179 réponses à ce sujet

[DieHigh2012]

Iwasdrunkbro wrote...

II That Burn In Ya Ass II wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion and they have no voice-over for the main character. I don't see why Bioware feels it is needed to be successful.

^ This is SO true.

Its because Bethesda has open world games and it gives the player alot more freedom to go out and do whatever they want. Bioware makes up for this by having deep emotional connections with characters and an overall better (and longer) storyline. The truth is, if Bioware took the time to make a game like Oblivion the RIGHT way, it would be the top selling RPG of all time. Hands down no questions asked.

I simply dont understand why Bioware is so against open world "sandbox" gaming.

Remember how long DA:O took to drop? It would take 20 years for BioWare to make a game like that.

However I do agree it would be that special kind of awesome.

[HawXV2]

DieHigh2012 wrote...

Iwasdrunkbro wrote...

II That Burn In Ya Ass II wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion and they have no voice-over for the main character. I don't see why Bioware feels it is needed to be successful.

^ This is SO true.

Its because Bethesda has open world games and it gives the player alot more freedom to go out and do whatever they want. Bioware makes up for this by having deep emotional connections with characters and an overall better (and longer) storyline. The truth is, if Bioware took the time to make a game like Oblivion the RIGHT way, it would be the top selling RPG of all time. Hands down no questions asked.

I simply dont understand why Bioware is so against open world "sandbox" gaming.

Remember how long DA:O took to drop? It would take 20 years for BioWare to make a game like that.

However I do agree it would be that special kind of awesome.

Yeah, if BioWare did make an open world game, it would likely be the greatest there ever was.

[Sylvius the Mad]

DieHigh2012 wrote...

Yes well actually speaking is still a very important part of the conversation. Though you might have already made up your mind as to what you are going to say. If you don't comunicate it in a way that the others in the conversation can
understand, it is a wasted thought process.

Since you can't ever know whether others understand you, that's a useless standard.   All you can do is express yourself well - everything beyond that is basically witchcraft.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

But "rationality to a fault" and "deliberate obtuseness" are seperated by a very thin line, and I'm on the mother-frakking edge.

There's no fault in rationality.  That's the whole point of rational decision theory.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 20 mars 2011 - 08:36 .

[Aerione]

Sorry if I (probably) reiterate what has been already said. I stopped reading halfway through, but for me the issue is this:

Either voice everything of consequence, or voice nothing of consequence. Battlecries are sound effects as far as I'm concerned and not dialogue. Go Baldurs Gate or go Dragon Age 2. Anything in between will for me atleast break immersion to varying degrees. One isn't necessarily better than the other, for me it is two entirely different genres and I enjoy both.

To all you talking of your great imaginations who can think up the voice as it were there. Ponder this. BioWare made Dragon Age 1 and 2 cinematic in dialogues and that is that. Would you enjoy watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy where every line of Frodo was a picture of Elijah Wood mutely watching intently into the horizon while his dialogue was presented in text on the screen?

That breaks immersion for me, and I consider myself to have great imagination, though not to the point where I hear voices.

Its an extreme strawman I agree, but for me the point is valid. BioWare RPGs in the Dragon Age sense are cinematic in nature as to how they convey dialogue and I've always enjoyed my cinematics with voices as dialogue.

That being said it all boils down to personal preference, which is something one rarely wind up agreeing if the parties are disagreeing to begin with.

[Deylar]

Heavensrun wrote...
Personally?  I've always disliked the "silent protagonist" A La Gordon Freeman.  I have NEVER,file:///C:/Users/HEAVEN%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.pngfile:///C:/Users/HEAVEN%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.png in my life, felt self-immersed in a videogame to the point that my "avatar" having a voice would detach me.  I might suggest that anybody that is self-identifying with the game that hard might have a teensy bit of an issue seperating fantasy from reality.  But that's really something that could only be judged person by person.  And even if I did self-identify, well, I do this little thing called "talking and emoting" where I express reactions to the events around me.  A protagonist who sits there like a neutral lump is just as "out of character" for me as one who says a line with a particular inflection.  In fact, such behavior makes it generally impossible for me to empathise with the character at all.

I was diagnosed with Aspergers when I was a kid, yes. 

I am a writer. And inspiring author so...I kind of have a different view than most people.

Anyway, I don't know if you were deliberately strawmanning with this topic, or if you're just being pedantic about the terminology the base uses to refer to the character (Maybe you know somebody that's a mute and feel annoyed at people trivializing the condition?  I dunno. ) but it's clear what everybody means when they say it, so if you disagree with their opinions, you should address the topic of the silent protagonist -first- and nitipick terminology as a side point.

For me, I remember the voices I was suppose to choose for the warden. And thus it was easy to see him speak.

Because the thing is. I don't need my protganist to validate he spoke with voiceover. 

I read the sentence. Thus the character spoke it when I read it and I click on it. I don't need him to voiceover to validate that I spoke it.

I'm not trying to set out strawman arguments.

I just think DA:O= I am the hero because I am the hero I give the personality. I use a little bit of imagination. I speak the dialogue. 

DA2= You puppet a hero who speaks

[Aerione]

II That Burn In Ya Ass II wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion and they have no voice-over for the main character. I don't see why Bioware feels it is needed to be successful.

^ This is SO true.

What is also true is that Grand Theft Auto 4 has outsold Oblivion and they have voice-over for the main character. By your logic one could argue that you don't see why Bethesda feels it is needed to not have voice-acting to be successul.

Of course both points are flawed cause we're talking entirely different modus operandi for all the games concerned. Oblivion =/= Dragon Age in so many ways that the comparison stops at RPG and medieval. GTA =/= Oblivion in so many ways that the comparison stops at sandbox and ... transport? 

Sorry, just had to. The value of this post is zero, I know. 

[TJSolo]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...


I believe I commented on the first page that the combat reactions are ignored by the folks hellbent on making the claim "The Warden was mute."  Your posts and my current responses to you support my first comment in this thread. 

This is a thread, not a living creature. The starting topic can always be referred to no matter what the current flow of a thread is.

And the people who claim combat reactions qualify as proof that the Warden isn't mute are ignoring the fact that the Warden stands there like a bump on the log not actually saying a single bloody thing during real conversations with companions and other NPCs. I can't believe this silliness is still going on.

Repeatedly saying "Can I get you a ladder so you'll get off my back!" when you click on a chest or a battle shout doesn't exactly qualify as a meaningful verbal exchange with your companions. Nor does it create any emotion other than, perhaps, annoyance after hearing it for the ten millionth time.

The Warden says vocalized stuff. Annoying, meaningful or whatever negative qualifer you want to attach it is still the Warden vocalizing some dialogue. The conversations that are had with companions are a matter of the Warden saying the line of text that is selected and the other party in the conversation replying back to what the Warden said.

He is not a mute the in game characters hear the dialogue, case closed.

The Warden does not say enough vocalized stuff for you, continue prattling on with stupidly obtuse arguments that only seem to exist in this generation of gamers.

[TJSolo]

Aerione wrote...

II That Burn In Ya Ass II wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion and they have no voice-over for the main character. I don't see why Bioware feels it is needed to be successful.

^ This is SO true.

What is also true is that Grand Theft Auto 4 has outsold Oblivion and they have voice-over for the main character. By your logic one could argue that you don't see why Bethesda feels it is needed to not have voice-acting to be successul.

Of course both points are flawed cause we're talking entirely different modus operandi for all the games concerned. Oblivion =/= Dragon Age in so many ways that the comparison stops at RPG and medieval. GTA =/= Oblivion in so many ways that the comparison stops at sandbox and ... transport? 

Sorry, just had to. The value of this post is zero, I know. 

We are talking about voiced characters in DA which is an RPG, TES at least is a close comparision.
TES being an open world quite frankly has nothing to do with the way conversation is implemented.

[Aerione]

Deylar wrote...
For me, I remember the voices I was suppose to choose for the warden. And thus it was easy to see him speak.

Because the thing is. I don't need my protganist to validate he spoke with voiceover. 

I read the sentence. Thus the character spoke it when I read it and I click on it. I don't need him to voiceover to validate that I spoke it.

I'm not trying to set out strawman arguments.

I just think DA:O= I am the hero because I am the hero I give the personality. I use a little bit of imagination. I speak the dialogue. 

DA2= You puppet a hero who speaks

I can see your point and I'm too capable of doing this. My personal preference is voice-acting though even for Origins.

My take on the two game is the following,

DA:O = I decide the choices of my protagonist and I imagine him carrying them out and watch others react to my choice.
DA 2 = I decide the choices of my protagonist and I watch him carry them out and then watch others react to my choice.

For a game that has taken the cinematic route that BioWare has made for the Dragon Age series I strongly prefer the latter. I don't enjoy being tossed between different ways of storytelling that often (cinematic and reading, I can elaborate if needed). I have to readjust every other line of dialogue basically. For me atleast the story becomes a bit fragmented as a result with that type of presentation. There are ways of making this work even, but for me they failed at that with Origins.

That said I enjoyed Origins very very much, but just  this aspect is one of the few things I feel Dragon Age 2 did better.

When I read a book however, I very much prefer to use my imagination and not have it polluted by the images, sounds or voices of others. On that note, if you ever release your books, please don't let the publishers slap some random rendition of characters or vital locations in your story on the cover of the book. I'm not fond of that.  Keep it abstract or symbolic and let your readers enjoy imagining the rest. It's the same reason I enjoy reading a book before I watch the movie to keep my own images. I do enjoy watching it the other way around though, other peoples perspectives can be refreshing and interesting. Sometimes even superior.

[Deylar]

Where as I'm the opposite.

I play RPGs to be the hero. I AM the Hero.

DA2 I didn't feel like the hero. Hawke was Hawke, Hawke was himself.

Origins, I was the Warden. I Was the Warden.

I like games where I am the hero. I don't like not being the hero in a fantasy RPG.

But then there are games like Two Worlds 2 that did both really well.

You read full length sentences and the character spoke them out loud. But he also was not named and was name what I named him and still how I imagined him. And still making me the Hero.

[Vicious]

DA:O = I decide the choices of my protagonist and I imagine him carrying them out and watch others react to my choice.
DA 2 = I decide the choices of my protagonist and I watch him carry them out and then watch others react to my choice.

Pretty much. Bioware is more interested in making cinematic games than open world ones. Given a cinematic game, [that could easily be turned into a decent film and enrich EA] then a voiced protagonist just makes a hell of a lot more sense.

It's also what I see Bioware doing from here on out.

After all, DA:O had the Warden doing stuff. Given his lack of voice during conversations or ESPECIALLY his complete lack of reaction to events during conversation, and the fact he only reacted to stuff in select cinematics, made him look like a mime. Rather silly in a modern game.

Remember how long DA:O took to drop?

took about 7 years or so didn't it? I'd say the big problem is that their engine got dated before they knew it. Now they are trying to get as much mileage out of it as possible before EA forces them to scrap it and license something else.

Part of that was the new art style. Rather than try to compete [which this graphics engine certainly cannot] they attempted to stylize the art so that it's dreariness is intentional rather than accidental.


In other words, Bioware is in a very bad situation overall. It's no wonder they had to rush DA2 out the door, if you think about it. EA is not about to give them another 7 years.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Aerione wrote...

To all you talking of your great imaginations who can think up the voice as it were there. Ponder this. BioWare made Dragon Age 1 and 2 cinematic in dialogues and that is that. Would you enjoy watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy where every line of Frodo was a picture of Elijah Wood mutely watching intently into the horizon while his dialogue was presented in text on the screen?

Broken analogy.  In a movie the viewer isn't controlling the dialogue.

[Aerione]

TJSolo wrote...

Aerione wrote...

II That Burn In Ya Ass II wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion and they have no voice-over for the main character. I don't see why Bioware feels it is needed to be successful.

^ This is SO true.

Sorry, just had to. The value of this post is zero, I know. 

We are talking about voiced characters in DA which is an RPG, TES at least is a close comparision.
TES being an open world quite frankly has nothing to do with the way conversation is implemented.

Ok, so you actually took that seriously even though I tried to make it clear it was in jest...

Explain to me then why no voice-over is needed for an RPG to be succesful on the basis that Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Aerione wrote...

Explain to me then why no voice-over is needed for an RPG to be succesful on the basis that Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion?

Didn't you just explain that yourself?

[B3taMaxxx]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Aerione wrote...

Explain to me then why no voice-over is needed for an RPG to be succesful on the basis that Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion?

Didn't you just explain that yourself?

 Well, for one, Bethesda's RPGs have been shooters, or have incorporated them. They are also reaping the rewards of the long term sales of Oblivion.

 Nevetheless, that one feature hardly explains the sales figures as a whole.

[Sylvius the Mad]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Aerione wrote...

Explain to me then why no voice-over is needed for an RPG to be succesful on the basis that Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion?

Didn't you just explain that yourself?

 Well, for one, Bethesda's RPGs have been shooters, or have incorporated them. They are also reaping the rewards of the long term sales of Oblivion.

 Nevetheless, that one feature hardly explains the sales figures as a whole.

Not relevant.  The question whether a voiced PC is necessary for an RPG to be succesful.  Given that Oblivion was successful, and it lacks a PC voice, we therefore know for certain that a voice is not a necessary characteristic of successful RPGs.

[Aerione]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Aerione wrote...

To all you talking of your great imaginations who can think up the voice as it were there. Ponder this. BioWare made Dragon Age 1 and 2 cinematic in dialogues and that is that. Would you enjoy watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy where every line of Frodo was a picture of Elijah Wood mutely watching intently into the horizon while his dialogue was presented in text on the screen?

Broken analogy.  In a movie the viewer isn't controlling the dialogue.

Which I also pointed out if you'd bothered to read two more sentences.

"Its an extreme strawman I agree, but for me the point is valid. BioWare RPGs in the Dragon Age sense are cinematic in nature as to how they convey dialogue and I've always enjoyed my cinematics with voices as dialogue."

Quoting just part of the argument isn't the best to argue a point. Here it's not even taken out of context, but plain omition of the explanation of the flawed argument that you decided to again reiterate is flawed.

Anyway. it isn't the control over dialogue that is relevant for the issue at hand, the problem is how chosen dialogue is presented.

[B3taMaxxx]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

B3taMaxxx wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Aerione wrote...

Explain to me then why no voice-over is needed for an RPG to be succesful on the basis that Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion?

Didn't you just explain that yourself?

 Well, for one, Bethesda's RPGs have been shooters, or have incorporated them. They are also reaping the rewards of the long term sales of Oblivion.

 Nevetheless, that one feature hardly explains the sales figures as a whole.

Not relevant.  The question whether a voiced PC is necessary for an RPG to be succesful. .

 Yes, but his question was the adverse of the bolded comment.

Modifié par B3taMaxxx, 21 mars 2011 - 04:28 .

[Aerione]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Aerione wrote...

Explain to me then why no voice-over is needed for an RPG to be succesful on the basis that Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion?

Didn't you just explain that yourself?

Oh, so you are actually advocating that the sole reason that Bethesda is outselling Bioware is the choice to omit voice-acting? I find that quite incredible.

What about stuff like sandbox vs. non sandbox. The strength of one franchise vs another franchise? Marketing? Competition at time of release? Pricing? Budget? Are all these irrelevant then?

To me the argument that no voice-over is needed for an RPG to be succesful is extremely flawed on the sole basis that Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion. There might just be more to it than that little nugget.

So again I ask, why is this so? Explain to me why no voice-over is needed for an RPG to be succesful.

[Aerione]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

B3taMaxxx wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Aerione wrote...

Explain to me then why no voice-over is needed for an RPG to be succesful on the basis that Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion?

Didn't you just explain that yourself?

 Well, for one, Bethesda's RPGs have been shooters, or have incorporated them. They are also reaping the rewards of the long term sales of Oblivion.

 Nevetheless, that one feature hardly explains the sales figures as a whole.

Not relevant.  The question whether a voiced PC is necessary for an RPG to be succesful.  Given that Oblivion was successful, and it lacks a PC voice, we therefore know for certain that a voice is not a necessary characteristic of successful RPGs.

So you take "no voice-over is needed for an RPG to be succesful" and read that as "a voiced PC is necessary for an RPG to be succesful"?

[TJSolo]

Aerione wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Aerione wrote...

II That Burn In Ya Ass II wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion and they have no voice-over for the main character. I don't see why Bioware feels it is needed to be successful.

^ This is SO true.

Sorry, just had to. The value of this post is zero, I know. 

We are talking about voiced characters in DA which is an RPG, TES at least is a close comparision.
TES being an open world quite frankly has nothing to do with the way conversation is implemented.

Ok, so you actually took that seriously even though I tried to make it clear it was in jest...

Explain to me then why no voice-over is needed for an RPG to be succesful on the basis that Bethesda's RPGs have outsold Bioware RPGs since Oblivion?

That is not something I need to explain as my standpoint is that there have been and will be RPGs that succeed with voiced and unvoiced protags, my proof is the factual history of cRPGs.
The ones holding extreme claims like voiced protags can never be good or that non-voiced protags are a bane in gaming are the ones that have yet to prove anything other than their own bias.

Modifié par TJSolo, 21 mars 2011 - 04:50 .

[Deylar]

Btw, I have no problem with voice over.

I love the Fable series.

I liked Two Worlds 2.

But I also prefer no voice over. Because I can be the hero.

[B3taMaxxx]

TJSolo wrote...
That is not something I need to explain as my standpoint is that there have been and will be RPGs that succeed with voiced and unvoiced protags, my proof is the factual history of cRPGs.
The ones holding extreme claims like voiced protags can never be good or that non-voiced protags are a bane in gaming are the ones that have yet to prove anything other than their own bias.

 You could say the same thing about 'top-down-paly' (isometric), but to use your example, Fallout and Oblivion overcame this.

 My point being is that time will be the only true measure. How much? I don't know, till 2015.

[B3taMaxxx]

Deylar wrote...

Btw, I have no problem with voice over.

I love the Fable series.

I liked Two Worlds 2.

But I also prefer no voice over. Because I can be the hero.

 True, or perhaps a 'selected' voice over? One that can match the character you've created?

[Aerione]

TJSolo wrote...
That is not something I need to explain as my standpoint is that there have been and will be RPGs that succeed with voiced and unvoiced protags, my proof is the factual history of cRPGs.
The ones holding extreme claims like voiced protags can never be good or that non-voiced protags are a bane in gaming are the ones that have yet to prove anything other than their own bias.

My point excactly! I agree wholeheartedly, both are succesful and we have facts to that effect. I was merely arguing against someone who presented it as " voiced protags can never be good".

Or what they actually said was: "why go with voiced protags when a game with non-voiced protags is more succesful".