130 réponses à ce sujet

[Hatchetman77]

JasmoVT wrote...

I read something like this and I think, yeah it would be great to have rpgs with 100's or even thousands of story branches but then how many folks would be will to pay the $800 price tag such a game would have to carry.

I have a response to someone else burried in here where I described where it may not be the massive undertaking that it may seem on the surface.  I also want to point out that the fully voiced adventure game Blade Runner released in 1997 by Westwood studios tracked a whole bunch of in game decisions to change your gameplay experience during the game and funnel you into one of 10 different endings.  Flagging in game decisions to change the gameplay experience was done over a decade ago with a lot stricter technological restrictions than we have today, so I don't see why BioWare couldn't make it work.  Especially since they are already starting to do it with the decisions from the dialouge wheel.  

Hatchetman77 wrote...
While that may sound a bit complex, it's important to note that only certain NPC's will care about certain sensabilities and different dialouge will only be affected by one or two sensabilities. Many pieces of choosable dialouge would not be affected by any of them. Talking to the Reverened Mother in the Chantry may cause the game to pull up a single flag on your character profile of "Maker Views", replacing dialouge options of a character with faith with dialouge options of a character without faith. Also, BioWare was famous for using the same response for multiple conversation choices on the dialouge tree in Origins so I don't think that would change under this system as well. Even so, not all dialouge options on the wheel would change. I can't imagine the smartass options changing much no matter what your views. So basically any conversation affected by this would have a couple of extra lines of dialouge per dialouge wheel selection, assuming the selection is even affected at all by the character's beliefs.

[Zem_]

TJSolo wrote...
I can pick lines in DAO with an informed decision to fit the design of my character. I cannot make an equally informed selection in DA2. You have already expressed bewilderment at the thought of some people reading the dialogue options while they role play in Origins

No I didn't.   You THINK this is what I said because (and it's particularly amusing considering the topic) you didn't read ALL of what I wrote.

it is only natural that you will not be able to see the advantage of it. Role playing a character is more interactive than waiting to see what is going to come out of Hawke's mouth. Watching Hawke talk is more like watching another character talk or watching a TV Show because what is going to be said is unknown to the person watching in both cases.

That's an exaggeration.  If I pick an option labelled "Then Die!" with a crossed swords icon then it is hardly the case that what's going to come out of Hawke's mouth is "Unknown".   The exact words?  Sure.  But I'm fairly sure Hawke isn't going to say, "Let's be best friends forever!"

[Hatchetman77]

Zem_ wrote...
The reason I replied to your OP the way I did is that I did not, and still do not see how voicing the main character has any bearing on what your character is really saying. 

Then I don't think there is anything more I can say to describe it to you.  I thought I explained why fully voiced avatars hurt the immersion of people who play the game differently than you may play it as best as I could.  I understand you may find the fact that people impart personalities on to their avatars to be a silly concept.  I also understand that you feel that since having an avatar with a player created personality is unimportant to you so it should be unimportant to everyone else.  Unfortunatly if you are unable to disengage yourself from the idea that the way you play is the "one true way" then there is not really a point in continuing this discussion because it will just go nowhere.   

Zem_ wrote...
You can't decide in either case how the line will be delivered.  Being unable to HEAR it does not give you the freedom to imagine you said it in a different tone of voice than that which is obvious from the reaction of the character who hears it. 

Actually I can.  I did it all the time in Origins.  Just because you can't doesn't mean I can't.  At the end of the day the characters on the screen are not real, and neither the Avatar's intent nor the NPC's reaction is important aside from the importance the player gives them.  You seem to focus on the NPC's reaction, others focus on the intent of the avatar.  Neither is the "correct" way to experience the story.  Just because you play the game a certain way and get enjoyment playing the game a certain way doesn't mean that others don't play it differently. 

When playing a game like WoW, some people like to read the quests and others tend to skip them, since why you are doing something is really unimportant to what you have to do.  For some people reading the quest is important for immersion in the game.  I'm not going to say that reading the quests is the wrong way to play WoW just because I'm someone who doesn't care about the game's lore and my playstyle is to just get to level cap as fast as I can to get all that endgame loot.  I'm also not going to advocate that quest descriptions be taken out because they are not important to me personally, because at the end of the day they don't hurt my gameplay experience and many people like them.  Many on here are feeling like a massive chunk of their enjoyment of the game has been removed in the transition from DA:O to DA:2 for the sake of streamlining.  I'm just trying to figure out a way to give some of it back without hurting the people who like the changes. 

Again, I am very sympathetic to the fact that this is an unimportant issue for you since it doesn't really affect how you play the game.  For some people though it is very important.  Please start your own thread to convince these people of the wrongness of their beliefs. 

Zem_ wrote...
To me it really just matters how the NPC reacts because it does me no good to have a line like "No I won't help you" and then imagine my motivation is "because you're a filthy elf-hating human!"   If I can't convey that hatred in a way he reacts to then what difference does it make? 

I appreciate that the NPC's reaction is all that matters to you.  For some people the intent of their character matters.  Again, there are some people who play the game differently than you.  Not everyone will be willing to conform to your particular playstyle, which is pretty evident judging from these forums since DA2 launched.  

Zem_ wrote...
Nor do I really like personality-tracking.  I'd prefer to be able to choose the tone of EACH conversation through my responses such that when I get to the yes/no decision it's clear why and the line I'm allowed to say is appropriately written to convey that attitude.  This again doesn't depend on voiced or not voiced.  It depends on being given the choice to pick that line from the list of available lines... at all.

Ok, this is actually something relevent to my post. If you can describe how you like to enjoy the game and how this system would hurt your playstyle then that is something I am open to discussing and would be very relevant to the topic of this post. Now go a bit deeper into this.  Why would the character having a changable personality rather than a "factory" fixed personality hurt your personal gaming experience with how you personally play the game?  

[TJSolo]

No I didn't. You THINK this is what I said because (and it's particularly amusing considering the topic) you didn't read ALL of what I wrote.

And seriously, do people really do this? A few of you maybe, but I refuse to believe many out there are playing Origins, reading each line, rewriting it in their heads to mean the same thing but use different words, and then imagining they said that instead. I mean really?

Looks like you said it to me.

That's an exaggeration. If I pick an option labelled "Then Die!" with a crossed swords icon then it is hardly the case that what's going to come out of Hawke's mouth is "Unknown". The exact words? Sure. But I'm fairly sure Hawke isn't going to say, "Let's be best friends forever!"

Spin it all you like but when a player picked on the the paraphrased lines on the Wheel what Hawke is going to say is an unknown to the player. Oh yeah sure you can guess Hawke isn't going to say provided that use absurd examples.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zem_ wrote...

That's an exaggeration.  If I pick an option labelled "Then Die!" with a crossed swords icon then it is hardly the case that what's going to come out of Hawke's mouth is "Unknown".   The exact words?  Sure.  But I'm fairly sure Hawke isn't going to say, "Let's be best friends forever!"

Sure, but Hawke's aggressive response (and corresponding attack) might include a quick justification of why he's attacking, and that could be an incorrect justification (you might have Hawke attacking for some other reason), or it could be that you very much want to keep your justification a secret, so you wouldn't choose to divulge it.

That the game has Hawke make assertions without letting you know what they are in advance is a huge problem.  The paraphrase "So then what happened?" might serve the same purpose in a conversation as the corresponding line "I bet he didn't like that," but that doesn't mean that a character who would say the former would necessarily be happy saying the latter, and yet that's what the paraphrase system requires.

The only way the paraphrase system doesn't break your character is if your conversation goals are always consistent with the conversation goals BioWare expceted you to have.  And that's very nearly impossible.

[ScotGaymer]

I am currently playing through Assasins Creed 2(a bit behind the times I know); after having finally completed AC 1 (took me ages to get into it cos its an Action Adventure type game in the vein of Prince of Persia but not as good; which just isnt my kind of game but i persevered cos I like the era - needless to say I was rather dissapointed with the cliche'd storyline and repetitive quests, only the bits with Desmond was remotely original or interesting).
And I am finding that (so far not far into it tbh) I am role playing more with Ezio de Auditore than I did with Hawke; and thats pretty bad given AC isnt even an RPG.

Voice Acting doesnt necessarily preclude role playing, the example that leaps to mind is Geralt of Rivia from The Witcher. And its not the voice acting that is the problem in this game.

The problem is that the Third Act is complete random tangent that ends abruptly; and that because of the short development cycle any "choice" that Hawke can make in the game is time and again stripped away from the player and you are rammed through the same consequences and occurances no matter what you do.

This game has no choice in it; not even the illusion of choice by changing up details in the overarcing storyline based on prior choices. Nothing changes no matter what you do; and its boring.
That is what precludes Role Playing in this game.

Not the Voice Acting. The Voice Acting is actually pretty well done overall (for both PC and NPCs; and outting aside that one random Dalish Elf having an Irish accent instead of a Welsh one).

As to the paraphrasing system; I agree with Sylvius on that. Its bad.

I like it in ME2 because they made it actually be a "paraphrasing" for most of what Shepard says; but in DA2 its like they they just relied on the icons to tell you what the conversation was about as apposed to the paraphrases because I lost count of the amount of times I thought to myself "how does that paraphrase mean what he just said?"
Badly done.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 15 avril 2011 - 12:18 .

[aduellist]

Let me put in something that hasn't really been touched on yet. One whole gender option has been eliminated for me in this game because the PC is voiced. I cannot play a male Hawke, I find the voice incredibly irritating. This wouldn't be an issue with a silent protagonist. So, yes, voiced PC does limit player options.

[erynnar]

What it boils down to is simple for me, a voiced PC is always going to mean less content. And content wins over voiced PC for me. I don't want less game time, story, etc just so I can have a PC that talks.

Then there is the problem where I am not Hawke with the voice, and it takes me out of the game more than it puts me in (different strokes for different folks). Also, I created a face to go with that voice. I can't see making another with a different face and using the same voice. That also breaks the role-play part for me.  All my Wardens had different personalities and voices I could hear in my head.  Hawke is Hawke.  She is  doll, a vehicle that I ride around in. I can pimp my ride, but I don't get to drive.  And I really hate the paraphrasing.  My hubby played aggressive all the way, some of the aggressive choices were more diplomatic than the nice ones! 

Modifié par erynnar, 15 avril 2011 - 01:09 .

[sphinxess]

erynnar wrote...

What it boils down to is simple for me, a voiced PC is always going to mean less content. And content wins over voiced PC for me. I don't want less game time, story, etc just so I can have a PC that talks.

Then there is the problem where I am not Hawke with the voice, and it takes me out of the game more than it puts me in (different strokes for different folks). Also, I created a face to go with that voice. I can't see making another with a different face and using the same voice. That also breaks the role-play part for me.  All my Wardens had different personalities and voices I could hear in my head.  Hawke is Hawke.  She is  doll, a vehicle that I ride around in. I can pimp my ride, but I don't get to drive.  And I really hate the paraphrasing.  My hubby played aggressive all the way, some of the aggressive choices were more diplomatic than the nice ones! 

Ohhh wish you hadn't reminded me - agressive FHawke almost never <if ever> would say "Enough!" or some similiar shout - instead always got some "pleaase stop fighting" fluff.

[erynnar]

sphinxess wrote...

erynnar wrote...

What it boils down to is simple for me, a voiced PC is always going to mean less content. And content wins over voiced PC for me. I don't want less game time, story, etc just so I can have a PC that talks.

Then there is the problem where I am not Hawke with the voice, and it takes me out of the game more than it puts me in (different strokes for different folks). Also, I created a face to go with that voice. I can't see making another with a different face and using the same voice. That also breaks the role-play part for me.  All my Wardens had different personalities and voices I could hear in my head.  Hawke is Hawke.  She is  doll, a vehicle that I ride around in. I can pimp my ride, but I don't get to drive.  And I really hate the paraphrasing.  My hubby played aggressive all the way, some of the aggressive choices were more diplomatic than the nice ones! 

Ohhh wish you hadn't reminded me - agressive FHawke almost never <if ever> would say "Enough!" or some similiar shout - instead always got some "pleaase stop fighting" fluff.

One option was literally "****** off!"  It would have been the perfect response (and one of my fav phrases) but instead she said something so lame I can't even remember it.

[Zem_]

Hatchetman77 wrote...
Then I don't think there is anything more I can say to describe it to you.  I thought I explained why fully voiced avatars hurt the immersion of people who play the game differently than you may play it as best as I could.  I understand you may find the fact that people impart personalities on to their avatars to be a silly concept... 

Nope.  Never said that.  I think being able to craft your character's personality is a great idea.  So let's skip the rest of this misunderstanding and get to this part below...

Ok, this is actually something relevent to my post. If you can describe how you like to enjoy the game and how this system would hurt your playstyle then that is something I am open to discussing and would be very relevant to the topic of this post. Now go a bit deeper into this.  Why would the character having a changable personality rather than a "factory" fixed personality hurt your personal gaming experience with how you personally play the game?  

I can't answer that because I am not proposing a "factory fixed" personality.  In fact I am proposing the opposite.  You're suggesting the game should track more personality vectors. Why?  I think if anything it should track NOTHING and just let me pick from all available dialogue options at any given time.  The more it tracks and modifies your available options depending on what IT thinks your personality is, the less actual freedom you have.  Let me worry about being inconsistent.  Why do I need the machine to track that for me?

When I say intent is irrelevant, I don't mean it shouldn't matter to you.  I mean it shouldn't matter to the game.  In many cases, such as your example of being nice just to appease a party member.   It doesn't matter whether you're lying or being sincere.  Your teammate doesn't know that.  And if we're not tracking the number of times you lie to people (since we have no reason to)  there's no need to offer a separate dialogue choice for the bluff.  Feel free to imagine you're lying or not.  The game doesn't have to care what you intend, only how it should model the reaction of the NPC.   The only time it might have to care what you intend is when the dialogue choice affects the way your character acts immediately following the conversation and that can be handled case by case. 

[Zem_]

TJSolo wrote...

No I didn't. You THINK this is what I said because (and it's particularly amusing considering the topic) you didn't read ALL of what I wrote.

And seriously, do people really do this? A few of you maybe, but I refuse to believe many out there are playing Origins, reading each line, rewriting it in their heads to mean the same thing but use different words, and then imagining they said that instead. I mean really?

Looks like you said it to me.

Perhaps English is not your first language.  I apologize.  You say I expressed "bewilderment that people read the lines of dialogue in Origins."   That is only a fragment of the sentence you quoted from me above and it does not stand alone and mean the same thing.  I can't help you with your English language comprehension problem any better than that so I think I'll just stop wasting my time on you.  Good luck with your studies!

[We Tigers]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Zem_ wrote...

That's an exaggeration.  If I pick an option labelled "Then Die!" with a crossed swords icon then it is hardly the case that what's going to come out of Hawke's mouth is "Unknown".   The exact words?  Sure.  But I'm fairly sure Hawke isn't going to say, "Let's be best friends forever!"

Sure, but Hawke's aggressive response (and corresponding attack) might include a quick justification of why he's attacking, and that could be an incorrect justification (you might have Hawke attacking for some other reason), or it could be that you very much want to keep your justification a secret, so you wouldn't choose to divulge it.

But this isn't a problem with the paraphrase system; it's a problem with the dialogue choices.  If Bioware doesn't provide you with a full sentence that gives the justification you have determined, then where are you?

It seems like the only way to truly avoid possibly stepping on the toes of a player that convicted about his/her RPing choices would be to make all responses extremely vanilla and simple.  Say your Hawke decides to kill a templar who executed a Fereldan mage in front of him.  He supports the templars, but not this one, because this templar is dismissive of Ferelden mages in particular, and you love your home country and everyone from there.  Not a terribly complex RP option.  The paraphrase wheel gives you

(Olive branch) We can work this out.
(Comedy mask) So, hear any good mage jokes lately?
(Crossed swords) You don't get to live.

Now, imagine the actual lines those reflect are these:

1. I don't want to fight you; there's been enough blood shed in Kirkwall today.
2. You mean you won't just give the rest of the mages a coupon for a free lunch and send them on their way?
3. The mages deserve their freedom, and you are in the way of that freedom (+ dagger o' death)

How do those dialogue choices, if full spelled out, get you where you want to go?  Your character would kill him, but not because of loving mages.  I guess you're left to say you don't want to fight him, and pursue a different path of action?  To me, the issue is that a game will never have infinite choices without being really boring and having each dialogue path be extremely bland.  Ignore the example I've chosen if you like, but my point is that it's not too outlandish to think that, even with full, non-paraphrased dialogue available, you won't always have access to the RP options you want.

[Hatchetman77]

Zem_ wrote...

 I think if anything it should track NOTHING and just let me pick from all available dialogue options at any given time.  The more it tracks and modifies your available options depending on what IT thinks your personality is, the less actual freedom you have.

Why do you have less freedom that way?  Either way the game is presenting you with dialouge options.  I am proposing a system where you are given some control over the dialouge options.  I don't think I understand your logic on this one, please explain.

[Shadowlit_Rogue]

erynnar wrote...

What it boils down to is simple for me, a voiced PC is always going to mean less content. And content wins over voiced PC for me. I don't want less game time, story, etc just so I can have a PC that talks.

That's pretty much the crux of the issue for me, too. Even though I absolutely prefer a silent protagonist with a wide range of responses, there were moments in Dragon Age 2 that really worked out. But, to me, it doesn't matter if Hawke can respond in fifty different tones; it takes up way too much content voicing both male/female Hawkes.

I'd prefer that space to be freed up for more NPCs, more party member conversations, being able to pick my race, having more customization and more content all around. By doing that, DA:O created one of the better roleplaying environments this side of Bethesda. Until the day that BioWare can give a voice to the PC and provide the sheer amount of enjoyable content that DA:O boasted, I'll have to support the silent protagonist every time.

[Hatchetman77]

Shadowlit_Rogue wrote...
I'd prefer that space to be freed up for more NPCs, more party member conversations, being able to pick my race, having more customization and more content all around. By doing that, DA:O created one of the better roleplaying environments this side of Bethesda. Until the day that BioWare can give a voice to the PC and provide the sheer amount of enjoyable content that DA:O boasted, I'll have to support the silent protagonist every time.

Cool.  So for you the opposition to fully voiced games is that it's not so much that the voiced avatar ruins your immersion and ability to feel that you are in control of your avatar's personality so much as the impression that resources spent on the voicework detract from the game. 

So if Dragon Age: Origins was re-released with a fully voiced avatar you would have no problem with the game and not feel the fully voiced avatar hurts your ability to roleplay?  I'm not asking to challenge you I'm asking because I'm genually curious. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]We Tigers wrote...

Sure, but Hawke's aggressive response (and corresponding attack) might include a quick justification of why he's attacking, and that could be an incorrect justification (you might have Hawke attacking for some other reason), or it could be that you very much want to keep your justification a secret, so you wouldn't choose to divulge it.[/quote]
But this isn't a problem with the paraphrase system; it's a problem with the dialogue choices.  If Bioware doesn't provide you with a full sentence that gives the justification you have determined, then where are you?[/quote]
A full sentence without explicit intent or tone alongside it has a great many possible reasons for having chosen it.

A dialogue system like DA2 offers roughly 6 options per node.

A dialogue system like DAO offers 6*n options per nod, where n is the number of plausible justifications you might have for any given line.

DAO's dialogue options were "things I can say".  DA2's dialogue options were "things I can say in exactly this way".  DA2 is thus  vastly more limited.
[quote]It seems like the only way to truly avoid possibly stepping on the toes of a player that convicted about his/her RPing choices would be to make all responses extremely vanilla and simple.  Say your Hawke decides to kill a templar who executed a Fereldan mage in front of him.  He supports the templars, but not this one, because this templar is dismissive of Ferelden mages in particular, and you love your home country and everyone from there.  Not a terribly complex RP option.  The paraphrase wheel gives you

(Olive branch) We can work this out.
(Comedy mask) So, hear any good mage jokes lately?
(Crossed swords) You don't get to live.

Now, imagine the actual lines those reflect are these:

1. I don't want to fight you; there's been enough blood shed in Kirkwall today.
2. You mean you won't just give the rest of the mages a coupon for a free lunch and send them on their way?
3. The mages deserve their freedom, and you are in the way of that freedom (+ dagger o' death)

How do those dialogue choices, if full spelled out, get you where you want to go?  Your character would kill him, but not because of loving mages.  I guess you're left to say you don't want to fight him, and pursue a different path of action?[/quote]
Within your example, I'd choose the second option, and then I'd kill him.

But using the DA2 model, I wouldn't be allowed to kill him unless I chose option 3, and that's part of the problem.  I choose to kill him, and thus select the Crossed Swords paraphrase, and then am immediately subjected to Hawke making a statement that doesn't reflect his views.

Your example demonstrates quite clearly, I think, how superior the full-text options are.
[quote]To me, the issue is that a game will never have infinite choices without being really boring and having each dialogue path be extremely bland.  Ignore the example I've chosen if you like, but my point is that it's not too outlandish to think that, even with full, non-paraphrased dialogue available, you won't always have access to the RP options you want.[/quote]
Of course I won't always have access to the RP options I want.  But I'll have access to more of them more often than I do with the DA2 system.  With the DA2 system I almost never have access to the options I want, partly because I don't know what the options are when they're hidden behind that obfuscatory paraphrase system.

Thanks for the terrific example.  I might use that again.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

Shadowlit_Rogue wrote...
I'd prefer that space to be freed up for more NPCs, more party member conversations, being able to pick my race, having more customization and more content all around. By doing that, DA:O created one of the better roleplaying environments this side of Bethesda. Until the day that BioWare can give a voice to the PC and provide the sheer amount of enjoyable content that DA:O boasted, I'll have to support the silent protagonist every time.

Cool.  So for you the opposition to fully voiced games is that it's not so much that the voiced avatar ruins your immersion and ability to feel that you are in control of your avatar's personality so much as the impression that resources spent on the voicework detract from the game. 

So if Dragon Age: Origins was re-released with a fully voiced avatar you would have no problem with the game and not feel the fully voiced avatar hurts your ability to roleplay?  I'm not asking to challenge you I'm asking because I'm genually curious. 

He did just say "I absolutely prefer a silent protagonist".

And I'm with him.  Until a voiced protagonist offers me an equivalent range of roleplaying options, I want my PC's dialogue to remain unvoiced.

[Morroian]

Shadowlit_Rogue wrote...

That's pretty much the crux of the issue for me, too. Even though I absolutely prefer a silent protagonist with a wide range of responses, there were moments in Dragon Age 2 that really worked out. But, to me, it doesn't matter if Hawke can respond in fifty different tones; it takes up way too much content voicing both male/female Hawkes.

In terms of the number of responses in each conversation DA2 is not actually that much less than DAO. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

Shadowlit_Rogue wrote...

That's pretty much the crux of the issue for me, too. Even though I absolutely prefer a silent protagonist with a wide range of responses, there were moments in Dragon Age 2 that really worked out. But, to me, it doesn't matter if Hawke can respond in fifty different tones; it takes up way too much content voicing both male/female Hawkes.

In terms of the number of responses in each conversation DA2 is not actually that much less than DAO.

In UI terms, no, but in terms of how many different ways you can say something or with what objectives in mind, DAO has vastly more options.

Wherever DA2 has 6 options, DAO have 6*n options.

[Shadowlit_Rogue]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

Shadowlit_Rogue wrote...
I'd prefer that space to be freed up for more NPCs, more party member conversations, being able to pick my race, having more customization and more content all around. By doing that, DA:O created one of the better roleplaying environments this side of Bethesda. Until the day that BioWare can give a voice to the PC and provide the sheer amount of enjoyable content that DA:O boasted, I'll have to support the silent protagonist every time.

Cool.  So for you the opposition to fully voiced games is that it's not so much that the voiced avatar ruins your immersion and ability to feel that you are in control of your avatar's personality so much as the impression that resources spent on the voicework detract from the game. 

So if Dragon Age: Origins was re-released with a fully voiced avatar you would have no problem with the game and not feel the fully voiced avatar hurts your ability to roleplay?  I'm not asking to challenge you I'm asking because I'm genually curious. 

Yeah, unvoiced PCs are definitely my preference, if only because a fully-voiced RPG has never given me the same amount of roleplaying options, both with my character and when I interact with the world. There's also a definite nostalgia factor at work there, too. DA2 came dangerously close to convincing me otherwise at one spot in the game, but that was about it; the rest of the game kinda fell flat in the end. Sylvius pretty much summed up my sentiments exactly.

And nope, I'd never buy a DA:O re-release with a fully-voiced PC. I'm not too excited about buying the inevitable DA3 with a voiced PC, to be honest. DA2 didn't really sell me on it. xD

[Shadowlit_Rogue]

Morroian wrote...

Shadowlit_Rogue wrote...

That's pretty much the crux of the issue for me, too. Even though I absolutely prefer a silent protagonist with a wide range of responses, there were moments in Dragon Age 2 that really worked out. But, to me, it doesn't matter if Hawke can respond in fifty different tones; it takes up way too much content voicing both male/female Hawkes.

In terms of the number of responses in each conversation DA2 is not actually that much less than DAO. 

Very true. Usually, whenever there was something I wanted to question the NPC about, there was an option for it. But I still don't think BioWare have quite nailed the paraphrasing on the dialogue wheel, because sometimes Hawke said things that were almost the opposite of what I thought he was going to say. (Like the "I'll take responsibility" response at the end of Merrill's final companion quest. Sheesh.) That's my big gripe with it, the other is how much of the game has to be downscaled to allow for a voiced PC, which doesn't leave you with as many people to use all those responses on. =(

[Jon Vael]

Keen idea, but it would involve more scripting and coding time that this rush project obviously could not spare.

[SilentK]

I'm over the moon with having a voiced Hawke =) it makes me feel much more like her. Hope that they will keep this in their future games. I have had no trouble getting a face to match the voice, I usually go to the mirror a bit during the first act to get hawke to be how I want her to be and then I keep her that way for the rest of the game. In DA:O I wish I had had the mirror because I would have to start a new char whenever the face didn't suit the warden. Point being, for me it's about the person and not the voice.

I've had plenty of times in DA:O when I have made a response that I when reading it to myself thought was a nice one. Then when the person I talked to reacted badly I had to go back and read it in a different voice to see why they didn't like it. I prefer to hear how it comes out, then I know better why the world around my Hawke reacts the way it does.

I love my voiced Hawke and have as many Hawkes as wardens and I don't see myself stopping to play DA2 anytime soon. Yay for voice!!!

[Merci357]

aduellist wrote...

Let me put in something that hasn't really been touched on yet. One whole gender option has been eliminated for me in this game because the PC is voiced. I cannot play a male Hawke, I find the voice incredibly irritating. This wouldn't be an issue with a silent protagonist. So, yes, voiced PC does limit player options.

That's my only problem with a voiced PC. I do like voiced PCs, a lot. It's for me far more engaging to play (or direct, would be more fitting) a character that has a voice, emotions, looks alive.

Video games are a visual medium, and BioWare has a cinematic style. A voiced character fits their games. I don't mind my silent wanderer or courier in the Fallout games for example - I don't see him/her in dialogues, I don't have to look in a blank, emotionless face. I do mind my very visible silent Warden, though, often relegated into a cutboard statist.

However, a voiced PC has one huge problem. I neither like the male Shepard nor the male Hawke voice. The former is incredibly dull, and the later very irritating. I do happen to like both female voice actors, so I can play these games and have fun. Sooner or later there will be a game were I don't like any voice actor, and that game, as great as it might be, will be unplayable for me.

That said, I don't think BioWare will go back to a silent PC, ever. Like it or not, but the majority either prefers a voiced PC or is at least indifferent to it. This Poll indicates this, at least, with a decent sample size.