987 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Joy Divison wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nope.. She means you can set the tone. You don't change what is said - you change HOW it's said.

1) Thank you your majesty (polite)
2) Thank you your majesty (sarcastic)
3) Thank you your majesty (snide)
4) Thank you your majesty (pridefull)

Now, the person you're talking to will always react the same - he will pick one interpretation. But people in real life often don't get your tone either, so that is not an issue.
At no point does the game directly conflict that my warden was polite/sarcastic/whatever

When it comes to a voiced protagonist, the game does in fact tell you in detail.

With a voiced protagonist you have to work agaisnt the game. With a silent one, you don't.

This still doesn't work. You said it yourself - "the person you're talking to will always react the same"

If I'm snide to King Cailen and he reacts as if I was polite, that breaks immersion and is just as bad as saying crap I didn't want to say.

Try a field experiment to get my point.  Intentionally speed pass a dozen or so cops on an interstate and when they ask, "Do you know why I pulled you over?"  try 6 snide remarks and try 6 polite remarks and see how that works out for you.

I bolded the important part for you, which you seem to miss.

People often get the wrong idea in real life. Happens to me often enough. You're begin sarcastic, people think you serious. You're beign serious, people think you're telling a joke.

So the NPC respose doesn't tell anything about the PC, it tells how the NPC understood what the PC was saying.
So no, there is no direct conflict there, as your'e still free to shape the PC as you want.

With a voiced protagonist you can't do that. You KNOW the tone the PC speaks in. You cannot change it. The game tells you directly "Hawke is sarcastic".

[seraphymon]

LordKinoda wrote...

Its not a fact. want to know why? because it can work with silent protag too, it would be simple to just add the icon or something in paranthesis saying or somethign that says this line represents this tone or in this matter. All voice does in a game is hearing the person speak, and hearing the actual emotion.

Agreed. But that's not the argument in this particular instance is it ? Adding an icon to represent the tone of the given line does show what is intended. But if one were to do that, why would you want to keep the character silent at all ? Having them voiced negates having to include the icon in the first place. They did both for DA2, but I'll still always feel that BOTH are not necessary. Others will disagree because they are incapable of discerning intent from the paraphrases.

Well for me the paraprhase system did suck. It was a crapshoot alot of times of interepreting what would be said, so because of that i would say the tone or being nice mean or funny  icon was sort of essential at times. As to why keep it silent otherwise. There are other reasons people prefer silent types, from being better immersive for them, to not liking the voice chosen for the protag. Regardless in both games character seem to react different than expected for people. For me i didnt have that problem really in DAO but  i did for DA2, for some others it is the opposite.

The point is you can achieve tone with a silent protag if what you wanted is the expectation of the persons reaction to what you pick. Since you claim a person will always understand to a degree just by the tone of your response.

[Ponendus]

LordKinoda wrote...

Its not a fact. want to know why? because it can work with silent protag too, it would be simple to just add the icon or something in paranthesis saying or somethign that says this line represents this tone or in this matter. All voice does in a game is hearing the person speak, and hearing the actual emotion.

Agreed. But that's not the argument in this particular instance is it ? Adding an icon to represent the tone of the given line does show what is intended. But if one were to do that, why would you want to keep the character silent at all ? Having them voiced negates having to include the icon in the first place. They did both for DA2, but I'll still always feel that BOTH are not necessary. Others will disagree because they are incapable of discerning intent from the paraphrases.

For me, its because I have rarely ever heard a voice actor that fits the character I am trying to play. Hawke's voice was not what I wanted for my Hawke... the absolute worst I have ever heard is Geralt in The Witcher, just nothing like what I want my character to be, and because of that, I have no choice, and I can't bring myself to finish the game. I don't like the guy, so why would I care?

If you have a voiced protagonist, you force the player into accepting that one voice, no options, that's it. If you keep them silent, the options are much more plentiful and the chance to be creative is higher (not endless, just higher). To me, role-playing is about providing options; everytime something is implemented to remove that it lessens the quality of the game as an rpg in my eyes.

[Ponendus]

Another thought is that I suspect Bioware knows that a voiced protagonist limits options for role playing. The evidence being that they did provide us with multiple voices for our character to choose from for the 'combat' dialogue in DAO. I think that they know that those options are the best way to provide players with a more choice-centered traditional roleplaying experience. This is why I believe the intention was for DA2 to simply not be that but rather to be more of an 'interactive story' or something. This is fine of course if you like that type of game (I personally don't enjoy it much), I just hope they clarify their underlying intent a bit better next time so we all know what to expect.

[LordKinoda]

For me, its because I have rarely ever heard a voice actor that fits the character I am trying to play. Hawke's voice was not what I wanted for my Hawke

This is one of the reasons I've advocated adding a mod or feature where you could insert your own voice for the protagonist. Who knows if this would sate the displeasure of the 'for silent' crowd or not. Probably not, assuming that a large portion of you are probably bad voice actors on top of it all ;P

I bolded the important part for you, which you seem to miss.

People often get the wrong idea in real life. Happens to me often enough. You're begin sarcastic, people think you serious. You're beign serious, people think you're telling a joke.

Au contraire mon frere, I got exactly what you meant. Sometimes people do misundertand each others tone's. But for me personally, this isn't a huge issue. Rarely do people not get what I intend. Perhaps I am better at indicating my intent in my own conversations ? Regardless. People correctly discern the tone and intent of conversation and/or spoken line of dialog way more often than NOT. Misunderstandings are inevitable, but still unlikely. So your arugment doesn't hold much credence for me.

[reallybigbadbob]

I prefer silent. I personally cannot stand the male Hawke's voice. It annoys the hell out of me. Also, I'm willing to bet that alot of people hit esc during the dialog anyways....

[Ponendus]

LordKinoda wrote...

For me, its because I have rarely ever heard a voice actor that fits the character I am trying to play. Hawke's voice was not what I wanted for my Hawke

This is one of the reasons I've advocated adding a mod or feature where you could insert your own voice for the protagonist. Who knows if this would sate the displeasure of the 'for silent' crowd or not. Probably not, assuming that a large portion of you are probably bad voice actors on top of it all ;P

Ha! This is probably very true!

Having said that, I would love such a mod, or feature, and would probably give it a try, although I think most people don't feel the need to go to that much trouble to get the experience. Having a good imagination is what makes roleplaying enjoyable - it's just so hard to use it when one's imagination is replaced by a voice actor...

[Pasquale1234]

LordKinoda wrote...

You are just shooting yourself in the foot here. That's what TONE means. HOW you SAY it. Not how you INTERPRET it.  People ALWAYS get how you SAY something. (Let's leave idiosyncratic misunderstandings out of this because no game has ever gone into so much detail). That's what the TONE of dialog does. Slient  CANNOT do this. Period.

Not quite sure exactly what sorts of limitations you're trying to put on the silent protag here - but every line of text dialogue does seem to have an implied general tone, which determines how the NPC (and game world) responds to it.

LordKinoda wrote...
But it is a FACT that a voiced protagonist can CLEARLY portray the tone of a dialog line and a silent one CANNOT.

Except that:
a) With a voiced protag, you are limited to however the VA delivered the line, which cannot convey all of the nuances of the character you might wish to role-play.  For example: In a flirt line, the protag might be nervous, anxious, shy, calculating, spontaneous, coy, self-conscious, confident, bold, serious, casual, adventurous, eager, hesitant, insecure, considerate, demanding, insistent, or any of a host of other things in their approach to romance.  Your protag might also use different phrasing, like the examples I provided in an earlier post.  S/he might blurt out the entire line or say it slowly with several pauses, searching the NPC's eyes for a reaction before s/he continues.  The general tone may be flirtatious, but there are many different ways to be flirtatious.  You cannot do any of that with a pre-packaged, pre-recorded voice.

For the silent protag, the text dialogue lines typically have an implied general tone built into them, which determines how the NPCs (and game world) react.  And the player can supply any nuances in personality or delivery.

If you are satisfied with the limitations placed on you by a voiced protag complete with cinematics, have at it.  Some of us prefer greater latitude in our role-playing.

LordKinoda wrote...
This is one of the reasons I've advocated adding a mod or feature where you could insert your own voice for the protagonist. Who knows if this would sate the displeasure of the 'for silent' crowd or not. Probably not, assuming that a large portion of you are probably bad voice actors on top of it all ;P

I don't see any point in it, as I would expect you would then be hearing your voice coming out the speakers while watching whatever cinematic animations were provided by the developer.  How would it help to have your voice coming out of the speakers?  All it would do is add to the "interactive movie" feel of a game, and still make you feel more like the director than the actual actor who is in the scene.

And cheap shots don't improve your argument.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:48 .

[Pygmali0n]

Silent for me.

I agree with Pasquale. Written text is FAR more versatile than a fixed recording of the voice actor's interpretation. If written properly, lines will be full of meaning. There will be an obvious choice but, like so many different stagings of Shakespeare, there will be different meanings available and enhanced meanings - and not only meaning, but, for want of a better word, flavour.

Male Hawke felt like he was talking down to everyone around him and the player. Like I've said before, he had the tone of a children's story narrator.

Modifié par Pygmali0n, 07 octobre 2011 - 02:12 .

[Joy Divison]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I bolded the important part for you, which you seem to miss.

People often get the wrong idea in real life. Happens to me often enough. You're begin sarcastic, people think you serious. You're beign serious, people think you're telling a joke.

So the NPC respose doesn't tell anything about the PC, it tells how the NPC understood what the PC was saying.
So no, there is no direct conflict there, as your'e still free to shape the PC as you want.

With a voiced protagonist you can't do that. You KNOW the tone the PC speaks in. You cannot change it. The game tells you directly "Hawke is sarcastic".

I did not miss it. 

- You are exaggerating how often people "get the wrong idea" in face to face communication.
- A game which constantly has NPCs miscontruing what I say is worse than having limited options of what to say
- You are still restricted in how to act.  If the only way "Thank you your Majesty" will successfully convey my feelings is to be sarcastic, what if I don't want to be sarcastic?

You may feel that doing the writer's job in formulating an appropriate response and having NPCs get the wrong idea through the course of the game is an enjoyable experience, well, that's your perogative, but they do not overcome the limitations nearly as well as you think they do.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 08 octobre 2011 - 02:55 .

[LordKinoda]

a) With a voiced protag, you are limited to however the VA delivered the line, which cannot convey all of the nuances of the character you might wish to role-play. For example: In a flirt line, the protag might be nervous, anxious, shy, calculating, spontaneous, coy, self-conscious, confident, bold, serious, casual, adventurous, eager, hesitant, insecure, considerate, demanding, insistent, or any of a host of other things in their approach to romance. Your protag might also use different phrasing, like the examples I provided in an earlier post. S/he might blurt out the entire line or say it slowly with several pauses, searching the NPC's eyes for a reaction before s/he continues. The general tone may be flirtatious, but there are many different ways to be flirtatious. You cannot do any of that with a pre-packaged, pre-recorded voice.

For the silent protag, the text dialogue lines typically have an implied general tone built into them, which determines how the NPCs (and game world) react. And the player can supply any nuances in personality or delivery.

Heh. Really can't see how you can lead with A then that B. You are contradicting yourself.

Implied general tone. Exactly what I've been saying all along. Imposing idiosynratic tones onto a line is only something that is done in your own mind. It's never expressed or reacted to in the game either by the Warden or the NPCs. Whereas a voice character, CAN. Is it more limited and scripted ? Definitely. But the trade off is well worth it.

I don't see any point in it, as I would expect you would then be hearing your voice coming out the speakers while watching whatever cinematic animations were provided by the developer. How would it help to have your voice coming out of the speakers? All it would do is add to the "interactive movie" feel of a game, and still make you feel more like the director than the actual actor who is in the scene.

Have you ever listened to your own voice on a recording ? Doesn't sound exacty the same as it does when you speak it does it ? It's familiar, but somehow foreign too. And one also has to remember the 'acting' part of voice acting as well. Whos to say you can't change your tone of voice ? Work in all your own personal indiosycrasies for the character, in actuality, and not just in imagination.

And cheap shots don't improve your argument.

Haha, cheap shots. It was a joke. Don't take everything directly on the chin. Who's to say we 'for voiced' crowd are any good at voice acting either ?

[Pasquale1234]

LordKinoda wrote...

Heh. Really can't see how you can lead with A then that B. You are contradicting yourself.

Implied general tone. Exactly what I've been saying all along. Imposing idiosynratic tones onto a line is only something that is done in your own mind. It's never expressed or reacted to in the game either by the Warden or the NPCs. Whereas a voice character, CAN. Is it more limited and scripted ? Definitely. But the trade off is well worth it.

There is no contradiction.  I replied to both parts of your statement with a) and .

I don't expect the game world to react to anything other than the general implied tone and verbiage of a line.  I've stated repeatedly that the NPCs and game world will react to the line of dialogue that you select - regardless of how you choose to role-play it.  And I have provided examples of different ways to change the actual verbiage used, personality and characterizations behind it, and even touched on different ways of delivering a line.  While these factors will not change anything about how the game reacts to the protag, they all serve to provide a much deeper, richer, more immersive role-playing experience - which is the entire reason that I play role-playing games.

At least you've admitted that a voiced character is more limited and scripted.

LordKinoda wrote...
Have you ever listened to your own voice on a recording ? Doesn't sound exacty the same as it does when you speak it does it ? It's familiar, but somehow foreign too. And one also has to remember the 'acting' part of voice acting as well. Whos to say you can't change your tone of voice ? Work in all your own personal indiosycrasies for the character, in actuality, and not just in imagination.

Why yes, I have heard my own voice on recordings, many times.  In fact, I've been listening to it a lot lately, playing it in the background as I go about other tasks to help me memorize some lines for an upcoming performance.

And I need to respond to the sentence I underlined by saying that I rarely do self-inserts, but instead role-play a character concept.  My own personal indiosycrasies (sic) are irrelevant.

The thing is, I don't want to watch an avatar or listen to any recorded voice emote for the protag when I am playing a role-playing game.  I want to be fully immersed in that experience in that moment.  Not putting on a performance for an audience, and not empathizing with another actor (cinematic avatar & recorded voice) who is actually playing the role.  Just me, acting in that role, in that moment.

[Cobra's_back]

I preferred the voice. Some places I had a laugh. More choices would have been nice on the wheel.

[LordKinoda]

I don't expect the game world to react to anything other than the general implied tone and verbiage of a line. I've stated repeatedly that the NPCs and game world will react to the line of dialogue that you select - regardless of how you choose to role-play it. And I have provided examples of different ways to change the actual verbiage used, personality and characterizations behind it, and even touched on different ways of delivering a line. While these factors will not change anything about how the game reacts to the protag, they all serve to provide a much deeper, richer, more immersive role-playing experience - which is the entire reason that I play role-playing games.

It's not that I didn't/couldn't see the other side of the coin here. I can understand why some prefer a silent character, but some things that others have said just needed a little refutation and logic applied to them.

At least you've admitted that a voiced character is more limited and scripted.

There is no way to argue that it's not, why bother ? But as I said, the tradeoff is worth it for me.

The thing is, I don't want to watch an avatar or listen to any recorded voice emote for the protag when I am playing a role-playing game. I want to be fully immersed in that experience in that moment. Not putting on a performance for an audience, and not empathizing with another actor (cinematic avatar & recorded voice) who is actually playing the role. Just me, acting in that role, in that moment.

An audience. An audience of YOU. Presumably if there were some type mod to insert your own voice into a game, a lot of people wouldn't actually share theirs with the community. So you'd only be doing it for yourself. Which is essentially what you do when you play with a silent character anyway, only you usually just read it in your mind; or read it aloud ? Can't say I do the latter on a regular basis though, heh.

[Lux]

Silent protagonist was one of the few elements remaining where you could actually use your imagination to portray your character's reactions and personality. It also allows more dialogue options and thus greater interactivity with other characters.

Voiced protagonist is a more expensive approach, with a hired voice actor in the mix, but being more immediately entertaining.

I'd prefer the silent protagonist since the money spent on voice acting could be used on more dialogue options and other elements in the game. However, I don't think they'll change this because people usually prefer a more direct form of entertainment, even if that means less options in gameplay. *sigh*

[LordKinoda]

I'd prefer the silent protagonist since the money spent on voice acting could be used on more dialogue options and other elements in the game. However, I don't think they'll change this because people usually prefer a more direct form of entertainment, even if that means less options in gameplay. *sigh*

HA ! Now were going to start blaming the voice actors pay on having a detrimental effect on the development of the game ? Seriously ? They don't get paid MILLIONS of dollars. That is the only way it could have any significant effect. The game wasn't as great as it should of been, period. This is NOT because of the addition of protagonist voice actor pay. Get over youself.

[GodWood]

LordKinoda wrote...
HA ! Now were going to start blaming the voice actors pay on having a detrimental effect on the development of the game ? Seriously ? They don't get paid MILLIONS of dollars. That is the only way it could have any significant effect. The game wasn't as great as it should of been, period. This is NOT because of the addition of protagonist voice actor pay. Get over youself.

He didn't say DA2's failings were because of wasted resources on voicing the protaganist.
He said voicing the protaganist uses a significant amount of resources that could be used to improve other aspects of the game.

And that is completely true.

[Lux]

LordKinoda wrote...

I'd prefer the silent protagonist since the money spent on voice acting could be used on more dialogue options and other elements in the game. However, I don't think they'll change this because people usually prefer a more direct form of entertainment, even if that means less options in gameplay. *sigh*

HA ! Now were going to start blaming the voice actors pay on having a detrimental effect on the development of the game ? Seriously ? They don't get paid MILLIONS of dollars. That is the only way it could have any significant effect. The game wasn't as great as it should of been, period. This is NOT because of the addition of protagonist voice actor pay. Get over youself.

Since when my opinion in one single area of the game signifies the reason why the game wasn't as great? This is rather secondary to quite a few other areas that didn't work well, in my opinion.

Specifically to the subject in question, what costs more? A voice actor reading lines or typing lines from a writer's work? You think they'd have money to spend on more complex dialogue options after hiring a professional voice actor?

[reallybigbadbob]

GodWood wrote...

LordKinoda wrote...
HA ! Now were going to start blaming the voice actors pay on having a detrimental effect on the development of the game ? Seriously ? They don't get paid MILLIONS of dollars. That is the only way it could have any significant effect. The game wasn't as great as it should of been, period. This is NOT because of the addition of protagonist voice actor pay. Get over youself.

He didn't say DA2's failings were because of wasted resources on voicing the protaganist.
He said voicing the protaganist uses a significant amount of resources that could be used to improve other aspects of the game.

And that is completely true.

I don't know, if it wasn't for hiring that attrocious male Hawke, they could have paid the level developers for another weeks worth of work and doubled the amount of unique dungeons.  I think DA:O had more unique maps for random encounters than DA2 had all game. 

[reallybigbadbob]

With silent, when you read the option, you hear the voice how you would imagine the character to sound like, but when you use a voice actor you are kind of removing them from the game. Also, if the voice actor's voice doesn't fit how you envision your customized character to sound, it can destroy the whole illusion for you. It's like reading a novel, getting 120 pages into it, having a well defined view of the main character and then the author throws in a random line about the protagonist being bald. It does more harm than good.

[DarkSun522]

Voiced by far. All the voice acting in DA II was top notch.

[Pasquale1234]

Merkar wrote...

Since when my opinion in one single area of the game signifies the reason why the game wasn't as great? This is rather secondary to quite a few other areas that didn't work well, in my opinion.

Specifically to the subject in question, what costs more? A voice actor reading lines or typing lines from a writer's work? You think they'd have money to spend on more complex dialogue options after hiring a professional voice actor?

There are other costs to adding protag VO besides the obvious monetary cost of hiring the actor and recording the lines.

The voice files themselves consume space on the disk, which limits how much other content they can deliver on said disk.

All of the protag's dialogue has to be fully fleshed out, which tends to limit the customization of the protag's characterization that more concise lines of text dialogue can provide.  And it has to be done earlier in the development cycle so that it can be recorded.  And once it is recorded, everything becomes more brittle, less flexible, much more difficult to fine-tune or polish the content.

I've often wondered how many people would truly prefer voiced protags if they fully understood all of the real costs involved.  Shrug.

[LordKinoda]

He didn't say DA2's failings were because of wasted resources on voicing the protaganist.
He said voicing the protaganist uses a significant amount of resources that could be used to improve other aspects of the game.

And that is completely true.

Heh. That's just a different way to say it. You are still blaming, if only partially, the voice actors pay on the dip in quality of the rest of the game.

"Those TWO people made SO much money they could of paid the level designers, animators, artists, and who knows what else. It would of been a better game had they not wasted ALL that money on voice actors !" /sarcasm

I say again. Give me a VERY large break.

The voice files themselves consume space on the disk, which limits how much other content they can deliver on said disk.

Then they could of had TWO discs like Mass Effect did. Or 3, or 4 like Final Fantasy VII. Blaming the voice actors for the dip in quality of the game is just an asinine argument plain and simple.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Joy Divison wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I bolded the important part for you, which you seem to miss.

People often get the wrong idea in real life. Happens to me often enough. You're begin sarcastic, people think you serious. You're beign serious, people think you're telling a joke.

So the NPC respose doesn't tell anything about the PC, it tells how the NPC understood what the PC was saying.
So no, there is no direct conflict there, as your'e still free to shape the PC as you want.

With a voiced protagonist you can't do that. You KNOW the tone the PC speaks in. You cannot change it. The game tells you directly "Hawke is sarcastic".

I did not miss it. 

- You are exaggerating how often people "get the wrong idea" in face to face communication.
- A game which constantly has NPCs miscontruing what I say is worse than having limited options of what to say
- You are still restricted in how to act.  If the only way "Thank you your Majesty" will successfully convey my feelings is to be sarcastic, what if I don't want to be sarcastic?

You may feel that doing the writer's job in formulating an appropriate response and having NPCs get the wrong idea through the course of the game is an enjoyable experience, well, that's your perogative, but they do not overcome the limitations nearly as well as you think they do.

- not really. It depends on whom you ask.
- I consider it better
- Then don't be sarcastic. Altough I fail to see how this is a negative for the silent protagonist, since the voiced one is even MORE limited in that regard.

Pasquale put it better than  I did, but the fact remains that a silent progatonist is more moldable that a voiced one.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LordKinoda wrote...

He didn't say DA2's failings were because of wasted resources on voicing the protaganist.
He said voicing the protaganist uses a significant amount of resources that could be used to improve other aspects of the game.

And that is completely true.

Heh. That's just a different way to say it. You are still blaming, if only partially, the voice actors pay on the dip in quality of the rest of the game.

"Those TWO people made SO much money they could of paid the level designers, animators, artists, and who knows what else. It would of been a better game had they not wasted ALL that money on voice actors !" /sarcasm

I say again. Give me a VERY large break.

The voice files themselves consume space on the disk, which limits how much other content they can deliver on said disk.

Then they could of had TWO discs like Mass Effect did. Or 3, or 4 like Final Fantasy VII. Blaming the voice actors for the dip in quality of the game is just an asinine argument plain and simple.

If you understood how game development works, you wouldn't say that. Voice-actiong imposes development limitations when it comes to timing, changing and organizing. The whole development line becomes less flexible.

I'd say games like ME and DA2 have a LOT more than just two voice-actors.