360 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

To me, it's all about whether I have complete control of the character's personality. I don't care how restrictive his background is. In fact, I find that having some background structure given to me makes character design easier.

But the voice in every game I've seen with a voice does pretty severely restrict that personality design. This is a problem, and until that restriction completely goes away I would consider the voice a failure.

[AlanC9]

Drachjinor wrote...
That's basically what I said earlier. They're catering to single group and dropping everything else. They're changing the franchise when the first game set a precedent. Where multiple starting locations and backgrounds (you say five restricted and one vague) is still far more than one race and one background with a slight tweak in a choice of class and gender and very little in how much a player can see their own characters realised in the game.

Itals mine. That's the correct figure. The mage origin is not specific about your character's experiences before he/she comes to the tower. HN, DN, DC, CE, and DE are all pretty complete in terms of who your character is and what the character's experiences have been.

And since the "single group" you mention is the group that liked the design of BG, NWN2, Fallout, Planescape, The Witcher, Mass Effect, KotOR 2....... well, yep, that's the group they catered to.

Edit: just for clarity, I'm not arguing in favor of VO itself here. I'm one of the rare ones on this board who finds the pros and cons more or less balanced.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 février 2011 - 07:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

 HN, DN, DC, CE, and DE are all pretty complete in terms of who your character is and what the character's experiences have been.

But not how those experiences have shaped his personality.  DAO allowed characters from the same origin to be anything from loud aggressive types who bark orders, to shrinking violets who never take charge.

I like that DA2 doesn't fill in the blanks in Hawke's background, but I dislike that the voice forces him into a specific delivery of each line.

[88mphSlayer]

ehm... yes and no, in Bethesda rpg's i'd hate the main character having a voice because it's all done from first person perspective and fps w/ PC voice have always failed



in a game with cutscenes tho? bring it on

[Irenie]

I thought this too...at first. I'm being persuaded though as it does seem to give more personality to the PC (facial expressions etc.) and gives them a bit more of a connection to all that's going on around them. Whether or not I identify with Hawke only time will tell, but for now I'm happy enough with the voiced protag.
My only problem so far with the speech wheel thing is that the "look on the bright side" option didn't turn into that particular Monty Python song we all know and love

[LadyBri]

I was kind of wary about the voice at first because what I think is a cool voice may not necessarily be what the devs think of as a cool voice. However, after hearing snippets of both Hawkes I am all for the voiced protagonist because they so far sound awesome to me.

[AkiKishi]

I dislike what else had to go because of a voiced main character.

[Melness]

Do I think that it may limit roleplaying? Possibly.



But I do like it when my character's face isn't perma-frozen.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Gwawr wrote...

I'm being persuaded though as it does seem to give more personality to the PC

But it's not one over which I have any meaningful control, so I don't care.

[Prio]

17thknight wrote...

Purgatious wrote...

The days of emotionless, voiceless characters presenting us with selections of text, making us feel like the NPCs, completely disconnected from the character were interacting with are over. Get over it, or don't either way its gone.

So the days of actual RPG's are gone, and the days of "cinematic" this and "cinematic" that which are easy to slap out for the xbox fanboys are in. Lovely.

People like you are the death-knell of great games. I bet you'd poo-poo Planescape: Torment because you have to..gasp...read.

Text bassed RPG are over.  They're going the way of silent movies.  Get used to it or die old and bitter.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Prio wrote...

Text bassed RPG are over.  They're going the way of silent movies.  Get used to it or die old and bitter.

I have no intention of dying.

I'd like to point out that WALL-E was effectively a silent movie for its first 20 minutes.

[KBomb]

I love a voiced character, but for different reason that most. I am hearing impaired and have learned to read lips as a part of my communication skills. When I have a character that doesn’t move their mouth, it seems unnatural to me. I feel incredibly out of sync with it, even though with the animations I cannot tell what they’re saying, it still helps with the whole ambiance. That is just me though and it probably seems strange to most, but there is it.

[Blze001]

One thing I liked about having an unvoiced character was that I could mentally 'say' what my character was replying. And I could give my characters awesome accents. Russian elf archer, ftw!

[Drachjinor]

AlanC9 wrote...

Drachjinor wrote...
(you say five restricted and one vague)

Itals mine. That's the correct figure. The mage origin is not specific about your character's experiences before he/she comes to the tower. HN, DN, DC, CE, and DE are all pretty complete in terms of who your character is and what the character's experiences have been.

Didn't mean anything by it, only that I haven't played any but the Mage origin, and the Grey Warden for Awakening, and just started a Dwarf Commoner. So I don't know until I play. Put that bracketed sentence down to my total lack of sleep.  lol

AlanC9 wrote...
And since the "single group" you mention is the group that liked the design of BG, NWN2, Fallout, Planescape, The Witcher, Mass Effect, KotOR 2....... well, yep, that's the group they catered to.

Yeah, odd eh? It'd be like Epic Games making Gears 3 into a first-person shooter to cater to a group that liked Unreal, Quake, Doom, and CSS. Even though Gears is selling well as is, and has a core group already invested and playing it. If they did that they'd have to call it something like Gears of War: Rampage or something. Not Gears 3. DA:2 should probably be Dragon Age: Effect

I suppose a comparison could be made with Resident Evil. From pre-rendered visuals and fixed cameras of Resident Evil, going to over the shoulder cam and more character control for Resi 4. But DA:2 isn't revolutionising anything, it's just a ported system from a different game that's been slapped on and called Dragon Age. But it's dropped loads of features that made Origins, whereas Resi 4 retained everything from the outmoded system, and simply popped some steroids and got some improved toning.

DA:O held its own and sold extremely well, and achieved a decent critic and meta-critic score, and also ushered in a few million (probably) players to the setting. Strikes me as an odd decision, changing it. If I worked at BioWare I might surmise that merging my DA and ME fans by squashing the games together and making the only real difference the background... might be pretty lucrative. Just dropped a slew of gamers who liked one of your games though. Though I don't imagine sales will be affected by it too much for the sequel. There'll be fewer fans of DA:O buying DA:3 though, by my reckoning. The change up won't sit well with a group of gamers who'll go elsewhere, probs Beths way, for character creation and whatnot.

AlanC9 wrote...
Edit: just for clarity, I'm not arguing in favor of VO itself here. I'm one of the rare ones on this board who finds the pros and cons more or less balanced.

Cool. I'm relatively easy either way. It just seems odd to me that a lot of the people for the VO regardless of what options are missing because of the VO, seem to be describing how I feel about characters in action games. If Lara didn't have a voice. That would suck. I can connect with her when she's voiced, and sit back and watch her interact with other characters. Yay it's great. If Crystal Dynamics added a half-eaten attribute table and offered quick time events that pass as dialogue options during cinematics... that wouldn't make it a RPG. Lara is still Lara even if I can make her go 'Dark Side' on one play-through with certain choices.

As people have said so many times in this thread though. "Don't like it? Don't buy it." S'good advice. If I want a game centred around a certain hero jetting off on an adventure that I'll probably play once, then I'll probably buy one of the many action games already out there containing worlds that are made to suit one ready-made character's journey through it. Assassin's Creed and the like. Or ME and DA:2. :happy: If I want a RPG with character creation and a variety of spicy options, I'll go elsewhere probs.

Modifié par Drachjinor, 24 février 2011 - 11:02 .

[Kromex]

Yup, the main male voice is annoying.Would prefer if they stayed with what they had in Dragon Age 1.

Modifié par Kromex, 24 février 2011 - 10:50 .

[In Exile]

 

Drachjinor wrote...
Obviously it's watering it down. You're missing more than several character creation options and background choices, and a plethora of long-standing RPG elements for the sake of the PC having a voice. The trade-off is nowhere near worth it, especially when it comes to replayability IMO. Just a creaking door opening for more DLC that the players will demand when they get fed up of playing Hawke for the third time around.

Like AlanC9 said - there are no RPGs that really had varied background. I suppose you could argue that by defining background, an RPG gives you less room to fill-in-the-blacks. But my argument is that this is neither good nor desirable.

Imagine a DA:2 multiplayer server filled with Hawkes like Chuck-central in Dead Rising 2. Hey look, it's Hawke with blue hair, ha ha. Brilliant. So much different from my Hawke, mines evil and has red hair. What's his background you ask? Haven't you played it? Even forums filled with Hawke threads: Show Off Your Hawke. Minor differences on each character. Seems so... shallow. I like reading about peoples characters, I do.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

The voiced character seems like an experience catering to a player who wouldn't mind choosing "Quick Play" or "Generate a Character" in any RPG, and "Auto-Level" at every step. They don't much care they just want to get down and into it. Pick up and play, once, drop it and move on until a DLC comes out. That's great too. But do you see how they get that option? To skip the RPG core stuff, that is there for the people who like it?

You're completely wrong. VO might cater to this crowd, but it also caters to people like. People who believe that reactive consequence makes an RPG, which means that the game has to script lots of in-game content and have multiple reactions to that, and part of having a character come alive is to have characters react to who you are and to what you are directly in game, not in your imagination.

The more fixed your character is, the better. This was the argument we had over origins. VO allows you to take a dramatic and definitive role in a cut-scene. Without VO, the PC is passive - other characters talk and drive the scene in dramatic moments (like Duncan meeting Cailan at Ostagar). VO is another step in terms of reactive consequence by making the player the main driver in the story.

Where an RPGamer doesn't mind sitting for a few minutes to think about a build, or to generate a background, or in more recent times shape a character's appearance, there are players who want rapid access. They get rapid access, or appeased with a PC voice, but where's the flip side? Options aren't being added to cater to one crowd, or even added to improve the overall features of a title in this particular genre. They're being removed. Starving the genre until its so thin it barely looks like it belongs any more. lol DA:2 - play as Hawke in the Leliana DLC/or ME style with a fully voiced PC. Or create your own character and play in the style you are accustomed to as in DA's first outing. Cool.

Again, no, this isn't what the voice is about.

S'one or the other it seems though, not both. Who is getting the short end here? Considering the second option is essentially the original DA:O style that more than a few people bought into, and enjoyed, you'd think that would be the standard you're set to improve on by adding features, and attempting a more epic storyline involving player created characters. Not completely changing the way a story is delivered. I kinda think its a cop out to change core elements to match a different game in your library that is somewhat easier to write for... and so much less RPG... there's so much less to do.

But I don't think a game like DA2 is less RPG because there are is VO (you can sauter into the dialogue thread that David Gaidner posted extensively in recently to see that from a writing PoV). Rather, where or not you have VO is totally independent other than what it can do for you re: cinematic presentation, which is allow for an active instead of a passive player.

If Alistair delivering a speech makes the PC look a little artarded, don't have the PC standing next to him when he's delivering the speech. lol That's the flaw, not the silent character. On my play-through he was set to be king so it seemed fine to me that he was delivering a speech. I don't need my character to be the central hero, or the centre of attention for the entire world, so long as the character or party is involved in world changing events... I don't need to be applauded by a crowd, given an achievement, or patted on the back after every major fight. I'll go down like Duncan next to the king, who more NPCs are upset to see gone than the Grey Warden at his side. Yo!

You don't have to force the PC to be the hero - but if you want a PC to be the hero, why should an RPG of all things tell you to go **** yourself? If I'm an extrovert and I like the limelight - why should I be forced to play a passive character?

To be honest, independent of how the game is implemented, I wouldn't play a story where you are a bit character. I just would never have characters like that because it's impossible for me to relate to them. Now, that's not to say that I think what you do should always be important; I just don't want a character who chooses to led others lead or take charge.

Mutantsquirrel wrote...
It's really not as independent as it
may at first seem.  The paraphrasing is a direct result of VO simply
because VO allows for paraphrasing.  If there were no VO there would be
no paraphrasing.

But if there is VO, there needn't be paraphrasing. It's not a neccesary condition, so criticizing the paraphrase instead of VO is not very logical.

[Nighteye2]

No, you're not. Voicing the main character creates artificial and unwanted mental distance between the PC and the player.

[JamesX]

There is paraphrasing because you can't fit all that text on a wheel. It doesn't really have anything to do with Voice or Not.



The Wheel is there because they wanted to.



They could have easily had voiced main character and still have each line fully written out like DAO.

[FieryDove]

JamesX wrote...

There is paraphrasing because you can't fit all that text on a wheel. It doesn't really have anything to do with Voice or Not.

The Wheel is there because they wanted to.

They could have easily had voiced main character and still have each line fully written out like DAO.

I think so as well. A toggle for full lines for those that want it would have been nice. But then everyone else who wants something would want another toggle and the game menu alone would end up 6 pages of options. sigh

[Kanten]

I don't usually mind main characters having a voice in games.

Male Hawke's voice, however, is awful.

[In Exile]

17thknight wrote...

It was the most interesting and fresh idea DA:O had. It was a huge draw for the game.

Rather than expanding on it, and improving it...they ruined it. Completely. It's ludicrous.

And worse they didn't even do it to make a new or fresh game system, they just copy-pasted Mass Effect onto Dragon Age.

Actually, it was a debate ridden feature that was criticized as the death of the modern RPG and a fundametal betrayal by Bioware when it came to producing a successor to BGII like they promised.

I mean, the number of ''Origins reduce RPG options!'' bordered on staggering. There was one thread in particular when someone said they wouldn't play origins because their human female character concept (hermit living in a forest who is terrified and uncomfortable around others) wouldn't work because the HNF grows up in a castle with a family.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But not how those experiences have shaped his personality.  DAO allowed characters from the same origin to be anything from loud aggressive types who bark orders, to shrinking violets who never take charge.

In principle, DA2 does not do this either.

I like that DA2 doesn't fill in the blanks in Hawke's background, but I dislike that the voice forces him into a specific delivery of each line.

DA:O already does this. But we've had this debate so many times we can effectively predict our positions.

[Drachjinor]

In Exile wrote...

VO might cater to this crowd, but it also caters to people like. People who believe that reactive consequence makes an RPG, which means that the game has to script lots of in-game content and have multiple reactions to that, and part of having a character come alive is to have characters react to who you are and to what you are directly in game, not in your imagination.

I'm down with all that. lol VO adds a character akin to a cinematic action game's characters. Awesome.

Gone from three racial types, with different race specific attirubutes, varying backgrounds and origin stories, or starting locations, whatever, a fairly intuitive and moderately extensive character creation system, and NPC reactions throughout the world to whichever race or class you choose to play.

Replays can yield different experiences in the world you occupy and with its occupants depending on race and such. You get a role-play insight into what it is to be a Casteless Dwarf, and how Ferelden or the wider world reacts to you as such. A Dalish Elf. A sheltered Mage of the Circle thrust out into the world.

... to....

... for the sake of a voice. You can only play a human (most common species in the setting). Three class options. The character creation doesn't yield much beyond having an option on Tomb Raider to make Lara blonde and changing her outfit from the accepted shorts and tank top standard - to perhaps wearing a spandex all-in-one. She's still Lara Croft, of Kent, England. With her excellent accent. Meaning everyone is playing Lara Croft, which means they're pretty much all playing the exact same character with slight prods here and there to differentiate them from one to the next. They play her every time they play the game. Player input is massively reduced as the studio provides everything.

DA:2 could have introduced many news races to expand the setting, and made many of them playable to expand a players understanding of the race and its place in the setting. It didn't... and that... is my beef with the new ME-style direction. Can't see an even trade here from many options to few all for the sake of a voice and some cinematic scenes of a hero I didn't do much beyond prod occasionally giving a rousing speech. Sorry.

I understand why you do, but I think your reasons justify action game storeytelling. Controlling Conan on an epic quest somewhere. You can only role-play Conan so many times before you realise your tiny prods here and there don't really change him up all that much in your game. Wouldn't be an issue if DA:O didn't present so many good and varied options, but it did. So I'd be on your side if the game was new and this was the direction they went with VO. Fine. I just think the change-over blows from DA:O to this. *shrug*

Modifié par Drachjinor, 25 février 2011 - 12:29 .

[Mutantsquirrel]

In Exile wrote...

Mutantsquirrel wrote...
It's really not as independent as it
may at first seem.  The paraphrasing is a direct result of VO simply
because VO allows for paraphrasing.  If there were no VO there would be
no paraphrasing.

But if there is VO, there needn't be paraphrasing. It's not a neccesary condition, so criticizing the paraphrase instead of VO is not very logical.

I'm pretty sure you meant that last part the other way around.  Regardless, I'm not criticizing one over the other, I'm criticizing BOTH.  And I completely agree that there need not be paraphrasing with VO, but that doesn't mean that they are completely independent of each other, which is all I was trying to point out.  If there was no VO, the devs would be unable to use paraphrases ... that's a fact that can't be argued (you didn't see paraphrases in Origins).  I dislike VO for multiple reasons, this is just another reason.  Take away the paraphrases and I'll still dislike VO, just for one less reason.

JamesX wrote...

There is paraphrasing because you can't fit all that text on a wheel. It doesn't really have anything to do with Voice or Not.

The Wheel is there because they wanted to.

They could have easily had voiced main character and still have each line fully written out like DAO.

Again, if there was no VO, the devs would unable to use paraphrases.  Yes they can choose to not use paraphrases while still using VO, but they didn't.  Having VO does not guarantee the omission of paraphrasing, but not having VO does give this guarantee.  I'll take the sure thing over the maybe.

Modifié par Mutantsquirrel, 25 février 2011 - 12:27 .

[Pauravi]

KBomb wrote...

I love a voiced character, but for different reason that most. I am hearing impaired and have learned to read lips as a part of my communication skills. When I have a character that doesn’t move their mouth, it seems unnatural to me. I feel incredibly out of sync with it, even though with the animations I cannot tell what they’re saying, it still helps with the whole ambiance. That is just me though and it probably seems strange to most, but there is it.

That is really interesting and cool, actually.  Is the lip sync actually good enough for you to tell what they're saying?  I'd have imagined it wouldn't be.  Or is it more just a "realism" thing?