457 réponses à ce sujet

[Sacred_Fantasy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

simple, it fits the type of game they are making over a silent protagonist.

Skyrim was a dungeon crawler, so dialogue is not its main strength. Dragon Age II was a CRPG,

Dragon Age II was a CRPG? No it's not.
This is CRPG:

A game release in 1994. Developed by Sir-Tech A true party based CRPG.  Party creation based on gender, race and class selection. You can have up to 6 party members instead of single race with 3 class options and 2 active recruitable NPCs.Turn base tactical combat. Completely driven story with non linear plots + Party customization,

Dragon II was more appropriate to be compared with this:

Now look at BioWare's  lead writer Daniel Erickson have to say about it.

"Well, before I address the main point I just want to take a slightly more controversial route: You can put a ‘J’ in front of it, but it’s not an RPG," argues The Old Republic lead writer Daniel Erickson. "You don’t make any choices, you don’t create a character, you don’t live your character… I don’t know what those are --adventure games maybe? But they’re not RPG’s.
"Without the systems, you’re nothing. One of the things we’ve always been aware of is that a lot of people play Baldur’s Gate to death, and those people who play it 3,4,5 times aren’t story guys, they’re D&D guys."

http://www.destructo...pg-173682.phtml
That's what DA 2 was.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

simfamSP wrote...
Go watch a let's play, or atleast a walkthrough/playthrough of Final Fantasy 7 and 8. Then come back to me and say that it's anything like Dragon Age 2.

I am sorry but perhaps you didn't notice I put FF XIII there with comments from Daniel Erickson? I like FF7 cinamatic approach and I do think they made RPG - LITE revolutionary in the past. Try to play FF7 thousand times from 1998 to 2005 and I cant even past the academy building. So no thanks. JRPG is not my kind of game and never will. Not interested. Don't care.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 janvier 2012 - 04:42 .

[Fast Jimmy]

While I would love to see a return to a silent PC, I doubt it will happen.

A voiced PC does add a nice atmosphere to the game and gives the chance to do something in cut scenes other than just stare blankly while others are animated.

That being said, I think the amount of time and resources that are required to do a voiced protagonist, compounded by the limitations it could impose to make edits or changes in even the most basic of dialogue further on down the line (re-recording not only the lines, but also the animation matching to the different words) makes it a bad trade off.

The amount of enjoyment I get from hearing someone speak the dialogue choice I have chosen is minimal compared to having the writers have as much flexibility as they want, to have as many dialogue options as possible (which is a bit more of a limitation of the dialogue wheel, but its part of the same beast) and the obvious drain on resources, budget and disc space having a fully voiced PC causes.

I suggest having a silent PC for most dialogue, with the dialogue options showing full text instead of paraphrases, then having a voiced PC for bits and pieces of dialogue that don't require a dialogue choice or for full cinematics. That way, it gives you a sense of the character you've created having a personality, but it also saves money and narrative integrity.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

simfamSP wrote...

Then why accuse Dragon Age of being similar to one? JRPGs are good games, no doubt about that. But are they RPGs? HELL NO!

Sounds kinda contradictory, no?

[Sacred_Fantasy]

EDIT: Did you see part that I bolded, italic and underlined at the same? Or do you choose to ignore?
What did I bolded, underlined and italic based on Daniel Eriksson statement?
I am not the one who made such comments but I do think such comments hit DA2 on the spot.

simfamSP wrote...
JRPGs  and Dragon Age 2 are nothing alike. Not in the slightest. And no... Fenris isn't a person who made up his past because he was ashamed that he coudln't get into the Magisters (I'm referring to SOLDIER and Cloud. I don't see the similarites apart from the hair cut and big sword.)

No? Then explain why there is cinematic approach. Explain why there is no influence over the story. Explain why there is no character creation? Character customization is not equal to character creation.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 janvier 2012 - 05:01 .

[Mclouvins]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


I suggest having a silent PC for most dialogue, with the dialogue options showing full text instead of paraphrases, then having a voiced PC for bits and pieces of dialogue that don't require a dialogue choice or for full cinematics. That way, it gives you a sense of the character you've created having a personality, but it also saves money and narrative integrity.

That seems weird but idk.

Bioware games in general lend themselves well to voiced protagonists becasue of the isometric nature of the game. Bethesda makes the silent protag work because the game is basically designed as a first-person immersion fest where the character is basically an avatar for the player in a fashion comparable to second life or something similar. Thjs is compounded by the fact that Bethesda games are basically exclusively forward looking from the start with no mention of a backstory, or at most a very marginal one.

Bioware games are different in that history of the character is presented in a way that is designed to inform the decisions of the character whether it be Revan, the Warden, Shepard, etc. Bioware games reflect that and while the player has control over the character it's not really an avatar of himsel/herself the same way. The use of the isometric camera contributes to this a lot. In Origins for example the dialogue scenes play out so that you are more often than not looking at the back of your warden's head. Since that cognitive dissonance exists to begin with there is certainly an arguement to be made to add voice acting and facial expressions to create a more dynamic character even if it severs the rather tenuous claim that the previous character was a manifestation of the player. The nature of the crpg as far as controlling other party members directly really sort of undermines that sense of total immersion from the start and moves tha player more to the role of an omniscient observer.

[Atakuma]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Did you see part that I bolded, italic and underlined at the same? Or do you choose to ignore?
What did I bolded, underlined and italic based on Daniel Eriksson statement?
I am not the one who made such comments but I do think such comments hit DA2 on the spot.

Except you do create a character and you do make choices in DA2, so you are completely wrong.

Modifié par Atakuma, 03 janvier 2012 - 05:03 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Atakuma wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Did you see part that I bolded, italic and underlined at the same? Or do you choose to ignore?
What did I bolded, underlined and italic based on Daniel Eriksson statement?
I am not the one who made such comments but I do think such comments hit DA2 on the spot.

Except you do create a character and you do make choices in DA2 so you are completely wrong.

No I dont'. I only customize BioWare's character appearance.
And choice that lead to same consequences is not a choice.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 janvier 2012 - 05:05 .

[Atakuma]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Did you see part that I bolded, italic and underlined at the same? Or do you choose to ignore?
What did I bolded, underlined and italic based on Daniel Eriksson statement?
I am not the one who made such comments but I do think such comments hit DA2 on the spot.

Except you do create a character and you do make choices in DA2 so you are completely wrong.

No I dont'. I only customize BioWare's character appearance.
And choice that lead to same consequences is not a choice.

1.You did the same thing in Origins. The warden was as much bioware's character as hawke, the only difference being is you got to pick a background story (which bioware also created)

2. A choice is a choice regardless of the result and there were choices that lead to different outcomes.

Modifié par Atakuma, 03 janvier 2012 - 05:20 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

John Newton wrote...

3 words ROLE PLAYING GAME no-one ever said it was a role you could choose.

No one said you have to be the audience who completely follow a character and story without taking any meaningful role either.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Atakuma wrote...
1.You did the same thing in Origins. The warden was as much bioware's character as hawke, the only difference being is you got to pick a background story (which bioware also created)

No I didnt do the same thing. In Origins I am the Warden and i can even create a character based on other person personalities. I can't do that in DA 2.

Atakuma wrote...
2. A choice is a choice regardless of the outcome and there were choices that lead to different outcomes.

Then what's the point of such choices? I rather they just scrap dialogue choices and focus on action only like Darksiders or Dynasty Warriors if such choices have no meaning at all. At least in Dynasty Warrior I know what to expect.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 janvier 2012 - 05:26 .

[TiaraBlade]

I vote to keep my character voiced.

Skyrim is Skyrim and Dragon Age is Dragon Age. The former is more about a VAST place to explore with about ten times more content in side quests compared to the main story line (I really don't think that's an exaggeration even, based on my experience with Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, and now Skyrim).

Dragon Age is the series of story and character interaction, where the person you romance and marry you get to know pretty well compared to getting an amulet and completing a quick quest. The main questline is the meat of the experience and the changes it creates in your character as he or she grows. It's the dialogue and emotion.

A silent protagonist simply undercuts that and I fail to see how anyone can think that it's superior to, after listening to someone else talk, to go to your character staring blankly and NOT verbalizing like every single other person! It breaks the narrative and flow.

Dragon Age did NOT fail because it has a voiced protagonist. It failed because:

1. it lacked a proper and strong story, too much boring side quests standing in for a proper narrative. Without a strong villian or over arching plot (the mages vs Templars did not work because we only got bits and pieces), there was little energy to the plot. By the time it got started, the game was over. Really, the final boss battle felt like the midway point of a story, not the end.

2. Lack of choice. No matter what we chose, we are still rail roaded into a Templar-Mage war with the outcome that left pretty much everyone dead. Oh joy. I remember when my characters stumbled across a Templar-Mage conspiracy to create a peace. So NATURALLY she fought them! After EVERYTHING she has done to establish herself as a fairminded person and Champion.

3. Repetitive combat: yes, the combat system was sped up but we were bombarded with waves and waves of enemies at times, wearing out the welcome.

4. Restricted areas: just Kirkwall and the outer areas ad naseum, over and over again.

Not a thing to do with a voiced protagonist. Also, I don't get the idea that voicing that ONE character (admittedly the main one) when so many others are voice could have possibly drained so many resources that we didn't get another area. Just don't see how that's even possible.

Please Bioware, ignore the minority and keep the protagonist voiced!

[TiaraBlade]

yaw wrote...

@LinksOcarina
I don't think having a voiced protagonist adds anything to the experience and depth of character. In fact, and this is only my opinion so feel free to disagree, I think it takes something away. The dialogue can be just as strong without a voice, as Origins' was.

@Sylfschiffer
I just think the voice adds nothing and that resources should be better spent on other things. If Hawk wasn't voiced, would we have had more then one dungeon map? An apostate mage story line? More NPC models and less clones? A longer, fleshier game altogether?

1. to the former, I strongly diasagree. Well spoken dialogue will always beat the written word: you have the power of voice, the cadence and rhythmn and the words, and the emotion amplifying the words. Origin's dialogue was not as strong if only for that reason. Again, the spoke NPC and the Warden's silent words and blank expression broke the experience and took away the emotion. She looked like a still doll next tothe speaking and emoting NPC's.

2. Nope to all. With all the other dialogue, I can't see how one more speaking role, even Hawke's, too that much resources. Blame it on EA pushing it out before it was ready.

[TiaraBlade]

yaw wrote...

@Cutlasskiwi
The Warden and BG's PC weren't defined characters. It's only in Dragon Age 2 (in this franchise) that we've had a defined character.
Mass Effect has one, but it's a different game series.

Different how?

Also, Mass Effect is a SUCCESSFUL series, in large part for its story and dialogue, including the speaking Commander Shepherd. A speaking PC didn't undermind ME so why would it do that to DA?

[jcainhaze]

TiaraBlade wrote...
Well spoken dialogue will always beat the written word: you have the power of voice, the cadence and rhythmn and the words, and the emotion amplifying the words.

I like this  Thanks

[Storm Farron]

I prefer Voiced. but thats my personal opinion. though I hope bioware doesn't go back to silent protagonist.

[Storm Farron]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

simple, it fits the type of game they are making over a silent protagonist.

Skyrim was a dungeon crawler, so dialogue is not its main strength. Dragon Age II was a CRPG,

Dragon Age II was a CRPG? No it's not.
This is CRPG:

A game release in 1994. Developed by Sir-Tech A true party based CRPG.  Party creation based on gender, race and class selection. You can have up to 6 party members instead of single race with 3 class options and 2 active recruitable NPCs.Turn base tactical combat. Completely driven story with non linear plots + Party customization,

Dragon II was more appropriate to be compared with this:

Now look at BioWare's  lead writer Daniel Erickson have to say about it.

"Well, before I address the main point I just want to take a slightly more controversial route: You can put a ‘J’ in front of it, but it’s not an RPG," argues The Old Republic lead writer Daniel Erickson. "You don’t make any choices, you don’t create a character, you don’t live your character… I don’t know what those are --adventure games maybe? But they’re not RPG’s.
"Without the systems, you’re nothing. One of the things we’ve always been aware of is that a lot of people play Baldur’s Gate to death, and those people who play it 3,4,5 times aren’t story guys, they’re D&D guys."

http://www.destructo...pg-173682.phtml
That's what DA 2 was.

DA2 is not good enough to be compared to FFXIII.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

TiaraBlade wrote...
Well spoken dialogue will always beat the written word: you have the power of voice, the cadence and rhythmn and the words, and the emotion amplifying the words.

I like that but it wasn't properly implemented in DA2. I have no qualm about the voice itself. It's 

1. ) Paraphrasing - Guessing the intents coming out of the character's mouth is stupid consider the character is yours.

2. ) Put emoticon or something as a guide. Do not assume generic emotion expression work for everyone. I could intrepet simple smile and/or body language for hundreds of reason. I can't believe Sheppard give silly smile when  romancing Tali. To me, he has that naughty thought of undressing Tali instead of proper gentlemen's gesture. No. I am not criticizing other people's Shepard. I'm criticizing the one that should and could have been my Shepard. The same thing goes for Hawke. I don't know how many time I faceplamed because Hawke didn't express his emotion according to what I already imagined. The more Hawke express his/her emotion differently the less likely he/she to be accepted as Player Character. .Because player character should react accordingly and not react differently.

3.)  Flexibility and voice cohensive. If we really want the power of voice then the option shouldn't be limited to diplomat, sarcasm and aggresive only. If silent protagonist has unlimited way to express, "I love you" then voice protagonist must have the same flexibility too. Also voice tone in DA2 is notorious for being broken due to huge discrepancy between subtle, sarcasm and aggressive. Dialogue wheel was desigened to accomodate more dialogue options so use it well. 

4. ) It's amazing to find that your character can give speech and angrily lectured Anders.I like that. But I don't like AI taking control of my character for no apparent reason even if it's not important. If BioWare can't provide dialogue options for players to talk about then leave it to NPCs. ( Party banter however, can be tolerated as most of party banter will lost in my gameplays anyway and it doesn't affect anything. ) 

Conclusion: make a proper Voice Protagonist first and then we can talk about story presentation from Cinematic approach ( without having the feel of playing JRPG since cinematic adaptation RPG is the hallmark of JRPG ever since FF 7 ) which what drive VO in the first place.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 janvier 2012 - 10:17 .

[Wulfram]

I don't think there's all that much DA3 could take from Skyrim. It might encourage them to get a new engine to avoid the graphics falling too far behind. And they might take some inspiration in general terms from the successful revamp of the mechanics

[Cutlasskiwi]

yaw wrote...

@Cutlasskiwi
The Warden and BG's PC weren't defined characters. It's only in Dragon Age 2 (in this franchise) that we've had a defined character.
Mass Effect has one, but it's a different game series.

I think the Warden is as "limiting" and defined as Hawke is, only you get to pick the background (which after Ostagar hardly matters). But I feel like DAO tried to give you the freedom to play whatever kind of character you wanted but the plot railroaded you into playing a certain kind of character.  

[Morroian]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

No I didnt do the same thing. In Origins I am the Warden and i can even create a character based on other person personalities. I can't do that in DA 2. 

 
Yeah you can, the game doesn't assign a personality to Hawke.

 

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Then what's the point of such choices? I rather they just scrap dialogue choices and focus on action only like Darksiders or Dynasty Warriors if such choices have no meaning at all. 

In DA2 the choices are largely character based, choices affecting characters have just as much meaning as choices affecting a plot. Certainly just as much as the largely illusory plot choices in DAO. 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Mclouvins wrote...

That seems weird but idk.

Bioware games in general lend themselves well to voiced protagonists becasue of the isometric nature of the game. Bethesda makes the silent protag work because the game is basically designed as a first-person immersion fest where the character is basically an avatar for the player in a fashion comparable to second life or something similar. Thjs is compounded by the fact that Bethesda games are basically exclusively forward looking from the start with no mention of a backstory, or at most a very marginal one.

Bioware games are different in that history of the character is presented in a way that is designed to inform the decisions of the character whether it be Revan, the Warden, Shepard, etc. Bioware games reflect that and while the player has control over the character it's not really an avatar of himsel/herself the same way. The use of the isometric camera contributes to this a lot. In Origins for example the dialogue scenes play out so that you are more often than not looking at the back of your warden's head. Since that cognitive dissonance exists to begin with there is certainly an arguement to be made to add voice acting and facial expressions to create a more dynamic character even if it severs the rather tenuous claim that the previous character was a manifestation of the player.

 
Thank you Mcouvins. Now that make things a lot clearer.
Player avatar is a strong drive to roleplay any thing. I have seen a lot of people spend thounds of dollars to purchase clothes and accessories, be it Sosial Networking Game or MMORPG. I also read news about player murder a fellow MMOPRGer over ownership dispute of a virtual property like a rare legendary sword, in China. It's strange but it's true. I wish I could link you with such news but it was ages ago when MMORP was at it's peak. Even in FPS, people can go crazy with their avatar like shouting and fighthing in cybercafe right in front of the crowd. It doesn't really matter whether the story is weak or strong like TES or FPS or SIm or Social games as long as people have a strong drive to play a role. 

Nevertheless I agree that Bioware has no background history of presenting character in a manner of first person fest where player character is basically player avatar. This lead me to believe that Bioware will not be able be pull much success with all fans even if they make their world larger and exotic. The fact is game like Skyrim is more accessible to FPS crowd due to first person fest and Simulation crowd due to player avatar and life simulation.  

Mclouvins wrote...

The nature of the crpg as far as controlling other party members directly really sort of undermines that sense of total immersion from the start and moves tha player more to the role of an omniscient observer.

 
I agree but it's weird that I found DA 2 is exactly what you have describe in a manner the story being presented. A story being told by third person narrator through Cassandra interrogating Varric without directly involving player moves the players more to the role of an omniscient observer, as well.