987 réponses à ce sujet

[wsandista]

Sutekh wrote...

Nope. That's self-insert. A form of roleplaying, if you will, but the "role" in "roleplaying" means that you deal with another persona than yourself. Roughly, you don't make the character act as though they were you, but you act as though you were them (virtually). You play a role.

You can have a say in the char's personality - more or less depending on context, medium, predefinition etc... - and that definition can incidentally be "they think / act just like me", but the latter isn't what it's about.

What you decribed is closer to role-directing than role-playing.
When you direct the role you pick the general direction that the character takes, and the actor playing the character performs the action. That is how DA2, ME, and The Witcher worked, you picked the general tone or direction used by Shepard, Hawke, or Geralt and then they would perfrom various actions. When you play the role, you perform those actions by picking certain dialogue lines that explicitly state what is being said by the character.

TL;DR
With voicedPC you guide the PC and decide general tone and action direction.
With silentPC you have total control of the PC, and decide everything that they do.

[Sutekh]

BobSmith101 wrote...
There is a difference between roleplaying and just picking the options you fancy and here lies the crux of the difference between the silent protagonist and the voiced (at least in regard to design). Games with silent protagonists don't write stories for a specific character, you can get wrong options. Options that are just not suited for character you have created. The skill element (if you want to call it that) is in playing the character and keeping character integrity even when it's not the best the option.

With a voiced protagonist since the lines are written for the character specifically, there is no wrong option. Anything works. You can still shape the characters actions, but you don't need backgrounds and personalities, that's all done for you.

If you want to create and play a character, less is definately more. If you want to guide a character through the story in the way you choose, voiced works just as well, if not better.
The problem with DA2 and to a lesser extent DA is that you have two contradictory designs pulling in opposite directions.

The only real difference between something like Witcher 2 and DA2 is in DA2 you can alter the characters look and assign a first name (outside of gender choice) both of those options are trivial and have no impact on the game.
Personally I can't see the point of character ownership in a cinematic game since it will invariably be contradicted. 

I said it before and I say it again, this is not how I work, and judging from some posts here and elsewhere, or the many RL conversations I've had with fellow cRPers, I'm not alone. I consider voice as no more limiting than text only, because text-only is predetermined by author intent. Silent lines are written for the character as specifically as spoken ones.

Voice making no difference, I have no problem roleplaying a voiced character, which is adding my own motivations, emotions and purpose to my choices, and experiencing the plot through the PC eyes accordingly.

As for the (eternal) question of the difference between Hawke and Geralt, the very choice of class and gender can make a world of difference roleplaying-wise. Not mentioning the course you choose during the game itself (personality, political inclinations, romance(s), methods etc...). I'll give you that Hawke is still too pre-set to my taste, and that Act III puts a serious damper on roleplaying satisfaction, but they're in no way as fixed as Geralt, to the point where if you can't connect with him (Geralt) you simply can't roleplay, and then are, indeed, taking a back seat and just driving him through the plot. More to the point, all this has very little to do with VA, and everything to the amount of railroading you're subjected to, from char's birth to endgame.

[Sutekh]

wsandista wrote...

What you decribed is closer to role-directing than role-playing.

Role-directing is what you do when you're totally outside the character, just like a director who doesn't "act" (i.e. roleplay) but gives the actors instructions. If you experience emotions, input motivations and overall live the story through the character, then you're roleplaying. Injecting your own RL personality and inclinations in a character, having them behave exactly like your true self would in their situation, is not roleplaying in itself, because there is no role involved, apart from the one imposed by the setting.

[wsandista]

Looking back, I believe I misread the posters statement.

There's kind of a pattern here. Many people who want a silent PC like to pretend that it's them in that character's place and/or imagine how that character is acting even if it doesn't show on screen.

On the other hand many people who want a voiced PC want the PC to be a character in his/her own.

I personally prefer voiced- I am not Hawke, I don't buy these games to imagine things, I buy them to get a story.

I took the first statement as "The silent PC camp wants to decide who the PC and play them how they as the personality they created.

I took the second as "The voiced PC camp want the PC to be predefined, already written in as a character."

The last line supported my assumptions by emphasizing story as a priority rather than role-playing, although that could simply be a different reading on my part.

Sutekh wrote...

Role-directing is what you do when you're totally outside the character, just like a director who doesn't "act" (i.e. roleplay) but gives the actors instructions. If you experience emotions, input motivations and overall live the story through the character, then you're roleplaying. Injecting your own RL personality and inclinations in a character, having them behave exactly like your true self would in their situation, is not roleplaying in itself, because there is no role involved, apart from the one imposed by the setting.

I believe we will have to agree to disagree.

I see it as role-directing when you instruct the PC which motivations to have or which emotions are invoked by certain stimuli. It was impossible for me to live the story through Hawke, Shepard, or Geralt, I felt I was observing the story. Although they can still let players experience emotions, just like movies.

[Sutekh]

wsandista wrote...

I took the first statement as "The silent PC camp wants to decide who the PC and play them how they as the personality they created.

In this case, we overall agree about what roleplaying is. We disagree that VA always prevents it, no matter who you are, how your brain is wired, and how you "communicate" with the game.

It was impossible for me to live the story through Hawke, Shepard, or Geralt, I felt I was observing the story.Although they can still let players experience emotions, just like movies.

"Players" is too generalizing. I have no doubts that you couldn't connect with Hawke enough to live through him, but others can. I never could connect with Geralt - because he's fixed absolutely, and the result is not what I can relate to at all - but I've no doubts others can, although such a match is harder to find than for Hawke IMHO, since the latter still has room for customization (class, gender and yes, look, because the latter can be important).

As for the "movies" thing, I'd say that movies let you experience second-hand emotion ("I feel sad for him") and never let you decide personality, motivation or purpose, while RPing gives you the first-hand stuff ("I am sad"). Despite the railroading, Act III not-that-good writing and the auto-dialog, I had no real problem experiencing that with Hawke. As for VA, not only did it not prevent it in any way, but it actually enhanced the experience.

[wsandista]

Sutekh wrote...
"Players" is too generalizing. I have no doubts that you couldn't connect with Hawke enough to live through him, but others can. I never could connect with Geralt - because he's fixed absolutely, and the result is not what I can relate to at all - but I've no doubts others can, although such a match is harder to find than for Hawke IMHO, since the latter still has room for customization (class, gender and yes, look, because the latter can be important).

As for the "movies" thing, I'd say that movies let you experience second-hand emotion ("I feel sad for him") and never let you decide personality, motivation or purpose, while RPing gives you the first-hand stuff ("I am sad"). Despite the railroading, Act III not-that-good writing and the auto-dialog, I had no real problem experiencing that with Hawke. As for VA, not only did it not prevent it in any way, but it actually enhanced the experience.

I used the movie analogy because playing as Hawke(or Shepard and Geralt) felt like I was watching their actions, not deciding their actions. It seems more like role-directing to me because I select a general path not the explicit result. 

I came up with what I believe is the best compromise for both groups to get what they want.

I believe to please both groups they should do something like this. Use the dialogue system in DAO(full text) with an option to turn off the voiced PC. Have someway to connote tone (I personally think a tone wheel in the corner would work) when playing with a voiced PC. Not only will this please the silent PC side, but the WTF moments when playing a voiced PC will decrease, since they know what will be said beforehand.

Would this be an acceptable solution?

[Sutekh]

wsandista wrote...

Would this be an acceptable solution?

Honestly? Anything that would allow you to enjoy your silent protag and me to enjoy my voiced one would be an acceptable solution.

I don't know why you need tone indicators, though, since that would kill the purpose of having your own chosen tone (I don't quite see the difference between reading [sarcastic]Line here and hearing the line voiced sarcastically), but ultimately that's none of my business, since I wouldn't use the silent feature.

This said, you'd have to turn off lip-synching too, or you would get very weird results - unless it doesn't bother you.

[wsandista]

Sutekh wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Would this be an acceptable solution?

Honestly? Anything that would allow you to enjoy your silent protag and me to enjoy my voiced one would be an acceptable solution.

I don't know why you need tone indicators, though, since that would kill the purpose of having your own chosen tone (I don't quite see the difference between reading [sarcastic]Line here and hearing the line voiced sarcastically), but ultimately that's none of my business, since I wouldn't use the silent feature.

This said, you'd have to turn off lip-synching too, or you would get very weird results - unless it doesn't bother you.

The tone indicator was to replace the little tone icons in DA2, that is only when playing with a voiced. Silent PCs wouldn't need it since they could interpret the line with any tone they wish. I didn't think of lip-synching, I do believe that should be nullified now that you mention it though.

[In Exile]

wsandista wrote...
I used the movie analogy because playing as Hawke(or Shepard and Geralt) felt like I was watching their actions, not deciding their actions. It seems more like role-directing to me because I select a general path not the explicit result.

It's all subjective, though. I find I can relate to Hawke (or Shepard, or Mike Thorton from AP) much more and "own" them much more as my own character (even Geralt, to a degree) than I could the Warden (but not the Bhalspawn, or the Hero of Neverwinter, because of the lack of VO and animation all around).

I came up with what I believe is the best compromise for both groups to get what they want.

I believe to please both groups they should do something like this. Use the dialogue system in DAO(full text) with an option to turn off the voiced PC. Have someway to connote tone (I personally think a tone wheel in the corner would work) when playing with a voiced PC. Not only will this please the silent PC side, but the WTF moments when playing a voiced PC will decrease, since they know what will be said beforehand.

Would this be an acceptable solution?

I'm not sure this works for your side. You'll still have cinematics. You won't have the pitch and timbre, but if you want to imagine a line as a threat, but everything indicatates it was delivered as a joke, you're still limited and you'll run into the same problem you're having already.

[Windninja47]

wsandista wrote...

Looking back, I believe I misread the posters statement.

There's kind of a pattern here. Many people who want a silent PC like to pretend that it's them in that character's place and/or imagine how that character is acting even if it doesn't show on screen.

On the other hand many people who want a voiced PC want the PC to be a character in his/her own.

I personally prefer voiced- I am not Hawke, I don't buy these games to imagine things, I buy them to get a story.

I took the first statement as "The silent PC camp wants to decide who the PC and play them how they as the personality they created.

I took the second as "The voiced PC camp want the PC to be predefined, already written in as a character."

The last line supported my assumptions by emphasizing story as a priority rather than role-playing, although that could simply be a different reading on my part.

I think what  meant was that in Dragon Age 2, Hawke is just as much a character as Merrill or Fenris. You don't even need to play as him for a lot of the game and he will just act like a companion would. The fact that he can do all the things that other characters can, makes me feel more like he is a part of that world and I connect with that character in the same way I would connect with Sebastian's or Varric's character.

In origin's however, the Warden is seperate from the rest of the Origins world. While I'm sure many people enjoy imagining their warden saying and doing things while they play, that style of playing isn't really for me- I ended up caring far more about Morrigan, Shale and Alistair than I cared about my Warden- for me, he was just the vessel to meet all the great characters with.

Many people say that having a VA makes you feel further from the character, but it was the total oposite for me.

[AkiKishi]

Sutekh wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
There is a difference between roleplaying and just picking the options you fancy and here lies the crux of the difference between the silent protagonist and the voiced (at least in regard to design). Games with silent protagonists don't write stories for a specific character, you can get wrong options. Options that are just not suited for character you have created. The skill element (if you want to call it that) is in playing the character and keeping character integrity even when it's not the best the option.

With a voiced protagonist since the lines are written for the character specifically, there is no wrong option. Anything works. You can still shape the characters actions, but you don't need backgrounds and personalities, that's all done for you.

If you want to create and play a character, less is definately more. If you want to guide a character through the story in the way you choose, voiced works just as well, if not better.
The problem with DA2 and to a lesser extent DA is that you have two contradictory designs pulling in opposite directions.

The only real difference between something like Witcher 2 and DA2 is in DA2 you can alter the characters look and assign a first name (outside of gender choice) both of those options are trivial and have no impact on the game.
Personally I can't see the point of character ownership in a cinematic game since it will invariably be contradicted. 

I said it before and I say it again, this is not how I work, and judging from some posts here and elsewhere, or the many RL conversations I've had with fellow cRPers, I'm not alone. I consider voice as no more limiting than text only, because text-only is predetermined by author intent. Silent lines are written for the character as specifically as spoken ones.

Voice making no difference, I have no problem roleplaying a voiced character, which is adding my own motivations, emotions and purpose to my choices, and experiencing the plot through the PC eyes accordingly.

As for the (eternal) question of the difference between Hawke and Geralt, the very choice of class and gender can make a world of difference roleplaying-wise. Not mentioning the course you choose during the game itself (personality, political inclinations, romance(s), methods etc...). I'll give you that Hawke is still too pre-set to my taste, and that Act III puts a serious damper on roleplaying satisfaction, but they're in no way as fixed as Geralt, to the point where if you can't connect with him (Geralt) you simply can't roleplay, and then are, indeed, taking a back seat and just driving him through the plot. More to the point, all this has very little to do with VA, and everything to the amount of railroading you're subjected to, from char's birth to endgame.

A voiced line is delivered on only one way. A written line is more flexible as long as you don't mind filling not having it delivered outside of your head.

Your adding your own motivations and emotions. That's exactly what I said.  Geralt has more options than Hawke outside of having a fixed look and name. He's a Witcher, but a Witcher is an combination of skills, from swordsman to mage to alchemist or any combination there in. The paths in Witcher2 are also far more distinct than in Dragon Age2, as are the endings.

It's all about the VA/costs because the more options you have the more VA you need. In the case of Witcher and Deus Ex all those lines are devoted to one character, giving the character far more depth than otherwise possible. There is no snarky Geralty, diplomatic Geralt,angry Geralt... only Geralt who can be any of those while still being the same character,just like a real person.

[wsandista]

In Exile wrote...

I came up with what I believe is the best compromise for both groups to get what they want.

I believe to please both groups they should do something like this. Use the dialogue system in DAO(full text) with an option to turn off the voiced PC. Have someway to connote tone (I personally think a tone wheel in the corner would work) when playing with a voiced PC. Not only will this please the silent PC side, but the WTF moments when playing a voiced PC will decrease, since they know what will be said beforehand.

Would this be an acceptable solution?

I'm not sure this works for your side. You'll still have cinematic. You won't have the pitch and timbre, but if you want to imagine a line as a threat, but everything indicates it was delivered as a joke, you're still limited and you'll run into the same problem you're having already.

DAO was the acceptable compromise(for me, can't speak for everyone who wants a silent PC) between silent PC and cinematic games. It is almost certain Bioware will not be making another text-based game for at least a very long time. Part of misinterpretation of lines by NPCs was great(again only my personal belief), several times in DAO there were several times were a NPC had reactions that could be interpreted in a number of ways.

[Sutekh]

BobSmith101 wrote...

A voiced line is delivered on only one way. A written line is more flexible as long as you don't mind filling not having it delivered outside of your head.

This is what I don't agree with. In a computer game, the written line is not more flexible.

A game is a binary program. As such, it can't handle possible interpretations and tones. There are no "Schrödinger's lines" which meaning and tone would come to existence once they're observed (i.e. used and head-toned). Tone is already decided, as is the corresponding reaction. Player's control is granted by having several lines, several options (and VA grants that just as well), but a given line will always have the same meaning for the program, and will always be dealt with the same way.

You can choose to ignore this, and it can work very well for you, but it doesn't make written lines objectively more flexible than VAed.

As for "minding to fill", I don't. I can imagine sarcasm, anger, sadness or gentleness just fine. I know how those emotions sound like. Done that for decades playing silent chars and still do. But VA offers, for me, some serious upsides that have nothing to do with my supposed inability to "imagine" or "be creative".

Your adding your own motivations and emotions. That's exactly what I said.  Geralt has more options than Hawke outside of having a fixed look and name. He's a Witcher, but a Witcher is an combination of skills, from swordsman to mage to alchemist or any combination there in. The paths in Witcher2 are also far more distinct than in Dragon Age2, as are the endings.

Are we talking about roleplaying and controlling essential aspects of a character (gender, class, sexual orientation, etc...) or about plot branching and railroading? You can roleplay very different characters in a perfectly linear, railroaded plot, and you can have only one character possible in a multi-branched one. Those are two distinct things.

Bottom line, if you can't connect to the "essence" of Geralt (straight male witcher, as set in stone by Sapkowsky) you have no way to apply even the slightest change that would make him a bit more "connectable". With Hawke, you have more room (starting with something as essential as gender), even if it's far from enough.

It's all about the VA/costs because the more options you have the more VA you need. In the case of Witcher and Deus Ex all those lines are devoted to one character, giving the character far more depth than otherwise possible.

Zots allocation is, also, a different debate. People are quick to dismiss a feature (voice) as being unecessary and eating zots for nothing just because they don't like it. If for others this feature is important, or even essential, then things aren't that simple. Truth is, we ultimately don't know how costly PC VA is, proportionally; we speculate.

There is no snarky Geralty, diplomatic Geralt,angry Geralt... only Geralt who can be any of those while still being the same character,just like a real person.

First, most of the time Geralt doesn't have more dialog choices than Hawke. Second, you don't have to play Hawke as always snarky / aggro / diplo. I don't. A dominant personality doesn't mean you're stuck with one type of choice. It's there as a way to customize the PC a bit more and give a general direction, which can change during the game. And, again, not related to VA. You could have the same thing with text-only.