399 réponses à ce sujet

[Ortaya Alevli]

Merced256 wrote...

Your Warden?

Oh, c'mon. Just...come on.

The Hardest Thing In The World wrote...

Andrew.

Trill a bin!

AllThatJazz wrote...

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

Smirk. It's even worse when you remember the smirk.

[Merced256]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Your Warden?

Oh, c'mon. Just...come on.

Compelling. :innocent:

[Ortaya Alevli]

Merced256 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Your Warden?

Oh, c'mon. Just...come on.

Compelling. :innocent:

If I were you, I'd take the darkspawn...

[In Exile]

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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. [/quote]

These moments happen frequently for me in DA:O. To begin with, often none of the three options are anything like what my character would say. I fail to see how this is different that giving someone a voice they don't like. Moreover, if often happened (particularly with options that were ostensibly sarcastic or humorous) that they were either straight when I did not expect them to be or sarcastic when I thought they were straight.

The worst offender, though, was the UI. Sometimes (unlike the left-hand investigate, right hand progress) ME UI, sometimes you could not know which options moved the conversation forward. The dialogue choice just outright gave me surprising outcomes.

[quote]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.[/quote]

See, I am the opposite. I also want to play RPGs from the first person perspective. But for me it is VO that makes me feel as if I am playing the game from first person perspective. For one, as I pointed this out before, I do not see how characters have different tones for the same generic line across playthroughs. Whether it's my costmetic elf with some minor content changes at start/end or my cosmetic human, I do not hear a different voice or accent throughout the game. It is always the one voice of the writer. The thing is, without VO, I have no voice and I am forced into the background in all major scenes. With VO, at least the character can drive a scene as a central element versus being background filler.

Edit: Tried to explain it better.

[/quote]

[Skellimancer]

 We are too lazy to read.

[Zanaide]

In Exile wrote...

The thing is, without VO, I have no voice and I am forced into the background in all major scenes. With VO, at least the character can drive a scene as a central element versus being background filler.

This is a good point for me. While I love DA:O, having a non-voiced protagonist while everyone about you was blabbing away seemed a little one-sided. It doesn't bother me so much but I can't say I'm displeased with the decision to voice the PC.

Besides, I have a kindle to read. Best invention ever.

[Addai]

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.

Right, this is where we point out that that is what roleplaying IS, and to expect the game devs to take over that "job" for the player is... etc. etc. etc.

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...
Right, this is where we point out that that is what roleplaying IS, and to expect the game devs to take over that "job" for the player is... etc. etc. etc.

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

[AlanC9]

How many of those do we average a day?

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Right, this is where we point out that that is what roleplaying IS, and to expect the game devs to take over that "job" for the player is... etc. etc. etc.

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

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

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You're putting the cart before the horse.

"Gut feelings" and initial reactions precede and inform on the complete sentences that follow, they don't necessarily replace them.

They did in ME.  All you got was gut reactions.  It was like Shepard was subnormal (kids thess days would call it developmentally disabled).

Mass Effect-style paraphrasing gives the player input over that reaction.

So does DAO style full text.  Where exactly is the upside to the paraphrasing?  it certainly has nothing to do with giving the player control over his character.

In Exile wrote...

The worst offender, though, was the UI. Sometimes (unlike the left-hand investigate, right hand progress) ME UI, sometimes you could not know which options moved the conversation forward.

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

I do not see how characters have different tones for the same generic line across playthroughs.

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

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

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They did in ME.  All you got was gut reactions.  It was like Shepard was subnormal (kids thess days would call it developmentally disabled).

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

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

So does DAO style full text.  Where exactly is the upside to the paraphrasing?  it certainly has nothing to do with giving the player control over his character.

The upside is immersion in that the game more accurately represented what a conversation actually looks, sounds, and feels like.  The downside is of course, the freedom to exercise precise control over your character.  Immersion vs. freedom has always been my case, so at least I've been consistent.

We can't really explore that though - not that we haven't before, because that would very quickly result in a "What is an RPG?" discussion.  And I'm as tired of getting into those as I am sure the devs are of locking them.

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

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They did in ME.  All you got was gut reactions.  It was like Shepard was subnormal (kids thess days would call it developmentally disabled).

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

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

So does DAO style full text.  Where exactly is the upside to the paraphrasing?  it certainly has nothing to do with giving the player control over his character.

The upside is immersion in that the game more accurately represented what a conversation actually looks, sounds, and feels like.  The downside is of course, the freedom to exercise precise control over your character.  Immersion vs. freedom has always been my case, so at least I've been consistent.

We can't really explore that though - not that we haven't before, because that would very quickly result in a "What is an RPG?" discussion.  And I'm as tired of getting into those as I am sure the devs are of locking them.

Eh, I'm way more immersed when the character actually means something to me on a personal level. When I spent 50-60 dollars on an CRPG, I want to make characters that I actually have input into, even if its off screen input, rather than be handheld and force fed specific dialog. Otherwise you may as well just pop a movie in the dvd player because its essentially the same thing having a voiced, paraphrased protagonist.

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Eh, I'm way more immersed when the character actually means something to me on a personal level. When I spent 50-60 dollars on an CRPG, I want to make characters that I actually have input into, even if its off screen input, rather than be handheld and force fed specific dialog. Otherwise you may as well just pop a movie in the dvd player because its essentially the same thing having a voiced, paraphrased protagonist.

I was going to put effort into an honest response, but I'm just not going to deal with your elitism anymore.  Give me a thousand stubborn Sylvius the Mad posts to attempt to refute before I have to offer you even one more lesson on how to construct an argument without being condescending.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 octobre 2010 - 05:35 .

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Eh, I'm way more immersed when the character actually means something to me on a personal level. When I spent 50-60 dollars on an CRPG, I want to make characters that I actually have input into, even if its off screen input, rather than be handheld and force fed specific dialog. Otherwise you may as well just pop a movie in the dvd player because its essentially the same thing having a voiced, paraphrased protagonist.

I was going to put effort into an honest response, but I'm just not going to deal with your elitism anymore.  Give me a thousand stubborn Sylvius the Mad posts to attempt to refute before I have to offer you even one more lesson on how to construct an argument without being condescending.

Well, you didn't serve your own argument well by framing the problem as immersion vs. freedom.  The VO on a protagonist is immersion-breaking for me and it seems for others as well.

Modifié par Addai67, 14 octobre 2010 - 05:43 .

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...
Well, you didn't serve your own argument well by framing the problem as immersion vs. freedom.  The VO on a protagonist is immersion-breaking for me and it seems for others as well.

Well, I made an attempt to define immersion as I understand it.  I suppose I could come up with a different word after another five pages of semantic debate.  I would argue that those who disapprove of my use of the term attain their immersion through the imagination the freedom of the game allows.  

Whereas immersion can also be attained more directly through taking part in a more believable world in which all characters have a voice, body language, etc.

The argument is therefore what is a developer going for when including voiceovers.  Put another way - what is the "point of voiceover?"  The point, I am arguing, is to increase immersion by giving the writers more creative control and creating a more realistic portrayal of human speech.  This is at the expense of player freedom.  And yes, I know that player freedom is what many people see as being part of the core RPG experience, but any disagreement over that subject is off topic and will get this thread locked.  So I suggest we avoid it.

Anyway, if you've got a better term to describe the idea I'm trying to get across, I'm up for changing it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 octobre 2010 - 05:52 .

[Anarya]

AlanC9 wrote...

How many of those do we average a day?

Too many.

[upsettingshorts]

Anarya wrote...
Too many.

It's like this forum's version of Godwin's law.  Given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably end up being about Hitler the precise definition of what a CRPG is.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 octobre 2010 - 05:59 .

[Blastback]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Well, you didn't serve your own argument well by framing the problem as immersion vs. freedom.  The VO on a protagonist is immersion-breaking for me and it seems for others as well.

Well, I made an attempt to define immersion as I understand it.  I suppose I could come up with a different word after another five pages of semantic debate.  I would argue that those who disapprove of my use of the term attain their immersion through the imagination the freedom of the game allows.  

Whereas immersion can also be attained more directly through taking part in a more believable world in which all characters have a voice, body language, etc.

The argument is therefore what is a developer going for when including voiceovers.  Put another way - what is the "point of voiceover?"  The point, I am arguing, is to increase immersion by giving the writers more creative control and creating a more realistic portrayal of human speech.  This is at the expense of player freedom.  And yes, I know that player freedom is what many people see as being part of the core RPG experience, but any disagreement over that subject is off topic and will get this thread locked.  So I suggest we avoid it.

Anyway, if you've got a better term to describe the idea I'm trying to get across, I'm up for changing it.

Can we just leave it at, "For some players, having a voiced protagonist will increase thier immersion in the game, while for others, it will decrease it"? 

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The argument is therefore what is a developer going for when including voiceovers.  Put another way - what is the "point of voiceover?"  The point, I am arguing, is to increase immersion by giving the writers more creative control and creating a more realistic portrayal of human speech.  This is at the expense of player freedom.

If you've got a better term to describe the idea I'm trying to get across, I'm up for changing it.

For what you're describing, I would use the other buzz word, "cinematic."  The writers creating and showing us a world that is fully fleshed out.

I would call immersion the players' illusion that I'm in the story as an integral part of it.  For different people, different things obviously break that illusion and put distance between you and what you're seeing.  I and others experience a distance from the PC when that PC goes off on his own saying things we didn't know he was going to say, in a voice we wouldn't necessarily choose for him.

[upsettingshorts]

Blastback wrote...
Can we just leave it

New around here?

But seriously, I'd be fine with it.  I'm not the one creating all these threads.  While I'm hardly a model of consistency, I try not to get too involved until someone inevitably implies - or more often - simply states anyone who likes voiceovers must be some kind of childish illiterate Neanderthal.  

Then all bets are off, really.  It's a character flaw.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 octobre 2010 - 06:12 .

[Meltemph]

Most of us would throughly enjoy that Blastback, but those who "don't like the direction" like to act condescending and try and make their preferences superior. So obviously it is going to elicit a response, it is why I think people do it.



When you have an expectation of a certain product and the expectation does not meet reality, you are always going to have those types of consumers who try and act like investors or its equivalent and try and argue for a different game, essentially. Those who are fine or happy with that changes, will in kind, respond obviously, since those who don't like the direction are trying to change the game, so to speak.

[Merced256]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Blastback wrote...
Can we just leave it

New around here?

But seriously, I'd be fine with it.  I'm not the one creating all these threads.  While I'm hardly a model of consistency, I try not to get too involved until someone inevitably implies - or more often - simply states anyone who likes voiceovers must be some kind of childish illiterate Neanderthal.  

Then all bets are off, really.  It's a character flaw.

Well you're hardly unbiased even given this statement. Should someone imply that people who prefer character immersion as opposed to story immersion are old beat down scrubs who get served pwnage everyday by the new hip crowd. But its fine cause i belong to xxxxxxxxxxxx group.

Modifié par Merced256, 14 octobre 2010 - 06:08 .

[Meltemph]

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



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

[upsettingshorts]

Merced256 wrote...
Well you're hardly unbiased even given this statement. Should someone imply that people who prefer character immersion as opposed to story immersion are old beat down scrubs who get served pwnage everyday by the new hip crowd. But its fine cause i belong to xxxxxxxxxxxx group.

Who said I was unbiased?  All I'm saying is I don't enjoy being talked down to on a persistent basis.  Even assuming that I'm part of some "new" crowd is irritating - and presumptive.

Addai67 wrote...
For what you're describing, I would use the other buzz word, "cinematic."  The writers creating and showing us a world that is fully fleshed out.

Conceptually I'm not against it.  Rhetorically I would have to oppose it on the grounds that on this forum the term cinematic has come to imply that players who prefer a voiceover ought to just be watching a movie.  While I won't dispute that the voiceover clearly has a cinematic quality to it, simply leaving it at that doesn't accurately reflect the amount of control I still expect from CRPGs.  It's just that my standard for expected control over the narrative and character is lower than those who oppose it.

In short, that term would normally be fine.  But critics have poisoned the well.  

I'd be happy with realism, myself, now that I think about it.  Realism vs. imagination has a nice ring to it, thought it may strike others as equally misleading.  I'll just throw it out there. 

Edit: I'd like to stress that I believe it's a question of priorities, not absolutes.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 octobre 2010 - 06:29 .