996 réponses à ce sujet

[Siansonea]

Otterwarden wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
It's not like you're writing what your character is saying, or shaping the story in a way that the developers didn't anticipate. It's like painting by numbers and calling it Art.

Ah, but the best paint by number is the one you help to develop yourself:  scan your picture, do a tracing, copy tracing to canvas, pick out your palette, mix your oils... and, yes, it is art!

How very...mechanical...

[Otterwarden]

Siansonea II wrote...
Clearly you haven't bothered to read anything I've written, or else you'd understand my motivation. My "motivation" is to take the wind out of this idea that those who are clamoring for a return to the Silent Era are somehow The Most Smartest Gamers Ever. You people are acting as if you're creating characters in these games. You're not. You're just making a series of selections from very limited menus. You respond to events as they are scripted. And imagining a character's voice rather than hearing it spoken aloud is NOT the pinnacle of imaginative thinking.

You want to be imaginative, be creative, and exert complete control over a character in an RPG? Well, then pen-and-paper is the most logical choice. You get to decide everything about the character except for their physical location when the game begins. You can create an illustration of your character's appearance. You can initiate combat, avoid combat, advance the main story or completely derail it. It's ALL up to you. But playing a video game and reading from a small list of lines of a screen IS NOT IMAGINATIVE. So let's just put that idea to rest. If that's your idea of using your imagination, no wonder you don't like anything but games that are exactly like games you've already played.

One of the main irritations with the voiced protagonist is that it seems to come with a trade off in lines delivered.  And, in DA2, an additional trade off in consequences of different deliveries.  If this is the Faustian bargain it looks like many are not willing to sign the contract.

As for myself, I have been more than willing to try new games with new mechanics. 

Modifié par Otterwarden, 10 avril 2011 - 03:12 .

[Otterwarden]

Siansonea II wrote...

How very...mechanical...

No less mechanical than Warhol.  Art is very subjective as you well know.

[Faust1979]

No please don't get rid of the dialog wheel! it's boring reading texts of generic sentences. It works fine in older RPG's but it's time for an upgrade. Games now a days can use this technology please keep it!

[Siansonea]

<------My avatar? Not art. Yes, I made all the selections to create Mahaelis Hawke, but let's face it, it's just an amalgam created from a bunch of presets.

THIS is art. This is Cathexis Aurore, a character I created for a game system called Exalted. Cathexis is a Dawn Caste Solar Exalt, and she specializes in using the chakram. Her personality is very immature and materialistic, but underneath it all is a very innocent outlook. Cathexis never knows when people are making fun of her, but she's always talking smack about people based solely on their appearance. She enjoys tanning, shopping, casual sex, and wearing cute outfits. Well, that is until she hooked up with a minor god. Unbeknownst to Cathexis, she was pregnant with the god's child, a half-god, half-Exalted child that was the first of his kind in Creation. Cathexis immediately bonded with Chiron Aurore, her baby boy, and her whole personality underwent a change. She began to see that there was more important things in life than tanning, even if she found it hard to articulate her feelings about things (Cathexis isn't very smart or self-aware). Cathexis and her BFF Calee have been through a lot and are absolutely loyal to each other. Cathexis grew so much as a person that she eventually married one of the other Exalts in her Circle, the ugliest one, in fact. He also became the foster father of Chiron, since it was the god he served that was Chiron's natural father.

None of that was planned by the GM from the beginning, though I did have the idea of starting out with a very abrasive and silly character in that game, and bringing her to a place of realization through the events of the game. I didn't even know what that realization would be, I just knew I had to get inside the mindset of Cathexis and respond as she would to every situation she came across. And over the course of the campaign she grew a lot and was one of the most memorable characters I've ever played. I even did an illustration of what Cathexis looks like:



THAT is creativity. THAT is role-playing.

[Tommy6860]

Bad formatting as usual, deleted!

Modifié par Tommy6860, 10 avril 2011 - 03:41 .

[Tommy6860]

Siansonea II wrote...

You would all be better served if you would actually listen to what I'm saying rather than just reflexively reject everything because you dislike my delivery style. Maybe I'm not Suzy Sunshine, but if you actually think about it, what most of you are describing as an imaginative exercise is really just fantasizing.

And if you would just respond that this isn't about "you", you may get
the kind fo discussion that doesn't break down into ad hominem.. I
appreciate your differences in games preferences nevertheless. Not all of us are arrogant, so if you would heed your own words and listen as well, then maybe.........

I'm sorry, there's no nicer way to put it. There isn't a whole lot of creativity to be had in this medium, at least not at this stage of the technology. You can write backstories and fan fiction and whatnot, and that can certainly be creative and imaginative, but playing the actual game and "role-playing" within the confines of a computer game is simply not creative. It's just responding to stimuli. It's not like you're writing what your character is saying, or shaping the story in a way that the developers didn't anticipate. It's like painting by numbers and calling it Art.

Yes, something exciting can come from the newer styles and there are those who may not adjust. I am very open to anything, though I fall into that hardcore category when I want a true RPG. The thread is also in regards to DA2, not the genre in general. IF DA2 is the new style for RPGs, then it is a failure in my opinion, and not beause it is antithetical to yours, it is because an RPG has very specific elements to the genre that DA2 just does not fit. It would be as close as calling Call Of Duty an RPG, just because I can change from assault to sniper classes of soldiers when I want during gameplay. DA2 crossed that line from RPG, to action/adventure, so call it that genre. Or give the game a name that doesn' have Dragon Age in it.

Your criteria for change seems bent on the technology meme as well, when most RPGs are about imagination and creativity. Origins all but proved that new technologies and imaginative storylines, characters and self creativity during gameplay is very possible and even profitable as proven by the sales. So, I really don't see your point. Your main point is that you appear to dislike imaginative games (please correct me if I am worng), only that you like games that pushes you along as you play the game, as the game plays it for you. That's just fine if that is your style of gaming, but that certainly isn't anything new, nor technologically advanced.

Driving to work is an adventure sometimes, being driven through a game is not role-playing.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 10 avril 2011 - 03:42 .

[Siansonea]

Here’s another example of real role playing: Kitsu Karasu is a timid sodan-senzo shugenja of the Lion Clan of Rokugan. Her red hair proclaimed her to be of pure kitsu blood, descended from the First Five of the Kitsu, the spirit beings that became the mortal ancestors of the Kitsu family of the Lion Clan.

Karasu takes her role as spiritual leader very seriously. She knows that the afterlife of her community is her responsibility. When they die and go to Meido, they will be evaluated by Emma-O, and sent to either Yomi, Toshigoku, Gaki-do or Jigoku, or in very rare instances, Tengoku. She knows she has to keep the kami and the Fortunes appeased through shrines and prayer to provide benefit to her charges and keep them out of the dark spirit realms. Karasu is extremely surprised when she is sent from her cloistered position at the Kitsu Tombs to support the troops at the front lines of Otosan Uchi, the Imperial City that is being laid seige to, since it was overrun by creatures from Jigoku. Karasu is completely out of her element, and struggles to adapt to a coalition comprised of representatives from other clans. The Scorpion Clan soldiers were especially hard to understand, but luckily there were no Crane among her charges. Karasu dutifully constructed all the proper shrines and prepared all the appropriate prayers and incenses to importune the kami and Fortunes. But for all her efforts, her loyal Crab Clan yojimbo, Kuni Mamoru, was killed in battle, as well as the polite Scorpion duellist Bayushi Soze, who died confronting the Dark Oracle of Obsidian himself at the Imperial Palace. Even wily Shosuro Buntaro was missing. Clearly, Karasu had not appeased the Fortunes, and indeed she was visited in her dreams, not in Yume-do but in Tengoku itself, by the Fortune of Pestilence, Ekibyogami. Karasu had been building shrines and such to all the Fortunes from whom she wished favor, but not for those from whom she wished to avoid disfavor. A critical mistake! So Karasu became the Voice of Ekibyogami in ningen-do, much to the dismay of everyone around her. Karasu also came to the attention of the Blessed Ancestors in yume-do, the spirit kitsu, who sent a Nezumi Rememberer to aid and guide Karasu. To the rest of Rokugani, the sight of a Kitsu Sodan-Senzo carrying the Staff of Ekibyogami and followed by a “ratling” was beyond bizarre, but desperate times call for strange alliances, and for all that she was raised to be a dutiful shrine maiden in a forgotten tomb, Karasu’s destiny was to become much more than that, and challenge many long-held traditions of Rokugani society.

ALL of that happened due to the creativity of the game master and the players in the game, and it was a completely unique experience. It was not a series of selections from limited menus. Sure, the setting of the Legends of the Five Rings provided the framework for a lot of things that happened, but all the internal stuff, how Karasu responded to events, her actions, her anguish, her courage and her despair, all of that came from me. And let me tell you, even though she was a weak-in-combat character, she was one of the most enjoyable characters I ever played because of the emotional journey I took with her. That is role playing. That is imagination. That is creativity.

[Siansonea]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

You would all be better served if you would actually listen to what I'm saying rather than just reflexively reject everything because you dislike my delivery style. Maybe I'm not Suzy Sunshine, but if you actually think about it, what most of you are describing as an imaginative exercise is really just fantasizing.

And if you would just respond that this isn't about "you", you may get
the kind fo discussion that doesn't break down into ad hominem.. I
appreciate your differences in games preferences nevertheless. Not all of us are arrogant, so if you would heed your own words and listen as well, then maybe.........

I'm sorry, there's no nicer way to put it. There isn't a whole lot of creativity to be had in this medium, at least not at this stage of the technology. You can write backstories and fan fiction and whatnot, and that can certainly be creative and imaginative, but playing the actual game and "role-playing" within the confines of a computer game is simply not creative. It's just responding to stimuli. It's not like you're writing what your character is saying, or shaping the story in a way that the developers didn't anticipate. It's like painting by numbers and calling it Art.

Yes, something exciting can come from the newer styles and there are those who may not adjust. I am very open to anything, though I fall into that hardcore category when I want a true RPG. The thread is also in regards to DA2, not the genre in general. IF DA2 is the new style for RPGs, then it is a failure in my opinion, and not beause it is antithetical to yours, it is because an RPG has very specific elements to the genre that DA2 just does not fit. It would be as close as calling Call Of Duty an RPG, just because I can change from assault to sniper classes of soldiers when I want during gameplay. DA2 crossed that line from RPG, to action/adventure, so call it that genre. Or give the game a name that doesn' have Dragon Age in it.

Your criteria for change seems bent on the technology meme as well, when most RPGs are about imagination and creativity. Origins all but proved that new technologies and imaginative storylines, characters and self creativity during gameplay is very possible and even profitable as proven by the sales. So, I really don't see your point. Your main point is that you appear to dislike imaginative games (please correct me if I am worng), only that you like games that pushes you along as you play the game, as the game plays it for you. That's just fine if that is your style of gaming, but that certainly isn't anything new, nor technologically advanced.

Driving to work is an adventure sometimes, being driven through a game is not role-playing.

It sounds like because of the presentation of certain elements, BioWare colored outside the lines of a very specific and rigid code of What Is An RPG. Rather than focus on which boxes on a list were or were not checked, why not focus on the emotional journey? I guarantee you that whatever lack of emotional payoff you felt in Dragon Age 2 would have been just as unsatisfying if the main character was unvoiced and the response options were presented as a list instead of spread out on a wheel. The method isn't the problem. Personally, I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 well enough, especially my second playthrough with my snarky male mage Henrick Hawke. I have no illusions that Henrick is somehow unique, I'm sure there are a thousand other players out there who made the exact same choice with their Hawke. But it was a fun game, even if it defies established RPG conventions.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 10 avril 2011 - 03:53 .

[Merced652]

  I guarantee you that whatever lack of emotional payoff you felt in Dragon Age 2 would have been just as unsatisfying if the main character was unvoice

No you can't. The first reason obviously being that its subjective and the second obvious reason being that no voice when only one option is present gives someone greater breadth to RP with their own voice as well as the option to use variable intent. 

[Siansonea]

Merced652 wrote...

  I guarantee you that whatever lack of emotional payoff you felt in Dragon Age 2 would have been just as unsatisfying if the main character was unvoice

No you can't. The first reason obviously being that its subjective and the second obvious reason being that no voice when only one option is present gives someone greater breadth to RP with their own voice as well as the option to use variable intent. 

So the actual story isn't important, just the degree to which you can decide which word in the sentence gets emphasized.

I have to GO.
I HAVE to go.
I have TO go.

OMG, you're right, how utterly game-breaking.

[Merced652]

Siansonea II wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

  I guarantee you that whatever lack of emotional payoff you felt in Dragon Age 2 would have been just as unsatisfying if the main character was unvoice

No you can't. The first reason obviously being that its subjective and the second obvious reason being that no voice when only one option is present gives someone greater breadth to RP with their own voice as well as the option to use variable intent. 

So the actual story isn't important, just the degree to which you can decide which word in the sentence gets emphasized.

I have to GO.
I HAVE to go.
I have TO go.

OMG, you're right, how utterly game-breaking.

The story is important, the fact that its bad shouldn't really speak to its rpg elements, or lack of as is the case. Variable intent as it would be applied to a game like origins isn't just as simple as your intent, especially when someone cherrypicks a sentence containing 4 words. 

Modifié par Merced652, 10 avril 2011 - 04:07 .

[Otterwarden]

Siansonea II wrote...

It sounds like because of the presentation of certain elements, BioWare colored outside the lines of a very specific and rigid code of What Is An RPG. Rather than focus on which boxes on a list were or were not checked, why not focus on the emotional journey? I guarantee you that whatever lack of emotional payoff you felt in Dragon Age 2 would have been just as unsatisfying if the main character was unvoiced and the response options were presented as a list instead of spread out on a wheel. The method isn't the problem. Personally, I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 well enough, especially my second playthrough with my snarky male mage Henrick Hawke. I have no illusions that Henrick is somehow unique, I'm sure there are a thousand other players out there who made the exact same choice with their Hawke. But it was a fun game, even if it defies established RPG conventions.

I agree, the method was not the problem and I said it as much a few posts back.  For me, the wheel never factored into the equation.  In the ME series, Bioware has demonstrated to me that it can be used effectively, so I'm more than willing to have them continue with it provided that the dialogue is not reduced to phrases that have no purpose other than space fillers.  If choice A,B,and C all lead to outcome X then don't waste my time, just produce outcome X.  To a certain extent this convergence was happening in ME2, but I never played that as an RPG so it was less bothersome.  I believe that Witcher 2 will be adopting the wheel concept in some form and, though the jury is still out because it has not yet been released, this is what I like to read when I evaluate an RPG:

thisismyjoystick.com/interviews/previewinterview-the-witcher-2-assassins-of-kings/
RW: Will there be an easy way just to obtain the endings in-game? For example, In Fallout, you could just reload the final scene of the game and change the outcome that way. Is this the same for The Witcher 2?
“This is an open world game and not as linear as the first. We wanted
to tell the story of The Witcher 2 on a grander scale and as such there
are so many different decisions and outcomes for those decisions. There
will be no easy way to load the game just to get an ending. You will
need to influence the state of the World over time and the state of the
World will determine how your game will end.”

Modifié par Otterwarden, 10 avril 2011 - 04:12 .

[Siansonea]

Merced652 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

  I guarantee you that whatever lack of emotional payoff you felt in Dragon Age 2 would have been just as unsatisfying if the main character was unvoice

No you can't. The first reason obviously being that its subjective and the second obvious reason being that no voice when only one option is present gives someone greater breadth to RP with their own voice as well as the option to use variable intent. 

So the actual story isn't important, just the degree to which you can decide which word in the sentence gets emphasized.

I have to GO.
I HAVE to go.
I have TO go.

OMG, you're right, how utterly game-breaking.

The story is important, the fact that its bad shouldn't really speak to its rpg elements, or lack of as is the case. Variable intent as it would be applied to a game like origins isn't just as simple as your intent, especially when someone cherrypicks a sentence containing 4 words. 

Regardless, the game engine doesn't care that your Warden speaks in a jaunty Scottish brogue or whatever. Maybe it feeds your fantasy of putting yourself in the game, and that's fine, but let's not kid ourselves that it has any affect on the outcome. And let's not kid ourselves that the Scottish brogue or the nuances of imagined voice acting are in any way imaginative. It's still just reading.

[Merced652]

Siansonea II wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

  I guarantee you that whatever lack of emotional payoff you felt in Dragon Age 2 would have been just as unsatisfying if the main character was unvoice

No you can't. The first reason obviously being that its subjective and the second obvious reason being that no voice when only one option is present gives someone greater breadth to RP with their own voice as well as the option to use variable intent. 

So the actual story isn't important, just the degree to which you can decide which word in the sentence gets emphasized.

I have to GO.
I HAVE to go.
I have TO go.

OMG, you're right, how utterly game-breaking.

The story is important, the fact that its bad shouldn't really speak to its rpg elements, or lack of as is the case. Variable intent as it would be applied to a game like origins isn't just as simple as your intent, especially when someone cherrypicks a sentence containing 4 words. 

Regardless, the game engine doesn't care that your Warden speaks in a jaunty Scottish brogue or whatever. Maybe it feeds your fantasy of putting yourself in the game, and that's fine, but let's not kid ourselves that it has any affect on the outcome. And let's not kid ourselves that the Scottish brogue or the nuances of imagined voice acting are in any way imaginative. It's still just reading.

You're marginalizing something that can't really even be measured. It could be incredibly rewarding or offer next to nothing depending on the individual. Like i've been saying, its completely subjective. When i project a character who talks a certain way or has a certain character trait i would use the fact that there is no voiceover AND the fact that i can varry intent. You cannot do that in a system with a VO'd protag. Arguably you couldn't even do variable intent because the inflection would remain constant even without intent icons. Granted someone who has no interest in RPing, yet inexplicably plays RPGs, is simply wanting to be entertained by the game. Rather than take a proactive approach to entertaining themselves WITH the game. 

[Siansonea]

Otterwarden wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

It sounds like because of the presentation of certain elements, BioWare colored outside the lines of a very specific and rigid code of What Is An RPG. Rather than focus on which boxes on a list were or were not checked, why not focus on the emotional journey? I guarantee you that whatever lack of emotional payoff you felt in Dragon Age 2 would have been just as unsatisfying if the main character was unvoiced and the response options were presented as a list instead of spread out on a wheel. The method isn't the problem. Personally, I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 well enough, especially my second playthrough with my snarky male mage Henrick Hawke. I have no illusions that Henrick is somehow unique, I'm sure there are a thousand other players out there who made the exact same choice with their Hawke. But it was a fun game, even if it defies established RPG conventions.

I agree, the method was not the problem and I said it as much a few posts back.  For me, the wheel never factored into the equation.  In the ME series, Bioware has demonstrated to me that it can be used effectively, so I'm more than willing to have them continue with it provided that the dialogue is not reduced to phrases that have no purpose other than space fillers.  If choice A,B,and C all lead to outcome X then don't waste my time, just produce outcome X.  To a certain extent this convergence was happening in ME2, but I never played that as an RPG so it was less bothersome.  *snip*

I'm surprised to hear you say that, because it sounds like the crux of the silent protagonist argument is that it is how say something that matters. If it's just quantity of dialog options, and you just want to pick dialog option A to achieve Result B, then I have to wonder if there's any real difference between the two Dragon Age games. I really don't know, so don't think I'm stating something one way or another. Of course I'm always going to come down in favor of more dialog options and more outcomes, but since the NPCs are voiced and animated the same in both games, something tells me that the protagonist's voice or lack thereof is a relatively minor concern as far as programming limitations are concerned. To me, the best solution is to upgrade the platforms so they can handle more data storage and whatnot, add more voices to choose from, but keep the character voiced.

[Merced652]

No where in any post have i ever gave an indication that i would like to see less options for dialogue. If anything that gives even more chances and divergent paths in which to RP. The fact that i dislike a singular voice per gender or constant intent doesn't in anyway take away from that.

Modifié par Merced652, 10 avril 2011 - 04:30 .

[Moirnelithe]

Siansonea II wrote...
I'm surprised to hear you say that, because it sounds like the crux of the silent protagonist argument is that it is how say something that matters. If it's just quantity of dialog options, and you just want to pick dialog option A to achieve Result B, then I have to wonder if there's any real difference between the two Dragon Age games. I really don't know, so don't think I'm stating something one way or another. Of course I'm always going to come down in favor of more dialog options and more outcomes, but since the NPCs are voiced and animated the same in both games, something tells me that the protagonist's voice or lack thereof is a relatively minor concern as far as programming limitations are concerned. To me, the best solution is to upgrade the platforms so they can handle more data storage and whatnot, add more voices to choose from, but keep the character voiced.

The problem is still that voice actors cost a lot of money thereby cutting into the budget of developing more dialogue and choices. If voice actors were free I think the situation with DA2 would have been avoided to a large degree, but since this will never be the case I worry about the direction DA3 will take.

[Siansonea]

Merced652 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

  I guarantee you that whatever lack of emotional payoff you felt in Dragon Age 2 would have been just as unsatisfying if the main character was unvoice

No you can't. The first reason obviously being that its subjective and the second obvious reason being that no voice when only one option is present gives someone greater breadth to RP with their own voice as well as the option to use variable intent. 

So the actual story isn't important, just the degree to which you can decide which word in the sentence gets emphasized.

I have to GO.
I HAVE to go.
I have TO go.

OMG, you're right, how utterly game-breaking.

The story is important, the fact that its bad shouldn't really speak to its rpg elements, or lack of as is the case. Variable intent as it would be applied to a game like origins isn't just as simple as your intent, especially when someone cherrypicks a sentence containing 4 words. 

Regardless, the game engine doesn't care that your Warden speaks in a jaunty Scottish brogue or whatever. Maybe it feeds your fantasy of putting yourself in the game, and that's fine, but let's not kid ourselves that it has any affect on the outcome. And let's not kid ourselves that the Scottish brogue or the nuances of imagined voice acting are in any way imaginative. It's still just reading.

You're marginalizing something that can't really even be measured. It could be incredibly rewarding or offer next to nothing depending on the individual. Like i've been saying, its completely subjective. When i project a character who talks a certain way or has a certain character trait i would use the fact that there is no voiceover AND the fact that i can varry intent. You cannot do that in a system with a VO'd protag. Arguably you couldn't even do variable intent because the inflection would remain constant even without intent icons. Granted someone who has no interest in RPing, yet inexplicably plays RPGs, is simply wanting to be entertained by the game. Rather than take a proactive approach to entertaining themselves WITH the game. 

So you don't really care how limited your options are in other ways, as long as you have silent golem you can project a super-specific voice pattern onto. Okay. But once again, i don't care if Dragon Age 2 is called an "RPG" or a "MRI", I'd be just as happy with the game. Maybe you've got your rage on because you were promised an RPG by virtue of the fact that BioWare called it that or whatever, but hey, you can always get a refund.

Just to clarify and repeat: I like Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, and Dragon Age 2. Some people call them RPGs. I don't care what they're called. I am not concerned about how accurately they reflect some rigid code of genre conventions. Is that really not clear?

And once again, if you really want freedom and flexibility, why aren't you playing pen-and-paper games? Even if you live in Antarctica, you could find a group to play with if you really wanted to.

[Tommy6860]

Siansonea II wrote...


It sounds like because of the presentation of certain elements, BioWare colored outside the lines of a very specific and rigid code of What Is An RPG. Rather than focus on which boxes on a list were or were not checked, why not focus on the emotional journey? I guarantee you that whatever lack of emotional payoff you felt in Dragon Age 2 would have been just as unsatisfying if the main character was unvoiced and the response options were presented as a list instead of spread out on a wheel.

I agree with this and yes, the game still would have been unsatisfying having a silent PC. That's is a very minor point to my dislike about DA2. When we talked about VPC and SPC, it was more about preference, than was about DA2. Now that this is about the game, it was unsatisfying as it didn't follow anything Dragon Age, as promoted in being a sequel. Some the dialogue was good (the side banter was very good IMO, though became stale when sexual themes were the norm most of the time, instead of peronalizing each other in side convos), but I felt no connection during what certainly should have been emotional situations or anything relevant to some story.

Once I got to Kirkwall, it was adventure after adventure of fetch quests through most of the first two acts, that I really didn't have any feel for any kind of a story and was even confused to why and what purpose was I doing all of these onerous quests. I felt I was grinding through them one at a time, with no choice but to do them, so I can get to the end run of Act I. I can list many more aspects that added to the ill-effects the game gave me for the genre, but it would be more than superfluous considering they have been mentioned in this thread ad nauseam.

The method isn't the problem. Personally, I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 well enough, especially my second playthrough with my snarky male mage Henrick Hawke. I have no illusions that Henrick is somehow unique, I'm sure there are a thousand other players out there who made the exact same choice with their Hawke. But it was a fun game, even if it defies established RPG conventions.

I can agree with this and there are those great moments when some of the chat shined, but it was far and few in between those instances. I think the game "could" have been fun, had I not expected it to be a sequel to one of the greatest RPGs ever made, DA:O; it was promoted as a sequel, labeled as an RPG and advertised as continuing the quests of Dragon Age. Had the game been named Dragon Age: Hawke's Adventure, or the like and been label as action/adventure, the game would have worked like a charm. By your own standards of game preferences as you decribe what you like, RPGs do not seem to fit your style, though DA2 is listed as an RPG, it did fit your liking. You then have to give serious consideration to what gnere DA2 truly would fall under.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 10 avril 2011 - 04:34 .

[Oliver Sudden]

If Bioware got rid of all the things the OP listed, DA3 would end up more like a game than an interactive, passively viewed movie.

I'm for that.

The more I have to use my imagination, the more involved I am. That's not rocket science, it's one of the differences between movies and books.

[Siansonea]

Evainelithe wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
I'm surprised to hear you say that, because it sounds like the crux of the silent protagonist argument is that it is how say something that matters. If it's just quantity of dialog options, and you just want to pick dialog option A to achieve Result B, then I have to wonder if there's any real difference between the two Dragon Age games. I really don't know, so don't think I'm stating something one way or another. Of course I'm always going to come down in favor of more dialog options and more outcomes, but since the NPCs are voiced and animated the same in both games, something tells me that the protagonist's voice or lack thereof is a relatively minor concern as far as programming limitations are concerned. To me, the best solution is to upgrade the platforms so they can handle more data storage and whatnot, add more voices to choose from, but keep the character voiced.

The problem is still that voice actors cost a lot of money thereby cutting into the budget of developing more dialogue and choices. If voice actors were free I think the situation with DA2 would have been avoided to a large degree, but since this will never be the case I worry about the direction DA3 will take.

This is anecdotal, and I suspect that the protagonist VO work accounts for a pretty small percentage of the cost of the game. I'm sure they're paid pretty standard industry scale rates. They're not hiring Morgan Freeman and Meryl Streep here. This is really not a compelling argument to me. If the cost of Actor X is a little high, well then charge me $60 even for the game rather than $59.99. Those voice actors ain't rakin' in the millions, folks.

[Merced652]

Siansonea II wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

  I guarantee you that whatever lack of emotional payoff you felt in Dragon Age 2 would have been just as unsatisfying if the main character was unvoice

No you can't. The first reason obviously being that its subjective and the second obvious reason being that no voice when only one option is present gives someone greater breadth to RP with their own voice as well as the option to use variable intent. 

So the actual story isn't important, just the degree to which you can decide which word in the sentence gets emphasized.

I have to GO.
I HAVE to go.
I have TO go.

OMG, you're right, how utterly game-breaking.

The story is important, the fact that its bad shouldn't really speak to its rpg elements, or lack of as is the case. Variable intent as it would be applied to a game like origins isn't just as simple as your intent, especially when someone cherrypicks a sentence containing 4 words. 

Regardless, the game engine doesn't care that your Warden speaks in a jaunty Scottish brogue or whatever. Maybe it feeds your fantasy of putting yourself in the game, and that's fine, but let's not kid ourselves that it has any affect on the outcome. And let's not kid ourselves that the Scottish brogue or the nuances of imagined voice acting are in any way imaginative. It's still just reading.

You're marginalizing something that can't really even be measured. It could be incredibly rewarding or offer next to nothing depending on the individual. Like i've been saying, its completely subjective. When i project a character who talks a certain way or has a certain character trait i would use the fact that there is no voiceover AND the fact that i can varry intent. You cannot do that in a system with a VO'd protag. Arguably you couldn't even do variable intent because the inflection would remain constant even without intent icons. Granted someone who has no interest in RPing, yet inexplicably plays RPGs, is simply wanting to be entertained by the game. Rather than take a proactive approach to entertaining themselves WITH the game. 

So you don't really care how limited your options are in other ways, as long as you have silent golem you can project a super-specific voice pattern onto. Okay. But once again, i don't care if Dragon Age 2 is called an "RPG" or a "MRI", I'd be just as happy with the game. Maybe you've got your rage 

i can see it was a mistake to respond to your bull**** again, a mistake i will not make again. 

[Tommy6860]

Oliver Sudden wrote...

If Bioware got rid of all the things the OP listed, DA3 would end up more like a game than an interactive, passively viewed movie.

I'm for that.

The more I have to use my imagination, the more involved I am. That's not rocket science, it's one of the differences between movies and books.

Yes! See, being human is fun after all!!

:happy::happy::happy:

[Otterwarden]

Siansonea II wrote...

I'm surprised to hear you say that, because it sounds like the crux of the silent protagonist argument is that it is how say something that matters. If it's just quantity of dialog options, and you just want to pick dialog option A to achieve Result B, then I have to wonder if there's any real difference between the two Dragon Age games. I really don't know, so don't think I'm stating something one way or another. Of course I'm always going to come down in favor of more dialog options and more outcomes, but since the NPCs are voiced and animated the same in both games, something tells me that the protagonist's voice or lack thereof is a relatively minor concern as far as programming limitations are concerned. To me, the best solution is to upgrade the platforms so they can handle more data storage and whatnot, add more voices to choose from, but keep the character voiced.

That may well be the argument put forth by those who favor a silent protagonist.  It really hasn't been an issue in my case so far.  Now if the developer were to choose someone with a voice that grated me it would naturally be a deal breaker.  Luckily for them, they seem to be avoiding this possibility, but it is always a risk.  On the other hand,  voice is not enough to make me pick up a game either.  Sean Bean's voice is one of my favorites (right up there with Sean Connery's), however, it hasn't been enough to get me to try Oblivion.

There was a great deal of difference in the two games between both the dialogue options offered and the consequences of choosing them.  Lots of ink has been spilt in other threads documenting this.  While all stories converged to the final scene,  there were decisions made that could of led to very different outcomes for NPCs and classes.  That the writers chose not to incorporate them in any real way into a follow up production did not take away from the fact that they were there in the Origins story.

Not offering more dialogue options is less a storage issue than a need to reduce costs by simplfying the story.  In DA2 they over did this and suddenly the curtain was pulled back and everybody got to see the wizard.  Not the best outcome when you are selling personalized fantasy.