400 réponses à ce sujet

[tuppence95]

The differences in the way each of us plays the game is interesting.

I have occasionally played a character as myself, making choices that I (the player) would make in my real life. But I usually will play a role and not try to be myself. It's my chance to be someone completely different, and that's part of the appeal of playing rpgs for me. And I almost never play the same type of character from game to game. To me, it's fun to play naive and young in one game, cynical and sarcastic in the next, aggressive after that. The only role I've had trouble with is playing really evil.

For my style of playing, I found that the voiced character, the personality-based dialogue choices and the friend/rival system worked very well.

[Morroian]

DahliaLynn wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

What does playing a separate character have to do with roleplaying? Who are you to say that I don't get "in character" when roleplaying a voiced PC?

Who am I to say? I am ME of course! This is my own opinion, and you can disagree as this is your right. You and I don't play the same way, and in the end it really comes down to how Bioware digests the feedback of their players.

 The bold part is where we differ. I do the exact opposite. I enjoy creating characters in my own image and playing them as if they were me. That, for me, is a ton of fun, and brings me deeper into the game moreso than any other I have played prior to Origins. 
In your model. you play someone else. In that case having a voiced protag would make perfect sense. (which is probably why you have no problem with it) You can create tons of Hawkes and play them as puppets who react to your wishes. This isn't my own view on how I would like to play and experience a game.

You're not really explaining why playing a totally separate character to yourself is not role playing as you originally contended. I get that you want to self insert to a certain degree but playing a character totally separate to yourself and shaping that character through dialogue and decisions is still role playing. In a 3rd person game I tend to go the 3rd person role playing route like Zjarcal describes. If I wan to play as myself I'd rather it be in a 1st peson game.

Modifié par Morroian, 21 août 2011 - 09:19 .

[xkg]

Morroian wrote...

DahliaLynn wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

What does playing a separate character have to do with roleplaying? Who are you to say that I don't get "in character" when roleplaying a voiced PC?

Who am I to say? I am ME of course! This is my own opinion, and you can disagree as this is your right. You and I don't play the same way, and in the end it really comes down to how Bioware digests the feedback of their players.

 The bold part is where we differ. I do the exact opposite. I enjoy creating characters in my own image and playing them as if they were me. That, for me, is a ton of fun, and brings me deeper into the game moreso than any other I have played prior to Origins. 
In your model. you play someone else. In that case having a voiced protag would make perfect sense. (which is probably why you have no problem with it) You can create tons of Hawkes and play them as puppets who react to your wishes. This isn't my own view on how I would like to play and experience a game.

You're not really explaining why playing a totally separate character to yourself is not role playing as you originally contended. I get that you want to self insert to a certain degree but playing a character totally separate to yourself and shaping that character through dialogue and decisions is still role playing. In a 3rd person game I tend to go the 3rd person role playing route like Zjarcal describes. If I wan to play as myself I'd rather it be in a 1st peson game.

Please just read what Dahlia wrote. He/She never said anythiong about "not roleplaying at all"

DahliaLynn wrote...
not roleplaying as themselves in a characters shoes.

->>> Not roleplaying as themselves - as in - not playing as "YOU" yourself. Instead you are roleplaying more predefined character.
Can you see the difference between that and "not roleplaying at all" ?

The former is 1st person roleplaying and the latter is 3rd person roleplayiing - and I am not talking about the camera view now.

Modifié par xkg, 21 août 2011 - 09:31 .

[jcrusader]

Never voiced.

To me it gives a person a forced personality. I connected with my Warden much more because i was him, so to speak.

[Morroian]

xkg wrote...

Please just read what Dahlia wrote. He/She never said anythiong about "not roleplaying at all"

Look at the development of the conversation:

DahliaLynn wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

There's too big a divide between people who want to watch an interactive movie and people who want to roleplay a character as an interactive experience to find a nice middle ground on this issue.

I love this kind of comment, those of us who want a voiced PC don't want to roleplay... lovely.

I would have to agree with Ryllen that those who choose Voiced are more controlling a separate character and not roleplaying as themselves in a characters shoes. A middle ground would be optimal. 

[DahliaLynn]

To clarify, I did not say people aren't roleplaying. I said as themselves. My main issue is that I feel like I am controlling or puppeteering a voiced character as opposed to choosing lines I read to be said to the NPC. I feel like it's me, regardless of the attitude I roleplay. I can play mean, nice, sarcastic, but I feel like it's me doing the character playing and not another person voicing out things under my control which is what distances me.

[Merilsell]

^
This.

[AmstradHero]

Zjarcal wrote...
What does playing a separate character have to do with roleplaying? Who are you to say that I don't get "in character" when roleplaying a voiced PC?

Morroian wrote...
You're not really explaining why playing a totally separate character to yourself is not role playing as you originally contended. I get that you want to self insert to a certain degree but playing a character totally separate to yourself and shaping that character through dialogue and decisions is still role playing. In a 3rd person game I tend to go the 3rd person role playing route like Zjarcal describes. If I wan to play as myself I'd rather it be in a 1st peson game.

The contention is most certainly not that a voiced protagonist doesn't allow someone to roleplay. The deluge of people who declare DA2 to be trash yet heap endless praise on The Witcher (which I found horrible to even attempt to roleplay) or the Witcher 2 (which I still haven't even attempted because of my bad experiences with the first) for their "depth of roleplaying".

However, I've certainly had a lot of fun roleplaying as Commander Shepard, Hawke and Michael Thorton, all of whom are voiced protagonists. Regardless, it is a fact that a voiced protagonist allows less latitude in the delivery of an individual protagonist dialogue line than an unvoiced one. To deny this is to admit to a personal lack of imagination and roleplaying ability.

Let's take a single example from DAO to prove the point. After The Joining, the player is asked "How do you feel?" by Duncan. One of the responses is "Nothing you said prepared me for that." This is a neutral response in terms of the reaction it will generate, but the number of ways in which players might imagine it being delivered is huge.

The player could be:
* Admiring the unknown levels of bravery of the Grey Wardens,
* Commenting stoically through immense pain,
* Conveying their utter shock, or
* Displaying outrage at Duncan's deception.

I'm sure you can think of many more possible options. Duncan is going to react the same way to every single player, but each player will have delivered the line with the essence of their own unique persona, regardless of whether they are roleplaying themselves or a separate character of their creation.

That's one simple line of dialogue.  Even saying "I'm ready to go" in regards to going to the Tower of Ishal could be said in a myriad of ways by an unvoiced protagonist. With a voiced protagonist, you get a single delivery of that line for all players. With DA2's dominant personality system you might get three possible lines, but that's still far less than myriad of potential inflection and emphasis that might be in the player's mind as to how their character would deliver the line.

Again, this isn't to say that a voiced protagonist is bad. Voiced protagonists offer some great benefits in the presentation of a game, but they also have some drawbacks, and a reduced ability to roleplay is one of them.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 21 août 2011 - 11:29 .

[Vicious]

Voiced.

Silent protagonist is overrated. 90% of the options make no difference anywhere except in the minds of the player, as they generally lead down the exact same dialogue paths.

once you realize that, you also realize that there really is no upside to having a silent protagonist.

All it gives you is the ability to say something 2 or 3 different ways which somehow net the same response. DA:O was a big offender in this.

So sorry, voiced protagonist all the way.

[DahliaLynn]

Playing a game is all about the mind of the player and how you perceive things as a player. NPC reaction is up to the designers on how to improve.

[Tommy6860]

AmstradHero wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
What does playing a separate character have to do with roleplaying? Who are you to say that I don't get "in character" when roleplaying a voiced PC?

Morroian wrote...
You're not really explaining why playing a totally separate character to yourself is not role playing as you originally contended. I get that you want to self insert to a certain degree but playing a character totally separate to yourself and shaping that character through dialogue and decisions is still role playing. In a 3rd person game I tend to go the 3rd person role playing route like Zjarcal describes. If I wan to play as myself I'd rather it be in a 1st peson game.

The contention is most certainly not that a voiced protagonist doesn't allow someone to roleplay. The deluge of people who declare DA2 to be trash yet heap endless praise on The Witcher (which I found horrible to even attempt to roleplay) or the Witcher 2 (which I still haven't even attempted because of my bad experiences with the first) for their "depth of roleplaying".

However, I've certainly had a lot of fun roleplaying as Commander Shepard, Hawke and Michael Thorton, all of whom are voiced protagonists. Regardless, it is a fact that a voiced protagonist allows less latitude in the delivery of an individual protagonist dialogue line than an unvoiced one. To deny this is to admit to a personal lack of imagination and roleplaying ability.

Let's take a single example from DAO to prove the point. After The Joining, the player is asked "How do you feel?" by Duncan. One of the responses is "Nothing you said prepared me for that." This is a neutral response in terms of the reaction it will generate, but the number of ways in which players might imagine it being delivered is huge.

The player could be:
* Admiring the unknown levels of bravery of the Grey Wardens,
* Commenting stoically through immense pain,
* Conveying their utter shock, or
* Displaying outrage at Duncan's deception.

I'm sure you can think of many more possible options. Duncan is going to react the same way to every single player, but each player will have delivered the line with the essence of their own unique persona, regardless of whether they are roleplaying themselves or a separate character of their creation.

That's one simple line of dialogue.  Even saying "I'm ready to go" in regards to going to the Tower of Ishal could be said in a myriad of ways by an unvoiced protagonist. With a voiced protagonist, you get a single delivery of that line for all players. With DA2's dominant personality system you might get three possible lines, but that's still far less than myriad of potential inflection and emphasis that might be in the player's mind as to how their character would deliver the line.

Again, this isn't to say that a voiced protagonist is bad. Voiced protagonists offer some great benefits in the presentation of a game, but they also have some drawbacks, and a reduced ability to roleplay is one of them.

I relate to this very much and very well said with the analogies by the way.. The only contention I have is the one line I highlighted. I cannot tell someone else what role playing means to them, when in fact, the very same table can be turned on me. While I agree with you on all other points, there are those who expereince RP-ing within their own effects. I personally think the VP breaks RP aspects and immersion, if going by what DA2 offered. But most of that was due to the fact that I had so little player agency and it has been apparent from that point, that PA is reduced, sometimes more than just significantly in games with a voiced PC. The cinematics required to use the voice, take away from developing a deeper role paying aspect because dev time is considerably increased with the VP.

[Nefla]

I don't see why multiple races couldn't have the same voice but different dialogue options. They keep changing the accents around anyway.

[Tommy6860]

DahliaLynn wrote...

Playing a game is all about the mind of the player and how you perceive things as a player. NPC reaction is up to the designers on how to improve.

This^ so much .

[Maconbar]

Nefla wrote...

I don't see why multiple races couldn't have the same voice but different dialogue options. They keep changing the accents around anyway.

I would imagine that having an elf, dwarf, and human playthrough all with the same voice would seem odd.

[AmstradHero]

Vicious wrote...
Silent protagonist is overrated. 90% of the options make no difference anywhere except in the minds of the player, as they generally lead down the exact same dialogue paths.

once you realize that, you also realize that there really is no upside to having a silent protagonist.

Except that to many, this is the essence of roleplaying. As I stated above, it allows the player to imagine the character delivering that line as they choose. They are roleplaying a character, with all the nuance of persona, attitude and intonation of voice that entails.

That is the very upside of a silent protagonist that you're missing.

This isn't a positive to you, but that's because you're imagining only a single delivery of any dialogue choice that a voiced protagonist provides, and moreover, you're getting the associated emotion cues in the facial expression, gestures and vocal delivery of the character. For you, that may increase your emotional connection with the game, just as viewers do with a film. There's an emotional connection created by the development of the character on-screen.

With an unvoiced protagonist, the emotional connection is in the player's own mind in how they have the character react to and interact with the world. NPCs react in a consistent manner across the playthroughs of millions of people, but each person has their own individual protagonist nuances.

[Maconbar]

AmstradHero wrote...

Vicious wrote...
Silent protagonist is overrated. 90% of the options make no difference anywhere except in the minds of the player, as they generally lead down the exact same dialogue paths.

once you realize that, you also realize that there really is no upside to having a silent protagonist.

Except that to many, this is the essence of roleplaying. As I stated above, it allows the player to imagine the character delivering that line as they choose. They are roleplaying a character, with all the nuance of persona, attitude and intonation of voice that entails.

That is the very upside of a silent protagonist that you're missing.

This isn't a positive to you, but that's because you're imagining only a single delivery of any dialogue choice that a voiced protagonist provides, and moreover, you're getting the associated emotion cues in the facial expression, gestures and vocal delivery of the character. For you, that may increase your emotional connection with the game, just as viewers do with a film. There's an emotional connection created by the development of the character on-screen.

With an unvoiced protagonist, the emotional connection is in the player's own mind in how they have the character react to and interact with the world. NPCs react in a consistent manner across the playthroughs of millions of people, but each person has their own individual protagonist nuances.

Well said. I think you did a nice job of presenting the key elements of this debate and the advantages that each mode offers.

[AmstradHero]

Tommy6860 wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Regardless, it is a fact that a voiced protagonist allows less latitude in the delivery of an individual protagonist dialogue line than an unvoiced one. To deny this is to admit to a personal lack of imagination and roleplaying ability.

The only contention I have is the one line I highlighted. I cannot tell someone else what role playing means to them, when in fact, the very same table can be turned on me.

A fair call, and that line potentially does come across a little harsh.  As such, allow me to clarify.

I'd argue that roleplaying is essentially the ability to craft a persona of my choosing to go through an adventure. A voiced protagonist offers less flexibility to create a deep and complex personality, because there's not the flexibility of line delivery for everything my protagonists "say".  I'm playing a "role" of my own creation.

WIth a voiced protagonist, I'm playing a "role", but it's more akin to me directing someone else's character. A voiced protagonist feels more like I am combining elements of two or three distinct pre-defined personalities in order to create my own interpretation of the character created by the designers.

I'll bring up the Witcher as a case in point because I never felt like I got to roleplay in that game. I got to choose to be "douchebag Geralt killing person A" or "douchebag Geralt killing person B". By having a pre-defined protagonist with a single pre-defined personality, I got to make choices, but I never got to roleplay. As the player, I was making the choice of what Geralt should do, but he was the one making the decision because whatever choice I made, he was providing the rationale and motivation for that choice.

This is why I favour the unvoiced protagonist in terms of roleplaying depth. For presentation, a voiced protagonist wins hands down over an unvoiced protagonist, and I still love playing well crafted RPGs with voiced protagonists. However, they can never match an unvoiced protagonist in terms of allowing the player freedom to create a character with a complex personality.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 22 août 2011 - 01:00 .

[tuppence95]

I think, what was more important to me in DA2, was the personality choices in the dialogue wheel. I could see playing a silent character again, if we had that ability to make those choices within the dialogue wheel. For me, that's what made roleplaying more enjoyable in DA2, because it gave us the chance to have expression on our character's face.

The expressionless face of our warden characters made it harder for me to roleplay. An example that I just replayed in my current Origins game was when our brand new warden and Alistair were approaching the Tower of Ishal. My city elf was feeling pretty nervous, as she'd never been in a battle before. She became terrified when they learned that the darkspawn had taken over the tower and were blocking the route up to the top where there were to light the beacon. During the cut scene, Alistair had a nice animated moment, and then my elf turned to the camera with a totally blank stare. There was none of the panic that my mind was imagining my character was feeling. Just blankness.



So I guess I really don't care if my character is voiced or not. I'd just like to be able to give her a visual personality that goes along with the one in my mind.

[Zjarcal]

Filament wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Except that to many, this is the essence of roleplaying. As I stated above, it allows the player to imagine the character delivering that line as they choose. They are roleplaying a character, with all the nuance of persona, attitude and intonation of voice that entails.

That is the very upside of a silent protagonist that you're missing.

Considering that it seems pretty clear what intent the line has in context of the conversation and the response it received, I can't say I buy that Sylvius argument about the benefit of the silent protagonist. I'm only imagining the line being delivered in one way because it's only intended to be delivered in one way. The devs have stated as such. That the game allowed people to imagine the lines being delivered in other ways was largely an accident. A serendipitious accident for some players, maybe, but not for me personally.

And no, it's not because I lack imagination. I can imagine other ways a dialog option could be intended to be delivered. But I don't accept those deliveries as having any value when I know the options are not the intended to be delivered that way.

This.

For example in Return to Ostagar, I want to leave Cailan's body in there. I imagine that I say something like "he's dead, there's no point in wasting time, let's move on". I can also imagine that I add a sad tone to it and everything else you want, to make it sound like I'm not disrespecting his memory, but companions will always react shocked and disgusted because everyone interprets what I just said as "hur hur, let the darkspawn keep their trophy".

Just for the record, I'm not sayng it's wrong to imagine whatever you want with the silent PC, but it's something that just doesn't work for me. But I won't criticize anyone who chooses to do that.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 22 août 2011 - 01:16 .

[Dave of Canada]

For me, personally, I'd rather be surprised by the voiced protagonist than be surprised by the non-voiced.

[voiced] You're talking with somebody, you pick a line of dialogue and you're surprised because that isn't what you intended the protagonist to say. However, you're still capable of following the conversation, as the NPC will react to what you've just heard.

[non-voiced] You're talking with somebody, you pick a line of dialogue and you're surprised because that isn't what you intended the protagonist to mean. You're left confused as the thing you meant in jest left the person absolutely pissed or the threat leaves the person chuckling at you. Sometimes a question you ask is completely different than the intended question in your mind (Example: Telling Duncan "What if Fergus is dead?", I thought I'd ask what it would mean if I'd be the sole heir. Though Duncan / Mom / Dad take it differently.)

Hell, I hate picking an "investigate" option with any silent protagonist which advances the conversation.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 août 2011 - 01:28 .

[DahliaLynn]

@tuppence I thoroughly agree with you that blank faces are out of the question. during the times when we do view the PC face in a cutscene, adding an expression the devs decide are appropriate based on previous dialogue choices would be an incredible improvement to the Origins game.

But taking it so far as to have that character voiced, transfers the PC from my character to "some other" character who is following my directions.

@Filament I don't need to imagine a gazillion ways to say a line in order to feel involved or immersion. If the line intent isn't clear, then as I suggested earlier, icons could be added to each dialogue choice to clear things up. I would still feel like I am playing myself whatever roleplay is chosen based on the lines I choose. (It can then be easier to determine the expression on the PC face when met with some extreme situation and viewed third person in a scene.)

The way Origins was designed, it was accepted that the NPC heard me, even though a voice was not heard. I got used to that format as a player, had absolutely no complaints about it, and it felt natural that the NPC was reacting to me and not someone else talking.

Someone else talking means it just isn't me being Hawke and feeling Hawke, but rather pushing buttons for someone else to spit out lines.

Edit: Why would I want the character I'm playing to surprise me? Just about everything Hawke said was news to me. I can't say I didn't enjoy it, but I can say I felt distanced.  And distance tranlslates to less of a connection between Hawke's experiences and mine.

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 22 août 2011 - 01:43 .

[RagingCyclone]

@Dave of Canada I always took those non-voiced scenarios of yours as misunderstandings which happen to people all of the time in all walks of life. Those little things helped me with my immersion. A voiced PC never has misunderstandings which for me is jarring and hurts my immersion. But as has been said many times, people play the game differently with different ideals. To each their own.

Modifié par RagingCyclone, 22 août 2011 - 01:43 .

[Dave of Canada]

RagingCyclone wrote...

@Dave of Canada I always took those non-voiced scenarios of your as misunderstandings which happen to people of the time in allwalks of life. Those little things helped me with my immersion. A voiced PC never has misunderstandings which for me is jarring and hurts my immersion. But as has been said many times, people play the game differently with different ideals. To each their own.

I understand this, though there isn't anything for clarification. If I intended to be mean and he laughed it off, I can't say "IT WASN'T A JOKE" or if I intended to joke and he pissed, I can't be like "Woah, calm down.". There's too many lines which would have to be written just incase.