987 réponses à ce sujet

[Aradace]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...
There is no "pro" to a voiced protag, only disadvantages and restrictions..

What's funny, is that you probably think this statement is a universal fact.  Sorry, but it's not.  That may be your OPINION on the stance but it is certainly not a fact.  Because I happen to feel the exact opposite you do on the matter and that there is no "pro" to a silent protag.  If you're going to have an opinion on the matter, have an opinion.  But dont try and preach this kind of obvious exaggeration and try to pass it off as fact.

I am very aware that it is my opinion, and hoped that would go without my specifically stating as much.

I would really like to understand how it is that anyone can feel they are actually role-playing a character with pre-recorded, canned responses.  I have yet to read a post that helps me to understand that point of view.

And it's interesting that you chose only the first sentence in that paragraph to respond to, and ignored the exposition provided in the rest of the paragraph.

I can RP a fully voiced character just as well as you can RP a silent one.  And I've explained as much to the how in this very thread if memory serves.  Having played through the game literally almost 2 dozen times now, I have a very large amount of the dialog memorized (Hawke especially).  So, if I want to have him to sound a certain way,  I can do so by using said voice/accent with said accompanied line.  If the sarcastic/diplomatic/whatever line isnt in the ball park of what I would want that particular Hawke to say, I ad lib a line (because Im good like that) in that is more appropriate.

Point is, a voiced protag can be just as easily RP'd as a silent one but the purists refuse to see and/or even acknowledge this.  Some may even argue "Well, if you're going to ad lib lines why not just go silent protag to begin with".  Which is a point of sorts I suppose, but I can also flip that back in reverse and ask them "Why cant you just do what I do?"  I dont do this all the time mind you, because alot of times I like to go with the VO that is provided.  But when Im in a particularly "RP'ing" mood, I do it.  

The voiced protag is not restricting or limiting.  The only restriction and/or limitation is the one you place on yourself that does not allow you to simply voice in your own lines of dialog.  And I laugh now when people try to use the "People who like voiced are simply unimaginative".  To which I laugh and give this particular scenario.  Because you know what?  In truth, Im being more imaginitive than they are by not limiting my mind to what I see and hear on a screen.  If I want the character to have a different line of dialog, I act/speak it out like I would if I were playing a silent character.  "Thats too distracting with the voice of the character..." Really?  It's not for me.  Im sorry your mind, again, is limited by what you see and hear on a screen.  Mine, however, is not.  I honestly dont know how I can put it any clearer than that.  

[jbrand2002uk]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...
There is no "pro" to a voiced protag, only disadvantages and restrictions..

What's funny, is that you probably think this statement is a universal fact.  Sorry, but it's not.  That may be your OPINION on the stance but it is certainly not a fact.  Because I happen to feel the exact opposite you do on the matter and that there is no "pro" to a silent protag.  If you're going to have an opinion on the matter, have an opinion.  But dont try and preach this kind of obvious exaggeration and try to pass it off as fact.

I am very aware that it is my opinion, and hoped that would go without my specifically stating as much.

I would really like to understand how it is that anyone can feel they are actually role-playing a character with pre-recorded, canned responses.  I have yet to read a post that helps me to understand that point of view.

And it's interesting that you chose only the first sentence in that paragraph to respond to, and ignored the exposition provided in the rest of the paragraph.

Obviously its one of those days where your typing without thinking again blinded by your unbending, unswerving passion for a silent RPG even in DAO the dialog was pre recorded and canned you just couldnt hear it through your speakers it seems silent protags are a thing of the past and rightly so as its getting very old and very tired and its time for a change before the genre stagnates itself with rose tinted tradition, if your unhappy with the direction RPG's are taking well frankly thats just tough dont fret though go read one of the many DA books if you yearn for the old days 

[GodWood]

The only way I can properly 'roleplay' a voiced protaganist is if I completely ignore the PC's voice and dialogue and then substitute it with a voice and dialogue of my own choosing.
So really, for me, a voiced protaganist is nothing but a waste of valuable resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

If Bioware is going to continue with their trend of voiced protaganists they should just stop dicking around and give us a defined character ala Geralt and Adam Jansen.

jbrand2002uk wrote...
Obviously its one of those days where your typing without thinking again blinded by your unbending, unswerving passion for a silent RPG

Obviously its one of those days where your typing without thinking again blinded by your unbending, unswerving passion for a voiced protaganist.

Modifié par GodWood, 01 octobre 2011 - 02:30 .

[Chun Hei]

I would not mind more "silent" RPG heroes but I did not like the fact that everyone else had a voice in DA:O and the Warden did not. The Warden had to stand by like a mute carnival robot while Oghren (Oghren!?!?) gave the big speech nominating the Dwarven king and s/he was barely a backdrop in the grand speech rallying the troops before the final battle. If the hero is silent then so should the other characters. I still enjoy my old school Final Fantasy games.

[Atakuma]

If Bioware is going to continue with their trend of voiced protaganists they should just stop dicking around and give us a defined character ala Geralt and Adam Jansen.

Yes, lets encourage bioware to offer less choice. <_<

[txgoldrush]

Aradace wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...
There is no "pro" to a voiced protag, only disadvantages and restrictions..

What's funny, is that you probably think this statement is a universal fact.  Sorry, but it's not.  That may be your OPINION on the stance but it is certainly not a fact.  Because I happen to feel the exact opposite you do on the matter and that there is no "pro" to a silent protag.  If you're going to have an opinion on the matter, have an opinion.  But dont try and preach this kind of obvious exaggeration and try to pass it off as fact.

Regarding Pasquale's comment above......

Silent customizable protagonists also have huge disadvantages....they are less attached to the story, everything has to be fresh and new in the world to them, and are less likely to have past character development. They mostly lack character development as well.

In fact, "Lonesome Road" exposes a huge writing flaw for Fallout New Vegas, the Courier him or herself.....see, the Courier did something in the past, but it is never explained in the game itself, and only in the DLC does his or her past matter. However, it felt very forced because at this point, the courier is you, a blank slate character, but in Lonesome Road, he or she becomes a character with a past that YOU don't know about. Not only his or her role in the Divide but the fact that she or he is from NCR. It shouldn't be a mystery aspects of the protagonist you should already know.

[txgoldrush]

Atakuma wrote...

If Bioware is going to continue with their trend of voiced protaganists they should just stop dicking around and give us a defined character ala Geralt and Adam Jansen.

Yes, lets encourage bioware to offer less choice. <_<

choice =/= better...

In fact, I wish Ladlaw would just give in and make is favorite character DAIII's protagonist.

[Foolsfolly]

In fact, "Lonesome Road" exposes a huge writing flaw for Fallout New Vegas, the Courier him or herself.....see, the Courier did something in the past, but it is never explained in the game itself, and only in the DLC does his or her past matter. However, it felt very forced because at this point, the courier is you, a blank slate character, but in Lonesome Road, he or she becomes a character with a past that YOU don't know about. Not only his or her role in the Divide but the fact that she or he is from NCR. It shouldn't be a mystery aspects of the protagonist you should already know.

I really dislike Lonesome Road's past story because of that.

It was forced and weird. And in the end you only have vague understandings of what you did that caused all this. I feel that, perhaps, if a thing from our past was supposed to have a huge consequence then maybe we should have done something in the game that had a lasting consequence. Then it's based off of something WE did and not something we were told we did... but no one remembers (including the character judging by the dialogue options).

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Atakuma wrote...

If Bioware is going to continue with their trend of voiced protaganists they should just stop dicking around and give us a defined character ala Geralt and Adam Jansen.

Yes, lets encourage bioware to offer less choice. <_<

Hah, well at least the quality of the dialogue would increase with a more pre-defined PC. A major factor in how I really thought DA 2 came across as a weak game was that the main character was such a bland protagonist. If you voice a protagonist, you need to make the character interesting and compelling because the software developer is limiting player customization options and roleplay style when voicing that PC. If the main character is voiced and still is bland, without any major story archs or decision points to make then there is just a very pale gray experience in the end. I really could care less for Hawke. Either go full Geralt-main protagonist and lose the gender options in favor of defining your character or go silent protagonist and open up your dialogue, story and PC customization options to the players.

One problem though is that a great story with a set character is a game I might play twice or maybe three times whereas a good story with a flexability in plot and character creation is a game I might play six or ten times. Playing a game more often and longer creates brand loyalty in most people because the product is considered more valuable. I think the balance for DA 2 was way out of whack. Either make a more compelling main character or give back player creativity. Hawke was a terrible protagonist to me with very little player choice to determine customization.

[Pasquale1234]

Aradace wrote...
Point is, a voiced protag can be just as easily RP'd as a silent one but the purists refuse to see and/or even acknowledge this.  Some may even argue "Well, if you're going to ad lib lines why not just go silent protag to begin with".  Which is a point of sorts I suppose, but I can also flip that back in reverse and ask them "Why cant you just do what I do?"  I dont do this all the time mind you, because alot of times I like to go with the VO that is provided.  But when Im in a particularly "RP'ing" mood, I do it.

I *can* do what you do, but then have to deal with the reality of shifting back and forth from being into the game as it is presented (via video and sound) to ignoring parts of it so I can ad lib / re-imagine over something that just played, to being back into what is presented to receive the reply, etc.  It is, however, hugely detrimental to my enjoyment of a game - especially when there is a much simpler solution - not voicing the protag in the first place.

Chun Hei wrote...
I would not mind more "silent" RPG
heroes but I did not like the fact that everyone else had a voice in
DA:O and the Warden did not. The Warden had to stand by like a mute
carnival robot while Oghren (Oghren!?!?) gave the big speech nominating
the Dwarven king and s/he was barely a backdrop in the grand speech
rallying the troops before the final battle. If the hero is silent then
so should the other characters. I still enjoy my old school Final
Fantasy games.

You're not the only one who has expressed this sentiment.  I don't find it troublesome, though - I expect NPCs to behave according to their programming, and I fill in the blanks in role-playing the protag.

txgoldrush wrote...
Silent customizable protagonists
also have huge disadvantages....they are less attached to the story,
everything has to be fresh and new in the world to them, and are less
likely to have past character development. They mostly lack character
development as well.

Yeah, right.  What a sad disadvantage it is to have to play through a protag's origins and experience their background stories and have to do all the work of actually figuring out who this character is so that you can experience the world, the story, the other characters through their eyes and from the perspective they would have.  I just can't imagine why anyone would want to do that in a role-playing game. 

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
A major factor in how I really
thought DA 2 came across as a weak game was that the main character was
such a bland protagonist. If you voice a protagonist, you need to make
the character interesting and compelling because the software developer
is limiting player customization options and roleplay style when voicing
that PC. If the main character is voiced and still is bland, without
any major story archs or decision points to make then there is just a
very pale gray experience in the end.

I had a similar experience with Hawke.  No motivation, no goals or objectives, nothing...  Any motivation I could create for the character was pretty much wiped out by the middle of Act 2, and I had no real reason to want to continue playing the game.  I tend to be goal-oriented, driven by a desire to accomplish something (and take great satisfaction in achieving), so epic storylines are much more appealing to me than day to day grindfests.

[KLUME777]

Chun Hei wrote...
I would not mind more "silent" RPG
heroes but I did not like the fact that everyone else had a voice in
DA:O and the Warden did not. The Warden had to stand by like a mute
carnival robot while Oghren (Oghren!?!?) gave the big speech nominating
the Dwarven king and s/he was barely a backdrop in the grand speech
rallying the troops before the final battle. If the hero is silent then
so should the other characters. I still enjoy my old school Final
Fantasy games.

I don't find this a problem. To me, my Warden is not a silent mute at all, because the character speaks and be's a character in my head. However i do find it a problem that Bioware doesn't let the silent protagonist give a speech. It was done before in Kotor 2 and it was much better than any speech Mass Effect did. I find Shepard's speeches overly cheesy and it doesn't feel like my character. But i don't mind when other characters like Allistair, Anora or that Salarian in ME1 etc. give a speech, i just think that the silent is able to give one as well.

[csfteeeer]

txgoldrush wrote...

Silent customizable protagonists also have huge disadvantages....they are less attached to the story, everything has to be fresh and new in the world to them, and are less likely to have past character development. They mostly lack character development as well.

I'm sure that the People who wrote Planescape Torment would love to hear that.

Modifié par csfteeeer, 03 octobre 2011 - 01:04 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Eterna5 wrote...

I prefer a voiced protagonist.

Silent ones seems emotionless and they always have such creepy blank stares.

Incorrect.
A silent protagonist can have all the facial animations you want to give him. The devs didn't give him those in DA:O, but you cna add them easily.

If you want to test it out, record the sentances, generate the facial animation for them, then replace the sound files with blanks. You'll get a Silent Protagonist that opens his mouts and emotes, but doesnt' speak.

[gonzalez.melissa53]

I love vioced but my warden had so many more options : /

[Feanor_II]

As long as I can have both...... I mean, I'm fine with ME with it's dialogue wheel and cnimatic style, but I also want to have other alternatives in other games, not all the games have to be cast in the same mold, so I wouldn't mind sacrificing voice acting and cinematic style in some cases in favour of:
- More dialogue depth, options and branches
- More character customization (race, gender, age.....) which would be to much variables to fit only by a single voice actor.

For Dragon Age this 2nd option is the one I want.

Modifié par Feanor_II, 03 octobre 2011 - 08:27 .

[Celtic Latino]

I like the voiced protagonist because it gives more depth into my character. The silent protagonist to me is just selecting from a bunch of lines while he or she just stands there like a lifeless doll. The voiced protagonist moves with his or her speech, shows emotion in his or her face, and actually feels like a character in the game rather than a simple avatar that just happens to find him or herself in the mess.

It's just a personal opinion though. Doesn't make games with the silent protagonist bad...I just like the voiced protagonist better. Mass Effect spoiled me with that. : )

[Celtic Latino]

Chun Hei wrote...

I would not mind more "silent" RPG heroes but I did not like the fact that everyone else had a voice in DA:O and the Warden did not. The Warden had to stand by like a mute carnival robot while Oghren (Oghren!?!?) gave the big speech nominating the Dwarven king and s/he was barely a backdrop in the grand speech rallying the troops before the final battle. If the hero is silent then so should the other characters. I still enjoy my old school Final Fantasy games.

On that note we can just go the whole silent party route and play Icewind Dale or Temple of Elemental Evil...not that I mind because those games were fantastic. Customizable party for the win! : ) Just had to throw that in there. 

[Lunar Savage]

Foolsfolly wrote...

In fact, "Lonesome Road" exposes a huge writing flaw for Fallout New Vegas, the Courier him or herself.....see, the Courier did something in the past, but it is never explained in the game itself, and only in the DLC does his or her past matter. However, it felt very forced because at this point, the courier is you, a blank slate character, but in Lonesome Road, he or she becomes a character with a past that YOU don't know about. Not only his or her role in the Divide but the fact that she or he is from NCR. It shouldn't be a mystery aspects of the protagonist you should already know.

I really dislike Lonesome Road's past story because of that.

It was forced and weird. And in the end you only have vague understandings of what you did that caused all this. I feel that, perhaps, if a thing from our past was supposed to have a huge consequence then maybe we should have done something in the game that had a lasting consequence. Then it's based off of something WE did and not something we were told we did... but no one remembers (including the character judging by the dialogue options).

See, that's not the point. The reason things are left ambiguous are so that the player has some roleplaying options. The players is left to decide the whys, whens, and wheres of the courier's past.

The reason they don't give many dialog options that prove why the courier remembers this, is because to him, it was just another delivery OR he somehow has amnesia. Which choice this is, is left up to the player. Or perhaps even a differen choice where it was this big thing, but once the job was done, you walked away and never knew about what happened, other than that the divide had been seriously messed up. And you discover later that even the smallest of your actions can have big results (like the destruction of the divide).

I really loved Lonesome Road, because it allowed you to form a better backstory for your character on your own. Plus, I think Ulysses is one of the more unique antagonists to be presented in a while.

[Morroian]

Celtic Latino wrote...

On that note we can just go the whole silent party route and play Icewind Dale or Temple of Elemental Evil...not that I mind because those games were fantastic. Customizable party for the win! : ) Just had to throw that in there. 

I agree, if the PC is silent then it is best if all characters are as well.

[Morroian]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Incorrect.
A silent protagonist can have all the facial animations you want to give him. The devs didn't give him those in DA:O, but you cna add them easily.

But the chief advantage of a silent PC is that the player can imagine a tone, if you add in animations reflecting a specific tone then this advantage somewhat nullified. What should happen IMHO is that games with a silent PC shouldn't do cinematics at all, no close ups.

[AlexXIV]

You can do a silent protagonist like in fallout. The camera always zooms to the person you talk to, so see them in close up first person. It's a bit cheap way to do it though, but it is all left to your imagination. I really don't want to see my character talk without hearing a word. That's silly.

[Urazz]

Morroian wrote...

Celtic Latino wrote...

On that note we can just go the whole silent party route and play Icewind Dale or Temple of Elemental Evil...not that I mind because those games were fantastic. Customizable party for the win! : ) Just had to throw that in there. 

I agree, if the PC is silent then it is best if all characters are as well.

Agreed!  That was one of the things about DA:O I didn't like.  It felt awkward having conversations with party members this way.

Hell, you had alot more ways the party and hero interact with each other and in conversations with NPCs with the voiced protaganist.  That was one thing I loved about Hawke being voiced in DA2.

[GodWood]

Urazz wrote...
Hell, you had alot more ways the party and hero interact with each other and in conversations with NPCs with the voiced protaganist.  That was one thing I loved about Hawke being voiced in DA2.

I assume you're talking about Hawke participating in party banter.

I hated this. Control of what the PC says and how they interact with characters should never be taken away from the player.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Yeah, to me, it ceases to be my character when the PC starts randomly blurting out dialogue which I have no interaction in selecting the direction of. It ceases to be a game and is more of just a cinematic. I had no attachment to Hawke outside of the character creation screen and even then I was cursing the fact that I couldn't make a dwarf or elf.

Including the PC in party banters may seem like a small thing to most people, but to me it's waving a flag in my face that says "this is not your character, you are not playing a role in our game!"

If I'm not creating a unique character nor steering a pre-defined character through the game the entire time. Am I really playing a roleplaying game or is it more of a role-observation-game with a shiny awesome button to keep me distracted? Granted, all computer games have limitations for roleplay, but it would be nice to at least steer a character through the game instead of being a witness to interactions and big decisions made by other characters.

[Morroian]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Yeah, to me, it ceases to be my character when the PC starts randomly blurting out dialogue which I have no interaction in selecting the direction of. It ceases to be a game and is more of just a cinematic.

It wasn't random and it wasn't that often, certainly not often enough to completely invalidate a character. Heck Jensen in DEHR goes off on tangents quite often just using the players choice as a starting point, as does Geralt from what I've seen.