211 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Embargoed wrote...

@ 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.

Many people who worked at Bioware during KotOR's development still work at Bioware today, so it's likely they share your opinion.

Fallout 3's dialogue options were quite horrible. I agree. Bethesda cannot into writing and dialogue.

Not sure if I had this convo with you before, but whenever someone talks about stale dialogue options, I always point them in the direction of Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines.

It had easily the written PC responses I've seen in an RPG. Malkavian dialogue in particular was hilarious.

The original Fallouts were also good. Speaking in more recent games, Fallout: New Vegas with a mod or two is easily a standout for good PC dialogue responses. The mods hiding skill check tags makes skill based options look much more natural. It really adds a lot to that particular area.



Certain games lend themselves to certain elements. While I'm not against the idea of voiced protagonists, I don't think they should be introduced into RPGs until we get real depth and choice regarding the issue. Multiple voices per gender per race that the player can select on character creation.

Until we reach that point, and instead only get a single voice, chosen by the company, it reinforces the disconnect between the player and character they create. It's the company's character, not yours.

It works fine in Action RPGs, but obviously, people don't like it in more traditional types of RPGs because player freedom is a key element in these types of games. Anything that takes away player freedom must have a good reason for taking it away. For many people, "because Bioware wants to" is not good enough.

At the very least, a choice at character creation for voiced/unvoiced would be okay with me.

For me, this is actually not such a big deal, provided the game is good enough in other areas to keep me engaged. But this seems to be a huge issue for you.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 25 avril 2011 - 03:23 .

[Embargoed]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

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.

That's fine. I can't force you to like something I don't. 

As for the appearance thing, I find that I can change the appearance rather easily and still think of that character having that voice. I almost forgot how the boxed image of Hawke looked like.

[Gotholhorakh]

On the voiced character, I completely understand both viewpoints on this.

For my part, I find it very slightly irksome if the voice actor has an accent that's nothing like that, but that's about it - I definitely don't miss it if it isn't there.

Also, if something inherent to voice acting leads BioWare to paraphrase, I'd like to see it removed entirely. Paraphrasing is just a chip in the paintwork for me.

Pretty much all of the good fantasy cRPGs have unvoiced main character dialogue, as well as pretty much all of the widely purchased ones, so it seems like it makes little or no difference to gameplay or sales.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 25 avril 2011 - 03:20 .

[Zeus_Deus]

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?

It's possible to have a "party" in Oblivion, depending on how you do certain quests.

I agree that the conversations are mostly to drive the story along, but sometimes that's a good thing - Sometimes, having to find out about squad members backstories can be quite an unwanted distraction.

Kilshrek wrote...

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.

Well, there's just no pleasing some people is there? - I mean despite being both a critical and commercial success (and selling more than all previous Fallout games COMBINED) some people still maintain that FO3 butchered the whole Fallout series.

The only people who have the right to say whether FO3 butchered the series are the original creators of Fallout.
Many of these guys were on the FO:NV development team.
If they thought that FO3 butchered their game, why didn't they just make FO:NV in the style of FO 1&2. The fact that they stuck with the FO3 style of game speaks volumes.

[happy_daiz]

Personally, I think all games should come with V.A.T.S.  

OK, not all... but I just tried playing Oblivion again (my last saved game was dated 9/20/2008, doh!), and I just couldn't do it. I gave it an entire weekend of effort, and finally just put it down out of frustration. It was AWESOME when it came out, but now I'm noticing that the user interface is really dated. I hope that's improved in Skyrim. It would almost have to be, wouldn't it? Those menus were painful.

In reference to the post topic, though, I don't think you could compare DA2 and Skyrim. It's apples vs. oranges.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 25 avril 2011 - 03:34 .

[22nd MadJack]

makalathbonagin wrote...

ohhh yes
enjoy your skyrim with 6 voice actors in the whole game

I'd take 6 voice actors over 6 areas any day of the week.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

To be fair, Obsidian guys were not the "original original" developers of Fallout.

The original creators of Fallout, Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky & Jason Anderson, went off to found Troika Games, not Obsidian Entertainment.

But pretty much all of Obsidian's senior staff had an important role in developing Fallout 2, if not Fallout 3 (Van Buren). Which is why New Vegas a) uses and adapts Van Buren content, and is much closer to Fallout 2 in theme than Fallout 1.

This ranges from the humor to the wild west influences, to New Vegas itself. Though Avallone denies any New Reno influences.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 25 avril 2011 - 03:40 .

[AkiKishi]

happy_daiz wrote...

Personally, I think all games should come with V.A.T.S.  

OK, not all... but I just tried playing Oblivion again (my last saved game was dated 9/20/2008, doh!), and I just couldn't do it. I gave it an entire weekend of effort, and finally just put it down out of frustration. It was AWESOME when it came out, but now I'm noticing that the user interface is really dated. I hope that's improved in Skyrim. It would almost have to be, wouldn't it? Those menus were painful.

In reference to the post topic, though, I don't think you could compare DA2 and Skyrim. It's apples vs. oranges.

Oblivion is the one that makes you weaker as you level up isnt it ? If you don't fully exploit the level up mechanism.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Oblivion's level scaling was rather like the re-used assets in Dragon Age 2.

A failure in design from any objective perspective.

[Guliver]

22nd MadJack wrote...

makalathbonagin wrote...

ohhh yes
enjoy your skyrim with 6 voice actors in the whole game

I'd take 6 voice actors over 6 areas any day of the week.

Either there was no math in your school, either you're just incredibly bad at it.

Go count how many areas are there in DA2.. I dare you.

[22nd MadJack]

Guliver wrote...

Either there was no math in your school, either you're just incredibly bad at it.

Go count how many areas are there in DA2.. I dare you.

Probably just as bad as you were at English.

[John Epler]

We don't do versus threads on these forums.