885 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Brockololly wrote...
And yet, they seemingly did have to do a lot of work on the tech behind the engine and with the whole visual "hot rod samurai" redesign for DA2, they basically tossed out or otherwise had to dedicate resources into "amping up" any existing model, like the darkspawn, and all that. Its not like BG2 where they just went right into it with stable technology and created content and added more everything. 

Well, BG2 did have a fair number of improvements to the engine, hence BG1Tutu. Art reusability is also fairly minimal between the two games. Except, of course, for a few BG1 maps that are lifted wholesale for BG2.

[mr_luga]

Atakuma wrote...

mr_luga wrote...

My biggest problem with voice actors, is what we are currently seeing, no alternative races. Only humans. Since the cost is too big for like 6 voice actors for all races and genders.

That's the issue with voices. What it adds, dosnt make up for what you lose in my opinion

You are assuming race and origins were going to be a constant thing in the series.

THat dosnt make what I said less true though

Edit to add more:  You see it in alot of games, extra story etc is in text, books in oblivion for example, having huge convos with characters just costs too much to record it all.

I'm not being all "Burn bioware!" here so you know, dont get all agressive with me   I think voice actors are fine, I like mass effect alot, but I also know, by having voices, other things gets cut away.

And if, let's say, it was completely free with voice, it would still cut things away, why? Audio takes more space on disks then text.

It isnt Bioware being cheap or evil, it's just the sad unfortunate reality <.<

Modifié par mr_luga, 22 novembre 2010 - 04:07 .

[Davasar]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I've previously found silent characters amusing and have often noticed how in third person games like Dragon Age, Jade Empire, or even non-RPGs like Dead Space, a silent, emotionless protagonist feels very odd. Voiced NPCs usually have an emotional depth that the non-voiced PC doesn't get.

Your imagination should be providing that emotion. 

However, I realise some people are not born natural actors/dialogue coaches, and to an extent, this means they cannot read a script and come up with a dialogue approach for the lines in question. 

So to them, when they read lines, it's just that...lines.

But for me, I get the emotion, the depth and the intent of the conversation and all that comes out through my imagination.

For me, having a voice takes that away as the interpretation of the voice actor most likely is not mine.

To each their own.

[Maria Caliban]

Davasar wrote...

Your imagination should be providing that emotion. 

No, the game should provide the emotion expression. No one goes a play and accepts the main character standing there and silently watching the other participants. Same with movies and television.

Even books, which lack visual information, describe the main character's emotions and expressions.

[Davasar]

Yet your imagination has to supply it from a book.



And this is different in the fact that in a game, they don't hold your hand down the aisle of reaction and imagination most of the time (DA2 may be the exception among others), that is the purview of the roleplayer.



These reactions are left pruposefully blank so the player can decide how his/her character would react.



And movies and TV? Well, since the game seems to have a lot of cinematics, I suppose people got what they wanted: watching a show that does all the imagination work for them.



That's why lots of people watch movies and TV rather then read books, watching cinema is 'easier'.

[Morroian]

Davasar wrote...

Your imagination should be providing that emotion.

Perhaps you play that way but many others (Probably most) don't.

Modifié par Morroian, 22 novembre 2010 - 04:36 .

[Davasar]

Morroian wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Your imagination should be providing that emotion.

Perhaps you play that way but many others (Probably most) don't.

Agreed.

More people watch cinema instead of reading books, see above reason.

[TheRevanchist]

Davasar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Your imagination should be providing that emotion.

Perhaps you play that way but many others (Probably most) don't.

Agreed.

More people watch cinema instead of reading books, see above reason.

I read all the time...and I have no problem imagineing it for that purpose. However I find that to be unnessisary when the characters are right in front of my eyes, yet they stand there and do nothing. IMO if it's on a TV screen it should be done for you...If not why bother with the screen at all. Might as well make RPG's interactive audio books. "press A to attack, press B to persuade" etc while listening to it...seeing as how acording to your logic your imagination should always do everyuthing simply remove the TV from the equation...problem solved.

Modifié par kylecouch, 22 novembre 2010 - 04:45 .

[Davasar]

Watching TV is exactly for that purpose.

I suppose people want to watch TV and play their game at the same time and have it be the same thing *shrugs*

Weird to me, but ok.

I like to have the characters reaction be MINE, and no one elses interpretation via emotion and inflection.

If you like having someone else play your character, more power to you.

Modifié par Davasar, 22 novembre 2010 - 04:45 .

[SirOccam]

Davasar wrote...

Yet your imagination has to supply it from a book.

Except you don't, as Maria just said. There are descriptions to tell you what people are thinking or feeling. In a film you get that information because you can see their face or body language. But either way you are given that information.

Davasar wrote...

And movies and TV? Well, since the game seems to have a lot of cinematics, I suppose people got what they wanted: watching a show that does all the imagination work for them.

That's why lots of people watch movies and TV rather then read books, watching cinema is 'easier'.

And I suppose that you think, therefore, that books are "better?" They are all valid forms of art and entertainment...I don't see why movies/TV are necessarily worse because it's not as "difficult." I mean...why should "difficulty" be a good thing?

As I said much earlier in the thread...they've got to play to the strengths of the medium through which they've chosen to tell their story. There's nothing wrong with "showing" rather than "telling," especially considering that a major part of video games is...video. Using text instead of visuals is not more "sophisticated" or whatever, and not being in favor of using more text doesn't mean someone must therefore have an attention span problem. They used text in the old days because that's all they could do. Well times have changed, and they have access to things now that they didn't a couple of decades ago. Avoiding those things because they deviate from "the good old days" is just foolish.

[KhorinShizucor]

kylecouch wrote...
I read all the time...and I have no problem imagineing it for that purpose. However I find that to be unnessisary when the characters are right in front of my eyes, yet they stand there and do nothing. IMO if it's on a T'V screen it should be done for you...or else play a table top game.

This.

[Davasar]

As I said, if you like having someone else play your character, more power to you.

[Maria Caliban]

Davasar wrote...

Yet your imagination has to supply it from a book.

No, in a book, the author tells me what the main character is feeling and describes it. My imagination supplies the *visual* and the *audio* but the author still *expresses emotion.* In fact, novels spend more time on the feelings and thoughts of the protagonist than any other medium.

In a game like DA:O the PC *never expresses emotion.* Not visually, not textually, and not audibly.

I'm not even talking about regular interaction where we might dismiss it as a stoic PC. No, the PC leaves their parents to die with as much sorrow and regret as one might expect to see from a water cooler. They make love while looking bored and uninvolved.

This is something that no other media does and for good reason.

Unless you're suggesting that plays, movies, books, TV, song, dance, poetry, and all other forms of storytelling are for people who 'lack imagination', then I'll suggest that having the main character express emotions is storytelling 101, and that games not having this for so long is one of the reasons many consider them to have little artistic value.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 22 novembre 2010 - 04:53 .

[SirOccam]

kylecouch wrote...

I read all the time...and I have no problem imagineing it for that purpose. However I find that to be unnessisary when the characters are right in front of my eyes, yet they stand there and do nothing. IMO if it's on a TV screen it should be done for you...If not why bother with the screen at all. Might as well make RPG's interactive audio books. "press A to attack, press B to persuade" etc while listening to it...seeing as how acording to your logic your imagination should always do everyuthing simply remove the TV from the equation...problem solved.

Yes. It'd be like going to see a movie but instead of any actual video they just show the text of the novel from which the movie is based, and everyone just reads. It's like...why go to a movie then? Has nothing to do with not liking or being able to read or pay attention.

[Atakuma]

Davasar wrote...

As I said, if you like having someone else play your character, more power to you.

Nice copout

[Davasar]

Atakuma wrote...

Davasar wrote...

As I said, if you like having someone else play your character, more power to you.

Nice copout

Nice platitude.

[Atakuma]

Edit: not worth it

Modifié par Atakuma, 22 novembre 2010 - 04:54 .

[TheMufflon]

Davasar wrote...

As I said, if you like having someone else play your character, more power to you.

Bifurcation.

[TheRevanchist]

Davasar wrote...

As I said, if you like having someone else play your character, more power to you.

No one "plays it for you"...even in DAO you don't have COMPLETE control...why? because you still have to choose from pre-existing options. adding a VO does not change this fact, you can still decide what emotion your character reacts with...period.

[Davasar]

Anyway, if people want someone else to play their character, I say go for it.



Enjoy

[SirOccam]

Davasar wrote...

Anyway, if people want someone else to play their character, I say go for it.

That didn't make sense the first few times you said it either.

[Davasar]

kylecouch wrote...

Davasar wrote...

As I said, if you like having someone else play your character, more power to you.

No one "plays it for you"...even in DAO you don't have COMPLETE control...why? because you still have to choose from pre-existing options. adding a VO does not change this fact, you can still decide what emotion your character reacts with...period.

So....having less choice is better?



Okkaaaayyy.

[Davasar]

SirOccam wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Anyway, if people want someone else to play their character, I say go for it.

That didn't make sense the first few times you said it either.

Sorry if you cant understand.

[Atakuma]

Davasar wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Anyway, if people want someone else to play their character, I say go for it.

That didn't make sense the first few times you said it either.

Sorry if you cant understand.

Now you're just being antagonistic for no reason.

[Dave of Canada]

Davasar wrote...

Anyway, if people want someone else to play their character, I say go for it.

Your logic is flawed. Playing Origins or DA2, you don't play "your" character. You play the writer's character. Voiced or no.