399 réponses à ce sujet

[Blastback]

No, i know how the internet works, but what can I say, I'm something of an idealist. *Sigh*



I get where the concerns are coming from, I'm not so sure that I want VO'd protagonist to be the future of all Bioware games. But I'm willing to wait and see how it works out here and in TOR before I go making any sweeping judgments.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

And then the thread gets locked because it turns into a debate over what an RPG is.

Thread about what an RPG is get locked.  Threads about what roleplaying is and how to do it often don't.

Until they turn into a discussion of what an RPG is.

Addai67 wrote...

Well I understand that some people see the VO as an added tool to help them craft their own character, as opposed to a replacement for having to craft one.  The problem being that it is not a tool you can choose not to pick up.  At least, not until they make a game where I can decide which system I want to use, or unless the modders can fix it somehow.

This is basically my complaint.  This new approach to dialogue no longer allows the playstyle that has been supported by CRPGs for about 30 years.

I can accept that those who prefer the voiced protagonist think that the earlier games didn't support their playstyle, but it doesn't need to be a zero-sum game.  Why do we need to lose something in order for them to gain something?

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I don't know which game you played, but in mine Shepard spoke in formed, complete sentances after I chose a paraphrase.

But those sentences had little or nothing to do with what he'd intended to say.

It wasn't just that small details were wrong.  Often there was no apparent relationship between the two.  Often the sentence uttered wasn't even the same type of sentence as the paraphrase selected (declarative vs. interrogative, for example).

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The upside is immersion in that the game more accurately represented what a conversation actually looks, sounds, and feels like.

For me it wasn't even vaguely true.  A conversation doesn't feel like a total crapshoot.  I know what I want to say and I say it.  It might take me several seconds to compose the sentence in my head before I speak it, but I say what I want to say.  I express the ideas I want expressed.

ME allowed nothing of the sort.  It was wholly dissimilar to how conversations actually work.

The downside is of course, the freedom to exercise precise control over your character.  Immersion vs. freedom has always been my case, so at least I've been consistent.

And as such I completely deny your dichotomy.  We're not choosing between one and the other.  We're choosing to have one, or not to have that one thing.  There's literally no upside (that I can see) in the ME implementation of dialogue.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
What does that even mean to move the conversation forward?  Which way is ever "forward" in a conversation?  That doesn't make any sense.  It's a meaningless concept.

There are triggers (from a design standpoint) that will end a conversation if you select them, even if there are dialogue options left. For example, if you ask Flemeth about the archdemon (in the conversation at the hut) there are certain other questions, while unrelated in content, that become unavailable. This "moves the conversation forward" because it opens a different set of dialogue options compared to previously.

It is an issue of design. Once again, the conflict comes from your view that we are not playing a game, and my view that we most certainly are.

I still don't understand how this can possibly be true.

I understand this is your position, but that doesn't stop it from being entirely without foundation.

I would rather not derail the thread; we can take it to PM.

[Addai]

Meltemph wrote...

Upsettingshorts is using immersion completely accurately, in fact, I would say he is the only one not redefining the word. Immersion is different for other people, since it is relative to the content one is infatuated with. Saying its not immersion for me and then someone else saying it is immersion for me does not make either wrong.

I would not advise redefining words or using buzzwords as it does not help the conversation.

The problem is he said it's a matter of immersion vs. freedom.  Whereas to me, a voiced protagonist means both less freedom and less immersion.  There is no up side, as far as I'm concerned.  I mentioned cinematic because that's the type of experience I think AngryPants really is describing- a type of immersion based on watching your character's reactions and conversation played out in real-time action.

If I do end up playing DA2, I'll try to keep an open mind, but since I've hated voiced protagonist in a few games I've tried which use it, and don't mind it in The Witcher but don't feel very connected to the character, I think I've got some basis for skepticism.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

There are triggers (from a design standpoint) that will end a conversation if you select them, even if there are dialogue options left. For example, if you ask Flemeth about the archdemon (in the conversation at the hut) there are certain other questions, while unrelated in content, that become unavailable. This "moves the conversation forward" because it opens a different set of dialogue options compared to previously.

Some remarks lead conversations off in different directions.  That seems entirely natural to me.

It is an issue of design. Once again, the conflict comes from your view that we are not playing a game, and my view that we most certainly are.

Do you at least agree with me that the concept of "forward" is meaningless (at least without some point of reference) in a real world conversation?

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But those sentences had little or nothing to do with what he'd intended to say.

It wasn't just that small details were wrong.  Often there was no apparent relationship between the two.  Often the sentence uttered wasn't even the same type of sentence as the paraphrase selected (declarative vs. interrogative, for example).

But you can see how this is not a problem with the voice. Essentially, we can demarcate into two.

(1) The consistency of tone from a player/writer perspective. This is a question of whether or not, a line once written in a video-game, can have more than one tone. This is a central question to how we roleplay, and there are differences of opinion here.

(2) Implementation of UI, insofar as the wheel is concerned. The disconnect between the paraphrase and uttered phrase, so to speak, is entirely unrelated to whether or not VO is there. Suppose we had a designer that made the following argument: when people speak, they do not know the full content of what they will say. VO creates a single tone; we will not use VO to avoid this. We will have a paraphrase for dialogue, however, to capture the feeling of conversation.

There is nothing inherently contradicting in (2). In short, VO and the dialogue wheel are unrelated issues.

So to criticize VO for the failure of the wheel is to misconstrue the problem. I fully agree with you that the wheel is poorly implemented. But then I would argue that the old BG/KoTOR/DA:O system is equally flawed, because of the neccesary intent that goes into certain lines that is kept from the player (i.e. [sarcasm] versus [joking] versus [serious] tags).

And as such I completely deny your dichotomy.  We're not choosing between one and the other.  We're choosing to have one, or not to have that one thing.  There's literally no upside (that I can see) in the ME implementation of dialogue.

I think the wheel has merit. Broadly speaking, the paraphrase captures how people formulate sentences, in that generally they have an idea of what to say and "make it up" as they are saying it. This is why when you record conversations, there are many pauses and filler works (...umm... like.... so...), as people are actively thinking about what to say.

The problem is implementation. ME did this very poorly. There are many reasons. Here is a major one:

Since the writers cannot make presumptions about the player, the player does not actually drive the conversation. Often, what you say is entirely unrelated (except in a vague sense) to what an NPC will respond. Often, several responses will lead to the same NPC response. This is because what drives the conversation is not the player, so much as the NPC picking up on what the player says.

ME had a serious problem with dialogue because it used the same system. What Shepard said was just used to frame a quip or statement by the NPC. The problem came from the fact that now, Shepard said the line outline. This emphasized how actually disconnected the dialogue system was, where the written line only tangentially related to the response.

In short, a large problem with the wheel is that it tried to capture the feeling of conversation, but retained the unrealistic and generally unrepresentative design conventions of the old dialogue system. ME is actually a good example of the failure of silent VO, because it emphasizes how unnatural the pace of the conversation actually was.

[Tamyn]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What does that even mean to move the conversation forward?  Which way is ever "forward" in a conversation?  That doesn't make any sense.  It's a meaningless concept.

"Forward" to me in the context of a video game conversation means coming closer to the end of the conversation.

Modifié par Tamyn, 14 octobre 2010 - 07:36 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Some remarks lead conversations off in different directions.  That seems entirely natural to me.

What is unnatural is removing and adding options. Why should it be the case that one thing I could ask becomes one thing I no longer can ask merely because I made some other unrelated statement? Obviously the other character could refuse to answer the question - there is nothing wrong with that. But what is happening here is that I, as the player, can no longer ask a question with no apparent justification. And that is just nonsensical.

We can both agree a game cannot let me say anything - it is a cost issue. But if a game has implemented the option for me to say something, it is nonsensical to prevent me from saying it at different points in the conversation. The other character could refuse to answer - that is about them. But to prevent me from asking is a matter of removing my agency.

Do you at least agree with me that the concept of "forward" is meaningless (at least without some point of reference) in a real world conversation?

I think foward is a meaningful concept insofar as you look toward conversation as a means to an end. Suppose two people are talking about their feelings for each other, and one of them wants to express a particular kind of sentiment. The conversation moves "foward" as the person progresses in communicating that sentiment to the other person. As a concept of conveying information, I think it makes sense.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

But you can see how this is not a problem with the voice. Essentially, we can demarcate into two.

(1) The consistency of tone from a player/writer perspective. This is a question of whether or not, a line once written in a video-game, can have more than one tone. This is a central question to how we roleplay, and there are differences of opinion here.

(2) Implementation of UI, insofar as the wheel is concerned. The disconnect between the paraphrase and uttered phrase, so to speak, is entirely unrelated to whether or not VO is there. Suppose we had a designer that made the following argument: when people speak, they do not know the full content of what they will say. VO creates a single tone; we will not use VO to avoid this. We will have a paraphrase for dialogue, however, to capture the feeling of conversation.

There is nothing inherently contradicting in (2). In short, VO and the dialogue wheel are unrelated issues.

So to criticize VO for the failure of the wheel is to misconstrue the problem.

I'll agree there is no necessary connection, but BioWare (both the ME and DA teams) have said that the reason they chose the paraphrase options was to avoid having the player have to read the line only to hear it delivered subsequently.

I've seen no arguments made by anyone at BioWare that the paraphrase system more accurately models how converations work (and it doesn't, so that would be a really poor argument).  And if they did, I'd be interested to know why they'd never used it before with an unvoiced PC, when clearly there are other games where paraphrases or keywords are selected.

I think the wheel has merit. Broadly speaking, the paraphrase captures how people formulate sentences, in that generally they have an idea of what to say and "make it up" as they are saying it. This is why when you record conversations, there are many pauses and filler works (...umm... like.... so...), as people are actively thinking about what to say.

During those pauses, people construct actual sentences.  They don't just speak and not know what's coming out.

And sometimes they'll back up and edit a sentence if they started it wrong.  I'm generally more inclined to wait until I've actually composed my response before speaking, but obviously not everyone does that.

The problem is implementation. ME did this very poorly. There are many reasons. Here is a major one:

Since the writers cannot make presumptions about the player, the player does not actually drive the conversation.

Of course, I don't see that as a problem.  Please continue.

Often, what you say is entirely unrelated (except in a vague sense) to what an NPC will respond. Often, several responses will lead to the same NPC response. This is because what drives the conversation is not the player, so much as the NPC picking up on what the player says.

ME had a serious problem with dialogue because it used the same system. What Shepard said was just used to frame a quip or statement by the NPC. The problem came from the fact that now, Shepard said the line outline. This emphasized how actually disconnected the dialogue system was, where the written line only tangentially related to the response.

The way I play, though, the response is wholly irrelevant.  What my character says has no necessary connection to how NPCs react.  So I don't see this as a problem either.

The entire problem rests in the PC saying things the player didn't foresee, and saying them in ways the player wouldn't have chosen given the option.

In short, a large problem with the wheel is that it tried to capture the feeling of conversation, but retained the unrealistic and generally unrepresentative design conventions of the old dialogue system. ME is actually a good example of the failure of silent VO, because it emphasizes how unnatural the pace of the conversation actually was.

I couldn't disagree more.  The DAO dialogue system offers the player far more control over his character, and more closely models how expression (conversations don't exist) actually works.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 14 octobre 2010 - 07:57 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

What is unnatural is removing and adding options. Why should it be the case that one thing I could ask becomes one thing I no longer can ask merely because I made some other unrelated statement?

Because the NPC will no longer respond to it.  You just said the player doesn't drive the conversation.

The presence of the options has no bearing on what your character might want to say.  The option to say "Super Karate Monkey Death Car" could appear randomly in a conversation - that the option exists tells you nothing.  You only learn the importance of an option when you select it, and you didn't.

I don't see the problem.

I think foward is a meaningful concept insofar as you look toward conversation as a means to an end. Suppose two people are talking about their feelings for each other, and one of them wants to express a particular kind of sentiment. The conversation moves "foward" as the person progresses in communicating that sentiment to the other person. As a concept of conveying information, I think it makes sense.

That's the point of reference I mentioned.

[JrayM16]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But those sentences had little or nothing to do with what he'd intended to say.

It wasn't just that small details were wrong.  Often there was no apparent relationship between the two.  Often the sentence uttered wasn't even the same type of sentence as the paraphrase selected (declarative vs. interrogative, for example).

But you can see how this is not a problem with the voice. Essentially, we can demarcate into two.

(1) The consistency of tone from a player/writer perspective. This is a question of whether or not, a line once written in a video-game, can have more than one tone. This is a central question to how we roleplay, and there are differences of opinion here.

(2) Implementation of UI, insofar as the wheel is concerned. The disconnect between the paraphrase and uttered phrase, so to speak, is entirely unrelated to whether or not VO is there. Suppose we had a designer that made the following argument: when people speak, they do not know the full content of what they will say. VO creates a single tone; we will not use VO to avoid this. We will have a paraphrase for dialogue, however, to capture the feeling of conversation.

There is nothing inherently contradicting in (2). In short, VO and the dialogue wheel are unrelated issues.

So to criticize VO for the failure of the wheel is to misconstrue the problem. I fully agree with you that the wheel is poorly implemented. But then I would argue that the old BG/KoTOR/DA:O system is equally flawed, because of the neccesary intent that goes into certain lines that is kept from the player (i.e. [sarcasm] versus [joking] versus [serious] tags).

And as such I completely deny your dichotomy.  We're not choosing between one and the other.  We're choosing to have one, or not to have that one thing.  There's literally no upside (that I can see) in the ME implementation of dialogue.

I think the wheel has merit. Broadly speaking, the paraphrase captures how people formulate sentences, in that generally they have an idea of what to say and "make it up" as they are saying it. This is why when you record conversations, there are many pauses and filler works (...umm... like.... so...), as people are actively thinking about what to say.

The problem is implementation. ME did this very poorly. There are many reasons. Here is a major one:

Since the writers cannot make presumptions about the player, the player does not actually drive the conversation. Often, what you say is entirely unrelated (except in a vague sense) to what an NPC will respond. Often, several responses will lead to the same NPC response. This is because what drives the conversation is not the player, so much as the NPC picking up on what the player says.

ME had a serious problem with dialogue because it used the same system. What Shepard said was just used to frame a quip or statement by the NPC. The problem came from the fact that now, Shepard said the line outline. This emphasized how actually disconnected the dialogue system was, where the written line only tangentially related to the response.

In short, a large problem with the wheel is that it tried to capture the feeling of conversation, but retained the unrealistic and generally unrepresentative design conventions of the old dialogue system. ME is actually a good example of the failure of silent VO, because it emphasizes how unnatural the pace of the conversation actually was.

That bolded bit gets my choice as smartest post of the day.  While I disagree that the wheel was poorly constructed, your point about VO versus the wheel being the problem was very insightful in my opinion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

That bolded bit gets my choice as smartest post of the day.  While I disagree that the wheel was poorly constructed, your point about VO versus the wheel being the problem was very insightful in my opinion.

I responded to that above, but I also should point out that I dispute that the lines in pre-VO games actually contained tone, thus rendering part of the argument moot.

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

That bolded bit gets my choice as smartest post of the day.  While I disagree that the wheel was poorly constructed, your point about VO versus the wheel being the problem was very insightful in my opinion.

I responded to that above, but I also should point out that I dispute that the lines in pre-VO games actually contained tone, thus rendering part of the argument moot.

I would disagree that it makes the argument moot, but I'm tired and don't feel like getting into a dragged out conversation.

[Meltemph]

But you can not ignore the story that is being told, whether you are role-playing or not. The effects remain the same no matter the cause. When causality is broken due to the cause having no effect on the outcome, then there has to be certain causes implied in responses that you choose from.

An actor does not ignore the story when he is figuring out the role of his character, and the same should apply to any story where you are the actor.

Modifié par Meltemph, 14 octobre 2010 - 08:13 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'll agree there is no necessary connection, but BioWare (both the ME and DA teams) have said that the reason they chose the paraphrase options was to avoid having the player have to read the line only to hear it delivered subsequently.

In the initial marketing of ME, they said the paraphrase was there to simulate the feeling of conversation, where we have an intuition for what we want to say and what broader purpose we want to achieve, but we do not know precisely how we want to say it. As criticism mounted for ME, especially from the old cRPG crowd, Bioware moved away from this and then came to a position of "3rd person narrative versus 1st person narrative." But ME initialy was not envisioned as any such thing. Since I can't be sure whether or not Bioware changed their mind, changed their response for the sake of marketing/placating, or some combination of both, I am going to assume their original premise in design is the most relevant to understanding the wheel.  That being said, there were significant changes to ME as it was being designed (including removing full party control).

I am looking for articles right now on this. If you would like to look yourself, I believe either Drew or Chris spoke about this on the old ME1 boards.

I've seen no arguments made by anyone at BioWare that the paraphrase system more accurately models how converations work (and it doesn't, so that would be a really poor argument).  And if they did, I'd be interested to know why they'd never used it before with an unvoiced PC, when clearly there are other games where paraphrases or keywords are selected.

As I said above, I'm currently searching for a citiation. I know this sounds vacuous, but my memory is very accurate for the sort of things I pay attention to, and this was one thing I remember being featured heavily as Mass Effect was being previewed. This was pre-X06 however, and post-X06 Mass Effect had dramatic changes (they dropped full party control, and other things, like speaking about it as the spiritual succesor for KoTOR).

During those pauses, people construct actual sentences.  They don't just speak and not know what's coming out.

It is more complicated than that. Research suggests that when people prepare to speak, they have an intention to affect the world instead of a definite knowledge of what they will say. This is the natural spontaneity of conversation. I have an idea of what I want to say to how, and broadly how I want to say it, but not precisely how I will say it. Whether or not you are composing the sentence in your head, the process of composition is broad intention - compile the sentence word-by-word.

And sometimes they'll back up and edit a sentence if they started it wrong.  I'm generally more inclined to wait until I've actually composed my response before speaking, but obviously not everyone does that.

Right, but you when I say that it is more realistic, I mean that it captures the process of how a statement is constructed. Whether you wait to compose your response before uttering it, or compose it as you utter it, the process actually turns out to be largely identical. I'm sure you would object and say the major difference is that in one case you have precision (because you've compiled it first) and the other you don't, but I as of right now I only want to show you the justification in why the wheel could plausibly represent an account for how conversation works.

The way I play, though, the response is wholly irrelevant.  What my character says has no necessary connection to how NPCs react.  So I don't see this as a problem either.

No, you're not reading my comment right.

What I am saying is that in Mass Effect (in fact this seems to be the case in all Bioware games to date, but Mass Effect was the worst offender), the specific literal content of the sentence is designed to act as a logical cue to the next thing the NPC will say.

Let me try to explain it this way. In actual conversation, I will say some thing to you. You will spend some time processing what I said, and then you will respond.

In Mass Effect (and strictly speaking in Bioware games to date), it is more like you have already decided what line you would like to say, and then you provide me with a list of things I can say to make your line coherent. This is what I mean by the player not driving the conversation.

In other words, even though I (as the player) am speaking to an NPC for the sake of achieving some purpose in the world, the things I say are not actually to achieve that purpose but rather to have the other person produce a preset line.

This is why, for example, in ME we have the following exchange (paraprased, at this point, by me):

C-Sec Executor: Saren has gone too far.
Paraphrase: I agree. 
Statement: I will do anything to take Saren down.
C-Sec Executor: That's what worries me. 

The writer wanted to have the C-Sec officer shoot that quip. So then he wrote the line for Shepard. Then, he comes up with the paraphrase based on how he's interpreted the conversation.

I think that is the problem with the paraphrase, in a nutshell. Shepard is not being written first (at least IMO). He's probably being written in conjuction with the NPCs, and I would bet the writers initially gave preference to the NPCs, because if they had Shepard take a strong stance on anything, that would essentially be characterizing him (IMO, Shepard is so typically accused of being bland and neutral because he is written in a way that tries to be compatible with different personalities - this is how silent PCs are written too, except how impovrished that comes off - sans personality filling in - comes out more in the VO case because more attention is drawn to it).

The entire problem rests in the PC saying things the player didn't foresee, and saying them in ways the player wouldn't have chosen given the option.

No, I think the problem is more fundamental, based on when the PC isbeing written and how the PC is being written relative to the NPCs.

Because the NPC will no longer respond to it.  You just said the player
doesn't drive the conversation.

I don't see how that follows from my claim. Again, the NPC might not respond. That is unrelated to whether or not I can ask the question.

The presence of the options has
no bearing on what your character might want to say.  The option to say
"Super Karate Monkey Death Car" could appear randomly in a conversation -
that the option exists tells you nothing.  You only learn the
importance of an option when you select it, and you didn't.

But I already granted this. I am not arguing I should be allowed to say anything. What I am arguing is that once an option appears as a dialogue option, it cannot dissapear unless there is a justification for it. There has to be a reason I can say a line and then not say that line; otherwise the game is telling me things about precisely what my mental state is, and we can both agree that in that case this is very bad.

That's the point of reference I mentioned.

I don't understand.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I responded to that above, but I also should point out that I dispute that the lines in pre-VO games actually contained tone, thus rendering part of the argument moot.

RIght, but that doesn't matter. Whether or not they had tone (which is to say, what does it mean for us to switch from non-VO to VO) is irrelvant to whether or not the wheel is a good UI. This is my entire point. The wheel UI is independent from the VO.

[FieryDove]

In Exile wrote...

 ME is actually a good example of the failure of silent VO, because it emphasizes how unnatural the pace of the conversation actually was.

It is also a good example how a voiced PC can be a failure. Many people disliked either Meer or Hale, some like me liked Hale's Paragon and Meer's Renegade, but not the opposite. It didn't sound right, it sounded forced, out of place, just plain wrong...something. Also there were some who didn't like either so they have..what a shiny $60 coaster? It may make a small dent in ME3 sales, even as more people become aware of the game, those that couldn't play it/didn't like it for whatever reasons. -1 sale here, -5 sales there, well it adds up.

And then we can go even deeper...Femshep talking, just trying to *talk* to Jacob. gah
If the director did indeed encouage Hale to play it like that...well egad I'm done.

I suppose it doesn't really matter, Wheel, VO it's the new wave. I am waiting to see how DA2 and ToR put a spin on it. The Dev's here read and talk about our concerns, ME Dev's well it's doubtful they know and probably think everything is perfect. I do know it will take more than marketing hype to get me to even think about buying ME3, a lot more.

/rant off

[AlanC9]

FieryDove wrote...
me liked Hale's Paragon and Meer's Renegade, but not the opposite. It didn't sound right, it sounded forced, out of place, just plain wrong...something. Also there were some who didn't like either so they have..what a shiny $60 coaster? It may make a small dent in ME3 sales, even as more people become aware of the game, those that couldn't play it/didn't like it for whatever reasons. -1 sale here, -5 sales there, well it adds up. 

Sure, but then you get +1 and +5 from folks who can't get into a nonvoiced protagonist anymore.

I guess there's no real support for the OP's position here? Or is it just being drowned out?

[Merced256]

BDF drowns everything out, just sayin'.

[John Epler]

Merced256 wrote...

BDF drowns everything out, just sayin'.

I actually felt that the discussion was fairly productive on both sides. Both the pro and anti-VO'd protagonist had some solid points that I enjoyed reading.

If you feel that your opinion is being purposefully drowned out, let a moderator know, either through report post or a PM. Not through a one-line post that doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Modifié par JohnEpler, 14 octobre 2010 - 10:07 .

[Dave of Canada]

I had problems with voice acting myself, I've even created a thread about it when it was announced (you can probably find it, it was bumped up a few times recently). However, there are a lot of benefits that I was blinded to back then.

One of the big things that made me giggle when I found out was that Hawke would participate in party banter, how many times did you sit there and wish your Warden would say something? That alone made me smile. That and how some conversations won't simply be "Tell me about your wife." MY WIFE WAS A GOOD WOMAN. "That's cool. Go on." a thousand times.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
 I dispute that the lines in pre-VO games actually contained tone, thus rendering part of the argument moot.

While that statement is generally true, it's not true of all pre-VO games.  Planescape: Torment, for example, was the first older game I came across that had an approximation of tone, intent, and elements other than the written word in its dialogue options.  For example, let's say someone asks you to undertake a task in PS:T.  Sometimes, among your dialogue options will be the following:

1) Of course I will.
2) [LIE] Of course I will.

To me, those are two entirely different dialogue options even though the words are exactly the same.  Very few people can lie and tell the truth with the exact same inflection, tone, etc.

[2papercuts]

JohnEpler wrote...

I think what it comes down to, honestly, is the idea of being immersed in the story versus the idea of being immersed in the PC. The former will be far more accepting of a voiced protagonist, as the thing they're the most interested in is not their own PC, but rather the characters and story as a whole. The latter attaches a lot more importance to their own character - it serves as a representation of 'themselves' within the world that the game creates. They tend to be more leery of a voiced PC - after all, it's not their voice, and that can cause some dissonance.

the main problem is that with a VO you are immeresed in only the story, not i your character
Being immeresed in a character creates more interest in the setting and in other characters because as you are immeresed in the protagonist you are also interested in what affects them

with a VO you are immeresed in only the story, and don't feel as much connection with your character because in many ways hes not your character in all ways. this lack of immersion creates less interest in his problems and his companions, and althought the story may be interesting, you don't really care as much what happens to the protagonist

in many ways, with VO characters make games much more like movies, and althought thats great, i could just as easily watch a movie for less money

thats just what i think though

[thegreateski]

Text alone does not express emotion very well.



A voice alone means that you will occasionally have trouble hearing characters and may miss important pieces of information because of it.



A combination of the two is the best way around these problems and the best way to tell a story. This is why so many games use both methods and have a toggle available for turning off the text and a gauge available for lowering only the voice volume while leaving the rest of the SFX alone.

[Sable Rhapsody]

2papercuts wrote...
the main problem is that with a VO you are immeresed in only the story, not i your character
Being immeresed in a character creates more interest in the setting and in other characters because as you are immeresed in the protagonist you are also interested in what affects them

with a VO you are immeresed in only the story, and don't feel as much connection with your character because in many ways hes not your character in all ways. this lack of immersion creates less interest in his problems and his companions, and althought the story may be interesting, you don't really care as much what happens to the protagonist

in many ways, with VO characters make games much more like movies, and althought thats great, i could just as easily watch a movie for less money

thats just what i think though

Hmm.  I guess it's a matter of individual taste, because I generally like non-VO for the roleplaying flexibility, but my Shepard is by far my favorite BioWare PC.  I have way more invested in her than I do in any other PC I've ever played, tabletop or otherwise, with the exception of my Bhaalspawn.  Sure, it doesn't feel like I'm playing me, or a stand-in for me.  It feels like I'm playing Shepard.  But I don't play roleplaying games to feel like I'm playing me, I get plenty of that in real life.