987 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In Exile wrote...


Not to your point, I suppose. But to mine, it is. Because VO removes ambiguity. And ambiguity is the antithesis to good RP.

I just want to focus on this point, as you try to imply that I think New Vegas' best RP elements come solely from it's dialog. It's not. It's how the dialog, character system and gameplay work together to provide a framework for you to create a multitude of different characters, deep and shallow while having the game respond to all of them.

Besides, you could make jokes, be sarcastic, be aggressive, etc. You just weren't able to make everything look like a joke.

This is actually where I want to see dialog go:

Modifié par mrcrusty, 07 août 2011 - 05:41 .

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
Of course there is. You just aren't always able to express that with big flashing lights in dialog.

No, there isn't. You invent it yourself. That says nothing about your character, because there's essentially no restriction or reaction on what you do.

What does following the Legion path say about your character, what does following the NCR say about your character, Independant Vegas? How you deal with all of those factions illuminates certain aspects of your character, the SPECIAL system and perks, are another.

Maybe it says I have a microchip in my brain. Maybe is says I flip a coin for every decision I make. Maybe it says I really like the colour red and support the proliferation of the colour red across the desert. 

How I deal with all those factions speaks to my character in the same way that things existing speaks to the fact there has to be some process or phenomena which allows them to exist. It's a logically true statement that also happens to be valueless. 

Going Independant for the sake of anarchy and for the sake of altruism is reflected, in how you tackle the problems of Freeside, Outer Vegas, etc. Your motivations are acknowledged by the game, through the ending slides. Admittedly, not the best way but still far more developed than a tonal based personality.

No, they're not developed at all. The game says "you did x, y, or z" and so you must have had motives "x, y, or z" but that's not really at all why you could have done these things. Not to mention that it doesn't even say them well. 

That you tried to be heroic in Freeside maybe just means you say a really, really attractive beast outside the town and wanted to have a way to sweetalk the inhabitants so you could sex it up really hard in public, because that's the kind of thing that gets your rocks off. 

Why, because the personality is only as deep as the tones themeslves. Hinting at any sort of subtlety and complexity with the tone because the character expresses thoughts the player isn't privy too is not the kind of roleplaying I enjoy. Watching a character develop may be fun to you, but not to me.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say. 

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

One question, how does voiced do all of that in a way that's inherently unavailable to silent?

[In Exile]

erynnar wrote...
You know what ex, you keep bringing up that kind of stuff. As if the voiced protag lets you do any such thing. Which it doesn't. There are limits due to the story. This isn't some write your own game story as you play. All of us, I think understand limits. And you do to.

Of course it doesn't. I just want to drive a stake into the argument that it does. I'm very happy with saying that the game is simply restricted, and there's no freedom at all in who you want to be. 

What you keep trying to do is make as if the voiced protag is sooo much more than it is. You may be able to role play a voiced one better. But I felt and many do (just as many feel the way you do) and prefer playing director to and actor instead of director and actor. 

No. I argue that VO allows for a much better design than SP, because SP has a lot of useless strings attached that are essentially an atithesis to good RP. 

What I'm arguing against is that there is any option to be a director in any kind of video-game at all. It's always "actor" and VO just maximizes the ways you can be that sort of actor. That's it. That's the argument. 

I'm merely refering to it on terms those who favour SP want to couch it in, be it "you get to be the character" or "you get to be the director".

And no, I your voice protag is not better, nor an evolutionary step up, nor an improvement. It is just a differenreference.

VO is just someone reading outloud the content that was always there in every SP game. It's the least possible revolutionary thing by itself because it just takes something that was alwas part of the game from implicit to explicit. 

The value comes from the design opportunities that are then available once you realize how restricted an RPG actually is. 

[erynnar]

mrcrusty wrote...

One question, how does voiced do all of that in a way that's inherently unavailable to silent?

It doesn't. Which is why it is a preference. You could, if DAO had been voiced, no more tell Duncan to sod off and not become a Warden, any more than you could without a voice.

People who like silent are not wrong. Neither are people who prefer voiced. It is nothing more than preference on how you like to role play. People who prefer silent are not dinosaurs afraid of change, and those who prefer voiced are not lacking in imagination.

Congrats people who prefer voiced. You win. BioWare feels the way you do. No longer do you have to feel separated from your characters, for which I sympathize. Now I'm in the boat you were in.

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...

One question, how does voiced do all of that in a way that's inherently unavailable to silent?

It removes ambiguity. And by removing ambiguity, it allows for better RP.

As of right now, content in video-games is highly restricted. Every possible action has to be scripted in advance. There's no opportunity to act outside the box. But depending on where you are in the game and what you believe the lines you've pickd say about you... it might be the case you think you have choices you actually don't. 

VO (along with cinematic design) shows you the precise sorts of behaviours that the game will clearly allow for. This allows you to create and RP a character within the restrictions placed on you by the game. 

mrcrusty wrote...
I just want to focus on this point, as you try to imply that I think New Vegas' best RP elements come solely from it's dialog. 

No. I think central to what differentiates a character from a puppet is a kind of reactive dialogue. Otherwise you merely have an errand-boy robot of differing importance (based on the errands being run). 

It's not. It's how the dialog, character system and gameplay work together to provide a framework for you to create a multitude of different characters, deep and shallow while having the game respond to all of them.

In principle, sure. Except in practice the New Vegas doesn't respond to any characters (or rather, it responds to every character in the same way). 

Besides, you could make jokes, be sarcastic, be aggressive, etc. You just weren't able to make everything look like a joke.

No, you could. You could very rarely get an option to do these things... but mostly you got to ask questions and say "yes" or "no" to doing things for other people.

This is actually where I want to see dialog go: 

You know I really agree with you on that, at least on the design side for the PC. 

Modifié par In Exile, 07 août 2011 - 05:59 .

[erynnar]

In Exile wrote...

erynnar wrote...
You know what ex, you keep bringing up that kind of stuff. As if the voiced protag lets you do any such thing. Which it doesn't. There are limits due to the story. This isn't some write your own game story as you play. All of us, I think understand limits. And you do to.

Of course it doesn't. I just want to drive a stake into the argument that it does. I'm very happy with saying that the game is simply restricted, and there's no freedom at all in who you want to be. 

What you keep trying to do is make as if the voiced protag is sooo much more than it is. You may be able to role play a voiced one better. But I felt and many do (just as many feel the way you do) and prefer playing director to and actor instead of director and actor. 

No. I argue that VO allows for a much better design than SP, because SP has a lot of useless strings attached that are essentially an atithesis to good RP. 

What I'm arguing against is that there is any option to be a director in any kind of video-game at all. It's always "actor" and VO just maximizes the ways you can be that sort of actor. That's it. That's the argument. 

I'm merely refering to it on terms those who favour SP want to couch it in, be it "you get to be the character" or "you get to be the director".

And no, I your voice protag is not better, nor an evolutionary step up, nor an improvement. It is just a differenreference.

VO is just someone reading outloud the content that was always there in every SP game. It's the least possible revolutionary thing by itself because it just takes something that was alwas part of the game from implicit to explicit. 

The value comes from the design opportunities that are then available once you realize how restricted an RPG actually is. 

And I don't agree it makes a better design, nor is it revolutionary. Movies have done it since they became talkies. We just have to agree to disagree, which again, makes it preference.

[Zanallen]

If Ery were a dinosaur, she's be an ankylosaurus.

[erynnar]

Zanallen wrote...

If Ery were a dinosaur, she's be an ankylosaurus.

Aw damn! I thought I'd be a Velociraptor with pretty feathers. Though, Ankylosaurus are cool too.

[In Exile]

erynnar wrote...
And I don't agree it makes a better design, nor is it revolutionary. Movies have done it since they became talkies. We just have to agree to disagree, which again, makes it preference.

The more reactive a game is, the better it is. Do you think what DA2 did with quests (all paths lead to the same place) was good design? Well, VO allows us to avoid the same thing for dialogue, by emphasizing the need for branching design for every line of dialogue (and so then on for every quest, and the entire game as a whole). Restricted PC's with restricted motives allow for tighter storytelling, and more branching content (not to mention for more content specific to the PC, making stories 'about them'). TW2 being a very good example, and PS:T actually being a good example of how more restriction improves the kind of story you can get. 

[Zanallen]

erynnar wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

If Ery were a dinosaur, she's be an ankylosaurus.

Aw damn! I thought I'd be a Velociraptor with pretty feathers. Though, Ankylosaurus are cool too.

It is your own fault for having a maul of logic that you bash people in the head with.

[erynnar]

In Exile wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

One question, how does voiced do all of that in a way that's inherently unavailable to silent?

It removes ambiguity. And by removing ambiguity, it allows for better RP.

As of right now, content in video-games is highly restricted. Every possible action has to be scripted in advance. There's no opportunity to act outside the box. But depending on where you are in the game and what you believe the lines you've pickd say about you... it might be the case you think you have choices you actually don't. 

VO (along with cinematic design) shows you the precise sorts of behaviours that the game will clearly allow for. This allows you to create and RP a character within the restrictions placed on you by the game. 

mrcrusty wrote...
I just want to focus on this point, as you try to imply that I think New Vegas' best RP elements come solely from it's dialog. 

No. I think central to what differentiates a character from a puppet is a kind of reactive dialogue. Otherwise you merely have an errand-boy robot of differing importance (based on the errands being run). 

It's not. It's how the dialog, character system and gameplay work together to provide a framework for you to create a multitude of different characters, deep and shallow while having the game respond to all of them.

In principle, sure. Except in practice the New Vegas doesn't respond to any characters (or rather, it responds to every character in the same way). 

Besides, you could make jokes, be sarcastic, be aggressive, etc. You just weren't able to make everything look like a joke.

No, you could. You could very rarely get an option to do these things... but mostly you got to ask questions and say "yes" or "no" to doing things for other people.

This is actually where I want to see dialog go: 

You know I really agree with you on that, at least on the design side for the PC. 

I don't prefer to have someone read it for me, I am capable of that, thanks. And I like putting myself in the role so reading it myself is my preference. And I could figure out the behaviors for myself thanks. Again, I didn't need a movie to show it to me. I got it on my own. So they are the same thing, but one allows one to role play and the other doesn't, depending on preference. 

Again, both equal, just preference.

[erynnar]

Zanallen wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

If Ery were a dinosaur, she's be an ankylosaurus.

Aw damn! I thought I'd be a Velociraptor with pretty feathers. Though, Ankylosaurus are cool too.

It is your own fault for having a maul of logic that you bash people in the head with.

HAHA! Bow down to my maul of logic! Quake in fear....oh wait...nah. Forget that. it's made of styrofoam. It won't hurt. Lets go get some booze and tell dirty jokes.

[erynnar]

In Exile wrote...

erynnar wrote...
And I don't agree it makes a better design, nor is it revolutionary. Movies have done it since they became talkies. We just have to agree to disagree, which again, makes it preference.

The more reactive a game is, the better it is. Do you think what DA2 did with quests (all paths lead to the same place) was good design? Well, VO allows us to avoid the same thing for dialogue, by emphasizing the need for branching design for every line of dialogue (and so then on for every quest, and the entire game as a whole). Restricted PC's with restricted motives allow for tighter storytelling, and more branching content (not to mention for more content specific to the PC, making stories 'about them'). TW2 being a very good example, and PS:T actually being a good example of how more restriction improves the kind of story you can get. 

While I love TW2 for what it is, TW2. I don't need DA to be TW2 nor do I need it to be ME2 either. And I didnt' like DA2. I didn't notice it's quests all leading to the same place. Maybe that was a failing of the cinematics. All I got from most quests was the feeling fo doing comercials in between the movies. Again, my take on that. A preference not revolution or evolution.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

erynnar wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

One question, how does voiced do all of that in a way that's inherently unavailable to silent?

It doesn't. Which is why it is a preference. You could, if DAO had been voiced, no more tell Duncan to sod off and not become a Warden, any more than you could without a voice.

No, you can't tell Duncan off... but you can at least tell Duncan a unique dialogue options now and then as a dwarf or elf character now and then.

No studio is going to offer a voice for multiple races and multiple potential personalities you lose the voiced protagonists if the game is going to allow players to build their own hero. If it's a set hero, studios can knock themselves out with voicing the main character...just make it worth it. Hawke wasn't worth it to me, Hawke was boring with a craptastic personality which would make the color gray feel proud of it's vibrance. I would much rather of had options and unique dialogue options here and there. Player freedom is more important to me than financially enforced rails and a "cinematic" experience. This isn't cinema, and I'm not brain dead yet so I don't need people deciding how a hero should sound or act. These are video games and I want interactivity on a creative level and voicing a protagonist puts severe limits on game design.

Modifié par Ryllen Laerth Kriel, 07 août 2011 - 06:14 .

[erynnar]

I liken it Ryllen, to me giving my Warden the personality I choose. Or pushing a button to see which personality a director told an actor to do.

Again, my preference, I give my Warden the personality (within the limits of the game) vs. pushing a colored button and waiting to see what personality someone else decided for me interpreted by a director and and actor. To me, that's two degrees of separation between me and my avatar for interfacing in the game's world.

Again, preference. I don't like the two degrees of separation in my DA. TW2, and ME2, sure. But I dont' need every game to be TW2 or ME2.

Modifié par erynnar, 07 août 2011 - 06:12 .

[In Exile]

erynnar wrote...
I don't prefer to have someone read it for me, I am capable of that, thanks.

It doesn't have anything to do with anyone reading it for you. It has to do with getting the writers to stop hiding the intent and tone of their dialogue lines.

And I like putting myself in the role so reading it myself is my preference. And I could figure out the behaviors for myself thanks. 

Really? You could always predict the intent of the writers in DA:O, without failure? 

Again, I didn't need a movie to show it to me. I got it on my own. 

Can you teach me how you get the intent of the writers from just the text? It would go a long way in helping me enjoy DA:O.

So they are the same thing, but one allows one to role play and the other doesn't, depending on preference. 

Again, both equal, just preference.

They're aren't the same thing, because one is ambiguous and the other isn't. 

erynnar wrote...

I liken it Ryllen, to me giving my Warden the personality I choose. Or pushing a button to see which personality a director told an actor to do. 

Again, my preference, I give my Warden the personality (within the limits of the game) vs. pushing a colored button and waiting to see what personality someone else decided for me interpreted by a director and and actor.

You don't get to choose the personality. You get to push a button and give the Warden the personality the writer choose... except you don't get to know what that personality is. Unlike DA2, where you get to know the personality but don't get to know the literal content of what is being said... but you do get to know what it tries to do, which is certainly a step forward from DA:O. 

Modifié par In Exile, 07 août 2011 - 06:12 .

[In Exile]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
No, you can't tell Duncan off... but you can at least tell Duncan a unique dialogue options now and then as a dwarf or elf character now and then.

And you can tell characters a unique diplomatic, charmic or aggressive dialogue option in DA2. A few scant dialogue options != customization or meaningful RPG content, in either game.

Player freedom is more important to me rails and a "cinematic" experience. This isn't cinema, and I'm not brain dead yet so I don't need people deciding how a hero should sound. These are video games and I want interactivity on a creative level.

This is media, and you don't get to have interactivity at the creative level. If you want that, you have to write your own books, direct your own movies/plays, or design your own games. Otherwise, you just have to deal with the predetermind elements of the game. Or lie to yourself, I suppose. But you could do that for any game. 

[erynnar]

In Exile wrote...

erynnar wrote...
I don't prefer to have someone read it for me, I am capable of that, thanks.

It doesn't have anything to do with anyone reading it for you. It has to do with getting the writers to stop hiding the intent and tone of their dialogue lines.

And I like putting myself in the role so reading it myself is my preference. And I could figure out the behaviors for myself thanks. 

Really? You could always predict the intent of the writers in DA:O, without failure? 

Again, I didn't need a movie to show it to me. I got it on my own. 

Can you teach me how you get the intent of the writers from just the text? It would go a long way in helping me enjoy DA:O.

So they are the same thing, but one allows one to role play and the other doesn't, depending on preference. 

Again, both equal, just preference.

They're aren't the same thing, because one is ambiguous and the other isn't. 

erynnar wrote...

I liken it Ryllen, to me giving my Warden the personality I choose. Or pushing a button to see which personality a director told an actor to do. 

Again, my preference, I give my Warden the personality (within the limits of the game) vs. pushing a colored button and waiting to see what personality someone else decided for me interpreted by a director and and actor.

You don't get to choose the personality. You get to push a button and give the Warden the personality the writer choose... except you don't get to know what that personality is. Unlike DA2, where you get to know the personality but don't get to know the literal content of what is being said... but you do get to know what it tries to do, which is certainly a step forward from DA:O. 

Apparently ambiguous to you, I get that. And others who prefer a voiced protag. Again, is it so hard to believe, that it isn't all that ambiguous to me or those of us who don't like a voiced protag? I have had no problems playing DAO and getting which dialogue choice may get me what response, or what personality. Why does that cause such incredulity to you?

I rarely have odd responses from NPCs. Is it 100 %? Nope. But I have a lot less "surprise" than with the voiced protag and the stupidly paraphrased choiceds on DA2. Do I find it difficult that some people navigated it better than me? Nope. Obviously, people did. Good on them. I don't demand that they teach me their techinques in such  durogatory tone as if it just defies all belief. They do, I don't. I did fine in DAO, you didn't. Sorry.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Unless you've got emergent gameplay, but that's another aspect of things you don't like.

[J.C. Blade]

In Exile wrote...

J.C. Blade wrote...
Mass Effect doesn’t allow me to play a manipulative, scheming and utterly mad Shepard who hates Earth; instead I’m forced to lead this grunt soldier around who usually solves her problems with fists and expresses her love for her planet on a regular basis. And yes, that is my canon Shepard, the mad one.

Okay, so? What makes you think I think that sort of variety is good? 

I do not think that. We all have characters that don't really make sense for the game's story but we still want to guide them through it. If I absolutely want to play a Warden who doesn't want to be one then I'll switch off the machine after joining and assume she died.

In Exile wrote...

I accept that the game has a story it wants to tell and will therefore limit me in what type of character I want to play. I do not accept that I have to do novel-length writing FOR the game and fill in 7 year worth of time gap with potential events none of which would ever make an impact on Hawke in the actual game because it all happened in my head.

Well, that's what RPG fans are asking for. This is literally the essence of what a silent protagonist is: inventing content in your head (voice, background) and making sense of two disconnected events you see on screen (initial NPC reaction, NPC reaction following PC dialogue choice).

It's really confusing that you get exactly why I would say silent PC's are absolutely worthless, and then you use that as a rationale for a silent PC.  

You're putting dialogue up again and I wasn't taking about that at all. I'm saying how the game will show three, well four, crucial events in Hawke's life and tell the player to Lego the rest but only so long it doesn't contradict those key moments. I know it sounds similar to what you essentially do with the silent protagonist but it isn't. Creating background for a silent protagonist is not the same as filling those monstrous gaps within the game itself. At least not for me.

In DAO I have only to imagine and create the background and personality of a single character and how that will affect choices within that one year time span of the game - will she or won't she save the kid in Redcliff for example.

In DA2 I have to create Hawke’s life in Lothering and her sentiments towards her family - fair enough, it is the beginning of your character; then Hawke’s first year in Kirkwall, how it went and what made her reach the top, the missions, the people she met; then those three years after deep roads, then the next 3…

If I were actually writing a fanfiction story about Hawke all this blankness would be excellent.

And this has really gotten off topic now.

[xkg]

Why are we even discussing it. Those who can't immerse themselves while playing silent protagonist ... well RPGs aren't for them. Because that how it is in RL.
While playing live session you can hear the voice of other players and NPCs (spoken by the gamemaster) but you can't hear yours.
If you can't do it in the computer game you can't do it in RL.

So why bother with cRPGs in the first place. There are some limitations like - I can't say whatever I want, I can't do whatever I want - that can't be implemented in computer version - but if we change every aspect of real PnP RPGs just for sake of changes - that is not RPG anymore. In fact it is getting closer and closer to some cinematic adventure games.

[Master Shiori]

I prefer the voiced protagonist. Like Zjarcal said a page back, I never think of the character I'm playing as being "me", so I don't feel there's anything imersion breaking about my character having a voice. And it's nice to have a more cinematic experience during conversations where the camera is focused on my character's face rather than the back of hishead as he stands around like a dummy. The ability to throw out comments during companion banter is another plus.

[Tommyspa]

I prefer voiced, it provides for far greater cinematic scenes and emotions to be expressed. I like silent protagonist only in sandbox style rpgs that do not utilize fixed cut scenes to further a story, therefore no real reason to have that pc's own ambient dialogue, also worth noting, silent works best by today's standards in first person games. That is however not BioWare's niche, and I am grateful for it. Silent protagonist in story driven games is outdated these days by a wider margin than in years past. Different strokes.

[mesmerizedish]

Zjarcal wrote...

Kardelo wrote...

Silent protagonist - you interact with other characters.

Voiced protagonist - you watch a conversation between two characters.

I'm all for silent protagonist.

This is probably the main reason why I disagree so much with people who prefer silent protagonists. When playing silent (or voiced), I never feel it's ME interacting with other characters. It's always my character, not me. Sure, my character is mine, but it's not me.

It's not different for me at all when voiced. Well, except for the conversation being less jarring to me.

To me, roleplaying games aren't about making the character "me." They're about making me the character. My Warden and my Champion weren't just avatars through which I experienced the world. They were complete characters whose lives I stepped into for a time. That I created them makes that easier, of course, and is an inherent part of a roleplaying game to me.

But yeah, I become the character when I roleplay, not the other way around. Whether or not the character is voiced by the game has no bearing whatsoever on how I accomplish that. All I want is consistency in the world. If the PC is silent, everyone should be silent. If everyone else is voiced, the PC should be voiced. Because otherwise, it's jarring.