399 réponses à ce sujet

[aidron]

I'll chime in and say this aspect of DA2 is not a cause of excitement, but a cause for concern. In no RPG to date have I been able to play exactly the kind of character I would like in spite of the fact that each character concept has been quite different from the next. Sometimes the developers allow me to get close, but more often than not.

Having a voiced protoganist will probably make this an even more difficult feat for me to achieve and the idea that I do not have complete and total control over what is being said (tone/demeanor icons help, but they do not provide complete and total control) disheartens me and leaves me very wary.

I also imagine the game might have to be shortened in length from what it might have been without a voiced protoganist and truthfully I would prefer a longer story in this case. It is also a bit bothersome that there is but one voice for male and female characters (though I understand why - the cost and time to record different voices for the entire game would be astronomical) since I feel that will constrict, rather than expand upon character concepts and replayability for me at least.

Of course my reservations could all be for naught and it will all work out wonderfully well.  Experience tells me my reaction will fall somewhere in between. I had high hopes for DA:O and while I feel it had some severe issues across the board that left it being less than the game I had hoped for, it was still fun. So I will simply reserve my judgment for the time being since given what information we do have so far I do not feel particularly able to make an informed conclusion.

[TheMufflon]

krasnoarmeets wrote...

I don't, however, recall making personal attacks against anyone or belittling their points of view

In that case, let me refresh your memory:

At any rate, the fact of the matter is that the mob are simple folk who can't be bothered reading and using their imagination

Personal attacks? Check. Belitteling the opposing veiwpoint? Check.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Reproducing the gameplay of a tabletop game should be, I think, the primary goal of any CRPG.

That's the whole point of the genre.

It was moved away from that into capitalizing the PC's strenghts while avoiding its weaknesses (such as the inability to adapt on the fly or the lack of a creative process).

Which was, I think, a mistake.  The CRPGs that predate that change were superior roleplaying experiences.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I can see where it comes from. Back in the day computer games, like computers themselves, were only for people who positively liked recreation where you have to know and integrate all sorts of disparate, confusing, and poorly-documented information. You'd also need high intelligence so that your top complexity threshold wasn't too low for the games to be out of range for you; otherwise you'd stick with jigsaw puzzles or some such.

Nowadays you don't have to like that sort of thing to play video games. So that brings a lot more people into the gaming world. Some of them probably are too stupid to enjoy, say, BG2. Some are plenty intelligent enough but don't like that sort of game. Some would like that sort of game but they like other games a lot more.

That's assuming we want to call BG2 complex. I found it kind of simple, myself, so I guess I'm floating above this whole debate.

As demonstrated by that example Mike Laidlaw linked a couple of weeks ago.  University students who were studying the history of video games couldn't figure out how to play Ultima IV because they didn't read the manual (even though the game explicitly told them to do so).

In addition, in the early 1990s playing PC games had a steep barrier to entry as the player needed to know how to allocate memory himself.  The Expanded Memory/Extended Memory dichotomy was terrible.  That guaranteed that the median gamer was going to be the sort of person who was content micromanaging RAM as part of his leisure activities.

That's certainly not true of the median gamer today.  Denying that there's been a change in the market is completely insane.

[Maconbar]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Reproducing the gameplay of a tabletop game should be, I think, the primary goal of any CRPG.

That's the whole point of the genre.

It was moved away from that into capitalizing the PC's strenghts while avoiding its weaknesses (such as the inability to adapt on the fly or the lack of a creative process).

Which was, I think, a mistake.  The CRPGs that predate that change were superior roleplaying experiences.

Why would I want to play a game that attempts to mimic the gameplay of a tabletop game when I could just  play a tabletop game? I would rather play a game on the computer that does things that you can't readily do on a tabletop.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maconbar wrote...

Why would I want to play a game that attempts to mimic the gameplay of a tabletop game when I could just  play a tabletop game?

You need other people to play a tabletop game.

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes.  The erason I play these games is to roleplay my character.  They're not just a big puzzle that needs solving.

Each time I play the game, I'm playing an entirely new and different character.  But if I get the same voice delivering lines the same way, I can't really play a different character.

And that suggests I could never play a character of my own design (as became obvious almost immediately when playing ME).

I find this very interesting. We both seem to have the same reason for playing games such as these (roleplaying our characters) and we both seem to find the ingame dialogue the primary means of expressing that character.
But there we take completely different turns. My characters are developed in my mind through the interaction with others (in CRPGs thus through the interaction with npc). It is what messages I try to convey and how I speak with them that defines my character. Therefore anything that makes the character more expressive, body language, facial expressions, voice, tone, helps me define my character.
My Shepards have for instance never said anything I did not want them to say (okay... not completely true. It happened once in ME2 that Shepard surprised me... but positively. It captured that Shepard far better than what I had imagined).
You seem to have a diametrically opposed position.

Question is, can these different approached both be accomodated to in the same game? Is there a solution that would leave us both content?

[TheMufflon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The CRPGs that predate that change were superior roleplaying experiences.

And when did this supposed change occur?

[Davasar]

The difference is:



Some people like to watch the movie and have things defined for them in a concrete fashion.



Others like to read the book and let their imagination and mind supply the nuances.



Personally, I want my imagination and mind to supply the voice for my character because I enjoy the mental excersize and am more immersed and identify more with the character that way. I do not want someone else giving me the voice for MY character.



If I want to watch a movie, I watch a movie.



But for games I do not like cinematic styles, it takes away too much and makes me think I am watching a movie rather then playing a game.

[krasnoarmeets]

TheMufflon wrote...

krasnoarmeets wrote...

I don't, however, recall making personal attacks against anyone or belittling their points of view

In that case, let me refresh your memory:

At any rate, the fact of the matter is that the mob are simple folk who can't be bothered reading and using their imagination

Personal attacks? Check. Belitteling the opposing veiwpoint? Check.

Do you consider yourself one of the mob, do you? If that is so, you belittle yourself. I consigned you to no such group. I was speaking of an average member of the general populace in these modern times who can't be bothered reading books anymore and watches TV all the time instead. I was not speaking of the counter-argument to VO. Full VO in the opinion of many limits the players' choices. Others think it aids in the immersive effect - I disagree. As far as limitations go, look at DA:O versus DA2: many origins versus one, of one single race. I'd prefer the variety of being able to play different races versus having a voiced main character any day. That's one of the things I found so frustratingly limiting about the ME series. 

I'm with Davasar in what I like. Clearly opinions differ, however, so let us agree to disagree. 

Modifié par krasnoarmeets, 18 octobre 2010 - 05:46 .

[upsettingshorts]

...you have to consider yourself part of a group to be annoyed or offended by someone taking potshots at it?

[Blakes 7]

To fully get past the limitations of voiceover perhaps writers could use the same voice-lines but give the player the opportunity to express the players intent in expressing the line.

i.e.

NPC: Thanks for returning that locket, I thought I'd lost it for sure! How did you find it?

Player:

By the stables [truth]

By the stables [lie]

By chance actually



They could then let a subtle facial expression take the place of additional voice acting etc



Just my two cents

[The Masked Rog]

krasnoarmeets wrote...

TheMufflon wrote...

krasnoarmeets wrote...

I don't, however, recall making personal attacks against anyone or belittling their points of view

In that case, let me refresh your memory:

At any rate, the fact of the matter is that the mob are simple folk who can't be bothered reading and using their imagination

Personal attacks? Check. Belitteling the opposing veiwpoint? Check.

Do you consider yourself one of the mob, do you? If that is so, you belittle yourself. I consigned you to no such group. I was speaking of an average member of the general populace in these modern times who can't be bothered reading books anymore and watches TV all the time instead. I was not speaking of the counter-argument to VO. Full VO in the opinion of many limits the players' choices. Others think it aids in the immersive effect - I disagree. As far as limitations go, look at DA:O versus DA2: many origins versus one, of one single race. I'd prefer the variety of being able to play different races versus having a voiced main character any day. That's one of the things I found so frustratingly limiting about the ME series. 

I'm with Davasar in what I like. Clearly opinions differ, however, so let us agree to disagree. 

You see, that's elitism. An elitist thinks he is above the average, that he is better than that which he calls the mob, the unwashed masses we would never consider himself a part of. He is superior because of some defining characteristic that tells him a part from the rest of the world. He would never see himself as just another person on a world full of them. He thinks his tastes are more refined than those of the general populace. But in the end everyone of us has different tastes and to think yours are superior to everybody else's is delusional.

[Pauravi]

I know people have strong opinions about this, but I just don't see it as a big hindrance. An RPG will always be hindered by the fact that you have a limited number of dialogue choices, whether they are voiced or not. I felt restricted in ME sometimes, but I felt equally restricted in DA, NWN, and BG. There are only so many dialogue choices or actions that they can write down, and fairly often, none of them are what I want to say or do.

Since I've never been able to actually say what *I* want to say, I have always implicitly accepted that I am not in the story -- my character is. This doesn't bother me overmuch, however, it does give me a different outlook on VO. To me, anything that makes the character I am pretending to be more like a real person, makes the role-playing experience more immersive. Having a voice, and not having to be a mute among the other characters makes the game more immersive, IMO. The silent protagonist worked fine in DAO, but I certainly won't complain if there is voice acting.

Speaking of DAO and voice -- what do people think of the voice sets? Because, honestly, they are wholly unnecessary to gameplay and they do, in a way, give a voice to the protagonist. Does this not ruin immersion for people?

Modifié par Pauravi, 18 octobre 2010 - 11:28 .

[DAOME2FTW]

I don't always listen to the voiceovers, i do a lot, but i read all the time, so i'm used to reading subtitles and whatnot, voiceovers just make the game better overall, i hated oblivion, party because all the voice actors made me want to kill myself.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Pauravi wrote...
Speaking of DAO and voice -- what do people think of the voice sets? Because, honestly, they are wholly unnecessary to gameplay and they do, in a way, give a voice to the protagonist. Does this not ruin immersion for people?

I made the mistake of choosing the voice I liked best by sound rather than attitude, and my nonpartisan elf who looked like he was going to cry all the time started snarking at me. Made things a little weird for a while but that was my bad I guess. And hearing the same handful of responses that got seriously old after a few battles... I headdesked once or twice. It didn't "break immersion" for me because while I love the game I don't RP with the game as much as other people it seems, and my head is usually in a few places other than the game while I play but it was unexpected.

I like what you had to say in your post. Infinite options are impossible, and you can certainly make the most of what you're given.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 18 octobre 2010 - 03:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

TheMufflon wrote...

And when did this supposed change occur?

Gradually.  I'd count both PC voice-over and "cinematic presentation" as steps down that road, though.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

I find this very interesting. We both seem to have the same reason for playing games such as these (roleplaying our characters) and we both seem to find the ingame dialogue the primary means of expressing that character.
But there we take completely different turns. My characters are developed in my mind through the interaction with others (in CRPGs thus through the interaction with npc). It is what messages I try to convey and how I speak with them that defines my character. Therefore anything that makes the character more expressive, body language, facial expressions, voice, tone, helps me define my character.

So you're waiting for the character to act and then defining him to fit?

I design the character entirely in advance.  Before I even launch the game I know basically everything about him.

My Shepards have for instance never said anything I did not want them to say (okay... not completely true. It happened once in ME2 that Shepard surprised me... but positively.

The way I play, there's no way a surprise can possibly be positive.  Any surprise is necessarily a bad thing, because it's action I didn't choose.

Question is, can these different approached both be accomodated to in the same game? Is there a solution that would leave us both content?

I don't think so - not without a toggle.

I think DA2 might strike that balance if they'd just let us disable the PC voice-over, though that would require that Hawke not behave as Shepard did and go off and do a long sequence of things based on a single dialogue selection.

I've already designed my first Hawke, and it's a character design that worked very well in DAO* (probabaly the best roleplaying experience I've had in years).  If DA2 accommodates it, then I will have no complaints about DA2's dialogue system.  My first Hawke will be shy and indecisive.  He'll fear conflict, and avoid it at all costs.  He'll always defer to his companions.  He'll never initiate conversation unless he's been told to do so and has some idea what will be expected of him.  Socially awkward and risk-averse: not exactly "hero" material.

This character concept worked in DAO.  I'll be back shortly after release to report whether it does in DA2.

* I don't particularly want to play the same character again and again, but this will serve as a controlled test of DA2's capabilities.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pauravi wrote...

Speaking of DAO and voice -- what do people think of the voice sets? Because, honestly, they are wholly unnecessary to gameplay and they do, in a way, give a voice to the protagonist. Does this not ruin immersion for people?

I actually like them, because they give the character a voice.  No one gets to decide what his voice sounds like, so having my socially awkward city elf speak in a deep voice (I didn't realise how deep it was when I chose it) just made his indecisiveness even more awkward.

[MortalEngines]

Well, I've just read the past 16 pages, caught up in this interesting and thought-provoking discussion. So I decided to add my basic two-pence to everything. Firstly, to answer the central point of this thread, I'll give my personal opinion on the whole VO v.s No VO debate.

Now, I'll firstly be clear and say that I'm 27 year old. I'm not TOO sure where that puts me in the whole 'gaming generation' period but I've played all the timeless classics (BG, BGII, Icewind dale (read the book too), NWN 1
& 2 etc) so I guess I got pretty far back. I want to make somewhat of a clarification, some people seem to be under the impression that BG was made 'half-voiced' because the developers thought it was good that way or that NWN didn't have the cinematic view that DA:O had because Bioware (at the time) thought that the structure used there was 'the best'

IMO that wasn't the reason AT ALL, the ONLY reason those games were created that way was because of hardware limitations. If you could make games back then like you can now, trust me when I say, BG would of being nothing like it was. (Which I guess could be considered a good thing).

With that settled, I'll get to the point. In my opinion, VO Main and Silent Main both have their merits but in the end it comes to how they fit in context in the game. Full VO might work in a certain RPG but another, a game simply being an RPG doesn't mean that Full VO or Silent is automatically better, it depends ENTIRELY on the game (at least in my opinion). 

For example, in a game like Legend of Zelda, Silent Main works where Full VO might not, but in Mario, a Silent VO may not work as well. (I was trying to pick games of similar genre here). Whether VO works or not is entirely depend on how it works in context to the game, rather than in context to the genre. To me, RPG is too wide a scope to automatically decide whether or not Full VO is better than Silent VO. In depends entirely on the implementation in the actual game and context of the game (I hope this makes sense).

NOW, I want to comment on what other people have said:

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.[/quote]

Sorry but I cannot agree with the notion that DAO dialogue system is perfect or in anyway perceives real world expression. In the real world, what you say does not always end in the same result in the end. However, in DAO is does. For example, it does not matter what I say to Flemeth just before I head to Lothering, because in the end, I WILL take Morrigan and Alistair with me to exactly Lothering before anywhere else. However in real life, it would never be like this, if I said to Flemeth (while Morrigan was there), that I don't want a useless piece of space
with me, the end result shouldn't end up the same (like it is in DA:O), there should be a difference. Also, I don't about you but in real life I don't have a long list of full sentences I can choose to say in response to someone in
conversation, most people reply on impulse, unless you live your life in attempt to manipulate everyone you ever speak to.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.
[/quote]

Sylvius, throughout this whole thread, I have always assumed you a fair person (and intelligent). But aren't you being a bit silly here? You may very well experience the same problem, but if it is as you said (poor lip-sync) then it
is irrelevant whether it's PC VO or NPC VO, if the lip-syncing is poor NIETHER side should be heard properly, not just one.

It sorta seems that you are just using this as a silly excuse to push your point. 

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

Yes it is.  It's precisely equivalent.

[/quote]

Sorry to butt in but in my opinion. I'm with In Exile. It's NOT equivalent. Behaviour is directed by intent, not with your exact wording. Here I'll give you a real life instance that happened to me on my way home today. 

Me and my friend were talking (like usual).

My friend: I hate Mr. Such and such (I'm omitting names for personal reasons).

Me: Really, I don't mind him, I mean; he has never done anything, well wrong,
to me.

Now, at that instance, in my mind I wasn't thinking 'really I don't mind him, I mean, he has never done anything, well wrong to me'

I was thinking 'I don't hate him, he hasn't done anything bad'. Just because the wording isn't PRECISE, doesn't mean that I wasn’t in control of what I was saying. I was in prefect control; I just wasn't sure EXACTLY how I was going to phrase it until I said it. 

If you seriously sit and fully construct your sentences before you say them, then conversation with you must be really dull.

Me: "So how are you doing?"

You: "...."

2 Minutes later

You: "I'm doing pretty badly, my boss just fired me, and now I've got to search for a job, work out my life problems, Yadda, yadda yada (this is purely hypothetical btw).

You want to know why I said 2 minutes later? Because if your reply lasted exactly 2 minutes, then theoretically, it would take a full 2 minutes for you to run it through your head before you say it. That means, I would wait 2 minutes in silence for you to reply. That's a LONG time (for most normal conversation).

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Not true.  When I choose my words, my primary concern is "Does this sentence make available the information I want to make available, while not revealing information I want to conceal?"

My intent is several steps further back, but each sentence needs to be checked before it is used to ensure that it doesn't accidentally provide information I would rather it not, or fail to provide information I actually want to deliver.

When in a conversation, I'm keeping track of what it is I've already said (and what I haven't said), and every subsequent sentence I speak adds to that logical framework from which my listener can drawn reasoned conclusions.
[/quote]

Then you must take a REALLY long time to reply if you take all of that into account with simply replies to everyday conversation.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Conversation is a contest, to see if you can lead your listener down the path
you would rather he travel, while he is trying to wrest from you information
you'd rather not divulge.  Conversation is adversarial.
[/quote]

Seems to me that you basically attempt to manipulate EVERYONE you ever speak to. Which makes me not want to speak with you at all. To me conversation is an exchange of thought and intent not a contest.

I don't take to my friend in order to make her think like me, I talk to her to see how SHE thinks in comparison to me and from there, I learn.

[quote]krasnoarmeets wrote...

This only serves to prove my point. The imagination of this younger generation of gamers has suffered as a result. There's too much VO in modern games. Before you know it the younger generation won't read anything anymore. [/quote]

Wow, how condescending, who are you to judge the younger generation by the standards of the old? Just because one does not read BOOKS per say, doesn't mean one doesn't read. Reading and knowledge can come in many forms. I learn just as much from a recording of someone saying something than I do reading it.
The knowledge (or content) is the same, regardless of whether it's read or not (I'm not talking about paraphrasing or VO here, but real life).

Also if you believe one gains any KNOWLEDGE in the form of text in RPGs, well, that's just silly. RPG are fantasy, playing RPGs that compose a high amount of text, doesn't increase your intelligence, since anything in RPGs in fictional anyway.

[quote]-Semper- wrote...
there you have your answer... dumb it down to attract a wider audience. the lower the intelligence needed to play the game the more money you will earn. it's simple as that.
[/quote]

WOW, haha, this just makes me laugh. Are you ACTUALLY suggesting that playing video games ADDS to one's intelligence? Pssh, sure, for young children it might teach moral values or abstract things (even for adults too) but video games are not KNOWLEDGABLE. Just like fiction books aren't knowledge. How you can gauge
someone's knowledge by what they enjoy doing in for completely fictitious enjoyment is just laughable.

People seem to think that all books give you knowledge. Sure non-fiction do, but most fiction books are just that, fiction. RPGs are fantasy, in the end of the day, no matter how much you read, it's still fictitious knowledge. That's why when I was younger my mum hated me playing video games just as much as watching tv, because to her, I wasn't gaining ANY knowledge.

Other than basic game mechanics, playing a game is not hard. Sure a games plot maybe conceptual and abstract but it still doesn't make it hard. So, urr no, nothing is 'dumbed down' just made accessible, there is a big difference. Just because stairs and simplified to a slope for disable people, doesn't mean disable
people are dumb or lazy, just means steps don't fit their structure (for instance a wheelchair user).

[quote]-Semper- wrote...

it's not about elitism or to attack/offend users but to hit the average. it's a fact that the majority of all players are simple minded and therefore prefer fast paced games without personal effort, which includes reading. if you want
to sell 10 millions of copies you have to bow to this group and eliminate everything that stands in the line.
[/quote]



You are elitist by definition on the grounds that you are calling people average and making the assumption that the majority are simple minded. Thus meaning you are implying that you are set apart from the majority and are
different. Thus you are basically calling yourself 'elite'.

Yeah...you're elitist. I'm not even going to give the rest of the non-sense you sprouted a response because it's not worth it.

[quote]krasnoarmeets wrote...
It's not elitism, it's not the superiority of the older generation. We have been around a bit longer and have a little bit more perspective than the younger ones, however. [/quote]

You're contradicting yourself by saying it's not the superiority of the older generation but then painting it as if the older generation is better than the younger one. Make up your mind.

[quote]krasnoarmeets wrote...Some would call it wisdom, others experience.[/quote]

It seems you lack a good dose of both.

[quote]krasnoarmeets wrote... At any rate, the fact of the matter is that the mob are simple folk who can't be bothered reading and using their imagination. [/quote]

Right, I'm going to break down everything you've said bit by bit, just to show you how wrong you are. Firstly, who are YOU to say that 'the mob' as you call it is 'simple folk’? Last I remember you're not the Queen of England, and YOU just like the majority of the world are part of the general public/populace, unless you're trying to say that you are somehow simple too.

Also, I don't know what country you live in but nearly everyone people in the United Kingdom are literate (I believe it's something like 99%) and the book market does EXTREMELY well here, especially the children’s section. Most the general populace in England read or enjoy reading, the younglings a lot more than the elder lot. And another point, last I remember imagination is not a measure of knowledge, someone who has an art degree maybe creative and have imagination but that doesn't make them smarter than a Oxford graduate of computer science who is logical and factual (the exact opposite).

[quote]krasnoarmeets wrote... They want all their i's dotted and their t's crossed and modern developers seem only to happy to do that for them, as that's the market they want to tap into. It's about economics and mass marketing after all, not pleasing everyone. [/quote]

Sure part of it is economics, but just because you have been playing games for 20 years doesn't mean the rest of world has. My mother has a masters in mathematics and is the director of mathematics and numeracy at her school, yet she can't play a video game for the life of her. Why? Because she's not use to
mechanics. Just like a computer science graduate couldn't draw an A* level piece of art that an art graduate could. 'Dumbing down' games as you put it, is just making games more accessible to those who are not use to gaming, not to those who are stupid.

[quote]krasnoarmeets wrote... You younger people don't mind the voice over as it's what you're used to . I don't mind it either, but I just don't think it should be so limiting.[/quote]

Yet you have yet to explain who it is limiting and how it could be less
limited...

file:///C:\\\\Users\\\\Maria\\\\AppData\\\\Local\\\\Temp\\\\msohtmlclip1\\\\01\\\\clip_image004.gif [quote]krasnoarmeets wrote...Typically the average person doesn't read books,
they watch television instead, which I think is rather tragic is all.[/quote]

Again this is entirely dependent on country, parents and your environment. Also just because someone reads books doesn't mean they are smart. Someone who watches factual documentaries will be indefinitely more knowledgeable than someone who reads books about fictitious stories of non-existant medieval battles.

[quote]krasnoarmeets wrote...Thankfully, my young sons are encouraged to read and are barred from watching hours upon hours of TV. As a result they are both above their classes' reading age. [/quote]

Good for you. But I'll have you know, when I was 10, I had a reading age of 18, yet my mum never encouraged me to pick up a book, I did that myself, I was drawn to books by my own will and I think it was better that way but I guess I'm just more liberal. But I'll have you know, my friend had really strict parents who forced her to read and she never got to watch Tv.

Guess who got under their expected reading age. 

Modifié par MortalEngines, 18 octobre 2010 - 07:02 .

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
So you're waiting for the character to act and then defining him to fit?

I design the character entirely in advance.  Before I even launch the game I know basically everything about him.

Hmm... not quite. I have a rough idea who my characters are and there have been occassions in roleplayng games where none of the options presented fitted. Where I examined all options (and then testing them) and seeing that none where what my character would say.
I suppose in a way that my characters grow on a whim in the moment. There have been cases where I've known what was going to happen and decided which outcome to aim for, gone into the situation and then completely changed my mind because it felt right for that character.

So I'm not so much following a plan as letting what feels right for the character lead me. A line delivered with emotion and pathos, with acting helps me immerse myself more in the character. It comes more to life in my hands with a voice.

In a way I form the character in my mind and then lets it lead me through the story. It is in the interaction with other he or she tells me who he or she is and I get to learn my character. I as a player am just along for the ride, the choices I make for it are determined by a general sense of what feels best for that character (something I only feel when it is time to choose).

The way I play, there's no way a surprise can possibly be positive.  Any surprise is necessarily a bad thing, because it's action I didn't choose.

So I've understood. I just used it an example for how our views seem to contrast so much to one another.

I don't think so - not without a toggle.

I think DA2 might strike that balance if they'd just let us disable the PC voice-over, though that would require that Hawke not behave as Shepard did and go off and do a long sequence of things based on a single dialogue selection.

I've already designed my first Hawke, and it's a character design that worked very well in DAO* (probabaly the best roleplaying experience I've had in years).  If DA2 accommodates it, then I will have no complaints about DA2's dialogue system.  My first Hawke will be shy and indecisive.  He'll fear conflict, and avoid it at all costs.  He'll always defer to his companions.  He'll never initiate conversation unless he's been told to do so and has some idea what will be expected of him.  Socially awkward and risk-averse: not exactly "hero" material.

This character concept worked in DAO.  I'll be back shortly after release to report whether it does in DA2.

* I don't particularly want to play the same character again and again, but this will serve as a controlled test of DA2's capabilities.

I can see the problems with reconcliation of the two views myself. Though, perhaps there is one we've yet to see?

Interesting concept though, the reluctant accidental hero? I can see how that worked in DAO (and I can see how it would work in Baldur's gate). Maybe the fact that the companions can speak for you will help a bit in this regard?

Question though... when creating a character... do you take the setting and story of the game/adventure into account at all? If the game is a story that needs a active hero (which would be you in this case) is this something you consider during the creation (and thus does not make a character that wouldn't do this)?

[asaiasai]

It sounds to me and i could be wrong but the major concern for folks is how much of the RPG elements of DAO are we the players going to have to surrender to make room for a fully voiced character in DA2. It is a fair question when one considers the current trend at Bioware with the MAJOR differences between the RPG experience that was ME to the shooter with RPG elements that was ME2. The question then becomes a matter of can the fully voiced character carry the game, as it will have to carry the game considering what RPG content will have to be removed due to limits of finances in the development of the game. If DA2 intends to keep the RPG elements of DAO or go deeper in the character's psyche, then i am fine with a voiced chatacter. I do find it a bit odd that Bioware has decided on only one voice option for the male and female Hawkes, but if this is to keep the cost down so that i can still have my RPG elements that i bought this type of game for then i can understand.



I hate to keep harping on ME vs ME2 but it is a legitimate comparison whether you agree or not. I just wonder how much of the mass effect effect is DA2 going to be beaten with. I can still re-play ME as unpolished as it is, and still enjoy the experience. Where as with ME2 i only have 4 or 5 plays and i am now bored with it even as polished as it is. ME2 lacks sufficient depth of character development that once you have played a few times there is very little reason to go back. The thing is i bought a video game not a movie, a video game especially a RPG type should have many reasons for the player to come back, namely the differences of how the game can be replayed, whether it is class, class builds, morality, reputation, or choices the player excercises these are all the things that made DAO good. If DA 2 lacks this i do not care who you get to read my characters lines, it is not a game anymore but a cinematic experience. ME is a game ME2 is a cinematic experience, now Bioware where does DA2 fit?



Asai

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]MortalEngines wrote...

Now, I'll firstly be clear and say that I'm 27 year old. I'm not TOO sure where that puts me in the whole 'gaming generation' period but I've played all the timeless classics (BG, BGII, Icewind dale (read the book too), NWN 1
& 2 etc) so I guess I got pretty far back.[/quote]
I still call BG and IWD modern games.  classic old games would predate those by 8-20 years.
[quote] 
I want to make somewhat of a clarification, some people seem to be under the impression that BG was made 'half-voiced' because the developers thought it was good that way or that NWN didn't have the cinematic view that DA:O had because Bioware (at the time) thought that the structure used there was 'the best'[/quote]
That's seems unlikely.

But I also think it doesn't matter.  Regardless of why BioWare elected to go with the half-voiced dialogue in NWN, it did work really well, and in some respects worked far better than later games with more VO.
[quote]Sorry but I cannot agree with the notion that DAO dialogue system is perfect or in anyway perceives real world expression. In the real world, what you say does not always end in the same result in the end.[/quote]
What the result is - how people react to you - has nothing at all to od with expression.

I didn't claim DAO modelled conversations well.  I said it modelled expression well.  Expression is just one part of a conversation, but it's the one part the game can actually handle, so that's what I want it to do.

Throwing that away to fail at conversation in a new and different way doesn't strike me as valuable.
[quote][quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.
[/quote]
Sylvius, throughout this whole thread, I have always assumed you a fair person (and intelligent). But aren't you being a bit silly here? You may very well experience the same problem, but if it is as you said (poor lip-sync) then it
is irrelevant whether it's PC VO or NPC VO, if the lip-syncing is poor NIETHER side should be heard properly, not just one.[/quote][
Those sentences you quoted were unrelated.

I do think the voices are hard to comprehend without the subtitles, and I posit that the lip-sync is the cause.  I generally have less trouble understanding people when I can see them speak - this might be why I dislike telephones.

However, despite that limitation I think disabling both the PC voice and the subtitles would allow the game's dialogue system to approximate one I would enjoy more.  Those two options would reduce dialogue to selecting a reponse (the paraphrased option on the wheel) and then seeing and hearing the NPC's response.  This is just like how DAO's dialogue worked.  And I like DAO's dialogue.
[quote]Sorry to butt in but in my opinion. I'm with In Exile. It's NOT equivalent. Behaviour is directed by intent, not with your exact wording. Here I'll give you a real life instance that happened to me on my way home today. 

Me and my friend were talking (like usual).

My friend: I hate Mr. Such and such (I'm omitting names for personal reasons).

Me: Really, I don't mind him, I mean; he has never done anything, well wrong, to me.

Now, at that instance, in my mind I wasn't thinking 'really I don't mind him, I mean, he has never done anything, well wrong to me'

I was thinking 'I don't hate him, he hasn't done anything bad'. Just because the wording isn't PRECISE, doesn't mean that I wasn’t in control of what I was saying. I was in prefect control; I just wasn't sure EXACTLY how I was going to phrase it until I said it. [/quote]
Which means you weren't in control of exactly what you were going to say.
[quote]If you seriously sit and fully construct your sentences before you say them, then conversation with you must be really dull.[/quote]
I use a lot of stock responses that I wrote in advance.
[quote]Then you must take a REALLY long time to reply if you take all of that into account with simply replies to everyday conversation.[/quote]
I do a lot of the prep work before the conversation starts.  But it's necessary to keep track of what it is the other person actually knows.  If he draws a conclusion based on something I said, is he right?  Regardless of whether his conclusion accurately models reality, does he actually know it to be true or is he just guessing?  If you don't keep track of what he knows, you can't determine that.

How many conversations do you have in a day?  I got up this morning, exchanged inconsequential words with my family, and came to work.  Once here, I confirmed the day's schedule with my assistant (this took 20 seconds), and since then (3 hours ago) I haven't spoken to anyone.
[quote]Seems to me that you basically attempt to manipulate EVERYONE you ever speak to. Which makes me not want to speak with you at all. To me conversation is an exchange of thought and intent not a contest.[/quote]
It is both.
[quote]I don't take to my friend in order to make her think like me, I talk to her to see how SHE thinks in comparison to me and from there, I learn.[/quote]
But how do you learn how she thinks?  Simply asking her lets her know what it is you're trying to learn, and that gives her an opportunity to design her response with your objective in mind.  That might not be desirable.

People keep secrets.  People lie.  If I actually want to learn something, I do it surreptitiously.
[quote]Just because stairs and simplified to a slope for disable people, doesn't mean disable people are dumb or lazy, just means steps don't fit their structure (for instance a wheelchair user).[/quote]
But if I really like stairs, I'd be justified in being annoyed with disabled people for requiring the installation of ramps if that meant the stairs disappeared.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

So I'm not so much following a plan as letting what feels right for the character lead me. A line delivered with emotion and pathos, with acting helps me immerse myself more in the character. It comes more to life in my hands with a voice.

In a way I form the character in my mind and then lets it lead me through the story. It is in the interaction with other he or she tells me who he or she is and I get to learn my character. I as a player am just along for the ride, the choices I make for it are determined by a general sense of what feels best for that character (something I only feel when it is time to choose).

I would not describe what you do as roleplaying. I would simply call that playing.

I do think Mass Effect was designed exactly for an approach like yours.

Maybe the fact that the companions can speak for you will help a bit in this regard?

I hadn't heard this.  The DA2 companions can speak for the party?

That's wonderful news.  I've been asking for that ifor years.

Question though... when creating a character... do you take the setting and story of the game/adventure into account at all?

The setting, yes.

The story, no.  Never.  That would be metagaming.

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I would not describe what you do as roleplaying. I would simply call that playing.

I do think Mass Effect was designed exactly for an approach like yours.

I don't really want to derail this thread further with that debate, but if you wish to discuss it further I would welcome doing so privately. But yes, Mass Effect did accomodate the playstyle well, as have all other Bioware games done.

I hadn't heard this.  The DA2 companions can speak for the party?

That's wonderful news.  I've been asking for that ifor years.

I did read that it was on occasion possible to prompt the companions you have brought with you to speak instead for you like they would be any other dialogue choice. How prevalent that will be I cannot say. I doubt it extends to when you have to make an actual choice though (ie. choose how to proceed the game). Could be interetsing though, I agree.

The setting, yes.

The story, no.  Never.  That would be metagaming.

Okay, thank you.