250 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

shantisands wrote...

I was thinking about this overnight ( all hail insomnia! ) and I was trying to compare my experience with ME2 currently to DA:O. I enjoy both games for what it is worth, albeit for different reasons.

There is however, a vital difference for me. In DA:O the customization of your character *did* make me more quickly associate and integrate into the world much much faster. I could even say "more completely". I am not sure I am even *immersed* in ME2. I am enjoying it immensely, but it is just different. It is kind of like being an actor I suppose, where I am aware that I am playing Shepard but it just isn't "me" where in DA:O because all your choices and voice occurs in your head, it can be whatever you imagine it to be. Is it the voice that takes me back out? Is it a difference in the writing? Is it not being able to actually speak with anyone in my party while I am out adventuring? I have no idea. Sometimes it is the difference in synergy than the components themselves that make the difference.
 

Yeah, I mentally categorize ME as a slow shooter.  Since I actually like shooters but am bad at them, this makes it fun, but it's definitely not roleplay as DAO is roleplay- for me.  It's a chance to shoot the bad guys in some interesting scenarios.  Still, I do only want to play a female PC and only a renegade, so I suppose in that sense it's roleplay.  But it's more like finding out the role that in my mind best works for Shepard.  Others can play it differently, but I can't envision Shepard any other way.

[_Somebody]

The voice character I'll see, depends how good the voice actor is. The dialogue wheel, no. Hated it in ME.

Modifié par Somebody, 23 janvier 2011 - 06:02 .

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

Rylor Tormtor wrote...
I wonder if there is a generational/age divide on this matter. I don't have a console, and never played any games (that come to mind, I could be missing something) with a voiced main character before ME1 was ported to PC. 

I don't think so. It is a preference divide.

Were there any VO'd protagonists in games before ME? JRPGs, maybe?

[TheMadCat]

AlanC9 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Rylor Tormtor wrote...
I wonder if there is a generational/age divide on this matter. I don't have a console, and never played any games (that come to mind, I could be missing something) with a voiced main character before ME1 was ported to PC. 

I don't think so. It is a preference divide.

Were there any VO'd protagonists in games before ME? JRPGs, maybe?

There have been voice protagonists since the 90's, quite a few P&C adventure games had them.

[Azjurai]

Very pleased with it myself. But then, I actually liked the ME1/2 dialogue wheels. Silent PC's are fine and all, but they tend to get stale fairly fast IMO.



Very happy to see BioWare branching more in this direction

[AlanC9]

TheMadCat wrote...


There have been voice protagonists since the 90's, quite a few P&C adventure games had them.

Thanks --- I  blanked on the entire genre. Kinda funny since Grim Fandango is in my personal top 10.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 janvier 2011 - 06:41 .

[timmah30]

I got Mass Effect 2 for this reason. my first true RPG that i actually enjoyed AND finished was Orgins. I truly hated RPGs up to this point (i'm 31 so i have played a bit of different rpgs that i thought i would enjoy including Dragon Warrior for the NES..Am I dating myself now? lol) But i got ME2 because i noticed alot of people mentioned the wheel sucks and not crazy about the vo. Since I enjoyed Orgins and planned on getting DA 2 i would see what the fuss is all about.

I don't mind the wheel. I don't see it as much different then orgins "tree" with exception the dialogue on wheel is abbreviated.

The voice over, is good, The only issue i have with that is you can't choose the characters voice. which is funny because you could select the voice in orgins BUT he wasn't voiced except when your doing something stupid which made it kind of useless.

With that being said. and long story short. I'm ok with both UNLESS somehow it gets botched up.

As far as ME 2 goes...I'm enjoying the game so far but i don't see the emotional investment into the characters like i did with orgins.

[Guitar-Hero]

The only thing i would have a problem with is the parafrasing, now if they had made the wheel ala alpha protocol i would be very pleased

[Heimdall]

In Exile wrote...

Naitaka wrote...

Isn't that what we are doing playing a RPG in the first place? Convincing ourself what is not real is in fact happening?

No. Or  rather, that's certainly not what I do.

I see it as a difference in how much we're willing to accept as the limitation of the engine/medium, and just say "to hell with it, I'll come up with some justification to suit my purpose."

I never say that.

When I wonder why my companions don't contract the Darkspawn taint, I make up some story in my head about how Morrigan, under Flemeth's instruction, is giving everyone antidote to the taint each night at camp. 

Whereas I think: plot hole or gameplay convenience. The writers didn't account for it or it got cut.

When I see hit points that wouldn't make any sense to my characte whatsoever,  I just imagine it to be a gauge of laxing concerntration in a fight. I think we all have to lie to ourself, so to speak, to maintain our suspense of disblief, it's just a question how much you're willing to go.

Again, I disagree. I do not rationalize.

Sounds like what I do, no wonder I keep bashing heads with Sylvius

[The Elder King]

Both silent protagonist an VO have their strenght and weakness. I'm ok with the VO, and I like Hawke's voice. The dialogue wheel is fine if they make it less misleading than ME-ME2.

[_Somebody]

Steffen wrote...

The only thing i would have a problem with is the parafrasing, now if they had made the wheel ala alpha protocol i would be very pleased

That was my big problem with ME's wheel too.

Modifié par Somebody, 23 janvier 2011 - 07:01 .

[In Exile]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

A voiced protagonist by its very nature interferes with the ability to roleplay a character, or with any attempt to define them yourself. You will always be playing someone else's character, in this case, the game developers', not your own.

You're always playing the character designed by the developers. They write the dialogue options, they write the reactions to those options, the exhaust and plan for all possible actions in the course of a game, they restrict (or not) your actions, they give you your background...

These are invariable features of design.

This alone places Dragon Age head and shoulders above Dragon Age 2.  And yes, I can state that as fact despite not playing Dragon Age 2, because of the dynamic of what roleplaying actually is.

You mean, you can say this about anything as long as you assume your subjective preference is objective fact.

The dialogue wheel? All we have to do is look at the hilariously cringe-inducing options like "I want you, Thane" (after just talking about his brutally murdered wife) which have almost nothing to do with what Shepard actually says in those situations to see whether that is a good idea.

David Gaidner actually addressed that line in particular when talking about the <3 tone indicator. Since players have to know a romance is coming, the paraphrase needs to tell them that. But subtle romantic cues aren't easy to put in writing in a way that bludgeons players over the head.

So ME2 chose to have the romance content emphasized over the actual content. DA2 will avoid this problem with the tone indicator.

Naitaka wrote...
Yes but when you recognize something about a
failure of design, it's metagame knowledge that your PC should not be
able to recognize as such. I try to treat each of my playthrough as
actively writting a story in my PC's perspective in real time. True,
I will always have metagame knowledge out of character, but instead of
accepting them and have my PC think "Maker's Breath! This has to be some
cosmic mistake that I have no way of explaining" I just make up
something more interesting so such glaring mistake wouldn't be apparent
to the PC.

It just seem more fun this way than being annoyed by
design flaws you have no way of correcting yourself. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

But the problem with that is that if there was such a design flaw, the coherent way of resolving it might not be allowed by the game.

That's a major issue. With things like the darkspawn taint (especially with the mabari basically ingesting darkspawn blood by the pound) any actual mechanic ought to be encompassed by the story. After all, if there was any non-Grey Warden way of avoiding the taint, that would make the Wardens themselves obsolute (as far as you know until the endgame).

vallore wrote...
To some Players, such is valid; to others the
dialog wheel actually creates an unnecessary break in the flow of
dialog: Such a player reads the paraphrase and then has to stop and
guess what the paraphrase actually hinting at. Repeat this action each
time the wheel is employed and the result will be anything but fluid.

The same applies to the written line. If I want fine control over it, then I need to constantly try and predict what tone the writers thought of when they wrote the line.

This is just as problematic. If you don't care for this sort of fine control, the problem dissapears. But if you want fine control, the paraphrase and VO are no better or worse.

AlanC9 wrote...

Were there any VO'd protagonists in games
before ME? JRPGs, maybe?

I think FFX circa 2000 was the first JRPG I saw with full VO.

TheMadCat wrote...

There have been voice protagonists
since the 90's, quite a few P&C adventure games had them.

Right. This is a genre I would rather douse my face with fire than play, so I suppose that's why I forgot it existed.

[TheMadCat]

In Exile wrote...

Right. This is a genre I would rather douse my face with fire than play, so I suppose that's why I forgot it existed.

Not like that was the only genre, adventure games like Jedi Knight: Dark Forces had it as well, FPS were incorporating it. Voiced protaghanists were just as common back then as they are now.

[Brockololly]

In Exile wrote...
David Gaidner actually addressed that line in particular when talking about the <3 tone indicator. Since players have to know a romance is coming, the paraphrase needs to tell them that. But subtle romantic cues aren't easy to put in writing in a way that bludgeons players over the head.

So ME2 chose to have the romance content emphasized over the actual content. DA2 will avoid this problem with the tone indicator.

On the topic of the indicators and romance, I'm curious to see how it all plays out  and how the system works in relation to DAO and ME2, but from the Escapist preview last month, you even had the author comment on how her expectations for selecting a romantic line didn't mesh with the result:

During my playthrough, I wanted to just tell  someone I thought they were cute and ended up inviting them to bed, but  flirting is open to all manner of interpretation, I suppose.

So yeah, its hard to say without seeing that scenario for one's self, but that sounds an awful lot like ME2 style romance problems with respect to not getting the full intent from the paraphrase, and in DA2's case, the icon. But if something like the author described ended up happening to me, I'll see that as a failing of the system. You shouldn't go from intending to have your PC tell someone they're cute to inviting them to bed. Thats a pretty big gap.

Modifié par Brockololly, 23 janvier 2011 - 07:41 .

[In Exile]

TheMadCat wrote...

Not like that was the only genre, adventure games like Jedi Knight: Dark Forces had it as well, FPS were incorporating it. Voiced protaghanists were just as common back then as they are now.

No; most FPS games didn't really have protagonists unti after Half-Life. The first FPS I recall that had a character that could be considered anything more than the thing that shot and moved was, ironically, Dark Forces II. They mobile weapons platforms that occasionally talked, but legitimate characters didn't come around for a good long while.

Dark Forces was certaintly not an adventure game. It was an FPS.

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
On the topic of the indicators and romance, I'm curious to see how it all plays out  and how the system works in relation to DAO and ME2, but from the Escapist preview last month, you even had the author comment on how her expectations for selecting a romantic line didn't mesh with the result: 

During my playthrough, I wanted to just tell  someone I thought they were cute and ended up inviting them to bed, but  flirting is open to all manner of interpretation, I suppose.

So yeah, its hard to say without seeing that scenario for one's self, but that sounds an awful lot like ME2 style romance problems with respect to not getting the full intent from the paraphrase, and in DA2's case, the icon.

We don't have the line, though. And the problem wouldn't be the paraphrase - it would be bad writing.

Do you remember Morrigain's quest for the grimoire?

Once you retrieve it from the Circle tower, one of your options is something like:

What, I don't even get a kiss?

This is a good line - it lets you know what action you want.

But what if it said:

What, I don't even get a reward?

And then it had a sexual encounter instead of just a kiss.

That wouldn't be a problem with full-text - that would be shoddy writing and tying a major action to the writing.

As always, the issue in this case is not the paraphrase, but tying a major action (e.g. sex) to a dialogue choice that isn't (yes, sex now plz).

[Hatem]

I welcome the voiced character but like many here already said, the paraphrasing was irritating in Mass Effect. As Hitler said in one of the parodies on YouTube "You'd choose to decline an offer and he ends up telling them to f*** off."

However, I recently played Witcher for a couple of hours and I have to admit reading and hearing the exact same thing gets really boring really fast.

[TheMadCat]

In Exile wrote...
No; most FPS games didn't really have protagonists unti after Half-Life. The first FPS I recall that had a character that could be considered anything more than the thing that shot and moved was, ironically, Dark Forces II. They mobile weapons platforms that occasionally talked, but legitimate characters didn't come around for a good long while.

Dark Forces was certaintly not an adventure game. It was an FPS.

Eh, I saw the JK series as more then FPS because the gameplay revolved around a lot more things then shooting to progress, but I see your point. Still, like I said voiced protagonists weren't uncommon in the 90's and were spread out over a variety of genres, so don't agree with the whole old school/new school divide theory.

[Brockololly]

In Exile wrote...
We don't have the line, though. And the problem wouldn't be the paraphrase - it would be bad writing.

Do you remember Morrigain's quest for the grimoire?

Once you retrieve it from the Circle tower, one of your options is something like:

What, I don't even get a kiss?

This is a good line - it lets you know what action you want.

But what if it said:

What, I don't even get a reward?

And then it had a sexual encounter instead of just a kiss.

That wouldn't be a problem with full-text - that would be shoddy writing and tying a major action to the writing.

As always, the issue in this case is not the paraphrase, but tying a major action (e.g. sex) to a dialogue choice that isn't (yes, sex now plz).

I agree, but the thing with the paraphrases versus seeing all the full text is that even if you had the "what I don't get a reward?" option that maybe led to sex, you could possibly interpret what that option meant in relation to the other dialogue choices by seeing the other choices in full text form.

Thats part of my issue with the paraphrases is that you're limited to essentially only seeing half of the interaction and if the actual spoken lines are different in intent than the paraphrase leads you to believe, you don't know until you've already committed to the line. At which point, who is to say that a different paraphrase wouldn't have been a more appropriate choice for your PC?

Whereas with full text, you can fully read all the possible dialogue options and even without icons, can judge the meaning of the full lines and compare them amongst each other and not have to wonder if what you're selecting is what the PC is actually going to say. I'm just more comfortable with being able to see the full text than having to guess what the writer's version of a romantic line is or a sarcastic line is based on a dinky paraphrase or nebulous icon.

[vallore]

In Exile wrote...

vallore wrote...
To some Players, such is valid; to others the
dialog wheel actually creates an unnecessary break in the flow of
dialog: Such a player reads the paraphrase and then has to stop and
guess what the paraphrase actually hinting at. Repeat this action each
time the wheel is employed and the result will be anything but fluid.

The same applies to the written line. If I want fine control over it, then I need to constantly try and predict what tone the writers thought of when they wrote the line.

This is just as problematic. If you don't care for this sort of fine control, the problem dissapears. But if you want fine control, the paraphrase and VO are no better or worse.

There are two problems, you are only considering one.

With the fully written line, some of us experience doubts about intent, as they are not aware of what tone the character will be using, but not about the content of what is actually said.

With a paraphrase we can have doubts about intent AND content. The
obvious conclusion is that, as a tool, it is less clear than the full text.

Mind you, emotion/intent icons will probably greatly clarify intent, but probably can’t do anything to improve content clarity.

As I see it, the problem between full text/paraphrase is not between a good system and a bad one, but rather between two flawed choices:

Full text, used with a voiced character, would result in many players feeling it to be redundant, boring.

Likewise, a paraphrase system is flawed as it will produce clarity issues for
other players, resulting in a lessened experience of the game for them.

I believe a mixed system would result better, by allowing the player to decide what is better for himself and his playing style, at any given moment.

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
I agree, but the thing with the paraphrases versus seeing all the full text is that even if you had the "what I don't get a reward?" option that maybe led to sex, you could possibly interpret what that option meant in relation to the other dialogue choices by seeing the other choices in full text form.

That doesn't work. Here's an example"

I’m supposed to be surprised you’re a good liar?

• It’s not “human” society. You’re in Ferelden. (Humans only)
• I have no idea. I'm not human. (Elf and Dwarf)
• Touching? Like a handshake?
• Were you upset by all the bad touching?

I thought the last option, in this conversation with Morrigain, was essentially: "Oh noes! Poor Morrigain, she had to sufer the pain of a handshake with another person!" Part of the reason was that I was looking at the 'human society' and 'like a handshake' choices.

But Morrigain says something like "That sort of touching I could understand. ;)"

I had a debate about this some time ago. There was a fair contingent that read that line as sexual as opposed to sarcastic. To me, that line is just not a sexual line, but a clearly sarcastic one.

Thats part of my issue with the paraphrases is that you're limited to essentially only seeing half of the interaction and if the actual spoken lines are different in intent than the paraphrase leads you to believe, you don't know until you've already committed to the line. At which point, who is to say that a different paraphrase wouldn't have been a more appropriate choice for your PC? 

As I have said many times: this is an issue only if you think the literal content of what you say is more important than the effect of the line.

To use the example above: my character would have been a smart-ass about the whole thing. He wanted to mock Morrigain. But then I have a problem - which one of these options are mockery? I had no idea. I thought bad touching was - but instead it is some weird quasi-sexual line.

Whereas with full text, you can fully read all the possible dialogue options and even without icons, can judge the meaning of the full lines and compare them amongst each other and not have to wonder if what you're selecting is what the PC is actually going to say. I'm just more comfortable with being able to see the full text than having to guess what the writer's version of a romantic line is or a sarcastic line is based on a dinky paraphrase or nebulous icon.

Except that, as I just showed you, it doesn't always work this way. In fact, I think it's only coincidence when it does work that way.

I just do not see the full-text giving my any more certainty in what I have to say than the paraphrase. What matters is tone and intention, and we're finally getting a system that wants to show us that.

Hell, I had an easier time knowing what was going down in Alpha Protocol and that had timed "attitudes" instead of text, but that gave me a much better grasp of what was happening.

[In Exile]

vallore wrote...
There are two problems, you are only considering one.

With the fully written line, some of us experience doubts about intent, as they are not aware of what tone the character will be using, but not about the content of what is actually said.

What you are ignoring is that without knowing the intent, it is impossible to know what is being said.

To give you an example:

"Great idea! :lol:"

"Great idea! <_<"

Are not the same thing at all. The tone changes completely based on the earnest/sarcastic intention behind it. So how am I to determine what the actual content is, without knowing that intention and tone?

With a paraphrase we can have doubts about intent AND content. The obvious conclusion is that, as a tool, it is less clear than the full text. 

Except that this begs the question, just like your previous point begs the question. In the first case, we still lack information about content because the literal content of the line, and the actual content of what is being said are not the same thing.

In this case, with the paraphrase, we do not have the literal content of the line, but we are just as out to lunch with the actual content of what is being said.

I will agree with you that with the paraphrase we lack for the literal content. But I will disagree with you that this provides any value to the player without knowing the tone.

Mind you, emotion/intent icons will probably greatly clarify intent, but probably can’t do anything to improve content clarity. 

Actually, Gaider already mentioned that by allowing the paraphrase to separate the attempt to show tone/intention from the attempt to show the content, they are able to have the paraphrase more closely resemble the content without losing information about the tone.

So at least from where the developers are standing, the intent icons do precisely this.

This is without addressing your (incorrect) pressumption that literal content = actual spoken content, which as I have said already is just not the case.

As I see it, the problem between full text/paraphrase is not between a good system and a bad one, but rather between two flawed choices:

Full text, used with a voiced character, would result in many players feeling it to be redundant, boring.

Likewise, a paraphrase system is flawed as it will produce clarity issues forother players, resulting in a lessened experience of the game for them. 

If we are talking about having included VO no matter what and are ignoring anything except the UI, then it always comes down to a debate on whether the actual literal content of what is being said ever matters to RP.

Yes, for some people the paraphrase is problematic because it removes the literal content which matters so much for them. But that is an idiosyncratic issue, not a design issue with the paraphrase. It boils down to "some people don't like it" versus "endemic problem x" is there.

I believe a mixed system would result better, by allowing the player to decide what is better for himself and his playing style, at any given moment.

What would a mixed system be? Saying "show the full line as a toggle" is basically a useless position, because it addresses none of the problems of implementation.

[Tempus Frangit]

I'm excited for the dialogue wheel, to be honest.

[Nighteye2]

Z. Blackwood wrote...
The dialogue wheel is the single greatest innovation in RPG interaction in the past ten years. It removes the distinct break in the flow of gameplay that occurs as the result of having to stop mid-conversation to read several dialogue options before making a choice.

Sure, the easiest way to remove the 'break' in dialogue caused by the player making a choice is to remove the player's ability to make a proper choice. You don't want players to stop and think about their choice, so you remove almost all information the player could use to make that choice - by abbreviating the player responses to inaccurate paraphrases that still give some players the illusion of choice. <_<

That way, since it's no longer possible to roleplay the character the player wants to play, the player can just select whatever option without thinking about it because it no longer matters, as the result will always be unpredictable anyway.

You call that an innovation? I call it a degradation. It'll be one of the downsides to DA2, that hopefully will get fixed in DA3....