457 réponses à ce sujet

[element eater]

I dont see a mute protagonist returning although id love it to. Ultimately what ive always enjoyed about these sorts of games is playing a character that i felt was my own. The dialogue system in DA2 just does not allow me to do that as Hawke is limited to three distinct character types that offer next to no flexibility in how I interpret them. Couple this with how scripted his life, goals and history are and your left with very little character of your own. Having since played skyrim, new vegas and dark souls i've realised just how much having a voiced pc in the style of DA2 hinders my enjoyment of the game.

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.

now you dont have that worry because da2 doesnt even let you read what your characters about to say. personaly id rather have the issue you mention once or twice a run through then just giving up on what is acctualy about to be said and just picking the tone icon i think will be most entertaining knowing full well that my characters personality is ultimately limited to one of three generic personalities with emphasis on which ever i happend to have selected most

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.

in much the same way that having multiple dialogue choices with the same response as in dao can help reflect you pc's character

Modifié par element eater, 04 janvier 2012 - 03:32 .

[Morroian]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

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. 

 
They can, not all the witty responses are clownlike not even the majority of them.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

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.  

You're actually agreeing with my point. I can't personally say why DA2 was meaningless for you, although it does sound like you simply weren't immersed in the game, but I can say that with any number of DA2 choices I felt the same way you did about choices in DAO.

[Nilbog79]

Aside from other issues like paraphrasing, voiced protagonist means less dialogue (a lot less). Hiring a male and female VA to voice every line of dialogue is expensive, with a limited budget there is no choice but to cut dialogue. Since almost all dialogue is between PC and NPCs, a voiced PC will increase the number of spoken lines by 2-3 times, which is a big difference. This is probably the reason why Skyrim has a silent protagonist - given the enormous number of quests even the simple yes/no responses add up to a lot of lines for the PC, especially considering that Skyrim has many different playable races some of which have distinct voices and thus would need a different VA.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

*****WARNING SPOILER ALERT. PLEASE DON"T READ THIS POST IF YOU DON"T WANT TO BE SPOILED*******

Morroian wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

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. 

 
They can, not all the witty responses are clownlike not even the majority of them.

Hmm.. Let see.. "Uncle" Gamlen's commenting "my" Hawke as a clown.  I  agree because that exactly how she behaved. What I expected her to do was to act casually but emphasize on her voice tone to show that she meant sarcasm. Instead she went over with stupid jokes. Heck, even my supposely neutral diplomatic Hawke received the same "compliment" from "dear uncle" Gamlen just by delivering the same line. 

Then,when Merril commenting on her sarcasm at Sundermount, she didn't look like one to me. More like an idiot clown for no apparent reason. There are many instances where I find Hawke went "Out of Character" or "over acting". But I'm not interested to write a wall of text about it.. Not when it was about 9 months ago since I last played DA 2.

There're times, however, when I do wanted her to act the way she did like when Aveline dated with Donnic. Her boring faces while waiting for Aveline to show up is soo cute and adorable and I like her that way. Also when she angrily scolded Anders and stabbed him from behind without muttering a word eventhough she cared for Anders so much. But much of this appear very rare and mostly at near end game as the tension began to build up..  

Morroian wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

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.  

You're actually agreeing with my point. I can't personally say why DA2 was meaningless for you, although it does sound like you simply weren't immersed in the game, but I can say that with any number of DA2 choices I felt the same way you did about choices in DAO.

My Immersion comes from how much I can relate to my character.  As I said, If I can't relate myself or anyone else persona then I can't role-play. There is simply no reason to take part. 

Also the game already remove me from the play as soon as Intro screen kicks in. There is no my character in Outer Frame story. It's only about Varric telling Cassandra his story. And throughout the Inner Frame of his story I'm reminded by Varric that this is not my story. It's his story. How can I be immersed in such a world when the story itself treated me like an observer who only watch from his monitor? You tell me.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 04 janvier 2012 - 05:24 .

[Gotholhorakh]

Laundry list of Skyrimishness might be:

1. Allow for people LIKING roleplay and gentle intricacy, FFS.
 
While BioWare have been almost self-loathing about RPGs, how much everyone hates them and won't buy them, how RPG fans do nothing but complain et cetera, Skyrim and TW2 have demonstrated with great prowess just how needless and flawed that mindset is.



2. Stay true to the franchise and the core experience so the existing fans who pay for it, might like it.

While one person's misguided butchery is another person's fantasmagorical improvement, there's still a requirement within a series for customers to feel some thread(s) of continuity - of story and artwork, yes, but also of the core experience. It's difficult to gauge the tolerance for experimentation, but it must still be done, and I'm not convinced that DA2 did this at all.

I mean for my part, it definitely didn't, but I'm not sure it really did this well in the real life "objective" context, either.



3. Listen to your fans, fix what they don't like, add the stuff they'd love.

Yeah OK, pretty damned facile point to make, but really - Skyrim managed to do this a lot while staying "on message" and true to the game franchise. You could write a long list of stuff people complained about the most with Oblivion, and you could tick most of it off.




4. Don't rush it. Rushed RPGs suck.

Again, obvious and very easy for us to say.



...but whatever. Even if what we said mattered, I've no idea how much power or inclination there would be to act on our points - and BioWare probably has to seek growth how it sees fit, so more power to BioWare's elbow.

It's also got to be said that the current TES games can be as intricate or as dumb as you like, so they are probably vastly easier to sell to different types of gamers.

I don't think we'll see some Skyrim-influenced return from Devil's Pool - for a start, TES games are a completely different beast. There is also this ongoing narrative from BioWare that they are going to "stay the course" until we all just give up and bally well like it.

What I can't wait for is the developer that fills the niche in the RPG ecosystem that BioWare is abandoning.

Perhaps it would suit a smaller developer that would be grateful for a couple of million units shifted every 5 years, or even a large developer with sufficient belief in and enthusiasm for the genre to keep making them without (seemingly) trying to unRPG them.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 04 janvier 2012 - 11:03 .

[Pleasureslave]

BioWare won't be back to silent protagonist because action-oriented fans we gained with Dragon Age 2 will be outraged. Silent protagonist means more options for conversations and interactions but it'll seriously harm console players as that may force BioWare to step away from dialogue wheel and action-oriented gameplay.

Modifié par Pleasureslave, 04 janvier 2012 - 12:43 .

[WidowMaker9394]

They should let the beautiful, flowing Nordic art style inspire them.

DA2 had horrendous art.

[Yrkoon]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Laundry list of Skyrimishness might be:

1. Allow for people LIKING roleplay and gentle intricacy, FFS.
 
While BioWare have been almost self-loathing about RPGs, how much everyone hates them and won't buy them, how RPG fans do nothing but complain et cetera, Skyrim and TW2 have demonstrated with great prowess just how needless and flawed that mindset is.

Agreed with all your points, but I want to focus on this one  because  it bears further explanation.

Just a few months ago, one of the  CEOs of Bioware claimed, to the media, that  RPGs are becoming less relevant.

 No surprize that he'd say such a thing, since his company's last RPG didn't seem to sell all that well.  lol  But....  Skyrim.   Skyrim came out after he made that troll-statement and shattered that pseudo-intellectual, boardroom-pie-chart fueled viewpoint of his.  It's on its way to selling 10 million copies, which, from a relevancy point of view,  puts it in the same class as....you know.... Call of Duty.    Games don't get much more relevant than that.  And even more impressive is  that its success happens to based on  a very  OLD, single player  RPG formula that hasn't changed  since the mid 90s with the first elder scrolls game.


Next up:  The Obvious Question.  Do  Bioware CEOs have it in them to  ever say:  "oops!  we were dead wrong!"?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 04 janvier 2012 - 01:50 .

[Pleasureslave]

It's on its way to selling 10 million copies

Ahem, already passed it:
ZeniMax today(Dec 16) announced that 10 million units of Bethesda’s epic RPG have been shipped across the 360, PS3, and PC, representing approximately $650 million in retail sales since its release on November 11

[Jynxze]

Imo I really liked dagon age 2, only complaint is reuse of the maps but thats all for me and still no support for controllers on pc =(

I also hope they dont copy skyrim, its overhyped and boooorrriiinnnggg.

Modifié par Peonfailer, 04 janvier 2012 - 01:44 .

[In Exile]

Pleasureslave wrote...
ZeniMax today(Dec 16) announced that 10 million units of Bethesda’s epic RPG have been shipped across the 360, PS3, and PC, representing approximately $650 million in retail sales since its release on November 11

Skyrim is ridiculously succesful, but sales and shipping are not the same thing. Shipping is how many copies are on the shelves, but sold are actual sales.

VGchartz has Skyrim at about 8,000,000. At the pace it's going it's going to break 10,000,000 in sales.

It's outpaced games like Gears 3 in terms of sales/time. It's only trailing MW3 on the year. To say that Skyrim is massive is an understatement.

[HiroVoid]

I hope Skyrim taught the devs that silent protagonists still work even though they seem to think having one reduces sales.

[In Exile]

HiroVoid wrote...

I hope Skyrim taught the devs that silent protagonists still work even though they seem to think having one reduces sales.

I hope Skyrim (because this is totally a valid way of concluding how a feature is receiveid) taught Bioware that pure real-time based on reflexes combat without an isometric camera and eliminating control over your party members works as Skyrim lacked both and was very succesful.

Modifié par In Exile, 04 janvier 2012 - 04:50 .

[Meris]

In Exile wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

I hope Skyrim taught the devs that silent protagonists still work even though they seem to think having one reduces sales.

I hope Skyrim (because this is totally a valid way of concluding how a feature is receiveid) taught Bioware that pure real-time based on reflexes combat without an isometric camera and eliminating control over your party members works as Skyrim lacked both and was very succesful.

I hope not.

[Wulfram]

Meris wrote...

I hope not.

I think he was making a funny

[In Exile]

Meris wrote...
I hope not.

That was a joke. My point was merely because a feature is in Skyrim doesn't mean the feature is good, or was a feature that drew people in as opposed to something they tolerated.

Edit:

Anyway, I don't get Skyrim. My guess is that the sandbox and exploration are what really drives the success of the game from the people I've to about it, but I'm not quite ready to say it's the RPGness that makes Skyrim great. If anything, I'd say it's the GTAness of it all.

Modifié par In Exile, 04 janvier 2012 - 05:02 .

[Il Divo]

In Exile wrote...

Meris wrote...
I hope not.

That was a joke. My point was merely because a feature is in Skyrim doesn't mean the feature is good, or was a feature that drew people in as opposed to something they tolerated.

Pretty much. If we followed that logic, we would end up saying that Mass Effect's inventory system was a great idea and RPG developers should be looking at it as a model. I hope no one ever tries this.

[Meris]

In Exile wrote...

Meris wrote...
I hope not.

That was a joke. My point was merely because a feature is in Skyrim doesn't mean the feature is good, or was a feature that drew people in as opposed to something they tolerated.

We need new punctuation marks.

-this is the new sarcasm punctuation mark.

Yeah, I don't know how much you can take from Skyrim except decent development cycles.

Modifié par Meris, 04 janvier 2012 - 05:07 .

[Wulfram]

edit:  In fairness, I don't think the comparison made is really valid.  Some people don't like it, but no one has claimed that first person actiony combat is antiquated or wouldn't sell nowadays.  Whereas people have made the claim about voiceless protagonists, and Skyrim does effectively refute that claim.

In Exile wrote...

Anyway, I don't get Skyrim. My guess is that the sandbox and exploration are what really drives the success of the game from the people I've to about it, but I'm not quite ready to say it's the RPGness that makes Skyrim great. If anything, I'd say it's the GTAness of it all.

Skyrim works best when it's being a sword and sorcery type collection of short stories.  Your hero (ideally a barbarian) stumbles on a bunch of bandits/evil mages/monsters, kills them, saves the damsel in distress, collects the loot and moves on.

When it's trying to be a Tolkienesque high fantasy, it can struggle a bit.

Modifié par Wulfram, 04 janvier 2012 - 05:27 .

[Addai]

Mclouvins wrote...
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.

First person does not equate to "self insert."  I never play as an avatar of myself.  I create a character, shape backstory and mold the story as I play using the elements the game gives me as building blocks and inspiration points.  It's true that I default to a female when given the choice, so in that sense the character is an avatar, but that's at least in part about not getting to play a female in other types of games.  Bare bones just means I have a greater latitude in being able to shape the character.

It's sort of like the assumption that an actor or a writer can't create a character that isn't themselves.  There's some truth to it because you have to use your own experience to help shape the story, so it's "self insert" in that sense, but you're still using imagination to make a character her own person.

Modifié par Addai67, 04 janvier 2012 - 05:51 .

[Sylvianus]

The op simply stated that even with a silent protagonist, the huge market ( since that's what interest Bioware according to him ) could totally buy the game. The logic is fair, and is totally based on a fact.

Many people on this board months ago said that a silent protagonist was something antiquated, and that the next bioware's game couldn't sell with that. Skyrim can just show that this statement ( antiquated ) isn't necessarily a fair statement.

I am for a voiced protagonist however.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 janvier 2012 - 05:49 .

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...
I hope Skyrim (because this is totally a valid way of concluding how a feature is receiveid) taught Bioware that pure real-time based on reflexes combat without an isometric camera and eliminating control over your party members works as Skyrim lacked both and was very succesful.

Skyrim has all that and still manages to be a real nuts and bolts RPG.  That's how badly DA2 failed.

Really I think the main lesson Bioware could take from Elder Scrolls is in the marketing department.  Making radical changes and crapping on your first game to sell the second is like saying you had no confidence in your vision to begin with.  To follow up on that vote of no confidence with an ugly, half-rate mess, then blame the fanbase for not realizing how brilliant and innovative it is... Well, enough said.

[Wulfram]

Skyrim made some pretty radical changes from Oblivion. That's why it's so much better.

[Il Divo]

Sylvianus wrote...

The op simply stated that even with a silent protagonist, the huge market ( since that's what interest Bioware according to him ) could totally buy the game. The logic is fair, and is totally based on a fact.

Many people on this board months ago said that a silent protagonist was something antiquated, and that the next bioware's game couldn't sell with that. Skyrim can just show that this statement isn't necessarily a fair statement.

I am for a voiced protagonist however.

I agree that a silent protagonist isn't necessarily out-dated and Skyrim does demonstrate that a game can sell very well even with its inclusion. But I do think we need to be careful about deriving causation from that. We don't have a comprehensive list of why Skyrim sold well. If the goal is to increase sales, it's really not clear that a silent protagonist will take us there. In the case of a TES game, I'm not certain that a voiced protagonist would even be a feature worth implementing, since the amount of player dialogue at any given moment is minimal; interactive cut-scenes would be absurd for a TES game.

Just using Skyrim as a successful example of an RPG, we could take any feature we want to say that this is why the game sold so well, which doesn't help at all. It could be the melee mechanics, the Radiant AI, the sheer power of the graphics, the massive world, or all these things combined. Unless we have a clear way of determining why Skyrim is so successful, I don't think we can cite the silent protagonist as a positive point of interest for the total sales.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 janvier 2012 - 05:55 .

[Sylvianus]

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 janvier 2012 - 05:55 .