650 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Ehh? What voices has to do with one race?

If you mean it's more cost efficent do with one race? Sure, but anyting less is allways more cost efficent. No voice, cost less. No other races, cost less.

Modifié par Lumikki, 27 mai 2011 - 11:25 .

[SilentK]

lobi wrote...

BP20125810 wrote...

From what I know, the voiced main charachter was one of the reason DA2 had only a human PC.  Would you be willing to ditch that for more replayability and customization in DA3, at the loss of not having a voiced protagonist?

In a heartbeat. Voiced main char was the root cause of my inability to 'be' Hawk and contributed to the lack of immersion, that and being able to spam the heart for romance success. Icons work like glitching, it steals the challenge of uncertainty.

It's so interesting that you can have so different experiences from the same game. My F!Hawke having a voice was one of the big reasons for me feeling so much for her  

Never understod why I feelt more like my Shepards but liked the DA-universe a little bit more. Then came DA2 and it just clicked. I connect much better with my voiced Hawkes and Shepards. Still love my poor silent wardens but I don't see myself replaying DA:O anytime soon. Having far to much fun in DA2 and ME&ME2. Guess it makes it difficult for bioware, don't know how they can please us all at the same time.

[Blastback]

SilentK wrote...

lobi wrote...

BP20125810 wrote...

From what I know, the voiced main charachter was one of the reason DA2 had only a human PC.  Would you be willing to ditch that for more replayability and customization in DA3, at the loss of not having a voiced protagonist?

In a heartbeat. Voiced main char was the root cause of my inability to 'be' Hawk and contributed to the lack of immersion, that and being able to spam the heart for romance success. Icons work like glitching, it steals the challenge of uncertainty.

It's so interesting that you can have so different experiences from the same game. My F!Hawke having a voice was one of the big reasons for me feeling so much for her  

Never understod why I feelt more like my Shepards but liked the DA-universe a little bit more. Then came DA2 and it just clicked. I connect much better with my voiced Hawkes and Shepards. Still love my poor silent wardens but I don't see myself replaying DA:O anytime soon. Having far to much fun in DA2 and ME&ME2. Guess it makes it difficult for bioware, don't know how they can please us all at the same time.

Toggles!

*Listens for the kitten*

[ReiSilver]

One of the things I find with a voiced protagonist is I can't make ANY kind of character I want. I'm boxed in by the voice actor and their performance. When I first heard about LadyHawke my initial desire was to play a sarcastic/tomboy/rogue... then the voice came out and that was NEVER going to happen because the voice actress plays it breathy and posh, not tomboyish or streetwise.

Now voiced protagonists I find have a habit of growing on their own and you have to work around the voice acting and the personality types in DA2 helped somewhat but I still feel like I can only play through with my sarcastic male mage, much like ME where I mainly play as my mostly-paragon infiltrator. Voice acting takes away replayability for me.

In DAO you could have the same lines but they could be portrayed differently, for example when you did Alistair's quest and you can tell him something along the lines of
“You're not on your own, you have friends. I'm one of them.”
I had two wardens say that line, one was romancing him at the time and would have said it in a kind/sincere way. The other was a prickly Dalish Warden who would have said it aggressively or quickly in order to cover up that he actually meant it and wasn't comfortable talking about this touchy-feely-stuff with Alistair.

Modifié par ReiSilver, 28 mai 2011 - 03:31 .

[In Exile]

But Alistair understands that line one way: caring. And that undercuts the problem with adding a tone yourself. Even if you come up with a framework that justifies it (e.g. misunderstands) you will still have the game act as if you said something else, so you will never have acknowledgement in-game of what you feel your character said.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In both of the examples listed, the intent was caring. But how that caring was expressed was meaningfully and importantly different. Alistair responded correctly both times.

And even better example involved Leliana. There's a line in her romance dialogue where the Warden can say something that's comically lascivious, and she laughs at how awkward it was. It's a light-hearted moment. But I had a really shy PC who used the line as a genuine attempt to flirt with Leliana, and she took it as a joke (because the line was written as a joke). But what that did was embarrass my PC horribly, so he immediately ended the conversation and ran away, never to talk to Leliana again because he couldn't bear the humiliation.

This was terrific. This allowed me to play my character very differently from how BioWare wrote him, and yet didn't require any change in Leliana's behaviour at all to fit within the world.

Having people acknowledge me is not a core part of my personality. Other people's behaviour reflects on them, not me.

If the character needs to have those around him understand him all of the time (or most of the time), then I can see this being a problem, but that's just not a character I understand myself. Why would anyone need that? Whose self-image is so tied up in being able to control people?

I'm not trying to belittle your position. I just don't get it.

And it's not even that I don't care whether people understand me. It's that I don't think I can know whether people have understood me, or whath their behaviour tells me about whether they understood me. We just don't have enough interaction with the NPCs in the game to be able to get to know them that well.

But you know all this.

[ReiSilver]

In Exile wrote...

But Alistair understands that line one way: caring. And that undercuts the problem with adding a tone yourself. Even if you come up with a framework that justifies it (e.g. misunderstands) you will still have the game act as if you said something else, so you will never have acknowledgement in-game of what you feel your character said.

The line IS caring, but I can imagine it delivered in a way that fits the characters' personality, Alistair taking it the same way isn't so much of a problem (for me) because the underlying meaning is the same. Both the character who is openly caring and the one who is trying to hide that are trying to get the same message across. But if the character was voiced I would likely not be able to have my Dalish warden say that line, as it would be delivered in a way that character I made up would never use with Alistair.
I may never get acknowlegement for it but it allows me to play the characters as I see them.

Voiced characters narrow your ability to customise your characters' voice, their personality and their motivations, because that comes through the voice acting, which the player does not have control of.

Take the quest with the Sareebas for example, a character could have multiple reasons for allowing the qunari mage to do what he did at the end of that quest: a character may believe in allowing adults to do what they think is right for them, yet the dialogue doesn't allow you to take that stance; it pidgeon holes you into a mercinary/seemingly careless viewpooint saying "well my job ended back there, you're not my problem now", something that contradicts the image you might have for your Hawke.

I'm not saying main characters shouldn't be voiced EVER just that the system in DAO should not be abandoned since it has it's own advantages.

Modifié par ReiSilver, 28 mai 2011 - 05:44 .

[Rockpopple]

I don't believe a voiced-protag had any bearing on Hawke as a human PC. They wanted to do a story about a human refugee. This wasn't going to be another "Origins" tale. If they wanted to do another Origins tale with a voiced-protag, it would have been easy to do. It's just a matter of recording more lines. A cakewalk.

[ReiSilver]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And even better example involved Leliana. There's a line in her romance dialogue where the Warden can say something that's comically lascivious, and she laughs at how awkward it was. It's a light-hearted moment. But I had a really shy PC who used the line as a genuine attempt to flirt with Leliana, and she took it as a joke (because the line was written as a joke). But what that did was embarrass my PC horribly, so he immediately ended the conversation and ran away, never to talk to Leliana again because he couldn't bear the humiliation.

Just wanted to say your Warden sounds adorable

[Huntress]

[quote]ReiSilver wrote...

[quote]In Exile wrote...

Take the quest with the Sareebas for example, a character could have multiple reasons for allowing the qunari mage to do what he did at the end of that quest: a character may believe in allowing adults to do what they think is right for them, yet the dialogue doesn't allow you to take that stance; it pidgeon holes you into a mercinary/seemingly careless viewpooint saying "well my job ended back there, you're not my problem now", something that contradicts the image you might have for your Hawke.

I'm not saying main characters shouldn't be voiced EVER just that the system in DAO should not be abandoned since it has it's own advantages.
[/quote]

You are talking about 2 things voice actor vs Quest completion.. I don't think the voice actor has ANYthing to do with the quest, now if you said: the writes had poor choices of answers for that quest, well thats is true.

And yet you have put them both together for more balance agaisnt voice character.. ridiculous. Pff why am I even bother with this, by tomorrow the hole game was wrote and produce by voice actors and not bioware and on top of that, everyone who is against it is going to start  believing Hawk and his/her gang works for EA or  are EA or something smart like that.<_<

[ReiSilver]

Huntress wrote...

ReiSilver wrote...

Take the quest with the Sareebas for example, a character could have multiple reasons for allowing the qunari mage to do what he did at the end of that quest: a character may believe in allowing adults to do what they think is right for them, yet the dialogue doesn't allow you to take that stance; it pidgeon holes you into a mercinary/seemingly careless viewpooint saying "well my job ended back there, you're not my problem now", something that contradicts the image you might have for your Hawke.

I'm not saying main characters shouldn't be voiced EVER just that the system in DAO should not be abandoned since it has it's own advantages.

You are talking about 2 things voice actor vs Quest completion.. I don't think the voice actor has ANYthing to do with the quest, now if you said: the writes had poor choices of answers for that quest, well thats is true.

And yet you have put them both together for more balance agaisnt voice character.. ridiculous. Pff why am I even bother with this, by tomorrow the hole game was wrote and produce by voice actors and not bioware and on top of that, everyone who is against it is going to start  believing Hawk and his/her gang works for EA or  are EA or something smart like that.<_<

um what are you talking about?

I'm not BLAMING the voice actors. Its a simple fact that having a main character with a voice requires performance, which reflects emotion and personality. You can't have one without the other. In having a voice actor your choices are given motivation and a way of speaking whether it fits with what you had in mind or not, because a voice actor needs to know how to play the character, they are either told by the director what the characters motivations are or they imagine it themselves.

who said anything about EA???

Modifié par ReiSilver, 28 mai 2011 - 06:33 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Having people acknowledge me is not a core part of my personality. Other people's behaviour reflects on them, not me.

If the character needs to have those around him understand him all of the time (or most of the time), then I can see this being a problem, but that's just not a character I understand myself. Why would anyone need that? Whose self-image is so tied up in being able to control people?

I'm not trying to belittle your position. I just don't get it.

It is not about the reaction of the other person mattering so much as it is that people do not react in identical ways to different responses in the same situation.

The same person, in the same circumstance, will not react the same to ''Leave me alone!'' said in a threatening way, and ''Leave me alone!'' said in a crying way. The emotive content, the intent... all of these things change the essence of what the other person responds to.

Yet an RPG will always have the character respond the same way to the line. Insofar as the design is concerned, there is a 1:1 correspondence.

To have the person react the same way, in setting, violates the setting itself. Because insofar as the game is concerned, the NPCs behave as if they were people. And people do not react in identical ways to non-identical statements.

And it's not even that I don't care whether people understand me. It's that I don't think I can know whether people have understood me, or whath their behaviour tells me about whether they understood me. We just don't have enough interaction with the NPCs in the game to be able to get to know them that well.

But you know all this.

This is a meta-game objection. We have seen all the possible worlds - we have the meta-level perspective of the player. My objection does not come in character, but rather OOC.

In the same way that you object to an inconsistent rule-set between the party and non-party, I object to identical reactions on the part of NPCs. Both are, technically, logically possible, but practically unetable.

[In Exile]

ReiSilver wrote...

The line IS caring, but I can imagine it delivered in a way that fits the characters' personality, Alistair taking it the same way isn't so much of a problem (for me) because the underlying meaning is the same. Both the character who is openly caring and the one who is trying to hide that are trying to get the same message across. But if the character was voiced I would likely not be able to have my Dalish warden say that line, as it would be delivered in a way that character I made up would never use with Alistair.
I may never get acknowlegement for it but it allows me to play the characters as I see them.

Do you think people react in identical ways to non-identical statements? This is why I reject that silent VO actually means the line could ever be delivered more than one way.

If I said:

That was a great post!

or:

That was a great post! <_<

Would you respond the same way?

[ReiSilver]

In Exile wrote...

ReiSilver wrote...

The line IS caring, but I can imagine it delivered in a way that fits the characters' personality, Alistair taking it the same way isn't so much of a problem (for me) because the underlying meaning is the same. Both the character who is openly caring and the one who is trying to hide that are trying to get the same message across. But if the character was voiced I would likely not be able to have my Dalish warden say that line, as it would be delivered in a way that character I made up would never use with Alistair.
I may never get acknowlegement for it but it allows me to play the characters as I see them.

Do you think people react in identical ways to non-identical statements? This is why I reject that silent VO actually means the line could ever be delivered more than one way.

If I said:

That was a great post!

or:

That was a great post! <_<

Would you respond the same way?

The intent behind those are different.
Notice whenever a line like that appears in DAO you get a (lie) indicator. You are never told how a line is delivered, only how other characters react. Unlike a voiced main character where you know exactly how they say something because, well, you hear it don't you?
Not to mention there are plenty of times paragon/renegade shep or diplomatic/aggressive hawke get the exact same responce dialogue, does that mean the lines weren't delivered diffrently?

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

It is not about the reaction of the other person mattering so much as it is that people do not react in identical ways to different responses in the same situation.

The same person, in the same circumstance, will not react the same to ''Leave me alone!'' said in a threatening way, and ''Leave me alone!'' said in a crying way. The emotive content, the intent... all of these things change the essence of what the other person responds to.

Right.  It's the same stimulus, and it's the same reaction.  Therefore, the person must not be the same.

Your own logic tells you what the answer is.

This is a meta-game objection. We have seen all the possible worlds - we have the meta-level perspective of the player. My objection does not come in character, but rather OOC.

Well obviously, because you're comparing across different playthroughs.  But it's still not a problem unless you insist that Alistair is exactly the same every time you meet him.  Even though his own behaviour demonstrates that he is not.

You have a house of cards that stands on its own as long as all the cards remain in place, and you're complaining that it falls down if we remove one of the cards.  But we're not just removing the one card - we're building a whole new house.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Right.  It's the same stimulus, and it's the same reaction.  Therefore, the person must not be the same.

Your own logic tells you what the answer is.

Except the person is the same. That's a given in the game. This is axiomatically true.

ETA:

As I said multiple times: your standard neccesarily entails that I could believe Alistair is dead, or that Leliana is actually a man with a feminine voice, or that Loghain is secretly a darkspawn.

Well obviously, because you're comparing across different playthroughs.  But it's still not a problem unless you insist that Alistair is exactly the same every time you meet him.  Even though his own behaviour demonstrates that he is not.

No. That only works if you actively ignore every instance where Alistair behaves, expresses his views, interacts, or otherwise does anything.

You have a house of cards that stands on its own as long as all the cards remain in place, and you're complaining that it falls down if we remove one of the cards.  But we're not just removing the one card - we're building a whole new house.

No. You're looking at the face of the cards and insisting it could be a different deck because we've yet to look at the back, but in all the time we've played cards we've never switched the deck.

Modifié par In Exile, 28 mai 2011 - 07:17 .

[In Exile]

ReiSilver wrote...
The intent behind those are different.
Notice whenever a line like that appears in DAO you get a (lie) indicator. You are never told how a line is delivered, only how other characters react. Unlike a voiced main character where you know exactly how they say something because, well, you hear it don't you?

You are told what the line says, and how the characters react. Which always match. Yet somehow the tone varies. With the same characters. That's a problem.

Not to mention there are plenty of times paragon/renegade shep or diplomatic/aggressive hawke get the exact same responce dialogue, does that mean the lines weren't delivered diffrently?

That means the designers cheaped out and hoped players wouldn't notice.

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You can't be that aggressive all of the time without being a caricature.  Duke Nukem is a good example of such a caricature.

Always bet on the Duke.

In Exile wrote...
That means the designers cheaped out and hoped players wouldn't notice.

Would you consider this valid in the case of lines interpreted a different way by the player receiving the same answer from the game?

Modifié par Xewaka, 28 mai 2011 - 07:33 .

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
Would you consider this valid in the case of lines interpreted a different way by the player receiving the same answer from the game?

No. The player is not the same. But if you RP'd the same character over and over, you would expect each time that the lines are interpreted the same way.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...
No. The player is not the same. But if you RP'd the same character over and over, you would expect each time that the lines are interpreted the same way.

And if you replay the same character over and over, the logic behind each pick is the same, thus the lines are interpreted the same way.
Maybe I was unclear. What I meant to say is, just as the game (due to its limited amount of resources) will answer to different lines with the same NPC reaction, would it be acceptable that the game answers to different interpretations of a phrasing - different character reading - with the same NPC reaction (again, due to its limited amount of resources)?

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
And if you replay the same character over and over, the logic behind each pick is the same, thus the lines are interpreted the same way.

I'm not sure I follow.

Maybe I was unclear. What I meant to say is, just as the game (due to its limited amount of resources) will answer to different lines with the same NPC reaction, would it be acceptable that the game answers to different interpretations of a phrasing - different character reading - with the same NPC reaction (again, due to its limited amount of resources)?

No. Because the first isn't at all acceptable; it's a terrible fault that's comparable to, for example, the waves of enemies. I'm not defending VO in that case.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Except the person is the same. That's a given in the game. This is axiomatically true.

I deny that.  I see no evidence at all that this is true.  None.

ETA:

As I said multiple times: your standard neccesarily entails that I could believe Alistair is dead, or that Leliana is actually a man with a feminine voice, or that Loghain is secretly a darkspawn.

And that's true.  But that also doesn't matter.  All that matters is what your character believes.  But that you are willing to accept that any of those wild scenarios are possible prevents you from having issues of metagame consistency.

Your standard of proof is too weak.

No. That only works if you actively ignore every instance where Alistair behaves, expresses his views, interacts, or otherwise does anything.

No, it works as long as you don't draw rigid conclusions based on those things.  And rigid conclusions aren't supported by the evidence, so there's no reason to do so anyway.

No. You're looking at the face of the cards and insisting it could be a different deck because we've yet to look at the back, but in all the time we've played cards we've never switched the deck.

I don't really see how that analogy applies, but I'll agree with it.  We can't be confident that we have perfect knowledge of the deck's recent history.  Stage magicians rely on you thinking you have perfect knowledge of something, and then demonstrating that you don't.  So why would we ever believe that we do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

You are told what the line says, and how the characters react. Which always match. Yet somehow the tone varies. With the same characters.

They're not necessarily the same characters.  I don't know why you think they are (well, I do know, but I don't know why you've accepted all of the other things that make that conclusion necessary).

[YohkoOhno]

Personally, I think we are heading to more "role assumption" in the RPGs, which means that the role and its general personality will be fixed (along with backstory and general motivations), while the RPG elements will involve logical choices, and mostly tactical setup of the PC via the skill trees chosen. I think games like Mass Effect 2, The Witcher 2, and others are moving in that direction.

So, if that's the case, VO will definately be a part of that.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I deny that.  I see no evidence at all that this is true.  None.

The stability of the world, independent of player involvement, and the consistency in behaviour of every NPC with which the player does not interact with.

Here is the issue: you believe that if you can imagine the NPC being different on qualities not shown, that means the NPC is different. I reject this, because the mere fact that you can't see why assuming some quality leads to a logical inconsistency does not mean it doesn't.

And that's true.  But that also doesn't matter.  All that matters is what your character believes.  But that you are willing to accept that any of those wild scenarios are possible prevents you from having issues of metagame consistency.

Your standard of proof is too weak.

No. It's your standard that's too weak. If your standard of evidence is what your character believes, then you can justify anything - including that your character hears the wrong thing with VO.

For example, you could simply say that a spell was cast on your PC altering his ability to hear his/her own words or there was trauma, or it is a disease, or it is just neurodiversity, etc.

In fact, you could ignore any kind of empirical evidence this way. It's a catch-all and vacuous standard. The mere fact that the standard allows it is what invalidates it.

No, it works as long as you don't draw rigid conclusions based on those things.  And rigid conclusions aren't supported by the evidence, so there's no reason to do so anyway.

The rigid conclusions are neccesary - otherwise you have an absurd outcome.

Tell me, why is it that we would ever want to be logically consistent? What value is in that?

I don't really see how that analogy applies, but I'll agree with it.  We can't be confident that we have perfect knowledge of the deck's recent history.  Stage magicians rely on you thinking you have perfect knowledge of something, and then demonstrating that you don't.  So why would we ever believe that we do.

It is not about perfect knowledge; it is about how neccesary consequences of adopting a view.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They're not necessarily the same
characters.  I don't know why you think they are (well, I do know, but
I don't know why you've accepted all of the other things that make that
conclusion necessary).

Standards of belief are what allow us to disambiguate and make sense of the world. Taking consistency as a valuable standard is in itself making a value claim about the consequences of inconsistency.

What I am saying is that pressuposing your character-centric view makes reality indistinguishable from any imagined state.

Once you grant that standard, there is no way you could satfisy your own standard of proof for things such as you thinking the thoughts you think you think.