735 réponses à ce sujet

[FieryDove]

FedericoV wrote...
I think that silent protagonist is outdated, I do not care about elves and dwarves (I would love a fantasy setting that avoid them in any way or form) and I think that origins was mostly a waste of develepoment resources, since they do not add anything to the core of the game (even if they were really interesting and well written: a great way to understand Thedas better).

So you want a fantasy game, but are happy if you can only play humans? Or am I not understanding you....again.

Fantasy to me is more interesting when I can be something other than human. So many games out there as human, its just so been there done that. Now I'm not saying Hawke won't be interesting but human only does limit role-playing for me as well as replay-ability. imho
I need more coffee methinks.

In Exile wrote...

I played around with a 2-handed warrior on a speed-run recently. I use to think they were absolute garbage. They're really not. They just need to be buffed right and have the right specs, i.e. a full on strength dump. Some of their abilities that hit twice are absolutely devastating.

I should really try a two-hander myself. All I've had to go by is Sten and Oghren and franky they are slow even hasted. Not to mention the constant out of stamina whiffing. I really don't see the need for them, in most of my playthroughs a better tank is board/sword and Alistair does it wonderfully, even if I play a S&B as well. (I usally play DW however, rogue or warrior.)

I can say Ali and myself can out damge and out kill either one of them, if they are hasted so are we which makes the disparity remain. imho again.

[In Exile]

FieryDove wrote...
I should really try a two-hander myself. All I've had to go by is Sten and Oghren and franky they are slow even hasted. Not to mention the constant out of stamina whiffing.

You have to power-game a 2-hander to make him or her useful. To start, absolutely every stat beside strength is a dump stat. This will rapidly correct their miss rate. With the right combination of items and the Fade bonuses you need very few points into any non-STR ability.

You have to be careful with the sustains that you use. You want indominable active + the other dmg oriented skills to micromanage (you have to use them constantly to make your damage worthwhile) because auto-attack is weak by comparison.

I really don't see the need for them, in most of my playthroughs a better tank is board/sword and Alistair does it wonderfully, even if I play a S&B as well. (I usally play DW however, rogue or warrior.)

That was, again, my initial opinion. I still think S&B is superior to a 2-hander, but I think that a 2-hander is viable if built right. You can easily hit for 100+ dmg with the right build.

They are hard to use, though, and other classes are better (S&B str builds have awesome damage and are indestructible, for example).

[Kilshrek]

Maverick827 wrote...

The silent, passive protagonist is a construct of the past's limited technology, not a specifically chosen narrative technique. By and large a voiced character, who can take the center stage and actually act as a protagonist, is simply a better way to tell a story.
If you happened upon Tolkien working on a rough draft of Lord of the Rings using the first person voice, you would undoubtedly say to him "You know, you might want to look into third person omniscient, it's probably a better storytelling method for what you're trying to do."

I like the presumption on Tolkien here. The Silmarillion was also written in the third person, but was about as readable as your regular religious text. Who are we to say that the Lord of the Rings told through Frodo's or even Sam's eyes would not be just as influential?

I don't believe that the silent protagonist is 'ancient' as you would like to call it. Otherwise why would the most popular FPS games in the world use a silent, passive protagonist? They could just as easily have shoe horned the player into a certain type of character and left it at that. edit here: I realise mentioning FPS games in an RPG-centric discussion is rather silly but I am trying to point out that a fully acted out protagonist is not the key element to a good story.

When one reads a book, a protagonist is by necessity an active character, he or she is what the writer decides. RPG's on the other hand have protagonists that are what the player makes of them. Some players enjoy their silent protagonists, having a voice does not immediately mean a better story. Looking back at books, one does not know how a character sounds, that sort of thing can be described to narrow it down, but ultimately is left to the imagination of the reader. That same concept surely applies to the silent protagonist, where the player imagines what their character sounds like. In the same way dialogue options are given, some players choose the text that best fits how they imagine their character to be, and fill in the voice with their imagination. Not everyone who plays RPG's likes a voiced character, and just because you say a voiced character makes for a better story telling method doesn't make it true for others.

I would ask for proof as to how a voiced character immediately makes for a better story, but you proof is not my proof as the matter is subjective, so sweeping statements like that really don't work as well as you would imagine. I admit that it worked wonderfully well with Mass Effect, but was not Fallout 3 just as popular, and with a silent protagonist? (Mind you I dislike Fallout 3 but not because of the protagonist issue)

Modifié par Kilshrek, 08 octobre 2010 - 02:44 .

[In Exile]

FieryDove wrote...

So you want a fantasy game, but are happy if you can only play humans? Or am I not understanding you....again.

Fantasy to me is more interesting when I can be something other than human. So many games out there as human, its just so been there done that. Now I'm not saying Hawke won't be interesting but human only does limit role-playing for me as well as replay-ability. imho
I need more coffee methinks.

To me, dwarves and elves are just funny looking humans. They have our society, our social norms, our basic psychology, etc. The only thing that distinguishes them in a fantasy setting from humans is that they look diferent, but essentially that is just a cosmetic difference.

I would argue what is alluring about fantasy is the supernatural and magical aspect of it, not the fact that you have non-human humans.

[Mecha Tengu]

FieryDove wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
I think that silent protagonist is outdated, I do not care about elves and dwarves (I would love a fantasy setting that avoid them in any way or form) and I think that origins was mostly a waste of develepoment resources, since they do not add anything to the core of the game (even if they were really interesting and well written: a great way to understand Thedas better).

So you want a fantasy game, but are happy if you can only play humans? Or am I not understanding you....again.

he wants a fantasy without the same old recycled tolkien crap. Dwarves have axes and live underground, elves love the woods and pew pew legolax arrows shoot shoot, mages, orcs... errr whoops sorry DARKSPAWN lul.

Modifié par Mecha Tengu, 08 octobre 2010 - 02:45 .

[Sidney]

SXOSXO wrote...

And as far as the dialogue wheel, how does it make any difference whether your options are in a list or a circle? I fail to see the issue with it.

I think the fear is that the wheel takes away the thinking behind the decisions if it's anything like ME where "good" decisions are colored differently than "evil" decisions. So rather than players actually deciding for themselves, they choose the decision that best reflects the type of character they're playing i.e. good vs. evil.

No, Renegade and Paragon options were in Red and Blue just like Persuade and Intimiedate options were flagged in DAO because functionally those are the same things- Paragon and Renegade are "skills" you unlock just like Persuasion. You either didn't play or didn't under the what you were doing.

[Maverick827]

Kilshrek wrote...

Who are we to say that the Lord of the Rings told through Frodo's or even Sam's eyes would not be just as influential?

John Gardner? 

[In Exile]

Kilshrek wrote...

I would ask for proof as to how a voiced character immediately makes for a better story, but you proof is not my proof as the matter is subjective, so sweeping statements like that really don't work as well as you would imagine. I admit that it worked wonderfully well with Mass Effect, but was not Fallout 3 just as popular, and with a silent protagonist? (Mind you I dislike Fallout 3 but not because of the protagonist issue)

VO makes a different kind of protagonist possible. Let me give you an example:

Following the human noble origin, you meet Cailan with Duncan. Following the basic introduction, you have the opportunity to mention Howe's attack. Your options are (to paraphrase):  (i) father is dead; (ii) father won't be coming any time soon; (iii) third option I can't recall (lol). Then, Cailin turns to Duncan and asks him to explain. Duncan is the one that relates the story to Cailan.

Who drives the interaction in this scene? Cailan and (to an extent) Duncan. You, as the PC, are a passive background figure.

Prior to the battle for Denerim, it is Alistair or Anora who gives the rousing heroic speech.

Or to take another example: despite being the leader of the party in KoTOR, at the dramatic endgame, it is either Carth or Bastila who speaks for you.

A story can be cinematic and dynamic; but a silent PC has to be a set piece in all of these scenes. The game forces you to be passive, and that is an (subjectively) makes for a much weaker and less interesting story.

If you like an active kind of protagonist, then VO makes for a better game, because you trade one restriction (the inability to have a character that you want) for one that is less aggravating (less superflous character options).

[Sidney]

FieryDove wrote...

So you want a fantasy game, but are happy if you can only play humans? Or am I not understanding you....again.

.

Does it really matter? As others have said, the racial choices are almost wholly cosmetic in most games. It was 100% meaningless in BG2. In DAO the dwarves are meaningless but at least the elves got a little hatred towards them so they did feel a bit different but even then most of that went nowhere.

I'd be fine with not playing a human and only playing an elf if I could get a deeper story where that elvish nature had a bigger and substantive effect on the story.

[Herr Uhl]

FieryDove wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
I think that silent protagonist is outdated, I do not care about elves and dwarves (I would love a fantasy setting that avoid them in any way or form) and I think that origins was mostly a waste of develepoment resources, since they do not add anything to the core of the game (even if they were really interesting and well written: a great way to understand Thedas better).

So you want a fantasy game, but are happy if you can only play humans? Or am I not understanding you....again.

Fantasy to me is more interesting when I can be something other than human. So many games out there as human, its just so been there done that. Now I'm not saying Hawke won't be interesting but human only does limit role-playing for me as well as replay-ability. imho
I need more coffee methinks.

Well, fantasy to me is about having fantastical elements. If they make human cultures diverse enough I wouldn't miss other races overly much.

I like having different starting points, but I see the merits of a more centered story.

[TimelordDC]

Maverick827 wrote...

The silent, passive protagonist is a construct of the past's limited technology, not a specifically chosen narrative technique. By and large a voiced character, who can take the center stage and actually act as a protagonist, is simply a better way to tell a story.

If all I wanted was someone to tell me a story, I would listen to an audiobook. The plot of the game is set but how the story unfolds is left to the character.

While I completely agree that a fixed protagonist results in a much more cohesive story, voice-over is not justified becaue of that. If I don't know what my character is going to say except that it will be in line with a short phrase I select, thats when it starts to lose the charm for me. After all, it is my character and I want to know what he is going to say before he says it.

[Kilshrek]

In Exile wrote...

VO makes a different kind of protagonist possible. Let me give you an example:

Following the human noble origin, you meet Cailan with Duncan. Following the basic introduction, you have the opportunity to mention Howe's attack. Your options are (to paraphrase):  (i) father is dead; (ii) father won't be coming any time soon; (iii) third option I can't recall (lol). Then, Cailin turns to Duncan and asks him to explain. Duncan is the one that relates the story to Cailan.

Who drives the interaction in this scene? Cailan and (to an extent) Duncan. You, as the PC, are a passive background figure.

Prior to the battle for Denerim, it is Alistair or Anora who gives the rousing heroic speech.

Or to take another example: despite being the leader of the party in KoTOR, at the dramatic endgame, it is either Carth or Bastila who speaks for you.

A story can be cinematic and dynamic; but a silent PC has to be a set piece in all of these scenes. The game forces you to be passive, and that is an (subjectively) makes for a much weaker and less interesting story.

If you like an active kind of protagonist, then VO makes for a better game, because you trade one restriction (the inability to have a character that you want) for one that is less aggravating (less superflous character options).

Well yes, but I did ask how did it make a game immediately better? Like you said, there is a trade off involved. I am only saying that some people like the silent protagonist, and some people don't.

But in response to your meeting Cailan scene, Cailan responds to the dialogue options you pick. In terms of the scene playing out of course your character seems like a mere prop but the responses from Cailan and Duncan are to your choices. For example when Duncan suggests you move on, picking the "A hot meal first would be nice" option gets you a chuckle and a response. None of the other options do. Would it be any weaker than if the PC had a dialogue wheel option saying "I'm hungry" and then hearing "A hot meal first would be nice"?

In terms of interactivity between characters I imagine a voiced character and Duncan would make it a more cinematic sort of experience where the player is involved in an interactive film, but like I said earlier, this isn't what everyone wants in their RPGs. I personally sit on the fence, I have no disagreement with either way of presenting the character but I do dislike the way the silent protagonist is immediately seen as a weak form of story telling.

@Maverick

I mean no disrespect, but I have never heard of John Gardner. But I do not call myself a well read person as well. Point me to some of his works, if you may be so generous.

Modifié par Kilshrek, 08 octobre 2010 - 03:08 .

[Urazz]

In Exile wrote...

FieryDove wrote...
I should really try a two-hander myself. All I've had to go by is Sten and Oghren and franky they are slow even hasted. Not to mention the constant out of stamina whiffing.

You have to power-game a 2-hander to make him or her useful. To start, absolutely every stat beside strength is a dump stat. This will rapidly correct their miss rate. With the right combination of items and the Fade bonuses you need very few points into any non-STR ability.

You have to be careful with the sustains that you use. You want indominable active + the other dmg oriented skills to micromanage (you have to use them constantly to make your damage worthwhile) because auto-attack is weak by comparison.

I really don't see the need for them, in most of my playthroughs a better tank is board/sword and Alistair does it wonderfully, even if I play a S&B as well. (I usally play DW however, rogue or warrior.)

That was, again, my initial opinion. I still think S&B is superior to a 2-hander, but I think that a 2-hander is viable if built right. You can easily hit for 100+ dmg with the right build.

They are hard to use, though, and other classes are better (S&B str builds have awesome damage and are indestructible, for example).

Yeah, you put most of your points in strength and the fade bonuses do minimize the amount of points you need to put into the other stats.  At the most I only get 20 constitution and 20 to 30 willpower in Origins.  In Awakening, I up the willpower to 40 on some playthroughs but leave the constitution the same and get both the stamin and hp talents so I can spam alot more abilities.

I mainly spam sunder armor and sunder arms with the occasional critical strike or mighty blow (or peon's blight in awakening or beyond).  The only real sustainable I have active is indomitable, I'll occasionally have blood thirst on if my warrior doesn't have aggro and his health is fine or will have beyond the veil on in awakening if I have plenty of stamina.

Personally, I find 2handers to be middle of the road in both damage and tanking so I find it best to use them to cover in a role when needed like if you main tank is getting hammered and needs a respite to heal, you can taunt the targets real quick and keep them busy till the tank is ready.  Not to mention 2hander warriors are also the best melee dps you can have on dragons and other big creatures that like to knock people down.

I usually pick the templar and champion specializations so my 2hander warrior also has more CC available. For a 3rd specialization, I usually go with Spirit Warrior but have went with Guardian when I decide to have my 2hander warrior tank full time.

[Urazz]

Kilshrek wrote...

In Exile wrote...

VO makes a different kind of protagonist possible. Let me give you an example:

Following the human noble origin, you meet Cailan with Duncan. Following the basic introduction, you have the opportunity to mention Howe's attack. Your options are (to paraphrase):  (i) father is dead; (ii) father won't be coming any time soon; (iii) third option I can't recall (lol). Then, Cailin turns to Duncan and asks him to explain. Duncan is the one that relates the story to Cailan.

Who drives the interaction in this scene? Cailan and (to an extent) Duncan. You, as the PC, are a passive background figure.

Prior to the battle for Denerim, it is Alistair or Anora who gives the rousing heroic speech.

Or to take another example: despite being the leader of the party in KoTOR, at the dramatic endgame, it is either Carth or Bastila who speaks for you.

A story can be cinematic and dynamic; but a silent PC has to be a set piece in all of these scenes. The game forces you to be passive, and that is an (subjectively) makes for a much weaker and less interesting story.

If you like an active kind of protagonist, then VO makes for a better game, because you trade one restriction (the inability to have a character that you want) for one that is less aggravating (less superflous character options).

Well yes, but I did ask how did it make a game immediately better? Like you said, there is a trade off involved. I am only saying that some people like the silent protagonist, and some people don't.

But in response to your meeting Cailan scene, Cailan responds to the dialogue options you pick. In terms of the scene playing out of course your character seems like a mere prop but the responses from Cailan and Duncan are to your choices. For example when Duncan suggests you move on, picking the "A hot meal first would be nice" option gets you a chuckle and a response. None of the other options do. Would it be any weaker than if the PC had a dialogue wheel option saying "I'm hungry" and then hearing "A hot meal first would be nice"?

In terms of interactivity between characters I imagine a voiced character and Duncan would make it a more cinematic sort of experience where the player is involved in an interactive film, but like I said earlier, this isn't what everyone wants in their RPGs. I personally sit on the fence, I have no disagreement with either way of presenting the character but I do dislike the way the silent protagonist is immediately seen as a weak form of story telling.

@Maverick

I mean no disrespect, but I have never heard of John Gardner. But I do not call myself a well read person as well. Point me to some of his works, if you may be so generous.

Well, they could easily make several origins all voiced uniquely (if needed) but that would be very expensive and I doubt it would get bioware that much more sales.

Personally, I prefer a voiced PC character.  Games nowadays are becoming more cinematic in experience and having a voiced PC character completes that kind of experience I think.

Having a silent PC just detracts from that now.  It was one of my minor gripes about DA:O.  I was getting this fairly cinematic experience but it was detracted from the silent PC character.  It's partly why I like ME2 more than DA:O in some aspects.

[ErichHartmann]

I am looking forward to a voiced protagonist. As much as I love older RPGs, having a voiced character makes me feel immersed in the story. I think losing multiple origins is a small sacrifice to pay for a much more focused storyline.



/personal opinion

[Kilshrek]

Urazz wrote...
Well, they could easily make several origins all voiced uniquely (if needed) but that would be very expensive and I doubt it would get bioware that much more sales.

Personally, I prefer a voiced PC character.  Games nowadays are becoming more cinematic in experience and having a voiced PC character completes that kind of experience I think.

Having a silent PC just detracts from that now.  It was one of my minor gripes about DA:O.  I was getting this fairly cinematic experience but it was detracted from the silent PC character.  It's partly why I like ME2 more than DA:O in some aspects.

And we come back to personal taste. Like you said, it would be unfeasible for Bioware to voice all Origins, since it would take 12 voice actors in all to voice a crap load of lines. Would DAO have sold less or more if it had a voiced protagonist? I can't say, but I can say that many (I will not say most) bought it in the belief that it was the spiritual successor to BG. Just like many bought Supreme Commander in the belief that it was the spiritual successor to Total Annihilation. Whether or not these games kept true to the spirit of their predecessors is not something we need to discuss here though.

In dialogue scenes where the PC and an NPC share the immediate screen space and when the player picks a dialogue option, the silence and immediate response of the NPC is slightly jolting but the experience is not one that I would count against an RPG. As I've said earlier some times the beauty of playing an RPG, and especially an RPG with a silent protagonist is that the PC is whatever the player makes of them. Their voice, their tone, is exactly the way the player imagines. Granted the dialogue choices force players to pick between several responses but the character is played by the player. Some people love to use their imagination to fill in the blanks, while others like them filled in. Is one form superior to the other?

[Brockololly]

TimelordDC wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

The silent, passive protagonist is a construct of the past's limited technology, not a specifically chosen narrative technique. By and large a voiced character, who can take the center stage and actually act as a protagonist, is simply a better way to tell a story.

If all I wanted was someone to tell me a story, I would listen to an audiobook. The plot of the game is set but how the story unfolds is left to the character.

While I completely agree that a fixed protagonist results in a much more cohesive story, voice-over is not justified becaue of that. If I don't know what my character is going to say except that it will be in line with a short phrase I select, thats when it starts to lose the charm for me. After all, it is my character and I want to know what he is going to say before he says it.

Right. VO is fine sometimes, but just adding MOAR! VO to everything doesn't necessarily make for a more immersive story. IMO, having a voiced PC makes me less engaged with the story and characters.

I'll just quote a rather excellent blog post from one of the audio designers at Media Molecule on the whole voiced vs silent PC thing:


Why I don't care for the ME/DA2 style voiced PC:

• Frequently, my character will say something which I  categorically had no intention whatsoever for them to say, in a way  which just doesn’t suit the character I’m trying to be. I’ve been forced to choose from a small selection of directions which are compromised  abstractions, the result being frustration with my character and the  game.

• I’ve got to listen to the mouthy bugger, and if I skip this I have no idea what he’s just said because of the limitations of the  aforementioned abstractions which are representative only of my  character’s initial response and not the entirety of the rambling speech he then goes on to make.

• I am my character (right?), so why do they do things and  say things which I have little control over, and know a whole bunch of  stuff which I don’t? I mean, I’m meant to be them, but I’m having it  rammed down my throat that I’m quite clearly not them. They are  themselves more than I am them. If that’s what I was looking for I’d  watch a film, a really good film that has a century-long legacy of  perfecting this kind of storytelling.

• In summary - why give me a choice, the illusion of control, only to immediately remind me who's really in charge? I don't get this  kind of frustration, certainly not to the same degree, playing a game  with purely linear cutscenes.

And why I prefer DA's silent PC:

• Having read all the options, considered whether it fits with the character you have established and any potential outcomes, there is no  need for you to hear your character speak this information out loud  again (a trap fallen in to by earlier games, such as Ion Storm’s Deus Ex) because you’ve already just “heard” it in your head when reading it. And so, the act of clicking replaces the act of speaking.

• To highlight how awesome this is, compare it to what  happens when you select an action for your character to perform rather  than a phrase to speak – you generally have to watch your character  perform the action. Why? Because if you didn’t see your character  perform the action and yet you instantly saw the results of said action, this discontinuity would require a mechanism which explains the passage of time. But we know our character has said something aloud when the  other characters present respond appropriately to our chosen selection,
  so there is therefore no need to hear it – it has clearly already been  said. It’s as if the time spent reading your options replaces the time  spent talking and communicating your thoughts to the other parties.

• If your character were to speak out loud, ignoring the  redundancy of hearing it all again, who’s voice is this we are hearing?  It certainly isn’t mine or my character’s – it’s some poor bugger who’s  been in a recording studio for weeks, where everyone in the recording  session has zoned out because it’s the end of another long day of the  same monotonous pap, and the director has long since given up trying to  get every line perfect. There isn’t even the time for that, never mind  the will. And it’s not that the character is mute – this is not the same as Gordon Freeman, the silent protagonist of the Half-Life  series, where the player is never given the option to “speak” – it’s
  that this interface paradigm bypasses the need to hear the character  speak. But similar to Gordon Freeman, by not hearing a prescribed  character voice which takes them out of the experience the player is  empowered to fully inhabit their character.

• The experience becomes less about communicating information via voice, and more about communicating via the written word. This  opens the door to a whole new world of immersive experiences that voice  and dialogue can never get even remotely close to. You can certainly get quite close using sound and the moving image, with judicious use of  voice, but you will never have the time or a big enough team to realise  this in a game the size and scope of Dragon Age.

• Less time and money needs to be spent on voice records and  localisation. And the experience is better! Low hanging fruit or what?

Modifié par Brockololly, 08 octobre 2010 - 03:46 .

[MerinTB]

ErichHartmann wrote...

I am looking forward to a voiced protagonist. As much as I love older RPGs, having a voiced character makes me feel immersed in the story. I think losing multiple origins is a small sacrifice to pay for a much more focused storyline.

/personal opinion

It is a matter of personal taste -

the more "cinematic" these games get, the less I feel like I'm playing a game and more like I'm watching a movie.

The voices to all the characters (including NPCs) pulls me out of playing-mode and into watching-mode.  It's been YEARS of voices on characters in RPGs, and it is still jarring to me.

[Anarya]

For what it's worth I agree 100% with that Media Molecule blog post about the voiced vs. silent PC. Even though I support the changes to DA2 otherwise (from what little I know of them so far).

[FedericoV]

FieryDove wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
I think that silent protagonist is outdated, I do not care about elves and dwarves (I would love a fantasy setting that avoid them in any way or form) and I think that origins was mostly a waste of develepoment resources, since they do not add anything to the core of the game (even if they were really interesting and well written: a great way to understand Thedas better).

So you want a fantasy game, but are happy if you can only play humans? Or am I not understanding you....again.

Fantasy to me is more interesting when I can be something other than human. So many games out there as human, its just so been there done that. Now I'm not saying Hawke won't be interesting but human only does limit role-playing for me as well as replay-ability. imho
I need more coffee methinks.

I'll try to explain better.

First: even in fantasy, I prefer settings (game settings or not) like George Martin's Westeros where the protagonists are (mostly) humans and the few other races only adds some flavor or serves the role of antagonists. I really hate fantasy settings like Forgotten Realms or the Steven Erikson's one (Malazan Book of the Fallen) full of different races. Because there is an equation in fantasy. More races, more high fantasy elements, less elegance and realism. While I like low fantasy settings. If there is enough variety between cultures, I don't miss other races. Fantasy is about magic but if there is too much of it... it misses credibility and felt childish (or pretentious when childish fantasy try to appear as mature one...).

Not to mention the fact the depiction of different races in fantasy, allways borders some kind of racism toward RL's nation/cultures (yes, even in Tolkien).

From a gaming point of view, I do not like to play other races than human, because human feel more authentic and complete, while dwarves and elves allways felt like cartoon/anime charachter. Don't ask me why, but it seems to me that those races allways feel more stereotyped than humans at the end (maybe because while you try to differentiate them enough from humans, you end with a stereotype). And if there's enough cultural difference between humas (at least from one game to the other) I can experience a lot of diversity as a player.

Then, I'm really tired of tolkeniesque fantasy. Really bored: it's time to move one in fantasy gaming (in literature it's a step most modern fantasy writer have allready done fortunately). Yes, you can play with tropes: but then why calling them elves or dwarves if you have to change their original role in the "fantasy language"? Why not trying something new at least? Qunari for example are really interesting (and new Qunari with horns even more!).

[Meltemph]

The argument against a voiced protagonist is always of that it is , "my" character, in essence, wanting a D&D table-top experience, with the developer being the DM... And honestly, I just don't get it.  When tabletop D&D never, to me, is done correctly in videogames, and I also don't understand how you feel the character is yours, when your choices are so limited versus tabletop.


I've always preferred my D&D gameplay to actually stay where I use it, once a week at one of my friends houses or my house... I honestly don't understand why people want the D&D tabletop type experiance from video-games, video-games CAN NOT do table top D&D type events to any degree of satisfaction, to me. So I much prefer the more story driven approach to the RPG genre for video-games...

Honestly, for me, being a D&D tabletop fan, I have problems understanding why someone would want video-games to try and emulate D&D tabletop, when it just does not have the ability, to me, to do it.

Modifié par Meltemph, 08 octobre 2010 - 04:38 .

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...
The argument against a voiced protagonist is always of that it is , "my" character, in essence, wanting a D&D table-top experience, with the developer being the DM... And honestly, I just don't get it.  When tabletop D&D never, to me, is done correctly in videogames, and I also don't understand how you feel the character is yours, when your choices are so limited versus tabletop.

There are plenty of people who play cRPGs who have never played, and probably don't want to play, a table-top RPG.
Your personal preference doesn't eliminate or nullify that of others - nor vice versa, just to make sure you understand I'm not saying you are wrong because you disagree with others.

Honestly, for me, being a D&D tabletop fan, I have problems understanding why someone would want video-games to try and emulate D&D tabletop, when it just does not have the ability, to me, to do it.

Why make a movie of a comic or book or game?  Why make a comic of a tv show or game or movie?  Etc.

For that matter, I'll ape your sentiment (and honestly here, too, not mockingly):
As a fan of movies and television shows, I don't understand why people want to "play a game" where most of what they are doing is better served, IMO, by watching a movie or show.
A game, especially one looking to offer story choices and even the most miniscule of character choices (ME), can never have the dramatic impact via dialog nor story as a movie or television series can... so why bother, right?  Why all the voice acting and scenes?
For that matter (now I'm in the mocking tone) why have story in a game at all?  With story choices and (again at least the most miniscule of) character choices the game can never have as dramatic or compelling a story as a well crafted novel.  Compare a Choose Your Own Adventure book (or the old Lone Wolf play-by-yourself RPG books) to even a mediocre novel, and you know which one tells a story better.  So why bother, right?

Modifié par MerinTB, 08 octobre 2010 - 04:50 .

[Lyssistr]

Meltemph wrote...

The argument against a voiced protagonist is always of that it is , "my" character, in essence, wanting a D&D table-top experience, with the developer being the DM... And honestly, I just don't get it.  When tabletop D&D never, to me, is done correctly in videogames, and I also don't understand how you feel the character is yours, when your choices are so limited versus tabletop.


I've always preferred my D&D gameplay to actually stay where I use it, once a week at one of my friends houses or my house... I honestly don't understand why people want the D&D tabletop type experiance from video-games, video-games CAN NOT do table top D&D type events to any degree of satisfaction, to me. So I much prefer the more story driven approach to the RPG genre for video-games...

Honestly, for me, being a D&D tabletop fan, I have problems understanding why someone would want video-games to try and emulate D&D tabletop, when it just does not have the ability, to me, to do it.

 Not that I don't like VO's protagonist, but for the rest of my points my experience has nothing to do with tabletop RPGS, which I've never played and never will.

 If you want my "RPG CV" I've played nearly everything from the command.com & Amiga days, to WoW hc raiding (before I quit). It's all CRPG related and it stems from what I want from a CRPG (yes, for h&s I buy Blizzard, not picking up a Bio h&s game).

 So, when making points about DA2 I don't think people have necessarily tabletop D&D in mind.

[Meltemph]

 

Why make a movie of a comic or book or game?  Why make a comic of a tv show or game or movie?  Etc.

Because they can be done, by making very substantial changes to the content and also, because books(comics) and theatrical(moves, plays, theater) translates back and forth really well.

A game, especially one looking to offer story choices and even the most miniscule of character choices (ME), can never have the dramatic impact via dialog nor story as a movie or television series can... so why bother, right?

But there are strong arguments that video-games can tell much better stories AND you get the gameplay to go with it.  

However, trying to make CRPG's play like table top, at least currently, can not be done.  Anyone who has played table top should now this.  The limitations just do not allow the proper mechanics.  I would argue that the only current genre that can get close to it, is an MMO, but even then it still has its limits, with character control.

[Beerfish]

Meltemph wrote...

The argument against a voiced protagonist is always of that it is , "my" character, in essence, wanting a D&D table-top experience, with the developer being the DM... And honestly, I just don't get it.  When tabletop D&D never, to me, is done correctly in videogames, and I also don't understand how you feel the character is yours, when your choices are so limited versus tabletop.


I've always preferred my D&D gameplay to actually stay where I use it, once a week at one of my friends houses or my house... I honestly don't understand why people want the D&D tabletop type experiance from video-games, video-games CAN NOT do table top D&D type events to any degree of satisfaction, to me. So I much prefer the more story driven approach to the RPG genre for video-games...

Honestly, for me, being a D&D tabletop fan, I have problems understanding why someone would want video-games to try and emulate D&D tabletop, when it just does not have the ability, to me, to do it.

Neverwinter Nights multiplayer with a DM has the ability to come as close as you can to table top DnD.  As a matter of fact as I've stated before to much criticism, NWN is the best computer rpg game of all time because of this ability.