436 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

yuncas wrote...

I prefer the silent PC almost solely because the voiced PC seemed to limit the dialogue choice so completely.

Not as much as you would think.  Separating the "Investigate" options from the ones that actually advance the conversation cause an artificial sense of fewer options.

[Dubya75]

yuncas wrote...

I prefer the silent PC almost solely because the voiced PC seemed to limit the dialogue choice so completely.

Ok so... let me get this straight - you're saying that a voiced pc is limited? Why?
Is it impossible to replace all the text responses with voiced responses containing exactly the same words? I don't think so!
It is totally possible to replace every single line for the Warden in Origins with voiced responses.

I would have loved to see the anti-voiced pc following's response to a remade Origins containing every single word, but voiced. What would you have said to that? You can't say it's limited and you can't say it's destroying the RPG experience, because it is identical with the difference of actually hearing the pc speak.

So far I've not seen any credible explanation for having a silent pc over voiced, apart from personal preference.
Because that's really all it is, isn't it.

[tfive24]

Dubya75 wrote...

yuncas wrote...

I prefer the silent PC almost solely because the voiced PC seemed to limit the dialogue choice so completely.

Ok so... let me get this straight - you're saying that a voiced pc is limited? Why?
Is it impossible to replace all the text responses with voiced responses containing exactly the same words? I don't think so!
It is totally possible to replace every single line for the Warden in Origins with voiced responses.

I would have loved to see the anti-voiced pc following's response to a remade Origins containing every single word, but voiced. What would you have said to that? You can't say it's limited and you can't say it's destroying the RPG experience, because it is identical with the difference of actually hearing the pc speak.

So far I've not seen any credible explanation for having a silent pc over voiced, apart from personal preference.
Because that's really all it is, isn't it.

When you read the text based version, you can add your own words and put your own tone in the response. I can image the my pc's emtion and his facial expression. With the voiced - pc, they do all that for you, but i might not like the voice tone and facial expression on certian dialog choice. That's why i don't like want a voice. I wan to be able to play the character like the way i want to and the way bioware wants me to play him. 

[upsettingshorts]

tfive24 wrote...

When you read the text based version, you can add your own words

What

[Dubya75]

tfive24 wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...

yuncas wrote...

I prefer the silent PC almost solely because the voiced PC seemed to limit the dialogue choice so completely.

Ok so... let me get this straight - you're saying that a voiced pc is limited? Why?
Is it impossible to replace all the text responses with voiced responses containing exactly the same words? I don't think so!
It is totally possible to replace every single line for the Warden in Origins with voiced responses.

I would have loved to see the anti-voiced pc following's response to a remade Origins containing every single word, but voiced. What would you have said to that? You can't say it's limited and you can't say it's destroying the RPG experience, because it is identical with the difference of actually hearing the pc speak.

So far I've not seen any credible explanation for having a silent pc over voiced, apart from personal preference.
Because that's really all it is, isn't it.

When you read the text based version, you can add your own words and put your own tone in the response. I can image the my pc's emtion and his facial expression. With the voiced - pc, they do all that for you, but i might not like the voice tone and facial expression on certian dialog choice. That's why i don't like want a voice. I wan to be able to play the character like the way i want to and the way bioware wants me to play him. 

Right...so you want to set the tone and facial expressions in your head. I get it.
Here's an idea - how about you don't even load the game but instead play the entire game in your head! Wouldn't that be the ultimate RPGaming experience?! 

Ok, I jest, but I still think it's ridiculous to opt for a mute, blank staring muppet over an intelligent, expressive character. But that's just me.

[MerinTB]

Dubya75 wrote...
I have a friend at work who says PC gaming killed table-top RPGs (which is according to him, the only true form of RPG)
Same way in which the internet is causing the libraries to close and video killed the radio star...and the Voiced Protagonist is apparently now also killing RPGaming...

PC Gaming started roughly the same time as table top role-playing.  Mid-70's.  They have fed, and continue to feed, off of each other.

To say one killed the other (especially with that silly internet/library comparison) would be to say that one replaced the other... but that's not possible since they BOTH began at roughly the same time.

Not to mention that, you know, table top gaming is as big as it ever was.  Ask Paizo and WotC how they are "killed"...

This argument is as inane as the ones made about home video killing movie theaters.  We're 30+ years past the introudction of home video and movie theaters are still going strong.

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...

We're 30+ years past the introudction of home video and movie theaters are still going strong.

[Citation Needed]

[GodWood]

Dubya75 wrote...
Ok so... let me get this straight - you're saying that a voiced pc is limited? Why?

~ You have ONE voice. When you have no voice over you can imagine ANY voice, when you do have VO you're limited to who the DEVs hired.
~ Voiced PCs force a tone on your dialogue choice. With no voice you can project your own tone/intent onto any line of dialogue.
~ Silent protaganists allow for 'flavour options'. Although these 'flavour options' may lead to the same outcome they allow you to further personalise your PC. Voiced protagainsts do not have this luxury.
~ Voiced PCs cost a great deal more resources then silent ones. Voicing the PC limits where resources can be spent.

So far I've not seen any credible explanation for having a silent pc over voiced, apart from personal preference.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention.

[tmp7704]

Dubya75 wrote...

So far I've not seen any credible explanation for having a silent pc over voiced, apart from personal preference.
Because that's really all it is, isn't it.

Lack of customization -- due to amount of voicework involved you're generally stuck with single voice per gender.

I supposed you could say this is also matter of preference, but then the same logic can be used to dismiss pretty much any strong points of the voiced character over silent. So it's probably best not to head that way.

edit: 'ed, by a dwarf no less.

Modifié par tmp7704, 03 novembre 2011 - 04:25 .

[Heimdall]

GodWood wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...
Ok so... let me get this straight - you're saying that a voiced pc is limited? Why?

~ You have ONE voice. When you have no voice over you can imagine ANY voice, when you do have VO you're limited to who the DEVs hired.
~ Voiced PCs force a tone on your dialogue choice. With no voice you can project your own tone/intent onto any line of dialogue.
~ Silent protaganists allow for 'flavour options'. Although these 'flavour options' may lead to the same outcome they allow you to further personalise your PC. Voiced protagainsts do not have this luxury.
~ Voiced PCs cost a great deal more resources then silent ones. Voicing the PC limits where resources can be spent.

I will note that the key word in your reply is imagine.  Meaning, the choise is between having a voice and having no voice.  Why can't you imagine the character's voice with a voiced character, since the only advantage of the silent protagonist is in your head?  There will be no difference in the response your character gets anyway.

You don't know the impact VO has on resources.  Considering the entirety of the rest of the game is voiced, I don't imagine it's cutting into vastly greater sums than VO already is.

[GodWood]

Lord Aesir wrote...
I will note that the key word in your reply is imagine.  Meaning, the choice is between having a voice and having no voice.

The choice is between having Bioware choose your voice or having the freedom to choose your own.

Why can't you imagine the character's voice with a voiced character, since the only advantage of the silent protagonist is in your head? There will be no difference in the response your character gets anyway.

That's what I do for the ME series. Although his voice and dialogue is not to my liking the general gist of his actions followed what I wished my Shepard to do.
Unfortunately for DA2 Hawke failed to even do this.

But regardless I'm sure you can imagine why this isn't this best solution.

You don't know the impact VO has on resources.  Considering the entirety of the rest of the game is voiced, I don't imagine it's cutting into vastly greater sums than VO already is.

Prior to DA:O's release Bioware said that if they had voiced the Warden the game would have had half as much content.

[tmp7704]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Why can't you imagine the character's voice with a voiced character, since the only advantage of the silent protagonist is in your head?

It's easier to imagine something on the blank canvas, than on an already made picture. One of common complaints people had about the LotR movies for example was, the movies are beautiful but after seeing them one would generally find it very hard (if not right impossible) to imagine "their" vision of the middle earth instead of just recalling what the the movies have shown them.

Voice is no different, especially if you ask to imagine a different one while the character is actively speaking.

[Heimdall]

GodWood wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
I will note that the key word in your reply is imagine.  Meaning, the choice is between having a voice and having no voice.

The choice is between having Bioware choose your voice or having the freedom to choose your own.

Nonsense, the is a silent protagonist and a voiced protagonist.  That is the choice.  There is no choose-your-own-voice protagonist except in your head.

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
We're 30+ years past the introudction of home video and movie theaters are still going strong.

[Citation Needed]

For which part?

When home video started? - http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Home_video

or that the movies are still making money at the box office?

Best Year Since 2009 - http://www.boxoffice...-the-box-office
Whereas 2009 was the best year since 2008 - http://www.time.com/...1951371,00.html
And 2008 was a record year itself - http://www.variety.c...624?refCatId=13

Or, instead of being smarmy, if you REALLY were curious, you could take 5 minutes and use Google.

Modifié par MerinTB, 03 novembre 2011 - 05:12 .

[upsettingshorts]

None of those has anything to do with the financial viability of the theater business model itself, which is the part of your post I highlighted. The studios are making all of that money. If theaters do not bend to the requirements of the studios they simply don't get copies of the film to show, and they can't afford that. So they pay the studios a higher and higher cut and pass the expense on to customers. This is keeping them afloat, but less and less each year.

The reason I asked you to cite sources is that the decline of cinema attendance - not only over the last 30 years but on a year to year basis as well - is well known within the film industry. You can see it in your daily life as ticket and food prices continue to rise, and theater companies and organizations like NATO (not the international defense pact) continue to lobby heavily for restrictions on alternative methods of release such as Netflix, Hulu, and cable. They see their market continuing to shrink as home theaters become cheaper and more viable alternatives to the theater experience.  That's before one considers the increasing entertainment value of television, live sporting events, and video games.  Theater attendance reached its zenith literally almost half a century ago and after plummeting severely has settled in for a slow decline.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 novembre 2011 - 05:54 .

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
None of those has anything to do with the financial viability of the theater business model itself, which is the part of your post I highlighted. The studios are making all of that money. If theaters do not bend to the requirements of the studios they simply don't get copies of the film to show, and they can't afford that. So they pay the studios a higher and higher cut and pass the expense on to customers. This is keeping them afloat, but less and less each year.

The reason I asked you to cite sources is that the decline of cinema attendance - not only over the last 30 years but on a year to year basis as well - is well known within the film industry. You can see it in your daily life as ticket and food prices continue to rise, and theater companies and organizations like NATO (not the international defense pact) continue to lobby heavily for restrictions on alternative methods of release such as Netflix, Hulu, and cable. They see their market continuing to shrink as home theaters become cheaper and more viable alternatives to the theater experience.  That's before one considers the increasing entertainment value of television, live sporting events, and video games.  Theater attendance reached its zenith literally almost half a century ago and after plummeting severely has settled in for a slow decline.

le sigh

Okay, last time.

No more moving the goal posts.

You want MOVIE THEATER PROFITABILITY.

In the context of the part of my post you are quoting -

This argument is as inane as the ones made about home video killing movie theaters.  We're 30+ years past the introudction of home video and movie theaters are still going strong.

where my argument is that more than thirty years have passed since the advent of home video and movie theaters are still a viable business (i.e. "going strong")

I could argue from simple reason "are there still movie theaters?"  or "what are considered mainstream movies - ones that open in movie theaters or ones that don't?" or even the one that should be obvious "if movies are selling more than ever, movie theaters HAVE TO be doing good because without the theaters there would be no place to show the movies, regardless of how bad a deal theaters may or may not have with studios"  If home video had supplanted movie theaters to the point of making them a niche market, mainstream movies would often release straight-to-video yet straight-to-video remains a dumping ground for "wouldn't make enough at theaters to warrant it."

but then we'd get into another of your philosophical arguments where your stance will shift ever so slightly to avoid just saying "oops, I may have been a bit hasty" let alone "okay, I was wrong."  As such I'll stick to hard numbers and doing the Google searching for you.

So, again, movie theater profitability.

AMC - http://www.bizjourna...14/daily11.html - "The nation’s second-largest theater operator said in a securities filing
that it earned $69.8 million during the year ending April 1. (...) Annual revenue rose 6.6 percent to $2.42 billion, as theater admissions rose 2.1 percent and average ticket prices increased 6.1 percent. Revenue for theaters open at least a year rose 8.5 percent. (...) It said it would add 25 to 30 IMAX screens and 550 to 650 3D screens in fiscal year 2011."

But that's for 2010.  What about 2011?  And AMC, that's like big.... a smaller chain might be doing worse.

Let's take the chain that services where I live, Marcus Corporation's Marcus Theaters -
Marcus - http://phx.corporate...icle&id=1607135
"Record quarter for Marcus Theatres and continued improvement of Marcus Hotels & Resorts drive 24.5% increase in net earnings (...)Our fiscal year is off to a strong start, with a record quarter for Marcus Theatres (...)A strong slate of films during the busy summer
season generated an 8.0% increase in revenues and a 16.1% increase in
operating income for Marcus Theatres, setting new first quarter records
for the division(...)first quarter operating income would have been
even higher if not for approximately $600,000 of accelerated
depreciation for the company's existing 35mm film projection systems in
conjunction with the deployment of new digital cinema technology in 628
screens across the circuit(...)Fiscal 2012 is off to an excellent start"

Now I'm sure you can find stories of small mom-and-pop theaters closing here and there.  And even some chains being bought out.  AND I'm sure you'll WANT to SHIFT the argument to theater ATTENDANCE, which I'm not even going to touch.

30 years after the prediction of the death of movie theaters there are still movie theaters.  Not a few hold outs, but profitable ones.  Big chain theaters making a profit, even (which is A LOT MORE than the video rental industry can even try to lie about.)

My point was that the "death of cinema due to VCRs" prediction was wrong-headed and, after 30 years, EASILY proven wrong (as the home video market, itself, has shifted quite a bit and is being threatened by streaming online) as you can see that movie theaters are still ubiquitous and profitable.

My Googling to learn that movie THEATERs are actually having had (at least) two strong years in a row (if sampling two of the top ten chains at random can be extrapolated) is just icing on the cake.  The cake was just that movie theaters are still around and don't look to be going anywhere, hence that 30+ year old prediction was false.

Okay?

Nothing about attendance.  Nothing even about movie theaters being more or less prominent than 30 years ago.  Just that they are still going strong, and I think unless you create some pretty severe standards that most reasonable people would agree.

Point is OVER proven at this juncture.  I'm derailing the thread.  You honestly, truthfully think I'm still somehow wrong in my statement, let's take it to PM.

EDIT - and, for completeness, I found the largets chain, REG, and it's latest statement -

Regal - http://investor.regm...2825&highlight=
"Total revenues for the third quarter ended September 29, 2011 were
$743.6 millioncompared to total revenues of $696.4 millionfor
the third quarter ended September 30, 2010. Net income attributable to
controlling interest in the third quarter of 2011 was $25.0 million (...) We are pleased that industry attendance growth combined with our
continued focus on cost control allowed us to achieve significant growth (...) are encouraged by the record summer box office and remain
optimistic regarding the upcoming holiday film slate"

Hopefully we don't need to grab theater chains numbers 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to agree that theaters are profitable and having a good run currently.

Modifié par MerinTB, 03 novembre 2011 - 08:43 .

[SkittlesKat96]

I did voiced...but silent isn't too far behind.

Both have their own benefits I guess.

[Gabey5]

Silent, i prefer that to the 'mass effect i don't know what he will say wheel'




look at that for example. i can say the the same general thing in different ways that are more suited to the way i view my character.

Modifié par Gabey5, 03 novembre 2011 - 03:11 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

tfive24 wrote...

When you read the text based version, you can add your own words

What

Are you unfamiliar with my "Dialogue Option as Abstraction of Spoken Line" argument?

Without the PC being voiced, not only do we not need to accept the writer's intended tone, but we don't even need to accept the writer's line.  As long as we don't deviate from the literal meaning of that line, we can adjust the specific wording all we like.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dubya75 wrote...

Ok so... let me get this straight - you're saying that a voiced pc is limited? Why?

Because it imposes a specific delivery of each line upon the player.  It imposes a voice upon the player.  It makes explicit within the game world the specific wording of the PC's lines.

These are all serious limitations.

Is it impossible to replace all the text responses with voiced responses containing exactly the same words? I don't think so!

It's possible to do that, but doing so would eliminate great swaths of player agency from the game.

It is totally possible to replace every single line for the Warden in Origins with voiced responses.

Yes it is.  But it is not possible to do that in a way that every player gets every line voiced exactly as they would like every time.  But unvoiced, DAO offers exactly that.

I would have loved to see the anti-voiced pc following's response to a remade Origins containing every single word, but voiced. What would you have said to that? You can't say it's limited and you can't say it's destroying the RPG experience, because it is identical with the difference of actually hearing the pc speak.

It's not identical.  It would produce gameplay very simnilar to DA2 or ME2, wherein the player is routinely surprised by how lines are delivered.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...
Ok so... let me get this straight - you're saying that a voiced pc is limited? Why?

Because it imposes a specific delivery of each line upon the player.  It imposes a voice upon the player.  It makes explicit within the game world the specific wording of the PC's lines.

These are all serious limitations.

Is it impossible to replace all the text responses with voiced responses containing exactly the same words? I don't think so!

It's possible to do that, but doing so would eliminate great swaths of player agency from the game.

It is totally possible to replace every single line for the Warden in Origins with voiced responses.

Yes it is.  But it is not possible to do that in a way that every player gets every line voiced exactly as they would like every time.  But unvoiced, DAO offers exactly that.

I would have loved to see the anti-voiced pc following's response to a remade Origins containing every single word, but voiced. What would you have said to that? You can't say it's limited and you can't say it's destroying the RPG experience, because it is identical with the difference of actually hearing the pc speak.

It's not identical.  It would produce gameplay very simnilar to DA2 or ME2, wherein the player is routinely surprised by how lines are delivered.

I'll just add "Well said" to Sylvius's response.

[ZombieGerbil]

 Voiced.

That is all.

99% of the community wants the same.

[MerinTB]

ZombieGerbil wrote...
 Voiced.

That is all.

99% of the community wants the same.

Of what community?

The BSN one is fairly evenly split -
http://social.biowar...34/polls/23022/
http://social.biowar...26/polls/26124/

Escapist poll shows the majority are okay with EITHER, and still more than 1% want silent specifically -
http://www.escapistm...ent-protagonist

If anything REMOTELY like 99% were true there wouldn't be any debate.

As opposed to endless
http://www.gameinfor...otagonists.aspx
articles
http://geekmandem.co...d-protagonists/
and forum threads
http://www.mmo-champ...ve-Protagonist.
and blog posts
http://justpressstart.net/?p=2422
to find.

And that's just a random few off the first page of Google results (out of 2,790,000, which while I know many won't be relevant, I'm not digging through all of them.)

I understand "99%" is hyperbole.  But I also know such over-exaggerations shouldn't be allowed to stand.

[addiction21]

MerinTB wrote...

I understand "99%" is hyperbole.  But I also know such over-exaggerations shouldn't be allowed to stand.

*hands Merin a cookie*

[Fallstar]

Latest update:

Voiced PC with paraphrasing: 189 votes 54%
Silent PC with full dialogue: 160 votes 46%

Enough data to do a significance test, will tell you whether or not this means anything in a bit.

Quick edit: Intersting to note that what started out as being significantly in favour of voiced, is now a significantly reduced difference in %. 

The data is significant at the 5% significance level, and almost certainly is at 1% as well. What this means is that you cannot simply disregard the 8% difference in proportion as down to random errors, statistically speaking, that proprtional difference is enough to say that the BSN who voted are more favourable towards the voiced paraphrased option.  

Modifié par DuskWarden, 03 novembre 2011 - 09:47 .