399 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

Pauravi wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You might not agree, but his current VA adds little to the character.

I disagree.  MaleShep would be a non-character without his VA, too.  I think Meer does a good job, I don't see why he gets bashed so much.  In many instances I like his delivery better than Hale's.

And of course voice acting the way BW does it has a price. Many of the options in dialogues (at least in ME1/ME2) lead to the same actions in the end.

But this is 100% true in DA, too, and was the case for Baldur's Gate.  What's your point?

Continue to read. You'll encounter a part about budget. Both the last quoted line and the budget are related.

[Addai]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

I liked being able to make my OWN character in DAO. There were times in ME2 I went, "This is not how I wanted Shepard to act" and I dislike that in an RPG. I still love ME2, but it was hard to shake off the silent protagonist expectation all through every single playthrough. I still shudder whenever femshep talks to Jacob. Ugghhhhhh.

I just know I will have this reaction in DA2. 

Yeah, the romance stuff in ME is cringe-worthy, for both Shepards.

[upsettingshorts]

I'd argue the failures of any particular romance plot are indicative of issues in the execution (writing as well as the actors) and not the use of a voiceover mechanic.

To draw a rather clumsy but informative metaphor; using such examples as justification for scrapping the system would be like calling for an end to films because of the existence of Adam Sandler movies.

Does that mean I honestly expect that everyone will eventually come over to my pro-voiceover side? Of course not. I just think the issue is best framed as being one of immersion (in the world and characters of the writers') versus freedom (to create your own character within the writers' setting). But that would require all of us to admit that even the system we do not prefer has merits, and that is difficult for some people.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 octobre 2010 - 05:17 .

[Merced256]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'd argue the failures of any particular romance plot are indicative of issues in the execution (writing as well as the actors) and not the use of a voiceover mechanic.

To draw a rather clumsy but informative metaphor; using such examples as justification for scrapping the system would be like calling for an end to films because of the existence of Adam Sandler movies.

Does that mean I honestly expect that everyone will eventually come over to my pro-voiceover side? Of course not. I just think the issue is best framed as being one of immersion (in the world and characters of the writers') versus freedom (to create your own character within the writers' setting). But that would require all of us to admit that even the system we do not prefer has merits, and that is difficult for some people.

Thus the question becomes why does bioware feel the need make both games based on story immersion rather than character immersion?

[Leonia]

Merced256 wrote..

Thus the question becomes why does bioware feel the need make both games based on story immersion rather than character immersion?

Probably because story-immersion is a lot easier to put parametres around. A player's imagination can be infinite and they are bound to say "you left out this option and that option" when things are left up to them. It's much easier to tell a story where you know the beginning, the end, the climax, the characters' motivations, etc. than it is to say "Ok, you can be whatever you want now.. go do something epic!".

Granted, games like Oblivion do that whole sandbox thing quite well, so for players who want something more character-focused.. there are games out there to suit that desire. Dragon Age has never been advertised or promoted as one of those games, it's always been about Thedas and not The Warden or Hawke or any other playable character.

Modifié par leonia42, 14 octobre 2010 - 05:26 .

[upsettingshorts]

Merced256 wrote...
Thus the question becomes why does bioware feel the need make both games based on story immersion rather than character immersion?

Because it gives them more creative control and thus more storytelling freedom as they don't have to account for as much player choice.  They're the ones investing the most time into the game, so I think they're entitled to make such a decision. 

Doesn't mean that everyone ought to be happy about it, but I don't think it's sales-driven as so many people casually assume.

So if we operate under the assumption that video game writers and designers desire more freedom - for themselves - it stands to reason that voice-over characters are the logical conclusion of the mindset that the characters are theirs and the story to tell, no matter which path through it the player takes - is theirs as well.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 octobre 2010 - 05:26 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Merced256 wrote...
Thus the question becomes why does bioware feel the need make both games based on story immersion rather than character immersion?

Because it gives them more creative control and thus more storytelling freedom as they don't have to account for as much player choice.  They're the ones investing the most time into the game, so I think they're entitled to make such a decision. 

Doesn't mean that everyone ought to be happy about it, but I don't think it's sales-driven as so many people casually assume.

So if we operate under the assumption that video game writers and designers desire more freedom - for themselves - it stands to reason that voice-over characters are the logical conclusion of the mindset that the characters are theirs and the story to tell, no matter which path through it the player takes - is theirs as well.

But it doesn't need to be that way and it was never a huge issue before, why should the player who's PLAYING the game not own their own character and have some say into said character's development? There's flat out far more choice involved when  you're not limited to paid voice actors delivering lines in a set tone.

Does it really matter all that much to Gaider or whatever other writter on the team how a "player" interprets a line they wrote? Aside from a cinematic standpoint does it actually really add all that much to the gameplay? I'm thinking no, not really.

What you're advocating ultimately boils down to the player just watching a movie without having much input or creative control, which seems to go against traditionally what RPG's are all about in the first place.

Thats not even taking into consideration what if the voice actor doing the PC sucks? Which is partly why I never could get into doing a Male Shepard, Meer's voice just isn't appealing to me in any way shape or form. Thats not to say he doesn't do a decent job, just that I personally didn't care for his voice.

There's pros and cons to having a voiced protagonist, however imo the cons out weight the pros.

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'd argue the failures of any particular romance plot are indicative of issues in the execution (writing as well as the actors) and not the use of a voiceover mechanic.

There is more room for error when it is an emotionally charged scene.  If something sounds "off," it really sounds off in scenes like that.  With a voiced protagonist, not only the NPC but the PC has to be "on" all or most of the time, or you just end up Esc-Esc-Esc'ing.

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because it gives them more creative control and thus more storytelling freedom as they don't have to account for as much player choice.  They're the ones investing the most time into the game, so I think they're entitled to make such a decision. 

I consider my free time pretty valuable.  And the money I invest in a game, as well.  Naturally it's the game devs' decision what sort of game they want to make, but then it becomes my decision if I want to sit through it.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Two more thoughts about voice acting (unrelated to the post above - which I probably didn't even see yet - hehe)...

Some people bring up that in ME2 Shepard didn't always respond the way they wanted. I don't feel that it is a problem with voice acting. It is a problem of the story writers making a booboo. Instead of giving the correct catch phrase, they have shown us the wrong one. In DA:O I didn't encounter that, but that does not mean that it had to do with the absence of voice acting. Chances are that the writers made less errors there (if any). And please, I am not defending either game. I love both.

I think that not having a voice acted character helps me to identify with the player character. But so does its perspective. Let me explain. In first person view it feels like I look through the eyes of a character. There voice acting distracts from that idea. In third person view it feels that I control another character (as opposed to looking through that character's eyes). In that case voice acting does not distract me much, because it is just part of that other character. For such a character good voice acting can make all the difference in liking or not liking that character.

Edit: Tried to explain it better.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 14 octobre 2010 - 06:03 .

[AlanC9]

Merced256 wrote...
Thus the question becomes why does bioware feel the need make both games based on story immersion rather than character immersion? 

I can think of a few answers.

1: Bio believes that more people want that sort of game.

2:  It's a tossup, but Bio's staff likes that sort of game better.

3: Bio's people don't agree with the premise of the question.

[AllThatJazz]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Two more thoughts about voice acting (unrelated to the post above - which I probably didn't even see yet - hehe)...

Some people bring up that in ME2 Shepard didn't always respond the way they wanted. I don't feel that it is a problem with voice acting. It is a problem of the story writers making a booboo. Instead of giving the correct catch phrase, they have shown us the wrong one. In DA:O I didn't encounter that, but that does not mean that it had to do with the absence of voice acting. Chances are that the writers made less errors there (if any). And please, I am not defending either game. I love both.

Agree with this. If I was ever surprised by something Shepard said, I saw it as bad paraphrasing, not a direct result of the voice acting. Paraphrasing is supposed to explain or clarify the text being paraphrased - if it doesn't do this, then the problem, as AFW says, is in the writing. Hoping for better in DA2 

[AllThatJazz]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

Blastback wrote...

I've been skimming, so I don't know if this has been brought up, but one potential worry is that the player just won't like the voice in question. It could be very difficult to sit though a Bioware length game knashing your teeth everytime your pc opened his or her mouth.

^

Hence why I liked the distinction between ME2 and DAO. DAO I felt I could customise my PC to a full extent. In ME2, we had a set PC, we just chose how they would act, and they would do their own thing, which is fine.

I liked being able to make my OWN character in DAO. There were times in ME2 I went, "This is not how I wanted Shepard to act" and I dislike that in an RPG. I still love ME2, but it was hard to shake off the silent protagonist expectation all through every single playthrough. I still shudder whenever femshep talks to Jacob. Ugghhhhhh.

I just know I will have this reaction in DA2. 

Everyone shudders when FemShep talks to Jacob. Even those of us who like voice acting. 

[upsettingshorts]

AllThatJazz wrote...
Everyone shudders when FemShep talks to Jacob. Even those of us who like voice acting. 

Yup.  I can definitely attest to that.

[Tokion]

I don't understand why some people can think the voiceless and selecting dialogues in un-paraphrased form can give the player more in-control of their dialogues. After all, you are still selecting from a number of preset dialogues no?

If anything, a voiced main character can convey the tone of the character even better, unless the voice acting is truely terrible.

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

[Herr Uhl]

Tokion wrote...

I don't understand why some people can think the voiceless and selecting dialogues in un-paraphrased form can give the player more in-control of their dialogues. After all, you are still selecting from a number of preset dialogues no?

If anything, a voiced main character can convey the tone of the character even better, unless the voice acting is truely terrible.

It is greater knowledge of the line offered. Compare it going on a random charter in lets say Thailand and choosing the hotel. After all, we did get to choose country, no?

[upsettingshorts]

Your comparison works if on the dialogue wheel through which you picked Thailand the other options were Scotland, Nigeria, Latvia, Monaco, and Yemen.

Then the greater details about the airline you took and the hotel you booked would be what is "spoken" by the PC.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 octobre 2010 - 08:39 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Voiceover breathes life into characters. Valentine did that to Alistair, Black to Morrigan and so forth. Guess who I think was the most lifeless character in Origins. You have three guesses.

[upsettingshorts]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
You have three guesses.

Oooh! Oooh!

The Warden?

[Ortaya Alevli]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
You have three guesses.

Oooh! Oooh!

The Warden?

And the cookie goes to Upsettingshorts!

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Voiceover breathes life into characters. Valentine did that to Alistair, Black to Morrigan and so forth. Guess who I think was the most lifeless character in Origins. You have three guesses.

Andrew.

[Merced256]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
You have three guesses.

Oooh! Oooh!

Your Warden?

Fixed.

I hate doing it but god damn.

[upsettingshorts]

Merced256 wrote...
Fixed.

I hate doing it but god damn.

Actually, I think the point was that the Warden was conceptually lifeless, especially as he/she existed in a world full of lifelike characters. 

Challenging that point of view requires making an argument beyond "well, My Warden wasn't" - you'd have to actually explain why, and in doing so once again reveal the difference in perspectives between those who value a voiceover and those who don't.

Fixed.

[Merced256]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Merced256 wrote...
Fixed.

I hate doing it but god damn.

Actually, I think the point was that the Warden was conceptually lifeless, especially as he/she existed in a world full of lifelike characters. 

Challenging that point of view requires making an argument beyond "well, My Warden wasn't" - you'd have to actually explain why, and in doing so once again reveal the difference in perspectives between those who value a voiceover and those who don't.

Fixed.

No you forgot where i would point out that that crowd can go rent a movie and accomplish their goals even easier than they otherwise would've. But then that'd just be me being a douche since once again people present their reality as a universal truth.

[upsettingshorts]

Merced256 wrote...
No you forgot where i would point out that that crowd can go rent a movie and accomplish their goals even easier than they otherwise would've. But then that'd just be me being a douche since once again people present their reality as a universal truth.

And if we're going to go down that pointless path, your crowd can open up Microsoft Word and accomplish the same goals with even more freedom than the confines of a game allows.

See how utterly useless that line of debate is?  Maybe you don't.

The only thing I'm presenting as reality is what I think the voiceover vs. silent protagonist debate ought to focus on.  My personal preference on the issue remains my own.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 octobre 2010 - 09:06 .