987 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

However, due to the subvocalization issues that arose during the focus tests for DA 2, they are not putting whole lines back. To elaborate, the focus test group would skip the spoken lines in the cinematic because they've already learned what they needed from reading the line. However, rather than concluding that voicing the character wasn't needed, they bizarrely reached the conclusion that people must be prevented from being exposed to the line before it is delivered, thus reducing the player from making informed choices to make estimate guesses in dialogue.

This is the part I don't understand.  I get that the paraphrase was added to prevent the players from skipping the voiced lines.  But why?  Why does BioWare care if people skip the voiced lines?

And, if BioWare wants so badly to make us listen to the voiced line, why is the option to skip them still in the game?  Wouldn't it have made more sense just to remove that option?

But they didn't, because they don't actually want to stop people from skipping the dialogue.  They can't, or they would have removed the ability to skip ahead during conversations.

So why the paraphrases?  Their explanation doesn't hold water.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 août 2011 - 11:04 .

[Zanallen]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is the part I don't understand.  I get that the paraphrase was added to prevent the players from skipping the voiced lines.  But why?  Why does BioWare care if people skip the voiced lines?

And, if BioWare wants so badly to make us listen to the voiced line, why is the option to skip them still in the game?  Wouldn't it have made more sense just to remove that option?

But they didn't, because they don't actually want to stop people from skipping the dialogue.  They can't, or they would have removed the ability to skip ahead during conversations.

So why the paraphrases?  Their explanation doesn't hold water.

Repetition. Focus groups didn't like reading the line and then having it read back to them. That is the purpose of the paraphrase. Same reason Witcher 2 switched to a paraphrase system.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

I perfer a voiced protagonist in a voiced world.

I can accept a silent protagonist in a silent world and MAYBE in a voiced world if there are a story reason given as too why a character is silent and an interesting way as too way s/he can communicate with others.  

[K_Tabris]

I can connect with a character whose voice is silent, much more than pre-defined characters. But Jennifer Hale and Jo Wyatt do an excellent job with FemShep/Hawke.

[furryrage59]

^

Same here, much moreso in fact. I can't connect with a cinematic that paraphrases words i never intended as opposed to living it through my own imagination and with my own voice.

[LordKinoda]

I can connect with a character whose voice is silent, much more than pre-defined characters.

Hawke is hardly pre-defined. No more so than the characters from DAO. You can't pick your last name in DAO either, no matter what origin you choose. You shape the face of both the Warden and Hawke. You pick their skills the same. Hawke is only human, but that matters very little compared to DAO; the Warden's race is not really mentioned enough for that be significant.

The only BIG difference is the voice. Pre-defined ? No.

But Jennifer Hale and Jo Wyatt do an excellent job with FemShep/Hawke.

Can't agree with this AT ALL. I love alot of Hale's work, most especially Bastila from KOTOR. But her Shepard is just "off". It's not realistic for me. And Wyatt is seriously too high pitched and teenagery, heh. They should of chosen somebody with a similar tone to Joanna Roth (Aveline) IMO.

Same here, much moreso in fact. I can't connect with a cinematic that paraphrases words i never intended as opposed to living it through my own imagination and with my own voice.

Words you never intended ? You didn't write the dialog. So..

Unless you are really bad at catching a meaning from the paraphrase. That's the only way that makes sense. And you can't mean different emphasis on things either. Again, you didn't write it, so you can't know how it was meant to be said.

[Mike3207]

I'm for voiced as long as it doesn't result in losing customization options-if it does, I dont mind silent.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

LordKinoda wrote...

But Jennifer Hale and Jo Wyatt do an excellent job with FemShep/Hawke.

Can't agree with this AT ALL. I love alot of Hale's work, most especially Bastila from KOTOR. But her Shepard is just "off". It's not realistic for me. And Wyatt is seriously too high pitched and teenagery, heh. They should of chosen somebody with a similar tone to Joanna Roth (Aveline) IMO.

That pretty much sums up one of the biggest issues with voicing a protagonist. "This hero doesn't sound like I think he/she should!"

Well...maybe we should go back to a more imaginative medium for telling the story, like text, where all heroes sound exactly like they should because the players read the lines in the perfect voice in their heads.

Bioware even saves money and time outside of the recording studio and can use that money to focus on other areas of the game like not reusing areas, program in some waypoints so people actually walk around Kirkwall to make it look like more than a hundred people live there, add bowstrings to bows and sheathes to weapons so they aren't floating on the backs of characters, add races back to character selection, give depth to player classes instead of restrictions...oh the list goes on! I would trade in a voiced protagonist for any of these things, even if just for bowstrings. I'll just watch a movie if I want to be talked at by someone else's character, witnessing a story. Creative interactivity and the human component adding to a story, steering it in interesting directions are the reasons why roleplaying games appeal to me.

So many developers don't seem to care about this anymore, they just want to make a narrated experience, they want to make a movie. That just sucks. If you want to make movies, go into film. I hope more developers will actually make "video games" again where the most important component is the player's input.

[txgoldrush]

furryrage59 wrote...

^

Same here, much moreso in fact. I can't connect with a cinematic that paraphrases words i never intended as opposed to living it through my own imagination and with my own voice.

They aren't actually paraphrases, they are thought processes. You choose what Hawke thinks, not what she says,

And look, The Witcher 2 has a system just like it.

And really, the dialogue wheel system allows for much more subtle, natural, and colorful language than dailogue trees ever do. You have to be literal so you don't confuse the player. With the wheel, you do not have to be literal.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

That makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would I want to be suprised by what my main character says and does with inaccurate paraphrasing? Having more control over a main character allows a player to have more freedom in the game and allows for (the potential of) more actual plot-based interactivity with the game world as opposed to being stuck behind the fourth wall, watching the puppets on stage do their own thing.

[txgoldrush]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

That makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would I want to be suprised by what my main character says and does with inaccurate paraphrasing? Having more control over a main character allows a player to have more freedom in the game and allows for (the potential of) more actual plot-based interactivity with the game world as opposed to being stuck behind the fourth wall, watching the puppets on stage do their own thing.

once again, thought process, not a paraphrase...

You can't put emotion in a dialogue tree, you can't put subtle or natural language in a dialogue tree, you can't put sarcasm or having a character say one thing in a tone implying another in a dialogue tree, and you can't put body language in a dialogue tree. Dialogue trees have limits in that they have to be literal so you don't confuse the player.

In a voice acted game, this is even more apparant flaw in a dialogue tree like DAO's, Jade Empire's (ouch, I wish Wu the lotus Blossom had a voice), and the two KOTOR's. In fact, the writing is more stilted and literal in those games than in games like ME1 and 2, DAII, TW2, and Alpha Protocol, which use dialogue wheels or similiar to.

Can't do this with the Warden....

Male

Female (same scene at 3:00 as video shows every conversation option)

[Gunderic]

txgoldrush wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

That makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would I want to be suprised by what my main character says and does with inaccurate paraphrasing? Having more control over a main character allows a player to have more freedom in the game and allows for (the potential of) more actual plot-based interactivity with the game world as opposed to being stuck behind the fourth wall, watching the puppets on stage do their own thing.

once again, thought process, not a paraphrase...

You can't put emotion in a dialogue tree, you can't put subtle or natural language in a dialogue tree, you can't put sarcasm

Umm... what? 

[TEWR]

Zanallen wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is the part I don't understand.  I get that the paraphrase was added to prevent the players from skipping the voiced lines.  But why?  Why does BioWare care if people skip the voiced lines?

And, if BioWare wants so badly to make us listen to the voiced line, why is the option to skip them still in the game?  Wouldn't it have made more sense just to remove that option?

But they didn't, because they don't actually want to stop people from skipping the dialogue.  They can't, or they would have removed the ability to skip ahead during conversations.

So why the paraphrases?  Their explanation doesn't hold water.

Repetition. Focus groups didn't like reading the line and then having it read back to them. That is the purpose of the paraphrase. Same reason Witcher 2 switched to a paraphrase system.

That those people of the focus group didn't like it doesn't mean that everyone in the world will feel the same way. If I can still skip the dialogue in DAII even with the paraphrases, removing the actual lines doesn't change anything. It just defeats the point of what Bioware did.

They removed the entire line in favor of the paraphrase so we'd hear the voiced line, but I can still skip over it if I want to. And I have done so. So there is no merit to their argument, because it didn't change anything.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

txgoldrush wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

That makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would I want to be suprised by what my main character says and does with inaccurate paraphrasing? Having more control over a main character allows a player to have more freedom in the game and allows for (the potential of) more actual plot-based interactivity with the game world as opposed to being stuck behind the fourth wall, watching the puppets on stage do their own thing.

once again, thought process, not a paraphrase...

You can't put emotion in a dialogue tree, you can't put subtle or natural language in a dialogue tree, you can't put sarcasm or having a character say one thing in a tone implying another in a dialogue tree, and you can't put body language in a dialogue tree. Dialogue trees have limits in that they have to be literal so you don't confuse the player.

In a voice acted game, this is even more apparant flaw in a dialogue tree like DAO's, Jade Empire's (ouch, I wish Wu the lotus Blossom had a voice), and the two KOTOR's. In fact, the writing is more stilted and literal in those games than in games like ME1 and 2, DAII, TW2, and Alpha Protocol, which use dialogue wheels or similiar to.

Can't do this with the Warden....

Male

Female (same scene at 3:00 as video shows every conversation option)

You have read those ancient paper things called "books" haven't you? They do a fairly good job of using emotion with letters, whether in poetry, novels or plays. And I can think of several ways to make a scene like the one you posted a link to using dialogue trees. Is that scene and how it's played out in DA 2 worth not having elven or dwarven characters and being stuck with a voice that doesn't fit most people's idea of who the main character's personality should be?

And saying that a dialogue tree's handicap of being literal is kind of funny since a fair number of people are annoyed by the vagueness of the paraphrasing in the dialogue wheel system. Sure Hawke gets a little olive branch, drama mask, fist, heart or other icons which reveals intent but the meaning is sometimes utterly lost. I would much rather have the literal line and read it in an appropriate voice/tone supplied by my imagination. I don't need Hawke to speak aloud to dance a silly jig. It's not much of a trade off to get a game with scenes like that while sacrificing character customization and accurate roleplaying dialogue choices. My Wardens sure didn't have all the options I would of enjoyed for them, but they had more variety and freedom than any version of Hawke I tried to make or have seen from others.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Gunderic wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

That makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would I want to be suprised by what my main character says and does with inaccurate paraphrasing? Having more control over a main character allows a player to have more freedom in the game and allows for (the potential of) more actual plot-based interactivity with the game world as opposed to being stuck behind the fourth wall, watching the puppets on stage do their own thing.

once again, thought process, not a paraphrase...

You can't put emotion in a dialogue tree, you can't put subtle or natural language in a dialogue tree, you can't put sarcasm

Umm... what? 

[Diplomatic] To be fair, I think he's referring to ambiguous (and untagged) dialog options.

[Taunt] Man, that's funny. Txgoldrush really didn't think things out when he said that.

[Intelligence] But I've thought about something. A dialog tree refers to the structure of dialog, does it not? Tonal dialog is still done in trees, just presented differently.

[Wisdom] Paraphrases in the sense of a tonal icon and 2-3 words doesn't make a "thought process". A thought process would require something more elaborate and indepth, combining the emotional aspect of what you intend to say and the topical intent of what you mean to say in abstract terms, then condensing that down into a coherent response, whether it be one paragraph or just one line. That sounds a bit like the tonal icons, but the paraphrases make for terrible elaboration points.

[Endurance] It's probably not the best idea to bring these sorts of issues up with txgoldrush though, because he can go for quite a while on this issue once it starts up.

[Luck] I'm just hoping it doesn't.

<Lie> Because we all know that text is a horrible medium for conveying sarcasm, sincerity and meaning.

<Truth> In any case, it's a matter of preference, not an objective difference.

[Charisma] I'm sure a lot of people agree with my side of the equation, but I know there are others who don't.

[Diplomatic] I just hope that when we discuss and make arguments, we try to make good ones and be mindful of those who hold an opposing opinion and recognise, that in this particular issue, it's a matter of preference only.

....

Modifié par mrcrusty, 18 août 2011 - 06:29 .

[Xewaka]

LordKinoda wrote...

To elaborate, the focus test group would skip the spoken lines in the cinematic because they've already learned what they needed from reading the line.

What ? They would click the paraphrased sentence, then hit a button to skip what the protagonist says ? Why the hell would they do that ? They're skipping it because the think they already get the full meaning ? That just cancels out the one of the big reasons for playing the game. I like to listen to the dialog. If they just want to skip along to get to the action bits of the game they are playing the wrong genre. And besides, focus groups are not very accurate judges of how things will go.

No, at first they tested with the full line. When what I described happened, they decided that to prevent people from skipping their expensive VA, they would force the people to listen to it to actually learn the entirety of the dialogue, by hiding said full line behind an insufficient paraphrase.

LordKinoda wrote...
No, because the dialog wheel is there and paraphrasing the actual spoken line. No way you will remember EVERY single line even though you have recorded it previously. And this should only really be done after at least one playthrough so as to avoid spoilers.

Doing it after at least one playthrough would defeat the main point of adding a custom voice. And it would require more time than said playthrough.

LordKinoda wrote...
The stars are class specific dialog options. There is no way to trigger them, they just pop up when they do. Hawke's tone of voice is chosen by your first few dialog choices in the game. It'll either be diplomatic, sarcastic, or aggresive. It's very hard to change it after those first few choices, and it gets cemented after so many choices. Sure the other options are still there to choose that are not in tune with Hawke's tone, but the ones that are have a better chance at succeding.
For example: My Hawke is diplomatic tone. So choosing diplomatic and "good" options (represented by the angel icon thing) have a better chance at succeding than if I choose an aggresive or direct dialog option.
So you see, yes they sort of did it based on something, just not on base statistics.

That's not how the dialogue mechanics works. "Star" choices are not only class specific dialogues, they also represent "main tone" specific dialogues, "opportunity" dialogue choices (such as bluffing to gain access to a warehouse, which can only be done as the first dialogue choice) and "previous continuity nod" dialogue choices. In addition, "personality" dialogue choices have no chance of suceeding or failing, they exist solely to determine Hawke's dominant personality.
And you still cannot track something as simple as "dominant personality" in the character's sheet.

Modifié par Xewaka, 18 août 2011 - 06:12 .

[txgoldrush]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

That makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would I want to be suprised by what my main character says and does with inaccurate paraphrasing? Having more control over a main character allows a player to have more freedom in the game and allows for (the potential of) more actual plot-based interactivity with the game world as opposed to being stuck behind the fourth wall, watching the puppets on stage do their own thing.

once again, thought process, not a paraphrase...

You can't put emotion in a dialogue tree, you can't put subtle or natural language in a dialogue tree, you can't put sarcasm or having a character say one thing in a tone implying another in a dialogue tree, and you can't put body language in a dialogue tree. Dialogue trees have limits in that they have to be literal so you don't confuse the player.

In a voice acted game, this is even more apparant flaw in a dialogue tree like DAO's, Jade Empire's (ouch, I wish Wu the lotus Blossom had a voice), and the two KOTOR's. In fact, the writing is more stilted and literal in those games than in games like ME1 and 2, DAII, TW2, and Alpha Protocol, which use dialogue wheels or similiar to.

Can't do this with the Warden....

Male

Female (same scene at 3:00 as video shows every conversation option)

You have read those ancient paper things called "books" haven't you? They do a fairly good job of using emotion with letters, whether in poetry, novels or plays. And I can think of several ways to make a scene like the one you posted a link to using dialogue trees. Is that scene and how it's played out in DA 2 worth not having elven or dwarven characters and being stuck with a voice that doesn't fit most people's idea of who the main character's personality should be?

And saying that a dialogue tree's handicap of being literal is kind of funny since a fair number of people are annoyed by the vagueness of the paraphrasing in the dialogue wheel system. Sure Hawke gets a little olive branch, drama mask, fist, heart or other icons which reveals intent but the meaning is sometimes utterly lost. I would much rather have the literal line and read it in an appropriate voice/tone supplied by my imagination. I don't need Hawke to speak aloud to dance a silly jig. It's not much of a trade off to get a game with scenes like that while sacrificing character customization and accurate roleplaying dialogue choices. My Wardens sure didn't have all the options I would of enjoyed for them, but they had more variety and freedom than any version of Hawke I tried to make or have seen from others.

Literature can set the conversation up and the tones with words, in ways dialogue trees cannot do (without wasting a huge amount of space). Also in a context of a voice acted cinematic game like Bioware games since KOTOR are, the old dialogue tree just cannot portray feelings and emotions like showing body language and hearing voices do. Even "Elcor/HK" type writing (sticking a feeling before the dialogue sentence) cannot portray emotion like the new way does, show not tell in a cinematic RPG (which even DAO was).

The more the character is customizable, the weaker he is in regards to the story. There is a tradeoff. Look at the Nameless One, he was a set character, JC Denton as well, Geralt of Rivia. Agent Thorton. If it wasn't for the Nameless One being a set character, the story would not be as good. Its a great tradeoff to have a character like Hawke, than an empty emotionless shell like the Warden. And frankly, DAII shows more humanity than DAO or KOTOR ever did. The more there is player freedom, the weaker the story will be. You have to manage this tradeoff, it cannot be ignored.

And at least two games outside Bioware have used a similiar dialogue "wheel" system, The Witcher 2 (just like DAII's conversation, without the wheel) or this variation of it from Alpha Protocol lacking dialogue words entirely. Shows that Biowares formula was successful.

[txgoldrush]

mrcrusty wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

That makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would I want to be suprised by what my main character says and does with inaccurate paraphrasing? Having more control over a main character allows a player to have more freedom in the game and allows for (the potential of) more actual plot-based interactivity with the game world as opposed to being stuck behind the fourth wall, watching the puppets on stage do their own thing.

once again, thought process, not a paraphrase...

You can't put emotion in a dialogue tree, you can't put subtle or natural language in a dialogue tree, you can't put sarcasm

Umm... what? 

[Diplomatic] To be fair, I think he's referring to ambiguous (and untagged) dialog options.

[Taunt] Man, that's funny. Txgoldrush really didn't think things out when he said that.

[Intelligence] But I've thought about something. A dialog tree refers to the structure of dialog, does it not? Tonal dialog is still done in trees, just presented differently.

[Wisdom] Paraphrases in the sense of a tonal icon and 2-3 words doesn't make a "thought process". A thought process would require something more elaborate and indepth, combining the emotional aspect of what you intend to say and the topical intent of what you mean to say in abstract terms, then condensing that down into a coherent response, whether it be one paragraph or just one line. That sounds a bit like the tonal icons, but the paraphrases make for terrible elaboration points.

[Endurance] It's probably not the best idea to bring these sorts of issues up with txgoldrush though, because he can go for quite a while on this issue once it starts up.

[Luck] I'm just hoping it doesn't.

<Lie> Because we all know that text is a horrible medium for conveying sarcasm, sincerity and meaning.

<Truth> In any case, it's a matter of preference, not an objective difference.

[Charisma] I'm sure a lot of people agree with my side of the equation, but I know there are others who don't.

[Diplomatic] I just hope that when we discuss and make arguments, we try to make good ones and be mindful of those who hold an opposing opinion and recognise, that in this particular issue, it's a matter of preference only.

....

Once again...that doesn't give the full picture, not like showing the emotions, facial expressions, body language, or a vocal tone do. Also, the DAO way has the attempted literary clash with the cinematic which breaks immersion. For your way to even have a chance to convey feelings as effective as what they did with the wheel, they would have to write more thurough descriptions how they are going to say it and th eemotions involved.

They ARE thought processes (even if they are partial ones), its what Hawke/Shepard/Geralt is thinking at the time when they say what they say.

[xkg]

txgoldrush wrote...
And at least two games outside Bioware have used a similiar dialogue "wheel" system, The Witcher 2 (just like DAII's conversation, without the wheel) or this variation of it from Alpha Protocol lacking dialogue words entirely. Shows that Biowares formula was successful.

Nice logic but worth nothing. Following it I can name dozen of games that use full dialogue and that would mean - full tree formula is more successful.

txgoldrush wrote...
Once again...that doesn't give the full picture, not like showing the emotions, facial expressions, body language, or a vocal tone do.

That doesn't for YOU. Thank you but I can do fine. Maybe one of us just lacks imagination have you ever thought about that ?

I just wonder - are you ever going to stop stating your personal views and opinions as universal truths?

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

txgoldrush wrote...


The more the character is customizable, the weaker he is in regards to the story. There is a tradeoff. Look at the Nameless One, he was a set character, JC Denton as well, Geralt of Rivia. Agent Thorton. If it wasn't for the Nameless One being a set character, the story would not be as good. Its a great tradeoff to have a character like Hawke, than an empty emotionless shell like the Warden. And frankly, DAII shows more humanity than DAO or KOTOR ever did. The more there is player freedom, the weaker the story will be. You have to manage this tradeoff, it cannot be ignored.

Well this is an opinion thread and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But you do make me wonder at alot of things. The Warden was more customizable yet was DA:O's story worse or better than that of DA 2? Did Hawke have more or less effect on the plot of DA 2 than the Warden in DA:O? To me, my Wardens had more personality and variety since I was allowed to interact with the software more and suspend my disbelief. Also, I thought the writing was better in DA:O since it allowed the player to interact more with how the plot proceeded. DA:O is far from a flawless game, it had alot of room for improvements. But to me, it is a much more inspired effort of a game.

There is great strength in vagueness and suspension of disbelief. It's why reading books will never go out of style as a method of telling a story. When people get specific, it creates limitations. There is a fine line to walk between stating exact deffinitions and allowing your audience to interact with the story. DA 2 was such a dissapointment for me, personally, because it gave up much of the freedoms I could interact with the software on and gave me nothing in return as far as impovement on the story. There was no trade off for me as a gamer, it was just a big minus.

[txgoldrush]

xkg wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
And at least two games outside Bioware have used a similiar dialogue "wheel" system, The Witcher 2 (just like DAII's conversation, without the wheel) or this variation of it from Alpha Protocol lacking dialogue words entirely. Shows that Biowares formula was successful.

a) Nice logic but worth nothing. Following it I can name dozen of games that use full dialogue and that would mean - full tree formula is more successful.

txgoldrush wrote...
Once again...that doesn't give the full picture, not like showing the emotions, facial expressions, body language, or a vocal tone do.

That doesn't for YOU. Thank you but I can do fine. Maybe one of us just lacks imagination have you ever thought about that ?

I just wonder - are you ever going to stop stating your personal views and opinions as universal truths?

a) recent games, not old ones. More new WRPGs are using non traditional dialogue trees, some of them more rleated to Bioware style dialogue wheels.

hard to use imagination when character is shown standing around emotionless. But no, lets continue a techincal limitation. Instead of following blind WRPG dogma, expand your horizons.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Wheels are just UI decoration.

Conversations are still branched out in the if-then-else conditional pattern.

Alpha Protocol, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect, etc, all of them use dialog trees. Just presented differently.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Frilly pastries to be nibbled upon, but without substance, how Bourgeoisie! Dialogue wheels will be all the rage at the Marquis' next palor party.

Mrcrusty is rather inciteful for a souless robot forum goer from a post-apocalyptic future. The structure is similar, the presentation to the player is different though. It's also much easier on the writers to limit the options of the players with a simple presentation like a dialogue wheel.

Modifié par Ryllen Laerth Kriel, 18 août 2011 - 07:59 .

[KLUME777]

txgoldrush wrote...


hard to use imagination when character is shown standing around emotionless. But no, lets continue a techincal limitation. Instead of following blind WRPG dogma, expand your horizons.

Not hard at all actually. My Warden has far more personality, character and depth than Shepherd and Hawke can ever have. I used my imagination that the game allows for.

And i see those freedoms as far better than being able to give a "rallying" speech *cough* cheezy *cough* or some silly jig. And honestly, i don't buy the voice giving a speech crap. I cringe every time Shepherd gives his/her speech, and i much more prefered the speech you gave in KotOR 2 to the Dantooine militia. And if that doesn't work, then what DAO did was fine, which is using an NPC like Alistair or Anora.

Modifié par KLUME777, 18 août 2011 - 08:04 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I think alot of this is the difference between people who are more book oriented and expect interaction with their imaginations and those who expect modern rpgs to be more cinema oriented and basicly feed them all the sensory information without player input. I find both extremes and everything in between can be fun and entertaining, but I tend to prefer the approach that gives me the most creativity and replayability. Voicing a protagonist limits my gaming options from a developer standpoint and a player standpoint. I don't have to hear my protagonist give a rousing speech, especially if the speech can only be said one or two ways. I would much rather read it, act out my character's voice in my head and lend the emotion to make it perfect. Text also frees up the writers to create much more options that aren't tied to lengthly and costly studio sessions with multiple voice actors that will just end up limiting player options for character race or temperment.