible.

I am the opposite. I cannot identify with 2D portraits - those are designed by some artist, and it has the essence and personality of the artist. The face I generate myself, even if the facial morph software is poor, is the face I feel is mine, because I shaped it. That kind of ownership is powerful.

It's all about how someone perceive role-playing, but I think it's about time that Bioware stops using the RPG label and invent something else for their games, something about the cinematic experience they are so proud of.

See, I disagree with you completely. Precisely the things you say ought to make me feel like I am less able to project in the game world, in fact make me more likely to feel like I can project in the game world. The voice of the character is never my own - the silent dialogue is nothing like what I would say, any more than the voiced dialogue is. So the presence or absence of a voice does nothing.

Modifié par In Exile, 25 août 2010 - 12:44 .

[Riona45]

Also, I tend not to play my PCs as "me, in a fantasy world." I have a character that has some elements of myself in them, but they are still different. Therefore, I already see them as outside of myself.

Modifié par Riona45, 25 août 2010 - 12:53 .

[Riona45]

In Exile wrote...
The oft-quoted reply to this is that the other character can simply be dramatically socially incapable and constantly misunderstands you, but to me that is just an empty rationalization.

I agree.  If that scenario played out in real life, you could correct the person who misunderstood you.  In RPGs, you usually cannot.

[In Exile]

Riona45 wrote...

I agree.  If that scenario played out in real life, you could correct the person who misunderstood you.  In RPGs, you usually cannot.

Not only that, but no one misunderstands you half the time. Either there is something dramatically wrong how you speak or they listen, but something uncommon is going on to be misunderstood so often.

Usually it's a matter of a lack of general social functionality, but in video-games where you see the other person portrayed as not being completely incapable of reading social situations, it draws the inference on there being something wrong with you as the player. Though I don't think most people take the reasoning that far.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

True, but if they'd just gone with the tone selection and skipped the dominant personality system it would be even better.

This is my point.

To be honest, I do see a value in a dominant personality system for some facets of the game. For example, for the VO we had in DA, getting up from battle, going places, etc. I think adding a flavour choice based on what you've shown so far is reasonable and no different from picking the option at the character creation menu.

It's hard to speak about whether or not the dominat personality works without seeing the dialogue. I see your concerns, and lean toward wanting to pick my tone at all times, but I am still confused by what the action choice means, and really do want to wait until I have the game in hand to judge.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Not only that, but no one misunderstands you half the time.

The in-game characters misunderstand me far less often than that, but even so you have a far different experience of the real world than I do.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The in-game characters misunderstand me far less often than that, but even so you have a far different experience of the real world than I do.

I was exaggerating a little, to be fair. Still, whenver you had the choice to make an assertion in game, half the time I felt (though the actual rate was likely much lower) that I was misunderstood. Sarcasm played straight, lines I played straight taken to either be sarcastic or sexual, very confusing.

Sometimes I think we have different base rates for failure. I'm very much a fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants, gist-of-things type of person, and I think we have a different standard of success.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In the real world I often say things straight just to see how people take them.  That way I let them drive the conversation (something I'd rather not do myself).
 
Playing DAO (or KotOR, or BG) works exactly like that.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 25 août 2010 - 03:35 .

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In the real world I often say things straight just to see how people take them. That way I let them drive the conversation (something I'd rather not do myself). Playing DAO (or KotOR, or BG) works exactly like that.

You've spoken on this topic before, and you've mentioned how you act in real life.  Fair enough, but if you don't see why other people would play the game differently, doesn't that make you not so different from those who hold the position you seem to be arguing against?  For example, just because you would choose never to correct those who misunderstand you doesn't mean the option shouldn't be there for those who would use it.

Modifié par Riona45, 25 août 2010 - 03:38 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In the real world I often say things straight just to see how people take them.  That way I let them drive the conversation (something I'd rather not do myself).

Wait, you intentionally make the conversation confusing and force people to read into what you're doing? That might explain your experience of misunderstandings.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Wait, you intentionally make the conversation confusing and force people to read into what you're doing? That might explain your experience of misunderstandings.

I'm not forcing them to do anything.  I'm giving them a remark that has clear denotative meaning.  What they do with it is up to them.

By removing the interpretive part of my end of the conversation, I would argue I'm making it less confusing and easier to understand.  And yet they only improve at interpretation if I explicitly tell them what I've done (and even then they'll still screw it up some of the time).

But if I don't include that interpretive content, then I know I haven't included it poorly, and I know that I'm not trying to convey information in a way I can't defend.  Plus, it tends to produce the behaviour I want (the other people driving the conversation).

You've mentioned before that you don't like an unvoiced PC because it makes you feel like a passive participant in the conversation.  But I want to feel like a passive participant in the conversation.  Those are the conversations in which I am most comfortable.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 25 août 2010 - 04:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riona45 wrote...

You've spoken on this topic before, and you've mentioned how you act in real life.  Fair enough, but if you don't see why other people would play the game differently, doesn't that make you not so different from those who hold the position you seem to be arguing against?  For example, just because you would choose never to correct those who misunderstand you doesn't mean the option shouldn't be there for those who would use it.

Yes.

As it happens, you'd have less need to correct these misunderstandings if you were allowed to choose your character's tone directly rather than relying on the dominant tone system.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...



As it happens, you'd have less need to correct these misunderstandings if you were allowed to choose your character's tone directly rather than relying on the dominant tone system.

DA2 does let you choose your tone though, for the most part.  Only on occasion does the dominant tone come into play, and it's based on what you've chosen before. 

And that's coming from someone who is hardly an apologist for the dominant tone concept (consider me as someone willing to try it).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riona45 wrote...

DA2 does let you choose your tone though, for the most part.

Yes, for the most part.

I think we should get to do it all of the time, not just most of the time.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, for the most part.

I think we should get to do it all of the time, not just most of the time.

I agree, but like I said, I'm willing to *try* this new system out.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'll play the game, sure, but this seems like such an obvious decision. I can't imagine how they made it.