650 réponses à ce sujet

[SilentK]

Funkcase wrote...

Tbh, in dragon age 3 I would like to continue to play as Hawke, I loved femHawks voice! I would hate to think that DA2's lame ending is the end of Hawke, although I want to see what happens with my Warden too.

Well jupp    =)    right there with you. I want to continue with my FemHawkes and see how they handle life      =)  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zem_ wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Having the voiced protag is like hearing yourself talk

What an odd comment.  I always hear myself talk.  Don't you?

What's important, I think, is that I don't learn anything from hearing myself talk.  I don't need to listen to myself to find out what it is I'm saying, or what my plans are.

Having a voiced protagonist is like being kept outside of the PC's head, and instead having to learn about his from an external perspective like he's any other character.

A silent protagonist allows us into the PC's head, giving us a perspective into his thoughts which we don't have with the other characters.

If we're to feel at all differently toward the PC compared to how we feel toward any other random person we don't really know, we need a silent protagonist.

I will not accept a voiced protagonist until I see one that grants the player at least as much control over the PC as a silent protagonist does. If we get to choose the exact phrase - if we get to choose the tone and delivery of that phrase - if we are literally never surprised by the PC's moment-to-moment behaviour, then, and only then, will the voiced protagonist possibly be acceptable.

But never until then.  If any of those tests are not passed, then the voiced protagonist is demonstrably inferior to the long-tested silent protagonist.

The DM has slid a character sheet across the table and said, "Here... play this one.  I'll let you fill in the first name and class."

"...and personality."  That's the difference.  DA2 allows far less control over the character's personality.  We're not allowed to determine how lines are delivered, because they are voiced, and we're not even allowed to decide what it is Hawke says, because the lines are hidden behind the paraphrase that serves no gameplay purpose at all beyond being obfuscatory.

[Kroitz]

@Sylvius: Very interesting points and I agree.

I like the voiced protagonist in the ME-series because it was new and always intended for the whole trilogy. What I can hardly unterstand is the DA teams statement: "we could have been resting on our laurels, but ..." and as I played the game I could finish the sentence with "... we rested on the laurels of the ME franchise and also took Ideas from Fable. Games are business you know."

[Zem_]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
"...and personality."  That's the difference.  DA2 allows far less control over the character's personality.

I wouldn't use the word "control" myself since this so-called control has no effect whatsoever on the game.  No one can ever react to your custom tone of delivery or personality.  What good is playing a condescending jerk (like say, Edwin in Baldur's Gate) if no one can ever be offended by it?  It's about as relevant as hair color, only allowing the ability to change hair color doesn't cost me anything.  Removing the voiced protagonist does.  To me at least.

So no, the voiced protagonist is not "demonstrably inferior" because your entire argument rests on whether or not you value this illusory "control" you speak of.  I don't.  I'd be all for the option to silence the protagonist and provide captions or a list for the dialogue wheel.  Whatever.  But not the removal of the player VO.

At the very least they need to work on the paraphrasing and I'm pretty sure they've even acknowledged that.  But it's a separate issue to that of voicing the protagonist or not.

Modifié par Zem_, 13 juin 2011 - 02:11 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zem_ wrote...

I wouldn't use the word "control" myself since this so-called control has no effect whatsoever on the game.  No one can ever react to your custom tone of delivery or personality.  What good is playing a condescending jerk (like say, Edwin in Baldur's Gate) if no one can ever be offended by it?

The good is in playing a condescending jerk.  That's roleplaying.  That's the whole point of gameplay.

When the game allows me to play my character as I see fit, the game succeeds.  When the game does not allow me to play my character as I see fit, the game fails.

Moreover, it's nonsensical to suggest that the game doesn't respond.  Absolutely it does.  You character says something, and the NPCs do respond.  Undeniably the NPCs do respond.  They might not respond as you would expect them to, but that's just the next piece of stimulus on which to base the next segment of PC behaviour.

You think the game deosn't respond because the response would be the same no matter how your character behaved.  But that can't matter, because that's metagame knowledge.  If you're basing your gameplay on things that aren't known to your character, then you're not roleplaying, and thus you're missing the whole point of the genre.

[Zem_]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
When the game allows me to play my character as I see fit, the game succeeds.  When the game does not allow me to play my character as I see fit, the game fails.

Then every game fails.  Admit it!   No game can ever succeed at this 100%.  You've chosen to fixate on the voiced protagonist aspect.  What about character appearance?  Doesn't it follow from your argument that merely by SHOWING us the player character, it limits us from imagining that our character is... say, overweight?  Or has some other appearance trait not available in the character customizer?  Or how about classes/abilities?  Hey, you know what?  I wanted to play a rogue/mage multi-class in DAO.   Oops!  My immersion!

Games are defined by their limitations.  They all have them.  Choosing any one and declaring, "THIS MUST NOT BE!"  is entirely arbitrary.  That's fine if you recognize that it is just a preference.  Just a personal opinion.  But I get the sense from your posts that you think this is some sort of objective truth.  

You think the game deosn't respond because the response would be the same no matter how your character behaved.  But that can't matter, because that's metagame knowledge.

If I choose to imagine I am saying something in a condescending tone and the person listening acts like I just said something kind and generous, it becomes obvious to me that the line was ACTUALLY delivered straight and honest.  I know they can't respond specifically to the tone of my delivery.  I know this because they can't hear my thoughts.  Call this meta-knowledge if you must.  I know it.  I can't UN-know it.  I don't get the reaction I was going for so the exercise was pointless.  That's just how I see it.  It'd be like imagining my character has the power to kill with a word.  I speak the word.  And people fail to die!  Oh no!  My immersion again!

If you're basing your gameplay on things that aren't known to your character, then you're not roleplaying, and thus you're missing the whole point of the genre.

No, I'm not.  The only thing I am missing is the ability to share your OPINION of the genre and how it MUST be played.  Stop acting like you're stating some objective truth here.  There is no generally accepted definition of CRPG and it is even more absurd to suggest that it must be played a particular way.  I can enjoy assuming the role of Shepard or Hawke and play within the limitations of the game.  Admittedly, it's a more difficult case to make in DA2's case because of how much less depth there is as compared to its predecessor.  But that has nothing to do with the voiced protagonist.  Not to me anyway.  And everything to do with the overall lack of content, which is a whole other topic.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zem_ wrote...

If I choose to imagine I am saying something in a condescending tone and the person listening acts like I just said something kind and generous, it becomes obvious to me that the line was ACTUALLY delivered straight and honest.

This is complately wrong.

You can decide, before the line is delivered, how you want to deliver the line.  Then, after the line is delivered, the NPC reacts.  You can't then retcon your delivery to something else without using metagame knowledge.  Instead, you should have your character react - in-character - to whatever the NPC response was.  How does your character interpret the reply, given that your character DID deliver the line as you chose?

You're choosing the question your own account of events, and all it does is harm your gameplay.  Why are you doing that?

I know they can't respond specifically to the tone of my delivery.

What you know doesn't matter.  It can't matter, otherwise roleplaying would be impossible.  Ideally you wouldn't even be consciously aware that you exist, and instead just immerse yourself in the character.

I know this because they can't hear my thoughts.  Call this meta-knowledge if you must.  I know it.  I can't UN-know it.

You can ignore it.  You need to be able to compartmentalise your knowledge in order to roleplay.  Otherwise you could never replay a game, because you'd know what was going to happen next.  But your character doesn't know, because he's never lived through these events before, so his decisions - the decisions you make for him when you roleplay him - cannot take this foreknowledge into account.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 juin 2011 - 08:03 .

[Zem_]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is complately wrong.

You can decide, before the line is delivered, how you want to deliver the line.  Then, after the line is delivered, the NPC reacts.

The NPC's reaction is based on the script-writer's intent for the line of dialogue YOU just spoke.  This is an undeniable fact.  Their reaction is usually only logically consistent and explainable given that and whatever other factors influence the player's relationship to that NPC.   This is why they usually take care to ensure that the dialogue in games that only give you text (such as DAO) is not ambiguously written.  It's so that you KNOW what your character is about to say and how they will say it.  This is so you can make an informed decision about how the NPC will react.  Not so you KNOW how they will react, but so that you can at least have the same chance to predict it as you would in any REAL conversation where you know what tone of voice you are delivering a line in.

This is where I can't understand your point of view that tone is mutable.  I KNOW that the line which looks like a compliment IS a compliment and not some sarcastic back-handed insult.  I know this with the same certainty that pressing a particular button on my keyboard will cause my character to cast a fireball.  I have to know that in order to control my character.  And it's got nothing to do with having played the game before.  It is "meta" knowledge only in the same sense that I know what the buttons on my keyboard and mouse do in combat.

[Captain_Obvious]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You can ignore it.  You need to be able to compartmentalise your knowledge in order to roleplay.  Otherwise you could never replay a game, because you'd know what was going to happen next.  But your character doesn't know, because he's never lived through these events before, so his decisions - the decisions you make for him when you roleplay him - cannot take this foreknowledge into account.

With all due respect, please don't presume to tell me how I should be playing a game.  I don't need to be able to compartmentalize my knowledge in order to roleplay.  I need to open the PS3 (or XBox 360, or PC) and put in the game, hit start, create a character, and off I go.  Such is the nature of video games.  What you need in a game and what I need are two different things; what you think I need is irrelevant. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zem_ wrote...

The NPC's reaction is based on the script-writer's intent for the line of dialogue YOU just spoke.  This is an undeniable fact.

Agreed.  And it's also completely irrelevant.  When you're making an in-character decision, you cannot be aware that there is a script-writer.

Their reaction is usually only logically consistent and explainable given that and whatever other factors influence the player's relationship to that NPC.

Why would you expect to be able to explain it, at all?  Unless your PC is a mind-reader, he doesn't know why the NPC reacted as he did.

If I make a joke, and you take it badly, that doesn't tell me anything about the joke I just made.  That tells me about you.  That tells me how you react to that joke.  Why you do that is unknown to me.  It's possibly unknowable to me, since I don't have anything like complete knowledge of your context.  I don't know what relevance that joke has to your values.  I don't know if that joke reminds you of some personal tragedy.  I don't know why you reacted the way you did.  But that you did react that way is information I can file away and use the next time we speak.

This is where I can't understand your point of view that tone is mutable.  I KNOW that the line which looks like a compliment IS a compliment and not some sarcastic back-handed insult.  I know this with the same certainty that pressing a particular button on my keyboard will cause my character to cast a fireball.  I have to know that in order to control my character.  And it's got nothing to do with having played the game before.  It is "meta" knowledge only in the same sense that I know what the buttons on my keyboard and mouse do in combat.

If it's information your character doesn't have, then it's metagame knowledge.

Here's the difference.  You read the options, and you "know" how they're intended to be delivered.  I don't.  I first establish my character's frame of mind, so I know how he feels right then and what his immediate objectives are - and then I read the options to see if any one of them is compatible with that frame of mind.  Then I pick that one.

I don't choose the dialogue option I want.  The character chooses that option - I'm just the mechanism that eliminates the options that contradict his personality.  And since only I know what his personality is, no one else can do that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

With all due respect, please don't presume to tell me how I should be playing a game.  I don't need to be able to compartmentalize my knowledge in order to roleplay.  I need to open the PS3 (or XBox 360, or PC) and put in the game, hit start, create a character, and off I go.  Such is the nature of video games.  What you need in a game and what I need are two different things; what you think I need is irrelevant. 

That you use the terms "roleplay" and "play a game" interchangeably demonstrates that you don't understand my position.

[Captain_Obvious]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

With all due respect, please don't presume to tell me how I should be playing a game.  I don't need to be able to compartmentalize my knowledge in order to roleplay.  I need to open the PS3 (or XBox 360, or PC) and put in the game, hit start, create a character, and off I go.  Such is the nature of video games.  What you need in a game and what I need are two different things; what you think I need is irrelevant. 

That you use the terms "roleplay" and "play a game" interchangeably demonstrates that you don't understand my position.

I understand your position fine.  You argue that because I don't "roleplay" the way you do, that I'm playing the game incorrectly.  I argue that your definition of what is needed to roleplay is irrelevant. 

[MonkeyLungs]

You aren't role playing well if in game decision making is influenced by your own personal out of game knowledge. You don't have to roleplay in rpg's if you don't want to though, you are right on that one. You can just play the game, it's cool like that too. That isn't the same as "role playing" though.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

I understand your position fine.  You argue that because I don't "roleplay" the way you do, that I'm playing the game incorrectly.

It's not incorrect, it's just not roleplaying.

In a roleplaying game.

I am arguing that the roleplaying approach should take precedence from a design standpoint, but you're welcome to play the game however you would like.

[Zem_]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Agreed.  And it's also completely irrelevant.  When you're making an in-character decision, you cannot be aware that there is a script-writer.

This is nonsense.  It's like saying I am unaware that pressing '3' will shoot a fireball.  Selecting dialogue is done by the player, not the character.  I am choosing what my character will say.  I can only make an informed decision about what my character will say if I know what my options are.  Speaking a line in a way not intended by the script-writer is not an option for me.  You think it is, but obviously you and I do not think alike.  There's nothing wrong with that but at least I can admit we have different perspectives.  You still seem to think you're "right" and I'm "wrong" which is either hilarious or sad.  I can't decide which yet.

Why would you expect to be able to explain it, at all?  Unless your PC is a mind-reader, he doesn't know why the NPC reacted as he did.

It doesn't take a mind-reader to explain human behavior.  If I have a good relationship with an NPC companion who I know to be level-headed and sensible then there is absolutely no reason for them to take an honest and sincere compliment as though it had been delivered sarcastically or vice-versa.  There is no good way to explain that reaction other than temporary insanity.  If I say, "Good work, Allistair!" he should not shoot back with, "How can you belittle me like that?!  I thought we were friends."  I can guarantee you I'd be reloading the game at that point thinking it must have glitched during the conversation.

If it's information your character doesn't have, then it's metagame knowledge.

It's nothing more than user interface.  Your character isn't reading dialogue options on a computer screen.  YOU are. Knowing that if I click on a line of dialogue that my character will at least attempt to tell a joke or deliver a compliment is ALL that I am talking about. 

Here's the difference.  You read the options, and you "know" how they're intended to be delivered.  I don't.  I first establish my character's frame of mind, so I know how he feels right then and what his immediate objectives are - and then I read the options to see if any one of them is compatible with that frame of mind.  Then I pick that one.

I don't choose the dialogue option I want.  The character chooses that option - I'm just the mechanism that eliminates the options that contradict his personality.  And since only I know what his personality is, no one else can do that.

I'm not saying you don't.  I'm saying I don't.  Which is why I don't agree with your point of view that voiced protagonists are any sort of hindrance to roleplaying.  I am selecting from a list of options.  I have to know what each of those options represents first.  Then I can choose one.  That's all the control *I* believe I have.  If you are able to imagine you have more control than that... well, how very nice for you.  To me it's nonsense and we are unlikely to ever agree.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zem_ wrote...

It doesn't take a mind-reader to explain human behavior.

It doesn't take a mind reader to describe human behaviour generally.  It abo****ely takes a mind reader to explain individual behaviour, and that's what you're doing.

If I have a good relationship with an NPC companion who I know to be level-headed and sensible then there is absolutely no reason for them to take an honest and sincere compliment as though it had been delivered sarcastically or vice-versa.

And yet, if you knew someone on the real world to be sensible and level-headed, and then he took a comment of yours entirely incorrectly (or so you thought based on your interpretation of the reaction), what would you do?  Would you assume that person was insane?  Or would you think that maybe you'd just been wrong about him being sensible or level-headed?  Or would you wonder what was going on in his life that would cause him to react in that way, given everything else you know about him?

You're saying that the insanity explanation is the only one you would consider.  Really?

There is no good way to explain that reaction other than temporary insanity.  If I say, "Good work, Allistair!" he should not shoot back with, "How can you belittle me like that?!  I thought we were friends."  I can guarantee you I'd be reloading the game at that point thinking it must have glitched during the conversation.

I'd probably think he was joking - that he was feigning offense for comedic effect.  Assuming I thought I knew him well enough not to be actually offended by that.

And really, how well do you know these characters?  In real world terms you've known them for a couple of days (or maybe week).  You've had a few (or several) conversations with them, but the scope of those conversations were limited.  In that short time you can't possibly get to know them so well that you could confidently predict their behaviour.

It's nothing more than user interface.  Your character isn't reading dialogue options on a computer screen.  YOU are. Knowing that if I click on a line of dialogue that my character will at least attempt to tell a joke or deliver a compliment is ALL that I am talking about.

The UI doesn't contain that information.  The UI contains only the text of the option, and since the libne isn't ever voiced or shown to us in our view of the game world, we don't even have concrete evidence that those exact words are used, let alone the tone.

I'm not saying you don't.  I'm saying I don't.  Which is why I don't agree with your point of view that voiced protagonists are any sort of hindrance to roleplaying.  I am selecting from a list of options.  I have to know what each of those options represents first.  Then I can choose one.  That's all the control *I* believe I have.  If you are able to imagine you have more control than that... well, how very nice for you.  To me it's nonsense and we are unlikely to ever agree.

If you're not letting the character make his own decisions, then I don't think you're roleplaying at all.

[Zem_]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It doesn't take a mind reader to describe human behaviour generally.  It abo****ely takes a mind reader to explain individual behaviour, and that's what you're doing.

You're being deliberately obtuse.  All conversation is a game of educated guessing about how someone will respond.  That's all I am talking about.  I am not talking about absolute certainty.  I cannot begin this game however if I don't know what *I* am saying and tone is part of that.  You believe you can decide the tone and I believe that's complete nonsense.  You cannot communicate that tone to the NPC, therefore it is not real to the NPC.

Your argument appears to be that because you can't predict with 100% certainty how someone will react it is okay to pretend you are saying anything you want.  And I am saying this is not how I play nor how I want to play.  To me it is complete lunacy.

And yet, if you knew someone on the real world to be sensible and level-headed, and then he took a comment of yours entirely incorrectly (or so you thought based on your interpretation of the reaction), what would you do?

I'd say, "What?  That was a compliment!  I'm being serious.  Where did that come from?  Are you feeling well?"

And OH LOOK!  I can't do that in the game!  Why?  Because the game does not think anything wrong has happened.  IT thinks I chose an insult and it made the NPC respond in a way consistent with being insulted.  It is not going to give me the option to backtrack or explain myself.  THIS is why I don't mess with what I know is the intended meaning of each dialogue option I am given.  

And really, how well do you know these characters?  In real world terms you've known them for a couple of days (or maybe week).  You've had a few (or several) conversations with them, but the scope of those conversations were limited.  In that short time you can't possibly get to know them so well that you could confidently predict their behaviour.

Imagine that they actually scripted the conversation this way.  You're having a pleasant chat with a companion the game says is quite friendly with you and out of nowhere a completely sincere compliment causes the NPC to act as though suddenly insulted.  And then there is no follow-up option to ask them why they are suddenly upset.  This to you would be completely acceptable?   Why?  I'm not allowed to roleplay that encounter as I would like to.  I am limited by the available dialogue choices.  So no, I cannot roleplay away an inexplicable NPC response. 

Again, I am not talking about unexpected.  I am talking about "inexplicable".  Meaning, there is no reason accessible to me now or EVER in the game to explain why they have acted this way.  It would be different if I try to compliment someone and they react negatively as though I was attempting to flatter them.  THAT at least would be explainable.  They would be acknowledging that I tried to compliment them (which is really what I tried to do) and then rejecting it.  Makes sense.  Not at ALL what I am talking about however.

The UI doesn't contain that information.  The UI contains only the text of the option, and since the libne isn't ever voiced or shown to us in our view of the game world, we don't even have concrete evidence that those exact words are used, let alone the tone.

You pick a dialogue option in DAO and it is assumed that your character has spoken those exact words.  That is how the game was designed.  That is how the NPCs are scripted to react.  I know you know this and all you are doing is "playing outside the box".    What I have repeatedly told you is that I don't do this.  I don't care to do it.  Your reasoning is absolutely meaningless to me because I do not play the game in this weird (to me) way that you do and frankly I doubt very many people do.  I play the game with the assumption that the dialogue lines are the dialogue lines.  That my character is speaking them as they were written and, again, assuming they are not written in an ambiguous tone.

If you're not letting the character make his own decisions, then I don't think you're roleplaying at all.

Then it is good I have no respect for YOUR opinion of what does or does not constitute roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zem_ wrote...

You're being deliberately obtuse.  All conversation is a game of educated guessing about how someone will respond.  That's all I am talking about.  I am not talking about absolute certainty.  I cannot begin this game however if I don't know what *I* am saying and tone is part of that.  You believe you can decide the tone and I believe that's complete nonsense.  You cannot communicate that tone to the NPC, therefore it is not real to the NPC.

I can't know whether the NPC correctly heard my tone, or understood it.  All I know is how he responded.  I take from that what I can, but that's hardly enough information from which to draw conclusions about his state-of-mind.

Your argument appears to be that because you can't predict with 100% certainty how someone will react it is okay to pretend you are saying anything you want.  And I am saying this is not how I play nor how I want to play.  To me it is complete lunacy.

But it's available to you.  It's a way the game can be played, and it's a way the games have always supported until they started voicing the protagonist.

I don't care how you play.  I care about the ways any given player can play, and voicing the PC completely eliminates this playstyle from the list.

I'd say, "What?  That was a compliment!  I'm being serious.  Where did that come from?  Are you feeling well?"

How odd.

I would consider that presumptuous, and I would not do it.  It wouldn't cross my mind.

And OH LOOK!  I can't do that in the game!  Why?  Because the game does not think anything wrong has happened.  IT thinks I chose an insult and it made the NPC respond in a way consistent with being insulted.  It is not going to give me the option to backtrack or explain myself.  THIS is why I don't mess with what I know is the intended meaning of each dialogue option I am given.

That's entirely your fault.  You know the game can only offer you a finite set of actions.  Building a character who is required to act in a very specific way under some circumstances is just setting yourself up for failure.

If you were design a character in reverse to that, where the strong traits simply preclude action rather than require it, you wouldn't have that problem.

You can't decide in advance what your character will do or say, because the game will routinely not offer you that as an option.  But you can decide in advance what your character will not do or say, and thus not choose the option that does that thing.

Imagine that they actually scripted the conversation this way.  You're having a pleasant chat with a companion the game says is quite friendly with you and out of nowhere a completely sincere compliment causes the NPC to act as though suddenly insulted.  And then there is no follow-up option to ask them why they are suddenly upset.  This to you would be completely acceptable?

 
I don't see why it would matter how the conversation had been scripted.  When playing the game, all that matters is what's actually in the game.  What the writers' intent was not only has no material effect, but it's also unknowable.

Again, I am not talking about unexpected.  I am talking about "inexplicable".  Meaning, there is no reason accessible to me now or EVER in the game to explain why they have acted this way.

You can't reasonably expect to be able to explain every phenomenon you encounter.  There are answers you don't have.  That's not likely to change.  If you're only willing to accept behaviour you can explain, then you can't ever accept other people's behaviour.

You cannot have enough information to explain the behaviour of others.

 You pick a dialogue option in DAO and it is assumed that your character has spoken those exact words.

Why?  Why is that assumed?  What difference does it make?

Again, as long as the game can be played as if the dialogue option is an abstraction, why would you insist that this is somehow wrong?

That is how the game was designed.

I see no reason why anyone should care how the game was designed.  How the game actually works is all that matters.

I know you know this and all you are doing is "playing outside the box".    What I have repeatedly told you is that I don't do this.  I don't care to do it.  Your reasoning is absolutely meaningless to me because I do not play the game in this weird (to me) way that you do and frankly I doubt very many people do.  I play the game with the assumption that the dialogue lines are the dialogue lines.  That my character is speaking them as they were written and, again, assuming they are not written in an ambiguous tone.

Right, and my point here is that you're choosing to play that limited role defined by the writers.  That's your choice.  So while you don't suffer when the option to do otherwise is taken away through the inclusion of a voice, some of us do.

And I still don't think what you're doing is roleplaying, because what you're doing prevents you from having perfect knowledge of your character at the moment of creation.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 14 juin 2011 - 05:42 .

[Siven80]

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?

Personally the different race, while initially cool, was overrated by many. Other than a few different dialogues they had little effect on the game once out the very short origins start.

Now for future games i would still like the voiced main character (going back to mute would be like going back to a black and white TV......or 4:3 TV) but with better paraphrasing (It can be done, TW2 has very good paraphrasing), but also have an option to disable the characters voice for those who prefer to make up their own.

Can also have an option to show the full dialogue on a mouseover......but unsure how or if that would work on consoles. But if paraphrasing is good, full dialogue isnt needed tbh.

[happy_daiz]

Siven80 wrote...
...

Personally the different race, while initially cool, was overrated by many. Other than a few different dialogues they had little effect on the game once out the very short origins start.
 

I'd have to agree. Personally, once I found out that only the human noble (Cousland) could marry Alistair, that was it for me. Every playthrough thereafter, I was a Cousland.

I tried out the dalish and city elf, as well as the circle mage origins, too, but never bothered with the dwarf origins. I've read on these forums that the dwarf origins were the best, but still haven't had the desire. I've also read that that was the case with a majority of DAO players - not many wanted to be a cute little dwarf, or they started and abandoned their playthroughs.  Off my tangent.

Anyway, I've said it before, but I prefer the voiced protagonist. It makes conversation a lit more fluid for me if it can sound like an actual chat. I don't recall ever reading my opinions/reactions from a texted script in real life, do you?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Siven80 wrote...

But if paraphrasing is good, full dialogue isnt needed tbh.

It's the voice, I think, that makes the paraphrasing a problem in the first place.  Since the tone is fixed by the VO, the wording becomes even more important, and the paraphrase hides the wording from us.

If we can turn off the voice, I don't care if we can see the full text.

[Sylvius the Mad]

happy_daiz wrote...

Anyway, I've said it before, but I prefer the voiced protagonist. It makes conversation a lit more fluid for me if it can sound like an actual chat. I don't recall ever reading my opinions/reactions from a texted script in real life, do you?

But nor do you have to learn your opinions/reaction from watching or hearing yourself speak.

You should already know what they are before you speak them, so listening to them is redundant.

[L6-636536]

I don't see the difference it would make because honestly after playing DA:O and hearing someone call me a knife-ear and then replaying it with a different race changed knife ear into snob, I felt that the race choices don't mean anything beyond a different ORGIIN point.
I would've preferred more witty awesome pro lines like in DA:O to be voiced though such as the impending beating line and the such.

[maxernst]

The different origins made a huge difference for me because I don't usually start a game with a clear roleplaying concept. The origins, though short, gave me a great introduction to where my character was coming from that informed my gameplay throughout.

A good example was how my Aedan and my Neria dealt with the girl who'd been thrown out by her family for giving birth to the son of a casteless in Orzammar. Aedan persuaded her father to take them in, but Neria counseled her to go to the surface, and both of them believed they were doing the right thing. I made the choices instinctively, but on reflection, I can understand their different reasoning.

As far as witty, the only time so far that Hawke has really made me laugh was when I chose the snarky option to respond to the comment about the women whose bones he had found were dead. I picked sarcastic because I thought it was stating the obvious, but the line about "unless there are some boneless women flopping around somewhere" was so much more inappropriate than I intended.