885 réponses à ce sujet

[vallore]

Hmmm, I don’t
feel consistency is truly lost when we have voiced npcs and a silent character,
as they are under fundamentally different perspectives.



As I see
it,  in a npc, voice can convey
indications about mood, personality and underlying emotions. Such information is
redundant when we think about the player’s own character, since in this case such
characteristics are ideally defined by the player himself.

Modifié par vallore, 24 novembre 2010 - 01:15 .

[Jshay512]

I also agree with you vallore. Your point is kinda the same as a few other people have made too.

[upsettingshorts]

I've explained how the difference works for me. I hear the dialogue of the silent protagonist with my internal voice as I'm reading the lines, then hear the dialogue of the NPCs with my ears as I listen to them speak. It's jarring for me because it feels similar to how it would if I was watching a movie only occasionally looking down to read a book.

I didn't claim it was universally jarring. The silent protagonist just personally kills my immersion. I can be immersed in a book (everything happening in my head, as it were) or a movie (everything happening on screen) but not both at the same time. I requires a subtle swapping of mental focus that I find irritating. It's entirely subjective, but it is only slightly related to my general approach to CRPGs, which was the main issue I was addressing in the post.

I only brought it up to explain my "all text or all voice" preference, which was a secondary point.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 novembre 2010 - 05:19 .

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

vallore wrote...
As I see
it,  in a npc, voice can convey
indications about mood, personality and underlying emotions. Such information is
redundant when we think about the player’s own character, since in this case such
characteristics are ideally defined by the player himself.

Exactly. The voice actor is likely to be saying the line far differently from how my character would say it.

[upsettingshorts]

But to a player who approaches CRPGs the way I do, "your character" is choosing from the options the writer has already written, with consequences that the writer has already determined, therefore - to people with said approach -  whatever you imagine him or her to be is at best irrelevant. That's what the previous discussion was attempting to show: There are wildly different approaches to CRPGs, and that is why so many features, especially ones like the paraphrased dialogue wheel are so polarizing.

To put it another way, to players with playstyles similar to mine - it's not that there even is a "my character" but a collection of options that, taken together, represent the writer's story as I prefer it to be told given the options available as opposed to a creation of my internal imaginative process applied to the game world.  We'll say "my Warden" or "my Shepard" simply as a shorthand for this concept, not as an expression of ownership.  At least I do.

The summary of the positions can be stated rather simply: There are those who treat CRPGs as a simulation of the table top RPG experience, and those who for whatever reason do not - my personal reason is that they're fundamentally incapable of it - and consider it a different experience entirely. That's why if you asked Sylvius or myself to define "roleplaying elements" in a CRPG our answers would be - mostly, but not always - different, and any cases where we'd agree would likely come down to issues of consequence as opposed to choice.

That's why there is and always will be a schism over issues like voiceover and paraprashing and many other features, they're a result of a fundamental difference over what CRPGs are.  

...I feel like I say fundamental a lot in these discussions.  It's important though, the difference isn't based on some easily dismissed notion of one group making stuff up or another group not wanting to read, it cuts to the heart of how we as individuals approach these games.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 novembre 2010 - 05:51 .

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That's why there is and always will be a schism over issues like voiceover and paraprashing and many other features, they're a result of a fundamental difference over what CRPGs are.  

...I feel like I say fundamental a lot in these discussions.  It's important though, the difference isn't based on some easily dismissed notion of one group making stuff up or another group not wanting to read, it cuts to the heart of how we as individuals approach these games.  

I think the woe in the forum stems from the fact that BioWare games (and here I have to say I've only played Dragon Age, so I'm going on what others tell me as well) come as close as possible to the experience you say is impossible, i.e. making you feel like you're playing a text or tabletop RPG, and that they are one of the few developers who make such games well.  So while everyone has their own approach, "mine" is severely limited and shrinking, yours is less so.  Therefore we should get some lamenting room.

Modifié par Addai67, 24 novembre 2010 - 06:18 .

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

To put it another way, to players with playstyles similar to mine - it's not that there even is a "my character" but a collection of options that, taken together, represent the writer's story as I prefer it to be told given the options available as opposed to a creation of my internal imaginative process applied to the game world.  We'll say "my Warden" or "my Shepard" simply as a shorthand for this concept, not as an expression of ownership.  At least I do. 

In a role playing game the character is virtual "me." As the player I should have maximal flexibility in defining the virtual "me." With a voice actor, the voice actor is playing the character when he speaks, not me. He is likely to say things completely differently from how "virtual me" would say it.  Hearing a voice actor say the lines totallly breaks the concept that it is me standing there talking to the non-player characters. In other words, it breaks role-playing. Which Dragon Age:Origins was about. If Bioware wants to move away from rpgs, which it seems to be doing, and move more into adventure games that is there perogative to do so. But let us not confuse role playing games with adventure games.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but I get the impression that you think games like the King's Quest games are role playing games instead of adventure (story) games.

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

So while everyone has their own approach, "mine" is severely limited and shrinking, yours is less so.  Therefore we should get some lamenting room.

Oh on the contrary, I'm not disputing that those whose playstyle differs from mine should not be upset.  Far from it, only that even though we were both happily playing at games like Baldur's Gate, such a schism was inevitable, especially after the dialogue wheel and voiced protagonist were introduced.  However, that doesn't mean I should abandon my preferences simply because - and I don't think it's wrong or shameful to admit this - other people might enjoy the games less.  If other people find the game disappointing or bothersome it's not really relevant to my personal enjoyment of a single player game, so I'm going to consistently endorse the kinds of features I enjoy, I wouldn't expect anyone else to do differently for my sake.

Once the divide was made apparent, the idea that there would be - as far as playstyles are concerned - winners and losers seems inevitable to me.  And don't assume I'm not sympathetic even if I'm jumping up and down with glee at thing's like DA:2's dialogue/paraphrase/voicover system.  I have been on the other side before, just not this time with Bioware CRPGs.

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

In a role playing game the character is virtual "me."

That's one way of approaching CRPGs.  I wonder if Sylvius does a "me" character.  I'm genuinely curious.

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

With a voice actor, the voice actor is playing the character when he speaks, not me.

I understand your position however it does not reflect mine, hence the difference.  I have never presumed the protagonist was virtual "me" even when I was trying to play him as close to "me" as possible.  He was and always will be the writer's character.  I'm not trying to define some absolute, universal concept of a CRPG protagonist, only establish that different players each have their own approach, and as a result some will be in favor of things like paraphrased, voiced dialogue and others will be against it.

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

If Bioware wants to move away from rpgs, which it seems to be doing, and move more into adventure games that is there perogative to do so. But let us not confuse role playing games with adventure games.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but I get the impression that you think games like the King's Quest games are role playing games instead of adventure (story) games.

To me the difference between RPGs and adventure games never had anything to do with what you're implying, but had to do with mechanics.  Consequences for choices exist in both genres, but in CRPGs the player has control over gameplay elements such as character attributes, for starters.  That's the point: To people who share playstyles similar to mine, RPGs and adventure games were always much closer in concept and execution than your post implies - even when to you and others who share your approach they may have been and still remain dramatically different.  

That's why I keep using the word "fundamental" a lot.  To players with approaches such as yours, I don't dispute for a second that such changes as those put forward in ME1-2 or DA:2 are jarring, out-of-genre, disappointing, beyond expectations, etc - my point is that many fans, including long-time Bioware fans, of the genre have always approached the genre in their own way, some like me, some not like me.  Those who are like me are going to read posts such as "Bioware is abandoning their roots" as - at first glance - totally absurd because of that fundamental distance in approach. To me, and I hazard to say to us - the changes that result in a great deal of consternation and uproar on these forums seem like a seamless improvement, not a wholesale disregard for features the genre.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 novembre 2010 - 07:10 .

[AmstradHero]

I think some of this also depends on your interpretation of how much the character is "yours". For me, Shepard was flexible enough in his/her responses and actions that I felt I was able to play "me" or the particular character following a pre-defined ethos that I had invented for that character. The same applies to the Warden.

However, where it does NOT apply is when I am playing The Witcher, which is why I struggle to play the game so much. I don't like Geralt. In fact, I think he's a complete jackass and I detest him. Worse still, Geralt provides rationale and reasoning for the decisions that *I* make, forcing his character upon me - which actively clashes with my roleplaying perspective because I as a player am making decisions for completely different reasons than Geralt as a character, and the writers are directly telling me as a player WHY I made a particular decision.

For me, this is why I don't mind paraphrasing, as long as the character still behaves in a way that is consistent with my expectations and does not force a particular persona (and associated motivations) on me that clashes with my own interpretation of the character that I am playing. In short, if I'm playing a roleplaying game, I don't like to have every single factor of my character's role forced upon me. In that case, I feel more like I'm playing an adventure game, not an RPG, because I'm playing a predefined role with no flexibility.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 24 novembre 2010 - 07:32 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That's why I keep using the word "fundamental" a lot.

Which I disagree with.

I consider Deus Ex, Quest for Glory, and Planescape: Torment to be three of the best RPGs and in none of them could I change the main character's gender or appearance, two of them had voiced protagonists*, and only one of them let you pick a name.

I also consider Fallout: NV, Knights of the Old Republic, and Morrowind to be three of the best RPGs and in all of them I could change the main character's gender and appearance, while none of them had a voiced protagonist.

It's a bit like the divide between science fiction and fantasy. If you go to internet forums, you'd quickly get the impression that these are two utterly distinct things and almost no one who buys one is interested in the other, but that doesn't reflect reality. There's a reason why they're shoved together in bookstores and that's because the average reader might like one a bit more, but that won't stop them from enjoying the other.

Nothing about this discussion makes me think that the majority of gamers care about the extent to which they can 'claim the PC as their own' as opposed to an independent character. Or even that the majority of gamers view a voiced PC as being less 'their own' than an unvoiced one.

Edit: Which isn't to say that I disagree that these are different ways of viewing RPGs. I just don't think they're fundamental differences for the majority of players.


*And I'd bet QfG would have had a voiced PC if it wasn't so old.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 24 novembre 2010 - 07:30 .

[upsettingshorts]

I'm struggling to see where your disagreement lies. My position is that an individual's approach can and appears to be fundamentally different from another. Not that the genre itself intrinsically has fundamental, inseparable values.

With regards to "the majority" I never attempted to explain how they feel, and I always feel that anyone attempting to claim that they represent the majority or knows how the majority feels - especially in the case or context of this forum - have an agenda. My only purpose in highlighting the distinctions I do is to explain the dichotomy on these forums.

The majority opinion is too ambiguous for me to reasonably expect to define or explain, especially since I have almost no data upon which to base those judgments. That doesn't stop a lot of people from attempting to do so, however.  It's just that in my brief time on Bioware's forums I've gotten the impression that many posters casually dismiss the opposing view as not being based on any legitimately good reasoning.  I don't think that's the case at all, even when it's someone who disagrees with me*.

* Well, most of the time.  It's obvious in my posts when I don't think this.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 novembre 2010 - 07:44 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm struggling to see where your disagreement lies.

My disagreement is that it is fundamental. It's not a word I use to describe most personal preferences, even when the person holding them finds them very important.

With regards to "the majority" I never attempted to explain how they feel, and I always feel that anyone attempting to claim that they represent the majority or knows how the majority feels - especially in the case or context of this forum - have an agenda.

I have an agenda. Granted.

[AlanC9]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...
In a role playing game the character is virtual "me."

What does "virtual me" mean? Many of my RPG characters are quite different from me. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

vallore wrote...

Hmmm, I don’t feel consistency is truly lost when we have voiced npcs and a silent character, as they are under fundamentally different perspectives.

I agree.  I see no reason why the PC needs to be voiced just because the NPCs are.

Some people say they "hear" the unvoiced PC's lines in their head.  I don't.  Since I generally convert the spoken word to text in my head, starting with text alone saves me a step.

[Nighteye2]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I have never presumed the protagonist was virtual "me" even when I was trying to play him as close to "me" as possible.  He was and always will be the writer's character.

Is it still role-playing if you don't make that presumption? What role do you play when the distance between yourself and the game is so big?

The very essence of RPGs is that players identify themselves with a virtual character that they go on an adventure with. A game in which they literally play a role. The genre started at the tabletop, and when computers started emulating tabletop RPGs, that is when the concept of a CRPG was born. By their very definition, CRPGs are computer simulations of tabletop RPGs. Games in which the computer assists players in role-playing a virtual character in a virtual setting. It's not role-playing if it's not your character.

/semantics

[Bourne Endeavor]

I much prefer the progression into voiced PC. While I can certainly enjoy a game devoid of voice acting, I find it significantly more immersion when I can hear the characters speak. My tolerance for VAs relatively high, especially in comparison to the majority as I have been known to hardly cringe, if not enjoy dialogue others are screaming is akin to nails on a chalk board (FFX's ever so infamous Laughing Scene comes to mind.) I suppose I can appreciate those to whom fancy themselves in their avatar's role, wherein voice acting would shatter their illusion. Considering I am far more likely to have written a separate tale and derive multiple personas for my many PCs, it has nary been a bother.

And judging my this topic, I may be the only one who likes Manshep. Granted, I prefer Hale overall.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 24 novembre 2010 - 06:29 .

[tmp7704]

AmstradHero wrote...

However, where it does NOT apply is when I am playing The Witcher, which is why I struggle to play the game so much. I don't like Geralt. In fact, I think he's a complete jackass and I detest him.

I didn't get that impression at all, but it could be because i played the game having already read the books so i had preconception of the character from the start -- the book Geralt is much more of a "voice of reason / very reluctant hero" type and definitely not a jackass. He can be pretty sarcastic guy, but then most of characters in the books are.

[Addai]

tmp7704 wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

However, where it does NOT apply is when I am playing The Witcher, which is why I struggle to play the game so much. I don't like Geralt. In fact, I think he's a complete jackass and I detest him.

I didn't get that impression at all, but it could be because i played the game having already read the books so i had preconception of the character from the start -- the book Geralt is much more of a "voice of reason / very reluctant hero" type and definitely not a jackass. He can be pretty sarcastic guy, but then most of characters in the books are.

I'm just finishing up The Witcher and while I can say I do like Geralt, I have very little desire to replay, and I think that will be the major difference between a more fixed protagonist speaking with a single voice than DAO which I absolutely played into the ground.  I can see why to BioWare my 60 bucks is the same whether I never replay or not, but to me it's a bummer to be getting less for my money.

[Pink_leaf]

I vote "NO" to my character having a voice, it would only cheapen the game making it more like that boring Mass Effect wotsit.

[the_one_54321]

Nighteye2 wrote...

AngryPants wrote...
I have never presumed the protagonist was virtual "me" even when I was trying to play him as close to "me" as possible.  He was and always will be the writer's character.

Is it still role-playing if you don't make that presumption? What role do you play when the distance between yourself and the game is so big?

The very essence of RPGs is that players identify themselves with a virtual character that they go on an adventure with. A game in which they literally play a role. The genre started at the tabletop, and when computers started emulating tabletop RPGs, that is when the concept of a CRPG was born. By their very definition, CRPGs are computer simulations of tabletop RPGs. Games in which the computer assists players in role-playing a virtual character in a virtual setting. It's not role-playing if it's not your character.

/semantics

Bogus. It's role playing so long as the character replaces you. I say this is done numerically and mechanically. Others will insist that you must have customization. So I'm not going to argue distinction except to say that you are role playing if the character being played is not yourself. (physically, skills, personality, whatever you choose to apply here makes no difference to me for the purpose of the semantics) The important distinction here is that a limitation on what you are able to take and roleplay with is not a limitation on what someone else can take and roleplay with.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 24 novembre 2010 - 07:06 .

[grregg]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I have never presumed the protagonist was virtual "me" even when I was trying to play him as close to "me" as possible.  He was and always will be the writer's character.

Is it still role-playing if you don't make that presumption? What role do you play when the distance between yourself and the game is so big?

The very essence of RPGs is that players identify themselves with a virtual character that they go on an adventure with. A game in which they literally play a role. The genre started at the tabletop, and when computers started emulating tabletop RPGs, that is when the concept of a CRPG was born. By their very definition, CRPGs are computer simulations of tabletop RPGs. Games in which the computer assists players in role-playing a virtual character in a virtual setting. It's not role-playing if it's not your character.

/semantics

Well, does it matter? Even if Upsettingshorts likes to play his games in a way that does not satisfy some RPG police somewhere, can you convince him that he should not like it? De gustibus non est disputandum.

As for cRPGs simulating tabletop RPGs, my personal opinion is that it is a high time that they stopped. Tabletop games are designed with a GM in mind and since computer cannot emulate one, it will always be a fundamentally crippled simulation. I think they should discard their tabletop legacy and strike out on their own.

[the_one_54321]

grregg wrote...
As for cRPGs simulating tabletop RPGs, my personal opinion is that it is a high time that they stopped. Tabletop games are designed with a GM in mind and since computer cannot emulate one, it will always be a fundamentally crippled simulation. I think they should discard their tabletop legacy and strike out on their own.

I think they should continue to mechanically simulate but stop trying to simulate the story creation and progression process. In this way I think BioWare is mostly getting things right. Especially in DA:O.

[TheMufflon]

Nighteye2 wrote...

The very essence of RPGs is that players identify themselves with a virtual character that they go on an adventure with.

I disagree. Even when playing a tabletop RPG in which my character is entirely my own creation, it is separate from me and I would not deem it necessary to identify with it.

The genre started at the tabletop, and when computers started emulating tabletop RPGs, that is when the concept of a CRPG was born. By their very definition, CRPGs are computer simulations of tabletop RPGs.

The intentions of the conception are not defining characteristics.

It's not role-playing if it's not your character.

I have role-played several characters not created by me.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 24 novembre 2010 - 07:32 .

[Aermas]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I've explained how the difference works for me. I hear the dialogue of the silent protagonist with my internal voice as I'm reading the lines, then hear the dialogue of the NPCs with my ears as I listen to them speak. It's jarring for me because it feels similar to how it would if I was watching a movie only occasionally looking down to read a book.

I didn't claim it was universally jarring. The silent protagonist just personally kills my immersion. I can be immersed in a book (everything happening in my head, as it were) or a movie (everything happening on screen) but not both at the same time. I requires a subtle swapping of mental focus that I find irritating. It's entirely subjective, but it is only slightly related to my general approach to CRPGs, which was the main issue I was addressing in the post.

I only brought it up to explain my "all text or all voice" preference, which was a secondary point.

Won't you continue to be jarred because you will still have to read the dialogue options?

Modifié par Aermas, 24 novembre 2010 - 08:48 .

[upsettingshorts]

Aermas wrote...
Won't you continue to be jarred because you will still have to read the dialogue options?

Much less so now that they are paraphrases.