399 réponses à ce sujet

[Taiyama]

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.

I know I'm probably late to replying to this and others have brought up the same points I will, but what the heck. I'd have to say that this is something of a false dichotomy (you got it mostly right, though).

I am a fan of unvoiced PCs but I never think of a character as a representation of myself. You're right that I DO attach a great deal of importance to my own PC, but that's because I've sculpted a living being (at least in my eyes) who is inhabiting this world. He or she has his own tastes, his or her own goals and morals--often quite different or even just a little different in minute ways from my own. For example, Taiyama Surana (who I write fanfiction about) is far more merciful than I would probably be in his situation. I don't have the faith in the ability of people to redeem themselves that he has. He spared Loghain; I might have killed him.

The thing is, though, because I have sculpted such a being, that being has his or her own voice. Sometimes I associate a real life person's voice with his (normally a voice actor himself) because it so closely approximates how I'd imagine him sounding (Taiyama Surana, for example, had the voice of Yuri Lowenthal). For others, I simply came up with a voice in my head (Melody Cousland being an example here). The dissonance comes from, if I hear some voice actor give my character's lines, well, that's not MY CHARACTER speaking. My character has voice A and this person is talking in voice B.

The immersion for games like Dragon Age comes from not only experiencing the great story, but in creating these characters and, like a father about to send his children off to school for the first time, sending them into this world to see how they do.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm not sure if anyone is like me regarding this, but this is at least how I work and why I dislike voiced PCs. 'Course, I realize that (as with many things) I'm in a definite minority. RPGs are moving inexorably towards always-voiced protagonists. There's nothing I can do to stop that; I'm just one man and companies like Bioware have to appeal to a broad market to return profits. So few people put as much thought as I do into my characters (and I guarantee you that most if not all, like me, are either writers or people who have the potential to be one). I'll probably always buy RPGs because those games still have a great deal of good things that override what I subjectively value as a flaw (voiced PCs), but I'll always be a tad disappointed about the move from non-voiced PCs.

Modifié par Taiyama, 15 octobre 2010 - 09:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

Sylvius would undoubtabdly respond that the subtext is up to the player's choice. However, this is a somewhat flawed argument as people in life are able to pick up on subtext.

Not in my experience.  Not with anything approaching an acceptable level of accuracy.

By presenting static lines as dialogue options without subtext, the writers nullify any way to for the player to effectively choose what their statement "means".

Entrely untrue.  All that's lost is the NPC's ability to respond "accurately" to the subtext, but since that can't actually be wholly accurate without being implausible, I don't see that as a cost at all.

DAO's dialogue system works just like how I perceive real world expression.  There's no need to improce it, because it's already spot on.

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Entrely untrue.  All that's lost is the NPC's ability to respond "accurately" to the subtext, but since that can't actually be wholly accurate without being implausible, I don't see that as a cost at all.

I'm a little confused by this statement. Are you saying that it's perfectly acceptable in a dialogue that what you think your character say to the npc and what the npc responds to are completely different things? Essentially, that it's more important that the lines available allow you to interpret them in whatever way you wish, regardless of what that means, than actual communication (as much as the media allows it)? Or did I simply completely misunderstand you?

[asaiasai]

The only trouble i have with voice overs is like anything else there is a finite amount of money set aside to create a video game. Voice actors require a payment of some type usually some of the money set aside to develop the game. In this particular situation the game may need to be shortened due to the limits of money. So i have to trade less content, the story may not be able to be told in as great of detail, and the game may be a shorter version due to the voice actors soaking up free money. More often than not they will only get to speak only half of thier lines as i read it faster than they will speak it, have slapped the space bar to move the situation along a bit so i can get back to kicking ass. More often than not the voice actor will never get to complete a single line before i have read the text presentation of thier spoken line cut them off mid sentance to move on the the kicking ass part i bought the game for in the first place. This is most apparent after plays 2 or 3 the voice actor becomes an annoyance and impeded the progression of the game. Seriously after the 2nd or 3rd play the story is irrelevant and i am working on the mechanics or searching for the hidden stuff, or meta gaming my way to the desired outcome, but most importantly the voice actor at this time becomes an impediment to shooting people in the face, rooting around in thier stuff and blowing up what i can not drag off.



Asai

[Sevens]

Gecon wrote...

I just recently felt the urge to play some computer roleplaying game again, so I started playing Oblivion.

As everyone knows, this game comes with complete voiceover.

Well what I found out is that not only can I read faster than people speak, but also I try reading even faster just to get rid of that annoying talking person who feeds me silly crap I dont care about at all.

Well, we all know Irenicus from Baldurs Gate 2 who is maybe the best voice actor ever, or at least in the eternal top 10 of them. But that game didnt had complete voiceover, nor did I ever miss it.

So whats the point really ? Why does everyone and their grandma think voiceover is such a big thing ? Personally, I would still be completely happy with the solution in BG and BG2 - just give us a nice introduction sentence that sets the mood, then read the actual text.

Yep, modern graphics are bothersome too. So much to look at. Should be set back to Atari standard, too. With that and text that can be quickly read there's the potential for groundbreaking games.

Oh, by the way, you really should talk to Hollywood about this. Them movies would be a hell of a lot better if they could be read more quickly.

[Sutamina]

Sevens wrote...

Oh, by the way, you really should talk to Hollywood about this. Them movies would be a hell of a lot better if they could be read more quickly.

I believe thats what novels are for.

[upsettingshorts]

Well, if we're going down the reductionist path:



* Sylvius ought to open up Microsoft Word so he can come up with his characters with total freedom.

* I ought to just rent movies so I can experience someone else's story in the most entertaining way.



I'm not sure that's really useful, though.

[Sevens]

Sutamina wrote...

Sevens wrote...

Oh, by the way, you really should talk to Hollywood about this. Them movies would be a hell of a lot better if they could be read more quickly.

I believe thats what novels are for.

I tend to share that believe.

Anyway, I can see the charm of combining features and bringing reading and imagination - in a specific form - to video games. Personally, I'm generally not a fan of playing character shells. I prefer defined characters (that still can be analyzed and interpreted, much more so, perhaps) as opposed to creating personalities -- particularly when the means (the in-game options) to do that are (inevitably) very limited. I don't imagine being a person in that (fictional) world. I think about that world and the stories characters. With(in) that understanding, (good) voice acting is superior.  

[Maconbar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, if we're going down the reductionist path:

* Sylvius ought to open up Microsoft Word so he can come up with his characters with total freedom.
* I ought to just rent movies so I can experience someone else's story in the most entertaining way.

I'm not sure that's really useful, though.

Creating DA:2 in Word would be silly. I would be ok if they just went to text-only.

[Schuback]

If I turn off subtitles and just listen to VAs, I tend not to understand about 50% of what was being said. But if I do turn on subtitles, I tend to read and finish ahead of what was said which kinda kills the moment. Anybody has this problem??

[upsettingshorts]

Schuback wrote...

If I turn off subtitles and just listen to VAs, I tend not to understand about 50% of what was being said.... Anybody has this problem??

Um, no?

Edit: But I'm a native English speaker, if that is what you meant.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 02:05 .

[Schuback]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Schuback wrote...

If I turn off subtitles and just listen to VAs, I tend not to understand about 50% of what was being said.... Anybody has this problem??

Um, no?

Edit: But I'm a native English speaker, if that is what you meant.

Still. what about times when they use DA terms like the 'qunari', or Dwarven history and names for example... 

[upsettingshorts]

Schuback wrote...
Still. what about times when they use DA terms like the 'qunari', or Dwarven history and names for example... 

They're proper nouns.  I don't see what the difference is between reading them or hearing the words spoken, as far as understanding them goes anyway.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 02:12 .

[In Exile]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Your approach to expression is completely alien to me.

Right there, with that line, I composed it in my head and even said it aloud to see if it was something I would be happy having said.  I was, so I typed it out for you. [/quote]

The best way to put it would be that my expression is typically on auto-pilot? Put another way, it is a little like walking somewhere. I do not consciously need to think about how I am walking; if I am familiar with the area I do not even need to think about a particular path I am taking. I just have the notion that I want to go to x, and so go there.

Speaking is similar.

[quote]If there is a credible reading of the line that serves your character's expression goals, then it's a line you can safely choose. [/quote]

There is more to it than that. Let me give you an example. I was born in Europe, and so speak more than just English. When I speak with my grandparents I speak to them in our native langauge. But I do not generally speak our native language, so what I actually speak is a mixture of English and the native language. 

When I speak to my grandparents, I have to avoid any English words because they do not understand them. If I speak to my parents I can switch between the two languages even within a sentence - they understand the words so the meaning is clear.

All of this is to say that it is not just about what I think is clear. It is about the conjectures I make about what the other person understands. It is impossible to communicate without pressupositions about the other person. In the game, I do not have this all important content.

[/quote]The effect it will have is your character uttering the line.  That's where your action ends, and everything beyond that isn't something you control.[/quote]

If by everything beyond you mean the interpretation the other person has of the line you have written, then I disagree.

[quote]The line tells you what the literal content of the sentence will be.  Full stop.  Being able to see the full text lets you determine whether that literal content is acceptable.[/quote]

Literal content is a threshold effect. Beyond a certain point (a line of comprehensibility) different content is functionally equivalent. Effective communication depends on more. So being given the literal content of a line of dialogue is, to use an analogy, like being given the chance to raise your stats at level up without seeing which you raise or being asked to pick abilities while never being given descriptions about them.

It is just not sufficient information.

[quote]If there are extra concerns you have beyond the literal content, that's a separate issue.[/quote]

The original point you raised was that written dialogue is superior to the paraphrase because it gives you the literal content. But I disagree. The literal content is of far less value than the intent of the phrase, because what you are communicating is the intent, i.e. your mental state.

What I need to know are what mental states are possible to communicate. Giving me the content of the line is insufficient.

[quote]That your behaviour in conversation is not predictable even by you makes that behaviour not materially different from lunacy, yes.[/quote]

Why would you say that I cannot predict my behaviour in conversation? That I do not know the precise wording is not equivalent to the claim that I did not know what I was going to say.

[quote]How can what you actually say be less important than what you intend to say?  That's completely absurd.[/quote]

What you actually say is instrumental - what you want to convey is the mental state, i.e. the intent. Let me put it this way - suppose you are sending a letter. What is more important? The letter, or the envelope in comes in? Obviously the letter.

Now clearly the relationship between intent and wording is nothing like this. But the wording is essentially a puzzle that has to be solved to get at the intent. In communication, what is relevant is the intention.

If I am trying to console you, what is important is my attempt at consolation, not precisely what I say. If I try to seduce you, what is important is my attempt at seduction, not precisely what I say.

A misunderstanding is, essentially, solving the puzzle to get to the wrong intent.

[quote]And even if you do want to know intent, isn't the full text a more precise description of that intent than a paraphrase can be?[/quote]

No. Both require me to interpret the writing the neccesary context information I need to reduce ambiguity. What would solve the issue of intent would be tags, e.g. [sarcastic] [lie] [compasionnate].

These are general tags that tell me the broad purpose I am trying to achieve with the statement in the world. To be honest, I do not understand why the tags bother you. Let me explain:

You have told me previously you do not think it is unreasonable to have a limited number of expressions. This is because it is an issue of cost. And you have also told me that, within reason, you do not think the literal meaning of the phrase is, in fact, what the character says (actually, this raises I question I want to ask you). Suppose we had several options:

[Compassionate] That was horrible.
[Dismissive] That was a waste.
[Concerned] Was everything okay?

Putting aside the quality of these statements, why do you say you have an issue with tags like these? You say it is because the writer is telling you about your mental state - but by your standard that is not so. You told me that the lines I have available to me are not neccesarily all things my character is thinking - just things my character could say. So what is the issue?

Also - if you actually think your character says something different from the literal content, then are you essentially using the literal content as a paraphrase for what your character wants to say?

[quote]Absolutely.  I don't see how a paraphrase can ever be a more accurate representation of a line than the line itself would be.[/quote]

It is not; my claim is that it is equivalent but a more accurate model.

[quote]My intent is constrained by the uttered line.  If I didn't intend to say "It was a good idea", then I simply won't select that line.[/quote]

But what does that line mean? I have just shown you from the line I cannot know your intent. There needs to be more information provided. If I do not know your intent, communication is impossible.

[quote]Game design is irrelevant to gameplay.  Regardless of how BioWare intended the lines to be used (as cues, you say), how the lines can be used is something else entirely.

Even if BioWare came out and explicitly told us we were supposed to play as you describe, why should their directive carry any prescriptive force?  Why must that constrain how we play?[/quote]

I don't understand what you could possibly mean by the bolded statement.

Once again - it is not about Bioware telling us this. It is about the fact that certain contigent facts about the world make certain things possible and other things impossible.

Remember the PM about loot? Where you said you no longer think the game-world is static except for the PC from playthrough to playthrough in part because with variable loot drops and encounters, the evidence contradicts the hypothesis?

This is why we are constrained by what Bioware designs - because there are contingent truths about the game that make any other possible interpretation nonsensical.

[quote]Don't you determine what your character intended based on the NPC reactions?  Every time you do that, that's a retcon (since the NPC reaction isn't available until after the initial decision).[/quote]

No, that was a meta-game argument for how we (as players) know that a writen line has fixed intent in the game. As I am roleplaying I, of course, know none of this. When I have a misunderstanding I either have to replay the conversation (if I am lucky and a ''second-best" choice exists) or call the character a dud and start the game over.

[quote]So then you asked a different question.[/quote]

And then I wanted to return to my original question. But it seems the laws of nature prevent me from asking it.

[quote]That choice event is now past.  Now you get an entirely new choice event, with an entirely new set of alternatives (some of which may have existed in previous events, but that's not relevant).  Given your character's mental state now, at this choice event, which of these options permit consistency?[/quote]

But the game is telling me my mental state. Telling my what Flemeth told me previously has somehow changed my mental state is taking away agency - the game cannot know what would change my mental state.

[quote]You're treating the conversation as a single event, rather than a series of potentially unrelated dialogue choices.[/quote]

I don't know how you speak, but to me a conversation is a single event. There has to be something very dramatic occuring for me to change my mental state during a conversation, particularly when all I am doing is asking questions.

[quote]You just invented that set - seemingly for no other reason than to create a problem for youself.

Why do you think the game is saying something more?[/quote]

No - that set always exists. Why do you think it doesn't? Do you honestly think that your thoughts are unrelated to each other?

[quote]The design, linear or not, has no relevance to the individual dialogue choices you make.[/quote]

That's just silly. Of course it does - for the basic reason that the design says in the first place what can or cannot a choice. This is like saying you are not constrained by contingent facts.

[quote]I'd dispute that, too, given that BioWare doesn't know where the finish is.[/quote]

I don't understand. Are you arguing Bioware does not know where conversations end in their own game?

[In Exile]

Taiyama wrote...
The thing is, though, because I have sculpted such a being, that being has his or her own voice. Sometimes I associate a real life person's voice with his (normally a voice actor himself) because it so closely approximates how I'd imagine him sounding (Taiyama Surana, for example, had the voice of Yuri Lowenthal). For others, I simply came up with a voice in my head (Melody Cousland being an example here). The dissonance comes from, if I hear some voice actor give my character's lines, well, that's not MY CHARACTER speaking. My character has voice A and this person is talking in voice B.

I'm really curious about this - what is the experience of hearing a different voice while reading like? I cannot do this. I always read with one voice, whether I am reading philosophy, literature, a forum, or the back of a milk carton.

[FieryDove]

asaiasai wrote...

The only trouble i have with voice overs is like anything else there is a finite amount of money set aside to create a video game. Voice actors require a payment of some type usually some of the money set aside to develop the game. In this particular situation the game may need to be shortened due to the limits of money. So i have to trade less content, the story may not be able to be told in as great of detail, and the game may be a shorter version due to the voice actors soaking up free money.

Yes, we know VO cuts into content and yes will make the game shorter- maybe much shorter, this was stated by the Devs themselves. However, according to the Devs statsitics most players play through a game once and move onto the next shiny. With that in mind it has to be as flashy as possible and attention getting for that playthrough. Replay-ability counts for far less these days, which is kinda sad (for me) as to RPG's I like replaying many times with various characters. Oh well...

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

JohnEpler wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

But I get the sentiment of your post. To each their own. That's the wonderful thing about players, no two are the same. We're all a little like snowflakes.. wait.. no, that's not quite the analogy I was after.

The problem is that Bioware seems to have decided that some snowflakes are flakier than others.

I'm certainly not discounting the idea that non-VO'd characters have merit. In some games, certainly. I can think of at least a few titles where I either greatly enjoyed the lack of VO, or I felt that the VO was unnecessary to my enjoyment and ended up skipping a lot of it.

For DA2, however, we've decided that VO fits what we want to do with the title. I'm not saying you should never disagree with us (because what fun would a forum be where everyone agreed all the time?) but in this case, we will have to agree to disagree. Which isn't to say you should stop sharing your opinion - far from it! I do enjoy reading what everyone has to say, and I know I'm not alone.

Wasn't the whole point of forcing Human hawke so he could have a voice actor? Maybe next time if you want to do something you won't do it half way and force the players to do without.

On that note, it's forgivable if there's something in the story to make it so he's human, say he's the spawn of Flemeth and Alistair? Actually, I think the age would work out.


CALLING IT

[FieryDove]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Wasn't the whole point of forcing Human hawke so he could have a voice actor? Maybe next time if you want to do something you won't do it half way and force the players to do without.

On that note, it's forgivable if there's something in the story to make it so he's human, say he's the spawn of Flemeth and Alistair? Actually, I think the age would work out.


CALLING IT

I don't think the reason hawke has to be human is because of VO only. In ToR there are several races and the pc is voiced and you only get two choices - male/female. We already know about the mother/father so it can't be...ewww that. Sorry Flemeth and anyone is just ...no ick

(I love Flemeth but just not in...that way)

[MrCrabby]

JohnEpler wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
The problem is that Bioware seems to have decided that some snowflakes are flakier than others.

I'm certainly not discounting the idea that non-VO'd characters have merit. In some games, certainly. I can think of at least a few titles where I either greatly enjoyed the lack of VO, or I felt that the VO was unnecessary to my enjoyment and ended up skipping a lot of it.

For DA2, however, we've decided that VO fits what we want to do with the title. I'm not saying you should never disagree with us (because what fun would a forum be where everyone agreed all the time?) but in this case, we will have to agree to disagree. Which isn't to say you should stop sharing your opinion - far from it! I do enjoy reading what everyone has to say, and I know I'm not alone.

I get what you're saying but from the outside looking in at BioWare it sure seems that you're trying to make full VO with the dialogue wheel and pushing the whole "cinematic" angle into each of your games now. And thats fine, but for myself its a bit disappointing as one of the reasons I enjoyed Origins so much was that it played differently than ME and presented itself differently than ME. I don't think DA2 will be some ME clone, but when TOR and now DA2 adopt ME's "cinematic" angle with voiced PC and everything, you'll have to pardon my skepticism that I think you guys will ever go back to the silent PC. And its that loss of diversity in how the game is presented that disappoints me most.

And that's certainly a fair concern. Homogeneity in game design is not, for most people in the industry, a desireable goal. Though I think that, aside from the introduction of the dialogue wheel, DA2 and the ME series are still rather distinct in presentation. At least on the Cinematic Design side, I feel as though we treat both series differently. It's hard to describe without spoiling something that will get me a stern talkin' to, but in a more general sense - the writing teams are still very distinct. Both series have their own flavour in both dialogue and cinematically.

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.

Of course, I could be completely off-base  But I don't think that using a voiced protagonist in DA2 is a sign that we're going to turn all our games into the same sort of thing. I still feel that ME2 and DA2 (to use the most recent examples) are fundamentally different - and I've spent about a year and a half with both franchises at this point. So I feel like I can make that judgment  I'm rambling at this point, though.

The problem is one of these days you guys, (the games industry as a whole) are gonna "immerse" us so deeply into your stories that there won't be any point to shipping controllers with consoles anymore.

[DalishRanger]

Taiyama wrote...
The thing is, though, because I have sculpted such a being, that being has his or her own voice. Sometimes I associate a real life person's voice with his (normally a voice actor himself) because it so closely approximates how I'd imagine him sounding (Taiyama Surana, for example, had the voice of Yuri Lowenthal). For others, I simply came up with a voice in my head (Melody Cousland being an example here). The dissonance comes from, if I hear some voice actor give my character's lines, well, that's not MY CHARACTER speaking. My character has voice A and this person is talking in voice B.

The immersion for games like Dragon Age comes from not only experiencing the great story, but in creating these characters and, like a father about to send his children off to school for the first time, sending them into this world to see how they do.

You and I have a similar view on this, Taiyama (which probably doesn't surprise you, given some of our similar approaches to playing the Wardens and fleshing out our PCs ). The difference in me, I suppose, is that I don't outright dislike voiced PCs, but rather the above is why I was originally skeptical of them prior to their current popularity. Nowadays, I don't havea strong preference overall of voiced vs silent, and have learned to adjust to a particular voice for a particular character. However, it does make it more difficult with a voiced protagonist for me to create a different character and replay a game a different way.

... Then again, I tend to create one or two characters for a game, find my "canon" and just stick to replaying them, regardless of whether the PC is voiced or not. I've noticed how I get immersed adjusts to the game itself, and as long as the system the game uses feels like it works well, I don't mind if the PC has a set voice or not. I've played a few voiced games I've felt worked better with a silent protagonist, and I've played silent PCs I think could have benefited from a voice. Unfortunately, it's not something I can pin down which I'll prefer in a given case until I've actually played the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

I'm a little confused by this statement. Are you saying that it's perfectly acceptable in a dialogue that what you think your character say to the npc and what the npc responds to are completely different things?

Yes.

Essentially, that it's more important that the lines available allow you to interpret them in whatever way you wish, regardless of what that means, than actual communication (as much as the media allows it)?

You understand correctly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Schuback wrote...

If I turn off subtitles and just listen to VAs, I tend not to understand about 50% of what was being said. But if I do turn on subtitles, I tend to read and finish ahead of what was said which kinda kills the moment. Anybody has this problem??

I do.  It's the poor lip-sync, I think, that makes it hard to follow the voiced dialogue alone without the subtitles.

If I could turn off only the PC VO while leaving the NPC VO on, I think I'd like to try playing the game with the subtitles turned off, though, so then I'd still get the full NPC response without having PC tone forced on me.

[Dhiro]

I don't really get it, Sylvius. You're saying that you want to roleplay a character in every possible way or that you ignore what the characters are saying and make a dialogue of your own?

[upsettingshorts]

Dhiro wrote...

I don't really get it, Sylvius. You're saying that you want to roleplay a character in every possible way or that you ignore what the characters are saying and make a dialogue of your own?

He doesn't ignore what the NPCs say, he just assumes that when there is a conflict between his character's expectations and the NPCs, the latter misunderstood or are in error.

Don't mean to answer for you Sylvius, just testing to see if I got it right.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 08:59 .

[Taiyama]

DalishRanger wrote...

You and I have a similar view on this, Taiyama (which probably doesn't surprise you, given some of our similar approaches to playing the Wardens and fleshing out our PCs ). The difference in me, I suppose, is that I don't outright dislike voiced PCs, but rather the above is why I was originally skeptical of them prior to their current popularity. Nowadays, I don't havea strong preference overall of voiced vs silent, and have learned to adjust to a particular voice for a particular character. However, it does make it more difficult with a voiced protagonist for me to create a different character and replay a game a different way.

... Then again, I tend to create one or two characters for a game, find my "canon" and just stick to replaying them, regardless of whether the PC is voiced or not. I've noticed how I get immersed adjusts to the game itself, and as long as the system the game uses feels like it works well, I don't mind if the PC has a set voice or not. I've played a few voiced games I've felt worked better with a silent protagonist, and I've played silent PCs I think could have benefited from a voice. Unfortunately, it's not something I can pin down which I'll prefer in a given case until I've actually played the game.

I'm sure with a bit of time I'll get used to it, but I think I'll always have a preference for non-voiced PCs in RPGs. I'm not afraid that I won't be able to really immerse in the world and my characters like in ME2--I used to be, but the fact that I'm planning my characters ahead in such detail really makes such a fear silly.

Also, this discussion reminded me of this.