457 réponses à ce sujet

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Morroian wrote...

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.

Yes it does. Pick either blue tone with defined expression or red tone with defined expression or purple tone with defined expression.  

 

Morroian wrote... 

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.

I don't see any differences in character based either. Characters are not based on differing one or two dialogue lines per conversation. It is based on their action as well. Neither diplomatic neutral or aggressive character can refuse to help Feyneriel or both characters kill everyone in endgame consequences despite all the dialogues.  

Edit: In DAO, I can kill Conor, I can kill Leliana I can kill Shale for reason only I can know. This defined who my character(s) is(are). All of this doesn't necessary affecting plot either. Can I do that in DA 2? No. All Hawkes are basically generic goody goody characters who help anyone. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 janvier 2012 - 12:53 .

[FirstWarden]

I rather have a non-voiced character, because you have to option to create your own character.

[WhiteKnyght]

Well the thing I liked about the Silent Protagonist is that it gave more dialogue options than the Wheel does.

If in DA3, we could select from different assortments of voices(like in Origins for the Warden's small remarks) and have a dialogue panel similar to the one in Origins, I'd be okay with having a voiced protagonist.

[FirstWarden]

^Yes that's true and you also had dialogue option to be a nice guy, a badass etc.

But if we can pick different voices then I'd be fine with a voiced character

And bring back full customization.

[Meris]

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. 

Both kinds of protagonist chain you to the possibilities foreseen by the writers, Silence allows you to go beyond that but Voice doesn't. The roleplaying range of a voiced protagonist goes as far as BioWare can afford it.

During my last playthrough of DA:O, I was doing my fourth 'canon warden' (the other three got lost in a series of explosive accidents). I was so tired of it that I decided to make an entirely new character. It was my character and I was surprised how it turned out - I never planned to do the Heroic Sacrifice, but in the end it just felt right, for reasons I couldn't directly (but still indirectly) express in dialogue: for reasons that the writting staff hadn't foreseen years ago. I was truly the co-author of the story.

With the voice, I can only guide a pre-defined character. Its a nice roleplaying experience and I must say that it was nice to hear him talk and see his emotions, but, due to paraphrases and voice, it wasn't nearly my character as it could have been.

Considering the strain on resources a Hawke is, I don't become very confident on a future of branching storylines and choice/consequence.

I can see the benefits of having a voiced protagonist, I lived them in DA2, and I can see how it can estabilish immersion. But the disadvantages, all those that the Silent Protagonist have given us for years, far outweight the benefits.

[macrocarl]

I read the quote about them looking at Skyrim and I had more of a feeling they were looking at mechanics like adding back more RPG elements, costume changes, and other stat-type-stuff. I think the silent protag should stay with Bethesda since they're dialog is pretty wimpy and they seem more into landscapes.
I'm not dissing Bethesda mind you, I just think BW is going the way of cinematics and strong story driven dialog and so the wheel will probably stay.
I guess what I'm saying is, as pretty as BW landscapes are, Bethesda has put some MAJOR resources into environments and that BW should focus on other areas to excel in instead (like awesome stories and strong VO)

[Shevy]

I liked the silent protagonist from DA:O a lot more, because you can imagine how your charakter will respond. Helps me for immersion.

[Lucrece]

I really hope it isn't first person point of view as in Skyrim. That game has HIDEOUS animations on top of hideous NPC's.

[WhiteKnyght]

Well the NPCs looked better than they did in Oblivion. I'll give Skyrim that.

Pretty much all the girls . . . correction, pretty much everybody in ES4 looked old and fat.

[Morroian]

Meris wrote...

Both kinds of protagonist chain you to the possibilities foreseen by the writers, Silence allows you to go beyond that but Voice doesn't. The roleplaying range of a voiced protagonist goes as far as BioWare can afford it.

 
Disagree, this comes back to how much the player can role play around the voice and may go back to discussions on this board from a while ago about first vs third person role playing. It is possible for a player to use a voice as a launching pad for possibilities because what people say doesn't necessarily reflect who they are. When this has been brought up before its been said that this is just head canon bearing no relation to the role playing possibilities in the game, I still disagree with this and don't see how its different from imagining the personality of a silent character. 

Meris wrote...

With the voice, I can only guide a pre-defined character. Its a nice roleplaying experience and I must say that it was nice to hear him talk and see his emotions, but, due to paraphrases and voice, it wasn't nearly my character as it could have been.
 

 
As I said above its not pre-defined because a character is not solely defined by his/her voice. I would say that you role play in the first person, the characters you create may be different, but are variants of yourself whereas 3rd person role playing involves directing a character entirely outside of the player. Its still role playing because the player is still defining and shaping the character.

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Well the thing I liked about the Silent Protagonist is that it gave more dialogue options than the Wheel does.

Most of the time DAO had no more responses than DA2 and when it did multiple responses led to the same reaction or result.

Modifié par Morroian, 03 janvier 2012 - 09:49 .

[Morroian]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Yes it does. Pick either blue tone with defined expression or red tone with defined expression or purple tone with defined expression.  

 
And in DAO lines were written with a defined tone in mind by the writer that was then confirmed by the response received from NPCs. Regardless like I said above character isn't solely defined by dialogue or voice.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Edit: In DAO, I can kill Conor, I can kill Leliana I can kill Shale for reason only I can know. This defined who my character(s) is(are). All of this doesn't necessary affecting plot either. Can I do that in DA 2? No. All Hawkes are basically generic goody goody characters who help anyone. 

So the Hawke who allows Feynriel to be possessed by Torpor is a  goody goody character 

[Heather Cline]

I like the voiced protagonist. In DA:O the Warden was much like the Dragonborn of Skyrim. Why? Because no matter what race you chose you still eventually had all the same dialogue choices as every other origin. Yes there were little nuggets of dialogue that gave a nod in the direction of what race you chose and what class you were. Like Elf mage/human mage, human noble, dwarf noble or dwarf commoner, dalish elf versus city elf. But in the end all your dialogue choices ended up mainly the same roughly. Same as the Dragonborn of Skyrim. You were of a certain race you got people saying 'Khajiit' if you were of the Khajiit race and so on and so forth. You got certain people calling you sneak thief if you were in the thieves guild and so on and so forth.

DA2 was not like Skyrim or Origins as they went a more story driven cinematic route like Mass Effect. I like the voiced protagonist of DA2 and hope it returns in DA3 but with more production time and less of the time gaps from DA2 between acts.

Bioware's strengths is story telling and they do that pretty well with a voiced protagonist. That is where their strength's lie. Bethesda's strength's lie in open world sandbox games of 'do what you want, how you want' and the story really sucks in the game. Heck the main quest storyline was crappy. Fun to beat but crappy all the same.

I know you are a fan of silent protagonists so go play Bethesda games to get that fix. Allow Bioware to continue with voiced protagonists. Have the best of both worlds.

[In Exile]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Edit: In DAO, I can kill Conor, I can kill Leliana I can kill Shale for reason only I can know. This defined who my character(s) is(are). All of this doesn't necessary affecting plot either. Can I do that in DA 2? No. All Hawkes are basically generic goody goody characters who help anyone.

At the very least, you can sell a particular young man to a demon. You can, as well, I believe give another party member off to a Tevinter slaver.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Morroian wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Yes it does. Pick either blue tone with defined expression or red tone with defined expression or purple tone with defined expression.  

 
And in DAO lines were written with a defined tone in mind by the writer that was then confirmed by the response received from NPCs. Regardless like I said above character isn't solely defined by dialogue or voice.

DAO lines were delivered without expression. I can imagine any person's expression be it Chuck Norris' expression or Sylvester Stallone's expression or Alistair's expression or anyone else. There is no broken tone due to huge discrepancy between different tones even if intended by the writer based on NPC's response. But when the writer started to project his own character's emotion visually, a lot of things can conflict with how I picture my character. Sylvester Stallone never emote and react like Ace Ventura even if they deliver the same line.  Didn't Gamlen already comment Sarcastic Hawke as Clown? 

Like I said, it's not the voice itself that disturb me. It's how the character express his/her emotion that doesn't always work with my ideal protagonist.  

And since you acknowledge that character is not solely defined by dialogue, therefore choice importance still goes back to determine plot. Like I said in my earlier post, if choice has no meaning at all then what's the point of having a choice? 

Morroian wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Edit: In DAO, I can kill Conor, I can kill Leliana I can kill Shale for reason only I can know. This defined who my character(s) is(are). All of this doesn't necessary affecting plot either. Can I do that in DA 2? No. All Hawkes are basically generic goody goody characters who help anyone. 

So the Hawke who allows Feynriel to be possessed by Torpor is a  goody goody character 

Not enough to justify the kind of person he is when he agree to help in the first place. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 janvier 2012 - 11:53 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Edit: In DAO, I can kill Conor, I can kill Leliana I can kill Shale for reason only I can know. This defined who my character(s) is(are). All of this doesn't necessary affecting plot either. Can I do that in DA 2? No. All Hawkes are basically generic goody goody characters who help anyone.

At the very least, you can sell a particular young man to a demon. You can, as well, I believe give another party member off to a Tevinter slaver.

Not enough to justify why on earth he has to agree to help them in the first place  Nothing can be gained from this. Money is not everything. Power is. Isn't that what Morrigan always says?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 janvier 2012 - 11:49 .

[MagmaSaiyan]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Edit: In DAO, I can kill Conor, I can kill Leliana I can kill Shale for reason only I can know. This defined who my character(s) is(are). All of this doesn't necessary affecting plot either. Can I do that in DA 2? No. All Hawkes are basically generic goody goody characters who help anyone.

At the very least, you can sell a particular young man to a demon. You can, as well, I believe give another party member off to a Tevinter slaver.

Not enough to justify why on earth he has to agree to help them in the first place  Nothing can be gained from this. Money is not everything. Power is. Isn't that what Morrigan always says?

avoid the quest, at least in Fenris' defense, and why wouldnt you do the quest when you can finally betray him, in the worst possible way

Modifié par MagmaSaiyan, 04 janvier 2012 - 12:06 .

[Morroian]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Morroian wrote...

And in DAO lines were written with a defined tone in mind by the writer that was then confirmed by the response received from NPCs. Regardless like I said above character isn't solely defined by dialogue or voice.

DAO lines were delivered without expression. I can imagine any person's expression be it Chuck Norris' expression or Sylvester Stallone's expression or Alistair's expression or anyone else. There is no broken tone due to huge discrepancy between different tones even if intended by the writer based on NPC's response. 

 
The writers write the dialogue with an intended tone, Gaider has said as much in debates on this. There has been plenty of feedback here from players, including myself, that their immersion was broken when an NPC responded in a way clearly demonstrating that the players intended tone was not how the line was intended. And yes I know other players can factor this in as a misunderstanding but the player then has no ability to correct the misunderstanding.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

And since you acknowledge that character is not solely defined by dialogue, therefore choice importance still goes back to determine plot. Like I said in my earlier post, if choice has no meaning at all then what's the point of having a choice? 

 
What choices have meaning in DAO then? None, they're all illusory. IMHO there is meaning in any choice insofar as characterisation goes, for instance no matter what rationalisation you come up with the choices made regarding Feynriel do reflect on the character of my Hawkes.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Morroian wrote...

So the Hawke who allows Feynriel to be possessed by Torpor is a  goody goody character 

Not enough to justify the kind of person he is when he agree to help in the first place. 

You're rationalising.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Edit: In DAO, I can kill Conor, I can kill Leliana I can kill Shale for reason only I can know. This defined who my character(s) is(are). All of this doesn't necessary affecting plot either. Can I do that in DA 2? No. All Hawkes are basically generic goody goody characters who help anyone.

At the very least, you can sell a particular young man to a demon. You can, as well, I believe give another party member off to a Tevinter slaver.

Not enough to justify why on earth he has to agree to help them in the first place  Nothing can be gained from this. Money is not everything. Power is. Isn't that what Morrigan always says?

avoid the quest, at least in Fenris' defense, and why wouldnt you do the quest when you can finally betray him, in the worst possible way

It's not about revenge or hatred. I don't like Fenris but not enough hatred to slain him like I did with Rendon Howe. It's about what can I gained from selling him to the Tervinter. Money doesnt appeal me. 

As for Feynerial, yes it's possible to avoid completing the quest. Still I can't reason why on earth does he has to say, "Ok I'll do it" 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Morroian wrote...
The writers write the dialogue with an intended tone, Gaider has said as much in debates on this. There has been plenty of feedback here from players, including myself, that their immersion was broken when an NPC responded in a way clearly demonstrating that the players intended tone was not how the line was intended. And yes I know other players can factor this in as a misunderstanding but the player then has no ability to correct the misunderstanding.

I have no problem with it. My problem is why sarcastic Hawke has to act like a clown and why Neutral Diplomatic can't deliver a sarcastic remark without being a clown too. 

Morroian wrote... 
What choices have meaning in DAO then? None, they're all illusory. IMHO there is meaning in any choice insofar as characterisation goes, for instance no matter what rationalisation you come up with the choices made regarding Feynriel do reflect on the character of my Hawkes.

I don't choose Ultimate Sacrifce just to have Alistair bed Anora. I choose it because I have worked so hard for him to be a king. I don't choose to follow Morrigan just because I already bed her. I choose it because I love her. I don't choose to go with Leliana for Sacred Ashes, I choose to do so to make sure she stays "hardened". All this choice has meaning.

I can't make any solid reason why do I have to side anyone in Da 2. I can't even understand why do I have to slain them all in the end. It just feel empty. Meaningless. I have no reason for anything in DA 2. Not even romance anyone.  
 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 04 janvier 2012 - 12:34 .

[Urazz]

Meris wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins was both cinematic and had a silent protagonist.

Furthermore, though the Warden was indeed defined, there is leeway in the silence of the protagonist that allows for liberty of interpretation. Something that's present in some of the greatest literary works but that many of us have used for years in the name of immersion and character building, development and motivation to a degree of variety that no voiced protagonist will ever be able to match. Its player agency to the levels of a fridge brilliance.

And if you don't see merit in that, you must also see that the Silent protagonist also serve as an avatar to play with the world and engage in the story, a la what most people seem to do when playing an Elder Scrolls game.

If anything, Skyrim shows the merits of a Silent Protagonist to both dedicated and casual roleplayers.

But, unfortunately, it seems to be dead.

Actually, that was one of the big gripes about DA:O.  The warden was silent, unemotional, and nonresponsive.  Hawke the PC character in DA2, was a big improvement in this regard for the type of game the Dragon Age series is.

The big thing is that the bioware makes cinematic games now where a voiced protaganist is a big plus for the game while Skyrim is more of a sandbox RPG where there is very little to no cinematic approaches to the game so a voiced PC isn't required.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Urazz wrote...

Meris wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins was both cinematic and had a silent protagonist.

Furthermore, though the Warden was indeed defined, there is leeway in the silence of the protagonist that allows for liberty of interpretation. Something that's present in some of the greatest literary works but that many of us have used for years in the name of immersion and character building, development and motivation to a degree of variety that no voiced protagonist will ever be able to match. Its player agency to the levels of a fridge brilliance.

And if you don't see merit in that, you must also see that the Silent protagonist also serve as an avatar to play with the world and engage in the story, a la what most people seem to do when playing an Elder Scrolls game.

If anything, Skyrim shows the merits of a Silent Protagonist to both dedicated and casual roleplayers.

But, unfortunately, it seems to be dead.

Actually, that was one of the big gripes about DA:O.  The warden was silent, unemotional, and nonresponsive.  Hawke the PC character in DA2, was a big improvement in this regard for the type of game the Dragon Age series is.

I rather have a silent, unemotional and nonresponsive character that I can fill in with my own voice tone, emotion and response even if it just in my imagination than having to constantly watch my character speak broken tones, emote and response differently throughout my gameplay. If I can't relate to my character then there is no role-play. That is more important than NPC "misunderstand" your character. It's through your character where you build your reason and motivation. 

Urazz wrote...

The big thing is that the bioware makes cinematic games now where a voiced protaganist is a big plus for the game while Skyrim is more of a sandbox RPG where there is very little to no cinematic approaches to the game so a voiced PC isn't required.

Then by all mean, fix how VA behaviour and response. DA 2's VO is not going anywhere if they still maintain the way they did in DA 2.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 04 janvier 2012 - 01:55 .

[MagmaSaiyan]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Edit: In DAO, I can kill Conor, I can kill Leliana I can kill Shale for reason only I can know. This defined who my character(s) is(are). All of this doesn't necessary affecting plot either. Can I do that in DA 2? No. All Hawkes are basically generic goody goody characters who help anyone.

At the very least, you can sell a particular young man to a demon. You can, as well, I believe give another party member off to a Tevinter slaver.

Not enough to justify why on earth he has to agree to help them in the first place  Nothing can be gained from this. Money is not everything. Power is. Isn't that what Morrigan always says?

avoid the quest, at least in Fenris' defense, and why wouldnt you do the quest when you can finally betray him, in the worst possible way

It's not about revenge or hatred. I don't like Fenris but not enough hatred to slain him like I did with Rendon Howe. It's about what can I gained from selling him to the Tervinter. Money doesnt appeal me. 

As for Feynerial, yes it's possible to avoid completing the quest. Still I can't reason why on earth does he has to say, "Ok I'll do it" 

i think i know what youre getting at. so you are saying when asked to do a certain quest there should be an option which to avoid it completely? where i think people had problem with is they say no but still get the quest. i think Feynriel's quest are main quest which you have to do so you cant skip them(but not absolutely sure on this).

im not sure what youre getting at i mean there is hardly any rewards pass money in Origins either. Sacred Ashes quest is basically the only thing i can think of, i mean if you want to possibly loose 2 members in the process. cant skip any (what the game says) important quest, though i dont know for sure of most of the rewards, since i try the most efficient way to do things

[Sacred_Fantasy]

MagmaSaiyan wrote...
i think i know what youre getting at. so you are saying when asked to do a certain quest there should be an option which to avoid it completely? where i think people had problem with is they say no but still get the quest. i think Feynriel's quest are main quest which you have to do so you cant skip them(but not absolutely sure on this).

You can skip it by not doing Wayward's Son quest. But the moment you talk to Feyneriel's mother, Hawke instantly said, "OK I'll do it" without your input. This I can't understand especially when Feyneriel's quest has no tie to main mage crisis plot.

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

im not sure what youre getting at i mean there is hardly any rewards pass money in Origins either. Sacred Ashes quest is basically the only thing i can think of, i mean if you want to possibly loose 2 members in the process. cant skip any (what the game says) important quest, though i dont know for sure of most of the rewards, since i try the most efficient way to do things

Shale prevent me from using the golem as my army. I have to kill her. Golem is a virtue of power which understandable, craved by someone like Branda. My characters doesn't see any harm of preserving such power to save the world.  It's about power.

For Conor, My character believe Isolde's should be held accountable for her son's action for undermining the use of Power. Therefore, Conor has to be sacrificed so that she will mourn her mistake for the rest of her life. It's about power.

For Leliana, yes it solely drive by my character's lust for power and Leliana stands on my character's way. She has to die.

In Skyrim, my character betrays Lyndia. She tricked and sacrificed Lyndia for deadra lord to gain an artifact.

Everything is about power. My character lust for power as much as Morrigan does.

Can I make such characters in DA 2? Not a chance! 

[Aaleel]

I just want better level design if they take anything. More reactive world as well.

Smaller things, crafting and enchanting.

Don't want a sandbox, dungeon crawler game though. I like variety in my games. 

Modifié par Aaleel, 04 janvier 2012 - 02:45 .

[Yrkoon]

Lucrece wrote...

I really hope it isn't first person point of view as in Skyrim.

Not sure which Skyrim you're playing, but  mine has a 3rd person view.  In fact, I love how you can zoom the camera even further out than you can with DA2.  (Imagine that)