457 réponses à ce sujet

[philippe willaume]

eroeru wrote...

Meris wrote...

A same historic fact can have a number of interpretations. The more of my character's part in conversation is described on screen, the less personalized becomes my interpretation of the story of the game and of the protagonist.

So though one might raise interpretations about why Hawke acted as either blue/purple or red at a given time, I can do that with my Warden and much, much more.

Essentially, the Silent Protagonist implies more interactivity, which transcends that of the game. And considering video games are a medium about interactivity, a Silent Protagonist, arguably, implies a better game also.

Very well said!

I'm tired of proDA2 people assessing that DA:O was identical with DA2 in the aspects that are referred to in criticisms (and only those). It wasn't. One could simply not feel an aspect important, but to claim an angle non-existent is rude even.

philippe approves + 20

[publius1000]

Ok so help me understand here - how does a silent protagonist help you guys feel more immersed? At the end of the day you're still saying preset lines and you still get to pick what you want to say, having a voice just adds realism - or are you imagining that your char is saying it in your voice? what if you're playing someone of the opposite gender, or say an Argonian? how does it possibly make sense that in skyrim you have voiced shouts, but otherwise you're completely silent? also, someone said that it would just be way too much voice acting what with all the possible choices - sure, but for everything you say someone has to answer, so everyone else already has that much voice acting anyways. And there's no excuse for it in games where you don't get dialogue or character choices: take something like Portal 2: Glados and Wheatley talk to you the whole game, and you never once answer them? That's immersion breaking if I've ever seen it.

[Yrkoon]

Ok, I can't speak for everyone. But for me, the beauty of RPGs  starts  at *conception*. I begin a game with a clean slate and get to decide almost every detail of my character all the way down to how he communicates. When a game lets me do this, then I feel that the character I created is *me*.   Of course, no game will EVER let me be completely me, but regardless, that is the Ideal. And the further away from that Ideal, the less that character represents me,  and therefore, the lower the emersion level.

Now take a game like DA2, which makes no bones about its demands that you play a Human named Hawke, who already comes with his own voice, and his own spoken lines that he'll often make without your input. Sometimes that's just too much. When I first played DA2, I was about 5 hours in when I *lost* immersion. I suddenly felt that I was directing someone else's adventures, rather than adventuring myself.  This caused me to stop caring as much about the events going on around me in the game.

As for the argument of "well, even DA:O has a limited set of dialogue options and you can only choose from those". My response to that is: It simply doesn't feel as bad, nor as restricting. It's hard to explain. And it's beside the point anyway. The problem we're discussing isn't the lack of dialogue choices, it's the fact that the dialogue itself is being spoken by someone who isn't you.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 21 janvier 2012 - 06:34 .

[TEWR]

Yrkoon makes a good case for why the silent protagonist is preferred by most of the RPG fans out there. It allows them to make the voice their own and feel like the character is their own.

That said, DAO didn't have a silent protagonist. DAO had the battle cries shouted by the Warden which sort of nullifies the idea of him using your voice. There were six voice options per race, and which one you picked ultimately became your Warden's voice. Because you can't imagine your Warden saying something in your voice and then hear a different voice that isn't yours and still say "Yup he/she sounds like me."

However, DAO did allow for more roleplaying options than DAII.

But for me, the concept of a voiced protagonist doesn't hinder my roleplaying. For me, so long as I can still be that character and do things in line with who my character is, it doesn't matter. To that end, I've found that voiced protagonists enhance my roleplaying. For my own strange reasons.

That said for that particular part of my post, DAII failed to actually enhance my roleplaying. It hindered it. Which is sad really. It's due largely to the paraphrases -- even if I was okay with what Hawke said, it's the not knowing that got to me --, the very flawed personality system (IMO), and the linear narrative.

So while the idea of a voiced protagonist isn't horrible and can work, DAII did not make the best case for it.

And honestly, you would've thought Bioware would've known this from what they did with the game's story.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 21 janvier 2012 - 07:00 .

[Spicen]

Sylfschiffer wrote...

Making the character talk seem it to be more alive and the tone can be very fun (in a lot of ways, like the sarcastic Hawke was awesome to me). As you like silent protagonist, I can fully understand that, but I'm more like a gamer who like when the main character has a more important role than just saving the world. I want him to have a deep relationship with the characters and a lot of discussions with them (more intimate than the relationships in Skyrim).

 '-'

Naah, i feel im watching a movie rather than being myself when playing with a voiced protagonist. Anyway Skyrim is 100 folds better than DA2 so stop complainin.

[TEWR]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

To those people who keep saying the warden has no emotion, what do you see in this picture?

To be fair, that image doesn't say that the Warden isn't emotionless. There isn't an expression on the face.

The scene it appears in however, conveys the emotion needed.

To phrase it better -- just incase I phrased it poorly -- when the Warden appears in that scene there is no expression on the Warden's face. At least none that I can see in this screenshot nor saw in any of my playthroughs, though admittedly it's been a while since I've played DAO so the scene may have had something that I missed.

But the whole scene carries with it an air of sadness at the loss of Riordan.

So really, the game failed to properly deliver the right emotional expression on the Warden's face for that scene.

So yes, it is a blank stare. Which is a minor flaw with DAO.

Yrkoon wrote...

******? 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

publius1000 wrote...

Ok so help me understand here - how does a silent protagonist help you guys feel more immersed? At the end of the day you're still saying preset lines and you still get to pick what you want to say, having a voice just adds realism - or are you imagining that your char is saying it in your voice?

Silent allow self inserted voice. It's help to identify the character as your avatar. Giving the impression that you live in that world, adventuring with your own eyes, breathing the air, walking the step as you move forward, feeling sad, joy etc according to events surrounding you. Making the world, the people and the environment alive as you are part of them. Understanding how the world and events works in the same manner how you understand the real world works.  Hearing other people's voice doesn't work for player avatar because it's doesn't represent you as the character.

publius1000 wrote...

what if you're playing someone of the opposite gender, or say an Argonian? how does it possibly make sense that in skyrim you have voiced shouts, but otherwise you're completely silent?

If I create someone of the opposite gender or different race such as Female Argonian or Female Elves, I tend to model after someone very close and personal to me. This help me to understand the character better, Every action and expression she does based on my assumption which sometime doesn't always parallel to how I view things like romancing Alistair. Lucky things in DAO female character's dialogue is slightly different than male and this guide me to choose the line accordingly. Silent allow me to create such image freely while visualize cinematic expression always present a different girl that never mirror the one I created. Voice is not the issue for this type of character creation since I use combat voice selected in character creation screen as the basis of my character anyway. Therefore there is no issue playing different character other than my avatar. My main gripe is facial expression and how character emotes. 90% of vizualized facial and emotion expression doesn't match to how I picture my character. This is a serious problem since I interpret a person by his/her facial and emotion expression or what John terms as FaceEX technology. 

publius1000 wrote...

also, someone said that it would just be way too much voice acting what with all the possible choices - sure, but for everything you say someone has to answer, so everyone else already has that much voice acting anyways.

Everyone else voice acting is minor issue because everyone else is not human. Their response and reaction will never match my character response and they are not the one I play AS. From the moment I play cRPG, I treated "everyone else" response as nothing important other than quest giver which is why I always amuses when "everyone else" keep repeating the same line over and over again. Perhaps this the reason why most hardcore RPGers move to MMORPG to have better interaction with "everyone else" that is human even if they are all silent. But in Single Player RPG, the only human in game is the one I play -  player character. Therefore I only concern how my character response.

publius1000 wrote...

And there's no excuse for it in games where you don't get dialogue or character choices: take something like Portal 2: Glados and Wheatley talk to you the whole game, and you never once answer them? That's immersion breaking if I've ever seen it.

I don't buy such RPG. I never be able to get into those characters. It just feel wrong because it's not about me and my experiencing with the world. However, if the game is not tagged as RPG then I could care less because it's not about me playing a role and I don't expect to. Take example The Sims characters. Everyone including the one you direct talk in gibberish voice acting. It's perfectly fine because I don't play as the Sims. I play as GOD.  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 21 janvier 2012 - 08:07 .

[lobi]

The only time I would dislike my DAO warden voice was just this one line in the violent option,
"would you like me to get you a ladder so you can get off my back?''.
That line was a little long I thought, and seemed to pop up quite often. The rest was pretty funny and seemed to blend.
But Hawk constantly asserting a lawful good alignment just killed any pretence of roleplaying my choice. Call Alpha Protocol a Douchesim if you like but the evil option was done way better than DA2. Mass effect was kinda ok renegade but still stuck in lawful. Really hope there is a return of chaotic evil to bioware games.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

To those people who keep saying the warden has no emotion, what do you see in this picture?

To be fair, that image doesn't say that the Warden isn't emotionless. There isn't an expression on the face.

The scene it appears in however, conveys the emotion needed.

To phrase it better -- just incase I phrased it poorly -- when the Warden appears in that scene there is no expression on the Warden's face. At least none that I can see in this screenshot nor saw in any of my playthroughs, though admittedly it's been a while since I've played DAO so the scene may have had something that I missed.

But the whole scene carries with it an air of sadness at the loss of Riordan.

So really, the game failed to properly deliver the right emotional expression on the Warden's face for that scene.

So yes, it is a blank stare. Which is a minor flaw with DAO.

We are not arguing the scene. We are arguing the warden's blank stare . I brought up the scence to convey my Warden reaction using Riordan's death as an example. Most people will expect their warden to express sadness in the face, right? Well not for my warden. She reacted just as I wanted her to..Because that's why she is my warden and not everyone's else wardens. She has her own story and reason beyond those "blank stare".

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 21 janvier 2012 - 08:01 .

[TEWR]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

We are not arguing the scene. We are arguing the warden's blank stare.

Yes I got that. The expression -- or lack thereof -- in that scene is part of the blank stare argument. The scene is part of the blank stare argument since you included that pic in the discussion.

My comment was not talking about the scene. It was talking about the blank stare in relation to that particular scene and the game itself.

. I brought up the scence to convey my Warden reaction using Riordan's death as an example. Most people will expect their warden to express sadness in the face, right? Well not for my warden. She reacted just as I wanted her to..Because that's why she is my warden and not everyone's else wardens. She has her own story and reason beyond those "blank stare".

And what of the people who are disappointed the sad expression wasn't portrayed on their Warden's face? Hmm? It's a two-way street. Some people are content with no expression, others aren't.

Usually ends in some collisions though. Hope everyone has insurance!

At any rate, the "blank stare" isn't the best scenario. This is obviously a moment of sadness, but that doesn't mean your character can't also be determined afterwards. A brief expression of sadness -- because really, who doesn't feel sad for Riordan becoming a pancake? -- followed by a change to an expression like that of the blank stare, which can be interpreted how a person wants.

Or alternatively, have the Warden show sadness and then one of the companions places their hand on the Warden's shoulder, to which the Warden looks up with the blank stare -- again, interpreted how the player wants. This way, sadness is shown -- which could be interpeted to be either sadness at Riordan's death, or sadness that the player couldn't kill him if he/she dislikes the Wardens -- and the player is still able to feel like their character is their own.

Though the more I look at it, it seems that your Warden's eyebrows are pointing downwards and the eyes have narrowed slightly, to show the determination.

Which means that the determination may be present in other peoples' playthroughs as well, where it isn't wanted in some cases. What if some people want their character to feel apprehensive now? Or something else entirely?

"Is this what I have to look forward to? Dying, in the prime of my life, at the hands of the Archdemon? Must I die?"

"Sure hope Morrigan was right."

"I'm hungry..."


==============================

Also, I don't think DAII is flawed with showing Hawke's face. I don't think it's a success either, but I think that showing Hawke's face doesn't really matter. It's a middle ground. You like it or you don't. But it does allow for the voiced protagonist to be stronger in that you can see the expression for the option you pick.

Roleplaying is more than just "My character was thinking this and this while he/she held a blank stare". It's about what motivates you to make decisions, how you handle situations, how you react to events, etc. Headcanon and what your character feels in certain cutscenes play a part in it, but simply having the blank stare isn't the solution.

In my mind, it's a problem to rely on having a game with only the blank stare. Granted, DAII's dialogue wheel isn't the perfect solution either. We need a range of emotions and dialogue options to choose from. I would rather have a variety of options to choose from with the full dialogue. But alas, this isn't really possible with restrictions on game making and resources and all that jazz.

Still, I want to know what my character is saying, voiced or not. To deprive me of the knowledge of what he is going to say before I hear it is -- if I may be allowed some hyperbole -- a crime against us gamers.

We are playing Role-Playing Games, which means we are creating a character that should be our own. One that should do things we want him/her to do. Not what the game wants, but what we want. And this is where DAII failed in my mind in the roleplaying regard.

I wanted my Hawke to join the Mage Underground in Act 2. I wanted him to convince Anders this would be beneficial to their cause. I wanted him to become its Saviour. Its Champion. I wanted him to be proactive in trying to remove Meredith from power -- he'd fail to actually remove her due to story purposes, but the motivation and role I wanted him to play is what's important -- and continue to do so after the Viscount's death, so Kirkwall could be at peace.

Again, he'd fail to succeed in his attempt at removing her from power, but what's important is what I wanted him to feel and to do. And this wouldn't even require the blank stare. It would be what he did in game.

Instead, Hawke does the same thing each time I replay it. Nothing.

Which would be fine if I wanted him to do nothing on certain playthroughs. But I didn't. I wanted him to do something.

I should not have to play Bioware's character. I should be able to play mine. Yrkoon should be able to play his. You should be able to play yours. John Epler should be able to play his. We should be able to play our character.

Showing Hawke's face isn't the real problem with DAII. It's how the game restricts the players motivations and choices in an attempt for us to play a character not our own.

But yes, Hawke talking without our input is bad. I can excuse it -- and I even like it actually -- in banter conversations. In cutscenes though, I'd rather be able to pick what he says. Or have him not say anything at all if I can't and just have the companion(s) say it in his place.

Showing his face however, isn't bad.

And for the record, I'm pretty sure that the Morrigan at the Eluvian image you posted isn't a first person view from the Warden like you think. Just a close-up of her face. you can interpret it to be first person I guess, but I don't think that's what it really was intended to be as. I could be wrong though.

Bah.... I have no idea if I made any sense/logical comments or if I just did nonsensical rambling. I should stop posting on the BSN at anywhere past midnight.

In fact, probably just a bunch of nonsensical rambling. Time to go to sleep!

....

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 21 janvier 2012 - 09:44 .

[publius1000]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

If I create someone of the opposite gender or different race such as Female Argonian or Female Elves, I tend to model after someone very close and personal to me. This help me to understand the character better, Every action and expression she does based on my assumption which sometime doesn't always parallel to how I view things like romancing Alistair. Lucky things in DAO female character's dialogue is slightly different than male and this guide me to choose the line accordingly.

That's an interesting idea, I just pick a race or class and then make whatever character I feel like at that moment.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Everyone else voice acting is minor issue because everyone else is not human. Their response and reaction will never match my character response and they are not the one I play AS. From the moment I play cRPG, I treated "everyone else" response as nothing important other than quest giver which is why I always amuses when "everyone else" keep repeating the same line over and over again. Perhaps this the reason why most hardcore RPGers move to MMORPG to have better interaction with "everyone else" that is human even if they are all silent. But in Single Player RPG, the only human in game is the one I play -  player character. Therefore I only concern how my character response.

I don't get that - why is your character any more important than anyone else in the world? I mean if you want to be immersed and be a part of the world then you should be just like anyone else, which makes sense story-wise, since you usually start out as some nobody and only gradually get to be a super hero. I guess maybe it's just cause you like to role-play whereas I see the game as simply telling a story from one guy's point of view, you just happen to control his every move (ideally).

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
I don't buy such RPG. I never be able to get into those characters. It just feel wrong because it's not about me and my experiencing with the world. However, if the game is not tagged as RPG then I could care less because it's not about me playing a role and I don't expect to. Take example The Sims characters. Everyone including the one you direct talk in gibberish voice acting. It's perfectly fine because I don't play as the Sims. I play as GOD.  

Well Portal 2 is hardly an RPG, but my comment was directed at games in general, not just RPGs.
Also, just out of curiosity, are you French by any chance?

[Sacred_Fantasy]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote... 
Though the more I look at it, it seems that your Warden's eyebrows are pointing downwards and the eyes have narrowed slightly, to show the determination.

Which means that the determination may be present in other peoples' playthroughs as well, where it isn't wanted in some cases. What if some people want their character to feel apprehensive now? Or something else entirely?

"Is this what I have to look forward to? Dying, in the prime of my life, at the hands of the Archdemon? Must I die?"

"Sure hope Morrigan was right."

"I'm hungry..."

I morphed her eyes narrow using toolset sliders and retexture her eyebrows in that manner. Not intentionally actually. But the game graphic tend to round out toolset slider values making extreme changes in game. Now you mention that, I'm not sure if she did make determination expression. It's been a long time already. To my knowledge she looks the way she did.   

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


Roleplaying is more than just "My character was thinking this and this while he/she held a blank stare". It's about what motivates you to make decisions, how you handle situations, how you react to events, etc. Headcanon and what your character feels in certain cutscenes play a part in it, but simply having the blank stare isn't the solution.

I agree but there is no motivation to make any decision. There is no options to handle situations. None of the choices matters except for the sibling. ( I ignore the companions rivalry/friendship because the companions, in my book, are as good as gone ). Everything is railroaded. I stopped bothering paraphrasing too. It's pointless to interpret. I don't want to play guessing with words. I don't expect things going to change much with DA current direction. I don't expect Bioware will return to full text dialogue either. Therefore, the only thing left is using voice tones element. And since the tones associate with cinematic facial and emotion expression, it become my one of my biggest problem beside story. I define a character by his/her expression when everything else such as action and choices fail or non-existent. 
 

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote... 
In my mind, it's a problem to rely on having a game with only the blank stare. Granted, DAII's dialogue wheel isn't the perfect solution either. We need a range of emotions and dialogue options to choose from. I would rather have a variety of options to choose from with the full dialogue. But alas, this isn't really possible with restrictions on game making and resources and all that jazz.

Since BioWare can't provide wide range of emotion and dialogue options to choose from, then it's either make the blank expression available as a choice or don't point the camera to PC's face during dialogue. It's pointless when you see a character being joyful when you don't want her to response in such manner. 
 

[philippe willaume]

publius1000 wrote...

Ok so help me understand here - how does a silent protagonist help you guys feel more immersed? At the end of the day you're still saying preset lines and you still get to pick what you want to say, having a voice just adds realism - or are you imagining that your char is saying it in your voice? what if you're playing someone of the opposite gender, or say an Argonian? how does it possibly make sense that in skyrim you have voiced shouts, but otherwise you're completely silent? also, someone said that it would just be way too much voice acting what with all the possible choices - sure, but for everything you say someone has to answer, so everyone else already has that much voice acting anyways. And there's no excuse for it in games where you don't get dialogue or character choices: take something like Portal 2: Glados and Wheatley talk to you the whole game, and you never once answer them? That's immersion breaking if I've ever seen it.

Hello
It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that a voiced protagonist with a voice you don’t feel matches is just as bad as or worse than the silent protagonist. In a way your arguments are valid in either cases.
 
IE Conan the barbarian voiced by David Bekham for example
Or your never going to have a hawke that sound like Brick-top.
You are not much good to me alive, Anders are you?
Punish him for me Fenris
Basically a silent protagonist enables you to voice it as you like. You know the voice in your head.
 
Personally it does not affect me that much, DA:0 worked for me and TW, ME worked just as well. That being said I can understand it being a major problem for some.
 
phil

[Sacred_Fantasy]

publius1000 wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Everyone else voice acting is minor issue because everyone else is not human. Their response and reaction will never match my character response and they are not the one I play AS. From the moment I play cRPG, I treated "everyone else" response as nothing important other than quest giver which is why I always amuses when "everyone else" keep repeating the same line over and over again. Perhaps this the reason why most hardcore RPGers move to MMORPG to have better interaction with "everyone else" that is human even if they are all silent. But in Single Player RPG, the only human in game is the one I play -  player character. Therefore I only concern how my character response.

I don't get that - why is your character any more important than anyone else in the world? I mean if you want to be immersed and be a part of the world then you should be just like anyone else, which makes sense story-wise, since you usually start out as some nobody and only gradually get to be a super hero. I guess maybe it's just cause you like to role-play whereas I see the game as simply telling a story from one guy's point of view, you just happen to control his every move (ideally).

I think following just one guy's point of view is restricting roleplay. When I said everyone else is not important that because I create my own story. Sometime within the limitation, if I'm happy with the way the story is presented. Sometime I modify official story if I feel it is too restricted or linear, Sometime I create completely different story than official story. But in my roleplay, the world always revolve around my character. Everything else is just a matter of scripting. All I need is toolset.  Therefore I only look for games that provide toolset or creation kit or allow lot of customization. Roleplaying for me is about creating your own story. You can work through your limitation or you can script your own. Without creation, following a story is like reading novel or watching movie. But not roleplaying.No matter how interactive the video game is.  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 21 janvier 2012 - 11:44 .

[TEWR]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

I morphed her eyes narrow using toolset sliders and retexture her eyebrows in that manner. Not intentionally actually. But the game graphic tend to round out toolset slider values making extreme changes in game. Now you mention that, I'm not sure if she did make determination expression. It's been a long time already. To my knowledge she looks the way she did.   

So then you've tainted the evidence! It's inadmissible now!

Anyway, I'll have to replay it myself -- and also remember to remove my character's damn helmet -- to see his face during the scene.

I always forget to remove the helmet, which sort of makes the scene not as impressive for me.

"I'm staring at a helmet. Awesome."

I agree but there is no motivation to make any decision. There is no options to handle situations. None of the choices matters except for the sibling. ( I ignore the companions rivalry/friendship because the companions, in my book, are as good as gone ). Everything is railroaded.

I know. I've often criticised DAII's railroaded plot.

My point was to talk about roleplaying itself for every RPG, not roleplaying in DAII (which a person cannot actually do like they could in DAO). 
 

I stopped bothering paraphrasing too. It's pointless to interpret. I don't want to play guessing with words. I don't expect things going to change much with DA current direction. I don't expect Bioware will return to full text dialogue either. Therefore, the only thing left is using voice tones element. And since the tones associate with cinematic facial and emotion expression, it become my one of my biggest problem beside story. I define a character by his/her expression when everything else such as action and choices fail or non-existent. 

Since BioWare can't provide wide range of emotion and dialogue options to choose from, then it's either make the blank expression available as a choice or don't point the camera to PC's face during dialogue. It's pointless when you see a character being joyful when you don't want her to response in such manner. 
 

I can agree that making the PC speak without player input should be removed. I would rather have the voiced protagonist sans those moments, then revert back to the blank stare.

But I would also like to either drop the dialogue wheel or institute at the very least a mechanic where if you hover over the option with the mouse/analog controller for a few seconds, the full sentence appears at the top of the screen before you choose the option.

Or what was proposed by Sylvius the Mad in his thread.

[Meris]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

(1)That said, DAO didn't have a silent protagonist. DAO had the battle cries shouted by the Warden which sort of nullifies the idea of him using your voice. There were six voice options per race, and which one you picked ultimately became your Warden's voice. Because you can't imagine your Warden saying something in your voice and then hear a different voice that isn't yours and still say "Yup he/she sounds like me."
(...)
(2)But for me, the concept of a voiced protagonist doesn't hinder my roleplaying. For me, so long as I can still be that character and do things in line with who my character is, it doesn't matter. To that end, I've found that voiced protagonists enhance my roleplaying. For my own strange reasons.

(1) Oh come on! I said that once about Dovahkin's shouts, but as a joke. If we must nitpick that much, there are mods out there to silence the battle screams...

(2)I can understand that you're still roleplaying, but I cannot even fathom how the voice can possibly bring you closer to your character than all the Silent Protagonist can do. I simply can't see how less personalization makes the game's story any more yours. I can't see how seeing what should be yourself talking on the screen can enhance your action of becoming and acting like another person.

Its like saying that you'd have more roleplaying options with Hawke if BioWare had removed class selection or face creation.

Unless you're a fan of railroading, then I can understand. I can see the virtues of a more focused plot. Though, personally, BioWare doesn't need to standardize our experiences more.

Modifié par Meris, 21 janvier 2012 - 12:42 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

publius1000 wrote...

Ok so help me understand here - how does a silent protagonist help you guys feel more immersed? At the end of the day you're still saying preset lines and you still get to pick what you want to say, having a voice just adds realism - or are you imagining that your char is saying it in your voice?

Silent allow self inserted voice. It's help to identify the character as your avatar. Giving the impression that you live in that world, adventuring with your own eyes, breathing the air, walking the step as you move forward, feeling sad, joy etc according to events surrounding you. Making the world, the people and the environment alive as you are part of them. Understanding how the world and events works in the same manner how you understand the real world works.  Hearing other people's voice doesn't work for player avatar because it's doesn't represent you as the character. 

This is what differ your play style from mine. I don't like self-inserts and in every BioWare game I have played it's always been BioWares (predefined, some more than other) characters that I've shaped. So for me the voice does not come in the way of that. In fact, I prefer it because it's less immersion breaking for me since everyone else in the world is fully voiced.

[AlexXIV]

Cutlasskiwi wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

publius1000 wrote...

Ok so help me understand here - how does a silent protagonist help you guys feel more immersed? At the end of the day you're still saying preset lines and you still get to pick what you want to say, having a voice just adds realism - or are you imagining that your char is saying it in your voice?

Silent allow self inserted voice. It's help to identify the character as your avatar. Giving the impression that you live in that world, adventuring with your own eyes, breathing the air, walking the step as you move forward, feeling sad, joy etc according to events surrounding you. Making the world, the people and the environment alive as you are part of them. Understanding how the world and events works in the same manner how you understand the real world works.  Hearing other people's voice doesn't work for player avatar because it's doesn't represent you as the character. 

This is what differ your play style from mine. I don't like self-inserts and in every BioWare game I have played it's always been BioWares (predefined, some more than other) characters that I've shaped. So for me the voice does not come in the way of that. In fact, I prefer it because it's less immersion breaking for me since everyone else in the world is fully voiced.

The only advantage is obviously that silent protagonist give you more options. As far as I have seen so far. But considering how many of them are just for show and don't really change the dialogue in any way I can just do without. In a perfect scenario we would have more than 3 real option plus voiced protagonist.

[Meris]

Cutlasskiwi wrote...
This is what differ your play style from mine. I don't like self-inserts and in every BioWare game I have played it's always been BioWares (predefined, some more than other) characters that I've shaped.

How do you know?

Yes, BioWare has predicted that someone might want to play a Circle Mage that wishes the power of Blood Magic, but for what reasons? Because Power is its own reward? Because he's from Kirkwall and the city's water supply makes mages think that Blood Mage is the only path to freedom? Because of a keen interest specific in mind control?

This leeway is what still allows for residual roleplaying with Hawke. There isn't a purple, blue or red Hawke* (unlike a paragon, bonus-less or renegade Shepard). There's your Hawke who acted purple, blue or red at a given moment.

The matter isn't if the character is defined or not, all of them are, its just how defined the character is. And any Voiced Protagonist is leagues away more defined than a Silent one. You can pick the voice, you can't pick the accent, you can't twist a bit what's being said but staying true to the actual content, you can't add emphasys on given words and, more practical than any other reason, the odds are you won't be able to play with different races as well.

Especially Hawke who you can't pick what exactly he says and occasionally talk without your input.

*MOST OF THE TIME - as said above Hawke occasionally speaks without player input and, as such, follows the 'dominant tone'. Sad but true.

AlexXIV wrote...

The only advantage is obviously that silent protagonist give you more options. As far as I have seen so far. But considering how many of them are just for show and don't really change the dialogue in any way I can just do without. In a perfect scenario we would have more than 3 real option plus voiced protagonist.

In a perfect scenario, you'd have all the great versatility of a Silent Protagonist with none of the railroading of the voiced protagonist. Anything less, but with a voice, is mediocre.

Modifié par Meris, 21 janvier 2012 - 02:33 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Cutlasskiwi wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

publius1000 wrote...

Ok so help me understand here - how does a silent protagonist help you guys feel more immersed? At the end of the day you're still saying preset lines and you still get to pick what you want to say, having a voice just adds realism - or are you imagining that your char is saying it in your voice?

Silent allow self inserted voice. It's help to identify the character as your avatar. Giving the impression that you live in that world, adventuring with your own eyes, breathing the air, walking the step as you move forward, feeling sad, joy etc according to events surrounding you. Making the world, the people and the environment alive as you are part of them. Understanding how the world and events works in the same manner how you understand the real world works.  Hearing other people's voice doesn't work for player avatar because it's doesn't represent you as the character. 

This is what differ your play style from mine. I don't like self-inserts and in every BioWare game I have played it's always been BioWares (predefined, some more than other) characters that I've shaped. So for me the voice does not come in the way of that. In fact, I prefer it because it's less immersion breaking for me since everyone else in the world is fully voiced.

It's less immersion breaking because you are not the one who response and react to the world . Just imagine you open your mouth and you hear someone's else voice instead. How do you feel? What's your impression? In reality you could be panic and go for immediate treatment. In other word, you can't continue your story because it's weird. The more you hear the strange voice from your mouth the more you feel distracted or disconnected from the world. Because you don't feel like being yourself. That's how I feel playing as self-insert character or player avatar. It's just ridiculous. Why do I prefer this kind of roleplaying? It's allow me to view and feel things that you, third person role player, can not possibly imagine. Do you know how much hatred I felt after knowing Rendon Howe's betrayal? Do you know my tears run down my cheek when my dying father tell me how proud he is of me? Do you know how hard it is to let go off my mother's hand? Do you know I would do anything to slain Rendon Howe even if it meant to save the world which I don't give a damn? No. You don't. You are not there. You are not Cousland in mind. The body you assume is someone else which you get to see, analyze and study for story wise.   

 As I said I am well aware the difference in your style of roleplaying because I play both styles. I understand why it's jarring when everyone else talk but not your character. You observe the world from outside the character. Therefore you are sensitive to everyone's reaction. As a director or observer playing behind the stage, you have no concept of individuality which define a character as a unique person. But you gain the advantage of knowing the people's reaction, behaviour, perception and emotion by generalization. You can tell the people on other part of the Ferelden quite easily, the event and the world as a whole. Therefore you derive your immersion from such assumption rather than experiencing it yourself on personal level. See? I know the difference. Because my Amber Cousland is my first warden who is not my self-insert character. I loved my Amber for who she is but I love my Maverick Cousland more because he is me and I am him. As Amber Cousland, I directed Amber's romance as  how I see fit without emotional engage with their relationship. But as Maverick Cousland I love Morrigan enough to understand why despite what she had done, I still go after her in Witch Hunt. I understand well enough why Maverick constantly look at Morrigan's ring and why he acts the way he was. For Amber, I am content with her sacrifice. Her journey is over and I am ready to move on for new character and story. But for Maverick, there is no end to his story. How can there be any ending when we are one person? 

To this days, I still write Maverick and Morrigan tales beyond Eluvian Mirror far away from Thedas. And that is another tale to tell...  

Hopefully you can understand. Trust me, the roleplaying experience is vastly different. If you don't believe, try it yourself. You'll find that everything you know is not the same anymore..
  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 21 janvier 2012 - 03:45 .

[Gotholhorakh]

Yrkoon wrote...

Ok, I can't speak for everyone. But for me, the beauty of RPGs  starts  at *conception*. I begin a game with a clean slate and get to decide almost every detail of my character all the way down to how he communicates. When a game lets me do this, then I feel that the character I created is *me*.   Of course, no game will EVER let me be completely me, but regardless, that is the Ideal. And the further away from that Ideal, the less that character represents me,  and therefore, the lower the emersion level.

This is the thing, isn't it? RPGs have to a greater or lesser extent striven to do this "You have created your own character! You are really in the game!" thing in balance with a strong narrative, and get the balance right, for a long time.

If we just give up the one and focus on the other, if we really are just driving a defined protagonist through a sufficiently developed narrative with a smattering of action-type gameplay here and there, it doesn't just feel like an RPG to me.

There are all sorts of wonderful SP games that fall into this category, from shooter to survival horror, so it's clearly a perfectly valid way of making a good and enjoyable game, don't get me wrong - it's just sliding out of the genre for me. I guess OMMV.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
...*snip excellent post about RP*

Amen sister and/or brother.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 21 janvier 2012 - 03:54 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

Meris wrote...

Cutlasskiwi wrote...
This is what differ your play style from mine. I don't like self-inserts and in every BioWare game I have played it's always been BioWares (predefined, some more than other) characters that I've shaped.

How do you know?

Yes, BioWare has predicted that someone might want to play a Circle Mage that wishes the power of Blood Magic, but for what reasons? Because Power is its own reward? Because he's from Kirkwall and the city's water supply makes mages think that Blood Mage is the only path to freedom? Because of a keen interest specific in mind control?

This leeway is what still allows for residual roleplaying with Hawke. There isn't a purple, blue or red Hawke* (unlike a paragon, bonus-less or renegade Shepard). There's your Hawke who acted purple, blue or red at a given moment.

The matter isn't if the character is defined or not, all of them are, its just how defined the character is. And any Voiced Protagonist is leagues away more defined than a Silent one. You can pick the voice, you can't pick the accent, you can't twist a bit what's being said but staying true to the actual content, you can't add emphasys on given words and, more practical than any other reason, the odds are you won't be able to play with different races as well.

Especially Hawke who you can't pick what exactly he says and occasionally talk without your input.

*MOST OF THE TIME - as said above Hawke occasionally speaks without player input and, as such, follows the 'dominant tone'. Sad but true.

I don't twist what is being said when I play, the character says what is written. The Warden is just as defined as Hawke and deciding on a accent and emphasize on words wont change the fact that they're still BioWares (predefined) characters, my opinion of course.

Why? Because there are characteristics that comes with every character that you, the player, have to accept. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. For example, I didn't like how the Warden was forced into a  I <3 Ferelden stance and it ruined much of my enjoyment of DAO. Just like Hawke have to care about his family.  

Sacred_Fantasy wrote... 
-snip-  

Oh yes, I understood what you meant. I just replied because I play the opposite way and your post was the perfect example.  


Edit: Format. 

Modifié par Cutlasskiwi, 21 janvier 2012 - 05:45 .

[Meris]

Cutlasskiwi wrote...

(1)The Warden is just as defined as Hawke and deciding on a accent and emphasize on words wont change the fact that they're still BioWares (predefined) characters, my opinion of course.

(2)I <3 Ferelden stance and it ruined much of my enjoyment of DAO

(1) Again, how do you know?

(2) No idea what you're talking about. You're pigeonholed into being a Grey Warden, not loving Ferelden.

[ObserverStatus]

Anyone else wish that Bioware was taking less inspiration from Skyrim and more from DA:O?

[Plaintiff]

bobobo878 wrote...

Anyone else wish that Bioware was taking less inspiration from Skyrim and more from DA:O?

Lord no.

But I don't really want them taking inspiration from Skyrim either.