211 réponses à ce sujet

[Night Prowler76]

thatbwoyblu wrote...

This General section sure is dead LMFAO ROFL. Guess the goldie oldie bwoys grew tired of complaining finally.

You sure added some valuable input on the subject, good job.

[Andrew5]

Is Dragon Age 2 ready to test its rpg prowess against Skyrim?

Hahahaha. No.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Sorry guys. Dark Souls will rape Skyrim to Hell where Satan will have sex with it for eternity. It's a 2011 release too and it's the spiritual successor to Demon's Souls. Want a hardcore RPG? Dark Souls is the place to be. I spit on TES. *Spit* I wouldn't even look at it. classes have been removed from Skyrim, so you people looking for a non-dumbed down RPG will probably be upset with Skyrim. I couldn't care about their empty open world.

And if we compare Skyrim to Origins, Skyrim will be absolutely destroyed. Character interaction in all TES games suck hard.

This post actually made me laugh. Let me start out by saying that I'm also interested in Dark Souls, and I can't wait to learn more about it.

That being said, you think an Elder Scrolls game is dumbed down compared to DAO and Dark Souls/Demon Souls? Lol. Really? In Demon Souls, do they even have alchemy? Is their loot system anywhere near Oblivion's?

I didn't read at all there will be no classes in Skyrim, but I did read that you can allocate skill points wherever you want, and aren't restricted. Furthermore, you cannot level up if you spread out your points, so it is an incentive to specialize and focus on certain traits. Each level, 1-50, comes with increases in health, magicka and stamina, and levels after 50 get harder to reach and progress slowly.

How is that dumping down? What, not being labeled into a class (if that is in fact the case) in your statistics is dumping down? You have to select everything yourself and can choose fully where you want attributes to go.

I'm a Battle Mage. I can't wait to unleash one of the 85 different spells, seeing the spell in my hand, duel wielding ice and fire. Or health drain 10 seconds at 15% damage up to 25 feet. Or to check out the hundreds of different weapons I collect through looting, or any loot, in a zoomable, rotatable, detailed 3D image. Or my spell effects affect the world, like grass burning after I unleash a spell.

I can't wait until Radiant Story switches it up on me, giving me a different experience from others. Or to farm or to make my own weapons at a blacksmith. Or to play any number of the hundreds of sidequests and main quests. Or to explore and farm any number of the hundreds upon hundreds of dungeons, caves and forts.

I wonder where ill own my home, a place to sleep when I want to level up, to systematically store my loot in its closets, drawers, dressers and tables. It'll probably be near a church...I can cure any disease I contract fairly easy that way... if I have no potion, spell manifold or ingredients to create one through alchemy. I'm not a big alchemist...sometimes ill create a restore magicka potion if I'm in a fix during a fight....

You must have a blind hatred for The Elder Scrolls....it improves on absolutely everything from Oblivion, incorporates innovation from other games, innovates on its own, goes above and beyond as far as attention to quality. Skyrim is going to blow your mind. There is so much going on, so much to do...your mind couldn't handle it.

Oh wait...but little ghosts can't leave me a message, or come into my dimension for a boss battle.

Uh huh. Lol. Who cares?

No, just no.

I am excited for Skyrim and Dark Souls too, but please, hold onto some semblance of reality.

[Kilshrek]

Zeus_Deus wrote...


You can play Elder Scrolls in 1st or 3rd person.

As for Bethesda butchering Fallout - the majority critics and sales figures disagree with you!
Fallout 3 sold more than all previous Fallout games combined, as well as winning many GOTY awards.

I have friends who love Elder Scrolls games, I just never picked one up. How different does that make the game? Do you have a party in TES? Do you chat people up? Or are conversations mainly superficial, and only to drive the story along?

Anyway, critics and sales figures can go jump as far as I care, Bethesda butchered Fallout and anyone who played FO 1&2 will know what I mean.

FO:NV tried to recapture a little bit of the Fallout magic with Wacky Wasteland or whatever that perk was, but alas, the damage was done. The game engine didn't lend itself well to be a Fallout game. But all that's just my opinion, which is in the minority, obviously.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Kilshrek wrote...

Zeus_Deus wrote...


You can play Elder Scrolls in 1st or 3rd person.

As for Bethesda butchering Fallout - the majority critics and sales figures disagree with you!
Fallout 3 sold more than all previous Fallout games combined, as well as winning many GOTY awards.

I have friends who love Elder Scrolls games, I just never picked one up. How different does that make the game? Do you have a party in TES? Do you chat people up? Or are conversations mainly superficial, and only to drive the story along?

Anyway, critics and sales figures can go jump as far as I care, Bethesda butchered Fallout and anyone who played FO 1&2 will know what I mean.

FO:NV tried to recapture a little bit of the Fallout magic with Wacky Wasteland or whatever that perk was, but alas, the damage was done. The game engine didn't lend itself well to be a Fallout game. But all that's just my opinion, which is in the minority, obviously.

TES games are primarily solo adventures. I dunno how 3rd person will work in Skyrim, but the awkward animations made it much easier to play in 1st person with previous games.

You can chat anyone up. Conversations, dialog and writing are atrocious. This is because back in the Daggerfall and Morrowind days, NPCs were just knowledge repositories, unlike other RPGs which tried to mimic the flow of actual conversation. So, by the time Oblivion and FO3 came along, they tried to meld these approaches together. So when you talked to an NPC, a variety of dialogue options regarding topics came up and then it tried to converse with you somehwat naturally. Add that with Bethesda's terrible dialog writing and the result wasn't pretty.

As for the conversations themselves, it's a mixture, in Oblivion/FO3, it's mainly used to drive any relevant plotlines along but back in the Daggerfall/Morrowind days, a lot of the dialog was merely used to expand the player's knowledge of lore and of the NPC themselves. There is still quite a bit of dialogue in Oblivion/FO3 that is still based on expanding knowledge of lore though.

As for Bethesda doing FO3 and Obsidian's NV, meh. The engine and open design doesn't lend itself to a Fallout game very well, true, but it can be overcome to make a great game.

In the end, I don't mind too much that Bethesda took over the franchise, getting a decent Sandbox RPG that just happens to have the Fallout name in it.

Imagine if a company like EA or Activision bought the IP.  They'd be pumping out yearly BoS clones. If you're a Fallout fan, then you'd know that's many orders of magnitudes worse.

Plus, we got New Vegas out of it. Fallout 3's gameplay with Fallout 2's flavour. As an Elder Scrolls fan already, I'm very happy with the result. Vault 11 was very, very Fallout imo.

Now, what would be magical is if Bethesda let Obsidian develop Fallout 4.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 25 avril 2011 - 03:51 .

[Romantiq]

mrcrusty wrote...

Kilshrek wrote...

Zeus_Deus wrote...


You can play Elder Scrolls in 1st or 3rd person.

As for Bethesda butchering Fallout - the majority critics and sales figures disagree with you!
Fallout 3 sold more than all previous Fallout games combined, as well as winning many GOTY awards.

I have friends who love Elder Scrolls games, I just never picked one up. How different does that make the game? Do you have a party in TES? Do you chat people up? Or are conversations mainly superficial, and only to drive the story along?

Anyway, critics and sales figures can go jump as far as I care, Bethesda butchered Fallout and anyone who played FO 1&2 will know what I mean.

FO:NV tried to recapture a little bit of the Fallout magic with Wacky Wasteland or whatever that perk was, but alas, the damage was done. The game engine didn't lend itself well to be a Fallout game. But all that's just my opinion, which is in the minority, obviously.

TES games are primarily solo adventures. I dunno how 3rd person will work in Skyrim, but the awkward animations made it much easier to play in 1st person with previous games.

You can chat anyone up. Conversations, dialog and writing are atrocious. This is because back in the Daggerfall and Morrowind days, NPCs were just knowledge repositories, unlike other RPGs which tried to mimic the flow of actual conversation. So, by the time Oblivion and FO3 came along, they tried to meld these approaches together. So when you talked to an NPC, a variety of dialogue options regarding topics came up and then it tried to converse with you somehwat naturally. Add that with Bethesda's terrible dialog writing and the result wasn't pretty.

As for the conversations themselves, it's a mixture, in Oblivion/FO3, it's mainly used to drive any relevant plotlines along but back in the Daggerfall/Morrowind days, a lot of the dialog was merely used to expand the player's knowledge of lore and of the NPC themselves. There is still quite a bit of dialogue in Oblivion/FO3 that is still based on expanding knowledge of lore though.

As for Bethesda doing FO3 and Obsidian's NV, meh. The engine and open design doesn't lend itself to a Fallout game very well, true, but it can be overcome to make a great game.

In the end, I don't mind too much that Bethesda took over the franchise, getting a decent Sandbox RPG that just happens to have the Fallout name in it.

Imagine if a company like EA or Activision bought the IP.  They'd be pumping out yearly BoS clones. If you're a Fallout fan, then you'd know that's many orders of magnitudes worse.

Plus, we got New Vegas out of it. Fallout 3's gameplay with Fallout 2's flavour. As an Elder Scrolls fan already, I'm very happy with the result. Vault 11 was very, very Fallout imo.

Now, what would be magical is if Bethesda let Obsidian develop Fallout 4.

Yeah Obsidian should just take over the franchise. They have some sweet DLCs planned. Honest Hearts is next Get to see the Burned Man!

Modifié par Romantiq, 25 avril 2011 - 04:07 .

[Embargoed]

I tried playing Bethseda games.

The sandboxes are somewhat pretty and the combat might be a little innovative and there might be plenty of customization, but the games as a whole suck.

The writing in Fallout 3 was terrible, as was Morrowing and Oblivion. Those games were impossible to get into for very long, especially with the crappy combat. This is as a console player. People tell me Oblivion is better on PC, but I don't have the cash to score a decent computer or the patience to deal with all the crap that comes with gaming on a computer.

Fallout 3 in particular pissed me off, mostly because of the lame combat and the lack of any interesting characters or a coherent reason to give a damn about anything in the game. Silent protagonists make the WORST characters.

Personally, I think I'll demo Skyrim, but don't know if I want to even buy the game considering none of Bethseda's games have interested me.

[Kilshrek]

mrcrusty wrote...

TES games are primarily solo adventures. I dunno how 3rd person will work in Skyrim, but the awkward animations made it much easier to play in 1st person with previous games.

You can chat anyone up. Conversations, dialog and writing are atrocious. This is because back in the Daggerfall and Morrowind days, NPCs were just knowledge repositories, unlike other RPGs which tried to mimic the flow of actual conversation. So, by the time Oblivion and FO3 came along, they tried to meld these approaches together. So when you talked to an NPC, a variety of dialogue options regarding topics came up and then it tried to converse with you somehwat naturally. Add that with Bethesda's terrible dialog writing and the result wasn't pretty.

As for the conversations themselves, it's a mixture, in Oblivion/FO3, it's mainly used to drive any relevant plotlines along but back in the Daggerfall/Morrowind days, a lot of the dialog was merely used to expand the player's knowledge of lore and of the NPC themselves. There is still quite a bit of dialogue in Oblivion/FO3 that is still based on expanding knowledge of lore though.

As for Bethesda doing FO3 and Obsidian's NV, meh. The engine and open design doesn't lend itself to a Fallout game very well, true, but it can be overcome to make a great game.

In the end, I don't mind too much that Bethesda took over the franchise, getting a decent Sandbox RPG that just happens to have the Fallout name in it.

Imagine if a company like EA or Activision bought the IP.  They'd be pumping out yearly BoS clones. If you're a Fallout fan, then you'd know that's many orders of magnitudes worse.

Plus, we got New Vegas out of it. Fallout 3's gameplay with Fallout 2's flavour. As an Elder Scrolls fan already, I'm very happy with the result. Vault 11 was very, very Fallout imo.

Now, what would be magical is if Bethesda let Obsidian develop Fallout 4.

And that really is the problem. Like Dragon Age 2, Fallout 3 had the good fortune of bearing the name of a great franchise(DA 2 doesn't really count as bearing the name of a franchise since it's only the second game but you get the idea). Had Bethesda not bought the Fallout IP and turned it into a TPS would it have done as well as some post-apocalyptic game? I doubt so. Fallout 3 and Dragon Age 2 are hardly similar to the games they came from, with Fallout 3 being a completely different type of game altogether.

The problem with a sandbox type game is balancing the story with the open world. You don't want to force the player along a certain path or it defeats the purpose of the open world but you don't want the player to wander off and forget the story. GTA IV (for all it's turd-worthy PC porting, fixed only by a patch measured in GB's, there's another sign of gratitude for ya, start up on the PC and then stick the finger to the PC when you're doing well on consoles) and Red Dead Redemption did rather well with story, I felt. FO 3, GTA IV and RDR all had open worlds, but the Rockstar ones were superior, I wonder why? RDR could be compared to FO 3 in terms of sparseness of population and "barren" terrain, but I enjoyed wandering around in RDR much more than I did in FO 3.

FO 3 also had an atrocious implementation of VATS, I felt it incredibly stupid that I should fire 3 shots, miss all 3 and then find myself in melee or a real time gunfight, especially when up against gangs of supermutants.

I'd rather Obsidian over Bethesda any day for my Fallout fix, and I hope they get to dump the Oblivion engine, which really made it Oblivion with guns. And hire some more voice actors, and if it really can't be returned to an iso camera game then at least make it properly turn based instead of that stupid half-assed hybrid system Bethesda cooked up. 

[UltiPup]

Well now. This seems like an unfair comparison. You don't just pit a lightweight challenger against the heavy weight champion five years running.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I'm just thankful that Bethesda got the license and at least made a decent Sandbox RPG (crap Fallout game though) from it, and let Obsidian make a great Sandbox RPG (and a good Fallout game). New Vegas uses and adapted a lot of Van Buren material. So it's as close to a "real" Fallout 3 as any of us dinosaurs will get.

People may be annoyed about what happened to the franchise, but I think to myself, it could've been worse.

Again, Interplay needed the money, they were selling the IP regardless. With Troika disbanded and Obsidian uninterested, who else was going to buy out the franchise, if not Bethesda? Bioware?

Bioware couldn't do a Fallout game justice if they had 20 years to make one. Not to mention, they'd have their hands full with other projects.

It's "mature", violent, gritty, is an established IP and in a post-apoc setting.

You know who'd be interested in that kind of IP?

Activision.

Then all we'd get is Fallout: BoS 2, Fallout BoS 3, Fallout: BoS 4, every single year.

When I look at that as an alternative, I thank God Bethesda took it over.

[Mrbananagrabber]

...Rpg prowess, what RPG prowess??

[Kilshrek]

mrcrusty wrote...

I'm just thankful that Bethesda got the license and at least made a decent Sandbox RPG (crap Fallout game though) from it, and let Obsidian make a great Sandbox RPG (and a good Fallout game). New Vegas uses and adapted a lot of Van Buren material. So it's as close to a "real" Fallout 3 as any of us dinosaurs will get.

People may be annoyed about what happened to the franchise, but I think to myself, it could've been worse.

Again, Interplay needed the money, they were selling the IP regardless. With Troika disbanded and Obsidian uninterested, who else was going to buy out the franchise, if not Bethesda? Bioware?

Bioware couldn't do a Fallout game justice if they had 20 years to make one. Not to mention, they'd have their hands full with other projects.

It's "mature", violent, gritty, is an established IP and in a post-apoc setting.

You know who'd be interested in that kind of IP?

Activision.

Then all we'd get is Fallout: BoS 2, Fallout BoS 3, Fallout: BoS 4, every single year.

When I look at that as an alternative, I thank God Bethesda took it over.

When you put it that way obviously, I have to choose between Kraken or Leviathan. Although a small part of me was pretty sad and felt that if I had to choose between no Fallout or Fallout : Half-cooked, I'd have taken no Fallout.  Kinda like Valve and the mythical HL 3?

[Tommy6860]

Embargoed wrote...

I tried playing Bethseda games.

The sandboxes are somewhat pretty and the combat might be a little innovative and there might be plenty of customization, but the games as a whole suck.

The writing in Fallout 3 was terrible, as was Morrowing and Oblivion. Those games were impossible to get into for very long, especially with the crappy combat. This is as a console player. People tell me Oblivion is better on PC, but I don't have the cash to score a decent computer or the patience to deal with all the crap that comes with gaming on a computer.

Fallout 3 in particular pissed me off, mostly because of the lame combat and the lack of any interesting characters or a coherent reason to give a damn about anything in the game. Silent protagonists make the WORST characters.

Personally, I think I'll demo Skyrim, but don't know if I want to even buy the game considering none of Bethseda's games have interested me.

See, this is just a reflection of the type of games you like and RPGs are clearly not it. Even then, the games you mention here would appeal more to the action type gamer than the hardcore RPG crowd, and you still didn't care for them. I like Fallout 3 and Oblivion and I absolutely loved Morrowind, but they are not true RPGs in the sense that I am used to playing them. Origins is the closest of the most recent releases. F3 is more of a shooter than RPG, but I liked it, I wouldn't compare it to F1 and F2 though.

Silent characters are the worst to you because you don't want to use your imagination in gaming, you want instant action and little talk. Maybe sticking with MP shooters would be better. This doesn't mean you are not a gamer, jsut that you have preferences of your own. I do want the SP, but this is just a preference and nearly a must for my style of RPGing. If you thought Fallout 3 lacked combat, I wouldn't want to experience your response from playing Origins, or better yet, something like Planescape: Torment or Baldur's Gate, etc.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 25 avril 2011 - 06:35 .

[Gotholhorakh]

Tommy6860 wrote...

See, this is just a reflection of the type of games you like and RPGs are clearly not it. Even then, the games you mention here would appeal more to the action type gamer than the hardcore RPG crowd, and you still didn't care for them. I like Fallout 3 and Oblivion and I absolutely loved Morrowind, but they are not true RPGs in the sense that I am used to playing them. Origins is the closest of the most recent releases. F3 is more of a shooter than RPG, but I liked it, I wouldn't compare it to F1 and F2 though.

Silent characters are the worst to you because you don't want to use your imagination in gaming, you want instant action and little talk. Maybe sticking with MP shooters would be better. This doesn't mean you are not a gamer, jsut that you have preferences of your own. I do want the SP, but this is just a preference and nearly a must for my style of RPGing. If you thought Fallout 3 lacked combat, I wouldn't want to experience your response from playing Origins, or better yet, something like Planescape: Torment or Baldur's Gate, etc.

I'm not sure that's a fair conclusion there  - somebody doesn't criticise the writing in a sandbox RPG because they're too much of an action fan to want a story.

Totally agree on them not being true RPGs, though. For me FO3 was an absolutely brilliant outstanding game in its own right, but not a great RPG.

It did have one thing which Oblivion lacked which is decent NPC interaction.

Oblivion had the worst NPC interaction in terms of variety, writing, voice acting and even look of almost any RPG pretender I've ever played (a Bethesda habit they fall into now and then), Robot Finds Kitten dwarfs it in terms of NPC interaction.

It was OK with mods, still mostly played it as a Wandering Aimlessly Horseriding and Doing Archery Simulator though.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 25 avril 2011 - 11:06 .

[Hurrrr]

TES has problems, I thought oblivion was a disaster pre-some-serious-as-hell-modding.

With that said, having devoured the previews I think they have fixed all the fluff. The level scaling is apparently nailed and they called oblivions out for being useless, the world is impacted directly by just about everything (the whole, burn down a lumbermill and expect prices of wood to go up etc)...

Anyway this is just flame bait. Ofc DA2 cant compete, why antagonize

Oh and like many people here I buy just about every AAA RPG to come to market on PC as I don't own consoles and they are so rare its sad

[Embargoed]

So... to roleplay, I have to imagine the voice of a completely uninteresting character? Doesn't sound very interesting to me, especially when PnP games don't require you to stay shut and imagine yourself talking. A silent character is a poor excuse of a character, and doesn't make for an interesting protagonist.

None of the dialogue options in Origins, FO3, KOTOR, BG2, etc. were memorable to me. I didn't come out of those games thinking, "wow, my character sure is interesting.", I was more interested in the other characters around me. I like RPGs, I really do. I just think that if you're going to have a coherent story with your RPG, you should have a proper voice actor for the main character. This isn't because I'm unimaginative, or some sort of action-twitch shooter type of gamer. I just think that a story suffers when the main character is some kind of two dimensional block of wood who has facial expressions drawn on him with a piece of crayon.

[Sainthood85]

mrcrusty wrote...

If there is one thing Dragon Age 2 will beat Skyrim at, it's the writing.

Bethesda cannot into writing.

The second line is correct.

The first is not, the writing for most of this game was pretty awful when compared to BioWares previous works.  Hell, The Shivering Isles had better writing than DA:2 did.

[v_ware]

They should have been released at the same time. Bioware would have had another half year to fix the mess that's DA2 and at least have failed honorably.


Now it's just sad.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Embargoed wrote...

So... to roleplay, I have to imagine the voice of a completely uninteresting character? Doesn't sound very interesting to me, especially when PnP games don't require you to stay shut and imagine yourself talking. A silent character is a poor excuse of a character, and doesn't make for an interesting protagonist.

None of the dialogue options in Origins, FO3, KOTOR, BG2, etc. were memorable to me. I didn't come out of those games thinking, "wow, my character sure is interesting.", I was more interested in the other characters around me. I like RPGs, I really do. I just think that if you're going to have a coherent story with your RPG, you should have a proper voice actor for the main character. This isn't because I'm unimaginative, or some sort of action-twitch shooter type of gamer. I just think that a story suffers when the main character is some kind of two dimensional block of wood who has facial expressions drawn on him with a piece of crayon.

So, for you, you can only get invested in your player character if it has a voice?

Wow, I feel a bit sad for you. Not trying to be insulting, but you're genuinely setting yourself up to hate great games on such a minor thing.

Sainthood85 wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

If there is one thing Dragon Age 2 will beat Skyrim at, it's the writing.

Bethesda cannot into writing.

The second line is correct.

The first is not, the writing for most of this game was pretty awful when compared to BioWares previous works.  Hell, The Shivering Isles had better writing than DA:2 did.

You over exaggerate. Dragon Age 2 has many weak points, and it's writing is probably worse than previous games, but it was far from bad overall and I doubt that Skyrim will display dialog or writing that is any better. Unless of course, it's from one of the in-game books. Bethesda oddly has well written books (sometimes), yet have consistently bad dialog.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 25 avril 2011 - 02:31 .

[AkiKishi]

Romantiq wrote...
Yeah Obsidian should just take over the franchise. They have some sweet DLCs planned. Honest Hearts is next Get to see the Burned Man!

I'd be loathe to let them near the technical side of the game..... Never played any of the NV DLC is it any good? 

Bethesda make very large games. This is why I'm a bit more tolerant of the bugs. I can think of 10 people on the boards here who could have found the majority of the DA2 bugs within a month. I can't even finish most of the sandbox games in that time, I'm too busy wandering off and exploring. It's one of the few game types outside of MMPORGs where that is something you can do.

As I understand the sales of FO3 and NV are roughly the same. I'd let Bethesda do FO4 and Obsidian do the spinoff. Although if Obsidian cultivate a good relationship with SquareEnix they have so many potential IPs to choose from...

[Dark83]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Will anyone even care about DA2 come
November?

Yeah, I'm really unlikely to play a single player game
for 8 months. That's... a freaking lot of play. Playing just one hour a
day would be around 240 hours. Who plays an RPG in one-hour daily segments?

Riloux wrote...

Dragon Age 2 can't even stand up against Morrowind.

That's not fair, Oblivion can't stand up against Morrowing either.

[Dark83]

BobSmith101 wrote...

As I understand the sales of FO3 and NV are roughly the same. I'd let Bethesda do FO4 and Obsidian do the spinoff. Although if Obsidian cultivate a good relationship with SquareEnix they have so many potential IPs to choose from...

Assuming vgchartz is correct, FO3 sold more than FNV, but FNV got a 25% increase in PC sales while the console versions sold less.

The increase in PC sales can likely be directly attributed to the fact that FNV, having "the original team members" from FO1/2, got more of the FO grognards to buy.

The decrease may be related to the fact that many saw it as a fully priced DLC - a common message board question was if FO3 was needed for FNV.

[Embargoed]

@ Mr. Crusty

It's not a "minor thing" considering I'm going to be playing the next 30+ Hours with that character. If the whole of the story relies on this character, then I should be adequately entertained by that character, right?

If the writers on KOTOR heard the stuff they were putting in that game as dialogue options, they would've face-palmed repeatedly. The three options were soundling like a tool, sounding like a d***, and sounding like a reasonable person. In Fallout 3, there were so many occasions where some dialogue options made no sense, and other occasions where there was a definite lack of options that railroaded you into a set outcome unapologetically.

If the dialogue options can be bad, regardless of voice, then i think I'd much rather a voiced protagonist.

[Night Prowler76]

Embargoed wrote...

So... to roleplay, I have to imagine the voice of a completely uninteresting character? Doesn't sound very interesting to me, especially when PnP games don't require you to stay shut and imagine yourself talking. A silent character is a poor excuse of a character, and doesn't make for an interesting protagonist.

None of the dialogue options in Origins, FO3, KOTOR, BG2, etc. were memorable to me. I didn't come out of those games thinking, "wow, my character sure is interesting.", I was more interested in the other characters around me. I like RPGs, I really do. I just think that if you're going to have a coherent story with your RPG, you should have a proper voice actor for the main character. This isn't because I'm unimaginative, or some sort of action-twitch shooter type of gamer. I just think that a story suffers when the main character is some kind of two dimensional block of wood who has facial expressions drawn on him with a piece of crayon.

Thats your opinion, there is room for both silent and voiced protagonists, I prefer having a silent hero so I can use my imagination as to what I think their voice and tone should sound like, as well, I find a voiced hero ruins replayability, even if you change their appearance, its still the same person in essence.

RPGS that have had silent hero's seem to be better in general for some reason, if you look back at the last 10 years, I would say the best RPGS mostly featured silent main characters.

[AkiKishi]

Night Prowler76 wrote...
Thats your opinion, there is room for both silent and voiced protagonists, I prefer having a silent hero so I can use my imagination as to what I think their voice and tone should sound like, as well, I find a voiced hero ruins replayability, even if you change their appearance, its still the same person in essence.

RPGS that have had silent hero's seem to be better in general for some reason, if you look back at the last 10 years, I would say the best RPGS mostly featured silent main characters.

You get back what you put in. It reminds me of all the character concepts in the front of the FO:NV strategy guide.

Allowing you input over the hero means you can make one to your own likes and dislikes, not simply hope that the one the game creator made will appeal. For a long time it was the thing that made CRPGs different to JRPGs.

Voicing is pretty recent in CRPGs so It's not really a suprise that some of the best ones would not be voiced.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 25 avril 2011 - 03:10 .