399 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...

Funny thing is that I found the BG series much more interesting and engaging than Origins or Mass Effect ever were and as we all know the BG games had very little voiced dialogue, tell me how that works?

You like BG more? There's something incredibly dated about the game. I played it once, because I felt like I wanted to see what all the experience was about, but it really is not a fun game. The companions are very rudementary (and work on a timer, apparently); the combat is spell & counterspell, brought to you by Trial and Error through Each Encounter...

I can see how Bioware became the company that it is from having produced BG/BG2, but I absolutely do not think this game stands up well to the scrutiny of time.

[Kreid]

I like reading books, I can perfectly imagine a tone or voice for the characters, but I love voice over, because is more cinematic and immersive and provides more depth to the experience as well as giving more personality to your character (motivational speeches etc...)

I was facepalming various times when in an extremely important part of the game my Warden was just there, staring at the infinite like not being there at all.

[SteveGarbage]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

There's another point about voiceover that should be mentioned. Localizations. In Mass Effect, for instance, the game was subbed to spanish, but not dubbed. Thus, all that emotion and tone inflexion is lost to most spanish players, who are not familiar with the nuances of spoken english.
However, it's arguably worse when the company does shell out the cash for spanish voice actors. They usually hire a grand amount of three (one adult male voice, one adult female voice, and Bart Simpson's voice for kids), who deliver the lines with the feeling and emotion of a deaf chair.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Besides the VO actor pool being so small you´ll have heard the same voices talking exactly the same in some other game, film or series.

To the OP, when they bring back race choice I´ll stop having problems with VO. It should not be at the expense of other features already in the game. I´m really curious at the plot reasons that prevent an elf/dwarf from being champion of Kirkwall, but allow an apostate Blood Mage. Does Hawke never use such powers when NPCs are around?

You make it sound like the Hawke=human decision was made only for VO, which is not the entirety of the equation. The choice for one hero, one race is a narrative decision more than it is a mechanical decision. By limiting the variables of the Hawke character the writers can form a more focused story. They only have to account for one background instead of six different ones. The ability to choose an Origin made DA:O interesting but it caused the plotline to lake a certain closeness to the main character because that main could be male or female among six different origins.

You got flashes of how the story was personalized in certain areas - the Dwarf Noble in Orzammar, the City Elf in return to the Alienage etc., but if you can add that personal touch throughout the whole game instead of just certain flagged sections, it can make a stronger story.

I'm sure there is nothing that could preclude an elf or a dwarf from rising to Champion. But this story is written for a human, not for an Elf or a Dwarf. And considering that family is an important part of this game, by limiting the main character choice that also reduces the additional work needed to form that family and those characters. It wouldn't make sense for a Dwarf Hawke to have a human apostate mage sister.

The decision is a story thing, not a mechanical function of VO thing. For example, the story in Mass Effect wouldn't work if Shepard was a Turian or an Asari or whatever. He has to be human for that story to work. The same applies in DA2. The story is tailored for a human.

[Wulfram]

In Exile wrote...

Let's suppose you're right - VO has a a large cost and that means less content. Why do you think the content will be critial path content at high value instead of low-value side-quest garbage like the Mage Collective or The Chanter's Board?

Both.  Mostly, I suspect it's going to be content f (edit: for minority options that most people aren't going to see)

...And wait, when you say they have to leave out names, are you talking about NPC VO now and not PC VO?

Both.  The PC can't say "Hi, I'm Charname!", the NPC can't say "Hi Charname!"

It also means that when they realise that they haven't properly accounted for Alistair still being in the party despite not being King, they can't fix it because they don't have the voice over.  And that having companions from the previous game in the new one costs more money.

Have you ever worked in QA for a game? A friend of mine did, and he told me one big problem with QA is when someone takes the path less beaten. At least where he worked, they did not bug test each module equally, and each outcome equally. So you have misses like this not because of cost, but because QA effectively drop the ball.

But with VO QA has to catch it before the VO is recorded, whereas without VO this can be fixed fairly easily post release - or even by the fans.

Also, seriously, you're against all VO in-game?

I think games without VO - or with BG levels of VO - have advantages over games with full VO, and that simply muting the voice acting doesn't bring those advantages back.

Modifié par Wulfram, 13 octobre 2010 - 03:15 .

[Sir JK]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I think some are missing the point that the issue doesn't lie with other characters being voiced, it lies more with the PC being voiced and in some ways limiting the role playing element of said character and making the player character far less personable. IMO anyway.

This is sort of what I was trying to discuss. Yes, the roleplay options become limited by merit of imparting a tone you would otherwise have to imagine. Instead of the line meaning whatever you can imagine it  to mean (how much this is depends from person to person) then line have to mean what it was written to mean.
However... like I mentioned, the tone of the voice isn't the only thing that carries meaning. So too do facial expression, positioning and body language. So if we cannot have tone, then those three are also out... cutting what.. 80-90% of human communication out (this is why it's so easy to be misunderstood in written text and phones by the way, because so incredibly much of our communication is coveyed at the side of wording). The point of even showing us our characters in a conversation is also lost, because if all that one is allowed to use for expression is words... why would we want to see the face?
It won't make dynamic and exciting conversations an impossibilty... but it will make them very difficult to create. A lot of that which makes the human voice (so to speak) such a great tool for storytelling is lost. The game may gain in the field of giving one more choice (by forcing/allowing you to fill the blanks with imagination) but it limits the ability to tell a compelling story.

[marshalleck]

The point of "voiceover" is to antagonize people who are still living in 1998.

[grregg]

I'll add to what Sir JK and SteveGarbage said and I'll point out that it is the voiceover that allows acting. Books being a text medium generally lack acting, but a visual medium without acting looks weird.

In a book, you generally get various commentary on what's going on, along the lines of:

"Hey John," he started saying and then his face changed as the realization struck him, "Oh my God!" he exclaimed.

The voiceover here not only allows an actor to convey the surprise via tone of voice, it also gives time for facial animations to take place and be synchronized with the flow of the message. Good luck trying to do something like that in a game like Baldur's Gate.

Now, whether this matters to you or not largely depends on what you play RPGs for. If you get your kicks out of tactics and combat, and play RPGs like wargames, the acting is pretty much irrelevant. If you're going mostly for the story and want to see what happens next, you can still get away with limited acting. But there is a group of people (myself included) that do care about characters themselves. And for me it is difficult to care about a character that you only see from a bird's eye perspective and that communicates via text bubbles. I want to hear their voice, see their face, watch their body language.

And if I may invoke an analogy to a different medium, I imagine that's why people go to see a play, instead of just reading the script.

Modifié par grregg, 13 octobre 2010 - 02:04 .

[Wulfram]

marshalleck wrote...

The point of "voiceover" is to antagonize people who are still living in 1998.

Yay, I'm 12!

[Leonia]

marshalleck wrote...

The point of "voiceover" is to antagonize people who are still living in 1998.

I think you won the thread, ser.

[_-Greywolf-_]

In Exile wrote...

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...

Funny thing is that I found the BG series much more interesting and engaging than Origins or Mass Effect ever were and as we all know the BG games had very little voiced dialogue, tell me how that works?

You like BG more? There's something incredibly dated about the game. I played it once, because I felt like I wanted to see what all the experience was about, but it really is not a fun game. The companions are very rudementary (and work on a timer, apparently); the combat is spell & counterspell, brought to you by Trial and Error through Each Encounter...

I can see how Bioware became the company that it is from having produced BG/BG2, but I absolutely do not think this game stands up well to the scrutiny of time.

You are entitled to your opinion however you will have to explain what you mean when you say that the companions in the BG series were very rudimentary, sure you may not be able to initiate conversation with them at will but when they do talk it is far more interesting than what any of the companions in Origins had to say. Also I diddnt play the Baldur's Gate series to experience the combat mechanics (nor did I play Origins for that reason either) but because of the story that the game tells and if you ask me the story from the BG series is far more interesting than Origins could ever hope to be.

[Challseus]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Because some of us like a more
cinematic approach to our games instead of having to read half a book to
play it...

This.

To elaborate, in my opinion, Oblivion is a bad example, because it wasn't really that cinematic. In fact, I didn't even really like their VO, as it felt sort of stiff and wooden. But when VO is done well, as I thought it was in DA, it really pulls me in. I maintain that I have never been drawn to a world as much as I was with DA, and I think the VO did it for me. I literally listened to every piece of dialogue, whereas I usually would skip it.

Good times.

[Wulfram]

Personally, I like reading whole books. Whereas I don't watch many movies.

[Nerevar-as]

SteveGarbage wrote...

You make it sound like the Hawke=human decision was made only for VO, which is not the entirety of the equation. The choice for one hero, one race is a narrative decision more than it is a mechanical decision. By limiting the variables of the Hawke character the writers can form a more focused story. They only have to account for one background instead of six different ones. The ability to choose an Origin made DA:O interesting but it caused the plotline to lake a certain closeness to the main character because that main could be male or female among six different origins.

You got flashes of how the story was personalized in certain areas - the Dwarf Noble in Orzammar, the City Elf in return to the Alienage etc., but if you can add that personal touch throughout the whole game instead of just certain flagged sections, it can make a stronger story.

I'm sure there is nothing that could preclude an elf or a dwarf from rising to Champion. But this story is written for a human, not for an Elf or a Dwarf. And considering that family is an important part of this game, by limiting the main character choice that also reduces the additional work needed to form that family and those characters. It wouldn't make sense for a Dwarf Hawke to have a human apostate mage sister.

The decision is a story thing, not a mechanical function of VO thing. For example, the story in Mass Effect wouldn't work if Shepard was a Turian or an Asari or whatever. He has to be human for that story to work. The same applies in DA2. The story is tailored for a human.

It would be 4 additional VOs, so adding actor cost + memory space could be a limit. Do you think we´ll have race choice in DA3+? Don´t think ME can be compared to DA, as humanity rising in the galaxy is a theme of that saga with no equivalent in DA. Maybe if elves rised again...
You´ve got a point with the dwarf, but it´s something that could be bypassed. Just have a different approach to the story of how and why a dwarf would end fighting for Kirkwall. That was the point of the Origins.

[Nozybidaj]

Reading is hard.  It takes time away from the slash-slash and pew-pew. 

Seriously though, I wouldn't mind voice over nearly as much if it wasn't constantly used as an excuse to cut content and make play times shorter.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...

Funny thing is that I found the BG series much more interesting and engaging than Origins or Mass Effect ever were and as we all know the BG games had very little voiced dialogue, tell me how that works?

You like BG more? There's something incredibly dated about the game. I played it once, because I felt like I wanted to see what all the experience was about, but it really is not a fun game. The companions are very rudementary (and work on a timer, apparently); the combat is spell & counterspell, brought to you by Trial and Error through Each Encounter...

I can see how Bioware became the company that it is from having produced BG/BG2, but I absolutely do not think this game stands up well to the scrutiny of time.

Why am I so very not surprised you feel that way Exile? BG and BG2 are two of the finest CRPG's and if one can get past some obviously dated graphics at this point, both titles easily stand up as fantastic games.

I still find the whole Bhallspawn story line in BG2/Throne of Bhall far more of an epic story than ME and DAO put together, without a cinematic experience.

[Beerfish]

Elvhen Veluthil wrote...

100% with the OP on this, BG approach is the best one for me too. As to why some people can't live without VO, my guess is that their imaginative capability isn't up to the task of an esoteric recreation of the world as given through the words.

Why have any voice over at all in that case?  These are video games not books.  I would hazard to guess that many people even with the 'imaginative capability' are helped in framing characters in their minds by voice over.  Cues that people use to identify with characters are be via word, via images of the character and via voice.

Also it is not always up to the reader or the player to use their imagination to form an opinion on a chracter.  The author of the piece wants to create a specific character and in many cases the more information they can give to the reader or the player the better it is.

[Herr Uhl]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Why am I so very not surprised you feel that way Exile? BG and BG2 are two of the finest CRPG's and if one can get past some obviously dated graphics at this point, both titles easily stand up as fantastic games.

I still find the whole Bhallspawn story line in BG2/Throne of Bhall far more of an epic story than ME and DAO put together, without a cinematic experience.

So do you argue that the story gained something by being text-based?

As far as I'm concerned, the more defined NPC's are the better, including voice.

Edit: The only problem I see with NPC VO would be that it costs money.

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 13 octobre 2010 - 02:40 .

[ChickenDownUnder]

I'm on the fence about VOs. When there is only one, set voice for an NPC, having an actual voice to get across sarcasm, sheepishness, and etc makes the character come across as more alive.

On the other hand, if there is only one voice that can be chosen for a PC, it locks the player into creating a character that would fit it. Like if you decided to create a skinny, mage-type that you've built up in your mind to be the quiet and mysterious type (yeah, I know, stereotypical, but bear with me) but every time he speaks in game it is with a rough, gravely hulk-ish voice. Would totally ruin any immersion.

Just try creating an Asian Shephard and listen to him talk in cutscenes, it throws you off since the voice doesn't really fit the face. In order for it to not look funny you are stuck with creating a white guy.

But hey, mebbie the VO for DA2 will be neutral enough to get over that particular hurdle....

Modifié par ChickenDownUnder, 13 octobre 2010 - 02:40 .

[Elvhen Veluthil]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Elvhen Veluthil wrote...
I am sorry if what I wrote sounds offending, I really didn't had that intention. What I wanted to say is that some people should use more their imagination (not connected to IQ or mental conditions, and sure not implying that mine is better that someone else) and stop being lazy, it gives a stronger experience with their games. Planescape: Torment for example went even further, describing things and situations in the dialogs, one reason why it was an unforgotten experience. I still don't like full VO though, because it affects other things also.

Coulda fooled me.

Actually "being lazy" is exactly what I wanted to say in the first place. What I didn't want to say was that people that like VO are stupid. I get a little personal with DA because at the moment it is the only game that somehow continues the BG legacy and has a toolset (beside NWN2), I don't have a problem with VO itself, but VO affects many aspects of an RPG, in ways that I don't like. I don't care at all if ME has VO or not, whatever you enjoy.

Another problem with VO for me is that it makes the world more "real", "real" like real life. It the same problem I have with "tough" choices, smartass companions, and actually anything that insert in the game world a "real life" logic. I prefer game worlds that take into other dimensions altogether, in BG or Planescape you adventure somewhere far away, the setting, the characters, everything was so damn magical. As with many things, imagination is the key here.

[Sir JK]

Nerevar-as wrote...
It would be 4 additional VOs, so adding actor cost + memory space could be a limit. Do you think we´ll have race choice in DA3+? Don´t think ME can be compared to DA, as humanity rising in the galaxy is a theme of that saga with no equivalent in DA. Maybe if elves rised again...
You´ve got a point with the dwarf, but it´s something that could be bypassed. Just have a different approach to the story of how and why a dwarf would end fighting for Kirkwall. That was the point of the Origins.

The problem is that customization in prewritten stories (like the games inevitably must be) comes at the cost of characterization.
The more options you have in the creation of the character, the less involved in the story can that character be. This simply because the game cannot be possibly written in a way to incorporate any and all possible concepts imaginable. If say race is chooseable, then race can also not really matter in the story with possibly a few exceptions.

Eventually, the player character becomes little more than a neutral, blank agent (as in, something that causes a change). This is essentially what the player character was in origins after the origins. Beyond a few dialogue changes, the origin you had chosen didn't matter at all. You were the warden. Period.
A noble dwarf had to do the exact same quests as a cityelf in Orzammar, a cousland did not get any advantages in the Landsmeet section over a dwarven casteless. The dalish had no tricks up their sleeves that made them handle the werewolf situation better than a mage (in fact.. a dalish can even resolve it all as a "neutral outsider" despite being Dalish him/herself!). A mage did not get any benefits in the mage tower over non-mages. It was all identical... regardless of origin. Because due to it's customizeability... it was taken out of characterisation.

By only allowing us to be human, Bioware can in fact focus on using just that to help us characterise Hawke. It can build the story on the fact that Hawke is human and what that will mean in regards to everyone else. They can also make some themes stronger, like any potential racism against dwarves or elves. Since that won't inconvenience a player they can make it so much more potent and present it better. Allowing you to react as you think Hawke will without being inconvenienced by it.

Also, I am sure that if Bioware wants to add voiceovers and racechoices to DA3 or whatnot... then they will make voiceovers for all races.

Modifié par Sir JK, 13 octobre 2010 - 02:42 .

[Nozybidaj]

Sir JK wrote...
Eventually, the player character becomes little more than a neutral, blank agent (as in, something that causes a change). This is essentially what the player character was in origins after the origins. Beyond a few dialogue changes, the origin you had chosen didn't matter at all. You were the warden. Period.
A noble dwarf had to do the exact same quests as a cityelf in Orzammar, a cousland did not get any advantages in the Landsmeet section over a dwarven casteless. The dalish had no tricks up their sleeves that made them handle the werewolf situation better than a mage (in fact.. a dalish can even resolve it all as a "neutral outsider" despite being Dalish him/herself!). A mage did not get any benefits in the mage tower over non-mages. It was all identical... regardless of origin. Because due to it's customizeability... it was taken out of characterisation.

While I might have agreed that customization can contribute to a lack of specific relevance for a PC in the story the examples you listed are all actually things I think SHOULD have been included in the game.  The fact that they weren't wasn't because they aren't possible by allowing customization but because of a lack of time/money/effort/whatever.  Your examples though are very much things I think should have been included along with customization and don't really strike me as examples of why customization doesn't work.

[Elvhen Veluthil]

Beerfish wrote...

Elvhen Veluthil wrote...

100% with the OP on this, BG approach is the best one for me too. As to why some people can't live without VO, my guess is that their imaginative capability isn't up to the task of an esoteric recreation of the world as given through the words.

Why have any voice over at all in that case?  These are video games not books.  I would hazard to guess that many people even with the 'imaginative capability' are helped in framing characters in their minds by voice over.  Cues that people use to identify with characters are be via word, via images of the character and via voice.

Also it is not always up to the reader or the player to use their imagination to form an opinion on a chracter.  The author of the piece wants to create a specific character and in many cases the more information they can give to the reader or the player the better it is.

The "imaginative capability" is present to every human being, some choose to use it more then others, as they see fit (I know my original post implies that the people that like VO doesn't have this ability to begin with, but that was not what I wanted to say). In the BG approach, there is usually an one line VO to set the mood and to give a NPC a certain personality, from there on you take care of the rest, for me this works even better then having all the dialogs VO. To really enjoy and to some degree to be able to play a game, we have to use our imagination. To imagine things, to give context to what information we receive, so it's just a matter of how far we want to go in that direction. It's up to the game to present the information in such a way that the imagination will take over and do the rest.

[Sir JK]

Nozybidaj:
I suppose I should clarify that then: It's because it's a massive undertaking. Adapting the story to even just those choices is not something trivial. It's huge. In theory it works perfectly, but in praxis someone have to make it. It's almost the equalient of making a unique version of the game for every origin (or racechoice/whatever). That's why it doesn't work. Not because one couldn't make it... but because it's a lot to make. Particularly it will consume a lot of time.

As awesome as it sounds, I don't think the financial world would tolerate the wait. Sooner or later loans have to be repaid, stockowners reassured and whatnot. It's simply not feasible.

Modifié par Sir JK, 13 octobre 2010 - 03:05 .

[AlanC9]

Gecon wrote...
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.

I'm sure you didn't mean to give this impression, but this sounds like you just don't like dialogue itself, so the problem with VO is that it makes it take longer.

[SteveGarbage]

Nerevar-as wrote...

SteveGarbage wrote...

You make it sound like the Hawke=human decision was made only for VO, which is not the entirety of the equation. The choice for one hero, one race is a narrative decision more than it is a mechanical decision. By limiting the variables of the Hawke character the writers can form a more focused story. They only have to account for one background instead of six different ones. The ability to choose an Origin made DA:O interesting but it caused the plotline to lake a certain closeness to the main character because that main could be male or female among six different origins.

You got flashes of how the story was personalized in certain areas - the Dwarf Noble in Orzammar, the City Elf in return to the Alienage etc., but if you can add that personal touch throughout the whole game instead of just certain flagged sections, it can make a stronger story.

I'm sure there is nothing that could preclude an elf or a dwarf from rising to Champion. But this story is written for a human, not for an Elf or a Dwarf. And considering that family is an important part of this game, by limiting the main character choice that also reduces the additional work needed to form that family and those characters. It wouldn't make sense for a Dwarf Hawke to have a human apostate mage sister.

The decision is a story thing, not a mechanical function of VO thing. For example, the story in Mass Effect wouldn't work if Shepard was a Turian or an Asari or whatever. He has to be human for that story to work. The same applies in DA2. The story is tailored for a human.

It would be 4 additional VOs, so adding actor cost + memory space could be a limit. Do you think we´ll have race choice in DA3+? Don´t think ME can be compared to DA, as humanity rising in the galaxy is a theme of that saga with no equivalent in DA. Maybe if elves rised again...
You´ve got a point with the dwarf, but it´s something that could be bypassed. Just have a different approach to the story of how and why a dwarf would end fighting for Kirkwall. That was the point of the Origins.

Cost likely is a limiting factor in that equation considering that the main character VO is definitely going to be the biggest acting role in the game.

Whether those kind of main character race decisions will be back in future DA games, if BioWare continues to go with main character VO which I believe they will, I doubt it will unless they're going to use the same VA for all the races (which I also highly doubt because each of the races have different accents).

As to the last part of your post, the point is that they don't want to have to have different versions of the stories. Sure, they could make a different approach to why a dwarf or elf ends up in Kirkwall and becomes its Champion but as I said before, the issues it creates with having to rework a backstory and a family and all that into the story and make it fit is troublesome from the development side.

The difference between Origins and DA2 is that Origins was about the Blight and DA2 is about Hawke. With the plot about the Blight, the character behind defeating it is less important because the main driving point of the story is defeating the Archdemon. It's plot-driven story. In DA2 the story is going to be centralized around who Hawke is and how he/she rises to power. It's more of a character-driven story so there needs to be a focus from the dev side on that character. If you throw in additional variables you lose some of that focus.