650 réponses à ce sujet

[Siven80]

For me, it's a voiced main character every time.

[Huntress]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

The Warden had whatever voice you wanted him/her to have. You were the warden. Do you record your conversations with friends and then watch the parts where you talk so the conversations have more importance for you? Do you need a cutscene of your face when you greet a group of people?

I already did my best to keep DAO alive this was around 6-7 months ago to be exact, Where were you back then?  and bioware is not going back, NOW how many times should that need be said? 100 times? a 1000 times?

Here : bioware is not going back +1000 times! happy now?

I suppose illiterates is the curse of the 21 first century.

Now is DA2 and as I said before I do like both games, but hawk is more of  my likeing as a character because she can come out with the most hilarious lines, the more sarcastic I pic the longer and funnier it gets ( the scene)

Modifié par Huntress, 31 mai 2011 - 11:11 .

[Morroian]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

We live in the age of the deteoration of imagination. I don't think kids even play 'make believe' anymore in post industrial countries.

I know this is an exaggeration but something has happened to people and they are more disconnected from their imaginations than ever. Sad ...

Having a VO does not preclude imagination. I have images of my Hawkes as characters in my mind based primarily on the dialogue. Those Hawkes are not concrete in terms of being solely based around the events of the game.   

RangerSG wrote...

No, you didn't get to RP Hawke according to your whims. Unless your whims precisely align with the badly paraphrased options presented. And the Warden wasn't 'mute,' you picked a voice set. I've yet to find a coherent statement on this subject from the VO supporters that takes that into account. It wasn't hard to project that voice into dialogue. Now do I think it would be useful if a line or so of dialogue, and perhaps crucial cut-scenes, were voiced in DA3? Sure. But the loss of depth and choice in RP

I've said it before but I'll say it again my role playing experience in DA2 was at least as great as in DAO if not moreso. What you fail to take into account is that people role play differently.

Modifié par Morroian, 31 mai 2011 - 11:16 .

[erynnar]

And a voiced one destroys cutomization for me. I don't make a new face for the same voice. Voices belong to the individual. Once they have a face that goes with that voice that's that, just like people in real life.

@Huntress...you know that may or may not be true. You don't want them to go back and I would rather they did. But unless you work for BioWare, you know about what they're thinking on that as much as I do, ie hints in interviews. David Gaider himself didn't say emphatically, just that it's more likely.

[Chuvvy]

I hate this argument so much. Two camps, both filled with elitism. Both have their ups and their downs. With a voiced you get tone and your character feels alive. With no voice you get more dialog and races. With a voice your character interacts more in conversation. With no voice you can create your own voice.

[John Epler]

Slidell505 wrote...

I hate this argument so much. Two camps, both filled with elitism. Both have their ups and their downs. With a voiced you get tone and your character feels alive. With no voice you get more dialog and races. With a voice your character interacts more in conversation. With no voice you can create your own voice.

Sir, I don't know if you've just never been on the internet before, but I'm going to have to ask you to be significantly less reasonable.

Maybe you're new to these parts, I don't know, but by gods, I expect you to pick a position and defend it to the death.

[Zjarcal]

JohnEpler wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

I hate this argument so much. Two camps, both filled with elitism. Both have their ups and their downs. With a voiced you get tone and your character feels alive. With no voice you get more dialog and races. With a voice your character interacts more in conversation. With no voice you can create your own voice.

Sir, I don't know if you've just never been on the internet before, but I'm going to have to ask you to be significantly less reasonable.

Maybe you're new to these parts, I don't know, but by gods, I expect you to pick a position and defend it to the death.

WIN! 

[Chuvvy]

JohnEpler wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

I hate this argument so much. Two camps, both filled with elitism. Both have their ups and their downs. With a voiced you get tone and your character feels alive. With no voice you get more dialog and races. With a voice your character interacts more in conversation. With no voice you can create your own voice.

Sir, I don't know if you've just never been on the internet before, but I'm going to have to ask you to be significantly less reasonable.

Maybe you're new to these parts, I don't know, but by gods, I expect you to pick a position and defend it to the death.

I just got here from the neutral planet.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Since the game can't really limit what the player visualizes in their mind i'm not sure if this position makes much sense. The game can only attempt to cover X personalities and hope it includes the personality the player picked for their character and that the coverage is done to a degree which will satisfy the player... but this is ultimately no different from how things are already being done. No matter if the X is one, or twenty.

Why do you think I believe that the game should cover any personality that the player wants?

I think the game should give you a outline of a script (by providing background dentails on the character)  as well asseveral possible character concepts and personalities that we have designed the game to support. Now, mix and match them - create your own unique variant by choosing the most appropriat scheme for the concept you develop.

You get emergence, and lots of variance. It's just that my idea of variety in a character might not be yours.

Some will be supported by the game. Other's wont.

[In Exile]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

We live in the age of the deteoration of imagination. I don't think kids even play 'make believe' anymore in post industrial countries.

I know this is an exaggeration but something has happened to people and they are more disconnected from their imaginations than ever. Sad ...

I grew up in Eastern Europe, and I certainly use my imagination. My imagination is thousands of times better than a video game. Why would I want to restrict my imagination by constraining it to whatever interaction has been pre-scripted in the game, to dialogue and actions a game developer somewhere had to forsee?

If I want a muse, I'd just read a book our outline and then imagine my own adventure, using lego blocks. Like I did when I was a kid.

[In Exile]

[quote]RangerSG wrote...
No, you didn't get to RP Hawke according to your whims. Unless your whims precisely align with the badly paraphrased options presented. And the Warden wasn't 'mute,' you picked a voice set. I've yet to find a coherent statement on this subject from the VO supporters that takes that into account. It wasn't hard to project that voice into dialogue.
[/quote]

The Warden had a voice, certainly. It was the voice David Gaidner et. all wrote directly into the dialogue in conceiving it. You could pick a tone for some random statements, but that was it.

[/quote] Now do I think it would be useful if a line or so of dialogue, and perhaps crucial cut-scenes, were voiced in DA3? Sure. But the loss of depth and choice in RP in exchange for a few moments where voicing works is a poor trade. Especially since most of those places are in psuedo cut-scenes anyway.[/quote]

Unless you think that the lines could only be delivered one way. In which case you gain cinematic presentation for absolutely no loss.

[Huntress]

JohnEpler wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

I hate this argument so much. Two camps, both filled with elitism. Both have their ups and their downs. With a voiced you get tone and your character feels alive. With no voice you get more dialog and races. With a voice your character interacts more in conversation. With no voice you can create your own voice.

Sir, I don't know if you've just never been on the internet before, but I'm going to have to ask you to be significantly less reasonable.

Maybe you're new to these parts, I don't know, but by gods, I expect you to pick a position and defend it to the death.

Hahaha! No sitting on the fence for you "new" Sir!

[In Exile]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

The Warden had whatever voice you wanted him/her to have. You were the warden. Do you record your conversations with friends and then watch the parts where you talk so the conversations have more importance for you? Do you need a cutscene of your face when you greet a group of people?

Do you plug your ears when you talk? I hear my voice. Do you pick the statements you say when you speak, or do you read them off a list?

A video-game dialogue interface is nothing like real-life, so the parallel is useless. If the game offered me infinite permutations of dialogue, like I have available in real life, that would be one thing. But DA:O didn't. It gave you 1-4 pre-worded choices (most of the time) and generally 1-6.

[Zeevico]

JohnEpler wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

I hate this argument so much. Two camps, both filled with elitism. Both have their ups and their downs. With a voiced you get tone and your character feels alive. With no voice you get more dialog and races. With a voice your character interacts more in conversation. With no voice you can create your own voice.

Sir, I don't know if you've just never been on the internet before, but I'm going to have to ask you to be significantly less reasonable.

Maybe you're new to these parts, I don't know, but by gods, I expect you to pick a position and defend it to the death.

NEVER! DEFEND YOUR MIDDLE GROUND TO THE DEATH!

Modifié par Zeevico, 31 mai 2011 - 11:52 .

[TEWR]

Slidell505 wrote...

I hate this argument so much. Two camps, both filled with elitism. Both have their ups and their downs. With a voiced you get tone and your character feels alive. With no voice you get more dialog and races. With a voice your character interacts more in conversation. With no voice you can create your own voice.

I generally try to stay in the "Be reasonable and sicken the parties on both sides" camp.


But very rarely I get lost and start to wander into the elitist camp.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 01 juin 2011 - 12:08 .

[Tommy6860]

JohnEpler wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

I hate this argument so much. Two camps, both filled with elitism. Both have their ups and their downs. With a voiced you get tone and your character feels alive. With no voice you get more dialog and races. With a voice your character interacts more in conversation. With no voice you can create your own voice.

Sir, I don't know if you've just never been on the internet before, but I'm going to have to ask you to be significantly less reasonable.

Maybe you're new to these parts, I don't know, but by gods, I expect you to pick a position and defend it to the death.

LOL, that made my night. Thnx!
:wizard:

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Why do you think I believe that the game should cover any personality that the player wants?

I think the game should give you a outline of a script (by providing background dentails on the character)  as well asseveral possible character concepts and personalities that we have designed the game to support. Now, mix and match them - create your own unique variant by choosing the most appropriat scheme for the concept you develop.

You get emergence, and lots of variance. It's just that my idea of variety in a character might not be yours.

Some will be supported by the game. Other's wont.

This is an excellent description of a game what would offer what you want.

I think it would be a pretty poor game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

The Warden had whatever voice you wanted him/her to have. You were the warden. Do you record your conversations with friends and then watch the parts where you talk so the conversations have more importance for you? Do you need a cutscene of your face when you greet a group of people?

Do you plug your ears when you talk? I hear my voice.

But I don't learn anything from hearing my voice.  Unless I misspeak, but the game doesn't model that scenario, so that's not relevant.

Do you pick the statements you say when you speak, or do you read them off a list?

Sort of both.  Ideally I would reduce that particular dialogue event to a previously solved problem and say the thing that I know worked the last time that scenario arose.

A video-game dialogue interface is nothing like real-life, so the parallel is useless. If the game offered me infinite permutations of dialogue, like I have available in real life, that would be one thing. But DA:O didn't. It gave you 1-4 pre-worded choices (most of the time) and generally 1-6.

But in the real world, there are many different things you could say which would be consistent with your current objectives within that conversation.  You choose from among an effectively infinite set, but that set is limited by the parameters established by your objectives.

DAO's dialogue allows you to compare the options to your parameters and know whether they match.  DA2 does not.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 juin 2011 - 05:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Huntress wrote...

 bioware is not going back 

You don't know that.

Even BioWare doesn't know that.  We don't even know that BioWare believes it.  At most, we can posit that asserting that they're not going back is part of their current marketing strategy.  And even that isn't entirely supported by the available evidence.

[SilentK]

JohnEpler wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

I hate this argument so much. Two camps, both filled with elitism. Both have their ups and their downs. With a voiced you get tone and your character feels alive. With no voice you get more dialog and races. With a voice your character interacts more in conversation. With no voice you can create your own voice.

Sir, I don't know if you've just never been on the internet before, but I'm going to have to ask you to be significantly less reasonable.

Maybe you're new to these parts, I don't know, but by gods, I expect you to pick a position and defend it to the death.

Ha ha ha    =)   wonderful!

Well yes. I have read how people describe how much less they enjoy the game when it is voiced. Hmmm.... the thing is that for me DA2 came alive when my char had a voice. As much as I would like all people to enjoy my fav-games, and I am always trying to tell gamer-friends about the DA-games, I must confess to being so selfish that I would rather have myself being happy. If I could push a magic button to have a voice in the next one ohh yes I would. I'm not saying that either side is more correct, or true or whatever you can come up with. It just makes me happy when playing to have a voice, and I really like to be happy. Gahh.... this would be a great point for some magic compromise solution. I haven't come up with one yet.

[erynnar]

JohnEpler wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

I hate this argument so much. Two camps, both filled with elitism. Both have their ups and their downs. With a voiced you get tone and your character feels alive. With no voice you get more dialog and races. With a voice your character interacts more in conversation. With no voice you can create your own voice.

Sir, I don't know if you've just never been on the internet before, but I'm going to have to ask you to be significantly less reasonable.

Maybe you're new to these parts, I don't know, but by gods, I expect you to pick a position and defend it to the death.

Exactly!!! We don't cotton to your kind around here *gets shotgun and rope*. 

What is funny for me, is that I like Geralt who is a voiced PC just fine. But I don't make his face. He is who he is. And I have figured out, about myself, is that the voiced PC bothers me most for the lack of being able to change the face. Once the voice goes with a face, it goes with that face just like a real person. I made both my Hawke's identical because of that! I didn't know I had that quirk ( I mean, I knew I was quirky, erm kinky...no quirky but not in that way).

*grumbles* I wish there was a magic comprimise button to make both sides happy. I would rather we all be satisfied.

I am afraid, that my comprimise would be to take away cusomization of looks except for gender to make the voiced PC. *puts on asbestos small clothes and ducks*

edited because I can't spell tonight!

Modifié par erynnar, 01 juin 2011 - 05:56 .

[Dariuszp]

Is I may add something myself. It all depends on the story. In games like Gothic series, Witcher and few others you got fixed character with some background and stuff. It's natural to give them their own voice.
In Kotor, BG, Dragon Age and others you really got fresh meat. Noname from Gothic has his story right ? And when the Gothic cames out there were not so many games that allow you fully customize your character. So they give us someone.
In Witcher, Gerald is well described in books. You cant do to much about his look or character. So you got fixed character.
In both game now you add voice acording to your character.

DAO, DA II and other games are diferent. You got tools to customize your character. They are fresh, with no real story behind, no expectations from the player (i dont image Gerald as female) so you can really merge with your character, make it more personal.
But then again, voice destroy it. I did like my character in DAO. I never got this feeling when i played DA II.

[SilentK]

@ erynnar lol isn't it fun to find new quirks, I do that about myself quite often to. I like to try to think of them as endearing =)

Maybe there is a good compromise out there but we haven't thought of it yet. It really would be great if everyone could feel connected with their game.

[AngryFrozenWater]

erynnar wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

I hate this argument so much. Two camps, both filled with elitism. Both have their ups and their downs. With a voiced you get tone and your character feels alive. With no voice you get more dialog and races. With a voice your character interacts more in conversation. With no voice you can create your own voice.

Sir, I don't know if you've just never been on the internet before, but I'm going to have to ask you to be significantly less reasonable.

Maybe you're new to these parts, I don't know, but by gods, I expect you to pick a position and defend it to the death.

Exactly!!! We don't cotton to your kind around here *gets shotgun and rope*. 

What is funny for me, is that I like Geralt who is a voiced PC just fine. But I don't make his face. He is who he is. And I have figured out, about myself, is that the voiced PC bothers me most for the lack of being able to change the face. Once the voice goes with a face, it goes with that face just like a real person. I made both my Hawke's identical because of that! I didn't know I had that quirk ( I mean, I knew I was quirky, erm kinky...no quirky but not in that way).

*grumbles* I wish there was a magic comprimise button to make both sides happy. I would rather we all be satisfied.

I am afraid, that my comprimise would be to take away cusomization of looks except for gender to make the voiced PC. *puts on asbestos small clothes and ducks*

edited because I can't spell tonight!

I rather have a voice acted PC when that PC has third person view. Let me explain:

To fully identify me with a PC I need to have first person view. That allows me to look through the eyes of the PC. Voice acting distracts from that illusion.

If the PC has a third person view (like in DA:O and DA2) then I am looking at a character who is clearly not me. Different body shape, different face, etc. I am fine with that, because it is easier for me to play a totally different character that way. It is like controlling a character (in third person view) with a role I dream up, rather than it is me (in first person view) who plays a role. There is a distinction there.

If the character in third person view has a voice then that is fine too, because that character isn't me anyway. In DA:O it was a bit odd, because there was no voice. For me it didn't deliver the illusion that it was me playing the role, because of the third person view.

That's why I don't want to compromise. It doesn't make sense.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 01 juin 2011 - 06:25 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is an excellent description of a game what would offer what you want.

I think it would be a pretty poor game.

Not if it didn't have VO and a paraphrase. Without VO, it could essentially be a game like DA2 without VO and the paraphrase. And I would wager you would like that game a lot.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But I don't learn anything from
hearing my voice.  Unless I misspeak, but the game doesn't model that
scenario, so that's not relevant.

Sort of both.  Ideally I would
reduce that particular dialogue event to a previously solved problem and
say the thing that I know worked the last time that scenario arose.

Both points were there for rhetorical effect, to illustrate that it's not very difficult to point to a deviation or similarity between RL and an RPG' but that this in itself is not a substitute for an argument.

But in the real world, there are many different things you could say
which would be consistent with your current objectives within that
conversation.  You choose from among an effectively infinite set, but
that set is limited by the parameters established by your objectives.

No, this would break the game. If I went by goal, no RPG would be able to support my character that I've played.

Let's say we took an omniscient view of each situation:

In the real world, I have an infinite number of things I can say for any infinite number of objectives to an infinite number of people.

In an RPG, I have a finite number of objects I can ask for in a limited number of ways, with a set reaction associated with every statement.

Now, you say that in the RPG, there are certain things (e.g. abstraction) that actually make the two situations effectively analogous. That's not a point I'm contesting right now. I am only pointing out that, in absolute terms, the situations are different in this way. Whether it is a relevant difference is another argument entirely.