885 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRevanchist]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

kylecouch wrote...
I understand and accept this...I just find it hard to understand how anyone can fool themselves into thinking it actually matters when it don't.

It does matter for the individual player. And ultimately, that's all our posts on these forums will ever truly be about - our own individual preference and approach for playing games.

Developers have to take a different, broader view. They have responsibilities we don't.  

The fact Sylvius' ideal game or my ideal game would be boring, irritating, or mediocre to the other doesn't matter to either of us while we're playing it.  But developers - ideally and generally - strive to appeal to both of us.  Hence the conflicts you see on this board from issues ranging from voiceovers to inventory to party control.

While I understand it's an opinion...I still can't grasp that...game mechanics can't be defied, no matter much you might wish they can be. Thats why I see doing it to begin with a complete waste of time because realisticly it does not change how the games plays out.

[Leonia]

kylecouch wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

To reiterate, one last time, it does matter what is read, to a point, but reading is more cognitively demanding than watching shows/movies or playing most games. Knowledge, comprehension and vocabulary are all expanded by reading more-so than any of the other media types can.

Go back a page and look at my last post, numerous studies including those within that studies references, not just the one I linked, have proven that reading, (in volume no less, meaning not what is being read but simply how much is read) has a direct correlation with increased cognitive intelligence above that of "screen" forms of media.

You can attempt to defend movies, television and games, but as a general rule, reading is more valuable to the acquisition of knowledge and comprehension than any other form of media.. period, the statistics and studies are on my side..

And I'm done arguing about it, as Upsetting has said, it's completely off topic..

I can disagree with this from personaly experience. I watch History Channel....ALOT...and I know more about History then many friends who study useing Text books. I finished my 100 question history examine in 10 minutes while it took everyone else like 2 hours. I got 100% on said test...while many of them barely even got C's or D's

All that proves is that people learn differently. And there aren't enough controls in your example to really draw any real conclusion. Did everyone get the same sort of grades on their homework? Were they all putting in the same hours of study time? How well do they all sleep? Their diets? On the subject of learning,  some people learn through visual means and others through auditory means and some need both. That has been proven already with many tests.

Anyway, I don't think we can empirically analyse and compare books v. movies in terms of expanding our capacity of intelligence. And it's still completely off-topic anyway. Video games are a mixture of mediums and we can either accept them and appreciate them or not, maybe you'll prefer reading Dragon Age in novel format over video-game format because you think one will make you smarter than the other. But I can't figure out why you would "bash" video games for dumbing down our brain so much if you get so much pleasure from them, honestly.

EDIT: I know that last pargraph needs some serious editting work but I am tired and feeling lazy. Oh wait , it's because I play too many video games and don't read enough books! Hurry, someone throw me a novel so I can be intelligent again and write more thought-provoking posts on a video-game forum.

Modifié par leonia42, 22 novembre 2010 - 07:00 .

[upsettingshorts]

kylecouch wrote...

While I understand it's an opinion...I still can't grasp that...game mechanics can't be defied, no matter much you might wish they can be. Thats why I see doing it to begin with a complete waste of time because realisticly it does not change how the games plays out.

That's why, to such players on issues like dialogue concepts such as ambiguity, doubt, and freedom are incredibly valuable.  As long as they exist, game mechanics don't so much need to be defied as they are capable of being ignored.  

I can see their point, even if it doesn't represent my own playstyle. Ultimately that's why the playstyles can't be reconciled, they represent fundamentally different approaches to and understandings of CRPGs.  Neither is "correct" because everyone's personal experience with a single player RPG are their own.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 novembre 2010 - 07:14 .

[KLUME777]

Sir JK wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...
1) It takes resources better spent elsewhere

I just wish to adress this argument for a moment, because I think it's reasoning is a bit flawed. The people working on the PC voiceacting will be people working with audio, actors and to a small extent animators (but they'd work on dialogue animations regardless). Unless you argue that they should focus on more npc voiceacting instead they don't actually take manpower from any other feature of the game (since the people doing it are specialised in audio). If they didn't do the PC voiceover they wouldn't be doing anything at all. So PC voiceover does not detract any manpower from other features.

The PC voiceover will be worked on alongside other features and such will not limit the time spent on other features. They will have the same deadlines and time constraints as all other departments and will not drag anyone else down or impair on any other feature. It won't take any longer to make just because there's a PC voice.

Budgetary reasons does sound like a big one at first, but remember that the PC voiceacting will be part of the voiceacting budget which will be a part of the audio budget. All in all the two actors doing PC voices will not be that much more expensive than any other major npc, which in turn is just a part of the much bigger audio budget. Even if the PC voiceover budget is indeed cut from the audio budget. Would it make a significant difference? All other departments still have the same timelimit. Providing them with more money won't give them more time to provide that much more content.
Hiring additional programmers (or others) for the money hits two problems: 1) My father, who works with software development at a rather high level, often talks about this one. There's a myth that more programmers will produce content quicker. It is only true up to a certain point, after that additional programmers will start to detract from the process due to the entire thing needing more organisation and more testing. Bioware's departments are probably not understaffed. 2) Does a voiceactor cost that much more than a programmer, artist, animator, writer and whatnot per hour? Probably not.
Overall, the PC Voiceover budget is very unlikely to be enough to expand the timelimit.

So which resources does a PC voiceover detract from other features? Manpower and time are separate. The budget would have to be huge to be able to affect the project as a whole and individual departments are unlikely to benefit unless the time is expanded.

Note: I did not take the emotion tracking thing into account since I don't understand what developing it entails.

Im sure Bioware can find someplace to allocate those resources. They managed for DAO.

[Sylvius the Mad]

kylecouch wrote...

While I understand it's an opinion...I still can't grasp that...game mechanics can't be defied, no matter much you might wish they can be. Thats why I see doing it to begin with a complete waste of time because realisticly it does not change how the games plays out.

That depends entirely on how you define the scope of the game.

The way I play, my character's choice of a specific line in a specific conversation is a very different outcome from my other character's choice of the same line in the same conversation if the characters' states of mind are relevantly dissimilar when the choice is made.

The gameplay, to me, isn't how the software behaves or what is displayed for me to see; the gameplay is the behaviour in me the software motivates.

If I play a character though a particular section of a game, and that character makes the choice to save some hostages, that doesn't prevent me from having an entirely different gameplay experience with a subsequent character who makes exactly the same choice - but for different reasons (or, frankly, even the same reasons, as long as those reasons were reached from a different starting point) - in the game part of the game.

The problem with the presentation of PC behaviour in a game like ME is that I'm robbed of considerable freedom in my ability to determine my characters' motives.  Since the PC's behaviour arising from a single dialogue choice (and an imprecise paraphrase at that) is far more extensive than anything we would see in DAO or a more traditional CRPG, it's far more difficult for me (or any player) to create a coherent personality for my character each time I play.  If more (and narrower) behaviour arises from a single choice, that dramatically reduces the number of possible sets of behaviours.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

@Davasar: I havn't followed the whole debate but... mute the game and imagine what Hawke says based on the paraphrase? Or have subtitles on and imagine that? Hell you can turn voices down alone, so if you wanted to only stretch your beast of an imagination to voices you could still take in the more basic sensual experience of hearing swords clash and fireballs explode. Really a good imagination can easily find it's way around any of the supposed obstacles being mentioned here, not to mention that at the end of the day the words are all pre-written anyway with a set tone in mind.

Whether there's a set tone in mind says nothing about whether the set tone exists in the game.  Or whether the player has any cause to pay it heed.

I've specifically asked for the ability to mute Hawke's voice, as that would allow us to disable subtitles and the play the game unhindered by teh PC voice-over.

However, simply disabling all VO means we'd either lose the NPC dialogue too, or we'd still see the full lines (which we never selected).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

I just wish to adress this argument for a moment, because I think it's reasoning is a bit flawed. The people working on the PC voiceacting will be people working with audio, actors and to a small extent animators (but they'd work on dialogue animations regardless). Unless you argue that they should focus on more npc voiceacting instead they don't actually take manpower from any other feature of the game (since the people doing it are specialised in audio). If they didn't do the PC voiceover they wouldn't be doing anything at all. So PC voiceover does not detract any manpower from other features.

The PC voiceover will be worked on alongside other features and such will not limit the time spent on other features. They will have the same deadlines and time constraints as all other departments and will not drag anyone else down or impair on any other feature. It won't take any longer to make just because there's a PC voice.

Budgetary reasons does sound like a big one at first, but remember that the PC voiceacting will be part of the voiceacting budget which will be a part of the audio budget. All in all the two actors doing PC voices will not be that much more expensive than any other major npc, which in turn is just a part of the much bigger audio budget. Even if the PC voiceover budget is indeed cut from the audio budget. Would it make a significant difference? All other departments still have the same timelimit. Providing them with more money won't give them more time to provide that much more content.

Hiring additional programmers (or others) for the money hits two problems: 1) My father, who works with software development at a rather high level, often talks about this one. There's a myth that more programmers will produce content quicker. It is only true up to a certain point, after that additional programmers will start to detract from the process due to the entire thing needing more organisation and more testing. Bioware's departments are probably not understaffed. 2) Does a voiceactor cost that much more than a programmer, artist, animator, writer and whatnot per hour? Probably not.
Overall, the PC Voiceover budget is very unlikely to be enough to expand the timelimit.

So which resources does a PC voiceover detract from other features?

ROI

Voice-over drives up the overall development cost, thus requiring a less niche product in order to satisfy investors.

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the mad: Well of course, but that's another argument alltogether. Taking the pc voiceover budget and spending it elsewhere, if it was possible, would not lower that cost. The only way to actually lower the development cost is to cut down on development. So to get that in this case you'd have the PC voiceover and replace it with nothing.



Which I won't dispute. I just argued against that the PC voiceover budget took resources from other features. Which it does not.

It does, as you say, factor in the overall development cost.

[Ortaya Alevli]

VO does not impair the freedom of guiding our character except that it removes the illusion that a silent protagonist is delivering the lines in a tone we imagined them to do. For some players, however, that illusion is already dispersed when a NPC "misunderstands" our tone and replies in an unexpected manner, meaning they can only react to the tone the writers intended. Even a silent PC is using a tone the writer intended, and that is why you cannot discuss the motivation behind Morrigan's presence with her without provoking her. Obviously the Warden is incapable of asking her "Why are you here?" without sounding like "Are you going to get lost already?"

In the end, fooling ourselves can only go so far. If a silent Shepard said "I'm only interested in talking for a bit" and Jacob started spouting nonsense about fraternization and whatnot, I would be like, "What the--" but alas, the damage is done. Thanks to Jennifer Hale, however, I know Shepard is bound to be a total harlot around Jacob, no exceptions. Saves me future disappointment.

Same with Alistair. There are times I say "Wow, what a thick skin the dude has" after insulting him and then there are times I say "Wow, what a thick head the dude has" after trying to be funny with him. Sometimes he cannot get a simple joke or an utter invective because...well, what I say as a joke was not meant to be a joke as far as the writer is concerned. Same with the gross insult. The illusion of guiding the PC along our imagination perishes eventually.

The concern I can relate to is the vocal characteristics of the actor. "Hey, but I wanted to play a character with a deep voice. What's with the pitch?" But we can only be so lucky. Hope you can soon find the...what was the word? Hah, immersion. Hope you can soon find the immersion you seek.

As for the limitations on *what* our character says, tone notwithstanding...well, I lost that battle the day I found that my character was unable to tell Minsc that he had to temper himself if he wanted to join the party in Irenicus' dungeon. Until the development of proper AIs, I guess.

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

Human scum! You'll regret what you've done here!
Thank you. I am glad we have this chance to talk.
Wow, that sounds terribly dull.
But what if I am not worthy?
That sounds unpleasant. Can it be avoided?
I'm afraid.
Yes. I could have run faster, perhaps.

anger, pleasure, boredom, doubt, hesitation, fear, regret. I don't know, these seem like emotions to me. Ones that PC actually expresses, on pretty regular basis.

Modifié par tmp7704, 22 novembre 2010 - 12:44 .

[ejoslin]

I prefer a silent protagonist for many reasons. I'm not sure if I'll be able to explain this well -- it's not much to do with freedom or whatever.



Say my warden is having a conversation with Alistair (I'm not an Alistair fangirl mind you). I read a line in my mind, click on it -- I've just "said" that line in my inner voice, and Alistair responds, perhaps sweetly, perhaps angrily. But it feels like he responded to something *I* just said, since i had imagined saying the line.



when it's a voiced protagonist, i lose the half of the conversation that is coming from ME. Now, instead of, say, Alistair talking to me, giving me a rose, having a playful conversation yet romantic conversation with me (after all, all those lines are being heard by me in my own voice), with a voiced protagonist, I'd be watching two people have that same conversation.



watching two people talk, whatever, can also be deeply engrossing. But it takes "me" out of it and puts "Hawke" or whomever into my place.



I hope that makes sense.

[SirOccam]

tmp7704 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

Human scum! You'll regret what you've done here!
Thank you. I am glad we have this chance to talk.
Wow, that sounds terribly dull.
But what if I am not worthy?
That sounds unpleasant. Can it be avoided?
I'm afraid.
Yes. I could have run faster, perhaps.

anger, pleasure, boredom, doubt, hesitation, fear, regret. I don't know, these seem like emotions to me. Ones that PC actually expresses, on pretty regular basis.

The PC doesn't actually express them, though. That's the point. He/she stands there and stares blankly.

[Xewaka]

SirOccam wrote...

The PC doesn't actually express them, though. That's the point. He/she stands there and stares blankly.

Because you don't (or can't) add and emotional value to the line chosen but expect the computer to make it for you, it doesn't mean a lack of emotion.

[tmp7704]

SirOccam wrote...

The PC doesn't actually express them, though. That's the point. He/she stands there and stares blankly.

I disagree -- Maria specifically said PC doesn't express these emotions "Not visually, not textually, and not audibly" and this simply isn't true. Regarding visuals -- in most dialogues the camera is focused on the person other than the PC so the "staring blankly" thing is to quite an extent projecting what one wants to see onto something we don't actually get to see.

[SirOccam]

Xewaka wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

The PC doesn't actually express them, though. That's the point. He/she stands there and stares blankly.

Because you don't (or can't) add and emotional value to the line chosen but expect the computer to make it for you, it doesn't mean a lack of emotion.

No, I agree that the line has emotion, or at least that it was written in such a way that it's supposed to indicate emotion. But like I said, the PC just stands there and stares blankly. You choose the line, but the PC doesn't express that line.

tmp7704 wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

The PC doesn't actually express them, though. That's the point. He/she stands there and stares blankly.

I disagree -- Maria specifically said PC doesn't express these emotions "Not visually, not textually, and not audibly" and this simply isn't true. Regarding visuals -- in most dialogues the camera is focused on the person other than the PC so the "staring blankly" thing is to quite an extent projecting what one wants to see onto something we don't actually get to see.

I most certainly don't want to see my PC standing there struck dumb, and the camera is pointed at the PC plenty of times. And there's also the audio part to consider. We don't have to see the PC in order to hear (or not hear) him or her deliver a line.

Like I said to Xewaka, I don't deny that some emotions are implied in the lines themselves, but my problem is that the PC never expresses that emotion. There's a significant disconnect between the PC and the selection of a line. He or she doesn't do anything when you choose a line. I, like many others, find that discrepancy jarring. All the NPCs are able to express these powerful emotions, but for the PC it's just the stare.

And one other point on these emotions in the lines...as people like Davasaur and Sylvius like to say, they have all but unlimited freedom to make the line sound however they want. How can we say a line is definitively "angry," then? By their logic, no line has any kind of implied tone, and they've stated this outright several times.

Modifié par SirOccam, 22 novembre 2010 - 01:11 .

[Sir JK]

tmp7704: One problem with some of those lines is that you can interpret them with several emotions. Number 2 can be sincere or mocking. Number 3 can be bored or joking. 4 can be genuine or false modesty. 6 can be expressed in many ways with many different meanings. 7 could be resigned, regretful, sarcastic, feigned and whatnot.



The PC will express none of these emotions. We can read them into the lines, but no more than that. We could perhaps figure out what the line was intended as based on the npc's reaction, but the emotion/tone was still unexpressed.



Also, I think what Maria meant with emotions being expressed textually is something like:

Human scum! You'll regret what you've done here!, I snarled, spitting the words in the man's face. Anger welling up inside me as I had to hold myself back from ripping his throat out with my own hands.

[ScotGaymer]

Unlike in the original Mass Effect I found that Bioware were quite careful with DAO and ME2 to have the dialogue appear fairly obvious in what you were doing most of the time.

For example in ME it was too easy to accidentally romance Ashley or Liara. In DAO this was not the case because what the PC to begin the romance was overtly fliratious. The only one I had trouble with was Morrigan the first time I played. My Mage ended up having to romance her instead of Zevran; after that tho I was more wary of talking to Morrigan and made sure she understood we were friends.
It was generally true for ME2 also (except for the romances the LIs just threw themselves at you. The only way they could have been more vulgar is if they shouted "do me now!" while doing it).

If something in DAO was said sarcastically it was usually obvious it was sarcastic. So the PC did and does express emotion textually but Maria Calliban is quite correct in saying the PC doesnt express it in any other fashion.
During love scenes the PC looks blank bored or even vaguely disinterested. This was a problem that annoyed a lot of people.

And as I said earlier in typical Bioware fashion they are overreacting to the problem - "Dont like it do they? Well we will just strip it out/change it completely instead of fixing what they dont like!". Instead of just animating appropriate expressions for when the PC is talking and interjecting or during cut scenes they changed the mechanic totally by adding a totally voiced PC.
Which lets face it restricts the PC so much. Giving him a voice means he no longer has the personality i want but one of at most 3 default personalities that Bioware will give me the option of saying he has.
So instead of being able to replay the game multiple times like in DAO - basically one for each origin with a diff romance each time. We are suddenly restricted to at most 3 play thrus. Any more than that and we be playing with the same character doing the exact same things the whole way thru simply cos we no longer have the option to do anything else.

Now I am not saying in DAO that we had the option to do whatever we pleased. We didnt. Thats just silly. Of course our choices are going to be restricted to context, and whatever the devs feel they can include as is normal. But its guaranteed just by the fact that the PC in DA2 will be voiced the amount of choices available to us as players will be a lot less.

Again I should say I dont mind a voiced PC when its appropriate (ie when playing a preset character such as Geralt of Rivia in The Witcher) and I do not feel it is entirely appropriate in a game like DA where we are supposed to have a LOT of control over the character.
Voiced PCs are more appropriate in games like The Witcher or to use a BW game as an example like Jade Empire.
Jade Empire's PC was unvoiced but they could have voiced them if they wanted to/had the budget for it and it fitted into the game just fine. Because although you could pick from several different chracters to play in the game they were all pretty predefined, each with the same background, each following his/her own "path" (Ie Strength, or Magic etc), each acting within the confines of his/her chosen philosophy (Open Palm or Closed Fist). So Voiced PC would have been more appropriate as the Dragon Age Universe doesnt have the same sort of contextual restrictions that JE does.

At least thats my opinion...

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 22 novembre 2010 - 01:19 .

[tmp7704]

SirOccam wrote...

I most certainly don't want to see my PC standing there struck dumb, and the camera is pointed at the PC plenty of times.

The camera mostly points at PC while you pick the line, so it's quite natural you don't see any expression during that part -- Shepard also stands neutral while you pick your response because at this poin game doesn't yet know what emotion you'll choose. The difference is, in ME case once you pick the response you get to see (and hear) the PC actually go through motions of acting it out, while in DAO case actions skips straight to part where the other person reacts to your choice, because you already got to see exactly what your character would say and the devs apparently feel that getting to see your chosen line repeated in manner we get to see the NPC lines would be just pointlessly redundant. It doesn't mean your character doesn't actually say that chosen line, though -- clearly that must happen otherwise how would NPCs react to them?
 

Like I said to Xewaka, I don't deny that some emotions are implied in the lines themselves, but my problem is that the PC never expresses that emotion.

And again, i disagree. What is "i'm afraid" but an expression of emotion? It's textual expression rather than audible or visual, but it's expression just the same.

And one other point on these emotions in the lines...as people like Davasaur and Sylvius like to say, they have all but unlimited freedom to make the line sound however they want. How can we say a line is definitively "angry," then? By their logic, no line has any kind of implied tone, and they've stated this outright several times.

If you subscribe to this line of thought, then it includes like you say, "unlimited freedom to make the line sound however you want". Meaning, the PC can express any emotion the player feels to be appropriate, which is directly opposite to the idea that PC doesn't express any emotions, at all. It doesn't matter what emotion it is, specifically -- not when the complaint was that DAO PC doesn't express anything.

[tmp7704]

Sir JK wrote...

tmp7704: One problem with some of those lines is that you can interpret them with several emotions. Number 2 can be sincere or mocking. Number 3 can be bored or joking. 4 can be genuine or false modesty. 6 can be expressed in many ways with many different meanings. 7 could be resigned, regretful, sarcastic, feigned and whatnot.

While this is true, it does nothing to support the idea that PC doesn't express any emotions, does it?

edit:

Also, I think what Maria meant with emotions being expressed textually is something like:

Human scum! You'll regret what you've done here!, I snarled, spitting the words in the man's face. Anger welling up inside me as I had to hold myself back from ripping his throat out with my own hands.

That's possible, but then i think it's pretty limited view on what expressing one's emotions actually is. Suppose you write someone a letter, and include this: "i'm so pissed at you i'd gladly rip your throat out with my own hands" ... do you think it needs some *snarls, spitting words audibly to fully express the anger* emoting added there or the recipient will think you aren't expressing any emotion? Do you know anyone who writes letters like that?

Modifié par tmp7704, 22 novembre 2010 - 01:42 .

[Xewaka]

Sir JK wrote...

tmp7704: One problem with some of those lines is that you can interpret them with several emotions. Number 2 can be sincere or mocking. Number 3 can be bored or joking. 4 can be genuine or false modesty. 6 can be expressed in many ways with many different meanings. 7 could be resigned, regretful, sarcastic, feigned and whatnot.

I believe this flexibility is exactly why some people enjoy the written and unvoiced protagonist. It allows to ignore the original intent of the phrase to give it the inflexion appropiate to the character and situation.

[Maconbar]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Unlike in the original Mass Effect I found that Bioware were quite careful with DAO and ME2 to have the dialogue appear fairly obvious in what you were doing most of the time.

For example in ME it was too easy to accidentally romance Ashley or Liara. In DAO this was not the case because what the PC to begin the romance was overtly fliratious. The only one I had trouble with was Morrigan the first time I played. My Mage ended up having to romance her instead of Zevran; after that tho I was more wary of talking to Morrigan and made sure she understood we were friends.
It was generally true for ME2 also (except for the romances the LIs just threw themselves at you. The only way they could have been more vulgar is if they shouted "do me now!" while doing it).

If something in DAO was said sarcastically it was usually obvious it was sarcastic. So the PC did and does express emotion textually but Maria Calliban is quite correct in saying the PC doesnt express it in any other fashion.
During love scenes the PC looks blank bored or even vaguely disinterested. This was a problem that annoyed a lot of people.

And as I said earlier in typical Bioware fashion they are overreacting to the problem - "Dont like it do they? Well we will just strip it out/change it completely instead of fixing what they dont like!". Instead of just animating appropriate expressions for when the PC is talking and interjecting or during cut scenes they changed the mechanic totally by adding a totally voiced PC.
Which lets face it restricts the PC so much. Giving him a voice means he no longer has the personality i want but one of at most 3 default personalities that Bioware will give me the option of saying he has.
So instead of being able to replay the game multiple times like in DAO - basically one for each origin with a diff romance each time. We are suddenly restricted to at most 3 play thrus. Any more than that and we be playing with the same character doing the exact same things the whole way thru simply cos we no longer have the option to do anything else.

Now I am not saying in DAO that we had the option to do whatever we pleased. We didnt. Thats just silly. Of course our choices are going to be restricted to context, and whatever the devs feel they can include as is normal. But its guaranteed just by the fact that the PC in DA2 will be voiced the amount of choices available to us as players will be a lot less.

Again I should say I dont mind a voiced PC when its appropriate (ie when playing a preset character such as Geralt of Rivia in The Witcher) and I do not feel it is entirely appropriate in a game like DA where we are supposed to have a LOT of control over the character.
Voiced PCs are more appropriate in games like The Witcher or to use a BW game as an example like Jade Empire.
Jade Empire's PC was unvoiced but they could have voiced them if they wanted to/had the budget for it and it fitted into the game just fine. Because although you could pick from several different chracters to play in the game they were all pretty predefined, each with the same background, each following his/her own "path" (Ie Strength, or Magic etc), each acting within the confines of his/her chosen philosophy (Open Palm or Closed Fist). So Voiced PC would have been more appropriate as the Dragon Age Universe doesnt have the same sort of contextual restrictions that JE does.

At least thats my opinion...

I enjoyed reading your post and wanted to comment on a few elements. I am not sure that DA:2 is necessarily a game "where we are supposed to have a lot of control over the character". Because Hawke starts off with a specific backstory and is leaving Lothering with several family members, I think that BW is creating a more defined PC in many ways, like they did in KOTOR and JE. I fully agree that Hawke isn't as defined as Geralt.

[SirOccam]

tmp7704 wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

I most certainly don't want to see my PC standing there struck dumb, and the camera is pointed at the PC plenty of times.

The camera mostly points at PC while you pick the line, so it's quite natural you don't see any expression during that part -- Shepard also stands neutral while you pick your response because at this poin game doesn't yet know what emotion you'll choose. The difference is, in ME case once you pick the response you get to see (and hear) the PC actually go through motions of acting it out, while in DAO case actions skips straight to part where the other person reacts to your choice, because you already got to see exactly what your character would say and the devs apparently feel that getting to see your chosen line repeated in manner we get to see the NPC lines would be just pointlessly redundant. It doesn't mean your character doesn't actually say that chosen line, though -- clearly that must happen otherwise how would NPCs react to them?

No, theoretically, yes, he says it, but not in practice. He never opens his mouth and no sound ever escapes his lips.
 

Like I said to Xewaka, I don't deny that some emotions are implied in the lines themselves, but my problem is that the PC never expresses that emotion.

And again, i disagree. What is "i'm afraid" but an expression of emotion? It's textual expression rather than audible or visual, but it's expression just the same.

I think we have different ideas of what constitutes "expression." "I'm afraid" certainly is an expression of emotion...provided it is actually expressed. You can feel afraid, or decide that you want to say "I'm afraid," but until you actually DO express it, it's an emotion, but not an expression of that emotion.

Choosing a line is like choosing what the PC will have said. The PC him-/herself never expresses anything, though. Not truly. He/she just stands there. When you select a line, then conceptually, your character has expressed it, but that's just it: I don't find that very satisfying. I want my character to actually express it.

And like Sir JK said, what I think Maria meant by textual expression was that there are obvious indicators within each line marking exactly what emotion is intended. Like
(Angrily) Die, human scum!
...or as in Sir JK's example.

Because if you think about it, the PC expressing something textually would mean the PC is actually writing something down. The game uses text, but the PC doesn't. My argument is PC-centric. I want the PC to be doing the expressing, not the game.

And one other point on these emotions in the lines...as people like Davasaur and Sylvius like to say, they have all but unlimited freedom to make the line sound however they want. How can we say a line is definitively "angry," then? By their logic, no line has any kind of implied tone, and they've stated this outright several times.

If you subscribe to this line of thought, then it includes like you say, "unlimited freedom to make the line sound however you want". Meaning, the PC can express any emotion the player feels to be appropriate, which is directly opposite to the idea that PC doesn't express any emotions, at all. It doesn't matter what emotion it is, specifically -- not when the complaint was that DAO PC doesn't express anything.

And both of those are in opposition to the idea that there are distinct and obvious emotions included in each line. Which is why I brought it up. I don't subscribe to that line of thought (for myself...I have no problem with Sylvius and Davasaur playing how best suits them).

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

tmp7704: One problem with some of those lines is that you can interpret them with several emotions. Number 2 can be sincere or mocking. Number 3 can be bored or joking. 4 can be genuine or false modesty. 6 can be expressed in many ways with many different meanings. 7 could be resigned, regretful, sarcastic, feigned and whatnot.

I believe this flexibility is exactly why some people enjoy the written and unvoiced protagonist. It allows to ignore the original intent of the phrase to give it the inflexion appropiate to the character and situation.

I find that that breaks fairly quickly, because no matter my applied intent, the reaction will always be the same, and so your freedom to invent the tone is limited by a reaction you've yet to see. I might decide to scream sweet nothings into Lielana's ear with vicious intent, but she'll still react as if it was pure adoration.

This may simply be lack of practice on my part in regards to role playing, but I certainly question the notion that it is an unlimited freedom. It's more open, certainly, but it has its limitations.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 22 novembre 2010 - 02:09 .

[Urazz]

Xewaka wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

tmp7704: One problem with some of those lines is that you can interpret them with several emotions. Number 2 can be sincere or mocking. Number 3 can be bored or joking. 4 can be genuine or false modesty. 6 can be expressed in many ways with many different meanings. 7 could be resigned, regretful, sarcastic, feigned and whatnot.

I believe this flexibility is exactly why some people enjoy the written and unvoiced protagonist. It allows to ignore the original intent of the phrase to give it the inflexion appropiate to the character and situation.

Not entirely, if the line pisses off another character or makes one happy then you can infer if it was sarcastic, truthful, etc.

[tmp7704]

SirOccam wrote...

I think we have different ideas of what constitutes "expression." "I'm afraid" certainly is an expression of emotion...provided it is actually expressed. You can feel afraid, or decide that you want to say "I'm afraid," but until you actually DO express it, it's an emotion, but not an expression of that emotion.

I think we may have very similar idea of what constitutes expression, but we're splitting hair on whether that expression happens -- while it's not shown to the player i do believe the actual expression takes place in the game world, otherwise you'd require every single NPC out there to be capable of mind reading, as they somehow manage to react appropriately to things that we never witness the PC actually say. In other words, no matter what exact way of emotion delivery is used in the game, as far as the NPCs are concerned that delivery clearly happens.

Now, whether that's satisfactory for the individual player is another matter and as matter of opinion it can't be really argued, so i wouldn't. But that's not what i was objecting to.

And both of those are in opposition to the idea that there are distinct and obvious emotions included in each line.

I can agree with the distinct part (although that can be often more clear in context of discussion overall) but i'd argue neither of these concepts is in opposition with the idea there's some actual and pretty obvious emotion included in the line. Which is the relevant part, since it's in objection to claim there's no such thing in PC's lines whatsoever.

Modifié par tmp7704, 22 novembre 2010 - 02:13 .