457 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

eroeru wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Hawke is just as defined as any 1 of the Wardens 

Quoted for misinformation.

Many feel that the voice is adding most in pre-defined characters. You cannot without imagination grasp what the tone and exact character of the lines said are, when it's only written (that's also why the forums are so full of misunderstandings), but a voice adds, for me, the whole of the character.

 
Misinformation? When I say defined I mean having a backstory and a defined role coming into the game. 

eroeru wrote...

This said, I love silet PC because of the role-play involved, and don't so much adore the voiced ones. Though if voiced, the character should be very neutral - Geralt of Rivia and Shephard come to mind.

 
This is not a rule merely your personal preference. I far prefer the approach DA2 took over the more neutral ME2.

[Meris]

Morroian wrote...

eroeru wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Hawke is just as defined as any 1 of the Wardens 

Quoted for misinformation.

Many feel that the voice is adding most in pre-defined characters. You cannot without imagination grasp what the tone and exact character of the lines said are, when it's only written (that's also why the forums are so full of misunderstandings), but a voice adds, for me, the whole of the character.

 
Misinformation? When I say defined I mean having a backstory and a defined role coming into the game. 

Then your definition of defined is incredibly narrow.

No, the Warden is not as defined as Hawke.

Modifié par Meris, 08 janvier 2012 - 09:22 .

[abaris]

Meris wrote...


No, the Warden is not as defined as Hawke.

But that's rather a problem of setting than voice.

I never felt as if a character or my imagination gained by being silent.

The Warden had at leasr facial expressions. Skyrim has none, if someone were to compare two totally uncomparable games.

Modifié par abaris, 08 janvier 2012 - 09:34 .

[Morroian]

Meris wrote...

Morroian wrote...

eroeru wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Hawke is just as defined as any 1 of the Wardens 

Quoted for misinformation.

Many feel that the voice is adding most in pre-defined characters. You cannot without imagination grasp what the tone and exact character of the lines said are, when it's only written (that's also why the forums are so full of misunderstandings), but a voice adds, for me, the whole of the character.

 
Misinformation? When I say defined I mean having a backstory and a defined role coming into the game. 

Then your definition of defined is incredibly narrow.

No, the Warden is not as defined as Hawke.

I mean pre-defined as per the post I was replying to, yes the Warden is just as pre-defined as Hawke we just get a choice of pre-defined origins. 

[Morroian]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...

I agree.  I'm a bit torn on the whole "they rushed DA2" thing.  They were going to put out a horrible game regardless of how long they took.  If they'd had more time, there would be less recycled areas, less waves probably, better encounters, *maybe* more meaningful choices, but the game would have still been terrible.

Nope, you may not have liked it but it would have been a great game and the reception would have been a lot better. More along the lines of what happened with ME2.

Except that ME2 won numerous year ends award while DA 2 is not even worth any nomination, despite both games share identical elements.  You may want to look further before using ME 2 for comparison..

You've completely missed my point.

Modifié par Morroian, 08 janvier 2012 - 09:54 .

[Melca36]

Meris wrote...

Morroian wrote...

eroeru wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Hawke is just as defined as any 1 of the Wardens 

Quoted for misinformation.

Many feel that the voice is adding most in pre-defined characters. You cannot without imagination grasp what the tone and exact character of the lines said are, when it's only written (that's also why the forums are so full of misunderstandings), but a voice adds, for me, the whole of the character.

 
Misinformation? When I say defined I mean having a backstory and a defined role coming into the game. 

Then your definition of defined is incredibly narrow.

No, the Warden is not as defined as Hawke.

First, I wanted say I love all my Hawkes without question but I loved my Wardens well. 

I've come to believe that people say that the Warden is not defined because they were to lazy to use their imagination  to define them.   All my Wardens were defined as to how I imagined them.  

[Meris]

Melca36 wrote...

Meris wrote...

Morroian wrote...

eroeru wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Hawke is just as defined as any 1 of the Wardens 

Quoted for misinformation.

Many feel that the voice is adding most in pre-defined characters. You cannot without imagination grasp what the tone and exact character of the lines said are, when it's only written (that's also why the forums are so full of misunderstandings), but a voice adds, for me, the whole of the character.

 
Misinformation? When I say defined I mean having a backstory and a defined role coming into the game. 

Then your definition of defined is incredibly narrow.

No, the Warden is not as defined as Hawke.

First, I wanted say I love all my Hawkes without question but I loved my Wardens well. 

I've come to believe that people say that the Warden is not defined because they were to lazy to use their imagination  to define them.   All my Wardens were defined as to how I imagined them.  

You misunderstand, its because the warden is not pre-defined that we can use our imagination.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Morroian wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...

I agree.  I'm a bit torn on the whole "they rushed DA2" thing.  They were going to put out a horrible game regardless of how long they took.  If they'd had more time, there would be less recycled areas, less waves probably, better encounters, *maybe* more meaningful choices, but the game would have still been terrible.

Nope, you may not have liked it but it would have been a great game and the reception would have been a lot better. More along the lines of what happened with ME2.

Except that ME2 won numerous year ends award while DA 2 is not even worth any nomination, despite both games share identical elements.  You may want to look further before using ME 2 for comparison..

You've completely missed my point.

Your assessment is based on ME 2's success to justify DA 2's changes just like BioWare did. A flaw one. 

[Il Divo]

Dundalis wrote...

Bold underline comment: What a load of crap. Games aren't a medium for imagination? What the hell is an rpg then? It's (supposed to be anyway) a game where you play a role. A game where you can become someone of your choosing (i.e. imagination) and then play them in a fashion that fits that role. From the actions, to the appearance, to even their voice. If it isn't manifest on your screen, then you could use your imagination, in the case of the old text based games certainly. Even something as recent as NWN2 allowed scope for this to an extent.

And my point is that games are moving away from that. They didn't just stop being interactive novels when we moved past text only games. They simply started moving in a direction towards being more of an interactive movie. Choice became more limited, more information was spoon fed to us on the screen as graphics improved. We started at one end of the spectrum and are very quickly moving towards the other end. I don't dislike games today by any means, I don't think its quite at that point yet, but I could see myself losing interest as the current trends gather more momentum.

And yes, games are being tailored to what is becoming a dumber audience. I don't care if that makes me seem arrogant, cause it's true. Gamers today ain't got the same intellect as the gamers from back in the day. Probably due to it being more mass appeal I guess than anything. It used to be more of a nerds only affair I suppose. Simple fact is game developers used to cater for a more intelligent crowd. If you can't see that games are being dumbed down for the audience, well I guess there's nothing much more to say about it.

As for the thing about movies, hell yes I've seen critically acclaimed movies. They are great. The fact is however, no movie ever created could EVER come close to capturing the scope, depth and storytelling of a similar quality novel. It just ain't close really. A top quality novel is like eating a five course meal, as opposed to going to McDonalds (a movie). Just not the same really. Granted sometimes all I want to do is go to Maccas and feast out on junk, but when it comes down to it, the five courser is what fills you up.

No offense mate, but I recommend you get over yourself.

I also recommend that you actually take the time to look into  the differences of movies versus novels, as well as games, from a story-telling perspective. As a hint, it has something to do with presentation and active vs. passive story-telling, which possesses its own distinct advantages and disadvantages depending on what the writer is going for.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 janvier 2012 - 04:09 .

[Yrkoon]

Gamers today ain't got the same intellect as the gamers from back in the day.

Only someone who wasn't alive "back in the day"  could possibly say  this.  Because it's so far removed from the truth that it's almost comedic.

Back in the day, games  didn't require much thinking at all.   I remember sinking thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars into stuff like  Pong.  Donkey Kong.  Pacman.  Punchout.    It didn't take a 13  year old to master any of these simplistic  no-thought-needed  classics.   (I  think I was 12 when I beat Punchout lol)    To claim that they're, in any way, more complex or require more thinking  than, for example,   Skyrim, or  Dragon Age,  or the Witcher, or Call of Duty  is.... Silly. 

Modifié par Yrkoon, 09 janvier 2012 - 05:52 .

[Rawgrim]

I suspect Planescape:Torment requires more thinking than pac-man...

[Gotholhorakh]

Dundalis wrote...

Bold underline comment: What a load of crap. Games aren't a medium for imagination? What the hell is an rpg then? It's (supposed to be anyway) a game where you play a role. A game where you can become someone of your choosing (i.e. imagination) and then play them in a fashion that fits that role. From the actions, to the appearance, to even their voice. If it isn't manifest on your screen, then you could use your imagination, in the case of the old text based games certainly. Even something as recent as NWN2 allowed scope for this to an extent.

And my point is that games are moving away from that. They didn't just stop being interactive novels when we moved past text only games. They simply started moving in a direction towards being more of an interactive movie. Choice became more limited, more information was spoon fed to us on the screen as graphics improved. We started at one end of the spectrum and are very quickly moving towards the other end. I don't dislike games today by any means, I don't think its quite at that point yet, but I could see myself losing interest as the current trends gather more momentum.

And yes, games are being tailored to what is becoming a dumber audience. I don't care if that makes me seem arrogant, cause it's true. Gamers today ain't got the same intellect as the gamers from back in the day

Probably due to it being more mass appeal I guess than anything. It used to be more of a nerds only affair I suppose. Simple fact is
game developers used to cater for a more intelligent crowd. If you can't
see that games are being dumbed down for the audience, well I guess
there's nothing much more to say about it.

Exactly. It's happening, but it isn't because gamers are in some way less intelligent.

It's because games consoles have reached the level of sophistication where they're a target for games which have historically been developed for real computers. You've got just about enough processing power and memory, and just about enough buttons and sticks, to make it worth it.

This has always been on the cards since the platforms diverged in the first place. The problem is not the same gamers becoming less intelligent, it's that the target audience has expanded to include those casual users who would have been playing Sonic the Hedgehog, Final Fantasy or at best Chrono Trigger until the last ten years or so.

Couple that with the now staggering size of the industry and the scale of units you can shift on consoles, and mass appeal has become a factor in gaming genres that were traditionally "safe" from dumbing down.

There are positive trade-offs here, in that more money can be recouped (and therefore spent on the games) by studios because more units will be shifted, and perhaps more usefully that games like Fallout 3, Dragon Age 2, Skyrim etc. can now be run on computers you and I wouldn't prop a door open with, because they ultimately have to run on old, slow console hardware like the Playstation 3 and xbox 360.

As for the thing about movies, hell yes I've seen critically acclaimed movies. They are great. The fact is however, no movie ever created could EVER come close to capturing the scope, depth and storytelling of a similar quality novel. It just ain't close really. A top quality novel is like eating a five course meal, as opposed to going to McDonalds (a movie). Just not the same really. Granted sometimes all I want to do is go to Maccas and feast out on junk, but when it comes down to it, the five courser is what fills you up.

Yes, I agree - obviously the display hardware of a human mind is dramatically, almost infinitely better than anything the film industry has or will likely ever have - compare and contrast our ability to render in spectacular, vivid and almost infallible quality anything Heinlein, Herbert or Asimov have written, almost for nothing, with the spectacular level of effort the film industry has to go to, to display a single event of a large ship hitting an iceberg and sinking.

That's even ignoring the fact that a film of average length (the way they are made now) will hold roughly the amount of writing one can squeeze into a short story, which is why even quite short snappy novels must be condensed immensely to fit in a screenplay.

I honestly don't understand how people can disagree with you emphatically on this particular point, since it's plainly fact. I must have TL;DR'd terribly somewhere along the line. :innocent:

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 09 janvier 2012 - 06:38 .

[Il Divo]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Yes, I agree - obviously the display hardware of a human mind is dramatically, almost infinitely better than anything the film industry has or will likely ever have - compare and contrast our ability to render in spectacular, vivid and almost infallible quality anything Heinlein, Herbert or Asimov have written, almost for nothing, with the spectacular level of effort the film industry has to go to, to display a single event of a large ship hitting an iceberg and sinking.

That's even ignoring the fact that a film of average length (the way they are made now) will hold roughly the amount of writing one can squeeze into a short story, which is why even quite short snappy novels must be condensed immensely to fit in a screenplay.

I honestly don't understand how people can disagree with you emphatically on this particular point, since it's plainly fact. I must have TL;DR'd terribly somewhere along the line. :innocent:

That's exactly why it's not fact. You've already made an absolute value judgment in terms of the human mind's ability to render a scene versus a film's, when it's not even remotely set in stone. Each medium has different advantages and disadvantages to it. A novel may have the potential to provide greater scope, but it also has certain limitations as well. This seems to be a case where those who enjoy a particular medium of story-telling can't possibly understand the advantages some see in other mediums.

[Gotholhorakh]

Il Divo wrote...
That's exactly why it's not fact. You've already made an absolute value judgment in terms of the human mind's ability to render a scene versus a film's, when it's not even remotely set in stone. Each medium has different advantages and disadvantages to it. A novel may have the potential to provide greater scope, but it also has certain limitations as well. This seems to be a case where those who enjoy a particular medium of story-telling can't possibly understand the advantages some see in other mediums.

No. The facts I mention being:

1) An average length film does in fact always equate to a short story worth of written content, or as it is known a "screenplay".

2) A novel can be literally unlimited in its level of fantastic scenes and "special effects" - unconstrained by budgets, achievability or concerns about believable reproduction when the media is consumed. A film simply can't.

3) A human being's imagination can, however it does so, reproduce more things than a special effects crew can, much more easily, to individual spec, and for effectively no money. This is simply the case, and while one can dispute it as an exercise in argument because what happens in the mind is not provable fact, the reality is we can all right now (if we want to) imagine a space battle, sword fight, some buttocks, a sun imploding, a cake and a dwarf being drowned in whipped cream, and nobody is going to "tell it's fake" or have to pay money to do it.

I enjoy both. I don't fail to see the advantages and disadvantages of either, it's just the case that a novel is a larger, more in-depth piece of writing than a feature film, and is unconstrained by what sounds and images can be reproduced for film.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 09 janvier 2012 - 08:08 .

[Eveangaline]

If it's going to take anything from skyrim, it needs to add a quest where you get more guards for Aveline



By shooting adventurers in the knees with arrows

Modifié par Eveangaline, 09 janvier 2012 - 08:09 .

[Yrkoon]

Rawgrim wrote...

I suspect Planescape:Torment requires more thinking than pac-man...

it also came out 15 years later....   And didn't sell worth a damn  back then.... when  you know, gamers were supposedy  "smarter".  Imagine that.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 09 janvier 2012 - 10:32 .

[Helena Tylena]

yaw wrote...

 ... silent protagonist?

Skyrim has proved to the gaming industry that the silent protagonist is not dead, and dialouge wheels arn't necessary. 

Before November I thought Bioware was going to be stubborn in their ways and consider a voiced protagonist and conversation wheel to be a perminant feature in all their games from now on.. but frankly, after the failure of DA2 and the success of Skyrim, maybe Bioware might be open to advice now.

I've certainly never heard anyone complain about the silent protagonist in Skyrim. Why not? Because it's not needed. Oblivion didn't have one, Morrowind didn't have one, none of the ES series had one. And noone felt the need to 'innovate' and start using one. Take notes.

It works for Skyrim because characterization is pretty much the last thing Skyrim can be bothered with. The Dragonborn has no personality safe for the one the player makes up for them. And even so, that personality has little or no effect on the character's surroundings. The same goes for most characters, and those that do still have holes so large they need to be mended by the player's imagination. I know general Tullius is a good commander, but beyond that, I hardly know the man. Despite having taken orders from him for about ten-ish levels. On the other hand, I know pretty much everything about Allistair.

Dragon Age character, on the other hand, be they PC or NPC, take centre-stage in the series. The Player Character may start out as pretty much a blank slate, but they always have a certain past (grew up in place X, surrounded by Y people) and their personality can be molded through actions taken in the game. What's better, those actions will affect those around them. The only thing I know about the Dragon born is that they tried to at one point enter Skyrim, were captured for an unspecified crime (though one that warrants the death penalty), and that the only meaningful choice they can make is wether to side with the racist bastards or those who oppose the racist bastards.

Skyrim tells the story of a country. Dragon Age tells a story about people. Personally, I think a silent protagonist fits the former better, while a voiced one the latter.

/rant

[cruelgretchen]

ive read bout BW giving kudos to Bethesta for Skyrim, and i gotta say thats a brave step forward.
i posted it somewhere here before , if BW would create such an open world RPG as same as skyrim or previous TES titels with an intense mainquest ,filled with drama ect (maybe project some of it to side quests) it would be a 10 outta 10 title .

After that stop doing DLCs and bring only out add ons that will provide satisfaction throughout the RPG community with brains .
suppling DLCs with a real gamevalue could have even helped DA2 outta its misery.
DLCs worth 1 hour gameplay are worth **** , forgive me my french ..theyre pocketgrabbers

anyways i hope all gameproducers learned a lesson here , and bravo BW admitting that they did a good job ...thats very rare

[Stanley Woo]

Let's bring this discussion back to Dragon Age II, please. it's gone far afield.

[LobselVith8]

Helena Tylena wrote...

It works for Skyrim because characterization is pretty much the last thing Skyrim can be bothered with. The Dragonborn has no personality safe for the one the player makes up for them. And even so, that personality has little or no effect on the character's surroundings.

That seems more like Kirkwall, where Hawke's actions have no impact on the city-state and he's an overly passive protagonist who seems to be in a coma for years at a time, while the Dragonborn can be proactive and make an impact in the nine Holds of Skyrim.

Helena Tylena wrote...

The same goes for most characters, and those that do still have holes so large they need to be mended by the player's imagination. I know general Tullius is a good commander, but beyond that, I hardly know the man. Despite having taken orders from him for about ten-ish levels. On the other hand, I know pretty much everything about Allistair.

General Tullius and Jarl Ulfric are people you get to know better during their questlines, and neither one of them becomes a raving lunatic simply because the protagonist opposes them - neither one becomes an abomination or possessed by a macguffin, they both stand by their convictions because they believe they are doing the right thing. I like that both leaders are flawed men in charge of imperfect groups, and that siding with both in different playthroughs gives you more insight into them.

Helena Tylena wrote...

Dragon Age character, on the other hand, be they PC or NPC, take centre-stage in the series. The Player Character may start out as pretty much a blank slate, but they always have a certain past (grew up in place X, surrounded by Y people) and their personality can be molded through actions taken in the game.

Hawke is never my character, though. I find him to be infuriating, because (in my humble opinion) he's a rather lazy and I don't think he's intelligent. While his companions are busy actually doing something - Merrill is trying to uncover the secrets of ancient elven technology, Fenris is reaching out to someone from his past, Aveline is being the Gordon to Kirkwall's Gotham - Hawke does nothing unless someone tells him to do something. I find him to be ridiculously passive. Hawke doesn't even say the dialogue options I chose, often saying something entirely different.

Helena Tylena wrote...

What's better, those actions will affect those around them.

What? I kept wondering when Hawke's actions would actually shape Kirkwall, like Laidlaw claimed. It never did. Even the elves of the Alienage didn't seem to notice that my apostate Hawke took a stand against the powerful Magistrate Vanard in order to remove a serial killer who was preying on their children. It felt like nothing my Hawke did in Kirkwall mattered.

Helena Tylena wrote...

The only thing I know about the Dragon born is that they tried to at one point enter Skyrim, were captured for an unspecified crime (though one that warrants the death penalty), and that the only meaningful choice they can make is wether to side with the racist bastards or those who oppose the racist bastards.

Racist? Why are they racist? Because two Nords berate a Dunmer woman for not joining the Stormcloaks in Windhelm? So all Stormcloaks are racist because two men - who aren't even members of the Stormcloaks themselves - are irate that non-Nords aren't joining the Stormcloaks to fight for Skyrim's freedom? Actual members of the Stormcloaks contrast this behavior - Ralof has no problem with the protagonist not being a Nord, even commenting that you don't need to be a Nord to fight for Skyrim's freedom; a proprietor in Falkreath accepts non-Nords because of his time with the Stormcloaks; and Ulfric actually has a high opinion of the Dragonborn, even if he (or she) is not a Nord.

[The Dubious]

I only liked voiced protagonist because of the jokes Hawke came up with- I did not care for it otherwise.

Personally prefer the non-voiced protagonist- its fun to imagine what my character may sound like without a preset voice interfering. I mean I really can't imagine Hawke not having the voice he has now. Which is fine when he pokes fun at people/conversation- its cute/funny.

Ultimately for me- if it shall be voice keep it as it is (build off of it though) I like my snarky protagonist, but if not I'd rather have the non-voiced protagonist.

[Gotholhorakh]

jcainhaze wrote...
Don't let anyone convince you that we can't have games as open and beautiful as Skyrime that also have masterfully crafted and satisfying story, companions, and voiced protagonist.  It's coming in the future.

Oh well, hopefully people will keep on and on screaming for it until they get it, and people realise what a horrible mistake it was.

...and by people, I don't necessarily mean the majority of people..

Morroian wrote...
I agree there is a greater
breadth of role playing in that sense but role playing across a fairly
wide range is still possible with a voiced protagonist. 

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see how the point can stand and "role play across a fairly wide range" exist noticeably if your character always says the same line in the same voice in the same way with the same inflections, and does the same mannerisms and movements for every character you make.

What is left of the character's manner for you to decide upon at that point?

Nothing, beyond the few options you can choose at the start of the game, it seems.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 10 janvier 2012 - 09:56 .

[Deadmac]

yaw wrote...
... silent protagonist?

When you give the main character (pc) a voice, the actor (player) no longer plays a particular role. You become a spectator. Instead of being in the first person's perspective, you are now in the third person's perspective. If you played a 'table-top role-playing' game, the voice of the role you play is your own. As a result of keeping the silent protagonist, your inner voice and personality determines the pitch and tone of the dialogue. Once the player character is given a voice by another person, the player controlling the character can not use his or her imagination to form a personality. All you are doing is selecting an option, and then BioWare's voice actor is determining the chracter's personality. During a real roleplaying experience, the player's imagination is key in the creation of a character.

How does another person's voice represent me? My voice has a very specific pitch and tone, so how can a voice over player character represent my personality?

It cannot.

Modifié par Deadmac, 10 janvier 2012 - 10:32 .

[Morroian]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see how the point can stand and "role play across a fairly wide range" exist noticeably if your character always says the same line in the same voice in the same way with the same inflections, and does the same mannerisms and movements for every character you make.

What is left of the character's manner for you to decide upon at that point?

I can work around those similarities and create a character in my mind that to me feels different. I've been told that this is merely head canon and not really playing the game as presented but I don't see how its different say to having to create a character in my mind from the barebones given to the player in Skyrim.

[Morroian]

Deadmac wrote...

When you give the main character (pc) a voice, the actor (player) no longer plays a particular role. You become a spectator. Instead of being in the first person's perspective, you are now in the third person's perspective. If you played a 'table-top role-playing' game, the voice of the role you play is your own. As a result of keeping the silent protagonist, your inner voice and personality determines the pitch and tone of the dialogue. Once the player character is given a voice by another person, the player controlling the character can not use his or her imagination to form a personality. All you are doing is selecting an option, and then BioWare's voice actor is determining the chracter's personality. During a real roleplaying experience, the player's imagination is key in the creation of a character.

How does another person's voice represent me? My voice has a very specific pitch and tone, so how can a voice over player character represent my personality?

If you want to role play a completely different character to yourself why should it represent you? LIke I said in my previous post it is still possible to use imagination to create a character in the 3rd person that the player controls despite the VO. VO doesn't stop a player from doing this although it may restrict the options to an extent. Voice and tone aren't the entirety of a persons character.