885 réponses à ce sujet

[SirOccam]

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.

Me too.

I'm just wondering who it is I supposedly would want playing my character if I'm not. And how wanting the ability to have my character communicate on the same level as his fellow conversants on-screen equates to not wanting to play him at all.

[Ashira Shepard]

If the character is voiced, I tend to wait before making my own version of that character until I hear the voice, then build up a character around that voice. Avoids the drama of making some tough looking macho dude and then the chosen voice actor has a softer, Jack Whitehall looking sound to his voice.



Jack Whitehall

Funny dude.

[Morroian]

Davasar wrote...

So....having less choice is better?

Its just a different way of playing thats all. No need to put such a pejorative slant on it. I could easily say so you like playing the games entirely in your head.

[Davasar]

Well, someone else is interpreting how to respond to various interactions in ways you might not with their tone and inflection.

You might have your character say things totally different from how they would.

That's someone playing your character for you.

There's nothing wrong with liking that. Enjoy it if that's what you wanted.

It's just not for me.

Modifié par Davasar, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:06 .

[Davasar]

AshiraShepard wrote...

If the character is voiced, I tend to wait before making my own version of that character until I hear the voice, then build up a character around that voice. Avoids the drama of making some tough looking macho dude and then the chosen voice actor has a softer, Jack Whitehall looking sound to his voice.

Jack Whitehall
Funny dude.

Actually, that makes a lot of sense.

[Davasar]

Morroian wrote...

Davasar wrote...

So....having less choice is better?

Its just a different way of playing thats all. No need to put such a pejorative slant on it. I could easily say so you like playing the games entirely in your head.

Maybe I do... 

*suddenly the Dennis Leary song "Voices in my Head" starts playing*

[Atakuma]

Edit: other people said it better

Modifié par Atakuma, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:11 .

[TheRevanchist]

Davasar wrote...

Well, someone else is interpreting how to respond to various interactions in ways you might not with their tone and inflection.

You might have your character say things totally different from how they would.

That's someone playing your character for you.

There's nothing wrong with liking that. Enjoy it if that's what you wanted.

It's just not for me.

Your argument is still flawed...because even in DAO you still lack that choice, you are still forced to decide from amoung pre-existing dialogue options. What if you want to say something none of them provide? it's still the same problem...VO or not it changes absolutly nothing in regards to choice restraint.

[SirOccam]

Davasar wrote...

Well, someone else is interpreting how to respond to various interactions in ways you might not with their tone and inflection.

You might have your character say things totally different from how they would.

That's someone playing your character for you.

Except that the same thing happens in Origins, only you can't see--or rather hear--it happening. That doesn't mean it's not happening, though. No matter what, the writers are writing your character's lines. There's no getting away from that, not for decades probably. No amount of imagination is going to change the line in any appreciable way. Choosing option X leads to response Y whether you imagine you're saying it in an angry way or a nice way.

You don't have complete freedom, but then you've never had complete freedom. You're operating within the bounds the writers and developers have laid out. Any "freedom" you think you have beyond that is just illusion. It will never affect the game.

[Davasar]

SirOccam wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Well, someone else is interpreting how to respond to various interactions in ways you might not with their tone and inflection.

You might have your character say things totally different from how they would.

That's someone playing your character for you.

Except that the same thing happens in Origins, only you can't see--or rather hear--it happening. That doesn't mean it's not happening, though. No matter what, the writers are writing your character's lines. There's no getting away from that, not for decades probably. No amount of imagination is going to change the line in any appreciable way. Choosing option X leads to response Y whether you imagine you're saying it in an angry way or a nice way.

You don't have complete freedom, but then you've never had complete freedom. You're operating within the bounds the writers and developers have laid out. Any "freedom" you think you have beyond that is just illusion. It will never affect the game.

But how the lines are said are for me to decide, not a voice actor.

Again, if you wanted someone else roleplaying your character, that is fine.

There is nothing wrong with it.

Modifié par Davasar, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:12 .

[TheRevanchist]

Davasar wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Well, someone else is interpreting how to respond to various interactions in ways you might not with their tone and inflection.

You might have your character say things totally different from how they would.

That's someone playing your character for you.

Except that the same thing happens in Origins, only you can't see--or rather hear--it happening. That doesn't mean it's not happening, though. No matter what, the writers are writing your character's lines. There's no getting away from that, not for decades probably. No amount of imagination is going to change the line in any appreciable way. Choosing option X leads to response Y whether you imagine you're saying it in an angry way or a nice way.

You don't have complete freedom, but then you've never had complete freedom. You're operating within the bounds the writers and developers have laid out. Any "freedom" you think you have beyond that is just illusion. It will never affect the game.

But how the lines are said are for me to decide, not a voice actor.

Again, if you wanted someone else roleplaying your character, that is fine.

There is nothing wrong with it.

No...thats the point...it's STILL not up to you...you can THINK all you want...but every choice comes with a pre-determined tone they deliver it with and no amount of magical imagination changes that fact.

[Revan312]

Regardless of how you feel, Davasar is correct on one thing, that a non voiced PC requires you to use your imagination to an extent, just like books, which require visual and auditory interpretation.



And I have to say he is correct in his implied opinion (at least it's how I took it) that books are a higher form of storytelling media than films/tv shows/video games. Books can be, and for the most part are, far deeper and require much more involvement on the part of the participant. Humans are a visual and auditory based species, we interpret and react to images and sounds much easier than we do textual comprehension. You can show someone a boxing match on television and even the most aloof person can for the most part keep up with what's going on, yet describing the fight in words is more difficult for anyone to understand.



Reading requires imagination, concentration and interpretation to grasp fully, watching something on a screen hardly takes any of the three. The only reason I base such assumptions as "text = higher form of media" is because everyone I know has watched a ton of television and movies, yet the very intelligent individuals I know are heavy readers. I'm not a heavy reader, at least not as heavy as I wish I was, I've seen about 1000X more movies than I have read books.



So in a sense, I agree, books are a more intellectually based form of media which is why I think they are "better". Now RPGs, well, anymore they're within the realm of movies/tv far more than they are in the realm of books and essentially I've resigned myself to the fact that to most gamers cinematics trumps forced imagination. So, the only reason I dislike voiced protagonists now is because of the space it takes up on game disks. It cuts content down because of the room issue that arises with this amount of dialogue.. Now it's all subjective on whether or not you feel more immersion is worth the content cuts, personally I don't..

[SirOccam]

Davasar wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Well, someone else is interpreting how to respond to various interactions in ways you might not with their tone and inflection.

You might have your character say things totally different from how they would.

That's someone playing your character for you.

Except that the same thing happens in Origins, only you can't see--or rather hear--it happening. That doesn't mean it's not happening, though. No matter what, the writers are writing your character's lines. There's no getting away from that, not for decades probably. No amount of imagination is going to change the line in any appreciable way. Choosing option X leads to response Y whether you imagine you're saying it in an angry way or a nice way.

You don't have complete freedom, but then you've never had complete freedom. You're operating within the bounds the writers and developers have laid out. Any "freedom" you think you have beyond that is just illusion. It will never affect the game.

But how the lines are said are for me to decide, not a voice actor.

Again, if you wanted someone else roleplaying your character, that is fine.

There is nothing wrong with it.

But that's just it...you're not "deciding" anything. You're playing pretend, essentially, and none of it has even the slightest effect on the game. Why not just sit and daydream for a few hours and save yourself $60?

And no, I don't want anyone else roleplaying my character, and I find that whole line of reasoning flawed, as I've said. Repeating that line isn't helpful, just annoying.

It's just a matter of scope, really. You seem to think you have all this freedom, and that adding a voice takes some of it away. I don't think we ever had that freedom in the first place. It's still roleplaying, though, because I am still choosing the option. That is still choice. It would also be roleplaying if we could type our responses in and they had a sophisticated parsing engine that could actually support that. And the way they did it in Origins wouldn't be considered "no longer roleplaying" compared to that.

[Maconbar]

Davasar wrote...

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.

If the character's reaction is yours how do you finesse the limitation in PC responses in DA:O?

[TheRevanchist]

Revan312 wrote...

Regardless of how you feel, Davasar is correct on one thing, that a non voiced PC requires you to use your imagination to an extent, just like books, which require visual and auditory interpretation.

And I have to say he is correct in his implied opinion (at least it's how I took it) that books are a higher form of storytelling media than films/tv shows/video games. Books can be, and for the most part are, far deeper and require much more involvement on the part of the participant. Humans are a visual and auditory based species, we interpret and react to images and sounds much easier than we do textual comprehension. You can show someone a boxing match on television and even the most aloof person can for the most part keep up with what's going on, yet describing the fight in words is more difficult for anyone to understand.

Reading requires imagination, concentration and interpretation to grasp fully, watching something on a screen hardly takes any of the three. The only reason I base such assumptions as "text = higher form of media" is because everyone I know has watched a ton of television and movies, yet the very intelligent individuals I know are heavy readers. I'm not a heavy reader, at least not as heavy as I wish I was, I've seen about 1000X more movies than I have read books.

So in a sense, I agree, books are a more intellectually based form of media which is why I think they are "better". Now RPGs, well, anymore they're within the realm of movies/tv far more than they are in the realm of books and essentially I've resigned myself to the fact that to most gamers cinematics trumps forced imagination. So, the only reason I dislike voiced protagonists now is because of the space it takes up on game disks. It cuts content down because of the room issue that arises with this amount of dialogue.. Now it's all subjective on whether or not you feel more immersion is worth the content cuts, personally I don't..

I am not really disputing this...I am however disbuteing how he seems to think adding a voice restricts freedom when in truth it does not change it in the slightest.

[TheMufflon]

Revan312 wrote...

And I have to say he is correct in his implied opinion (at least it's how I took it) that books are a higher form of storytelling media than films/tv shows/video games. Books can be, and for the most part are, far deeper and require much more involvement on the part of the participant. Humans are a visual and auditory based species, we interpret and react to images and sounds much easier than we do textual comprehension. You can show someone a boxing match on television and even the most aloof person can for the most part keep up with what's going on, yet describing the fight in words is more difficult for anyone to understand.

In accepting those arguments the only logical conclusion would be that books are an inferior form of storytelling. As the reasonable metric for a storytelling medium can only be how well the medium conveys the story, by your arguments a book would make the consumer further removed from the story than other mediums and hence be worse.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:24 .

[Davasar]

kylecouch wrote...

Davasar wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Well, someone else is interpreting how to respond to various interactions in ways you might not with their tone and inflection.

You might have your character say things totally different from how they would.

That's someone playing your character for you.

Except that the same thing happens in Origins, only you can't see--or rather hear--it happening. That doesn't mean it's not happening, though. No matter what, the writers are writing your character's lines. There's no getting away from that, not for decades probably. No amount of imagination is going to change the line in any appreciable way. Choosing option X leads to response Y whether you imagine you're saying it in an angry way or a nice way.

You don't have complete freedom, but then you've never had complete freedom. You're operating within the bounds the writers and developers have laid out. Any "freedom" you think you have beyond that is just illusion. It will never affect the game.

But how the lines are said are for me to decide, not a voice actor.

Again, if you wanted someone else roleplaying your character, that is fine.

There is nothing wrong with it.

No...thats the point...it's STILL not up to you...you can THINK all you want...but every choice comes with a pre-determined tone they deliver it with and no amount of magical imagination changes that fact.

Umm no.

How I imagine my character says the lines IS up to me.

And imagination isnt magical, I have plenty and like to use it to a great extent.

If other people want to use theirs less, that's fine.  More power to them.

[Davasar]

kylecouch wrote...

I am not really disputing this...I am however disbuteing how he seems to think adding a voice restricts freedom when in truth it does not change it in the slightest.

The voice actor decides how the characters tone and inflection and emotion are induced to each statement.

You aren't deciding that.

That's all I am saying.

[TheRevanchist]

Davasar wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Davasar wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Well, someone else is interpreting how to respond to various interactions in ways you might not with their tone and inflection.

You might have your character say things totally different from how they would.

That's someone playing your character for you.

Except that the same thing happens in Origins, only you can't see--or rather hear--it happening. That doesn't mean it's not happening, though. No matter what, the writers are writing your character's lines. There's no getting away from that, not for decades probably. No amount of imagination is going to change the line in any appreciable way. Choosing option X leads to response Y whether you imagine you're saying it in an angry way or a nice way.

You don't have complete freedom, but then you've never had complete freedom. You're operating within the bounds the writers and developers have laid out. Any "freedom" you think you have beyond that is just illusion. It will never affect the game.

But how the lines are said are for me to decide, not a voice actor.

Again, if you wanted someone else roleplaying your character, that is fine.

There is nothing wrong with it.

No...thats the point...it's STILL not up to you...you can THINK all you want...but every choice comes with a pre-determined tone they deliver it with and no amount of magical imagination changes that fact.

Umm no.

How I imagine my character says the lines IS up to me.

And imagination isnt magical, I have plenty and like to use it to a great extent.

If other people want to use theirs less, that's fine.  More power to them.

You clearly have no idea how RPG's work because no matter how many times you repeat yourself you are still wrong. "Did you deal the problem?"  option 1. Yes I did (neutral) 2. yes and it will cost you extra for lieing to me (threatening) 3. I did what I must (goodish).....you still do not control the TONE of the line you choose, they are programed with pre-determined responses based upon the tone of the delivered line....you can "imagine" whatever tone you want...but if it's not the one programed into the choice you made it's still freakin wrong.

Modifié par kylecouch, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:31 .

[In Exile]

Davasar wrote...

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.

Err... what?

From some random novel when I goggled excerpts

Thinking of his Sarah at home, warm and safe with Septimus and the
boys, Silas decided that they would just have to make room for one more
little one. He carefully tucked the baby into his blue Wizard cloak and
held her close to him as he ran toward the Castle gate. He reached the
drawbridge just as Gringe, the gatekeeper, was about to go and yell for
the Bridge Boy to start winding it up.

"You're cutting it a bit fine," growled Gringe. "But you Wizards are
weird. Waddyou all want to be out for on a day like this I dunno."

"Oh?" Silas wanted to get past Gringe as soon as he could, but first
he had to cross Gringe's palm with silver. Silas quickly found a silver
penny in one of his pockets and handed it over.

"Thank you, Gringe. Good night."

Gringe looked at the the penny as though it were a rather nasty
beetle.

"Marcia Overstrand, she gave me a ‘alf crown just now. But then she's
got class, what with ‘er being the ExtraOrdinary Wizard now."

"What?" Silas nearly choked.

"Yeah. class, that's what she's got."

All the parts in bold are added precisely so you are not filling in some nebulous notion of emotion into the scene but have that emotion conveyed, i.e. the annoyance of the main character, how he was desparate to get back to wherever he was going. Notice that the other character has his speaking style conveyed directly via an atypical pronounciation.

A book certainly leaves a lot to the imagination (i.e. apperances), but things like emotions are most certainly in the writing and implicit if not explicit.

[Atakuma]

Davasar wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

I am not really disputing this...I am however disbuteing how he seems to think adding a voice restricts freedom when in truth it does not change it in the slightest.

The voice actor decides how the characters tone and inflection and emotion are induced to each statement.

You aren't deciding that.

That's all I am saying.

You weren't deciding that in origins either, you only pretended you were.

[Dave of Canada]

How about Bioware gives you a blank sheet of paper, you can imagine yourself playing a game too.

[Sir JK]

Davasar wrote...
How I imagine my character says the lines IS up to me.

Yes, you are at full liberty to decide exactly how the lines are said. If your character exclaims them angrily, calmly expresses them, sarcastically inflects on them or where he puts the emphasis.

And then the game ignores it. No reaction to your choice whatsoever... Whatever you wishes your character to express through how they say it will only matter if it happens to be the same reaction the writer imagined it. Anything else will be ignored. Your characters emotion and expression is as far as the game is concerned neutral. No matter what you decided.

That is what many of us proponents of voices want. We don't want less choices. We don't want to hear our choices. We want a reaction to our choices. We want our character to communicate, to interact with the world. If that means less choices total then it's a fair trade-off (to us).
In essence: a choice that matters gives more roleplaying freedom than a choice that doesn't.

I hope that makes sense

[Revan312]

TheMufflon wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

And I have to say he is correct in his implied opinion (at least it's how I took it) that books are a higher form of storytelling media than films/tv shows/video games. Books can be, and for the most part are, far deeper and require much more involvement on the part of the participant. Humans are a visual and auditory based species, we interpret and react to images and sounds much easier than we do textual comprehension. You can show someone a boxing match on television and even the most aloof person can for the most part keep up with what's going on, yet describing the fight in words is more difficult for anyone to understand.

In accepting those arguments the only logical conclusion would be that books are an inferior form of storytelling. As the reasonable metric for a storytelling medium can only be how well the medium conveys the story, by your arguments a book would make the consumer further removed from the story than other mediums and hence be worse.

My definition of higher form within the context of media is that books do take more comprehension and focus, meaning your becoming more intelligent in the process, your training yourself mentally. Books are also much more, at least for me, enlightening and fulfilling. Watching a movie is just that, watching, reading is active and needs active brain involvement.

I'm not saying the amount of information conveyed is better in a book, I'm saying books convey that information in a way that requires more thought and reflection, therefor it produces more impact. Perhaps this as well is mostly subjective, I don't feel it is but it could be, regardless I retain the argument that heavy readers are on a whole more intelligent than heavy video game/movie/tv watchers..

Modifié par Revan312, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:37 .

[AlanC9]

Sure. but you aren't tone and inflection that in a game with an unvoiced PC either. You can make up some version in your head of what it sounds like, but that won't be what the other characters are hearing your character say; they'll be hearing whatever the writer thought the PC would sound like.

I guess I'm saying that it's a mistake to say that this medium allows you to use imagination in that way. You can get away with it by luck, but that's it. It's not that you can't tell what Shepard is about to say, it's that you could never tell what any of your PCs were about to say.

Edit: that's not at Revan in particular; I'm a bit out of sync here

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:54 .